Printable View
I would've described the last 12 months have been pretty unproductive Eagles-wise but the money keeps rolling in:
http://www.vintagevinylnews.com/2015...p-five-of.html
Billy Joel's residency has been very lucrative.
Having seen Luke Bryan's duet with Joe Walsh a couple of years ago, I'm stunned he's such a major player.
But how are they measuring? Here's an explanation:
https://www.billboard.com/articles/n...rich-list-2015Quote:
METHODOLOGY: Money Makers was compiled with Nielsen Music and Billboard Boxscore, 2014 U.S. data only. Revenue from merchandising, synchronization and sponsorship is not included. The following royalty rates, minus a 4 percent producer's fee, were used: album and track sales, 22 percent of retail revenue; streaming revenue, 22 percent for current acts and 50 percent for heritage acts. Publishing royalties were estimated using statutory mechanical rates for album and track sales and the Copyright Royalty Board streaming formula; for labels' direct deals with interactive services, blended audio and video rates of, respectively, $0.0075 and $0.0045. (A 10 percent manager's fee was deducted from each category.) Touring revenue equals 34 percent of an act's Boxscore.
However, I'm struggling to find out a definition of "Boxscore". I thought I'd found it with a list of top tours for 2014
http://www.billboard.com/articles/bu...es-live-nation
but if I look at 34% of the gross tour revenue I come out with a number that's almost double the touring figure in the Moneymaker list. To add to the confusion, the text has about North American revenue but lists the O2, London under the top venue.
ETA: The Billy Joel numbers don't add up. The heading gives the total as $27.2m but the numbers add up to $25.8m and in the text underneath it has $25.3m.
Also, the merchandise piece has to be millions and millions per year, at least for the Eagles.
What would they have to do for you to describe them as productive? Make an album, I suppose. Given that seems extreemely unlikely I suppose most of us here would describe touring as productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Funk 50
I agree, FP. I would love new music, that's for sure. They have it all, and they should flaunt it. They are extremely versatile and have many talents, and while there are other bands who are talented, no one can do harmonies like the Eagles. So of course I'd like new music from them. I just don't think it's very likely. Don can't even get his solo album out the door, and for all of them to come up with something and agree it sounds good is unlikely. Even with LROOE, Don criticized it in interviews, and I'm confident that if it were up to him, they'd still be in the studio perfecting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freypower
Given all that, I'm just extremely happy they're still touring. I'm hoping the fact that they're still making good money on it means they'll continue to do it.
I've read Henley disliked the double album concept, yet he still plugged it as great value because of that on HOTE :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by VAisForEagleLovers
And yes, I wouldn't class 2014 as an unproductive Eagles year either. By my reckoning they managed about 60 shows across two continents. Compare that to, for example, the five year barren run between HFO finishing and the (now Felder-less) tour in 2001...
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAisForEagleLovers
Well, this app also claims Keith Richards looks 59...
Regardless, our guys do indeed look good!
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
:hilarious::hilarious::hilarious: 59?!
This article from TRS is completely uncalled for. Perhaps by now, our guys just read this crap and roll their eyes, but as a fan, it just justifies my complete dislike of all things The Rolling Stone.
Perhaps they still hold a grudge over the softball game? :hilarious:
http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/f...yoffs-20150506