No one under 50 is doing well.

I hate looking at these numbers...

And what's more, I hate the fact that the under-50's aren't doing well. Don't they know that the only way to be successful musically right now is on the road?

My comment is more about the exact opposite end of this list but I work with several young bands and I have to say how difficult it can be to get them to make the leap to hit the road. They say they are waiting for a record deal BEFORE they are willing to go out...they want tour support or at least something to promote - what about promoting themselves (or how long does it take until bands realize selling t-shirts is what pays the bills especially when a traditional label deal is involved?). It's odd that these are also the first people to complain about how shitty some band's show is - well if you have only played a few dozen shows what do you expect? What happened to wanting to play 200 nights a year and earning a living as a "musician"? Sorry but I saw this as an opportunity to vent a little. Thanks ;-)

Waiting to get support before going out on the road is their first and fatal flaw...

While I don't necessarily think that some bands should be on the road all the time, you're right, 200 shows a year = musician. Otherwise, you're just sitting in your own private computer lab just having fun and hoping some label will pay for it...

I guess I'm venting, too...

first - the over 50 comment. I know it's not cool to aknowledge DMB but they are under 40. Further, they epitomize what touring and selling t-shirts can do for you.

'Remember Two Things' went Gold selling independently.

secondly - I agree, bands that sit around waiting for labels to foot the bill, provide support, etc are plain old dumb....and probably lazy.

oh and Kenny Chesney is under 50...his target audience is as well.

who's kenny chesney?

country singer. I don't listen to him but know what's the haps down in nashville....

Coldhead and Radioplay are 2 more under-50's that should do well touring this year.

I seem to recall U2 touring constantly when they first appeared in the early '80's. It took some time, but now they can basically call all their own shots.

So if, say, Broken Social Scene stick to the road for the next 10 years, we can look forward to them playing a string of sold-out shows at the new Madison Square Garden one day. (That's the MSG that will be built on an artificial island in the New York harbor.)

Phish's reunion tour will do well late in the year....*dodges boos and hisses*

It's rumored that Radiohead will only be doing a brief tour at smallish venues, not stadiums, so I wouldn't count on them. Maybe 2007 though.

First thought, wow where my girls at? Female performers need to get a better push out there!

Second, as a booking agent, I agree with OD (though 200 shows are year in the US alone= poverty). I went to the Billboard Road Work conference on touring in October and there is a definite interest on the promoter/venue (aka middle-aged white dude) side toward developing younger acts, as that is the only way they can sustain the business. I just think that these dudes at Live Nation (former Clear Channel), BCG, and many other promotion houses are a little clueless as to how to make that happen. I think something like U2 taking out Arcade Fire and Damian Marley and Kanye does a lot, and there needs to be more of that. There also needs to be A LOT of audience development work. My parents grew up in the 60s and the 70s where it was just part of the culture to go to shows. Now there are so many other things competing for the interest of a young person.

The other thing is bands really MUST work on performing an interesting live show. It is not enough to just plop on stage. Something must be happening. Lights, costumes, set design, this is all something that can be brought in very early in the development of a band. I know there is some appeal to the 4 skinny white guys in T-shirts thing, but for how long?

Anyway, just a bit of rambling. There are a lot of challenges in the touring/concert industry but there are also a lot of opportunities, and I am excited to be in this business at this time!

this reminds me-happy 65th birthday to #8 on the list.I saw him rock his hometown this past summer.Good show.

Yeah this list is like the rock n roll old age home.

camille,

good points...I agree. Maybe having enough songs to not play the same show every night might be a good idea for starters....I'm also in the camp that as good as costumes/set designs are the music must be the main attraction.

Now that I have discovered small venues, you won't see me at any of the higher-grossing shows.
I cannot fathom sitting in a huge stadium or arena anymore unless it's something really special (such as a Pink Floyd reunion or something of that magnitude), or Springsteen (my one exception). I tried to talk myself into seeing Cream or McCartney, and just couldn't bring myself to do it. It wasn't the money that stopped me, although that has gotten out of hand too; it was the fact that once you get past the 500-3000 people size, the connection between artist and audience is adversely affected.

Springsteen is the only artist I have seen in a large setting who can overcome this obstacle. I've heard Jimmy Buffett can do it too. But for the most part, give me the Bowery, Joe's Pub, Mercury, even (*^% Webster Hall if you have to, but leave those big-budget arena/stadium shows out of my realm and I'll stay happy.

HOW DID JIMMY BUFFET RAKE IN 40 MILLION??!?!?!...that sickens me.

HOW DID JIMMY BUFFET RAKE IN 40 MILLION??!?!?!...that sickens me.

HOW DID JIMMY BUFFET RAKE IN 41 MILLION??!?!?!...that sickens me.

whoa motley crue??

jimmy buffett raked in 41 million because his shows are the best!!!!!!!Want some more to sicken you???He only plays about 30 dates per year to make that 40 million.....and he's worth every penny...