No Control
"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."
I didn't make the claims so its not incumbent upon me to prove anything. The only confirmed sales information is from organizations like RIAA, IFPI, BPI, CRIA that actually do audits of labels to confirm sales figures. To often, estimates get thrown around that are way ahead or below of the actual sales level. Based on sales from the UK provided by BPI, it appears that Pink Floyd is a stronger seller in North America than anywhere else and would tend to have a much more than 1/3 of its album sales coming from North America, potentially even half. The only figures that are recognized as "fact" are ones from organizations like RIAA, BPI, IFPI, or soundscan systems.
"That's just the UK. Not the world at large."
True, but I have found sales patterns in the UK to be very similar to other countries outside North 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...."
No, I want figures from amusement business! Just because Floyd play only two shows at Feyenoord Stadion in 1988 does not mean they could not play a third unless you know specifically how many tickets they sold for each show and how fast the tickets were sold. Once again, just because an artist plays an extra show here or there than they did the last time does automatically mean or prove they were unable to play the extra show the first time.
Even more inaccurate in my opinion is the comparison of the 14 Earls court shows to the two Wembley Stadium shows they did on the previous tour. There are so many fans that go to multiple shows that saying the 14 Earls court shows are the same as 3 Wembley Stadium shows is simply not accurate. I think repeat attendance by fans is much higher than you estimate, so if 14 Earls Court shows were in fact the max Pink Floyd could do in the London market, I do not think they could sell the same number of tickets over 3 Wembley Stadium shows.
"Incorrect. 14 Arena shows just in London. And I don't believe the claim of a cancelled show on the DB tour in Dublin."
I got my tours mixed up. The cancelled show was on the AMLOR tour. Pink Floyd cancelled their show at the RDS in Dublin because they did not sell enough tickets. This comes from the Pink Floyd: In the Flesh the complete performance History, book. Its not surprising that they did not come to Dublin on the Division Bell tour, though.
"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..."
Pink Floyd sold 80,754 tickets for a show in Philly on September 19, 1987. Only 6 days later, U2 played a show in the SAME STADIUM to 86,145 people! Then, 8 months later Pink Floyd returned to the Philly market and played to 88,010 people over two shows. 8 months later U2 were recording a new album and working on a movie. How many people would U2 have played to if they had decided to play the Philly market in May 1988 around the same time as Pink Floyd? To answer that question, you would have to look back at the show they did 8 months earlier. They played to more people 8 months ago than Pink Floyd did at the time. Based on that fact, you would have to assume that U2 would probably sell more than Pink Floyd only 8 months later in that same market. Since Pink Floyd was not able to sell as many tickets as U2 in Philly in September 1987, what makes you think that Pink Floyd's attendance total would be higher than U2's attendance total in Philly in May of 1988, if U2 had returned to the Philly market that month?
"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."
That would be incorrect because the return engagement was two shows of 88,010 people. Minus the return engagements leaves you with just the one Philly show in September 1987 that had 80,754 people in attendance.
"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."
The fact that ZOO TV was techinically U2's highest attended tour is irrelevant to how many people U2 could play in Philly in May of 1988 after playing to 86,145 people in September of 1987 in Philly. U2 played to more people in Philly in September 1987 and based on that fact they would have played to more people than Pink Floyd, in Philly, 8 months later in May of 1988. If you don't think that is the case, you'll have to explain how Pink Floyd could sell more tickets than U2 in May of 1988 in Philly since they were unable to sell more tickets than U2, in Philly, in September of 1987.
"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."
The Q magazine list was about who think were the biggest band of all time, NOT who they thought were the biggest band in 2004. Those are two very different things. In any event, their criteria for determining the biggest band of all time was a bit flawed. The Beatles are obviously the biggest band of all time.
"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."
I didn't make the claims so its not incumbent upon me to prove anything. The only confirmed sales information is from organizations like RIAA, IFPI, BPI, CRIA that actually do audits of labels to confirm sales figures. To often, estimates get thrown around that are way ahead or below of the actual sales level. Based on sales from the UK provided by BPI, it appears that Pink Floyd is a stronger seller in North America than anywhere else and would tend to have a much more than 1/3 of its album sales coming from North America, potentially even half. The only figures that are recognized as "fact" are ones from organizations like RIAA, BPI, IFPI, or soundscan systems.
"That's just the UK. Not the world at large."
True, but I have found sales patterns in the UK to be very similar to other countries outside North 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...."
No, I want figures from amusement business! Just because Floyd play only two shows at Feyenoord Stadion in 1988 does not mean they could not play a third unless you know specifically how many tickets they sold for each show and how fast the tickets were sold. Once again, just because an artist plays an extra show here or there than they did the last time does automatically mean or prove they were unable to play the extra show the first time.
Even more inaccurate in my opinion is the comparison of the 14 Earls court shows to the two Wembley Stadium shows they did on the previous tour. There are so many fans that go to multiple shows that saying the 14 Earls court shows are the same as 3 Wembley Stadium shows is simply not accurate. I think repeat attendance by fans is much higher than you estimate, so if 14 Earls Court shows were in fact the max Pink Floyd could do in the London market, I do not think they could sell the same number of tickets over 3 Wembley Stadium shows.
"Incorrect. 14 Arena shows just in London. And I don't believe the claim of a cancelled show on the DB tour in Dublin."
I got my tours mixed up. The cancelled show was on the AMLOR tour. Pink Floyd cancelled their show at the RDS in Dublin because they did not sell enough tickets. This comes from the Pink Floyd: In the Flesh the complete performance History, book. Its not surprising that they did not come to Dublin on the Division Bell tour, though.
"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..."
Pink Floyd sold 80,754 tickets for a show in Philly on September 19, 1987. Only 6 days later, U2 played a show in the SAME STADIUM to 86,145 people! Then, 8 months later Pink Floyd returned to the Philly market and played to 88,010 people over two shows. 8 months later U2 were recording a new album and working on a movie. How many people would U2 have played to if they had decided to play the Philly market in May 1988 around the same time as Pink Floyd? To answer that question, you would have to look back at the show they did 8 months earlier. They played to more people 8 months ago than Pink Floyd did at the time. Based on that fact, you would have to assume that U2 would probably sell more than Pink Floyd only 8 months later in that same market. Since Pink Floyd was not able to sell as many tickets as U2 in Philly in September 1987, what makes you think that Pink Floyd's attendance total would be higher than U2's attendance total in Philly in May of 1988, if U2 had returned to the Philly market that month?
"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."
That would be incorrect because the return engagement was two shows of 88,010 people. Minus the return engagements leaves you with just the one Philly show in September 1987 that had 80,754 people in attendance.
"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."
The fact that ZOO TV was techinically U2's highest attended tour is irrelevant to how many people U2 could play in Philly in May of 1988 after playing to 86,145 people in September of 1987 in Philly. U2 played to more people in Philly in September 1987 and based on that fact they would have played to more people than Pink Floyd, in Philly, 8 months later in May of 1988. If you don't think that is the case, you'll have to explain how Pink Floyd could sell more tickets than U2 in May of 1988 in Philly since they were unable to sell more tickets than U2, in Philly, in September of 1987.
"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."
The Q magazine list was about who think were the biggest band of all time, NOT who they thought were the biggest band in 2004. Those are two very different things. In any event, their criteria for determining the biggest band of all time was a bit flawed. The Beatles are obviously the biggest band of all time.