mosespa wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:59 pm
Sorry, guys; I wasn't aware that we were talking about which made the most money for the artists; I was under the impression that we were talking about the functions of things. (After all, bands have ALWAYS made more money off of shows than off of album sales; this isn't anything new that the internet invented. Sorry to break it to you.)
So...bands who tour with no new album to promote aren't just selling out and ripping off fans by not having anything new to PROMOTE?
They just aren't spending money on ad revenue? Is that what we're saying, here?
No need to say sorry, after all you did not break anything to us
And you clearly did not get the idea of neither my post nor AT's one, but I won't bother explaining it again, if you did not get it by the first time.
Plus, I hope you get the idea of ZZ's post right above this one, since he makes total sense as well.
Good luck!
mosespa wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:59 pm
(After all, bands have ALWAYS made more money off of shows than off of album sales; this isn't anything new that the internet invented. Sorry to break it to you.)
This was almost never true of Pink Floyd when Roger was involved; he said multiple times that they didn't mind that their tours lost money because they'd always make it up in album sales.
Given that nothing is 100% (not even that statement,) I think we can allow an exception in the form of a band that spent a lot of their money on film editing suites, cardboard box construction, inflatables (plural) manufacturing, etc. etc. etc.
Record sales was undoubtedly the most important revenue stream and record labels generally considered concert tours as a way to promote a studio album, and were not really concerned whether the tour was profitable or not. Sometimes the record label even paid tour support, which would enable bands to go on tour and promote the album even though the actual tour was running with a loss.
mosespa wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:59 pm
(After all, bands have ALWAYS made more money off of shows than off of album sales; this isn't anything new that the internet invented. Sorry to break it to you.)
This was almost never true of Pink Floyd when Roger was involved; he said multiple times that they didn't mind that their tours lost money because they'd always make it up in album sales. He said the same thing about Pros and Cons and turned out to be very wrong. Tickets were ridiculously cheap back then; albums weren't. The mid '80s probably marked the shift for everyone, but the late '90s were when album sales revenue dried up. Plural decades ago.
I doubt PF 'lost money' once they shifted up in venue size mid-73. So not really 'almost never'.
Waters' most obvious quote about this would be to Tommy Vance in '79 - "this show (The Wall) is going to lose money, but on those tours that I’m talking about; the ’75 tour of Europe and England and the ’77 tour of England and Europe and America as well, we were making money, we made a lot of money on those tours, because we were playing big venues"
ZiggyZipgun wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:26 am
"It is extraordinary that Andy Gill and Adam Sweeting and Charles Shaar Murray didn't notice The Wall. One of my other favorites - "Late Home Tonight, Part 1" -
Lol.late home tonight is one of your faves. You sir. Have. No. Taste.
Djgilmour wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:01 am
Lol.late home tonight is one of your faves. You sir. Have. No. Taste.
One of my favorites within the tracklist on an underwhelming album.
The cheesy string arrangement and choir are both intentionally over the top, his sense of humor effectively comes across in the lyrics - which is rare - and none of it diminishes the message. It might be one of the few ideas he's had as a solo artist that turned out exactly as he wanted it to; he's usually given too much rope and fucks it up.
theaussiefloydian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:04 am
I've cooled a little on AtD personally in recent years. When I was in high school I could get through the thing front to back no problem, but the further I get from my buying the CD (must have been 16 or 17, can't remember now) the less I enjoy it. Why that is, I wish I knew.
I've experienced the same thing. When I first got ATD, I thought it was a concept album as good as TDSOTM, The Wall, WYWH, TFC and Pros and Cons. But now, I must have listened to it about 20 times in the past three years, and it isn't at that level to me any more. Don't get me wrong; I still love every single song on that album, and I think the lyrics are genius, Jeff Beck's guitar on The Ballad Of Bill Hubbard is amazing, I love the solo on What God Wants Pt. 1 and 3. And the title song was an amazing end to the album, and it was an amazing concept... but I think it could have been better, which was proven by Is This The Life We Really Want?
Ashes andDiamonds07 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:27 pm
but I think it could have been better, which was proven by Is This The Life We Really Want?
I think it's Waters' tendency towards self indulgence. Amused to Death probably did not need to be 72 minutes long. What made Is This the Life We Really Want? work is that Waters had someone over his shoulder to pull him back from that self indulgent impulse. His original concept for that album was a sprawling rock opera, but Nigel Godrich pulled him back, telling him to focus on the essentials of what he was trying to say. The result is that ITtLWRW is a much more focused album.
I also think that ITtLWRW is just much better produced than Amused to Death, but I have a bias towards Godrich's production touch on account of his incredible work with Radiohead so I imagine that's a factor there.
