STING2 said:
Info for what? If its amusement business info, I either have it or I can get it.
GNR's
Use Your Illusion tour Toronto stats where you said they only did the equivalent capacity of two arena shows at the two Stadium shows they played at the CNE that year.
Originally posted by STING2 You've given me your theory's on return shows and what certain stats mean or suggest.
It's not a theory - that's how it works. Once again, I'll give you examples dozens of examples upon request.
Originally posted by STING2 Bottom line is that artist will often play shows in weaker markets even though they have yet to meet all the demand in the major markets.
Bottom line is that you're wrong.
Originally posted by STING2 If a band sales out 4 shows in New York City as fast as they can be sold, one cannot claim that they have met the demand in that market simply because they did not play anymore shows in that market.
U2 played 8 shows in NYC on the
Elevation tour. They sold out fairly quickly but weren't sold out as fast as they could be sold. Read my Prince example again...and he's huge in Australia.
Originally posted by STING2 Most artist tour the world without fully meeting demand in certain markets or in fact not even playing certain markets at all. Just because they do not play these markets or extra shows does not in itself prove that the demand is not there.
Not necessarily. It depends on many factors. You're generalizing.
Originally posted by STING2 The only way you can postively tell that an artist has reached or started to reach the saturation point in a given market is when a show does not sellout completely. Its true though that 2 soldout shows at arena B may be all an artist can do in that market, but unless one knows how fast the sellouts were, its impossible to really gauge precisely if a third or fourth show would be possible.
After they played Washington, DC area in June 2001, they played that area four months later on leg 3 of the
Elevation tour to roughly 35% of the attendance they did in June. It's a return engagement and the attendance they would do there after four months and after saturating fits like a glove. Also, Paul would never book a show in a arena in a major U2 market like Washington, DC where it wouldn't sellout. It's bad publicity. You think it's a coincidence that just about every review of the
PopMart tour shows noted that the attendance wasn't up to par?
Originally posted by STING2 U2 did:
MCI Center Washington DC : 2 shows : June 14-15, 2001 : ATTENDANCE: 37,971 GROSS: $3,172,418
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $83.54
Baltimore Arena Baltimore : 1 show : October 19, 2001
ATTENDANCE: 13,510 GROSS: 1,131,610
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $83.76
First Union Center Philadelphia: 2 shows : June 11-12, 2001
ATTENDANCE: 38,536 GROSS: 3,076,345
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $79.80
First Union Center Philadelphia: 2 shows : November 2, 2001
ATTENDANCE: 19,320 GROSS: $1,541,360
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: 79.78
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE for all 6 shows was $81.59 not $77/
Now adjusting for inflation to 2004 prices, $81.59 in 2004 is $86.24. So you have an average ticket price for U2 of $86.24 vs. and average ticket price for Prince of only $61.00 . U2 tickets for these shows were nearly 45% more expensive than Prince tickets! The Prince shows sold less tickets per night than the U2 shows, with the exception of the Baltimore show. Each U2 show soldout as fast as tickets can be sold and I can go into the scalper situation and the difficulty of finding tickets outside these venues since my friends and I together saw all of these shows.
Hold on a second here. You're the one who gave me the $77 average ticket price for this tour. And the overall average price is roughly that. In doing the math, I found that Washington, DC was still basically equal with U2. But Philadelphia is higher for U2.
Originally posted by STING2 I did post the Toronto stats in a POST ABOVE! I have the rest of the GNR stats that were posted in Billboard for their own tour and their tour with Metallica and Faith No More. Not every show on the tour got posted in Billboard though.
No you didn't.
Originally posted by STING2 104,100 tickets were sold for the two Yankee Stadium shows with respective Gross figures as well. These were added in to the year end totals done by Amusement Business as well at the end of 1992.
I've never disputed the fact that the show was not a total sellout in terms of what the venue is capable of holding. You have claimed that the venue cannot hold more than 52,000 people but have not presented any evidence to support that claim.
The band may have sold 55,100 tickets the first night, but only 49,000 tickets the second night for a combined total of 104,100. That would explain the empty seats for the second night that the eyewitness reported seeing.
I looked at the Wild Horses video and then also looked at the video with directors comments that can be found on the Best of 1990-2000 videos. There is a wide shot of the second level during the DAY on a sound check obviously showing empty seats, followed by a wide shot during the evening during the show, showing all the seats filled up with people! The Director even comments about these two shots. There is no footage during the video showing empty seats at night during the show.
You're hilarious. I've already proven you wrong. So has two pieces of evidence. Also, I didn't say that Yankee can only hold 52,000 people. I said only in a 270 degree end stage configuration. And, I've seen the
WGRYWH video several times (so has another forum interferencer), and they clearly show empty seats in the venue during the peformance.
Originally posted by STING2 I don't count what U2 sold in 1985 or 1987 in determining how popular they are currently in 2005! Once again, its the latest album and the latest tour period. Your only as hot as your latest product. An artist sales over all the years are only used for the most popular artist list of all time, not a list determining current popularity. There is a difference between current popularity and popularity of all time. What Pink Floyd sold in 1973 and what U2 sold in 1987 are irrelevant to their current popularity in 2005!
Already gone over this a trillion times. I've never met someone with a penchant for continuously repeating themselves like yourself.
Originally posted by STING2 With Floyd, I simply take the last studio album, Division Bell in order to help try and determine what current popularity might be since it is the latest stat available. The same goes for the Division Bell tour. What a new Pink Floyd album and tour would do today is Unknown, because of that, the best one can do is you the Division Bell tour and album stats. In any event, because Pink Floyd have not released an album or toured in 11 years, I don't consider them to still be a band.
Well, you can believe whatever you want to in your fantasy world. But the fact is Pink Floyd is the biggest band in the world for a band who is still officially together, as I've stated, shown and proven through their growth rate % per market, their album sales, back catalog sales, concert attendances that never decrease (apart from Cleveland & Chicago) even though ticket prices increase, while the The Eagles, Stones U2's, etc., exude the complete opposite - by a large margin. Again, if you want more examples, upon request I'll explicitly give them to you for any market in the world.
Originally posted by STING2 I don't know how much Milli Vanilli sold worldwide with its Girl You Know its True album. But in the United States Milli Vanilli sold 6 million copies of its album compared to eventually 3 million(1989) for AMLOR. In terms of a CURRENT album selling artist in the United States, Milli Vanilli was twice as popular as Pink Floyd. But Milli Vanilli as a concert selling act was not even 1/4 that of Pink Floyd in the USA at the time. Since I weigh album sales and Concert ticket sales equally, Pink Floyd is the more popular artist by virtue of the fact that their margin of being ahead of Milli Vanilli as a concert selling act is greater than Milli Vanilli's margin of being ahead of Pink Floyd as a current album selling act. But, if Milli Vanilli had 1/2 or 3/4 the concert selling capability of Pink Floyd along with being ahead of them in current album sales by 2 to 1, then Milli Vanilli would have been the more popular artist at the time.
LOL. You can't be serious. You're quite entertaining - I'll give you that.
Originally posted by STING2 You've given me your theories about various things but have not proven that just because an artist played x number of dates with x amount of attendance, they are automatically a bigger drawing band than an artist that played less shows and had a final attendance # that is less. Its more complex than that though because artist will often do shorter tours and have a smaller total attendance figure at that end. Sometimes that is because that is the most business they are capable other times its because the artist only wants to be on the road for a certain length of time because of other factors often not related to the business. In addition, a lower ticket price especially in difficult to sell seats, can lead to a higher attendance for an artist.
It's not a theory. And I'm not talking about any artist. I'm talking about Pink Floyd. And if it was only a theory, then you'd have to deny that they do not have a concert attendance growth rate (which is proven) in just about every market in the world, apart from two.
Originally posted by STING2 I have done some extrapolation with U2 album sales in order to ESTIMATE certain figures when the information was unknown!
Of course you do. That's what I was saying. Because that's what extrapolating means. lol
Originally posted by STING2 What I don't do, is present that information as GOSPEL FACT and then tell someone that does agree with my theory or estimate that their "WRONG". If someone list a figure that I can correct with information from RIAA, Amusement Business or a confirmed tour list or set list, then I'll make the correction.
I don't either, unless they are wrong - which you are and have been dozens of times. For example, Floyd playing two shows in Rotterdam in '88 and then playing three shows there in '94 at the same 50,000 seat venue, proves a growth rate - even though ticket prices increased 75%. You can't say that about U2, and you can't say that about The Rolling Stones.
Btw, all three Rotterdam shows sold out in 1994. And just because there isn't an exact figure, especially one from Amusement Business, doesn't mean something didn't happen they way it did.
Originally posted by STING2 I listed a Dave Gilmour qoute from Rolling Stone, but you either did not see it or ignored it. I listed the Police qoute to show how they were similar?
They're not at all. And you haven't proven a thing. Floyd have always said, that if the
DB tour was their final tour - they would've made a big fuss about it and said so.
Originally posted by STING2 I know were talking about Pink Floyd and U2, not ones personal opinion about what someone knows or doesn't know.
Whether Pink Floyd tours again or not depends on Gilmour which means whether Nick and Rick are wetting their pants to go or not is irrelevant.
But it proves that they're still together. That's my point.
Originally posted by STING2 Roger Waters has already said Pink Floyd is no longer a band, but thats another issue I guess.
It certainly is.
Originally posted by STING2 There are all kinds of artist and bands at various levels that have never officially come out and said they are not a band anymore. But its recognized that they are not bands. AS the Police's manager Miles Copeland has stated on many occasions, the band never came out an announced they were no longer a band. "Sting did say at the start of his solo career that they had not broken up, but nor had they agreed to make another record" and thats as close to a break up statement your going to get.
Well, Sting's first album was in '85. And by your criteria, then The Police are still a band.
Originally posted by STING2 So if Pink Floyd does not record or tour ever again, you will still consider them to be a band?
No, I wouldn't.
Originally posted by STING2 The tour end totals are not an accurate way to determine demand because Pink Floyd elected to return in the Spring of 1988 to play more shows, while U2 was busy recording a new album and making a movie.
LOL. Nice excuse. 2.3 Million fans saw them in North American on this tour. And of course we both know that U2 did nowhere near that figure in North America, even though U2 and Pink played practically the same markets (apart from three or four) there.
Originally posted by STING2 U2 played to 86,000 people in Philadelphia 6 days after Pink Floyd only played to 80,000 people in Philadelphia in 1987. Again, if U2 had returned to play Philadelphia in May as Pink Floyd did 8 months later, based on the fact that U2 had drawn more in September 1987, you would have to conclude they would draw more in May 1988.
Already proven wrong as they did one one show at the Spectrum (18,000) and one night (not two) at JFK Stadium (90,000) a few weeks later. It's interesting that you're ignoring many things, including that fact that Floyd's JFK show was reserved while U2's wasn't - that's makes a difference in attendance configuration. Not to mention that Floyd drew more than U2 there and just about everywhere in the world.
Originally posted by STING2 That is the only accurate way you can compare the to tours. If you do not think U2 could play to more people in Philadelphia in May 1988 when they had already played to more people than Floyd 8 months earlier, please explain. JFK Stadium was a perfect example of each bands drawing power in the Philadelphia market.
If Pink Floyd was a bigger draw in Philadelphia, why did they have less people at their show which was 6 days earlier than U2's show at the same venue?
I already did explain it several times, in fact. Go back to my previous posts from this riduculous debate. You obviously have a very bad memory, unfortunately.
Originally posted by STING2 The Philadephia shows GROSSED $5,091,120 with a total attendance for all three shows of 152,264. This means the average price for the Philadelphia shows was $33.43 , NOT 34.50.
You're really something. I was referring the overall average price.
Originally posted by STING2 Amusement Business only listed two prices for the shows, 60 dollars and 22.50. If there was another ticket price, I'd like to see a ticket stub proving that. This means that there were roughly 45,000 tickets sold at the 60 dollar price and 107,000 sold at the 22.50. The 22.50 dollar tickets when adjusted for inflation were less than tickets for the AMLOR tour. This low price helps to sell tickets in the harder to sell areas of the stadium.
So what? You can slice any which way you want. The average price was $33.43. And that's what you go by. Read my
PopMart tour example again. Just about everyone uses a tier pricing system. And It doesn't prove that U2 are a bigger draw than Floyd in this market, especially since doing the math they still would be lower. You're seriously grabbing at straws here, since you have nothing to go on...
Originally posted by STING2 There was no tier pricing system for the ZOO TV tour. Tickets in the front row were the same as tickets in the nose bleeds. For the Philadelphia Veterans stadium shows on ZOO TV, this was 30 dollars. For the RFK stadium shows on ZOO TV it was 28.50. On POPMART, U2 had 3 or 4 sections at the back of the stadium at the lower 37.50 price, and the rest at 52.50.
Your point? Come to think of it, your above analyzation goes to show just how wrong you are above regarding past posts...
So thanks for proving yourself wrong. But then again, I already did - read my above post.
Originally posted by STING2 Ticket price does have an impact on demand, especially when attempting to sell the 2nd level seats in a stadium. The Majority of second level tickets for POPMART were sold at the 52.50 level with a few at the very back at 37.50. The 52.50 level is considerably more than the 22.50 for virtually all second level Floyd seats in Philadelphia on the Division Bell tour. 115% more aproximately.
There were more than "a few at the very back" - especialy considering that 2/3 of the shows did not sellout and were not full at all. That decreases your estimations. Your math doesn't make sense either. Oh and btw, Floyd could draw over 185,000 in Philly today with their growth rate of 30% per tour and at an average of $60 per ticket with the typical 75% ticket price increase (without affecting their attendance from last tour, as always). Could U2 or The Stones do that?
Originally posted by STING2 Unless you can present an Amusement Business figure showing that 2.4 million people were played to in Europe, that figure is simply and estimate and could be incorrect. The 34.50 price is for North America, NOT Europe! So once again, these are estimates and theorys, not facts!
No - they're facts. You can choose to believe whatever you want. It doesn't bother me one bit.
But just to let you know...The French shows were between 210 and 220 FF - which is the equivalent $40-45 USD at the time. The German shows were between 65-72 DM, which is the equivalent of $35-40 USD at the time.
Want more?
Originally posted by STING2 I've been right about everything I've presented from confirmed sources, and my estimates and theory's have just as much merit as anyone elses.
..and pigs can fly out of my most prestigious orifice!
Originally posted by STING2 Current Album sales and Concert Ticket sales count equally. You can't put one over the other. Who ever has the better CURRENT margin in album selling + the margin in Concert Ticket selling is the more popular artist.
According to you.
Originally posted by STING2 While the suggested retail price for HTDAAB was reduced the first week, most retailers sold it above the suggested retail price and at a level similar to U2's other recent releases. In addition, a vast number of people do not buy albums anymore. They simply download them from the internet or burn them from friends because a near perfect digital copy can be made. This makes it much tougher today to sell albums, which makes HTDAAB album sales even more amazing! Most of the U2 fans I know did not buy the album, but burned it from a friend or downloaded it from the internet. But they all would buy the albums back in the 1990s and 1980s because the copying and downloading technology was not available back then or not available to the degree it is today.
Again - nice excuse. And good luck proving any of that!
Originally posted by STING2
Why do you think albums older than 2 years are not allowed on the Billboard 200 if they happen to sell enough in a given week to make the Billboard 200?
Because they're referred to as catalog titles by then.
Originally posted by STING2 I try to be objective as possible and I'm not any more biased than anyone else in here.
I think that's the funniest thing I've heard all day!
Originally posted by STING2 First, you think that Pink Floyds catalog is going to sell more than 10 million copies in 2005? Are you going to have soundscan data to prove that? Dark Side sold a little over 400,000 in the USA in 2002 but there is no "hard data" for catalog sales outside of the USA for that year. The rest of Floyd's albums sale a fraction of what Dark Side does. I'd say "BOMB"s first two weeks in the USA in 2004, would be equilavent to all the catalog albums Floyd sold in 2004 in the USA. Outside the USA, there is not accurate information on catalog sales for Floyd, except in England from the BPI. Figures from the BPI as well as the British album charts show that U2 has sold more albums than Pink Floyd in the United Kingdom, Pink Floyd's home country!
I didn't say that they're going to out sell
HTDAAB overall. I said this year, genius. And Pink Floyd's catalog sales amount to 4 million worldwide (2 Million in the US) - as in early 1994 they had sold 140 Million albums, by 1999 175 Million albums, and at present, nearly 200 Million albums worldwide. have been sold. U2 haven't done or ever will sell this amount of records...or at least for a very long time. This is a fact.
Originally posted by STING2 Catalog sales are not important, in determining current popularity, because they often represent the replacement of albums (lost or broken) by people who already bought it for a variety of reasons, plus they represent the past and nostalgia, not what is currently going on. Albums are often re-issued with better sound or different packaging or formats, which again brings people who already have the album back to buy it again.
Of course you'd say that. And again, good luck in proving that to a large degree.
Originally posted by STING2 Echoes sold less than Division bell and is a Best Of album which means its guareenteed to have a certain level of sales.
That's not necessarily true. And I really like your clever excuses. You should write a book detailing them.
Originally posted by STING2 Most of the U2 shows were sellouts despite the much higher ticket prices. The shows that had trouble selling out in the midwest was essentially because of the much higher ticket price and involved seats behind the stage that are always difficult to sell. With stadiums, ticket prices are lower and there are not behind the stage seats to sell. Demand at a much higher ticket price is always going to be lower than a ticket price that is lower for the same artist. If Stadiums had been played, ticket prices would be lower and demand would be higher, about 50% higher than POPMART based on my estimates.
Only 50% in Europe...or higher.
Originally posted by STING2 I never claimed it would be near or as high as Floyd's last two tours, but it would be much closer in margin to Floyd's concert ticket sales, than Floyd's Division Bell album sales are to ATYCLB's or what "BOMB"S will be.
You see, I know you know you're wrong. But you just won't admit it - unbelievable.
Originally posted by STING2 Its not un-believable that U2 is a more popular band today if one even considers Pink Floyd to be a band. Most people here who study the charts and album sales would agree.
Well, then they also have fuzzy math skills too.
Originally posted by STING2 Its uncertain if they could do a full stadium tour of the USA, but if the latest album continues to sell at the rate that huge albums like Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby did, then I'd say that they could regardless of what they actually end up doing. They may decide to stay indoors even if they think they might be able to do a full stadium tour, because Arena's are so easy to sellout compared to stadiums, and selling out a 20,000 seat arena produces better media coverage than selling 40,000 seats in a 60,000 seat stadium. [/B]
Oh I see. That's why U2 is playing another arena tour in North America this year but they're the biggest band in the world even though their overall sales aren't as high as Floyd's are and their concert attendances are as high as Floyd's are and they can't sellout or struggle to sellout many arena shows (1/3), mainly in America's mid-west but Floyd can sellout Stadiums anytime, anywhere, anyplace?
A bundle of laughs indeed...