I was reading Spin Magazine’s April article on U2 (What Makes U2 Run?) and came across this quote from U2′S bassist Adam Clayton:
“Think about the big bands, the big orchestras that used to tour,” he says. “Then the stock market crash came and they slimmed down to quartets, because that was cheaper.”
His comment was in response to a discussion about music’s relationship to outside economic forces as a constantly mutating cycle.
So if at some point big bands had to reduce their numbers from 20+ to 4 to become financially sustainable, then are we now seeing a time when 4-6 member bands will need to be reduced to solo musicians to make touring financially viable?
After all, pay split between only one is certainly much better than when split between five. So, is one > five?
2 Responses So Far
1
Marco
May 13, 2009 at 10:46 am
There is no doubt that for growing bands the expenses of touring are not usually covered by the pay. So yes, if the money is divided up between less people it helps. If someone can do this on their own, good for them! There are still camaraderie, quality and other concerns, from my perspective. Still a good point to make from this article.
2
Tim
May 14, 2009 at 9:31 am
Ultimately, I think everyone needs to step back from what they think they need to do to “make it” in the music business and figure out what they can do financially and in terms of their lives to make music in a sustainable way. I’m not sure everyone needs to be a solo artist necessarily but we all need to ask ourselves the question, “as an artist, how is my music best served?” For some that may be touring for others it may be another path…
Leave a Comment