Beyonce and Taylor's touring practices

April 2, 2017

I think for many it's just too much of a hassle with not enough payback. And even if they're up for it, their label etc probably won't let them. The artist doesn't have that much say unfortunately.

I do find it strange Beyonce of all people doesn't tour (part of) Africa anymore.

April 2, 2017

Interesting reading but easy question: Money.

Places like Asia & Latin America are "way harder" to go than Europe + Asia. Think about Formation \ 1989 tour stage... the whole setup + the show concept. It's unlikely that u will be able to perform the same concert if u're not using the original stage...

But, in fact, it's just TOO EXPENSIVE to travel with these extrutures around, especially, South America.

If u check around, except for Gaga & Madonna, almost no one brings the original stages\performances.

Spoiler

Example:

Prismatic World Tour

WW:

Latin America:

Certain shows (Like FORMATION & 1989) are just impossible to do without it's original extructure. There are cases where the production will be "toned-down" but even that way still a hard thing. Everything turns out to be really expensive...

April 2, 2017

20 hours ago, Saint Hollywood said:

Money & popularity are what determine where these artists go

Yes, but Beyonce was popular in Oceania, so why didn't she go? And Taylor was hugely popular all over Europe, so why did she only go to 4 countries? It makes no sense.

20 hours ago, ARTnFAME said:

How long did it take you to write this

A while. But I had a lot of it worked out first, so yeah.

20 hours ago, Creyk said:

Among Taylor Swift fans, it's known that Taylor barely tours outside of English-speaking / Anglophone countries because of her mom, who looks down upon non-English speaking places. She gave her a hard time when she went to Asia too, because her mom thinks that is beneath her.

As for why are they not getting criticism for this? It's because no one really cares, imo. It's something that people let the artist's management decide and they leave it at that.

Judging by your research, that sounds like a very wild rumour. But I wouldn't be so quick to doubt it completely. Don't like to stereotype but Taylor did grow up in a country-music loving family and has been living for years in Tennessee, has always made 'white' kinds of music like country and pop and has been enjoying a lot of success courtesy of being a young, pretty, slim, blonde, white girl. I wouldn't be surprised if she sees foreign markets as a bit of a "do I have to?" But maybe I shouldn't be so harsh. Even if her mother believes certain things doesn't mean Taylor will automatically agree. She always says Japanese phrases when she tours there and here's a video of her saying phrases in Filipino, Chinese, Spanish and French and saying she likes to learn a bit of the language of whatever country shes' in:

Well, I think people do care. If their fave is very successful in their country yet choosing not to go, they get quite annoyed and sometimes offended. You can see by the responses here that that's the case. I'm more than a bit put out that Gaga isn't coming to Scotland this time, so I have to travel further afield. Glasgow is now home to the second most visited arena in the world, so it's now seen as a major snub when artists skip our city. Either you go for the 50k capacity stadium or the 13k capacity arena (which can be tastefully downsized with curtains). 2 great options for whatever your touring demands. It's not like other countries where the only arena is too small and the only stadium is too big.

19 hours ago, Thomas P said:

I agree with you. I think at the end of the day it's the Artists/managements choice, but they shouldn't call them "World Tours" if they aren't world wide.

Part of the problem for some artists that are huge is that the tours continuously become smaller and smaller, because they're able to make a sufficient amount of money in a much shorter time. Cities in NA and Europe that used to be very popular (my city of Ottawa for example) are being cut out all the time now. Different market I guess.

Exactly, calling these tours 'world' tours is just bad advertising at this point. It's all very well for artists who are only on their third album and are still cultivating a fanbase (Ariana, Bruno), but for the biggest stars, their management should realise there's no excuse. They don't have to go everywhere but just a small acknowledgement would be nice.

Yes, that's a major point to consider. If you can save time and make more money from doing stadiums in a select number of cities, then why not? But it's unfair to the fans who live outside these areas and also don't have the money for stadium shows. It's easy on the artist but without the fans, they'd be nothing. So, you have to take them into consideration.

19 hours ago, Halle said:

I think that there are just two kinds of artists - those who earn on sales and streams and those earn on touring. However, more and more artists are understanding that the latter option is growing to be the much better one.

About Taylor and Bey, their last tours were stadium-only tours. Which are MUCH harder to do worldwide, but are much more profitable than worldwide arena tours (once you have the success to fill the stadium, ofc). So, unfortunately, it's all about profit. And I believe that artists themselves have very little power at this. Artists have signed their touring deals that they have to fulfil (and bring the biggest profit as quickly as possible).

Reminds me of Britney - "There's only 2 kinds of artists in the world, the ones who do world tours...and the ones that just don't." I mean, the touring market went downhill recently but its been picking up again, people can actually do stadiums like they did back in the late 00's/early 2010's, so they may as well get that money.

Taylor did arenas too, but only large ones. The smallest one she did was 12,500, I believe. The concept of doing a little 8,000 capacity place like she did back with Speak Now just doesn't appeal. But that's just it - these artists need to leave their egos at the door. If they insist on only doing stadium tours in the richest, most 'relevant' countries and leaving out whole continents, then they're going to lose fans. Gaga's not doing too well in Australia these days but if she stopped going there completely, thereby disappointing the diehard fans who still remain, she would officially lose all support from the country. You won't have support if you don't seek it.

19 hours ago, Sure Joanne said:

Beyonce was probably looking for the biggest possible venues that she will also manage to sell out.

I'm pretty sure artists tours are only booked if there's a known demand, big popularity and the concert is likely to sell out. Gaga did not sell out in many areas during artrave, I wonder if it's related.

Like I said above, it all comes down to ego. These artists insist that they're only good enough for the biggest venues now. That's not good news for fans from smaller countries. A sell-out stadium tour may give you bragging rights but so many fans will be let down.

I don't think it's related to Gaga. Gaga just didn't have crazy demand for AP, so her tour was smaller, it's that simple.

10 hours ago, Bebe said:

Why would anybody criticise Beyonce and Taylor? I kinda missed that point...

Touring is notoriously difficult, draining and isolating. Beyonce has a five year old child, so it's understandable for her to do a smaller 49 date tour. Impressively The Formation World Tour managed a $256,084,556 gross and a spot in the top 20 highest grossing concerts despite the fact that the rest of the concerts in the top 20 did far more shows than her. I don't suppose she feels the need to go on a larger 100+ date tour and would rather spend that time with her family and making music

Why didn't Taylor go certain places? Maybe she couldn't, maybe she didn't want to? Either way she seems to still be a very successful artist and I'm not sure it really matters what the reason is.

Well, that's just it. They seem a bit untouchable.

Yes, I know Beyonce likely wants more family time but I'm not asking for 100 dates here, just a couple extra worldwide to show she still cares. She's crazy rich and lives in LA , is it that much of a deal to swing round to Australia?

I think it does matter what the reason is in Taylor's case because touring is too much of a force to let fans down with. She's never going to have success in some areas if she never tries to find success there. Seeing as she's such a focused businesswoman, I thought she'd be all about trying to make it on every country on the planet. She's very money hungry, I can't imagine why she'd want to miss out on potential worldwide goldmines. If the reason is that she doesn't want to, that is a huge problem. The public doesn't like artists who think they're too good for their humble little land.

9 hours ago, Denys said:

Am in Africa for Christ sakes and it's not unsafe to tour here! They are just scared they won't make enough coins from the continent except SA ofcos no one even buys albums or songs over here

It is a valid concern, though. Tunisia would be a great place to do a tour date and concerts have been done there before but after that attack, tourism went right down and its left people very shaken to this day. I know someone who's actually moved out of SA because it's just getting a bit too dangerous in certain areas. I mean, after the threats that occured for Gaga's Indonesian show, I'm sure the fear rippled through a lot of tour companies that this could happen to other artists. And after the attacks on a music venue in Paris, it shows the music industry isn't immune to this kind of thing. But agreed, with the right security, you've at least got to go to SA. Beyonce is a huge role model to her black fans, someone like her would be so welcome in these parts. Not taking the Formation tour there was a huge missed opportunity of sending the message she intended with it.

6 hours ago, Marjol said:

I think for many it's just too much of a hassle with not enough payback. And even if they're up for it, their label etc probably won't let them. The artist doesn't have that much say unfortunately.

I do find it strange Beyonce of all people doesn't tour (part of) Africa anymore.

Of course this isn't really the artist's jurisdiction but with names this big, I'm sure they could put some sort of point forward. If artists can bow out of touring completely if they don't want to, can't they not have some say in which continents they can tour in at least?

Yes, like I said above, this was the most obvious opportunity for Beyonce to bring her tour to Africa and yet she didn't. If Gaga could sell out 2 South African stadiums when she wasn't even at her peak, why can't Beyonce when she's arguably the most relevant name in music right now?

6 hours ago, Leeo said:

Interesting reading but easy question: Money.

Places like Asia & Latin America are "way harder" to go than Europe + Asia. Think about Formation \ 1989 tour stage... the whole setup + the show concept. It's unlikely that u will be able to perform the same concert if u're not using the original stage...

But, in fact, it's just TOO EXPENSIVE to travel with these extrutures around, especially, South America.

If u check around, except for Gaga & Madonna, almost no one brings the original stages\performances.

Reveal hidden contents

Example:

Prismatic World Tour

WW:

Latin America:

Certain shows (Like FORMATION & 1989) are just impossible to do without it's original extructure. There are cases where the production will be "toned-down" but even that way still a hard thing. Everything turns out to be really expensive...

That's a good point I didn't consider. The stage does change for some of these dates, weirdly, and yes, that can cost a fair amount. But that to me, is all the more reason to stop having such elaborate stages. As long as the artist is there, do they really need a massive light show around them. The artRave wasn't the most biggest or elaborate of stages and it was a great concert. There once was a time when I wanted Gaga to do a world stadium tour but now I realise how unrealistic and snobby that was. As long as the show's amazing, who cares if it doesn't sell mega millions? Bigger isn't always better.

April 3, 2017

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Well, that's just it. They seem a bit untouchable.

Yes, I know Beyonce likely wants more family time but I'm not asking for 100 dates here, just a couple extra worldwide to show she still cares. She's crazy rich and lives in LA , is it that much of a deal to swing round to Australia?

I think it does matter what the reason is in Taylor's case because touring is too much of a force to let fans down with. She's never going to have success in some areas if she never tries to find success there. Seeing as she's such a focused businesswoman, I thought she'd be all about trying to make it on every country on the planet. She's very money hungry, I can't imagine why she'd want to miss out on potential worldwide goldmines. If the reason is that she doesn't want to, that is a huge problem. The public doesn't like artists who think they're too good for their humble little land.

I don't understand though? Literally I don't understand why any artist should get criticised for what you're describing? It's not that they are 'untouchable' it's that you didn't explain in your original post why any of the stuff you described was bad

"she's crazy rich and lives in LA , is it that much of a deal to swing round to Australia?"

I don't see the connection... Because Beyonce is super rich and because she lives in L.A she should come to Australia? Why? What if she just... Doesn't want to? Is that such a bad thing? It would be lovely if she came round to Australia - I live in Australia and it would be f*cking awesome to see her live, but it's not an obligation for her. She doesn't need to do any more than 49 dates.

"I think it does matter what the reason is in Taylor's case because touring is too much of a force to let fans down with."
"If the reason is that she doesn't want to, that is a huge problem. The public doesn't like artists who think they're too good for their humble little land."

Why is that a huge problem though Taylor is doing just fine, and the problem in your hypothetical situation seems to be with the public expecting that their favourite artist HAS to travel the world in this expensive, stressful, exhausting, isolating world tour to perform for them.

Not wanting to extend your tour =/= thinking you are too good for the places you haven't traveled... Not going to Mexico or extending your tour into Europe or Asia =/= thinking you are better than those places. For all we know she didn't want to commit to a tour with over 85 dates (because a tour is super demanding) and felt like most of her fanbase (seeing as she did come from a country music background) is concentrated in North America so she wanted to tour for her most dedicated fans... Maybe she didn't even have a reason, I think that's fine too.

If Taylor doesn't want to perform in some place, whatever It's a shame for those who live in said place who want to see her - but she doesn't have any obligation to go anywhere.

I really don't think it does matter what the reason is. If she doesn't want to tour there because it's not commercially viable, that makes sense, if she just wants to keep her tour to a certain number of dates - that's fine too. There is no obligation for her to tour anywhere. I don't think it's a case of Taylor Swift thinking she is "too good" for any place. She probably just felt like touring from May - December doing 85 shows was enough.

She did film a concert film 'The 1989 World Tour Live' so, although it's not really like seeing them in person, at least those that couldn't go had the opportunity to see stage show.

I can understand fans wanting their favourite artist to perform in their country/city. I can understand fans being disappointed if they don't tour their country - but I don't think they have a right to be angry and I don't think it makes these artists selfish or wrong for not committing to flying around the world to perform for whoever wants to see them.

April 3, 2017

16 hours ago, Bebe said:

I don't understand though? Literally I don't understand why any artist should get criticised for what you're describing? It's not that they are 'untouchable' it's that you didn't explain in your original post why any of the stuff you described was bad

"she's crazy rich and lives in LA , is it that much of a deal to swing round to Australia?"

I don't see the connection... Because Beyonce is super rich and because she lives in L.A she should come to Australia? Why? What if she just... Doesn't want to? Is that such a bad thing? It would be lovely if she came round to Australia - I live in Australia and it would be f*cking awesome to see her live, but it's not an obligation for her. She doesn't need to do any more than 49 dates.

"I think it does matter what the reason is in Taylor's case because touring is too much of a force to let fans down with."
"If the reason is that she doesn't want to, that is a huge problem. The public doesn't like artists who think they're too good for their humble little land."

Why is that a huge problem though Taylor is doing just fine, and the problem in your hypothetical situation seems to be with the public expecting that their favourite artist HAS to travel the world in this expensive, stressful, exhausting, isolating world tour to perform for them.

Not wanting to extend your tour =/= thinking you are too good for the places you haven't traveled... Not going to Mexico or extending your tour into Europe or Asia =/= thinking you are better than those places. For all we know she didn't want to commit to a tour with over 85 dates (because a tour is super demanding) and felt like most of her fanbase (seeing as she did come from a country music background) is concentrated in North America so she wanted to tour for her most dedicated fans... Maybe she didn't even have a reason, I think that's fine too.

If Taylor doesn't want to perform in some place, whatever It's a shame for those who live in said place who want to see her - but she doesn't have any obligation to go anywhere.

I really don't think it does matter what the reason is. If she doesn't want to tour there because it's not commercially viable, that makes sense, if she just wants to keep her tour to a certain number of dates - that's fine too. There is no obligation for her to tour anywhere. I don't think it's a case of Taylor Swift thinking she is "too good" for any place. She probably just felt like touring from May - December doing 85 shows was enough.

She did film a concert film 'The 1989 World Tour Live' so, although it's not really like seeing them in person, at least those that couldn't go had the opportunity to see stage show.

I can understand fans wanting their favourite artist to perform in their country/city. I can understand fans being disappointed if they don't tour their country - but I don't think they have a right to be angry and I don't think it makes these artists selfish or wrong for not committing to flying around the world to perform for whoever wants to see them.

I think I said what was bad about it - that they've clearly got fans that they aren't tending to. Touring is a big business, you can't just ignore some of the world's biggest music markets and then act like it's no big deal. There are artists who tour in countries that they aren't even all that big in, at small venues, merely because these countries are major movers in the music scene and it puts them out there.

Because living in LA, Australia isn't all that far away for her like it is for other people. I remember Britney once said that the reason she would never go to Australia is because "it's so far away." She lives in California too! If you live in Europe, then Australia is far away, but not in California! So, when you're really rich as well, it's not like you have to pay extortionate prices that break the bank like everyone else has to pay if they want to go to Australia. But for a multi-millionaire who lives in LA, Australia is not too far or too expensive to go to. And again, Australia is a major music market. To miss it when you have success there is considered a snub.

Yes, Taylor is doing "just fine," but she could be doing better. She's always getting praised for her business tactics, right? I think expanding her brand globally should be of utmost importance to her. Having a 10 country 'world' tour when you're as big a name as her is pathetic, honestly. Based solely on her tour dates, you would never think she was an amazing businesswoman because she clearly hasn't cracked the global success code. Gaga's nowhere near as successful as her right now and look how many European dates she has! You'd think Taylor would be looking at the European success of Gaga, Rihanna, Beyonce, Bruno, even Ariana, and thinking: "I've got to pull my socks up here if I want to look good next to them when I go to Europe."

There's a difference between not touring somewhere because its not commercially viable and not touring somewhere because you think it just isn't worth it. The former is a business decision, which is fair enough, but the latter is personal bias, which is bad. I just don't understand her reasoning with the 1989 tour in particular. She went to more European countries with her Speak Now tour (9, at small arenas) than she did for any other tour and she flopped in Europe with that album. Yet, she has the biggest European success she's ever had with an album when she released 1989 and all she only goes to 4 European countries, with a maximum of 2 gigs at each date. Like I said before, she toured a grand total of 10 countries for her 1989 tour, despite this album being her biggest global success. Yet, she went to 9 countries in Europe alone for her Speak Now tour and 18 in total, even though most of the world largely still had no idea who she was at that time. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Unless she maybe thinks that she's so successful now that she can miss out whole countries, as she doesn't need to work so hard and the fans will come to her. In that case, that's unacceptable.

As I've already said, the fans makes these artists who they are. For that reason, I think they are obliged to try harder and give something back. I know if I were a singer, I'd be on my knees thanking God that so many people all over the world want to see me sing live and I'd try my hardest to get to as many people as possible, even if I have to get a boat because I'm scared of flying and whatnot. And I know you might just say: "Well, good for you, you have the choice to be that kind of artist if you want." But that's the artist everyone should aspire to be. It's the least you can give your hardworking fans who buy all your stuff.

April 3, 2017

There are several theories that Taylor wanted to carry on with The 1989 World Tour until 2016 (all her tours took place on the span of 2 years except this one), but ultimately decided not to. Her tour was making a lot of headlines for several reasons and she was on the verge of overexposure. She had a rumored date in Philippines and she actually confirmed she was coming back to China in 2016 to play more cities back in November 2015, although that ultimately never happened.

I also think no one expected the major success the tour had in North America. She was always huge in touring there, but the amount of stadiums she was able to book was impressive. And she rarely has tours that have too many dates, so she probably decided she had already done too many and dragging it any longer wasn't a good idea!

April 4, 2017

14 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I think I said what was bad about it - that they've clearly got fans that they aren't tending to. Touring is a big business, you can't just ignore some of the world's biggest music markets and then act like it's no big deal. There are artists who tour in countries that they aren't even all that big in, at small venues, merely because these countries are major movers in the music scene and it puts them out there.

Because living in LA, Australia isn't all that far away for her like it is for other people. I remember Britney once said that the reason she would never go to Australia is because "it's so far away." She lives in California too! If you live in Europe, then Australia is far away, but not in California! So, when you're really rich as well, it's not like you have to pay extortionate prices that break the bank like everyone else has to pay if they want to go to Australia. But for a multi-millionaire who lives in LA, Australia is not too far or too expensive to go to. And again, Australia is a major music market. To miss it when you have success there is considered a snub.

Yes, Taylor is doing "just fine," but she could be doing better. She's always getting praised for her business tactics, right? I think expanding her brand globally should be of utmost importance to her. Having a 10 country 'world' tour when you're as big a name as her is pathetic, honestly. Based solely on her tour dates, you would never think she was an amazing businesswoman because she clearly hasn't cracked the global success code. Gaga's nowhere near as successful as her right now and look how many European dates she has! You'd think Taylor would be looking at the European success of Gaga, Rihanna, Beyonce, Bruno, even Ariana, and thinking: "I've got to pull my socks up here if I want to look good next to them when I go to Europe."

There's a difference between not touring somewhere because its not commercially viable and not touring somewhere because you think it just isn't worth it. The former is a business decision, which is fair enough, but the latter is personal bias, which is bad. I just don't understand her reasoning with the 1989 tour in particular. She went to more European countries with her Speak Now tour (9, at small arenas) than she did for any other tour and she flopped in Europe with that album. Yet, she has the biggest European success she's ever had with an album when she released 1989 and all she only goes to 4 European countries, with a maximum of 2 gigs at each date. Like I said before, she toured a grand total of 10 countries for her 1989 tour, despite this album being her biggest global success. Yet, she went to 9 countries in Europe alone for her Speak Now tour and 18 in total, even though most of the world largely still had no idea who she was at that time. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Unless she maybe thinks that she's so successful now that she can miss out whole countries, as she doesn't need to work so hard and the fans will come to her. In that case, that's unacceptable.

As I've already said, the fans makes these artists who they are. For that reason, I think they are obliged to try harder and give something back. I know if I were a singer, I'd be on my knees thanking God that so many people all over the world want to see me sing live and I'd try my hardest to get to as many people as possible, even if I have to get a boat because I'm scared of flying and whatnot. And I know you might just say: "Well, good for you, you have the choice to be that kind of artist if you want." But that's the artist everyone should aspire to be. It's the least you can give your hardworking fans who buy all your stuff.

"They've clearly got fans that they aren't tending to. Touring is a big business, you can't just ignore some of the world's biggest music markets and then act like it's no big deal."

Musicians/Artists don't owe their fans anything. They certainly don't owe them months out of their lives. You can choose to have as large or as small a tour as you feel is comfortable. Touring is a big business that might not interest everyone, you might be an artist that feels more comfortable with limited dates in smaller venues or an artist that feels more comfortable doing stadiums around the world. Either seems fine

"Because living in LA, Australia isn't all that far away for her like it is for other people."

Going from a place like Los Angeles it's a 15 hour flight, Then she performs what like two 2hr shows in Sydney? Then travels 1 1/2 hours to Melbourne for two more 2hr shows. Then she can hardly miss out on Perth, that's super unfair - so that's a 4 1/2 hour flight to Perth for a couple more 2 hour shows. We’ve skipped Brisbane but oh well, it’s easier for them to travel to Sydney/Melbourne than it is for the good people of Perth who live on the other side of the continent.

That's 3 weeks in a foreign country, 21 hours of flight time (41 hours including the flight back from Perth), 12 hours performing, an uncountable amount of time for preparation, an uncountable amount of time in a hotel room.

Maybe Beyonce feels like that's 3 weeks of quality time she could be spending with her family instead of trapped in hotel rooms, that a total of 41 hours on flights sounds kinda crappy, that 12 hours performing is a lot of time to spend. Especially after already being on the road for 7 months.

Maybe combined with the costs of bringing her entire production down under she just felt (or her team just felt) like it was too much of a hassle, especially for little monetary gain.

Plus, that’s probably not even good enough – You’ve also expressed displeasure at the fact that she hasn’t traveled to:

Latin America (“She didn't even go to Latin America, just North…. My only reasoning for why she missed out Latin America was because she drained the region last time and wasn't as successful as she could've been.”)

Asia (“ she really has no excuse for missing out Asia. Japan is major music market and she clearly had a lot of success there before.”)

Africa (“you've at least got to go to SA. Beyonce is a huge role model to her black fans, someone like her would be so welcome in these parts. Not taking the Formation tour there was a huge missed opportunity”)

That’s three more continents, that’s getting expensive with the huge costs involved with bringing her entire production down, so you’re essentially asking for the tour be extended by another month or two. You can’t be playing one city in each continent - Maybe you do 2 shows in South Africa but you need to do at least 6 shows in Asia for it to be worth it… Maybe Japan, China, Singapore? Then Latin America… I suppose she would need to go to Brazil and then Columbia She did 4 shows in Brazil last time she went, maybe cut that to 3? Do 2 in Columbia?

I mean, this is only surface level stuff and already it’s looking like a big ask – especially when it’s less of an ask and more of a “Why isn’t she being criticized for NOT doing this????”

"Yes, Taylor is doing "just fine," but she could be doing better. She's always getting praised for her business tactics, right? "

Err I also swear I see people like you criticise her for being 'money hungry' so it's like she can't win. Taylor is worth 1/4 of a Billion dollars - she could retire tomorrow if she wanted to. Everyone could "Always be doing better" but there are more important things in life than making an extra couple of million dollars you don't need. There comes a point when I think it's fair to say "I'm worth $250 million dollars I could a long ass flight to another continent and spend a month touring for a couple of hundred grand, but that sounds unappealing and I don't need the money. I'd rather spend time with my loved ones because that's more important to me."

"I think expanding her brand globally should be of utmost importance to her. Having a 10 country 'world' tour when you're as big a name as her is pathetic, honestly."

How come you get to decide what Taylor's priorities should be? Maybe expanding your brand globally, would be of the utmost importance to you but maybe that's not so important to Taylor. She is worth 1/4 of a Billion dollars and seems pretty happy Maybe she feels like that's enough - I certainly think it seems pretty good. Why exactly should expanding her brand be of such importance to her? If you think Taylor Swift's tour is pathetic, I can only imagine the level of contempt you would feel for me! I'm nowhere close to achieving what Taylor Swift has.

"Gaga's nowhere near as successful as her right now and look how many European dates she has! You'd think Taylor would be looking at the European success of Gaga, Rihanna, Beyonce, Bruno, even Ariana, and thinking: "I've got to pull my socks up here if I want to look good next to them when I go to Europe.""

Gaga likes touring, if she wants to make the decision to tour more places than that's a decision Gaga can make I don't think Taylor needs to compare herself, I think it's such an unhealthy thing for anyone to do really. She is doing very well for herself and can live out the rest of her life very comfortably, if you're Taylor Swift and can't be content and comfortable with the place you are in now - you're never going to be happy.

"There's a difference between not touring somewhere because its not commercially viable and not touring somewhere because you think it just isn't worth it. The former is a business decision, which is fair enough, but the latter is personal bias, which is bad."

How? How is it bad? It's like if she makes a decision that isn't business related and is instead based on whether she wants to do something or doesn't want to do something it's 'bad' because it's a 'personal bias'

There is a cost/benefit analysis for every choice in life - If Taylor makes a cost/benefit analysis about extending her tour to all these different continents and extending her brand and decides that for her, personally, it doesn't seem worth it - that's totally okay! That's totally fair! It's her life!

Let's take what I assume to be 'worst case' scenario for you. Let's assume Taylor Swift doesn't want to tour heavily in Europe because she is happy with her current level of success and feels like it's going to be a lot of effort breaking into a touring industry in Europe and maintaining a hold in that industry. Maybe she doesn't want to expand so wide, because she thinks that's going to be too much for her

Maybe coming from a country background, she knows that most of her fanbase and her most loyal, long-term fans are situated in North America and so would prefer to make sure she covers as many places in N.A as possible to give those fans the chance to see her.

At the end of the day Taylor is more than a product, she is a human, and she gets to decide how she wants to live - if she doesn't want to spend months trying to build a reputation in Europe fine, if she knows that it means next time around she will be expected to extend her tour again in order to continue catering to that audience - that might seem like more than she is willing to do, and that's sounds totally fair to me.

" Unless she maybe thinks that she's so successful now that she can miss out whole countries, as she doesn't need to work so hard and the fans will come to her. In that case, that's unacceptable. "

Or maybe she feels like she is already financially secure and will be able to live very comfortably for the rest of her life so, instead of spending months of her life flying overseas and trapped in hotel rooms, she decides she doesn't want to expand so widely yet and that the work to do so just isn't worth it Seems totally acceptable to me whatever way you spin it really - it's her choice, she doesn't NEED to do some giant tour all over the world. That's a large commitment, and if she doesn't want to then fine that's her life.

"I've already said, the fans makes these artists who they are. For that reason, I think they are obliged to try harder and give something back."

And all the people who are fans and consumers of Coca Cola make Muhtar Kent (the CEO of Coca Cola) who he is, but I don't expect him to travel the world for eight months at a time doing two 2 hour press conferences every week.

Here's the thing - The fans got everything that they paid for, they are not entitled to more. Those fans chose to pay for a CD, they got the CD. They chose to buy her perfume, they got her perfume. They chose to buy a ticket for her last tour, they got to see her live in her last tour.

Nothing in that obliges Taylor Swift to do anything more. She made a product, she built a brand, she became successful from that brand. She can choose to expand that brand, shrink it down to make it more manageable, focus on a niche target audience that's going to be easier to maintain.... Whatever she wants.

It's her life, she can choose to spend the next eight months touring around the world performing or spend the next eight months with her family and friends and working on her relationships and what matters to her.

If, through some miracle, I became a decent singer/songwriter and became as successful and recognisable as Taylor Swift - I think I might feel overwhelmed by it all. I think by your standards I would be the most selfish person alive, because I might just decide that I would prefer to do something like Gaga's Roseland dates (or maybe a little bigger) rather than go on a huge tour. I might just tour a couple of cities and perform in small venues.

Why? Well I'd figure I don't need the money. I'd figure that although I would be so thankful and appreciative to my fans for accepting me, connecting with my music and buying my music (and clothes line or whatever BS) - undergoing such a huge WW tour would not be good for my mental health and it would just give me a bunch of anxiety and make me depressed.

I'd figure that I could do something like Gaga did with Roseland and livestream a date so that my fans could see the whole production and then spend the rest of my life taking care of myself first and the people around me. Doing what makes me happy and fulfilled and making music.

I don't know that this is how it would all go down, how I could I know? But it seems like a reasonable guess.

The thing is, if all of that did transpire, I don't think that would make me selfish. I don't think it's selfish to refuse to fly to Europe for weeks, with a huge production, to perform every weekend. If that's not something that would make me happy or fulfilled why should I do it? If the result is that I lose fans or fail to gain more then I would be okay with that happening... My fans got everything that they paid for, I put in as much work as I feel I'm capable of doing, I can continue to live my life the way I want to and make music and it's my fans decision to buy/not buy what I put out in the future. That all seems fair to me.

I don't think it's fair to try and control how these women manage their own brand and how these women live their lives. If they think a tour mostly limited to North America with a couple of dates overseas is what is manageable for them, then that's totally fair.

" know if I were a singer, I'd be on my knees thanking God that so many people all over the world want to see me sing live and I'd try my hardest to get to as many people as possible, even if I have to get a boat because I'm scared of flying and whatnot. And I know you might just say: "Well, good for you, you have the choice to be that kind of artist if you want." But that's the artist everyone should aspire to be. It's the least you can give your hardworking fans who buy all your stuff."

Actually what I would say is that, first of all it's easy to talk in hypotheticals - I could say "I know that if my neighbours house was on fire and they were away I'd kick down the door and run up the stairs to save the cat and dog" but that's easy for me to say when I'm not in that position and it's impossible for you to disprove.

Now I'm aware that I worked with hypotheticals above, but I didn't pretend it was fact, I used it as an example of what could happen - not what would. In this instance you say you know how you would act and that you know you would overcome all of these obstacles so you can righteously perform for your fans, because it's the least you can do - your using this hypothetical as a kind of evidence that since you would be able to be so righteous in this situation so should Taylor and Beyonce. It's an expectation, YOU would do all this stuff and therefore they should too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that claim you might very well believe that you would act like that - But I think if you were actually faced with that situation you would have a far different opinion.

I think you would be in for a rude awakening when it comes to the realities of tour life and how gruelling it is and even if you managed to do your first tour - I wonder, five albums in, if you would have the same perspective. I would be very surprised if you did.

I also don't think artists have to aspire to that, I think you're working off a romanticised idea of what an artist should be. There is nothing at all wrong with a person deciding that they don't want to live their life spending months on the road.

The fans who bought all your stuff already received everything they paid for - there is no obligation for you to fly around the world to perform for them too. They don't own you.

April 4, 2017

20 hours ago, alestevens said:

There are several theories that Taylor wanted to carry on with The 1989 World Tour until 2016 (all her tours took place on the span of 2 years except this one), but ultimately decided not to. Her tour was making a lot of headlines for several reasons and she was on the verge of overexposure. She had a rumored date in Philippines and she actually confirmed she was coming back to China in 2016 to play more cities back in November 2015, although that ultimately never happened.

I also think no one expected the major success the tour had in North America. She was always huge in touring there, but the amount of stadiums she was able to book was impressive. And she rarely has tours that have too many dates, so she probably decided she had already done too many and dragging it any longer wasn't a good idea!

Hmm, interesting. Though I don't see why expanding it in Asia of all places would cause overexposure. She needs more exposure in that region, if anything. Though performing in more than one Chinese city when she'd already done 3 in Shanghai is a bit of a risk. Not many Western artists can do that, unless you're Avril Lavigne. Strange that she'd stop the tour there if she had planned to take a big break afterwards. I thought stopping it when she did was a sign that she was going to continue her 2 year album gap routine, so she could have the next one out in that time limit, but no. Unless the break wasn't planned to be that long and she's now regretting not taking advantage of extra time to do more dates? You wouldn't think this was her peak era by the way she toured.

19 hours ago, Bebe said:

"They've clearly got fans that they aren't tending to. Touring is a big business, you can't just ignore some of the world's biggest music markets and then act like it's no big deal."

Musicians/Artists don't owe their fans anything. They certainly don't owe them months out of their lives. You can choose to have as large or as small a tour as you feel is comfortable. Touring is a big business that might not interest everyone, you might be an artist that feels more comfortable with limited dates in smaller venues or an artist that feels more comfortable doing stadiums around the world. Either seems fine

"Because living in LA, Australia isn't all that far away for her like it is for other people."

Going from a place like Los Angeles it's a 15 hour flight, Then she performs what like two 2hr shows in Sydney? Then travels 1 1/2 hours to Melbourne for two more 2hr shows. Then she can hardly miss out on Perth, that's super unfair - so that's a 4 1/2 hour flight to Perth for a couple more 2 hour shows. We’ve skipped Brisbane but oh well, it’s easier for them to travel to Sydney/Melbourne than it is for the good people of Perth who live on the other side of the continent.

That's 3 weeks in a foreign country, 21 hours of flight time (41 hours including the flight back from Perth), 12 hours performing, an uncountable amount of time for preparation, an uncountable amount of time in a hotel room.

Maybe Beyonce feels like that's 3 weeks of quality time she could be spending with her family instead of trapped in hotel rooms, that a total of 41 hours on flights sounds kinda crappy, that 12 hours performing is a lot of time to spend. Especially after already being on the road for 7 months.

Maybe combined with the costs of bringing her entire production down under she just felt (or her team just felt) like it was too much of a hassle, especially for little monetary gain.

Plus, that’s probably not even good enough – You’ve also expressed displeasure at the fact that she hasn’t traveled to:

Latin America (“She didn't even go to Latin America, just North…. My only reasoning for why she missed out Latin America was because she drained the region last time and wasn't as successful as she could've been.”)

Asia (“ she really has no excuse for missing out Asia. Japan is major music market and she clearly had a lot of success there before.”)

Africa (“you've at least got to go to SA. Beyonce is a huge role model to her black fans, someone like her would be so welcome in these parts. Not taking the Formation tour there was a huge missed opportunity”)

That’s three more continents, that’s getting expensive with the huge costs involved with bringing her entire production down, so you’re essentially asking for the tour be extended by another month or two. You can’t be playing one city in each continent - Maybe you do 2 shows in South Africa but you need to do at least 6 shows in Asia for it to be worth it… Maybe Japan, China, Singapore? Then Latin America… I suppose she would need to go to Brazil and then Columbia She did 4 shows in Brazil last time she went, maybe cut that to 3? Do 2 in Columbia?

I mean, this is only surface level stuff and already it’s looking like a big ask – especially when it’s less of an ask and more of a “Why isn’t she being criticized for NOT doing this????”

"Yes, Taylor is doing "just fine," but she could be doing better. She's always getting praised for her business tactics, right? "

Err I also swear I see people like you criticise her for being 'money hungry' so it's like she can't win. Taylor is worth 1/4 of a Billion dollars - she could retire tomorrow if she wanted to. Everyone could "Always be doing better" but there are more important things in life than making an extra couple of million dollars you don't need. There comes a point when I think it's fair to say "I'm worth $250 million dollars I could a long ass flight to another continent and spend a month touring for a couple of hundred grand, but that sounds unappealing and I don't need the money. I'd rather spend time with my loved ones because that's more important to me."

"I think expanding her brand globally should be of utmost importance to her. Having a 10 country 'world' tour when you're as big a name as her is pathetic, honestly."

How come you get to decide what Taylor's priorities should be? Maybe expanding your brand globally, would be of the utmost importance to you but maybe that's not so important to Taylor. She is worth 1/4 of a Billion dollars and seems pretty happy Maybe she feels like that's enough - I certainly think it seems pretty good. Why exactly should expanding her brand be of such importance to her? If you think Taylor Swift's tour is pathetic, I can only imagine the level of contempt you would feel for me! I'm nowhere close to achieving what Taylor Swift has.

"Gaga's nowhere near as successful as her right now and look how many European dates she has! You'd think Taylor would be looking at the European success of Gaga, Rihanna, Beyonce, Bruno, even Ariana, and thinking: "I've got to pull my socks up here if I want to look good next to them when I go to Europe.""

Gaga likes touring, if she wants to make the decision to tour more places than that's a decision Gaga can make I don't think Taylor needs to compare herself, I think it's such an unhealthy thing for anyone to do really. She is doing very well for herself and can live out the rest of her life very comfortably, if you're Taylor Swift and can't be content and comfortable with the place you are in now - you're never going to be happy.

"There's a difference between not touring somewhere because its not commercially viable and not touring somewhere because you think it just isn't worth it. The former is a business decision, which is fair enough, but the latter is personal bias, which is bad."

How? How is it bad? It's like if she makes a decision that isn't business related and is instead based on whether she wants to do something or doesn't want to do something it's 'bad' because it's a 'personal bias'

There is a cost/benefit analysis for every choice in life - If Taylor makes a cost/benefit analysis about extending her tour to all these different continents and extending her brand and decides that for her, personally, it doesn't seem worth it - that's totally okay! That's totally fair! It's her life!

Let's take what I assume to be 'worst case' scenario for you. Let's assume Taylor Swift doesn't want to tour heavily in Europe because she is happy with her current level of success and feels like it's going to be a lot of effort breaking into a touring industry in Europe and maintaining a hold in that industry. Maybe she doesn't want to expand so wide, because she thinks that's going to be too much for her

Maybe coming from a country background, she knows that most of her fanbase and her most loyal, long-term fans are situated in North America and so would prefer to make sure she covers as many places in N.A as possible to give those fans the chance to see her.

At the end of the day Taylor is more than a product, she is a human, and she gets to decide how she wants to live - if she doesn't want to spend months trying to build a reputation in Europe fine, if she knows that it means next time around she will be expected to extend her tour again in order to continue catering to that audience - that might seem like more than she is willing to do, and that's sounds totally fair to me.

" Unless she maybe thinks that she's so successful now that she can miss out whole countries, as she doesn't need to work so hard and the fans will come to her. In that case, that's unacceptable. "

Or maybe she feels like she is already financially secure and will be able to live very comfortably for the rest of her life so, instead of spending months of her life flying overseas and trapped in hotel rooms, she decides she doesn't want to expand so widely yet and that the work to do so just isn't worth it Seems totally acceptable to me whatever way you spin it really - it's her choice, she doesn't NEED to do some giant tour all over the world. That's a large commitment, and if she doesn't want to then fine that's her life.

"I've already said, the fans makes these artists who they are. For that reason, I think they are obliged to try harder and give something back."

And all the people who are fans and consumers of Coca Cola make Muhtar Kent (the CEO of Coca Cola) who he is, but I don't expect him to travel the world for eight months at a time doing two 2 hour press conferences every week.

Here's the thing - The fans got everything that they paid for, they are not entitled to more. Those fans chose to pay for a CD, they got the CD. They chose to buy her perfume, they got her perfume. They chose to buy a ticket for her last tour, they got to see her live in her last tour.

Nothing in that obliges Taylor Swift to do anything more. She made a product, she built a brand, she became successful from that brand. She can choose to expand that brand, shrink it down to make it more manageable, focus on a niche target audience that's going to be easier to maintain.... Whatever she wants.

It's her life, she can choose to spend the next eight months touring around the world performing or spend the next eight months with her family and friends and working on her relationships and what matters to her.

If, through some miracle, I became a decent singer/songwriter and became as successful and recognisable as Taylor Swift - I think I might feel overwhelmed by it all. I think by your standards I would be the most selfish person alive, because I might just decide that I would prefer to do something like Gaga's Roseland dates (or maybe a little bigger) rather than go on a huge tour. I might just tour a couple of cities and perform in small venues.

Why? Well I'd figure I don't need the money. I'd figure that although I would be so thankful and appreciative to my fans for accepting me, connecting with my music and buying my music (and clothes line or whatever BS) - undergoing such a huge WW tour would not be good for my mental health and it would just give me a bunch of anxiety and make me depressed.

I'd figure that I could do something like Gaga did with Roseland and livestream a date so that my fans could see the whole production and then spend the rest of my life taking care of myself first and the people around me. Doing what makes me happy and fulfilled and making music.

I don't know that this is how it would all go down, how I could I know? But it seems like a reasonable guess.

The thing is, if all of that did transpire, I don't think that would make me selfish. I don't think it's selfish to refuse to fly to Europe for weeks, with a huge production, to perform every weekend. If that's not something that would make me happy or fulfilled why should I do it? If the result is that I lose fans or fail to gain more then I would be okay with that happening... My fans got everything that they paid for, I put in as much work as I feel I'm capable of doing, I can continue to live my life the way I want to and make music and it's my fans decision to buy/not buy what I put out in the future. That all seems fair to me.

I don't think it's fair to try and control how these women manage their own brand and how these women live their lives. If they think a tour mostly limited to North America with a couple of dates overseas is what is manageable for them, then that's totally fair.

" know if I were a singer, I'd be on my knees thanking God that so many people all over the world want to see me sing live and I'd try my hardest to get to as many people as possible, even if I have to get a boat because I'm scared of flying and whatnot. And I know you might just say: "Well, good for you, you have the choice to be that kind of artist if you want." But that's the artist everyone should aspire to be. It's the least you can give your hardworking fans who buy all your stuff."

Actually what I would say is that, first of all it's easy to talk in hypotheticals - I could say "I know that if my neighbours house was on fire and they were away I'd kick down the door and run up the stairs to save the cat and dog" but that's easy for me to say when I'm not in that position and it's impossible for you to disprove.

Now I'm aware that I worked with hypotheticals above, but I didn't pretend it was fact, I used it as an example of what could happen - not what would. In this instance you say you know how you would act and that you know you would overcome all of these obstacles so you can righteously perform for your fans, because it's the least you can do - your using this hypothetical as a kind of evidence that since you would be able to be so righteous in this situation so should Taylor and Beyonce. It's an expectation, YOU would do all this stuff and therefore they should too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that claim you might very well believe that you would act like that - But I think if you were actually faced with that situation you would have a far different opinion.

I think you would be in for a rude awakening when it comes to the realities of tour life and how gruelling it is and even if you managed to do your first tour - I wonder, five albums in, if you would have the same perspective. I would be very surprised if you did.

I also don't think artists have to aspire to that, I think you're working off a romanticised idea of what an artist should be. There is nothing at all wrong with a person deciding that they don't want to live their life spending months on the road.

The fans who bought all your stuff already received everything they paid for - there is no obligation for you to fly around the world to perform for them too. They don't own you.

You did a lot of talking just to say the same thing over and over, so I'll condense it.

It's not that I'm making it so she can't win, I'm criticising other areas of her being money hungry like taking her music off Spotify, charging big prices for stadium gigs, suing people at the drop of hat. Speculation here, but similar to Beyonce, Taylor likes performing at these big venues not because of the large group of fans she's performing for but because of the money she'll earn from it. If they didn't care about the money, they'd be charging a lot less. They do these stadium gigs to pull in the most amount of money possible more than anything else. Doing a stadium gig in itself will mean more expensive tickets, but adding expense onto it because you're a big name is where it becomes annoying. Beyonce and Taylor won't do smaller venues to fulfil lesser demand in small countries because it's not a money spinner. The actual touring part, where they have to travel to multiple cities in one country just doesn't appeal either, unless it's America. I thought performing live on tour was something you did for the fans, not the other way around. Artists used to do nationwide tours when they came to your country and they asked reasonable prices, now they expect you to fork out hundreds to travel miles from your home to the capital city, maybe even go to a foreign country, perhaps even have to pay for accommodation for the night, plus pay through the nose for the actual tickets. It's like, is this a tour or a residency you're doing?

But Taylor has already made it perfectly clear that expanding her brand globally is of importance to her. She wouldn't have made pop music otherwise. But it's also clear that she's only interested in expanding it so much. A handful of countries getting into her per continent is fine with her. But for someone who gets all flustered at the thought of people listening to her music for free, you'd think she'd want to drain money from every single region that she could, right? If she's worrying about people listening to her music for free and missing out on the potential money, how about she makes up for that by promoting herself better in other countries and actually doing tours in these countries so that she can recoup some of the loss? See, Taylor's made a really bad business move by focusing on America so much because if, for any reason, they decide they don't like her anymore, what is she going to have to fall back on? America blew a bit hot and cold on BTW but that was ok because Gaga had the rest of the world to fall back on, mostly Europe, to get that touring money and all-round music sales. Its been the same for AP. And for Joanne, it's working the opposite way. But the point is, Gaga always has several continents to fall back on. What does Taylor have to fall back on if the worst comes to the worst? If the day ever comes that America gives up on her, she'll realise the error of her business plans.

Well, considering how much Taylor insists that her music can't be listened to for free, I'd say she doesn't feel financially secure and wishes she were richer. Artists who are happy with their financial situation don't feel the complaining about stuff like that.

Of course it's all hypothetical but the thing is, the mindset is certainly constant. I still am so moved by Gaga's first real motivational speech at the MB where she talked about how she was never brave but her fans made her brave and she thanks them for buying a ticket to her show. And that when she was a struggling artist, she was hoping that one day, one person would believe in her and how she believes in the dreams of all her fans. Stuff like that is what I would live to say to people on my own touring stage (not that that's ever going to happen). I would want to get my music out to everyone, to thank all those fans for believing in me. That would see me through any gruelling part of touring life. Plus, I'm not the kind of artist who would do energetic dance routines, so I wouldn't have to worry about working flat-out physically. It's not like tours are even going to come around all that frequently, unless you put out an album every year. Some artists have 3+ years between albums and tours, so it's not like you're always living on the road and you do have gaps between legs.

But you're entitled to your own way of thinking just as much as I am. Note that I'm in no way thinking that you're selfish for wanting to do smaller scale tours. I'm purely talking about artists with huge, global fanbases that are big movers in the industry. In my eyes, they have more of a duty to tour extensively. But it's all personal choice.

April 4, 2017

On 2.04.2017 at 0:24 AM, Creyk said:

Among Taylor Swift fans, it's known that Taylor barely tours outside of English-speaking / Anglophone countries because of her mom, who looks down upon non-English speaking places. She gave her a hard time when she went to Asia too, because her mom thinks that is beneath her.

I'm sorry, but what? What her mother has to do with this? It's completely ignorant and racist. D:

Is this real thing or joke?

April 4, 2017

Omg it's hilarious seeing the same person still pressed and writing Taylor essays almost three years after 1989

April 5, 2017

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

You did a lot of talking just to say the same thing over and over, so I'll condense it.

It's not that I'm making it so she can't win, I'm criticising other areas of her being money hungry like taking her music off Spotify, charging big prices for stadium gigs, suing people at the drop of hat. Speculation here, but similar to Beyonce, Taylor likes performing at these big venues not because of the large group of fans she's performing for but because of the money she'll earn from it. If they didn't care about the money, they'd be charging a lot less. They do these stadium gigs to pull in the most amount of money possible more than anything else. Doing a stadium gig in itself will mean more expensive tickets, but adding expense onto it because you're a big name is where it becomes annoying. Beyonce and Taylor won't do smaller venues to fulfil lesser demand in small countries because it's not a money spinner. The actual touring part, where they have to travel to multiple cities in one country just doesn't appeal either, unless it's America. I thought performing live on tour was something you did for the fans, not the other way around. Artists used to do nationwide tours when they came to your country and they asked reasonable prices, now they expect you to fork out hundreds to travel miles from your home to the capital city, maybe even go to a foreign country, perhaps even have to pay for accommodation for the night, plus pay through the nose for the actual tickets. It's like, is this a tour or a residency you're doing?

But Taylor has already made it perfectly clear that expanding her brand globally is of importance to her. She wouldn't have made pop music otherwise. But it's also clear that she's only interested in expanding it so much. A handful of countries getting into her per continent is fine with her. But for someone who gets all flustered at the thought of people listening to her music for free, you'd think she'd want to drain money from every single region that she could, right? If she's worrying about people listening to her music for free and missing out on the potential money, how about she makes up for that by promoting herself better in other countries and actually doing tours in these countries so that she can recoup some of the loss? See, Taylor's made a really bad business move by focusing on America so much because if, for any reason, they decide they don't like her anymore, what is she going to have to fall back on? America blew a bit hot and cold on BTW but that was ok because Gaga had the rest of the world to fall back on, mostly Europe, to get that touring money and all-round music sales. Its been the same for AP. And for Joanne, it's working the opposite way. But the point is, Gaga always has several continents to fall back on. What does Taylor have to fall back on if the worst comes to the worst? If the day ever comes that America gives up on her, she'll realise the error of her business plans.

Well, considering how much Taylor insists that her music can't be listened to for free, I'd say she doesn't feel financially secure and wishes she were richer. Artists who are happy with their financial situation don't feel the complaining about stuff like that.

Of course it's all hypothetical but the thing is, the mindset is certainly constant. I still am so moved by Gaga's first real motivational speech at the MB where she talked about how she was never brave but her fans made her brave and she thanks them for buying a ticket to her show. And that when she was a struggling artist, she was hoping that one day, one person would believe in her and how she believes in the dreams of all her fans. Stuff like that is what I would live to say to people on my own touring stage (not that that's ever going to happen). I would want to get my music out to everyone, to thank all those fans for believing in me. That would see me through any gruelling part of touring life. Plus, I'm not the kind of artist who would do energetic dance routines, so I wouldn't have to worry about working flat-out physically. It's not like tours are even going to come around all that frequently, unless you put out an album every year. Some artists have 3+ years between albums and tours, so it's not like you're always living on the road and you do have gaps between legs.

But you're entitled to your own way of thinking just as much as I am. Note that I'm in no way thinking that you're selfish for wanting to do smaller scale tours. I'm purely talking about artists with huge, global fanbases that are big movers in the industry. In my eyes, they have more of a duty to tour extensively. But it's all personal choice.

"Speculation here, but similar to Beyonce, Taylor likes performing at these big venues not because of the large group of fans she's performing for but because of the money she'll earn from it."

I mean... That sounds fine, but it is speculative...

Taylor says about touring larger Stadiums:

“When I was starting out I’d go on tour for three months and I was gone for three months, now, almost 10 years in, I thank God we get to play bigger shows so I don’t have to play as many. If we’re playing stadiums, I’ll do two or three a week, not five shows a week, then I get to fly home in between.”

She has large production costs for her tour, she obviously she needs to make that money back - but from her own mouth - she prefers Stadium tours to she has to do less dates overall Rather than doing five shows a week she can do two shows a week. Rather than staying 3 months on the road, she can fly back home to her loved ones...

"Beyonce and Taylor won't do smaller venues to fulfil lesser demand in small countries because it's not a money spinner. The actual touring part, where they have to travel to multiple cities in one country just doesn't appeal either"

Cool, makes sense Don't see anything wrong here.

"I thought performing live on tour was something you did for the fans, not the other way around."

It's a transaction for both... You don't have to tour for fans, fans don't have to buy your ticket if it's too expensive or whatever.

"Taylor has already made it perfectly clear that expanding her brand globally is of importance to her. She wouldn't have made pop music otherwise"

Not her touring brand... Which is what we are talking about right? I mean that's different.. Plus I mean she could potentially like pop music and it's not like Americans hate pop music
Like I said before, it's a large commitment - spending months trying to break into Europe and establish yourself as a touring force, having to maintain that by touring there for months next time... If that feels like it's too much for her then fine she is a human being who can make that decision.

"But for someone who gets all flustered at the thought of people listening to her music for free, you'd think she'd want to drain money from every single region that she could, right?"

lol, no I wouldn't think that. I wouldn't assume that there is a connection between her wanting to make more money through her singles and albums and her wanting to tour the world for months at a time.

"Taylor's made a really bad business move by focusing on America so much because if, for any reason, they decide they don't like her anymore, what is she going to have to fall back on?"

By that time that time she will probably be worth 1/2 a billion dollars instead and can just retire and fall back on that I suppose

"What does Taylor have to fall back on if the worst comes to the worst? If the day ever comes that America gives up on her, she'll realise the error of her business plans."

That's not really anybody's concern and I think that your posts make a bunch of assumptions. It assumes that for some reason her American market just totally crashes from stadium tours to being unable to sufficiently fill up arenas - I mean she also does stadium tours in Australia and Asia, I doubt Europe will be so pissed off with her that she will be unable to even do arenas.

If she sees a decline in her American market, maybe she will decide she wants to push into a deeper WW market and maybe she still won't I still don't see a reason why we should be criticising her for her choices though.

"Well, considering how much Taylor insists that her music can't be listened to for free, I'd say she doesn't feel financially secure and wishes she were richer. Artists who are happy with their financial situation don't feel the complaining about stuff like that"

Well no... That's not true To use my Coca Cola example again, I'm sure Muhtar Kent feels financially secure but he would still probably complain if people started drinking coke for free.
Taylor is still within her right to negotiate how much she thinks her music is worth.

How she chooses to make her money and how much she she makes is really unrelated to touring. Muhtar Kent is also probably pretty eager to make money off coke - but if he was told he could make millions of bucks going on tour for 8 months a year - he might decide that's just not something he is interested in doing.

Likewise Taylor might like to make money off her singles, albums, perfumes, apps or whatever she does and just not like the idea of touring for so long with so many dates.

"I would want to get my music out to everyone, to thank all those fans for believing in me. That would see me through any gruelling part of touring life."

Again though - you're making these 'factual' claims about hypothetical situations that are impossible for you to prove and impossible for anyone to disprove.

Here's the thing we are going to continue to disagree because we disagree on the very premise of the argument.

You think artists owe their fans something extra and therefore should tour for their fans.

I think fans pay for what they get and artists don't owe them any more than that.

April 5, 2017

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Hmm, interesting. Though I don't see why expanding it in Asia of all places would cause overexposure. She needs more exposure in that region, if anything. Though performing in more than one Chinese city when she'd already done 3 in Shanghai is a bit of a risk. Not many Western artists can do that, unless you're Avril Lavigne. Strange that she'd stop the tour there if she had planned to take a big break afterwards. I thought stopping it when she did was a sign that she was going to continue her 2 year album gap routine, so she could have the next one out in that time limit, but no. Unless the break wasn't planned to be that long and she's now regretting not taking advantage of extra time to do more dates? You wouldn't think this was her peak era by the way she toured.

She had more than enough demand to book more shows in China. Those 3 shows she did there were completely sold out in the span of 12 minutes.

I don't know. I legit wanted The 1989 World Tour to be THE tour of her career since the Red Tour was kind of a joke (in terms of countries visited) considering how much bigger she had got internationally with that era. But instead she did the same, probably even worse because she became even bigger and she actually managed to tour even less countries if i remember correctly!

April 5, 2017

20 hours ago, Bebe said:

"Speculation here, but similar to Beyonce, Taylor likes performing at these big venues not because of the large group of fans she's performing for but because of the money she'll earn from it."

I mean... That sounds fine, but it is speculative...

Taylor says about touring larger Stadiums:

“When I was starting out I’d go on tour for three months and I was gone for three months, now, almost 10 years in, I thank God we get to play bigger shows so I don’t have to play as many. If we’re playing stadiums, I’ll do two or three a week, not five shows a week, then I get to fly home in between.”

She has large production costs for her tour, she obviously she needs to make that money back - but from her own mouth - she prefers Stadium tours to she has to do less dates overall Rather than doing five shows a week she can do two shows a week. Rather than staying 3 months on the road, she can fly back home to her loved ones...

"Beyonce and Taylor won't do smaller venues to fulfil lesser demand in small countries because it's not a money spinner. The actual touring part, where they have to travel to multiple cities in one country just doesn't appeal either"

Cool, makes sense Don't see anything wrong here.

"I thought performing live on tour was something you did for the fans, not the other way around."

It's a transaction for both... You don't have to tour for fans, fans don't have to buy your ticket if it's too expensive or whatever.

"Taylor has already made it perfectly clear that expanding her brand globally is of importance to her. She wouldn't have made pop music otherwise"

Not her touring brand... Which is what we are talking about right? I mean that's different.. Plus I mean she could potentially like pop music and it's not like Americans hate pop music
Like I said before, it's a large commitment - spending months trying to break into Europe and establish yourself as a touring force, having to maintain that by touring there for months next time... If that feels like it's too much for her then fine she is a human being who can make that decision.

"But for someone who gets all flustered at the thought of people listening to her music for free, you'd think she'd want to drain money from every single region that she could, right?"

lol, no I wouldn't think that. I wouldn't assume that there is a connection between her wanting to make more money through her singles and albums and her wanting to tour the world for months at a time.

"Taylor's made a really bad business move by focusing on America so much because if, for any reason, they decide they don't like her anymore, what is she going to have to fall back on?"

By that time that time she will probably be worth 1/2 a billion dollars instead and can just retire and fall back on that I suppose

"What does Taylor have to fall back on if the worst comes to the worst? If the day ever comes that America gives up on her, she'll realise the error of her business plans."

That's not really anybody's concern and I think that your posts make a bunch of assumptions. It assumes that for some reason her American market just totally crashes from stadium tours to being unable to sufficiently fill up arenas - I mean she also does stadium tours in Australia and Asia, I doubt Europe will be so pissed off with her that she will be unable to even do arenas.

If she sees a decline in her American market, maybe she will decide she wants to push into a deeper WW market and maybe she still won't I still don't see a reason why we should be criticising her for her choices though.

"Well, considering how much Taylor insists that her music can't be listened to for free, I'd say she doesn't feel financially secure and wishes she were richer. Artists who are happy with their financial situation don't feel the complaining about stuff like that"

Well no... That's not true To use my Coca Cola example again, I'm sure Muhtar Kent feels financially secure but he would still probably complain if people started drinking coke for free.
Taylor is still within her right to negotiate how much she thinks her music is worth.

How she chooses to make her money and how much she she makes is really unrelated to touring. Muhtar Kent is also probably pretty eager to make money off coke - but if he was told he could make millions of bucks going on tour for 8 months a year - he might decide that's just not something he is interested in doing.

Likewise Taylor might like to make money off her singles, albums, perfumes, apps or whatever she does and just not like the idea of touring for so long with so many dates.

"I would want to get my music out to everyone, to thank all those fans for believing in me. That would see me through any gruelling part of touring life."

Again though - you're making these 'factual' claims about hypothetical situations that are impossible for you to prove and impossible for anyone to disprove.

Here's the thing we are going to continue to disagree because we disagree on the very premise of the argument.

You think artists owe their fans something extra and therefore should tour for their fans.

I think fans pay for what they get and artists don't owe them any more than that.

The problem I'm seeing as that they could be thinking: "This place won't earn me big money, so it's not worth going to, even though I have fans there who would want to see me and could fill a small arena. Small arenas are for flop artists who aren't as big and successful as me." Ego ensures that they stay away from smaller venues, even when they could quite easily do them. But what matters more - making your fans happy or refusing your fans at the expense of your ego?

Tyalor doesn't need to actually promote in Europe to be big at the moment. Her album was selling while she was in America the whole time. Her album was so big, it was just a force that spread throughout the world without her having to work for it. Lots of artists who tour outside their home continent don't actually promote in foreign continents, but they still tour there even so because, promo or not, they know they have fans there. Why else does Gaga keep going to Australia, even though she's left them out the loop promo-wise?

I really don't think your Coke analogy is working. You can't compare a singer to the CEO of a drinks corporation - completely different job and expectations.

But yeah, we're clearly not going to agree, ultimately. I suppose having a DVD of the tour helps a lot. But it is still ultimately like watching a music video, but live. Still not comparable to actually being there, which is what people pay for. Listening to Gaga when she's right in front of you is completely different to watching a taped performance of it through a computer screen.

19 hours ago, alestevens said:

She had more than enough demand to book more shows in China. Those 3 shows she did there were completely sold out in the span of 12 minutes.

I don't know. I legit wanted The 1989 World Tour to be THE tour of her career since the Red Tour was kind of a joke (in terms of countries visited) considering how much bigger she had got internationally with that era. But instead she did the same, probably even worse because she became even bigger and she actually managed to tour even less countries if i remember correctly!

Doesn't mean she'd have demand in other cities, though. Maybe Beijing, tops.

Yep, she became even bigger, yet toured in less countries. The Red tour went to 12 countries and it would've been 13 if the Thailand gig wasn't unexpectantly cancelled. She becomes even bigger with 1989, the biggest album of her career...and only performs in 10 countries. Now, I'm no mathematician or businessperson but...unless she's seriously trying to get the public so hyped up for her next tour in order for it to be her most extensive tour to date (which I doubt), then I really don't know what she's going for here.

April 5, 2017

1. They're human beings, they can only cope with so much travelling. It's unhealthy to constantly be on planes, whether any other artist does it or not.

2. They likely have ZERO control themselves over where the tour goes, so you are moaning about them for things beyond their control

April 5, 2017

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

The problem I'm seeing as that they could be thinking: "This place won't earn me big money, so it's not worth going to, even though I have fans there who would want to see me and could fill a small arena. Small arenas are for flop artists who aren't as big and successful as me." Ego ensures that they stay away from smaller venues, even when they could quite easily do them. But what matters more - making your fans happy or refusing your fans at the expense of your ego?

Tyalor doesn't need to actually promote in Europe to be big at the moment. Her album was selling while she was in America the whole time. Her album was so big, it was just a force that spread throughout the world without her having to work for it. Lots of artists who tour outside their home continent don't actually promote in foreign continents, but they still tour there even so because, promo or not, they know they have fans there. Why else does Gaga keep going to Australia, even though she's left them out the loop promo-wise?

I really don't think your Coke analogy is working. You can't compare a singer to the CEO of a drinks corporation - completely different job and expectations.

But yeah, we're clearly not going to agree, ultimately. I suppose having a DVD of the tour helps a lot. But it is still ultimately like watching a music video, but live. Still not comparable to actually being there, which is what people pay for. Listening to Gaga when she's right in front of you is completely different to watching a taped performance of it through a computer screen.

Well there is no way to know what they are thinking and I really doubt that's what they are thinking.

I already gave you a quote from Taylor

“When I was starting out I’d go on tour for three months and I was gone for three months, now, almost 10 years in, I thank God we get to play bigger shows so I don’t have to play as many. If we’re playing stadiums, I’ll do two or three a week, not five shows a week, then I get to fly home in between.”

That's not egotistical, that's just preferring to do larger shows so she doesn't have to be on the road as long and is able to fly home in between shows - obviously she doesn't like touring very much.

With Beyonce I think it's likely to assume that she doesn't want to do a huge WW tour and go continent to continent country to country because she has a five year old and her priorities are different.

Honestly though, I don't even care if that is what they are thinking. Singers shouldn't have to appease fans at the expense of their own life. Again there is this romanticised idea that these artists should only be focused on their fans and that their goal should be live for their fans and appease their fans. Maybe it would make fans happy if they went to their country and performed - but if they don't want to go, for whatever reason, then that's their body and their life.

"Lots of artists who tour outside their home continent don't actually promote in foreign continents, but they still tour there even so because, promo or not, they know they have fans there."

And if they want to make that choice cool, but you really have not convinced me that any artist needs to do that, should do that or should be criticised if they fail to do that.

"I really don't think your Coke analogy is working. You can't compare a singer to the CEO of a drinks corporation - completely different job and expectations."

The fact that they have a different expectation is completely the point though - the reason you keep giving that these artists should travel to all these countries and pick up these extra dates and spend weeks on flights and in hotel rooms is that - without the fans they would be nothing. That's true of every multi millionaire though.

Nobody expects the Coke CEO to make money by touring or also by selling perfumes or whatever - people are like "Whatever, I buy coke occasionally - when I pay for my coke I get my coke and the transactions over". Nobody is there demanding anything else of Muhtar Kent, nobody thinks he owes them anything because we made him the success he is.

With artists it's like "Okay, I paid for your CD (and received your CD), I bought your perfume (and I received your perfume), I bought your merch (and received the merch). I MADE YOU WHO YOU ARE, COME AND FLY AROUND THE WORLD TO PERFORM FOR ME!" It's outrageous. I mean you have expressed similar ideas, in a far less crazy way, that these artists should be grateful for the success their fans have given them and that 'fans makes these artists who they are. For that reason, I think they are obliged to try harder and give something back'.

I think it's because people see Taylor Swift and Beyonce as 'products' more than people. If Coke stopped selling coke in Australia there would be outrage similar to the type you describe and I could see why. I mean that's crazy! There is a demand for coke in Australia, there is money and profit to be made here! Why can't they bring coke here??? Does Coke think Australia isn't good enough???

With people it's different. People have their own lives, they have their own wishes, their own values, their own pressures, their own path. People get to choose what they want to do with their lives, where they want to go and what they want to do. They have needs and wants and emotions. If one of these artists isn't available in a certain country one of the major reason is that they are human beings and can't possibly go to every country where there is demand - and might not want to!

I just think you are making some pretty big assumptions about what these artists motivations/ what they are thinking, you have created this romanticised idea of how every single artist should be based on how some artists are/feel and you have treated Taylor and Beyonce more like coke cans than people.

Sign In

Beyonce and Taylor's touring practices

Featured Posts

Schwerk 7,244

Link to post

Share on other sites

Leeo 2,366

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,845

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bebe 17,093

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,845

Link to post

Share on other sites

alestevens 116

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bebe 17,093

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,845

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gardevoir 9,822

Link to post

Share on other sites

Spock 20,290

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bebe 17,093

Link to post

Share on other sites

alestevens 116

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,845

Link to post

Share on other sites

paul 687

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bebe 17,093

Link to post

Share on other sites

Archived

Themes