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.
NoControl said:


Well, you're wrong.




...and some like apples better than oranges. That's just your opinion and is certainly not mine.

Sure, apples and oranges like Freddy got Fingered versus Sideways or Kenny G versus Miles Davis. The bottom line is that U2's critical acclaim is indeed a factor in their overall status. Those great bands were a product of their time, whereas U2 has trancended three decades of various changes in pop music. The fact is U2 has a prestige factor other than mere historical popularity that the others do not.
 
Personally I don't care what band has the biggest concert draw. But just because a band like U2 hasn't played a market like Eastern Europe or Indonesia doesn't mean that they wouldn't sell it out IF they did.
Concert numbers simply aren't the only indicator of popularity and/or greatness. But if they were, U2 would be pretty far up there. If Metallica fans claim they're number 1 in concert attendence or profit or whatever, then fine. Take that title. It's yours.
But U2 has basically been the most consistently awesome band since The Joshua Tree, based on music, lyrics, touring, political awareness, and relevance. They could have made five "sequels" to Joshua Tree and rested on their laurels, but they chose to reinvent themselves, and challenge their listeners.
I don't know much about Metallica, but I know they haven't done that.
 
Johnovox said:


Sure, apples and oranges like Freddy got Fingered versus Sideways or Kenny G versus Miles Davis. The bottom line is that U2's critical acclaim is indeed a factor in their overall status. Those great bands were a product of their time, whereas U2 has trancended three decades of various changes in pop music. The fact is U2 has a prestige factor other than mere historical popularity that the others do not.

I prefer apples myself...
 
Ifeelnumb84 said:
Personally I don't care what band has the biggest concert draw. But just because a band like U2 hasn't played a market like Eastern Europe or Indonesia doesn't mean that they wouldn't sell it out IF they did.
Concert numbers simply aren't the only indicator of popularity and/or greatness. But if they were, U2 would be pretty far up there. If Metallica fans claim they're number 1 in concert attendence or profit or whatever, then fine. Take that title. It's yours.


U2 is more popular.


Originally posted by Ifeelnumb84 But U2 has basically been the most consistently awesome band since The Joshua Tree, based on music, lyrics, touring, political awareness, and relevance. They could have made five "sequels" to Joshua Tree and rested on their laurels, but they chose to reinvent themselves, and challenge their listeners.
I don't know much about Metallica, but I know they haven't done that.

You think U2 haven't rested on their laurels? You should listen to their last two albums...
 
NoControl said:


U2 is more popular.

Yes and better.






NoControl said:

You think U2 haven't rested on their laurels? You should listen to their last two albums...


I have and they are great, and critically acclaimed and ATYCLB won 7 grammies including consecutive awards for record of the year and their tour was considered the best of the year, etc, etc, etc. That's not resting on their laurels. Resting on their laurels is what the other bands you mention above have done. The Rolling Stones have the longevity and have released at least some new material in the last 15 years, but most of it was critically panned dreck. As I said, they were great for their time, but they never maintained their greatness over their career as U2 have.
 
What is this critical acclaim BS? Are you all sheep? I could care less about "critical acclaim".

Most critics are failures at the things they critique and maybe for a reason.

I like what I like because I like it.

F*** the critics!

And Pink Floyd hasn't had a great record for 30 years but they still are a huge draw and have a massive global fanbase.

My whole part of this argument is that U2 should tour more. They should be playing places like India, Malaysia, Eastern Europe, So. America.

They should be steeping out more if they want this title: Biggest Band in the World.

If you're the biggest, you'll play anywhere, anytime, to anybody.

But U2 does not. Never have.
 
What is this critical acclaim BS? Are you all sheep? I could care less about "critical acclaim".

Well, there you have it. If YOU think what your criteria for biggest band in the world is the only thing that matters. Good for you. YOU can decide whatever suits you and nobody can change your mind. Outisde of your own personal universe, you're wrong. U2 has the title of biggest band on the world and will prove it yet again in the coming year. U2 are relevant, they matterm and have mattered for decades; they do not need to tour every nook and cranny of the Earth to prove it. Pink Floyd hasn't done anything in ages. I mean, please. This is pathetic.
 
Johnovox said:


Yes and better.

I have and they are great, and critically acclaimed and ATYCLB won 7 grammies including consecutive awards for record of the year and their tour was considered the best of the year, etc, etc, etc. That's not resting on their laurels. Resting on their laurels is what the other bands you mention above have done. The Rolling Stones have the longevity and have released at least some new material in the last 15 years, but most of it was critically panned dreck. As I said, they were great for their time, but they never maintained their greatness over their career as U2 have.

I guess you like oranges better...

:tsk:
 
Johnovox said:


Well, there you have it. If YOU think what your criteria for biggest band in the world is the only thing that matters. Good for you. YOU can decide whatever suits you and nobody can change your mind. Outisde of your own personal universe, you're wrong. U2 has the title of biggest band on the world and will prove it yet again in the coming year. U2 are relevant, they matterm and have mattered for decades; they do not need to tour every nook and cranny of the Earth to prove it. Pink Floyd hasn't done anything in ages. I mean, please. This is pathetic.

Pink Floyd is the biggest band in the world - for a band who is still officially together. Their record sales, concert attendances, album sales (back catalog sales included) are higher than U2's are. And their overall grosses would be too if they were more active. Also, any Floyd studio album released since U2 has been releasing records has sold at least 7 million copies. While any U2 studio album since then hasn't sold at least that many copies.

What more do you need?:shocked:
 
hey no control is your 7 millon in the us or the world the joshua tree has so far sold 13ml achtung baby is a about 10 ml and atyclb is at 8ml wolrd wide !!!!!
and there back catalouge is selling all the time
 
andrewpl11 said:
hey no control is your 7 millon in the us or the world


The world. And it's not my 7 Million, it's Floyd's.

Originally posted by andrewpl11 the joshua tree has so far sold 13ml achtung baby is a about 10 ml and atyclb is at 8ml wolrd wide !!!!!
and there back catalouge is selling all the time

Those figures are as off as your caps lock.
 
Good go smoke some dope to Pink Floyd and go bang your head against a wall to Metallica, you can argue till you are blue in the face this is a U2 message board about U2 tours, not Metallica or Pink Floyd tours or record sales. If it was my board id be much more proactive in eliminating people that constantly are bringing up the same topics over and over again. Youve stated your position here as well as in other threads, people don't need to hear it. If you want to declare your love for Pink Floyd and Metallica I would suggest going to their forums because surely they have some.
 
Yahweh said:
Good go smoke some dope to Pink Floyd and go bang your head against a wall to Metallica, you can argue till you are blue in the face this is a U2 message board about U2 tours, not Metallica or Pink Floyd tours or record sales. If it was my board id be much more proactive in eliminating people that constantly are bringing up the same topics over and over again. Youve stated your position here as well as in other threads, people don't need to hear it. If you want to declare your love for Pink Floyd and Metallica I would suggest going to their forums because surely they have some.

I don't do drugs. And who said I liked Metallica?

I brought up the things I did, because there are many people here who can't accept the fact that U2 aren't the biggest thing since sliced bread. And it's not "my" position, as I'm stating facts. I guess people don't like to hear them...

I used to love U2. But now I only like U2 for an ever diminishing list of reasons. But that's a whole other can of worms...
 
No Control, yes his album figures are off the mark.

U2's worldwide numbers are higher.

Look it up:

Billboard
RIAA
 
Yahweh said:
If it was my board id be much more proactive in eliminating people that constantly are bringing up the same topics over and over again.


One person in this forum has in fact been sent on vacation for repeatedly hijacking topics to post about another band. Others can follow if needed. Again, this is a U2 site and U2 tour forum.
 
Pink Floyd haven't released a competent record since 'The Wall' 25 years ago.

The group that toured in 1987 and 1994 were a tribute band at best, trading on a reputation that was gained in the 70's.

If The Edge left U2 and the other 3 decided to carry on with a different guitarist, would it still be U2?

Pink Floyd without Roger Waters are a sham.

And besides - who cares who is the biggest. Grow up.
 
Maybe, Jedi Larry, it's because the band have familes that they don't want to be seperated from. It's easy to tour when you have no kids,or if they're just babies. In the late 80's and early 90's it was easy to keep up such a schedule --just hire 2 nannies to take on the road, one for the daytime and one for the night, as Bono and Ali did on ZooTV. But once the kids hit kindergarten they have to stay in Dublin and be in school during the year. Ali pulled the 2 girls out of school during Popmart and most of Elevation and homeschooled them on the road, but I'll bet she couldn't have done that during the whole thing, even if she hadn't been pregnant, and she did show up "showing" at several shows. (How her doctor ever allowed that in her 3rd trimester, standing so close to the stage with that noise level, , is beyond me....no wonder John is such a "thug"):wink:

We all forget that Edge's marriage to Aislinn fell apart under the strain of such a schedule. He had 3 little kids at home at the time. Dublin scuttlebutt has had it that she brought another man home on the Lovetown Tour. I am sure the band has been very cautious after this, not wanting a replica of that experience, after seeing what Edge went through afterwards.

Now, Bono can adapt but I doubt anyone else can. It's very simple.
 
Last edited:
Which is why they should do these tours in yearly phases.

Tour six-eight months in '05 in the U.S., Australia,Japan, etc.
Tour six-eight months in '06 in the EU and So. America, Malaysia, Africa, etc.
 
H said:
Pink Floyd haven't released a competent record since 'The Wall' 25 years ago.

The group that toured in 1987 and 1994 were a tribute band at best, trading on a reputation that was gained in the 70's.

If The Edge left U2 and the other 3 decided to carry on with a different guitarist, would it still be U2?

Pink Floyd without Roger Waters are a sham.

And besides - who cares who is the biggest. Grow up.


I think I've already said I like apples myself...
 
"That's not what I asked. If you have the info (which I don't think you do), post it."


Info for what? If its amusement business info, I either have it or I can get it.



"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."


You've given me your theory's on return shows and what certain stats mean or suggest. 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. 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. 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.

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.





"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..."



"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."

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.

I do not know how fast the Prince shows soldout, although it appears each were not full sellouts as the per show totals were several hundred tickets less per night than U2's total in the same venues. Given that fact and the much lower ticket price for Prince, U2 indeed has the lead in both markets. By how much though is more difficult to tell.










"Not necessarily."



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

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.



"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."

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.



"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."

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!

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.

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.



"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.,.."

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.

I have done some extrapolation with U2 album sales in order to ESTIMATE certain figures when the information was unknown! 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.




"LOL

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

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?




"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!"

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.

Roger Waters has already said Pink Floyd is no longer a band, but thats another issue I guess.

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.

So if Pink Floyd does not record or tour ever again, you will still consider them to be a band?




"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"

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. 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. 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?




"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."

Its not BS and its not wrong to look at it this way. It is the more detailed and accurate way of looking at it.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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

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!




"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."


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.

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.

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.

If you think HTDAAB is a carbon copy of ATYCLB, I'd say you have not listened to it, but thats just my opinion. Most of my friends, many of them professional musicians, consider HTDAAB U2's best album since Achtung Baby. Many would say that Floyd has tried to repeat their sound over and over again, although obviously not to the same degree of success. The only album remotely similar in sound to the Joshua Tree is Rattle And Hum. In any event the issue of "sound" and its effects on sales is an opinion, and not fact.



"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. "

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?

I try to be objective as possible and I'm not any more biased than anyone else in here.



"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?"

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!

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.



" 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..."

Echoes sold less than Division bell and is a Best Of album which means its guareenteed to have a certain level of sales. 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.




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

"More fuzzy math skills..."

Not fuzzy math skills, but an estimate based on the much higher ticket prices and sellouts, plus the doubling of album sales.



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

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.



"Unbelievable."

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.



"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."

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.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
Last edited:
Okay, it looks like we're done here since some people seem to have ignored my last post in this thread.



I really wish you two could just agree to disagree at some point. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom