Skip to content

Comment on The case against Spotifyparent

Comments

If it's true that touring is more profitable then I'd really like to see data for this, and a comparison between famous and little-known acts. This could add a lot of weight to arguments in favour of laxer copyright laws.

Honestly, it depends on how many albums the artist actually sells VS how large of a draw you are(there is a correlation between both).

Say for example an artist makes 1.35/album and sells 2 million(which is not too bad) and then does 100 shows (which certainly is not out of the realm of possibility)commands 40k fee + merch sales at the venue.

1.35/album * 2,000,000 = 2.7 million 100 shows * 40k = 4 Million + merch sales - costs

So it really depends, the more albums you sell the more money you make from albums. The less albums you sell but the more you tour, so for a middle tier artist who generally doesn't sell an obscene amount of albums but does a lot of gigs, they would certainly make more touring.

Someone like U2, probably makes more from album sales.

"1.35/album * 2,000,000 = 2.7 million" It should be noted that especially new artists often start getting royalties after the costs of making the record and music videos have been paid. I believe that is a big reason why many one-hit wonders might sell millions world wide and go broke soon after the success fades.

yes, that's very true too. So after costs, it might be a break even proposition(or not as much as it might seem anyway) on an album.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.