U2 vs AC/DC

[Salome]

as we don't know what either tour costs nor do we know how what the avarage ticket price for either tour is it's impossible to make any sort of comparison

I would call myself an AC/DC fan and at times + on a different level I enjoy their music as much as U2's
so I am happy that they seem to have become more popular again with Black Ice
before that album their popular appeal had been quite limited for about 20 years

 

[Rob33]

So smart business = greedy now?

People hate it when artist aren't starving don't they?

Yes, exactly...

holy shit...gman, are you fucking serious?! Pretty much everything you have been saying is completely irrelevant to the original topic you started...I think you just can't accept the fact that what U2 are doing is COMPLETELY justified, and you're probably going to have to pay quite a bit more to see U2 than AC/DC.

 

[MMP]

About cd sales, yes AC/DC sold more (not much more, btw) but AC/DC begun half a decade before U2, enjoying more the good ol'days where cds would sell well. (Their bestseller was released in 1980, the year U2 released their 1st record.) And it must be considered that when talking about ticket sales for bands in the stage of those two, present record sales are irrelevant.
And:
AC/DC = simple stage, less costs // U2 = expensive stage, more costs
AC/DC = established +30 fanbase, no musical relevance, big name... but it's like Aerosmith right now // U2 = hype, musical relevance, biggest name in rock music right now
And above all:
DEMAND.
Demand for U2 tickets is bigger than for AC/DC ones, therefore, U2 ticket prices CAN and WILL be higher than AC/DC ones and given the other reasons listed above, they can also be among the most expensive for music concerts.

 

[gman]

Just to correct you MrMac... AC/DCs first album was only 5 yrs before u2s!
And they have sold about 60 million more records, so substantially more than u2!

Oh....and as for this "musical relevance" argument that keeps rearing its head. Correct me if am wrong.....but of u2s last two singles in UK, one grossly underperformed in the chart, the other didnt even make it into the top 40!

 

[MMP]

Oh, indeed... sorry, I'm even slower today. And 60 million? I thought it was only 20 or something. Thanks for the correction.
Well, but it still goes the same way.

 

[Rob33]

U2 (and when I say U2, I really mean Paul McGuinness) have been "greedy" for some time now. Pure supply and demand - taking advantage of the '00's resurgence. If fans refused to pay, they wouldn't charge as much. Maybe AC/DC could charge more too, I don't know. I don't have the time to break down economic demographics stipulating which types are going to each show. But it's no secret that U2 has been as much of a business as artists for quite some time now.

The $250 U2 ticket is quite extreme in my opinion. That's why I chose not to buy it. At least they offer the $55 GA as well as the $30 crap seats. I believe AC/DC's cheapest seat is around $65. The prices probably average out to be quite comparable in the end.

Is there really something wrong with that? It's their job. holy shit...how can you possibly say they are being greedy? It's called having half a brain...it's called not being a dumbass....U2 have always wanted to be the biggest, and they've always had money in their minds...those who think otherwise are fooling themselves.

I think the fact that U2 are filthy rich rockstars frustrates a lot of you and changes the way you think of the band from the business side...when it shouldn't at all...Think about it in simpler terms. If you run your own business, don't you try to capitalize on every opportunity and make the most money possible? It's the same damn thing.

Just to correct you MrMac... AC/DCs first album was only 5 yrs before u2s!
And they have sold about 60 million more records, so substantially more than u2!

Oh....and as for this "musical relevance" argument that keeps rearing its head. Correct me if am wrong.....but of u2s last two singles in UK, one grossly underperformed in the chart, the other didnt even make it into the top 40!

I find it hilarious how almost every single post of yours in a thread you started is basically completely irrelevant to your whole point to begin with....why on earth are you bringing up the success of U2's latest singles? And regardless, are you seriously trying to argue that AC/DC is as relevant as U2 today? Forget this stupid "relevant to who?" argument..that's bs. AC/DC is a thing of the past. They're a washed up nostalgia act....you seem so frustrated with the fact that the majority of people on this board hold the opinion of U2 being the biggest, or at least one of the biggest, bands/acts in the world today....well guess what? It's fucking true, so get over it!! Is it really that hard to accept? U2 is that big. They are that successful. They are the shit. Does that make you angry?

 

[MMP]

Oh....and as for this "musical relevance" argument that keeps rearing its head. Correct me if am wrong.....but of u2s last two singles in UK, one grossly underperformed in the chart, the other didnt even make it into the top 40!

Musical relevance isn't about sales.
For example, Radiohead... like it or not it IS one of the most relevant bands in the mainstream musical scene (Radiohead is no underground little band anyway) and their sales are really FAR from AC/DC. (Just compare In Rainbows' sales to Black Ice's.)

 

[intedomine]

It's pretty easy when you use the same three chords and write the same song over and over and over...

I won't bash you. I think it's lovely.

 

[bonoschild2009]

It seems very simple why U2 tickets are more expensive than AC/DC tickets...OF COURSE it's to pay for the stages, lighting, crews, etc- all the shit that goes into ANY tour...However, this is U2- taking "grand scale" to new and ridiculous heights. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever reading or hearing the words "interesting, innovative or cutting-edge" regarding AC/DC's tours. It's all a matter of choice and like/dislike. I myself can't stand AC/DC- I think the singer sounds like he's swallowed a box of rocks and is screaming due to an amputated limb...

 

[gman]

I find it hilarious how almost every single post of yours in a thread you started is basically completely irrelevant to your whole point to begin with....why on earth are you bringing up the success of U2's latest singles? And regardless, are you seriously trying to argue that AC/DC is as relevant as U2 today? Forget this stupid "relevant to who?" argument..that's bs. AC/DC is a thing of the past. They're a washed up nostalgia act....you seem so frustrated with the fact that the majority of people on this board hold the opinion of U2 being the biggest, or at least one of the biggest, bands/acts in the world today....well guess what? It's fucking true, so get over it!! Is it really that hard to accept? U2 is that big. They are that successful. They are the shit. Does that make you angry?

Rob...are you brain dead? Is your brain unable to deal with the fact that other people answer these threads, and deviate from the original question? And with that, comes this musical snobbery, insisting that u2 are the be all and end all, and no one comes close. So i merely provide FACTS to show that they u2 are not this musical superpower that many of the blinkered devotees, like yourself, on this forum seem to think.
Most of you are taking this thread as if i am challenging u2s "superiority" with using AC/DC. If you actually read the posts i made....you will see that this thread originated because i was looking for tickets for AC/DC for a mate, and thought it amazing that musical acts on a par with u2 can charge so little in comparisson!
Oh...and just for the record, I was reading somewhere that Ac/Dc's last tour....was the most expensive production ever. So...there again.....they match match u2!
Some of you have your heads so far up U2's collective arses, its unture!

Also rob...according to you....u2 are THE biggest if not one of the biggest bands on the planet. So why is it impossible for you to accept that there are bands out there who can match and somtimes outperform in sucsess terms, yet you disscount them. Your clearly a u2 brown noser!

 

[gman]

Seems to be people on here get relevance and subjectivty mixed up!

Relevance is a term used to describe how pertinent, connected, or applicable something is to a given matter. A thing is relevant if it serves as a means to a given purpose.
Ad say then...given that ac/dc AND OTHERS, purpose is to shift records and tour, makes them every bit as "Relevant" as u2.
Remember, the world has a population of 6 billion people. Lots of varied taste out there!

Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unsubstantiated personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs
I have provided the facts already, yet many contiinue to argue the toss!

 

[MikeyJB]

Musical relevance isn't about sales.
For example, Radiohead... like it or not it IS one of the most relevant bands in the mainstream musical scene (Radiohead is no underground little band anyway) and their sales are really FAR from AC/DC. (Just compare In Rainbows' sales to Black Ice's.)

Yeah I would have to agree with this point here

Just look at Da Vinci - no sales in his time, hugely relevant artist

 

[Marien]

Well, I've been to AC/DC concert in Madrid a few days ago and it was a great success, they got a sold out stadium here twice in 3 months, their latest gig had been April 2, same stadium, same success and this is all true, but it's also true that I went there for the old songs, I don't care too much about the new ones, the show was great because it was what we expected them to do, but it was like an old show back in the seventies/eighties, and all the music differences apart, I thought of them as reaching to something similar to the The Rolling Stones status, which is not as bad as some people here tend to think, The Stones still make really good music live, I saw them in Slane 2007, but would I have travelled to Ireland to watch the Stones? No, it just happened I was there, Would I have paid 135 Euros for AC/DC? No, I think it's too expensive for the show they are performing, did I like their show? yes, for the price I paid it was really great.
Now it happens that I'm not only going to pay 150 and 135 Euros for U2 shows, for some of them I'm also travelling to Ireland and paying for acommodation, why? because I feel their show is worth of it, of course their production expenses will be bigger than AC/DC's but I don't think I would care about if I didn't think the show is worth my money, which I believe from previous experiences.
Anyway, have you ever been to musical plays in New York or London, even Madrid? I think they are really expensive, well, the production may be spectacular, but they keep performing six days a week for years, and not only that, they don't feature the best musicians or singers, I've made a little research, Dirty Dancing in Aldwych Theatre, London, has prices going from 48,60 to 76,60 Pounds for June 30th evening, New York are even higher, most shows starting about $80.

Well, I think I'm digressing a bit now, what I want to say is that all the artists want to make as much money from their art as possible and all people want to get as much as possible from their money, so if I pay is because I think it's worth of it, without really taking into account any other considerations.

 

[gman]

but it's also true that I went there for the old songs, I don't care too much about the new ones, the show was great because it was what we expected them to do, but it was like an old show back in the seventies/eighties,

And how many people will be going to see u2 in the hope of hearing the likes of Sunday Bloody Sunday, WOWY, One etc, as opposed to the new stuff? I reckon, given the fact that the new material is performing about the worst of all u2 releases ever, the majority will be going to see them based on the strength of their old material!
How many times have you heard the whole "I dont mind u2, but i prefer their older songs" statement?
I hear it all the time. And to further back this up...i have yet to meet ANYONE who has become a u2 fan based on their last 3 albums!
As much as i love the NLOTH material, i got to thinking the other day, will u2 ever record another anthem like One....Sunday Bloody Sunday, Streets etc? You know, a song that transcends musical taste/barriers? I think them days are long gone!
So maybe u2 are closer to becoming a Nostalga act themselves, than some people on here might want to believe!

 

[Shane Madden]

Am amazed at the ignorance on here. Ac/Dc arent relevant in whos world..... Yours?

ok, in the interest of relevance, lets compare recent releases...

Black Ice, No1 in 29 countires, 1st week US sales 784 000, 1st week uk 110 000
NLOTH, No 1 in 30 Countries, 1st week US sales 484 000, 1st week uk 100 000

Thats the like for like figures i can find. Doesnt seem to reflect what you were sayiing!

Also "The Interscope album (NLOTH) sold a brisk 484,000 copies in the U.S......But the number everyone will talk about is 840,000. That’s what U2’s “How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb” sold when it debuted at No. 1 in 2004"

According to that...maybe its U2 whos relevance is waining!

first of all, ACDC'S album went on sale befor the christmas period, a prime selling time.

Secondly, U2s album was leaked a week before release and over 400,000 people in america alone downloaded the album pirately. And another thing, U2 have the biggest selling album of 2009, reason: ECONOMIC DOWNTURN

 

[Shane Madden]

Just to correct you MrMac... AC/DCs first album was only 5 yrs before u2s!
And they have sold about 60 million more records, so substantially more than u2!

Oh....and as for this "musical relevance" argument that keeps rearing its head. Correct me if am wrong.....but of u2s last two singles in UK, one grossly underperformed in the chart, the other didnt even make it into the top 40!

Magnificant didnt reach the top 40 because for some reason U2 didnt release it digitally, which was stupid. The last time ACDC had any relivance in the charts was thunderstruck,

I am an ACDC an aswell but you cqt escape the fact that U2 are known as the best live act in the world, that is being said by even U2 haters. Plus when your building the most expensive stage ever consieved (3 of the them0 the prices will be higher.

 

[mikal]

i'd just like to add that ACDC's music is really......really deep stuff.

 

[vaz02]

Magnificant didnt reach the top 40 because for some reason U2 didnt release it digitally, which was stupid. The last time ACDC had any relivance in the charts was thunderstruck,

They released it digitally but not physically, which is where u2's single sales normally come from.

 

[gvox]

Guys. let's face it. AC DC make better music than U2.

 

[paultjr]

Is there really something wrong with that? It's their job. holy shit...how can you possibly say they are being greedy? It's called having half a brain...it's called not being a dumbass....U2 have always wanted to be the biggest, and they've always had money in their minds...those who think otherwise are fooling themselves.

I think the fact that U2 are filthy rich rockstars frustrates a lot of you and changes the way you think of the band from the business side...when it shouldn't at all...Think about it in simpler terms. If you run your own business, don't you try to capitalize on every opportunity and make the most money possible? It's the same damn thing.


You're exactly right - that's why in my original thread I said "greedy" in parenthesis. It's a business - the point of business is to profit as much as you can. Let's not forget that U2 barely made a profit off of the Zoo TV tour. And I don't think they made a dime until The Joshua Tree went off in '87. It's not like they are these annoying little pop starts being pampered for putting out one crap single. They should enjoy the rewards for their hard work over the years.

 

[Irishteen]

I hear it all the time. And to further back this up...i have yet to meet ANYONE who has become a u2 fan based on their last 3 albums!

I got into U2 with ATYCLB, nice to meet you



I'm not gonna argue in this thread though seeing as I think AC/DC are one of the worst bands in rock history and that Let There be Rock is one of the worst songs ever written by anyone, I'm a tad biased against them

 

[BVS]

I got into U2 with ATYCLB, nice to meet you

Yeah there are tons of you new fans in here... This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[SamuelSmeloc]

I got into U2 with ATYCLB, nice to meet you



I'm not gonna argue in this thread though seeing as I think AC/DC are one of the worst bands in rock history and that Let There be Rock is one of the worst songs ever written by anyone, I'm a tad biased against them

Same here, I got into U2 with ATYCLB.
I play some AC/DC songs in a band with some University friends, and I must say it's boring as hell. So yes, I share your opinion about AC/DC, "one of the worst bands in rock history".

 

[hibricc]

EDIT: Oops, my post was off-base. Deleted....

 

[Marien]

And how many people will be going to see u2 in the hope of hearing the likes of Sunday Bloody Sunday, WOWY, One etc, as opposed to the new stuff? I reckon, given the fact that the new material is performing about the worst of all u2 releases ever, the majority will be going to see them based on the strength of their old material!
How many times have you heard the whole "I dont mind u2, but i prefer their older songs" statement?
I hear it all the time. And to further back this up...i have yet to meet ANYONE who has become a u2 fan based on their last 3 albums!
As much as i love the NLOTH material, i got to thinking the other day, will u2 ever record another anthem like One....Sunday Bloody Sunday, Streets etc? You know, a song that transcends musical taste/barriers? I think them days are long gone!
So maybe u2 are closer to becoming a Nostalga act themselves, than some people on here might want to believe!

I can agree with your first and to some extend with your last paragraph, especially if we talk about U2 for the general public, although I doubt U2 will let them become a pure nostalgia act, a kind of classic act would be more likely in my opinion, and there is a big difference between these two concepts.
I think I didn't make myself clear when I said that I didn't care for AC/DC's new songs and that I went to the concert for their old stuff, I was just characterizing myself as an occasional AC/DC fan as opposed to a hardcore fan, why? because I think that your motivations when going to a concert are going to influence your appreciation of it (I don't believe my opinion is objective or the "truth").
I have to say that I know lots of people who have become fans with one of their three latest albums, in fact more people than old hardcore fans, I suppose this is because I work mostly with very young people at uni, people who weren't alive when they released their Joshua Tree, I was a child when it happened, but thanks to my older brother I could go to that concert and... here I am. I know that most of these young fans consider Beautiful Day a song that trascends taste and barriers and I have to agree with them much more than with Sunday, Bloody Sunday, I love the song, especially for its lyrics and the rage inside it, but I don't think it trascends anything, in fact I find this song and Pride could be avoided in the next tour, of course I don't expect every fan to agree with me, from the new album I'm curious to see how Moment of Surrender and Breathe get older, I know a classic needs time to become a classic, so it's too early to talk about it, let's see.

 

[zwervers2]

I have to say that I know lots of people who have become fans with one of their three latest albums, in fact more people than old hardcore fans, I suppose this is because I work mostly with very young people at uni, people who weren't alive when they released their Joshua Tree, I was a child when it happened, but thanks to my older brother I could go to that concert and... here I am. I know that most of these young fans consider Beautiful Day a song that trascends taste and barriers and I have to agree with them much more than with Sunday, Bloody Sunday, I love the song, especially for its lyrics and the rage inside it, but I don't think it trascends anything, in fact I find this song and Pride could be avoided in the next tour, of course I don't expect every fan to agree with me, from the new album I'm curious to see how Moment of Surrender and Breathe get older, I know a classic needs time to become a classic, so it's too early to talk about it, let's see.

Beautiful day has "radiofriendly kickass hit with an uplifitng message that a LOT of people relate to" written all over it. There is absolutely nothing on NLOTH that has that sort of hitpotential or a "this will be a classic" feel. Overal NLOTH is the just not so great brother of POP. No memorable single to grab attention but regarded as a great record by (most) fans. Just my 2 cents anyway

 

[Rob33]

Rob...are you brain dead? Is your brain unable to deal with the fact that other people answer these threads, and deviate from the original question? And with that, comes this musical snobbery, insisting that u2 are the be all and end all, and no one comes close. So i merely provide FACTS to show that they u2 are not this musical superpower that many of the blinkered devotees, like yourself, on this forum seem to think.
Most of you are taking this thread as if i am challenging u2s "superiority" with using AC/DC. If you actually read the posts i made....you will see that this thread originated because i was looking for tickets for AC/DC for a mate, and thought it amazing that musical acts on a par with u2 can charge so little in comparisson!
Oh...and just for the record, I was reading somewhere that Ac/Dc's last tour....was the most expensive production ever. So...there again.....they match match u2!
Some of you have your heads so far up U2's collective arses, its unture!

Also rob...according to you....u2 are THE biggest if not one of the biggest bands on the planet. So why is it impossible for you to accept that there are bands out there who can match and somtimes outperform in sucsess terms, yet you disscount them. Your clearly a u2 brown noser!

Um....no. The only person deviating from the original question was YOU when you started talking about record sales....and then you carry some meaningless argument on for 6 pages....

And how many people will be going to see u2 in the hope of hearing the likes of Sunday Bloody Sunday, WOWY, One etc, as opposed to the new stuff? I reckon, given the fact that the new material is performing about the worst of all u2 releases ever, the majority will be going to see them based on the strength of their old material!
How many times have you heard the whole "I dont mind u2, but i prefer their older songs" statement?
I hear it all the time. And to further back this up...i have yet to meet ANYONE who has become a u2 fan based on their last 3 albums!


There you go again....

...and your talk about the most recent albums is a joke....ATYCLB and HTDAAB introduced an entirely new fanbase to U2 and gave them the jumpstart they needed after Pop. Also, the "I don't mind u2, but i prefer their older songs" statement usually comes from fans that hardly listened to their newer stuff and just heard Vertigo or something, and didn't really give their newer output a chance.

As much as i love the NLOTH material, i got to thinking the other day, will u2 ever record another anthem like One....Sunday Bloody Sunday, Streets etc? You know, a song that transcends musical taste/barriers? I think them days are long gone!
So maybe u2 are closer to becoming a Nostalga act themselves, than some people on here might want to believe!

WTF...

First of all...NLOTH hasn't even been out for 4 months, so you have no idea exactly how that record or some of the songs on that record will stand the test of time. The tour for NLOTH has not even started!!

How many bands write songs that "transcend musical taste/barriers" ?!?! So what now? U2 are "closer to becoming a nostalgia act" because they haven't written a song that "transcends musical barriers" recently, U2 are becoming a nostalgia act?

...not only is that statement pretty much completely baseless, but almost everything going on in the U2 world right now suggests otherwise....Also, a nostalgia act, or even a band falling into that description, would not have the highest selling album of the year (you also conveniently forget the release date of NLOTH when comparing it to other albums that are released during holiday season), so what you're saying actually makes very little sense.

 

[bonoschild2009]

Personal opinion- AC/DC: Still sucking after 35 years

I know that most of these young fans consider Beautiful Day a song that trascends taste and barriers and I have to agree with them much more than with Sunday, Bloody Sunday, I love the song, especially for its lyrics and the rage inside it, but I don't think it trascends anything

Good points...I don't think AC/DC's music transcends anything...To me their music is one long album that has sounded the same for over 30 years. Classic songs??? Highway to Hell? Dirty Deeds? Rosie? Uh, pardon me:
Respect to the AC/DC fans out there, but I still can't stand them just as a lot of people can't stand U2....AC/DC could open up for U2, tho.....I suppose I'd rather see them than BEP....Hmmm, I don't know, that's kind of tough...

 

[zwervers2]

First of all...NLOTH hasn't even been out for 4 months, so you have no idea exactly how that record or some of the songs on that record will stand the test of time. Also, a lot of U2 songs really became famous when played live...and the tour for NLOTH has not even started....

It just won't happen. The songs dont have that extra something that will work live and elevate it to absolute cultstatus. Same with the POP-material

...not only is it pretty much completely baseless, but almost everything going on in the U2 world right now suggests otherwise....Also, a nostalgia act, or even a band falling into that description, would not have the highest selling album of the year (you also conveniently forget the release date of NLOTH when comparing it to other albums that are released during holiday season), so what you're saying actually makes very little sense.

U2 should never EVER have to rely on holidaysales. they are not a "christmas"band. Maybe for a greatest hits album but not in regards to new material after 4 LONG years.

 

[Marien]

Beautiful day has "radiofriendly kickass hit with an uplifitng message that a LOT of people relate to" written all over it. There is absolutely nothing on NLOTH that has that sort of hitpotential or a "this will be a classic" feel. Overal NLOTH is the just not so great brother of POP. No memorable single to grab attention but regarded as a great record by (most) fans. Just my 2 cents anyway

I told before, I don't expect every fan to agree with my opinion as I don't agree with yours, I love NLOTH, but what do I know? I even love Pop and I don't think The Joshua Tree is their best album, you can imagine... I'm a lost case, but I like listening to other people's opinions and see the contrasts, thanks