" Stones 'smash own concert record'" - 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 12-30-2005, 12:47 PM   #1
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 494
Local Time: 04:02 AM
" Stones 'smash own concert record'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4568658.stm

The Rolling Stones have made more money than U2 in the USA - I guess they will probably beat them worldwide overall?
__________________

__________________
mo786 is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 12:53 PM   #2
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 218
Local Time: 11:02 PM
You mean someone actually has information about how the concert was coming along? I haven't seen or read a peep on how the Rolling Stones' concert was doing, or how much they sold. (Ok, I wasn't looking for it). But at least, for their sakes, it was successful.
__________________

__________________
irishdove is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 01:05 PM   #3
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 10:02 PM
i'm not surprised in the least... they played a ton of stadium shows where they sold hundreds of floor tickets closer to the stage for 450 bucks a pop, plus on stage box seats for 250 bucks a pop, and every seat on the floor that wasn't 450 was at least over 100 bucks a piece.

u2 may have had more people attend, but the stones charged so damned much that it was a given that they'd make more money.... plus it probably cost them less to put on the tour because they were sponsored by ameriquest.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-30-2005, 01:07 PM   #4
War Child
 
DPrinceNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 588
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Thats bs, the stones charge 300+ for a seat while u2 only go as high as 170
__________________
DPrinceNY is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 01:12 PM   #5
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 10:02 PM
can you really fault someone for charing that much if people will still pay it/
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:18 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dismantled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,345
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DPrinceNY
Thats bs, the stones charge 300+ for a seat while u2 only go as high as 170
you can buy 2 good U2 tickets for 1 ok stones ticket......I don't remeber what my ticket cost..but it was a sucky seat for way too much money.
__________________
Dismantled is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 02:19 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dismantled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,345
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
can you really fault someone for charing that much if people will still pay it/
nope..you really cannot, its like that with alot of stuff.
__________________
Dismantled is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 06:50 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 10:02 PM
U2 charge less and this year U2 also did a European tour which is NOT a part of these figures.

Not sure if the Stones toured Europe as well. If not, then this isn't a very valid comparision.
__________________
Niceman is offline  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:12 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Stones played 42 NA shows vs 78 U2 NA shows

Stones est 1.4 million people earning $ 162 million VS U2 est 1.2 million earning $ 138.9 million

The numbers are North America only, not the world.

The Stones and probably U2 and many older artists can charge much higher ticket prices since the majority of their fans are adults who aren't living off Ramen noodles,well, some of us still are but you know what I mean, their main fanbase isn't 15 year old teenagers. It's all about the demographics.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 12-31-2005, 11:56 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
angelordevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Inside a sound
Posts: 5,827
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Who the hell cares? NOT ME

U2 could be the richest, if they wanted to be. Radiohead could be up there, too.
__________________
angelordevil is offline  
Old 12-31-2005, 01:18 PM   #11
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by angelordevil
Who the hell cares? NOT ME

U2 could be the richest, if they wanted to be. Radiohead could be up there, too.
could u2 have had this record if they really wanted to try for it? yes... deffinetly.

radiohead? no chance in hell. it's not the late 90s anymore... radiohead's popularity isn't on the same level as coldplay, let alone u2 or the stones.

you need to appeal to more than just the diehards and music junkies in order to set these sorts of records. radiohead, maybe by choice, just doesn't do that.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-31-2005, 01:34 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
angelordevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Inside a sound
Posts: 5,827
Local Time: 11:32 PM
How about Pearl Jam?

It's all about putting the love before the money, not vice versa.
__________________
angelordevil is offline  
Old 01-02-2006, 06:25 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:02 AM
Re: " Stones 'smash own concert record'"

Quote:
Originally posted by mo786
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4568658.stm

The Rolling Stones have made more money than U2 in the USA - I guess they will probably beat them worldwide overall?

For the 2005 VERTIGO tour, this is U2's worldwide total:

GROSS: $294,795,607
ATTENDANCE: 3,414,556
SHOWS: 110
SELLOUTS: 110

Notice that U2 did not come close to satisfying demand this year either. The Band will play 20 plus shows in markets outside of Europe and North America in 2006 and VERTIGO will be the first tour in history to cross the $400 million dollar mark, when the tour ends in April!

But, if U2 wanted to continue the tour, they could play several dozen more stadium shows throughout Europe and North America adding potentially another $200 million dollars in GROSS to the figure.

U2 already has the record for the highest GROSSING tour in European history:

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

All 32 shows sold out the day they were put on sale. Notice that several Rolling Stones shows for their upcoming tour of Europe still have tickets available weeks after first going on sale.

Also, early reports from Argentina, a Rolling Stones Stronghold, show that U2 shows there are selling faster than the current Rolling Stones shows on sale there.


The Stones may eventually top U2 when it comes to GROSS because U2 is ending its tour early from a commercial standpoint and the Stones will obviously extend the tour for how ever long it takes them to top U2's GROSS total achieved in mid-April 2006. But the VERTIGO tour will set a worldwide record when it finishes in April 2006 and will have a GROSS total at that time than no other artist has ever achieved in history. This is a first for U2, and the first time another artist has set a global record like this other than the Rolling Stones since the early 1970s.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-02-2006, 06:31 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Stones played 42 NA shows vs 78 U2 NA shows

Stones est 1.4 million people earning $ 162 million VS U2 est 1.2 million earning $ 138.9 million

The numbers are North America only, not the world.

The Stones and probably U2 and many older artists can charge much higher ticket prices since the majority of their fans are adults who aren't living off Ramen noodles,well, some of us still are but you know what I mean, their main fanbase isn't 15 year old teenagers. It's all about the demographics.
Thats actually incorrect. U2 played to 1.4 million people in North America in 2005. The Stones only played to 1.2 million people, but GROSSED $162 million dollars vs $138 million for U2.


Some would say that kids living with their parents have more disposable income and time to be going to concerts than older people who have a house, car, and kids to take care of. So no, I think the democraphic arguement is incorrect. AC/DC ticket price are similar to Coldplays and other young groups.

Bottom line, the price you charge is based on supply and demand, its that simple. These artist charge their market value and there are many older groups with older fan bases that charge less for tickets than some of today's young artist.

Here are the official statistics for U2's North American tour:

GROSS: $138,863,393
ATTENDANCE: 1,432,098
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $1,780,299
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 18,360
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $96.96
SHOWS: 78
SELLOUTS: 78
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-02-2006, 06:34 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


could u2 have had this record if they really wanted to try for it? yes... deffinetly.

radiohead? no chance in hell. it's not the late 90s anymore... radiohead's popularity isn't on the same level as coldplay, let alone u2 or the stones.

you need to appeal to more than just the diehards and music junkies in order to set these sorts of records. radiohead, maybe by choice, just doesn't do that.
Radiohead at their peak were not any popular than U2 was with the Unforgettable Fire album and tour. Being a huge star among the critics and indie scene does not mean one is a huge star among the general public. Radioheads biggest selling album sold less than U2's POP!
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 10:02 PM.


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