Serious Numbers ? Queen`s subvention payments for Touring
37 posts
Thread
Posts in chronological order
musicland munich · Member since
Ok, it`s a well known fact that Queen have to lay down some extra cash to have a finacial quit in the end.
I`ve found an article in support of their 79`Tour in Germany. The promoter mentioned a sum of 200 000 Deutsche Mark(only for the 13 Germany/Suisse/Austria dates) that Queen will have to pay on top, even the Tour will be a sell-out triumph in the end. In 79`Queen played somewhat like sixty gigs all over the world. Of course it`s a all business in the end and it worked out because of the LP/Single sales.
But my bookkeeper heart is bleeding by the finacial disparity of the touring expenses.
mooghead · Member since
Queen's only profitable tour was the Magic Tour. It was all about promoting records back then which is where the money was made. Nowadays it has completely switched due to people stealing music from the internet hence huge ticket prices and massive tours otherwise bands would make no money at all. Hence fewer decent bands around and even more paint by numbers boy and girl 'bands' being treated like puppets by record companies.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]
Queen's only profitable tour was the Magic Tour.[/QUOTE]
That's just speculation.
mooghead · Member since
Pretty sure Brian said it once...
Chief Mouse · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]mooghead wrote: [/b] Pretty sure Brian said it once...[/QUOTE]
Queen's only profitable tour was the Magic Tour.[/QUOTE]
That's just speculation.[/QUOTE]
It's just as legendary a quote as those "hundreds of overdubs" on Bohemian Rhapsody... ;)
We have to remember that the "no profit from touring" came from the same guys who had no income as musicians at the same time when they were the biggest paid "company directors" in Britain for Queen Productions.
Probably there is a seed of truth in it and they didn't earn that much from touring (especially with their first management who had invested huge sums before the band became succesfull), but I don't see how they would have been doing it at a loss.
It's more likely that Magic Tour was the first time they made a HUGE profit, because then they were able to sell five times the amount of tickets for the same amount of shows.
mooghead · Member since
Hmmm... I guess it depends on how you interpret 'no profit from touring'. All tours turned a profit if you take into account record and merch sales generated. As far as making a profit from individual shows after paying venue fees, transportation, crew fees etc etc etc etc then its possible there was no profit back then, even a band as big as Queen selling out stadiums, it was before, as Brian also said, massive sponsorship deals as well.
Still... I know there was the whole 'home taping is killing music' shtick back then but I would have much preferred to be in a band then than now where its just too easy for your work to be stolen.
Mr.QueenFan · Member since
I remember an article about a tour the Rolling Stones did in the nineties - i believe it was their "Bridges to Babylon" tour. It mentioned that they have played about 100+ stadiums and they only broke even at their 33 concert of that tour. After that it was all profit - 70+ stadiums. Lots of costs to cover!
Queen only did 26 dates on their massive production "The Magic Tour", so i´m predicting that even the profit wasn´t that big of a deal. For a show like that to be huge profitable Queen had to play the world. The good part of it is that they have capitalized on those two hours they did at Wembley like no other band. Probably, the Wembley merchandise alone payed them more that any tour they have ever made.
And that´s the beauty of the "Magic Tour". It still sells today.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
I remember an article about a tour the Rolling Stones did in the nineties - i believe it was their "Bridges to Babylon" tour. It mentioned that they have played about 100+ stadiums and they only broke even at their 33 concert of that tour. After that it was all profit - 70+ stadiums. Lots of costs to cover!
Queen only did 26 dates on their massive production "The Magic Tour", so i´m predicting that even the profit wasn´t that big of a deal. For a show like that to be huge profitable Queen had to play the world. The good part of it is that they have capitalized on those two hours they did at Wembley like no other band. Probably, the Wembley merchandise alone payed them more that any tour they have ever made.
And that´s the beauty of the "Magic Tour". It still sells today.
[/QUOTE]
You're conveniently forgetting that the costs of a stadium tour in 1986 also were a fraction of the costs in 1997. The production was much simpler, the crew was much smaller, the local authorities didn't have as many demands... Not to mention that the production costs are also relative to the profits, and Queen would have been making profit by the 10th concert on their tour.
That's also what confuses a lot of people with the profits of these tours. The earlier tours had a LOT less material and people to haul around, which made it a lot cheaper.
Back in 1974 the band would have required one truck and one minivan + a handulf of hired people for their tour. That's possible to cover with 500 tickets per night.
I'm not saying it was a goldmine, but I am absolutely sure that the Magic Tour was NOT the first tour to make any profit at all.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Chief Mouse wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mooghead wrote: [/b] Pretty sure Brian said it once...[/QUOTE]
^ shortly followed by the absolute funniest footage of Brian ever filmed.
Mr.QueenFan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
I remember an article about a tour the Rolling Stones did in the nineties - i believe it was their "Bridges to Babylon" tour. It mentioned that they have played about 100+ stadiums and they only broke even at their 33 concert of that tour. After that it was all profit - 70+ stadiums. Lots of costs to cover!
Queen only did 26 dates on their massive production "The Magic Tour", so i´m predicting that even the profit wasn´t that big of a deal. For a show like that to be huge profitable Queen had to play the world. The good part of it is that they have capitalized on those two hours they did at Wembley like no other band. Probably, the Wembley merchandise alone payed them more that any tour they have ever made.
And that´s the beauty of the "Magic Tour". It still sells today.
[/QUOTE]
You're conveniently forgetting that the costs of a stadium tour in 1986 also were a fraction of the costs in 1997. The production was much simpler, the crew was much smaller, the local authorities didn't have as many demands... Not to mention that the production costs are also relative to the profits, and Queen would have been making profit by the 10th concert on their tour.
That's also what confuses a lot of people with the profits of these tours. The earlier tours had a LOT less material and people to haul around, which made it a lot cheaper.
.[/QUOTE]
But not on this tour. They had the biggest stage in the world - too big for Wembley! Their stage at Knebworth is huge even for todays standards - they had three of them!. Their lighting rig was at the time one of the most complex in the world. You can read down below from Queenconcerts. At best, i would say that it´s cheaper today - because of efficiency - to produce the same show than it was back then (of course, converting the money to today´s value).
"It took up to 20 tractor-trailers to transport one stage. Queen in this tour had three stages "leapfroging" - one is doing a show, one is being built and one is being taken down. That is approx 60 trucks for the entire Magic tour.
This rig is the last of the stadium rigs Queen will have with Freddie Mercury. The amount of lights used is an unsure value, it depends on the size of the venue and whether to use 4 folding light units or 6; to whether use a TV screen or not. Or to use one back wall panel or three. It would take two days to construct a stage for Wembley Stadium. Therefore siz of rigs would vary as shown. "
I´m only talking about the magic tour here, and i also find it hard to believe that they didn´t have profit on any other tour. One thing i believe is that their tour in South America was the one where they´ve lost more money.
musicland munich · Member since
The magic Tour might be a different animal. And it wasn`t a strict Open Air Tour with a couple of indoor gigs ( at least the two nights in Munich). And just to give an imagination how much 200 000 Deutsche Mark were back in 79 `... FIVE Mercedes Benz 300 D(79`) Limousines. Not a shitty car in those days.
"It took up to 20 tractor-trailers to transport one stage. Queen in this tour had three stages "leapfroging" - one is doing a show, one is being built and one is being taken down. That is approx 60 trucks for the entire Magic tour.
[/QUOTE]
And these days bands can have 60 trucks for each of the three stages...
What I'm trying to say here is that you can't say that a tour needs 30*40,000 = 1,200,000 tickets to break even, because there are too many variables.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]musicland munich wrote:[/b]
The magic Tour might be a different animal. And it wasn`t a strict Open Air Tour with a couple of indoor gigs ( at least the two nights in Munich). And just to give an imagination how much 200 000 Deutsche Mark were back in 79 `... FIVE Mercedes Benz 300 D(79`) Limousines. Not a shitty car in those days.[/QUOTE]
So what does the German promoter actually tell us in the interview?
"Even after the 13 German shows, Queen have to pay 200,000 Marks out of their own pocket"
I'm guessing that he knows only how much he's paying the band, and he's been told how much the equipment costs.
THAT comes to -200,000 Marks, but it doesn't take into account the profits from the other shows.
It's a nice story, but doesn't actually tell us how much Queen are making money.
Holly2003 · Member since
Read some stuff about how big companies hide profits through various accounting scams and you will probably conclude that Queen's official statements about how little they earned are likely less than truthful. The only thing you know about what they earned is what they've told you, and they are hardly likely to crow about massive profits when the taxman is listening. Remember when Brian moaned about having to live abroad because he paid 95% (?) tax to the British govt? Well of course he didn't tell you that was only on income over a certain amount, and in any event, any good accountant will ensure most profits are hidden in various off shore accounts and in a variety of shell companies.
