How much is Paul's booking fee?
-
is it $3.5 million? $ 2 million? I was reading that the coachella people were willing to offer the Smiths $6 million to reunite and play at the festival back in 2006...... Also I read somewhere that Coachella paid Prince $ 4 million to play. Does this mean that Paul is a fairly inexpensive signing ? Compared to the stones who are demanding $ 7 million per show, the Smiths 6 Million, Prince $4 million.....Paul is a bargain if he is only asking for $2 million.
-
Paul is $4 Million. The Stones' egos are so big you have to pay an additional $2 million to fit them into the room
I'm kidding, but Paul is $4 Million. That's why you have the booking fee on the ticket, so you are paying Paul and the venue, which eventually goes to Paul too -
how do you know that it's $4 million? is that the same for festival and regular gig? Does he get to keep the entire booking fee or he has to pay the band the crew with that?
-
maccala:
how do you know that it's $4 million? is that the same for festival and regular gig? Does he get to keep the entire booking fee or he has to pay the band the crew with that?
I honestly couldn't tell you. He takes the ticket gross and booking fee and puts them together. The band make a base salary, and then they get commission from the ticket sales. [size=7](I think)
-
what is the base salary for the band? 7 figure or 6 figure or less?
-
maccala:
is it $3.5 million? $ 2 million? I was reading that the coachella people were willing to offer the Smiths $6 million to reunite and play at the festival back in 2006...... Also I read somewhere that Coachella paid Prince $ 4 million to play. Does this mean that Paul is a fairly inexpensive signing ? Compared to the stones who are demanding $ 7 million per show, the Smiths 6 Million, Prince $4 million.....Paul is a bargain if he is only asking for $2 million.
I think there always these big numbers thrown around for bands who've long since disbanded such as the smiths,but wow 6 million dollars for that band did they see them in their prime?
-
Maybe six figures for the whole band per show. I suspect Wix get more, being with Paul for so long. But these are not equal band members with McCartney, they are hired guns, it really is not a "band" in the proper sense of the word. Aerosmith are a band. McCartney's band may get $10,000 or $20,000 each per show, MAYBE. And that is a BIG maybe. Then, if they get some of the gate, which I am not convinced they do, well, then that amount could double. Remember, Paul is the draw. Not the band. I am not being negative or anything, I love all of Paul's bands, but they do not make much more than probably any of the crew. The sound person and lighting person make a good bit of change too. They are needed for the show, just like a guitar player or drummer. $4 million sounds steep, though I guess if the Stones and such are doing it, Paul is too. Which may explain why McCartney plays the same markets. They are huge and have the economic ability to support such a cost. Places like Albuquerque and El Paso can't do that. So he plays Atlanta and Phoenix.
-
Are you trying to book them for a private gig?
-
i read an article that said top musicians can get $10,000 or more per show depending on the size of the tour and artist name, etc. i also heard a NPR person say about an early tour i think it was 2002 for macca, that when everything was said and done for each concert that PAUL made at least $1 million for his bank acount, which seems about normal, you are paying to see history, live, not some old film footage
: -
In this article, they say you could hire him for your party for about $1million http://weird-news.yoexpert.com/celebrity-mash-up-12071/would-you-like-paul-mccartney-playing-music-at-you-3311.html
-
I wonder if there is a sliding scale for a Paul show. I cannot see how any act could get $3 million or $4 million from ticket sales at an arena show which realistically seats about 15,000. Maybe for a stadium show.
-
I think Paul gets his fee (whatever it is) up front, guaranteed, before any tickets get sold. So if the promoters in an area can't sell enough tickets, they will lose money, and that is one reason why he skips certain cities/markets and repeats in others. I wish I could find that Rolling Stone article from 2002 or 2003 that had a breakdown of where the $ went from Paul's tours at that time. I know it listed specific amounts that were paid to the band, to the road crew, etc. It was interesting but can't seem to find it online.
-
According the the latest reports, Paul's fee for the upcoming concerts in Brazil is 2.5 million Euro per concert. Paul receives the money, contracts are signed and then there is an official announcement. Apparently he has received his fee for at least one of those upcoming concerts. The money comes from several investors and sponsors.
-
RMartinez:
Maybe six figures for the whole band per show. I suspect Wix get more, being with Paul for so long. But these are not equal band members with McCartney, they are hired guns, it really is not a "band" in the proper sense of the word. Aerosmith are a band. McCartney's band may get $10,000 or $20,000 each per show, MAYBE. And that is a BIG maybe. Then, if they get some of the gate, which I am not convinced they do, well, then that amount could double. Remember, Paul is the draw. Not the band. I am not being negative or anything, I love all of Paul's bands, but they do not make much more than probably any of the crew. The sound person and lighting person make a good bit of change too. They are needed for the show, just like a guitar player or drummer. $4 million sounds steep, though I guess if the Stones and such are doing it, Paul is too. Which may explain why McCartney plays the same markets. They are huge and have the economic ability to support such a cost. Places like Albuquerque and El Paso can't do that. So he plays Atlanta and Phoenix.
I'm sure that is why Paul returns to the same major cities, especially if he is playing arenas. He can easily add a night at the same night if the tix sell out. Seems like Paul hits one or two new places each tour, but tours are not what they used to be either. I am guessing Wix would get more because he does have the title of musical director, along with being with Paul the longest. He also has the sentimental value for Paul of having been in the Lumpy Trousers band with Paul and Linda. Brian is certainly out there working on his own music and doing shows. He knows this gig could end at any time. I'm sure Brian and Abe do also. It's not a knock on them, but Paul is the draw for me. I wouldn't pay anything to see the others. I would never have heard of any of the band members, including Wix, if they had not played with Paul.
-
Wait. There's other people onstage?
-
I know Brian has a following and so does Rusty. But if they stopped touring with Paul and the four of them went out as Paul's Former Band, would anyone go? I know I wouldn't. Whereas if Paul showed up by himself and just stood there and sang, it would probably sell-out.
-
I think the same could be said for any of Paul's bands through the decades. Also for David Bowie's band, for Eric Clapton's band, for Elton John's band, etc. These are NOT bands in the classic sense of the word, ie The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. These are hired hands, backing musicians for the main draw, the artist. They do not make millions of dollars backing the artist, though I am sure they make a good living.
-
RMartinez:
I think the same could be said for any of Paul's bands through the decades. Also for David Bowie's band, for Eric Clapton's band, for Elton John's band, etc. These are NOT bands in the classic sense of the word, ie The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. These are hired hands, backing musicians for the main draw, the artist. They do not make millions of dollars backing the artist, though I am sure they make a good living.
Can't overlook their income from DVD sales/broadcasts, as well. As we say in the south: They ain't hurtin'.
-
audi:
RMartinez:
I think the same could be said for any of Paul's bands through the decades. Also for David Bowie's band, for Eric Clapton's band, for Elton John's band, etc. These are NOT bands in the classic sense of the word, ie The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. These are hired hands, backing musicians for the main draw, the artist. They do not make millions of dollars backing the artist, though I am sure they make a good living.
Can't overlook their income from DVD sales/broadcasts, as well. As we say in the south: They ain't hurtin'.
I don't know. They may get a royalty for performance on DVDs, but not for songwriting. I suppose it depends on the deal their manager cut for them. And if McCartney went for it.
-
RMartinez:
audi:
RMartinez:
I think the same could be said for any of Paul's bands through the decades. Also for David Bowie's band, for Eric Clapton's band, for Elton John's band, etc. These are NOT bands in the classic sense of the word, ie The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. These are hired hands, backing musicians for the main draw, the artist. They do not make millions of dollars backing the artist, though I am sure they make a good living.
Can't overlook their income from DVD sales/broadcasts, as well. As we say in the south: They ain't hurtin'.
I don't know. They may get a royalty for performance on DVDs, but not for songwriting. I suppose it depends on the deal their manager cut for them. And if McCartney went for it.
I only meant that their DVD appearances are "credits," and for that they are likely to be paid residuals for each sale/telecast, etc. as any actor would receive for a movie.
