# R.E.M. says touring is a waste



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Recent article from WENN.com


> R.E.M. is refusing to tour on the back of their new album Collapse Into Now because the group is convinced a string of dates won't help them sell records.
> 
> Guitarist Peter Buck insists touring is no longer important for the music-buying public and so strings of dates are often pointless.
> 
> ...


----------



## MattKnight (Nov 27, 2009)

Maybe the record was a business obligation ... He sounds tired and a little defeated. I understand that downloading is making it tough for musicians trying to make a living making music and it seems like that has taken the life out of a lot of artists.. Still.. touring should generate some sales and allow their fans to reconnect with them and make some new ones along the way. Maybe it's tougher on bands that were pulling in the big cash before downloading put a squeeze on the money pipe. Newer bands only know the post Napster days so I guess they don't really know what they are missing.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Musicians like this is what's wrong with music these days more than anything. 

Hey...REM...Pete, Mike, the other guy...you're musicians. You play music. The whole point of your job is to play music for people. If you don't want to tour, retire.

Also, the attitude of touring doesn't sell records anymore is completely flawed. Musicians these days should be focusing on touring 100x more than selling records. You never make money off a record. The $0.25 per member that you make isn't going to give you a fat bank account, but sales at the gate can. It used to be you toured to support an album, but now you cut an album to support a tour. The bands that don't realize this are doomed.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

hahaha...all i hear is a baby crying...but i agree with MattKnight...it must've been an obligation...otherwise, why?

to also be fair...REM is the singer, guitarist and bassist...they'd probably loss money on a tour paying the backup musicians anyways


----------



## marcos (Jan 13, 2009)

I thought thats where the money was. My understanding is that touring brings in more cash than records. And yes, they are musicians and they should be playing live in front of people.


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

marcos said:


> I thought thats where the money was. My understanding is that touring brings in more cash than records. And yes, they are musicians and they should be playing live in front of people.


But are these monster tours thru 50000 seat arenas where your lucky if you can see the jumbotron screens and make out the lyrics really playing for people? I'd much rather see a band in a 1000 seat venue without a lot of pyrotechnics and the other BS that seems to be prerequisite for a "concert" these days.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

washburned said:


> But are these monster tours thru 50000 seat arenas where your lucky if you can see the jumbotron screens and make out the lyrics really playing for people? I'd much rather see a band in a 1000 seat venue without a lot of pyrotechnics and the other BS that seems to be prerequisite for a "concert" these days.


That's beside the point. A performance is a performance. It might not be your cup of tea, but an entertainer, whether they're a musician, magician or trapeze artist makes their living performing. To say, "oh, I don't feel like playing shows anymore" is tantamount to any one of us calling up our bosses and saying "hey, yknow what, I don't feel like doing my job anymore."

fwiw - yes, I'd rather see a small club gig too, but arena shows have an allure all their own. Just because the size if multiplied doesn't make it any less of a performance.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

WAIT !! He is still alive? I thought he upped and died of some wasting disease or something. :O


----------



## captainbrew (Feb 5, 2010)

Just throwing in a thought here:

I don't think a musician's job is to tour, their "job" is to make music. While I agree that it's strange that a band doesn't want to tour, I don't think it's required to make a living from music. A large number of artists barely if ever tour. Just a thought.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

Well I'm glad for them,,,,shiny happy people.

$hit.

CT.


----------



## 335Bob (Feb 26, 2006)

CocoTone said:


> Well I'm glad for them,,,,shiny happy people.
> 
> $hit.
> 
> CT.


 That's funny....lol


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

A musician deserves to be paid for their creative efforts. The reason touring is now the only way to bring in revenue is directly related to the free loader mentality of those who consider music to be free for the taking. What if your main thing is recording and you don't like to tour? Some people are like that. I kind of like the idea of saying F$#k it. You don't want to pay for the disk, you don't get to see us tour. But that's a topic that has been debated ad nauseum.

If it's not fun, don't do it.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

captainbrew said:


> Just throwing in a thought here:
> 
> I don't think a musician's job is to tour, their "job" is to make music. While I agree that it's strange that a band doesn't want to tour, I don't think it's required to make a living from music. A large number of artists barely if ever tour. Just a thought.


Agreed. As for making money from touring, the money is from ticket sales and t-shirts. Touring behind a record release is NOT the same as it was in the vinyl era. There is probably still some basis for doing book tours or the talk show circuit these days, if you have a book to sell, but I have to agree with Buck that sales of music is increasingly unlikely to be affected by touring. the exception would be if you happen to be a largely unknown quantity and touring can make you known. In R.E.M.'s case, though, you either know about them and like them or you don't, and if they release new material, you either buy it or you don't. If they tour, it's because they're missing something in their lives with respect to playing in front of people. I don't blame any musician in their 40's or older for finding that a decent night's sleep has grown increasingly valuable to them.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

captainbrew said:


> Just throwing in a thought here:
> 
> I don't think a musician's job is to tour, their "job" is to make music. While I agree that it's strange that a band doesn't want to tour, I don't think it's required to make a living from music. A large number of artists barely if ever tour. Just a thought.


yea...the Beatless did it for almost a decade...they turned out alright...



mhammer said:


> Agreed. As for making money from touring, the money is from ticket sales and t-shirts. Touring behind a record release is NOT the same as it was in the vinyl era. There is probably still some basis for doing book tours or the talk show circuit these days, if you have a book to sell, but I have to agree with Buck that sales of music is increasingly unlikely to be affected by touring. the exception would be if you happen to be a largely unknown quantity and touring can make you known. In R.E.M.'s case, though, you either know about them and like them or you don't, and if they release new material, you either buy it or you don't. If they tour, it's because they're missing something in their lives with respect to playing in front of people. I don't blame any musician in their 40's or older for finding that a decent night's sleep has grown increasingly valuable to them.


you know...the other option is...not going on stage after 9...if some shows were at a respectable time, maybe more people would go...i myself am in that age bracket where the time doesn't bother me until the next morning when i'm dragging my a$$...not old enough to stop going but ain't old enough to stop doing it


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> A musician deserves to be paid for their creative efforts. The reason touring is now the only way to bring in revenue is directly related to the free loader mentality of those who consider music to be free for the taking. What if your main thing is recording and you don't like to tour? Some people are like that. I kind of like the idea of saying F$#k it. You don't want to pay for the disk, you don't get to see us tour. But that's a topic that has been debated ad nauseum.
> If it's not fun, don't do it.


...i agree. furthermore, the freeloader mentality has drastically reduced the perceived value of music, especially live music. people will always flock to see a celebrity event, like a lady gaga concert. but i suspect that many touring bands/artists are finding it tough to draw people to their shows.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> That's beside the point. A performance is a performance. It might not be your cup of tea, but an entertainer, whether they're a musician, magician or trapeze artist makes their living performing. To say, "oh, I don't feel like playing shows anymore" is tantamount to any one of us calling up our bosses and saying "hey, yknow what, I don't feel like doing my job anymore."
> 
> fwiw - yes, I'd rather see a small club gig too, but arena shows have an allure all their own. Just because the size if multiplied doesn't make it any less of a performance.


I'm going to respectfully disagree. Firstly, I think the odds are pretty good we've all been to a live show where the musicians were disinterested and playing by rote. Wouldn't you rather that act had stayed at home? I think this is primarily what Buck is saying - I think the part about touring to sell albums or not is a bit misleading, or possibly a response to a leading question. Good on them for not feeling the need to take our money without giving full value in return.

Second, I don't agree with equating not performing to me not showing up for work....or, at least, the consequences are sure different. REM can go sleep on mattresses lined with $100 bills. Me, I line up for the soup kitchen.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

keto said:


> I'm going to respectfully disagree. Firstly, I think the odds are pretty good we've all been to a live show where the musicians were disinterested and playing by rote. Wouldn't you rather that act had stayed at home? I think this is primarily what Buck is saying - I think the part about touring to sell albums or not is a bit misleading, or possibly a response to a leading question. Good on them for not feeling the need to take our money without giving full value in return.
> 
> Second, I don't agree with equating not performing to me not showing up for work....or, at least, the consequences are sure different. REM can go sleep on mattresses lined with $100 bills. Me, I line up for the soup kitchen.


Point taken, but REM can only do that because they've already made their money riding the back of strong albums and lots of touring. I wasn't referring to REM in particular, but making a generalization for band in general, new or old.

As for band mailing it in, again, much like your average working stiff, some days you work harder than others, the point is, it's your job. If you called your boss and told him, "hey, I don't feel like I'm going to give it 100% today" I doubt his/her response would be, "oh, in that case, just stay home."

Of course no one wants to see a disinterested band, and yes, I've seen a few in my time, but at least they're still out there. Maybe they had a bad day, their GF left them, their dog got run over, etc.

In my eyes, music today is circling around to what music used to be before the days of recorded media. Except in those days, no one heard your song unless they saw you. Now they can hear who you are, decide if they like you or not and then make the effort to pay for a ticket and go see your show. It's doubly important today to sell your show. Whether you're Gaga or Katy Perry and you're going to dance around more than sing, or whether you're Bon Jovi or the Stones and you're going on a 100-venue tour.

I seriously doubt artists are having a hard time filling spaces, unless they're booking themselves into arenas when they should be going to smaller venues. The last bunch of concerts I went to were all not only sold-out, but those people actually showed up. Whether it was Foo Fighters at ACC, Pearl Jam at Molson Amphitheatre, or smaller acts like The National at Massey Hall. I think music-lovers are DYING for live shows, simply _because_ it's so easy to download a song or watch a Youtube video. People are tiring of the digital insta-gratification and WANT the real thing again!

Maybe REM, like Phil Collins, has just realized that their time has passed, but in that case, why even bother with an album and then go and tell your fans, "gee, hope you didn't like that too much, cuz we're not gonna come play it for you." Sure, they've earned a certain amount of respect for albums like Automatic and Document and I'm sure financially they're ok, but the real question is why don't they want to tour? No energy and no desire? Or they don't see it as financially worthwhile? Fine, tell me you're tired; tell me your heart's not in it anymore; but _don't_ tell me that your weak album sales make it seem like a waste of money. The weak album sales are because your last album was a _weak album_. I heard my friend's copy and thought it was garbage. Much like when I bought Monster years ago and realized I'd made a huge mistake. That was the last REM album I ever bought and they haven't seen a dollar from me since. Having said that, I _would_ still go see them live because of their back catalogue. In fact, I did see them with The National and Modest Mouse and it was a stellar show!

It's touchy with music, I get that. But it depends on what part of the art you consider the actual _art_. A painter may create a work, but is it worth anything until someone sees it? In order for that to happen, it has to go on display. A playwright can write a fantastic work, but until it's performed, what is it worth? I've always thought if music as _performance _art first and foremost, unlike, say, the writing of fiction, which can only be appreciate by consumption. Because music does have a consumable aspect as well, it treads a grey area between performance and consumption, and each music-lover themselves chooses which aspect of it is more valuable to them. I guess no one's right or wrong and there's no way for it to be settled, nor any real need for that either. It's just that because of my personal opinion on the value of music, it grinds my gears to hear that musicians are choosing to disengage themselves from a live audience.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2011)

Why tour when you can charge people $14.99 to download the same old songs you've been writing and recording for the past 15 years?


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------

