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

[Angela Harlem]

Read my reply a few up. It is why these posts on stats and so on mean squat for here. Talk up America all you like, that's not what I know. I only know here, and album sales and concert tickets have got bugger all to do with it. I'm sick of repeating myself. You cannot say the only way to accurately determine INXS's popularity is through these things.

 

[STING2]

Read my reply a few up. It is why these posts on stats and so on mean squat for here. Talk up America all you like, that's not what I know. I only know here, and album sales and concert tickets have got bugger all to do with it. I'm sick of repeating myself. You cannot say the only way to accurately determine INXS's popularity is through these things.

The only way to accurately determine the popularity of any product anywhere is the examination of its sales. If people don't buy it then it is not popular. The friends and or people you meet , or the bar that frequently plays old hits from the 80s, are not an accurate guage of the popularity of any sort of music in a specific area. Just ask anyone in the business world.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The only way to accurately determine the popularity of any product anywhere is the examination of its sales. If people don't buy it then it is not popular. The friends and or people you meet , or the bar that frequently plays old hits from the 80s, are not an accurate guage of the popularity of any sort of music in a specific area. Just ask anyone in the business world.

How many people still name the Rolling Stones as one of their favourite bands, yet don't go to their overpriced and rather dull concerts or buy their crapolla new albums? I for one adore the Stones but have zero interest in either a tour or new album.

I understand what you are saying about sales data, and it's correct with INXS to suggest that on that basis alone, they lost a hell of a lot of steam since 1990, but what Angela is saying is that here in Australia virtually everyone will tell you that they love INXS - and they mean it. When you are talking about something like music, which has an emotional attachment unlike a cellphone, there is more than one gauge of 'popularity'.

What that DOES mean for the business side of the music is all in how they either harness that, ignore it, or push the commercial translation further away. INXS have always been incredibly popular here, but for a long time were unable to translate that into album or ticket sales for various reasons. That may or may not be their failure depending on how you feel about artists.

It's not difficult to understand that sales of a particular album or tour are not the be all and end all of popularity of an artist, and no person in the music business would be so narrow minded as to suggest that. U2 are a perfect example of that.

 

[phanan]

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.

According to Pollstar, the 2002 Rising tour consisted of 39 shows and grossed approximately $42 million.

The 2002 tour was a barnstorming tour, meaning that they made only one stop in each city. For them to play in 39 different places and only have 5 shows not sell out isn't exactly weak. This means they played to full houses in most of the country.

In 2003, the sales spiked even more due to multi-nights stands in some of their most popular areas, mainly the northeast. While this does skew the results somewhat, the bottom line cannot be argued with. If U2 decided to do a ten night stand in Dublin, there would be no disputing their numbers being larger, either.

 

[phanan]

How many people still name the Rolling Stones as one of their favourite bands, yet don't go to their overpriced and rather dull concerts or buy their crapolla new albums? I for one adore the Stones but have zero interest in either a tour or new album.

But for U2, I'm sure you still buy their albums and see them live. This would mean to me that they are more popular for you than the Stones are, even though you still like the Stones.

This is probably the same for a lot of people, so that's why going by album sales and concert ticket sales is indeed an accurate measure of how popular a band is at that given time. Right now, while their concerts gross a lot, the Stones new album won't sell anywhere near U2. Combine the two together and U2 is clearly more popular among the general public right now.

INXS are certainly beloved by thousands still, but their popularity peaked with Kick and began to slide after X (as far as the United States is concerned). While they still had a rabid fan base, most casual fans moved on. If an artist is unable to retain those casual fans, or obtain new ones, the sales and concert grosses for that artist will indeed drop.

 

[STING2]

How many people still name the Rolling Stones as one of their favourite bands, yet don't go to their overpriced and rather dull concerts or buy their crapolla new albums? I for one adore the Stones but have zero interest in either a tour or new album.

I understand what you are saying about sales data, and it's correct with INXS to suggest that on that basis alone, they lost a hell of a lot of steam since 1990, but what Angela is saying is that here in Australia virtually everyone will tell you that they love INXS - and they mean it. When you are talking about something like music, which has an emotional attachment unlike a cellphone, there is more than one gauge of 'popularity'.

What that DOES mean for the business side of the music is all in how they either harness that, ignore it, or push the commercial translation further away. INXS have always been incredibly popular here, but for a long time were unable to translate that into album or ticket sales for various reasons. That may or may not be their failure depending on how you feel about artists.

It's not difficult to understand that sales of a particular album or tour are not the be all and end all of popularity of an artist, and no person in the music business would be so narrow minded as to suggest that. U2 are a perfect example of that.

ummm..., Paul McGuinness is the first person to stress album sales and concert attendence when talking about U2's rise in popularity in the early years as well as popularity at the current time. I just finished watching U2's July 4, 1987 show on the Joshua Tree show in Paris. Some of the extra video on the DVD includes and interview with Paul McGuinness. July 4 is also the birthday for Island records and McGuinness pointed out that he and the band wish they could be at the party but they had 70,000 fans to deal with that day. At that time, this show was the largest attended show ever in the history of France. He brought out the fact about how proud he was that the album had sold over 7 million copies in less than 4 months after release and that the band would be playing in soldout stadiums and arena's around the world for the rest of the year.

To be sure, there is a difference between "Current Popularity" and "All Time Popularity". Current Popularity is easy to measure by looking at Album Sales and Concert ticket sales of the latest album and tour by the artist in question. "All Time Popularity" looks at all the album sales and concert ticket sales over an artist entire career as well as current figures for the latest releases.

The fact that everyone loves the Kick album but few want to pay to see INXS in concert is not a sign of strong current popularity. INXS may show up in a poll as being one of the top bands of all time in Australia, but what determined their popularity in 1997, their last year with Michael, was how many tickets and albums they sold of their latest tour and album. In the music business your only as hot as your latest product.

Its a fact that U2 experienced a big dip in their own popularity with the POP album and the POPMART tour, especially in Australia. But of course, if popularity were not based on current album sales and concert ticket sales, that would not have been the case.

If were going to accurately list who are the top 100 most popular bands in the world TODAY, your going to use the latest album and concert sales for the artist in order to determine who is #1, #30 and #100 etc. Its simply impossible to make an accurate list without album sales and concert ticket sales information. The Music Business and Media did not start talking about U2 being the biggest band in the world until the sales of the Joshua Tree album and Joshua Tree Tour put them in that position.

 

[timothius]

I'm going to have to go with Earnie & Angela on this one.

Popularity extends far beyond record sales and concert sales in this country. In this thread there have been a few recurring band names mentioned along with INXS... Crowded House, Midnight Oil, Cold Chisel etc. The reason for this is there are a handful of bands who managed to transcend the music "buisness" and become a part of the culture and ethos of the country. This is so drastically removed from US ideas, that unless you actually live it, you can't quite grasp it.

As much as I think INXS is over rated, there is no doubting their immense stature within the country. When they played out Wembley, they pretty much sealed their place in the countrY'S folklore, like the America's Cup win, like the Olympics announcment etc.

Sure in 1997 they had the drawing power of three year old, but people sure cared a helluva a lot more about Michael Hutchance & INXS then they did about Savage Garden, who were the most popular thing at the time.

A further example of how popularity transcends charts in Australia. There is a song by Hunters & Collectors called Throw Your Arms Around Me. This song was released as a single, twice - neither time did it crack the Top 40. Yet it recurringly is voted the best & most popular song ever written by Australians... And I can gurantee Earnie, Angela and any other Australian on the board will know it line for line.

No one is disputing that INXS were not the "it" band in 1997, but they were carried by their, (deserved or not) terminal popularity, which they will have forever.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I have 5 versions of that song! I have even contemplated complaining to a new Sydney station who insists only on playing the Crowdies cover of it, lol. Or was that just the Finns? Either way, you know the version.

Thank you though, Tim . It didn't seem I was making much sense, but I guess I did.

 

[timothius]

I have 5 versions of that song! I have even contemplated complaining to a new Sydney station who insists only on playing the Crowdies cover of it, lol. Or was that just the Finns? Either way, you know the version.

Thank you though, Tim . It didn't seem I was making much sense, but I guess I did.

I get you, as I said, I think it's hard to understand unless you haven't lived it.

I have these versions:

Under One Roof
Living In Large Rooms etc
Human Frailty
Best Of (The definitive one probably)
+
Mark Seymour's Acoustic Album Version is that all 5 or are there more?

Is the CH version live? There is a live version that does the rounds off the Distant Sun single. There is a Neil solo acoustic version that got released on an all acoustic album this month. Tim + Neil did record a version that was going to be on Finn (1991) until that morphed into Woodface, never seen the light of day.

Neil loves the song especially, he feels very strongly in it getting its due. I've got about 30+ live versions of him playing it at random concerts aroudn the globe.

Is the new station vega?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Ooh, now you got me wondering. I have the Distant Sun single, I was so bloody happy to get my paws on that. I can describe the day I got it and everything, lol. As I wrote that, I recollected it had a version of it on as well, another reason I was so keen on getting that single, but the 5 that I have are on the computer, most downloaded by mistake when I was trying to find the most known radio edit for a friend on here who was curious. One of them I downloaded intentionally as the wrong one because the user kindly labelled it correctly and called it either a Crowdies or Finn Bros version. Either way, I wanted it. Now as for whether these are all the same...that is an unknown. It is live (the one I dl'd), as I thought all Crowdies versions were? Am I mistaken? No, I just reread your post. So yeah, I reckon the 3 copies I am referring to are the same one, the one Vega plays (yep, that's them, btw!), the one on that single, and the one I downloaded.

 

[timothius]

I just realised it could be from Farewell To The World... (I always forget performances from that night because I never listen/watch them) - they did play that and it was similcast everywhere.

What about the Hunters is there any I am missing?

 

[STING2]

According to Pollstar, the 2002 Rising tour consisted of 39 shows and grossed approximately $42 million.

The 2002 tour was a barnstorming tour, meaning that they made only one stop in each city. For them to play in 39 different places and only have 5 shows not sell out isn't exactly weak. This means they played to full houses in most of the country.

In 2003, the sales spiked even more due to multi-nights stands in some of their most popular areas, mainly the northeast. While this does skew the results somewhat, the bottom line cannot be argued with. If U2 decided to do a ten night stand in Dublin, there would be no disputing their numbers being larger, either.

The cut off date for Amusement Business which tracks the concert industry and is where Pollstar gets its statistics from is sometimes early November in some years. The Pollstar chart usually takes in the entire year. In any event, the first 22 shows had 5 shows that did not sellout. As for the remaining 17 shows in 2002, there may have been more of those shows that did not sellout either.

The bottom line is that Springsteen has an unusual following in the North East of the United States, but demand to see Springsteen in other parts of the country outside the North East is only a small fraction of that in the North East.

Case in point, Los Angeles, second largest city in the United States and one of the largest cities in the world. Springsteen was only able to draw 42,000 people to one show. Beats the hell out of most other artist, but is not at all competitive with U2 or the Rolling Stones. I would go so far as to say that Springsteen is a more popular concert draw in Europe than most of the United States outside of the North East.

If U2 did do a 10 night stand in Dublin, people would dispute the numbers if other data showed the band not selling out in other area's of Europe, and the Dublin shows represented a very high percentage of total attendance and Gross.

But look at what U2 did in Europe. A full tour of the continent in which every show soldout the day it was put on sell in the largest stadiums. The highest grossing tour in European history and only 3 of the concerts were in Dublin out of the 32 shows, less than 10%. Springsteen does amazing record breaking business in one area on the planet, the North Eastern United States. But outside of that region, he is not on the same level as U2 and the Rolling Stones.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Now I'm determined to track down every version I have! I think there are 2 different versions on their 2 "somewhat" Best Ofs. The Collected Works and the actual Best Of...Collected Works has the wrong version, I'm sure. I remember being pissed at that for 2 reasons, as it also didn't have The Way You Live which pissed me right off! I might have more than 5 version if I dig through the cds as well lol. When the husband gets home, or after dinner or something, I'll ask him to get me all my mp3s (I'm on his laptop kind of, but my hd is hooked up to it somehow and I can access my crap but I have no idea how ) and i'll write you a list or something on each version I have. The ones I dl'd I expect wont be all named correctly, unfortunately.

I'm really not making sense, lol. I'll update this again when I've sifted through them all though

 

[Earnie Shavers]

STING, I think you are simply not following the argument.

And don't ever apply for a job in the music industry

 

[beli]

This thread reminds me of the opening scene of Dead Poets Society. The English Literature text book contained a graph to assist in determining the validity of a given piece of poetry.

I say, as an accountant, maths and art should never meet. You need to feel it in sexy bits, baby.

 

[STING2]

STING, I think you are simply not following the argument.

And don't ever apply for a job in the music industry

The Music Industry basis current popularity in any given region on album sales and concert ticket sales. That is the formula that has been used to gauge success for decades. Start reading Billboard magazine and you'll see what I mean. When Paul McGuinness discusses the business side of U2, he talks about U2's album selling strength and Concert drawing strength. For instance, in the U2 POPMART documentary from 1997, Paul McGuiness talks about both factors and talks about how U2 were much further ahead as a concert drawing band than as an album selling band until 1987 when massive album sales figures for the Joshua Tree started coming in.

I understand how people in Australia have some deep cultural fondness for INXS. But in the Music industry, that does not mean anything if it does not translate into Album Sales and Concert ticket Sales.

I can see how people in Australia may not have liked INXS albums much after 1990, but if the band were still so vastly popular as other people here claim they were, then the band would have no problem selling concert tickets.

If INXS is in town the night that Savage Garden are, but more people go to the Savage Garden show than the INXS show, then Savage Garden are indeed the bigger concert draw at that time. If INXS was indeed the more popular band at that time, there would be more people going to the INXS show.

People show what they really like when they pay for it.

 

[STING2]

I'm going to have to go with Earnie & Angela on this one.

Popularity extends far beyond record sales and concert sales in this country. In this thread there have been a few recurring band names mentioned along with INXS... Crowded House, Midnight Oil, Cold Chisel etc. The reason for this is there are a handful of bands who managed to transcend the music "buisness" and become a part of the culture and ethos of the country. This is so drastically removed from US ideas, that unless you actually live it, you can't quite grasp it.

As much as I think INXS is over rated, there is no doubting their immense stature within the country. When they played out Wembley, they pretty much sealed their place in the countrY'S folklore, like the America's Cup win, like the Olympics announcment etc.

Sure in 1997 they had the drawing power of three year old, but people sure cared a helluva a lot more about Michael Hutchance & INXS then they did about Savage Garden, who were the most popular thing at the time.

A further example of how popularity transcends charts in Australia. There is a song by Hunters & Collectors called Throw Your Arms Around Me. This song was released as a single, twice - neither time did it crack the Top 40. Yet it recurringly is voted the best & most popular song ever written by Australians... And I can gurantee Earnie, Angela and any other Australian on the board will know it line for line.

No one is disputing that INXS were not the "it" band in 1997, but they were carried by their, (deserved or not) terminal popularity, which they will have forever.

What gets played on the radio is complicated by other factors that don't necessarily have anything to do with actual sales or popularity. But, album sales and concert ticket sales are the essential inputs in determining popularity. Sure, a lot of people may not like INXS albums after X and did not buy them. But if they still loved the group, they would try and go to see them. Most people are willing to pay to see their favorite or one of their favorite artist in concert. In 1997, why would most Australians claiming INXS as one of their favorite bands not pay to see them in concert and instead use the money to see another artist who they did not like as much?

 

[beli]

STING, you are completely missing the argument here. If I were you I would shut up now as the more you contribute the more foolish you sound.

 

[U2Man]

People show what they really like when they pay for it.

Haha, yes. But for some reason, you don't seem to agree when we're talking about Beatles

 

[STING2]

Haha, yes. But for some reason, you don't seem to agree when we're talking about Beatles

I don't see where I ever said that did not apply to the Beatles.

 

[STING2]

STING, you are completely missing the argument here. If I were you I would shut up now as the more you contribute the more foolish you sound.

On the contrary, I would avoid making such personal comments such as telling another poster to "shut up" or claims that the "more another member contributes the more foolish they sound". Check the Faq/rules of this website if you do not understand.

How am I completely missing the arguement here?

 

[beli]

On the contrary, I would avoid making such personal comments such as telling another poster to "shut up" or claims that the "more another member contributes the more foolish they sound". Check the Faq/rules of this website if you do not understand.

How am I completely missing the arguement here?

Cool. That's you're call. It was just a suggestion.

Please continue posting off topic remarks. I do enjoy nonsense threads.

 

[timothius]

What gets played on the radio is complicated by other factors that don't necessarily have anything to do with actual sales or popularity. But, album sales and concert ticket sales are the essential inputs in determining popularity. Sure, a lot of people may not like INXS albums after X and did not buy them. But if they still loved the group, they would try and go to see them. Most people are willing to pay to see their favorite or one of their favorite artist in concert. In 1997, why would most Australians claiming INXS as one of their favorite bands not pay to see them in concert and instead use the money to see another artist who they did not like as much?

I didn't think it would come to this but...

pop·u·lar·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ppy-lr-t)
n.
The quality or state of being popular, especially the state of being widely admired, accepted, or sought after.

Everyone agrees that on a purely sales level INXS were not popular post-X. What we are trying to say is that they were still widely admired, accepted and sought after. The people still very much admired the INXS of INXS->X period and had they churned out anything remotely appealing to that audience post X it would piss in platinum easy (which their Greatest Hits did).

Look at it like a piece of fruit. I like strawberrys, infact I love strawberrys, a lot of people do. But next year, if strawberry season turns out some awful fruit I'm not going to buy it. Does it mean I like/love strawberrys any more/less? No. I just am not going to buy a sub-standard product despite how much I love it. INXS went that way publicaly post-X, their albums were unfocused and their live performances (from what I've read/heard) were pretentious. Thus the people didn't front.

Do you understand that you are able to have a deep love/appreciation of somthing without buying an album/purchasing a ticket to a concert?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

On the contrary, I would avoid making such personal comments such as telling another poster to "shut up" or claims that the "more another member contributes the more foolish they sound". Check the Faq/rules of this website if you do not understand.

How am I completely missing the arguement here?

sting, you don't need to play backseat mod here. you continue to drag this thread more off-topic with every post, so you really have no right. this is not a charts position thread nor is it a thread comparing inxs' popularity to anyone else. it's about the show rock star inxs and the band's new line up. if you're not going to post about that, don't post in here at all, please.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Jesus Christ, I can't believe this ridiculous argument is still going. STING, listen carefully, please. Australia has 5 states worthy of tours. With me? One capital per state which usually is the host of large acts. INXS are a mix of both international success (the type detailed in a previous post who might do a grand total of say 10 shows IN TOTAL IN THIS COUNTRY PER TOUR) and also a band who can and did play anything on the small venue circuit, less so as time went on, but factual this is nonetheless.

Still with me? Ok. Australia sees this U2 reactionary griping with many bands. Dont get caught up on U2, they're being used here to paint a picture. Many bands skip this country altogether. We're isolated and starved of shows. We get them, sure. But in no means the ridiculous volume you enjoy. We also pay through the nose to allow bands to come here. We dont complain when they come, it is just the way it is. If you want to see a large international band, be prepared to spend upward of $120 AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS. With me? Ok, so what does this mean? We're not the concert-happy nation America is? Seems like it, really.

You have 3 or 4 (?) people independantly describing to you why INXS was still incredibly popular, and you are ignoring it. You have these same people telling you why tickets and cd sales do not reflect popularity in an absolute way, and you are ignoring it. You're determined to apply the same philosophy to the music industry in the US to here, and it just doesn't work.

I hereby give up. Your stubbornness is your problem, my friend.

 

[timothius]

I hereby give up.

Not before your Throw Your Arms Around Me Audit.

 

[beli]

That's you're call.

I meant "your", not "you're". Apologies.

 

[Angela Harlem]

sting, you don't need to play backseat mod here. you continue to drag this thread more off-topic with every post, so you really have no right. this is not a charts position thread nor is it a thread comparing inxs' popularity to anyone else. it's about the show rock star inxs and the band's new line up. if you're not going to post about that, don't post in here at all, please.

Khanada, you'd posted while I was still writing. I will take this as well.

Tim, sorry for not getting back to you! I'll do it as asap and either resurrect an old H&C thread or start a new one for you in B&C

 

[Calluna]

STING2, I heard a rumour that you may be a cyborg. Is there any truth to this?

 

[U2Man]

I don't see where I ever said that did not apply to the Beatles.

In Peeling Of Those Dollar Bills you told me their record sales today weren't really that amazing because it could all be explained by their past and present exposure. My point was that people were buying their music, simply because they like it