A question of wealth.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Poor Lindsey. Chalk that up to another thing that he failed at that Stevie succeeded in. 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.

Bwaaaah!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by chiliD

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.

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

[hayley]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

That's not true at all, actually.

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

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

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by hayley

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.

[hayley]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

She doesn't! The venue pays.

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

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Cour

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Cour

I think there's big difference from the saying things the way you are in your post to painting the picture that Jason is. Is this about being a Stevie fan or Lindsey fan because I can pull out other quotes from the past few months too.

There was and is an agenda in the original posts to paint Stevie in a certain light and Lindsey in a different light. I suppose I know where you stand so I guess it's okay to drag out these old war horse discussions every now and again because it's fun and we can always be sure some fans will be puffing up one band member in order to make the other one look just a little worse. Like I said, it seems like it's time for the Stevie slapping incident to be brought up again so we can all FIRE AWAY.

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

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

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

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

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

[Cour]

Originally Posted by John Run

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for all the information, John.

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Gypsy-Rhiannon

Who was the manager?

Pip

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

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

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

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

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Cour

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

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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.

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%.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

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

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

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