The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

[STING2]

Well, the fact is, that Rolling Stones are currently still capable of making more money on their tours than U2 in spite of their age. I would say that is pretty impressive.

That may not be true anymore and its definitely not true in Europe now. U2's recent Vertigo European tour of 32 shows is now the Highest Grossing tour EVER in European history with a GROSS of 156 million from just 32 shows. Worldwide it appears that U2 is now the bigger moneymaker, although the Stones will probably still make more money in the United States, Japan, and Germany, than U2 would in those same markets. But thats three countries, not the whole world.

 

[STING2]

Being able to sell out stadiums with tickets costing 435 dollars to be on the floor, and 200 nosebleeds is pretty impressive. Could U2 do that? I'm not so sure...

U2 just GROSSED $156 million dollars on their European tour with just 32 shows. A much larger GROSS than any of the Stones tours, or anyone else for that matter.

 

[STING2]

If U2's management could get away with charging more for tickets and still sell out the shows, they would do it. If they were sure that they could make a lot of money by playing more countries, U2 would play these countries. Like it or not, these big tours are business, and the objective from the management's point of view is to maximize the profits.

Thats true only to a certain extent. U2 have often said no to touring for personal and other reasons. The band could have easily toured Australia, South America and other places on the last tour, especially in South America where U2's had higher attendance than the Stones in many cities, but they decided to stop the Elevation tour after only 113 shows in order to get back in the studio as well as doing other things.

 

[STING2]

Exactly. Ticket prices are all about supply and demand. Stones tickets are more expensive than U2 tickets, but that is because there is a bigger demand for them.

That might be the case in the United States, but in the rest of the world its a far different story. The Highest GROSSING tour in European history is now the 32 date Vertigo Tour.

 

[martha]

The only way I'd ever pay 450 clams face value for a U2 ticket would be if I got to have a foot rub from Bono after the concert. And he was only wearing his underpants. And I'm one of those old farts who apparently has no trouble paying a shitload of money for nostalgia tours. I didn't buy any of the expensive tickets this tour becuase I could not justify paying 200 dollars for one single seat to a two-hour concert.


And doesn't anyone remember U2 not being happy with the Popmart tour in Australia because they could barely make enough to cover expenses? So maybe just maybe it is about the $$$ somewhat? And didn't Paul make a comment that they weren't bringing Elevation down soutyh because it was too expensive?


And, finally, you all are forgetting a key point. The Who is way better than the Stones.

 

[STING2]

It was the same way with the Bruce Springsteen show at Fenway

and in my opinion, i dont think U2 would be able to sell out stadiums at the prices the Stones are charging. there were reports of a few thousand empty seats at various shows on the European Leg already

but, I hope we wont ever have to find out for sure

EVERY U2 show on the European tour soldout the day tickets went on sale to the public, usually within minutes or hours. The 32 show of the 2005 VERTIGO tour now rank as the highest GROSSING tour in EUROPEAN HISTORY.

Here are the official Statistics for the tour from "Amusement Business" which tracks the concert industry worldwide. Tour total are at the bottom and remember, most of these shows soldout in RECORD time! U2 could have easily soldout another 15 to 20 shows, but they have 50 shows in North America already booked and need a few weeks off before diving back into North America.




2ND LEG OF VERTIGO WORLD TOUR: EUROPE

29. Brussels, Belgium : June 10, 2005 : Koning Boudewijn Stadion : GROSS $4,864,554 : ATTENDANCE 60,499 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

30. Gelsenkirchen, Germany : June 12, 2005 : Arena AufSchalke : GROSS $4,203,947 : ATTENDANCE 59,120 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

31, 32. Manchester, England : June 14-15, 2005 : City Of Manchester Stadium : GROSS $11,119,740 : ATTENDANCE 107,671 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

33, 34. London, England : June 18-19, 2005 : Twickenham Stadium : GROSS $13,677,410 : ATTENDANCE 110,796 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

35. Glasgow, Scotland : June 21, 2005 : Hampden Park : GROSS $5,819,053 : ATTENDANCE 53,395 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

36, 37, 38. Dublin, Ireland : June 24-25, 27, 2005 : Croke Park : GROSS $21,163,695 : ATTENDANCE 246,743 : SHOWS 3 : SELLOUTS 3

39. Cardiff, Wales : June 29, 2005 : Millennium Stadium : GROSS $6,406,073 : ATTENDANCE 63,677 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

40. Vienna, Austria : July 2, 2005 : Ernst Happel Stadion : GROSS $4,200,416 : ATTENDANCE 55,645 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

41. Chorzow, Poland : July 5, 2005 : Stadion Slaski : GROSS $3,127,416 : ATTENDANCE 64,711 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

42. Berlin, Germany : July 7, 2005 : Olympiastadion : GROSS $4,725,530 : ATTENDANCE 70,443 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

43, 44. Paris, France : July 9-10, 2005 : Stade De France : GROSS $11,822,645 : ATTENDANCE 160,349 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

45, 46, 47. Amsterdam, The Netherlands : July 13, 15-16, 2005 : Amsterdam Arena : GROSS $13,022,200 : ATTENDANCE 165,516 : SHOWS 3 : SELLOUTS 3

48. Zurich, Switzerland : July 18, 2005 : Stadion Letzigrund : GROSS $3,574,993 : ATTENDANCE 44,260 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

49, 50. Milan, Italy : July 20-21, 2005 : Stadio San Siro : GROSS $7,565,264 : ATTENDANCE 137,427 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

51. Rome, Italy : July 23, 2005 : Stadio Olimpico : GROSS $4,010,779 : ATTENDANCE 67,002 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

52. Oslo, Norway : July 27, 2005 : Valle Hovin : GROSS $3,765,136 : ATTENDANCE 40,000 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

53. Goteborg, Sweden : July 29, 2005 : Ullevi Stadion : GROSS $4,081,864 : ATTENDANCE 58,478 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

54. Copenhagen, Denmark : July 31, 2005 : Parken Stadion : GROSS $3,650,294 : ATTENDANCE 50,000 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

55. Munich, Germany : August 3, 2005 : Olympiastadion : GROSS $5,343,379 : ATTENDANCE 77,435 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

56. Nice, France : August 5, 2005 : Parc des Sports Charles-Ehrmann : GROSS $3,548,702 : ATTENDANCE 51,900 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

57. Barcelona, Spain : August 7, 2005 : Camp Nou : GROSS $5,130,437 : ATTENDANCE 81,269 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

58. San Sebastian, Spain : August 9, 2005 : Estadio de Anoeta : GROSS $2,936,571 : ATTENDANCE 43,720 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

59. Madrid, Spain : August 11, 2005 : Estadio Vicente Calderon : GROSS $3,679,354 : ATTENDANCE 57,040 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

60. Lisbon, Portugal : August 14, 2005 : Estadio Jose Alvalade : GROSS $4,492,762 : ATTENDANCE 55,362 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1





2ND LEG OF VERTIGO WORLD TOUR TOTALS TO DATE

GROSS: $155,932,214
ATTENDANCE: 1,982,458
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,872,882
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 61,952
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $78.66
SHOWS: 32
SELLOUTS: 32

 

[STING2]

Yes!

I think there are a lot of U2 fans who feel threatened by the continuing success of the Stones. You hear all sorts of excuses "well, the Stones don't seel that many records," "ya, but The Stones charge more money for tickets," "but the Stones are too old," etc......

Don't try to tell me that U2 attracts a young crowd. I'm almost 30, and when I go to a U2 concert I am way younger than the average attendee. U2 concerts attract a lot of middle aged "professional" types, and these people can be incredibly lame. When the show started I rose to my feet and started cheering, at which time I was politely tapped on the shoulder and was asked by a 40 something couple if I could sit down. I just ignored them, and I was tapped a few more times - it was retarded. U2 attracts an older crowd, just take a look around.

I don't think the age of the crowd should be a major issue. Its true that the average U2 fan is about 35, but the average of the Rolling Stone fan is about 52. Regardless, I don't think it should be an issue.

 

[STING2]

Simple explanation: U2 are the "newcomers" in comparison with The Stones and McCartney, and while their track record is amazing, it doesn't match Mick or Paul's. McCratney and The Stones have earned the right to charge top dollar - you will always be entertained at these concerts. Plus, each time MCacrtney or The Stones go on tour, there's always a pretty good chance it might be the last time, so people are willing to spend the money. The chances of U2 being around for a while are pretty good, so it's less urgent for many people.

No artist earns a right to charge a certain price, the market determines the average price of the tickets sold.

 

[Lila64]

btw, McCartney doesn't change his setlist from night to night. Same set list as well as the same banter between songs. Been to the show, saw the DVD. Same same same...

 

[STING2]

Is there anyone out there who knows where to find accurate stats on worldwide album sales?

Hey Sting2, my apologies on the inaccurate stats. I got them from a Stones related website, and I should have checked elsewhere to verify their accuracy. From what i understand, it is very difficult to find out global album sales - there just isn't a standard in place for compiling the data. However, I still feel that you are underestimating the number of copies of Steel Wheels that were sold worldwide. Don't forget, trhese guys are/were wildly popular in South America (they actually Go there), Australia, and parts of Asia. Were you alive in 1989? If so, you would know that Steel Wheels was a very popular album, arguably more popular than Tattoo You in 1981. Don't listen to CNN. Steel Wheels was a comeback album, and introduced a whole new generation of fans to the group's music. I do not jest when I say that Mixed Emotions was as omnipresent as Vertigo is today.

Statistics and album sales aside, I guess my basic point is that U2 is not yet an equal to The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, or even solo Paul McCartney. They are 20 years younger than these legendary artists, and just haven't been around long enough to be considered their equal. However, I will say this: if ever there was a band who stands a chance of matching or possibly even surpassing these vbands, it would be U2. For U2 to have been so succesful for 25 years is amazing. The boys still have a way to go, and they know this.

To compare U2 and The Rolling Stones in 2005 is completely illogical. The Stones are 20 years older than U2. It's like comparing U2 to Coldplay- they are two bands in different stages of their careers. Even if you feel that Coldplay is currently making better music than U2, it's retarded to say they are "better" than U2. Maybe if they're around 20 years from now and making good music, we'll talk. But until then, shut up! Apples and oranges, people....

I have most of the global sales figures for Voodoo Lounge, and an add in Billboard Magazine in 1995 listed all the certifications in countries around the world for the album and it only came out to a total of 3.8 million in the add. I'd still say 4.3 million is closer to the mark though as I'm sure there may have been a few countries and territories they neglected to show on the list. In any event, the RIAA, IFPI, and CRIA cover 70% of all global sales, so it makes it rather easy to arrive at an accurate estimate.

I became a U2 fan in 1987 and was well aware of the Stones return to touring and the new album in 1989. What people found most exciting though was the fact that the Stones were touring North America for the first time since 1981. While selling 2 million copies in the United States of an album should be regarded as poor in the pre-internet,file sharring, CD burning age, such numbers were not eye turning numbers. The Tour for Steel Wheels definitely was though, and to date is still the highest attended tour in North American History. But the overall popularity of an artist in 1989 or 2005 is based on the current sales of the latest studio album + the concert drawing power of the latest tour. Steel Wheels was not as big a seller worldwide as Tattoo You, and was considerably smaller than albums like the Joshua Tree, Rattle And Hum, Achtung Baby etc.


Paul McCartney Solo is light years behind U2 in album and should not even be mentioned in such comparisons. Paul McCartney gets much of his concert attendence from people who are first and sometimes only, Beatles fans. McCartney does very well with concert attendences, and ranks well with U2 in the United States, but elsewhere its a different story.

As far as who is consider to be the biggest of all time, considering ALL years, all albums sold, all tickets sold, considering all critical acclaim, plus sales data, plus concert drawing data, plus influence on music and culture etc., then in that sence, I can see the Beatles at #1, Rolling Stones at #2, Led Zep at #3 and U2 at #4 when only considering bands or groups. But that does not change the fact that the Stones have not been a super hot selling CURRENT band overall since 1981. 1982 was the last year that the Rolling Stones were regarded as the biggest band in the world in terms of CURRENT (album sales + concert ticket sales).

 

[Bobo U2]

that's the most shit on the mets infield since carlos baerga was in town

I piss myself........

 

[U2FanPeter]

When was the last time The Stones sold more albums than concert tickets?

U2 has always sold more albums, with the only likely exception being US Popmart(not sure of exact numbers, but they would be very close.

u2fp

 

[Diane L]

The only way I'd ever pay 450 clams face value for a U2 ticket would be if I got to have a foot rub from Bono after the concert. And he was only wearing his underpants.

What Martha said!!!

Originally posted by martha
And, finally, you all are forgetting a key point. The Who is way better than the Stones.

What Martha said again!

 

[cmb737]

btw, McCartney doesn't change his setlist from night to night. Same set list as well as the same banter between songs. Been to the show, saw the DVD. Same same same...

Dude does play 33 songs though.

 

[Lila64]

I don't think so! He only plays 2 hours - whatever he can squeeze in...

 

[starvinmarvin]

I have most of the global sales figures for Voodoo Lounge, and an add in Billboard Magazine in 1995 listed all the certifications in countries around the world for the album and it only came out to a total of 3.8 million in the add. I'd still say 4.3 million is closer to the mark though as I'm sure there may have been a few countries and territories they neglected to show on the list. In any event, the RIAA, IFPI, and CRIA cover 70% of all global sales, so it makes it rather easy to arrive at an accurate estimate.

I became a U2 fan in 1987 and was well aware of the Stones return to touring and the new album in 1989. What people found most exciting though was the fact that the Stones were touring North America for the first time since 1981. While selling 2 million copies in the United States of an album should be regarded as poor in the pre-internet,file sharring, CD burning age, such numbers were not eye turning numbers. The Tour for Steel Wheels definitely was though, and to date is still the highest attended tour in North American History. But the overall popularity of an artist in 1989 or 2005 is based on the current sales of the latest studio album + the concert drawing power of the latest tour. Steel Wheels was not as big a seller worldwide as Tattoo You, and was considerably smaller than albums like the Joshua Tree, Rattle And Hum, Achtung Baby etc.


Paul McCartney Solo is light years behind U2 in album and should not even be mentioned in such comparisons. Paul McCartney gets much of his concert attendence from people who are first and sometimes only, Beatles fans. McCartney does very well with concert attendences, and ranks well with U2 in the United States, but elsewhere its a different story.

As far as who is consider to be the biggest of all time, considering ALL years, all albums sold, all tickets sold, considering all critical acclaim, plus sales data, plus concert drawing data, plus influence on music and culture etc., then in that sence, I can see the Beatles at #1, Rolling Stones at #2, Led Zep at #3 and U2 at #4 when only considering bands or groups. But that does not change the fact that the Stones have not been a super hot selling CURRENT band overall since 1981. 1982 was the last year that the Rolling Stones were regarded as the biggest band in the world in terms of CURRENT (album sales + concert ticket sales).

Sting2, I agree with most of this. Your biggest-of-all-time list is identical to mine. But I still think that Steel Wheels (the album) was more popular than you are giving it credit for. It really was a popular album, and Mixed Emotions was EVERYWHERE that year, certainly as much as Vertigo was in 2004. In that sense, I see Steel Wheels as being the last hit Stiones album. Voodoo Lounge sold almost as many copies, but lacked a hit single, so it didn't make as big of a splash. Bridges To Babylon was probably the best Stones album since Tattoo You (give it a try, its really good), but didn't sell very well.

I wonder how the Stones new album will do. If it is released at just the right time it could go to #1, although it certainly won't stay there unless there's some radio play. Most likely it will sell briskly for the first couple weeks, and then perform like Brifges To Babylon did on the charts.

 

[cmb737]

I don't think so! He only plays 2 hours - whatever he can squeeze in...

Paul McCartney Set List-Atlanta, May 12, 2002

1. Hello Goodbye
2. Jet
3. All My Loving
4. Getting Better
5. Coming Up
6. Let Me Roll It
7. Lonely Road
8. Driving Rain
9. Your Loving Flame
10. Blackbird
11. Every Night
12. We Can Work It Out
13. Mother Nature's Son
14. Vanilla Sky
15. You Never Give Me Your Money/Carry That Weight
16. Fool On The Hill
17. Here Today
18. Something
19. Eleanor Rigby
20. Here, There And Everywhere
21. Band On The Run
22. Back In The USSR
23. Maybe I'm Amazed
24. C Moon
25. My Love
26. Can't Buy Me Love
27. Freedom
28. Live And Let Die
29. Let It Be
30. Hey Jude

----encore---

31. The Long And Winding Road
32. Lady Madonna
33. I Saw Her Standing There

----encore 2---

34. Yesterday
35. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band (reprise)
36. The End

 

[Lila64]

I sit corrected

 

[U2girl]

Why don't you just read all the posts the thread starter made in here

And I'm not U2's accountant, I'm just a person who refuses to be naive. Why don't U2 just go to the Southern Hemisphere and to Africa? They play for the people not for the money, right? And they have plenty of that already, so they should be able to make people in Australia, South America etc. and Africa!!! happy by playing there. If profits are of no concern, this should be possible.

What's your explanation to that?

Why don't you just read starvinmarvin's posts.

U2 had plans to go to the Southern Hemisphere on Elevation tour, but due to the weak Australian dollar they didn't go.
Too bad for them, I agree, but I know they don't play to lose money.
That said they did travel the most with their most elaborate tours, Zoo TV and Popmart. What's your explanation of that?

There are strong rumours about Australia, Mexico and South America this time. (even Europe and US again)

It's very cute that Zoo TV tickets and Popmart cost a lot less but that doesn't say anything because you'd have to calculate the effects of currency changes and inflation during the years to have a fair comparison.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Why is everyone behaving like someone's kicked their own child?

It's all business. They don't give a shit what we would prefer.

 

[kennerado]

reply 200 baby yeah!

 

[U2Man]

Why don't you just read starvinmarvin's posts.

U2 had plans to go to the Southern Hemisphere on Elevation tour, but due to the weak Australian dollar they didn't go.
Too bad for them, I agree, but I know they don't play to lose money.
That said they did travel the most with their most elaborate tours, Zoo TV and Popmart. What's your explanation of that?

There are strong rumours about Australia, Mexico and South America this time. (even Europe and US again)

It's very cute that Zoo TV tickets and Popmart cost a lot less but that doesn't say anything because you'd have to calculate the effects of currency changes and inflation during the years to have a fair comparison.

- That they seem to have learned from these tours that the profits are much bigger up North and hesitate to go South again.


- Again, inflation and currency changes cannot in any possible way explain a 680% increase in tickets prices in 13 years in the US(!). That's an absurd argument.

 

[starvinmarvin]

- That they seem to have learned from these tours that the profits are much bigger up North and hesitate to go South again.


- Again, inflation and currency changes cannot in any possible way explain a 680% increase in tickets prices in 13 years in the US(!). That's an absurd argument.

Very true. If U2 really wanted to go South America and Australia/New Zealand they would. It's all about the money.

Inflation alone cannot account for the huge increase in ticket prices.

 

[Mofo]

Why don't you just read starvinmarvin's posts.

U2 had plans to go to the Southern Hemisphere on Elevation tour, but due to the weak Australian dollar they didn't go.
Too bad for them, I agree, but I know they don't play to lose money.
That said they did travel the most with their most elaborate tours, Zoo TV and Popmart. What's your explanation of that?

There are strong rumours about Australia, Mexico and South America this time. (even Europe and US again)

It's very cute that Zoo TV tickets and Popmart cost a lot less but that doesn't say anything because you'd have to calculate the effects of currency changes and inflation during the years to have a fair comparison.

They went there with Zoo TV and Popmart because they were stadium shows large crowds in places they know will sellout will give them profit, Elevation was made for arenas and they would have end up losing or putting prices at really ridiculous prices.

If they get to Southamerica and Australia this time you can bet it will be the stadium show not the arena show and multiple nights in some cities

 

[AtomicBono]

ummmmmmmmm...i like the beatles

 

[martha]

They went there with Zoo TV and Popmart because they were stadium shows large crowds in places they know will sellout will give them profit, Elevation was made for arenas and they would have end up losing or putting prices at really ridiculous prices.

If they get to Southamerica and Australia this time you can bet it will be the stadium show not the arena show and multiple nights in some cities

Popmart in Australia didn't sell out, partly because prices were higher than the market would bear. Translation: People didn't buy the tickets because they were too expensive. Prices were high to make sure the tour at least broke even.

 

[starvinmarvin]

Popmart in Australia didn't sell out, partly because prices were higher than the market would bear. Translation: People didn't buy the tickets because they were too expensive. Prices were high to make sure the tour at least broke even.

They would've bought tickets if Pop would've been a better album. I'm sure that U2 would've sold out stadiums (with expensive tickets) in Australia if they had stopped there on the Elevation tour - the album was so much better.

 

[VertigoGal]

I agree with financeguy. No need to get upset. Ronnie Wood just placed U2 alongside Paul McCartney. That's an honour that Rolling Stones has never been and never will be able to achieve

I'll read this thread later when I have time, just for entertainment value.

 

[Mofo]

Popmart in Australia didn't sell out, partly because prices were higher than the market would bear. Translation: People didn't buy the tickets because they were too expensive. Prices were high to make sure the tour at least broke even.

Sorry I thought Popmart only had serious attendance problems in the States, however I still believe the main reason they are going to all these countries is because they have a stadium show and regardless of the prices they will sellout in Australia, Mexico, and South America, hopefully they will venture to Japan, NZ and North Africa.


But going back to the thread, The Stones are coming to Mexico in February so I'm really excited there's no way I'll miss them this time!!

 

[martha]

They would've bought tickets if Pop would've been a better album. I'm sure that U2 would've sold out stadiums (with expensive tickets) in Australia if they had stopped there on the Elevation tour - the album was so much better.

Like I said, the Popmart prices were high because of the elaborate stage construction and all the staff it took to run the show. Elevation was a simpler stage construction. The band and management didn't take Elevation to Australia because it wasn't going to make them any money. They said this at the time. None of this has anything to do with the perceived quality of the albums.

Go back and do some homework. All of this information is available for you to read. Australians were complaining about the tickets prices publically; the country was having economic difficulties at that time.