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.
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.
 
STING2 said:
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.

That's not what I asked. If you have the info (which I don't think you do), post it.

Originally posted by STING2 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.

That's not necessarily true regarding a market's saturation point.

And I've already shown you perfect examples with stats as to why you're wrong regarding the return shows.



Originally posted by STING2 Did Prince draw 120,000 in Sydney in 1992. I'd have to see and amusement business figure before I believed that.

He did 7 nights at the Sydney Entertainment Center (12,000) and one night to 40,000 at the Cricket Ground shortly thereafter. Any Prince gig list can show that...

Originally posted by STING2 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.

Prince did 54,927 for three shows at the MCI Center in Washington, DC and 56,624 for three shows at the Wachovia Center in Philly last year. The average ticket price was around $61.00.

U2 did 44,000 in Philadelphia and 39,000 in Washington, DC (minus the return) at an average price of $77.00.

Do the math.


Originally posted by STING2 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.

Not necessarily.

Originally posted by STING2 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.

Sure. But as soon as you post your GN'R stats for Toronto and the rest of the tour, you claim to have.

Originally posted by STING2 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.

Yes, but an eyewitness account can tell if the show was sold out or not. And it wasn't (as well as the WGRYWH video footage). So there wasn't 52,000 at show 2. Already gone over this.

Originally posted by STING2 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.

I didn't say that. I said your criteria for latest album. An artist's sales overall determines that and other years factors into that too. If that wasn't true, then you couldn't count U2's sales from 1987, 1985, etc. LOL Floyd haven't released a record in 11 years, so it's impossible to tell with your theory. Read the Milli Vanilli example again.

Originally posted by STING2 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.

Pleasssse. I've gone over and proven this (in the case of Floyd vs. U2 or The Stones) so many times. I don't like repeating myself.

And you yourself extrapolate with album sales regarding U2 all the time. Give me a break. Promoters extrapolate every single day in order to determine drawing power. And just because I do, doesn't mean I'm wrong, when I've already shown you why you're wrong million of times now with examples of Floyd's grwoth rate, etc, etc.,..


Originally posted by STING2 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."

LOL

I said a Pink Floyd quote. Not a Police quote.


Originally posted by STING2 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?

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Nick and Rick are raring to go. Gilmour just doesn't want to tour - that's all this quote proves. I've already said he didn't.

I'd consider Pink Floyd no longer a band when someone actually says within the band, they aren't a band any longer. Duh!


Originally posted by STING2 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.

You've got very fuzzy vision then (no offense). Pink Floyd sold 2.8 Million tickets on the North American legs of the '87-'88 tour. And played to 2.3 Million people (minus return) with roughly playing the same markets as U2 did. But U2 didn't play to 2.3 Million people in North America on that tour. Get a clue! LOL


Originally posted by STING2 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.

BS. And that's wrong for the most part. It's not wrong at all to look at it this way as I've shown and stated several times before. The average price of Philly's ticket prices were $34.50. You can't argue how many seats were sold in one portion of the venue as opposed to another. You must be joking or something. With that criteria, you'd have artists like U2's sales even lower than they'd appear with certain tours. And everyone has a tier pricing system, even U2's base price on PopMart was the highest ZOO TV tour priced ticket. You've gotta get your facts straight.

Originally posted by STING2 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.

Gone over this a trillion times. 2.4 Million tickets sold on the European leg, times $34.50 average price at least....


Originally posted by STING2 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.

That's the only thing you've been right about. But as far as I'm concerned, anyone can buy an album, it's when you support an artist on tour that really counts. And also, HTDAAB was heavily reduced in pricing the first week giving it at least 1 Million (if not more) more copies sold because of that (not to mention online sales, which are cheaper too). Not to mention that AYCLB & HTDAAB are carbon copies, for obvious reasons. Floyd could've made every album sound like Dark Side Of The Moon and sold much more than they have, but they didn't. U2 is now a joke for many reasons.

Originally posted by STING2 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.

Not necessarily regarding the industry and of course you'd think that. Because it makes U2 look more popular than they are. And it's because you're bias to them. I'm objective (or at least trying to be) here.

Originally posted by STING2 Catalog sales are relevant when looking at who is the most popular artist of "ALL TIME", but not in gauging or determining current popularity.

I've gone over the others factors too for this...and Pink Floyd's catalog sales combined will almost outsell U2's current album this year. And that's astonishing, considering catalog items would only do that for very few artists, if at all. So, why is that not important?

Originally posted by STING2 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.

Echoes... sold well. And the sellouts were faster because they were in arenas. And the small majority of shows sold out...in 2001, 1/3 of them didn't (that's a lot) or had trouble doing so in North America. And demand at those prices weren't higher than in 1997 in North America, apart from U2's dozen or so major markets in North America...


Originally posted by STING2 I'd estimate it roughly being 50% higher with such results being seen if the band had been playing stadiums in 2001.

In Europe yes, even higher. But it would be nowhere near that in North America.

More fuzzy math skills...

Originally posted by STING2 Still not as high as their ZOO TV marks, but better than POPMART.

Nope. And nowhere near as high as Floyd's past two tours.

Originally posted by STING2 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.

Unbelievable.

Originally posted by STING2 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. [/B]

If that was true then they'd be doing a full Stadium tour in the US. But it's hard to say... but I believe attendance will only be higher in Europe than compared to last tour with North America.
 
Originally posted by STING2 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.

...and from Floyd's label. And quite a nice excuse I might add.



Originally posted by STING2 True, but I have found sales patterns in the UK to be very similar to other countries outside North America.

Really? Then how come your estimates are so far off the vast majority of the time?


Originally posted by STING2 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.

Well, obviously not. Or they would've. Unless under certain circumstances. For example U2 had designed it's tour for arenas, specifically...

I've got many more examples. I'll show you more upon request. Any market in the world that they've played...just let me know.


Originally posted by STING2 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.

Yes it is accurate. 5-10% would return to the other 13 shows. That's around 200,000 people. The Wembely Stones shows in '95 didn't do that (minus 5-10% for their two following shows). Plus they had opening acts which would knock off up to (depending on who exactly opened) generally 2-5% of the attendance, especially since the Black Crowes opened these shows.


Originally posted by STING2 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.

Roger Waters played to 8,500 people in 2002 in Dublin. Which means that Floyd could play to at least 42,000, if not 85,000 people there, tops...or anywhere in between.


Originally posted by STING2 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?

That's quite simple. There's a few reasons (some of them I'll explain below). One includes: Floyd's show was reserved seating. U2's (correct me if I'm wrong), wasn't.

U2 had already played a North American leg in the Spring of '87, so they had the chance to play Philly then but didn't.


Originally posted by STING2 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?

Ohhhhhh ok. That's why U2 only played an ARENA show in Philly (to less than 18,000 people) instead of a second show at JFK this month. This means, that U2's Philly total for this tour was just over 100,000 people. And if they would've returned at the same time as Floyd there, they would've drew no more than 65,000.

Since I assume that that's the real figure for both Veterans' shows in '88, then Floyd's Philly total would be around 110,000 people (minus return).

Oh yeah, and Floyd's prices were higher than U2's as well...by around 10% - which would be the basic equivalent of 120,000 tickets sold.


Originally posted by STING2 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.

Thanks for the figure. But your Floyd return figure is incorrect. It wold be basically 65% to return after eight months. I wasn't too far off with the two Veterans' show totals. And Floyd were still a bigger draw than U2, even then.


Originally posted by STING2 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.

I already did.

Oh and the reason why there wasn't a second show for Floyd in September '87 was because of the way Cohl scheduled the tour. You see, Waters was in litigation with the Floyd at this time and Cohl was the only promoter willing to take on promoting the AMLOR tour, because Waters was threatening injunctions on most all promoters if they worked with Floyd at this time. Also, most promoters felt that Floyd wouldn't be able to sell enough tickets without Waters in the line-up. But Cohl had the balls to step up to the plate. Consequently, he scheduled the first leg (which was initially only going to be one leg) of the tour very cautiously...and boy were the other promoters eating their words soon after...


Originally posted by STING2 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. [/B]

Same shit different pile. And Of course, The Beatles are the biggest band ever, any way you cut it.
 
erdem_ataköy said:

That's more like for 14 years worth of ticket sales, not 10. Floyd's AMLOR & DB tours almost out did that figure combined. And Floyd haven't released more than one studio album, two live albums and one best of since '94, with a total of around 65 Million records sold in the past ten years (including back catalog). And that Metallica albums sales figure isn't for the past ten years, it's most likely for their overall sales since day one.
 
NoControl said:


That's more like for 14 years worth of ticket sales, not 10. Floyd's AMLOR & DB tours almost out did that figure combined. And Floyd haven't released more than one studio album, two live albums and one best of since '94, with a total of around 65 Million records sold in the past ten years (including back catalog). And that Metallica albums sales figure isn't for the past ten years, it's most likely for their overall sales since day one.

metallica is the most succesfull hard rock and metal band ever.now pink floyd and u2 fans fight for who is the biggest band in the world))

Soundscan Best-Selling Artists 1991-november 2003 (post #1)


(rank, million units, name)

1. 65 Garth Brooks
2. 46 The Beatles
3. 46 Celine Dion
4. 44 Metallica
5. 42 Mariah Carey
6. 39 George Strait
7. 33 Kenny G
8. 32 The Backstreet Boys
9. 32 Pink Floyd
10. 31 Shania Twain
11. 30 N'Sync
12. 30 Alan Jackson
13. 29 Pearl Jam
14. 29 U2
15. 28 Aerosmith
16. 28 Tim McGraw
17. 27 Eric Clapton
18. 26 Reba McEntire
19. 25 Dave Matthews Band
20. 24 Britney Spears
 
Last edited:
erdem_ataköy said:

I'm just going to be blunt here because goodness knows being nice hasn't worked. You need to go find a Metallica forum for posting all these "facts".

I don't know how to make it any plainer that this is a U2 site and this forum is for discussion of U2 tour rumors.


Also, time to review this part of the FAQ again. :wave:
If you were previously banned from this forum and attempt to register or post again, you will be immediately banned.
 
Last edited:
Metallica boy may be just lonely as his band has not been relevant in over a decade and there is likely no one posting on the Metallica fan sites.
 
Yeah I agree. Look ermey, I'm with you on the "Metallica has some of the biggest and wide ranging tours in modern rock history" argument. They have had bigger tours than anything U2 has ever mounted. But let's move on now.

Your last two posts are darn near trolling.
 
Last edited:
jedi Larry said:
Yeah I agree. Look ermey, I'm with you on the "Metallica has some of the biggest and wide ranging tours in modern rock history" argument. They have had bigger tours than anything U2 has ever mounted. But let's move on now.

Your last two posts are darn near trolling.


In what sense has Metallica had bigger tours than what U2 have mounted? Popmart was the 4th biggest grossing tour of all time. The top three grossing tours were Rolling Stones tours.
 
erdem_ataköy,

Soundscan was introduced in May 1991. And it doesn't tell the whole story for all artists. Because many of the world's biggest sellers are from pre-May 1991.
 
FullonEdge2 said:



In what sense has Metallica had bigger tours than what U2 have mounted? Popmart was the 4th biggest grossing tour of all time. The top three grossing tours were Rolling Stones tours.

The Division Bell tour did at least $185 Million. And the Floyd only played two continents on this tour.
 
st.anger was so great ! metallica even managed to sellout in London, to bad it was in ontario Canada, maybe 7500 people. Metallica is huge !
 
NoControl said:


The Division Bell tour did at least $185 Million. And the Floyd only played two continents on this tour.



Did you make up that $185 million figure? If you're right, why has every publication failed to list that tour as grossing more than Popmart?
 
It's a conspiracy FullonEdge. :ohmy:

Regarding my "Metallica tours bigger than U2's" comment, I'm talking about not being afraid to go anywhere and play to anybody to establish your fanbase far and wide.
At least here in the states, Metallica has played more shows and had greater attendance the last decade. Those guys can play anywhere.

Can't say the same about U2. On POPmart they went into Florida with that expensive production, they played stadiums full of 10-15,000 people.
They had their heads handed to them in Florida on POPmart.
 
Last edited:
FullonEdge2 said:
Did you make up that $185 million figure? If you're right, why has every publication failed to list that tour as grossing more than Popmart?

The average price on the Division Bell tour was $34.50. Floyd sold 5.4 Million (which is well documented) tickets on this tour. Since they sold 3 Million tickets on the North American leg, on the European leg of the tour they sold 2.4 Million tickets.

Do the math.
 
Originally posted by jedi Larry At least here in the states, Metallica has played more shows and had greater attendance the last decade. Those guys can play anywhere.

That's because of the overall attendance combined for many years worth of shows and not to mention that they tour more often than U2 does.

Originally posted by jedi Larry Can't say the same about U2. On POPmart they went into Florida with that expensive production, they played stadiums full of 10-15,000 people.
They had their heads handed to them in Florida on POPmart.

PopMart tour:

Miami - 42,778
Tampa - 20,232
Jacksonville - 15,000

...so you're right about two of the three shows. But then again, U2's prices were higher than Metallica's were at this time. That makes a difference....


To say that Metallica is a larger concert draw than U2 is, is ridiculous.
 
But you just admitted that they were a higher draw because they tour more often.

That's the point!

U2 tours every four-five years and does hit and run arena shows first leg, then comes back and does limited multi-date stands in metro areas for second leg.
Metallica has played shows in Turkey. Has U2? No. Singapore? No. Indonesia? No. Phillipines? No. Russia? No.

All of these places Metallica has played over the years and done very well.

U2's tours are limited by comparison. That's because their music doesn't have the same mass appeal that metal does worldwide.

If U2 did, they'd play those markets, but they don't.

And no, it's not ridiculous to say that Metallica are a bigger draw because you admitted it yourself in the first part of your post. So yes, then you are ridiculous.

Face it, metal acts and classic rock acts are just a bigger draw than U2. It's no big deal, but it's certainly true.

No Control
"But then again, U2's prices were higher than Metallica's were at this time. That makes a difference...."

And this is GOOD?!

:huh:

And no, compare attendance records and market penetration tour-by-tour for Metallica and U2. For the Wherever We May Roam tour in '91-'93, Metallica played to millions. And this is discounting the stadium shows with GnR in '91.
They played more shows and to more people. Why? Because they had greater market penetration in those areas and more appeal than U2.
Metallica and metal is more popular in the states than U2.
 
Last edited:
jedi Larry said:
But you just admitted that they were a higher draw because they tour more often.

That's the point!

U2 tours every four-five years and does hit and run arena shows first leg, then comes back and does limited multi-date stands in metro areas for second leg.
Metallica has played shows in Turkey. Has U2? No. Singapore? No. Indonesia? No. Phillipines? No. Russia? No.

All of these places Metallica has played over the years and done very well.

U2's tours are limited by comparison. That's because their music doesn't have the same mass appeal that metal does worldwide.

If U2 did, they'd play those markets, but they don't.

And no, it's not ridiculous to say that Metallica are a bigger draw because you admitted it yourself in the first part of your post. So yes, then you are ridiculous.

Face it, metal acts and classic rock acts are just a bigger draw than U2. It's no big deal, but it's certainly true.

Umm, where do I start?

Well, let's see...you have to look at like this:

Compare any market in the world that both U2 & Metallica has played in. You'll find that U2's attendances are higher in just about every market you compare (if not every). You can't look at the overall attendance for several tours combined because, just because Metallica plays more shows than U2 per tour, doesn't mean they're a larger draw worldwide if they've played Indonesia, Jakarta, etc., and U2 haven't yet. Metallica might be in those countries, yes, but certainly not worldwide.

Take any overall attendance figures for a Metallica tour and compare it to any U2 tour and I'll guarantee that U2's attendances will be higher.

Originally posted by jedi Larry And this is GOOD?!

I didn't say that. It means that If U2 had lower prices on these Floridian shows, they would've sold even more tickets.


Originally posted by jedi Larry And no, compare attendance records and market penetration tour-by-tour for Metallica and U2. For the Wherever We May Roam tour in '91-'93, Metallica played to millions. And this is discounting the stadium shows with GnR in '91.
They played more shows and to more people. Why? Because they had greater market penetration in those areas and more appeal than U2.
Metallica and metal is more popular in the states than U2.

Metallica's '91-'93 tour sold around 4 Million tickets (200-230 shows) and U2's '92-'93 ZOO TV tour (157 shows) sold 5.4 Million tickets.
 
Last edited:
jedi Larry said:
It's a conspiracy FullonEdge. :ohmy:

Regarding my "Metallica tours bigger than U2's" comment, I'm talking about not being afraid to go anywhere and play to anybody to establish your fanbase far and wide.
At least here in the states, Metallica has played more shows and had greater attendance the last decade. Those guys can play anywhere.

Can't say the same about U2. On POPmart they went into Florida with that expensive production, they played stadiums full of 10-15,000 people.
They had their heads handed to them in Florida on POPmart.

You can't single out a couple of dates. Yes, Popmart was not as big a hit as some of their other tours, but neither was the album. Nevertheless, Popmart had monster sales worldwide; it only faltered a little in the US. The last tour was a smash, so was Zootv, so was Joshua Tree, etc. No current band can match U2's combined critical acclaim and commercial appeal on a worldwide basis. Period. Leave Metallica to the metal heads and move on.
 
Johnovox said:
No current band can match U2's combined critical acclaim and commercial appeal on a worldwide basis. Period. Leave Metallica to the metal heads and move on.

That's incorrect about commercial acclaim. Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones & The Eagles are larger draws and have sold more records (apart from The Eagles worldwide sales) than U2. And who gives a shit about critical acclaim? That's not a determining factor at all.
 
NoControl said:


That's incorrect about commercial acclaim. Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones & The Eagles are larger draws and have sold more records (apart from The Eagles worldwide sales) than U2. And who gives a shit about critical acclaim? That's not a determining factor at all.

I don't think any of the three are larger draws than U2 over the same time period on a worldwide basis. And, yes, people give a shit about critical acclaim because the other bands are just not as highly regarded as U2. The critical acclaim has over the years filtered through so that even average rock fans recognize U2 in this regard.

U2 had an outstanding "young" career marked by influential post modern masterpieces; the Joshua Tree is regarded by many as the greatest album of the Eighties (a recent BBC poll had it as #1 of all time); Achtung is hailed as one of the great albums of the nineties (some critics call it the best); some say Zooropea is their best ever; the last two albums topped many critics top ten lists - and this point is most vital - they are still relevant after 25 years. The other bands you cite above are great bands, but they have not managed to stay as vital over as long a period of time as U2.
 
Originally posted by Johnovox I don't think any of the three are larger draws than U2 over the same time period on a worldwide basis.

Well, you're wrong.


Originally posted by Johnovox And, yes, people give a shit about critical acclaim because the other bands are just not as highly regarded as U2. The critical acclaim has over the years filtered through so that even average rock fans recognize U2 in this regard.

U2 had an outstanding "young" career marked by influential post modern masterpieces; the Joshua Tree is regarded by many as the greatest album of the Eighties (a recent BBC poll had it as #1 of all time); Achtung is hailed as one of the great albums of the nineties (some critics call it the best); some say Zooropea is their best ever; the last two albums topped many critics top ten lists - and this point is most vital - they are still relevant after 25 years. The other bands you cite above are great bands, but they have not managed to stay as vital over as long a period of time as U2.

...and some like apples better than oranges. That's just your opinion and is certainly not mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom