Tell Me :
Talk
ok but in that article someone posted things sounded pretty bad, financially
Sigh... That's the way that article was designed, the reporter gets paid for handing in 'shocking revelations' to his editor.
It has been said that tabloids attract readers and generate profit by doing this. The English ones in particular, they have a terrible reputation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 14:03 by SundanceKid.
HOW the hell would we know? Jesus! Get a grip
Check your tone.
Thats much more a realistic number!
It is a ridiculous question.
The section labeled "Performers' Right" here >>> [www.venturenavigator.co.uk] suggests Mick had good reason to sue.
Even Pete Best ended up a multimillionaire after finally appearing on some BEATLES ANTHOLOGY songs.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 17:54 by Title5Take1.
It was great to be there--it was great to be anywhere.
The fact that the Perf royalties, which are collected by the PRO's (from radio stations etc) in each country and paid out to the musicians, are not enough to live on does not mean the Stones can just take the tracks in which MT's playing is incorporated and press records from those without paying Taylor his share of royalties over sales of said records - in accordance with the agreement they signed with him when they founded Rolling Stones Records.
I believe he had a lawyer write a letter to them to enquire if they were planning to pay him or nor. He did not, however, press legal action.
You need to look at the difference between Performing royalties and Mechanical royalties. The Stones can not interfere with Taylor's Performing royalties once PRS establishes that he does play on the record, even if the Stones intentionally leave out the personnel details which they normally list on the record sleeve (or in the booklet).
By the way, the book 'According to the Rolling Stones' is irreverent and negatively biased towards Taylor on multiple accounts.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-14 15:30 by SundanceKid.
I cannot disagree with you there. But if you get upset by every ridiculous question posted on this board, you'll have a stroke. We don't wanna lose you, man.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
Deathgod
()
Date: April 13, 2013 13:22
don't mean to hijack the thread, but here's another royalties story that you might find worth a read.
[www.rollingstoneme.com]
[www.rollingstoneme.com]
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 13, 2013 13:24
Quote
SundanceKidQuote
Redhotcarpet
I wonder about Taylor. Maybe he got paid big time last year and for the Exile re issue including Plundered. He lives in some small shaggy apt. right?
That's a strange way to describe a house in the country...
ok but in that article someone posted things sounded pretty bad, financially
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
SundanceKid
()
Date: April 13, 2013 13:49
Quote
SundanceKid
That's a strange way to describe a house in the country...
Quote
Redhotcarpet
ok but in that article someone posted things sounded pretty bad, financially
Sigh... That's the way that article was designed, the reporter gets paid for handing in 'shocking revelations' to his editor.
It has been said that tabloids attract readers and generate profit by doing this. The English ones in particular, they have a terrible reputation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 14:03 by SundanceKid.
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: April 13, 2013 13:52
Quote
Wuudy
Anyone got any idea on what Taylor is getting paid for the upcoming tour?
HOW the hell would we know? Jesus! Get a grip
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
MILKYWAY
()
Date: April 13, 2013 14:59
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
Wuudy
Anyone got any idea on what Taylor is getting paid for the upcoming tour?
HOW the hell would we know? Jesus! Get a grip
Check your tone.
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
leatherjacket
()
Date: April 13, 2013 15:21
Thats much more a realistic number!
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: April 13, 2013 15:31
Quote
MILKYWAYQuote
bitusa2012Quote
Wuudy
Anyone got any idea on what Taylor is getting paid for the upcoming tour?
HOW the hell would we know? Jesus! Get a grip
Check your tone.
It is a ridiculous question.
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: April 13, 2013 17:19
Then why did Mick Taylor go to the expense of suing the other Stones over his guitar work that "surfaced" on TATTOO YOU ten years after he played it? And on only two songs on the album (Tops and Waiting on a Friend). In the Discography section of ACCORDING TO THE ROLLING STONES under Tattoo You, when listing the personnel on the album, after Mick Taylor's name the other Stones irreverently put: "(legal action!!)" (p. 352.)Quote
SundanceKidQuote
Title5Take1
I know Taylor didn't get composing credits, but he does get performer's royalties for his Stones tunes. If my co-worker and her former husband were living comfortably off this oldie from the 50's, Mick T. must have a decent—if not princely—income.
It is worth noting that the cheques from Performing Rights Societies (a system of European origin) amount to very little unless you have an official writer's credit on a major hit.
In US the non-composers (performing artists) were never entitled to any payments for public performance of their sound recordings. In other words, the authors would receive royalties when their songs got played on the radio, but not the other bandmembers.
SoundExchange is beginning to include the non-composers too but they base their calculations on digital transmissions only. So terrestrial radio in US does not result in any $$ for composers, musicians or performing artists. Satellite radio broadcast is charged at a lower rate than internet radio.
So I'm afraid your conclusion was inaccurate.
The section labeled "Performers' Right" here >>> [www.venturenavigator.co.uk] suggests Mick had good reason to sue.
Even Pete Best ended up a multimillionaire after finally appearing on some BEATLES ANTHOLOGY songs.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-13 17:54 by Title5Take1.
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: April 13, 2013 18:11
Yes, but he has a wealth of memories....if he can remember them.
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: April 13, 2013 20:04
Quote
NoCode0680
Yes, but he has a wealth of memories....if he can remember them.
It was great to be there--it was great to be anywhere.
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
SundanceKid
()
Date: April 13, 2013 22:44
Quote
SundanceKid
It is worth noting that the cheques from Performing Rights Societies (a system of European origin) amount to very little unless you have an official writer's credit on a major hit.
In US the non-composers (performing artists) were never entitled to any payments for public performance of their sound recordings. In other words, the authors would receive royalties when their songs got played on the radio, but not the other bandmembers.
So I'm afraid your conclusion was inaccurate.
Quote
Title5Take1
Then why did Mick Taylor go to the expense of suing the other Stones over his guitar work that "surfaced" on TATTOO YOU ten years after he played it? And on only two songs on the album (Tops and Waiting on a Friend). In the Discography section of ACCORDING TO THE ROLLING STONES under Tattoo You, when listing the personnel on the album, after Mick Taylor's name the other Stones irreverently put: "(legal action!!)" (p. 352.)
The section labeled "Performers' Right" here [www.venturenavigator.co.uk] suggests Mick had good reason to sue.
Even Pete Best ended up a multimillionaire after finally appearing on some BEATLES ANTHOLOGY songs.
The fact that the Perf royalties, which are collected by the PRO's (from radio stations etc) in each country and paid out to the musicians, are not enough to live on does not mean the Stones can just take the tracks in which MT's playing is incorporated and press records from those without paying Taylor his share of royalties over sales of said records - in accordance with the agreement they signed with him when they founded Rolling Stones Records.
I believe he had a lawyer write a letter to them to enquire if they were planning to pay him or nor. He did not, however, press legal action.
You need to look at the difference between Performing royalties and Mechanical royalties. The Stones can not interfere with Taylor's Performing royalties once PRS establishes that he does play on the record, even if the Stones intentionally leave out the personnel details which they normally list on the record sleeve (or in the booklet).
By the way, the book 'According to the Rolling Stones' is irreverent and negatively biased towards Taylor on multiple accounts.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-14 15:30 by SundanceKid.
Re: Mick Taylors Net Wealth.
Posted by:
MILKYWAY
()
Date: April 17, 2013 13:37
Quote
bitusa2012Quote
MILKYWAYQuote
bitusa2012Quote
Wuudy
Anyone got any idea on what Taylor is getting paid for the upcoming tour?
HOW the hell would we know? Jesus! Get a grip
Check your tone.
It is a ridiculous question.
I cannot disagree with you there. But if you get upset by every ridiculous question posted on this board, you'll have a stroke. We don't wanna lose you, man.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
kid killowatt , mariano , ohmercy61 , PaintitBlue , quietbeatle , retired_dog , TumblinDice76 , TW2019
Guests:
1942
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10