Vampira
Acrobat
Headache in a Suitcase said:is this thread still goin?
Even if it ends somebody will start another one within 2 weeks
If I never had to hear how much anybody didn't like POP, Zooropa or ATYCLB ever again I would rejoice.
Headache in a Suitcase said:is this thread still goin?
Vampira said:
If I never had to hear how much anybody didn't like POP, Zooropa or ATYCLB ever again I would rejoice.
Chizip said:well to be fair, not every elevation concert was a sell out either
so although it looks better, selling 19,000 out of 20,000 seats really isnt any better than selling 20,000 out of 60,000
Originally posted by LivLuv
it sounds like the reason you don't like ATYCLB is NOT because it's not a good album, but b/c it's not the type of music you like to listen to. But I don't think that that means ATYCLB is a bad album.
Axver said:Hmm, I seem to recall someone posting on Peeling Off Those Dollar Bills that every single Elevation show sold out, though a couple didn't sell out until the actual day.
As originally posted by Sting2:
The entire tour was soldout because every show sold all the tickets it put on sale. There were some dates though in the Midwest that did not use behind the stage seating, and there were tickets available in Kansas City and St. Louis I believe right up to show time. Still all tickets were sold. The 45 dollar and 130 dollar tickets always soldout fast. It was the 85 dollar tickets behind the stage and on the second level that were slow to sell in a few markets.
Chizip said:some would say elevation was more successful because it was almost a sell out, but 26,000 more people went to the popmart tour, so i feel that was the more successful one
but either way, since you are done talking about this i win!
i love winning
ONLY 26,000 more when it was almost twice as long and went to far more countries and played bigger venues?? That's not very much. Shit one more show in Chicago would have made it about even. That means Elevation was way more popular by that comparison!
[/B]
U2Kitten said:But in most big cities, Elevation played 2-5 shows at 20,000 seats each. Additional shows were added in some cases, none ever cancelled. If any didn't sell out it was only by a few. In most cases, by the middle of the first leg and all through the second US leg the tickets were so hard to get you had to go to scalpers or online brokers. I did.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
5 more shows, 5000 more people... chizip is right (god i hate saying that ) elevation seems like it was much more successful do to the buzz created by "selling out" so many arenas, but it really wasn't any more successful than popmart was... until you get to the economics... popmart was much more expensive to run night in and night out than elevation was... so while popmart sold more tickets world wide, and probably had a higher revenue than elevation, i'm willing to bet elevation had a higher profit margin.
shaun vox said:does this thread look to you like ...... how many albums u2 sold or how many shows they sold out. NO.
get back to the topic or get the fuck out of here!
hahaha got ya hahaha.
thrillme said:Would you prefer them to really become a folk band, with the penny whistles, uilllean pipes...
Chizip said:i just know that in st louis i went to the elevation tour and they sold 19,000 out of 20,000, and i went to pomart and they sold around 35,000 out of 60,000
some would say elevation was more successful because it was almost a sell out, but 26,000 more people went to the popmart tour, so i feel that was the more successful one
U2girl said:
19,000 out of 20,000 (over 90%) seats is a way better sold show than 35,000 out of 60,000 (a bit over 50%). I take several sold out arena shows over one not-sold out stadium show (something that should not happen to a band of U2's status anyway) anytime. How many people saw the show isn't a relevant measure on its own, without context.
That said, it's hard - and unfair IMO - to compare Elevation to Popmart because Popmart went to more countries and had bigger expenses. If Elevation with its huge demand would have gone the places Popmart did - and used the stadiums - it's likely it would have done better. (which it did anyway IMO with its critical acclaim and a bigger profit margin)
:shaun vox said:oh fuck ya im a jimmy page fan(led zeppelin) so i spelled it that way (thanks for doing spell check for me)
i wont say u2 suck as musicians but compared to led zeppelin,acdc, gn'r, hendrix,velvet revolver and even the darkness u2 arnt that good with their instruments, lyrically u2 are one of the best(thanks to bono)! if you dont know what im talking about go get led zeppelin live, or acdc live, or just go to one of the darkness shows.
Chizip said:
its an interesting debate really, which is considered more successful, "selling out" every show, or playing beigger venues to more people but with more emtpy seats.
Chizip said:
percentage of seats sold doesnt really mean much, total attendance is much more meaningful to me. i know if i were in a band, id rather have 35,000 people come see me rather than 19,000 people come see me, even if its only 50% capacity, because thats 16,000 (thanks for the math lesson) more people i can impress with a great show.
U2girl said:
Because like I said, the demand for U2 the last time around was huge - they'd do very good at least in the biggest markets (the places where they played 3 or 4 nights in a row on the last tour). Seats behind the stage - were they put on sale? - are hard to sell anyway. I don't see your "19 000 out of 60 000" number for elevation reasoning...
Again, I don't think saying just the number of people explains everything and I prefer selling out a venue - or at least be close to achieving that - rather than not sell it out.
(more people may have been at popmart, but that doesn't mean more people were impressed with the show at all. you don't know that, and given that more "older" U2 fans loved ATYCLB over POP, I wouldn't be surprised of more "older" U2 fans preferred Elevation to Popmart)