Page 1 of 5
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:18 am
by the Watcher
The Watcher has no insight into the BIZ, but based on a similar thread awhile back regarding how much SV gets in guaranteed money from a venue, what the cut of the gate might be, and a speculative total nightly gross extrapolated therefrom...people were guessing a 10k/night gross. If this figure is in the ballpark, he has to be doing OK even assuming that expenses gobble up most of that.
I bet he's closer to being a six-figure earner.
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:16 am
by Hank Snow
I remember reading about Wilco's earnings in that Kot book, they were like grossing a million a year in touring (before AGIB). the members other than Jeff were making like 80-100K in salary plus a portion of Jeff's royalties. Jeff even more. They are doing even better now.
Jay tours on a smaller scale, but also has a lot less expenses I am sure, so at least gross I bet he does pretty dang good.
To me the money isn't the important part as much as the idea of doing what you want, when you want, being creative and still making a decent salary. Man alive that would be so dang cool. That is like my dream job, touring the country and world in intervals throughout the year, releasing albums on my own label, playing music to adoring fans, on a scale big enough to make a living but small enough to still be a real person.
Of course, there is the whole talent thing, which I don't really have, or the 20 years of experience.
Still it is cool.
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:01 am
by rjs
Gamecock wrote:The belief that someone makes "enough" money is capitalism? Nope, that's called socialism.
I was only referring to the "boss says keep working but I won't pay you" statement, not your entire post. I should have trimmed the quote.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:53 pm
by warren outwood
dEvRoNiKa wrote:
Because they’re able to exist on music and not having to carry dry-wall, doesn’t mean I feel less supportive of the art, or the artist.
i personaly support the dry-wall carrier because i think he makes better music....
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:45 pm
by funkywhiteboy
dEvRoNiKa wrote:I like how it seems people are generally willing to support an artist if they’re not already sitting on giant stacks of cash, but unwilling to if they are doing well and are very successful. I’m not any less inclined to buy U2 records than when I bought Boy, October , or War. I’m no less inclined to buy REM records because they’re filthy rich. I still like their work, regardless of how big their houses are or if they’re swimming in platinum diamond encrusted pools full of Cristal. Because they’re able to exist on music and not having to carry dry-wall, doesn’t mean I feel less supportive of the art, or the artist. Who are we to determine how much is “enough”? Where does this glass ceiling of fame and money come from? What if your employer paid you $20 bucks an hour for a job you are good at. A few years later, you have your review, you’re still kicking ass and making sacrifices to be a good worker, but your boss decides that they’ve really paid you enough for this job. He tells you to “Keep working. Work HARDER! But don’t expect to be paid for it. DANCE MONKEY! DANCE!!”
Amen, sister.....Well put. Thats all I have to add.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:52 pm
by warren outwood
dEvRoNiKa wrote:
You're aiming for jaw-replacement surgery if you're not careful.
i read this over and over again tryin to figure out if it's a realy bad thing or a realy great thing...
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:24 pm
by bigdieseltrucker
RufusBuck wrote:I read an interview with Steve Earle not too long ago and he said he made around $300 thousand a year. I'm not sure if that is what was brought in or if that is what he himself made/cleared.
Not sure how much different Jay and Steve would be. Tour wise they seem to play a lot of the same places and number of shows. However, I think Steve sells more records and does have a more commercially successful back catalog.
I think it is interesting to know what a working musician can make, especially someone at Jay's level. However, it really is not any of our biz what Jay makes.
Man! That would buy a lot of smack & crack!
I don't think Jay makes 300k, but I do think he makes more than 50k.
I buy all of his stuff, too, Murph. For the same reason.
Folks who came about during the LP, cassette, CD transitional days had it going on. For example, I had REM's first 5 albums on LP, then cassette, and now CD. Why else do you think the Eagles GH is at about 15 million copies. 5 Mill for each medium.
Jay will one day sell Tear Stained Eye to GlaxoSmithKline for use in the commercial for their new antidepressant/mood enhancer. Then he can burn $100s instead of $50s!!
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:20 pm
by Gamecock
The belief that someone makes "enough" money is capitalism? Nope, that's called socialism.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:39 pm
by rjs
Gamecock wrote:Who are we to determine how much is “enough”? Where does this glass ceiling of fame and money come from? What if your employer paid you $20 bucks an hour for a job you are good at. A few years later, you have your review, you’re still kicking ass and making sacrifices to be a good worker, but your boss decides that they’ve really paid you enough for this job. He tells you to “Keep working. Work HARDER! But don’t expect to be paid for it. DANCE MONKEY! DANCE!!”
It's called socialism, something Jay, Steve Earle, et al pretend to be very fond of... But I agree with you, who are we to determine how much is "enough"?
Errr, that's called capitalism.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:29 pm
by Sticky
Find it odd that our posts were in between:
http://www.littlebanana.com/
and
Gamecock
?
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:21 pm
by Gamecock
Who are we to determine how much is “enough”? Where does this glass ceiling of fame and money come from? What if your employer paid you $20 bucks an hour for a job you are good at. A few years later, you have your review, you’re still kicking ass and making sacrifices to be a good worker, but your boss decides that they’ve really paid you enough for this job. He tells you to “Keep working. Work HARDER! But don’t expect to be paid for it. DANCE MONKEY! DANCE!!”
It's called socialism, something Jay, Steve Earle, et al pretend to be very fond of... But I agree with you, who are we to determine how much is "enough"?
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:21 pm
by dEvRoNiKa
Sticky wrote:dEvRoNiKa wrote:Sticky wrote:Is it getting hot in here or is it just you?
hubba hubba
I think we've ruined this thread.
Just my pants.
Very good!
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:19 pm
by Sticky
dEvRoNiKa wrote:Sticky wrote:Is it getting hot in here or is it just you?
hubba hubba
I think we've ruined this thread.
Just my pants.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:08 pm
by farewellangelina
Regardless of whether Jay loves touring or hates it (its pretty obvious to me, but beyond the point), he most probably has to do it in order to support his family and keep his studio, etc. My guess is he probably doesn't do much better than breaking even.
I would not be so surprised to hear that Bob Dylan does not actually make a ridiculously large bundle from touring. I don''t know the particulars, but a lot goes into the production of his shows, from what I've observed, even though it is much less than, say, U2 or somebody. For many of the ballpark shows that he did with Willie Nelson, they were far from selling out (children under 12 were free, by the way), though (only) a few did.
Also, when I saw Patti Smith on New Year's in New York, she said that this year from Bob & Company there was a donation made in her name to Habitat for Humanity in the greater New Orleans area for Katrina's aftermath. Just saying.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:05 pm
by dEvRoNiKa
Sticky wrote:Is it getting hot in here or is it just you?
hubba hubba
I think we've ruined this thread.