Jump to content

How Rich are Led Zeppelin


McSeven

Recommended Posts

Most bands, even HUGE bands, make most of their money from touring. The money made from album sales is miniscule in comparison, especially if the artist isn't a massive seller. That's why musicians who have been on the road recently, especially those that are big draws, like the Stones, Sting and Clapton are more wealthy than the Zep guys. Robert probably makes a pretty good chunk from tours but his ticket prices are pretty low.

I wonder what a band really nets though from touring. I always viewed touring as promotion but of course I could be wrong! But after you give the venue their cut, Ticketmaster or whoever, your travel expenses, lodging, food, roadies, stage design, ect. I think you really have to love touring or are promoting unless you're a big ticket item like (it kills me to even say it but) Madonna, or even Miley frikking Cyrus. I wanted to get my neice tix...they were over $150 a seat. What a scab! Her audience is young girls! Now they whine until mommy and daddy fork out the big bucks....um, erm, ok, off on a tangent :slapface: I'm done now! :D

In comparison, Clapton/Winwood tix were about $65.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what a band really nets though from touring. I always viewed touring as promotion but of course I could be wrong! But after you give the venue their cut, Ticketmaster or whoever, your travel expenses, lodging, food, roadies, stage design, ect. I think you really have to love touring or are promoting unless you're a big ticket item like (it kills me to even say it but) Madonna, or even Miley frikking Cyrus. I wanted to get my neice tix...they were over $150 a seat. What a scab! Her audience is young girls! Now they whine until mommy and daddy fork out the big bucks....um, erm, ok, off on a tangent :slapface: I'm done now! :D

In comparison, Clapton/Winwood tix were about $65.

Depends really, Led Zeppelin was on there own after the "Houses of the Holy" album so they where under label control before that. In the 1970's, tickets for there show's where around 7 buck's, they likely made 15% or so depending on how there contract was written up. The earlier show's (late 1960's-early 1970"s) where less but they would have made around the same 15% on the ticket sales. Then there is the mater of the name, plastered on everything from coffee mug's to toy blimp's! Today a band can make up to 80% on there merchandising product line(s), so a 30 dollar T-shirt will bring them in 20 buck's! Back in the 1970's a T-shirt was what? 8-15 dollar's? So maybe they made 4-10 dollar's on T-shirt's. If they did a lot of touring (and they did do a lot) 75 or more show's per year .... well do the math.

After they where there own label, they would have made a higher % on the ticket sale's but there is a lot of extra over head that they would have to pay for. I would think that most the extra over head would be along the line of executive stuff (lawyer's etc.) but I don't know for sure. Then there is the idea of if they where the only act on the bill, the early day's I'm sure they where sharing the stage with at least 2 other bands so they would not get as much if they where not the only act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends really, Led Zeppelin was on there own after the "Houses of the Holy" album so they where under label control before that. In the 1970's, tickets for there show's where around 7 buck's, they likely made 15% or so depending on how there contract was written up. The earlier show's (late 1960's-early 1970"s) where less but they would have made around the same 15% on the ticket sales. Then there is the mater of the name, plastered on everything from coffee mug's to toy blimp's! Today a band can make up to 80% on there merchandising product line(s), so a 30 dollar T-shirt will bring them in 20 buck's! Back in the 1970's a T-shirt was what? 8-15 dollar's? So maybe they made 4-10 dollar's on T-shirt's. If they did a lot of touring (and they did do a lot) 75 or more show's per year .... well do the math.

After they where there own label, they would have made a higher % on the ticket sale's but there is a lot of extra over head that they would have to pay for. I would think that most the extra over head would be along the line of executive stuff (lawyer's etc.) but I don't know for sure. Then there is the idea of if they where the only act on the bill, the early day's I'm sure they where sharing the stage with at least 2 other bands so they would not get as much if they where not the only act.

You make a good point. Pretty specific. However, I would like to add that a $7 ticket back in 1972 would probably be considered a $70 - $100 ticket today (maybe more, maybe less). Remember (you) we are talking about prices over 37 years ago. Almost 40 years ago. I like to think of it this way. Back when Led Zeppelin broke their own Guiness Book of World Records figure and made a new record for the largest attendance (76,229) for a single music group they grossed another record amount of nearly $800,000 for that one performance in Pontiac, Michigan at the Pontiac Silverdome in 1977. How much do you think $800,000 then would translate to US dollars today? And remember that is just for one 3 hour concert. At that time, the highest moneymaking 3 hours in showbiz history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends really, Led Zeppelin was on there own after the "Houses of the Holy" album so they where under label control before that. In the 1970's, tickets for there show's where around 7 buck's, they likely made 15% or so depending on how there contract was written up. The earlier show's (late 1960's-early 1970"s) where less but they would have made around the same 15% on the ticket sales. Then there is the mater of the name, plastered on everything from coffee mug's to toy blimp's! Today a band can make up to 80% on there merchandising product line(s), so a 30 dollar T-shirt will bring them in 20 buck's! Back in the 1970's a T-shirt was what? 8-15 dollar's? So maybe they made 4-10 dollar's on T-shirt's. If they did a lot of touring (and they did do a lot) 75 or more show's per year .... well do the math.

After they where there own label, they would have made a higher % on the ticket sale's but there is a lot of extra over head that they would have to pay for. I would think that most the extra over head would be along the line of executive stuff (lawyer's etc.) but I don't know for sure. Then there is the idea of if they where the only act on the bill, the early day's I'm sure they where sharing the stage with at least 2 other bands so they would not get as much if they where not the only act.

I reckon they made a lot more than 15% on tickets sales. After all it's well documented that Peter Grant changed the rules when it came to touring. Zep were getting 90% of ticket revenue for years with the promoter having to settle for 10%. As Grant said "10% of Zeppelin is better than 90% of most bands".

As for the Sunday Times Rich list....it's only an estimate. They can trace/verify a lot of stuff in England and Wales but offshore assets and accounts are another thing.

It's like when Bonzo died....he left £434,000 pounds in his will. I was working for the Inland Revenue at the time and i mentioned to a more experienced collegue at the time that I thought he would have left a lot more than that....he said "that's just in England and Wales". Apparently that was all that's needed to be published in the will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Page and Robert Plant being the principal Led Zeppelin songwriters I know that they receive a higher royalty rate the JPJ and Bonzo.

Robert actually sold his rights to royalties on sales of the Led Zeppelin back catalog as he began his solo career. You could say he regrets having done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert actually sold his rights to royalties on sales of the Led Zeppelin back catalog as he began his solo career. You could say he regrets having done so.

Steve, who would he have sold his rights to royalties to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, who would he have sold his rights to royalties to?

The actual agreement has never been disclosed, nor to my knowledge has Robert divulged to whom they were sold. It is known Peter Grant got him his solo deal with Atlantic Records, and some have speculated the rights were sold to Jimmy, which

in hindsight would arguably be embarrasing, but it's possible he simply sold them to Atlantic as part of the solo deal Peter arranged. Regardless, he has acknowledged

he did sell his rights to sales of the Led Zeppelin back catalog circa 1981.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon they made a lot more than 15% on tickets sales. After all it's well documented that Peter Grant changed the rules when it came to touring. Zep were getting 90% of ticket revenue for years with the promoter having to settle for 10%. As Grant said "10% of Zeppelin is better than 90% of most bands".

As for the Sunday Times Rich list....it's only an estimate. They can trace/verify a lot of stuff in England and Wales but offshore assets and accounts are another thing.

It's like when Bonzo died....he left £434,000 pounds in his will. I was working for the Inland Revenue at the time and i mentioned to a more experienced collegue at the time that I thought he would have left a lot more than that....he said "that's just in England and Wales". Apparently that was all that's needed to be published in the will.

Grant did do a lot to help the band and they where getting more than other group's where from ticket sale's and like I said it depends on the wording in there contract. I found a write up on line about Grant and his effort's and it does say 90% but, it doesn't say that was before the formation of "Swan Song" or if it was that way from the start. I don't know for sure ether way.

Yes, I'm sure they had hefty account's all over the world but, you have remember that Bozo was not the major song writer in the group and he would have not gotten a whole lot from record sale's. Selling record's is what you have to do in a heavy amount to be able to attract the numbers of people needed to fill that 70,000 or 80,000 seat stadium!

And a gross of $800,000.00 would be only a gross amount, there is a lot of over head and taxes and fee's etc to account for before the band get's there share. But I'd die for just a part of that kind of income!!! :notworthy:^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant did do a lot to help the band and they where getting more than other group's where from ticket sale's and like I said it depends on the wording in there contract. I found a write up on line about Grant and his effort's and it does say 90% but, it doesn't say that was before the formation of "Swan Song" or if it was that way from the start. I don't know for sure ether way.

Yes, I'm sure they had hefty account's all over the world but, you have remember that Bozo was not the major song writer in the group and he would have not gotten a whole lot from record sale's. Selling record's is what you have to do in a heavy amount to be able to attract the numbers of people needed to fill that 70,000 or 80,000 seat stadium!

And a gross of $800,000.00 would be only a gross amount, there is a lot of over head and taxes and fee's etc to account for before the band get's there share. But I'd die for just a part of that kind of income!!! :notworthy:^_^

It was from mid 1969 that Grant began demanding (and getting) 90% revenue from ticket sales.

Yes, Plant and Page would get more songwriting royalties than Bonzo...all I was saying is that I was originally surprised at the amount left in Bonzo's will before I got the "that's just in england and Wales " explanation, and Zep did sell a LOT of albums.

I know Zep would have to pay taxes on the "gross" ( well, they were supposed to ) :D But a lot of the other overheads came out of the promotors 10%...after Grant's "deal" ... not from a

bands share as it used to.

Check out the book "Peter Grant..The Man Who led Zeppelin" Some intersting stuff in there about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert actually sold his rights to royalties on sales of the Led Zeppelin back catalog as he began his solo career. You could say he regrets having done so.

Did he actually sell his entire rights to royalty payments or did he just sell his publishing ownership? I would've imagined that Robert would've sold his publishing rights (to Atlantic, probably in exchange for a higher solo royalty) but still gets a composers royalty. And I would imagine he still gets a band royalty payment too for each album sold. I've never heard of anyone selling up their entire royalties. I mean that was one of the big spats between McCartney and Jackson, because after Jackson had bought the Beatles catalogue, Paul approached him for a royalty increase and Jackson said no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he actually sell his entire rights to royalty payments or did he just sell his publishing ownership? I would've imagined that Robert would've sold his publishing rights (to Atlantic, probably in exchange for a higher solo royalty) but still gets a composers royalty. And I would imagine he still gets a band royalty payment too for each album sold. I've never heard of anyone selling up their entire royalties. I mean that was one of the big spats between McCartney and Jackson, because after Jackson had bought the Beatles catalogue, Paul approached him for a royalty increase and Jackson said no.

Robert sold his rights to future sales from the Led Zeppelin back catalog. This was at the height of New Wave music with Robert intending to go forward as a solo artist. Who knew then a little something called the compact disc would come along and compel record buyers to replace all their old vinyl copies...again and again? Who knew the

popular demand to do so decades after the fact? Anyway, having sold his rights to receive royalties from sales of the Led Zeppelin back catalog, he did retain all other rights, such as publishing. As I understand it, he does receive royalties from all the post-Coda live releases like BBC Sessions and How The West Was Won as they are

not "back catalog".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was from mid 1969 that Grant began demanding (and getting) 90% revenue from ticket sales.

Yes, Plant and Page would get more songwriting royalties than Bonzo...all I was saying is that I was originally surprised at the amount left in Bonzo's will before I got the "that's just in england and Wales " explanation, and Zep did sell a LOT of albums.

I know Zep would have to pay taxes on the "gross" ( well, they were supposed to ) :D But a lot of the other overheads came out of the promotors 10%...after Grant's "deal" ... not from a

bands share as it used to.

Check out the book "Peter Grant..The Man Who led Zeppelin" Some intersting stuff in there about it.

I believe you dude! Isn't it wonderful that some one (like Grant) cared so much for the band that he went out on the limb to get them a nice chuck of the take home for a show!

That must not have been to good for the other act's, as I look through the "time lime" it show's them playing with opening act's on through to 1970. Or did the 90% not take effect until 1970? Any one know for sure?

I will look forward to finding some one to help me like that when I need to hire a manager. But believe me, if I could afford one I would already have one!!! Ha Ha!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert sold his rights to future sales from the Led Zeppelin back catalog. This was at the height of New Wave music with Robert intending to go forward as a solo artist. Who knew then a little something called the compact disc would come along and compel record buyers to replace all their old vinyl copies...again and again? Who knew the

popular demand to do so decades after the fact? Anyway, having sold his rights to receive royalties from sales of the Led Zeppelin back catalog, he did retain all other rights, such as publishing. As I understand it, he does receive royalties from all the post-Coda live releases like BBC Sessions and How The West Was Won as they are

not "back catalog".

But if Robert still owns publishing, then he would have to get some royalty payments off the back catalogue anyway, due to his co-ownership of Superhype Publishing or whatever the company was called. Unless Atlantic just don't pay him his publishing royalties. It's a fascinating situation. I wonder how much he got for it and why he felt the need to cash his chips in. Frida from ABBA did a similar thing, but then ABBA's money was all tied up in their myriad of businesses and companies designed to avoid heavy Swedish tax. She got out just before ABBA lost a lot of money on Russian oil. Harrison, Starr and Yoko also sued Paul in the 80's because he was secretly getting a higher royalty rate for Beatle records from EMI as an incentive for him to sign back with the label after his Columbia contract had expired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much he got for it and why he felt the need to cash his chips in.

I can't speak for Robert, as you know. If I had to guess I'd say his staunch focus on his future as a solo artist at the time influenced his decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for Robert, as you know. If I had to guess I'd say his staunch focus on his future as a solo artist at the time influenced his decision.

I hear-ya there man! I'm sure he was ready to start over (but not forgetting altogether) and move on. There was a lot of great thing's that happened for "The Led Zeppelin" but there where some tragedy's as well that I'm sure they (including Plant) wanted to put behind them.

Even if Page and Jone's did do lot's of stuff after ward's I believe the general public would respond to the voice of Zeppelin quicker than the rest of the band.

I my self like all the music that they did after ward's, Jone's solo Spaghetti Junction was big and I think that "Outrider" is one of the best Blue's/Rock concept's to come out of the 1980's! Plant was the biggest seller I'm sure by far, even if "Picture's at 11 was a more popular disc "Now and Zen" was huge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

According to this year's Sunday Times Rich list while Robert stayed on the same net worth of £80m, Jimmy went from £75m to £80m since last year. It is a bit dodgy list, but the fact that they are on the same (28th) place sounds so funny, they will never get away from each other :) no matter how much Robert tries. So I presume that the £5m that Jimmy earned from last year is from the Celebration Day sales and as Robert doesn't own any shares in LZ anymore, he didn't earn anything and it seems he is not earning very much from his touring either. But of course the list is just their speculation, the "official numbers" like the "official record sales" which are much lower than the actual sales.

John Paul Jones earned £5m last year as well, went from £45m to £50m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so right about it being a 'dodgy list'. How on earth can the Sunday Times possibly know about the private investments of others, such as overseas trusts, personal investments and the contents of their personal bank accounts. It is purely speculation which provides the ST with heaps of publicity every year.

The details of many of the high asset divorces in London are kept under wraps, so the likes of Jimmy may not be as wealthy as the ST thinks.

According to this year's Sunday Times Rich list while Robert stayed on the same net worth of £80m, Jimmy went from £75m to £80m since last year. It is a bit dodgy list, but the fact that they are on the same (28th) place sounds so funny, they will never get away from each other :) no matter how much Robert tries. So I presume that the £5m that Jimmy earned from last year is from the Celebration Day sales and as Robert doesn't own any shares in LZ anymore, he didn't earn anything and it seems he is not earning very much from his touring either. But of course the list is just their speculation, the "official numbers" like the "official record sales" which are much lower than the actual sales.

John Paul Jones earned £5m last year as well, went from £45m to £50m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect Pete Townshend's first wife walked away with a big chunk of his 40 million pounds when they divorced a few years ago. I remember reading an article about their divorce. A prominent British divorce lawyer (she wasn't representing either party) commented that Karen Townshend could receive up to half of her husband's assets given that they had been married for over 40 years.

While, I'm on this topic, I recall reading that Jimmy Page's first wife, Patricia, asked for a 6 million pound settlement when they divorced in 1995.

Here's a list of the top richest UK music artists from the Times Rich List:

1. Sir Paul McCartney - worth £440m
2. Sir Mick Jagger - worth £190m
3. Sting - worth £180m
4. Keith Richards - worth £175m
5. Sir Elton John - worth £175m
6. Sir Tom Jones - worth £130m
7. Eric Clapton - worth £120m
8. Ringo Starr - worth £120m
9. Barry and Robin Gibb - worth £110m
10. Phil Collins - worth £108m
11. David Bowie - worth £100m
12. Rod Stewart - worth £100m
13. George Michael - worth £90m
14. Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne - worth £90m
15. Charlie Watts - worth £85m
16. Roger Waters - worth £85m
17. Robbie Williams - worth £80m
20. David Gilmour - worth £78m
21. Robert Plant - worth £75m
22. Brian May - worth £70m
23. Jimmy Page - worth £70m
24. Roger Taylor - worth £65m
25. Engelburt Humperdinck - worth £60m
26. Mark Knoplfer - worth £60m
27. Noel and Liam Gallagher - worth £52m
28. John Deacon - worth £50m
29. Nick Mason - worth £50m
30. Van Morrison - worth £50m
31. Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow - worth £42m
32. Pete Townshend - worth £40m
33. Sir Cliff Richard - worth £40m
34. Jay Kay - worth £35m
35. John Paul Jones - worth £35m
36. Kylie Minogue - worth £35m
37. Mick Hucknall - worth £35m
38. Ronnie Wood - worth £35m
39. Roger Daltrey - worth £32m
40. Annie Lennox - worth £30m
41. Bryan Ferry - worth £30m
42. Chris De Burgh - worth £30m
43. Dido - worth £30m
44. Gary Barlow - worth £30m
45. Jim Kerr - worth £30m
46. Mike Rutherford - worth £30m
47. Sade - worth £30m
48. Sarah Brightman - worth £30m
49. Vanessa-Mae Nicholson - worth £30m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...