MERGED ---> Rock Star: INXS + Rock star INXS + And the new lead singer of INXS is...

[deep]

peta might care - those animals do not look too well

 

[STING2]

That's possibly why they are trying to cash in on America, more asses to put in the seats, more ears for listening and more pockets for doling out cash for albums and t-shirts etc.

It's clearly a commercial move, I couldn't fathom an argument otherwise, if you have one I'd love to read it.

INXS has been dead here too for years. About all they had left was the integrity of what they had done with Hutch and a pretty damn good back catalog of songs.

Really, the only path I see to relevance would have been to change it up, stir the pot and go at it differently.

Clearly they chose the guy who could mime Hutch the best because it was the path of least resitance and at the same time it's an acknowledgement that people don't think much of them (on a mass scale) without Hutch.

At the end of the day this was the easiest way to gain a spike of popularity in an effort to give them momentum for the future. Look, I am an INXS fan but they are all but over creatively and are basically relegated to 'hits' band. People in America know who they are, they just don't care. Lots of people know who U2 are and don't care either, look at their singles chart success in America over the last several years, abyssmal. It's not unique to U2, it's the apathy of the music buying public. YOu have to have the image to be popular, this is why coveting popularity is such a bastard. It doesn't make good sense, creatively or musically the only thing that fuels it are ego and commercialism.

The only people buying loads of digestable pop fluff and rock pop redundancy are those who digest it and toss it away. The people who aren't music fans with 500 CD's and albums in their collections, these are the people who only buy compilations with the "hits" on them. INXS wants another hit, like a crackhead needs another hit as Chris Rock once said. A total commercial move. This is what is repulsive to some people, that music is not good enough to stand on it's own merits, it insults the listener that they need to be "sold" into thinking somethings good.

In regards to U2's singles chart success over the past few years, one has to remember that U2 does not actually release singles for sale in the US market. Most of the singles charts until recently this year with the new downloads added in, were based on airplay almost exclusively. Airplay to a large degree is controlled by radio stations rather than the public although they do factor in to what gets played to some degree.

The purpose of a single is to sell the album so the true indicator of success is album sales and not single airplay or sales. U2 have been a big album seller of current product over the past 5 years in the United States. ATYCLB sold 4 million copies while HTDAAB has sold 3 million copies. These are huge numbers in this era of "file sharing" "downloading" "CD burning" albums for free.

Worldwide when it comes to album sales, U2 are just as successful as they have ever been relative to the rest of the industry. ATYCLB sold over 12 million copies worldwide and HTDAAB has sold over 9 million copies worldwide and is inching foward towards 10 million. ATYCLB is one of the 10 biggest selling albums of the decade and HTDAAB is already in the top 25 for the decade.

The otherside of the equation, concert ticket sales, has seen U2 set the record in Europe for the highest grossing tour ever, despite the fact that U2 only played 32 shows there this summer. In North America, the Rolling Stones are the only artist that can compete with U2 (Paul McCartney is close as well) and their position is starting to slip. Worldwide, U2 has now taking away the Rolling Stones title as the worlds biggest concert drawer.

 

[U2DMfan]

Well STING, first off let me say when we disagree, it is respectfully, I appreciate what you have to say if it's here or FYM or wherever.

I beleive your response while certainly accurate in that sense, is sort of the apologist manifesto on some subjects. "oh, the singles tank but they don't care about that....."Sure they do. I can provide quotes from the band talking about "hits" and such.
I made the remark over in the other forum about your apology that GReen Day is beating U2's sales "oh, people are buying it because of other reasons other than the music". Forgive me, but that is a crock. What if they think it's better music? Most people outside of a U2 forum DO. It IS entirely possible.

And yes, relative to the industry I agree. That's why I said there is so much apathy these days from the music buying public. A 4/5 million selling album is the same "big hit" that an 8/9 million used to be, more or less.

And in a business sense, I agree with you about the purpose of a single. But I am not totally disassociated with the music aspect, I think the purpose of a single, a lead single especially is to say "this is where we are going" musically. If the shit is good enough, it will sell. The thing about post Sweetest Thing Redux U2 is that they are taking the risks out of the music and calculating. The average target demo, that they are shooting for are apathetic mostly. That's my whole point, they don't care anyways they like stylistic music by younger musicans. Doesn't even have to be good in most cases.

U2 breaking tour records is a yawner. When they tabulate those records by capita, then I might be interested. right now, U2 can charge substantially more, no fucking wonder they are making so much money. Grossings, schmossings, big damn deal is what I say. If I charged a million dollars a head to see me put on an acoustic show, I'd have a better chance to beat U2 that Green Day. I don't downgrade or disparage what U2 are doing, the whole point in this INXS thread is that this supposed target audience is apathetic. Meanwhile other bands are taking rock and roll into the next decade, step by step, while others tread water trying to be relevant by sell, sell, sell. Bullshit, I call.

U2 would sell out an arena tour with NO album to support here in the States. As for taking the mantle away from the Stones, is this the mantle you think they want? The dinosaur legends of rock and roll? Maybe U2 wants to be slightly more progressive than that, as do alot of other fans.

The things I belive in with U2 are hard to express in statistics, sales and concert data. I think the best way a band/musician can make their mark, have relevance and success is to be unignorably brilliant musically.

To bring that back to INXS, I think they have adapted the U2 philosophy, possibly they've both always had it, that relevance can only be validated with sales.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The lead singer of INXS is Michael Hutchence.

The lead singer of this new band will be known within the hour.

I heart you, U2SavesINXS.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Jesus Christ, people. Are some of you serious? I cant even find the energy to quote anyone in here specifically, but let me address a few things. INXS weren't relevant in 1997 when Hutchence died? According to whom? Americans? Guess what. There's a whole other world outside vaccuous America that an Australian band called INXS lived in, and success did not hang on American or even Australian chart sales, nor concert sales. It has fuck all to do with jack shit.
The new single sounds like a rather average anyone's song. It's not good, not bad. Just 'meh'. It might do well, who the hell knows or cares. To anyone suggesting it sounds like What You Need must do themselves an educational favour and look up Iva Davies and Greedy Smith. THAT is who this new singer sounds like; a nice amalgamation of the 2. Funnily enough, both skips.

 

[Angela Harlem]

What if, 10 years ago, Neil Finn smoked his way into a coma he never returned from, and then Crowded House decided the best way forward was to go on a tacky US REALITY TV SHOW to replace him?

What if Bono drunkenly decided to see if he actually was God and jumped out the door of the Vertigo plane mid flight? You think U2 would get a wonderous reception should they try and replace him via a shithouse reality tv show? I'd suggest that 99.9% of this site would be repulsed by the idea.

INXS & Michael Hutchence hold a place in Australia similar to the place U2 hold in Ireland or someone like Bruce Springsteen holds in the US. Everyone here kinda respectfully averted their attention and sort of understood while INXS fumbled around with a few truly awful replacement singers, but the reaction here to this show is the end of any respect they had left.

It is MUSIC BUSINESS, but it's one of it's very lowest points.

Here's a post worth quoting. Well said, Tyler.

 

[timothius]

INXS weren't relevant in 1997 when Hutchence died? According to whom? Americans? Guess what. There's a whole other world outside vaccuous America that an Australian band called INXS lived in, and success did not hang on American or even Australian chart sales, nor concert sales. It has fuck all to do with jack shit.

I don't want to fuel a fire, but what dictates relevance then?

I think that chart sales would have a great deal to do with their relevance to the music industry. In 1997 EW didn't even crack the Top 100 albums in sales, which included Australian artists: Savage Garden, Paul Kelly, Human Nature, John Farnham (3 times), 12th Man, Bee Gees (twice), Crowded House, Midnight Oil, Spiderbait, The Seekers, Powderfinger, John Williamson, Jimmy Barnes, The Wiggles, Grinspoon, Regurgitator, Leonardo's Bride, The Whitlams & Tania Kernighan - I would've thought at bare minimum that is a sure sign that their place in Australian music had slipped from the hay-days of Kick -> X. (Full Moon didn't crack the the Top 50 (all that is availbale) and had a similar ratio of Aus artists in it, although it did have a much later release date).

I tend to agree with Earnie on most things, but saying INXS is U2's Australia (or anywhere near it) - is way off, not just chartwise, but in terms of influence and overall standing amongst music enthusiasts.

For my money if any band is "Australia's U2" we are looking in the general direction of Midnight Oil, possibly Cold Chisel or somthing down that vien.

 

[corianderstem]

To anyone suggesting it sounds like What You Need must do themselves an educational favour and look up Iva Davies and Greedy Smith. THAT is who this new singer sounds like; a nice amalgamation of the 2. Funnily enough, both skips.

I have no idea who those two people are and will check it out, but is your point that the new song does NOT sound like What You Need because of the singer?

If you are, I definitely agree with that. But the guitar riff was extremely similar to What You Need, and it seemed to be in the same key, which didn't help matters at all. I was so struck by the similar sounding music I didn't even pay attention to the vocal or melody.

Edit: Oh, Icehouse! I always liked Crazy and Electric Blue, which are the only songs I've ever heard from him, since I'm just a lousy American.

 

[phanan]

The otherside of the equation, concert ticket sales, has seen U2 set the record in Europe for the highest grossing tour ever, despite the fact that U2 only played 32 shows there this summer. In North America, the Rolling Stones are the only artist that can compete with U2 (Paul McCartney is close as well) and their position is starting to slip. Worldwide, U2 has now taking away the Rolling Stones title as the worlds biggest concert drawer.

I would add Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band to that, especially if you are referring to just North America.

 

[STING2]

I would add Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band to that, especially if you are referring to just North America.

I would not add Bruce Springsteen because he was unable to sellout a single stadium show in LA at a mid-range ticket price and had trouble filling arena's in the southern United States. Springsteen can knock out anyone in his home area, which is the 5th largest metropolitan area in the world, New York City. He could also probably rule Philadelphia and then be damn competitive in Boston and Washington DC. Get away from those area's though and his concert drawing power drops of dramatically, based on the results of the last couple of tours.

 

[STING2]

Well STING, first off let me say when we disagree, it is respectfully, I appreciate what you have to say if it's here or FYM or wherever.

I beleive your response while certainly accurate in that sense, is sort of the apologist manifesto on some subjects. "oh, the singles tank but they don't care about that....."Sure they do. I can provide quotes from the band talking about "hits" and such.
I made the remark over in the other forum about your apology that GReen Day is beating U2's sales "oh, people are buying it because of other reasons other than the music". Forgive me, but that is a crock. What if they think it's better music? Most people outside of a U2 forum DO. It IS entirely possible.

And yes, relative to the industry I agree. That's why I said there is so much apathy these days from the music buying public. A 4/5 million selling album is the same "big hit" that an 8/9 million used to be, more or less.

And in a business sense, I agree with you about the purpose of a single. But I am not totally disassociated with the music aspect, I think the purpose of a single, a lead single especially is to say "this is where we are going" musically. If the shit is good enough, it will sell. The thing about post Sweetest Thing Redux U2 is that they are taking the risks out of the music and calculating. The average target demo, that they are shooting for are apathetic mostly. That's my whole point, they don't care anyways they like stylistic music by younger musicans. Doesn't even have to be good in most cases.

U2 breaking tour records is a yawner. When they tabulate those records by capita, then I might be interested. right now, U2 can charge substantially more, no fucking wonder they are making so much money. Grossings, schmossings, big damn deal is what I say. If I charged a million dollars a head to see me put on an acoustic show, I'd have a better chance to beat U2 that Green Day. I don't downgrade or disparage what U2 are doing, the whole point in this INXS thread is that this supposed target audience is apathetic. Meanwhile other bands are taking rock and roll into the next decade, step by step, while others tread water trying to be relevant by sell, sell, sell. Bullshit, I call.

U2 would sell out an arena tour with NO album to support here in the States. As for taking the mantle away from the Stones, is this the mantle you think they want? The dinosaur legends of rock and roll? Maybe U2 wants to be slightly more progressive than that, as do alot of other fans.

The things I belive in with U2 are hard to express in statistics, sales and concert data. I think the best way a band/musician can make their mark, have relevance and success is to be unignorably brilliant musically.

To bring that back to INXS, I think they have adapted the U2 philosophy, possibly they've both always had it, that relevance can only be validated with sales.

I never said that U2 don't care about the singles. U2 care as much about the singles now as they did in 1980! U2 would love to get a song into the top 10 airplay chart here in the United States, something they have not been able to do since Achtung Baby. The primary reason for that is because greater airplay, means more exposure which translates into greater album sales. The single for any artist, exist to promote the album period.

Despite getting at best moderate to weak airplay in the United States on the radio, the HTDAAB album is one of the 10 biggest selling albums of the year. So the album has already achieved the desired album sales level despite not getting the airplay that was needed, which is impressive.

I'm not making apoligies for anyone or anything. I'm making a fact based observation on certain things in the music industry. The Green Day album is outselling HTDAAB for many reasons that have little to do with the quality of the music. #1 Green Day's album receives vast amounts of airplay compared to HTDAAB. Every single from the album has made it into the top 40 where with HTDAAB only one song cracked the top 100 and peaked at #30 which was Vertigo. #2 as I said before, often an album will achieve a certain level of popularity where many people start to buy simply because its the "in thing" at the moment. The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby had many buyers for that same reason. #3 if you disagree with the first 2 points, then explain why Green Day's previous album only sold 10% of what this new album is selling in the USA. #4 I agree there are many people out there who think the Green Day album is an amazing album and better than anything U2 has put out recently, but that is only a fraction of the reason why it has done so well.

When it comes to creating music, U2 has the same approach that they had since the beginning in the late 70s. They aim to make the best music they possibly can while at the same time being successful in the music business. Many people believe you can't do both, but U2 has proven time and again that you can make timeless, classic, and innovative music, yet still have #1 albums and strong popularity.

I've never bought this garbage that U2 decided to sellout after POP and become a hit singles making machine. That could not be further from the truth. The bands singles for POP got more airplay than most of what has been released on the recent albums. The bands caculation when they go into the studio these days is no different than when they first sat down with Steve Lillywhite in the summer of 1980 or when they were recording Zooropa in the spring of 1993. But because the last two albums do not have many of the production elements found on the 90s albums, people wrongly assume that U2 has dramatically changed its tune from the 90s to make "safe" "soft" albums that will sell more, which is just total rubbish.

U2 has always considered the business side of things to be important, ever since they won that talent competition in 1978 in Limmerick. But they have never compromised their music in an attempt to succeed in the business.

If one does not care about the music business and the business side of things then I could see how one considers the massive touring success that U2 has had to be a yawner. If one does not really care about that, then one has to wonder why one would even bother to enter the discussion in the first place since
this whole thing that is being discussed in this thread involves the music business.

I think that HTDAAB is the best album that has been released so far in this decade. U2 still are the best band in the world and they are certainly the biggest band. Green Day can't hold a candle to them in my opinion. Many others in the industry feel the same way which is why U2 beat out Green Day in every catagory it was nominated in vs Green Day at the 2005 Grammy awards. Grammy awards by the way are not based on album sales or concert statistics, but rather the votes of musicians, pruducers and others involved in the production of music.

There is nothing wrong with taking away the Stones mantle as the top touring band in the world. It is a business success and something U2 has strived for since 1980.

U2 have always wanted to be brilliant at the music and brilliant at the business as well. U2 have succeeded over their career at being both the best band and the biggest band at the same time.

 

[indra]

Wasn't Hutchence going to leave INXS after the end of the tour he died on? I know you can't really say how you would feel if something different happened, because no one really knows how they would feel until something actually happens, but do those who think this show is such a travesty feel differently if the rest of the band did the same thing but Hutchence was either still alive or had killed himself a few years after leaving the band?

I must say I got bored with the show really quickly -- I didn't even watch past the second episode. I also must say I doubt they will ever have massive success again, although I've heard that sales of their back catalog are up.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I don't want to fuel a fire, but what dictates relevance then?

I think that chart sales would have a great deal to do with their relevance to the music industry. In 1997 EW didn't even crack the Top 100 albums in sales, which included Australian artists: Savage Garden, Paul Kelly, Human Nature, John Farnham (3 times), 12th Man, Bee Gees (twice), Crowded House, Midnight Oil, Spiderbait, The Seekers, Powderfinger, John Williamson, Jimmy Barnes, The Wiggles, Grinspoon, Regurgitator, Leonardo's Bride, The Whitlams & Tania Kernighan - I would've thought at bare minimum that is a sure sign that their place in Australian music had slipped from the hay-days of Kick -> X. (Full Moon didn't crack the the Top 50 (all that is availbale) and had a similar ratio of Aus artists in it, although it did have a much later release date).

I tend to agree with Earnie on most things, but saying INXS is U2's Australia (or anywhere near it) - is way off, not just chartwise, but in terms of influence and overall standing amongst music enthusiasts.

For my money if any band is "Australia's U2" we are looking in the general direction of Midnight Oil, possibly Cold Chisel or somthing down that vien.

'Tis ok it's not fuelling a fire. I'm not going to speak about anywhere else but Australia as I dont know anywhere else. Charts and concert sales cannot be a deciding factor in a band's success though. Not here, at least. They contribute, definitely, like many things. But it is not a very accurate way to gauge how successful a band is. Cold Chisel is a prime example. They've dominated the pub rock sccene for decades but do not need constant #1s to be Number One. Touring here is also sketchy. Bands will tour 5 states at the most, and if they're big venues then you're looking at a very finite and drawn out touring. It seems that America experiences concerts on a very regular basis and at multiple venues because there is money in travelling very short distances. We get one city per state and perhaps a handful of shows. Smaller bands will spend perhaps 2 weeks per capital and fit in the Hordern and The Metro for example. And that is the same for each city. Then like any sized band, they'll piss off for another few years and come back when they need to affirm their spot as an important band here. I'm not speaking from sour grapes - we're an expensive audience unfortunately. But success cannot ride on touring. INXSs success certainly neverrelied on their touring and record sales. When Michael Hutchence died, they were still saturated into our music sccene and hadn't really gone anywhere. They were afforded what some bands here do. Midnight Oil now have lost some lustre because Garrett has deflected so much attention away from the music, but they're still bloody popular.

Is this making much sense? Probably not, lol. I can only guess with America, for example, but it seems much more competitve there (moreso than here) and bands have to it differently to here. Perhaps the differences are subtle, but we're so much smaller and will hang on to many who dont constantly remind us of their presence. INXS were one of them.

Corianderstem, I think that is pretty much it. The vocals were what I paid most attention to, but I've only heard the song twice and each time it has been his voice I've been paying attention to. I'll have to make an effort to listen to the actual playing to see what you mean, lol.

 

[timothius]

'Tis ok it's not fuelling a fire. I'm not going to speak about anywhere else but Australia as I dont know anywhere else. Charts and concert sales cannot be a deciding factor in a band's success though. Not here, at least. They contribute, definitely, like many things. But it is not a very accurate way to gauge how successful a band is. Cold Chisel is a prime example. They've dominated the pub rock sccene for decades but do not need constant #1s to be Number One. Touring here is also sketchy. Bands will tour 5 states at the most, and if they're big venues then you're looking at a very finite and drawn out touring. It seems that America experiences concerts on a very regular basis and at multiple venues because there is money in travelling very short distances. We get one city per state and perhaps a handful of shows. Smaller bands will spend perhaps 2 weeks per capital and fit in the Hordern and The Metro for example. And that is the same for each city. Then like any sized band, they'll piss off for another few years and come back when they need to affirm their spot as an important band here. I'm not speaking from sour grapes - we're an expensive audience unfortunately. But success cannot ride on touring. INXSs success certainly neverrelied on their touring and record sales. When Michael Hutchence died, they were still saturated into our music sccene and hadn't really gone anywhere. They were afforded what some bands here do. Midnight Oil now have lost some lustre because Garrett has deflected so much attention away from the music, but they're still bloody popular.

Is this making much sense? Probably not, lol. I can only guess with America, for example, but it seems much more competitve there (moreso than here) and bands have to it differently to here. Perhaps the differences are subtle, but we're so much smaller and will hang on to many who dont constantly remind us of their presence. INXS were one of them.

I'm kind of getting your vibe. Would this analogy be anywhere near the mark?

INXS are similar to Oliva Newton John. Major success overseas, blazed many trails in regards to overseas acting for Aus/NZ actors/actresses and regarded as a bit of an Aussie Icon. Despite all that though her overall drawing power in this country border nil, despite the constant acknowledgement that she is an Australian Icon?

 

[phanan]

I would not add Bruce Springsteen because he was unable to sellout a single stadium show in LA at a mid-range ticket price and had trouble filling arena's in the southern United States. Springsteen can knock out anyone in his home area, which is the 5th largest metropolitan area in the world, New York City. He could also probably rule Philadelphia and then be damn competitive in Boston and Washington DC. Get away from those area's though and his concert drawing power drops of dramatically, based on the results of the last couple of tours.

While I agree that U2 beats him in filling more arenas in more areas, he certainly does belong near the top. In 2003, The Rising tour grossed $115.9 million over 47 shows in the U.S. to become at the time the second largest total for any act to earn in one calendar year, behind only the 1994 Rolling Stones tour.

By comparison, on the 1st U.S. leg of the Vertigo tour this year, U2 grossed $48.4 million over 28 shows. Figuring that the average gross per show was at $1.7 million, if you added another 19 shows to that, you'd come up with another $32.3 million, for a total of $80.7 million.

To me, Springsteen is doing just fine in North America.

I don't want to derail the thread, just wanted to comment on that. As for INXS, I will always treasure the music they made, but I'm skeptical about this new venture. If they do indeed go gold or platinum in the U.S., however, you really would have to consider it a success, but whether they would be able to build on that and sustain it is another question entirely. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[Bono's shades]

I avoided watching the entire Rock Star: INXS series because I was so disgusted with the concept. Then late last night I flipped on the TV and what do I see but a band who has some familar-looking members and a somewhat familiar sound playing on the Craig Ferguson show on CBS. I suddenly realize it is the remaining members of INXS with their new lead singer. I kept thinking he was like the lead singer of an INXS tribute band. He sort of sounds like MH, seems to be trying to make the same stage moves, but it all comes off as very forced, not natural.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I'm kind of getting your vibe. Would this analogy be anywhere near the mark?

INXS are similar to Oliva Newton John. Major success overseas, blazed many trails in regards to overseas acting for Aus/NZ actors/actresses and regarded as a bit of an Aussie Icon. Despite all that though her overall drawing power in this country border nil, despite the constant acknowledgement that she is an Australian Icon?

I think so, if I am understanding you? To be honest, I dont actually know much of what she does to get her fame beyond the Movie Which Shall Not Be Named, but it's cemented in our cultures. People my parents age will rattle of a list of her hits outside that movie, but people not knowing her hits at my age will still know that she has somehow done a lot and been around forever.

 

[Laird/Bono]

The whole concept of that show bugs the crap out of me. As a singer it offends me, as an INXS fan it saddens me.

 

[corianderstem]

I had a dream last night that several members of INXS threw me into a swimming pool at a party.

I blame this TV show.

 

[STING2]

While I agree that U2 beats him in filling more arenas in more areas, he certainly does belong near the top. In 2003, The Rising tour grossed $115.9 million over 47 shows in the U.S. to become at the time the second largest total for any act to earn in one calendar year, behind only the 1994 Rolling Stones tour.

By comparison, on the 1st U.S. leg of the Vertigo tour this year, U2 grossed $48.4 million over 28 shows. Figuring that the average gross per show was at $1.7 million, if you added another 19 shows to that, you'd come up with another $32.3 million, for a total of $80.7 million.

To me, Springsteen is doing just fine in North America.

I don't want to derail the thread, just wanted to comment on that. As for INXS, I will always treasure the music they made, but I'm skeptical about this new venture. If they do indeed go gold or platinum in the U.S., however, you really would have to consider it a success, but whether they would be able to build on that and sustain it is another question entirely. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

U2 have restricted their tour to Arena's in North America on vertigo but will still out Gross Springsteen's last figure by more than 20 million dollars even though they did not play Stadiums or do other things to fully meet the demand. All of U2's shows in North America easily soldout. Most Springsteen shows out side the North Eastern United States struggled to sellout or did not sellout. There are only two markets, the New York City market and the Philadelphia market, where Springsteen can beat U2. Otherwise, anywhere else, U2 would beat Springsteen and often by a considerable margin.

Also, almost half of Bruce Springsteens Gross in 2003 in North America came from just two US cities, New York City and Philadelphia.

 

[phanan]

If you count the entire Vertigo run in North America, you'd have to include the entire Rising run as well, and it started in 2002. Add those dates in and they don't outgross him.

And while I've agreed that U2 has more widespread appeal, there aren't many places where they would do better by a considerable margin. Mostly areas to the south, but that's about it.

But who cares where the shows are, anyway? The bottom line is what counts, and he did quite well with the last full band tour.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I tend to agree with Earnie on most things, but saying INXS is U2's Australia (or anywhere near it) - is way off, not just chartwise, but in terms of influence and overall standing amongst music enthusiasts.

For my money if any band is "Australia's U2" we are looking in the general direction of Midnight Oil, possibly Cold Chisel or somthing down that vien.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that INXS were THE definitive Australian band or anything, but that they do (and they do) hold a cultural place within music here that is more than just hits and sales and whatever. They do. Not as much as Midnight Oil or Cold Chisel, correct, but I was just trying to explain why there is a little more feeling towards it in Australia then there would be in the US, where INXS were just another medium sized band who had some hits some time ago. 'The INXS Story' is plastic in the US, but it's platinum here. They would never, ever have gotten away with trying to do that show locally.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

STING, what kind of enjoyment do you get out of listening to music? Are you the kind of guy who rates films based on special effects and stunt sequences, and finally, box office and Oscars?

 

[timothius]

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that INXS were THE definitive Australian band or anything, but that they do (and they do) hold a cultural place within music here that is more than just hits and sales and whatever. They do. Not as much as Midnight Oil or Cold Chisel, correct, but I was just trying to explain why there is a little more feeling towards it in Australia then there would be in the US, where INXS were just another medium sized band who had some hits some time ago. 'The INXS Story' is plastic in the US, but it's platinum here. They would never, ever have gotten away with trying to do that show locally.

I agree with you then.

 

[STING2]

If you count the entire Vertigo run in North America, you'd have to include the entire Rising run as well, and it started in 2002. Add those dates in and they don't outgross him.

And while I've agreed that U2 has more widespread appeal, there aren't many places where they would do better by a considerable margin. Mostly areas to the south, but that's about it.

But who cares where the shows are, anyway? The bottom line is what counts, and he did quite well with the last full band tour.

Its true that The Rising tour in North America might outgross what is currently schedualed for the Vertigo tour in North America, but you have to remember that all of U2's shows soldout within minutes or hours with the exception of one or two shows. The Rising Tour played to as many people as it could in North America with many Arena and Stadium shows failing to sellout. The Vertigo Tour is completely soldout with most shows selling out in minutes. The Rising Tour successfully met the demand for tickets in North America, but the Vertigo Tour has seriously been underbooked.

The first 22 shows in 2002 in North America made Billboard's year end list total for the top tours. The figures for the first 22 shows of the Rising Tour are: Total Gross: $25,260,493 , Total Attendance: 347,574 , Total Capacity: 364,415 , Number of shows 22 , Number of sellouts 17. There were 16,841 tickets that were not sold from 5 shows of the first 22 of the rising tour.

On the other hand, in 2003, Springsteen of course did record business in his home town/area New York City, and his home region, the Northeastern United States.

I have the combined 2003 boxscores Grosses for Philadelphia, New York City(not including the Shea Stadium shows) and Boston and it comes out to $61,355,950. The three Shea Stadium shows would probably push the 3 city total to about $75,000,000 or about half of the entire GROSS for the North American tour, if not more than half.

But then take a look at Los Angeles, the second largest city in North America. There Springsteen played one show to 42,678 people out of a total capacity of 53,358. 10,680 tickets went unsold for this performance in Los Angeles. If U2 were playing Stadiums in the Los Angeles area, they could easily sellout 3 or more compared to Springsteen who can't even sellout one.

But this is the extent of the precise information I have on the Rising Tour. I'd have to take some time and look up the other boxscore results to find the full GROSS total as well as how good or poor other shows did.

Still, the fact remains that Springsteen is weak in the Southern and Western United States compared to other top touring artist. Outside North America, Springsteen would fall even further behind U2 in this area. U2 just set the GROSS record for Europe this summer with a $156 million Gross from just 32 stadium shows, all of which soldout on the day they went on sale. Although Vertigo North America is underbooked, the situation in Europe is even worse.

Because of the fact, there are rumors going around that the Vertigo Tour will continue into the summer of 2006 with shows in both Europe in North America. The band may decide to cut it short though once they finish Japan, Australia, New Zealand and any other non- North American/European locations.

Most of the Rising Tour in North America's Gross comes from the North East and primarily 3 cities in the North East. The results from those three cities when combined into the total Gross give a misleading picture of demand for Springsteen through the rest of North America.

Worldwide, the Vertigo Tour will have Grossed $290 million by the end of December of this year. It is the first time in history any artist has Grossed $290 million dollars in just 9 months. U2 will have the option in 2006, to extend the Vertigo gross total well past $400 million, considering the unmet demand still in North America and Europe, plus all the other area's of the planet where the demand to see U2 is very strong.

 

[STING2]

STING, what kind of enjoyment do you get out of listening to music? Are you the kind of guy who rates films based on special effects and stunt sequences, and finally, box office and Oscars?

What kind of a question is that? Are you the kind of guy who presumes that people who simply discuss the music business base their opinions of the music itself on statistics?

 

[Angela Harlem]

With all due respect STING, you mention these statistics quite a lot. You then dont acknowledge people saying that in some places, this has little relevance. And I mean instances like INXS carried success through no touring or huge hits but because of their roots. You argue that this is wrong because of some worldwide statistic. It's incorrect, STING.

 

[STING2]

With all due respect STING, you mention these statistics quite a lot. You then dont acknowledge people saying that in some places, this has little relevance. And I mean instances like INXS carried success through no touring or huge hits but because of their roots. You argue that this is wrong because of some worldwide statistic. It's incorrect, STING.

With all due respect, your going to have be a little more specific and explain what your talking about. I think you may have generalized and misunderstood somethings I said, but I'm not sure, so please explain and be more specific.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I dont believe I have misunderstood, but please say if you still think so. In general, and yes this is a generalisation, you seem to have an interest in statistics. You offer a lot of information to the forum on here for album sales and so on, and in general on concert attendance numbers, on any topic really. Moreso in music. It's merely an observation. Now, on INXS, a fre replies/pages back you made a comment about INXS not being so popular or successful here (I cant be bothered finding the post, as I'm sure you remember what you'd said anyway) in their later albums such as Welcome, etc. But this is actually wrong. You posted accurate statistics on album and ticket sales and I dont disagree with that. What I do disagree with is that this was a reflection on how popular they were here in my country during that time. All their albums after X could have gone triple platinum. They could have sold a few hundred each. No one cared then, and no one cares now - it didn't change their popularity. INXS rode on their earlier success for decades in this country.

 

[STING2]

I dont believe I have misunderstood, but please say if you still think so. In general, and yes this is a generalisation, you seem to have an interest in statistics. You offer a lot of information to the forum on here for album sales and so on, and in general on concert attendance numbers, on any topic really. Moreso in music. It's merely an observation. Now, on INXS, a fre replies/pages back you made a comment about INXS not being so popular or successful here (I cant be bothered finding the post, as I'm sure you remember what you'd said anyway) in their later albums such as Welcome, etc. But this is actually wrong. You posted accurate statistics on album and ticket sales and I dont disagree with that. What I do disagree with is that this was a reflection on how popular they were here in my country during that time. All their albums after X could have gone triple platinum. They could have sold a few hundred each. No one cared then, and no one cares now - it didn't change their popularity. INXS rode on their earlier success for decades in this country.

The only way to accurately determine a bands popularity at the current time is by looking at their current album sales and current concert ticket sales. If you want to know what the most popular movie is, the most popular type of Cell Phone, the most popular type of car, you look to see what most people are buying. In the music business, your only as hot as your latest product.

The statistics I reported on INXS were for the United States, not Australia. The United States has usually represented about half of all of INXS's album sales. I think the drop in the United States after X was much more rapid than other parts of the world. "Full Moon Dirty Hearts" sold almost nothing in the United Sates, yet it made the top 10 in the United Kingdom and received a GOLD record there for selling over 100,000 copies.

So the overall popularity of INXS worldwide dropped rapidly around the world after X although the most extreme drop was in the United States. For Australia, I do not have any INXS statistics on album sales or concert ticket sales from the 1980s or early to mid 1990s. Without such information, the only way I would be able to answer the question of INXS popularity in Australia is through first hand impressions by people who live there, although that type of information can often give a very inaccurate picture of what the true situation is in the country in terms of overall popularity. The only reliable and accurate way to determine popularity of a certain artist any where in the world at a particular time is to look at the current album and concert ticket sales in that country for that particular artist.