U2 and Metallica sharing a stage ? Lars Ulrich is up for it

[toscano]

In the 00s, Metallica have only released one studio album of new material. It was called St. Anger. It sold about 4 million copies worldwide(1.7 million in the United States according to soundscan, 2 million shipped according to RIAA). ATYCLB by U2 sold 12 million copies worldwide. HTDAAB sold 9 million copies worldwide. I was comparing the bands in THIS decade, and their paths from a purely commercial stand point have significantly gone in different directions.

Again, you'r comparing numbers in a specific slice of the band's career, the point being made was that both bands have recovered from the changes in direction despised by the unwashed masses. Wheter that means 4 or 40m sales isn't the point.

Sheesh.

U2 could have easily played stadiums in North America on the Vertigo tour,but initially went with Arena's to be safe. Nearly every arena show soldout within minutes or hours showing that there was plenty of excess demand not met that could fill stadiums.

No way would they have filled a stadium. A lot of people went to multiple shows and with ticket prices where they were no way would they have 60/70,000 seaters if they did 2 nights in an area that filled 30,000 seats. There wasn't THAT much excess demand, On the day of every show I attended I could have gotten almost-face-value from pissed off scalpers on craigslist or ebay.

Say what you will about the POPMART tour, its still a higher level of success than anything Metallica has ever done in their career to date. U2 got over 40,000 people to their show in Washington DC on POPMART, Metallica current ARENA show in Washington DC is still not soldout and the capacity is only 19,000.

SO WHAT??????? You just missed the point of the post, that's all there is to it. I'm done.

 

[Strongbow]

Again, you'r comparing numbers in a specific slice of the band's career, the point being made was that both bands have recovered from the changes in direction despised by the unwashed masses. Wheter that means 4 or 40m sales isn't the point.

I'm comparing that specific slice of the bands career because I'm correcting the idea that in the 00s Metallica's popularity is equal to that of U2's. The reality is that in the 00s its not even close. Thats the point I'm making.

No way would they have filled a stadium.

U2 filled many stadiums on POPMART. They were more popular on both Elevation and Vertigo. U2 soldout 4 shows in Philadelphia on Vertigo in just two hours. Thats nearly 80,000 tickets. Typically, most artist are able to do at least 50% more business beyond the first day of on sale. They were no where near close to meeting demand in the Philadelphia market, Boston, New York City, Washington DC and several other markets.

The promoter of U2's last tour, Arthur Fogal, admitted that they could have played stadiums in North America if they new Vertigo would have had such strong demand.

A lot of people went to multiple shows and with ticket prices where they were no way would they have 60/70,000 seaters if they did 2 nights in an area that filled 30,000 seats.

The vast majority of people actually only go to one show. Even those seeking multiple shows were often locked out in some markets because of the demand, especially if they were not willing to dip into the secondary scalper market to find tickets.

There wasn't THAT much excess demand, On the day of every show I attended I could have gotten almost-face-value from pissed off scalpers on craigslist or ebay.

Depending on the city your in, that is usually the situation for ANY show. The majority of the public does not attempt to purchase tickets from brokers or scalpers.

SO WHAT??????? You just missed the point of the post, that's all there is to it. I'm done.

I understand your point, but I was making a point of my own.

On the Vertigo tour, U2 soldout two shows at the Verizon Center in Washington DC in less than 30 minutes. The average ticket price was $100 dollars. Metallica has been unable to sellout one show after a week of being on sale with all tickets except those on the floor at only $60 dollars. U2 could have played a Stadium in Washington DC on Vertigo, while Metallica is still struggling to fill a single arena show. Thats the difference between the two bands in the 00s in a nutshell.

This is just a comparison of how they are doing in the music business in the 00s.

 

[U2girl]

I hate that U2 fans rationalize this by using the Stones, McCartney or Madonna as the bar. On the one hand they compare U2 to Pearl Jam or REM to show how 'Relevant' they are are, but when it comes to ticket prices it's 'well it's not as expensive as Madonna". Funny. I hope for their sakes that the economy has recovered by the time the tour rolls around.

I think U2 should be, in terms of ticket prices, compared to the biggest live draws worldwide, yes - since they're one of them. That would include all of the above, and they're still cheaper. Is that so bad ? I'd love to see the day anyone of the above 3 has 50 $ for the best seats in the house.

I wouldn't compare REM or P. Jam to U2 in any way other than all of them being rock bands.

 

[toscano]

This is just a comparison of how they are doing in the music business in the 00s.

Here's more comparisons how the bands are DOING business in the 00's.

Metallica has never released a Best-Of, U2 is now up to 3.
Metallica has yet to break the $100 ticket barrier, let alone the $150. U2 has been over $150 since 2001.
Metallica used to have taper sections, Bono claims he didn't care if people taped U2 but it was never actually OK to bring in tape equipment. Taper sections are no longer needed because Metallica has all shows available for download.
Metallica bitched about Napster but has now embraced the internet. U2's manager now wants to increase your ISP bill to line his pocket even though you may never have downloaded anything illegally.
Metallica has never moved business operations to avoid taxes.
Metallica has never shilled for any product.
Metallica has not resorted to the SNL/Leno/Conan/Letterman route to help build their audience.
Metallica just played 2 arena shows at <$10/ticket for fanclub members only.
Scalpers joining Metallica's fanclub to get tickets are stuck with the tickets and cannot re-sell them.
Metallica fanclub members GET good tickets.
Metallica hasn't gotten into bed with clearchannelticketmasterlivenation.
Metallica has played to fans in far flung parts of the globe, Russia,Turkey, Korea, etc. U2 has been vacationing with Penelope Cruz and George Clooney.
Metallica has played in Africa, U2 has talked about Africa.
Metallica hasn't kissed George Bush's ass.


Is Metallica a corporate whore ? Yes. But U2 is way more so.

See, I'd have happy at just leaving it as "they're both corporate whores in the 00's", but you like to dissect the comparisons, works both ways eh ? Of course, if you're a superfan of either band all of this will be meaningless and you'll just rationalize everything they do regardless of principles you may have once had.

 

[toscano]

I think U2 should be, in terms of ticket prices, compared to the biggest live draws worldwide, yes - since they're one of them. That would include all of the above, and they're still cheaper. Is that so bad ? I'd love to see the day anyone of the above 3 has 50 $ for the best seats in the house.

I wouldn't compare REM or P. Jam to U2 in any way other than all of them being rock bands.

But it was REM Bono was comparing himself to in 2001 when he was saying he wanted the "worlds best band" or whatever title it was he wanted back.

It's Pearl jam and Springsteen and REM he likens U2 to in terms of artistic integrity.

Well, they do have one thing in common with the "biggest live draws", they all charge about $150 to sit half a mile away. The >$100 price forms a large majority of the available tickets by the way.

$50/ticket for GA is great, but they make little to no effort to keep those out of the hands of scalpers.

 

[vaz02]

Here's more comparisons how the bands are DOING business in the 00's.

Metallica bitched about Napster but has now embraced the internet.
Metallica has played in Africa, U2 has talked about Africa.
Metallica hasn't kissed George Bush's ass.

I dont wanna be offensive but are you 10 ? No one has kissed bush's arse.
U2 has played South Africa
Metallica cried like babies at one of their shows last month about youtube, Moaning about people uploading clips. I can really feel that hearty embrace.

Do you collect pokemon cards ?

 

[Clawgrabber]

Jeez. How did we get from Lars Ulrich saying he WANTS TO PLAY with U2... to a battle of fanbases debating which band is more of a corporate whore?

I think the point is being missed here.

So silly

 

[Addicted To Bad]

Jeez. How did we get from Lars Ulrich saying he WANTS TO PLAY with U2... to a battle of fanbases debating which band is more of a corporate whore?

I think the point is being missed here.

So silly

______________________________________
THE MORE YOU SEE THE LESS YOU KNOW

 

[david]

What in the hell happened to this thread?

 

[bonocomet]

the usual.


When I first read that bit about LU saying that (on another site, not here) I thought, huh, that's kinda funny/cute. Then I didn't think about it anymore. But it is interesting to see the conversations that arise here on Interference. I like it.

 

[rihannsu]

I find the idea that an artist has to "cater to their fanbase" by charging way under market value for their product in order to "maintain" some kind of credibility is absolutely laughable. Does a Broadway show ticket price have to be low for a play to have credibility? Does Damien Hirst have to sell his paintings for a low price to have credidbility as an artist? U2 does charge less than they could get away with. Considering their drawing power it is entirely appropriate to compare them to the Stones, McCartney and Madonna and their ticket prices are less than these. In addition to that the GA tickets being the cheapest in the house is the opposite of the way others charge.

It also makes perfect sense to compare them to REM or Pearl Jam in terms of artistic merit because their new material is still desired whereas the The Stones don't seem to have people straining at the bit to hear their new stuff.

This philosophy of the starving artist who should not want to make money from their work is a construct of artistic industries that only serves to rip the artists off. Why shouldn't the artists themselves make the lions share of the money. As for U2 being all about the money, I have yet to see or hear an interview with anyone who has worked with them on a creative level who felt that their creative decisions were made on the basis of money. I have no problem with an artist making as much money as they can off of their work as long as they don't feel they have compromised themselves. U2 have never been forced by the studio to make changes to their music for commercial reasons. They also have not compromises in that regard that they now express regret for except for Pop where they ran into the tour booking problem. But that was mostly in the mixing stage rather than the writing of the songs. If money was their god we would never have had ZooTV or Popmart because those tours although ultimately slightly profitable were absolute financial nightmares of out of control spending and poor financial planning. Also Vertigo would have been an all out stadium tour in the US at least after the first leg showed the demand to be as high as it was. Even the decisions that have proved profitable in hindsight were rarely the thing to do if money is your guiding principle. I find it very sad that the hardcore fans don't recognize that and are so quick to jump to the most negative conclusions possible. Sure McGuiness might be all about the money, but to be perfectly fair, that IS his job. The manager is supposed to look after the interests of the client. It is up to the artist to maintain their own integrity in the creative aspect.

Dana

 

[U2girl]

Here's more comparisons how the bands are DOING business in the 00's.

Metallica has never released a Best-Of, U2 is now up to 3.
Metallica has yet to break the $100 ticket barrier, let alone the $150. U2 has been over $150 since 2001.
Metallica used to have taper sections, Bono claims he didn't care if people taped U2 but it was never actually OK to bring in tape equipment. Taper sections are no longer needed because Metallica has all shows available for download.
Metallica bitched about Napster but has now embraced the internet. U2's manager now wants to increase your ISP bill to line his pocket even though you may never have downloaded anything illegally.
Metallica has never moved business operations to avoid taxes.
Metallica has never shilled for any product.
Metallica has not resorted to the SNL/Leno/Conan/Letterman route to help build their audience.
Metallica just played 2 arena shows at <$10/ticket for fanclub members only.
Scalpers joining Metallica's fanclub to get tickets are stuck with the tickets and cannot re-sell them.
Metallica fanclub members GET good tickets.
Metallica hasn't gotten into bed with clearchannelticketmasterlivenation.
Metallica has played to fans in far flung parts of the globe, Russia,Turkey, Korea, etc. U2 has been vacationing with Penelope Cruz and George Clooney.
Metallica has played in Africa, U2 has talked about Africa.
Metallica hasn't kissed George Bush's ass.


Is Metallica a corporate whore ? Yes. But U2 is way more so.

See, I'd have happy at just leaving it as "they're both corporate whores in the 00's", but you like to dissect the comparisons, works both ways eh ? Of course, if you're a superfan of either band all of this will be meaningless and you'll just rationalize everything they do regardless of principles you may have once had.

- When you're around as long, you're bound to end up with a Best of. You do know U2:18 was a premature release and a must to get out of their contract with Island ?
- Is the demand as big for Metallica ? There's your answer why U2 tickets are more expensive. It's also debatable just how much of a say U2 has on the ticket prices.
- Metallica also sees the $ from the downloaded shows. Everyone would be okay with downloadable shows with that scenario. Ever heard of U2torrents or U2start ?
- I wouldn't oppose a reasonable internet tax. And unlike Metallica U2 never whined about Napster or sued its own fans. As for embracing things (Guitar Hero for the $$$$), ever heard of the Ipod and entire U2 catalogue on Itunes ? edit: ever read Flanagan and the band talking about distributing the music digitally without a middle man ?
- It's a business move, period.
- What "product" would that be ?
- They did the MTV Icon show. That wasn't aimed at building their audience? Not to mention haircuts and considerably softening their sound in the 90s. And don't act like you don't know why U2, in the changed musical environment, had to play those TV shows - a band that has never even denied its ambition and desire to be no. 1. (edit: do not think U2 hasn't played live TV shows pre 2000)
- Irving Plaza, Brooklyn Bridge. Those were FREE shows.
- Last I checked good tickets were available after the ticket fiasco was fixed on Vertigo. With huge fanbase, of course not everyone will get great tickets.
- It's not U2's fault they control the live shows in the US. The whole point of Livenation move was, per Bono, getting the ticket sales and the official site improved.
- U2 has played Australia, Africa, S. America, Israel, Japan...
- neither has U2. You know perfectly well why Bono works with politicians.

"But it was REM Bono was comparing himself to in 2001 when he was saying he wanted the "worlds best band" or whatever title it was he wanted back."

All he said was "we're reapplying for the job...what job? the best band in the world" at the Grammys. No band names were mentioned.

 

[The John Tree]

Two things need to be clarified:

1. Metallica never ranted against YouTube. Are you nuts? These guys constantly post "Lars Babble" videos on their websites where Lars praises fans that post videos of themselves playing Metallica tunes (often before the songs are even released!). The band just started their own YouTube channel with a personal message from Lars inviting people to post YouTube vids. Now, James at a fanclub show earlier *this* month said "Please...put the fuckin cell-phones away. You're not gonna be famous off some shitty Metallica on YouTube. Lets enjoy the moment, right here, right now." As in "Enjoy the show, don't worry about taping it, we're here to have a good time."

This is the same thing Bono did in that infamous video where he tells a fan to "put the fucking cell phone away!" only James didn't single out a fan and mock him in front of the whole audience. Yet, when Bono did it, people around here thought it was okay. Now that James Hetfield has done it, it's not cool?

2. Say what you want about Metallica and Napster. But goddamnit, they were right. Look at the music industry right now. Shambolic.

 

[The John Tree]

But, to try and steer this thread back to its original topic instead of the U2/Metallica deathmatch we have in here:

I'm curious if the show would work. Not because of the bands, but I think the audiences would be too drastically different. For two reasons:

I feel Metallica fans are more open-minded than U2 fans. I know that's going to get me slammed, but I have a feeling that a Metallica fan would stick around and respect U2's show, as a lot of Metallica fans are also U2 fans. Whereas I feel that U2 fans would look at Metallica as "untalented screaming and loud guitars." It's easier for someone who's into harder, heavier music to appreciate something not-so-heavy. Not so sure it works the other way.

Also, it'd be strange to be at a Metallica show where there are 40-somethings in business suits sitting down. That was such a strange experience for me when going to my first U2 show in Washington, DC. I've never been to a concert where people sat down during the main act, dressed in business suits, only to stand up for a few seconds and cheer when "Beautiful Day" and "Where The Streets Have No Name" got played. It was so un-rock n' roll to me. I had good seats too! You would have thought they'd be more into it since we paid an arm and a leg to get those damn seats.

 

[Zoots]

Of course, if you're a superfan of either band all of this will be meaningless and you'll just rationalize everything they do regardless of principles you may have once had.

truth™

 

[last unicorn]

I feel Metallica fans are more open-minded than U2 fans. I know that's going to get me slammed, but I have a feeling that a Metallica fan would stick around and respect U2's show, as a lot of Metallica fans are also U2 fans. Whereas I feel that U2 fans would look at Metallica as "untalented screaming and loud guitars." It's easier for someone who's into harder, heavier music to appreciate something not-so-heavy. Not so sure it works the other way.

Ooooh, be careful with statements like that, man.

Sadly, I feel it's true. U2 fans can be really snobbish at times. It's something I don't like, because it's basically against everything U2 represent as a band. U2 are probably the most universal band out there. If they can perform with someone from the R'n'B scene like MJB, they can perform with a metal act as well.

 

[U2girl]

U2 could still play stadiums in the US (and without extra help on the bill, unlike Metallica). There's a comment in U2 by U2 (or some other book) how they regretted not doing it on Vertigo. And while they may not technically be as huge as they were in the 90's, 12 million sales on ATYCLB is about as good as it gets, and probably closer than Metallica will ever get to their heyday.

 

[BVS]

I feel Metallica fans are more open-minded than U2 fans. I know that's going to get me slammed, but I have a feeling that a Metallica fan would stick around and respect U2's show, as a lot of Metallica fans are also U2 fans. Whereas I feel that U2 fans would look at Metallica as "untalented screaming and loud guitars." It's easier for someone who's into harder, heavier music to appreciate something not-so-heavy. Not so sure it works the other way.

Interesting, in my experience I've always found metal fans to be very closed-minded about other genres, if it doesn't have distortion, fast solos, double bass, or screaming then it's just "gay".

 

[Vlad n U 2]

^ I have a friend who is obsessed with Metallica and when I show him U2 music he always says its boring. And he gets annoyed when I talk about U2.

 

[Addicted To Bad]

Interesting, in my experience I've always found metal fans to be very closed-minded about other genres, if it doesn't have distortion, fast solos, double bass, or screaming then it's just "gay".

Agreed.
and that´s why most of them think U2 is a boring band and just for old people..



___________________________________________
YOU WANTED TO GET SOMEWHERE SO HARDLY
YOU HAD TO LOSE YOURSELF ALONG THE WAY

 

[Vlad n U 2]

But U2 isn't for old people are they? he? he?

 

[Addicted To Bad]

But U2 isn't for old people are they? he? he?

Sure NOT !..he..he..!



_______________________________
IF YOU WALK AWAY I WILL FOLLOW

 

[toscano]

Agreed.
and that´s why most of them think U2 is a boring band and just for old people..


[/B]

Actually there's an awful lot of U2 fans over on the Metallica forum, sure there are the "U2 sucks" crowd, just like there are the "Metallica sucks" crowd here. The fans over there are just as open minded, and just as closed minded as those here. It's the same x-section of humanity, and the exact same behavior patterns, just different album titles.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The first U2 GA line I ever waited in, I had a guy (he was about 20 something I'd say) next to me in a Metallica shirt, he was a big Metallica fan and a very nice guy-offered to get me food, drinks and was friendly. Nicest person I met in that line, none of the "hardcore" U2 fans were like him

His friend or brother, can't remember which-was working backstage and doing U2's laundry

 

[The John Tree]

Interesting, in my experience I've always found metal fans to be very closed-minded about other genres, if it doesn't have distortion, fast solos, double bass, or screaming then it's just "gay".

You're right about "metal" fans, but Metallica fans are a different breed.

You have to understand that even Metallica has been called "Gay" ever since 1991, when they released the Black Album. The underground metal community turned their backs on them for updating their style. It's the equivalent to any U2 fans who jumped ship when U2 went all arty in the 1990s. Metal fans are brutal, but Metallica fans are a bit more open minded.

 

[U2girl]

I remember James Hetfield talking in an interview how a fan spit at him on the street: "you made a video! you sold out!".

 

[Hornbag]

How about they do Whiskey in the Jar? Both covered Thin Lizzy's version at one point right?

 

[Cask]

They should together do a version of The Fly, kinda like the Elevation 2001 version but heavier, with an expanded solo, imagine Bono singining "love, we shine like......" and then Hetfield screaming "A Man will Rise, a man will fall....." that would be awesome!

By the way, Death Magnetic is a really awesome album, can't stop listening to it, shame about the sound quality.

 

[The John Tree]

Cask - download the Guitar Hero mp3 version. The sound is much clearer.

 

[toscano]

Cask - download the Guitar Hero mp3 version. The sound is much clearer.

Look for the "moderus" mix of the GH3 version.....

Well, here it is actually

http://www. me ga upl oad. com/?d=LIGNGFXK

Remove the spaces