Quote
Zotz
According to Bill Wyman the Urban Jungle European Tour accountants where making more money than him and Charlie.

All this guy does is bitch about The Stones. Never happy. Glad he's gone.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-03-21 01:12 by Bastion.

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
Zotz
According to Bill Wyman the Urban Jungle European Tour accountants where making more money than him and Charlie.

All this guy does is bitch about The Stones. Never happy. Glad he's gone.

So you know better than Bill or even call him a liar?

Quote
dcba

Quote
dead.flowers
Concerning the backing musicians on tour, I read on this forum some time ago, they'd be having free travel and accommodation plus a mere 500 or 1000 Dollars per gig.

Can't be.
Iirc Dylan gave 10K to each of his sidemen per night and he asked promoters 120K per gig.

You can't use a solo artist's pay to compare to a band. It's all different.

Quote
JJHMick

Quote
BowieStone
Between Rolling Stones it used to be Mick 35%, Keith 35%, Charlie 20% and Ronnie 10%.
At least that's what someone who works for LiveNation once told me.
No idea what her sources were.

Why should Charlie's share in the Stones' companies be different to Mick's and Keith's? Any difference in their fortunes comes from composer's royalties (and Keith's drug addiction expenses...).

For one thing, you're going by what someone said that someone told them without any facts or sources. And then you throw in a cute little shit statement about Keith's drug addiction, which has zero to do with what the band earned.

Not sure why you're bothering to ask such a bullshit thing when you're obviously not interested in it.

Quote
mosthigh
In a documentary about sidemen, Bernard Fowler says he can only afford take a few weeks off after a Stones tour before he has to start pounding the pavement again. Who knows what kind of lifestyle he lives, though.

When asked if he feels like a Rolling Stone, he replied:"No, I don't make Rolling Stones kind of money". Ha.

It's probably more to do with being secure in being a performing artist and making a living than anything else. He may very well be paid enough from the Stones for what he does - but he knows he has to continue regardless.

Bobby Keys was worth 10 million when he passed. He led a wild high priced lifestyle. He and everybody else are paid more than we think.

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
Zotz
According to Bill Wyman the Urban Jungle European Tour accountants where making more money than him and Charlie.

All this guy does is bitch about The Stones. Never happy. Glad he's gone.

Except for all that crap bass playing we've had to put up with for 30 years.

Quote
Cooltoplady
Bobby Keys was worth 10 million when he passed. He led a wild high priced lifestyle. He and everybody else are paid more than we think.

Is that for real? Or just taken from a Celebrity Net Worth site on the internet?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JJHMick

Quote
BowieStone
Between Rolling Stones it used to be Mick 35%, Keith 35%, Charlie 20% and Ronnie 10%.
At least that's what someone who works for LiveNation once told me.
No idea what her sources were.

Why should Charlie's share in the Stones' companies be different to Mick's and Keith's? Any difference in their fortunes comes from composer's royalties (and Keith's drug addiction expenses...).

For one thing, you're going by what someone said that someone told them without any facts or sources. And then you throw in a cute little shit statement about Keith's drug addiction, which has zero to do with what the band earned.

Not sure why you're bothering to ask such a bullshit thing when you're obviously not interested in it.

Sorry, GasLightStreet, but you totally misinterpreted my note!!! I am very interested in bullshit like that!! I wouldn't bother answering somebody else's comment if I wasn't!

Yes, I must have been going by what someone said before but still have no answer... Are you a more reliable source regarding their shares?

To me it's logic that Charlie (and even Ronnie - at least by now) are shareholders at the same rate of the Stones's companies. After his death? I have no idea (I think Bill kept his share whereas Mick T sold it, so that is a possibility too?!).

That shit little statement is a quote of Keith's...: When he found out that Mick was worth much more than him he said that must have been the costs of my drug addiction.
That sentence was written in connection with fortune and not with shares because my impression is that the varying shares are explained by varying fortunes of the band members.

Quote
JJHMick

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JJHMick

Quote
BowieStone
Between Rolling Stones it used to be Mick 35%, Keith 35%, Charlie 20% and Ronnie 10%.
At least that's what someone who works for LiveNation once told me.
No idea what her sources were.

Why should Charlie's share in the Stones' companies be different to Mick's and Keith's? Any difference in their fortunes comes from composer's royalties (and Keith's drug addiction expenses...).

For one thing, you're going by what someone said that someone told them without any facts or sources. And then you throw in a cute little shit statement about Keith's drug addiction, which has zero to do with what the band earned.

Not sure why you're bothering to ask such a bullshit thing when you're obviously not interested in it.

Sorry, GasLightStreet, but you totally misinterpreted my note!!! I am very interested in bullshit like that!! I wouldn't bother answering somebody else's comment if I wasn't!

Yes, I must have been going by what someone said before but still have no answer... Are you a more reliable source regarding their shares?

To me it's logic that Charlie (and even Ronnie - at least by now) are shareholders at the same rate of the Stones's companies. After his death? I have no idea (I think Bill kept his share whereas Mick T sold it, so that is a possibility too?!).

That shit little statement is a quote of Keith's...: When he found out that Mick was worth much more than him he said that must have been the costs of my drug addiction.
That sentence was written in connection with fortune and not with shares because my impression is that the varying shares are explained by varying fortunes of the band members.

According to Ronnie, Ronnie was made an official principal ie official band member in 1990 prior to the Japan tour, so he was now getting paid the same as the rest of the band in regard to touring, merchandise and whatever other sales.

Look at their personal wealth and you will be close to the truth.

Quote
Dan

Quote
Cooltoplady
Bobby Keys was worth 10 million when he passed. He led a wild high priced lifestyle. He and everybody else are paid more than we think.

Is that for real? Or just taken from a Celebrity Net Worth site on the internet?

Good question. It says Bill is worth $80 Million. He left before the really big touring money. Charlie is listed as $250 Million. I don't see how these figures are possible, unless they both had good investments too.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Dan

Quote
Cooltoplady
Bobby Keys was worth 10 million when he passed. He led a wild high priced lifestyle. He and everybody else are paid more than we think.

Is that for real? Or just taken from a Celebrity Net Worth site on the internet?

Good question. It says Bill is worth $80 Million. He left before the really big touring money. Charlie is listed as $250 Million. I don't see how these figures are possible, unless they both had good investments too.

Those sites are completely made up numbers, sure enough they have Bobby Keyes listed at 10 million. Unless everybody goes there to register their net worth and I just wasn't aware of it!

Quote
Cooltoplady
Bobby Keys was worth 10 million when he passed. He led a wild high priced lifestyle. He and everybody else are paid more than we think.

Well if someone little-known hotn player pockets 500K per tour Bobby most certainly got 1 (or 2?) mil.