BBITW: U2 vs. The Rolling Stones

[MBH]

Originally posted by STING2:
It should be mentioned that U2 and the POPMART tour have the highest paying attendance for a single show by a single artist! U2s show on the POPMART tour in Reggio Emilia Italy was a soldout performance to 150,000 Italians in 1997, the largest attendance for one artist ever in history! The Rolling Stones cancelled their only show in Italy on their last tour partly due to poor ticket sales.

While the Rolling Stones have the highest figures worldwide overall, there are many places where U2s concert figures are higher than the Stones. Here are the Countries where U2 beats the Stones in Concert Stats:

United Kingdom
Ireland
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Austria
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
South Africa
Greece
Bosnia
Israel

Here is where the Stones and U2 are tied:

Switzerland
Hungery
Czech Rep.
Poland
Australia
Canada
Finland

Here is where the Stones beat U2 in concert performance:

United States
Japan
Germany
France
Belgium
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
Sweden

Remember U2 on average beats the Stones in album sales by more than 4 to 1 in ALL the above countries.

What stadium holds 150k people? Is that the largest stadium in the world?

As far as Creed goes: I don't love them, yet I don't hate them. I think that I am just happy that a rock band is doing very well again instead of some contrived pop or some other type of music. You mentioned that their 3rd album has not done as well as their 2nd album. Yet their latest(3rd) album has sold nearly 6 million in the US alone already!(if you know the Worldwide sales, please pass them along). It seems that most sales are derivitive of the US--is this an accurate presumption(I assume the large population and cash flow is the main reason for this). I do agree that Creed will probably not be considered one of the BBITW. Although if their album sales continue to rise, they will have a nice track record when it's all said and done.

BTW, you seem to have a vast, specific knowledge of the music industry. I wonder if this is due to experience(age?) and/or reading and keeping up with the top music publications....just curious.

Thanks again for the info,
-MBH

PS: When discussing BBITW, I think many people consider perception, reverence, influence and longevity just as much as stats.


[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-09-2002).]

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-09-2002).]

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-09-2002).]

 

[holyjoe5]

Atleast the 1999 version of the Guinness book provides this info.
To be accurate, the total attendance, according to the book, was between 180,000 and 184,000, and the exact date was April 21th, 1990.

The book also claims that Tina Turner had an attendance of 180,000 at the same stadium in 1988.

On a sidenote, the biggest attendance for a free concert is 3,500 000, when Rod Stewart (of all people!) performed at the Cobacabana beach in Rio on December 31th, 1994.

 

[Florence76]

Sting,
you are right about Reggio Emilia in 1997,I was there, and there were "at least" 150,000 people, because I read in an article and then heard on tv that many other people managed to enter with fake tickets. They said that night there were between
160,000 and 180,000 people and that it was the largest paying audience for a single show by one artist. They also said that without the limited tickets U2 could have played in front of 250,000 people!!! And rimember that only two days before they had played in Rome, at the airport where there were 60,000 people!

About Pop, are you sure that it sold only 5.5
million copies world wide? I rimember that I read in 1997 in many articles that it sold nearly 6 million copies. Then now, after 5 years I'd put that figure closer to 6.5 million world wide!

About ATYCLB I think that even if it has just been certified as 4x platinum in Europe,
it has sold almost 5 million copies because they only consider the gold and platinum certification for each european country.
For example we all know that in UK ATYCLB has been certified as 3x platinum but it has sold well over 1 million copies. I could say the same thing for Germany where it is very close to being certified as 2x platinum (600,000 copies)
Thanks anyway for your interesting post
Bye!!!

 

[Hewson]

Originally posted by STING2:
Hewson,
I actually do not thing the Stones could have gone higher in the Stadiums. Before this tour, the highest average ticket price in a stadium was just a little under 60 dollars. Remember on the Stones last tour, there were two ticket prices. One was 60 dollars for about 45,000 people and then tiny portion at the very back of the stadium, about 5,000 got in for 39.50.

It looks like now, that most tickets for this tour will be the 90 dollar ones, with about 5,000 in the nosebleeds for 50 bucks.


On the Stones last tour, average price was about 60 dollars in the stadium, but 100 dollars in the arena.

I think the $90 for most seats is probably about right, but I think they could have had a larger number of "Gold circle" seats than they do, I've seen the seating plan, and with only 2 sections at "Gold circle" level, there are 2 sections directly in front of the main stage at $90, and 2 surrounding the satellite stage at $90. These and a few other areas will be bargains at $90. The rest of the stadium is probably priced to market, but for some people there are some bargains...I am pleased that the Stones didn't charge more for a few of these sections, I think they easily could have.

Last arena tour, I'm guessing the avg price was higher than $100...in Boston at least, all loge levels were either $165 or $300, while the entire balcony was $90, except for rear balcs which were $55.



[This message has been edited by Hewson (edited 05-10-2002).]

 

[STING2]

I see your point Hewson, they could have a lot more of those 350 dollar tickets. But there are some people that will be on the top row on the top level of the stadium a little more towards the back who will likely pay $90 dollars for a ticket while the guy a section over pays $50 dollars. Its in that area where the Stones are going to make a lot of money. Those seats are basically nose blead although not at the very back. No ones ever Charged more than $60 for those type of seats(Stones were the last to) and now they will charge $90 for them. Its one thing to do that in a basketball arena, but another to do that in a Football Stadium. I did not think they would go that high for nosebleed seats, a 50% increase.

Still, the Stones so far are only playing 11 Stadiums in large markets. If they do not add multiple stadium dates in these markets then the prices make more sense. From 1994 to 1997-1998 the average price of a stadium ticket to a Stones show only went up 10 dollars from $50 to $60, so this does look like a huge jump, but if there are to only be single stadium dates in each market, then it makes more sense.

 

[STING2]

Well its difficult to tell how much POP has sold since 1997, I know it hit 5.5 million that year and then dropped like a rock off the charts everywhere. I actually think years later that more people buy October than POP. Not that I don't like POP, its my 6th favorite U2 album. But the public tends to view POP as less of a classic than any other U2 album, the hardcore fans that bought it though love it. So without knowing how slow sales could be worldwide for POP, I stick with the 5.5 million figure. It could be 6.2 million now, or it might only be 5.7 million. No real way to determine for sure exactly though.

By the way, thanks for the dates for the Rio shows. A lot of media often take the capacity of a venue and what they see with the naked eye and report attendance for a show that way. Estimates done this way are often shown to be widely inflated once a proper audit is done. Amusement Business actually does some sort of an audit to confirm its information. But I'll have to look around to see if there is any more information on this.

 

[MBH]

I am trying to settle a debate with a friend of mine. Hopefully, someone can help me. According to my friend:

U2 opened up for the Rolling Stone in the 90's(Bridges to Babylon Tour).

I told him that I thought that he was wrong, but he stubbornly insisted that this is so.

(He also said that Oasis opened during this same show and that Pearl Jam opened for the Stones as well as Nirvana)

Any help is appreciated.

 

[Salome]

well, if it is true then I didn't know about it
I doubt it very much though

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[STING2]

The Rolling Stones had a number of bands open for them on their Bridges To Babylon tour 1997-1999. Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Smash Mouth, and a couple of others. Nirvana has not played any shows since 1994. The only big band Nirvana ever opened for was Metallica for one show in 1991. Oasis did not open either. In Europe, Dave Matthews and Big Country opened for the Rolling Stones in 1998. Unfortunately this did not help Dave Matthews as they still are unable to sale any significant amount of albums in Europe.

The last band U2 ever opened for was the POLICE! June 15, 1986. Before that you would have to go back to several festivals in 1983. U2 and the Rolling Stones have never played at the same show ever in their history's. I suggest picking up Pimm Jel De La Perra book U2 A Concert Documentary. It explains every show with setlist and attendance all the way up to the begining of POPMART.

 

[Hewson]

And U2 didn't technically open for the Police. That was the Amnesty International Show at Giants Stadium (I was there

). U2 was actually the headliner, and Sting was one of the other acts on the day long bill. But since the other 2 Police-men joined Sting, they switched slots, U2 taking the penultimate slot, and the Police playing last, with Bono duetting on "Invisible Sun".

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by STING2:
The Rolling Stones had a number of bands open for them on their Bridges To Babylon tour 1997-1999. Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Smash Mouth, and a couple of others. Nirvana has not played any shows since 1994. The only big band Nirvana ever opened for was Metallica for one show in 1991. Oasis did not open either. In Europe, Dave Matthews and Big Country opened for the Rolling Stones in 1998. Unfortunately this did not help Dave Matthews as they still are unable to sale any significant amount of albums in Europe.

The last band U2 ever opened for was the POLICE! June 15, 1986. Before that you would have to go back to several festivals in 1983. U2 and the Rolling Stones have never played at the same show ever in their history's. I suggest picking up Pimm Jel De La Perra book U2 A Concert Documentary. It explains every show with setlist and attendance all the way up to the begining of POPMART.

Thanks!

 

[meriphew]

The Stones were the best. U2 is the best. Radiohead will be the best.

_____________________
Post indie electronic
Meriphew www.meriphew.com

 

[STING2]

Some would agree with you on that point, but that have a LONG way to go if they want to be the biggest, the topic of this thread.

 

[FLYNNTASTIC]

Here is my Top 10 Best/Biggest Bands Ever based on popularity, fan base, historical impact, artistry, longevity and sales(tickets, albums, etc...)
1. The Beatles
2. The Rolling Stones
3. Led Zeppelin
4. The Who
5. Pink Floyd
6. The Doors
7. The Grateful Dead
8. U2
9. Nirvana
10. The Jimi Hendrix Experience*

if there were an 11 & 12,
11. The Eagles
12. Fleetwood Mac


Hey- shouldn't Elvis be in there somewhere???

 

[Flaming Friar Sr]

THE TRUTH IN ITS PUREST FORM

all right let me explain it once more to you all:

the rolling stones and u2 are by far, and i mean by really far, the two best bands of all times. tied. why? b/c theyre my fave bands. it is all a matter of subjectivity.

stones equals life
u2 equals life

or, the other way around for my part:

u2 equals life
stones equal life

all musically that is of course

even though i do appreciate all the stats on my favourite bands i also find it a bit hard to swallow that some of you are trying to prove that one of my favourite bands is soooo much better than the other one of my favourite bands. b/c they are not.

they are both my favourite bands. they are both in my opinion the best bands. call it rock. call it rock n roll. they both qualify as the greatest. i donot care. i like it that so much people also like my favourite bands. but in the end they both remain my favourite bands.

 

[adamswildhoney]

are the stones still continuing to make relevant ,and popular music?.......................I DONT THINK SO!!!

nicely put!

 

[verte76]

You know, I don't really believe in comparing these two bands. They're too different. They came along at different times in the history of rock 'n roll, they played different roles, they had different competitors......the Stones came along quite early in the rock era, when there was still alot of defining of the genre going on. They were playing alongside the Beatles, the Who, the Yardbirds, some great bands who didn't necessarily sell tons of records but were damn good and had alot of influence on other bands. "Biggest" isn't best. Britney's "Oops" has sold more copies than ATYCLB. Any questions? I'd just say that they are both great bands who've made some great records, played some great shows, and made a huge impact on rock 'n roll.

 

[STING2]

The statistics were used simply to compare music business performance of the two bands. It was not a comparison of their music or quality of music, but level of popularity in the industry and among the population, global and in the USA.