Stadiums in the US?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Johnovox said:


I hope that was a joke. U2 is far more popular than Metallica, even in the US.

I have no doubt that a US stadium tour with this album would be successful. That said, I think arenas in the US (with corresponding higher ticket prices under clear channel) and stadiums in Europe is probably the best way to go.

metallica is the most popular and important band in the modern rock music world.they are household name and icon.metallicas success is alot more important than u2.while metallica is hard and heavy.u2 is pop and soft rock.

also metallica is more influental band than u2 in music history.they influenced millions of musicians includes death metal to soft alternetif rock bands
 
erdem_ataköy said:


metallica is the most popular and important band in the modern rock music world.they are household name and icon.metallicas success is alot more important than u2.while metallica is hard and heavy.u2 is pop and soft rock.

also metallica is more influental band than u2 in music history.they influenced millions of musicians includes death metal to soft alternetif rock bands
What are you basing that lot on then? The fact that they are your favourite band?

U2 are the biggest band in the world - the rolling stones, pink floyd and to a lesser extent metallica are all relying on past glories and reputation to get bums on seats. The strength of U2's current material will guarantee this tours sucess - thats pretty admirable.
 
erdem_ataköy said:


metallica is the most popular and important band in the modern rock music world.they are household name and icon.metallicas success is alot more important than u2.while metallica is hard and heavy.u2 is pop and soft rock.

also metallica is more influental band than u2 in music history.they influenced millions of musicians includes death metal to soft alternetif rock bands


Hello METFIELD. Back so soon?
 
pop sold 1 million in the us.where is u2 fans.metallica is the most popular american band ever.beatles is the most popular english band ever

DSC04551.sized.jpg


DSC04525.sized.jpg
 
I know that interests vary, but why are you touting Metallica on a U2 message board? I personally don't care about Metallica, and even if I did, I wouldn't come here to read about how popular/great/influential they are.

However, if you'd like to *compare* their success to that of U2, I'd be interested to see your information and your sources, so that you can prove yourself wrong.:bono:
 
Metallica is like Zeppelin was in the late 70's. They can not have an album, or have an album that isn't as popular as former ones and STILL fill large arenas and smaller stadiums.

Metal is just more popular with mainstream America. A decade ago, Metallica toured for 2 years nonstop and played over 200 shows.
U2 have never come close to GnR or Metallica when it comes to length and draw of tours.
And I like U2 far more than either of those bands.
 
Last edited:
jedi Larry said:
Metallica is like Zeppelin was in the late 70's. They can not have an album, or have an album that isn't as popular as former ones and STILL fill large arenas and smaller stadiums.

Metal is just more popular with mainstream America. A decade ago, Metallica toured for 2 years nonstop and played over 200 shows.
U2 have never come close to GnR or Metallica when it comes to length and draw of tours.
And I like U2 far more than either of those bands.

I'm a huge Metallica fan but you guys are crazy if you think they surpass U2 in terms of popularity and filling concerts.

I went to both 2 out of 3 of the local metallica shows in the NYC area(they played 2 in LI and one in the meadowlands) and one 1 bought 4 seats together the week before the show and the one in NJ I bought 2 tix the day right before the show so you tell me if that would be even remotely possible had it been U2.

As for Metallica filling stadiums, they ALWAYS play as part of a bigger concert i.e the GNR tour or Lincoln Park and Limp Biscuit playing with them.

And as somebody previously mentioned Metallica is amoung the many living on past fame.They did 2 songs from a 21 song setlist from their most recent album(with good reason) and all the rest we're all songs out of their prime unlike U2 who's album is selling very strong and who will perform 6-7 songs off of an 11 song new album.

This debate isn't even a debate.No comparison.
 
Yes they are more popular in the states(which was my argument if you'll check) and no I'm not crazy.

They did play a part in the huge Monsters of Rock shows in the late 80's-early 90's, but they have had four massively successful main act tours in the 90's which saw them playing places U2 has never, ever been to.

And Metallica sells more records stateside than U2. They play every nook and cranny in the states while U2 plays multi-dates in the metro areas and hit and run shows elsewhere.

Would you like a stateside attendance and concert list comparison?

And playing 6-7 new songs doesn't even equal half their set. The rest will be....SHOCK....old songs! Hits! Shock......Gasp.....:drool:

BTW, some will argue U2 has spent the last two albums "trading on past glories".

Look at this tour schedule and look at all the wide array of places they played and the great coverage worldwide. When was the last time U2 toured like this? Never. They've had better coverage for certain parts of the world in past tours, but never all in one. And Metallica tours like this all...the...time.


Madly In Anger World Tour '03-'04

Date Venue, City, Country/State
6 Nov 2003 Yoyogi Taiikukan, Tokyo, Japan
7 Nov 2003 Yoyogi Taiikukan, Tokyo, Japan
9 Nov 2003 Ice Arena , Sapporo, Japan
11 Nov 2003 Saitama Arena, Tokyo, Japan
13 Nov 2003 Osaka Castle Hall, Osaka, Japan
14 Nov 2003 Rainbow Hall, Nagoya, Japan
2 Dec 2003 Spektrum, Oslo, Norway
3 Dec 2003 Spektrum, Oslo, Norway
5 Dec 2003 Preussag-Arena, Hannover, Germany
6 Dec 2003 Gelredome, Arnhem, Netherlands
8 Dec 2003 Hallenstadion, Zurich, Switzerland
9 Dec 2003 Palais Omnisports de Bercy, Paris, France
11 Dec 2003 Palamalaguti, Bologna, Italy
13 Dec 2003 Messehalle, Erfurt, Germany
14 Dec 2003 Maimarkthalle, Mannheim, Germany
16 Dec 2003 Cologne Arena, Cologne, Germany
17 Dec 2003 Sportpaleis, Antwerp, Belgium
19 Dec 2003 Earls Court Arena, London, United Kingdom
20 Dec 2003 Earls Court Arena, London, United Kingdom
31 Dec 2003 The Joint, Las Vegas, NV, USA
16 Jan 2004 Ericsson Stadium , Auckland, New Zealand
18 Jan 2004 Parklands , Gold Coast, Australia
19 Jan 2004 Entertainment Centre , Brisbane, Australia
21 Jan 2004 Entertainment Centre , Sydney, Australia
23 Jan 2004 Showgrounds , Sydney, Australia
24 Jan 2004 Showgrounds , Sydney, Australia
26 Jan 2004 RAS Showground , Melbourne, Australia
28 Jan 2004 Myer Music Bowl , Melbourne, Australia
30 Jan 2004 Royal Showground , Adelaide, Australia
1 Feb 2004 Claremont Showground , Perth, Australia
27 Feb 2004 Rehearsal Show, San Francisco, CA, USA
2 Mar 2004 America West Arena , Phoenix, AZ, USA
3 Mar 2004 T.C.C. , Tucson, AZ, USA
5 Mar 2004 The Forum , Los Angeles, CA, USA
6 Mar 2004 The Forum , Los Angeles, CA, USA
8 Mar 2004 Cow Palace , San Francisco, CA, USA
10 Mar 2004 Arco Arena , Sacramento, CA, USA
11 Mar 2004 Lawlor Events Center , Reno, NV, USA
13 Mar 2004 Thomas and Mack Center , Las Vegas, NV, USA
14 Mar 2004 Save Mart Center , Fresno, CA, USA
18 Mar 2004 Rose Garden , Portland, OR, USA
20 Mar 2004 Boise State Pavilion , Boise, ID, USA
21 Mar 2004 Spokane Arena , Spokane, WA, USA
23 Mar 2004 Rexall Place , Edmonton, Canada
24 Mar 2004 Saddledome , Calgary, Canada
26 Mar 2004 GM Place , Vancouver, BC, USA
28 Mar 2004 Key Arena , Seattle, WA, USA
30 Mar 2004 Casper Events Center , Casper, WY, USA
31 Mar 2004 Pepsi Center , Denver, CO, USA
20 Apr 2004 Nassau Coliseum , Uniondale, NY, USA
21 Apr 2004 Nassau Coliseum , Uniondale, NY, USA
23 Apr 2004 Charlotte Coliseum , Charlotte, NC, USA
24 Apr 2004 Roanoke Civic Center , Roanoke, VA, USA
26 Apr 2004 Norfolk Scope Arena , Norfolk, VA, USA
28 Apr 2004 Freedom Hall , Louisville, KY, USA
29 Apr 2004 Van Andel Arena , Grand Rapids, MI, USA
1 May 2004 US Bank Arena , Cincinnati, OH, USA
2 May 2004 Alliant Energy Center , Madison, WI, USA
6 May 2004 Saddledome , Calgary, Canada
7 May 2004 Saskatchewan Place , Saskatoon, Canada
9 May 2004 Winnipeg Arena , Winnipeg, Canada
11 May 2004 Kemper Arena , Kansas City, MO, USA
12 May 2004 Qwest Center , Omaha, NE, USA
14 May 2004 Ford Center , Oklahoma City, OK, USA
15 May 2004 Alltel Arena , Little Rock, AR, USA
26 May 2004 Parken , Copenhagen, Denmark
28 May 2004 Olympic Stadium , Helsinki, Finland
30 May 2004 Ullevi , Gothenburg, Sweden
31 May 2004 Slaski Stadium , Chorzow, Poland
2 Jun 2004 Download Festival , Glasgow, Scotland
4 Jun 2004 Parque Bella Vista , Lisbon, Portugal
6 Jun 2004 Download Festival , Donington Park, United Kingdom
8 Jun 2004 Sudweststadion , Ludwigshafen, Germany
10 Jun 2004 Arena Auf Schalke , Gelsenkirchen, Germany
11 Jun 2004 Aerodrome 04 Festival , Wiener Neustadt, Austria
13 Jun 2004 Olympic Stadium , Munich, Germany
15 Jun 2004 Partizan Stadion , Belgrade, Serbia
16 Jun 2004 Weserstadion , Bremen, Germany
18 Jun 2004 Letzegrund Stadium , Zurich, Switzerland
19 Jun 2004 La Romareda Stadium , Zaragoza, Spain
21 Jun 2004 Ajax Arena , Amsterdam, Netherlands
23 Jun 2004 Parc des Princes , Paris, France
25 Jun 2004 RDS , Dublin, Ireland
29 Jun 2004 Stadio Euganeo , Padova, Italy
1 Jul 2004 T-Mobile Park , Prague, Czech Republic
2 Jul 2004 Werchter Festival , Werchter, Belgium
4 Jul 2004 Egilshollin , Reykjavik, Iceland
16 Aug 2004 Xcel Energy Center , St. Paul, MN
17 Aug 2004 Fargodome , Fargo, ND
19 Aug 2004 Conseco Fieldhouse , Indianapolis, IN
20 Aug 2004 Bradley Center , Milwaukee, WI
22 Aug 2004 Mark of the Quad Cities , Moline, IL
24 Aug 2004 Peoria Civic Center , Peoria, IL
25 Aug 2004 Veteran's Memorial Coliseum , Ft. Wayne, IN
27 Aug 2004 Allstate Arena , Chicago, IL
28 Aug 2004 Allstate Arena , Chicago, IL
30 Aug 2004 Hilton Coliseum , Ames, IA
1 Sep 2004 Kansas Coliseum , Wichita, KS
3 Sep 2004 Frank Erwin Center , Austin, TX
4 Sep 2004 United Spirit Arena , Lubbock, TX
21 Sep 2004 Gund Arena , Cleveland, OH
22 Sep 2004 Mellon Arena , Pittsburgh, PA
24 Sep 2004 Value City Arena , Columbus, OH
25 Sep 2004 Savvis Center , St. Louis, MO
27 Sep 2004 Resch Center , Green Bay, WI
1 Oct 2004 The Palace , Detroit, MI
3 Oct 2004 Bell Center , Montreal, Canada
4 Oct 2004 Bell Center , Montreal, Canada
6 Oct 2004 Air Canada Center , Toronto, Canada
7 Oct 2004 Corel Center , Ottawa, Canada
9 Oct 2004 Pepsi Arena , Albany, NY
10 Oct 2004 HSBC Center , Buffalo, NY
14 Oct 2004 Pepsi Colisee , Quebec City, Canada
15 Oct 2004 Pepsi Colisee , Quebec City, Canada
17 Oct 2004 MCI Center , Washington, DC
19 Oct 2004 Wachovia Center , Philadelphia, PA
20 Oct 2004 Wachovia Center , Philadelphia, PA
22 Oct 2004 Continental Airlines Arena , E Rutherford, NJ
24 Oct 2004 Fleet Center , Boston, MA
25 Oct 2004 Fleet Center , Boston, MA
27 Oct 2004 Copps Coliseum , Hamilton, Canada
28 Oct 2004 John Labatt Centre , London, Canada
5 Nov 2004 St. Pete Times Forum , Tampa, FL
6 Nov 2004 Office Depot Center , Ft. Lauderdale, FL
8 Nov 2004 Jacksonville Arena , Jacksonville, FL
9 Nov 2004 Pensacola Civic Center , Pensacola, FL
11 Nov 2004 Gaylord Entertainment Center , Nashville, TN
13 Nov 2004 Gwinnett Center , Atlanta, GA
14 Nov 2004 New Orleans Arena , New Orleans, LA
16 Nov 2004 Toyota Center , Houston, TX
17 Nov 2004 American Airlines Center , Dallas, TX
20 Nov 2004 SBC Center , San Antonio, TX
22 Nov 2004 The E Center , Salt Lake City, UT
24 Nov 2004 Sports Arena , San Diego, CA
27 Nov 2004 Arrowhead Pond , Anaheim, CA
28 Nov 2004 hp Pavilion , San Jose, CA
 
Last edited:
moscow 91 show is band members favorite show ever.why because ac dc seems headliner this tour but everyone came to saw metallica.metallica went on stage first and blown away 500.000 people.this show was the most icredible performance in music history


28sep91moscowrussiadvd08ha.jpg
 
JR#9 said:


I'm a huge Metallica fan but you guys are crazy if you think they surpass U2 in terms of popularity and filling concerts.

I went to both 2 out of 3 of the local metallica shows in the NYC area(they played 2 in LI and one in the meadowlands) and one 1 bought 4 seats together the week before the show and the one in NJ I bought 2 tix the day right before the show so you tell me if that would be even remotely possible had it been U2.

As for Metallica filling stadiums, they ALWAYS play as part of a bigger concert i.e the GNR tour or Lincoln Park and Limp Biscuit playing with them.

And as somebody previously mentioned Metallica is amoung the many living on past fame.They did 2 songs from a 21 song setlist from their most recent album(with good reason) and all the rest we're all songs out of their prime unlike U2 who's album is selling very strong and who will perform 6-7 songs off of an 11 song new album.

This debate isn't even a debate.No comparison.

as a casual metallica fan, i can say this is the best thread when it comes to this debate, right on.

I like metallica, but i love u2. who f---n cares? lets move on. take this shit to bang and clatter, this is about u2's tour.
 
barrett said:
It would make sense for some cities to get stadium shows. I think Boston, Chicago, New York, Philly and LA would sell out. Last year Springsteen sold out multiple nights in these stadiums at $75 per ticket. U2 is much bigger than Springsteen and should have no trouble selling out these shows at a reasonable price.

as big as u2 are, there's no way they could sell out giants stadium as easily as springsteen. no chance in hell. bruce sold out 10 straight shows at giants stadium. he is a god in the area. same goes with philly. and elsewhere, on the east coast especially, u2 may be bigger than springsteen, but barely. you're underestimating the popularity of the boss, big time. they're actually probably on the same level, popularity wise.

as for metallica? no way... as it's been said, the only time they play stadiums is part of a bigger tour with other popular acts. and it's easy to get tickets to their shows, through the box office even. and as for them playing a lot of sold out dates? who cares... pearl jam plays TONS of sold out dates in america and around the world. but anyone who says they're as popular as u2 is demented and insane.
 
Last edited:
bobfrombob LOL!

Headache, you're flat out wrong. They played several stadium shows throughout their Wherever I May Roam and Load tours as the headliners.

And look at album sales here in the states: Source: Billboard

Metallica's Black Album sold 10+ million
U2's Achtung Baby sold 5 million.

Metallica's Load sold 5 million.
POP sold 2-3 million

Metallica's Re-load sold 5 million
U2's ATYCLB sold 4 million

Metal acts are, and always have been, more popular than U2 or other rock acts in the U.S.
It's just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
metallica dont need other popular acts.linkin park and limp bizkit needs to metallica play stadiums.and their fans didnt went to shows because summer sanitarium tours metallicas production

when metallica headlined lollapolaza festival.soundgarden solist says now this is a metallica tour.eveyone came to saw metallica and die hards booted soundgarden on the stage like limp bizkit in chicago

and this note for all bruce sprigsteen and u2 lovers>black album released in 91 and in 2004 it sold 400,000 copies in just america

ok mayde u2 will open for metallica in japan and australia.u know every metallica show sold out in those countries 2004.18 months sold out world tour nuff said
 
u2 will never won pop catalog artist award.they are not that big and influental.paul mc guiness is liar.u2 is not the biggest band in the world.they cant tour non stop like metallica.they play for the promoters.played only huge markets ang gross alot with high ticket prices
 
metallica blar blar blar blar.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 
boystupidboy said:
metallica blar blar blar blar.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

biggest and most important rock band in the world.face it

[edited giant margin blowing off-topic pic-neutral]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are there people on the Metallica boards trying to *spread the good word* about U2, filling up huge space on the screen with giant bandwidth-eating color images of a band that is not even the subject of the message board, and thus is not something those forum readers want to even see??

Can someone just start an "off-topic" -- or better yet METALLICA (won't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? :barf: ) -- thread in these forums...?:rant:
 
Hey METFIELD, this is your last warning to stop posting about Metallica or you will be removed completely from the board. You have been given plenty of chances. That is all you have talked about here and I dont even think you like U2. For the last time, talk about U2 here, and talk about Metallica ON A METALLICA BOARD.
 
I edited out two posts here. It is okay to mention other bands for comparison sake but you can't publicize other websites here in accordance with the FAQs...

Any posts or threads advertising your forum or website are unacceptable and considered spam, and will be deleted. A small text link to your personal website in your signature is acceptable.
 
No Control,

This is in response to some of your comments and questions in the other forum.

"Well, then show me. I've requested stats from you several times, but no response. And I've asked if you've wanted stats, but no response. I gone into explicit detail as to why it makes sense, but yet you haven't. All you are doing is saying essential that I'm not right without any stats to back it up."

I can get access to any Amusement Business figures that have been posted in Billboard magazine and I have looked up and posted plenty of material from AB in these forums.

As far as the return date senerio's how well a return date concert is going to do, depends on the artist and several other factors, so there is no standard or golden example than can be extrapolated to all cases. If a band quickly sells out all its shows in a given market, it is impossible to precisely know how many more shows the band could sellout in that market. It might one, three or four, or even none. Because if that, its inaccurate to state that a band has saturated a given market because they only played 4 soldout shows there. Bands have tours that will cover entire countries and regions and they are not going to sit one market like New York City and play 10 or 20 shows because they can. Most tours will not spend more than a week in one market on any given leg. It does not make business sense to sit in one market like New York City and play more multiple shows simply because the markets in several midwestern cities might have trouble selling out. There are lots of people in those midwestern cities and it helps the band's album sales to go to those markets and play, even if it means not fully meeting demand in one or more big cities. If bands were not to a leave a market until all demand had been met, many artist would be unable to play many of the smaller markets because of time, unless they decided they did not mind touring non-stop for years.



"Prince drew 120,000 in Sydney in 1992. U2 have never drawn that there. In 2003, his prices were through the roof and he did 19,000 in Sydney with the average price being around $100 I believe. Last year, Prince was of equal draw to U2 in Washington, DC and Philadelphia and was a bigger draw than U2 in LA, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, Detroit and Atlanta."

Did Prince draw 120,000 in Sydney in 1992. I'd have to see and amusement business figure before I believed that.

Impossible to precisely say whether Prince was an equal draw to U2 in either Washington DC or Philadelphia as both artist soldout all their shows in those markets. We do know that U2 Grossed 40% to 50% more per show at 2001 prices. To me, that shows that U2 is strongly ahead of Prince in those markets, since the price of tickets is dependent upon the level of demand.

I'd say the same thing with LA and San Francisco as U2 soldout all their shows in these markets as fast as tickets could be sold.

Because U2 did reach the saturation level in most of the other 7 markets you listed one could precisely show a clear example of stronger attendence. But remember that U2 was charging more for tickets than Prince, and would have higher attendence figures for these markets if their prices were equal to Prince. I've not seen those specific AB boxscores for Prince, so if you could post them, that would be interesting.

I do know from the Prince Totals posted in AB and Pollstar that he only averaged about 14,000 to 15,000 in the arena's and had an average gross that was below 1 million per
show.

As for the U2 Yankee Stadium shows back in 1992, I have not seen anything that shows that max capacity for a concert at Yankee Stadium is only 52,000. In addition, an Eyewitness can't count the number of seats sold with any sort of real precision. The only thing that is known for sure, is that U2 sold a total of 104,100 tickets for 2 Yankee Stadium shows. That is a fact printed by Amusement Business as well as the resulting GROSS for the two concerts, which were then added to U2's year end total for that year, and have been consistently repeated over the years by Amusement Business. On the rare occasion Amusement Business makes a mistake which is essentially a misprint, they correct it in the following weeks boxscore. Whether 104,100 tickets were sold to fans or scalpers, they were sold.




"Well, you're criteria is very odd and seems to make U2 look like they're more popular than they are."

I don't find a criteria that uses an artist latest tour and latest studio album release, in order to estimate their popularity, to be odd. I've found most people in the industry use something similar. I do find it odd that we should consider an artist album sales in 1973 or 1984 in order to determine how popularity they are in 2005.

In addition, on the touring front, I compare artist in all markets in which there is comparable information, instead simply using the tour ending figures which can often be inaccurate and misleading in showing which artist is more popular. Bands that tour less for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with the business will be under represented with such figures. Comparing the album sales for each artist latest studio effort is much easier than comparing the true demand for each artist on the road.






"And unless you can show me proof that David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Rick Wright have said they've quit for good, you're wrong. Pink Floyd is still officially a band whether you like it or not. And that's a fact, not an opinion. And even if they weren't a band anymore, it certainly doesn't do anything to diminish the fact that they're more popular than U2."

The way Dave Gilmour talks about another Pink Floyd album and tour is not to different from the way that STING talks about a new Police album and tour. Sting says:

"He has no plans to ever be in The Police again, but you NEVER know, because the strangest things happen."


Dave Gilmour on the question of another Pink Floyd album and tour recently said: "Who the F%$& cares?"

A more in depth answer from when the Greatest Hits album came out was along the lines of: I'm not going to say never, but touring is a young mans game, and I'm more likely to do a solo album and tour before I do anything as Pink Floyd again.

Its difficult for me to see how anyone could consider and artist as still "ACTIVE" when they have not recorded anything or toured at all in 11 years and counting. Beyond a verbal admission or some press conference announcing it, at what point would you agree that Pink Floyd is no longer a band?







"U2's concert attendances overall have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have (the DB tour grossed at least more than PopMart did, while only playing two continents)
U2's record sales have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have
U2's back catalog sales have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have"

"That's all the criteria you would really need. The latest album sales argument is so redundant, it shouldn't even be a factor, as it's just one album taken into consideration. And I think anyone can see this, so I don't know why you continue to think otherwise."


U2's total concert attendance on the Joshua Tree tour in North America was not as high as Pink Floyd's, because Pink Floyd played more shows in the USA when they returned there in 1988. But simply looking at many of the individual markets that the two bands played within days of each other in 1987 in North America, U2 had stronger attendance.

On the Division Bell Tour in 1994, Pink Floyd had stonger attendance in North America than any U2 tour ever, but again that does not tell the whole story. Pink Floyd had a much better pricing system for many of the shows. The Majority of the tickets sold in the Philadelphia market were only 22.50 which adjusted for inflation is cheaper than what they charged on their 1987 tour. This very low ticket price for the upper levels and rear area's of the stadium helps explain the much of the stronger attendance in my opinion. The much more expensive tickets were for seats where the demand was essentially "in-elastic". Such seats are easy to sell regardless of price. As reported by Amusment Business, most markets on that tour only had two ticket prices and its more accurate to look at what seats are being sold at what price than to simply look at the average in this case.

In any event, we only have figures for Division Bell from North America, so its impossible to say precicely whether Pink Floyd Grossed more on the Division Bell tour than U2 did on POPMART.


As far as album sales go, when was the last time Pink Floyd sold 10 million copies of a brand new studio album within the first two years of release? Momentary and Division Bell each sold around 5-6 million in their first two years of release, which was about half of what ATYCLB did and will be half or even less of what "BOMB" will do in its first two years.

In my opinion, catalog sales are irrelevant to current popularity. The industry feels the same way which is why albums selling enough to make the Billboard 200 are no longer allowed to be put in that chart.

Catalog sales are relevant when looking at who is the most popular artist of "ALL TIME", but not in gauging or determining current popularity.

So once again, If I thought Pink Floyd were still a band, I would consider them more popular than U2 from 1997 to 2000. But in 2001, the sales of the latest studio album went up to 10 million and the tour with high ticket prices and fast sellouts in most markets showed that demand in general to see U2 live had increased from the POPMART tour of 1997. I'd estimate it roughly being 50% higher with such results being seen if the band had been playing stadiums in 2001. Still not as high as their ZOO TV marks, but better than POPMART. The two things combined would put U2 back on top over Pink Floyd, if I thought Pink Floyd was still an active group that should be considered.

Based on album sales over the past 6 weeks for "BOMB", this album and tour will be even stronger than ATYCLB and the Elevation tour were.
 
NoControl said:


Right. Because Pink Floyd hadn't toured since then and haven't since.




http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/misc/illusiontour.htm




I'm not saying Gun N' Roses are more popular overall as the Stones, U2 or Floyd. But what I am saying, is that the Use Your Illusion tour is the highest attended tour in history whether you like it or not.




What just for the Toronto shows? If not, let's see the stats.




Yes it should. And I see no reason why it shouldn't. If you'd like to minus 400,000 tickets off of the 7 million total, that's fine by me.




Well, they are. Deal with it. And even if they aren't. It doesn't mean they aren't a larger draw than The Stones or U2.



Nick Mason was quoted as saying in the next little while (probably a year or two), there will be another tour. Possibly to back up an anthology release of some sort.




Well, the average price for the DB tour was $34.50 (if not more in Europe). So multiple 5.4 Million tickets sold times that figure and that's at least what you'll get. Geez, do I have to spell it out for you.



They've played Australia in 1988 and broke attendance records. And the reason why they only played in Europe and North America in '94 was that Gilmour doesn't like to tour that much anymore. That's also the main reason why Floyd haven't toured in ten years. I've already gone over this. Floyd's back catalog sells more than any other band apart from the Beatles annually in the US and worldwide.

As far as South America is concerned: Roger Waters only plays to 1/5 - 1/10 of the people Floyd has played to comparatively in each market worldwide. Waters toured there in 2002 and played Stadiums (which he absolutely hates to do):

Santiago: 65,000
Sao Paulo: 45,000
Buenos Aires: 35,000
Rio de Janeiro: 30,000
Porto Algre: 30,000
Caracas: 15,000


So how many people do you think Floyd can draw in these markets if they performed there considering that RW only does 1/5 - 1/10 of what they do? That's right. In fact, the only market where the Stones could out draw Floyd there, would potentially be Buenos Aires. Also:

http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/interview/argent.html




I've gone over this.




You can't look at it like that. The average price for the tour was $34.50. And I've already gone over the fact that the Stones attendances recede when their prices increase, while every tour Floyd takes on, attendances increase, regardless of their ticket price. How many times do I have to tell you that?? That proves that even if the Floyd toured now with prices 70-75% higher on average than they were on the DB tour or the AMOL tour (which was the basic increase for each of those tours btw), which would be $60, it wouldn't affect their attendances from last tour in the least. In fact you'd have to add their precentage growth rate per market, which is mainly between 25-35% for most markets. Some markets are 5%, and even other markets are even 100% on top of that.

A new Pink Floyd tour (depending on how many shows they would do) would break every record imaginable. And I'm not exaggerating either, as I've shown you.




That's totally incorrect. AMLOR only sold more than the DB in the US, but nowhere else to my knowledge. And Pink Floyd's back catalog sells 4 Million worldwide annually (2 Million in the US). That has to factor into this as well.




I agree with the criteria with the latest tour but not for the latest album. I mean, that's like saying Milli Vanilli or Vanilla Ice were the biggest acts in the world in 1990-91 because they sold the most that year. And that's totally ridiculous! LOL You have to look at the overall picture here!



Again, ridiculous! You have to be joking?!




I didn't say that. I said it almost sells more then U2's back catalog annually. If you disagree, then prove me wrong. Pink Floyd officially sold 140 million albums by early 1994. This is fact. And by 1999 they had sold 175 million. Today they've sold close to 200 million records worldwide. Do the math. It's a well know fact that it sells that much evey year. You're obviously back peddling. Because someone like yourself should know this. Google the amount and see for yourself.




That doesn't mean it hasn't sold more since then. For example, Rush's Roll The Bones album Soundscaned 1 Million by early 1993 but was certified Platinum until 2001!



That's just the UK. Not the world at large.




No, I'm not taking their growth percentage rate per market from just their past two tours. It dates back to the beginning of their career (or near) and I'm including all markets they've played in at least twice which are Europe, Australia, Japan, as well as Waters' comparative drawing markets throughout the world including South America.




Give me a break. I can give you examples:


Rotterdam - Feyenoord Stadion (2 shows)...1988
Rotterdam - Feyenoord Stadion (3 shows)...1994
Growth rate: 50%

London - Wembley Stadium (2 shows)...1988
London - Earl's Court (217,000 tickets sold - 14 shows...the equivalent of 3 shows at Wembley Stadium)...1994
Growth rate: 50% (it might be slightly less due to 5-10% returning to multiple shows)

Want more? Dozens more....





Incorrect. 14 Arena shows just in London. And I don't believe the claim of a cancelled show on the DB tour in Dublin.




Give me a break. It's because Floyd's popularity is increasing every year. And that's extremely obvious with their immense record sales, etc...



Pink Floyd sold out 3 Stadium shows in Philly on the AMLOR tour in 1987-88 and sold 180,000 tickets. When have U2 or the Stones sold that many tickets in Philly on one tour where they were headlining acts? I've already gone over this with you...



Yes it is. Minus the return engagement to Philly 8 months later, Floyd still played to at least 120,000 people. More than the Stones or U2 have as headlining acts.



Not true. ZOO TV was U2's highest attended tour. And U2 topped out at 105,000 tickets sold in Philly that year. Minus return engagement, they played to 90,000 people.




Not necessarily true.

Oh and btw, The Division Bell Soundscaned 462,000 copies in it's debut week in the US. It was number #1 for four weeks there. In my home country, it was #1 for six weeks straight! To date it's sold between 7-8 Million copies worldwide.



Pink Floyd, as I've proven, has been the biggest band in the world since the mid '90s.




I have no clue how you've come to that conclusion.




If that's true then why did U2 only equal their PopMart attendance in LA and NY (minus return engagement) and nowhere else?




AYCLB has sold 10.8 Million copies to date according to Billboard, whom I think is an accurate source. DB sold at least 7 Million copies worldwide, if not 8 Million. I fail to see your math estimations. And according to your criteria, that would be impossible since we would have to see a new Floyd album in order to live that estimation out.




Publicizing U2 with a magazine like this is pure "hype" and nothing else. And to be honest, I can't stand Rolling Stone magazine for many reasons. They're not relevant to me in the least.



Q magazine recently stated that Pink Floyd were ahead of everyone else (The Beatles even) at the top spot for "Biggest band in the world", interestingly enough.




Accurate information....please.


I've seen the figures and information before about Gun N Roses, but they are not amusement business figures and I have often found such estimates to be inaccurate. The Guns N Roses/Metallica/Faith No More tour actually had stronger attendance than what is listed there, but several of the arena shows had attendance levels that were below what was needed for a full sellout and it was not because of a stage backdrop since the attendance level was strong enough that tickets were being sold behind the stage but not strong enough that it was a full sellout. I can go into detail later on that with the AB figures I have.





"I'm not saying Gun N' Roses are more popular overall as the Stones, U2 or Floyd. But what I am saying, is that the Use Your Illusion tour is the highest attended tour in history whether you like it or not."

Unless I see Amusement Business figures that confirm that, I disagree. I'd say the Rolling Stones Vodoo Lounge tour had the highest total attendance figure with nearly 6.4 million in attendance. That is a confirmed figure from Amusement Business, with only information for 6 shows missing.



Also, on the Guns N Roses tour, you said that Guns N' Roses played stadiums in Toronto. I checked amusement business and it shows that that GNR played the CNE Grandstand, but that attendance for both shows June 7, 1991 and June 8, 1991 was 41,304. This is about 20,652 per night. So these were essentially arena shows and not stadium shows, and definitely not evidence that GNR could do a stadium tour without help from other artist in my opinion.

The only show Guns N Roses did in the USA that made me consider that they could do a stadium tour of the USA on their own was their Miami show at the end of 1991 that had 39,503 people in attendance. But then consider the fact that the concert was on December 31 and the price was only 16 dollars with Soundgarden opening the show. Had the show been on a week night and not before a major holiday, with prices at the normal 25 dollars they were charging on other dates, the show would have struggled to sell 30,000 tickets.




"They've played Australia in 1988 and broke attendance records. And the reason why they only played in Europe and North America in '94 was that Gilmour doesn't like to tour that much anymore. That's also the main reason why Floyd haven't toured in ten years. I've already gone over this. Floyd's back catalog sells more than any other band apart from the Beatles annually in the US and worldwide."

That did well in Australia then, but was essentially the only time they ever played there since they become really popular after the release of Dark Side Of the Moon.

The Division Bell had amazing attendance figures for the shows played in North America, but that success can't simply be extrapolated everywhere else. Without other information, I'm going to pick the artist(on a similar level or higher) that has actually played a particular region, and has confirmed statistics results, than one that has not.








"As far as South America is concerned: Roger Waters only plays to 1/5 - 1/10 of the people Floyd has played to comparatively in each market worldwide. Waters toured there in 2002 and played Stadiums (which he absolutely hates to do):"

"Santiago: 65,000
Sao Paulo: 45,000
Buenos Aires: 35,000
Rio de Janeiro: 30,000
Porto Algre: 30,000
Caracas: 15,000"


"So how many people do you think Floyd can draw in these markets if they performed there considering that RW only does 1/5 - 1/10 of what they do? That's right. In fact, the only market where the Stones could out draw Floyd there, would potentially be Buenos Aires. Also:"



Do you have any amusement business figures for these Roger Waters shows?

Many South American fans probably considered these shows the closest thing they would ever get to a Pink Floyd show and went. In addition, until I see amusement business figures for these shows, I'm skeptical of the attendance level. STING on his "Nothing Like The Son" tour is reported to have sold hundreds of thousands more tickets than The Police did on their tours down their in the early 80s, but I'm skeptical of that until I see amusement business figures. The Police on average had much stronger attendance figures for their shows than anything STING has done in his solo career.

I know Pink Floyd can do shows in South America, but I doubt they would be as successful as U2's South America shows were. But no one will know unless Pink Floyd reforms and tours down there. Absent this information though, I give South America to U2 when deciding who is more popular down there.





"You can't look at it like that. The average price for the tour was $34.50. And I've already gone over the fact that the Stones attendances recede when their prices increase, while every tour Floyd takes on, attendances increase, regardless of their ticket price. How many times do I have to tell you that?? That proves that even if the Floyd toured now with prices 70-75% higher on average than they were on the DB tour or the AMOL tour (which was the basic increase for each of those tours btw), which would be $60, it wouldn't affect their attendances from last tour in the least. In fact you'd have to add their precentage growth rate per market, which is mainly between 25-35% for most markets. Some markets are 5%, and even other markets are even 100% on top of that."



You can look at it like that and I think you have to in fact. Most shows only had two ticket prices and the majority of the tickets were sold at the lower price. The average in this case is meaningless because the only thing that brings the average up from the lower price, are the expensive tickets that formed the minority of the tickets sold and were tickets that the band could sell at probably an even higher price because they were typically bought by dedicated fans.

The difficulty with sellout out any football stadium is selling those tickets on the entire 2nd level and any tickets on the floor and first level that are more than 50 yards from the stage. Pink Floyd priced those tickets very low, 22.50 for example in the Philadelphia market. 22.50 in 1994 is lower counting for inflation than 20 dollars in 1987. These tickets were bargains, and I suspect many people went to these shows because of these lower prices.

Pink Floyd's management did an incredible job with this pricing set up and it helped yield some incredible attendence figures in North America.




"A new Pink Floyd tour (depending on how many shows they would do) would break every record imaginable. And I'm not exaggerating either, as I've shown you."


Such a tour might be more successful than Division Bell or it might not. The Who have gone from being a stadium band to an Arena band, so one's stature in Classic Rock does not mean they will sale accordingly on a brand new tour.

Such a long time away from the concert scene can be good or bad. Because such a tour would likely be seen as their last tour, I suspect that it could do better than Division Bell. But one will not know until it happens.







"That's totally incorrect. AMLOR only sold more than the DB in the US, but nowhere else to my knowledge. And Pink Floyd's back catalog sells 4 Million worldwide annually (2 Million in the US). That has to factor into this as well."

Once again, I think the success of the Division Bell tour in North America was do to the pricing set up, not because they were more popular in the USA than they were for AMLOR. Momentary was a stronger seller in the USA than Division Bell. I don't think the back catalog is relevant to the "current" popularity of the band in either year.






"I agree with the criteria with the latest tour but not for the latest album. I mean, that's like saying Milli Vanilli or Vanilla Ice were the biggest acts in the world in 1990-91 because they sold the most that year. And that's totally ridiculous! LOL You have to look at the overall picture here!"


The overall picture in my view is the sales of the current studio album + the concert ticket sales of the latest tour. If Vanilla Ice had just about half of the concert demand that Pink Floyd did in 1991 plus two to three times as much in sales for the latest studio album, I would put Vanilla Ice over Pink Floyd. That of course was not the case at all and Vanilla Ice was very weak compared to Pink Floyd on the concert scene, so much so that it would not be worth comparing the two artist despite Vanilla Ice's stronger album sales.




"Again, ridiculous! You have to be joking?!"

I stand by this statement:

How many albums Pink Floyd sold in 1973, 1980 or 1988, is irrelevant to how popular the band truely is in 2005. I understand you don't agree with that criteria, but that is what I and most other people use in determining popularity. Your only as hot as your latest product.

What a band sold in 1973, is irrelevant to how popular they currently are in 2005. It is only relevant if you are looking at who is the most popular artist of all time. Who is the most popular artist of all time and who is currently the most popular artist are two different things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom