3 ms·
Doing this kind of analysis is fun but the assumption that wealth maximization was a driving factor for these bands is laughable. Go watch "Crossfire Hurricane"
by cik2e 8y ago
Doing this kind of analysis is fun but the assumption that wealth maximization was a driving factor for these bands is laughable. Go watch "Crossfire Hurricane" and you'll see that touring is the glue that holds the Stones together. And IIRC, it effectively saved Keith Richard's life when he was toeing the point of no return with heroin.
- notahacker 8y agoIt's also the case that the Beatles spent their time after the Beatles doing mostly less critically and commercially successful solo work - over 60 solo albums between them, and that's with Lennon dying young! Paul and Ringo still love being Paul and Ringo enough to tour, and for that matter some of Paul's billion comes from his less-celebrated solo material - he makes half a million a year in royalties from Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time alone. Difficult to imagine they wouldn't have been more successful still if they'd been able to reconcile their differences and stay together as a band. There probably are bands where get famous and then split up because our competing writers want to go in different directions was a "model", but I'm not convinced the Beatles was one. Or that there was much science behind the Stones' division of responsibilities