Musicological banter

World?s 30 Highest Paid Musicians
The list in full, courtesy of Forbes:

1. Dr Dre ($620m)

2. Beyoncé ($115m)

3. The Eagles ($100m)

4. Bon Jovi ($82m)

5. Bruce Springsteen ($81m)

6. Justin Bieber ($80m)

7. One Direction ($75m)

8. Paul McCartney ($71m)

9. Calvin Harris ($66m)

10. Toby Keith ($65m)

11. Taylor Swift ($64m)

12. Jay Z ($60m)(tie)

12. Diddy ($60m)(tie)

12. Bruno Mars ($60m)(tie)

15. Justin Timberlake ($57m)

16. Pink ($52m)

17. Michael Bublé ($51m)

18. Rihanna ($48m)

19. Rolling Stones ($47m)

20. Roger Waters ($46m)

21. Elton John ($45m)

22. Kenny Chesney ($44m)

23. Katy Perry ($40m)

24. Jason Aldean ($37m)(tie)

24. Jennifer Lopez ($37m)(tie)

26. Miley Cyrus ($36m)(tie)

26. Celine Dion ($36m)(tie)

28. Muse ($34m)(tie)

28. Luke Bryan ($34m)(tie)

30. Lady Gaga ($33m)(tie)

30. Drake ($33m)(tie)



I'm sure this parallel's RatBastard playlist for the day


Kinda surprised Muse is in this list…MSP should be getting some royalties or something

I think musician is a generous description for some of those. The word "entertainer" or "producer" is probably more accurate for some of them.

bearman wrote:
I think musician is a generous description for some of those. The word "entertainer" or "producer" is probably more accurate for some of them.

Yeah, comparing the money Dre makes off selling his headphone company to an active musician's touring and record sales is apples and oranges.

Sidehatch wrote:
Prince covered the Waterboys!

?The Whole Of The Moon? (The Waterboys cover)

It's mutual. Waterboys covered Purple Rain on their live album.

I don't think Dre has released an album in like 15 years but I could be wrong..

16 this November.

^that doesn't look like hutch at all

Sidehatch wrote:
^that doesn't look like hutch at all

The emotionally and financially ignored children are just off picture to the left living in squalor.

if any,body would like to do a hutch / sidehatch gif, in my thread, feel free to.  I didn,t think, I understood their complexities enough, to encapsulate them in the finer forms of gif.

walkonby wrote:
if any,body would like to do a hutch / sidehatch gif, in my thread, feel free to.  I didn,t think, I understood their complexities enough, to encapsulate them in the finer forms of gif.

please refrain, the internet can't handle the truth

Sidehatch wrote:
^that doesn't look like hutch at all

I wish I had my records that organized (and that few)!

I have got rid of a about 1500 in the past month…

On the plus side I picked up Motorhead's Bomber, Sabbath's Sabotage, Circle Jerks Golden Shower and Gen X's last LP……..except for the Circle Jerks which I'm missing the rest I've now completed the Sabbath, Motorhead (except maybe the live one), and Generation X

Got rid of 1500 in a month? How?

Unsanity wrote:
Got rid of 1500 in a month? How?

He's a communist…so he probably dropped them off at goodwill

Ok kinda old new about the Gaye Estate winning the Blurred lines lawsuit

but this article has actually a really interesting take on it and how it could be a disaster of legal proportions in the music industry

The "Blurred Lines" verdict ignores this, placing for the first time what boils down to "feel" under the heading of copyright infringement. By this logic, the Bob Marley estate can sue pretty much every reggae artist of the past 30 years. The Bo Diddley estate can sue George Michael for "Faith" and Bow Wow Wow for "I Want Candy." Phil Spector can sue the Raveonettes for their entire catalog.

"If this were to become a standard," musicologist Michael Harrington told USA Today, "it's going to be one of the greatest growth industries of all time, suing people who sound like someone else."

So hate on Robin Thicke all you want. Hate on Pharrell, too, although most people inexplicably seem to find his Arby's hat more offensive than his contributions to the worst pop song in recent memory. But understand this: However deserving of our contempt these two may be, they're not deserving of a $7.3 million lawsuit. Their work was homage, not wholesale theft. It may have been a terrible, tacky, derivative homage, but just as the First Amendment protects the most offensive language, copyright law should protect the lamest ripoffs if they fall short of the legal definition of infringement


we got a few lawyers on here…curious what they think

killsaly wrote:

I. . . what?

It is… My masterpiece… I am loving the Facebook/iPhone photo options…