A question of wealth.

[Merf]

Originally Posted by David

Does anybody around here know how much these people have? How on earth would someone know that -- unless he or she was a personal accountant or manager?

For all I know, Stevie Nicks could have $200 million or $29.99.

Amen! I don't really see the use in speculating on it, IMO.

[Cour]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I just do not buy that about any of them. I never thought CM was really into it, but in that last interview she was like I stayed up for three days on it and DP and almost had a heart attack. I think they were all way, way into it, esp. considering the tenor of the times. I think they all, with the exception of Mick, stopped at various points in the 80's. Stevie perhaps being the last in 86', which was only a few years after LB if he indeed stopped in 82. I personally think he and Stevie look coked out of their respective heads in the Mirage video. Interestingly, I wonder if Stevie staying in vogue more and continuing the hectic pace caused her to stop later. LB did not do as much from 1982 to 1986 as she did. According to the article, Chis says she quit in 84 or 20 years ago.

I think Stevie is just more open about her personal turmoil than LB, although LB clearly admits to having his own demons and he certainly does not deny doing it. In many respects she probably thought the public probably cared and had to know since she had reached huge popularity and great success. In other words, she thought it better to get it out in the open by her first than have the Enquirer put it on the front page first, etc., and have to deal with that as well as recovery.

From all accounts, Lindsey, John and Christine did nowhere near the amount of cocaine as Stevie and Mick. Even if they induldged in the studio during the making of Rumours, their use of Cocaine was nowhere near as deadly an addiction or daily habit as it was for Stevie and Mick. You can paint this any way you like but Lindsey, John and Christine were not heavily into cocaine and were not addicts like Stevie or Mick. Lindsey has been open about his cocaine use and he's said numerous times that he was never heavily into it, didn't like the effect and thought it was a waste of a lot of money. Stevie has also said that Lindsey was never heavily into cocaine. Here is one quote and there are others:


"The '70s in general were anything goes. I didn't particularly care for it, but if you were making records you had to," he sniffs, "function on a certain level. Music through chemistry, hahaha! I was moderate in most areas, though we all did our share. Cocaine is far too expensive. You could blow an entire fortune on that stuff and I couldn't see myself doing that. In the '70s you would be snickering, like you were in on a joke."

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

In the end, I think they are both VERY wealthy. I just think Stevie's constant work and cover income perhaps caught up to LB's producer income, a large amount of which essentially stopped for eight to 10 years in 87 or 89 - although lessened, Stevie's did not. But, maybe his investments paid off for him. Hopefully, he did not lose 1/2 of that in the tech bubble and corp. fraud scandals on the late 90's and 2000-01. I know of few that did not. But, hopefully he did. I would not wish that on anyone .

I'm not into speculating about their income, that's why I quoted those articles. The words are from Stevie herself. Considering she made the statement about not being able to qualify for a mortgage in 1994 and there was no real income for her before the Dance came back around in 1997, I don't see a reasonable way she could have caught up to Lindsey. Stevie also said during the Dance in 1997 that Lindsey didn't have to do this for the money but the rest of them wanted to be able to put something away. Lindsey was also the producer for The Dance which sold 5 million copies.

I don't know anything about Lindsey's investments and why if at all you would bring up him losing any of his wealth in the tech bubble. If the point is to prove that Stevie is wealthier than Lindsey, as David pointed out, unless you can get a statement from his accoutant, this speculation is ridiculous, IMO. For all you know he might have made a fortune during the time period you're concerned he was losing money. If this is about doing everything possible to make Stevie look more successful financially than Lindsey than no amount of quotes are going to prevent this discussion from being spun in that direction.

[diamondsnake]

I'm sure all of them have more money then they know what to do with! I envy them!

I still think Stevie has more money and I wouldn't be suprised if her earnings for this tour are far more then Lindsey's. I mean if Stevie wasn't in the band they could only charge like twenty bucks for a ticket. She is the main draw. Period.

[Cour]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

I still think Stevie has more money and I wouldn't be suprised if her earnings for this tour are far more then Lindsey's. I mean if Stevie wasn't in the band they could only charge like twenty bucks for a ticket. She is the main draw. Period.

Did you read any of the quotes in this thread? I suppose fantasy can be a good thing but I don't see its purpose here.

Just my opinion, but Stevie is part of Fleetwood Mac. She has a larger fan base but her contribution in concert as a part of Fleetwood Mac is no more important than Lindsey's.

As for your dig about the twenty bucks, if Lindsey wasn't in the band they wouldn't have a record deal or be on tour doing 140 dates. You're aim is obviously to make Stevie look better at Lindsey's expense, it's getting old.

[Tango]

Originally Posted by Cour

As for your dig about the twenty bucks, if Lindsey wasn't in the band they wouldn't have a record deal or be on tour doing 140 dates. You're aim is obviously to make Stevie look better at Lindsey's expense, it's getting old.

Thank you Cour. I was biting my tongue. I don't get the attitude either. I don't think Stevie would get his comment either.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Cour

If this is about doing everything possible to make Stevie look more successful financially than Lindsey than no amount of quotes are going to prevent this discussion from being spun in that direction.

It's getting funnier and funnier to see how often people automatically jump to the conclusion that if one says something positive, then they're just going out of their way to puff Stevie up.
Haven't we proven in the past that it's simply that there are always two ways to look at things?
Some fans always seem too ready to believe the more cynical side of various arguments, and others tend to too-quickly believe the more optimistic ones.
(And I don't think any one of us is truly in-between, no matter what we may claim. If "outlook" has its own scale, then I think we'd all be nearer to one side or the other, than we would to the middle. It's the way it goes.)

So, Jason was pondering the fact that there were large periods of time where Lindsey had absolutely no new output from which to gain additional income, and that, while they were fair less successful than her previous endeavors, Stevie did have releases & tours (and cover song royalties) from which she could make additional income.
What's the big transgression?
It didn't seem like some pained attempt to make Stevie appear more successful, he was just presenting another possible way to look at it. But whatever. Conclusions will always be jumped to.

In my opinion, had Stevie been more frugal with her money, she probably would have been the most financially secure member of the band. But she's led a very lavish lifestyle, between the expensive cocaine-habit and her love of creature-comforts.
Christine, by her own admission, also loves creature-comforts, but recently she said, "financially I'm fine."

But as it stands, I think Lindsey is the most well-off, financially.
Among other factors, his willingness to "eat" thousands of copies of 'Say You Will' seems to be a good indication of this. However, it does seem that he simultaneously remains conscious of the fact that perhap his finances couldn't take too big of a hit... which is why he was counting on an extended tour in order to recoup whatever he would lose on the album.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

I still think Stevie has more money and I wouldn't be suprised if her earnings for this tour are far more then Lindsey's. I mean if Stevie wasn't in the band they could only charge like twenty bucks for a ticket. She is the main draw. Period.

Historically, Stevie tends to be the "bigger" draw, but I wouldn't say she's the "main draw." Definitely not.

"Fleetwood Mac" is the main draw.
And while I agree that Stevie's absence would (and did) hurt sales, the same is true of Lindsey.

They are both considered by the "casual fans" (and even some of the more diehard fans), to be extremely essential to Fleetwood Mac.
As is Christine.

The presence of all three will almost always assure high numbers... a combination of any two of the three will also be quite successful, though not quite as huge... but if the band were down to just one (or, as has happened, none) of the three, then sales would definitely hurt.
And I believe that would be true even if that "one" happened to be Stevie. It has been speculated, and I wholeheartedly agree, that a Fleetwood Mac tour with only Stevie, would most likely sell only slightly better than one of her solo tours.
So while she sells to a respectable amount of people as a solo act, she doesn't acheive the numbers Fleetwood Mac can and does with Lindsey and/or Christine also present.

[Cour]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

It's getting funnier and funnier to see how often people automatically jump to the conclusion that if one says something positive, then they're just going out of their way to puff Stevie up.
Haven't we proven in the past that it's simply that there are always two ways to look at things?
Some fans always seem too ready to believe the more cynical side of various arguments, and others tend to too-quickly believe the more optimistic ones. .

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, only summing up things from the posts I read even after facts were presented from Stevie's own words. What do you suppose Diamondsnake's intention was with that $20 comment?

Are some of the comments about Lindsey in this thread that I have responded to positive? Would you like me to point out the negative ones, even after the quotes from Stevie were presented?

Yes, there are two ways to look at things, are we going to rewrite history in this thread by everyone agreeing that Lindsey was almost as big a cocaine user as Stevie? Is that funny? If someone said Stevie was a thief and tried to rewrite history to say that Stevie was the one who mismanaged money from the band when FM was managed by Mick, somehow I think you'd have something to say, I know I would. If someone said the band would only be able to charge $20 if Lindsey weren't with the band, I think people would see that as a slam on Stevie and wouldn't see it as someone trying to puff Lindsey up.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

However, it does seem that he simultaneously remains conscious of the fact that perhap his finances couldn't take too big of a hit... which is why he was counting on an extended tour in order to recoup whatever he would lose on the album..

His comment about the album sales and what he was willing to sacrifice will probably be one of those discussions that will continue for all time. IMO he was trying to say that if he took the loss on this album he was going to be committed to touring and more albums in terms of what he would "owe" the record company. "IF" for any reason Stevie were to pull out after 40 dates, that was a chance he just couldn't take. I don't think he "believed" or had any reason to believe Stevie would pull out, but if I was his attorney or manager I'd make him fully aware of the financial obligations he would suffer "IF" that were to happen. He then made a business decision that he couldn't take that chance. Many fans seem to forget that the double cd discussion was going on when this country was about to go to war and a lot closer to 9/11 than we are now as we look back. This country was also in the middle of a major recession and no one knew what the touring market would be for Fleetwood Mac if the tour had to stop after 40 dates. I don't think the discussion only had to be "IF" Stevie pulled out. I think the discussion with any business manager and attorney would also be if the tour had to stop because this country were facing a deeper recession and a war worse than the one we're presently engaged in in Iraq. I know other fans have other opinions and the "Lindsey's broke cause he built that big 10 milllion dollar house" was right in the middle of the discussions about this a few months ago.

Please tell me it's time to drag out the Lindsey slapping Stevie thread and get that one going again. We need some of the fans who have been around for years to start another thread like that to puff Lindsey up a bit by dragging that old war horse out and trashing that discussion around for another 20 page run.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Cour

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, only summing up things from the posts I read even after facts were presented from Stevie's own words. What do you suppose Diamondsnake's intention was with that $20 comment?

Are some of the comments about Lindsey in this thread that I have responded to positive? Would you like me to point out the negative ones, even after the quotes from Stevie were presented?

Yes, there are two ways to look at things, are we going to rewrite history in this thread by everyone agreeing that Lindsey was almost as big a cocaine user as Stevie? Is that funny? If someone said Stevie was a thief and tried to rewrite history to say that Stevie was the one who mismanaged money from the band when FM was managed by Mick, somehow I think you'd have something to say, I know I would. If someone said the band would only be able to charge $20 if Lindsey weren't with the band, I think people would see that as a slam on Stevie and wouldn't see it as someone trying to puff Lindsey up.

Other than what diamondsnake posted, I guess I just don't see how anything that was said in this thread could be construed as purposefully "negative" towards Lindsey... unless I missed something, or unless someone is just being hyper-sensitive.

Is it not true that his solo albums sold less than Stevie's, and is it not true that he only toured once as a solo artist in 11 years' time, and is it not true that there haven't really been any huge hit covers of his songs, and is it not true that he did own a big house which he recently demolished and had rebuilt as an even larger house, and is it not true that he, too, did cocaine and marijuana (even though the former was done in much smaller quantities)?

I didn't see anyone saying that Lindsey did more cocaine that Stevie or Mick, or even as much as they did... I only saw people saying that it's not like Lindsey didn't do it at all. I also didn't see anyone questioning his character, or doubting his talents.

So, when those things are considered, why is it being "negative" towards Lindsey, just to speculate that perhaps Stevie has more money? Or that perhaps she's made more money than him since 1994-1997.
I'm not saying it's true... just that I don't see how it can be somehow viewed as being negative towards Lindsey, to speculate about it.

As for Lindsey's comments in the 'Destiny Rules' doc, he said, and I quote:

The only reason that I was willing to eat the kind of money that would have made the double album possible in terms of bringing the price down -- I had to contemplate a scenario which would have been to do much more touring, to do another album, and to do more touring after that. Now if there's any chance even that Stevie were to have pulled out after 40 dates, I couldn't take the chance and do that. Because, you know, I've got a family -- I have a new house to pay for.

To me, that sounds like someone who was concerned about a potential financial blow. I'm not deriding him for it, mind you, and I'm not questioning his motivations... quite frankly, I like these people, and in my opinion, the more money they make, the better. I like seeing the people I like, being successful... as dorky as that sounds. And I'd hate to see them lose money.
But, when makes that statement in the documentary, and mentions his family and his new house, it definitely sounds to me like he was worried about taking a big financial hit.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Well all I have to say on the subject of money is that they have a bucket load more than I do!

Pip

[Cour]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Other than what diamondsnake posted, I guess I just don't see how anything that was said in this thread could be construed as purposefully "negative" towards Lindsey... unless I missed something, or unless someone is just being hyper-sensitive.

I can requote all of Jason's comments but of course I'm being hypersensitive and jumping to conclusions. But what the heck, let's go for it and puff up Lindsey some more:

think it is because without them, Stevie in particular, neither Mick nor John would get the huge demand they have had with this record. Also, Stevie has a very savy, very manager - arguably one of the best there is. I am sure he negotiated her to get the most money per concert, his point being without her the demand could not sustain the 727, the suites, etc. - he would be correct in the sense that she is the most popular in terms of drawing a huge arena crowd

My guess is of the $650,000 - it gets broken down like this:

Stevie $300,000
LB $250,000
Mick $ 50,000
John $ 50,000

I agree in theory. But, if I was Stevie's manager/agent, you can bet I would have pushed for it unless she told me not to or something like that. Agents have a fiduciary duty to represent their client's best interests, which means using what ever assets that client has - Stevie's is she remained in the limelight, etc. - to put that client in the best position whatever that may be -money, power, number of tour dates, 18 songs on a record, staff, amenities, etc. So, in the end she may not have gotten it, if she even asked for it in the first place. Who knows for sure I guess.

I used to think that. But, then Stevie has toured essentially every other year since 1974. Almost all of those tours have made her money. I do not know of any of her tours that have not made her money with the exception of Tusk (and that is from MF so consider the source) and perhaps Timespace. Others may know this though. Also, the DC's made her a hell of a lot of money and she also made money from The Smashing Pumpkins and The Corrs. Other people have also recorded her stuff to less fame. Conversely, LB has not toured nearly as much and the OOTC tour was reported to have cost him a ton of money instead of making it for him. So, while LB certainly is not destitute and probably never will be, I tend to think La Nicks has made more money over the years because she has toured more and put out more product. Whether she kept it - now there is another question But, if there have been none of "those" expenses since she has been clean and sober since 1994, then she should have made tens of millions of dollars from 1994 to 2004. So, who knows.


I know - but that was awhile ago. I just do not see how he could have leved a year at the Four Seasons in BH I think more than once and not lived an extrvagant lifestyle. But, maybe he has kept a hold of it. I hope so and certainly he made a payload on this last tour.

He lived there then. But, I think he also lived there while he and K's current house was being built. Could you imagine that bill. A suite there that could accomodate his family is about $5,000 a night, which would be about $150,000 a month. I am sure he got a deal because of the number of days, but still, I am guessing $75,000 to $100,000 a month in the 90's and a little less in the 80's AND that is not counting room service, staff, etc.
Can you imagine

Did Law and Order and Go Insane sell well? I seem to remember they did not and I think he toured for one and not the other. OOTC (tour and record) did not not sell well, which is a shame IMO.

How can living for a year or two at the Four Seasons be anything close to "frugal"

I got The Corrs income from something Mick said in a recent interview. he said Stevie made a lot of money off of them or something like that. But, certainly she made the most off of the DC. Again, I heard it was way over $5 million, but others say it is closer to $3 million. So, let's say it was $4

Also, Stevie's parents are pretty wealthy in their own right and LB shared with two siblings (I think). So, who knows.

know that. But, my point is it cost a tom to live there. So, if he had no significant income for a few years, it probably ate into his stash. Plus, that house had to have cost 10 million dollars. So, while he certainly has a wad of money, I am just saying he spends it freely and most certainly is not frugal in that sense.

He may have invested wisely. I hope he did. I am just saying he is not frugal as that term is generally defined

He certainly did his share in the 70's and early 80's. Wasn't that (the band's consumption) and the excesses the reason why Mick states the Tusk tour grossed millions and no one made any money

I just do not buy that about any of them. I never thought CM was really into it, but in that last interview she was like I stayed up for three days on it and DP and almost had a heart attack. I think they were all way, way into it, esp. considering the tenor of the times. I think they all, with the exception of Mick, stopped at various points in the 80's. Stevie perhaps being the last in 86', which was only a few years after LB if he indeed stopped in 82. I personally think he and Stevie look coked out of their respective heads in the Mirage video. Interestingly, I wonder if Stevie staying in vogue more and continuing the hectic pace caused her to stop later. LB did not do as much from 1982 to 1986 as she did. According to the article, Chis says she quit in 84 or 20 years ago.

I think Stevie is just more open about her personal turmoil than LB, although LB clearly admits to having his own demons and he certainly does not deny doing it. In many respects she probably thought the public probably cared and had to know since she had reached huge popularity and great success. In other words, she thought it better to get it out in the open by her first than have the Enquirer put it on the front page first, etc., and have to deal with that as well as recovery.

In the end, I think they are both VERY wealthy. I just think Stevie's constant work and cover income perhaps caught up to LB's producer income, a large amount of which essentially stopped for eight to 10 years in 87 or 89 - although lessened, Stevie's did not. But, maybe his investments paid off for him. Hopefully, he did not lose 1/2 of that in the tech bubble and corp. fraud scandals on the late 90's and 2000-01. I know of few that did not. But, hopefully he did. I would not wish that on anyone .

Is it not true that his solo albums sold less than Stevie's, and is it not true that he only toured once as a solo artist in 11 years' time, and is it not true that there haven't really been any huge hit covers of his songs, and is it not true that he did own a big house which he recently demolished and had rebuilt as an even larger house, and is it not true that he, too, did cocaine and marijuana (even though the former was done in much smaller quantities.

Tell you what JS, maybe we can bring up all of Stevie's excesses and wastes, drug use and poor behavior over and over again and see who comes out to defend her. These things are true, why not drag them up over and over again just because it's fun to speculate and maybe this time we can puff up Lindsey. Is that what this is about?

I think there's big difference from the saying things the way you are in your post to painting the picture that Jason is. Is this about being a Stevie fan or Lindsey fan because I can pull out other quotes from the past few months too. You and Jason are right! Stevie was a much bigger solo success than Lindsey and she earned a hell of a lot more money than he did. I'm glad you repeated that for anyone who missed those facts, yet again. Yes, Lindsey did cocaine and pot too, I guess I can disagree with Jason as to how much he did, when he stopped and his openess in discussing it. After all, when the drug use of the band members has been brought up by hundreds of reporters over the years and the man says he really never did a lot of cocaine, didn't like the effect, never bought it himself and thought it was a waste of a lot of money, I don't have to believe him because this is all just speculation and it's fun.

I didn't see anyone saying that Lindsey did more cocaine that Stevie or Mick, or even as much as they did... I only saw people saying that it's not like Lindsey didn't do it at all. I also didn't see anyone questioning his character, or doubting his talents.


So, when those things are considered, why is it being "negative" towards Lindsey, just to speculate that perhaps Stevie has more money? Or that perhaps she's made more money than him since 1994-1997.
I'm not saying it's true... just that I don't see how it can be somehow viewed as being negative towards Lindsey, to speculate about it..

Did someone say Lindsey didn't ever do cocaine? I didn't say anyone said Lindsey did more cocaine than Stevie and Mick, I said there was an effort to rewrite history and make it appear that Lindsey did almost as much cocaine as Stevie. Did anyone say Stevie didn't earn a lot of money as a solo artist? There was and is an agenda in the original posts to paint Stevie in a certain light and Lindsey in a different light. I suppose I know where you stand so I guess it's okay to drag out these old war horse discussions every now and again because it's fun and we can always be sure some fans will be puffing up one band member in order to make the other one look just a little worse. Like I said, it seems like it's time for the Stevie slapping incident to be brought up again so we can all FIRE AWAY.

As for Lindsey's comments in the 'Destiny Rules' doc, he said, and I quote:


To me, that sounds like someone who was concerned about a potential financial blow. I'm not deriding him for it, mind you, and I'm not questioning his motivations... quite frankly, I like these people, and in my opinion, the more money they make, the better. I like seeing the people I like, being successful... as dorky as that sounds. And I'd hate to see them lose money.
But, when makes that statement in the documentary, and mentions his family and his new house, it definitely sounds to me like he was worried about taking a big financial hit.

It sounds to me the way I stated it in my original post. It sounds to me like a man who is not only looking out for himself, but now has a new family to be concerned about and owing the record company a large amount of money didn't seem like the responsible thing to do in light of his new priorities.

You're right JS, there are two ways to look at things, I guess it depends on the lens you're using and whether some fans feel a constant need to puff up one band member at the expense of another.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I doubt Lindsey's top concern was whether or not he earned to the dollar the same amount as Stevie when he was deciding whether or not to tour.

And how would you know that?

The whole reason he's out on the road now is for the money, he's pretty much said as much.

I swear, some people must have telepathic links to the Mac members.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I personally think he and Stevie look coked out of their respective heads in the Mirage video.

It doesn't help that he's smoking a big joint in it, either.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Cour

I'm not into speculating about their income, that's why I quoted those articles. The words are from Stevie herself. Considering she made the statement about not being able to qualify for a mortgage in 1994 and there was no real income for her before the Dance came back around in 1997, I don't see a reasonable way she could have caught up to Lindsey. Stevie also said during the Dance in 1997 that Lindsey didn't have to do this for the money but the rest of them wanted to be able to put something away. Lindsey was also the producer for The Dance which sold 5 million copies.

C'mon, dude! Do you honestly think she was saying that in all seriousness? We all know she loves to joke aorund a bit in interviews, there's no way she's being serious. I'll be the first to say that Lindsey is the wealthiest, but Miss Nicks isn't exactly so broke that she's selling her boots on Melrose Ave. Couldn't qualify for a mortgage? Please. She was joking, if anything.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

I still think Stevie has more money and I wouldn't be suprised if her earnings for this tour are far more then Lindsey's. I mean if Stevie wasn't in the band they could only charge like twenty bucks for a ticket. She is the main draw. Period.

How do you come to the conclusion that she's made the most money? A few of her tours were flops (even though the SA tour was simply brillaint and amazing), she blew a LOT of her money on coke up to '86, her albums sold less and less, etc. My word, even STEVIE said that Lindsey has made more money than all of them.

Again, she is not the main draw to a Fleetwood Mac concert, the main draw is Fleetwood Mac. If she was the biggest draw, her solo tours would be blockbusters. They are not. She's making the same amount of money off of the tour as Lindsey, just as she's making the same as he on the SYW album. Actually, I believe he's making even more than her on that because Peacekeeper was pretty big hit for him.

NOTE: Don't automatically assume that I'm putting Stevie down by saying that Lindsey has more money. None of those statements reflect anything about the quality of her work.