English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-11-21 08:52:12 · 13 answers · asked by ♫ՖքØØķ¥♫ 7 in Entertainment & Music Music Rock and Pop

13 answers

Interesting question. I would say if you're going over a year you're playing it kind of thin (you hear that Eagles... THIN, Sorry, I heard Hotel California a couple hours ago and I've been kind of bitter ever since). And live albums don't count.

I think a good formula for a working band is 6-8 months on the road, then back into the lab after whatever appropriate break you require. Of course though, there are groups that are popular enough and have enough cache to spread out their dates better or play more per city and in more cities, but I would max out on a year.

2007-11-21 09:27:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

I take exception to what Ace said about the beatles not being able to reproduce the sounds of their later years night after night. It surely could have been done with the exception of only a few songs. The main reason they didnt tour was because John and George didnt WANT to in late '66, and then Sgt Pepper took six months to record and mix. After that, everyone was especially pisssed at Paul because he had been such a jerk during Sgt Pepper. In late '67, John became very intimidated by new bands like Hendrix, Cream, and early Pink Floyd. He didnt feel the Beatles had the chops in comparison to the new bands. After that, they went to India and never really got along well again. George had an affair with Ringo's wife and they were on the outs during most of mid-late '68 including the White Album sessions. John caught the "live" bug again when he played at the Stones Rock n Roll Circus in December 1968, as a member of "Dirty Mac" with Clapton, Mitch Mitchell, and Keith Richards. There was talk of a huge tour in 1969.... but the bands' relationship declined so badly during the Get Back Sessions of Early 1969, that it was never discussed again. So, it wasnt the difficulty of the music... it was that everyone hated each other... and they knew they didnt have the chops that they other bands had.

2016-05-24 22:33:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

It really depends on the band and what type of exposure they have. For large, very popular acts.......I say 9-16 months. That gives them enough time to tour North America, Europe and possibly Japan. For other barely even a blip on the national/local scene bands.......that's kind of a tough one. I say a max of 2 years, especially if thier record company isn't really promoting the record and the only publicity they really have is word of mouth. Look at Shinedown..........they toured for the better part of 2-21/2 yrs and Leave a Whisper (a great album which I recommend) sold over 1 million by word of mouth only!

2007-11-22 09:09:40 · answer #3 · answered by Dani G 7 · 1 0

It would depend on what band it is, how big they are and how much ground they have to cover. I hate to put a strict limit on it. However, if I had to assign a time length, perhaps 12-16 months at the absolute most. Again, you could always limit the amount of time for touring on one album but then you run the risk of bypassing a lot of cities. Fans always hate when their hometown gets passed over.

2007-11-21 09:14:24 · answer #4 · answered by Rckets 7 · 4 0

I'm thinking about a year also but it's cool sometime for a band to add a leg or two extention if they play 2 or 3 tunes from their next release. Even mixing in a cover they just added to their play list kind of keeps things from getting stale.

2007-11-21 09:19:05 · answer #5 · answered by LexLuger 6 · 2 0

Depends on how much ground they are going to cover. Hitting up 6 continents takes some time. I would say two and a half years though, and half a year to record and release the next one. Anything longer than that, and I start getting a little too antsy for new music.

2007-11-21 09:07:58 · answer #6 · answered by Master C 6 · 4 0

about a year and a half is good

I'd put about two years on the max. For 90% of bands out there, much longer than that and they've drained the well dry.

2007-11-21 09:21:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

as long as they want to. 2 of the bands i love have been out for 2 years now on the same album. one of them is going in the studio in jan (finally!!). sometimes it seems like they have been out too long i admit. when it starts to effect the show (them being tired, voices getting strained, getting on each others nerves, things like that), then it's deffinately time to take a break.

2007-11-21 09:21:50 · answer #8 · answered by midsummers_night_storm 6 · 1 0

Not sure if there are any rules on that.....my guess is as long as they're selling tickets they could tour for it.

2007-11-21 09:13:52 · answer #9 · answered by Kingler 5 · 1 0

if they are a metal,death metal,speed metal, whatever metal.......2weeks in america.the rest in europe,south america.and certain asian countries.for in these countries tour as long as they want....then start there plans for a new album..........if your a reunited hair-band...touring.limitless...in america!

2007-11-21 10:05:17 · answer #10 · answered by Doobus 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers