Jump to content

An Assessment Of Future Touring Prospects


tomhealey
 Share

Recommended Posts

I accept that it's over for Neil, but Tom raises an interesting point- the Olivia factor. I've wondered that also. If she reaches a point in the next few years where she says, "Dad, I really wish I could see you play live . . . " I don't think he'll ever tour again but quite a few artists do those multi-night residencies in New York these days. I can see them doing one in New York or Toronto if Olivia wants to see Dad play again.

 

The rest of us would just have to figure out how to get the limited tickets and get there! :D

That will never happen. They'd lose money. Well, that and the fact that Neil will NEVER play live again. lol

 

OK, I understand that about Neil. I don't understand the losing money part. How did the Allman Brothers do their residencies at the Beacon Theatre for more than 20 years if that type of arrangement loses money? Billy Joel has been doing once a month shows at Madison Square Garden that continue all through this year.

 

I'm not being snarky, I just don't understand the finances. Are you saying the production values of a Rush show are pretty pricey and it takes many, many tour dates (not just a week) to pay for the show?

The 1st part. While I do not know the exact details of the Allman Brothers specific contract, it probably is a set dollar amount.

We as fans think the artist is getting the gross amount. On an extended stay that is rarely the case. The artist usually gets a promised amount from the venue in exchange for a certain number of shows. So in this case the Beacon sits 2800, and if the Allmans play 5 nights they may get a set amount of say $500,000. Now that is without a single ticket being sold. Beacon can turn around with Citi and sell 2800x$100 for $280,000 times 5 shows for $1,400,000. This way both win.

It's No difference then telling a band at your bar, we'll pay you $400 for each night + free booze. If the bar is charging a $20 cover and no one shows up, the band still gets paid..if 1000 people show up over 2 days, the bar wins.

Santana and Billy Idol have deals in place for 15 shows a year at House of Blues in Vegas. That place only sits 700. No way they make money without getting a Set dollar amount for each show. The casino wants bodies 'In the building' and they will get it.

All true. However, I don't think Rush has the diverse fan base required for an "extended stay" like that to be successful for the venue. So, that won't happen. Well, that and the fact the Neil will NEVER play live with Rush again. :D

 

why are you so dang happy about that? are you neil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept that it's over for Neil, but Tom raises an interesting point- the Olivia factor. I've wondered that also. If she reaches a point in the next few years where she says, "Dad, I really wish I could see you play live . . . " I don't think he'll ever tour again but quite a few artists do those multi-night residencies in New York these days. I can see them doing one in New York or Toronto if Olivia wants to see Dad play again.

 

The rest of us would just have to figure out how to get the limited tickets and get there! :D

 

If Olivia wants to see her dad play live she can pop in 10 different DVDs.

And as an added bonus, Geddy will still sound pretty awesome in most of them!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept that it's over for Neil, but Tom raises an interesting point- the Olivia factor. I've wondered that also. If she reaches a point in the next few years where she says, "Dad, I really wish I could see you play live . . . " I don't think he'll ever tour again but quite a few artists do those multi-night residencies in New York these days. I can see them doing one in New York or Toronto if Olivia wants to see Dad play again.

 

The rest of us would just have to figure out how to get the limited tickets and get there! :D

That will never happen. They'd lose money. Well, that and the fact that Neil will NEVER play live again. lol

 

OK, I understand that about Neil. I don't understand the losing money part. How did the Allman Brothers do their residencies at the Beacon Theatre for more than 20 years if that type of arrangement loses money? Billy Joel has been doing once a month shows at Madison Square Garden that continue all through this year.

 

I'm not being snarky, I just don't understand the finances. Are you saying the production values of a Rush show are pretty pricey and it takes many, many tour dates (not just a week) to pay for the show?

The 1st part. While I do not know the exact details of the Allman Brothers specific contract, it probably is a set dollar amount.

We as fans think the artist is getting the gross amount. On an extended stay that is rarely the case. The artist usually gets a promised amount from the venue in exchange for a certain number of shows. So in this case the Beacon sits 2800, and if the Allmans play 5 nights they may get a set amount of say $500,000. Now that is without a single ticket being sold. Beacon can turn around with Citi and sell 2800x$100 for $280,000 times 5 shows for $1,400,000. This way both win.

It's No difference then telling a band at your bar, we'll pay you $400 for each night + free booze. If the bar is charging a $20 cover and no one shows up, the band still gets paid..if 1000 people show up over 2 days, the bar wins.

Santana and Billy Idol have deals in place for 15 shows a year at House of Blues in Vegas. That place only sits 700. No way they make money without getting a Set dollar amount for each show. The casino wants bodies 'In the building' and they will get it.

All true. However, I don't think Rush has the diverse fan base required for an "extended stay" like that to be successful for the venue. So, that won't happen. Well, that and the fact the Neil will NEVER play live with Rush again. :D

 

why are you so dang happy about that? are you neil?

 

He's close enough!

And I agree with FOH, Neil finally got out and no way he's coming back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept that it's over for Neil, but Tom raises an interesting point- the Olivia factor. I've wondered that also. If she reaches a point in the next few years where she says, "Dad, I really wish I could see you play live . . . " I don't think he'll ever tour again but quite a few artists do those multi-night residencies in New York these days. I can see them doing one in New York or Toronto if Olivia wants to see Dad play again.

 

The rest of us would just have to figure out how to get the limited tickets and get there! :D

That will never happen. They'd lose money. Well, that and the fact that Neil will NEVER play live again. lol

 

If what you are saying is true (I think you have mentioned before that you are an insider?) it is indescribably sad for many reasons. The main one being that something that once brought joy to him (I'm thinking of when he has written about playing in his 20's) now sounds like it has become such a burden that he says he will never play live again? Very sad for him.

Edited by blueschica
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, it's not about money, and it's not about ego.

You know this, how? Are you suggesting that bands tour just because they like to play instruments for the enjoyment of strangers? If you read Ghost Rider, or whichever book NEP wrote after he rode around North America, it was pretty clear he was going to run out of money, according to his accountant, if he continued spending at the rate he was. The only way he really had to make money was to go on tour or maybe sell some records. Edited by Fordgalaxy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, it's not about money, and it's not about ego.

You know this, how? Are you suggesting that bands tour just because they like to play instruments for the enjoyment of strangers? If you read Ghost Rider, or whichever book NEP wrote after he rode around North America, it was pretty clear he was going to run out of money, according to his accountant, if he continued spending at the rate he was. The only way he really had to make money was to go on tour or maybe sell some records.

 

That was 15 years ago. They've worked a ton since then. Also, I might be remembering wrong, but it was more like, "you're spending more than you make". Speculating it was a lifestyle, not ability, thing. Neil deftly alluded to wealth, too, about the "principal to spend"...

 

I wanted to be wrong for a year, but after reading snippets on Google from the new book, I'd say there's a 1% chance we'll ever see or hear Rush again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic does seem to have veered off of what I intended. I hadn't meant to debate whether we'll see a live show again. None of us knows that except, perhaps, Neil, so we're all just guessing. I intended to discuss what goes into the decision of whether to embark on another tour, or a shortened tour, or a limited engagement, or whatever. I continue to think that money and ego (expansively interpreted) are the prime drivers. Do people see other factors?

FOH may very well be correct that it ain't happening (I have a great deal of respect for his opinions, he does seem to be connected to the band, and he helped me out considerably in thinking through a question about Periscope a while back), but the question isn't if Neil has said no (the excerpts from his upcoming tome very clearly confirm the answer "no" to me), the question is why?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question isn't if Neil has said no (the excerpts from his upcoming tome very clearly confirm the answer "no" to me), the question is why?

I'm of three minds about this question.

 

1) He's older and knows he will not improve his craft in any measurable way in the future, so why bother? It's always been about getting better as musicians on the one hand.

 

2} He wants to give a fulfilling life to his family

 

3) I think a disconnect, or distance between the band members on a friendship level is a factor. Resentments may weigh in. Neil isn't a founding member, yet he's absolutely critical to what and who Rush is. Something that sticks out in my mind is from the Dinner at the Hunting Lodge clip. Geddy, at times, seems dismissive to Neil on a couple of occasions. Perhaps this is SOP when dealing with Neil. He's "outside" the establishment. He's always referred to Geddy and Alex as the "guys" from work...there's a level of intimacy there, but not that deep. He's just not that close to both of them, particularly Geddy, even though they have years together under their belts. A sort of rivalry is there that maybe the fly in the ointment for Neil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjbvZJaxcbw

Edited by Tombstone Mountain
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question isn't if Neil has said no (the excerpts from his upcoming tome very clearly confirm the answer "no" to me), the question is why?

I'm of three minds about this question.

 

1) He's older and knows he will not improve his craft in any measurable way in the future, so why bother? It's always been about getting better as musicians on the one hand.

 

2} He wants to give a fulfilling life to his family

 

3) I think a disconnect, or distance between the band members on a friendship level is a factor. Resentments may weigh in. Neil isn't a founding member, yet he's absolutely critical to what and who Rush is. Something that sticks out in my mind is from the Dinner at the Hunting Lodge clip. Geddy, at times, seems dismissive to Neil on a couple of occasions. Perhaps this is SOP when dealing with Neil. He's "outside" the establishment. He's always referred to Geddy and Alex as the "guys" from work...there's a level of intimacy there, but not that deep. He's just not that close to both of them, particularly Geddy, even though they have years together under their belts. A sort of rivalry is there that maybe the fly in the ointment for Neil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjbvZJaxcbw

Very interesting and thoughtful analysis!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question isn't if Neil has said no (the excerpts from his upcoming tome very clearly confirm the answer "no" to me), the question is why?

I'm of three minds about this question.

 

1) He's older and knows he will not improve his craft in any measurable way in the future, so why bother? It's always been about getting better as musicians on the one hand.

 

2} He wants to give a fulfilling life to his family

 

3) I think a disconnect, or distance between the band members on a friendship level is a factor. Resentments may weigh in. Neil isn't a founding member, yet he's absolutely critical to what and who Rush is. Something that sticks out in my mind is from the Dinner at the Hunting Lodge clip. Geddy, at times, seems dismissive to Neil on a couple of occasions. Perhaps this is SOP when dealing with Neil. He's "outside" the establishment. He's always referred to Geddy and Alex as the "guys" from work...there's a level of intimacy there, but not that deep. He's just not that close to both of them, particularly Geddy, even though they have years together under their belts. A sort of rivalry is there that maybe the fly in the ointment for Neil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjbvZJaxcbw

Very interesting and thoughtful analysis!

Just grinding that out sister. Seems plausible
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question isn't if Neil has said no (the excerpts from his upcoming tome very clearly confirm the answer "no" to me), the question is why?

I'm of three minds about this question.

 

1) He's older and knows he will not improve his craft in any measurable way in the future, so why bother? It's always been about getting better as musicians on the one hand.

 

2} He wants to give a fulfilling life to his family

 

3) I think a disconnect, or distance between the band members on a friendship level is a factor. Resentments may weigh in. Neil isn't a founding member, yet he's absolutely critical to what and who Rush is. Something that sticks out in my mind is from the Dinner at the Hunting Lodge clip. Geddy, at times, seems dismissive to Neil on a couple of occasions. Perhaps this is SOP when dealing with Neil. He's "outside" the establishment. He's always referred to Geddy and Alex as the "guys" from work...there's a level of intimacy there, but not that deep. He's just not that close to both of them, particularly Geddy, even though they have years together under their belts. A sort of rivalry is there that maybe the fly in the ointment for Neil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjbvZJaxcbw

 

It's always seemed that way to me too. Friends and coworkers but not really close. It seems like he's always been on the outside.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question isn't if Neil has said no (the excerpts from his upcoming tome very clearly confirm the answer "no" to me), the question is why?

I'm of three minds about this question.

 

1) He's older and knows he will not improve his craft in any measurable way in the future, so why bother? It's always been about getting better as musicians on the one hand.

 

2} He wants to give a fulfilling life to his family

 

3) I think a disconnect, or distance between the band members on a friendship level is a factor. Resentments may weigh in. Neil isn't a founding member, yet he's absolutely critical to what and who Rush is. Something that sticks out in my mind is from the Dinner at the Hunting Lodge clip. Geddy, at times, seems dismissive to Neil on a couple of occasions. Perhaps this is SOP when dealing with Neil. He's "outside" the establishment. He's always referred to Geddy and Alex as the "guys" from work...there's a level of intimacy there, but not that deep. He's just not that close to both of them, particularly Geddy, even though they have years together under their belts. A sort of rivalry is there that maybe the fly in the ointment for Neil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjbvZJaxcbw

 

It's always seemed that way to me too. Friends and coworkers but not really close. It seems like he's always been on the outside.

reminds me of a song I heard once

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question isn't if Neil has said no (the excerpts from his upcoming tome very clearly confirm the answer "no" to me), the question is why?

I'm of three minds about this question.

 

1) He's older and knows he will not improve his craft in any measurable way in the future, so why bother? It's always been about getting better as musicians on the one hand.

 

2} He wants to give a fulfilling life to his family

 

3) I think a disconnect, or distance between the band members on a friendship level is a factor. Resentments may weigh in. Neil isn't a founding member, yet he's absolutely critical to what and who Rush is. Something that sticks out in my mind is from the Dinner at the Hunting Lodge clip. Geddy, at times, seems dismissive to Neil on a couple of occasions. Perhaps this is SOP when dealing with Neil. He's "outside" the establishment. He's always referred to Geddy and Alex as the "guys" from work...there's a level of intimacy there, but not that deep. He's just not that close to both of them, particularly Geddy, even though they have years together under their belts. A sort of rivalry is there that maybe the fly in the ointment for Neil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjbvZJaxcbw

 

It's always seemed that way to me too. Friends and coworkers but not really close. It seems like he's always been on the outside.

reminds me of a song I heard once

 

That's more about being an outsider in general but I think within the group he is even that way. Alex and Geddy have stuck together in the Toronto area all along, they do fan pics together, make appearances together, all of which give the impression he's in one sense an isolationist. Even with people he's known for 40 years.

Edited by EagleMoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take this for what it's worth. I'm not trying to stir the pot by any means but... My brother in law works for World Festival Inc and helps with the bookings for the bands for Summerfest in Milwaukee (and the Marcus Amp) along with the other festivals throughout the year there. There have been discussions about a booking during Summerfest in 2017. There is a lot of conversation happening. Nothing concrete by any stretch. He knows I'm a fan, so he is usually pretty guarded when he mentions anything to me. The fact that he brought it up at all gives me a glimmer of hope. Time will tell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed my time playing in a band and doing a few local shows a year, but I could never do this sort of thing as a full time job and travel everywhere all the time. I don't know how they did it for so long already.

 

So I guess I'm with Neil on this one! :D

I've played in gigging bands for the last 30 years, and the old saying is very true......"the only thing worse than gigging is NOT gigging." It's just something that's in your blood. Neil will get bored sitting at home, and the band will get out there again within the next couple years. Count on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed my time playing in a band and doing a few local shows a year, but I could never do this sort of thing as a full time job and travel everywhere all the time. I don't know how they did it for so long already.

 

So I guess I'm with Neil on this one! :D

I've played in gigging bands for the last 30 years, and the old saying is very true......"the only thing worse than gigging is NOT gigging." It's just something that's in your blood. Neil will get bored sitting at home, and the band will get out there again within the next couple years. Count on it.

 

I really don't think so. We've been given so many signs it's over: the tour, the wave from the stage, the book, the hints, the articles, the silence, the tour that missed cash cow stops (Cleveland, Pitt, Europe) and a second leg...

Edited by upstateNYfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed my time playing in a band and doing a few local shows a year, but I could never do this sort of thing as a full time job and travel everywhere all the time. I don't know how they did it for so long already.

 

So I guess I'm with Neil on this one! :D

I've played in gigging bands for the last 30 years, and the old saying is very true......"the only thing worse than gigging is NOT gigging." It's just something that's in your blood. Neil will get bored sitting at home, and the band will get out there again within the next couple years. Count on it.

 

I really don't think so. We've been given so many signs it's over: the tour, the wave from the stage, the book, the hints, the articles, the silence, the tour that missed cash cow stops (Cleveland, Pitt, Europe) and a second leg...

For everyone citing "THE BOOK"........keep in mind that intro was probably written almost a year ago. I'd bet Neil's feelings towards touring have softened a bit in the ensuing months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed my time playing in a band and doing a few local shows a year, but I could never do this sort of thing as a full time job and travel everywhere all the time. I don't know how they did it for so long already.

 

So I guess I'm with Neil on this one! :D

I've played in gigging bands for the last 30 years, and the old saying is very true......"the only thing worse than gigging is NOT gigging." It's just something that's in your blood. Neil will get bored sitting at home, and the band will get out there again within the next couple years. Count on it.

 

I really don't think so. We've been given so many signs it's over: the tour, the wave from the stage, the book, the hints, the articles, the silence, the tour that missed cash cow stops (Cleveland, Pitt, Europe) and a second leg...

For everyone citing "THE BOOK"........keep in mind that intro was probably written almost a year ago. I'd bet Neil's feelings towards touring have softened a bit in the ensuing months.

 

Why do you think that? If anything, I'd bet the intro was written more recently as a lot of the book appears to be a compilation of prior work. I do hope I'm wrong... but Neil doesn't seem the kind of guy who says or does this stuff lightly. And he has so many other interests...

 

As an aside, any mention of doing a one-off show (Milwaukee or wherever) makes very little business sense. They would either need to have a ton of money thrown at them or have an incredibly compelling reason (like SARS Fest in their hometown in 2003) to go back out. Logistics and sheer dollars - just to get ready - just aren't there unless Neil says "let's go out again on another run." I'd say that's about 1% right now.

Edited by upstateNYfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Neil THINKS he's retired. No question about it.

 

But I also think that in 3-5 years he will miss the live component of music, Olivia will be older and more understanding and even supportive of a tour schedule and he will want to come out of retirement.

In his writings, he'll probably even make the comparison about athletes that come out of retirement and how he can relate.

 

Know one really knows what Neil will do down the road. And with all due respect to FOH Lights (as he is always spot on when it comes to the band) the information he has received is likely not coming directly from Neil's mouth, but secondhand. So, we don't know for sure.

 

Anyway...things change, ideas change, people change. Even Geddy remarked that he himself is a patient person and still hopes that Rush will be able to tour again. That's good enough for me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed my time playing in a band and doing a few local shows a year, but I could never do this sort of thing as a full time job and travel everywhere all the time. I don't know how they did it for so long already.

 

So I guess I'm with Neil on this one! :D

I've played in gigging bands for the last 30 years, and the old saying is very true......"the only thing worse than gigging is NOT gigging." It's just something that's in your blood. Neil will get bored sitting at home, and the band will get out there again within the next couple years. Count on it.

 

I really don't think so. We've been given so many signs it's over: the tour, the wave from the stage, the book, the hints, the articles, the silence, the tour that missed cash cow stops (Cleveland, Pitt, Europe) and a second leg...

For everyone citing "THE BOOK"........keep in mind that intro was probably written almost a year ago. I'd bet Neil's feelings towards touring have softened a bit in the ensuing months.

Haha, I'll take that bet!!

 

Know one really knows what Neil will do down the road. And with all due respect to FOH Lights (as he is always spot on when it comes to the band) the information he has received is likely not coming directly from Neil's mouth, but secondhand. So, we don't know for sure.

No offense taken. However, my info is absolutely credible. FWIW: Don't delude yourself into thinking that time will heal Neil's "wounds".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...