petergabriel.com

Ah ha!

Oh no!

Doh!

What have you done with that tree ? That's not very fluffy.

No not at all fluffy, but the tree was diseased, and was a hazard to near by cottages and the public so had to be removed, which was a shame because it was on this earth longer than you, me, and any one on this site, but if the truth be told, I would of sooner moved the cottages!

OK I understand, thanks for telling me.

Switzerland-based English singer-songwriter, drummer, pianist and actor, Philip David Charles “Phil” Collins has a net worth of £115m as of 2011 according to the Sunday Times Rich List, despite three costly divorces Madonna, whose birth name is Madonna Louise Ciccone, is an influential and best-selling recording artist whose album sales have exceeded 200 million copies worldwide and who has a net worth of $650 million. Todd Rundgren net worth: Todd Rundgren is an American musician and producer with a net worth of $10 million dollars. Born in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, Todd Rundgren, began playing in garage rock and psychedelia bands in the 60s. Ric Ocasek net worth: Ric Ocasek is an American music producer and musician with a net worth of $25 million dollars Jon Anderson is an English musician with a net worth of $45 million John Fogerty is an American singer, songwriter, and guitarist with a net worth of $68 million. Bryan Adams is a Canada-born singer-songwriter, musician, artist, and activist, with an estimated net worth of $65 million dollars. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/category/richest-celebrities/rock-stars/page/10/

Phil's middle name is David? So we have another thing in common - other than being two short bald-headed guys! (I'm a little poorer than he is though. Just a little.)

Studies have shown that men who are balding have more testosterone in their bodies and are more manly.

OG is obviously a multi millionaire and has made a lot of money from sound investments (OD2, a startup funded by PG was sold for $40 backstage at Wembely in 2004). However, I'd have a sceptical view about that website and the figures. Just some looking around shows some huge omissions and oddities. I remember Alan Wilder (of Depeche Mode) commenting on the article in Q a number of years ago which listed estimated incomes of artists. As huge selling artist himself, he knew much of it was nonsense, most of the guesswork was highly inaccurate and was able to point out where and why (without specific names).

There are too many rich bastards. There are too many poor bastards. Every rich bastard is taking more than their share of the pie, leaving the poor bastards. . . poor. We should not have to rely on the good will of rich bastards - if society had the will to demand more fairness for all then there would be little or no need for philanthropy. The larger the gap between the richest and poorest, the more problems occur for all. Everybody knows the rich get richer and the poor stay poor - it's almost like a kind of gravity - money goes to money, as they say - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_concentration

The title refers to a Genesis album long after PG left Genesis http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/03/14/the-invisible-investment-touch-of-genesis-ex-lead-singer/ March 14, 2011, 1:13 PM GMT The Invisible Investment Touch of Genesis Ex-Lead Singer By Nigel Kendall Before quitting as lead singer of the prog-rock band Genesis in the 1970s, Peter Gabriel went on tour in a giant slime-monster costume so thick that the audience could barely hear him sing through it. In the 35 years since Genesis, he has refined his exit strategy considerably. In 1999, he co-founded the iTunes precursor On Demand Distribution (known as OD2), before disposing of it in 2004 for $40 million (of which media reports at the time suggested he received just over 25 per cent). Mr. Gabriel’s fascination with modern music and the digital technology that increasingly creates, stores and distributes it, has taken him on an extraordinary journey of investment, from the 1990 disaster of his involvement with Syco Systems and its bid to develop a Tablet synthesizer, through the success of OD2, right up to the present day and its myriad uncertainties. One of the projects in which he is currently heavily invested is We7, a music streaming service that this week launched an Android app that allows users to download music to their handsets for later listening on planes, trains or anywhere without a mobile or wireless internet connection. If We7 can beat Spotify to a US launch, it could start to become a serious contender in the increasingly crowded online market for music. If not, it’s likely to fall into the arms of a wealthy suitor, leaving Mr. Gabriel quids in again, and free to concentrate on his other main internet business, The Filter. Like We7, The Filter is backed by Eden Ventures, although Mr. Gabriel is thought to have provided a good chunk of the $8 million that he and Eden jointly stumped up. If the idea behind The Filter is remarkably simple: as online information proliferates, internet users will find it increasingly difficult to find sources that they can trust, or sites that correspond to their tastes. The Filter aims to cut out the hot air, though it has had a few hiccups so far in its five-year history. The Filter predates Apple’s iTunes Genius feature The Filter began as a consumer site, offering software that monitored users’ LastFM and iTunes usage to suggest other music they might like. It predated Apple’s iTunes Genius feature by three years, but only one million people were using it, not enough to make money from advertising. In 2009, The Filter switched focus and began providing its recommendation service to websites. The move is paying off. Using The Filter’s proprietary algorithms, CEO David Maher Roberts claims that the company can offer recommendations based on taste and previous consumption far more accurately than, say, Amazon does with books or DVDs. Writing recently for Ad Age, he observed: “The granular detail of how I interact with video or music at 8am versus 10pm, at the office or in the gym is very important and intelligent technologies can make sense of it to help me search, navigate and discover content at the right time, in the right place and in the best way… media services have the opportunity to evolve from just offering ‘targeted’ media to suggesting ‘HYPERrelevant’ content and ads. And the more relevant things are, the more engaged I will be and the more these things will have value.” The Filter’s current clients include NBC, DailyMotion, Warner Bros, Sony Music and, unsurprisingly, We7. For all its clients, it offers video or music recommendations based on observations about a user’s previous behavior. Revenue for 2010 is thought to be around $4 million, and the company aims to push revenues higher by piggy-backing the explosion in social media. Mr. Maher Roberts claims The Filter is currently serving up over 100 million recommendations for individuals per month. More than just music Mr. Gabriel is evangelical about The Filter, for which he is a minority investor but a very useful frontman. “The Filter is like a zen master, who knows me, knows what I am interested in, knows what’s out there and gives me what is relevant at the time that I really want it in the most appropriate way,” he says on the company’s website. The recent upswing in The Filter’s fortunes has made its imminent sale less likely, but even if it did go, Mr. Gabriel has yet more tricks up his sleeve. There’s an online picture dictionary he’d like to develop for use in countries with low literacy levels, the Society of Sound high-quality music download service that he started with the loudspeaker maker Bowers and Wilkins, and his commitment and backing for witness.org, a human rights programme that aims to provide victims of abuse with cameras to record video evidence that can be used at trial. Mr. Gabriel recently turned 61, but his involvement in start-ups that have consistently anticipated the next big thing speaks volumes for the age-defying persistence of his intellectual curiosity and trend-spotting instincts. His online interests have also been sound enough to accrue an estimated net worth of $70 million and enable him to avoid the old rock stars’ reunion of Genesis, for which music lovers and internet users should both be equally grateful.

Mr. Beef I think there is a difference between making money because you have a talent or even because you are a shrewd investor and the billionaires (Walmart family, Koch brothers) who make it on the backs of others. I'm not talking about their employees, I'm talking about their buying influece in the political realm designed to make themselves richer and keep the rest of us where we are - those rich folks are truly bastards.

* ahem, influence

If you are in good health you are rich, if on the other hand your health is not so good you are poor. Anything else is just made up as we go along.

> All artists of "revolution" of 60's or 70's like Who, Clash, Patty Smith and others today are rich. DolceVita, I don't think Patti Smith is rich. I have read she was pretty much bancrupt at times. The mere reason why she went back to a studio after her husband died was that she needed money. But it is true that she is doing well know (she mentioned it in another interview) partly due to her bestselling memoires. And I certainly do not begrudge her that.

There is a growing gap between the rich and poor... no doubt. I don't understand why people get upset about musicians, movie stars and the like making so much money though. It's not like they're getting rich on the backs of others. Musicians create an album that people love and want to pay money for... good for them. It's not like they're some corporate slimeball diving in and liquidating a company and making money off the firing of others. Plus if anything... they at least help create some jobs... from the engineers to the people on the road crews to the venues that remain open so artists can perform there.

As for Peter, it isn't just investments, but he's always been working. Perhaps not giving the album everyone would like to see, yet, but always working. Remember a nomination for Wall-e? UP? The Long Walk Home, etc... He's in a field that once you 'make it' you can make a whole lot of money.

. . . of course there is a sliding scale of evilness in the way that people get rich, and the extent to which they get rich and what they might do with their good fortune, but I am talking about the general economic mechanisms, government policies which allow such a divide to grow and become normalised societal aspirations (aka brainwashing). As soon as you have more money than most people you have a certain amount of power and insulation from the issues faced by the rest of society and the extent of that power and insulation grow in proportion with the wealth. Also, rich people, by definition tend to have more money than they need, and so a lot of the "wealth" ends up being stashed away in a variety of accounts and investments, with tax minimised by the clever accountants andt lawyers they can employ. . . in a bubble of privilage which is multiplied by the spider web of over-powerful social networks of the wealthy, which finds its way, tenticle-like into the world of politics, media and big business. . . I just can't see how this is a good thing. They have the power, but they depend on us monkeys doing their dirty work, and buying their shit with the pittance we earn.

I remembered this story from a couple of years ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250861/Stars-face-massive-payback-demands-HMRC-probes-2bn-film-tax-loophole.html Stars face massive payback demands as HMRC probes £2bn film tax loophole Feb. 2010 Jeremy Paxman, Anne Robinson, Peter Gabriel, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Guy Ritchie and dozens of other celebrities invested up to £1.4m each Dozens of Britain's highest paid celebrities and business chiefs have been caught up in an investigation into an alleged tax avoidance scheme. England soccer stars Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard, BBC presenters Jeremy Paxman and Anne Robinson, film-maker Guy Ritchie, pop star Peter Gabriel and Labour peer Lord Hollick were among those who pumped money into a fund that exploited a legal loophole giving tax benefits to those investing in the film industry. Documents seen by The Mail on Sunday suggest they invested sums ranging from £160,000 to £1.4million. Some other investors have already received tax demands for tens of thousands of pounds - big investors may face bills of more than £1million. Under a policy set up by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor, investors could slash their tax bills if they backed the film industry. Around £2billion a year was subsequently invested in film funding schemes. However, HM Revenue & Customs officials now believe that at least one £75million investment fund used by celebrities might have been aimed primarily at avoiding tax and not bolstering the British film industry, so was against the rules. Stars were partners in schemes run by finance company Ingenious Media, founded by chairman Patrick McKenna. The company has raised about £5billion to put into films over the past decade, including such hits as Avatar and X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Night At The Museum. The celebrities' names were officially recorded at Companies House, where the partnerships are registered. Gordon Brown tried to help film-makers, but instead created a £5bn tax scheme for celebrities and bankers Investors included internationally successful musicians, who put in more than £1million each. Half a dozen top footballers invested an average of about £500,000. Leading businessmen put in even more with a number investing millions. According to documents seen by The Mail on Sunday, one industrialist has invested £62million with Ingenious in various schemes over the past decade, while a leading media figure has invested £35million. The schemes have also been widely used by bankers seeking to reduce tax on bonuses. The Mail on Sunday has learned that those who invested in Ingenious's Inside Track fund in the 2003/4 tax year have received letters telling them that the scheme is under investigation. The total sum the Revenue might demand back could run into millions. Under that year's Inside Track fund, wealthy individuals formed a partnership with producers to put money into films. The terms of the arrangement allowed the investors to claim tax relief against virtually the total sum ploughed into the film by the partnership - not just the amount that they had personally put in. The partnerships were normally arranged under a two-for-one basis, meaning that if a celebrity put in £100,000 it would be matched by £200,000 from a film's other backers - but the celebrity could claim tax relief on the full £300,000. The rebate had to be paid back over 15 years, but by investing the cash wisely investors could beat the taxman. The minimum sum invested was £50,000 and films did not have to qualify as British. Such schemes have now been outlawed, but were legal at the time as long as the money was genuinely being used to invest in films and not to avoid tax. McKenna has told investors that he believes HMRC's interpretation of the issue is wrong in law. John Whiting, tax policy director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, said: 'Too often the old rules meant the good old Revenue paid out a cheque. 'These are not tax avoidance schemes' 'The key with many of these schemes was in the loan agreements. The loans were often provided on very favourable terms or on the basis they would only be repaid if the film made a profit. 'As an investor you were not interested in whether the film was made. Now the rules have changed and you are interested in making a film that makes money.' HMRC said: 'The tax breaks for investment in British films have been significantly reformed so that the relief goes where it was always intended to go - to those who produce films and employ talent. 'The loopholes which allowed the tax relief to be abused with no benefit to the film industry have been closed. If we find evidence of abuse we will take steps to put things right.' Ingenious has also told investors the HMRC enquiries are standard practice where tax relief has been claimed on losses. It said: 'We remain confident we will be able to demonstrate that the partnership trade is conducted on a commercial basis and that partners are entitled to the benefits of the losses they have claimed.' The Mail on Sunday contacted the individuals named as having invested in the Inside Track fund. None was prepared to comment except a spokesman for David Beckham, who said: 'David has made a number of successful financial investments in the past. However, he has always chosen to keep these private. Any investment has always been done with propriety and ethically, with complete adherence to the prevailing laws and regulations.' A spokesman for Ingenious said: 'Our film partnerships are not tax schemes, they are film schemes. The schemes have a cash-flow benefit because investors do not have to wait for years over the life cycle of a film to get their money back. 'HMRC is trying to distinguish between bona fide investment funds and out-and-out tax schemes. We are not in the business of generating tax schemes. Everything we do has a commercial engine attached to it. 'It is standard practice for HMRC to enquire into schemes where tax relief has been claimed on losses. We welcome the scrutiny.'