Jump to content

Neil should've been wealthier


londonguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just looking at the net worth of some of the famous musicians out there. It says Neil was worth 42 million. A good chunk of change, but someone of his talent should've been worth 10 times that. So many no talent musicans, like Gene Simmons, Mick Jagger, are worth hundreds of millions. I'm sure Neil could've joined other bands years ago and made much more money, but then he wouldn't have had as much fun as being in Rush and playing the kind of music he wanted. The whole band should've made more money with that level of musicianship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a kid, I had the KISS dolls, the lunchbox, the Halloween costume (Simmons, natch), etc., etc. Simmons' genius was in marketing, rather than music, and he played to his strengths.

 

I don't how many Rush dolls would have sold . . .. although I did buy the Pop! Rocks figures, so there's that.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the gist of your post that someone as profound and talented as Neil should have had higher monetary rewards. But at a certain point of wealth, who cares? It's just a larger number for the pile. I don't think any of them (well except Ray Danniels) was out for every last buck.

 

Used wisely, Carrie and Olivia's (eventual) part of the estate will do well for them the rest of their lives.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows how accurate those net worths are? They just give us an estimate of what it looks like it could be. Odds are whoever decides this does not have the personal financial records of these people.

 

What's with the knock on Mick Jagger, OP? He's never been praised as a great musician in the first place. His showmanship and on stage charisma is what he gets much of his praise for. Every famous rockstar has something different they bring to the table. For Neil, it was being more cerebral and technical with his writing. For others, like Kiss, their talent is in marketing and writing catchy rock anthems that people can easily enjoy. I'm sure a guy as humble as Neil probably thought a net worth of 42 million is too much. He probably would think "what the hell am I going to do with all this money?"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, all things being equal, the most talented bands should be the most popular and the wealthiest.

 

All things are not and have never been equal in the music industry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick Jagger no talent?? Wow!

 

No Rolling Stones fan here (and goddamn, but good for Mick he has cash and charisma because he is one ugly mother. In my teens I referred to him as “Liver Lips”) but even I have to disagree with that assessment.

 

Replace Mick with Justin Bieber and you’ve got a dead bang on list of no-talents.

 

Edited by Mara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looking at the net worth of some of the famous musicians out there. It says Neil was worth 42 million. A good chunk of change, but someone of his talent should've been worth 10 times that. So many no talent musicans, like Gene Simmons, Mick Jagger, are worth hundreds of millions. I'm sure Neil could've joined other bands years ago and made much more money, but then he wouldn't have had as much fun as being in Rush and playing the kind of music he wanted. The whole band should've made more money with that level of musicianship.

 

As a Canadian, we like money as much as anyone - we just don't love it as much as Gene Simmons.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of excellent musicians who ought to be better off financially than they are.

 

And dancers, and painters, and actors.

 

It’s just a very tough arena in which to ‘make it’. But anyone who chooses to make his or her living as a fine artist or performing artist faces that.

 

$42 million, or whatever the true number is, is doing just fine.

 

$420 million, or more, or whatever figure you want to throw out, regardless of who it is or what they do...I mean, really?

 

That’s all I’m going to say about this subject.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying in terms of raw talent, he really doesn't have much. He's not a great vocalist, he doesn't play any instruments. People love him, but I think it's more for the nostalgia now. People just like to say they went to see them.

 

arguably the greatest frontman ever in rock and roll

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying in terms of raw talent, he really doesn't have much. He's not a great vocalist, he doesn't play any instruments. People love him, but I think it's more for the nostalgia now. People just like to say they went to see them.

 

He might not be a great “singer.” He’s a phenomenal vocalist. And songwriter.

 

He also can play several instruments.

 

It’s not a coincidence pretty much everyone knows who he is.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying in terms of raw talent, he really doesn't have much. He's not a great vocalist, he doesn't play any instruments. People love him, but I think it's more for the nostalgia now. People just like to say they went to see them.

 

arguably the greatest frontman ever in rock and roll

 

Inarguably no lower than 5th.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could have been the richest rock and roll guy who ever lived, and he'd still be dead. I'd guess neither he nor his family ever wanted something they couldn't afford. His wife and daughter will live quite comfortably the rest of their lives unless they do something monumentally ignorant with the money.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could have been the richest rock and roll guy who ever lived, and he'd still be dead. I'd guess neither he nor his family ever wanted something they couldn't afford. His wife and daughter will live quite comfortably the rest of their lives unless they do something monumentally ignorant with the money.

 

Yes.

 

And if Neil's daughter ends up having kids, they to will probably be financially safe as long as the money is managed well.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money isn't everything.

True, but you won't get too far if you don't have any.

 

Depends how you term "getting far". Many artists who earned relatively little during their lifetimes have left a legacy that's lasted for years.

 

"The measure of a life is a measure of love and respect."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...