The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I find it interesting that The Stones sometimes only go 3 years between tours.

Of course, albums are of little priority.

The Stones also go south of the Equator - but then again, you never know where Mick has family...

u2fp
 
starvinmarvin said:


All of this data is fascinating, but has nothing to do with my original statement. I did not say that The Stones were selling more records or concert tickets in 2005. My point is that The Stones are doing remarkably well considering the fact that they are over 60 years of age. If U2 can still draw the crowds into their 60's and sell modest amounts of records in the year 2020, then I will be very impressed (and happy). Until then, I think the ignorant (mostly young) U2 fans who dismiss the Stones simply because they're old, or constantly compare them to a band that is almost 20 yrs their senior should SHUT THE BLEEP UP. To maintain that level of success for 43 years is astounding.

As for the Stones not selling albums, that is rubbish. Your assertion that Tattoo You was their last hit album is flat out wrong (it sold 7 million though). When I was 13 years old, Steel Wheels (1989) was a massive worldwide hit. It sold over 9 million copies worldwide. It spawned a huge hit, Mixed Emotions, which was as ubiquitous as Vertigo was in 2004, and many kids my age became fans for the first time. The tour was also massive, and if memory serves me correctly was the 4th biggest grossing tour of all time. I guess my basic point is that in 1989 the Stones had been together for 27 years, which is roughly the same age as U2 is right now as we speak. You say HTDAAB has sold 10 million. Well, Steel Weels sold 9 million. Not a big difference, if you ask me.

Fast forward to 1994, when the Stones released Voodoo Lounge. It sold 8 million copies worldwide. Love Is Strong was only a minor hit, yes, but the tour remains the BIGGEST GROSSING TOUR OF ALL TIME. The live album souvineer from the tour, Stripped, sold an astounding 3.5 million copies in 1998 (which is amazing for a live album). So, I guess that if U2 put out an album in 2010 and match the Voodoo Lounge tour in terms of gross then U2 will have kept up to the Stones. It will be tough. I don't know if they will do it.

Next came Bridges To Babylon in 97. This is when the Stones really dipped in terms of record sales. Still, 3 million units is still very respectable for a bunch of 55 year olds, who are supposedly washed up. The tour is was also one of the highest grossing tours of all time......I could go on, but I've already proven my point, which is that U2 still has a way to go to keep up to the Stones in terms of longevity. This is not a dig at U2. I'm sure that Bono and the boys know this too.

First off, your album sales totals for Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge are Grossly inaccurate.

Neither album topped 5 million in sales and I have confirmed sources which show this.

For Voodoo Lounge:

This album sold 2 million copies in the United States as certified by RIAA. Go to www.riaa.com The United States is 1/3 of the global market and the Stones typically sell half of the albums in the United States and the other half outside the United States.

Next, Europe accounts for another 1/3 of the entire global market where albums are sold. Here Voodoo Lounge only sold 1 million copies. IFPI certifies album sales since 1996 in Europe and albums released from January 1994 on are eligible for certification. Go to www.ifpi.org and you will see that Voodoo Lounge only sold 1 million copies in Europe.

Canada, a tiny market compared to the United States and Europe, still accounts for 3.5% of the global market. Here Voodoo Lounge did better relative to its sales in Europe and the USA, selling 300,000 copies. The CRIA certifies album sales in Canada. Go to www.cria.ca .

So with 70% of the worldmarket covered, Voodoo Lounge has total sales of 3,300,000 copies. The remaining 30% of the world involves primarily third world countries that have small markets for album sales. At most your looking at another 1 million copies for a total of 4.3 million worldwide for Voodoo Lounge.


Steel Wheels:

In the United States, Steel Wheels sold 2 million copies. ( www.riaa.com ) .

In Europe the IFPI did not yet exist, so I don't actually have a certified total for sales there. But as an accurate gauge to use in its place, take a look at the sales of Steel Wheels in the Rolling Stones home country, the United Kingdom. BPI certifies album sales in the United Kingdom. Go to www.bpi.co.uk . Here you will see that Steel Wheels is certified GOLD for 100,000 in sales. Voodoo Lounge is also certified GOLD for 100,000 copies sold. So it is reasonable to assume that sales of Steel Wheels in Europe were similar to sales of Voodoo Lounge in Europe based on this. This puts sales in Europe at 1 million.

In Canada once again, this album like Voodoo Lounge is certified for selling 300,000 copies. www.cria.ca .

Again, we arrive at the same total of 3,300,000 copies sold in Europe, United States and Canada, 70% of the global market. Adding a generous 1 million copies for the remain 30% of the planet, brings the total to 4,300,000 copies.


So once again, the Stones have not had a major hit album since Tattoo You and this fact was recently brought up on CNN when they were discussing the Stones new "political" song.

This is NOT to dismiss selling 4,300,000 copies or even 3 million copies or 2 million copies. But these are not top 10 superstar figures for total global sales.

By the way, if you add the figures from the "No Security Tour" to the Bridges Of Babylon tour, Bridges To Babylon is the highest Grossing tour of all time at around 350 million. But U2 could easily surpass that on the Vertigo tour, although they may decide not to tour long enough to do so. U2 has already out Grossed the Rolling Stones Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge, and Bridges To Babylon tours in Europe with just 32 Vertigo tour dates.
 
53448765.jpg



:yikes:
 
Bono is the one walking around declaring U2 the greatest band on the planet, and asking for challengers to their throne, yet when Ron Wood shows a little competitive spirit, he's slagged?

Get a clue people.
 
starvinmarvin said:
or constantly compare them to a band that is almost 20 yrs their senior should SHUT THE BLEEP UP.

Hmm...

This is my thought process when I see people try and compare Coldplay to U2.

By the way, saw Coldplay last night and it was better than any of the 5 Vertigo shows I have seen this tour.

WE RETURN NOW TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING.

I saw a Bridges show and it was spectacular even in the pouring rain. The Rolling Stones are legends, and are paid as such.
 
The Rolling Stones are overrated. When the Stones were at the point in their career that U2 is at now, they were singing 'Start Me Up'. U2 hasn't released anything that bad yet, so I have hope.
 
namkcuR said:
The Rolling Stones are overrated. When the Stones were at the point in their career that U2 is at now, they were singing 'Start Me Up'. U2 hasn't released anything that bad yet, so I have hope.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Yahweh is much worse song than Start Me Up. Nobody, not radio, cover bands, karaoke singers...or even U2 will be playing Yahweh 4 years from now let alone 20. :wink:
 
Last edited:
cmb737 said:


Hmm...

This is my thought process when I see people try and compare Coldplay to U2.

By the way, saw Coldplay last night and it was better than any of the 5 Vertigo shows I have seen this tour.

WE RETURN NOW TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING.

I saw a Bridges show and it was spectacular even in the pouring rain. The Rolling Stones are legends, and are paid as such.

I guess the Coldplay show was the greatest concert you have ever seen in your life. It would have to be to beat a show you went to see five times.
 
martha said:
Tour grosses don't mean much when tickets are 450 dollars. Somebody compare numbers of tickets sold. How many people went to the shows?

Ticket price is always important since it directly impacts the number of tickets that can be sold. Artist generally try to sell as many tickets as possible at the highest price. Charge to little and you may get a bigger crowd, but be unable to pay for the cost of putting on the show. Charge to much and not enough people will buy tickets in an amount large enough to pay for the cost of the show as well. In addition, with these shows, its more important to look at the average price of tickets, rather than the few low priced and high priced ones.

Generally, the artist with the strongest concert attendances also have the highest AVERAGE ticket prices, with U2 and the Rolling Stones being the perfect examples. Strong demand and limited supply naturally pushes the price of tickets up, which is why Arena or even smaller shows in Theaters will have higher ticket prices than Stadium shows.

By the end of December, U2's current tour will have Grossed over 290 million dollars in just under 9 months. The first time an artist has ever Grossed that much in that small of a time frame.
 
this thread has turned as predictable as i expected,

people really need to start mixing it up :wink:
 
KUEFC09U2 said:
people really need to start mixing it up :wink:

:rolleyes:

I really thought you would've learnt by now. If there's one thing more predictable than a U2 setlist, it's an Interference thread.

They're never going to mix it up, so don't even suggest it. Geez. Be realistic.



:wink:
 
cmb737 said:


Sorry to disappoint you, but Yahweh is much worse song than Start Me Up. Nobody, not radio, cover bands, karaoke singers...or even U2 will be playing Yahweh 4 years from now let alone 20. :wink:

Depends on taste. I'm sure I would be able to find several songs on the recent Rolling Stones albums that are much, much, much weaker than Yahweh.
 
cmb737 said:
Sorry to disappoint you, but Yahweh is much worse song than Start Me Up. Nobody, not radio, cover bands, karaoke singers...or even U2 will be playing Yahweh 4 years from now let alone 20. :wink:
okay good...i was afraid it was just me who felt this way about yahweh, seriously. :reject:
 
Axver said:


:rolleyes:

I really thought you would've learnt by now. If there's one thing more predictable than a U2 setlist, it's an Interference thread.

They're never going to mix it up, so don't even suggest it. Geez. Be realistic.



:wink:
well i am very dissapointed, and i think we should now start a petition,
 
govikesU2 said:
Rolling Stones guitarist Ron Wood was overheard telling Mick Jagger's personal assistant, "Tell Paul McCartney and U2 that's how it's done," after he finished their second Fenway Park show in Boston. Someone should tell Ron Wood his face looks like old beef jerkey and it's time for the Beatles ugly little brother of a band to call it quits. A little harsh but that comment pisses me off.

Why do you care what someone else says about U2? Are you in U2? How can you possibly take this insult personally?
 
Re: Re: The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

nickypiemcg said:


Why do you care what someone else says about U2? Are you in U2? How can you possibly take this insult personally?
because he is a fan who likes to stick up for his band? is that not ok? just like fans like to critise the band, its ok for them, but when someone trys to defend they get a sea of people telling them they shouldnt
 
Re: Re: Re: The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

KUEFC09U2 said:
because he is a fan who likes to stick up for his band? is that not ok?


Just before yimou closes this thread I would have to say something here.

So, you think you are sticking up for your band when you are insulting one of their friends and saying that his face "looks like old beef jerkey" and that his band is "ugly"? :tsk:

As I have already said once in this thread - if the the members of U2 and the members of Rolling Stones ever saw this thread they would all grab a beer and laugh their :censored: out at seeing how pathetically some of the hardcore U2 fans are "defending" their band

Now :lock:
 
as a die hard u2 fan... u2 ain't the stones. the only group that surpases the stones on the rock pyramid of power are the beatles, and seeing as they haven't been a band in 35 years... yea... that puts the stones at the top.

are they "relevant?" who fucking cares... their the fucking rolling stones. they can do whatever they want at this point. u2 needs another solid 10 years before they can even think about being in the same category as the stones. what the hell is "relevant" anyway? 'cause they're not on MTV anymore? neither are u2... i'd call selling out 50,000 seat stadiums throughout the world and having one of the most influential and respected song catalog's of all time makes one fairly "relevant," even if they are 93 years old.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
as a die hard u2 fan... u2 ain't the stones. the only group that surpases the stones on the rock pyramid of power are the beatles, and seeing as they haven't been a band in 35 years... yea... that puts the stones at the top.

are they "relevant?" who fucking cares... their the fucking rolling stones. they can do whatever they want at this point. u2 needs another solid 10 years before they can even think about being in the same category as the stones. what the hell is "relevant" anyway? 'cause they're not on MTV anymore? neither are u2... i'd call selling out 50,000 seat stadiums throughout the world and having one of the most influential and respected song catalog's of all time makes one fairly "relevant," even if they are 93 years old.

Exactly. It is rare for bands to be successful for as long as U2 has, but The Rolling Stones are in a class all by themselves. As I said before, U2 in 2005 is equal to The Stones 1989 - both bands had been making music for about 27 years, and both bands were still selling a lot of records and selling out stadiums. For U2 to equal the Stones they will need to stiill be the top touring band in the world in 2021. This may very well happen, but 2021 is a long way off, and I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
as a die hard u2 fan... u2 ain't the stones. the only group that surpases the stones on the rock pyramid of power are the beatles, and seeing as they haven't been a band in 35 years... yea... that puts the stones at the top.

are they "relevant?" who fucking cares... their the fucking rolling stones. they can do whatever they want at this point. u2 needs another solid 10 years before they can even think about being in the same category as the stones. what the hell is "relevant" anyway? 'cause they're not on MTV anymore? neither are u2... i'd call selling out 50,000 seat stadiums throughout the world and having one of the most influential and respected song catalog's of all time makes one fairly "relevant," even if they are 93 years old.

As far as I'm concerned, U2 earned its place along the greats of rock and that includes the both bands you mentioned. Live and studio catalogue.

Being around for long isn't everything - Stones are and have been a touring act for years now. I'd like to see them sell 10+ millions of albums now and make social commentaries with their tours like U2 and be relevant with their music and play less hits and more fresh material live.
 
STING2 said:


I guess the Coldplay show was the greatest concert you have ever seen in your life. It would have to be to beat a show you went to see five times.

No...just better than the Vertigo shows.

All tickets (save one pair for Chicago 3 which was a spur of the moment anniversary gift to my wife) were bought before seeing one show...tickets went on sale for all of the first leg shows before they played a single note, remember?
 
Not much to say on this topic, since I know it's only a bit of friendly competition between bands, but I will say that you gotta know somewhere, someone thinks that pic of Mick is sexy. :slant:
 
Back
Top Bottom