>Underpinning R.E.M.’s flat governance structure was an egalitarian economic one. As Tony Fletcher explains in “Perfect Circle”, his biography of the band, each

>Underpinning R.E.M.’s flat governance structure was an egalitarian economic one. As Tony Fletcher explains in “Perfect Circle”, his biography of the band, each member received an equal share of publishing royalties, regardless of who contributed what to each song. The same was true of their recording and performing royalties – although here equal splits are normal. One notable exception to this rule was The Smiths. When Morrissey and Johnny Marr founded the band in 1982, they insisted on taking a bigger cut of income, from all sources, than the bassist, Andy Rourke, and the drummer, Mike Joyce. This introduced an instability into the group, hastening its demise after five years. My understanding is that truly equal shares across the board are pretty rare, and probably even rarer if you filter for success. I think Van Halen was run that way, at least in its glory years (ie until DLR left). Marr & Morrissey insisting on a larger share of performing royalties and gig fees is just mean, considering they dominated songwriting. That's actually a minefield for some acts, because the songwriting money is WAY BIGGER (at least traditionally) than performance royalties. This came up in some of the more amusing sequences in the old VH-1 "Behind the Music" about the Go-Go's, who like many bands split songwriting royalties by actual authorship. The overwhelming majority of their songs (and all their hits) were written by Jane Weidlin and/or Charlotte Caffey, so after _Beauty and the Beat_ blew up they started getting checks that were much, much bigger than the other band members, who took exception. Weidlin's response to their ire was "well, write some fucking songs!"