|
|
Post by rick on Mar 21, 2015 13:50:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 21, 2015 13:53:46 GMT -5
Well, I'd settle for that.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 14:37:12 GMT -5
Bernie Taupin is a singer ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 21, 2015 15:13:50 GMT -5
Many of those people are dead and shouldn't be on the list and like robertaxel said Bernie Taupin isn't a singer and where is Elton John? Some I never heard of. I bet Linda may be surprised how wealthy she is as usually the songwriters get most of the wealth. She hasn't been active for a while unless she has good financial advisors and investments. I hope it is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 21, 2015 15:25:12 GMT -5
Regarding this list, the word B*LLSH*T comes to mind as there is no way some of the artists on that list can be thatwealthy. Many of the totals are excessively high and seem highly unrealistic and exaggerated. I am dubiously doubtful about artists like George Strait and Toby Keith having a net worth of over $300 million and each having a yearly income of over $40 million. And Neil Sedaka, who hasn't had a hit in a long time. has a net worth of over $300 million and a yearly income of nearly $40 million? Pleaasse! I don't buy that. Nor do I buy Celine Dion having a net worth of $800 million and a yearly income of $100 million. There is a listing for Barry and Robin Gibb of the Bee Gees which list their net worth as $105 million and then yearly at about $21 million, but then there's a second listing for Robin independently that lists his net worth as $148 million and I believe his yearly at $18 million. I'd have to back and look as I don't recall the exact figure. But, when Robin passed away in 2012, his estate was valued at $148 million. That's a given. But, I'm not sue why the total with his brother Barry would be lower than his solo listing and why Maurice was not included on the listing for Barry and Robin as surely that is considering them as the Bee Gees, which was where Robin earned much of his income. The Gibb brothers had a 40 (Barry)-30 (Maurice)-30 (Robin) split on all the songs they wrote, recorded and produced for themselves and other artists. So something is wrong in their figuring in more ways than one. (The financial split between the brothers came from a Wall Street Journal story on the wealth of the Bee Gees's songwriting catalog. By itself, the catalog was estimated to be worth over $100 million and detailed how much money each brother would realize if they sold their publishing. That story came out after Maurice had died. I'm thinking that's where the $105 million comes from but that figure did not include artist royalties and royalties earned for producing other artists. Linda's net worth comes from when the story came out on her battling Parkinson's but where did they get the yearly income figure and how did they verify it? Likewise, this list doesn't include artists who have died (except for Robin Gibb) and whose estates are earning money in one form or another. But, I still think much of this list is nothing but BS as no one but the artists on this list, their accountants and record companies know for sure how much each is worth. It may also be worth remembering that prior to his death in 1977, Elvis's net worth was thought to be $250 million and his yearly income at about $20 million. When he died, he had seven million dollars in his bank account and Graceland was valued at about two million. That total was far from the experts' estimate of $250 million. One might be on safe ground to assume the wealth on some of the others on this list is greatly exaggerated big time. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 21, 2015 15:31:40 GMT -5
Bernie Taupin is a singer ? Robert, when you posted that I thought that was a good question. And thought, "Well, maybe they are lumping in singers, singer/songwriters, and songwriters." But then I thought to check Amazon and actually found a few Bernie Taupin CDs -- Berne Taupin CD there are others listed. But, of course, I imagine the bulk of his income is from being a lyricist. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 21, 2015 15:32:41 GMT -5
Regarding this list, the word B*LLSH*T comes to mind as there is no way some of the artists on that list can be thatwealthy. Many of the totals are excessively high and seem highly unrealistic and exaggerated. I am dubiously doubtful about artists like George Strait and Toby Keith having a net worth of over $300 million and each having a yearly income of over $40 million. And Neil Sedaka, who hasn't had a hit in a long time. has a net worth of over $300 million and a yearly income of nearly $40 million? Pleaasse! I don't buy that. Nor do I buy Celine Dion having a net worth of $800 million and a yearly income of $100 million. There is a listing for Barry and Robin Gibb of the Bee Gees which list their net worth as $105 million and then yearly at about $21 million, but then there's a second listing for Robin independently that lists his net worth as $148 million and I believe his yearly at $18 million. I'd have to back and look as I don't recall the exact figure. But, when Robin passed away in 2012, his estate was valued at $148 million. That's a given. But, I'm not sue why the total with his brother Barry would be lower than his solo listing and why Maurice was not included on the listing for Barry and Robin as surely that is considering them as the Bee Gees, which was where Robin earned much of his income. The Gibb brothers had a 40 (Barry)-30 (Maurice)-30 (Robin) split on all the songs they wrote, recorded and produced for themselves and other artists. So something is wrong in their figuring in more ways than one. (The financial split between the brothers came from a Wall Street Journal story on the wealth of the Bee Gees's songwriting catalog. By itself, the catalog was estimated to be worth over $100 million and detailed how much money each brother would realize if they sold their publishing. That story came out after Maurice had died. I'm thinking that's where the $105 million comes from but that figure did not include artist royalties and royalties earned for producing other artists. Linda's net worth comes from when the story came out on her battling Parkinson's but where did they get the yearly income figure and how did they verify it? Likewise, this list doesn't include artists who have died (except for Robin Gibb) and whose estates are earning money in one form or another. But, I still think much of this list is nothing but BS as no one but the artists on this list, their accountants and record companies know for sure how much each is worth. It may also be worth remembering that prior to his death in 1977, Elvis's net worth was thought to be $250 million and his yearly income at about $20 million. When he died, he had seven million dollars in his bank account and Graceland was valued at about two million. That total was far from the experts' estimate of $250 million. One might be on safe ground to assume the wealth on some of the others on this list is greatly exaggerated big time. OK, never mind, Slide. I will private message you and clear any posts prior to posting them here. Sorry for the "B*LLSH*T." |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Mar 21, 2015 17:15:22 GMT -5
While just a guest here I don't think Slide's comments should be taken personally as he is just acting on the content which is great for conversation purposes. Negative comments aren't meant for the poster. I am glad it was posted and it gives fans something to talk about if not just to agree or refute the content. Comments are valuable in that I never thought of that certain view and neither did I have knowledge of Elvis or some of the others. Linda's wealth doesn't seem to jive with what was alluded to by Linda herself when speaking of it herself a couple of years ago. She finally had to come out and say she was ok financially and would be ok. I doubt if she had 115 million she would think that just being ok. Except for cars and antiques her tastes for material things doesn't seem extravagant.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoP80 on Mar 21, 2015 17:22:24 GMT -5
This figure doesn't seem to accurately reflect her income post-retirement. I don't think she would be selling her house in Tucson if she could afford the upkeep, but of course, this is just speculation on my part.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Mar 21, 2015 17:29:02 GMT -5
Has that house sold yet? Except for the bombers overhead it would be a great place to own and live.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 18:52:39 GMT -5
Bernie Taupin is a singer ? Robert, when you posted that I thought that was a good question. And thought, "Well, maybe they are lumping in singers, singer/songwriters, and songwriters." But then I thought to check Amazon and actually found a few Bernie Taupin CDs -- Berne Taupin CD there are others listed. But, of course, I imagine the bulk of his income is from being a lyricist. Interesting... of course his net worth is largely due to his lyrics, probably close to 100% |
|
|
|
Post by philly on Mar 21, 2015 19:05:13 GMT -5
Again, here is another list that offers no sources for their claims, as the one posted to the old forum a few years ago that pegged Linda's wealth at 105 million. People magazine had reported her net worth to be over 40 million in 1983, which would be 94 million in 2015 dollars. She did say she lost money in the stock market around when the tech bubble burst in 2000. Whatever the case, I'm glad she's at least reasonably well off. I recently was reading about Harry Nilsson and how, a few years before he died, only had $300 in the bank and a mountain of debt. His financial adviser had embezzled all his earnings which were never recovered and they served less than 2 years in jail. I guess putting up webpages of "lists" is a clever way to generate traffic. I'm sure that site has ads on it, although I would have to turn off my adblock to see them  |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Mar 21, 2015 20:20:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 21, 2015 22:14:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised at anyone's wealth after looking at the millions and millions of dollars generated by just one hit song- Blurred Lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 21, 2015 22:23:56 GMT -5
Presumably George Strait's income will start falling now that he is retired from touring. But doesn't he have like 3 dozen platinum albums.
A couple of years ago, Toby Keith was the top-earning country singer, according to Forbes, with income of over $65 million. This was a year when he wasn't particularly hot on the charts. He is apparently wisely invested.
As for Neil Sedaka, 
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 21, 2015 22:40:08 GMT -5
OK, never mind, Slide. I will private message you and clear any posts prior to posting them here. Sorry for the "B*LLSH*T." Rick, the comment had nothing to do with you posting the article and I apologize to you profusely and humbly if it was taken that way and you were offended. The comment was meant about the net worth and yearly income of the performers, something which in all honesty is hard to know exactly just how wealthy any of the performers really are. They may be that wealthy or they may only have a fraction of that wealth. And that is all I was trying to point out. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Mar 21, 2015 22:50:45 GMT -5
Quote by Tony re. Toby Keith:
Yes, with his I Love This Bar And Grill in his home state of Oklahoma. And he did have to invest wisely in that, because his super-macho patriot shtick, both in public and on CD, sure got old after a while.
Back to Linda--I could be wrong about this; but I had heard that during 1978, when her popularity was at its apex, she managed to clear $12 million after taxes. That may not sound like a whole lot to some; but that probably made her the wealthiest pop star of that period, female or otherwise (IMHO).
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 21, 2015 23:14:06 GMT -5
Presumably George Strait's income will start falling now that he is retired from touring. But doesn't he have like 3 dozen platinum albums.
A couple of years ago, Toby Keith was the top-earning country singer, according to Forbes, with income of over $65 million. This was a year when he wasn't particularly hot on the charts. He is apparently wisely invested.
As for Neil Sedaka,
I don't know when Strait and Keith last had million selling albums. Their net worth seems excessively high and if true, would had to have come from business ventures not having anything to do with music and maybe tax shelters to keep what they earned from taking a big tax hit. They would had to have had a high artist royalty rate although I just couldn't see them getting two to three dollars an album. Most of Strait's success was in the 80s when the top royalty rate for an artist was $1.50 (rounded off) per album sold. I remember Keith fighting for an increase in his royalties and getting it. Still I couldn't see either getting to the $300 million just on the music alone. Even the tours aren't that profitable for a performer by the time all the wages, expenses and manager commissions are paid out. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 22, 2015 0:10:52 GMT -5
George Strait was incredibly popular in the 1980s. I was a fan. After a while I tired of him because he has basically done the same album over and over for 35 years. Essentially he has two type of songs- country ballads and western swing tunes. But his success through almost four decades has remained constant as other new artists have come and gone. With a good money manager, he should be able to eke out a comfortable retirement. I did some checking-- he has 13 multiplatinum albums, 33 platinum, 38 gold.
As for Toby Keith, he was top-earning country singer in both 2013 and 2014. I think he out-earned Taylor Swift.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 22, 2015 0:54:55 GMT -5
OK, never mind, Slide. I will private message you and clear any posts prior to posting them here. Sorry for the "B*LLSH*T." Rick, the comment had nothing to do with you posting the article and I apologize to you profusely and humbly if it was taken that way and you were offended. The comment was meant about the net worth and yearly income of the performers, something which in all honesty is hard to know exactly just how wealthy any of the performers really are. They may be that wealthy or they may only have a fraction of that wealth. And that is all I was trying to point out. Thank you, Slide. I appreciate what you said. I am on a Motown fan forum and someone posted the link there. When I saw that it listed "Linda Ronstadt," I thought it might be of interest to people here. Obviously I am the source of the material and can't vouch for its accuracy. Sorry I took your comment personally. |
|
|
|
Post by fabtastique on Mar 22, 2015 1:12:46 GMT -5
I can't possibly believe this to be accurate .... I know everyone has to file a tax return, are they publicly accessible - that would show income .... but net worth, how on earth are they establishing that - pure guesswork???
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 22, 2015 11:05:31 GMT -5
George Strait was incredibly popular in the 1980s. I was a fan. After a while I tired of him because he has basically done the same album over and over for 35 years. Essentially he has two type of songs- country ballads and western swing tunes. But his success through almost four decades has remained constant as other new artists have come and gone. With a good money manager, he should be able to eke out a comfortable retirement. I did some checking-- he has 13 multiplatinum albums, 33 platinum, 38 gold. As for Toby Keith, he was top-earning country singer in both 2013 and 2014. I think he out-earned Taylor Swift. I was looking at the RIAA's Top 100 Artist Tallies. George Strait's total is 69 million. That's impressive. If you figure he was getting $1.50 per album sold, that would equal about $104 million before taxes. But, he wouldn't have been making $1.50 per album from the start. Like all artists starting out, he would've been given a minimal royalty, sort of a 'prove yourself' royalty. Most record companies would be happy if artists didn't ask for an increase in royalties until it's time to renew the contracts but many artists these days start asking for more as soon as possible. I don't blame them for that at all. But, even if he made more than $100 million from his artist royalties, it would still be tough to reach the net worth given of $326 million from all other sources, unless the article was not considering things like wages paid to employees, taxes, manager's commissions and expenses. On the face, touring appears to be lucrative but a performer generally takes home about a third of all monies earned after all the bills and salaries are paid. At most, I could see a lifetime career case being made for about $180-200 million before taxes. Maybe there were some other business ventures that took that total to $326 million but as for the yearly income, I think that might've come from average the amount of money claimed on the net worth and dividing it by the number of years the artist has or had been working. But, it's rather presumptive to assume a performer would still making that kind of money and that the sales never dwindled off or that the touring never stopped. As for Toby Keith, figuring out how he got to $300 million is more of a challenge since his RIAA total is 25 million albums. He's a songwriter, so that would add more money to his bank account. Touring couldn't make up the difference. But, the one thing I don't know is whether lists like the one in that article are taking in non-music sources contributing to that wealth. But, it's kind of weird that both Toby Keith and George Strait have a net worth that's considerably more than the one given Garth Brooks. And Brooks has outsold both of them. Brooks hasn't toured consistently and has "retired" off and on for pretty much his whole career. But, his wealth should still be more than that of Strait and Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 22, 2015 11:23:26 GMT -5
I can't possibly believe this to be accurate .... I know everyone has to file a tax return, are they publicly accessible - that would show income .... but net worth, how on earth are they establishing that - pure guesswork??? Tax records are private and can't be released to the public. There isn't a need to know for that kind of information. On the net worth, my guess is they're making a guess, based on how much of a royalty they think the performer is getting and from the touring. And maybe secondary royalties like songwriting and/or music publishing and producing. A successful artist doesn't even have to write songs. He or she can demand a percentage of the songwriting royalties from songwriters in exchange for having recorded the song. That's what Elvis's manager did on many of the songs Elvis recorded which weren't published by his publishing companies. And it would appear it's still a common practice, as Jimmy Webb related in an interview that Celine Dion and her manager-husband put the pinch not only on him, but also put the pinch on Carole King, the Bee Gees and Bryan Adams when they wrote songs for her or that she recorded. Webb indicated they all refused to surrender part of their songwriting and/or publishing royalties and threatened to deny permission for the mechanical licenses needed to release the songs. Had Dion not backed down, she would had to have recorded new songs to replace those songs or maybe taken a second look at any song she had in the vault that she had deemed not good enough for release. She chose to back down but it's kind of sad that kind of greed was still being done. |
|
|
|
Post by fabtastique on Mar 22, 2015 11:24:51 GMT -5
Interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 23, 2015 0:00:32 GMT -5
well if Linda is worth that much or more.. she lives modestly and is cautious with her cash. |
|
|
|
Post by fabtastique on Mar 23, 2015 1:35:52 GMT -5
Just I think unlike a lot of other people with her "wealth" and fame she lives very simply
|
|
|
|
Post by linda on Mar 23, 2015 9:58:49 GMT -5
I remember seeing an interview with her and she was asked about her "wealth", like it was any of their business. Well, I guess it isn't any of ours either. She remarked that she would be "ok" as long as her kids didn't spend it. Naturally she was smiling when she said that. I don't know if she is worth that kind of money but I hope she is. I think the money that is distributed in any given song very keenly divided many ways. Her book deal hopefully was a fiscal advantage for her. Her interviews of late have been from inside of her house. Which by the way, seems neatly appointed and tastefully done. I read an article about her recently and the author was so surprised about her house. He said it had absolutely no reference to her long career. |
|
|
|
Post by PoP80 on Mar 23, 2015 11:28:40 GMT -5
Speaking of income, does anymore remember this SNL skit? I think I missed that one.
[FADE IN on Julia-Louis Dreyfus dressed and posing like Linda Ronstadt. The words, “What’s New--Nelson Riddle and His Orchestra” frame the shot, exactly like Ronstadt’s album of the same name. The background music to the title track plays, and Julia begins to sing live.]
Linda Ronstadt: [singing]
“What’s new?
How is the world treating you?
I made the big bucks fast,
Since I have learned to rip off the past.
“What’s new?
In four years, I’ll be 42,
And music’s just a game,
A silly riddle, Nelson’s his name.
[Julia sits up]
Linda Ronstadt: [singing]
“What’s old?
Records I make turn to gold,
And though the income’s grand,
The songs I sing, I don’t understand,
Thank God for the band.
“What’s next?
This old backup singer’s perplexed.
[coyly] I sing old songs for you,
‘Cause I can’t do what’s new!”
[ZOOM back to show Julia leaning back and posing as before, and then the same album frame appears around the shot.]
|
|
|
|
Post by linda on Mar 23, 2015 14:18:53 GMT -5
I don't remember that SNL skit. Do you remember when it was from? It must be on uTube. Well, I just contributed to Linda's retirement fund. I just bought the Neil Young's greatest hits CD at lunchtime. Target had it on sale for $10.00. Let's see, Linda will probably get 8 cents royalty for the 2 songs she is singing backup on. lol Whatever it takes to increase her income |
|
|
|
Post by moe on Mar 23, 2015 15:43:01 GMT -5
Speaking of income, does anymore remember this SNL skit? I think I missed that one. [FADE IN on Julia-Louis Dreyfus dressed and posing like Linda Ronstadt. The words, “What’s New--Nelson Riddle and His Orchestra” frame the shot, exactly like Ronstadt’s album of the same name. The background music to the title track plays, and Julia begins to sing live.]
Linda Ronstadt: [singing]
“What’s new?
How is the world treating you?
I made the big bucks fast,
Since I have learned to rip off the past. “What’s new?
In four years, I’ll be 42,
And music’s just a game,
A silly riddle, Nelson’s his name.
[Julia sits up]
Linda Ronstadt: [singing]
“What’s old?
Records I make turn to gold,
And though the income’s grand,
The songs I sing, I don’t understand,
Thank God for the band. “ What’s next?
This old backup singer’s perplexed. [coyly] I sing old songs for you,‘ Cause I can’t do what’s new!” [ZOOM back to show Julia leaning back and posing as before, and then the same album frame appears around the shot.]
Well that was rude! Kinda pissed me off until I got to thinking this happened 30 years ago, Julia was just reading lines, the writer is probably dead by now so there is really nothing to get upset over. This does kinda fit with this thread in that there was (and is) a lot of misunderstanding of just what Linda is about. I guess that people think someone with her talent just has to be a diva birch just like the assumption that she is rich. (Unintentional rhyme) whatever her financials it isn't enough to repay her for all she contributed. Just occurred to me perhaps the annual income is some kind of function calculated for investment income based on net worth. The net worth seems sort of consistent from a couple sources. Never saw this skit either although by '84 I didn't watch XML much. |
|
