Biggest Bands ever at the height of their career. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-19-2005, 08:02 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
yertle-the-turtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: York, UK and Singapore
Posts: 11,750
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Most of the time the biggest band ever is a pile of wank.
__________________

__________________
yertle-the-turtle is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 08:08 AM   #32
War Child
 
2Hearts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SC
Posts: 634
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hallucination

Who's better? New Kids on the Block or Motley Crue. Hilarious. At least that was the scene in grade 8
Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, the answer is clear:

New Kids on the Block



As far as GNR vs. U2 in '91-'93, I did not know 1 person (including myself) at my high school that liked U2 or bought Achtung Baby.
On the other hand, virtually every white kid in the school had GNR albums, T-shirts, etc.
__________________

__________________
2Hearts is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 01:37 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:32 AM
How about Springsteen in the 80's. Talk about a tough ticket. Of coarse it's impossible, in today's diverse world, for anyone to reach the heights of Elvis in the 50's or the Beatles in the 60's.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 02:01 PM   #34
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,443
Local Time: 04:32 AM
please don't mention the beatles and guns and roses in the same breath again.

thank you
-god
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 02:41 PM   #35
Refugee
 
Hallucination's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
please don't mention the beatles and guns and roses in the same breath again.

thank you
-god
Boo Hoo
__________________
Hallucination is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 06:10 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheQuiet1
I remember once reading a magazine article on the top 50 biggest bands ever (it was based on biggest gig ever, album sales, weeks in chart etc). They came up with Pink Floyd as the top band.
If you're alluding to an article that appeared in Q magazine last year (coincidentally the one with U2 on the cover promoting HTDAAB), then both Guns 'n Roses nor Oasis were near the top, as they were #15 and #13 respectively. The top 5 of that list was:
1. Pink Floyd
2. Led Zeppelin
3. Rolling Stones
4. U2
5. Queen

And based on their criteria (US + UK sales of the band's biggest selling album, biggest concert audience for a single concert, # of weeks on British album charts) U2 might even be jointly 3rd now.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 07:04 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
MsMofoGone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Where is not important...
Posts: 26,717
Local Time: 04:32 AM
The Police in 1983
__________________
MsMofoGone is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 07:39 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
GnR weren't ever at the same level U2 have been. And U2 certainly haven't been the world's biggest band. They might be America's golden child, in an adopted sort of way, but that doesn't make them the world's biggest.

It does all come back to era and where you are as to who is the biggest in your neck of woods.
On the contrary, U2 have been the worlds biggest band in terms of Concert attendance/GROSS/demand and album sales since 1987. U2 have had the best average of both.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 07:42 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2Hearts


Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, the answer is clear:

New Kids on the Block



As far as GNR vs. U2 in '91-'93, I did not know 1 person (including myself) at my high school that liked U2 or bought Achtung Baby.
On the other hand, virtually every white kid in the school had GNR albums, T-shirts, etc.
If you went to high school in South Carolina, that would explain it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 07:57 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Guns N Roses popularity from 1988 through 1993 was very impressive. The band started out playing theaters at the begining of 1988 and then spent most of the year opening up for other bands. Towards the end of the year that did headline a few Arena shows themselves, but not stadiums at that point. Appetite For Destruction was a huge selling album, but the Use Your Illusion double album did not do nearly as well. Despite that, by 1991, almost 3 years away from the road, Guns N Roses launched its first true and what became their only headlining arena/stadium tour. It was spread out over 2 and half years and played mainly arena's as opposed to stadiums.

The ZOO TV tour was primarily a stadium tour and the band soldout multiple stadium shows in many cities on their own. U2 did not tour as long as Guns N Roses did, but if one looks at the average attendance and ticket price per show, U2 clearly was ahead of Guns Roses at that time. In addition, Achtung Baby sold more than Use Your Illusion did.

Guns N Roses did not have any stadium shows in North America where they attracted 40,000 plus people to a show without a strong support band like Metallica. In fact, there were many people in 1992 that would argue that Metallica had become bigger than Guns N Roses.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 08:02 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MsMofoGone
The Police in 1983
The Police were definitely the biggest band in the world in 1983 with Synchronicity selling over 11 million copies worldwide(a huge number even by today's standards) and the Synchronicty Tour selling out Stadiums and Arena's around the world, with several shows setting Attendance, Gross, and rate of sellout records back then. The Synchronicity tour stop in Miami, at the Orange Bowl, was the highest attended concert in the history of Florida at that time.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 10:35 PM   #42
Refugee
 
Hallucination's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Guns N Roses popularity from 1988 through 1993 was very impressive. The band started out playing theaters at the begining of 1988 and then spent most of the year opening up for other bands. Towards the end of the year that did headline a few Arena shows themselves, but not stadiums at that point. Appetite For Destruction was a huge selling album, but the Use Your Illusion double album did not do nearly as well. Despite that, by 1991, almost 3 years away from the road, Guns N Roses launched its first true and what became their only headlining arena/stadium tour. It was spread out over 2 and half years and played mainly arena's as opposed to stadiums.

The ZOO TV tour was primarily a stadium tour and the band soldout multiple stadium shows in many cities on their own. U2 did not tour as long as Guns N Roses did, but if one looks at the average attendance and ticket price per show, U2 clearly was ahead of Guns Roses at that time. In addition, Achtung Baby sold more than Use Your Illusion did.

Guns N Roses did not have any stadium shows in North America where they attracted 40,000 plus people to a show without a strong support band like Metallica. In fact, there were many people in 1992 that would argue that Metallica had become bigger than Guns N Roses.
You can't compare album sales because it's obvious that Achtung Baby would be able to sustain albums sales far longer than UYI 1 & 2. Plus U2 is still putting out new albums gaining new fans who in turn are checking out U2's older material. Guns N' Roses don't have the benifit of that. A more acurate album comparison might be Zooropa and AB albums sales combined, compared to the combined sales of UYI 1 & 2, and how many units they sold in the first two years of release. I might be wrong but isn't Appetite for Destruction(Gn'R's top selling album) a bigger seller than Joshua Tree(U2's top seller)? Either way I think that's also an irrelevant stat as it doesn't really say anythig about the peak of a bands "biggness" as album sales are always ongoing. Also you can't use ticket prices as a comparison because U2's stage show was so damn expensive they must of had to compensate for it with higher prices. Gn'R were only charging $30.00 per but I think it's safe to say that had they charged $60.00 they still would've sold just as much, doubling their gross. All I know is that U2 weren't even close to as big as Guns N' Roses durring that time(1991-1993). At least not where I live(Alberta, Canada), and everyone I've asked(in real life) since I posted this has agreed. I'm starting to think that maybe it's the U2 fans here who are letting their own perception distort things. U2 is my favorite band so I have no agenda in wanting or thinking Gn'R were bigger, they just were. At least for my age group which at the time was 15-20 year olds. NO doubt U2 is far and away the bigger of the two bands but I just don't by the arguement that at thier highest point they were bigger than Gn'R at thier highest point. We shoud try this; put your personal opinions aside and put statistics aside and try asking around. Ask random people who have no interest either way who was the bigger band in 1991-1993, Guns N' Roses or U2. I would be willing to bet that the results woud surprise alot of te fans here on this board.
__________________
Hallucination is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 11:17 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hallucination


You can't compare album sales because it's obvious that Achtung Baby would be able to sustain albums sales far longer than UYI 1 & 2. Plus U2 is still putting out new albums gaining new fans who in turn are checking out U2's older material. Guns N' Roses don't have the benifit of that. A more acurate album comparison might be Zooropa and AB albums sales combined, compared to the combined sales of UYI 1 & 2, and how many units they sold in the first two years of release. I might be wrong but isn't Appetite for Destruction(Gn'R's top selling album) a bigger seller than Joshua Tree(U2's top seller)? Either way I think that's also an irrelevant stat as it doesn't really say anythig about the peak of a bands "biggness" as album sales are always ongoing. Also you can't use ticket prices as a comparison because U2's stage show was so damn expensive they must of had to compensate for it with higher prices. Gn'R were only charging $30.00 per but I think it's safe to say that had they charged $60.00 they still would've sold just as much, doubling their gross. All I know is that U2 weren't even close to as big as Guns N' Roses durring that time(1991-1993). At least not where I live(Alberta, Canada), and everyone I've asked(in real life) since I posted this has agreed. I'm starting to think that maybe it's the U2 fans here who are letting their own perception distort things. U2 is my favorite band so I have no agenda in wanting or thinking Gn'R were bigger, they just were. At least for my age group which at the time was 15-20 year olds. NO doubt U2 is far and away the bigger of the two bands but I just don't by the arguement that at thier highest point they were bigger than Gn'R at thier highest point. We shoud try this; put your personal opinions aside and put statistics aside and try asking around. Ask random people who have no interest either way who was the bigger band in 1991-1993, Guns N' Roses or U2. I would be willing to bet that the results woud surprise alot of te fans here on this board.
Its not accurate to simply ask people's perceptions around you about events that were nearly 15 years ago or to simply go by what one remembers friends and people around them enjoying or liking at the time.

For example, more than half of my entire Highschool Class saw the ZOO TV show. But I was the only person who saw Guns N Roses in concert. I saw them in Washington DC when Metallica was opening or co-headlining with them. But I can't take this and extrapolate this in to being an accurate comparison between the popularity of the two bands at the time.

The only accurate way to compare the two bands at that time is the concert statistics and album sales for the two artist during the time period. I'm taking their current tour and current album sales during the period.

The Use Your Illusion tour vs. ZOO TV tour. Achtung Baby vs. the Use Your Illusion double album. Both albums were released in late 1991 and I agree that one should measure the first two years of release for both albums.

Regardless of the cost of any tour, the ticket price that fans pay is based on the level of demand for the tour. The higher the demand to see one in concert, the greater the ticket price. Its straight forward economics. Your market value determines the price you can charge and sellout a given venue.

The range of ticket prices back then was much closer than it is today. U2 charged an average of $30 dollars for all of its Stadium and Arena shows on ZOO TV. Guns N Roses prices ranged from as low as $16 dollars for their Stadium show at Joe Robbie Stadium in Miami on New Years Eve, to as high as $26 dollars for many of their Arena shows.

Guns N Roses played mainly arena shows and would often not utilize the seats behind the stage for the show, which is usually a sign of smaller demand. U2 on the other hand played primarily Stadium shows on ZOO TV and for the Arena shows used all the seats behind the stage.

Take the city of Philadelphia. U2 played two Stadium shows and one Arena show there on ZOO TV. Guns N Roses played 3 arena shows that did not utilize the full capacity of the arena for the shows in Philly. The GNR/Metallica tour skipped Philadelphia, most likely because the promoter did not feel the demand strong enough to even pay for the cost of a show there.

Achtung Baby was released in November of 1991 and made it to 4 times platinum in the USA faster than the Use Your Illusion album did, despite the fact that Use Your Illusion was released two months prior to Achtung Baby. Outside the United States, Achtung Baby's lead back then widened even more. Take the United Kingdom for example, Achtung Baby hit the 900,000 mark there in under two years while Use Your Illusion only hit the 300,000 mark. Thats a ratio of 3 to 1 in the 1991 to 1993 period in favor of Achtung Baby in the United Kingdom.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-20-2005, 02:10 AM   #44
Acrobat
 
smurf_sista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: in the TARDIS
Posts: 400
Local Time: 07:32 PM
at the hight of their career...although they may not have been a band...the spice girls

1) i know there not a band....but at the time every 7ish girl liked them, and you all had your favourite!
2) i know they are crap...but you didn't say what GOOD band was ....
__________________
smurf_sista is offline  
Old 09-21-2005, 08:01 PM   #45
Refugee
 
Hallucination's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Its not accurate to simply ask people's perceptions around you about events that were nearly 15 years ago or to simply go by what one remembers friends and people around them enjoying or liking at the time.
For example, more than half of my entire Highschool Class saw the ZOO TV show. But I was the only person who saw Guns N Roses in concert. I saw them in Washington DC when Metallica was opening or co-headlining with them. But I can't take this and extrapolate this in to being an accurate comparison between the popularity of the two bands at the time.
The only accurate way to compare the two bands at that time is the concert statistics and album sales for the two artist during the time period. I'm taking their current tour and current album sales during the period.
The Use Your Illusion tour vs. ZOO TV tour. Achtung Baby vs. the Use Your Illusion double album. Both albums were released in late 1991 and I agree that one should measure the first two years of release for both albums.
Regardless of the cost of any tour, the ticket price that fans pay is based on the level of demand for the tour. The higher the demand to see one in concert, the greater the ticket price. Its straight forward economics. Your market value determines the price you can charge and sellout a given venue.
The range of ticket prices back then was much closer than it is today. U2 charged an average of $30 dollars for all of its Stadium and Arena shows on ZOO TV. Guns N Roses prices ranged from as low as $16 dollars for their Stadium show at Joe Robbie Stadium in Miami on New Years Eve, to as high as $26 dollars for many of their Arena shows.
Guns N Roses played mainly arena shows and would often not utilize the seats behind the stage for the show, which is usually a sign of smaller demand. U2 on the other hand played primarily Stadium shows on ZOO TV and for the Arena shows used all the seats behind the stage.
Take the city of Philadelphia. U2 played two Stadium shows and one Arena show there on ZOO TV. Guns N Roses played 3 arena shows that did not utilize the full capacity of the arena for the shows in Philly. The GNR/Metallica tour skipped Philadelphia, most likely because the promoter did not feel the demand strong enough to even pay for the cost of a show there.
Achtung Baby was released in November of 1991 and made it to 4 times platinum in the USA faster than the Use Your Illusion album did, despite the fact that Use Your Illusion was released two months prior to Achtung Baby. Outside the United States, Achtung Baby's lead back then widened even more. Take the United Kingdom for example, Achtung Baby hit the 900,000 mark there in under two years while Use Your Illusion only hit the 300,000 mark. Thats a ratio of 3 to 1 in the 1991 to 1993 period in favor of Achtung Baby in the United Kingdom.
See those are interesting stats/takes on the issue. I believe that if the perception of the average person is that Guns N' Roses were bigger at that time than doesn't that have some merit to it? I did a random poll over the last few days and asked people who they remember as being bigger. The exact question was between the years 1991 -1994 who was the more popular band of the two, Guns N' Roses or U2? I asked 23 people. 14 guys, 9 girls. Unfortunately I work in the field or I could've asked alot more people. The age of the people ranged from 23 -41 and included people who lived in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta durirng the time period in question(1991-1994). The results were a lopsided 21-2 in favour of Guns N' Roses being the more popular of the two durring that time. The two to vote for U2 were my boss(27 year old male) and my buddy's girlfriend(23 years old). Most of the people I asked were not freinds of mine 14 years ago, in fact only 7 of them were. It would also be interesting to go onto a Gn'R site and see what stats and facts those fans could dig up becasue I'm pretty certain that they'd find stuff to counter the stats which have been given here favouring U2. Basically I don't think it's as simple as it seems for either side of the arguement. I mean if it was all about the stats than how do we explain a 21-2 vote in favour of Guns N' Roses with people from all over Canada represented and an age range of 18 years?
__________________

__________________
Hallucination is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com