Anybody have the real splits? I'm curious...

I would imagine during the 60's it was 20% each until Brian was gone.

Then I think Mick & Keith did a grab and split Brians $ 50/50 leaving the splits:

Mick 30% + songwriter earnings
Keith 30% + songwriter earnings
Charlie 20%
Bill 20%

Mick Taylor and then Woody both were salaried until the departure of Bill.

After Bill's departure, I suspect Mick and Keith made another grab but at Keith and Charlies urging finally cut in Ronnie and I would think the splits are now this:

Mick 35% + songwriter earnings
Keith 35% + songwriter earnings
Charlie 20%
Ronnie 10%

Who can set it straight and give us the facts as I'm just guessing and would like to know the real splits...did Bill address it in his book?

PECMAN

You're kidding right? You really don't know the deal?

Mick and Keith get all the money. Ronnie is paid in vodka, Charlie with old jazz records.

Duane In Houston,

No I'm not kidding...If you know it, let me know.

Thanks.

PECMAN

Mick 33.33
Keith33.34
Charlie 23.33
Ronnie 10

Makes Keith happy as he gets more than Mick.

This is true

Same as robbin' a bank ... The guy outside minding the horses doesn't get as much



ROCKMAN

Well then that would be Keith since be barely plays the guitar anymore

mick deals it out, one for you, two for me and so on

Socialdistortion,

If what you say is true, then I was pretty close.

Thanks.

PECMAN

They split it the old fashioned way.


Hammer & Chisel.

Mick Taylor wasn't salaried by the way - he was a full fledged member,

Ronnie was the one who was a highly paid "friend" until Bill pushed to make him
a "offical" member in the 90's..

MLC

According to Ronnie, he wasn't an official member until the departure of Bill though I heard that Bill did try to get him some when Bill was in the band but it didn't happen until he got a piece of Bill's after his departure.

And I severly doubt Mick Taylor had a piece of anything...he couldn't even get a piece of songs he wrote on Sticky Fingers, GHS and IORR.

PECMAN

Taylor was no full member during the first years!
The last few years Im not shure. But I doubt it.

That Ronnie was treated like that for such a long time shows his weak position in the band!

For Ron Wood, being a taken advantage of hired hand for The Rolling Stones probably paid more than 99% of the jobs he could have found in the world...and Jagger/Richerds knew that and that's how it went on for so long.

PECMAN

Quote
Pecman
According to Ronnie, he wasn't an official member until the departure of Bill though I heard that Bill did try to get him some when Bill was in the band but it didn't happen until he got a piece of Bill's after his departure.

And I severly doubt Mick Taylor had a piece of anything...he couldn't even get a piece of songs he wrote on Sticky Fingers, GHS and IORR.

PECMAN

You're getting Publishing Royalties and Artist Royalties mixed up. Two different things.
(P.R. are paid to the author of the composition, usually a music publishing company is appointed to collect these monies from the label, on behalf of the songwriter).
(A.R. = A percentage of the record sales, paid by the record company to the recording artist/band. The exact percentage is set out in the recording contract and depends on the amount of clout an artist/band has. Obviously a very well known band can negotiate a better deal than a band that's just starting out. Each bandmember that enters into the agreement with the label will receive these royalties, not just the songwriters) .

When the Stones got around to setting up their own business in 1970 (after getting rid of A. Klein) there were 5 directors. All this was put in writing and notarised before the incorporation of the various companies - each of those were formed to deal with a separate aspect of the business and all of them were registered in Amsterdam to avoid source tax on royalties. The names of the 5 company directors: Mick J, Keith R, Mick T, Charlie W and Bill W and they had equal rights, e.g. all the proceeds were split 5 ways.
I'm surprised that some people don't seem to realise this. Because Mick T's departure came so unexpectedly (and left a lot of loose ends / potential lawsuits with regards to his entitlement to royalties for the records he was involved with) they thought twice about giving a new bandmember the same kind of privileges. As a result Ronnie was on a salary for nearly 20 years. In the early 90's they decided to give Woody a share of the tour proceeds but to this day he doesn't have the same rights as the rest of the band when it comes to dividing the artist royalties.

"Mick 33.33
Keith33.34
Charlie 23.33
Ronnie 10

Makes Keith happy as he gets more than Mick.

This is true"

Oh please, don't fall for this lot. He's about as much idea as a turnip has!!

@ Lightning

You may be right about all these facts.
But in a huge band like the Stones things perhaps are even more complicated.

Apart from these arrangements I know that Taylor was on a (not so high) pay-roll at least in his earlier Stones times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-27 00:51 by CousinC.

I'm sure I've read an interview with Bill where he was quoted as saying he earns about half a million pounds (sterling) per annum from Stones royalties.
Bill is usually reliable when it comes to money matters.
Oh, he also seemd to suggest that he has to continue touring in order to service his (and the family)lifestyle.
The latter comment may have been an example of Bill's dry sense of humour.

Lightnin'

I didn't get anything confused or mixed up...I work in the music business and know all about what you wrote.....

My point was if Taylor couldn't get Mick to give him a share of a song he actually wrote and break the Jagger/Richards songwriting union...then I couldn't see Taylor getting a piece of all the other income streams such as merch, touring, master royalties etc...other than a salary.

MT may have been a director with a vote...but that doesn't mean he was an owner with a share of the profits.

Just like in any company, there's the board of directors...and then the stockholders (owners)...some are both but not all (which I suspect was Taylor's position and possibly one of his gripes for leaving).

PECMAN

65 Mick
25 Keith
8 Charlie
2 Ron

then minus 25% Mgmt, Attorney fees, etc...before taxes

I assume the 25% Management fee is for the services of a Michael Jagger? (LOL).

That makes sense...Mick gets more than twice as much as Keith...Keith gets 3 times as much as Charlie...and Charlie gets 4 times as much as Ron Wood...brilliant.

PECMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-27 01:23 by Pecman.

Quote
terry
mick deals it out, one for you, two for me and so on

Seemingly, this was the custom when Brian Jones was in charge...

- Doxa

…and of course the one who really knows legally can’t say anything.

Mick: Okay, here's one for you... wow, what's that up there?

Keith: Where?... Hey, where's my money?

From my understanding it was in 1990 that Bill (and Charlie) stood up for Ronnie, according to Bill. Which was, from what I understand, getting paid the (whatever however isn't exact) fair amount as a band member for touring as opposed to being just a hired hand like he was in 75-76 and as specifically mentioned by Bill the 81 tour.

Nothing mentioned at all about recording/record sales/airplay.

Mick: (around the room to Keith, Charlie & Ronnie)
One for you, one for you, one for you and one for me.
Two for you, two for you, two for you and one, two for me.
Three for you, three for you, three for you and one, two, three for me....etc

...wait a minute, Mick would count his first.

Those who know don't speak and those who speak don't know!

Some information, which (from memory) may be taken from Bill's Stone Alone book.
The Stones sued ABKCO in 1971 for £17million ($37 million)..i.e. a lot of dosh.
A year later they were "advised" to settle.
For recording royalties a sum of £1million was agreed.
For publishing royalties (essentially Mick/Keith) -£1million.
The recording monies was to be divided between the 5 musicians (incl. The Estate of Brian Jones). Mick Taylor didn't seem to feature although he played a minor role in Let It Bleed and of course was on the Get Your YA YAs Out Live album. One can only speculate how that was dealt with.
Bill was less than enamoured with the settlement. He managed to extract some extra monies for himself and Charlie to which -I believe he received a very nice painting from Charlie as a thank you.
So in those days it was a simple 20% split.

I would imagine that with the Beatles it was a straight 25% split.
It gets complicated when "new boys" come along (as will inevitably happen, one or two exceptions of course -U2 come to mind.
So from 1971 and the new corporation a hirearchy seems to emerge.
Of course a few years later The Glimmer Twins are the Producers (or joint Producers) so will extract further monies.
I would imagine its up to the "act" themselves, not the record company of the moment how this is all sorted.

In theory there should be no rationale for Charlie (or Bill at the time) having their cut in royalties reduced from 25%. If that has happened, it does reveal quite a bit about the individuals involved.
Ronnies position has never been fully confirmed as far as I know though people on this site seem very sure of their "facts".
Interesting though, that when his wealth valuation comes up it seems to range from around £75million to zero. Charlie's is around the higher figure, which would seem a conservative estimate when you consider his more modest lifestyle. However, he has been a resident of the UK since 1977 so, in theory his tax bill will have been higher than Ronnie's, who only seems to hve returned to the UK shores in the last decade. Of course all the musicians have
managed to escape the full might of the Revenue through the offshore/tax haven routes.
I wonder what royalties STU got?
Oh dear, another minefield!

According to Prince Rupert Lowenstein:

Chuck 20%
Mick 20%
Keith 20%
Charlie 10%
Stumpy Matumbo 9%
Ron 8%
Rupert 3%
All the others, incl. backstage personnel, etc. 10%

This is only tour income, exl. songwriter earnings.

chuck gets 40%, he deserves it