Band Member Compensation: 1973

[MHepple]

Please, no flames.  I have evidence, for 1973.

Ian doesn't screw band members. Period. He made many very rich, along with himself.

Got your attention? Read on.

15 years ago, I was given a 1973 Jethro Tull Royalty Statement literally from the Chrysalis filing cabinets. Birthday gift. Xeroxed with original ink and handwritten notes from someone...maybe IA. It is not dated, oddly, and includes 1973 only, including royalties for current (as of 1973) band members for both prior and current albums. Past member royalties are not included.

Chrysalis cleaned out old files, and my ex-wife bought it. It appears legit in all its yellowing glory. No, I won't post the document or the exact numbers. This is personal information for the band members, and I respect that. No, I won't sell it.

Many people wouldn't understand anyhow: The amounts are in British pounds, which I guess at the time were worth $3.50 or so US dollars (in times of inflation & devaluation.) This is Gross to the band members, not after tax, but after band expenses (like recording, not touring.) The tax at the time was 90% on the margin in GB. This is when the band went to France as a tax avoidance strategy, abandoned shortly thereafter.

If I have your attention: What I will share is that they made a lot of pre-tax money (just from record royalties) but most of their efforts Skated Away to the Tax Man, I suspect.  Concert fees were to them, also taxed at 90%, and are not included below. I'm actually surprised they didn't just give up once they hit it big. But I'm sure creative bankers helped get the effective rates down. More power to them. It's good when Banker Bets and Banker (and Client) Wins.

For 1973, the gross royalty from albums and advance royalty for APP was close to a million British pounds, distributed on this statement to active band members. (No Mick or Clive or Glenn.) They likely received different statements I don't have, but I'm sure it's as is customary.

Depending on the exchange/inflation rate one uses, maybe $16-18 mil today for 1973 alone. Sold out concerts were gravy...and there were a lot if I recall correctly (I was at a few.) The record companies didn't (and don't now) grab concert revenues, but do sometimes spend promotion $: the promoters get windfalls if sold well. The band used to get a set fee plus a piece of the gate.  IA (probably Shona) manages concerts these days, since there's no money in releasing records...they sadly quickly get stolen.

Martin made a LOT, 1973 alone made him wealthy, so please don't consider him a screwed outcast due to the current split/lineup. He gets royalties equal to the other bandmates for albums since 1968...every year.  I love his playing and contribution to the writing and arrangements, but it's Ian's band. Martin loves the music, but it's Ian who made him a wealthy man. FYI, Martin and Ian were the only ones who didn't over spend their draws in 1973. Everyone else did. I'm sure that was settled up later, but interesting.

Money was split in a traditional way: each band member received an equal share if they participated on the album. IA received (roughly a double share) for song writing and producing, as he should. Each was allowed to deduct unspecified personal expenses on top of general band expenses (and get an advance to pay for it) for their share of estimated current and future net revenues, after travel, hotel, meals, equally apportioned to all band members. Barrie over-spent his share for this period by 33% per the statement. Maybe he bought a house?

I have no idea what the deals were after or before this royalty statement. I'm sure all prior band members were paid their royalties, as IA is an honest gentleman. I do know he wisely retained the song writing rights and producing rights, unlike most bands. I guess the rest of the band OK'd this.  Very smart.

I have heard that for the current line-up, IA has band members on salary, not a "share." Paid whether they work or not. With all the touring they work quite hard. He covers and advances expenses. I suspect Shona handles most logistics, plus also that band members share a portion of profits (if any.)  I'm speculating, but don't think that's unfair at all, and it's his business, not ours. They don't seem to be leaving!

No flames or requests for the original document, or facsimiles please.

[TM]

Thanks for the post which some Tull fans may find interesting, but of course we have no way of verifying it's accuracy so we all must take it with a grain of salt.

I'm a little confused as to your point - as you seem to suggest there is some sort of controversy regarding the compensation of current band members. I don't recall this being an issue.

I also don't understand the purpose of pointing out how supposed past members handled their finances. This is truly none of our business, and again, since nothing is verifiable I'm not sure it should even be suggested.

[Lucas]

I really don't know how to take this post. Sounds almost like a defense against a unspecified accusation, put in a way to make it look like an obvious thing for one to think about.
It is also an utterly pointless subject regarding the music of Tull and IA for that matter. I mean, as far as I know there's never been a talk about people leaving the band or having problems due to unfair money division.

Don't get me wrong, if that kind of stuff interests you, enjoy it. I just don't get what you take from it.

[TM]

Mar 23, 2014 0:14:21 GMT -5 Lucas said:

I really don't know how to take this post. Sounds almost like a defense against a unspecified accusation, put in a way to make it look like an obvious thing for one to think about.
It is also an utterly pointless subject regarding the music of Tull and IA for that matter. I mean, as far as I know there's never been a talk about people leaving the band or having problems due to unfair money division.

Don't get me wrong, if that kind of stuff interests you, enjoy it. I just don't get what you take from it.

Well said Lucas.

The only recollection I have in regard to discussion of Tull member's pay-scale was Barrie's comments that John (Glasscock) got a "raw deal" from Ian and was very upset about it when he learned of it. 

I'm not sure that anyone wants to go there though...

[Morthoron]

Mar 22, 2014 21:35:19 GMT -5 MHepple said:

Please, no flames.  I have evidence, for 1973.

Ian doesn't screw band members. Period. He made many very rich, along with himself.

Got your attention? Read on.

15 years ago, I was given a 1973 Jethro Tull Royalty Statement literally from the Chrysalis filing cabinets. Birthday gift. Xeroxed with original ink and handwritten notes from someone...maybe IA. It is not dated, oddly, and includes 1973 only, including royalties for current (as of 1973) band members for both prior and current albums. Past member royalties are not included.

Chrysalis cleaned out old files, and my ex-wife bought it. It appears legit in all its yellowing glory. No, I won't post the document or the exact numbers. This is personal information for the band members, and I respect that. No, I won't sell it.

Many people wouldn't understand anyhow: The amounts are in British pounds, which I guess at the time were worth $3.50 or so US dollars (in times of inflation & devaluation.) This is Gross to the band members, not after tax, but after band expenses (like recording, not touring.) The tax at the time was 90% on the margin in GB. This is when the band went to France as a tax avoidance strategy, abandoned shortly thereafter.

If I have your attention: What I will share is that they made a lot of pre-tax money (just from record royalties) but most of their efforts Skated Away to the Tax Man, I suspect.  Concert fees were to them, also taxed at 90%, and are not included below. I'm actually surprised they didn't just give up once they hit it big. But I'm sure creative bankers helped get the effective rates down. More power to them. It's good when Banker Bets and Banker (and Client) Wins.

For 1973, the gross royalty from albums and advance royalty for APP was close to a million British pounds, distributed on this statement to active band members. (No Mick or Clive or Glenn.) They likely received different statements I don't have, but I'm sure it's as is customary.

Depending on the exchange/inflation rate one uses, maybe $16-18 mil today for 1973 alone. Sold out concerts were gravy...and there were a lot if I recall correctly (I was at a few.) The record companies didn't (and don't now) grab concert revenues, but do sometimes spend promotion $: the promoters get windfalls if sold well. The band used to get a set fee plus a piece of the gate.  IA (probably Shona) manages concerts these days, since there's no money in releasing records...they sadly quickly get stolen.

Martin made a LOT, 1973 alone made him wealthy, so please don't consider him a screwed outcast due to the current split/lineup. He gets royalties equal to the other bandmates for albums since 1968...every year.  I love his playing and contribution to the writing and arrangements, but it's Ian's band. Martin loves the music, but it's Ian who made him a wealthy man. FYI, Martin and Ian were the only ones who didn't over spend their draws in 1973. Everyone else did. I'm sure that was settled up later, but interesting.

Money was split in a traditional way: each band member received an equal share if they participated on the album. IA received (roughly a double share) for song writing and producing, as he should. Each was allowed to deduct unspecified personal expenses on top of general band expenses (and get an advance to pay for it) for their share of estimated current and future net revenues, after travel, hotel, meals, equally apportioned to all band members. Barrie over-spent his share for this period by 33% per the statement. Maybe he bought a house?

I have no idea what the deals were after or before this royalty statement. I'm sure all prior band members were paid their royalties, as IA is an honest gentleman. I do know he wisely retained the song writing rights and producing rights, unlike most bands. I guess the rest of the band OK'd this.  Very smart.

I have heard that for the current line-up, IA has band members on salary, not a "share." Paid whether they work or not. With all the touring they work quite hard. He covers and advances expenses. I suspect Shona handles most logistics, plus also that band members share a portion of profits (if any.)  I'm speculating, but don't think that's unfair at all, and it's his business, not ours. They don't seem to be leaving!

No flames or requests for the original document, or facsimiles please.

So, you are saying that Ian wasn't as much of a dick as he later became? I think the change was obvious in the music itself after the death of John Glascock. As far as band members not leaving, I assume you have never been a musician. Regular paying gigs for a full-time musician often trumps the creative factor or the need for input in the music. Which is why Dave Pegg played bass at Ian's command, but simultaneously wrote songs and played much better bass lines for Fairport Convention. It's in the music, plain as day.

[TM]

Mar 23, 2014 8:53:42 GMT -5 Morthoron said:

So, you are saying that Ian wasn't as much of a dick as he later became? I think the change was obvious in the music itself after the death of John Glascock. As far as band members not leaving, I assume you have never been a musician. Regular paying gigs for a full-time musician often trumps the creative factor or the need for input in the music. Which is why Dave Pegg played bass at Ian's command, but simultaneously wrote songs and played much better bass lines for Fairport Convention. It's in the music, plain as day.

The thing I respect about Dave was he left the band on his own terms. He could no longer take the nostalgic best-of tours with Ian struggling to sing.