A question of wealth.

[MirrorInTheSky]

Ok, all of this talk about ticket prices and so forth has me wondering about the wealth of the members and their pay structures. Does anyone know how wealthy any of the members are? And as far as payment for albums and tours, do they split it 25% each? Does Mick get more for being 'the boss'? I would imagine that Stevie and Lindsay are fairly well off since they get the royalties for writing their own songs. It seems that Stevie would be the most well off considering the success of her solo material, and I'm sure she received a windfall this past year or two with the Dixie Chicks version of Landslide being the most played country song of the year. Any thoughts?

[ShangriLaTroubl]

No-one really knows for sure, although we do know they make A LOT of money....they don't make their money based on the ticket prices though. They are given a nightly guarantee from their promoter , ya know like THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL MAKE EVERY NIGHT, kind of thing, and in turn depending on how much they demand that indirectly drives up the ticket prices, as do a lot of other factors.

Also I may be wrong, but I don't think Mick IS in fact the "boss" anymore. I did read that he was taken from that position many years back. There's so many details that come into how much they make, songwriters get seperate songwriter royalties, etc etc...it's a lot....but I would say, Stevie is the wealthiest as well....although it does depend on who spends the most money...She is worth many many millions, as they all are..

Chris

[madformac]

Difficult to guess at. I think I read somewhere that the 3 concerts at Earls Court last year grossed about $4 million, which would be substancially less after expenses.

I also believe I read somewhere Lindsey and Stevie earned around $9 million upto the end of the Australia leg. So I would hazard a guess the main members would recieve upto maybe $50,000 a concert each.

I would expect Mick and John to get the same or close during a tour, unlike recording an album unless of course songwriting credits come into it too. Again I remember Mick mentioning once that touring pays the bills for him. Fleetwood Mac have to tour for him to make money, in the studio he is just paid as a drummer.

Hard to tell really without being their accountants.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

According to Rolling Stone, and other articles they were guaranteed $750k per night for the first 40 dates , thats nearly 190k per member each night...for the first 40 dates...although they did say that number went down after the first 40 dates...
Rolling Stone mentioned that Fleetwood Mac "gave" the 2nd leg of the US Tour to the promoter, so they probably earned little money for those 30 dates...(of course little to them is diff to me.)

I would say after the first 40 shows they were probably working on a 300k per night guarantee, which if that is correct, by now each member (if it were split evenly) would have earned around 12 million each by the end of this tour

Also according to Forbes they were given a "lucrative" advance from WB for Say You Will.
Chris

[dissention]

Mick and John can't make more than $50,000 each per show. Stevie and Lindsey make quadruple that amount per show, at least.

[chiliD]

Mick and John can't make more than $50,000 each per show.

And, why would that be?

[HomerMcvie]

I'll bet the live show guarantee is divided equally, because that's still a hell of alot of dough. Stevie and Lindsey get their songwriter royalties, and Lindsey gets producer royalties, so they're making considerably more in the long run.
I could be wrong( :lol: ), but it IS Mick and John's band. I know S&L could refuse to tour unless they got a bigger share, but I doubt that's the case.

[strandinthewind]

And, why would that be?

I 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. Please do not read into this that I am saying the other three are not talented, not worthy, etc. They are and I love them. I am just saying that they all have managers/agents and they have them for a reason, which is to represent their interest in the most effective way. Representation of that interest in that world means more per night, etc. BUT, they could have put all of that aside and divided it four ways a la the cast of Friends when then negotiated their per episode compensation. Or, they could have had a standing agreement for the pro rata share for all FM shows since Tusk, when the managers first appeared. So, who knows.

Also, some money must be paid to CM for "The Chain," "Don't Stop" and "World Turning" if she retained rights. I think the other songs they sing that she did not write may be sung without remuneration to CM.

Interestingly, if you look at Stevie's Enchanted and TISL ticket prices, you can get a general sense of what it takes for Stevie to go on the road in similarly high style. She has a private jet. She has the suites. She has a smaller band, but it still is pretty large (three guitarists, two percussionists, two back up singers, etc. ) - I think those tickets topped out at somewhere around $80 on average. I know this is a few years later, they are playing at times larger arenas, etc. But, it is a fairly accurate general assessment.

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

But, we will never know - it is fun, however, to speculate however :cool:

also, it is important to remember that not all of the per concert remuneration goes to the artist. The manager/agent has their take, Uncle Sam gets his take, etc. So, if my numbers are correct for this hypo. LB would take home about $100,000 or so per concert.

[Patti]

Well, strand, assuming those numbers are correct, $100,000 for a day's (night's) pay, is none too shabby! :)

Patti

[strandinthewind]

Well, strand, assuming those numbers are correct, $100,000 for a day's (night's) pay, is none too shabby! :)

Patti

I'd take it any day of the week :laugh: I was just noting the initial amount is not reflective of what they actually take home just like my salary is not what I take home (DDAAMMMNNNIIITTTTTTTTT :laugh: ) - so that $650 a night pays more than just the four.

Also, I wonder of Stevie pays Karen J. and if LB pays Ray L. If so, their pay (prob. at least $1,500 a week plus per diem) comes out of the take home amount. Many times, the associates fees are not taken out of the star's take home and instead charged to the tour.

[Cour]

Here are some quotes from John Run, a ledgie who is in the business and has posted about the earnings of the band members for the SYW tour. John's information has always been accurate. I don't ever see Stevie being paid more money than Lindsey or Christine as a member of Fleetwood Mac, no matter how wonderful her solo career is at the time FM tours.



1. "FM is touring because they want to be together. They do not need the money, with maybe the exception of Mick. Over the last 8-9 years he has finally begun to recover from 30 years of excessive spending and bad business decisions.

Stevie and Lindsey when all is said in done with this tour and all of its associated revenue streams they will have grossed upwards of 15 mil each 2003 and 2004 combined. That far exceeds what Stevie made from TISL's revenue streams. It also far exceeds Lindsey's earnings from any single music project from any other time in his career.

John and Mick will probably realize 10 mil in that time. Again the height of their take from music.

So yes lots of money involved. They have made more money than most of us over an 15 month period (May 2003-August 2004) than most of will see in a lifetime. To put this in perpesctive a person could earn an average 100,000 a year from their job (the averge income in the US is 43K) for 45 years and earn 4.5 mil in their lifetime from work.

They don't need to do it. They are doing it because they get paid well and they can demand to get paid well, however in the end if there was no desire to do it, they would not be there. Enjoy the music. It is a good time to be a Fleetwood Mac fan!!


One post script. Stevie did not earn 5 mil from the Dixie Chicks Landslide. There was probably a 250k flat fee paid to record it and then another 2 million in royalities both from album sale and airplay royalties. The average number 1 song earns about 1.25 mil in songwriting airplay royalities. What may have helped landslide earn a little more was its crossover success. Heavy airplay on country formats, AC, HAC, AAA. That is a lot of airplay. Also her versions of Landslide still earn royalty money.

The songs to date that are believed to have earned the most royalty money are Yesterday and believe it or not I will Always Love You which has earned its song writer Dolly Parton upwards of 8mil."




2. "To the best of my understanding the way it is working on this tour is the band is guaranteed 600,000 per show by concerts west. From that guarantee the cost for production, venue, travel, and personnel must be paid. On average 300,000 per show. Buckingham and Nicks each have a guarantee of 100,000 per show. McVie and Fleetwood 50,000 per show. After the guarantees are met then the rest is profit to be split among the band, promoters, mgmt, and bonuses to backing players, crew,etc. If a show grosses 1,000,0000 the band is getting about 200,000 additonal per show. There has been only one show, Grand Forks that did not break even. With 71 US dates that is a lot of money! Europe and AU are probably a little different, but needless to say those will be 27 more profitable nights for Fleetwood Mac. 30 more outdoor shed dates in the summer of 2004 will add to the money for all. Sheds are less expensive to play which means more profit!"




3. "The numbers posted are for there 70 US dates and do not include the 15 dates they played in Europe in November and December.

My understanding of the money breakdown. The cost per show was around 600-700k. This included a 250k guarantee to the band. (Which is why concerts west got the deal. Clear Channel was only offering a 200k guarantee) The remaing 300k per night was profit. A good chunk of which went to Concerts West. However based on a 300k profit the band was splitting another 100-150k per night in addition to the guarantee. The range there depends on how much the band was giving back as profit sharing to its additional players and 80 or so tour personnel. Rough estimates on what the band made for 70 us dates. Lindsey and Stevie 8-9 mil. Mick and John 5-5.5 mil.
A good 6 months of work. The 15 dates in Europe, the dozen dates down under and 30 dates in the US this summer stand to gross them another 40 million. Profits will be a little less in in EU & Aus, but a little more if they play sheds. So the band members stand to bring in 9-15 million each for there 130-145 dates of touring

No they don't include merchandise. That is a whole other segment. Most likely that works out to paying the promotions company they contract with to coordinate its design, production, and sale. After costs that company takes it share and the rest is usually split evenly among the band. It is a signifcant chunk of change to you and I, but in terms of the other money we are talking about not all that much. Probably adds another 500k to each of there total takes.

Stevie and Lindsey get more because their agents got them more during negotiations with Concerts West and the band. Nothing to do with songwriting royalties per se. Has to do with the fact Stevie and Lindsey are the front men for the tour and without them there would be no million dollar per night grossing tour. The 50,000 per show guarantee is the most money Mick and John have realized from long term touring ever. This practice is common with established bands. Henley and Frey make more when the Eagles tour. The only money Christine now makes from Fleetwood mac are for songwriting royalities and album share payments "

[strandinthewind]

EEK - I thought the $650 or $750 per night was split (in some manner) amongst the FOUR and then each one of the four pays the people they are obligated to, like their managers. If the four are guaranteed only $300 or so a night with a percentage of the overage, then that is diff. But, using the figues from John Run (thank you John Run!!!) Stevie and LB are still making around $100,000 in take home a show. Not bad either way :laugh:

[dissention]

And, why would that be?

I don't know, you seem to know the answer, enlighten us mortals. :wavey:

[dissention]

EEK - I thought the $650 or $750 per night was split (in some manner) amongst the FOUR and then each one of the four pays the people they are obligated to, like their managers. If the four are guaranteed only $300 or so a night with a percentage of the overage, then that is diff. But, using the figues from John Run (thank you John Run!!!) Stevie and LB are still making around $100,000 in take home a show. Not bad either way :laugh:

Exactly. Take $300,000 and look at the four members. Does anyone honestly think that they're going to divide it up and give Mick and John almost the same pay as the two stars? Hell no. The reason Mick is always pushing to go on the road is because that's how he makes his money; he barely makes anything from the studio albums because he doesn't produce and he doesn't write. Same for John. I would think that Stevie and Linds make about $100,000 per show, and Mick and John make $50,000 each.

[dissention]

I 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. Please do not read into this that I am saying the other three are not talented, not worthy, etc. They are and I love them. I am just saying that they all have managers/agents and they have them for a reason, which is to represent their interest in the most effective way. Representation of that interest in that world means more per night, etc. BUT, they could have put all of that aside and divided it four ways a la the cast of Friends when then negotiated their per episode compensation. Or, they could have had a standing agreement for the pro rata share for all FM shows since Tusk, when the managers first appeared. So, who knows.

There's absolutely no way that Stevie makes more than Lindsey on this tour. Never. I don't think his manager would go for it and I don't think he'd go for it. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

There's absolutely no way that Stevie makes more than Lindsey on this tour. Never. I don't think his manager would go for it and I don't think he'd go for it. :laugh:

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 think FM may have an agreement of somekind in place about the pro rata for touring so they do not have to get into it everytime - that way they would avoid this exact negotiation headache.

[dissention]

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.

Oh, I agree. I'm sure her managers wrangled to the death to get her even one grand more than Liddy Buck. But if Lindsey and his managers did not approve of it, they would have said sorry and would not have signed the contracts, resulting in a modern-day TITN. :laugh:

[Tango]

Ok, all of this talk about ticket prices and so forth has me wondering about the wealth of the members and their pay structures. Does anyone know how wealthy any of the members are? And as far as payment for albums and tours, do they split it 25% each? Does Mick get more for being 'the boss'? I would imagine that Stevie and Lindsay are fairly well off since they get the royalties for writing their own songs. It seems that Stevie would be the most well off considering the success of her solo material, and I'm sure she received a windfall this past year or two with the Dixie Chicks version of Landslide being the most played country song of the year. Any thoughts?

I guess you are asking who is the most personally well off in the total picture? I wonder if anyone knows the answer. Stevie's had a successful solo career, but, just as with Fleetwood Mac, there's a lot of overhead, including paying (in Stevie's solo tour) the back up band, the back up singers, the crew (roadies, etc), and the lavious manner in which bands live. It doesn't sound like the crew is staying in the deluxe accomodations (according to Cory's reports), but they aren't sleeping on cots in tents. Whatever it is, this band certainly seems able to afford living well on the road.

And why not!? We don't seem to shy from paying for tickets, albums, DVDs, and the trinkets. Some of us have also paid for airfair and some pretty decent accomodations along the way as well. (I guess the difference is some of us have credit cards that are on FIRE!) :shrug:

Stevie mentions she doesn't have to worry about a new morgage and raising a family. Could be that most of her major expenses are behind her at this point. It's a good place to be.

[hayley]

Lindsey has more money than anyone else in the band, if we're talking simply in terms of general wealth.

[dissention]

Lindsey has more money than anyone else in the band, if we're talking simply in terms of general wealth.

:nod: Even Stevie herself said so. Not only did he get loads of money from the touring, but he also gets royalties from his songs and he's produced many Mac albums. I read something from her where she said he never spent anywhere near the obscene amount of money the rest of them did and that he wisely invested a LOT of his money.

[strandinthewind]

Lindsey has more money than anyone else in the band, if we're talking simply in terms of general wealth.

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 :cool: 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.

Again, I think it is fun to speculate and none of us really know for sure.

[strandinthewind]

:nod: Even Stevie herself said so. Not only did he get loads of money from the touring, but he also gets royalties from his songs and he's produced many Mac albums. I read something from her where she said he never spent anywhere near the obscene amount of money the rest of them did and that he wisely invested a LOT of his money.

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.

[Tango]

But, maybe he has kept a hold of it. I hope so and certainly he made a payload on this last tour.

Oh . . . I disagree. I hope he hasn't kept a hold of it and has to keep on working! LOL! It might be a great motivator to getting the boy out on the road sooner!

[dissention]

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.

The OSOTM and SA tours weren't exactly blockbusters, my friend. :laugh: I have a hard time believing she made that much of a profit on those tours.

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.

She made a little under $3 million from the Dixie Chicks' Landslide, and much, much, much less from the Smashing Pumpkins and Corrs covers. The reason Landslide netted her so much was because it was an enormous hit, not so with any other covers of her material.

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.

Yeah, but she also blew a lot of her money away on cocaine and I can't see where she made much money from '92-'96, with the exception royalties and such. She made just as much as Lindsey and Chris when The Dance rolled around, so...Again, Stevie has said before the Lindsey got the lions share of the dough and that he invested wisely.

Again, I think it is fun to speculate and none of us really know for sure.

Exactly. None of us know, but it sure as hell is fun. :lol:

[dissention]

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.

Yeah, but he lived there during the 80s, if I remember correctly. Stevie's comment was made in the nineties, I think '94. I have to dig that sucker up. :laugh: She specifically said that he made most of the money out all five of them and a lot of it came from his producing.

[hayley]

Like Diss said, Stevie's tours did not all make a ton of money- some outright lost money. She hasn't made *that* much off of those covers (especially The Corrs, Smashing Pumpkisn, Hole, etc- she's made VERY little off those), and her solo album sales have been good, but in terms of P&Ls probably haven't been the most successful. I have no doubt that she's had more $$$ coming in at times than LB, but she's not frugal. He's famously frugal. He started out as a well-off kid, and from what I've heard, has always been smart about investing his cash well.

Combine that with his production credits and royalties that the other band members don't have- on a lot of stuff, Lindsey's made 2X the amount of royalties as Stevie, and even more than Mick & John- he's rolling in it.

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, but he lived there during the 80s, if I remember correctly. Stevie's comment was made in the nineties, I think '94. I have to dig that sucker up. :laugh: She specifically said that he made most of the money out all five of them and a lot of it came from his producing.

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.
:shrug: Can you imagine :eek:

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.

[strandinthewind]

Like Diss said, Stevie's tours did not all make a ton of money- some outright lost money. She hasn't made *that* much off of those covers (especially The Corrs, Smashing Pumpkisn, Hole, etc- she's made VERY little off those), and her solo album sales have been good, but in terms of P&Ls probably haven't been the most successful. I have no doubt that she's had more $$$ coming in at times than LB, but she's not frugal. He's famously frugal. He started out as a well-off kid, and from what I've heard, has always been smart about investing his cash well.

Combine that with his production credits and royalties that the other band members don't have- on a lot of stuff, Lindsey's made 2X the amount of royalties as Stevie, and even more than Mick & John- he's rolling in it.

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

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 :shrug:

[chiliD]

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

Priceline.com :laugh:


Plus, since he comes from a well-to-do family, his inheritance probably has been pretty significant, as well.

[strandinthewind]

She specifically said that he made most of the money out all five of them and a lot of it came from his producing.

She said something like the producers get paid first and then the songwriter, performer, etc. She made it in ref. to Mick and John I think and then went on about LB. That is my point though. I wonder if that still is true. She certainly has has success since then. I mean Enchanted was a reissue that cost little to produce and even though it was not a hit by any means, it sold okay. As an aside, I think the most $$$ per issue they have made was off od FM GH. That has sold millions and it essentially was a reissue with little production costs. CHA CHING!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Priceline.com :laugh:


Plus, since he comes from a well-to-do family, his inheritance probably has been pretty significant, as well.

LMAO - can you see it - bidding on the Presidential Suite at the Four Seasons for a year. Shatner would give LB a personal note of thanks for that commission LOL!!!!!!!

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

[hayley]

strand, I can tell you exactly how many copies of "Home" were sold, and I can tell you exactly how many spins "Landslide" has received at radio to date in the United States, and Stevie's paycheck off of "Landslide" was more than likely approximately $2.5 million and not much more.

[Tango]

Priceline.com :laugh:


Plus, since he comes from a well-to-do family, his inheritance probably has been pretty significant, as well.

He spent the early money he inherited on some multiple track recorder. Hopefully he's spent later inheritance money on the facility he is building at home. Like I said, I hope he finds that he NEEDS to work. This "Rumours" generation group of the FM band got waaaaay too comfortable early on ("money in the washing machine") and never felt the belly hunger of having to scrape and work - we made them rich and lazy.

I hope the Buckinghams had MAJOR room service while living in the 4 Seasons during the building of their hotel! :laugh: I hope Mrs. B. does some serious shopping. To quote the Eagles, "take it to the limit one more time." Let's get this band spending more and MAYBE they'll be motivated to get some more music out! ;)

[dissention]

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.
:shrug: Can you imagine :eek:

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.

You're losing your point. :shrug: :laugh:

What does living at the Four Seasons tell you? That he could afford it. Do you think he would be so dumb as to live there knowing that it would deplete a great deal of his wealth? I think not. He was the richest one, he could afford living there for so long.

[strandinthewind]

strand, I can tell you exactly how many copies of "Home" were sold, and I can tell you exactly how many spins "Landslide" has received at radio to date in the United States, and Stevie's paycheck off of "Landslide" was more than likely approximately $2.5 million and not much more.

Then there you have it :cool:

[dissention]

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 :shrug:

How could she make a ton of money off of that Corrs cover? I don't get it. :shrug: It wasn't a hit single, to the best of my knowledge, and was but one of eleven covers on a Rumours tribute album.

And refer to the numbers John Run posted when it comes to Landslide. She got a base fee of $250,000 for giving them the rights to record it. Then she made $2 mill off of it's single success.

[strandinthewind]

You're losing your point. :shrug: :laugh:

What does living at the Four Seasons tell you? That he could afford it. Do you think he would be so dumb as to live there knowing that it would deplete a great deal of his wealth? I think not. He was the richest one, he could afford living there for so long.

I 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.

[dissention]

I 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.

My whole point is that he took all the money that he made and INVESTED it wisely. There are numerous quotes from Stevie saying as much. For all we know, he invested in a small company that made it big and made $60 million off of that one investment. ;) I find it hard to believe that he would stay at the Four Seasons without a steady source of income and let the bill for it eat away at a lot of his money. It's implausible.

[strandinthewind]

How could she make a ton of money off of that Corrs cover? I don't get it. :shrug: It wasn't a hit single, to the best of my knowledge, and was but one of eleven covers on a Rumours tribute album.

And refer to the numbers John Run posted when it comes to Landslide. She got a base fee of $250,000 for giving them the rights to record it. Then she made $2 mill off of it's single success.

I was also played in concert and there were the DVD sales. So, she got money off of that. Plus, it was a hit in Europe and around the world. I am just speculating off of that. But, if people in the industry say differently - who am I to argue :laugh: Plus and as an example of these peoples' lives, the two or three million $$$ difference we are arguing about here is not a lot of money in the big picture when you make 15 million a year :laugh: WHY CAN'T IT BE ME :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

My whole point is that he took all the money that he made and INVESTED it wisely. There are numerous quotes from Stevie saying as much. For all we know, he invested in a small company that made it big and made $60 million off of that one investment. ;) I find it hard to believe that he would stay at the Four Seasons without a steady source of income and let the bill for it eat away at a lot of his money. It's implausible.

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

[dissention]

I was also played in concert and there were the DVD sales. So, she got money off of that. Plus, it was a hit in Europe and around the world. I am just speculating off of that. But, if people in the industry say differently - who am I to argue :laugh: Plus and as an example of these peoples' lives, the two or three million $$$ difference we are arguing about here is not a lot of money in the big picture when you make 15 million a year :laugh: WHY CAN'T IT BE ME :laugh:

Having a song of yours being played in concert by another artist does not mean you get any money from it. And to say that she got any significant amount of money from the DVD sales doesn't wash. As for making money form it in Europe, she may well have done so. ;) :xoxo:

[dissention]

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

I think that he is frugal with his money. He stayed at the Four Seasons, big deal. My point is he wouldn't have done so if it was going to cost him much of his wealth and I'm sure he looked out for that before staying there. And if Stevie says he never spent as much as the rest of them, who am I to disagree? :laugh:

[sparky]

LIVING in a 5k a night hotel is idiotic and self indulgent no matter how much money a person has. Rent a furnished house. Hire a cook and a maid. There's a difference between being able to afford 5k a night - for months at a time, and just throwing money out the window. I am sure his accountant was having a heart attack. It's so unnecessary to throw money around like that. It seems out of character - you don't get money by handling money in such a manner. Preposteruous when you can rent a furnished mansion and have hired help for about 1/4 the cost monthly. Whatever. It's like leaving the faucet on all night just because the water works. :shrug:

[chiliD]

At least he didn't put $5k a night up his nose like a couple of his bandmates did.

[Tango]

At least he didn't put $5k a night up his nose like a couple of his bandmates did.

Perhaps he found out that he couldn't. I understand cocaine significantly raises the possibility of seizures. It certainly was the party drug of choice then . . . and now for many people.

[dissention]

At least he didn't put $5k a night up his nose like a couple of his bandmates did.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[dissention]

Perhaps he found out that he couldn't. I understand cocaine significantly raises the possibility of seizures. It certainly was the party drug of choice then . . . and now for many people.

Poor Lindsey. Chalk that up to another thing that he failed at that Stevie succeeded in. :distress: :laugh: First it was the solo career, then the chemical dependancy. The guy can't catch a break. He had to settle for a posh suite at the Four Reasons while she snorted white powder and was falling off stages. :laugh:

[chiliD]

Perhaps he found out that he couldn't. I understand cocaine significantly raises the possibility of seizures. It certainly was the party drug of choice then . . . and now for many people.


Yeah, that's possible. Marijuana seems to PREVENT seizures, so that's probalby why he chose THAT as his "vice"...plus, it is MUCH more cost efficient. :laugh:

[Tango]

Yeah, that's possible. Marijuana seems to PREVENT seizures, so that's probalby why he chose THAT as his "vice"...plus, it is MUCH more cost efficient. :laugh:

Yep. There you go. It's medicinal. ;)

[Cour]

Here are a few more quotes from some articles.

this is one from Fall 1997:

Not only that, Fleetwood figures his sharper mental focus should enable him to hold onto his money this time around. And there should be plenty of it. A 44-city reunion tour of Fleetwood Mac's most famous five members, began on Sept. 17 in Hartford, and ends Nov. 30 in Washington. It is expected to bring Fleetwood, Stevie Nicks, Lindsey Buckingham, Christine McVie and John McVie about $3.5 million each, according to several industry experts. In addition, the tour should pump up sales of their old albums and generate about $600,000 more apiece in royalties.

Several industry executives believe the current tour is more of a financial imperative for Fleetwood than for other members of the band. Though he declined to comment specifically on his net worth, he would say only half-kidding, "I'm not broke if that's what you mean." Whereas in contrast, Buckingham is said to have held onto his money, and Ms. Nicks has earned income from hit solo albums and royalties for songs she wrote


The one gig that doesn't hold much charm for him is poring over his investments. For that, he relies on Stubner and his third wife, Lynn Frankel, a 34-year-old former public-relations executive, whom he married in 1995 after a six-year relationship. Her late father had overseen Fleetwood's investments until his death two years ago. Fleetwood's lack of curiosity about the way Ms. Frankel's father handled his money says much about his interest in the topic. "I don't know the specifics," Fleetwood said. "My wife's father had an adviser. Her father was very much into that whole New York Wall Street thing. He did very well."



This one is from 1994 and it's Stevie herself who says she had blown most of her money and couldn't qualify for a mortgage:



USA Today, August 16, 1994

Nicks Shedding Gypsy Ways
by Shawn Sell

COLUMBIA, Md. - Like a 70’s flashback, Stevie Nicks is on stage again.

But behind her dated Dickensian, style - she loves those platform boots and fringed shawls so much she grocery shops in them - is a 46-year-old woman making some 90’s changes.

Such as taking a bus on her current Street Angel tour instead of a private jet. "It's cost-cutting," admits rock'n'roll's gypsy princess. "A difference between $700 a day or $5,000 a day."

She stopped smoking "December 12" she says, and her voice has never been in better shape.

And she left her rented home outside L.A. after the last big quake. "I found a house I really want, a very special house in Phoenix," confides the former Fleetwood Mac lead singer. "But my mom says I have to pare down - she says right now I couldn't even qualify for the mortgage."

[Cour]

From Rolling Stone Oct 1997:

"You know," says Nicks, who still wears chiffon but is a good deal more battle-hardened (and speaks a bit deeper) than the hippie priestess of one's former imaginings, "Lindsey made a whole lot more money than everybody else did because he produces. The producers get paid first. And he probably didn't spend nearly as much money as everybody else did; he lives way simpler. So he didn't have to do this for money, you know. The rest of us would all like to put something away for, you know, our golden twilight years. But he has to want to do it, or we don't want to do it either."

[strandinthewind]

At least he didn't put $5k a night up his nose like a couple of his bandmates did.

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 :eek:

[sodascouts]

Oh, I agree. I'm sure her managers wrangled to the death to get her even one grand more than Liddy Buck. But if Lindsey and his managers did not approve of it, they would have said sorry and would not have signed the contracts, resulting in a modern-day TITN. :laugh:

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.

[sodascouts]

He spent the early money he inherited on some multiple track recorder.

That money was from some obscure aunt, and Lindsey has said that not only did he get that track recorder with it, it also enabled him to live for two years without working. Unfortunately those two years must have been up by the time Stevie and Lindsey went to L.A., lol.

[sodascouts]

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 :eek:

Apparently Stevie, Lindsey, and Chris disagreed that all the money had been spent to indulge their excesses. They believed that Mick had managed the money badly and they fired him as manager. Of course he's going to say it was all their fault.

As for the drug use, it's well-documented that he was nowhere near as into it as Mick and Stevie. That being said, he certainly did indulge back in the seventies - just watch Live in Japan! The man is seriously hopped up on something. But by 1982 he'd watched Carol Ann go into a downward spiral due to the white powder and I seriously doubt he touched it after then.

[Tango]

Apparently Stevie, Lindsey, and Chris disagreed that all the money had been spent to indulge their excesses. They believed that Mick had managed the money badly and they fired him as manager. Of course he's going to say it was all their fault.

As for the drug use, it's well-documented that he was nowhere near as into it as Mick and Stevie. That being said, he certainly did indulge back in the seventies - just watch Live in Japan! The man is seriously hopped up on something. But by 1982 he'd watched Carol Ann go into a downward spiral due to the white powder and I seriously doubt he touched it after then.


According to an article in The Penguin's Blue Letter Archives,

http://bla.fleetwoodmac.net/index.php?page=index_v2&id=33&c=9

Another good article (more recent) posted on the Fleetwood Mac-UK site:

http://www.fleetwoodmac-uk.com/articles/FMarticle1103.html


Lindsey had a seizure in Philadelphia in 1978. He should have been educated by the physicians to totally halt any use of cocaine at that time. Waking up on the floor disoriented, banged up, possibly incontinent - as many seizure patients find after a major seizure - all of that should be more than enough persuasion to give up the powder, anyhow. Perhaps that seizure saved his life and his pocket change, unlike the other members of the band. I don't think he necessarily quit playing with cocaine out of any "virtuous" decision. EVERYONE was using it. Had he not had a seizure, Lindsey might not have quit using it either. I'd venture there would be a few more FM members falling off the stage. Stevie didn't quit until she was told by a physician that she could have brain damage. I have been reading a bit about cocaine, and unfortunately, there is more than a financial price to pay. There can be permanent damage and brain atrophy.

Lindsey seems to have plenty of energy naturally - even NOW! It's fortunate that he got away from it.

[strandinthewind]

Apparently Stevie, Lindsey, and Chris disagreed that all the money had been spent to indulge their excesses. They believed that Mick had managed the money badly and they fired him as manager. Of course he's going to say it was all their fault.

As for the drug use, it's well-documented that he was nowhere near as into it as Mick and Stevie. That being said, he certainly did indulge back in the seventies - just watch Live in Japan! The man is seriously hopped up on something. But by 1982 he'd watched Carol Ann go into a downward spiral due to the white powder and I seriously doubt he touched it after then.

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 :D

[squealy]

According to the article, Chis says she quit in 84 or 20 years ago.

Christine has always been the least vocal about her level of substance abuse. I get the feeling she, like John, was more of a drinker. Has she ever really said that she had a problem with anything?

I have to think that even sitting out this go-round, her wealth must still rival Lindsey and Stevie's, considering how many hit singles she had. Though I think she lives pretty high on the hog.

Maybe she put most of it up her nose, but surely Stevie has *earned* the most of all of them with her parallel solo career, something Lindsay and Christine never had.

[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.

[David]

And she left her rented home outside L.A. after the last big quake.Did you ever notice how strangely the members of Fleetwood Mac react to earthquakes?

After the Sylmar quake in '71, Mick & Jeremy & John all thought the Apocalypse was on its way. And the '94 quake in Northridge sent both Stevie Nicks & Christine McVie packing, the former back to Phoenix & the latter back to England.

I must say, though, that Stevie's was a sensible reaction to the 1989 Loma Prieta quake: CANCEL THE SHOW!!

[Merf]

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]

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."



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! :nod:

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]

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. :distress:

[Tango]

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. :distress:

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. :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

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]

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]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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]

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. :laugh:

[dissention]

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]

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.

[dissention]

"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. :)

Wow. Welcome tot he dark side, Le Stew. :p You took the words outta my mouth.

[dissention]

Would you like me to point out the negative ones, even after the quotes from Stevie were presented?

I have to agree. It seems to me that some people won't allow for anyone but Stevie to be "the best," even when it comes to a stupid argument like finances. Stevie has said that Lindsey is the richest, yet there are those out there who just will not accept it and still say "No, you are, Stevie." My word. :laugh:

[Cour]

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.

Yes, I do think she was serious. Mick and other artists went bankrupt and I have no reason to believe that Stevie's cocaine addiction combined with excess spending led her to deplete her finanaces. I also think the statement made in the context of the article leads me to believe she was serious in her statement.

Like I said, I don't like speculating about their income but we don't know how her money was spent and what effect her spending on drugs and a lavish lifestyle (supporting friends) might have impacted her finances. It would not be unthinkable that she was serious and we also don't know what type of house ("a very special house") or mortage she was looking at, or where her money was invested and perhaps she was not liquid enough to qualify for a particular mortgage. She was also saying that her mother was warning her about doing this so perhaps her mother was being a bit over cautious, as mothers can be :)

The point of the reference to the article was she did not seem to be in the best shape financially. She also stated at the time of the Dance that they were looking to put something away for their future. Her career had been in a state of decline before 1994 and perhaps her conservative view of her finances was coming from her not knowing if and when her career and income would rebound. As much as any of the band members would have loved the success of the Dance, (Enchanted, TISL)and SYW, none of the them could have predicted how financially successful those projects would be in 1994.




USA Today, August 16, 1994

Nicks Shedding Gypsy Ways
by Shawn Sell

COLUMBIA, Md. - Like a 70’s flashback, Stevie Nicks is on stage again.

But behind her dated Dickensian, style - she loves those platform boots and fringed shawls so much she grocery shops in them - is a 46-year-old woman making some 90’s changes.

Such as taking a bus on her current Street Angel tour instead of a private jet. "It's cost-cutting," admits rock'n'roll's gypsy princess. "A difference between $700 a day or $5,000 a day."She stopped smoking "December 12" she says, and her voice has never been in better shape.

And she left her rented home outside L.A. after the last big quake. "I found a house I really want, a very special house in Phoenix," confides the former Fleetwood Mac lead singer. "But my mom says I have to pare down - she says right now I couldn't even qualify for the mortgage."

So it's tour time then one more album obligation to Atlantic Records. After that Nicks senses there will be changes in her life. And putting down roots is just a start - "I know I’ll always want to perform, to do shows. Maybe something more intimate than amphitheaters; I would love to do bars and clubs."

Movies maybe? TV? "Absolutely not!" she says. "I can't stand to have a camera right in my face, always having to worry, 'Is this the best side of me or is that?' I can't even stand to do videos any anymore."

She also can’t abide talk about her weight, which has been on the up side in recent years. "When you're as short as I am (5-foot-1), ten extra pounds makes you look totally blown up."

The story about her manager who became an ex-employee when he told her she had to lose twenty pounds or forfeit her career is true she says. "But then," she adds with a laugh, "I did lose the twenty pounds."

"It hurts me," she adds. "It hurts my heart to hear people say these sorts of things about me. As if, unless you look a certain way, your music is not important anymore. I'm 46. I am who I am."

Backstage after a show, on a sofa piled with bouquets from fans, Nicks looks more like Heidi than music's mystic vamp. Her hair is in braids - it's how she keeps her hair crimped between shows. "It takes two hours to braid my hair all around," she says. "It's work." A visitor wonders aloud why there's no one to do such mundane tasks. Like so much, she says, "I do it better myself."

It's that self-sufficiency that defines Nicks in the '90s. "I've been around too long not to be happy with myself, and I'm enjoying being by myself," she says, adding there is "no one special in my, life now." (As for long ago beau Lindsey Buckingham: "He-doesn't speak to me; we don't speak at all actually. He only played at the inauguration because I called him on the phone and begged him.")

Now, "I'm like the social director on this tour - a mediator for everyone," she says. "What if there were (a guy) waiting on the bus for me right now? I couldn't talk to anyone. I'd have to hurry to get to him, and I'd be hot and tired. And then I'd have to worry about him? No way."

So nix those baby rumors? "I'd never have one by myself," she says, "although it's still not too late if I met the right person. It’s also very hard to adopt a baby, even for me, and it's not the right time. I’m so busy and gone so much, I can't even have a dog. And you know, you have to have a house and a dog."

[HomerMcvie]

I have to agree. It seems to me that some people won't allow for anyone but Stevie to be "the best," even when it comes to a stupid argument like finances. Stevie has said that Lindsey is the richest, yet there are those out there who just will not accept it and still say "No, you are, Stevie." My word.
YES. And people think I have a problem with Stevie. I have much more of a problem with the drones who stick their fingers in their ears and "La, la, la, la, la" when anything unflattering is said about their queen.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

So nix those baby rumors? "I'd never have one by myself," she says, "although it's still not too late if I met the right person. It’s also very hard to adopt a baby, even for me, and it's not the right time. I’m so busy and gone so much, I can't even have a dog. And you know, you have to have a house and a dog."
Looks like she changed her mind about the dog!

Pip

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

The story about her manager who became an ex-employee when he told her she had to lose twenty pounds or forfeit her career is true she says. "But then," she adds with a laugh, "I did lose the twenty pounds."

Who was the manager?

Pip

[dissention]

Yes, I do think she was serious. Mick and other artists went bankrupt and I have no reason to believe that Stevie's cocaine addiction combined with excess spending led her to deplete her finanaces. I also think the statement made in the context of the article leads me to believe she was serious in her statement.

Like I said, I don't like speculating about their income but we don't know how her money was spent and what effect her spending on drugs and a lavish lifestyle (supporting friends) might have impacted her finances. It would not be unthinkable that she was serious and we also don't know what type of house ("a very special house") or mortage she was looking at, or where her money was invested and perhaps she was not liquid enough to qualify for a particular mortgage. She was also saying that her mother was warning her about doing this so perhaps her mother was being a bit over cautious, as mothers can be :)

The point of the reference to the article was she did not seem to be in the best shape financially. She also stated at the time of the Dance that they were looking to put something away for their future. Her career had been in a state of decline before 1994 and perhaps her conservative view of her finances was coming from her not knowing if and when her career and income would rebound. As much as any of the band members would have loved the success of the Dance, (Enchanted, TISL)and SYW, none of the them could have predicted how financially successful those projects would be in 1994.

Sorry, I don't see it, especially in the context of the article. Lindsey made the most money, period. But you'll never sell to me that Stevie was in financial distress. Nev-ah.

[dissention]

YES. And people think I have a problem with Stevie. I have much more of a problem with the drones who stick their fingers in their ears and "La, la, la, la, la" when anything unflattering is said about their queen.

You hit the nail on the head, or rather, the black on the chiffon. ;)

I told ya all before, never say anything that could EVER be construed as negative about the Queen of Velvet Fountains and Fairy Farts. :laugh:

(for those who can't tell, that was a joke)

[Cour]

Sorry, I don't see it, especially in the context of the article. Lindsey made the most money, period. But you'll never sell to me that Stevie was in financial distress. Nev-ah.

We can agree to disagree on this one :o

I also wasn't implying that Stevie was broke or in financial distress, I just think the reality of her situation in 1994 (years of excessive spending and drug use combined with a declining career) was forcing her (through her mother and financial advisors) to cut back her lifestyle and she may not have been liquid enough to qualify for a mortgage on a very special house.

Of course, she could have pulled a David Bowie ;) Stevie sell her boots, Nev-ah!!!

[gldstwmn]

Also, some money must be paid to CM for "The Chain," "Don't Stop" and "World Turning" if she retained rights. I think the other songs they sing that she did not write may be sung without remuneration to CM.



I was under the impression that there are no royalties played when a song is performed live, only when they are used in a media performance.
Also, I still think Mick retains some rights to the Rumours and White Album publishing.

[Cour]

Who was the manager?

Pip

I just heard about this recently, someone said it was Tony Dimitriades.......Lindsey's current manager :eek:

[dissention]

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:

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 fail to see how anything that Jason said is negative in any way, shape, or form towards Lindsey. He's stated his thoughts on their wealth in this thread, neither one of us needs to agree with them, but they aren't negative, they aren't malicious, and they aren't part of some huge conspiracy amongst Stevie fans.

I'll be the first to say that a lot of Stevie fans can be quite rabid if you dare say anything about the Queen that doesn't fit their views. They don't care if it has basis in fact or not, if they don't like it, you're the anti-christ. But I see none of that in this thread, with the exception fo one post and it wasn't even Jason's post. This thread is being turned into something a bit ridiculous: an argument over who's better, Stevie or Lindsey. To me, that's patently absurd and I'm a bit amused and disgusted at the same time that this thread has degenerated that way.

Lindsey has the most money, period. Stevie spent a lot of hers by living an extravagant lifestyle, whereas Lindsey's lifestyle was tame in comparison. He got the lions share of the money in Fleetwood Mac because he was one of the big draws in concert, he produced the albums, he wrote hit songs, and he played the gee-tar. It's only natural that he'd make the most out of everyone in the band. Stevie has said numerous times that he's the wealthiest, take it or leave it.

That's all I've got to say.

[dissention]

We can agree to disagree on this one :o

I also wasn't implying that Stevie was broke or in financial distress, I just think the reality of her situation in 1994 (years of excessive spending and drug use combined with a declining career) was forcing her (through her mother and financial advisors) to cut back her lifestyle and she may not have been liquid enough to qualify for a mortgage on a very special house.

Of course, she could have pulled a David Bowie ;) Stevie sell her boots, Nev-ah!!!

Oh, Bowie! He has more money than the US Mint!! For cripes sake, he owns his own freakin' internet company. :laugh:

[Cour]

I was under the impression that there are no royalties played when a song is performed live, only when they are used in a media performance.
Also, I still think Mick retains some rights to the Rumours and White Album publishing.


I remember around the time of the TISL tour that there was some discussion about Stevie using the Bootylicious song at the opening of her concerts. There was talk by some people that a flat fee is negotiated and paid for a specified period of time. I don't know if that's true but it seems logical. I'm not sure whether Stevie was paid by Destiny's Child for them using the riff in the first place.

I think Mick or the band (Fleetwood Mac) still get paid producers royalties or fees for all of the albums up until Tango when the producer credits were changed from Fleetwood Mac to Lindsey and Richard. I can't remember if that changed for Mirage or Tango.

[dissention]

I remember around the time of the TISL tour that there was some discussion about Stevie using the Bootylicious song at the opening of her concerts. There was talk by some people that a flat fee is negotiated and paid for a specified period of time. I don't know if that's true but it seems logical. I'm not sure whether Stevie was paid by Destiny's Child for them using the riff in the first place.

Unless a live show is recorded and sold as a video, CD, or DVD, no royalties have to be paid if someone covers a song. :)

[Tango]

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.

"only." This is the line that raised my personal ire. It does denigrate the contributions of the other members of the band. I love Stevie. But come on. Whatever though. It's just Christopher's opinion. And he is a Stevie fan. Young, and still learning about her. Clearly. Rock on. If Stevie quits (ain't going to happen, apparently), I think Lindsey generates enough firepower to keep Fleetwood Mac going. STILL, it's the whole band, including Stevie that makes FM. Take Lindsey away . . . it wouldn't be the same.

[dissention]

"only." This is the line that raised my personal ire. It does denigrate the contributions of the other members of the band. I love Stevie. But come on. Whatever though. It's just Christopher's opinion. And he is a Stevie fan. Young, and still learning about her. Clearly. Rock on. If Stevie quits (ain't going to happen, apparently), I think Lindsey generates enough firepower to keep Fleetwood Mac going. STILL, it's the whole band, including Stevie that makes FM. Take Lindsey away . . . it wouldn't be the same.

I'd love to see just how many people became Lindsey converts after going to a SYW show. All I could hear from people coming out of the venue was "My god! Lindsey!" He's the star of the show these days.

[Cour]

I fail to see how anything that Jason said is negative in any way, shape, or form towards Lindsey. He's stated his thoughts on their wealth in this thread, neither one of us needs to agree with them, but they aren't negative, they aren't malicious, and they aren't part of some huge conspiracy amongst Stevie fans.

I'll be the first to say that a lot of Stevie fans can be quite rabid if you dare say anything about the Queen that doesn't fit their views. They don't care if it has basis in fact or not, if they don't like it, you're the anti-christ. But I see none of that in this thread, with the exception fo one post and it wasn't even Jason's post. This thread is being turned into something a bit ridiculous: an argument over who's better, Stevie or Lindsey. To me, that's patently absurd and I'm a bit amused and disgusted at the same time that this thread has degenerated that way.

Lindsey has the most money, period. Stevie spent a lot of hers by living an extravagant lifestyle, whereas Lindsey's lifestyle was tame in comparison. He got the lions share of the money in Fleetwood Mac because he was one of the big draws in concert, he produced the albums, he wrote hit songs, and he played the gee-tar. It's only natural that he'd make the most out of everyone in the band. Stevie has said numerous times that he's the wealthiest, take it or leave it.

That's all I've got to say.


My original comment that started this discussion down this road was:

"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"

IMO this is what happens when fans start discussing things like the band members personal finances. When the original questions came up it seemed like this was headed in a "Stevie should/could be paid more money". I brought up the original posts from John Run and Stevie to shed some light on what is know and prevent this discussion and thread from going down the all too familiar road of "Stevie is a bigger draw than Lindsey and deserves more" and "Stevie surely has more money than Lindsey because she's had a more successful solo career".

As you and others have pointed out, there are some fans who cannot allow that Stevie could ever be anything less than better than Lindsey no matter what anyone says, even the band members themselves. I think it's petty to try to constantly bring down one band member in order to make the other one shine just a little brighter. But as you and other fans have pointed out there are some fans who just can't stand to see her star diminished even if it's in ways that have nothing to do with their talent.

I also said that I don't see a need to bring up Stevie's mistakes or excesses and problems to make Lindsey look better. IMO there was a pattern of trying to make Lindsey look just a little worse, no matter what facts were presented. If you don't want to use the word negative to describe that consistent pattern, fine with me. I stand by what I originally said which is:

"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"

[Cour]

Unless a live show is recorded and sold as a video, CD, or DVD, no royalties have to be paid if someone covers a song. :)

So are you saying there wouldn't have to be any fee paid to Destinys Child in order for Stevie to use the Bootylicious song in her show?

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I just heard about this recently, someone said it was Tony Dimitriades.......Lindsey's current manager :eek:
Blimey! :shocked: :shocked:

[Cour]

Oh, Bowie! He has more money than the US Mint!! For cripes sake, he owns his own freakin' internet company. :laugh:

That deal he made on his future royalties was one of a kind, I know who was on the losing end of that stick :nod:
Didn't he get a lump sum of about 80 million dollars in the early 90's? I can't remember the details, just how stunning the deal was.

Correction, here's the details:

"In January 1997 he made financial history by raising $55 million through the issue of issue of 10-year asset-backed bonds, the collateral consisting of future royalties from 25 albums that he recorded before 1990. Prudential Insurance Co. bought the bonds."

Here are some other interesting deals http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/bowiebonds.html

[dissention]

So are you saying there wouldn't have to be any fee paid to Destinys Child in order for Stevie to use the Bootylicious song in her show?

Exactly. ;) She didn't even play it in the set, she played it over the speakers before even comign onstage for the first time.

[dissention]

That deal he made on his future royalties was one of a kind, I know who was on the losing end of that stick :nod:
Didn't he get a lump sum of about 80 million dollars in the early 90's? I can't remember the details, just how stunning the deal was.

I'm not sure, but when Reality was released last year, I read an article in Forbes talking about how his personal fortune is worth just under $2 billion. It went on to say how he got it all: investing in Microsoft back in its early days then getting out before the stock fell, investing in Hewlett Packard and IBM, the list was endless. He must have been an accountant in a past life. :p

[gldstwmn]

Yeah, but he lived there during the 80s, if I remember correctly. Stevie's comment was made in the nineties, I think '94. I have to dig that sucker up. :laugh: She specifically said that he made most of the money out all five of them and a lot of it came from his producing.

He was just living there a few years ago, when the house was being rebuilt. :shrug:

[dissention]

He was just living there a few years ago, when the house was being rebuilt. :shrug:

Yeah, but like I said earlier, he's obviously wealthy enough to do so. I just don't foresee him living at the Four Seasons with the knowledge that it's going to detract a lot from his wealth. :)

[John Run]

Well, this little post has taken on a life of its own, hasn't it?

I have not replied to this thread, as I did not want to become embroiled in a vitriolic debate of who has more, who is better, etc.

I do not know any details of the the personal wealth of any member of the band.

I do know that this tour has averaged a 600-700k GT that included a 250-300k payout to the band with the rest of the GT sum used to pay the 300k+ per show production costs. The numbers have varied a bit depending on the costs associated with particular markets/venues ,as well some reconfiguring of the deal for the second US leg, then EU and AUS, and then finally the 3rd US Leg. The tour is profitable. Stevie and Lindsey are getting more than Mick and John. It was 100/100/50/50 and now is around 85/85/40/40. The GT amount was lowered to help bring down the breakeven point and increase profits on the additional legs where attendance was expected to be on avg around 10k per night and gross receipts around 800k. They split evenly the profit revenues, as well as ancillary revenue streams such as merchandising.

From a broad view Lindsey did not earn more than Stevie over the course of their music careers. However how much of her earnings did Stevie retain?? I don't know. They have all made plenty of money. With good investment, they could have been set for life and never had to earn another dollar from work after 1978.

One final aside. Both the Ritz Carlton and the Four Seasons offer what the they call "residences." They are large apartments that are leased on a long term basis to people who will be calling the hotel home for a while. While they are not cheap, they are not 150k per month either. They usually run around 25-30k per month.

[gldstwmn]

LIVING in a 5k a night hotel is idiotic and self indulgent no matter how much money a person has. Rent a furnished house. Hire a cook and a maid. There's a difference between being able to afford 5k a night - for months at a time, and just throwing money out the window. I am sure his accountant was having a heart attack. It's so unnecessary to throw money around like that. It seems out of character - you don't get money by handling money in such a manner. Preposteruous when you can rent a furnished mansion and have hired help for about 1/4 the cost monthly. Whatever. It's like leaving the faucet on all night just because the water works. :shrug:

Funny thing is, to my recollection, he never lived like that until he had the wife and kids. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a shipper BTW.

[Tango]

I'm not a shipper BTW.

LOL! I'm hoping LB's wife is a SHOPPER! Keep the man working! ;)

[gldstwmn]

At least he didn't put $5k a night up his nose like a couple of his bandmates did.

How do you know? :laugh: There were some nights there on the Tusk tour where he had some pretty dark circles under his eyes. I watched the Tusk phot shoot last night and he was thin.

[Cour]

He was just living there a few years ago, when the house was being rebuilt. :shrug:

There was an article or interview around the time of The Dance where Lindsey said he had moved into a hotel because his house was being repaired from earthquake damage. Since the Town and Country article said Lindsey and Kristen were living there while she was pregnant with Will in 1998, this seems to all be around the same time period. They eventually moved into a rented house while the new house was being built.

[dissention]

Funny thing is, to my recollection, he never lived like that until he had the wife and kids. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a shipper BTW.

I remember that he lived there during the 80s, but I could be wrong.

[gldstwmn]

Poor Lindsey. Chalk that up to another thing that he failed at that Stevie succeeded in. :distress: :laugh: First it was the solo career, then the chemical dependancy. The guy can't catch a break. He had to settle for a posh suite at the Four Reasons while she snorted white powder and was falling off stages. :laugh:

Bwaaaah! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dissention]

I watched the Tusk phot shoot last night and he was thin.

He couldn't have been thinner than at the Inauguration! I thought he had been afflicted with an eating disorder when I saw him! :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Yeah, that's possible. Marijuana seems to PREVENT seizures, so that's probalby why he chose THAT as his "vice"...plus, it is MUCH more cost efficient. :laugh:

Er, well... I guess if you buy bulk. :laugh:

[hayley]

Unless a live show is recorded and sold as a video, CD, or DVD, no royalties have to be paid if someone covers a song. :)

That's not true at all, actually.

Every venue, large or small, arena or bar/club, has to pay BMI and ASCAP for any songs played on their premises, whether it's from a live act or even over a P.A. (in the case of "Bootylicious" during the TISL tour).

Most venues do this by paying a flat fee for year-round licenses from both BMI and ASCAP, and occasionally SESAC. They do report what songs are played to the organizations, and the moneys collected from these flat fee licenses are then divvied up and paid to the songwriters, generally on a quarterly basis.

It's nothing to make a living off of, but FM does actually get paid for playing their OWN songs in concert.

[dissention]

That's not true at all, actually.

Every venue, large or small, arena or bar/club, has to pay BMI and ASCAP for any songs played on their premises, whether it's from a live act or even over a P.A. (in the case of "Bootylicious" during the TISL tour).

Most venues do this by paying a flat fee for year-round licenses from both BMI and ASCAP, and occasionally SESAC. They do report what songs are played to the organizations, and the moneys collected from these flat fee licenses are then divvied up and paid to the songwriters, generally on a quarterly basis.

It's nothing to make a living off of, but FM does actually get paid for playing their OWN songs in concert.

Thanks for the info, Hayley. I had read an interview with Sheryl Crow from a few years back and the interviewer asked her about playing so many cover songs in concert and she made some remark that she was glad she didn't have to pay to play them or she'd be dirt poor. :laugh:

[hayley]

Thanks for the info, Hayley. I had read an interview with Sheryl Crow from a few years back and the interviewer asked her about playing so many cover songs in concert and she made some remark that she was glad she didn't have to pay to play them or she'd be dirt poor. :laugh:

She doesn't! The venue pays.

It really doesn't amount to much after the flat fee... if it's a busy venue or club, their flat fee $$$ probably eke out to pennies per song, but still.

[Johnny Stew]

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?

Stevie's excesses and past drug problems are talked about in great detail more often than not ("over and over again"), and I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to deny that she's led a very lavish lifestyle or deny that she had an extremely expensive drug habit.
My goodness, even Stevie herself openly admits that! Stevie also admits that the tons of money she snorted up her nose over the years, should have been better spent on something important, like leukemia research.
So what's the point you're trying to make?

Again, Jason was simply touching on the notion that Lindsey rarely, if ever, spent large amounts of money... so he was pointing out areas in which Lindsey did spend money. It wasn't "Lindsey-bashing," by a long shot, and it certainly didn't sound negative to me. Or some thinly-veiled attempt to make Stevie look better.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, because no one has ever talked disparagingly about Stevie to try and make Lindsey look better. ;)
I'm not saying I agree with it when either side does it, or that because one faction does it, the other should do it too... but to not see/admit that there are also some Lindsey-fans who nitpick at Stevie to "puff him up," is being blind.
(Just as it would be blindness on the part of someone who doesn't see that some Stevie fans engage in the same behavior.)

But I just don't see that as being what's happening here. And while Jason openly admits that he's a bigger fan of Stevie's, it's also a pretty well-known fact that he's a huge Lindsey fan, and has a huge amount of respect and admiration for him. So it's not like he's out to bring Lindsey down, or bash him.

He wasn't questioning Lindsey's choices, or his character, and I just don't see a reason to get all riled up.

(By the way, you're the only one bringing up the "slapping incident"... and repeatedly, I might add. Are you trying to start something?)

[Cour]

Well, this little post has taken on a life of its own, hasn't it?

I have not replied to this thread, as I did not want to become embroiled in a vitriolic debate of who has more, who is better, etc.

I do not know any details of the the personal wealth of any member of the band.

I do know that this tour has averaged a 600-700k GT that included a 250-300k payout to the band with the rest of the GT sum used to pay the 300k+ per show production costs. The numbers have varied a bit depending on the costs associated with particular markets/venues ,as well some reconfiguring of the deal for the second US leg, then EU and AUS, and then finally the 3rd US Leg. The tour is profitable. Stevie and Lindsey are getting more than Mick and John. It was 100/100/50/50 and now is around 85/85/40/40. The GT amount was lowered to help bring down the breakeven point and increase profits on the additional legs where attendance was expected to be on avg around 10k per night and gross receipts around 800k. They split evenly the profit revenues, as well as ancillary revenue streams such as merchandising.

From a broad view Lindsey did not earn more than Stevie over the course of their music careers. However how much of her earnings did Stevie retain?? I don't know. They have all made plenty of money. With good investment, they could have been set for life and never had to earn another dollar from work after 1978.

One final aside. Both the Ritz Carlton and the Four Seasons offer what the they call "residences." They are large apartments that are leased on a long term basis to people who will be calling the hotel home for a while. While they are not cheap, they are not 150k per month either. They usually run around 25-30k per month.

Thanks for all the information, John.

The 10 million dollar figure being thrown around for Lindsey's new home is also inaccurate. He's owned the property since the late seventies and that house did not cost 10 million dollars to build.

[gldstwmn]

Who was the manager?

Pip

My guess is Irving Azoff. I can't see Tony Dimitriades saying that, however he no longer seems to be in Miss Nicks employ.

[Johnny Stew]

YES. And people think I have a problem with Stevie. I have much more of a problem with the drones who stick their fingers in their ears and "La, la, la, la, la" when anything unflattering is said about their queen.

People who follow anything blindly, are always a bit worrisome. But I guess we all have some area of interest or devotion that someone, somewhere, could shake their head at.
As I've said before, all of us here spend an awful lot of time on a internet message board devoted to a pop/rock band! That in itself would seem awfully troubling to some folks.
At least that's how I see it.

And, uhm... Stevie isn't the only band member to have fans who follow her blindly. That's not something she has a lock on. :nod: :)

[gldstwmn]

I just heard about this recently, someone said it was Tony Dimitriades.......Lindsey's current manager :eek:

No way! :eek: I can see Irving Azoff doing that but not Tony Dimitriades. Whoa!

[dissention]

And, uhm... Stevie isn't the only band member to have fans who follow her blindly. That's not something she has a lock on. :nod: :)

Not at all, but the ferocity and ridiculousness that some folks have when it comes to her is a bit off-putting and puts them in a bad light more oft than not. :) The sky would obviously be blue, but if Stevie said it was green, those people would agree 100%. :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

I was under the impression that there are no royalties played when a song is performed live, only when they are used in a media performance.

If you're going to play pre-recorded music in a public place (a bar, a club, even a funeral home), you need a license from BMI or ASCAP (or both) to do so. I'm not sure if it's the same for an "open-air" location though, but it probably is.

But if you're going to perform the song yourself, then you don't have to pay anything out... unless you were to record and release your own version. At which time it has the potential to earn you money, and therefore royalties must be paid to the songwriter(s).

[dissention]

No way! :eek: I can see Irving Azoff doing that but not Tony Dimitriades. Whoa!

It couldn't have been Tony, no freakin' way.

[gldstwmn]

So are you saying there wouldn't have to be any fee paid to Destinys Child in order for Stevie to use the Bootylicious song in her show?

I don't think so. Maybe an Ascap or BMI fee like restaurants and stores and such have to pay for playing music over a PA though.

[Tango]

It couldn't have been Tony, no freakin' way.

No way? There's always a way. Well, you can call him. Karen did. LB's management info is listed here on the site. :lol:

[Johnny Stew]

That's not true at all, actually.

Every venue, large or small, arena or bar/club, has to pay BMI and ASCAP for any songs played on their premises, whether it's from a live act or even over a P.A. (in the case of "Bootylicious" during the TISL tour).

Most venues do this by paying a flat fee for year-round licenses from both BMI and ASCAP, and occasionally SESAC. They do report what songs are played to the organizations, and the moneys collected from these flat fee licenses are then divvied up and paid to the songwriters, generally on a quarterly basis.

It's nothing to make a living off of, but FM does actually get paid for playing their OWN songs in concert.

Oops... I was still posting responses to older posts, and hadn't caught yours until just now, Hayley.
Sorry for repeating. :o

[gldstwmn]

LOL! I'm hoping LB's wife is a SHOPPER! Keep the man working! ;)

So, you read the Town & Country article? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

One final aside. Both the Ritz Carlton and the Four Seasons offer what the they call "residences." They are large apartments that are leased on a long term basis to people who will be calling the hotel home for a while. While they are not cheap, they are not 150k per month either. They usually run around 25-30k per month.

I know. I have friends who have participated in those programs at both of these hotel chains for long term stays. Although I knew they received some reduction in the daily rate, I did not know the rate was that reduced. I think that much of a reduction makes it actually quite a good deal if you consider the hotel's services (laundry, room service, parking, etc. ) can be discounted as well (my friends' were) and to rent a comparable furnished house or other accomodations in that style and area would be at least that much or more. Why oh why can't one of my friends adopt me :laugh:

AND - thanks for clarifying the other info. As always, you are great for giving us this information and I thank you for it!!!!!!! My hat is off to you!!!!!! :cool:

[Tango]

So, you read the Town & Country article? :laugh:

You mean this one:

http://bla.fleetwoodmac.net/index.php?page=index_v2&id=897&c=9

Yep! Thank you Les, btw.

[Johnny Stew]

Not at all, but the ferocity and ridiculousness that some folks have when it comes to her is a bit off-putting and puts them in a bad light more oft than not. :) The sky would obviously be blue, but if Stevie said it was green, those people would agree 100%. :laugh:

I don't disagree, not at all... but, again, I see the same "ferocity" and "ridiculousness" on the part of fans of other Mac band members, too.

I'd say that perhaps it seems more prevalent in regards to Stevie, because she tends to have a larger fanbase than the other members, and therefore more potential for having that type of fan... but then I have no doubt that that comment could and would be misconstrued as my saying that Lindsey isn't as well-loved as Stevie, and that... therefore... Stevie is better. :shocked: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Thanks for all the information, John.

The 10 million dollar figure being thrown around for Lindsey's new home is also inaccurate. He's owned the property since the late seventies and that house did not cost 10 million dollars to build.

I know people who have built similar houses with similar furnishings here in Atlanta, Southhampton, and one or two actually in Bel Air. I also know what architects and interior decorators at the level they hired generally charge. That is what I was basing that figure on. So, take that for what it is worth. Again, I do not fault him for spending any money. It is his money. Also, it could have been less. I am not saying I know for sure. I am just basing a general figure on what I have seen with my own two eyes in what other similarly situated people have done and in the pics. and text in that mag. article :cool:

[sodascouts]

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.


I said I doubted it, not that I knew it to be false. And I DO doubt it; he obviously cares about how much money he's making, but does he focus on whether or not it's more than what Stevie's making? IMHO, no. So I was only doing as much mind reading as you were when you said "I don't think he'd stand for it." We're both making qualified assumptions; they happen to disagree.

[sodascouts]

I just heard about this recently, someone said it was Tony Dimitriades.......Lindsey's current manager :eek:

lol! I heard that too! Wonder if he's the one that put Lindsey on Wheat Thins? ;)

[Cour]

Stevie's excesses and past drug problems are talked about in great detail more often than not ("over and over again"), and I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to deny that she's led a very lavish lifestyle or deny that she had an extremely expensive drug habit.
My goodness, even Stevie herself openly admits that! Stevie also admits that the tons of money she snorted up her nose over the years, should have been better spent on something important, like leukemia research.
So what's the point you're trying to make?

Again, Jason was simply touching on the notion that Lindsey rarely, if ever, spent large amounts of money... so he was pointing out areas in which Lindsey did spend money. It wasn't "Lindsey-bashing," by a long shot, and it certainly didn't sound negative to me. Or some thinly-veiled attempt to make Stevie look better.



Yes, because no one has ever talked disparagingly about Stevie to try and make Lindsey look better. ;)
I'm not saying I agree with it when either side does it, or that because one faction does it, the other should do it too... but to not see/admit that there are also some Lindsey-fans who nitpick at Stevie to "puff him up," is being blind.
(Just as it would be blindness on the part of someone who doesn't see that some Stevie fans engage in the same behavior.)

But I just don't see that as being what's happening here. And while Jason openly admits that he's a bigger fan of Stevie's, it's also a pretty well-known fact that he's a huge Lindsey fan, and has a huge amount of respect and admiration for him. So it's not like he's out to bring Lindsey down, or bash him.

He wasn't questioning Lindsey's choices, or his character, and I just don't see a reason to get all riled up.

(By the way, you're the only one bringing up the "slapping incident"... and repeatedly, I might add. Are you trying to start something?)


I've lost 2 posts now so I'm going to try to keep this brief.

My point is that some posters continually travel down the same roads over and over again and I'm not riled up I'm just tired of sitting back and saying nothing. Of course I know what Stevie says about her own drug use and poor choices, I don't find a need to bring it up every chance I get.

If you'll scroll back up you'll see that my original comment that got you all riled up was and the context of my post:

"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"

From there you brought up hyper-sensitivity, jumping to conclusions and your amusement that some fans seem to have a problem when someone puffs Stevie up.

I am not trying to start anything over the slapping incident, I brought it up to make a point. Did you think the original poster was trying to start anything a few months ago when they opened that thread with that topic and FIRE AWAY? It would have been understandable if a new poster or fan was curious about the topic and started that type of thread. But when a seasoned poster starts the thread with no opinion of their own but wanting input from others in the form of FIRE AWAY, I think they're trying to start something. I'm not the only one who thinks this way but if you don't, that's your opinion. I'm entitled to mine and I'm entitled to call them on it when I see a pattern of the same thing over and over again no matter how big a fan they say they are.

If you want to continue this you can PM me. I only got involved in this discussion to post some quotes to prevent this from leading down this same Stevie VS Lindsey road again. Some fans just are drawn to it and can't help themselves from bringing up anything negative to tarnish the other member just a little more.

[Cour]

Funny thing is, to my recollection, he never lived like that until he had the wife and kids. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a shipper BTW.

Actually, I had heard he had spent weeks at a time with Cheri in the Four Seasons. Maybe he just likes living in hotels ;)

[Cour]

I know people who have built similar houses with similar furnishings here in Atlanta, Southhampton, and one or two actually in Bel Air. I also know what architects and interior decorators at the level they hired generally charge. That is what I was basing that figure on. So, take that for what it is worth. Again, I do not fault him for spending any money. It is his money. Also, it could have been less. I am not saying I know for sure. I am just basing a general figure on what I have seen with my own two eyes in what other similarly situated people have done and in the pics. and text in that mag. article :cool:

I know similar things to you and without the land that house did not cost 10 million dollars to build, but that's a nice high round number ;) .

When this discussion went down this road it was pointed out that since we don't know any accurate information about the band members personal finances it might be wise to not attach monetary figures to thing we don't know anything about. I don't think anything good can ever come about speculating about other peoples finances and commenting about the way they spend their money. You're free to do so but that's why these discussions take this road, you know...opinions, everyone has one ;)

[diamondsnake]

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.

Yes, but she said that Lindsey had more money, when? The early 90's? I'm not sure. Assuming it was the early 90's then she has done tons more stuff to make her a lot of money since then. Two tours, a box set that is nothing but profit (just a bunch of old tracks thrown together), a come-back solo album, her landslide dixie chicks money (Millions of dollars), the dance tour and album sales, and the syw tour and album sales. All lindsey has done is the the dance tour and album and the syw tour and album. Stevie is also only supporting herself. When she is out on these tours she is not shopping or spending tons of money. I assume things like hotel, limos and other amenities are included in the tour budget. if i am right then she really doesn't spend any money for months even years at a time. Lindsey has a wife that for all we know is spending hundreds of thousands a day on clothes or jewelery or whatever. who knows? that is all just a guess.

And Fleetwood Mac would have never even been mainstream popular if not for Stevie's Rhiannon single. From what I have read, everyone credits that song with the success of the white album and how it secured the success of rumours.

And saying that the main draw in fleetwood mac is fleetwood mac is obvious. What I am trying to say is that if Stevie left the band it would hurt ticket sales much, much more then if Lindsey left the band.

And her solo tours are not as huge as FM tours, but isn't she still able to charge 100 dollars a ticket? That is pretty good!

Also, everyone is saying that Stevie spent so much money on coke, but is it really that expensive? I have never purchased it, but maybe someone else could fill me in. It just seems like for someone who is easily making millions of dollars a year a drug habit wouldn't put that much of a dent in her bank account.

[Cour]

lol! I heard that too! Wonder if he's the one that put Lindsey on Wheat Thins? ;)

Someone should tell him he needs to eat some donuts and get off those Wheat Thins.

I don't know if it was actually Tony, I was told it was. I suppose fans who are more familiar with who was Stevie's manager at the time she gained the weight would know if it could have been Tony.

[diamondsnake]

See this is why you should never start discussing money, it will always end up in arguments. ;) It's the root of all evil they say.

I'm don't care how wealthy one member of the band is compared to the other, all I know is they're all way wealthier that little old me!

True and I'll bet each member has more money then they will be able to spend in their lifetime so it really doesn't matter who has more.

[dissention]

I know people who have built similar houses with similar furnishings here in Atlanta, Southhampton, and one or two actually in Bel Air. I also know what architects and interior decorators at the level they hired generally charge. That is what I was basing that figure on. So, take that for what it is worth. Again, I do not fault him for spending any money. It is his money. Also, it could have been less. I am not saying I know for sure. I am just basing a general figure on what I have seen with my own two eyes in what other similarly situated people have done and in the pics. and text in that mag. article :cool:

The design bill for that house alone would be astronomical. :nod: I think it's safe to say that he spent between $8-$10 million on that house.

[Cour]

Yes, but she said that Lindsey had more money, when? The early 90's? I'm not sure. Assuming it was the early 90's then she has done tons more stuff to make her a lot of money since then. Two tours, a box set that is nothing but profit (just a bunch of old tracks thrown together), a come-back solo album, her landslide dixie chicks money (Millions of dollars), the dance tour and album sales, and the syw tour and album sales. All lindsey has done is the the dance tour and album and the syw tour and album. Stevie is also only supporting herself. When she is out on these tours she is not shopping or spending tons of money. I assume things like hotel, limos and other amenities are included in the tour budget. if i am right then she really doesn't spend any money for months even years at a time. Lindsey has a wife that for all we know is spending hundreds of thousands a day on clothes or jewelery or whatever. who knows? that is all just a guess.

And Fleetwood Mac would have never even been mainstream popular if not for Stevie's Rhiannon single. From what I have read, everyone credits that song with the success of the white album and how it secured the success of rumours.

And saying that the main draw in fleetwood mac is fleetwood mac is obvious. What I am trying to say is that if Stevie left the band it would hurt ticket sales much, much more then if Lindsey left the band.

And her solo tours are not as huge as FM tours, but isn't she still able to charge 100 dollars a ticket? That is pretty good!

Also, everyone is saying that Stevie spent so much money on coke, but is it really that expensive? I have never purchased it, but maybe someone else could fill me in. It just seems like for someone who is easily making millions of dollars a year a drug habit wouldn't put that much of a dent in her bank account.

Well, if Kristen is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a day, I'd say we all know who has more money! LOL Are you on an allowance? :shrug:


Yes, FM would have been mainstream popular without the one song Rhiannon.


What you did say is that they'd be lucky to get $20 if Stevie left the band and it was only Lindsey, care to retract that now and think it was a tad harsh?

As for coke, it's possible to spend thousands of dollars a day on cocaine.

Does anyone else want to take the rest of this?

[dissention]

Yes, but she said that Lindsey had more money, when? The early 90's? I'm not sure. Assuming it was the early 90's then she has done tons more stuff to make her a lot of money since then. Two tours, a box set that is nothing but profit (just a bunch of old tracks thrown together), a come-back solo album, her landslide dixie chicks money (Millions of dollars), the dance tour and album sales, and the syw tour and album sales. All lindsey has done is the the dance tour and album and the syw tour and album. Stevie is also only supporting herself. When she is out on these tours she is not shopping or spending tons of money. I assume things like hotel, limos and other amenities are included in the tour budget. if i am right then she really doesn't spend any money for months even years at a time. Lindsey has a wife that for all we know is spending hundreds of thousands a day on clothes or jewelery or whatever. who knows? that is all just a guess.

The late-nineties, actually. ;) She said that Lindsey didn't need to do The Dance because he didn't need the money, but that the rest of them needed to do it to put money away for the future. She made the same amount as Lindsey on SYW and The Dance. When she's out on tour by herself, she's pinching her pennies because her tours don't make a lot of money. Enchanted was a flop, especially considering that she was hot off the Dance. The otur itself grossed $8 mil, her take from that wasn't much. And TISL didn't do so hot, although it did better than Enchanted.

And Fleetwood Mac would have never even been mainstream popular if not for Stevie's Rhiannon single. From what I have read, everyone credits that song with the success of the white album and how it secured the success of rumours.

Of course it would have. Chris was the Mac hitmaker, not Stevie.

And saying that the main draw in fleetwood mac is fleetwood mac is obvious. What I am trying to say is that if Stevie left the band it would hurt ticket sales much, much more then if Lindsey left the band.

Nope. Check out Behind the Mask.

And her solo tours are not as huge as FM tours, but isn't she still able to charge 100 dollars a ticket? That is pretty good!

She has to charge nearly a hundred in order to make a profit. Her tours aren't that successful, so the tickets have to be a bit pricey to cover costs.

Also, everyone is saying that Stevie spent so much money on coke, but is it really that expensive? I have never purchased it, but maybe someone else could fill me in. It just seems like for someone who is easily making millions of dollars a year a drug habit wouldn't put that much of a dent in her bank account.

When you have a habit as bad as hers was, of course it's expensive and could put a huge dent into your bank account. Mick went bankrupt because of it.

[dissention]

Does anyone else want to take the rest of this?

I just did and I think I need some coke myself after doing so. ;)

[face of glass]

Nope. Check out Behind the Mask.
Check out the Shake The Cage tour then, while you're at it. ;)

[David]

My guess is Irving Azoff. I can't see Tony Dimitriades saying that, however he no longer seems to be in Miss Nicks employ.
I thought Front Line (Howard Kauffman) was the guy she fired?

[David]

Check out the Shake The Cage tour then, while you're at it. ;)
Check out the Rattle & Hum tour, too -- what a great one!

[face of glass]

Check out the Shake The Cage tour then, while you're at it. ;)
Ok, I'll add to this. According to the Pollstar tour data on both the TITN and BTM tours they weren't that hugely different in amounts of audience. The BTM tour had a bit more half-empty (or half-full, if you want to be positive ;)) arenas in it but they weren't that far off from each other. :shrug:

[face of glass]

Check out the Rattle & Hum tour, too -- what a great one!
Yeah, especially when compared to every FM tour since 1987. :shocked:

[David]

Stevie's excesses and past drug problems are talked about in great detail more often than not ("over and over again"), and I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to deny that she's led a very lavish lifestyle or deny that she had an extremely expensive drug habit.I may be in the minority here, but I believe that Stevie has never actually tried cocaine. That view probably sounds a little unhinged to fellow fans.
My goodness, even Stevie herself openly admits that! Stevie also admits that the tons of money she snorted up her nose over the years, should have been better spent on something important.
I feel that Stevie's comments need to be taken in context here. I think what she meant was that she had spent a lot of money on her nose, but not on snorting drugs up inside her nose. I think what she's referring to is makeup & stuff like that which she puts on the outside of her nose -- if her nose is shiny, etc.

What do others think?

[dissention]

Check out the Shake The Cage tour then, while you're at it. ;)

I was talking about the album, wise ass. If I was referring to the tour, I would have typed tour after Behind the Mask. ;)

[David]

Yeah, especially when compared to every FM tour since 1987. :shocked:
Did you see the tour Stevie did with the Coltrane quartet (Tyner, Garrison & Jones)? Man, it was heavy . . . to hear McCoy Tyner play those opening bars of Rhiannon on piano . . . & the "sheets of sound" that Trane brought to a pumping Outside the Rain . . . brrr . . . I'm getting chills.

Very few people saw that tour.

[Tango]

I may be in the minority here, but I believe that Stevie has never actually tried cocaine. That view probably sounds a little unhinged to fellow fans.

I feel that Stevie's comments need to be taken in context here. I think what she meant was that she had spent a lot of money on her nose, but not on snorting drugs up inside her nose. I think what she's referring to is makeup & stuff like that which she puts on the outside of her nose -- if her nose is shiny, etc.

What do others think?

LOL! I can think of one fan that might agree with you.

[hayley]

This thread is so, so lame.

But, just for illustrative purposes-

TISL has sold around 650,000 copies- after an advance, I'd be willing to bet that Stevie got maybe $2-3M cleared on the record itself, before taxes, and that's being generous.

Enchanted has sold no more than 150,000 copies- and I'd be willing to venture that she's made about $2M on it.

With her lifestyle, maybe that funds a house and her shawl habit, but it's no huge fortune. So don't cite those records as reasons why she's made more money than LB because of her solo career post-1994. He cleared more cash than all of that put together with his participation and producer credit on The Dance.

[diamondsnake]

Nope. Check out Behind the Mask.


This isn't really fair. Stevie was on medication, right? She was tired and lacked energy and not herself. Her carreer was at an all time low. Once she lost the weight, got off drugs and got her energy back she would have been "cool" once again. I think that if Chris and Stevie were the front women of FM today (without lindsey) the ticket sales would be just as much as they are and the album sales would be the same or more. However, if it was Christine and Lindsey touring sans Stevie I am sorry to say that I don't think they could charge as much. What casual fan wants to go to a FM show without hearing GDW, Landslide, and Rhiannon? Of course this is all my opinion. It just seemed like at the shows I have been too I have made small talk with people next to me who were all there to see Stevie.

And I really like Lindsey so I am sorry about the twenty dollar comment. I guess I just need to control myself and stop being so defensive of Stevie. :nod:

[face of glass]

Very few people saw that tour.
Yup, even some jazz fans must have missed that one 'cos they didn't appreciate the fact that those revered musicians on stage were basing their improvisations on rock songs. :p

[Tango]

Stevie is also only supporting herself.

You really need to keep reading the Blue Letter Archives and some of the discussions. Stevie supports (and HAS supported) a plethora of people . . . in all sorts of ways.

[face of glass]

Let's elaborate on this then, even though this might turn into an embarrassing monologue.

In 1987 Fleetwood Mac still couldn't entirely rely on nostalgia. They may have adopted some of the regular nostalgia act habits already on the Mirage tour (not changing the setlist, playing only a few songs from the latest album and putting twice as many songs from their biggest selling album into the setlist) and were to adopt more of them on the TITN tour (such as not willing to develop the song arrangements in concert significantly anymore). But they still had to do an album that would sell and they did it with TITN. At that point it definitely didn't matter who was going to be on the tour, Lindsey Buckingham or Rick and Billy; the tour was going to be a guaranteed success anyway. Stevie Nicks' absence would have hurt the tour more, IMO, and the same case with Christine McVie, who once again had the lion's share of the hit singles from TITN.

The thing with Behind The Mask eventually was that it was released in the aftermath of TITN, a huge success worldwide. It didn't really matter how well BTM would sell because also that tour was going to do well, in spite of the content of the album. So at that point we can safely say that FM had most of the nostalgia act functions inserted into them for good. At this point it doesn't matter what is the content of the album; the majority of the concert goers are still there for nostalgia. Repeated to the nth time.
This thread is so, so lame.
I partly agree and therefore I should take a hike right now. :cool:

[Tango]

I think that if Chris and Stevie were the front women of FM today (without lindsey) the ticket sales would be just as much as they are and the album sales would be the same or more.

And I really like Lindsey so I am sorry about the twenty dollar comment. I guess I just need to control myself and stop being so defensive of Stevie. :nod:

Again, you are totally and clearly missing the contributions of Lindsey to not only the album but the tour. Stevie, by the way, does NOT want to be in a Fleetwood Mac without Lindsey. She's said that.

[face of glass]

Stevie, by the way, does NOT want to be in a Fleetwood Mac without Lindsey. She's said that.
Yeah, and we all can guess what conclusions can be drawn from that one. "Mick and John want Stevie in order to sell more, then they need Lindsey too 'cos Stevie says so". It's the package deal again, only the other way around. :lol: ;)

[hayley]

However, if it was Christine and Lindsey touring sans Stevie I am sorry to say that I don't think they could charge as much. What casual fan wants to go to a FM show without hearing GDW, Landslide, and Rhiannon?

Kiddo, your blind adulation of Stevie WILL disappear at some point, and you will realize that no one on the Rumours board HATES Stevie. It is impossible to be a fan of Rumours era Fleetwood Mac and HATE Stevie or HATE Lindsey or HATE Chris- because we are all fans of what they have made TOGETHER. And you'll realize that criticism is perfectly natural and completely acceptable.

Aside from that, what casual fan wants to go to an FM show without hearing You Make Loving Fun, Say You Love Me, Don't Stop (which is being played, but shouldn't be), Hold Me, etc.?

[Cour]

Yeah, but who knows how many shawls Lindsey has bought over the years and isn't telling us about? Eh, eh? One day it will all come out.
I also heard that's what nearly bankrupted Mick too. The shawls.


LOL! That was great.......thanks!

[Tango]

Yeah, and we all can guess what conclusions can be drawn from that one. "Mick and John want Stevie in order to sell more, then they need Lindsey too 'cos Stevie says so". It's the package deal again, only the other way around. :lol: ;)

I give him about 10 minutes. :lol:

[Johnny Stew]

My point is that some posters continually travel down the same roads over and over again and I'm not riled up I'm just tired of sitting back and saying nothing. Of course I know what Stevie says about her own drug use and poor choices, I don't find a need to bring it up every chance I get.

If you'll scroll back up you'll see that my original comment that got you all riled up was and the context of my post:

"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"

From there you brought up hyper-sensitivity, jumping to conclusions and your amusement that some fans seem to have a problem when someone puffs Stevie up.

I am not trying to start anything over the slapping incident, I brought it up to make a point. Did you think the original poster was trying to start anything a few months ago when they opened that thread with that topic and FIRE AWAY? It would have been understandable if a new poster or fan was curious about the topic and started that type of thread. But when a seasoned poster starts the thread with no opinion of their own but wanting input from others in the form of FIRE AWAY, I think they're trying to start something. I'm not the only one who thinks this way but if you don't, that's your opinion. I'm entitled to mine and I'm entitled to call them on it when I see a pattern of the same thing over and over again no matter how big a fan they say they are.

Some fans just are drawn to it and can't help themselves from bringing up anything negative to tarnish the other member just a little more.

Trust me, I cringe whenever I see those types of threads, too. With no offense meant to anyone, I absolutely hate the "Who's your favorite/least favorite" types of threads, or the "Who's the better songwriter," etc., etc., and I'd rather we found other topics of discussion.

I readily admit that I enjoy a good debate... it keeps things lively... but I can't see anything positive coming out of those particular types of threads.

I can't lie and say that I'm not a bit biased towards certain members. I have my favorites, and there's no way around that (for anyone keeping score, it's Stevie first, followed by Lindsey, followed by Christine. Then Bob Welch & Peter Green, next Rick Vito, then Danny Kirwan, and so on), but I still prefer to think of them as "team-mates" rather than rivals, and it sucks that they're so often pitted against each other.

Still, I didn't get a vibe from Jason's posts that he was somehow trying to bash Lindsey, or pit Lindsey and Stevie against each other in some sort of "who has the bigger toys" type argument.
Your statement that that's what he was doing, seemed undeserved to me, and that's why I felt the need to comment.

We're on the same side, Cour. :)

[gldstwmn]

Actually, I had heard he had spent weeks at a time with Cheri in the Four Seasons. Maybe he just likes living in hotels ;)

Well, if you're gonna live in a hotel, that's the one to do it in. I would never leave my room. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I know similar things to you and without the land that house did not cost 10 million dollars to build, but that's a nice high round number ;) .

When this discussion went down this road it was pointed out that since we don't know any accurate information about the band members personal finances it might be wise to not attach monetary figures to thing we don't know anything about. I don't think anything good can ever come about speculating about other peoples finances and commenting about the way they spend their money. You're free to do so but that's why these discussions take this road, you know...opinions, everyone has one ;)

Well, we could always check county records and see what the tax assessment is. :shocked: They are, after all, public records. I, of course, would never do such a thing.

[gldstwmn]

Someone should tell him he needs to eat some donuts and get off those Wheat Thins.

I don't know if it was actually Tony, I was told it was. I suppose fans who are more familiar with who was Stevie's manager at the time she gained the weight would know if it could have been Tony.

Well, she did and he was. :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

When she's out on tour by herself, she's pinching her pennies because her tours don't make a lot of money. Enchanted was a flop, especially considering that she was hot off the Dance. The otur itself grossed $8 mil, her take from that wasn't much. And TISL didn't do so hot, although it did better than Enchanted.

See, this is when I get a bit nitpicky... which, in turn, is when I then get blamed for "rushing to defend Stevie."

But I think the use of the word "flop" is a bit extreme when discussing a tour that grossed 8 million dollars, and inherently a statement like that is bound to cause people to disagree (and then, as so often happens, they're accused of being blind to reality).

It's certainly not the highest-grossing tour Stevie has ever had, and it's definitely not in league with the kind of numbers Fleetwood Mac typically does... but a "flop" it's not.

Maybe your idea of a "flop" and my idea of a "flop" are two different things. But I've certainly never considered anything that grossed millions of dollars, to have been a flop (and that includes 'Tusk'). :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

I may be in the minority here, but I believe that Stevie has never actually tried cocaine. That view probably sounds a little unhinged to fellow fans.

I feel that Stevie's comments need to be taken in context here. I think what she meant was that she had spent a lot of money on her nose, but not on snorting drugs up inside her nose. I think what she's referring to is makeup & stuff like that which she puts on the outside of her nose -- if her nose is shiny, etc.

What do others think?

I think you're warped... in the best way possible. :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

And I really like Lindsey so I am sorry about the twenty dollar comment. I guess I just need to control myself and stop being so defensive of Stevie. :nod:

It's natural to want to stick up for the people/things you like, Christopher... we all do it.

But trust me, you don't have to be quite so defensive when people make comments about Stevie.
Sure, some things can (and should) be debated, and there's nothing wrong with that. But a lot of things are just said matter-of-factly, and aren't meant as a slam against her.

Also, sometimes you have to consider by whom it's being said, even moreso than what they're saying.

[MirrorInTheSky]

I just want to thank everyone for their contribution to this 'lively' discussion. I never intended for people to debate who's better than who. Let's face it, none of them would be anywhere without the others, so I just choose to enjoy the music. I just think it's fun to guess and play with numbers so huge because Lord knows I'll never be able to apply those figures to MY bank account. Those rich bastards....God I love 'em.

[Cour]

Well, she did and he was. :wavey:

ummm, she did what? I'm a little lost, who is she? :shrug: lol

[Cour]

Maybe your idea of a "flop" and my idea of a "flop" are two different things. But I've certainly never considered anything that grossed millions of dollars, to have been a flop (and that includes 'Tusk'). :shrug:

I'm not going to debate or enter into whether this tour was a flop or success. I will say that 8 million or 800 million gross means nothing without discussing the net. I can show you a ton of companies that gross billions of dollars and barely make a few hundred thousand dollars or lose money. IMO that's not a success.

Oh, and I don't think this is an example of rushing to Stevie's defense if you want to rectify an incorrect statement or clarify some misinformation:) :xoxo:

[hayley]

See, this is when I get a bit nitpicky... which, in turn, is when I then get blamed for "rushing to defend Stevie."

But I think the use of the word "flop" is a bit extreme when discussing a tour that grossed 8 million dollars, and inherently a statement like that is bound to cause people to disagree (and then, as so often happens, they're accused of being blind to reality).

It's certainly not the highest-grossing tour Stevie has ever had, and it's definitely not in league with the kind of numbers Fleetwood Mac typically does... but a "flop" it's not.

Maybe your idea of a "flop" and my idea of a "flop" are two different things. But I've certainly never considered anything that grossed millions of dollars, to have been a flop (and that includes 'Tusk'). :shrug:

I'm not sure if Diss was referring to the actual box set or to the tour, but neither were flops by any means. I posted numbers earlier that Enchanted has sold around 150,000 copies, which is by no means a flop, for a box set. Those are good numbers. And the Enchanted tour did quite well. Better than the TISL tour.

[gldstwmn]

ummm, she did what? I'm a little lost, who is she? :shrug: lol

Stevie gained weight at about the same time TD was her manager.

[face of glass]

And the Enchanted tour did quite well. Better than the TISL tour.
Well, Pollstar is Pollstar and is bound to show some data incorrectly and have some venues missing, but I compared the figures for both tours at FM Legacy and they seemed to be pretty close to each other in average. Enchanted: "266,985 total (7,628 avg) of 511,440 available (52%)"; TISL: "233,909 total (8,663 avg) of 383,818 available (60%)". TISL did seem to have a few more sold-out arenas and by contrast the Enchanted tour had a couple that were 15% full.
But nah, I wouldn't call either of them flops.

[Cour]

This thread is so, so lame.

But, just for illustrative purposes-

TISL has sold around 650,000 copies- after an advance, I'd be willing to bet that Stevie got maybe $2-3M cleared on the record itself, before taxes, and that's being generous.

I'm wondering how Stevie could clear anywhere near $2-3 million for a cd that sold 650,000 copies? Besides the production costs on the cd she also had 2 videos which would have been charged to her. Maybe I don't understand the math used in the recording industry today. How much would she have had to be paid on each cd to clear that type of money?

[Johnny Stew]

I'm not going to debate or enter into whether this tour was a flop or success. I will say that 8 million or 800 million gross means nothing without discussing the net. I can show you a ton of companies that gross billions of dollars and barely make a few hundred thousand dollars or lose money. IMO that's not a success.

Oh, and I don't think this is an example of rushing to Stevie's defense if you want to rectify an incorrect statement or clarify some misinformation:) :xoxo:

Thank you, and I do understand what you're saying... gross and net are definitely two different things. But even if you consider all of the overhead, etc., I imagine Stevie is still pulling in a decent amount of money from a tour that grossed 8-10 million dollars.

Otherwise, I just can't see why she'd continue to tour so often and at such a level.
I mean, if I weren't making money on tour, and the tours weren't making that big of a difference in my album sales, then I'd definitely find other ways to make some cash. Either by not touring at all and focusing on recording more albums (where I'd stand to earn more, thru both artists royalties and songwriter royalties), or by playing smaller venues with lower overhead costs.

So I tend to think that if Stevie weren't making a decent amount of money on a tour that "only grossed 8 million," then either she or her financial advisors would realize it's not worth the time & energy, and would make some changes.

[Tango]

I mean, if I weren't making money on tour, and the tours weren't making that big of a difference in my album sales, then I'd definitely find other ways to make some cash.

What was that quote in the Destiny Rules documentary . . . she prays to the commercial gods? :laugh:

[chiliD]

I'm wondering how Stevie could clear anywhere near $2-3 million for a cd that sold 650,000 copies? Besides the production costs on the cd she also had 2 videos which would have been charged to her. Maybe I don't understand the math used in the recording industry today. How much would she have had to be paid on each cd to clear that type of money?


Depends on how much the record company gave her as an advance on the album. The less money she spends on production of the CD, the more $$ goes toward marketing, which increases sales, which should increase the profit margin. The record company gets their advance recouped before the artist sees any money. Case in point...Frampton Comes Alive was Peter Frampton's FOURTH solo album...and despite its massive sales, he barely saw any money from it because all the profits from it were used to pay back the advances on his first three albums. It wasn't until I'm In You did he see any income from album sales. Sure, he still got songwriter royalties, but didn't see a DIME of artist royalties until the advances were paid back.

[Johnny Stew]

In regards to the management question... Stevie was under the advisement of Frontline Management (with Stevie's "main manager" alternately being Irving Azoff, Rebecca Alvarez and Howard Kaufman) from approx. 1978/79 thru 1986.
Then she was with East End Management/Tony Dimitriades (w/Glen Parrish) from 1987-1990.
In 1991, she signed with HK Management/Howard Kaufman.
In 1994, she was with Glen Parrish Management, and then by 1997, she was back with HK Management and has been ever since.

We know that Frontline Management, or "Weasel Management," was fired not long after the 'Rock A Little' tour, around which time Stevie had gained weight... so it could have been one of those managers who chastized her for the weight gain.
Now, Howard Kaufman was heading Frontline, circa 1986, so it seems unlikely she would hire him again later if he had been the one to make the weight comment.

So... that leaves either Rebecca Alvarez or Tony Dimitriades as being the manager in question. And maybe it's sexist of me, but I'd be surprised if a female manager would chastize a female client for gaining weight. But who knows? :shrug:

[Cour]

Depends on how much the record company gave her as an advance on the album. The less money she spends on production of the CD, the more $$ goes toward marketing, which increases sales, which should increase the profit margin. The record company gets their advance recouped before the artist sees any money. Case in point...Frampton Comes Alive was Peter Frampton's FOURTH solo album...and despite its massive sales, he barely saw any money from it because all the profits from it were used to pay back the advances on his first three albums. It wasn't until I'm In You did he see any income from album sales. Sure, he still got songwriter royalties, but didn't see a DIME of artist royalties until the advances were paid back.

Thanks, I understand most of that and knew about artists owing the record companies for past projects, which is what I was trying to say about Lindsey in the DR documentary. I just don't know how she could average between approx $3-5 per cd after production costs and 2 videos. She did spend a lot of time in the studio (first with Dallas Austin) and then with Sheryl making the cd and those videos cost a pretty penny also. I was just curious how she could have gotten to that type of payout after expenses.

Also, doesn't the record company protect itself on the back end and try to recoup a certain percentage of the advance if the sales don't reach a certain level?

[Cour]

So... that leaves either Rebecca Alvarez or Tony Dimitriades as being the manager in question. And maybe it's sexist of me, but I'd be surprised if a female manager would chastize a female client for gaining weight. But who knows? :shrug:


I think any manager who's worth their money would tell their client the truth and the weight issue is much more prevelant today than it was back when this happened. A manager is supposed to look out for their clients best interests and if journalists are pointing out the change in her weight and appearance than IMO the manager has a responsibility to tell their client the truth. If they're not telling her the truth than she has the wrong manager. I think it would probably be easier for a woman to tell another woman than it would be for a man to do it. But then again, some men :laugh:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this happen during the downturn in Stevie's career and when she was under the influence of the Klonopin?

Oh and since it's been that kind of day here :) I don't care if she weighs 500 lbs or 100 lbs as long as she's happy and healthy. I'm only responding to what I see as the manager's responsibility.

[chiliD]

I don't care if she weighs 500 lbs or 100 lbs as long as she's happy and healthy.

Show me ANYONE who weighs 500 lbs who's "healthy". :shrug: Or, for that matter, over 250 lbs.

[Cour]

Show me ANYONE who weighs 500 lbs who's "healthy". :shrug: Or, for that matter, over 250 lbs.


Okay, okay.......how bout....100 lbs and 200 lbs? Nah, still not healthy. Well, you know what I meant! ;)

[hayley]

Thanks, I understand most of that and knew about artists owing the record companies for past projects, which is what I was trying to say about Lindsey in the DR documentary. I just don't know how she could average between approx $3-5 per cd after production costs and 2 videos. She did spend a lot of time in the studio (first with Dallas Austin) and then with Sheryl making the cd and those videos cost a pretty penny also. I was just curious how she could have gotten to that type of payout after expenses.

Also, doesn't the record company protect itself on the back end and try to recoup a certain percentage of the advance if the sales don't reach a certain level?

My original post said that I was being "generous" in saying she cleared $2-3M. I don't know exactly how much she made, but I'm really willing to bet that it was about $1.5-2M... sometimes it's easier around here to be unrealistic than have to explain these kinds of deals over and over, and defend against people who would be shocked that Stevie doesn't make a gazillion dollars from her records.

She has excellent management that's more than likely negotiated a great deal for her at Warners. She more than likely paid for the majority of the recording costs herself, as smart, established artists generally do, so she probably didn't take a ridiculous advance, which gave her more to clear off the unit price.

Just as an FYI, the cost to retailers to buy copies of TISL was around $12 before any deals. The record company generally stands to clear around $8-$9 of that per unit. A $2.50-$3.00 recoup isn't unheard of for an artist of Stevie's caliber.

You also have to understand that Warners is willing to work with Stevie, give her more money, better leverage, and a good deal for a reason- they like to stay on good terms with her because of her association with Fleetwood Mac. They wouldn't mind not having a huge moneymaking record in return for the success of the Dance and the FM catalog, not to mention the possibility of future releases. They were attempting to do the same with Lindsey and his solo project until the newer regime came in and basically decided that that relationship wasn't worth coddling him over and losing that kind of money.

[The Tower]

LIVING in a 5k a night hotel is idiotic and self indulgent no matter how much money a person has. Rent a furnished house. Hire a cook and a maid. There's a difference between being able to afford 5k a night - for months at a time, and just throwing money out the window. I am sure his accountant was having a heart attack. It's so unnecessary to throw money around like that. It seems out of character - you don't get money by handling money in such a manner. Preposteruous when you can rent a furnished mansion and have hired help for about 1/4 the cost monthly. Whatever. It's like leaving the faucet on all night just because the water works. :shrug:


:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol:

[sparky]

The design bill for that house alone would be astronomical. :nod: I think it's safe to say that he spent between $8-$10 million on that house.

Oh, easily. A friend of mine is in a firm that did a house about a mile away. The people owned the land. It had 20% more sq footage than the house in question, and a pool and guest house. The decorating costs ? 2 million. The budget for the entire job ? Between 12-15 million. They weren't done when I went to the opening party, and they were past 13 already. A spanish, two story house, similar to Lindsey's. 8 would be a bargain.

[gldstwmn]

I think any manager who's worth their money would tell their client the truth and the weight issue is much more prevelant today than it was back when this happened. A manager is supposed to look out for their clients best interests and if journalists are pointing out the change in her weight and appearance than IMO the manager has a responsibility to tell their client the truth. If they're not telling her the truth than she has the wrong manager. I think it would probably be easier for a woman to tell another woman than it would be for a man to do it. But then again, some men :laugh:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this happen during the downturn in Stevie's career and when she was under the influence of the Klonopin?

Oh and since it's been that kind of day here :) I don't care if she weighs 500 lbs or 100 lbs as long as she's happy and healthy. I'm only responding to what I see as the manager's responsibility.

I just watched a doc on the Health Channel with Ann Wilson and she said she was constantly pressured in the 80's-90's to lose weight by her management becuase they told her it was hurting the band.

[dissention]

But I think the use of the word "flop" is a bit extreme when discussing a tour that grossed 8 million dollars, and inherently a statement like that is bound to cause people to disagree (and then, as so often happens, they're accused of being blind to reality).

It's certainly not the highest-grossing tour Stevie has ever had, and it's definitely not in league with the kind of numbers Fleetwood Mac typically does... but a "flop" it's not.

Maybe your idea of a "flop" and my idea of a "flop" are two different things. But I've certainly never considered anything that grossed millions of dollars, to have been a flop (and that includes 'Tusk'). :shrug:

Sorry, it was a flop, IMO. She was coming right off the HUGE success of The Dance and the tour failed to even break $10 million. It was a success in the sense that she was in top form and the songs were fantastic, but a financial success? I'd have to say no.

[dissention]

I'm not sure if Diss was referring to the actual box set or to the tour, but neither were flops by any means. I posted numbers earlier that Enchanted has sold around 150,000 copies, which is by no means a flop, for a box set. Those are good numbers. And the Enchanted tour did quite well. Better than the TISL tour.

There are charts out there that show all of the tours from '98 and their grosses, Enchanted made $8 million and if I remember correctly, TISL made $14 million. Not sure about TISL, though.

[HomerMcvie]

You hit the nail on the head, or rather, the black on the chiffon.

I told ya all before, never say anything that could EVER be construed as negative about the Queen of Velvet Fountains and Fairy Farts.

(for those who can't tell, that was a joke)
Ya know, I've typed RAOTFLMFAO before, but it wasn't literal...........but,
I'm RAOTFLMFAO! I'll bet the neighbors even heard me laughing. :lol: :lol: :lol:
And why does she emit bell like noises in the middle of the night? What the hell's she eating?
Ding dongs! :sorry: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Johnny Stew]

Sorry, it was a flop, IMO. She was coming right off the HUGE success of The Dance and the tour failed to even break $10 million. It was a success in the sense that she was in top form and the songs were fantastic, but a financial success? I'd have to say no.

I guess I just don't have what I'd consider to be unrealistic expectations of Stevie's recent solo tours matching the earnings of something like 'The Dance,' especially given the fact that it was the first tour the 'Rumours'-era lineup of Fleetwood Mac had embarked on in 14 years.

Hell, I'm impressed that the 'Enchanted' tour did as well as it did, given that Stevie had hit pretty much all of those cities just one year prior, and with Fleetwood Mac, to boot!
Granted, she most likely benefitted from the fact that not everyone was able to attend the Mac shows... but, on the flip side of the coin, how many people stayed home because they had already seen her with Fleetwood Mac just less than 12 months beforehand?

So, no, I don't consider a gross of 8 million dollars for her solo tour to be a "flop," no matter how successful 'The Dance' was for Fleetwood Mac as a reunited group.
Was it as financially successful? Of course not... that much is obvious.
But it most definitely wasn't a "flop" either.

[amber]

I guess I just don't have what I'd consider to be unrealistic expectations of Stevie's recent solo tours matching the earnings of something like 'The Dance,' especially given the fact that it was the first tour the 'Rumours'-era lineup of Fleetwood Mac had embarked on in 14 years.

Hell, I'm impressed that the 'Enchanted' tour did as well as it did, given that Stevie had hit pretty much all of those cities just one year prior, and with Fleetwood Mac, to boot!
Granted, she most likely benefitted from the fact that not everyone was able to attend the Mac shows... but, on the flip side of the coin, how many people stayed home because they had already seen her with Fleetwood Mac just less than 12 months beforehand?

So, no, I don't consider a gross of 8 million dollars for her solo tour to be a "flop," no matter how successful 'The Dance' was for Fleetwood Mac as a reunited group.
Was it as financially successful? Of course not... that much is obvious.
But it most definitely wasn't a "flop" either.
You know diss is just going to keep saying "flop" at you anyways. And then the scintillating "flop, not flop" argument will go on and on...just saying.
Amber

[The Tower]

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

A joint?!?! I don't think so. I saw him smoking a cigarette, but not joint.

I was under the impression that there are no royalties played when a song is performed live, only when they are used in a media performance.

Nope. If you play someone else's song live and earn money- ya gotta pay the songwriter.

I'm not sure whether Stevie was paid by Destiny's Child for them using the riff in the first place.

Yep. Ya gotta pay for samples these days. They haven't been free since the early 90's.

Unless a live show is recorded and sold as a video, CD, or DVD, no royalties have to be paid if someone covers a song. :)

Nope. If ya play it, ya gotta pay. Unless you get permission to play without paying, which happens.

And Fleetwood Mac would have never even been mainstream popular if not for Stevie's Rhiannon single. From what I have read, everyone credits that song with the success of the white album and how it secured the success of rumours.

Nope. I think FM's popularity with the mainstream should probably be attributed primarily to Christine's "Say You Love Me", "Over My Head", "Don't Stop" and "You Make Loving Fun".

I thought Front Line (Howard Kauffman) was the guy she fired?

Howard Kaufman is her current manager and has been for the last ten years or so, if my memory serves me correct.

[Johnny Stew]

You know diss is just going to keep saying "flop" at you anyways. And then the scintillating "flop, not flop" argument will go on and on...just saying.

:laugh:
Yeah, it's yet another of the classic "tastes great/less filling" type debates/arguments that we seem to have around here so very often! :laugh:

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Howard Kaufman is her current manager and has been for the last ten years or so, if my memory serves me correct.
Sheryl Louis is her current manager

Pip

[BrokenWing]

You know, the incredible irony of this whole discussion about wealth is that the band's founder and initial leader quit after his bandmates vetoed his plan to keep what they needed to live on and give all the rest to charity! :laugh:

Seriously, though, I wonder what Peter Green thought of the lavish lifestyle his ex-bandmates went on to live....well, some of them, anyway.

Eileen

[diamondsnake]

You know, the incredible irony of this whole discussion about wealth is that the band's founder and initial leader quit after his bandmates vetoed his plan to keep what they needed to live on and give all the rest to charity! :laugh:

Seriously, though, I wonder what Peter Green thought of the lavish lifestyle his ex-bandmates went on to live....well, some of them, anyway.

Eileen


By the way, is Peter Green still alive? Another question- have any ex-band members passed away? You'd think so in a band with 14 or so past and current members.

[Johnny Stew]

By the way, is Peter Green still alive? Another question- have any ex-band members passed away? You'd think so in a band with 14 or so past and current members.

I know that first question will probably give poor ol' chiliD a heart-attack, but you're pretty new to Mac fandom, so there's no harm in asking. Anyway, to answer you... yes, Peter Green is still alive.
And thankfully so.

So far none of the former members of Fleetwood Mac have passed away... and I hope it stays that way for a good long while. :nod:

[Johnny Stew]

Sheryl Louis is her current manager

Hi, Pip. :)

Sheryl Louis is Stevie's co-manager, but the head honcho is still Howard Kaufman. :)

[Janis_no1]

yikes this is a big post.. im going to have to prin thtis off tomorrow and read it i think!! I saw 6 pages the when i opened it it said 14! whoa!!

[strandinthewind]

Hi, Pip. :)

Sheryl Louis is Stevie's co-manager, but the head honcho is still Howard Kaufman. :)

He sure is LOL - remember LB saying that in the DR doc.? What did he call him Scary Howie or something like that :laugh:

[Vianna]

Well, all I can say is I could probably live for a year on any of their pocket change... :)

I would think Lindsey has the most money but then he now will have the expense of raising and educating three kids. The cost of that may surprise him :)

We know Mick spends like crazy-who knows how many million went up his nose?

Chris probably isn't hurting at all either.

Stevie has made pots of money but she has had more expenses too-and didn't she have some trouble with the IRS back in 1991? That must have cost a bit...

How come we never hear anything about John?

Anyhow, I love them all dearly and while I wish I were one of Stevie's pet charities :), I don't feel they shouldn't have the money. At least they've worked hard and brought pleasure to millions. You can't say that about Enron, for example...

[HomerMcvie]

Chris probably isn't hurting at all either.
Rolling Stone had her listed a few months ago, as #34th richest, with 25 Million dollars. I think this was among English rock stars.

[macfan 57]

Rolling Stone had her listed a few months ago, as #34th richest, with 25 Million dollars. I think this was among English rock stars.

That was in Q Magazine, I believe about 5 or 6 years ago. That 25 million was in English pounds. That probably comes to close to 40 million U.S. dollars. Not that an extra 15 million dollars makes that much of a difference. :laugh:

[diamondsnake]

I know that first question will probably give poor ol' chiliD a heart-attack, but you're pretty new to Mac fandom, so there's no harm in asking. Anyway, to answer you... yes, Peter Green is still alive.
And thankfully so.

So far none of the former members of Fleetwood Mac have passed away... and I hope it stays that way for a good long while. :nod:

Me too.

But I thought I read he want crazy or something... The only history book I have of the Mac is Rumours Exposed and I sort of skipped to the Buckingham Nicks era.

[Tango]

Me too.

But I thought I read he want crazy or something... The only history book I have of the Mac is Rumours Exposed and I sort of skipped to the Buckingham Nicks era.
There's actually a board here on The Ledge with his name on it if you want to read some current stuff.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Just as an FYI, the cost to retailers to buy copies of TISL was around $12 before any deals. The record company generally stands to clear around $8-$9 of that per unit. A $2.50-$3.00 recoup isn't unheard of for an artist of Stevie's caliber.

You also have to understand that Warners is willing to work with Stevie, give her more money, better leverage, and a good deal for a reason- they like to stay on good terms with her because of her association with Fleetwood Mac. They wouldn't mind not having a huge moneymaking record in return for the success of the Dance and the FM catalog, not to mention the possibility of future releases. They were attempting to do the same with Lindsey and his solo project until the newer regime came in and basically decided that that relationship wasn't worth coddling him over and losing that kind of money.

I read an interview in Rolling Stone a year or so ago, and they said that even the top artist will never make over $3 a CD, and on average people make about $1 - $2 per CD, of course all depending on the advance they were paid. Some artists prefer a larger advance, and will opt to not make hardly anything PER CD.

[tynan88]

Wow this is one huge post, I honestly don't think any one is trying to puff anyone up here, but maybe that is just because I'm new, I believe that they are all most likely rolling in it at the moment, but now they are at the age where they are controllong the money a lot better, I tend to think just on his personality that Lindsey has been the wisest with his money, but I think everyone else is probably taking lessons off him now, because they want to make sure they have a nice healthy, nest egg for retirement. That doesn't mean they won't go out and spend but they are probably gonna be more careful nowadays.

In relation to the comment before about the how Stevie wouldn't be qualify for a mortgage I tend to think this was said as a hypothetical situation put to her by her mother, ie: if you didn't have millions of dollars in your current state you wouldn't be able to get a mortgage.

I think all in all we just have to agree to wish all of them best, even though the odds of any of them ever going hungry are unlikely :lol:

Tynan