« Big Facebook, MySpace Joint Announcement Today | Main | How 550,000 Artists Collaborate & Create Together »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Surely smaller bands touring more is just out of necessity? That's how they pay the bills, whereas a bigger act might have other avenues to fall back on, or, just make enough from high ticket prices at their arena/stadium gigs that they can afford to gig less (or gig the same as they did three years ago).


I think you are wrong about that Dylan. It's not that they HAVE to tour, it's that they CAN tour now. I don't think that those bands were making so much money from there 22 shows a year in 2007 that they didn't care about doing more shows. Indie bands have a higher profile than ever, meaning that there are more oppertunities to play and actually draw a crowd. If these bands were really touring more purely out of need for cash, they'd have better luck staying in town and getting a fast food job...


Left Indianapolis off the list? People there are so starved for ANY tour to come through that it makes them incredibly rabid audiences!

just sayin

huge statistical flaw by using population as the baseline for rock score. cities with smaller populations or cities with smaller latin populations inordinately skewed.

new york and los angeles are obviously one and two with san francisco, boston and chicago rounding it out. just based on a proper baseline accounting.

good luck explaining results above, when every single viewer knows the NY LA SF BOS CHI markets are inordinate leaders answering the question youre attempting to answer with austin madison new orleans las vegas and denver.

Maria from Wisconsin

In the article they spelled Madison wrong!! In the paragraph under the red graph They added an extra i.


Wisco rocks! We've got two in the top 6.


Unless I'm missing something Songkick has made the classic mistake of confusing quantity with quality. If the only metric used in this "study" was rock concerts per capita than the results of this study should be called "Top 10 cities with the most rock concerts per capita." Nothing about this data suggests these cities are tops in anything else and certainly not the best as the Hypebot headline alleges. This is really a case of mislabeling and false headlines.


In Wisconsin we have Summerfest in Milwaukee where you can see top touring bands (5 to 7 per night) for the $12 entrance fee. In Madison last month we had the Goo Goo Dolls and Guster and for $45 you could have seen both. Wisconsin knows how to rock.


Interesting. Not sure I agree with the stats. There are also a lot of other factors that aren't considered here - like number of original bands vs. cover bands. But if it's correct, it's a pretty sad comentary on Rock concerts in general - because I have always felt there could be more venues in Madison - and more support for music in general. The current culture is to support cover bands. People want to hear the stuff being played on the Radio. Original bands end up performing at Pay for play venues and most new bands don't survive for long. We're quickly approaching the day when we'll be listening to the same music over and over and over.


Yeah I'm in San Francisco right now, which is insane to be left off since there are definitely many more shows, but I live in Madison. Our scoring 2nd highest has got to be absolutely wrong. We do get a lot of shows, but if they're new bands just traveling from elsewhere in the midwest to cram on a 4-5 band bill on a weeknight where it's free admission or $5 if you want $1 PBRs, it will skew results tremendously. We used to have more shows 10 years ago before a couple clubs burnt down and bands began skipping us as a tour stop, and we really never recovered from that.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources