Mac salary split?

[HomerMcvie]

John drove a Volkswagen Bug / Beetle when they came back on the market in the 1990's he bought the first year of the second generation bug.

You know, a few (former) Ledge friends and I had a pool party this past weekend, and we were discussing the members, and who "had what". We only checked "Celebrity Net Worth" online, but the results (of that site) were a little amazing. It stated:
Stevie - 75 Mil(not surprising)
Lindsey - 45 Mil(kind of expected, given Stevie's)
Christine - 65!!! Mil (shocking, given that she was gone for 18 years, I guess it's the royalties from the hits???/selling her catalog back when?)
Mick - 12 Mil(hahahahahaha, no one has EVER run thru money faster than Mick, in the history of the world).

Ahem....but John, hmm, wouldn't he have CLOSE to what Mick does, since they most likely made close to the same percentage? Well, no. Mick made more, since he WAS management!!!

John McVie - 50 Mil!!!!

See what riding back to the hotel after the show, with the crew, will do for your bank acct? John is my hero, and heroes are hard to find!!!!

(again, all these numbers are based upon celebritynetworth.com, and I'm only going by those figures)

[SteveMacD]

You know, a few (former) Ledge friends and I had a pool party this past weekend, and we were discussing the members, and who "had what". We only checked "Celebrity Net Worth" online, but the results (of that site) were a little amazing. It stated:
Stevie - 75 Mil(not surprising)
Lindsey - 45 Mil(kind of expected, given Stevie's)
Christine - 65!!! Mil (shocking, given that she was gone for 18 years, I guess it's the royalties from the hits???/selling her catalog back when?)
Mick - 12 Mil(hahahahahaha, no one has EVER run thru money faster than Mick, in the history of the world).

Ahem....but John, hmm, wouldn't he have CLOSE to what Mick does, since they most likely made close to the same percentage? Well, no. Mick made more, since he WAS management!!!

John McVie - 50 Mil!!!!

See what riding back to the hotel after the show, with the crew, will do for your bank acct? John is my hero, and heroes are hard to find!!!!

(again, all these numbers are based upon celebritynetworth.com, and I'm only going by those figures)

Take that info with a huge chunk salt. That site (or similar site) said that Robert Pollard was worth $20 million, but he's not worth a fraction of that.

[SteveMacD]

You know, a few (former) Ledge friends and I had a pool party this past weekend, and we were discussing the members, and who "had what". We only checked "Celebrity Net Worth" online, but the results (of that site) were a little amazing. It stated:
Stevie - 75 Mil(not surprising)
Lindsey - 45 Mil(kind of expected, given Stevie's)
Christine - 65!!! Mil (shocking, given that she was gone for 18 years, I guess it's the royalties from the hits???/selling her catalog back when?)
Mick - 12 Mil(hahahahahaha, no one has EVER run thru money faster than Mick, in the history of the world).

Ahem....but John, hmm, wouldn't he have CLOSE to what Mick does, since they most likely made close to the same percentage? Well, no. Mick made more, since he WAS management!!!

John McVie - 50 Mil!!!!

See what riding back to the hotel after the show, with the crew, will do for your bank acct? John is my hero, and heroes are hard to find!!!!

(again, all these numbers are based upon celebritynetworth.com, and I'm only going by those figures)

I remember an article back during that time where Mick was talking about buying 2 of those New Beetles- 1 for him, 1 for Lynn.



$50 Million definitely seems aggressive for John. However, he is far and away the most frugal member of the band. He dresses simply, doesn't live in multimillion dollar homes, and seemingly the only expensive hobby he has are his boats. Even those seem extremely modest by rock star standards. He's a known conservative, too... I bet he's been smarter than the rest of the band about investing wisely from the beginning.

Yes, Mick was the manager for the band during it's heyday. However, Mick blew that money 30 years ago. Still, I have my doubts John is worth more than Lindsey. That's simply because Lindsey gets so much larger of a cut of touring revenue than John does. Despite Lindsey's lavish lifestyle, he still has to be coming out ahead of John.
I'm not sure that Christine, Stevie, and Lindsey make more on tour than Mick and John. Lindsey's lifestyle is significantly more extravagant, and he has more mouths to feed. And, Lindsey has also funded several solo tours over the years, which can't be cheap. So, I don't doubt John has more money.

[HomerMcvie]

I'm not sure that Christine, Stevie, and Lindsey make more on tour than Mick and John. Lindsey's lifestyle is significantly more extravagant, and he has more mouths to feed. And, Lindsey has also funded several solo tours over the years, which can't be cheap. So, I don't doubt John has more money.

I remember reading - pre Christine return- that the previous tours were split:
SN - 40%
LB - 30%
MF and JM - 15% each

I'd love to know how the pie is split now, but have no idea. I seriously doubt that it's 5-20%s! I don't think Stevie's ego or management would ever go for that. Or Lindsey's ego either, for that matter.

[Macfan4life]

I remember reading - pre Christine return- that the previous tours were split:
SN - 40%
LB - 30%
MF and JM - 15% each

I'd love to know how the pie is split now, but have no idea. I seriously doubt that it's 5-20%s! I don't think Stevie's ego or management would ever go for that. Or Lindsey's ego either, for that matter.
Wow, what is the source for such information. I would be shocked that the founding members of Fleetwood Mac would get half as much money as the guitarist and singer and far less than a singer.
I just found that insane to believe. Stevie Nicks management would want 40% of income from the band's tour? That is so crazy.

[SteveMacD]

I'm not sure where that percentages split originated. I though it was a number somebody pulled out of thin air.

[michelej1]

I'm not sure where that percentages split originated. I though it was a number somebody pulled out of thin air.

Yeah, someone posted it here and I think people thought the poster had inside information or something, but it wasn't like it came from an official source. I mean it wasn't Billboard or Deadline or something.

Michele

[Macfanforever]

I remember reading - pre Christine return- that the previous tours were split:
SN - 40%
LB - 30%
MF and JM - 15% each

I'd love to know how the pie is split now, but have no idea. I seriously doubt that it's 5-20%s! I don't think Stevie's ego or management would ever go for that. Or Lindsey's ego either, for that matter.

You know, a few (former) Ledge friends and I had a pool party this past weekend, and we were discussing the members, and who "had what". We only checked "Celebrity Net Worth" online, but the results (of that site) were a little amazing. It stated:
Stevie - 75 Mil(not surprising)
Lindsey - 45 Mil(kind of expected, given Stevie's)
Christine - 65!!! Mil (shocking, given that she was gone for 18 years, I guess it's the royalties from the hits???/selling her catalog back when?)
Mick - 12 Mil(hahahahahaha, no one has EVER run thru money faster than Mick, in the history of the world).

Ahem....but John, hmm, wouldn't he have CLOSE to what Mick does, since they most likely made close to the same percentage? Well, no. Mick made more, since he WAS management!!!

John McVie - 50 Mil!!!!

See what riding back to the hotel after the show, with the crew, will do for your bank acct? John is my hero, and heroes are hard to find!!!!

(again, all these numbers are based upon celebritynetworth.com, and I'm only going by those figures)


Thats interesting stuff David.I'm shocked myself to see the creators of the Mac are only making 15% a piece.I wonder what the percentage with Christine would be at. I'm shock what Christine is at 65 Mil.She must have some good investments like real estate to make almost as much as Stevie has.

Back on track.

Speaking about VW's.I can see the Mac driving around in a VW camper or bus.I always like those.

[HomerMcvie]

Thats interesting stuff David.I'm shocked myself to see the creators of the Mac are only making 15% a piece.I wonder what the percentage with Christine would be at. I'm shock what Christine is at 65 Mil.She must have some good investments like real estate to make almost as much as Stevie has.

Back on track.

Speaking about VW's.I can see the Mac driving around in a VW camper or bus.I always like those.

Come on, BEFORE Christine's return, how would FM have fared in ticket sales, sans Stevie? She held the cards. She knew it, and her management knew it.

Now that Chris has been (considerably) welcomed back:wavey: , I think her(SN) value has been diminished, in the grand scheme of things. Second Hand Mews.

[jbrownsjr]

Come on, BEFORE Christine's return, how would FM have fared in ticket sales, sans Stevie? She held the cards. She knew it, and her management knew it.

Now that Chris has been (considerably) welcomed back:wavey: , I think her(SN) value has been diminished, in the grand scheme of things. Second Hand Mews.

Second Hand Mooooo's

[Wdm6789]

Come on, BEFORE Christine's return, how would FM have fared in ticket sales, sans Stevie? She held the cards. She knew it, and her management knew it.

Now that Chris has been (considerably) welcomed back:wavey: , I think her(SN) value has been diminished, in the grand scheme of things. Second Hand Mews.


How have the shows been selling for this tour since Christine is back? What percentage of the ticket purchasers do you think bought tickets just because Christine came back? Have there been a lot of sell outs? I've seen a lot of lists that have Fleetwood Mac in the top 5 money makers for concerts this year.

[HomerMcvie]

How have the shows been selling for this tour since Christine is back? What percentage of the ticket purchasers do you think bought tickets just because Christine came back? Have there been a lot of sell outs? I've seen a lot of lists that have Fleetwood Mac in the top 5 money makers for concerts this year.

I haven't seen anyone post what they even THINK the pie cuts might be, now.

I tell you this, I would've NEVER paid $350 for a ticket, unless Christine came back. And I did. And I'll do it again.

Christine McVie IS the heart and soul of Fleetwood Mac. That is all.

[FuzzyPlum]

I haven't seen anyone post what they even THINK the pie cuts might be, now.


25%
25%
25%
12.5%
12.5%

...would be fair
...but I'd guess it's closer to...

30%
25%
25%
10%
10%

[FuzzyPlum]

I tell you this, I would've NEVER paid $350 for a ticket, unless Christine came back. And I did. And I'll do it again.

Christine McVie IS the heart and soul of Fleetwood Mac. That is all.

I paid loads for my tickets last time- well over the odds.
If there were a show sans-Stevie I'd probably be willing to pay the same, maybe even more.

[bombaysaffires]

25%
25%
25%
12.5%
12.5%

...would be fair
...but I'd guess it's closer to...

30%
25%
25%
10%
10%

I'm assuming that represents Stevie, Lindsey, Chris, Mick and John in that order.

I have to wonder though if Chris at this juncture would get the same as Lindsey. Not saying he personally would make a stink about it but managers, etc. are the ones who handle that stuff. Sadly I would not be surprised if she was NOT brought in on par with either of the other writers what with the "I/we kept the band going and kept it viable and did all this work and touring without you so you now have a successful band to return to". But who knows. Not sure how I think it'd split out.

I would hope that EVERYONE in the band would give up a little bit to make up Chris' share, but I can see Stevie's people fighting that tooth and nail. I agree the should make all 3 writers 25% and keep both Mick and John at their 12.5%. But again, I doubt Stevie thinks the others are equal to her.

[HomerMcvie]

25%
25%
25%
12.5%
12.5%

...would be fair
...but I'd guess it's closer to...

30%
25%
25%
10%
10%

You first guess is the fair one, therefore I highly suspect the 2nd one to be true!

[HomerMcvie]

If there were a show sans-Stevie I'd probably be willing to pay the same, maybe even more.

Me too! Just all CM/LB songs, with Oh Well thrown in. Bring it!:wavey:

[pattyfan]

I just have to say that I am shocked that they get different percentages of concert revenue. I do think that Stevie is more famous than the other 4, and that people would probably still come to see Fleetwood Mac if John or Mick weren't there, but Stevie and/or Lindsey and/or Stevie were. But I can not imagine working with 4 other people for over 40 years and not wanting everything to be equal when there is so much money going around. It's not like they need to worry about their money. Maybe I'm naive, and maybe you all knew this before, but this is news to me and it kind of disgusts me.

Kevin

[HomerMcvie]

I just have to say that I am shocked that they get different percentages of concert revenue. I do think that Stevie is more famous than the other 4, and that people would probably still come to see Fleetwood Mac if John or Mick weren't there, but Stevie and/or Lindsey and/or Stevie were. But I can not imagine working with 4 other people for over 40 years and not wanting everything to be equal when there is so much money going around. It's not like they need to worry about their money. Maybe I'm naive, and maybe you all knew this before, but this is news to me and it kind of disgusts me.

Kevin

Of course it should be equal, and probably was, minus Mick's management cut, way back when, before his head rolled.

Then the lawyers and managers took over. Welcome to America(even if it sucks)!

[SteveMacD]

I'd be curious what the split is, but there are so many people employed by it that I can't imagine the actual five members of the band collectively get over 25% of the net.

[MikeInNV]

This thread will probably never get back on topic. I'm surprised people are so shocked that the split might not be equal. (We should really try to remember that we don't actually know what the split is or ever was.) It's not as if this situation is unique to Fleetwood Mac. Other bands do exactly the same thing. And even though this is art, it's also their business, and there aren't many businesses where everyone makes the same.

[HomerMcvie]

This thread will probably never get back on topic. I'm surprised people are so shocked that the split might not be equal. (We should really try to remember that we don't actually know what the split is or ever was.) It's not as if this situation is unique to Fleetwood Mac. Other bands do exactly the same thing. And even though this is art, it's also their business, and there aren't many businesses where everyone makes the same.

A huge part of the reason the Eagles fired Don Felder, was the he was one third OWNER of the Eagles brand, the business. Walsh nor Schmidt never were(because Felder was on board before them, when they were still making all members "owners").

When they were around in the 70's and 80's, touring revenues were split evenly. By the time they reconvened in 1994?, the lawyers had taken over, and Frey and Henley took the stance that, "you wanna get back together, you're now going to accept 10%(instead of 20%) of the touring revenue. Walsh and Schmidt accepted, but Felder had a hard time accepting that. Then, he kept demanding to see "the books", and that's when they fired him.

[Macfanforever]

Come on, BEFORE Christine's return, how would FM have fared in ticket sales, sans Stevie? She held the cards. She knew it, and her management knew it.

Now that Chris has been (considerably) welcomed back:wavey: , I think her(SN) value has been diminished, in the grand scheme of things. Second Hand Mews.

Will we see it now this tour is a hit.Thanks to Chris coming back to add value to the band as one full unit again.If not FM will be on the road in VW buses and flying Cessna's to their venue locations.

I never like talking about people earning because its none of my business but To be fair 20 % percent of the pie for all of them.They all earned it.Mick and John should get it since the band is named after them..Now thinking there's probably not much left for them after they pay the road crew ,Promoter,Venue fees ,Making Tee shirts and other merch which that should pay for itself., Charter plane and its fees ,Trucking ,Fuel, Tolls,Hotel,Limo services ,Food catering ,Union dues ,taxes and other fees and other services I forgot to mention.


Maybe we could separate this to another thread and call it "FM :Piece of the pie of tour earnings" or some better title since this "What they drive"car thread got totally derailed LOL.....

[pattyfan]

You are right that in most businesses, people earn different amounts. But usually that's because when they were hired, they were given a salary, and then possibly they got bonuses or something. But their salaries were set. In this case, if they wanted to, they could make an equal split, and that's what shocks me. Why wouldn't you want your bandmates to all be doing as well as you, especially when you make bundles and bundles of money. It's just very disappointing.

BTW, I didn't read all the posts. Is it known that they get different splits? Or are we just guessing, as we love to do here? :)

Kevin

[bombaysaffires]

Of course it should be equal, and probably was, minus Mick's management cut, way back when, before his head rolled.

Then the lawyers and managers took over. Welcome to America(even if it sucks)!

When Stevie and Lindsey first joined they got a salary, not a cut or percentage. Something like 200 bucks a week per person. Mick then was the manager so as all managers do he'd get ten percent of the gross of whatever the band made on anything --album, tour, tee shirts, whatever.

That seemed to hold through the white album and eve n that tour.

Rumours they went in same way, but presumably by the time the album came out , Stevie created the only number one, etc, she wanted more.

The band fired Mick after the Tusk tour, and per Lindsey and even Mick, that's when the separate managers reallllly got involved and demanding things on behalf of their particular clients. Don't forget, Stevie founded Modern with Fishkin and Goldberg as early as 78/79 as a platform for herself and was going toward a solo career.

[Macfanforever]

When Stevie and Lindsey first joined they got a salary, not a cut or percentage. Something like 200 bucks a week per person. Mick then was the manager so as all managers do he'd get ten percent of the gross of whatever the band made on anything --album, tour, tee shirts, whatever.

That seemed to hold through the white album and eve n that tour.

Rumours they went in same way, but presumably by the time the album came out , Stevie created the only number one, etc, she wanted more.

The band fired Mick after the Tusk tour, and per Lindsey and even Mick, that's when the separate managers reallllly got involved and demanding things on behalf of their particular clients. Don't forget, Stevie founded Modern with Fishkin and Goldberg as early as 78/79 as a platform for herself and was going toward a solo career.

I dont recall why modern close up shop in 1999.
I wonder whats $200 bucks 1970's dollars in todays money.

[SteveMacD]

The "salary" thing lasted until the tour, and then they started making their cut of the tour revenue. Sometime around "Rumours," Stevie and Lindsey were made equal partners.

Mick got sacked because he couldn't say no to the lavish reauests, and at the end of the Tusk tour, the others were shocked at how little they netted. That's when the lawyers and accountants got involved.

When Stevie and Lindsey first joined they got a salary, not a cut or percentage. Something like 200 bucks a week per person. Mick then was the manager so as all managers do he'd get ten percent of the gross of whatever the band made on anything --album, tour, tee shirts, whatever.

That seemed to hold through the white album and eve n that tour.

Rumours they went in same way, but presumably by the time the album came out , Stevie created the only number one, etc, she wanted more.

The band fired Mick after the Tusk tour, and per Lindsey and even Mick, that's when the separate managers reallllly got involved and demanding things on behalf of their particular clients. Don't forget, Stevie founded Modern with Fishkin and Goldberg as early as 78/79 as a platform for herself and was going toward a solo career.

[Macfan4life]

A huge part of the reason the Eagles fired Don Felder, was the he was one third OWNER of the Eagles brand, the business. Walsh nor Schmidt never were(because Felder was on board before them, when they were still making all members "owners").

When they were around in the 70's and 80's, touring revenues were split evenly. By the time they reconvened in 1994?, the lawyers had taken over, and Frey and Henley took the stance that, "you wanna get back together, you're now going to accept 10%(instead of 20%) of the touring revenue. Walsh and Schmidt accepted, but Felder had a hard time accepting that. Then, he kept demanding to see "the books", and that's when they fired him.
Don Felder makes almost as much from the Eagles as if he was on tour with them. He sued the pants off them and he makes a ton of dough everytime they play Hotel California and other songs. Besides being part owner he was creater and writer of most of their biggest hits. The Eagles need to play their hits and so they pay a fortune to Don Felder. Felder wrote the entire intro to Hotel California. Felder was on Stern a few years ago and it was a fascinating interview. There are some things he cant talk about from the lawsuit but he was definitely the big winner.

Back to the Mac. I highly doubt Mick Fleetwood gets only 15% of the split. My hunch is they are "almost" equal.

[PenguinHead]

My hunch is they are "almost" equal.

That "hunch" seems reasonable. But I doubt their performance salaries are based on a popularity scale! Don't they all have different managers? I imagine they have a major role in negotiating their client's salary.

Their individual net worth is a different matter. Having songwriting/copyright credit is a financial revenue source unto itself. I assume Christine, Stevie and Lindsey have amassed substantial sums from that alone.

[SteveMacD]

That "hunch" seems reasonable. But I doubt their performance salaries are based on a popularity scale! Don't they all have different managers? I imagine they have a major role in negotiating their client's salary.

Their individual net worth is a different matter. Having songwriting/copyright credit is a financial revenue source unto itself. I assume Christine, Stevie and Lindsey have amassed substantial sums from that alone.

They make significantly more money from touring. The going rate for songs on an album is $0.09 per song. To put that in context, a writer who has three songs on an album that sells 1.75 million would gross $472,500. That's a nice chunk of change for most musicians, but that's chump change for people of their stature.

[LB Freakazoid]

I dont recall why modern close up shop in 1999.
I wonder whats $200 bucks 1970's dollars in todays money.

$200 in 1974 is worth $968.11 in 2015.

There's a great gov website that gives you values of money in whatever year...

[HomerMcvie]

Don Felder makes almost as much from the Eagles as if he was on tour with them. He sued the pants off them and he makes a ton of dough everytime they play Hotel California and other songs. Besides being part owner he was creater and writer of most of their biggest hits. The Eagles need to play their hits and so they pay a fortune to Don Felder. Felder wrote the entire intro to Hotel California. Felder was on Stern a few years ago and it was a fascinating interview. There are some things he cant talk about from the lawsuit but he was definitely the big winner.

Back to the Mac. I highly doubt Mick Fleetwood gets only 15% of the split. My hunch is they are "almost" equal.

Don Felder may or may not have earned it, but on paper, he owned 1/3 of the Eagles franchise. I hope he bleeds Frey and Henley dry. As people, I like him a lot. Them, not so much. #douches :lol:

I really do doubt that Mick makes nearly what the 3 songwriters do, namesake or not. It's not like he's gonna walk away for a better offer...just sayin'...He'd make 10% of what he's getting now, with ANY other act.

[Wdm6789]

Is it possible that Christine had to take a pay cut because she left for so long? Also, I think I asked this before, what percentage of tickets sold were sold solely because of Christine? Do you guys think that if the band had just extended their tour and Christine did come come back, they would have had the same amount of ticket sales?

[Macfan4life]

Don Felder may or may not have earned it, but on paper, he owned 1/3 of the Eagles franchise. I hope he bleeds Frey and Henley dry. As people, I like him a lot. Them, not so much. #douches :lol:

I really do doubt that Mick makes nearly what the 3 songwriters do, namesake or not. It's not like he's gonna walk away for a better offer...just sayin'...He'd make 10% of what he's getting now, with ANY other act.
Here is the interview with Felder I was talking about. The lawsuit talk begins just before 24:00. When Felder started asking questions about contracts of records or touring or merchandise they fired him from the band. As part owner and creator of most of the hits he sued and settled with them for tons of dough. It is speculated that every tour or any merchandise and all money the Eagles make Felder takes a good chunk. Felder and Walsh had a great relationship. Those facial expressions they would make to each other on stage were incredible. But Walsh was not part owner and did not have a leg to stand on to defend Felder so he just went along for the ride.

What I would love to know is more about Bob Welch's lawsuit against Fleetwood Mac over record sales. I assume he meant the records he was involved with? I just want to know why Mick Fleetwood and the Mac's lawyers fought Bob so much. Was Bob asking for too much? Anyone know? In Mick's book he raves about Bob but never mentions the lawsuit. In Bob's last days he did not speak well of Mick.

Felder's interview - lawsuit begins about 24:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgu9iS1gKwo

[Macfanforever]

This happens many times with bands.


Did Diana Ross had money issues with some of the Supremes girl's.

I know Diana wont settle for what Mick and John is getting out of the pie.

[FuzzyPlum]

What I would love to know is more about Bob Welch's lawsuit against Fleetwood Mac over record sales. I assume he meant the records he was involved with? I just want to know why Mick Fleetwood and the Mac's lawyers fought Bob so much. Was Bob asking for too much? Anyone know? In Mick's book he raves about Bob but never mentions the lawsuit. In Bob's last days he did not speak well of Mick.


It seems incredible they couldn't have sorted it out more amicably. After all, the royalties from Bob's FM records would surely have been peanuts compared to what came later. Also, it wasn't just Mick who Bob had issues with- as we know Christine was just as vociferous in their stance as Mick (or more so).

[FuzzyPlum]

It seems incredible they couldn't have sorted it out more amicably. After all, the royalties from Bob's FM records would surely have been peanuts compared to what came later. Also, it wasn't just Mick who Bob had issues with- as we know Christine was just as vociferous in their stance as Mick (or more so).

PS
AS far as 10% goes, I wonder who took a management cut in 1974? Would that have been Bob, Mick or none of them?

[bombaysaffires]

The "salary" thing lasted until the tour, and then they started making their cut of the tour revenue. Sometime around "Rumours," Stevie and Lindsey were made equal partners.

Mick got sacked because he couldn't say no to the lavish reauests, and at the end of the Tusk tour, the others were shocked at how little they netted. That's when the lawyers and accountants got involved.

Yes. This is what I was saying.

[bombaysaffires]

That "hunch" seems reasonable. But I doubt their performance salaries are based on a popularity scale! Don't they all have different managers? I imagine they have a major role in negotiating their client's salary.

Their individual net worth is a different matter. Having songwriting/copyright credit is a financial revenue source unto itself. I assume Christine, Stevie and Lindsey have amassed substantial sums from that alone.

yes they have different managers, but those managers argue the case for whoever their client is getting more money because that person is more "popular" if you define popularity as selling more albums, selling out more shows as a solo artist, and all that sort of stuff. Whose songs on Mac albums were most successful singles, whatever. Being able to get on the cover of Rolling Stone as a solo rather than as part of the band.... thye make the case that their client is the draw, the reason the numbers of tickets will be sold even for a band show.

[AncientQueen]

I haven't seen anyone post what they even THINK the pie cuts might be, now.

I tell you this, I would've NEVER paid $350 for a ticket, unless Christine came back. And I did. And I'll do it again.

Christine McVie IS the heart and soul of Fleetwood Mac. That is all.
And that is all right and I sign it.

[SteveMacD]

I haven't seen anyone post what they even THINK the pie cuts might be, now.

I tell you this, I would've NEVER paid $350 for a ticket, unless Christine came back. And I did. And I'll do it again.

Christine McVie IS the heart and soul of Fleetwood Mac. That is all.

Lindsey was/is in Fleetwood Mac, Stevie was/is in Fleetwood Mac. Peter Green was in Fleetwood Mac. Bob Welch was in Fleetwood Mac. Billy Burnette was in Fleetwood Mac.

Mick, John, and Christine ARE Fleetwood Mac. That's why it simply didn't work when Christine wasn't there during the shows in '94-'95 or any time after '98. The void left by Peter Green's departure was minuscule compared to that of Christine's. Even with Stevie and Lindsey there, it felt incomplete. Christine's absence was not something they were able to overcome.

[ryan4136]

Here is the interview with Felder I was talking about. The lawsuit talk begins just before 24:00. When Felder started asking questions about contracts of records or touring or merchandise they fired him from the band. As part owner and creator of most of the hits he sued and settled with them for tons of dough. It is speculated that every tour or any merchandise and all money the Eagles make Felder takes a good chunk. Felder and Walsh had a great relationship. Those facial expressions they would make to each other on stage were incredible. But Walsh was not part owner and did not have a leg to stand on to defend Felder so he just went along for the ride.

What I would love to know is more about Bob Welch's lawsuit against Fleetwood Mac over record sales. I assume he meant the records he was involved with? I just want to know why Mick Fleetwood and the Mac's lawyers fought Bob so much. Was Bob asking for too much? Anyone know? In Mick's book he raves about Bob but never mentions the lawsuit. In Bob's last days he did not speak well of Mick.

Felder's interview - lawsuit begins about 24:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgu9iS1gKwo
The problem for Felder (who always seemed like a great guy) was that he viewed himself an equal partner, and legally he was. But because he came to the band after it's conception Henley and Frey never viewed him that way. I think they always viewed him as a "hired gun" if you will. Just shut up and stand in the corner and at some kickass solos.

[jbrownsjr]

Lindsey was/is in Fleetwood Mac, Stevie was/is in Fleetwood Mac. Peter Green was in Fleetwood Mac. Bob Welch was in Fleetwood Mac. Billy Burnette was in Fleetwood Mac.

Mick, John, and Christine ARE Fleetwood Mac. That's why it simply didn't work when Christine wasn't there during the shows in '94-'95 or any time after '98. The void left by Peter Green's departure was minuscule compared to that of Christine's. Even with Stevie and Lindsey there, it felt incomplete. Christine's absence was not something they were able to overcome.

She really is the shining star of Fleetwood Mac. There's no doubt about it.

[HomerMcvie]

She really is the shining star of Fleetwood Mac. There's no doubt about it.

Amen, my brothers!!!

[HomerMcvie]

The problem for Felder (who always seemed like a great guy) was that he viewed himself an equal partner, and legally he was. But because he came to the band after it's conception Henley and Frey never viewed him that way. I think they always viewed him as a "hired gun" if you will. Just shut up and stand in the corner and at some kickass solos.

Well of course you're spot on! BUT, BUT, BUT, on paper, they made him a partner, so legally, he had every right to demand what was legally his.

That said, yes, he should have stood back and signed the papers, and accepted it(exactly what Timothy told him to do).

Of all the famous music lawsuits, I can truly see both sides of this one. I mean, if legally, you were being cheated out of millions, wouldn't YOU step up and say "Hey, you guys are f*cking me?" Because they were! But in the long run(no pun intended), it cost him his job.

What would you do? Because I truly don't know what I'd do...

[iamnotafraid]

She really is the shining star of Fleetwood Mac. There's no doubt about it.

There's a lot of doubt about that.

[iamnotafraid]

What would you do? Because I truly don't know what I'd do...

I would have done the same as Don.
I guess he won in the long run.

[HomerMcvie]

I would have done the same as Don.
I guess he won in the long run.

I truly don't know what I would have done. I guess it would depend on my bank acct. If I had 10 mil, I would have made his decision. If I was down to 1/2 mil, I would've signed the lesser agreement(I think Timothy said, 10% of millions, is still better than getting nothing from it - totally paraphrasing - but something along those lines).

[HomerMcvie]

There's a lot of doubt about that.

Opinions...vary...or something....:lol::wavey::woohoo:

[PenguinHead]

Mick, John, and Christine ARE Fleetwood Mac. That's why it simply didn't work when Christine wasn't there during the shows in '94-'95 or any time after '98. The void left by Peter Green's departure was minuscule compared to that of Christine's. Even with Stevie and Lindsey there, it felt incomplete. Christine's absence was not something they were able to overcome.

I understand what you're saying, with the acknowledgment that Mick, John and Christine have been the bedrock of the band since Christine became an official member in 1971. But that does not diminish the significant contributions of other members who have passed through the band.

Fleetwood Mac is the banner name for various musicians and songwriters whose individual influences shaped the sound of the band. Some configurations have had more artistic/commercial success than others, but all ARE Fleetwood Mac.

With Christine gone, Fleetwood Mac were still able to make a credible album and draw large crowds to their shows. It was still a working band. But it became clear that, aside from her distinctly beautiful voice, piano chops, and her ability write some of their signature songs, another critical role she had was being the band's ballast on an artistic and emotional level, neutralizing the toxicity between Lindsey and Stevie.

Peter Green's departure was big deal! It was a shattering blow to the band and their fans. Some fans may still feel that they ceased being Fleetwood Mac when he left. Some say the same when Christine left. Their namesake is Mick and John. No matter who else is in the band, as long as Mick and John are there, they ARE Fleetwood Mac.

[johnnystorms]

Lindsey was/is in Fleetwood Mac, Stevie was/is in Fleetwood Mac. Peter Green was in Fleetwood Mac. Bob Welch was in Fleetwood Mac. Billy Burnette was in Fleetwood Mac.

Mick, John, and Christine ARE Fleetwood Mac. That's why it simply didn't work when Christine wasn't there during the shows in '94-'95 or any time after '98. The void left by Peter Green's departure was minuscule compared to that of Christine's. Even with Stevie and Lindsey there, it felt incomplete. Christine's absence was not something they were able to overcome.

yeah, but without Stevie and Lindsey, they were lucky to play clubs... with SN/LB they were still a highly grossing tour act

[Montclare]

yeah, but without Stevie and Lindsey, they were lucky to play clubs... with SN/LB they were still a highly grossing tour act

Agreed. I don't mean to put anyone else in the band down, because they've all contributed to its success, but you can't argue that they were at their most successful with Lindsey and Stevie in the band.


With Christine gone, Fleetwood Mac were still able to make a credible album and draw large crowds to their shows. It was still a working band. But it became clear that, aside from her distinctly beautiful voice, piano chops, and her ability write some of their signature songs, another critical role she had was being the band's ballast on an artistic and emotional level, neutralizing the toxicity between Lindsey and Stevie.

I wonder how true this really is.They might say it, but it looked like they were getting long better during the 2013 tour than this one. And Stevie still hasn't signed onto an album, even though her previous excuse was not wanting to do another one unless Christine came back. Well, here she is...

[jbrownsjr]

yeah, but without Stevie and Lindsey, they were lucky to play clubs... with SN/LB they were still a highly grossing tour act

And without FMac, Buckingham Nicks would be lucky to be waiting tables at the Roxy.

[SteveMacD]

yeah, but without Stevie and Lindsey, they were lucky to play clubs... with SN/LB they were still a highly grossing tour act
They were opening for bands like Jefferson Starship and Deep Purple. When they headlined "clubs," they were places like Fillmore East and Fillmore West, and often set records at those venues. They could have easily been viable without Stevie and Lindsey. If they had gotten Mick Taylor (who just left the Rolling Stones) and/or Gary Moore (of Thin Lizzy and who owned Peter Green's Les Paul), they would have been fine. Probably not the same level, but still respectable.

The same can't be said of Buckingham Nicks.

[SisterNightroad]

I find inappropriate to compare the careers of Buckingham-Nicks and previous Fleetwood Mac since the firsts entered the band still in their prime therefore didn't have the time to see if they could make it alone in the end, and every scenario is totally presupposed.

However I wouldn't say Stevie and Lindsey were to fail so sure since they did get to be opening act for Jefferson Airpane but also Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix.
Also when they joined Fleetwood Mac Buckingham Nicks was beginning to do better in the country areas and they're farewell concerts in Alabama were well attended.

[elle]

I find inappropriate to compare the careers of Buckingham-Nicks and previous Fleetwood Mac since the firsts entered the band still in their prime therefore didn't have the time to see if they could make it alone in the end, and every scenario is totally presupposed.

However I wouldn't say Stevie and Lindsey were to fail so sure since they did get to be opening act for Jefferson Airpane but also Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix.
Also when they joined Fleetwood Mac Buckingham Nicks was beginning to do better in the country areas and they're farewell concerts in Alabama were well attended.

yeah probably not a fair comparison. some other things to consider:

Fritz and not BN was opening act, and the way they describe it they were first in long line of opening acts before the main band, so probably next to nobody in the audience cared much who they were and if they were there at all - but it was a good stage experience for them, as Mick noted later when they first got on stage with FM.

one way of comparison would be to speculate what would be BN draw today when they are more/less well known, although FM being much larger draw with Christine in 2014/15 vs with BN fronting it in 2013 can give some idea. FM name is without any doubt much bigger than any of them individually or in different combinations of members who would not be under the name FM.

[SisterNightroad]

yeah probably not a fair comparison. some other things to consider:

Fritz and not BN was opening act, and the way they describe it they were first in long line of opening acts before the main band, so probably next to nobody in the audience cared much who they were and if they were there at all - but it was a good stage experience for them, as Mick noted later when they first got on stage with FM.

one way of comparison would be to speculate what would be BN draw today when they are more/less well known, although FM being much larger draw with Christine in 2014/15 vs with BN fronting it in 2013 can give some idea. FM name is without any doubt much bigger than any of them individually or in different combinations of members who would not be under the name FM.

I know, in fact I haven't said that Buckingham Nicks were opening but I phrased wrong.
However I mean Fritz with Stevie and Lindsey were the interesting formation, the same band hadn't received more attention before nor after the Buckingham Nicks duo.

[ryan4136]

For what it's worth CTI has SN listed as costing 150k-300k for a show and LB 40k-75k.

No number for FM.

[HomerMcvie]

For what it's worth CTI has SN listed as costing 150k-300k for a show and LB 40k-75k.

No number for FM.

I can see SN getting that, but not LB. We saw him in Nashville, and they didn't even open the balcony, because not enough tickets sold. Capacity was 2000, and I'd guess there were maybe 1000 people there. Maybe not that many...

[Macfanforever]

I was thinking .Now since they all are now the retirement age.They dont need their USA /UK social security checks since they are still working.

The money can be donated to their favorite charity.

[ryan4136]

I can see SN getting that, but not LB. We saw him in Nashville, and they didn't even open the balcony, because not enough tickets sold. Capacity was 2000, and I'd guess there were maybe 1000 people there. Maybe not that many...

I'm guessing if he's "touring" the ask is lower. I saw him in a 500 seat theatre. While it was sold out the tickets were only like 45-50. That's 25k at best, I doubt the venue did it for free.

I guess the point of my mention of CTI is that SN probably has a bigger cut as expected.

[iamnotafraid]

Stevie's the car.
Lindsey's the driver.
Christine's the backseat passenger.
John and Mick are the tires.

Stevie - 30%
Lindsey - 25%
Christine - 25%
John - 10%
Mick - 10%

That's it.

[Macfan4life]

Stevie's the car.
Lindsey's the driver.
Christine's the backseat passenger.
John and Mick are the tires.

Stevie - 30%
Lindsey - 25%
Christine - 25%
John - 10%
Mick - 10%

That's it.
What?
What about its Mick and John's band... original members, founders and named after them. 10%? I think not.

[SteveMacD]

Between 1975 and 1990, Fleetwood Mac had eighteen Top 40 hits (in the US). Ten of those were Christine McVie's songs. Stevie had five and Lindsey had three.

Of the songs that made it into the Top 20, eight were Christine's while Stevie had five and Lindsey had three.

Of the songs that made it into the Top 10, four were Christine's while Stevie had two and Lindsey had three.

Of the songs that made it into the Top 5, Christine had two while Stevie and Lindsey each had one.

Stevie had the lone Number One.

So, I think Christine had historically been much more identified as the voice of Fleetwood Mac than anyone else. That doesn't diminish Stevie, BTW. Her popularity transcended the band. She was able to distinguish herself from the band and build upon it.

[bombaysaffires]

Stevie's the car.
Lindsey's the driver.
Christine's the backseat passenger.
John and Mick are the tires.

Stevie - 30%
Lindsey - 25%
Christine - 25%
John - 10%
Mick - 10%

That's it.

well except these days Stevie has moved into the driver's seat. I'd make Lindsey the engine these days-- he's the only one giving energy to try and move them forward.

[Montclare]

Of the songs that made it into the Top 5, Christine had two while Stevie and Lindsey each had one.

Stevie had the lone Number One.

So, I think Christine had historically been much more identified as the voice of Fleetwood Mac than anyone else. That doesn't diminish Stevie, BTW. Her popularity transcended the band. She was able to distinguish herself from the band and build upon it.

Christine actually had three top fives (DS, LL, and HM), two of which were co-sung with Lindsey. I think people think of Stevie first, but I'd love to do an experiment of asking 100 random people to name an FM song to see which is most associated with then. My guess is it'd be GYOW, DS, and Rhiannon, in that order.

[FuzzyPlum]

Christine actually had three top fives (DS, LL, and HM), two of which were co-sung with Lindsey. I think people think of Stevie first, but I'd love to do an experiment of asking 100 random people to name an FM song to see which is most associated with then. My guess is it'd be GYOW, DS, and Rhiannon, in that order.

I'm pretty sure if you asked non-Mac fans that same question in the UK the top 2 answers would be Little Lies and Everywhere but I'm not sure in which order. You'd then get Go Your Own Way, Don't Stop and 'Don't they do the Formula 1 music?' Not sure about the order but rounding out the top 10 would be Big Love, Landslide, Rhiannon, Albatross and Oh Well.

[FuzzyPlum]

Stevie's the car.
Lindsey's the driver.
Christine's the backseat passenger.
John and Mick are the tires.

Stevie - 30%
Lindsey - 25%
Christine - 25%
John - 10%
Mick - 10%

That's it.

Mick is the satnav.

[iamnotafraid]

Mick is the satnav.

No. This is a very old car.
_____________________

SteveMacD,
No matter how much you love Christine or
the English version of Fleetwood Mac, it's
really all about Stevie.

I think every member is important (especially
Lindsey), but Stevie takes the cake and eats it
too.
____________________________________

Bombaysaffires,
This cars engine isn't running. I guess I could
make a joke about the rear end of the car, but
I'd upset the Nicks fans.
_____________________________________

Macfan4life,
Sorry the way those numbers add up. But true
is true, and numbers don't lie. Scout's honor.

[johnnystorms]

none of these statistics matter, the most recognizable member of Fleetwood Mac is Stevie Nicks. I know people leave the concerts amazed at Lindsey's guitar prowess.. but the fact is, Stevie is the cultural touchstone of the band. she's lost several steps from her heyday, but she is the face of Fleetwood Mac.

[michelej1]

none of these statistics matter, the most recognizable member of Fleetwood Mac is Stevie Nicks. I know people leave the concerts amazed at Lindsey's guitar prowess.. but the fact is, Stevie is the cultural touchstone of the band. she's lost several steps from her heyday, but she is the face of Fleetwood Mac.

Things change and shift over time. Your statement is not as true today as it was in the 1980s. Stevie's name is famous, the most famous, but as time goes on the instances of fans singling her out as the voice or face of FM have reduced significantly.

Michele

[jbrownsjr]

Things change and shift over time. Your statement is not as true today as it was in the 1980s. Stevie's name is famous, the most famous, but as time goes on the instances of fans singling her out as the voice or face of FM have reduced significantly.

Michele

I concur. Especially with the draw that Christine's return gained. It was an incredible response and long overdue. And I lived in the 80's to measure the difference.

[michelej1]

I concur. Especially with the draw that Christine's return gained. It was an incredible response and long overdue. And I lived in the 80's to measure the difference.

I mean, now that we have social media, you don't have to judge just from traditional journalism (Rolling Stone, etc.). You can look at trending topics and see what people are discussing. When the subject of FM comes up, it's not all about Stevie Nicks at all. It's not even mostly about Stevie.

True, Stevie has her own set of fans. But when people, young or old, these days are talking about the band Fleetwood Mac, it's not primarily with Stevie as the focus or face of the group. Michele

[Montclare]

I'm pretty sure if you asked non-Mac fans that same question in the UK the top 2 answers would be Little Lies and Everywhere but I'm not sure in which order. You'd then get Go Your Own Way, Don't Stop and 'Don't they do the Formula 1 music?' Not sure about the order but rounding out the top 10 would be Big Love, Landslide, Rhiannon, Albatross and Oh Well.

I asked people at work today and got-

early 40s female- Rhiannon (although she thought it was Reana)
late 60s female- Rhiannon
mid 40s male- Landslide
mid 40s female- Landslide
mid 50s male- couldn't think of anything (which was funny, seeing as I was wearing a Tusk shirt)

I thought age and gender might have something to do with it (ie females more likely to name Stevie's songs, males Lindsey's, and people who grew up in the 80s possibly would name Tango songs), but it didn't look like it.

[iamnotafraid]

But when people, young or old, these days are talking about the band Fleetwood Mac, it's not primarily with Stevie as the focus or face of the group. Michele

I disagree. She's the face of Fleetwood Mac.
Almost as much as Mick Jagger is the face of
the Rolling Stones. Or Robert Plant for Zeppelin.

I don't write that because I'm a fan of hers. I just
think that it's true.

I think two images pop into peoples minds when
the Mac is mentioned. One of Stevie, and lets say
her fashion. The other being the cover of Rumours.

[bombaysaffires]

it's ironic, because in the early days of the BN version of FM Stevie was most definitely NOT the face of the band. She was most often the butt of some at times nasty jokes. They made fun of EVERYTHING about her that is considered iconic now-- her stage antics, her voice, oh god her voice, the way she articulated her lyrics (the number of parodies portraying her singing as an incomprehensible garbled mess of braying vibrato), the lyrics themselves, on and on and on. She was just trashed in the press and by radio stations for a long time. And when her voice gave out on tour, the reviews were not nice. Mick was the figurehead and the main face/voice in interviews.

Over time clearly that all changed and from Rumours onward she became seen as this sexy siren and thanks a whole lot to Herbert Worthington's images of her she really became THE face of the band (visually). Once her solo career took off, that was it.

Then she became the joke again-- drugs, crappy songs, rehab. Then she got fat, which in this culture made her more of a joke than being stoned out of her head.

Then she bounced back. Even though the triumphant return was the whole band on The Dance, it added to the big, epic legend of Stevie Nicks which, like any good legend (think, say, Elizabeth Taylor) is full of big dramatic ups and downs and turbulence and love affairs and addiction and rehab and success and failure and all that. That's the stuff that sells magazines. And because she always was willing to talk about it all, people felt like they knew her story. And all that transcends music. The others in comparison were more reserved about letting the public into their private lives and didn't give the same types of interviews-- or have the same need for attention Stevie does.

She always WANTED to be the center of attention, and did whatever it took to BE the center of attention. The result now is, as Christine said, Stevie is like a brand. And that transcends music, the quality of her songs, or whether she ever writes anything new again. She is, rightly or wrongly, at this point the touchstone for most of the general public.

[HomerMcvie]

Thank the Lard for Stevie. Fleetwood Mac couldn't have survived without her.

I'm certain that Stevie would agree, and her legion of fans.:rolleyes:

[michelej1]

I disagree. She's the face of Fleetwood Mac.
Almost as much as Mick Jagger is the face of
the Rolling Stones. Or Robert Plant for Zeppelin.



She's the most famous. I don't dispute that. But even in the last 10 years since I've been collecting the FM stories, I don't see her dominating FM discussions like she once did. In the eighties and nineties, it was a different story.

Michele

[SteveMacD]

none of these statistics matter, the most recognizable member of Fleetwood Mac is Stevie Nicks. I know people leave the concerts amazed at Lindsey's guitar prowess.. but the fact is, Stevie is the cultural touchstone of the band. she's lost several steps from her heyday, but she is the face of Fleetwood Mac.
Your fallacy is assuming that Stevie's very public brand is somehow synonymous with that of Fleetwood Mac's brand. She's part of it, but the actual lion's share of songs that were played ad nauseam back in the day, the singles, the songs that made Fleetwood Mac a legend, were largely Christine's. Christine doesn't have a brand independent of Fleetwood Mac (it was never a high priority). Christine is synonymous with Fleetwood Mac. The Fleetwood Mac brand was severely diminished without her. Fleetwood Mac was never able to get past Christine's departure.

I disagree. She's the face of Fleetwood Mac.
Almost as much as Mick Jagger is the face of
the Rolling Stones. Or Robert Plant for Zeppelin.
I completely disagree.

The better (maybe only) comparison would be to Neil Young with Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young. Yes, Neil is the star of the band. Without Neil, they play to amphitheaters. With Neil, they play to sold-out stadiums. Neil is heavily associated with their classic sound and image, and is unquestionably the most visible member and the biggest name in the group. Neil and Stevie have brands independent of their respective bands.

However, their respective bands also have unique brands, which aren't necessarily dependent on the star player. CSN has proven to be a viable brand without Neil. Fleetwood Mac would most likely be viable without Stevie if Christine and Lindsey were still there (don't give me that "Time" bulls**t) because of how intertwined they are with the Fleetwood Mac brand.

[Macfanforever]

I'm still puzzled on the part about the namesake of the band are in the basement of the earnings scale.

Its like some business CEO's giving up most or some of their salary and put their money back into the company to keep it strong.

Maybe thats whats up with the Mac and keep the other 3 happy and it will keep the band in business.

[Macfanforever]

Stevie's the car.
Lindsey's the driver.
Christine's the backseat passenger.
John and Mick are the tires.

Stevie - 30%
Lindsey - 25%
Christine - 25%
John - 10%
Mick - 10%

That's it.

well except these days Stevie has moved into the driver's seat. I'd make Lindsey the engine these days-- he's the only one giving energy to try and move them forward.

Hahahahaha.Thats a different way looking at it.

[johnnystorms]

I'm still puzzled on the part about the namesake of the band are in the basement of the earnings scale.

Its like some business CEO's giving up most or some of their salary and put their money back into the company to keep it strong.

Maybe thats whats up with the Mac and keep the other 3 happy and it will keep the band in business.

well. 10% of a 1.5million gross per night beats 50% of a 50,000 gross. I'd take the 10%

[jbrownsjr]

With diehard fans she is popular, adored, and weirdly imitated in wardrobe. But the general public doesn't care much for her. She is like the Rosanne Bar of singers, one classic rock fan said to me.

[michelej1]

The Fleetwood Mac brand was severely diminished without her. Fleetwood Mac was never able to get past Christine's departure.



I agree that the band was diminished without her and I might concede that for some people SYW was proof that the band could not get past her departure in the studio. But on stage, I think the quartet did very well without Christine. They're better with her, but the live shows with the four of them were not failures either from the stance of an audience member or an accountant.

Michele

[Macfanforever]

The Time version did not get anywhere but it was made up with great musicians.