How much $ did Pete Best make off A1?
Jordan W Luter
me in as to how much Pete Best has made off the Anthology project?
Jordan
saki
Jordan W Luter <Jordan=W=Lu...@msd.ray.com> wrote:
>This has probably been asked and answered before, but could anybody clue
>me in as to how much Pete Best has made off the Anthology project?
According to the Liverpool Echo, the figure was eight million
pounds, about $12.8 million dollars.
Pete himself declined to name the exact figure, saying only "a deal
has been struck which will give me an equal share of the proceeds
with the other guys" (Liverpool Echo, 30 October 1995).
Frankly, I suspect there's a bit of exaggeration somewhere. Pete's
a nice guy and deserved something, but I'm not ready to accept
that his profits are equivalent to the Threetles. :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------
"When your prized possessions start to weigh you down...."
----------------------------------------------------------
sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu
Murcura
not the overall total.
Sean M.
E.J. Farr
E.J.
Stephen Kennedy
>
> Pete just got his FIRST royalty check for $18,000,000.
Quote your source please, because as far as I concerned
that figure just doesn't add up.
-Steve
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you want to know the things I see, then step inside my skin"
Internet: st...@kalika.demon.co.uk AmPRNet:g0...@g0lri.ampr.org
WWW: http://users.aol.com/g0lri/ http://www.g0lri.ampr.org/
Packet Radio NTS:G0...@G0LRI.GB7LGS.#46.GBR.EU
[Back from the dead - previously lw9{0,1}s...@brunel.ac.uk]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin&Peggy
>Pete just got his FIRST royalty check for $18,000,000.
>E.J.
I know that this is how it got reported in the press, but it just
can't be true. Assuming that Best got the same royalty rate as Ono,
McCartney, Harrison and Starr (which is outrageously unlikely, but
bear with me), that means that the performer royalties for Anthology 1
have been $90,000,000 to date. That has nothing to do with
songwriting or publishing, remember - simply performer royalties. Can
that even remotely be possible?
Even if the performer royalty on each set was $10 (which is way too
high, but again, bear with me), that means 9,000,000 copies would have
had to have been sold by now. I haven't seen world sales figures, but
it seems a little unlikely.
It's far more likely that Best was paid a fraction of what everyone
else was - for good reason, of course, since he only appears on a
quarter of the tracks (and you can insert other good reasons here,
too.) If so, that means for him to have made $18 mil, the others have
way exceeded that already!
Anybody with a better sense of how the music business works, please
jump in. But even using the most conservative figures you can think
of, it just doesn't make sense.
Kevin Lafferty
saki
Kevin&Peggy <pe...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>farr...@cinti.net (E.J. Farr) wrote:
>
>>Pete just got his FIRST royalty check for $18,000,000.
>
>can't be true.
The Liverpool Echo reported last November that Best's total take for
his contribution (as a former Beatle) to The Anthology was eight million
pounds, about $12.5 million dollars. Considerably less than the figure
above, though not a bad consolation prize!
David Demery
>In article <4krvjn$c...@sam.inforamp.net>,
>Kevin&Peggy <pe...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>>farr...@cinti.net (E.J. Farr) wrote:
>>
>>>Pete just got his FIRST royalty check for $18,000,000.
>>
>>I know that this is how it got reported in the press, but it just
>>can't be true.
>The Liverpool Echo reported last November that Best's total take for
>his contribution (as a former Beatle) to The Anthology was eight million
>pounds, about $12.5 million dollars. Considerably less than the figure
>above, though not a bad consolation prize!
I would take this figure with a pinch of salt too. What is Best's
percentage take meant to be that he could have pulled in 8 million
quid in the first month of release? (Also, isn't the way albums
are audited meant to mean that there is an inevitable delay between
sales being made, and royalties being paid? Or was Best paid off?)
I doubt we'll ever know the real answer.
Dem
Stephen Kennedy
> Pete himself declined to name the exact figure, saying only "a deal
> has been struck which will give me an equal share of the proceeds
> with the other guys" (Liverpool Echo, 30 October 1995).
>
> Frankly, I suspect there's a bit of exaggeration somewhere. Pete's
> a nice guy and deserved something, but I'm not ready to accept
> that his profits are equivalent to the Threetles. :-)
Probably an equal share on a pro-rata basis - that's what I assumed
when I did my own little calculations anyway :-) (i.e. one quarter
of the performance royalties for each track he played on, or one
fifth in the case of the Tony Sheridan tracks)
-Steve
[As an aside, how do you get to read the Liverpool Echo Saki?!]
Karl Lucas
royalty Payment from Abthology One. And he did not deny it.
Stephen Kennedy
>
> It was quoted on 'A Current Affiar' That he made $18 Million on his first
> royalty Payment from Abthology One. And he did not deny it.
According to Capitol's Anthology web site, A1 has sold nearly ten million
copies. Assuming an artist royalty of 5 pounds per CD set from a retail
price of twenty pounds (or is this way off the mark?) from 57 tracks
(forgetting that some are spoken word, varying lengths etc., we're only
after an approximate figure) the royalty per track would be
877192 pounds per track! I don't have the exact number of tracks
that Pete played on in front of me at the moment, but let's say it
was 10 tracks, and that on each track he was one of four musicians.
That would put Pete's receipts at somewhere around 2.2 million pounds.
The chances are that I'm wildly off target, but 18 million bucks
sounds wildly off too.
Also, like another poster, I thought that royalty payments were usually
delayed in which case Pete receiving huge cheques now sounds even more
unlikely. On the other hand, I expect the Beatles have a pretty efficient
business operation these days - they certainly seem to like the sound
of cash registers :-)
-Steve
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you want to know the things I see, then step inside my skin"
Internet: st...@kalika.demon.co.uk AmPRNet:g0...@g0lri.ampr.org
WWW: http://users.aol.com/g0lri/ http://www.g0lri.ampr.org/
[Back from the dead - previously lw9{0,1}s...@brunel.ac.uk]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
saki
>[As an aside, how do you get to read the Liverpool Echo Saki?!]
I have my ways. :-)
--
"Preachers and poets and scholars don't know it; temples and
statues and steeples won't show it. If you've got the secret
just try not to blow it...."
----------------------------------sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu
Stephen Kennedy
>
> In article <3176D0...@kalika.demon.co.uk> Stephen Kennedy <st...@kalika.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >[As an aside, how do you get to read the Liverpool Echo Saki?!]
>
> I have my ways. :-)
Oh I see, not prepared to divulge one's sources eh? ;-)
Jack Chow
>
> It was quoted on 'A Current Affiar' That he made $18 Million on his first
> royalty Payment from Abthology One. And he did not deny it.
Wow! Good for him if it is true. I'm a great fan of J,P,G and R, but I
think Pete also deserves this the long last.
BTW, no wonder is Pauline Sutcliffe suing Apple.
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us. And the world will live as one.
-- John Lennon --
David Harlan
> In article <3176D0...@kalika.demon.co.uk> Stephen Kennedy <st...@kalika.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >[As an aside, how do you get to read the Liverpool Echo Saki?!]
>
> I have my ways. :-)
>
As long as they're not filthy Eastern ways ;-)
David Harlan <dha...@unllib.unl.edu>
Serials Cataloger, Nebraska Newspaper Project
209N Love Library * University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0410 USA
(402) 472-2517
fax (402) 472-5131
Mark A. Semich
It was quoted on 'A Current Affiar' That he made $18 Million on his first
royalty Payment from Abthology One. And he did not deny it.
Yes, well, it's also quoted in this sentence that he made $27 million in
pay-offs from the CIA and he's not denying that, either.
So it must be true.
markdrin...@gmail.com
P-Dub
> I’d half that
And In The End
The money Pete makes
Is equal to the funds
His accountant takes.
(Sorry for that there joke)
Laughing Jaw
> This has probably been asked and answered before, but could anybody clue
> me in as to how much Pete Best has made off the Anthology project?
>
I thought this was about the steak sauce.
The Chris
2f7e6f...@googlegroups.com:
> Attachment decoded: untitled-1.txt
I don't know a number, but I did read that it really took care of him
financially. We can't imagine the money those releases generate. To a guy
like him working as a Civil Servant, he probably just got the chance to
finally retire.
spot...@gmail.com
R Kellog
Gregg Kozuchowski
> Wow, this thread is still going since 1996? I was just watching a bunch of Pete Best on YouTube and found this. One thing I read is that the decision to pay Pete royalties for his tracks could have been because if a lawsuit was brought up against Apple by Pete, a Judge could potentially put a hold on the airing of anthology until the lawsuit was resolved. Not worth the risk or hassle.
RJKe...@yahoo.com
> This has probably been asked and answered before, but could anybody clue
> me in as to how much Pete Best has made off the Anthology project?
> Jordan
Mack A. Damia
three, and he was unable to "lead or direct the beat" (for want of a
better term) with his drumming.
RJKe...@yahoo.com
Factor in the personality differences, and their parting ways was undoubtedly the right move.
Willy
wasted no more time in installing the last component, a drummer that they felt could
do everything that they needed their stickman to do. And Best didn't inspire their confidence, for reasons that they have never
elaborated on. I suspect they didn't feel that
he just didn't have the chops to help them get where they were determined to go, and he had no personality skills to speak of, which I feel was important to Paul, the social creature that he was. Best was fairly unexciting on stage, no smiles, no head shaking, just doin a job, as it were. But Paul wanted a drummer that would help raise the excitement level of the whole experience of their performances, so Best had to go. Paul bravely gave that task to Brian.
Hmmm. Ringo was just what Doctor Macca ordered.
Whereas Best was a good looking man, Ringo was a bit of a plain sort, but the personality gains were sizable and immediate. Macca immediately liked the pugly shorty and said
to himself "time to roll, self", and immediately set out to thinking about ideas for original songs to begin serious work on.
All the above is of course pure speculation
about events about the Pete Best situation, but
informed by many things that I have heard over the years. If Pete Best did receive a life changing amount of money for his minor role in the Beatle story, then good for him. It doesn't bother me one bit. He's had to endure the
REJECT label all these years, and that was
probably humiliating and painful at times of
financial need that most people experience
in the struggle to achieve some peace of mind
when possible. Nobody ever said the guy was some brut asshole of a human being. He just wasn't quite good enough to work the sticks behind the greatest little Rock&Roll band of
all time. All the Best, Pete.
Norbert K
Lennon and McCartney were clearly determined to get better -- and they did.
