how much were the rolling stones paid for the super bowl?
140383
i agree with johnc even if they did it for free it was tooo much cause the sucked
1170686
The band came into being in 1962 when former schoolmates Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met Brian Jones, who named the band after the title of the Muddy Waters song "Rollin' Stone". The original line-up included Mick Jagger (vocals), Brian Jones (guitar, harmonica, vocals), Keith Richards (guitar, vocals), Ian "Stu" Stewart (piano), Dick Taylor (bass) and various drummers such as Mick Avory (later of The Kinks) and Tony Chapman. Taylor left shortly after to return to art school, and was later to form The Pretty Things. He was replaced by Bill Wyman. Because the Stones were not too pleased with their first "official" drummer Tony Chapman, they hired some temporary replacements to play in their first gigs. One of them was the influential drummer Carlo Little, who was with Cyril Davies All Stars. Charlie Watts, a drummer more interested in jazz than blues or rock and roll, joined the Stones in January 1963 as their new permanent drummer.\n\nUnited by their shared interest in rhythm and blues music, the group rehearsed extensively, initially playing in public at the Marquee Club in London, where Cyril Davies's rhythm and blues band was resident. They soon got their own residency at The Crawdaddy Club in Richmond, which was run by Russian emigre Giorgio Gomelsky, and began to establish themselves as London's premier live act, even being honoured with a visit from The Beatles. At first, Brian Jones, a guitarist who also toyed with numerous other instruments, was their creative leader, despite Mick Jagger increasingly becoming the focus during live performances. The band rapidly gained a reputation for their frantic, highly energetic covers of the rhythm and blues songs of their idols and, through their recently appointed sharp young manager Andrew Loog Oldham, were signed to Decca Records (who had passed when offered The Beatles).\n\nBy the time of their first single release; a cover of Chuck Berry's "Come On", Ian Stewart was, at the insistence of Andrew Oldham, not officially listed as part of the band, though he continued to record and perform with them. Another of Oldham's ideas was to convince Keith Richards to drop the s from his last name to become "Keith Richard", matching the surname spelling of British pop star Cliff Richard.\n\nThe choice of material on their first, self-titled EP, reflected their live shows. Similarly, the album The Rolling Stones (England's Newest Hitmakers), which appeared in April 1964 featured versions of such classics as "Route 66" (originally recorded by Nat King Cole), "Mona" (Bo Diddley) and "Carol" (Chuck Berry). The performances were pivotal in introducing a generation of white British youth to rhythm and blues music, and helped to fuel the "British Invasion" of America. More importantly perhaps, while The Beatles were still suited, clean-cut boys with mop-top haircuts, The Stones cultivated the opposite image: decidedly unkempt, and posing for publicity photographs like a gang of surly yobs. This made many girls go crazy for their bad boy image, and soon made them a teen idol group. The follow-up album, The Rolling Stones #2 (Now in the United States), was also composed mainly of cover tunes, only now augmented by a couple of songs written by the fledgling partnership of Jagger and Richards, having been locked in a room by their manager, who refused to let them out until they had written something they could release. Encouraged by Oldham, the band toured Europe and America continuously, playing to packed crowds of screaming teenagers in scenes reminiscent of the height of Beatlemania. While on tour, they took time to visit important locations in the history of the music that inspired them, recording the EP Five By Five at the studios of Chess Records in Chicago, Illinois.\n\nOn June 30, 1965, the Stones released the album "Out of Our Heads". The US version included the so
94723
Its all about the Rolling Stones. They still have it after almost 40 years.
441691
The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones.
684289
A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!\n\nYou could make up to $700 dollars on that. (If its really from 1906) (700 dollars is the absolute MAX. I'm not saying that much could be payed)\nBut at least $250\nIts the team with the best record in history and...\nIts the CUBS!!!!
789322
I'll be missing out on something important tonight.\nWe had tickets for the Stones concert tonight, but they changed it to tomorrow night, and I have to work, so I can't go.\nWe should be seeing the Stones TONIGHT.
474031
Haha whatever you gotta say to help yourself sleep at night hun. Tell you what, I will personally send you $100 if the Seahawks win the Super Bowl next year little Miss "fire_side". Actually, i will give you $50 if they even make it to the super bowl.  I say this because i know this simply wont happen.  Alexanders gonna get hurt in preseason.  You watch!  ;)
1115931
How about The Rolling Stones! I think they had a sold out some years ago!
88220
becks got a lot advertising money.\n\nStevie Gerrand (liv) and F Lampard (Chel) I believe are the higest paid lads in England
1166902
led zepplin the who the stones
66452
About 12 Dallas (dollars)\nFun for me thanks!
68464
My guess is Michael Vick, who last season signed a 10-year $130 million dollar contract with the Falcons. (Compare that to 1986 when Dan Marino became the highest paid NFLer - at the time - with a 6-year $9 million contract!) Highest $$ per year though may be different.
569581
Ronaldinho enjoyed an annual revenue of 23 million euros ($28.47 million), said France Football, which added up the salaries, bonuses, sponsorship deals and other sources of income for each player.\n\nBeckham follows with a total of 18 million, down from 25 million the previous year. Brazil and Real Madrid forward Ronaldo is in third place, having pocketed 17.4 million euros while England and Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney is fourth in the list with an income of 16.1 million euros.
229062
It cost $400,000 to make it.\nAs of January 1st, 2006, it had made $44.5 million.\n\nNot too shabby, huh?
552806
surely must have cost a lot for all the publicity the world cup gathers
22552
1. "Scream"\nCost: $7,000,000+\nArtist: Michael Jackson (featuring Janet Jackson)\n\nMichael Jackson's videos have always been ridiculously expensive. In 1983, he spent $800,000 on "Thriller," which would be about $1.4 million today. But remember that before "Thriller," no one even came close to spending that kind of money, and he had to do it with limited technological capabilities. As technology improved, Jacko's videos became more expensive, spending over $1.2 million on "Black or White" in 1992, and even more on "Remember The Time." But if he can keep an oxygen chamber, a petting zoo, the Elephant Man's bones, and an entire plastic surgery team in his mansion, it's certainly no biggie to drop another $7 mil on a video with his sister.\n\n"Scream's" $7,000,000 price tag is more than twice as much as the next most expensive music video (Puff Daddy's "Victory" at $2.7 million), and it's easy to see why: he spent $5 million alone on 11 sets. Yet while watching the video, it all seems incredibly wasteful, not coming close to the film quality of "Thriller", "November Rain," or "Victory."\n\n    * Computer-generated spaceship: $65,000\n    * Breaking guitars: $53,000\n    * Morphing artworks: $50,000\n    * Michael's makeup: $3,000\n    * Janet's makeup: $8,000 a day\n    * Choreography: $40,000\n    * Giant video screen: $80,000\n    * Lighting: $175,000\n    * Cost per day: $636,000 (about 11 days)\n    * Total cost of 11 sets: $5,000,000
248609
Easiest way to find out is to go to eBay and see. Type in Rod Woodson Autograph Card and see what people are paying. Being a defensive player who doesn't play anymore I'd be surprised it it's over $10 though.