Depends on the gig though, as you already know, you lovable scamp.
£4 for some touring american band at the Old Blue Last, clearly too cheap. £40 for Arcade Fire at the O2 clearly too expensive.
just in general they are too cheap?
because we all stream and download music for next to nothing we ought to pay more for gigs cheap?
its much harder for bands to earn any sort of living so they should get more from live shows cheap?
I think what Kitchmo says
Totally insane that i'm paying the same amount to see that sort of thing as i was in 1998
"underground"/punk/indie/metal gigs should be around £10, so the bands can at least make some money! But no one is willing to pay more than £5 maybe £6 - at a stretch - to see small time bands.
Which is ironic - everyone always got £150+ to go to festivals and see mostly shit bands with shit sound!
makes perfect sense
tho that's not mutually exclusive I admit.
you look like far more like a troll here
But yeah, people seem to think that bands make lots of money touring and playing gigs, but they're wrong, especially if they use it as a justification for illegal dowloading. Only the very biggest artists make decent money from touring, seeing physical sales as a loss-leader, rather than the other way around.
When we put on shows there are no margins - it's all about covering costs and, as the promoter, being prepared to take the risk of a show selling poorly or you getting your figures wrong. The problem is that we could increase the prices, but it's a trade off with how many people you think you'll get through the door. We've had very few gigs where the tickets were over £10 as I think that there's a psychological barrier if your gig pushes through that barrier, but costs have increased (especially for venue hire) and we're having to put on shows for £8 that we might have put on for £6 a couple of years ago.
One of the biggest factors affecting smaller gigs (like ours) is that in Europe, a lot of venues, promotors, label tours etc. are subsidised, removing a huge portion of the risk. It's very hard to compete with that.
Also as the other bits of the night get hit by inflation; travel costs and beer, the gig needs to stay cheap or people can't afford it.
Once you're huge you can charge what you like and still know that you'll sell out.
£5 or £10 is fine.
We should start a Poundland-style policy of NOTES ONLY gigs.
The guy on the door had a big jar with pennies handy.
More bands should do that cruise thing weezer did so only fans with a few hundred quid to spare can attend.
that was just meant to be a load of fun!!!
it's only a one off so it doesn't matter!!!
i'm Superintendent Cheerful how dare you make a negative comment against such a FUN idea!!!
say £5 flat starting cost per ticket for the gig for acts with no releases, with an additional £5 added per album (with a possible higher rate for those acts who have gold or platinum selling albums, say a tenner per album for those), with a cap at £25 (or a cap at £40 for those more successful/popular/populist) acts.
people shouldn't be expected to be paid for looking after the sick or elderly or homeless, why should bands expect to make any money for doing something they presumably enjoy?
Free festivals too.
And all those all-you-can-eat events make a lot of gigs feel 'like' free.
Meanwhile, from my experience, very few bands below Shepherd's Bush Empire level are breaking even on the costs of touring (some might be making a bit if they're doing clubnights or don't have much of a set-up, and aren't travelling far, but most have invested far more in touring than they're earning back). There are exceptions, like lo-fi bands who broke quite quickly and one dude and a laptop kinda things...
DHP have started doing a ton of them in Manchester, putting shows on where you get in free if you 'like' their facebook page. Great in the short term for music goers and bands who'll get to play in a room full of people.
But they're putting on shows I'd probably have to charge £5/6 minimum for to cover costs, completely undercutting all the DIY promoters in the area which ain't that great. In the long run less promoters > less variety > stagnant live scene.
I'm sure they'll be a few DiS oddballs who'll disagree, but no-one actually 'shops around' for gigs do they? If a band you like is playing, you go and see them (unless you're busy maybe), you don't say 'I'm going to a gig next Wednesday' and then scour the listings for the cheapest one.
Maybe if TWO bands you like equally are playing on the same night then price might be one of the factors you take into account, but if that's a recurring problem then it hardly suggests a stagnant live scene.
If you put on a series of gigs on, say, a Friday night, for free, you start to hoover up that market and bands would rather play to packed venues than empty ones.
In order to cover the cost of (maybe) reduced merchandise sales and buzz, a promoter may have to start increasing their guarrantees in order to win gigs.
It sounds like they're able to afford to put on free shows because they either own the venue or have a special deal with it. Either way, it'll be the smaller promoters who find themselves squeezed by such an arrangement.
Like I said up there, ticket price is a tiny factor in people's decision making process when choosing a gig to go to.
but look at, say, the Old Blue Last at a weekend - it's rammed with people who wouldn't have gone up there had it been charging the £6/£7 entry some of the acts could justify.
so? These are small capacity venues, it's not like some free-of-charge enormodome is hoovering up toilet scene audiences.
than the music economy could ever rationally justify...so the majority of musicians are just gonna have to accept the fact that the will never make any (or perhaps lose) money from indulging in their passion - like all us other suckers who pay to pursue the things we love.
In an era where production, distribution and promotion of your own music is significantly easier than it has ever been, there will be a tipping point in the market in terms of the numbers of available products available for the consumer.
As a consumer, rather than a producer, of music, I can only justify spending so much on music/gigs/clubs and promoters and musicians know that this is the case for the majority of people, hence there's a 'price war' going on in order to pull in more custom.
My ticket prices by a couple of quid in the last year of doing my shows. Was charging 7/8 adv 9/10 door for more expensive shows. Not worth it doing so much cheaper so hard to break even.
Mind you didn't really help!
by making gigs sufficiently cheap
You go see a band- they are entertaining you. You pay for that.
This idea that 'it's their hobby' is complete horse wank and a terrible excuse for refusing to pay more than the price of a cup of coffee foe an entire night of music.
It is the only fair response.
is well taken, though I'm not sure about the dichotomy of THEY/YOU; to me, it follows from that that the only justification for artistic endeavour is putting food on the table.
If I'm honest, I'm quite scared to hear about the problems the poster above is experiencing regarding being undercut by 'free' concerts. Only heard of them before where free was a fair price. I had a lot of faith in live performances helping to support artists; whatever the ethics of file sharing, the mechanics of a live performance mean that each person going has to pay.
but it doesn't deal with the oversaturation of bands currently around. i.e. There are so many hours in the week, dollars in the bank to be spent on paying to listen to everyones music. Also many of these band would never have surfaced were it not through the easy production/self promotion of the modern technologies. In short - you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
Whilst one would hope that technology makes it possible for artists to build a fanbase big enough to put on concerts that make a decent amount of cash, you're not entitled to a living because you stand on a stage and play popular music.
The problem, I think is speculation and the subsequent distortions of value: bands being forced to play for free so that one day they might get a piece of the £100 a ticket pie.
you wouldn't get disinterested cunts chatting about their tedious lives throughout the set.
Then again, a fairer way of achieving similar results would be to slash guest lists.
than gig prices over the last 10 years.
Then choose better, you don't expect new cars to be cheap in case you don't like it later.
Because you can't make your mind up based on the copious quantity of free music in the internet a band deserves to fork out for the pleasure of playing to you?
That isn't how live music works at all.
You pay £15 to see a stand up comic whether you find the jokes funny or not.
People get really pissy when you boo bands for being shit.
Just like you'll pay £15 to see a more established band. There's no difference between music and comedy in respect to gig pricing.
when the comedians are doing their work-in-progress shows and you can see daniel kitson for £2.
that's what bands should do when they play new material. i reckon.
or fan-club shows though don't they?
[NB I have no idea]
where they advertised a gig as all new material?
films cost 7 or 8 quid, surely gigs should be more than this?
with these £4 gigs and £8 films?
SOMEWHERE IN TEH MIDDLE
tom cruise get paid 20 million for what exactly?
Money begets money etc. etc.
... and she charges shedloads for her gigs. Basically more mainstream stuff costs more. But if you want to see a night of arty Russian cinema, then chances are that will be shown for a much more reasonable amount, e.g. £4 in some student cinema club. So, the same as a DIY gig night.
it's going to indulge your friend's shit band that's cheap.
I estimate the average cost of playing a show (not including food and board) to be £50 per band who aren't on tour.
A lot more if you have to travel for over an hour.
Good luck seeing any of that from a £3 OTD gig.
maybe, then, bands who are touring and can work a show into a string of others can create a more profitable business model.
wait a minute: it's almost as if bands who are serious about being pro, as opposed to telling everyone they are and playing the odd one-off show but spending hours on making their website look great, should simply be doing stints of touring.
I'll put out a memo on NME.com don't worry.
You want to take pictures of me naked and give them to your 'like minded friends'?
Comes across as some mental in the corner ranting at everyone.
I can only imagine that they sit, perplexed, and wonder why our posts appear underneath what we're replying to, and their's don't.
Fifty bucks (£25ish) a show is the norm. That's how much The Pains of Being Pure at Heart cost next month in Melbourne. During their last visit eight years ago, Radiohead charged $130. People like Rihanna can ask between $140 and $160 for a night.
because it's a cultural fucking desert.
[insert indier-than-thou jibe here]
nothing bands with zero reach demand stupid fees
... in a time of austerity (yeah I said that) charging people lots for a gig alienates a large portion of your audience. The more underground/DIY the music the less money you'd imagine the audience to have spare (maybe it's just me but people never look flush at the gigs I go to).
I don't know, I'm on the dole at the minute. Apparently so are lots of other young people at the minute. Young people go to gigs. Know you're market.
... I've been in a few in Manchester for the past few years. We rarely got paid, other than in free beer (or petrol money if it was outside our town). But then we didn't expect to; it was about having fun and playing to people. If you're looking to make a living don't be in a DIY band. I once heard Aidan Moffat telling an anecdote about this sort of thing, the punchline being "but as my old friend Malcolm says 'kudos don't pay the bills'".
This needs to be taken into consideration when pricing.
If you spend £4 or £5 to see 3 or 4 great bands that's outstanding value. £4 or £5 to see a small band you like do half an hour set whilst being fucked over by a soundman who doesn't really get the mix sandwiched on the bill with a bunch of bands who are either rubbish or just don't work with the other bands on the bill is probably about right.
so why are you acting like it's a law of nature that the gig still costs £4?
Or has the quality of small-time live music dropped in inverse proportion to inflation?
Number of people producing small time music has probably increased, increasing supply and thus decreasing the cost.
not everything has to move in line with inflation. CDs now cost *less* than they did in the mid 90s, although admittedly for very different reasons than why gigs may still cost the same.
and long may that continue
Charge more than £5 or £6 and it's a bugger to get people to come.
Good bands too.
This is for two bands from out of town- sometimes just from the UK for a one off or a weekend of gigs, and sometimes for touring bands from Europe or America. The rest will be local bands as they don't have expenses.
I think this is about right because although charging more would theoretically pay the bands more as the proceeds all go to them after costs, a lot of the people who go to the gigs I do aren't in a position where they can afford to reguarly go to gigs that cost much more than that. I wouldn't want to discourage young kids and students from going to gigs by pricing them out of something they like, and it's makes small DIY gigs a more attractive proposition than forking out £15 for a few 'bigger' bands at the larger venues, even when punk is concerned. Also the smaller bands I put on tend to be much better. At the moment there are quite a lot of teenagers who are starting bands and going to gigs in Norwich and the fact it's something they can relatively cheaply is vital in making sure that their interest is maintained.
Whilst it's nice that some people are in a position where they can afford to support something financially that they care about, it's not the case for everyone, especially kids using their pocket money etc.
There are plenty of DIY punk bands that I think are good that I would like to see, and although gig costs seem to be similar across the country, there are already gigs I have to miss because I can't afford to go to all the ones I would like. If prices went up it would mean I go to even fewer, and I'm hardly the most hard up out of people that go to gigs and i'd feat it'd be counterproductive. As someone else said, for smaller gigs buying a shirt or some merchandise as well as paying in is probably the best way of supporting bands you think are worth supporting.
the bands costs. If they are reasonable- as in asking for a place to stay, something to eat and drink when they are there and then for their travel costs to be covered- it isn't a problem. Occasionally I take enough on the door that means I can go beyond this as well and I think it's a similar situation in most places in the UK where they have an established 'punk' scene although of course there are exceptions- many of them a result of shit promoters or shit bands playing the gigs.
maybe because it lacked the context of the one i ripped it off of. oh well you had to be there,
and tied them up in even more illogical knots than you guys over absurd emotional notions of 'SUPPORTING THE SCENE', punks in favour of giving money to brewing industry but not bands, and other hilarious nonsense
THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION WHICH HAPPENS JUST RIGHT NOW TO BE THE CASE, AND WHICH IS BROADLY FAVORABLE TO ME, THE 20SOMETHING MALE INDIE MUSIC FAN, IS OOOBVIOUSLY JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE, ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE. IT'S HUMAN NATURE! :smugface:
touring bands always cost more than £4 round my way so maybe this is just London venues competing for an audience and not really "the way things are".
on the gig really. if its a big band playing at brixton academy or something. i reckon over 20quid is a bit steep. but some smaller gigs are definatly worth it.
Made much funnier than our weak attempt because we lacked the drink/straightedge/deluded "punk" ethos angle.