Seems to me that someone lives a pretty boring life or at least has a boring Sunday and nothing better to do.

The Rolling Stones are a business venture; that is an indubitable fact. They have been a business venture since Come On onwards. It was a fact that Eric Easton left the management of the Rolling Stones in 1965 due to business.

Allan Klein was also brought in purely on a bottom-line basis, to generate more funds for the main players. When the Stones realised they were being ripped off, they had to extricate themselves from the deal.

Also, bearing in mind how astute both parties are (were), Mick and Keith would have seen just how financially unsound Brian Epstein's business deals were concerning The Beatles, and how, post-Epstein, the Beatles fragmented due, mainly, to money issues. They needed someone to ensure that the money kept rolling.

The Stones, as a business venture, also realised that they couldn't keep covering blues and soul tracks, as there would not have been enough income, hence the Jagger / Richards songwriting team.

It is very strange that Loewenstein publishes stories about the Stones. It is bad behaviour indeed. Maybe age turned him silly.

Judging from the excerpts Rupert doesn't appear to have written anything really damamging about their finances, but it's still extraordinary that a business advisor would write a tell all book about his biggest client. If Mick is upset, I would think it would be more about Rupert revealing that Mick once sought more money for himself and that he was habitually late for engagements.

Isn't the Daily Mail considered a bit of a hack publication? I am somewhat suspicious about their Mick quotes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-10 17:52 by latebloomer.

Quote
Bliss
[www.dailymail.co.uk]

So we can give partial thanks to Rupert for Exile happening
Thanks Rupert



2 parts I found interesting in the article...


""What had also become apparent to me was that the band would have to abandon their UK residence.

If they did not do this, they could be paying between 83 and 98 per cent of their profits in British income tax and surtax. I selected the South of France as a suitable location for them.""
----------------------------------------------------------

""Scalping tickets – the reselling of concert tickets – was another area of great concern.

Everyone I spoke to about it said: ‘There’s nothing you can do about that. That’s the promoter’s business. Do you want the Stones’ children to be kidnapped? You should be aware that you are dealing with difficult and potentially dangerous people.’

Scalping was endemic, all-pervasive. I had to come to terms with the fact that there was an irreducible core of approximately ten per cent that would never come our way, and that we should concentrate on securing and accounting for the remaining 90 per cent. I had to learn to accept some of the realities of the music business.""
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for posting Bliss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-10 17:41 by Max'sKansasCity.

Yes, I forgot to thank you Bliss..Mick would be upset at my bad manners!

Nice read. Thanks.
I do agree with Mick on this one.
When we hire a banker, financial Planner we
Don't expect that they will write a book and
talk about the private business of their clients.

He we very well paid along with his family for his
Work with the band. Like a doctor, lawyer he should
Have respected the trust the Stones gave him.

This man of "CLASS" should have asked his
Clients before he wrote this book.

Quote
hot stuff
Nice read. Thanks.
I do agree with Mick on this one.
When we hire a banker, financial Planner we
Don't expect that they will write a book and
talk about the private business of their clients.

He we very well paid along with his family for his
Work with the band. Like a doctor, lawyer he should
Have respected the trust the Stones gave him.

This man of "CLASS" should have asked his
Clients before he wrote this book.

agree

__________________________

Quote
windmelody
It is very strange that Loewenstein publishes stories about the Stones. It is bad behaviour indeed. Maybe age turned him silly.

I hope Anita catches this lets publish a book sillyness.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
windmelody
It is very strange that Loewenstein publishes stories about the Stones. It is bad behaviour indeed. Maybe age turned him silly.

I hope Anita catches this lets publish a book sillyness.

I think Anita has more class, more dignity than Prince Rupert.

When it comes to matters fiscal, a confidentiality clause should be in place. Nobody should know just how much l s d the Stones have in their pockets. By the way I mean pounds, shillings, and pence. In Britain, nobody likes their finances being declared in public.

I think Anita should publish a book for the sheer historical perspective of it. Who knew Brian more intimately? The danger of course is that it would be colored in her favor, but she is very intelligent, and understands self destruction.

Maybe Mick will finally write his book and tell his side. Everyone else related to the Stones has written a book at this point. Mick might as well. Excpet of course for Charlie. Butwe know he'll never do it.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
superrevvy
"Jann Wenner wanted to start up a magazine to be called
Rolling Stone, and had invited Mick and, in so far as the
other Rolling Stones counted, the other band members to buy
49 percent of the shares. Mick could not raise the money
required, which was 5000 pounds. He asked me if Leopold
Joseph would lend the money to him. But my partners were
not prepared to give an overdraft to Mick because there
was no security to back it up with, and the magazine was
an unquoted start-up. That highlighted for me how dire
the situation was. I did finally get my partners to agree
that we would have given Mick an overdraft, but their
agreement did not come in time. The opportunity was missed,
and the Rolling Stones did not end up with half of Rolling
Stone, which was a great shame."

Jann Wenner once was a guest on DAVID LETTERMAN and he said he and Mick Jagger tried to start up a Rolling Stone Magazine in Europe, after the American version was established. But the venture wasn't successful. That's what this must be about. The first issue of the American Rolling Stone was published in 1967, and Prince Rupert didn't even meet Mick until 1968. So big deal if they didn't own half of a failed venture.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-10 19:43 by Title5Take1.

Quote
tomcasagranda

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
windmelody
It is very strange that Loewenstein publishes stories about the Stones. It is bad behaviour indeed. Maybe age turned him silly.

I hope Anita catches this lets publish a book sillyness.

I think Anita has more class, more dignity than Prince Rupert.

When it comes to matters fiscal, a confidentiality clause should be in place. Nobody should know just how much l s d the Stones have in their pockets. By the way I mean pounds, shillings, and pence. In Britain, nobody likes their finances being declared in public.

More class? lol.

Well I don't know what a "finer mind" means. Does it mean Mick makes better musical decisions? Does it means he makes better relationship decisions? Does Mick make better business decsions?

Quote
superrevvy
I'm sure many of the social anecdotes are true and amusing

The insider stuff is fiction, and approved by Mick. The description of Mick as
"furious" is just to help sales.

If you believe either that Keith has a finer mind than Mick, or that Rupert
believes that Keith has a finer mind than Mick, then you truly will believe
anything.

Quote
Title5Take1

Quote
superrevvy
"Jann Wenner wanted to start up a magazine to be called
Rolling Stone, and had invited Mick and, in so far as the
other Rolling Stones counted, the other band members to buy
49 percent of the shares. Mick could not raise the money
required, which was 5000 pounds. He asked me if Leopold
Joseph would lend the money to him. But my partners were
not prepared to give an overdraft to Mick because there
was no security to back it up with, and the magazine was
an unquoted start-up. That highlighted for me how dire
the situation was. I did finally get my partners to agree
that we would have given Mick an overdraft, but their
agreement did not come in time. The opportunity was missed,
and the Rolling Stones did not end up with half of Rolling
Stone, which was a great shame."

Jann Wenner once was a guest on DAVID LETTERMAN and he said he and Mick Jagger tried to start up a Rolling Stone Magazine in Europe, after the American version was established. But the venture wasn't successful. That's what this must be about. The first issue of the American Rolling Stone was published in 1967, and Prince Rupert didn't even meet Mick until 1968. So big deal if they didn't own half of a failed venture.

So Rupert is out of touch or it's total bullshit. I'll go with both.

The story about Mick being involved in trying to set up a UK Rolling Stone etc is true, here's a photo of Jan and Mick at Rolling Stones HQ circa spring 1969.

OH JANN!!!!!!!!!!....you look so cool



ROCKMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-10 23:43 by Rockman.

Quote
superrevvy
I'm sure many of the social anecdotes are true and amusing

The insider stuff is fiction, and approved by Mick. The description of Mick as
"furious" is just to help sales.

If you believe either that Keith has a finer mind than Mick, or that Rupert
believes that Keith has a finer mind than Mick, then you truly will believe
anything.

I agree with you. Mick is helping his friend to increase the sales and he is overreacting on purpose. I hope some the insider stuff is not fiction though.

whether Mick is upset or not I do find it odd, and unprofessional, that their accountant has written a book about their finances.

Quote
Braincapers
whether Mick is upset or not I do find it odd, and unprofessional, that their accountant has written a book about their finances.

Yes, absolutely. While it DOES provide us fans with a competely different angle of the band's story/history - enough perhaps for some of us to consider buying the book (it kept my attention reading the excerpts) I would guess, I do have to agree. It is strange and a very unprofessional on PR's part.

Either way...
Bring on the movie version!!!
><

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
superrevvy
"Jann Wenner wanted to start up a magazine to be called
Rolling Stone, and had invited Mick and, in so far as the
other Rolling Stones counted, the other band members to buy
49 percent of the shares. Mick could not raise the money
required, which was 5000 pounds. He asked me if Leopold
Joseph would lend the money to him. But my partners were
not prepared to give an overdraft to Mick because there
was no security to back it up with, and the magazine was
an unquoted start-up. That highlighted for me how dire
the situation was. I did finally get my partners to agree
that we would have given Mick an overdraft, but their
agreement did not come in time. The opportunity was missed,
and the Rolling Stones did not end up with half of Rolling
Stone, which was a great shame."

This is unusual. I read Robert Draper's Rolling Stone Magazine book, and it details how Mick offered to put up the money for a UK version of Rolling Stone in 1969. He and Jann incorporated Trans Oceanic Comic Company Ltd in March of that year, and the first issue hit the stands in June. The venture was a disaster, though, with unprofessional local staffers hired by Jo Bergman. By the end of the year, Jann axed the magazine and Jagger was out some $40,000.

There's no possibility of Mick being an original investor in the mothership. The money-raising took place in 1967 and was limited to Jann's family and friends in the Bay Area. Maybe Rupert is referring to some sort of recapitalization, financial restructuring or additional round of funding. Or is just old and confused. At any rate, Jann did not look after his minority investors very well, and profitability took years and years. Mick was probably lucky.

(Caveat: This is all based on the Draper book.)

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
Braincapers
whether Mick is upset or not I do find it odd, and unprofessional, that their accountant has written a book about their finances.

Yes, absolutely. While it DOES provide us fans with a competely different angle of the band's story/history - enough perhaps for some of us to consider buying the book (it kept my attention reading the excerpts) I would guess, I do have to agree. It is strange and a very unprofessional on PR's part.

Agree on both points. It's just bizarre for a financial professional to do this.

OTOH I'll probably pick up a copy of the book one day. He has an interesting perspective as an insider without an emotional attachment to the group's music, and he has an expert's knowledge of one area of the band's operations that no one has written about much at all.

There was a rather fascinating interview with Jagger about how the business of the Rolling Stones is structured some years back in Fortune, but that's about it as far as I know.

Quote
blivet

There was a rather fascinating interview with Jagger about how the business of the Rolling Stones is structured some years back in Fortune, but that's about it as far as I know.

Found it.
[money.cnn.com]

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
blivet

There was a rather fascinating interview with Jagger about how the business of the Rolling Stones is structured some years back in Fortune, but that's about it as far as I know.

Found it.
[money.cnn.com]

IIRC there was also an accompanying interview with Jagger along the lines I indicated. Questions about the nuts and bolts of the business, like "Is it a partnership?"

Sometimes I just wonder if these books aren't just a way to keep the Stones brand out there with a scandalous book every few years. It makes sense to me. I also read that Keith's tree incident was actually a heart attack. I don't know if that's true.
But sometimes I think these incidents are made up to keep them in the news. There is always another scandal, drug bust, etc. They get paid to be bad. This is part of the brand and the image.

Or is it? I have no idea.

It seems everyone's getting into the act, weighing in with their point of view:

'I Was Keith Richards' Drug Dealer' - Tony Sanchez

'I Was Mick Jagger's Girlfriend' - Marianne Faithfull

'I Was the Rolling Stones' Office Manager' - Jo Bergman

'I Was the RS Fanzine Publisher' - Bill German

'I Was the RS' Flatmate' - our own James Phelge

'I Was Mick Jagger's PA' - Chris O'Dell

and now, bizarrely, 'I Was the RS' Bank Manager' - Prince Rupert Loewenstein

Did I leave anyone out? These primary sources are fantastic from a reader's perspective, but not so enjoyable from the subject's. Oh well. Can't please everyone.

(Note to self - get accountant, husband and cleaning lady to sign confidentiality clauses.)

....I was Don Was



ROCKMAN

I'm glad Prince Rupert says that Richards is so good in business - maybe that will stop Stones fans from putting all the blame for being so greedy solely on Mick.
And I think this article just shows Mail's usual bias against Jagger - the book is much more about Mick(and there is more than enough prise for him) but they want to create this Mick/ Keith tension.
Here is the Telegraphe's article on the book - and no one word about Richards.

Mick Jagger attacks former financial adviser over Rolling Stones Book
He is used to taking warts-and-all exposes and stories about him with good grace, but Mick Jagger has reacted angrily to a new book where the warts involved are the Rolling Stones’ financial arrangements.
By Nick Britten 10 Feb 2013

Written by the band’s financial adviser Prince Rupert Loewenstein, who is widely credited from turning them from penniless rockers to multimillionaires during a 40-year association, it lays bare how he made them become tax exiles, reshaped the way tours were run, and ended the practice of the brown paper bag stuffed with cash.
It might be that he prefers to read stories that are more in keeping with his wild man image, or that Jagger didn’t expect such revelations from his old friend. But he has certainly been upset by the publication of Prince Rupert’s memoirs A Prince Among Stones.
“Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think your ex-bank manager should be discussing your financial dealings and personal information in public,” he told the Mail on Sunday, which is serialising the book.
“It just goes to show that well brought-up people don’t always display good manners.”
Once dubbed the human calculator, Prince Rupert describes himself as a combination of “bank manager, psychiatrist and nanny” to the Rolling Stones.
He became the band’s adviser in 1968 when he was running a merchant bank, and admits to becoming fascinated by Jagger, despite hating the Stones’ music.
The frontman had complained of being penniless, he realised that if they were to avoid paying between 83 and 98 per cent in tax and surtax, they would need to become tax exiles and move their base away from England.
It was around the time they were recording their best selling album Exile on Main Street, one of the only album titles, the Prince said, to contain a reference to tax planning in the title.
With “unaccounted-for cash delivered in a paper bag to the band and their management the norm”, Prince Rupert began insisting they declare it, and slowly began rewriting how tours operated.
Even he, though, had to admit defeat in the “all pervasive” practice of ticket scalping, which allowed promoters to make huge profits by reselling concert tickets at inflated prices.
He said: “Everyone I spoke to said: ‘There’s nothing you can do about that.
Do you want the Stones’ children to be kidnapped? You should be aware you are dealing with difficult and dangerous people.”
Prince Rupert puts his success with the Stones down to hating their music and refusing to be tempted by the rock and roll lifestyle.
He said: “All the time I worked with the Stones, I never changed my habits, my clothes or my attitudes.
“I always aimed to maintain a strict discipline backstage and tried to see that the band and the entourage did not get drunk or disorderly.
“Precisely because I was not a fan, I was able to view the band and what they produced calmly, dispassionately, maybe even clinically – though never without affection.”
The Prince and Jagger became great friends and it is believed that without his guiding influence the Stones would not have lasted nearly as long as they have.
The man nicknamed Rupie The Groupie by associates said the job with the Stones – who had never heard of before – came at the right time as he was bored at work, and he could not resist taking on the challenge of a skint rock band. He and Jagger quickly clicked, but coming from different ends of the social spectrum was not without its problems.
Prince Rupert recounts how he and his wife, Josephine, had been invited for Christmas at Warwick Castle by friends, Lord and Lady Brooke. Having got Jagger and Marianne Faithfull an invitation, the visit was a disaster, with Miss Faithfull staying in bed 90 per cent of the time and Lade Brooke eventually leaving early and tipping water into her bed.
He also described a concert in Hyde Park soon after the band’s guitarist, Brian Jones, had been found dead in 1969. He said: “Mick read extracts from Shelley’s Adonais. The effect was almost like the Nuremberg Rallies.”
[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
Bliss

Quote
superrevvy
If you believe either that Keith has a finer mind than Mick, or that Rupert
believes that Keith has a finer mind than Mick, then you truly will believe
anything.

Being described in an insider's book as having an inferior mind to Keith's cannot have made Mick's day.

I personally guarantee that Mick approved that line. He probably even suggested it.
Its funny, its a joke, although I'm sure Keith like y'all will take it at face value.

So, what is the deeper meaning of the statement?