Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RonJonSurfer

Compare Your Earnings to Top Rock Acts

Recommended Posts

Rolling Stones Top Touring List

The band has earned $147.3 million in the first half of 2006.

The Rolling Stones' A Bigger Bang world tour was the top-earning live extravaganza of the first half of 2006.

Despite being forced to rearrange the European leg of their tour after guitarist Keith Richards fell out of a tree in April, the band earned $147.3 million.

Irish rockers U2 were the second highest earners with the $73 million generated by their Vertigo live shows before an illness in guitarist The Edge's family forced them to rearrange Pacific dates in March.

Rockers Bon Jovi took $65 million, while Billy Joel and Cirque du Soleil's Delirium rounds out the top five with $47.4 million and $38.7 million respectively.

The top ten earners are as follows:

1. The Rolling Stones - $147.3 million

2. U2 - $73 million

3. Bon Jovi - $65 million

4. Billy Joel - $47.4 million

5. Cirque Du Soleil's Delirium - $38.7 million

6. Aerosmith - $35 million

7. Coldplay - $29 million

8. Luis Miguel - $25 million

9. Tran Siberian Orchestra - $24 million

10. Paul McCartney - $17.6 million

Copyright World Entertainment News Network 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bon Jovi - $65 million

WTF!! He's still a stardome headliner ?? I thought they were a big deal like back in school some 17 years ago, but not still today.

Comparing earnings, I make about 0.000000000017 % of what these guys do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Cirque Du Soleil some kind of circus? I never heard that they made music...

I was just in Vegas and Cirque Du Soleil just opened a Beatles review which was attended by Paul, Ringo, Yoko, etc. They are performers and there are multiple troupes around the world (I think).

These rockers make big money because people are willing to pay big bucks to see them, buy their music, t-shirts, etc. If nobody demanded it, they wouldn't get paid.

Why do they need this much....they don't. Do they deserve it...well, I demand the maximum I can get for my talents. I get it too.

Why aren't librarians highly paid...should they be? I think very highly of librarians, but I wouldn't pay big money to watch them work.

You get my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do, and I do understand to some extent why they get paid that much, I just think it's too much. Why give them that much if they don't even need it? Why not give it someone who really needs it?

I know that's not realistic, it's just my thoughts on that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not give it someone who really needs it?

My thoughts exactly, they should open another Farm Aid or some other charitable cause & put the funds to good use, nobody needs 8 figures, that's just ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to face up to the fact that music is a business, not a charity. Exxon made record profits in the face of much higher gas prices...why don't they give it back...because they don't have to and people pay for the product. Rock and Roll is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote a famous songwriting duo, "Money can't buy me love."

How about comparing the durability of joy in one's heart and the quality of love in one's life? Based on that criteria, chances are I'd run alongside any of those folks on that list. And isn't that what it's really all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do, and I do understand to some extent why they get paid that much, I just think it's too much. Why give them that much if they don't even need it? Why not give it someone who really needs it?

I know that's not realistic, it's just my thoughts on that matter.

Ah! one of my favourite lecture topics! Let me first get up onto my soapbox, and put on my mitre. :beatnik: (yeah, I know it's a beret but it will have to do). Clear the throat (ahem). Here goes:

The value of money is only as good as the underlying economy. If you give people money in a country that is not producing enough food, all you do is drive up the price of the food that is available. Zimbabwe is a good example. Everyone's a millionaire but they're still starving.

The result of the suggestion to give everyone money would be to cause huge inflation on a global scale. The people's buying power would be the same. The only difference is that there will be more money being spent on the same goods and services.

The only way to combat poverty is to educate and empower people (politically, socially, individually). Short term food assistance in famine ravaged economies will help in the short term but in the long term will damage the local economy.

OK, end of lecture.

Yeah, I do feel better now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say hand the people dollar notes and be done with it. I know it's not that easy, and as I said, it's just my thoughts and not necessarily realistic or easy to do.

Thank you for your lecture all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...