Would U2 be able to make another stadium tour in America?

[Bastian]

I'm disappointed that U2 won't do any stadium tour in America on the 3rd leg, just another ordinary arena one.
I believe that the band could fill again stadiums in America after the big success of the Elevation tour just like the glorious days of ZooTv.

Bruce Springsteen and Rolling Stones still do that,

It's a shame U2 give up in the competition they do best:

the live experience....

....what do you think about?

 

[ybird3k]

Ye I think they could definately do stadiums in the US. They could even do mainly arenas with just a few stadiums.

I think that U2 would rather have a sell out Arena Tour than play stadiums that they may not be able to fill.
though it would still be better to sell 40-50 thousand in a 60000 stadium then sell 30000 in a 30000 Arena.

 

[U2girl]

I think they could do it in markets where they played 3-4 shows in a row on the Elevation tour.

That said: were the stadiums they play always the same size or did they play bigger stadiums on Popmart than Zoo TV or Joshua Tree tour? Did they play stadiums for american football or baseball?

 

[Vox02]

U2 can sellout stadiums on this markets:

-NY&East Rutherford (maybe 4-5 nights)

-DC

-Boston (maybe 2-3 nights)

-Hartford

-Miami (2 nights if they don't play in Tampa or Jacksonville)

-Houston

-Dallas

-Tempe/Phoenix

-Salt Lake City

-Los Angeles (maybe 2 nights)

-Bay Area (Oakland, SF, San Jose)

-Vancouver

-Toronto (2 nights?)

-Montreal

-Atlanta

-Denver

-Chicago (3 nights)

-Edmonton/Calgary

Vox

 

[Bastian]

U2 can sellout stadiums on this markets:

-NY&East Rutherford (maybe 4-5 nights)

-DC

-Boston (maybe 2-3 nights)

-Hartford

-Miami (2 nights if they don't play in Tampa or Jacksonville)

-Houston

-Dallas

-Tempe/Phoenix

-Salt Lake City

-Los Angeles (maybe 2 nights)

-Bay Area (Oakland, SF, San Jose)

-Vancouver

-Toronto (2 nights?)

-Montreal

-Atlanta

-Denver

-Chicago (3 nights)

-Edmonton/Calgary

Vox

If it's so why they don't play stadiums in America anymore?

 

[Vox02]

I don't know!

One of the main problems is that U2 can't sellout stadiums in markets like Carolinas, Nebraska, or even Las Vegas.. Or Wisconsin, Indianapolis and Detroit (last stadium soldout in Detroit: 1987! ZooTV and PopMart failed and only sold 30,000+ tickets). But an a single or double arena dates are more easy to sellout and the global image of the tour in that case is "U2 soldout EVERY date of this tour".

Vox

 

[NoControl]

The reason why U2 aren't peforming in Stadiums anymore in North America is because there are only 10 markets tops where they could sellout or mainly fill Stadiums at today's prices that are at an average of $100.

They include:

Mexico City - Autodromo (40,000)
Anaheim (Los Angeles area) - Angel Stadium (2 shows...70,000)
San Francisco - SBC Park (40,000)
Chicago - Soldier Field (2 shows...85,000)
Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field (55,000)
Landover (Washington, DC area) - FedEx Field (40,000)
Boston - Fenway Park (2 shows...70,000)
New York/NJ area - Giants Stadium (3 shows...150,000)
Montreal - Parc de Drapeau or Olympic Stadium (40,000)
Toronto - Rogers Centre (40,000)

The above would easily change if they dropped their ticket prices...but hell has a better chance of freezing over than that happening.


The way the first leg of the Vertigo tour is scheduled makes it look like U2's more popular than they really are here. For example:

U2 aren't playing Vegas or Mexico (at least yet), so there's two shows in Phoenix - where there wouldn't be demand to sellout two shows at these prices otherwise. U2 aren't playing in Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, so there's two shows in Vancouver - where there wouldn't be demand for two shows at these prices here otherwise. They aren't playing Portland until the very last part of the year, so there's two Seattle shows - where there wouldn't be demand for two shows at these prices otherwise. U2 isn't playing Kansas City or even SLC until very late in the year, so there's two shows in Denver - where there wouldn't demand for two sellout shows otherwise.

I've gotta admit, U2 are sheer brilliant business men. I definitely wouldn't have thought to schedule a tour like this...

 

[knox]

I really think they could have, and should have, come up with a crazy Vertigo-Atomic Bomb outdoor stage and used it in Europe - and then brought it back here for September. It doesn't get too cold here in September, and they would have had time to play a stadium show or two with the spectacular awesomeness in the larger markets before returning to arenas.

 

[zoo99]

U2 could play minimum 2 (stadium) shows in Toronto, 2 in Montreal, 2 in Edmonton, 1 in Winnipeg, and 1 in Vancouver so thats 5 markets in Canada alone.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

The reason why U2 aren't peforming in Stadiums anymore in North America is because there are only 10 markets tops where they could sellout or mainly fill Stadiums at today's prices that are at an average of $100.

They include:

Mexico City - Autodromo (40,000)
Anaheim (Los Angeles area) - Angel Stadium (2 shows...70,000)
San Francisco - SBC Park (40,000)
Chicago - Soldier Field (2 shows...85,000)
Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field (55,000)
Landover (Washington, DC area) - FedEx Field (40,000)
Boston - Fenway Park (2 shows...70,000)
New York/NJ area - Giants Stadium (3 shows...150,000)
Montreal - Parc de Drapeau or Olympic Stadium (40,000)
Toronto - Rogers Centre (40,000)

The above would easily change if they dropped their ticket prices...but hell has a better chance of freezing over than that happening.


The way the first leg of the Vertigo tour is scheduled makes it look like U2's more popular than they really are here. For example:

U2 aren't playing Vegas or Mexico (at least yet), so there's two shows in Phoenix - where there wouldn't be demand to sellout two shows at these prices otherwise. U2 aren't playing in Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, so there's two shows in Vancouver - where there wouldn't be demand for two shows at these prices here otherwise. They aren't playing Portland until the very last part of the year, so there's two Seattle shows - where there wouldn't be demand for two shows at these prices otherwise. U2 isn't playing Kansas City or even SLC until very late in the year, so there's two shows in Denver - where there wouldn't demand for two sellout shows otherwise.

I've gotta admit, U2 are sheer brilliant business men. I definitely wouldn't have thought to schedule a tour like this...

Most predictable post of the year goes to..

 

[Dima]

i don't understand why you want U2 to play stadiums: honestly i don't think music should ever be played in a huge venue like a stadium....i don't know what's exciting in being forced to wacth a band from 150 meters or even more: if i were in you i'd feel fortunate to have an arena tour (instead of a stadium tour like we have in Europe)...trust me: an arena is much better than a Stadium for music

An Arena is the biggest place music should ever be played.

 

[beLIEve]

Agreed - stadiums too big

i don't understand why you want U2 to play stadiums: honestly i don't think music should ever be played in a huge venue like a stadium....i don't know what's exciting in being forced to wacth a band from 150 meters or even more: if i were in you i'd feel fortunate to have an arena tour (instead of a stadium tour like we have in Europe)...trust me: an arena is much better than a Stadium for music

An Arena is the biggest place music should ever be played.

I've seen U2 in a stadium twice, compared to 7 arena shows. Is there anyone who would rather see them in a 80,000 person stadium where vision and sound sucks? I agree 100% on this one...and I don't think U2 will be criticized for "Not being able to sell out stadiums".

Truth is, it's always been hard to sell out stadiums. The U.S. Sports craze, of which I know little, is one of the reasons every city over here has at least a 20-40K size arena, making multiple stops easier and yes, guaranteeing U2 a good payday. However, we as fans benefit most from Arena Rock versus Stadium.

I'll agree that scenes from Slane, Wembley, Mexico City, and other places are amazing, but other than the real heavy U2 markets in N.A., the atmosphere in the stadium show I saw was lame, confused, & NOT 80K people singing and jumping in unison. I HAVE been lucky enough to get that feeling at most arena shows!

 

[Bastian]

i don't understand why you want U2 to play stadiums: honestly i don't think music should ever be played in a huge venue like a stadium....i don't know what's exciting in being forced to wacth a band from 150 meters or even more: if i were in you i'd feel fortunate to have an arena tour (instead of a stadium tour like we have in Europe)...trust me: an arena is much better than a Stadium for music

An Arena is the biggest place music should ever be played.

Of course the arenas are perfect for the acoustics,
but can you imagine the awesomeness of a spectacular outdoor stage?
for Christ's sake remember ZooTv,
go and watch again Live from Sidney!

The crazy stage, the concept behind it blow your mind away!

I want another ATOMIC stage just like the blowing ZooTv experience I couldn't enjoy! (was 12 and didn't even know U2... )

And then again I'd really like to see U2 top the tour history record,

they are 4th now with in order:

1. Rolling Stones

2. Pink Floyd

3. Guns 'n' Roses

over them

at least let's beat Guns 'n' Roses and reach the Top 3 af all time !

So U2 could definitely be remember as the greatest Live Band on earth....!

 

[fitz]

I think times are changing, U2 is now more interesting for a lot of people compared to the "Pop-Time". For example the stadium in Munich was sold out in 2 hours. The last time U2 played in Munich's Olympiastadion (i think 1992) the show wasn't sold out! So I assume, that U2 have no problems to sold-out the most stadiums in the states at this time!

 

[beLIEve]

I agree that U2's popularity, especially for live shows, has gone way back up. And yes, my favorite concert was POPMART, but that's because I had front row seats at Clemson, and there were 22,000 fans in an 80,000 seat stadium...plus the space on the field, which is where we were, standing on our chairs. By that time, all the bugs had been worked out and they had a unique, mono-based sound system that did well outside.

I got lucky with front row tickets in Chicago at the United Center this fall, and since this tour is supposed to be quite a combination of lighting and effects, maybe I'll have something to compare it to. Still, I know I'll be dry, warm, and comfortable indoors...but damn we sure do have to pay for it.

And regardless of who ends up with the Top Grossing tour of all-time, U2 is already regarded as the best live act ever IMO. If they do indeed extend this tour into 2006 to go back to R.O.W., especially Austrailia, then this may end up being the highest grossing tour of all-time, period. One thing that does skew demand, though, is the extraordinary number of U2 fans who go to like 5, 10, or sometimes 20 shows. That blows me away, and I don't know the extent of this type of fandom, but I do remember Bono and other band members commenting on how they saw many of the same people in the Heart night after night on the Elevation Tour. I had to crack up at someone who was bitching about Prop Members getting "seniority" rights for the most recent presale, only to have a list of the 14 shows he was going to ALREADY in his signature.

Regardless, demand for live U2 is up, and they could sellout more stadiums, play less shows, and perhaps gross more if it was combined with the planned extensive arena rock tour. I still would be looking for the closest arena...

 

[Bastian]

I agree that U2's popularity, especially for live shows, has gone way back up. And yes, my favorite concert was POPMART, but that's because I had front row seats at Clemson, and there were 22,000 fans in an 80,000 seat stadium...plus the space on the field, which is where we were, standing on our chairs. By that time, all the bugs had been worked out and they had a unique, mono-based sound system that did well outside.

I got lucky with front row tickets in Chicago at the United Center this fall, and since this tour is supposed to be quite a combination of lighting and effects, maybe I'll have something to compare it to. Still, I know I'll be dry, warm, and comfortable indoors...but damn we sure do have to pay for it.

And regardless of who ends up with the Top Grossing tour of all-time, U2 is already regarded as the best live act ever IMO. If they do indeed extend this tour into 2006 to go back to R.O.W., especially Austrailia, then this may end up being the highest grossing tour of all-time, period. One thing that does skew demand, though, is the extraordinary number of U2 fans who go to like 5, 10, or sometimes 20 shows. That blows me away, and I don't know the extent of this type of fandom, but I do remember Bono and other band members commenting on how they saw many of the same people in the Heart night after night on the Elevation Tour. I had to crack up at someone who was bitching about Prop Members getting "seniority" rights for the most recent presale, only to have a list of the 14 shows he was going to ALREADY in his signature.

Regardless, demand for live U2 is up, and they could sellout more stadiums, play less shows, and perhaps gross more if it was combined with the planned extensive arena rock tour. I still would be looking for the closest arena...

When I talk about the top tours af all time I don't mean the Gross,

I don't care at all about how much U2 gain for their concerts,

I'm talking about ATTENDANCE....

...Tickets sold to the public....

What makes a tour really Big is how many people attend to it.

So Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd and Guns 'n' Roses biggest tours reached more people than any U2 one.

 

[Dima]

So Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd and Guns 'n' Roses biggest tours reached more people than any U2 one.

i don't think so...5+ million gig goers of the zootv is surely in all time top 3.

BTW this exluding the NET (Never Ending Tour) by Bob Dylan: average of about 70-90 concerts per year starting from 1987 till now (the NET is still going on...yes 18 years of continuos tours)

 

[Vox02]

i don't think so...5+ million gig goers of the zootv is surely in all time top 3.

BTW this exluding the NET (Never Ending Tour) by Bob Dylan: average of about 70-90 concerts per year starting from 1987 till now (the NET is still going on...yes 18 years of continuos tours)

I think Pink Floyd 87-89 and 94 tours, and Rolling Stones 89-90 and 94-95 sold more than 5.3 million tickets (the total attendance of ZooTV).

Vox

 

[U2girl]

Longer tours and higher prices sure help having grossed more than U2 to the Stones. (and touring best of and live albums)

BTW, I think they use some of the same crew members so that is why they very rarely tour at the same time.

 

[bsp77]

Stadium concerts suck anyway, so who cares?

 

[pinkasu2]

I LOVE U2, I DON'T CARE WHERE I SEE THEM. MY FIRST SHOW WILL BE 11/19 ATLANTA!THIS IS THE FIRST TIME EVER SEEING THEM CAUSE TIX ARE HARD TO GET. BEEN A FAN SINCE 1983. I WOULD PAY TO SEE THEM PLAY BEHIND A DUMSTER AT WAL-MART!

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I LOVE U2, I DON'T CARE WHERE I SEE THEM. MY FIRST SHOW WILL BE 11/19 ATLANTA!THIS IS THE FIRST TIME EVER SEEING THEM CAUSE TIX ARE HARD TO GET. BEEN A FAN SINCE 1983. I WOULD PAY TO SEE THEM PLAY BEHIND A DUMSTER AT WAL-MART!

I reckon the acoustics would be better!

It would smell about the same.

 

[Yahweh]

Rolling Stones are a naustalgia act and havent put out an album in over 20 years that people want to hear. U2 sells 10 times as many albums these days and sells just as many tickets on tour as the Rolling Stones at comparable prices. If you want to listen to a cabaret band go to the Rolling Stones if you want to go see a band that is still relivent and making new music that is just as moving as its old stuff go to U2.

 

[NoControl]

Rolling Stones are a naustalgia act and havent put out an album in over 20 years that people want to hear. U2 sells 10 times as many albums these days and sells just as many tickets on tour as the Rolling Stones at comparable prices. If you want to listen to a cabaret band go to the Rolling Stones if you want to go see a band that is still relivent and making new music that is just as moving as its old stuff go to U2.

That's totally incorrect. The Rolling Stones are a larger draw than U2, period. The Stones have always had higher prices than U2. And for example, on their last tour in 2002-03, they charged an average of $105 worldwide. U2's average ticket price in 2001 was $67 worldwide. This year U2's average price worldwide will be around $95 and The Stones' will be at least $125-150.

U2 have sold 135 Million albums worldwide. So have the Stones.

 

[ybird3k]

Lets be realistic here, the stones are a crock of shite that should have retired about 20 years ago.

 

[NoControl]

Lets be realistic here, the stones are a crock of shite that should have retired about 20 years ago.

I agree.

 

[Soldatti]

Lets be realistic here, the stones are a crock of shite that should have retired about 20 years ago.

They are Rolling Stones inc. since 1989, a touring machine playing all its hits for people who wish they'd been around when Exile came out.
But they invented the tour bussines and they are #1 on that:
1989-90 tour: 6.200.000 attendance, $150 m. gross
1994-95 tour: 6.500.000 attendance, $321 m. gross
1997-99 tour: 5.700.000 attendance, $345 m. gross
2002-03 tour: 3.500.000 attendance, $300 m. gross

The Stones will tour again this year in August (opening with two nights at Fenway Park) this time with new album. Let's see what happens...

 

[Yahweh]

They always like to go against U2 touring so it doesnt surprise me that they are touring calling themselves the greatest tour on earth again as usual.

 

[NoControl]

But they invented the tour bussines and they are #1 on that:
1989-90 tour: 6.200.000 attendance, $150 m. gross
1994-95 tour: 6.500.000 attendance, $321 m. gross
1997-99 tour: 5.700.000 attendance, $345 m. gross
2002-03 tour: 3.500.000 attendance, $300 m. gross

The Stones will tour again this year in August (opening with two nights at Fenway Park) this time with new album. Let's see what happens...

There are a few minor inconsistances in these figures. But they're mainly right.

For example, for the Licks tour in 2002-03: the attendance was really slightly less than 3 Million, not 3.5 Million. 496,000+ of the additional tickets were from the SARS Benefit concert. So the actual average price for this tour was $101, not $105 like I stated earlier in this thread.

Secondly, the Bridges To Babylon tour in 1997-98 and No Security tour in 1999 were two seperate tours.

And finally, the gross figure for the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour in 1989-90 seems a bit low. Because to my knowledge the average ticket price for this tour was around $30.00...at least for the North American shows. And it would seem quite odd that if this info is correct that the average price worldwide was only $24.00 and would've made the rest of the shows in European and Japan on this tour only an average of $16.50. That can't be right...

 

[Soldatti]

There are a few minor inconsistances in these figures. But they're mainly right.

For example, for the Licks tour in 2002-03: the attendance was really slightly less than 3 Million, not 3.5 Million. 496,000+ of the additional tickets were from the SARS Benefit concert. So the actual average price for this tour was $101, not $105 like I stated earlier in this thread.

Billboard 2003 box score year end report:
1. The Rolling Stones
$299,520,230 3,521,217 (115 shows, 69 sell out)

The Attendance for the SARS concert was 490,952, so the total attendance for the last Stones tour was 3,030,265.
The average ticket price was $350, $50 for U.S and $200, $50 (Euros) for Europe.

Secondly, the Bridges To Babylon tour in 1997-98 and No Security tour in 1999 were two seperate tours.

Yes, but they toured Europe in 1999 under the name "Bridges To Babylon" still. The No Security tour was U.S only.
The tour started on September 1997 and ended June 1999, according to Rolling Stone.

And finally, the gross figure for the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour in 1989-90 seems a bit low. Because to my knowledge the average ticket price for this tour was around $30.00...at least for the North American shows. And it would seem quite odd that if this info is correct that the average price worldwide was only $24.00 and would've made the rest of the shows in European and Japan on this tour only an average of $16.50. That can't be right...

Maybe you're right because the North American tour did $98 million and the Japanese tour did $20 million with 10 sell out shows at Tokyo Dome. The right number must be $180 million but I'm not sure.