Rolling Stones More Valuable Than David Bowie, Latest Report Claims

Concerts officially overtake studio records as musicians' primary income source.

logo
Ultimate Guitar
2

The latest UK Music report revealed interesting data regarding the state of UK music industry, making it official that on a grand scale, concerts have overtaken studio records as musicians' primary source of income. As Independent reports, the research also suggests that the Rolling Stones are a more valuable asset than David Bowie. Taking four "commercial assets" of the music industry - "musical composition and/or lyrics, a recording of a musical composition, live musical performance and an artist him or herself (as a brand, reputation or image)" - into consideration, the report further finds: "Some artists may have more commercial potential in one or other of the assets. The Rolling Stones, for example, have recorded new music relatively infrequently in recent years. However, they retain tremendous capacity to attract live audiences. Equally, David Bowie has released a new album (commercial assets one and two) that has been well received but he has not (as of yet) performed these songs live (commercial asset three)." Furthermore, the study stresses the importance of factor No. 4 - exploitation of image or a brand - as increasingly crucial in modern times, particularly for talent show creations such as One Direction. "[There are artists] whose professional careers begin with TV shows like the X Factor - who have a personal brand that is disproportionately large as compared with their success to-date in developing commercial assets one (songwriting) and two (record sales)," the report reads. In total, the UK music industry has "contributed £3.5 billion ($5.73 billion) in gross added value (profit and wages) in 2012, £1.4 billion ($2.3 billion) in exports and employed more than 100,000 full-time workers."

12 comments sorted by best / new / date

    BlackLabel5150
    "When making mixed drinks make your ice cubes out of booze, that way when they melt it wont water down your drink its just more booze" !! - Keith Richards.
    bigblockelectra
    As a brand name, is anyone really surprised by that? Bowie can probably personally make more money though...he probably pays his band a salary, and while I'm sure it is a good salary, it is nothing like splitting your money up 25%...although I'm sure the Stones split is not even-steven 25% each.
    JerBearX
    Well damn, you know? I now wonder why Stevie Wonder learned to play piano.
    strung_out1
    Not suprised when the Rolling Stones cheapest ticket for the 2014 Australian tour is roughly AU$200
    WholeLottaIzzy
    I paid a shit load for Stones tickets in Hyde Park. And let me tell you, I sure as hell got my money's worth. Best concert of my life. I would happily pay more.
    bradd101
    This is the sort of thing that always causes problems in marriages like this
    macphisto0
    the Stones are a big Brand,(don't get me wrong, they are great musicians) but the are a trademark like Iron maiden or Metallica, Bowie on the other hand is more like an artist that comes out to light just when he fells comfortable, his music goes way beyond the common taste from the public or what's hot on the charts. The Stones are as big as anybody could wish, but i value more the talent that Bowie has.