McCartney Named UK's Richest Musician

Found this on the AP Wire:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Apr 26, 5:31 AM EDT

McCartney Named U.K.'s Richest Musician

By The Associated Press

LONDON (AP) -- Paul McCartney is Britain's richest musician, according to the Sunday Times' annual list of the country's wealthiest people.

The former Beatle's personal fortune grew by $75 million last year to $1.2 billion, the newspaper said, making him No. 1 among musical moguls, but 29th on the full list.

Composer Andrew Lloyd Webber is ranked second with an estimated $636 million fortune, and producer Cameron Mackintosh third with $533 million.

Madonna, included on the list because she lives in London, ranked fourth with an estimated fortune of $361 million, followed by Robert Stigwood, producer of musicals including "Grease" and "Saturday Night Fever," worth an estimated $316 million.

The newspaper didn't release the name of the wealthiest individual overall. The full list of the 1,000 wealthiest Britons will be published Sunday

I think it Paul was the second richest musician in the world after Madonna.

According to the article, Madonna actually ranked lower than Paul. I don't know if there is another musician richer than Paul, though if there is, I'd guess that it would be Elvis Presley's estate.

Anyway, thanks for the article, Susan. I'm trying to be more consistent about where the solo stories go, so I'm moving this to Red Rose Speedway.

But Harrison's family have seen his estate's value decline from £140m in 2002 to £110m.

It confirmed his long-held status as the richest musician in Britain, but left some wondering why McCartney still chases further big paydays with a hectic touring and performance schedule. Now, his daughter, Stella, reveals a side of her father that could provide the answer. GEOFFREY WANSELL reports . . .

TO HIS millions of fans around the world, Sir Paul McCartney is the Prince Charming of rock 'n' roll, forever polite, eternally kind, immensely generous, and, of course, hugely talented - the mega-rich composer and performer of some of the most famous songs of the past half-century.

But his fashion-designer daughter, Stella, 30, has now hinted - perhaps affectionately - that her 60-year-old Liverpudlian father may have a slightly darker side when he is out of the public gaze.

In a magazine interview, she called him "a tight bastard" - partly for sending her to a local public school where she stood out because of his fame and wealth.

Can this be true? Surely, the most famous and richest surviving member of The Beatles could never be described as stingy. Surely, the rock star whose toothy grin and cheeky smile are trademarks around the globe would never deny anyone he loved, particularly his children, anything that they wanted.

Of course not. But Stella appears to have lifted the lid on something many in the music world have long suspected.

The exceedingly wealthy McCartney, who is the 29th richest person in Britain on the latest wealth list, has always preferred to live a distinctly low-key style. Not for him the wild excesses of rock superstardom, the private jets, the endless supply of limousines, the bevy of personal assistants, the vast mansions around the world.

McCartney has always been the odd man out in rock's aristocracy, a performer very conscious of the financial bottom line; a composer keen to ensure that he never misses out on his entitled royalties; a rock star who is also an entrepreneur, and a careful one at that. He is the paradox of an extraordinarily wealthy man who lives a very ordinary life.

McCartney's beady eye for never wasting a penny is legendary in the music business - and it is just as famous at home.

No one knows that better than his four children - stepdaughter Heather, 35, and his own three children, Mary, 33, Stella, 30, and James, 25 - who were born in public hospitals, went to public schools and, as kids, wore clothes bought on sale.

The reason, according to McCartney, was to keep them "grounded," to protect them from the Hollywood-style upbringing that wrecked the lives of so many show-business children.

He's reported to have told them that he had to work hard for his money - "and it never did me any harm."

There are no trust funds set up for the McCartney kids, because their father decided giving them some kind of nest egg might be a "disincentive" to their carving out a name for themselves in their chosen careers - as Stella has done in fashion and James in the legal world.

"Take care of the pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves," has long been a McCartney motto, friends say, along with "waste not, want not." Why else would he still be wearing an overcoat bought almost 30 years before, as he did in 1997, when he donned the very same knee-length brown coat for a video recording that he'd worn in the film for the song "Let It Be"?

As one friend put it at the time: "Everyone knows that Paul hates throwing stuff out. It's a perfectly good coat, and he loves it."

It is the same thought process that often sees him take the train to his office in London's Soho rather than rely on a chauffeur and a limousine and the same attitude of mind that often sees him fly economy class.

Ever the cost-conscious businessman, McCartney also employs musicians who work with him for a salary rather than a share in the royalties or profits of his records or shows.



That's possibly why his current world tour is likely to make him substantially richer by the time next year's wealthiest-Britons list is compiled.

Before his marriage to former model and now anti-landmine activist Heather Mills, 34, last June, McCartney played no less than 27 shows in 20 cities across the United States, grossing an extraordinary $54 million. And he was back on stage again in America for the second part of the tour immediately after their honeymoon. Not that everything about his second marriage was entirely smooth sailing for the careful rock star. McCartney's children were wary of his relationship with Mills, which began a little over a year after the death of his wife, Linda, from breast cancer at the age of 56 in 1998.

In particular, they were said to suspect that she was a "gold digger" and that the 26-year age gap between the couple was too great.

Stella reportedly tried to persuade her father to draw up a prenuptial agreement that would limit her future stepmother's share of his fortune to just $31 million should they divorce.

Surprisingly for a man with such a clear head for money, however, it appears that McCartney steadfastly refused.

Others who are close to McCartney say he can be generous if he believes in a charitable cause.

When he was offered $1 million to play at the 50th birthday party for the wife of American financier Ralph Whitworth in February, he accepted, but asked for his fee to be paid to the anti-landmine charity Adopt-A-Landmine, backed by his wife, Heather.

In the past year, he's made similar donations of performances or recording tracks to raise money for children in Iraq as well as firefighters in New York.

"The thing to remember about Paul," said one record-company executive who's worked with him for more than a decade, "is that he's not very starry, and he's not very flashy. But he is very conscious of his own image, just as he was conscious of the image of The Beatles. He was the p.r. man in the band."

The last thing that McCartney would like the world to think of him was that he was in any way "tight" with his money, friends say. Careful? Certainly. Business-like? Without question. Yet he is always ready to take an entrepreneurial gamble that may benefit him.

And isn't that the way that rich people stay rich and get richer?

Daily Mail

Originally Posted By beatlz:
There are no trust funds set up for the McCartney kids, because their father decided giving them some kind of nest egg might be a "disincentive" to their carving out a name for themselves in their chosen careers - as Stella has done in fashion and James in the legal world.

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Wait, what, hunh???? James in the legal world?? Can somebody clarify this one for me??

Hmmm..as far as I knew, James was in the music field...

Maybe there are trusts set up for the kids and they're not aware of it, or else perhaps they're provided for in his will?

It's too bad with all that money he couldn't lower his ticket prices.He obviously doesn't need it.

Originally Posted By ChrisG134:
It's too bad with all that money he couldn't lower his ticket prices.He obviously doesn't need it.

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Right. And because I don't absolutely need every penny I make at work to survive, I should ask my boss for a pay cut. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Originally Posted By Rellevart:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Originally Posted By ChrisG134:
It's too bad with all that money he couldn't lower his ticket prices.He obviously doesn't need it.

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Right. And because I don't absolutely need every penny I make at work to survive, I should ask my boss for a pay cut. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">And you think he and every other musician, pro sports players deserve more money than teachers and doctors.Come on!He could lower his prices just like Tom Petty ,Bruce Springsteen & Dave Matthews just to name a few to don't rip the average Joe off.

Originally Posted By ChrisG134:
And you think he and every other musician, pro sports players deserve more money than teachers and doctors.

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">No, of course I don't think that. But I think that entertainment, be it music, film, sports, etc. is important to people and apparently they're willing to pay for it. Free market economy and all that. If people don't think they're getting their money's worth out of his concert tickets, then they shouldn't buy them.

I'm not saying I wish prices hadn't been lower. I would have loved it if he had taken a stand against high ticket prices like Petty or Springsteen, but he didn't. Oh well. I'm not going to get bitter about it. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[size="1"][ Apr 28, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message Edited By: Rellevart ][/size]

All I can say is "Thank God" Springsteen doesn't think like Paul & The Rolling Stones!I'd probably be broke by now!

Oh-My-God...I can't believe that he's now being ragged on for living a normal life. What people won't do to pick on him.
Okay, he's one of the richest guys out there and he doesn't walk around wearing fur coats and diamond rings and sending his children to famous kid school, instead he puts most his money in the best charities- what a Scrooge!
I couldn't believe it when this woman who knew Paul in the 70's said that she saw Mary wearing one of Heather's dresses that she had grown out of like it was a bad thing. A famous person not wearing a new outfit every day? Of all the nerve!
Mick Jagger's daughter said she was always so jealous of the McCartney children because they went to a normal school.
He does all this stuff on purpose and on GOOD purpose at that!
Sheesh...