Who was the manager?

Pip

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.

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)

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!!!

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

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.

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

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.

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. :)

"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.

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"

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?

Blimey! :shocked: :shocked:

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

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

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

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. :)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Bwaaaah! :lol: :lol: :lol:

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:

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

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:

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.

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?)

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.

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

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: :)

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

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:

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).

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