BBITW: U2 vs. The Rolling Stones

[MBH]

Hot off the Presses!!! Stones to announce plans for their 40th anniversary tour!

This sparks two debates: who is the biggest(not necessarily best)band on the planet, U2 or the Stones. AND how do the tours by both bands compare to each other over the past decade or so in terms of gross revenue, size of venue played, number of people who attended the show and overall production. (*BTW, the ticket prices are surprisingly relative for the Stones. I thought that they would be much higher, based on rumors and high prices to previous shows; they are right in line w/U2 ticket prices actually)

Enjoy the article:
The Rolling Stones will announce 32 dates for its year-long, 40th anniversary world tour today (May7) at a press conference in New York's Van Cortland Park, Billboard Bulletin reports. The tour kicks off Sept. 5 at Boston's CMGI Stadium and will play a mixture of stadiums, arenas, theaters, and clubs, sometimes hitting as many as three
venues in one market. Additionally, the tour will utilize three completely different productions and three unique setlists.

Following the North American run, the Stones will play Mexico, Australia, the Far East, and Europe. The tour will end next September.

The band lineup will be the same as 1997-99's Bridges To Babylon/No Security run: Mick Jagger (vocals), Keith Richards (guitar), Ron Wood (guitar), Charlie Watts(drums), Chuck Leavell (keyboards), and Darryl Jones(bass).

The first small venue dates to be announced are the Orpheum Theater in Boston, the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago, the Tower Theater in Philadelphia, the Wiltern Theater in Los Angeles, and the Roseland Ballroom in New York. Stadium tickets will be $50 and $90; arenas will be $50, $100, and $150; clubs and theaters will be $150, $125, $100, and $50.

As first tipped here last October, Michael Cohl, under his Grand Entertainment Touring banner, will be the worldwide promoter for the trek, extending a relationship that began
with 1989's Steel Wheels tour. Clear Channel Entertainment will also be on board.

"My company will promote the tour and I'm the tour director, but Clear Channel are involved up to their elbows," Cohl says. "They will provide management and expertise for me in every market."

The worldwide touring industry will be happy to see the Stones return to the road. The group contributed $750 million to gross touring revenues in the 1990s, selling out 307 of 333 mostly stadium shows. On its last outing, the Stones grossed $337.2 million and played to 5.6 million people.

 

[broshere]

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

 

[MrBrau1]

Who cares. This is the band that made records like Exile on Main Street, Sticky Fingers, and Let it Bleed. U2 may be the best Rock band, but the Stones are one of the best Rock & Roll bands of all time. Moolight Mile may just be the best song ever.

Originally posted by broshere:
are the stones still continuing to make relevant ,and popular music?.......................I DONT THINK SO!!!

------------------
Fuck, the cooler's empty!

 

[tkramer]

I would have to say u2 is bigger right now, but overall you could make a case for the stones...

But that's all relative, as I get to see u2 and the stones in back to back years. That's what really matters. Life is good...

 

[kobayashi]

i feel better now.

 

[ouizy]

U2 is bigger now, but in the future, I believe they will be remembered as being a big band, but nothing like the Stones, the Beatles, or Led Zepplin were.

U2 is taking the reins from these bands in modern times, but there would be no U2 had there not been a Stones...

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by STING2:
To answer the question of who is the biggest band on the Planet, U2 or the Rolling Stones?
The answer is U2. Here is why. What determines the biggest Band on the planet is ticket sales and album sales. Both are weighted equally. While U2s concert stats for a big Stadium tour are roughly 60% to 75% on average per show of the Stones, U2s latest album ATYCLB has sold nearly 4 times what the Stones last album of new material sold. So while the Stones win overall in the Concert department by a small margin, U2 blows the Stones away in the album catagory by such a huge margin, that its easy to see why U2 is bigger than the Stones

The Rolling Stones have not been the biggest band on the Planet since 1981. Big sales of Tattoo You at the time, plus the huge success of the tour, was the last time the Stones had that perfect combination that U2 has had for most of the past 15 years. Since then though, album sales for each new Stones studio album have lagged far behind previous efforts especially considering the overall increase of the music industry and sales for all artist in general over the past 20 years.

But despite low albums sales, the Stones still sell enough albums, plus being the #1 touring act worldwide since 1975, that over the past 20 years they are still overall one of the top 10 or at least 20 biggest bands on the Planet. Of course, this is about the biggest band in business terms and not a discusion of the quality of the music. For the Stones to get the title of biggest band in the world again, they will have to continue their #1 concert tour biz, plus sale 3 times as many copies of a brand new totally original studio album as the last studio effort Bridges sold. But right now it looks like the new album is just a greatest hits with a couple of new songs which would not count even if by chance it sold that many copies. Your only as hot as your latest studio album and tour. Right now, U2 is still easily the hottest band in the world because of the highest average of album sales/ticket sales.

Sting2 could always be counted on for a thoughtful, intelligent, analysis when it comes to U2!!!!!

 

[STING2]

Another question which who is the greatest band of all time, the Stones, Led Zep, and the Beatles are probably the only bands that are ahead of U2, AT THIS POINT. U2 has a huge future ahead of them where as Led Zep and the Beatles have been done for decades, and the majority consider new Stones material not to be as relevant as two decades ago. I'd say in 20 years U2 during that period will pass the Stones and Led Zep, only the Beatles will probably be impossible to pass.

 

[STING2]

hmmmmm not sure what your getting at there MBH.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by ouizy:
U2 is bigger now, but in the future, I believe they will be remembered as being a big band, but nothing like the Stones, the Beatles, or Led Zepplin were.

U2 is taking the reins from these bands in modern times, but there would be no U2 had there not been a Stones...

I agree with you. U2 is my favorite band and certainly one of the greatest of all time. However, in terms of intelligent music fans, critics and musical pundits, U2 will probably come after those aforementioned bands when discussing the best bands ever. For the simple fact that U2 came on the scene after some of these older bands, they may automatically lag behind just on chronology.

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

*Note: TJHE may not have been the BBITW, but Hendrix' influence on music alone puts them in the top 10.

 

[david]

I don't think either 2 are better than each other. The Stones are praised by one generation, U2 is praised by another. Though The Stones came out of a really great time period in music.

The Stones were very influential to U2 and a lot of bands other bands, that influence is still being seen today. So The Stones have that going for them.

I don't really like a lot of songs by The Stones, maybe about 6 or 7 from their 60's era, I am a die hard U2 fan, but I think Stones will go down as being one of the biggest bands in the world, more so than U2.



------------------
The more of these I drink the more Bono makes sense.. - Bean from the KROQ Breakfast with U2.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Actually, while ABBA was still making music, they were the biggest selling music group in the history of recorded music. That's right, folks...they were even outselling the Beatles.

 

[Naya]

They're coming to Montreal !!!!!!!!! I can't wait !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

------------------
The sunshine bores the daylights out of me
Chasing shadows moonlight mystery

 

[Blue Room]

The Stones are living legends. The only band ahead of them currently is probebly the Beatles but I think it is pretty close to a tie between the two (completely different styles anyway, Pop songs vs R n B influenced).

U2 has a shot at being at that level near the end of their career. I dont think they will ever surpass either but they could be considered on the same level (I think they are close now). Really it is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

I will say that the Stones are one of the few live acts that I have seen that even comes close to comparing to U2. I for one cannot wait to see them again on this tour. Its also very nice that ticket prices are fairly reasonable. Makes Paul look kind of bad for his ticket prices and his comment about how the Stones were going to charge so much.

 

[Summer~Rain]

I'm surprised but happy the Stones are touring again. 40th anniversary that ought to make U2 look young to all those who called them Jurassic, they've been playing as long as our boys have been alive!

Mick doesn't look bad for a guy almost 60! More power to them, go for it old guys!

 

[STING2]

The Stones are charging anywhere from 50 dollars to 350 dollars for these shows. The Stadium tour in 1997/1998 usually had a top price of 60 dollars and a few 39 dollar tickets. So for the stadium shows its a big jump in price for the tickets. But if that is what the market will bear, then its the right price.

U2s prices for their last Stadium tour which was POPMART were $52.50 and $37.50
. Notice the Stones cheapest Stadium ticket is 50 dollars, but the most expensive are 350 dollars. Usually the price goes up when you go into the Arena because there are less seats. When supply goes down, demand goes up, and then so does price. But the Stadium and Arena prices are the same. Both are a lot more than what U2 has charged.

The one treat though is those Theater shows that are priced at just 50 dollars. The Stones could probably charge 500 dollars a seat, for a 3,000 seat theater and sellout.
Those theater shows are gifts, but I fear scalpers are going to make big money if they get a hold of those tickets.

 

[STING2]

To answer the question of who is the biggest band on the Planet, U2 or the Rolling Stones?
The answer is U2. Here is why. What determines the biggest Band on the planet is ticket sales and album sales. Both are weighted equally. While U2s concert stats for a big Stadium tour are roughly 60% to 75% on average per show of the Stones, U2s latest album ATYCLB has sold nearly 4 times what the Stones last album of new material sold. So while the Stones win overall in the Concert department by a small margin, U2 blows the Stones away in the album catagory by such a huge margin, that its easy to see why U2 is bigger than the Stones

The Rolling Stones have not been the biggest band on the Planet since 1981. Big sales of Tattoo You at the time, plus the huge success of the tour, was the last time the Stones had that perfect combination that U2 has had for most of the past 15 years. Since then though, album sales for each new Stones studio album have lagged far behind previous efforts especially considering the overall increase of the music industry and sales for all artist in general over the past 20 years.

But despite low albums sales, the Stones still sell enough albums, plus being the #1 touring act worldwide since 1975, that over the past 20 years they are still overall one of the top 10 or at least 20 biggest bands on the Planet. Of course, this is about the biggest band in business terms and not a discusion of the quality of the music. For the Stones to get the title of biggest band in the world again, they will have to continue their #1 concert tour biz, plus sale 3 times as many copies of a brand new totally original studio album as the last studio effort Bridges sold. But right now it looks like the new album is just a greatest hits with a couple of new songs which would not count even if by chance it sold that many copies. Your only as hot as your latest studio album and tour. Right now, U2 is still easily the hottest band in the world because of the highest average of album sales/ticket sales.

 

[ishkash]

Rumors are that they'd be touring Australia.

Question

If Stones can play here why the hell on earth U2 can't play here? They are roughly of the same size, if generic perception is anything to go by.

------------------
Gravity Pulls Me Down,U2 Lifts Me Up

 

[jesseu2]

Originally posted by ishkash:
Rumors are that they'd be touring Australia.

Question

If Stones can play here why the hell on earth U2 can't play here? They are roughly of the same size, if generic perception is anything to go by.

Maybe because Austrailia used to be a colony of Great Brittain before which doesn't cost as much as if U2 were to go there.. and/or the Irish dollar is low compared to the AUSSIE $. It has something to do with exchange rates not being that good i think? uhh am i making any sense?

 

[Blue Room]

Originally posted by STING2:
The Stones are charging anywhere from 50 dollars to 350 dollars for these shows. The Stadium tour in 1997/1998 usually had a top price of 60 dollars and a few 39 dollar tickets. So for the stadium shows its a big jump in price for the tickets. But if that is what the market will bear, then its the right price.

U2s prices for their last Stadium tour which was POPMART were $52.50 and $37.50
. Notice the Stones cheapest Stadium ticket is 50 dollars, but the most expensive are 350 dollars. Usually the price goes up when you go into the Arena because there are less seats. When supply goes down, demand goes up, and then so does price. But the Stadium and Arena prices are the same. Both are a lot more than what U2 has charged.

The one treat though is those Theater shows that are priced at just 50 dollars. The Stones could probably charge 500 dollars a seat, for a 3,000 seat theater and sellout.
Those theater shows are gifts, but I fear scalpers are going to make big money if they get a hold of those tickets.

I agree with you Sting2. But if U2 were to mount a stadium tour now I can almost guarantee you we would be looking at tickets in the $50 to $90 range just like what the Stones are charging for those shows.

Paul indicated he was charging the high prices because that is the market, maybe he is right. He also stated that the Stones were going to be charging way more. Well, obviously that isnt the case. The arena shows are the same price. The difference is that the Stones are giving their fans the option. You can pay less and see us in a stadium. Paul gave no such option. Pay a ton or you dont get to see me period.

Alot of Pauls shows did not sellout either. Even though the promoters are still making money at those prices what does that say when a living legend cannot sellout an 18,000 seat venue. It says to me you are pricing out alot of your fans. That is just crappy if you ask me.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by STING2:
hmmmmm not sure what your getting at there MBH.

Take it as a compliment!


BTW: U2's ticket prices ARE TOO EXPENSIVE!!! Period.

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

Originally posted by MBH:
Take it as a compliment!


BTW: U2's ticket prices ARE TOO EXPENSIVE!!! Period.

Really? $45 is too expensive for a ticket to see what is arguably the best live show on the planet? I certainly thought it was worth it. The $85 and $130 tickets were a bit pricey, I'll admit. But they didn't seem to have any trouble finding people to buy them. Bottom line: Popular band + Great seats = expensive tickets. Why should U2 charge less than they're worth?

 

[Mulholland Drive]

Originally posted by Hallelujah Here She Comes:
Really? $45 is too expensive for a ticket to see what is arguably the best live show on the planet? I certainly thought it was worth it. The $85 and $130 tickets were a bit pricey, I'll admit. But they didn't seem to have any trouble finding people to buy them. Bottom line: Popular band + Great seats = expensive tickets. Why should U2 charge less than they're worth?

Sorry, this is the ultimate arrogant statement. First off, how quickly did the $45 GA tickets sell out? Pretty quickly. I even had a presale password, and Ticketmaster was slammed so hard that the GA's were gone within a matter of minutes. The remaining $45 tickets were primarily nosebleed seats. So if I want a good seat, I now have to pay between $85 and $130. But I should have no problem with it, because they're "worth it?" I'm sorry, but you're elevating this band to a godlike status. I work hard at my job, too, but I don't demand approximately $65 per hour per person I work for. I know only a percentage of that goes to the band, but it's still ridiculous. The band may live a humble life, but believe me, these guys are rich, and $130 for a concert ticket (even Bono said "we're worth it") is as arrogant as it comes.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by Mulholland Drive:
Sorry, this is the ultimate arrogant statement. First off, how quickly did the $45 GA tickets sell out? Pretty quickly. I even had a presale password, and Ticketmaster was slammed so hard that the GA's were gone within a matter of minutes. The remaining $45 tickets were primarily nosebleed seats. So if I want a good seat, I now have to pay between $85 and $130. But I should have no problem with it, because they're "worth it?" I'm sorry, but you're elevating this band to a godlike status. I work hard at my job, too, but I don't demand approximately $65 per hour per person I work for. I know only a percentage of that goes to the band, but it's still ridiculous. The band may live a humble life, but believe me, these guys are rich, and $130 for a concert ticket (even Bono said "we're worth it") is as arrogant as it comes.

I agree with you. However, I also understand HHSC comments.

Bono went out of his way to tell everyone about the $45 tickets on TRL when announcing the tour, but conveniently failed to mention the majority of the tickets which sold for $85 and $130. When he was asked why the ticket prices were $130 for some seats, he said, "I think we're worth it."

That is very arrogant and a statement like that is exactly why many people may dislike Bono(he comes across as a conceited ass----).

I understand that U2 is hot right now and they can charge high prices for tickets. However, just b/c they can charge a lot of money for ticket prices, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. They CAN charge much less for tickets and choose not too.

U2 are extremely rich; hell, they don't even get taxed in Ireland!!! They won't tour Australia and they charge high prices for most of the tickets to their shows.

And people wonder why U2 is quickly becoming looked upon as a band that is in it for the money more than anything else

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-08-2002).]

 

[STING2]

U2 did not tour Australia for BOY, OCTOBER, WAR, JOSHUA TREE, ACHTUNG BABY, and yes now ATYCLB. They have only gone there for Unforgettable Fire, Lovetown Tour a year after Rattle and Hum was released, Zoomerang a 4 months after ZOOROPA was released and of course POPMART nearly a year after POP. The band has stated that they are not going to do long tours anymore. The band had been on the road with Elevation for 8 months when it ended.

The band will come back to Australia on the next tour. How come no one hear slags the Rolling Stones off for not going to Australia on the Bridges to Babylon tour. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Stones went there in 1997,1998, or 1999. How many tours did Pink Floyd do in Australia? 1 or 2. When was the last time the Who were there? Give U2 a break. I have met the entire band and they are all very nice people and very down to earth.

 

[Blue Room]

Sting2, I think you kind of misunderstood my prior post. My point was that the Stones could be charging more for most venues and have elected not to. They are also giving their fans the choice as to whether they want to pay less and see them in a stadium if they cannot afford the higher priced arena shows. This is something Paul did NOT do at all. Otherwise I would have gone to see him. He gave his fans no choice but to pay a higher price or not see him. My point about a living legend not selling out an arena is just that. Do you think if Paul had most tickets priced as U2 did for Elevation there would have been a single show that didnt sellout? I certainly dont.

My point about U2 playing stadiums again is that you were comparing the Stones current ticket pricing initially with U2's stadium pricing from 1997. My point was that U2 would be charging more now for a stadium show than they did in 1997. How much? as you said it is impossible to know but I know it would be more than they did in 1997. Thats all I was pointing out.

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

Originally posted by kobayashi:
market prices.

end of story.

Thank you.

I didn't mean that U2 is so godlike and amazing that they can charge whatever they want. When I I said "what they're worth", I didn't mean it in some transcendental, "a U2 concert is priceless" kind of way. All I meant was that this is where supply meets demand and that's what a product sells for, like it or not.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, I don't like one bit that tickets to good rock shows now cost almost $100 for you basic, decent seat. So yeah, U2 could sell tickets for a lot less. Maybe they should. I don't know. But I really don't think they're going to.

You have to admit, though. GAs *were* worth $45, if you could get them.

Anyway, this is an old argument and I'm sorry I dredged it up.

 

[STING2]

Blue Room,
I thought you were talking about Paul McGuinness, not Paul McCartney. Sorry about that. What you said makes more sense now. Yep most of Paul McCartney's shows did not sellout and they did have very high ticket prices.

It thought 60 dollars would be the U2 average for a Stadium tour since it is going to be lower than the 80 dollar average which they charged for an Arena tour. The Stones are charging at least 85 dollars on average for the Stadiums. Will have to wait and see what the average will be for the Arena's but I'm sure it will be a lot more than that for the Stadiums. I notice there are several markets where the Stones are not playing a stadium like Miami. I think the Stones are charging the highest price they can and still sellout those stadium shows and they will do it likewise in the Arena. The only gift I see for the fans is the Theater shows but few people will be able to attend those. I'll have to look back at some of the figures for Paul McCartney, but I don't think Paul McCartney is popular enough to do Stadiums anymore. While he should of had a lower price, he'd still be in the Arena's based on current demand.

 

[STING2]

While some stadium shows for the Stones are in the 50 to 90 dollar range, several others go from 50 dollars to 350 dollars! Look at tickets for Boston, The Los Angeles Area, Washington DC area and Philadelphia.

 

[Blue Room]

Sting2, LOL, once again I think you missed the gist of what I was trying to say. Yes, some stadium shows are priced up to $350. BUT you can get a ticket to see a Stones show for $50. Paul's cheapest ticket was like $125 to $150, pricing him out of alot of people price range.

Whether he could sellout a stadium? If the pricing was right I think he could or be a near sellout, especially in the big markets. But not with tickets over $150 to $200 for the golden circles. And the cheap seats would need to be $50 to $80 or something like that.