- Before I write another sentence, it’s important to note that Nataly and I feel so fortunate to be making music for a living. Having the opportunity to play music as a career is a dream come true. But the phrase “made it” does not properly describe Pomplamoose. Pomplamoose is “making it.” And every day, we bust our asses to continue “making it,” but we most certainly have not “made it.”
Booking and putting together a tour is a very difficult thing, however, I think there are a lot of things they could have done differently to reduce their costs and come out with a profit from this tour. The hotel costs, for instance.
They certainly could have cut some costs, but this was a primarily you-tube based band on their first tour with a lot of hype to live up to. It's an investment for the future, exactly as he says in the article. Cutting down on hotel costs is possible, but it's very hard to hire professionals to be part of a touring gig when you're conspicuously cutting costs on quality-of-life aspects of the budget. These guys are a duo, everyone else in the crew were their hired employees. I see them getting a lot of flack for the costs of this tour, and I think it's pretty unfair and represents a lack of knowledge of the contemporary music industry. Early-career tours are -always- a money pit, even when you have the kind of following this band has. The amount of capital that goes into advertising, travel, and expenses is huge, and to come out of it only 10k over-budget in order to produce a professional, quality act is actually pretty impressive. Like, there's no question that they could have made a profit, but it just would have been a poor offering that wouldn't have garnered much respect of reputation in an industry -hugely- based on networking and rep. This is a small-business enterprise entering the wider music industry off of a decent online presence that makes them a -very- modest wage (30k a year for 12+ hour days...). If this were a restaurant, it would be as if people were telling them that instead of pulling out the stops to open the space they wanted, they should stick with the lemonade stand until that turns them enough profit!
Maybe Pomplamosse fans needs a bitchin light show to have a good time, shrug, fuck them then. Seeing people play their heart out every show is what most people really want. Most of the best shows I've seen were focused on the performance and used house lights. There are a few bands like Ministry really benefited from the smoke and lights but they are really the exception. Somehow I know musicians that have smaller names than these guys who are making a living. They make less money on the road than they do at home recording other bands and doing commercial work but they make something.We could have played a duo show instead of hiring six people to tour with us.
I remember seeing Ween when it was just the two of them and a drum machine, best performance I ever saw them give. I would have traded the other four or five times I've seen them to see them play as well as that first time again.
I'm not sure where the idea that musicians deserve to be rich thing began. But it makes about as little sense to me as pro athletes making huge money. Am I too far off the reality block to believe that the alcohol industry subsidizes a large chunk of the venues that play shows? Much like 30 Rock Jack D tells Liz, "Get real kids, you write skits mocking our president to fill time between car commercials." aren't live musicians really about selling booze to patrons or tshirts to teeny-boopers?
I would hazard a guess it began when some musicians did begin to get rich -- just not necessarily the ones people thought should be. Then from there the idea was, if this idiot is making a lot of money, my favorite bands that have actual talent, ought to be able to make a living+.I'm not sure where the idea that musicians deserve to be rich thing began.