He didn't give MJ anything. The rights were for sale and MJ bought them. This is after Paul advised MJ to get into publishing. Too bad he didn't take his own advise.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Richest bassist?
- Thread starter AcidShred
- Start date
He didn't give MJ anything. The rights were for sale and MJ bought them. This is after Paul advised MJ to get into publishing. Too bad he didn't take his own advise.
Not that I really care but I stumbled across this thread and for some reason started to read thru it. Out of curiosity I googled ot and everything comes up that at this time Gene Simmons has a networth of $300 million.Elrend said:
I noticed this thread went off topic a bit into whether Sir Paul or Mr. Jamerson had more influence and I believe it somewhat has to do with what you grew up listening to. I grew up on Motown, R&B, disco and funk and I definitely lend my influence to Jamerson. I don't think he had the bucks of Sir Paul tho! 
I has to be McCartney, according to what I've found on the web his current net worth is $780 million.
well i make about 25-30 bucks a week playing shows. 30 bucks and free food if its a good night. am i up there ? :'( *tear*
He owns a lot of publishing rights, but MJ had his lawyers pounce first thing the morning after calling McCartney to ask about doing this. The interview I read had Paul saying that he didn't think MJ would shark the Beatles catalog.
I don't know if he still owns it, but one of the songs Paul McCartney owns/owned is 'On Wisconsin'.
I noticed this thread went off topic a bit into whether Sir Paul or Mr. Jamerson had more influence and I believe it somewhat has to do with what you grew up listening to. I grew up on Motown, R&B, disco and funk and I definitely lend my influence to Jamerson. I don't think he had the bucks of Sir Paul tho!
I think Jamerson has more impact on groove/ and playing outside of the box compared with the typical bass lines of the time but McCartney plays more closely to the song's melody/establishes the body of the songs, maybe because he wrote/co-wrote so much of the Beatles music. I also think McCartney was more influenced by Jamerson- The Beatles did record several Motown tunes, after all.
IMO, both would be a great place to start for a beginning bass player because their playing fits the music so well.
Amazing how so many people dump on bass players and yet, their playing makes such a huge difference on music.
you have to take spending into account as well... but I agree, I think there are non-music sources of income for the richest musicians (and bassists), just like the best paid sportsmen earn a ton from endorsements, etc...
Bowie got quite creative with that, but then again, it was in a way music-related income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowie_Bonds
edit: yeah, and I would say Paul is the richest bassists (you can probably dispute the "bassist" part, and hardly the "richest" part, unless Bill Gates plays bass in his spare time...)
Most likely Paul or Gene, Waters is pretty wealthy too.
Top current earner? Probably the guy from Nickelback.
Top current earner? Probably the guy from Nickelback.
Bass players don't get rich; songwriters get rich. If a great songwriter happens to be a bass player, he might get rich. But that's from royalties, not bass playing. Richest songwriter that happens to play bass in pop music is Paul, hands down, no one else is even close. They don't call him "Sir" for nothing!
