| musicland munich 09.08.2014 08:06 |
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 09.08.2014 08:22 |
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 09.08.2014 09:11 |
mooghead wrote: Queen's only profitable tour was the Magic Tour.That's just speculation. |
| mooghead 09.08.2014 10:40 |
Pretty sure Brian said it once... |
| Chief Mouse 09.08.2014 10:44 |
mooghead wrote: Pretty sure Brian said it once... http://youtu.be/8w7uNvFHqFQ?t=3m29s |
| tero! 48531 09.08.2014 10:52 |
Sebastian wrote:It's just as legendary a quote as those "hundreds of overdubs" on Bohemian Rhapsody... ;)mooghead wrote: Queen's only profitable tour was the Magic Tour.That's just speculation. 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 09.08.2014 12:03 |
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 09.08.2014 12:26 |
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 09.08.2014 13:24 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote: 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.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 09.08.2014 13:37 |
Chief Mouse wrote:linkmooghead wrote: Pretty sure Brian said it once...http://youtu.be/8w7uNvFHqFQ?t=3m29s ^ shortly followed by the absolute funniest footage of Brian ever filmed. |
| Mr.QueenFan 09.08.2014 13:42 |
tero! 48531 wrote: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).Mr.QueenFan wrote: 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.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. . link "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 09.08.2014 13:59 |
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. |
| tero! 48531 09.08.2014 14:31 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote: link "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.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 09.08.2014 14:38 |
musicland munich wrote: 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.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 09.08.2014 15:07 |
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. |
| Sebastian 09.08.2014 16:31 |
mooghead wrote: Pretty sure Brian said it once...He also said 'Love of My Life' was on SHA and ADATR, he also said they'd never performed IL and IAHL on stage, he also said Fred hadn't played Steinway pianos, he also said he (Brian) hadn't played a Gibson Flying V on stage, he also said (more than once) MFK was on the second album... |
| tero! 48531 10.08.2014 01:19 |
We can all agree that it's a nice quote for an interview, but it's not the absolute truth. It's more likely that the truth is something like: "We didn't make any money on the smaller tours because we used to have an expensive production and all the rest was spent on parties. This time we had so much money coming in through the windows that we just couldn't spend it all even when we tried!" |
| musicland munich 10.08.2014 06:57 |
tero! 48531 wrote: We can all agree that it's a nice quote for an interview, but it's not the absolute truth. It's more likely that the truth is something like: "We didn't make any money on the smaller tours because we used to have an expensive production and all the rest was spent on parties. This time we had so much money coming in through the windows that we just couldn't spend it all even when we tried!"^ Fair point...but talking about variables...as for Mannheim 86 we had another one. It was officially a Festival by a broadcaster "SWF 3"....would be interesting how such events were financially calculated... |
| una999 10.08.2014 07:30 |
Holly2003 wrote: 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.i somehow don't think brian was saying they made no money because maybe a tax man would be listening. i mean is a tax man really going to arrive back in the office on a monday morning and say lets go back to 1979 and check if queen made money on a tour. |
| mooghead 10.08.2014 07:55 |
Even if they did I'm sure they would find no sign of illegal activity, they were far too astute for that..... ;-) |
| tero! 48531 10.08.2014 10:00 |
una999 wrote: i somehow don't think brian was saying they made no money because maybe a tax man would be listening. i mean is a tax man really going to arrive back in the office on a monday morning and say lets go back to 1979 and check if queen made money on a tour.Of course the tax man could be listening, and might want to audit them at any time. The whole concept of "losing money on tours" and the founding of the Queen Touring company was to make any financial activities in the UK (such as touring) seem like an unprofitable venture, and to avoid as much taxes as possible. Instead they would be spending that money on parties etc. It's not a surprise that after "losing money on all tours" it suddenly became profitable once Margaret Thatcher started cutting down the tax rates in the mid 80's. |
| luthorn 10.08.2014 14:16 |
It's the exact same way and reason why Hollywood productions do not turn profit, even if they gross in the zillions. Why share with the greedy politicians? It's better to spend it all on coke and hookers than on some greedy bastard who will use the money to buy votes from the ignorant plebs or round some poor bastards in the 3rd world country in the field to bomb them. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 10.08.2014 15:09 |
Pretty sure this quote applies to any business with any good accountant: "Anyone who quotes profits of a baseball club is missing the point. Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss and I could get every national accounting firm to agree with me." — Paul Beeston, then a Toronto Blue Jays vice president, now baseball's chief operating officer, 1979 |
| The Real Wizard 11.08.2014 15:19 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Pretty sure this quote applies to any business with any good accountant: "Anyone who quotes profits of a baseball club is missing the point. Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss and I could get every national accounting firm to agree with me." — Paul Beeston, then a Toronto Blue Jays vice president, now baseball's chief operating officer, 1979^ bingo. Queen pumped a ton of money into their shows, and they partied hard. Possibly harder than any other band in their time. We can only wonder how much money went up the noses of certain band member(s) and entourage... but what happens in the band stays in the band. Many excellent points in this thread, especially the Thatcher one. |
| Martin Packer 11.08.2014 15:31 |
I would love a link to the infamous "Thatcher Set To Ignore Queen" headline photo with Brian. :-) |
| The Real Wizard 11.08.2014 15:37 |
But back to the money thing. Van Halen pumped a comparable amount of money into their show too, as evidenced between the lines of the classic brown M&M's tale told inimitably by the one and only Diamond Dave: |
| Vocal harmony 12.08.2014 07:26 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote:tero! 48531 wrote: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). link "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.Mr.QueenFan wrote: 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.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. . |
| Vocal harmony 12.08.2014 07:29 |
^^^^^ i posted a long detailed reply which just vanished, at the moment i dont have time to re type if |
| tcc 12.08.2014 08:17 |
Vocal harmony wrote: ^^^^^ i posted a long detailed reply which just vanished, at the moment i dont have time to re type ifThis has happened to me before and I understand why it happened. I think if we take too long to type the reply, the system imposes a time out and nothing gets recorded. Edit: If I am composing a long reply, I usually use the email system to create a draft and then copy and paste the reply here. |
| The Real Wizard 12.08.2014 20:51 |
Vocal harmony wrote: ^^^^^ i posted a long detailed reply which just vanished, at the moment i dont have time to re type ifWhen that happens, just click on "back", then copy, go to your post, edit, and paste. Voila. |
| musicland munich 12.08.2014 23:28 |
In Mannheim they used their biggest stage( obviosly). The report says that it tooks 15 Trucks mit 38 tons of equipment and 60 Roadies were hired. Sorry I' haven't a better shot of this report ( because it's not im my stock) So maybe that 60 truck story on the Magic Tour could be a bit much. |
| Vocal harmony 13.08.2014 10:07 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Vocal harmony wrote: ^^^^^ i posted a long detailed reply which just vanished, at the moment i dont have time to re type ifWhen that happens, just click on "back", then copy, go to your post, edit, and paste. Voila. |
| Vocal harmony 13.08.2014 10:07 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Vocal harmony wrote: ^^^^^ i posted a long detailed reply which just vanished, at the moment i dont have time to re type ifWhen that happens, just click on "back", then copy, go to your post, edit, and paste. Voila. |
| The Real Wizard 13.08.2014 12:20 |
^ I see it's working out for you.. |
| Mr.QueenFan 13.08.2014 15:36 |
The Real Wizard wrote: ^ I see it's working out for you..:-) |
| EDWOOD 13.08.2014 19:27 |
Tours were also seen as good promotion in the past though weren't they? Now, of course with lower record sales, touring is where the money is, but touring used to be used to get a band name out there when there wasn't the Internet, social media and the rest which can do a similar job now. How many more records were sold by Queen in places like South America after they toured compared to before they toured. Of course, they went down there because they knew how popular they had become and were like The Beatles a band that had huge numbers of fans outside of North America, Ocenia, Europe and Japan. I think all this talk by QP that The Magic Tour was the first profitable tour is just BS to be honest. I can remember an interview by Brian (done in Q magazine in the late 1990s I think) where he's asked how much royalties he gets on an annual basis and the interviewer asks if it's close to £1 million. I think Brian says something like, 'oh, it's not as much as that I think' - yeh Brian I'm sure Queen's annual record sales (even in a quite year) don't amount to £1 million each for the 4 of them (3 band members and Freddie's estate). They each had a dividend from Queen Productions of £10 million the other year and could probably take out more from there if they wanted to, but probably don't want/need to due to tax purposes! |
| Doga 13.08.2014 20:19 |
I think that was like that: Tax collector: So, you are the Queen guys, right? John: Yeah Tax collector: You toured last year in a sell out tour... let's talk about taxes :) Roger: What are you talking about? We didn't make any money touring. Tax collector: You sold 500.000 tickets! Brian: See that lightring? It cost 50 pounds. Tax collector: And the rest of millions? Brian: See that roadie? We use all our millions of profits to pay him, the guy do a very fine job. Tax collector: All right, i'll go talk with him. ---- Freddie: Good work guys! Now that sissy is out let's party! I hired all the strippers of London! Roger: Yeah! |