Biggest Grossing Tours Of All Time

[Moggio]

1. Why would the Stones or Madonna knowingly choose to schedule a tour in a way that would make less money?

Who says that would happen? And if it did, maybe that's because The Stones and/or Madonna aren't as gung-ho as U2 are, in trying to break records and claim they're hugely popular? Again, it's obviously a new business model, so who knows? But in the case of Madonna, she obviously doesn't want to play more than 50-60 shows per tour, or at least per year. And her tour schedules from the past reflect that.

2. For The Stones and Madonna's openers, are you assuming they are contributing on average 10% to the overall gross?

For the criteria we agreed to for their next tours? Then yes.

 

[Moggio]

A "major change" after predictions? You made these predictions already knowing about the mythical effect of strategic scheduling. So are you now claiming that your $90 million prediction is going to be embarrassingly off based on openers alone? LOL

It won't be that far off. First of all, that $90 million was predicted for 2010 and was for U2 only. Today, that would be about $95 million, considering inflation and accumulative album sales. Secondly, because of heavy strategic scheduling, WHICH markets are hit is key. Some of the markets I scheduled are vastly different and affect other nearby markets that are actually being scheduled. Not to mention how SLC and Winnipeg went on sale MONTHS after Denver & Minneapolis despite the fact they're playing them during the same leg, which NO ONE would've predicted beforehand. Or how St. Louis and a few others were added very late, etc.

You STILL haven't provided a detailed breakdown of each U2 360 openers gross contribution by show, I wonder why you don't want to go into detail?

You still haven't listed in detail how the Stones will gross $300 million in Europe, other then stating "they just will"(your version of a factual statement).

Why? Maoil and several others here aren't going to agree with it. And then if I did post the info, all that would happen would be more arguments making this thread even longer than it already is. All you need to know are the overall estimations.

I have to say that since your $90 million prediction was made after the initial US dates were announced, it's much more embarrassing then your $400 million over 100 date prediction. It is as if you are becoming more and more inaccurate as time goes by. Can't wait to see that $1.7 million gross from SLC either! LOL

You keep comparing those particular predictions but aren't considering the obvious major change of criteria. If heavy strategic scheduling didn't exist, I can GUARANTEE you my above predictions, not including the SLC show, would be VERY close to what U2 alone would've grossed.

You remind me of the Iraqi Information Minister who in 2002 while US tanks were within miles of Bagdad kept saying " there is no invasion. We are defeating the US" and then disappeared once those troops reached the capital. I wish someone would post a picture of him in honor of you.

You remind me that you're so far out of your depth, that I don't even know why you're in this conversation.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

.



Why? Maoil and several others here aren't going to agree with it. And then if I did post the info, all that would happen would be more arguments making this thread even longer than it already is. All you need to know are the overall estimations.

.[/COLOR][/FONT]

I would like to see your market by market break down that gets you to $300 million for the Stones over two legs in Europe.

I'll tell you what, if you post it, I will agree not to make any comments on it! I just would like to see how you get to over $300 million for the Stones with a market by market break down like I did over two legs, in Europe. I could only get to $240 million.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Who says that would happen? And if it did, maybe that's because The Stones and/or Madonna aren't as gung-ho as U2 are, in trying to break records and claim they're hugely popular? Again, it's obviously a new business model, so who knows? But in the case of Madonna, she obviously doesn't want to play more than 50-60 shows per tour, or at least per year. And her tour schedules from the past reflect that.



.

I'm just saying that Live Nation NEVER schedules artist in such a way that they would make less money. The number of shows or length of tour may be capped by the artist, but after that, Live Nation does everything it can to bring in the maximum gross for any artist that it works with.

The Stones have been trying to set the tour record virtually every time they go out on the road. The idea that they don't care is absurd. If they didn't care about that, there is no way in hell they would do a tour of nearly half empty stadiums in Europe for the last leg of A Bigger Bang. The only reason someone does that is to pad the overall totals. U2 are stopping at 110 shows unlike the Stones who did 143 shows on their last tour. U2 restricting themselves to playing only stadiums in 360. The Stones played Stadiums in 270, arena's in 360, arena's in 270, music halls, and theaters. Ultimately, they came closer to meeting all the demand for them in the market than U2 has on 360.

Madonna's Sticky And Sweet Tour had 85 shows which is a lot more than 50 or 60. Plus, if there are less shows, it should have a positive impact on the AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW which would allow us to estimate how much the artist would have grossed with a longer tour.

 

[Moggio]

I would like to see your market by market break down that gets you to $300 million for the Stones over two legs in Europe.

I'll tell you what, if you post it, I will agree not to make any comments on it! I just would like to see how you get to over $300 million for the Stones with a market by market break down like I did over two legs, in Europe. I could only get to $240 million.

But you don't make good on your promises...

 

[Moggio]

I'm just saying that Live Nation NEVER schedules artist in such a way that they would make less money. The number of shows or length of tour may be capped by the artist, but after that, Live Nation does everything it can to bring in the maximum gross for any artist that it works with.

All I was saying is that it's not that simple.

The Stones have been trying to set the tour record virtually every time they go out on the road. The idea that they don't care is absurd. If they didn't care about that, there is no way in hell they would do a tour of nearly half empty stadiums in Europe for the last leg of A Bigger Bang. The only reason someone does that is to pad the overall totals. U2 are stopping at 110 shows unlike the Stones who did 143 shows on their last tour. U2 restricting themselves to playing only stadiums in 360. The Stones played Stadiums in 270, arena's in 360, arena's in 270, music halls, and theaters. Ultimately, they came closer to meeting all the demand for them in the market than U2 has on 360.

That's not necessarily true. You'd have to ask The Stones personally. Also, since there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of tickets left for most of the remaining 360 tour dates, I don't see how you could say with certainty that The Stones were closer to meeting all the demand than U2 were. And lastly, the only reasons why The Stones played a few select small venues, that were both in NYC, was a) a benefit show for the Robin Hood Foundation at Radio City Music Hall (6,000), where the ticket prices were INSANELY high. And b) for the filming of Martin Scorsese's Stones doc, entitled, "Shine A Light", at the Beacon Theater (2,800) for two nights.

Madonna's Sticky And Sweet Tour had 85 shows which is a lot more than 50 or 60.

I said her previous tour schedule clearly shows she only plays 50-60 shows per tour, OR AT LEAST PER YEAR.

Plus, if there are less shows, it should have a positive impact on the AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW which would allow us to estimate how much the artist would have grossed with a longer tour.

That's not necessarily true either. That would depend on WHICH markets are hit.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Also, since there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of tickets left for most of the remaining 360 tour dates, I don't see how you could say with certainty that The Stones were closer to meeting all the demand than U2 were.

[/U].

U2 have 110 shows on this tour and essentially every show has been either soldout or at least filled up and were talking a 360 configeration in a stadium, which is incredible. By contrast the Stones did 143 shows on the last tour and struggled to fill arena's in 270 configeration in some markets and played to nearly half empty stadiums in Europe on the last leg of the tour. When the venue capacities are smaller and the shows have so many unsold seats vs, the tour with the highest average attendance in history per show, its a clear sign the Stones hit closer to the saturation point than U2 has on 360. An average of 65,000 fans per show for U2 360 VS only 32,000 per show for the Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang. Its a massive difference.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

But you don't make good on your promises...

What do you base that on? This is the first promise I've made in the forum. I just want to see how you get to over $300 million for the Stones in Europe with stats for each market.

 

[cobl04]

I think Moggio is starting to wear down... his team are asking him if he wants them to throw in the towel... but the stubborn fighter he is, he just keeps on swinging. Could an end be in sight?

Spoiler

No. Absolutely not.

 

[robbrecon72]

The Rolling Stones are just as competitive in this business as U2 are. they have always tried to best u2 when it comes to touring. When Mick Jagger saw the zoo tv show at the RDS he told Paul M, "F*$#, this is like star wars. this is going to cost us money, because if you do a show like this, we have to spend even more money on our next show." so Paul mentions the stones have had state of the art productions time and time again, then the interviewer said, "it's a shame they havent released state of the art albums time and time again"..lol that is definitely true. I really like the stones, but u2 have crushed them musically in the past 20 years and have topped them in touring as well. of course this is just an opinion, except for the touring of course. anyone who thinks u2 is not the top concert draw now is competely delusional...lol


30 remarkable years: Why McGuinness has been good for U2

 

[alexvox]

Expected attendance per show in Mexico: 110.000, according to several local newspapers

El U2 360° Tour aterriza en México | El Economista

U2 backstage

 

[Moggio]

U2 have 110 shows on this tour and essentially every show has been either soldout or at least filled up and were talking a 360 configeration in a stadium, which is incredible. By contrast the Stones did 143 shows on the last tour and struggled to fill arena's in 270 configeration in some markets and played to nearly half empty stadiums in Europe on the last leg of the tour. When the venue capacities are smaller and the shows have so many unsold seats vs, the tour with the highest average attendance in history per show, its a clear sign the Stones hit closer to the saturation point than U2 has on 360. An average of 65,000 fans per show for U2 360 VS only 32,000 per show for the Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang. Its a massive difference.

ONCE AGAIN, there are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TICKETS LEFT for most of the remaining 360 tour dates. So trying to say with absolute certainty that The Stones saturated more markets than U2 have is ABSURD. AND ONCE AGAIN, HEAVY STRATEGIC SCHEDULING COUPLED WITH INCLUDING MOSTLY ARENA LEVEL OPENERS WASN'T UTILIZED ON THIS SCALE when The Stones were on their A Bigger Bang tour between 4-6 years ago. Not to mention that The Stones' draw in most worldwide markets INCREASES with each tour and hence the A Bigger Bang tour stats are slightly out of date. So making the above comparisons are also ABSURD. But yet DOZENS OF PAGES LATER, you still act like that's not a factor.

 

[Moggio]

What do you base that on? This is the first promise I've made in the forum. I just want to see how you get to over $300 million for the Stones in Europe with stats for each market.

Based on the fact I'm familiar with your spins, manipulations, misquotes, misinterpretations, lies...and have debated you for YEARS...

 

[Moggio]

The Rolling Stones are just as competitive in this business as U2 are. they have always tried to best u2 when it comes to touring. When Mick Jagger saw the zoo tv show at the RDS he told Paul M, "F*$#, this is like star wars. this is going to cost us money, because if you do a show like this, we have to spend even more money on our next show." so Paul mentions the stones have had state of the art productions time and time again, then the interviewer said, "it's a shame they havent released state of the art albums time and time again"..lol that is definitely true. I really like the stones, but u2 have crushed them musically in the past 20 years and have topped them in touring as well. of course this is just an opinion, except for the touring of course. anyone who thinks u2 is not the top concert draw now is competely delusional...lol


30 remarkable years: Why McGuinness has been good for U2

1. Again, whether The Stones are as competitive as U2, is debatable. And beside the point.

2. The Rolling Stones are still the largest active touring band in the world. That is a FACT. And ANYONE who's read all 55 pages of this thread, should know that by now, for more than obvious reasons. There are only two other people on this forum who study the concert business as thoroughly as I do. Those two are U2FanPeter and Maoil. And I know both of them know that The Stones are still technically #1. U2FanPeter and I are objective. While Maoil is, well, Maoil...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

ONCE AGAIN, there are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TICKETS LEFT for most of the remaining 360 tour dates. So trying to say with absolute certainty that The Stones saturated more markets than U2 have is ABSURD. AND ONCE AGAIN, HEAVY STRATEGIC SCHEDULING COUPLED WITH INCLUDING MOSTLY ARENA LEVEL OPENERS WASN'T UTILIZED ON THIS SCALE when The Stones were on their A Bigger Bang tour between 4-6 years ago. Not to mention that The Stones' draw in most worldwide markets INCREASES with each tour and hence the A Bigger Bang tour stats are slightly out of date. So making the above comparisons are also ABSURD. But yet DOZENS OF PAGES LATER, you still act like that's not a factor.

Well, as has been clearly shown by multiple members in this forum, you have exaggerated these factors, sometimes grossly. There is no 10% rule for openers, The Stones opening acts on average have higher drawing ability than U2's, some are even stadium level acts, the Stones have to a degree strategically scheduled their last tour as well, Live Nation does everything it can to maximize the gross of any artist it works with.

Bottom line, Madonna is not going to gross anywhere near $900 million on a tour starting in 2013. The Stones are unlikely to top U2 360 on their next tour unless they announce it as their last tour or play more than 110 shows.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Based on the fact I'm familiar with your spins, manipulations, misquotes, misinterpretations, lies...and have debated you for YEARS...

Well, thats not stating that I have broken a promise that was made. You claim that you have done a market by market assessment which shows the Stones could have grossed over $300 million in Europe from two legs of the A Bigger Bang Tour in 2006-2007. I would just like to see how you got to that number. The fact that you won't post anything even after I have promised not to make any comments on it is further proof that this claim is hot air.

The Rolling Stones could not GROSS over $300 million in Europe on A Bigger Bang. YOU KNOW THAT! Otherwise, you would not be avoiding the issue like the plague.

Unless you can back up the wild claim with some numbers per market on how they could reach that number, it will remain probably the wildest thing you have ever said in here.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Well, lets review the numbers one more time before U2 adds nearly $170 million in gross from their 2nd North American leg:

U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE

GROSS: $580,454,297
ATTENDANCE: 5,570,560
Average Gross: $6,828,874
Average Attendance: 65,536
Average Ticket Price: $104.20
Shows: 85
Sellouts: 85

THE ROLLING STONES - A BIGGER BANG TOUR 2005-2007

GROSS: $558,255,524
ATTENDANCE: 4,680,000
Average Gross: $3,903,885
Average Attendance: 32,727
Average Ticket Price: $119.29
Shows: 143
Sellouts: 82

Madonna -Sticky & Sweet Tour 2008-2009

GROSS: $407,713,266
ATTENDANCE: 3,545,899
Average Gross: $4,796,626
Average Attendance: 41,716
Average Ticket Price: $114.98
Shows: 85
Sellouts: 84


U2 is the king of the concert business and you won't find anyone disputing that point in the media. There is no knowledgable person in the concert business or that reports on the concert business that would dispute that. Ray Waddell who reports on the concert business for Billboard even said that the only artist that would top U2 360 is U2. Ray suggested the Stones would have to heavily increase their ticket prices without seeing any decline in attendance in order to be able to top and Arthur Fogal suggested that large numbers of concert dates would be another way but that would also be impractical. Keith Richards also hinted that the Stones may no longer do stadiums anymore which suggest that their concert drawing ability may even be declining. Overall, Only disgruntled fans of other bands on internet forums disagree that U2 are the kings of the concert business.

 

[U2FanPeter]

U2 did not have ANY 2011 plans in the Spring of 2009. Stones and Madonna outings are just as well planned and managed as anything U2 have ever done.

Pre-Injury, what year/month were u2 going to play South America and Mexico?

You could say that about the Beatles, although it will NEVER happen. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin are much further down the list. Both of them have a rather limited touring history compared to U2. The vast majority of Led Zeppelin's shows were in arena's. In fact, it appears Zep only ever did about 15 stadium shows in their entire career. Pink Floyd benefited enormously by being off the road for most of the 10 years between the Animals Tour and Momentary Lapse of Reason Tour. Their last two tours functioned more as re-union tours than a tour by an active band producing its best material.

For the 2 "Trio Pink Floyd" tours 16-24 years ago over 40% of each tours setlist was newer stuff. More than the current 360 setlist.

You can't pad your gross on a concert tour when you restrict yourself to only playing stadiums.

Selling tickets for less than what you sold them on Joshua/ZooTv(adjusted for inflation) is the definition of "padding" one's gross/attendance. That and selling a total of upwards of 25,000 tickets per show for around $55 OR LESS - something I'd be very surprised to see the Stones/Madge ever do.

How come Muse only played one show at Madison Square Garden in March 2010? I mean, since they were more popular like you said by then, why did they only book one show like they did on their last leg in 2007?

MSG cost an arm & leg to rent on tours so acts play fewer nights there and choose one of the other dozen arenas in the NYC area.

EVERYONE remember that Snow Patrol, interpol, and Florence In The Machine are mega arena acts in North America! LOL

Flo's non-U2 American itinerary this summer is nothing to sneeze at. All headlining except last one is a double bill with Black Keys

06/12/11 Berkeley, CA Greek Theatre
06/13/11 Los Angeles, CA Greek Theatre
06/14/11 Los Angeles, CA Greek Theatre
06/17/11 Apple Valley, MN Minnesota Zoo Amphitheater
06/18/11 Chicago, IL Aragon Ballroom
06/20/11 Philadelphia, PA Festival Pier
06/23/11 Boston, MA Bank Of America Pavilion
06/24/11 New York, NY Rumsey Playfield / Central Park Park 06/30/11 Orlando, FL Hard Rock Cafe / Hard Rock Live
07/01/11 Atlanta, GA Fox Theatre
07/04/11 Indianapolis, IN Lawn At White River State Park Park 07/05/11 St. Louis, MO The Pageant
07/06/11 Milwaukee, WI Marcus Amphitheater

MOGGIO, U2's visits on 360 to Australia, New Zealand, South America, and Mexico resemble their visits there on past tours going all the way back to ZOO TV. They also resemble tours by other artist over the past 20 years in these markets in terms of the cities that got shows.

You claimed that strategic scheduling was a new model, but these are the standard cities played when just about any artist visits these regions or countries, and its been that way for DECADES!

By the way, U2 visited the exact same cities on POPMART for Australia. Are you going to claim POPMART Australia as an example of Strategic Scheduling?

Was Puff Daddy the opener down under for Popmart?

All of U2's shows outside the United States/Canada were of course in Stadiums. All the shows were performed in a 360 configeration.

NICE was 270. DUBLIN would have probably sold out rear stage seating if not for firecode regulations.

U2 have 110 shows on this tour and essentially every show has been either soldout or at least filled up and were talking a 360 configeration in a stadium, which is incredible.

Only about 50% of 360 shows were filled to the brim "sold out". Some had upwards of 30,000 extra possible seats that could have been used.

You choose to blindly accept LN/Billboard "sell outs" and then complain about the Stones not selling a couple hundred seats in Denver.

 

[U2FanPeter]

U2 360 will have the highest gross per show of any tour-FACT
U2 360 will have the highest gross per show adjusted for inflation of any tour-FACT

AS WRITTEN, both above stats are incorrect.

In 2000 Streisand toured 2 continents in ARENAS with an average of $7mil per show. That is not adjusted for inflation.

I also think the dozen or so 3 Tenors Stadium shows may also be a contender to compete for average gross, but Billboard only got sent a couple boxscores.

Gross-$160,000,000 (north america record)
Attendance-1,600,000

What's your inflation math on the 1984 Jacksons tour doing $75mil in the US in one year?

Lady Gaga has the biggest tour ever for a debut artist. she'll probably eventually top madonna in the tour market. her tour has grossed $227.4 million and sold 2.5 million tickets.

A lot is riding on how well fans react to the new album officially released this month. It's leaked in it's entirety and the first 2 singles/videos have only received a "decent" response by her standards. Don't think she's broken Britney's all time records yet.

 

[U2FanPeter]

Like I said, Madonna not playing South America before 2008 does not necessarily boost her draw there.

Girlie Show played South America in 1993

But to answer your second ridiculous question: because maybe just maybe, U2 asked Muse, who are on their current touring cycle, to open for them to boost their ticket sales gross instead?!

So what? For example, and ONCE AGAIN, not ONE Muse album has even gone Platinum in the US, yet they're currently EASILY grossing well over $500,000 per show there. And the reason why they're doing that is because their overall album sales have TRIPLED in the US since 2007 - where they were grossing roughly 1/3 of what they have been currently.

Why wouldn't U2 just save a couple hundred grand a night by having Rocko & The Devils being the warmup? Wasn't there a up and coming group in 1985 that could fill arenas in the US far before album sales suggested they could?

South America is a HUGE rock market and I can't even think of ONE artist that does well in other parts of the world, that doesn't do just as well in South America, if not better. So, using other countries as examples is perfectly logical.

REM, Prince, Bruce and Oasis had varying degrees of success. Not sure any have done their own shows on the continent, just Rock in Rio or Amnesty.

1. Again, whether The Stones are as competitive as U2, is debatable. And beside the point.

Age is as factor, as is how much the band their close families like one another also plays into it. Madonna with 3 young kids hates long tours.

 

[U2FanPeter]

In fact, lets look at how many global tours before this were actually all stadiums shows in 270, or nearly all stadium shows in 270.

1. Rolling Stones Steel Wheels 1989-1990
2. Rolling Stones Voodoo Lounge 1994-1995
3. Pink Floyd Division Bell Tour 1994
4. Genesis "I Can't Dance Tour" 1992
5. U2 POPMART Tour 1997-1998

Give MJ his due.

HIStory played 5 continents including 2 US shows.
Dangerous played 4 continents including a Mexico City record U2 will never touch.

Genesis did 2 continents
D-Bell did 2
Steel Wheels did 3
Voodoo did 5
Popmart did 5

 

[U2FanPeter]

If anyone seriously thinks that a person will pay $100+ for a 30 minute performance for an opening band is crazy.

U2 frequently choose artists that either blend with their general style, would be appreciated by their audience, or are an up and coming band. Some of these artists have had success. But rare would be the person who'd buy a ticket to a U2 concert for the opening band alone.

Second, even if 10% of the tickets were for this reason, why didn't the Stones do the same? What's stopping them?

Opening sets are closer to 40-45 minutes. When U2 have an "inventory" of 15,000 cheap nosebleeds to fill they use an opener to help them fill up, gets casual fan "fence-sitters" down to the venue. Stones don't have that kind of inventory of weird angle rear seats. We can argue this fact forever, but nobody said the fence sitters boughts the $100/250 seats or accounts for 10's of the gross, just # of people there where LN think they may need it.

 

[U2FanPeter]

Well, as has been clearly shown by multiple members in this forum, you have exaggerated these factors, sometimes grossly. There is no 10% rule for openers, The Stones opening acts on average have higher drawing ability than U2's, some are even stadium level acts, the Stones have to a degree strategically scheduled their last tour as well, Live Nation does everything it can to maximize the gross of any artist it works with.

Bottom line, Madonna is not going to gross anywhere near $900 million on a tour starting in 2013. The Stones are unlikely to top U2 360 on their next tour unless they announce it as their last tour or play more than 110 shows.

Is there a full list of Bigger Bang opening acts online? Metallica and Pearl Jam only did about a city each for the Stones, while other cities got crap like Blue October, 54-40 and Bonnie Raitt.

 

[CosmoKramer]

AS WRITTEN, both above stats are incorrect.

In 2000 Streisand toured 2 continents in ARENAS with an average of $7mil per show. That is not adjusted for inflation.

I also think the dozen or so 3 Tenors Stadium shows may also be a contender to compete for average gross, but Billboard only got sent a couple boxscores.

I meant that those are records for a large scale tour(75 date min). I went back to my quote and I didn't write that, so I take ownership on that. The reason being, if U2 or the Stones or Madonna only played 20-40 WW shows, their averages would be massively inflated. Again, I didn't write that initially, so that is on me.

With that said, perhaps I am still mistaken, how many dates did Babs play? I do believe the Tenors only played about 30 dates or less WW.

 

[fedeu2]

ONCE AGAIN, there are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TICKETS LEFT for most of the remaining 360 tour dates. So trying to say with absolute certainty that The Stones saturated more markets than U2 have is ABSURD. AND ONCE AGAIN, HEAVY STRATEGIC SCHEDULING COUPLED WITH INCLUDING MOSTLY ARENA LEVEL OPENERS WASN'T UTILIZED ON THIS SCALE when The Stones were on their A Bigger Bang tour between 4-6 years ago. Not to mention that The Stones' draw in most worldwide markets INCREASES with each tour and hence the A Bigger Bang tour stats are slightly out of date. So making the above comparisons are also ABSURD. But yet DOZENS OF PAGES LATER, you still act like that's not a factor.

Tell the european about that supposed draw increase of the Stones in most worldwide markets. Ha ha ha ha ha!

 

[robbrecon72]

1. Again, whether The Stones are as competitive as U2, is debatable. And beside the point.

2. The Rolling Stones are still the largest active touring band in the world. That is a FACT. And ANYONE who's read all 55 pages of this thread, should know that by now, for more than obvious reasons. There are only two other people on this forum who study the concert business as thoroughly as I do. Those two are U2FanPeter and Maoil. And I know both of them know that The Stones are still technically #1. U2FanPeter and I are objective. While Maoil is, well, Maoil...

When I'm saying U2 is the top concert draw in the world I'm talking about "currently" and I've said that in prior posts. I am not denying that The Rolling Stones can once again be the top concert draw in the world if they come back and tour again. I believe I've said that before too. Also, I wouldnt be too sure if there are "tens of thousands" of tickets left for the US leg because currently the results from ticketmaster are the same as they were last year before the "back" incident happened. So, they've sold roughly 1 million tickets for the originial 16, which still puts them at an average attendance of 62,500 for the original 16 shows.
Until The Rolling Stones can break U2's gross and attendance U2 are technically #1. Doesn't matter how much you study the concert business, that is logical.

 

[robbrecon72]

Only about 50% of 360 shows were filled to the brim "sold out". Some had upwards of 30,000 extra possible seats that could have been used.

You choose to blindly accept LN/Billboard "sell outs" and then complain about the Stones not selling a couple hundred seats in Denver.

I think we all know what Live Nation's definition of "sold out" means. I would have to say after seeing videos and pics at least 85% of the stadiums were filled to the brim.

Also, what I think Maoil was trying to get at in regards to the stones stats for denver was that it is much more difficult to fill Invesco Field in a 360 configuration than it is when you can't even sell out the Pepsi Center.

The Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang Tour
November 24, 2005
Denver Colorado
Pepsi Center
GROSS: $2,707,590
ATTENDANCE: 15,091
CAPACITY: 15,385
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $179.42

were the stones indoor shows 360 or 270? because the capacity of the pepsi center is 17,210.

Last year weeks before U2 were supposed to play Invesco Field, the media there were reporting U2 had sold over 60,000 tickets.

 

[robbrecon72]

Give MJ his due.

HIStory played 5 continents including 2 US shows.
Dangerous played 4 continents including a Mexico City record U2 will never touch.

Genesis did 2 continents
D-Bell did 2
Steel Wheels did 3
Voodoo did 5
Popmart did 5

MJ played 5 shows in Mexico City on the Dangerous tour in a 270 configuration. Considering how many seats were blocked off behind the stage there was probably 75,000 fans each night tops. U2 sold out two shows on the vertigo tour in a 270 configuration and they had sold just over 70,000 per night. Look at the videos there had to be at least 30-35,000 empty seats behind the stage for both Dangerous and vertigo. U2 is about to play 3 nights in a 360 configuration that will destroy MJ's gross at Mexico City even when considering inflation.

 

[robbrecon72]

Expected attendance per show in Mexico: 110.000, according to several local newspapers

El U2 360° Tour aterriza en México | El Economista

U2 backstage

Amazing..350,000 tickets sold, 18,000 on the field each night. Look at ticket prices on ticketmaster. these 3 shows may end up topping Bruce's 10 night run in new york in terms of gross.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Is there a full list of Bigger Bang opening acts online? Metallica and Pearl Jam only did about a city each for the Stones, while other cities got crap like Blue October, 54-40 and Bonnie Raitt.

Artists playing as an introduction to the Stones at various destinations have included Toots & the Maytals, The Black Eyed Peas, Alice Cooper, Maroon 5, Beck, Pearl Jam, The Smashing Pumpkins, Alanis Morissette, Christina Aguilera, Mötley Crüe, Metallica, Bonnie Raitt, Trey Anastasio, Dave Matthews Band, Living Colour, The Living End, Joss Stone, Nickelback, Buddy Guy, The Charlatans, Feeder, the John Mayer Trio, Wilco, Richie Kotzen and Our Lady Peace among others.

A Bigger Bang Tour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As the list shows, The Rolling Stones opening acts are just as strong as any that U2 have had if not stronger.

As for Bonnie Rait, she has sold nearly 20 million albums in the United States alone. Her biggest selling album, "Luck Of The Draw" has out sold EVERY Rolling Stones album ever released.

No matter what you say about her, that is NOT a weak opening act.