aeolianblues

If you've been hanging around alt/indie spaces online this week you may have come across bands discussing the double-edged sword of playing showcase festivals, particularly South By Southwest, SXSW that happened this week. The band Wednesday posted their account of expenses and payments they had on their current tour and they concluded that doing SXSW left them around $100-200 in the hole, and theirs was a case of being better off than some.

Given that showcases aren't for or about larger bands that could afford to do them anyway, that leaves basically everyone doing the gig in the red.

SXSW gets talked about as one of those festivals that is a dream to do if you're able to afford it, but most of the time it's an out-of-pocket festival.

I remember the breakthrough Bristol, UK-based post punk trio Grandmas House on Bandcamp a month ago, who were invited to play SXSW, and they had to set up a crowdfund for it, because getting to Austin, TX from Bristol isn't cheap + you need accommodation and other odd sorts, and the festival doesn't cover all that.

But before you, like the maaany, many wise old folk on twitter turn into a bad version of Martin Lewis on me, going, oh but here's how you can save money on the tour!**, or start arguing with me about why the festival can't afford to pay them (according to Wednesday, they play five shows and are paid for one), or preaching your high morals about why musicians are actually lazy bums who shouldn't demand to get paid a reasonable amount (and especially fuck you if you're a category 3-er), here's the thing.

SXSW, and many other showcase festivals, were virtual last year. There was a lot of chatter last year about hybrid showcases and the advantages they could have in the future. It would cost bands a lot less to take part, and the ability to have multiple channel in place (standing in for stages) lets the festival spotlight more artists, without visitors having to abandon sets midway and dash across to another stage.

Especially for showcases, where the point is mainly to briefly showcase your music and announce yourself, why not have a hybrid model? Let bands that deserve their spots but can't afford the trip, play remotely. Let those who are already on tour, planning their dates, or simply able to travel out of their way, play it live. Put up a giant screen and a camera so people can catch the virtual stages together.

What matters at these showcases is the platform, more than a certain lineup or vibe. The last two years were hell for musicians, but we can learn and implement one of few good findings, yes?

**Wednesday were criticised for booking accommodation, some folks going, well why didn't you just sleep in the van? Well that stops being easy when you stop being a three piece. Wednesday are five. Also, I noticed every single person pushing the sleep in the van advice, even from experience, was a dude. Sometimes it's easy to forget when you don't have to think about it all the time, but a lot of women wouldn't feel safe doing that. Especially when you're in a car or a van and people can just see you through the windows! I know, it sounds irrational if you've never had to think about it before, but you worry about violence and harassment. And it's not "just in our heads", I wish it was. It's not the sort of situation you'd want to put yourself into unnecessarily.

Hey, remember this? Here's more, and specifics.

Wednesday played 7 shows at SXSW, got paid for one, and were handed $250. That's literally not money you can justify touring for. Add to that the fact that streaming pays zilch, and musicians are expected to make up the losses from recording by touring and people buying merch... how on earth is anybody in this field supposed to even make a day's wage?

If you've been hanging around alt/indie spaces online this week you may have come across bands discussing the double-edged sword of playing showcase festivals, particularly South By Southwest, SXSW that happened this week. The band Wednesday posted their account of expenses and payments they had on their current tour and they concluded that doing SXSW left them around $100-200 in the hole, and theirs was a case of being better off than some.

Given that showcases aren't for or about larger bands that could afford to do them anyway, that leaves basically everyone doing the gig in the red.

SXSW gets talked about as one of those festivals that is a dream to do if you're able to afford it, but most of the time it's an out-of-pocket festival.

I remember the breakthrough Bristol, UK-based post punk trio Grandmas House on Bandcamp a month ago, who were invited to play SXSW, and they had to set up a crowdfund for it, because getting to Austin, TX from Bristol isn't cheap + you need accommodation and other odd sorts, and the festival doesn't cover all that.

But before you, like the maaany, many wise old folk on twitter turn into a bad version of Martin Lewis on me, going, oh but here's how you can save money on the tour!**, or start arguing with me about why the festival can't afford to pay them (according to Wednesday, they play five shows and are paid for one), or preaching your high morals about why musicians are actually lazy bums who shouldn't demand to get paid a reasonable amount (and especially fuck you if you're a category 3-er), here's the thing.

SXSW, and many other showcase festivals, were virtual last year. There was a lot of chatter last year about hybrid showcases and the advantages they could have in the future. It would cost bands a lot less to take part, and the ability to have multiple channel in place (standing in for stages) lets the festival spotlight more artists, without visitors having to abandon sets midway and dash across to another stage.

Especially for showcases, where the point is mainly to briefly showcase your music and announce yourself, why not have a hybrid model? Let bands that deserve their spots but can't afford the trip, play remotely. Let those who are already on tour, planning their dates, or simply able to travel out of their way, play it live. Put up a giant screen and a camera so people can catch the virtual stages together.

What matters at these showcases is the platform, more than a certain lineup or vibe. The last two years were hell for musicians, but we can learn and implement one of few good findings, yes?

**Wednesday were criticised for booking accommodation, some folks going, well why didn't you just sleep in the van? Well that stops being easy when you stop being a three piece. Wednesday are five. Also, I noticed every single person pushing the sleep in the van advice, even from experience, was a dude. Sometimes it's easy to forget when you don't have to think about it all the time, but a lot of women wouldn't feel safe doing that. Especially when you're in a car or a van and people can just see you through the windows! I know, it sounds irrational if you've never had to think about it before, but you worry about violence and harassment. And it's not "just in our heads", I wish it was. It's not the sort of situation you'd want to put yourself into unnecessarily.

Hey, remember this? Here's more, and specifics.

Wednesday played 7 shows at SXSW, got paid for one, and were handed $250. That's literally not money you can justify touring for. Add to that the fact that streaming pays zilch, and musicians are expected to make up the losses from recording by touring and people buying merch... how on earth is anybody in this field supposed to even make a day's wage?

More coverage of the financial instability of touring, with no revenue coming in from streaming, not knowing when all your gigs might have to be cancelled because someone in the band’s inner team catches COVID because of course, it’s almost like governments are actively encouraging people to remove their masks because it makes the quarterly reports look good.

Text from the article under the cut

If you've been hanging around alt/indie spaces online this week you may have come across bands discussing the double-edged sword of playing showcase festivals, particularly South By Southwest, SXSW that happened this week. The band Wednesday posted their account of expenses and payments they had on their current tour and they concluded that doing SXSW left them around $100-200 in the hole, and theirs was a case of being better off than some.

Given that showcases aren't for or about larger bands that could afford to do them anyway, that leaves basically everyone doing the gig in the red.

SXSW gets talked about as one of those festivals that is a dream to do if you're able to afford it, but most of the time it's an out-of-pocket festival.

I remember the breakthrough Bristol, UK-based post punk trio Grandmas House on Bandcamp a month ago, who were invited to play SXSW, and they had to set up a crowdfund for it, because getting to Austin, TX from Bristol isn't cheap + you need accommodation and other odd sorts, and the festival doesn't cover all that.

But before you, like the maaany, many wise old folk on twitter turn into a bad version of Martin Lewis on me, going, oh but here's how you can save money on the tour!**, or start arguing with me about why the festival can't afford to pay them (according to Wednesday, they play five shows and are paid for one), or preaching your high morals about why musicians are actually lazy bums who shouldn't demand to get paid a reasonable amount (and especially fuck you if you're a category 3-er), here's the thing.

SXSW, and many other showcase festivals, were virtual last year. There was a lot of chatter last year about hybrid showcases and the advantages they could have in the future. It would cost bands a lot less to take part, and the ability to have multiple channel in place (standing in for stages) lets the festival spotlight more artists, without visitors having to abandon sets midway and dash across to another stage.

Especially for showcases, where the point is mainly to briefly showcase your music and announce yourself, why not have a hybrid model? Let bands that deserve their spots but can't afford the trip, play remotely. Let those who are already on tour, planning their dates, or simply able to travel out of their way, play it live. Put up a giant screen and a camera so people can catch the virtual stages together.

What matters at these showcases is the platform, more than a certain lineup or vibe. The last two years were hell for musicians, but we can learn and implement one of few good findings, yes?

**Wednesday were criticised for booking accommodation, some folks going, well why didn't you just sleep in the van? Well that stops being easy when you stop being a three piece. Wednesday are five. Also, I noticed every single person pushing the sleep in the van advice, even from experience, was a dude. Sometimes it's easy to forget when you don't have to think about it all the time, but a lot of women wouldn't feel safe doing that. Especially when you're in a car or a van and people can just see you through the windows! I know, it sounds irrational if you've never had to think about it before, but you worry about violence and harassment. And it's not "just in our heads", I wish it was. It's not the sort of situation you'd want to put yourself into unnecessarily.

Hey, remember this? Here's more, and specifics.

Wednesday played 7 shows at SXSW, got paid for one, and were handed $250. That's literally not money you can justify touring for. Add to that the fact that streaming pays zilch, and musicians are expected to make up the losses from recording by touring and people buying merch... how on earth is anybody in this field supposed to even make a day's wage?

If you've been hanging around alt/indie spaces online this week you may have come across bands discussing the double-edged sword of playing showcase festivals, particularly South By Southwest, SXSW that happened this week. The band Wednesday posted their account of expenses and payments they had on their current tour and they concluded that doing SXSW left them around $100-200 in the hole, and theirs was a case of being better off than some.

Given that showcases aren't for or about larger bands that could afford to do them anyway, that leaves basically everyone doing the gig in the red.

SXSW gets talked about as one of those festivals that is a dream to do if you're able to afford it, but most of the time it's an out-of-pocket festival.

I remember the breakthrough Bristol, UK-based post punk trio Grandmas House on Bandcamp a month ago, who were invited to play SXSW, and they had to set up a crowdfund for it, because getting to Austin, TX from Bristol isn't cheap + you need accommodation and other odd sorts, and the festival doesn't cover all that.

But before you, like the maaany, many wise old folk on twitter turn into a bad version of Martin Lewis on me, going, oh but here's how you can save money on the tour!**, or start arguing with me about why the festival can't afford to pay them (according to Wednesday, they play five shows and are paid for one), or preaching your high morals about why musicians are actually lazy bums who shouldn't demand to get paid a reasonable amount (and especially fuck you if you're a category 3-er), here's the thing.

SXSW, and many other showcase festivals, were virtual last year. There was a lot of chatter last year about hybrid showcases and the advantages they could have in the future. It would cost bands a lot less to take part, and the ability to have multiple channel in place (standing in for stages) lets the festival spotlight more artists, without visitors having to abandon sets midway and dash across to another stage.

Especially for showcases, where the point is mainly to briefly showcase your music and announce yourself, why not have a hybrid model? Let bands that deserve their spots but can't afford the trip, play remotely. Let those who are already on tour, planning their dates, or simply able to travel out of their way, play it live. Put up a giant screen and a camera so people can catch the virtual stages together.

What matters at these showcases is the platform, more than a certain lineup or vibe. The last two years were hell for musicians, but we can learn and implement one of few good findings, yes?

**Wednesday were criticised for booking accommodation, some folks going, well why didn't you just sleep in the van? Well that stops being easy when you stop being a three piece. Wednesday are five. Also, I noticed every single person pushing the sleep in the van advice, even from experience, was a dude. Sometimes it's easy to forget when you don't have to think about it all the time, but a lot of women wouldn't feel safe doing that. Especially when you're in a car or a van and people can just see you through the windows! I know, it sounds irrational if you've never had to think about it before, but you worry about violence and harassment. And it's not "just in our heads", I wish it was. It's not the sort of situation you'd want to put yourself into unnecessarily.

Hey, remember this? Here's more, and specifics.

Wednesday played 7 shows at SXSW, got paid for one, and were handed $250. That's literally not money you can justify touring for. Add to that the fact that streaming pays zilch, and musicians are expected to make up the losses from recording by touring and people buying merch... how on earth is anybody in this field supposed to even make a day's wage?