This topic was spurred by the Guns 'n' Roses thread where it was revealed that Izzy Stradlin didn't do the reunion tour because the money wasn't going to be split evenly among the core members. This led me to ask...

For classic bands, ARE all members created equal?

U2 splits the money equally among the four of them, which I find fascinating for a band of their popularity. Clearly Bono and the Edge are the musical drivers of the band, but Larry Mullin has a major influence on the overall direction they take and is highly opinionated on the music they come up with. Adam, not so much.

I know Don Felder was fired because he wanted more money, and oddly enough, I found myself agreeing with Henley/Frey in the Eagles documentary where they coldly stated that they were the key members of the band who did the bulk of the work and the writing, and hence, deserved more money.

Think about it: do Phil Rudd and Cliff Williams deserve an equal cut of the loot compared to the Young Brothers? Or Joey Kramer compared to Tyler/Perry?

It certainly reduces drama to just split the money evenly, but is that REALLY fair in situations where you've got one or two guys who write all the music, do the interviews, provide the "big" personalities for a band, and do the heavy lifting for onstage performances (as opposed to standing by a drum riser all night holding down a beat)?

Thoughts?

You mean for concerts?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You mean for concerts?

I know songwriting credits complicate this matter, but I'm talking band revenue in general - any case where money is coming in to the band as an entity (such as live shows).

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You mean for concerts?

I know songwriting credits complicate this matter, but I'm talking band revenue in general - any case where money is coming in to the band as an entity (such as live shows).

I'd say if you subtract the songwriting or arranging credits + possible extra responsibilities some band members might take on (like Mick and Charlie are also involved in stage design etc.), most groups probably share equally between band members.

Unless they have leaders like Brian Jones, that is

No. Performance fees for band members are negotiable. I'm sure a lot of bands made up of all original members split the money evenly but for everyone else it's a different story.

I would think it depends on tenure as well as song-writing credits. I may very well be wrong but I'd guess Mick and Keith get more from playing live than Woody and Charlie.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...

Unless they have leaders like Brian Jones, that is

LOL, just have to start trouble, don't you?

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...

Unless they have leaders like Brian Jones, that is

LOL, just have to start trouble, don't you?

It also proved the point the others are making

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman
...

Unless they have leaders like Brian Jones, that is

LOL, just have to start trouble, don't you?

It also proved the point the others are making

Yes, just funny how much bandwagon jumping there is whenever many posters see a chance to bash the other Stones for 'mistreatment of Brian' ... and they ignore facts such as this.

I think they are. Steven Tyler on many occasions has said that he feels he deserves more money than the other members of Aerosmith, cause he puts in the most work and is always ready, whereas someone like Joe Perry may be off every so often. While I agree with his logic, unfortunately you're in a band. Thats how it goes. You are in it together, you are all original, you all get the same amount in my book. Do other things if you want more money, but as a band, it should be one for all if you've all been there for 40 years.

This is all for live stuff and otherwise. Band members that write the songs get that money anyway. For anything they do as a "band" should be equal if you've all been there the same amount of time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-09 19:31 by RollingFreak.

Quote
Bungo
No. Performance fees for band members are negotiable. I'm sure a lot of bands made up of all original members split the money evenly but for everyone else it's a different story.

I wonder if Mick Taylor was paid the same as the others for the 69 tour? And if less, was he ever paid the same in the following years?

Quote
keefriff99
I know Don Felder was fired because he wanted more money, and oddly enough, I found myself agreeing with Henley/Frey in the Eagles documentary where they coldly stated that they were the key members of the band who did the bulk of the work and the writing, and hence, deserved more money.

Felder's position was that when he was brought in as a new member in 1974, he was given one-fifth share in the band...without even asking for it. Of course, that arrangement changed with the original reunion in 1994, and was changing again in 2001 (in terms of Henley/Frey getting substantially more) when he was ousted. Walsh and Schmit were content with being well-paid "hired hands," but Felder felt differently. He probably should have just bitten the bullet, but I could see his argument considering the way he was welcomed into the band, with all members being co-equals. But, of course, that was during the 1974-80 incarnation of the band...not several years later with the reunions, and new agreements on the table.

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
keefriff99
I know Don Felder was fired because he wanted more money, and oddly enough, I found myself agreeing with Henley/Frey in the Eagles documentary where they coldly stated that they were the key members of the band who did the bulk of the work and the writing, and hence, deserved more money.

Felder's position was that when he was brought in as a new member in 1974, he was given one-fifth share in the band...without even asking for it. Of course, that arrangement changed with the original reunion in 1994, and was changing again in 2001 (in terms of Henley/Frey getting substantially more) when he was ousted. Walsh and Schmit were content with being well-paid "hired hands," but Felder felt differently. He probably should have just bitten the bullet, but I could see his argument considering the way he was welcomed into the band, with all members being co-equals. But, of course, that was during the 1974-80 incarnation of the band...not several years later with the reunions, and new agreements on the table.

I agree, its a tricky scenario and I see it from both sides. Without Frey and Henley being there from the beginning there wouldn't BE a band for Felder to join, but the way Felder put it also made sense. That this "Eagles Limited" corporation was set up under his tenure, before Walsh and Schmidt were in the band. So as such, I understand his thinking that he was there from the beginning of THAT setup and deserves a piece of that pie. I agree, in the long run he may have been better off just taking the deal, since its trickier because he's not even an original member, but he had an argument there.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
keefriff99
I know Don Felder was fired because he wanted more money, and oddly enough, I found myself agreeing with Henley/Frey in the Eagles documentary where they coldly stated that they were the key members of the band who did the bulk of the work and the writing, and hence, deserved more money.

Felder's position was that when he was brought in as a new member in 1974, he was given one-fifth share in the band...without even asking for it. Of course, that arrangement changed with the original reunion in 1994, and was changing again in 2001 (in terms of Henley/Frey getting substantially more) when he was ousted. Walsh and Schmit were content with being well-paid "hired hands," but Felder felt differently. He probably should have just bitten the bullet, but I could see his argument considering the way he was welcomed into the band, with all members being co-equals. But, of course, that was during the 1974-80 incarnation of the band...not several years later with the reunions, and new agreements on the table.

I agree, its a tricky scenario and I see it from both sides. Without Frey and Henley being there from the beginning there wouldn't BE a band for Felder to join, but the way Felder put it also made sense. That this "Eagles Limited" corporation was set up under his tenure, before Walsh and Schmidt were in the band. So as such, I understand his thinking that he was there from the beginning of THAT setup and deserves a piece of that pie. I agree, in the long run he may have been better off just taking the deal, since its trickier because he's not even an original member, but he had an argument there.

Yup, a big part of Felder's argument was that "Eagles Limited" was never dissolved after the 1980 breakup, so that legal agreement should have still been in place when they reunited in 1994 (and beyond). Henley and Frey took it upon themselves to create new agreements, and a new corporation - reducing Felder from "shareholder" to "employee" - when the original corporation still existed.

Definitely a tricky scenario, as you said.

And they were probably right. Sneaky and assholey, but probably right. That were they just to lay back and let Felder enjoy that part of Eagles Limited that he'd be getting way more of a free ride than he deserves. In the end it isn't like he writes the songs or did keep himself out there or the Eagles name all those years. He's key, but understandably benefits a lot from the Limited deal that he may not even be entitled too. In the end, Frey and Henley probably did deserve more, and there's no way for that to happen without at some point coming off as an a**hole.

Its a bit different with the Guns N Roses thing to me because the band did exist without those members and was a failure. Say what you want about the Eagles, but its not like Henley went off without them, got them back together and THEN asked for more money. It was a band that broke up and a band that got back together. I get why Axl Rose deserves more as the face and voice of that band, but it could be argued he did more harm to the band dragging that name through the mud all these years than Izzy did just staying away from the spotlight. Again, why that one is also a tricky situation. You didn't need Izzy for legitimacy (as is evidenced by the fact that everyone went to this tour and considered it legitimate without him), but you can't discount those song credits and riffs which are largely his even though Slash is the face of the band/brand. Thats where Felder had less of a leg IMO. He was there for the start of Eagles limited, but he didn't write songs AND wasn't a founding member. So in that case I see an argument. With Izzy, he wrote all the songs AND started the band. So I feel that accounts for a lot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-09 22:02 by RollingFreak.

All band members are equal but some band members are more equal than others

Quote
RollingFreak

Say what you want about the Eagles, but its not like Henley went off without them, got them back together and THEN asked for more money. It was a band that broke up and a band that got back together.

Well that brings up an interesting point? I guess if you have to ASK - then your not an equal! But I don't know - If Keith wants more money who does he ask or what about Mick? And where does the money come from? I guess it has to come out of the other members pockets - you get more, so someone else gets less, there's only "X" amount of money to go around...

Quote
2000 LYFH

Well that brings up an interesting point? I guess if you have to ASK - then your not an equal! But I don't know - If Keith wants more money who does he ask or what about Mick? And where does the money come from? I guess it has to come out of the other members pockets - you get more, so someone else gets less, there's only "X" amount of money to go around...

The Prince wrote that Keith once asked him if the extra money Mick got came from doing things that created more money for the band.

I think the Stones had equal shares of the stage revenue in the old days, otherwise Charlie, Brian and Bill wouldn't have had any money by 1969. (Which they didn't, while Mick and Keith earned hundreds of thousands from royalties). Keith and Mick make sore much more than Ron and Charlie, just from royalties. Do you really think people would show up just to see Mick & Keith and a bunch of no name hired guns? Mick tried it and failed.

Good point, although I guess more "demand" than "ask". I meant in the scenario where Axl Rose says something like "I kept this band alive for 20 years when no one else wanted to", which is technically accurate although many would disagree. But that thats his stipulation and argument for more money. But like you say, I'm not sure who you ask about that or since its his band he's just allowed to do that.

Quote
jambay
All band members are equal but some band members are more equal than others

Very Orwellian. Nice.

Quote
24FPS
I think the Stones had equal shares of the stage revenue in the old days, otherwise Charlie, Brian and Bill wouldn't have had any money by 1969. (Which they didn't, while Mick and Keith earned hundreds of thousands from royalties). Keith and Mick make sore much more than Ron and Charlie, just from royalties. Do you really think people would show up just to see Mick & Keith and a bunch of no name hired guns? Mick tried it and failed.

Mick AND Keith? Yes, they would.

Are they still calling themselves the Stones without Charlie and Ronnie? Then yes, I think they could still fill arenas. I'm not advocating that in the slightest, but I truly believe Mick and Keith could still bill themselves as the Stones with two additional hired guns and most fans would still flock to them.

Quote
RollingFreak
And they were probably right. Sneaky and assholey, but probably right. That were they just to lay back and let Felder enjoy that part of Eagles Limited that he'd be getting way more of a free ride than he deserves. In the end it isn't like he writes the songs or did keep himself out there or the Eagles name all those years. He's key, but understandably benefits a lot from the Limited deal that he may not even be entitled too. In the end, Frey and Henley probably did deserve more, and there's no way for that to happen without at some point coming off as an a**hole.

Its a bit different with the Guns N Roses thing to me because the band did exist without those members and was a failure. Say what you want about the Eagles, but its not like Henley went off without them, got them back together and THEN asked for more money. It was a band that broke up and a band that got back together. I get why Axl Rose deserves more as the face and voice of that band, but it could be argued he did more harm to the band dragging that name through the mud all these years than Izzy did just staying away from the spotlight. Again, why that one is also a tricky situation. You didn't need Izzy for legitimacy (as is evidenced by the fact that everyone went to this tour and considered it legitimate without him), but you can't discount those song credits and riffs which are largely his even though Slash is the face of the band/brand. Thats where Felder had less of a leg IMO. He was there for the start of Eagles limited, but he didn't write songs AND wasn't a founding member. So in that case I see an argument. With Izzy, he wrote all the songs AND started the band. So I feel that accounts for a lot.

Great point. The fact that the tour was a roaring success PROVES that Izzy isn't essential to the band.

Now, die-hard music fans know how great Izzy is, but for the casual masses, if Axl and Slash are onstage, that's good enough for it to be called G'n'R.

Again, I'm talking about mass perception, not my personal feeling. I think Izzy SHOULD be there, but the fact the tour worked self-evidently proves that most fans don't care whether Izzy is part of the reunion or not.

Quote
RollingFreak
And they were probably right. Sneaky and assholey, but probably right. That were they just to lay back and let Felder enjoy that part of Eagles Limited that he'd be getting way more of a free ride than he deserves. In the end it isn't like he writes the songs or did keep himself out there or the Eagles name all those years. He's key, but understandably benefits a lot from the Limited deal that he may not even be entitled too. In the end, Frey and Henley probably did deserve more, and there's no way for that to happen without at some point coming off as an a**hole.

The band was originally a four-way partnership with the original members, and they cut Felder in as a shareholder without hesitation. But he probably should have gotten a clue when Leadon's and Meisner's replacements were brought in as employees, not partners.

The writing was on the wall literally the year after Felder joined (when Walsh replaced Leadon)...Henley and Frey clearly weren't going to put up with a three-way partnership with Felder forever. They were a-holes about it indeed, but it was also just business, and, by the first reunion, a lot had changed since 1974.

Egos, money, drugs and bad advice.
"You never give me your money.'
Only the lawyers win out.

Some apparant shining examples and exceptions to the rule:
U2
LED ZEPPELIN
QUEEN
ABBA
SPICE GIRLS

Quote
jlowe
Egos, money, drugs and bad advice.
"You never give me your money.'
Only the lawyers win out.

Some apparant shining examples and exceptions to the rule:
U2
LED ZEPPELIN
QUEEN
ABBA
SPICE GIRLS

R.E.M. as well...especially with their songwriting partnership which always included all band members, no matter who actually wrote what.

As Peter Buck once said, "The songwriting money we share isn't necessarily for writing the songs...it's for sleeping on the floor for ten years while we toured, it's for the eight hours of rehearsal we used to do when we were making forty dollars a month."

Pretty hard to get them all together naked
at the same time and in the same dressing room ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
keefriff99
I'm not advocating that in the slightest, but I truly believe Mick and Keith could still bill themselves as the Stones with two additional hired guns and most fans would still flock to them.

They might be able to fill seats, but I don't know if Mick and Keith themselves would consider the band to exist without Charlie. They are down to three out of six original members as it is. They certainly tried hard enough to persuade Bill not to leave, kept the door open for years in case he changed his mind, and never officially replaced him. I suspect that if Charlie decided he didn't want to do it anymore, that would be it for the Rolling Stones.

Say what you want, but I highly doubt any of Paul McCartney's band members gets paid the same amount as him.

Quote
blivet

Quote
keefriff99
I'm not advocating that in the slightest, but I truly believe Mick and Keith could still bill themselves as the Stones with two additional hired guns and most fans would still flock to them.

They might be able to fill seats, but I don't know if Mick and Keith themselves would consider the band to exist without Charlie. They are down to three out of six original members as it is. They certainly tried hard enough to persuade Bill not to leave, kept the door open for years in case he changed his mind, and never officially replaced him. I suspect that if Charlie decided he didn't want to do it anymore, that would be it for the Rolling Stones.

I NEVER said they would ever do it or would ever want to do it. I know they wouldn't do it, especially Keith.

My argument was simply that they COULD and remain popular, because to the majority of the casual public, Mick and Keith are the Stones.