I would have said Paul McCartney if the question was "richest musician ALIVE"... but I truly had thought Elvis' post humous estate was grossing more than a 1/4 of the Beatles. But then again Paul (unlike John RIP) has had the chance to increase his income through touring.

Ok, so we've got the top 3, or rather top 3 estates/band members...but who else? We all knew those three would make it...but who else is loaded?

The Stones? Bowie?

susannah said:

You could probably add U2 to that. They haven't made as much as the Stones, but they might be up there with Bowie. Give 'em some time

susannah said:

You could probably add U2 to that. They haven't made as much as the Stones, but they might be up there with Bowie. Give 'em some time

u2prnce said:

Yeah youre probably right Bono gives a lot of it away though, Im sure...

Im trying to think, who else?!

Also, not to blow a feminist horn or anything, but, what women are rich?! Cher? Tina? Madge?

susannah said:

No, you're right...Madonna would definitely be up there. I'd say she and Bowie are the two most intelligent stars as far as business. They are maximizing all of their finances. I wish they were running mine.

Who has the songwriting and publishing credit for the early Tina stuff? Is it Ike, or are they co-owned? That would make a big difference. But I'd say she's doing great but not up there with the other people we've mentioned.

Not sure about Cher. I guess I don't know enough about her career. She is incredibly popular in many ways, but I don't know if she's ever made enough money to be in the top 10.

Interesting stuff...

I think Ike probably owns most of Tina's...and then later in her career, well I dont know how much she had to do with that either Whatever happened to Ike though? didnt he end up in the gutter? Cant be that much money if so...

Yeah I guess maybe Cher hasnt made all that much either... but Diane Warren! Well, that chick knows how to write a tune She must be raking it in

I cant really think of anyone else...Janet? or is all her dough in Jimmy and Terry's back pockets?

susannah said:

Good points. Some of these stars are paying alot of money to producers, songwriters, videomakers. That takes a toll. Plus, look at how they live. Someone like Michael lives very extravagantly. It seems like Madonna and Prince(at least lately), in comparison, live more within their means. That's just what it looks like to me, though.

I think so, and not just in the beginning either. Its like what was said about Colonel Tom Parker - he's surely still raking in a lot of the Presley estate's income. And if the artist didnt have anything to do with the songwriting at the time, theyre not getting any royalties 20 years later.

It seems to me, while Madonna and Prince, well, the lot of them really, spend truckloads of money, Michael spends money he doesnt have...on junk he doesnt need

susannah said:

Yeah, I was forgetting how Elvis didn't write most of his songs--although I think he wrote a handful. Really though, no one can touch he and the Beatles level of sustained popularity. Thats why I think they are the top 2. If Elvis had written the songs and had a decent manager, then it would be really close.

Something I just thought of: Why didn't Paul get together with George and Ringo to buy the Beatles publishing? It seems insane to put that much effort into something and then let someone else take the money from it. I know Paul said something to the effect that he was opposed to buying something he feels was his anyways, but c'mon.

the beegees...

abba...


barry manilow...

sade....

elton john...

these are all artist that write their own music and were/are huge...they got to be rolling in it...

Interesting stuff...

I think Ike probably owns most of Tina's...and then later in her career, well I dont know how much she had to do with that either Whatever happened to Ike though? didnt he end up in the gutter? quote]

Don't believe the crap u see on TV. Ike lived a few miles from me in Cali and is doing QUITE well.

sosgemini said:

Definitely the BeeGees and Elton John...forgot about them. Abba too. The others...I dunno, theyre not quite as widely popular as previous mentions...

I had no idea Sade would be on the list...but then I didnt know she wrote her own stuff either Props to her

susannah said:

i mention sade to try to bring some estrogen balance...and out of all the female artist she is the only one that writes all her own songs and , when touring, doesnt need fifty dancers on stage..so she has to be one of the wealthiest female musicians...but then the fact that she only releases and tours once every seven years might drop her from the list...but then her albums and tours are always top sellers...

susannah said:

i mention sade to try to bring some estrogen balance...and out of all the female artist she is the only one that writes all her own songs and , when touring, doesnt need fifty dancers on stage..so she has to be one of the wealthiest female musicians...but then the fact that she only releases and tours once every seven years might drop her from the list...but then her albums and tours are always top sellers...

I was totally sleeping on Pink Floyd because I'm not a fan. But they are up there. Queen, too. They had tons of chart success.

u2prnce said:

So ashamed I forgot Pink Floyd!

Fleetwood Mac in their many incarnations must have made quite a lot too...



And erm, am I right in thinking noones mentioned Prince yet?! Or were we just taking that as read!

. I dont know, I think I need a crash course in Beatles history - why did they sell them anyway?

I have no doubt there is someone on here that can answer these questions...

susannah said:

They never owned it and if Michael didn't buy them, Charles Koppelman would have. Macca's not owning the catalog has to do more Yoko then anyone else.

the beegees...

abba...

lilgish said:

Do go on?

lilgish said:

Do go on?

susannah said:

This is how they lost them "In the 60s, to avoid confiscatory British taxes, he and Lennon turned their publishing rights over to newly-organized Northern Songs, a publicly-held company in which they owned sizable but apparently not controlling blocks of stock. In 1969 music mogul Lew Grade launched a takeover bid for Northern Songs in which he offered seven times the stock's original offering price. Lennon and McCartney, feuding as usual, were unable to organize an effective defense and the company was sold out from under them. This made them even more fabulously wealthy than they already were, since their stock was now worth seven times as much. However, they were still pissed on account of, you know, the principle of the thing."

This is what happened when Paul tryed to buy them back.

Paul being the nice guy he is offered Yoko a chance for co-ownership of the catalog, If Paul would have won the bid Yoko was set to have at least half the catalog. Which is only right since him and John wrote the bulk of what's in the catalog. At zero hour when the bid is happening, Yoko doesn't want to put more money up, her advisors or someone tells Macca not to bid any higher. In hindsight I'm sure he would have. Paul was outbid though by Charles Koppelman, who business is music publishing, who was outbid by Michael Jackson who ironically was cash rich at the time. You can imagine Paul's suprise when his supposed good buddy Michael Jackson gets the catalog. The only prior conversation they had over the catalog was 4 years prioir when Michael told paul he was gonna buy his songs, Paul thought his was joking, because at the time he was instructing Michael on publishing. Paul does have some reason to be angry with Michael though. According to Paul his royalty rate hasn't increased or sufficently increased to his liking, I'm not sure how the publishing holder controls that, but since the merger with Sony it doesn't seem like Michael has supported Paul or has declined increasing whatever rate he's due. When he was a 50/50 partner ,which he doesn't seem to be anymore after the refinancing, he might have had power over such decisions. Michael refuses to discuss this with Paul (telling Paul "it's just business) and I believe it was he that distanced with Paul. The Nike commercial was a more public display of this discord. What Michael did to Paul was fine as strangers, but they were supposed to be friends, Michael has not acted like a friend and that's why Paul should be upset. Michael did not directly outbid Paul though, Paul was gonna get outbid by because of Yoko's indecision, not trying to blame it all on Yoko, but Charles Koppelman almost had it, he's been trying to weasel it from Mike ever since, I'm not sure how many people were ahead of Paul. But that's what you get for being a nice guy, Paul is still the richest musician of all time, so the nice guy has finished first.
[Edited 4/16/06 7:58am]

Michael refuses to discuss this with Paul (telling Paul "it's just business) and I believe it was he that distanced with Paul. The Nike commercial was a more public display of this discord. What Michael did to Paul was fine as strangers, but they were supposed to be friends, Michael has not acted like a friend and that's why Paul should be upset.

Lennon and McCartney, feuding as usual, were unable to organize an effective defense and the company was sold out from under them.

lilgish said:

oh please..business is business, period. mj, for once, made a proper business decision and its his choice to allow nike to do whatever...paul and his fans need to really get over it, period. goodness...