Another SRV thread gone bad. Please don't post here.

[reverbbb]

The damage is already done and I apologize for getting this thing started.

Please avoid the temptation for posting more to this thread. Also, if you feel inclined, I encourage you to edit your comments and shrink this thread into oblivian.

[TheGoodTexan]

Deleated.

[Joel Terry]

in the early 1990s, sometime after his death, and like Bruce, it made me feel a bit queasy, if only for the fact that it felt as if...well, as if I were rummaging through Stevie's casket itself looking for Number One or something. (I know--he wasn't buried with Number One...Jimmie has it and keeps it in a bank vault. But you get the point.)

I guess Stevie was such a huge, almost superhuman influence on me and my music, looking at his Earthly holdings somehow sullied his memory. Of course, I know he was just a man, and, like Bruce said, the list is a public document. I suppose it was just another thing that underlined the fact that he was gone for good.

Joel

[reverbbb]

Deleted

[timgreene]

Look at the value for the guitars. 34 guitars in various stages of repair, value 28,000.00. Number one would bring at least 10 to 20 times that at auction.

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by reverbbb

But I still stand on my previous comments, that SRV left us with far more wealth than money could ever reveal.

He also left behind far more wealth than those documents reveal. His guitars and amps are certainly worth a lot more than is listed there, never mind the royalties, etc.

Does it really matter what assets someone like SRV had? He never seemed like a very materialistic guy to me anyway. I guess it proves the point that money does not make the man.

Jimi was nearly broke when he died, although his estate is now worth more than he ever saw. Does it matter? All the people who have made money off him when he was alive and after he was dead will never come close to having what he had just opening his eyes in the morning.

[JBandtheSalts]

I've had simular thoughts about how wealthy rock stars are, i mean, are people who just make one hit record set for life? you see MTV Cribs or whatever, and theres these people with a bently and some amazing house and they just have a couple mediocre songs out, or did they just blow all there money on the house and a car and they have nothing left? then theres a band like sonic youth, whos been playing for the past 15 or 20 years and havent really had huge success, but theyve never flopped and theyre always on tour...i wonder how they compare to some one hit wonder...

-john

[reverbbb]

Deleted

[Horrorshow]

SRV is the man!

[Will V.]

I think it's possible some of the assets that were "his" were owned by various trusts or corporations (perhaps some of those listed on the document), for exactly this purpose. However, I'm sure he was not monetarily wealthy, certainly not in a Paul McCartney way.

That said, it deeply saddened me to read over that document. Every time I am reminded of his death, I feel like I lost a friend.

[Rick S]

Originally Posted by Will V.

I think it's possible some of the assets that were "his" were owned by various trusts or corporations (perhaps some of those listed on the document), for exactly this purpose.

Absolutely. What you see in the probate document is simply items that were subject to probate, and by no means a measure of net worth.
Rick S

[deanzat]

There's not a lot of money in the entertainment industry, except for a select few.

Remember that we guitarists may idolize SRV, but his sales never approached that of Michael Jackson or other contemporaries.

Songwriting may be the most lucrative endeavor for artists; think of the annuity income for Lennon/McCartney tunes. I remember an early interview with The Who, when the subject came up that only Pete was getting wealthy, the other band members mockingly slid away from him; it was pretty funny, but true.

The good news, of course, is that people like SRV aren't in it for the money; they're driven to make music and that's that.

Most performers earn less annually than the average attendee at one of their shows; only a handful become really wealthy. But if they make their living doing something they love, they come out way ahead.

DZ

[rcrecelius]

Ive heard it said by someone who played with SRV early in his career that he was notorious for giving money away...if someone approached him on the street in need, he would give them money.
Truly a giving man in all respects.

[Oskar]

and certainly start out by not playing for the money, but for the sake of music alone...

The good news, of course, is that people like SRV aren't in it for the money; they're driven to make music and that's that.

however, as one becomes wealthier and the demands are greater, money becomes the object. Just look at the ticket prices asked by some performers these days. I think it's criminal and refuse to see any of them, even though I could afford it. For what it would cost me to see the Stones or Springsteen I could probably go see a hundred very good local bands, and be able to enjoy them in a smaller setting. Plus I would be supporting musicians who can certainly use the money.

I'd like to think that SRV, like many of his blues counterparts, truly did play for the sake of the art, with money being a secondary (and possible lower) priority.

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by Oskar

I'd like to think that SRV, like many of his blues counterparts, truly did play for the sake of the art....

I don't think anyone chooses to make a career out of the blues for money. Look at how few blues artists have made enough money to be considered "wealthy". Only a handful, I think.

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by Will V.

I don't think anyone chooses to make a career out of the blues for money. Look at how few blues artists have made enough money to be considered "wealthy". Only a handful, I think.

I have a few guitar magazines that talk about the SRV career. Basically, how he may have just remained a local phenomenom if it wasn't for a few happy accidents, including playing the Montreaux festival, and being seen by David Bowie and Jackson Browne, who both ended up working with him and/or helping him out.

Plus the fact that he chose to stay with Double Trouble rather than the Bowie tour (although there is more to the story, as usual).

Of course, I don't recall him taking a stand against high ticket prices, so let's not put him on too high a pedestal.

[jordanl]

Originally Posted by genelovesjez

Plus the fact that he chose to stay with Double Trouble rather than the Bowie tour (although there is more to the story, as usual).

Of course, I don't recall him taking a stand against high ticket prices, so let's not put him on too high a pedestal.

Ticket prices in the late 80's weren't as bad as they are today, and there was less official scalping. I recall prices topping around 35 here in the NYC area. It wasn't until Streisand's "farewell tour" that prices really shot up.

FWIW when Garcia died his assets were listed around $6M, and the dead weren't known for their materialism. In the deads case they didn't really get serious about business aspects till the mid 80's.

Stevie was really just starting to play the arena's, 10-15K at the time of his demise.

[bluescube]

EDITED

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by bluescube

[rant]

A lot of these modern day music/sports/tv/movie stars blow all thier money on stuff to impress. Bently's, West Coast Customs cars, jewelry, big houses,,etc.

Maybe if they gave/tithed 10% of their earnings to help out the poor and disadvantged instead of that new Ferrari.....

[/rant]

Well, we all have a part to play. I don't like to criticize population segments in general, because it just seems like stereotyping to me. Surely are many wealthy and famous who give 10% and more to worthy causes. Even the ones who drive Ferraris, who's to say they don't also give?

[lenny]

Originally Posted by Will V.

Well, we all have a part to play. I don't like to criticize population segments in general, because it just seems like stereotyping to me. Surely are many wealthy and famous who give 10% and more to worthy causes. Even the ones who drive Ferraris, who's to say they don't also give?

nobody gives me cr*p, and if i got rich i would not feel obligated to give anyone else anything.
that said i prolly would, but i dont owe anybody anything
sorry to get off topic

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by lenny

nobody gives me cr*p, and if i got rich i would not feel obligated to give anyone else anything.
that said i prolly would, but i dont owe anybody anything
sorry to get off topic

Well, we really are off-topic here quite a bit now.

I'm not on welfare or anything like that, but I feel that I'm given quite a bit in life, some of it deserved (though not owed) but not all of it. To wake up every morning surrounded by family, and to have good friends, those are gifts.

People who choose to give time or money to those in need don't do so because they feel obligated. If they did feel obligated, it wouldn't be a gift, it would be a payment.

The point of my post, which I might not have made too clear, is that I don't think it's useful to worry too much about what "those people with Ferraris" (for example) do with their time or money. It's neither accurate, nor helpful.

[lenny]

i agree. worrying bout who gives what, has what, deserves what is pointless.
SRV (sorry reverb :( )that list doesnt look too huge to me. certainly not a huge fortune. the highest value is his musical instrumnents i'd say, and those are only valuable because he was so great, not because it cost him a lot
it is sad to see what he left behind, it reminds us of the space left by him
i hope he rests in peace