Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Touring profits

forum rss feed
Author

una999 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 598 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Aug 09, 16:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I remember Brian saying that 1986 was the only year they ever amde a profit from touring, because all the money from the shows went back into the shows. Surely tours were profitable, i mean the stages couldn't have cost that much bloody money? compare them to u2, even their Zoo TV tour or current one, Queen's lighting rigs were pretty basic (maybe not for 1986??.
Also, anyone explain why Queen only played Wembley twice, they were big enough to do it more during the 80s?

lalaalalaa user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 841 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Aug 09, 16:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

They probably only played Wembley twice because Freddie might not have been able to handle too many more shows considering his condition.

Woody43 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 34 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Aug 09, 17:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I remember Gerry Stickles saying that they wanted another Wembly in 86 but couldn't get a date. If I recall correctly there was a limit to the number of concerts that could be held and Wham and Rod Stewart did dates around the Queen concerts.

Tours didn't profit because of the staging costs - lighting rigs may not be anywhere near what they are now but the costs were massive at the time. I've seen a few interviews (eg Milton Keynes) that mention that the Crown rig in 77 cost £50K - big money in those days and ticket prices were low by today's standards.

That is the big change in the industry - bands toured to sell records and earn royalties. Now bands tour to earn their main revenues with merchandising and ticket sales etc.

e-man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 697 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Aug 09, 18:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I remember reading in a fan club mag from about 87 that they could have done 5-6 nights at wembley, but the stadium wasn't available

victor fleitas user not visiting Queenzone.com
victor fleitas
Bohemian: 209 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Aug 09, 18:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

maybe now you can say that the queen lightning rig was pretty basic, but for the time (trough all queen career) it was always the best you can get, and not only lights, the sound equipment was always the best... the sound technicians, everything... but because of the posibility to play to really huge people only on one place, the magic tour was the only profitable...


PauloPanucci user not visiting Queenzone.com
papp
PauloPanucci
Bohemian: 990 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Aug 09, 19:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



e-man wrote:

I remember reading in a fan club mag from about 87 that they could have done 5-6 nights at wembley, but the stadium wasn't available







could be it!!!!!!!!!


P.A
Mr Mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam who?????
Mr Mercury
Deity: 4632 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Aug 09, 06:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



una999 wrote:

 I remember Brian saying that 1986 was the only year they ever amde a profit from touring, because all the money from the shows went back into the shows. Surely tours were profitable, i mean the stages couldn't have cost that much bloody money? compare them to u2, even their Zoo TV tour or current one, Queen's lighting rigs were pretty basic (maybe not for 1986??.


That just it - the stage rig probably did cost a lot of money. And dont forget, Queen also had a huge amount of staff to take care and to be paid. This ranged from the truck drivers, the guys who humped the gear from the trucks to the stage and back again night after night, the guys who erected the stage, the electricians, the joiners, the lighting rig guys, the sound guys and the guitar and drum techs, the catering crew. Then of course they still had to pay the venue and their staff as well.

So its no wonder that the band hardly ever made a profit.









"Normally i can't dance to save my life.

But as soon as I step in dog shit, I can moonwalk better than Michael Jackson."
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Aug 09, 09:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I hope they didn't pay the video team.  Boy did they drop the ball on Knebworth! :P


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
coops user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Aug 09, 11:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ticket prices were cheaper then partly because a tour was seen as a way of promoting album sales.  The cost of equipment, stages, transport, promotion etc was barely met by ticket sales.  Today, with music being sold online ( much of it obtained illegally) tours are seen as money making ventures.  The Police came through here recently  and tickets averaged $175.  Now 20 years ago they were about $10-15.  Even with inflation, the prices have skyrocketed.  And the shows were pretty much sold out I think.
I remember the first time I saw Queen was at the Entertainment center in Perth, Western Australia, and we paid something like $12 each.  I saw The Sweet, ELO, The Kinks, Stevie Wonder around the same time for even less.
Back in the day man.
Now it's like, "do we see the U2 show, or take our vacation"?  It's one or the other lol

nationofhaircuts2 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 9 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Aug 09, 12:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

why do you think U2 are currently trying to sell their astronomically expensive stages all over the world to the country wherever they have just played? touring in itself has rarely made profit, it is the cd/record sales and merchandise etc that fills the bank accounts.

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18638 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Aug 09, 22:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



una999 wrote:

compare them to u2, even their Zoo TV tour or current one, Queen's lighting rigs were pretty basic (maybe not for 1986??.

Comparing Queen's rigs 20 years ago to U2's rigs in the 90s and today just isn't fair, as technology improves exponentially every year.  It's like saying the Beatles' records weren't well-produced because they were only done on 8 and 16 track tape.

Queen's lighting rigs were always state of the art.  No matter how good or bad their records were in people's eyes at any given time, they were always at the forefront when it came to their stage presentation.




"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18638 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Aug 09, 22:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



nationofhaircuts2 wrote:

touring in itself has rarely made profit, it is the cd/record sales and merchandise etc that fills the bank accounts.

What's your source for that information?

It can hardly be debated that touring *is* what brings in profits.  Things have drastically changed since Queen's heyday.  Over the past couple decades, the record companies are the ones who have made most of the money on record sales.  The average artist gets only 15-20% of a record sale, while they get much more than 20% of the ticket sale.  If they didn't, they wouldn't have much income overall and would be in some other line of business to pay the bills.




"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca