was u2 biggest rock band in early 90s
- Thread starter METFIELD
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
METFIELD said:
There answer to your question is yes. U2 sold an equal amount or more albums than those bands. But more importantly, when it came to concert ticket sales, U2 blew all the above bounds out of the water. Nirvana was never able to play stadiums. Metallica and Guns were only able to play stadiums together or with a heavy support line up. Even then, their attendence per show and number of shows they could play was much smaller than what U2 did at the stadium level.
This goes for both the USA and the rest of the world at that time. By 1997 with POP U2's popularity had indeed slipped some, but so had Metallica's and Nirvana and Guns were no longer bands. U2 has been the most popular band worldwide since 1987, without let up. It is more difficult to determine if they how long they have held the title just in the United States. From 1987 through 1994, they were definitely the biggest band in the United States. Starting in late 1994 and into 1995, Pearl Jam became the biggest band in the United States. Pearl Jam fell from that position in 1996 when No Code had flat sales compared to the their three previous multi-platinum monsters. From 1996 until 2000, U2 was probably not the biggest band in the United States, but was still the biggest band worldwide. The Boy Bands captured the positions in 1999 and 2000, its difficult to say though who one would call the biggest band in the USA from 1996-1998. 2001 saw U2 recapture their crown in the United States.
METFIELD said:
I don't have the answer to that off hand, but I do have the totals for several tours.
Elevation which was all Arena's with the exception of three shows, played to 2.3 million people.
POPMART played to 4 million people.
ZOO TV played to 5.5 million people and a good part of that tour was in Arena's.
A rough estimate of the number of tickets U2 have sold in their entire career would be 18 million.
Realize though that such a number does not show the true level of popularity because the band has opted to not tour for long stretches of time when they easily could have thus swelling that total number even further.
What really determines how popular you are is how many tickets you can sell in markets a, b, and c on the brand new tour. There are many bands that can't rack up an impressive total tickets sold number from constant touring over many years, but when it comes to a new album and how many times one can fill up Giants Stadium, most of these bands can't even sellout one night there.
U2 has consistently been the 2nd most popular touring act since 1987, because of their ability to sell out stadium size venues virtually anywhere from the United States to South Africa, Australia, Japan, Europe, South America, Israel, etc. .
The number 1 touring act is of course the Rolling Stones, but U2 can actually beat the Rolling Stones in many markets to include, South America, Southern Europe, and is roughly competitive with the Stones in many markets elsewhere. Overall though the Stones still come out on top in touring.
But U2 on average sells 3 to 4 times as many albums as the Stones do, which is why overall U2 is much more popular band today than the Rolling Stones, despite the Stones having a slight lead in touring popularity.
saltwaterkiss26
War Child
In terms of numbers, it looks like they were, because of their already-formed cult following (which is why the Stones seem to be able to, well, keep rolling). But I'd say that if you say to someone on the street: Early nineties! Band! I bet they'd reply with Nirvana. They only had a few years of fame, which, I think, makes them all the more potent. And Kurt Cobain WAS that band, and since he's such an icon, the band came with him.
But U2 was definitely the BEST band of the early ninties...
But U2 was definitely the BEST band of the early ninties...
STING2 said:
It would be interesting if we could find Stones's numbers to compare, starting with Joshua Tree tour time.
I'm not sure about Stones, but I think they have longer tours than U2 which helps to sell more tickets. (for example, Popmart was about a year long, while I think Bridges to Babylon tour was longer. apart from that tour and Zoo TV, I don't think U2 ever toured over a year) I also wonder if they, like U2, play 7-8 songs of their latest album or do they rely on the older material.
I would imagine U2 at their height, Joshua Tree and Zoo TV tours, were the no.1 in both album sales and tour attendance where they filled stadiums and arenas.
I wish U2 would travel more on their tours apart from the 3 biggest markets (US-Western Europe-Australia), surely the demand would make it worthwhile.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
The three shows in the Netherlands were also in a (small) stadium. Granted, it had a roof that could be (and was) closed, but it was a soccer stadium. Then there was the show in Berlin, which was in a amphitheatre, so it was also open air. Everthing else was in an arena though.
C ya!
Marty
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Axver said:
Yep, those three plus the Elevation Arnhem shows plus the one in Berlin. So seven shows were not in arenas. But Sting had already referenced the Turin and Slane shows, so there was no need for me to mention them again.
C ya!
Marty
U2girl said:
I could dig up some Stones numbers. I have their complete Statistics for the Vodoo Lounge 1994-1995 Stadium tour and the album. I also have a lot of figures for the Bridgest to Babylon 1997-1998 tour as well, although its not as complete as the Vodoo Lounge. The Rolling Stones Steel Wheels 1989-1990 tour was their highest attended in the USA and may have been their highest attended worldwide as well.
When estimating the top touring act, its not just the tour totals at the end of the year, its also how well they did in each market (city). For example, one can make a clear comparison of the level of concert demand between any two bands in a given city by comparing the number of people who go to each show, and if there are multiple shows.
The Rolling Stones may have been the #1 touring act all these years, but their album sales were very, very far behind their touring success, which is why one could argue that they are not even one of the 10 current(past 20 years) most popular bands in the world.
U2 since 1987 has been the #2 touring act in the world. They have also been one of the top album selling acts in the world all these years. Even with POP, U2 worldwide was one of the bigger album selling artist. POP was one of the 20 largest selling albums of 1997, Worldwide. Roughly they were the #2 touring artist and the #15 album artist that year. Average those two and you have the #1 artist of that year, even though it was U2's lowest point in popularity over the past 17 years.
U2's #1 popularity stems from its unusually strong success in both the concert area and the album area, worldwide. While certain markets for U2 may have experienced heavy downturns like the USA, Australia, Germany during the POP era, their overall worldwide popularity in both concert selling and album selling combined, has kept them at the top ever since 1987, even in leaner times like POP.
It is true that during 1987 and 1992, Joshua Tree and ZOO TV tours respectively, that U2 had the #1 grossing and attended tours those years. But the Rolling Stones 1989-1990 tour was stronger than either of those tours overall, and if the Stones had wanted to they could have toured in 1987 or 1992. So, the judgement of the #1 touring act is not simply based on who was at the top at the end of the specific year in the statistics, but who could be at the top even though they were not on tour that specific year.
Overall though, U2 has held the #1 combined album and touring position, even in lean times, for the past 17 years.
Vox02
War Child
METFIELD said:
Around 18 million tickets.
Forget US market and Metallica golden years (late 80's and first 90's). In my country U2 can sold out 2-3 times several 60,000 capacity stadium and Metallica only 1-2 times several 15,000 capacity arena.
Vox
NoControl
Acrobat
You guys are forgetting Pink Floyd. They're a larger draw than U2 and The Stones and any other band in the world for that matter, apart from a few markets...
NoControl said:
Pink Floyd is not a band anymore, unless one really believes they are going to get back together. They have been essentially inactive as a band since December of 1994.
But then again this thread is about the early 1990s. It is true that the Division Bell Tour had the highest attendence of any tour in the United States in the early 1990s, but that is partly do to very smart pricing of tickets and not necessarily a stronger level of demand.
The band would normaly charge high prices for the best 20% to 30% seats and then the price was dramatically slashed for the other 70% of the seats to around 20 dollars. It was perfect. Die Hards purchased the high priced seats, while casual fans or the curious public scooped up the comparitively super cheap seats.
On the Momentary Lapse of Reason Tour, U2's Joshua Tree and the Rolling Stones Steel Wheels both had better attendence figures for similar markets than Pink Floyd had.
The Division Bell Tour did not play anywhere in South America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand or Japan. U2 went into three of these markets on ZOO TV and the Rolling Stones went into all 6 markets on Vodoo Lounge.
The Pink Floyd Division Bell Tour played North America and Europe and thats it. In Ireland, Pink Floyd was forced to cancel their Division Bell Concert there because they failed to sell enough tickets. In the United Kingdom, Arena's, all in London were played. As for shows on mainland Europe, I do not have exact statistics, but I have all their statistics for North America on that tour.
The Division Bell was not a massive hit album, although it certainly did well, with around 5 to 6 million in global sales.
NoControl
Acrobat
STING2 said:
They're a band and they haven't called it quits.
Wrong. It's because PF are a larger draw, period. Their prices weren't low at all. In 1994 they were mainly between $30 & $75. That's not cheap at all for 1994's standards.
That's incorrect for the most part regarding U2 and partly true for the Stones.
Philadelphia, New York City, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Sydney, Melbourne, Lexington, Dallas, Houston and Cleveland were among the many markets where Floyd outdrew U2 by a long margin in 1987-88.
The Stones did draw more than Floyd in few markets but not that much more. And anyways, each Stones tour has resulted in lower attendance since the late eighties, while each Floyd tour since then has drawn consistently more.
And if the Floyd would've played there they would've drawn more than the Stones & U2. PF broke attendance records at the Sydney Entertainment Center with 9 nights (110,000) & 8 nights at the Melbourne Tennis Center (115,000) in early 1988.
Floyd performed 14 arena shows (200,000 plus) at Earl's Court in London and could've played many more but they wanted to get the tour over but October. And if you look at the DB tour stats when comparing them to the Stones' VL tour stats, you'll see that only the Edmonton and Chicago shows outdrew Floyd by a large margin.
The Division Bell has sold 7 million copies to date. And neither Zooropa or Pop considered massive successes.
Pink Floyd have sold more albums worldwide than Stones or U2.
Pink Floyd is the biggest draw in the world overall.
shaun vox
New Yorker
ever one knows, pink floyed is bigger than u2!
and more rocknroll!
but u2,s a great band!
and more rocknroll!
but u2,s a great band!
NoControl said:
I could say THE POLICE are still a band and have not called it quits.
I have the tour statistics for every Pink Floyd Show in North America and when I have the time, I'll gladly break it down for you show by show. I have the exact ticket prices, GROSS figure, and Attendence figure for every show on the tour.
I'll have to look back at the Momentary Lapse of Reason tour statistics, but I do know that in Philadelphia, both bands played JFK Stadium in 1987. JFK stadium is a very large stadium and can hold as many as 91,000 people depending on how many the promoters try to fit in without causing crowd problems.
U2s show at JFK stadium, their first in the Philadelphia area in 1987 was within a month of the Pink Floyd date. The results were that U2 played a soldout show of 86,145. Pink Floyd failed to sellout and their attendence topped out at 75,000. Thats a clear cut comparison of the drawing power of both bands in nearly the same time slot in the 4th largest market in the United States, and U2 was ahead by 11,000!
There is no evidence which shows that Pink Floyd would be a bigger draw than U2 or the Stones in South Africa or South America. The fact that they have never played there is in fact suggestive that they would not be able to even come close to replicating the success they had in other area's.
Both U2 and The Stones have done the multiple nights in Sydney and Melbourne as well as several other parts of Australia. U2 has played multiple Stadium shows in both Sydney and Melbourne, Pink Floyd has not and failed to even show up in Australia on the Division Bell.
One of the main reason Division Bell outdrew Voodoo Lounge was because Voodoo Lounge had significantly higher ticket prices. Nearly every show the Rolling Stones played on the Voodoo Lounge in North America resulted in them picking up the GROSS Money record for that venue. If the Stones had just been going for strong attendence figures, a pricing strategy the same as Pink Floyd's would have yielded better attendence results.
Playing Earls Court 14 times for a band the size of PinkFloyd on a Stadium tour is not a sign of success comparitive to other acts that play multiple stadium shows in the same market as well as many other markets in England and Scotland as well. Its also very troubling that Pink Floyd would have to cancel a single show in Dublin because they failed to sell enough tickets. The British Isles were clearly a little weaker for the band than their drawing power in North America and mainland Europe.
I never stated that Zooropa and POP were "Massive Successes". Clearly U2's popularity did take a dip in the late 1990s, but Pink Floyd was no longer active as a band anymore.
As exact international figures for total sales are hard to come by, it is difficult to determine if Pink Floyd has in fact sold more albums than either U2 or the Stones. In the United States, Pink Floyd has clearly sold more albums than U2 and it is likely that may be as well worldwide. Pink Floyd is a much older band than U2 and has more albums, so that is not surprising. U2 on the other hand has sold more albums than Pink Floyd has since 1987. In total sales overall album sales though, I'd have to go with the Stones, since their USA sales, once you discount RIAA rules which count each Wall album sales as 2 album sales, are actually a little higher than Pink Floyd's. I also notice that the "Wall Album" did not have nearly the success and longevity in the United Kingdom and probably Europe too as that album did in the United States based on the length of time The Wall Charted on the United Kingdom album charts. Dark Side Of the Moon's success though is pretty universal worldwide.
The total album sales thing though is not really the point in this thread since were dealing with overall popularity at a given point in time. Thats always based on concert drawing power and album sales equally. Pink Floyd is very big on the concert drawing power side, but has not been enormously big on the album selling side since 1980.
As far as who is really a bigger concert draw overall worldwide, I'd say all the evidence points to U2. In addition, Promoter Michael Cohl who has worked with and promoted all three bands has said that the only band that is stronger in the concert business than U2 worldwide is the Rolling Stones.
NoControl
Acrobat
No you coludn't. They OFFCIALLY broke up.
So do I, so save you time and forget it. There's only a few markets where the Stones drew more than Floyd overall. On the Steel Wheels tour '89-'90 the dates where they drew more than Floyd in '87-'88, those markets weren't consistent and have receded with succeeding tours since then. For example, The VL tour was less attended in North America than the DB tour was and only Edmonton, Chicago, Atlanta and Oakland were they a bigger draw than Floyd in 1994.
Pink Floyd played JFK Stadium and two nights at Veterans' Stadium in Philly on the AMLOR tour in '87-'88 and sold 180,000 tickets! Enough said already. I think I've proven my point here.
Well, I disagree. The fact that Floyd have sold 180 million albums worldwide to date is evidence enough.
No band has sold more tickets in Sydney and Melbourne Australia on one single tour than Pink Floyd. They are attendance records.
No true at all. Floyd's prices weren't that much cheaper than The Stones' in 1994.
Ok, Pink Floyd were never scheduled to play in Ireland in 1994. And your assumptions don't prove a thing.
NoControl said:
No there was NEVER an official break up of the Police.
Pink Floyd came back to Philadelphia 8 to 9 months later to play two shows at Vet Stadium. U2 could have potentially done the same thing. When comparing the two bands single show attendence figures at JFK stadium only a month apart, U2 came out ahead by 11,000. Thats a much better comparison of demand than assuming U2 would not be able to return to Philadelphia 9 months later and play to anyone. If anything, the JFK comparison shows that U2 could have come back to Philadelphia 9 months later and done slightly more business than Pink Floyd did.
The fact that Pink Floyd has sold millions of albums is not evidence that they could play Stadiums in South America, South Africa and other places they have not played. ACDC has sold over 60 million albums in the USA, but they cannot do a Stadium tour. Ones ability to do a stadium tour is based on CURRENT popularity at that given time and NOT a bands overall career popularity in terms of total albums sold.
Any band that can play multiple Stadium shows in Melbourne and Sydney could easily eclipse the multiple night stands by Pink Floyd in those cities in the small arena's. U2's 8 night stand in Melbourne on the Lovetown tour at the same venue had a higher per show number of people with 112,000 than Pink Floyds.
The Rolling Stones price for "hard to sell stadium tickets" was nearly 3 times that of what Pink Floyd charged. The Rolling Stones charged primarily a standard ticket price of around 50 dollars for all seats regardless of where they were. Pink Floyd wisely charged high prices 60 dollar and 75 dollars on easy to sell, gone before you know it, the best seats in the stadium amounting to around 20% to 30% of all tickets sold. They then slashed prices below where they were on "Momentary" tour when adjusted for inflation. It is probably the best pricing strategy I have ever seen for a Stadium tour ever. The die hards payed heavily but without resistence for the high priced seats and the casual fans and General public scooped up the low priced seats with ease.
Pink Floyd's own touring book says they tried to put on a show in Dublin which was cancelled due to poor ticket sales. Poor ticket sales in Ireland and no shows in Scotland or the North of England and only Arena shows in London I do not think are simply coincidences.
I could see the Dark Side of the Moon selling 1 million copies worldwide in a year but not in the United States, and Soundcan shows that. The Wall sales have not kept up as of late and in fact, the Wall is often way down the catalog Soundscan chart in the United States often only selling 2,000 or 3,000 copies a week. Soundscan tracks 95% of all sales in the United States every week. If the Wall has figures of over a 1 million sales a year its coming from overseas and I'd like to see statistical evidence of that fact in order to believe it.
The Final Cut, Momentary Lapse of Reason and Division Bell are Pink Floyd's studio releases since 1980 and these studio albums are what determined what Pink Floyd's current album popularity was in 1983, 1987-1989 and 1994. A bands current popularity is determined by their latest tour and latest album sales. Your only as hot as your LATEST product!
Michael Cohl was refering to attendence and Gross all over in every market on the planet for concert tours. If he had just been talking about the United States, he naturally would have put Pink Floyd ahead of U2 because of their successful Division Bell tour in 1994. By the way, Michael Cohl said this about U2 in 1997 during POPMART!
NoControl
Acrobat
STING2 said:
Yes there was. I've seen numerous interviews with Sting stating that. They hate each other.
Well, that's your opinion and I don't agree. On U2's biggest tour, Zoo TV, they drew around 105,000 in Philly. Pink Floyd SOLD OUT JFK Stadium to 80,254 and another 100,000 for two nights at Veterans' Stadium on the AMLOR tour. Clear and by far mor popular than U2.
That's not necessarily true. Pink Floyd could easily sellout Stadiums in South America. Any band who's sold 180 million could do so. And your comparison with AC/DC is way off because the Floyd have sold 180 million records.
Wrong. U2 and the Rolling Stones are just about the only ones that can play Stadium shows and they didn't eclipse Floyd's attendances in those markets. Floyd played to more than 112,000 in Melbourne in 1988. And if they played Australia on the DB tour they would've at least equaled that, if not played to 25-35% more fans, tantamount to most of the rest of their markets on the DB tour.
Wrong yet again. Floyd's prices mid-level prices were around $30-40 on the DB tour. Not much less than the Stones'. And the AMLOR tour's top prices were $20-25. You've got to get your facts straight. The Stones pricing every seat at $50 and the Floyd having them between $30-75 is the same thing.
Floyd's schedule for the European leg of the DB tour didn't have any room for addtional dates for the ones they've already scheduled. Well, actually there was a two week break in late September/early October but Slane Castle doesn't stage concerts at this time in the year. So, I believe your info is wrong.
And after performing 199 shows on the AMLOR tour, Floyd didn't want to tour longer than 6-7 months in 1994 - that's why they didn't play just about everywhere, like on their previous tour.
Give me a break. It's well known that these two are huge catalog sellers. And that's not even including Floyd's other albums.
Not necessarily true. TDSOTM and The Wall are just a part of today's music culture than ever before. So is Wish You Were Here and Animals.
Well, let's see, apart from a dozen or less markets (Edmonton, Chicago, Japan, Oakland and very few others) Pink Floyd can out draw ANY band in the world, compared to any other band's last tour. The DB tour and the AMLOR tours both sold 5.5 million tickets. THe DB tour sold 3 million tickets in North America alone! And if they had played South America, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa and possibly South East Asia on the DB tour like the Stones did, they would've topped 6.5 million plus. And Floyd once again, even with increasing their prices each tour have consistently sold MORE tickets since day one. While the Stones have consistently sold LESS tickets with higher ticket prices with each tour since the eighties.
Pink Floyd is the biggest drawing band in the world.
Last edited:
NoControl
Acrobat
METFIELD said:
It's more like 13 years and that's the total for 3 or 4 tours. Floyd could surpass that with two of their tours combined.
NoControl said:
01/07/2001 SALES FIGURES OF THE YEAR
According to SoundScan sales figures Metallica remain rock music's biggest catalog seller, with more than 3.31
million copies sold of their various albums in the past year.
The Black Album also remains the 3rd best selling record since the start of SoundScan (early 1990's).
The biggest-selling soundtrack of the year was the "Mission:Impossible 2". 1.33 million copies were sold.
. Metallica
$39.1 million
Metallica rank with the beatles in the top five catalog sellers of the year, with 1.6 million copies of their old albums moving in the U.S. The band's new album, St. Anger, did all right, too, selling more than 1.5 million in the U.S. With catalog sales so strong, their label, Elektra, has no chance to drive down royalty payments with the usual record-company charge-backs for marketing and unsold units. When their deal came up for renewal, Metallica negotiated a royalty rate well above two dollars a unit. The Summer Sanitarium Tour grossed close to $50 million in the U.S.; gigs at big European festivals earned the band close to $1 million a night.
NoControl
Acrobat
METFIELD said:
I'm talking about overall sales. Metallica hasn't sold 180 million albums worldwide, have they?
NoControl
Acrobat
METFIELD said:
Still doesn't prove anything.
tkramer
War Child
Sting2, I wouldn't bother arguing with No Control, as he's never wrong. In his own mind... 
I do have one thing to add:
Pink Floyd? Are you kidding me? Pull your head out of your stats man.
You could MAYBE argue they were on a level with U2 10 years ago, but ONLY in a touring capacity and only in certain circumstances. Who really cares if PF sold more tickets in one specific city or U2 sold more in another? They were both monolithic touring machines. PF’s total attendance is their only victory in an argument like this.
BUT here’s my point:
DB was (is) a horrible album. Critics hated it, and most fans (including myself) agree it saw a once relevant act coughing and gagging to the finish line of its career. And since this thread is about which band was the “biggest” in the early 90’s you have to put in several factors, not just attendance factors. Relevancy matters in an argument like this.
A. Baby was a masterpiece AND it sold like gangbusters. U2 was bigger in part because it actually mattered that they were touring.
Don’t give me catalog sells #’s. Don’t tell me DSOTM is great album. This thread is about the early ninties, and by then Floyd was a joke, selling tickets on the backs of songs they wrote in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
Shine On You Crazy Diamond...
I do have one thing to add:
Pink Floyd? Are you kidding me? Pull your head out of your stats man.
You could MAYBE argue they were on a level with U2 10 years ago, but ONLY in a touring capacity and only in certain circumstances. Who really cares if PF sold more tickets in one specific city or U2 sold more in another? They were both monolithic touring machines. PF’s total attendance is their only victory in an argument like this.
BUT here’s my point:
DB was (is) a horrible album. Critics hated it, and most fans (including myself) agree it saw a once relevant act coughing and gagging to the finish line of its career. And since this thread is about which band was the “biggest” in the early 90’s you have to put in several factors, not just attendance factors. Relevancy matters in an argument like this.
A. Baby was a masterpiece AND it sold like gangbusters. U2 was bigger in part because it actually mattered that they were touring.
Don’t give me catalog sells #’s. Don’t tell me DSOTM is great album. This thread is about the early ninties, and by then Floyd was a joke, selling tickets on the backs of songs they wrote in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
Shine On You Crazy Diamond...
Dr_Macphisto
War Child
heh... gotta love all the Pink Floyd tradtionalists
