Andrew H. Walker, Getty Images Nine days after the deadly tornado that touched…
B-52s' Fred Schneider Can't Retire Off 'Love Shack' Royalties
- Posted on Apr 14th 2010 12:00PM by Pat Pemberton
Even though 'Love Shack' was a ubiquitous single that sold millions, it didn't make the B-52s fabulously wealthy, vocalist Fred Schneider tells Spinner."People think I'm a multi-millionaire, and I'm not," he says. "I can't retire. None of us can."
Even before 'Love Shack' became a sensation in 1989, the B-52s had minor hits with songs like 'Rock Lobster' and 'Private Idaho.' But 'Love Shack,' featuring a catchy chorus and Schneider's trademark speak-sing vocals, became a huge hit, paving the way for a big follow-up, 'Roam.' Both peaked at No. 3 on the charts.
Still, Schneider admits the 'Love Shack' royalties didn't allow him to buy a house suitable for an episode of 'MTV Cribs.'
"I got a house, but it was back when houses were cheap, and I got a bargain," Schneider says. "Unbelievable bargain."
Schneider, who is currently touting his side project, the Superions, claims it's even more difficult to make money recording today. The B-52s' last album, 2008's 'Funplex,' was a Top 15 record, but with record sales plummeting, even that success doesn't necessarily result in big paychecks.
"We only broke even with the last album," Schneider reveals. As a result, the B-52s need to tour, and Schneider has to watch his spending.
"I'm still very modest," he admits. "My big splurge is too many records."
- Filed under: Concerts and Tours, News, Exclusive
Add a Comment
Apparently, he did not heed his own sage advice from that stint in Indianapolis as a janitor.
April 25 2010 at 11:51 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI'm with you, Wes. I think they should, too. That in and of itself would be news and would help them promote themselves. Someone before you asked who would go to a B-52's concert these days. ME, for one, and I believe A LOT of others would, too.
April 15 2010 at 12:27 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply>>Your pathetic. After 30 years of giving people fun nd laphs instead of slutty pimp and ho rap hes just speeking the truth;. I saw him on Howard Stern and he said the same thing, all it meens is he and the rest of the Bs will be touring again you bitter hag.
April 15 2010 at 11:43 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThis is a cautionary tale about the limits of speaky-singy. It doesn't lend itself to the mainstays of a band's "back 9" career: Disney soundtracks, unplugged concerts, or covers by P.Diddy. If only they were retro-70's they may have ended up in a Tarrantino or Paul Thomas Anderson soundtrack. Then again it would be disappointing to see what essentially is a party-band playing stadiums or not playing at all due to grotesque wealth!
April 15 2010 at 9:35 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplySounds like they need to self produce and self release their next CD. I read somewhere years ago when Ricky Skaggs started self-releasing his own CDs he said he made more money selling 15,000 self-released CDs than he did selling millions of CDs when he was recording for a major label. I applaud Fred and the B-52s for their long career.
April 15 2010 at 9:30 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Replyso whats new
i was supplying bands in the 70s with sound systems and and quite offten the band was in the back band room in the club smoking pot and doing coke while we were packing up after the show and they would always say gee we dont make alot playing . they usually got 1500 to 2000 a nite IN THE 70S were talking after paying sound crew and roadies they would get about 750 to 1300 not bad for 4 PIECE BAND oh jee cocane is so expensive who cares about there guys drugs will clean u out of your money very quickly
The B52's are a quirky music icon. Great old music. They used to be really progressive and hot. Apparently, they didn't invest their money, nor save any of it.
It sounds like he wants to retire, but can't. Can he live on $60,000.00 a year, $100,000.00 a year? Maybe not. How much a year does it take to live up to his standard of living? He could get by, but he doesn't want to, apparently. He said he is not a multi-millionaire, so is he a single millionaire?
If his house is paid off, he still needs funds to maintain it. Not sure who would even go to a B52's concert these days. Maybe they'll have to get another group to headline for them, and they can open.
I feel for him when he said he can't show his house on MTV's "Crib". Is it in disrepair? Time to use the money to fix up the house and invest in Federal CD's ( Certificates of Deposit) or put it into real estate.
If he's broke, he doesn't say so, and he is still getting royalties from the bands top hits. He'll be okay. He's basically sayiing that he is being forced to back on tour, reluctantly, because he needs to repair his house and maintain his standard of living. So?
He had his glory days, and now he has to rehash them.
Good luck with that.
Not surprised. After paying to make the record, paying producer Nile Rogers, management, @#^!**@)! lawyers, co-publishers, and then spliting 4 ways with a band, little is left over. Catchy tune. Cool band. He enjoys what he does. He's really not complaining if you read the story closely. I know what it costs to hire them to play. It's alot. I admire him for doing nothing else but music for over 30 years.
April 15 2010 at 8:55 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI think he's doing a lot better than he could be - I heard Fred was dead...
April 15 2010 at 8:51 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyCompared to the way that Chuck Berry, Little Richard (whose song rights were never theirs), and even the Beatles (due to poor contractual advice) got financially hosed despite turning out what was arguably the best- and world changing- music in history, this comes off sounding like poor mouthing. At least the B52s got the royalties; pissing them away on other things instead of wisely investing or saving isn't anybody else's fault.
April 15 2010 at 8:50 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply











27 Comments