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:

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:

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:

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.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

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:

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. ;)

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."

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."

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:

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.

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.

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.ph...x_v2&id=33&c=9

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

http://www.fleetwoodmac-uk.com/artic...ticle1103.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.

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

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.

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.

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!!

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

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."



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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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. :)

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.


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.

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:
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.

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

Pip

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:




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.




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.




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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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:

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."

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.

Looks like she changed her mind about the dog!

Pip