[Cour]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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