At the end of the day, a playback singer has to depend on live shows as their source of income.
People think top singers are overpaid, but opera houses have a top fee, which is a good thing. Of course concerts are different- everyone wants to make as much money as possible.
I've never made a dime from a record sale in the history of my record deal. I've been very happy with my sales, and certainly my audience has been very supportive. I make a living going out and playing shows.
There's a tendency to make more money at concerts. That's from a financial standpoint. Night clubs have a better feel, better contact between the artist and the audience.
It doesn't matter if people take the music for free, because you can't illegally download a ticket to a concert.
When Pandora doesn't pay, and bars don't pay, and weddings don't pay, and nobody buys CDs or shirts or concert tickets or lessons, then the musician can't make a living making music.
People working at the arenas are not just depending on one or two concerts. I think it gives a symbolic boost, as well as those shows do bring down some monetary investments in the city.
The biggest income we make is from live performances, without any doubt. That's about a 4-to-1 ratio from anything else.
Over 55,000 people saw the Beatles at Shea Stadium. We took $304,000 - the greatest gross ever in the history of show business!
That might be the old model: to get a fixed fee. You have to start to think about other models and how they can generate interest - what it can do for a brand in the future - and about the fact that revenue can also be generated in many other ways... Just look at the one and a half million people at the free Rolling Stones concert in Cuba. And Cuba is not Central Park! So just use your imagination as to what kind of revenue can be made.
It's not the fact that your single can sell. It's the fact that you can sell hard tickets. People will spend money to see you.
