How are The Rolling Stones doing compared to U2?

[Vox02]

It's tough to compare the Stones' and U2's respective tours because not only is there vastly different pricing (meaning, the Stones would gross a lot more even if they sold less tickets), but also because the Stones are hitting more stadiums around the world. U2 did arenas and smaller stadiums because they like that more intimate setting. There were exceptions (like the 80,000 seat Croke Park), but overall, this is true. Stones are doing stadiums, so there's more tickets to be sold at a higher ticket price.

Now, if U2 and the Stones were on equal footing in terms of price and venues, it might very well be a draw.

In fact, Stones will play bigger stadiums than U2 only in Germany and London (and, in that case, Wembley Stadium wasn't available this last summer), but not in the rest of Europe!

Vox

 

[STING2]

It's tough to compare the Stones' and U2's respective tours because not only is there vastly different pricing (meaning, the Stones would gross a lot more even if they sold less tickets), but also because the Stones are hitting more stadiums around the world. U2 did arenas and smaller stadiums because they like that more intimate setting. There were exceptions (like the 80,000 seat Croke Park), but overall, this is true. Stones are doing stadiums, so there's more tickets to be sold at a higher ticket price.

Now, if U2 and the Stones were on equal footing in terms of price and venues, it might very well be a draw.

Actually its not true that U2 played mainly smaller stadiums. In fact, when it came to playing stadiums, U2 played the biggest stadiums in the world or at least in Europe. U2's 32 date Stadium tour of Europe in the summer of 2005 was the HIGHEST GROSSING TOUR ever in European History! The GROSS for the tour topped all of the Big Rolling Stones tours of Europe from Voodoo Lounge, Bridges To Babylon and Licks.

Whats more, the band seriously underbooked Europe. Every show soldout the day it was put on sale. The average number of people per show was 62,000! That is the highest average U2 has ever had for a stadium tour and perhaps the highest anyone else has ever had either. The band could have played another 32 shows in Europe last summer if they had the time.

Here are the results of the European Tour:

2ND LEG OF VERTIGO WORLD TOUR: EUROPE

29. Brussels, Belgium : June 10, 2005 : Koning Boudewijn Stadion : GROSS $4,864,554 : ATTENDANCE 60,499 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

30. Gelsenkirchen, Germany : June 12, 2005 : Arena AufSchalke : GROSS $4,203,947 : ATTENDANCE 59,120 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

31, 32. Manchester, England : June 14-15, 2005 : City Of Manchester Stadium : GROSS $11,119,740 : ATTENDANCE 107,671 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

33, 34. London, England : June 18-19, 2005 : Twickenham Stadium : GROSS $13,677,410 : ATTENDANCE 110,796 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

35. Glasgow, Scotland : June 21, 2005 : Hampden Park : GROSS $5,819,053 : ATTENDANCE 53,395 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

36, 37, 38. Dublin, Ireland : June 24-25, 27, 2005 : Croke Park : GROSS $21,163,695 : ATTENDANCE 246,743 : SHOWS 3 : SELLOUTS 3

39. Cardiff, Wales : June 29, 2005 : Millennium Stadium : GROSS $6,406,073 : ATTENDANCE 63,677 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

40. Vienna, Austria : July 2, 2005 : Ernst Happel Stadion : GROSS $4,200,416 : ATTENDANCE 55,645 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

41. Chorzow, Poland : July 5, 2005 : Stadion Slaski : GROSS $3,127,416 : ATTENDANCE 64,711 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

42. Berlin, Germany : July 7, 2005 : Olympiastadion : GROSS $4,725,530 : ATTENDANCE 70,443 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

43, 44. Paris, France : July 9-10, 2005 : Stade De France : GROSS $11,822,645 : ATTENDANCE 160,349 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

45, 46, 47. Amsterdam, The Netherlands : July 13, 15-16, 2005 : Amsterdam Arena : GROSS $13,022,200 : ATTENDANCE 165,516 : SHOWS 3 : SELLOUTS 3

48. Zurich, Switzerland : July 18, 2005 : Stadion Letzigrund : GROSS $3,574,993 : ATTENDANCE 44,260 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

49, 50. Milan, Italy : July 20-21, 2005 : Stadio San Siro : GROSS $7,565,264 : ATTENDANCE 137,427 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

51. Rome, Italy : July 23, 2005 : Stadio Olimpico : GROSS $4,010,779 : ATTENDANCE 67,002 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

52. Oslo, Norway : July 27, 2005 : Valle Hovin : GROSS $3,765,136 : ATTENDANCE 40,000 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

53. Goteborg, Sweden : July 29, 2005 : Ullevi Stadion : GROSS $4,081,864 : ATTENDANCE 58,478 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

54. Copenhagen, Denmark : July 31, 2005 : Parken Stadion : GROSS $3,650,294 : ATTENDANCE 50,000 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

55. Munich, Germany : August 3, 2005 : Olympiastadion : GROSS $5,343,379 : ATTENDANCE 77,435 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

56. Nice, France : August 5, 2005 : Parc des Sports Charles-Ehrmann : GROSS $3,548,702 : ATTENDANCE 51,900 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

57. Barcelona, Spain : August 7, 2005 : Camp Nou : GROSS $5,130,437 : ATTENDANCE 81,269 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

58. San Sebastian, Spain : August 9, 2005 : Estadio de Anoeta : GROSS $2,936,571 : ATTENDANCE 43,720 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

59. Madrid, Spain : August 11, 2005 : Estadio Vicente Calderon : GROSS $3,679,354 : ATTENDANCE 57,040 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

60. Lisbon, Portugal : August 14, 2005 : Estadio Jose Alvalade : GROSS $4,492,762 : ATTENDANCE 55,362 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1





2ND LEG OF VERTIGO WORLD TOUR TOTALS

GROSS: $155,932,214
ATTENDANCE: 1,982,458
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,872,882
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 61,952
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $78.66
SHOWS: 32
SELLOUTS: 32





In general, GROSS is an accurate way to compare two touring artist who are touring around the same time. The price of tickets directly impacts the level of attendance. The artist not selling out at x ticket price may have soldout at a lower ticket price. In general, artist usually charge the market price based on number of shows played and size of venue in addition to overall demand for the particular artist.

The problem with comparing the two tours comes from the fact that U2 is NOT satisfied demand almost anywhere they have played. There has always been enough demand to add more shows in most places. Time restrictions though have prevented this. U2 could play dozens of shows this summer across North America and Europe bringing in another $200 million dollars plus, but the band has decided to end the tour in mid-April in order to rest and then start working on the next album.

With the Vertigo Tour ending with 130 shows in mid-April and all the shows essentially selling out on the first day they were put on sell, its obvious that the band could have charged a higher ticket price and received a higher gross total. But a much higher price may have meant it would take longer to sellout several venues and some shows may not have entirely soldout at all.

This is what the Rolling Stones are experiencing. Many of their shows have struggled to reach sellout and some shows in their own country may not sellout at all. Their average GROSS total per show though is going to be enormous, with or without a sellout. It appears that the Stones may have overcharged a bit in several places, while U2 has definitely undercharged given the number of shows they played.

I think its interesting though that on the floor of a Basketball Arena in the USA, U2 fans all pay 49.50 for the 2,000 GA tickets. With the Rolling Stones in the same Basketball arena, the 2,000 floor seats will each cost an average of over $300 dollars with many tickets at the $400 dollar mark. These are the best seats in the house and the Stones are charging market price. U2 is charging well below market value for the same tickets, resulting in enormous profits for Scalpers.

 

[Vox02]

European Vertigo with some possible (= soldout) additions:

4 or 5 Amsterdam Arena

2nd Madrid or 2nd Barcelona

2nd Lisboa

3rd Paris

3rd Milan or 2nd Rome

One more city in Germany (Frankfurt? Hamburg? Bremen?)

2nd Vienna

Another in the East Countries

3rd or 4 London

2nd Glasgow

4 in Dublin

Almost 700,000 tickets.

And 3rd Sydney, 3rd Melbourne, 2nd Brisbane, 3rd Auckland, 3rd Mexico DF, big show in Rio etc etc

Vox

 

[doctorwho]

In fact, Stones will play bigger stadiums than U2 only in Germany and London (and, in that case, Wembley Stadium wasn't available this last summer), but not in the rest of Europe!

Vox

Well, I was thinking more the U.S. in my point (as it was arena only), but as you and Sting nicely illustrated, I'll be corrected.

However, these figures just prove my statement. If U2 played bigger stadiums than the Stones and sold them out in a flash, while still not meeting demand, then it suggests to me that perhaps U2 are indeed the top ticket for this year!

Even in arena settings U2 sold out, what, 7 Boston shows and 8 NY concerts? How many in Chicago? It's clear that they could have done even more in these cities! I'm not saying U2 would have dominated all parts of the country, but it does appear this tour was perhaps an even bigger success than the last tour.

This in turn suggests that U2 probably could have done stadiums in the U.S. (or at least in certain cities) and matched the Stones or surpassed them.

But the Stones, because of their much higher ticket prices, may ultimately win the battle due to grosses. And this is fair. If the Stones can charge so much more (their most expensive ticket is ~3x higher than U2's most expensive ticket) and still sell out stadiums, then clearly they are in demand.

So overall, I'd say it was a draw.

 

[STING2]

Well, I was thinking more the U.S. in my point (as it was arena only), but as you and Sting nicely illustrated, I'll be corrected.

However, these figures just prove my statement. If U2 played bigger stadiums than the Stones and sold them out in a flash, while still not meeting demand, then it suggests to me that perhaps U2 are indeed the top ticket for this year!

Even in arena settings U2 sold out, what, 7 Boston shows and 8 NY concerts? How many in Chicago? It's clear that they could have done even more in these cities! I'm not saying U2 would have dominated all parts of the country, but it does appear this tour was perhaps an even bigger success than the last tour.

This in turn suggests that U2 probably could have done stadiums in the U.S. (or at least in certain cities) and matched the Stones or surpassed them.

But the Stones, because of their much higher ticket prices, may ultimately win the battle due to grosses. And this is fair. If the Stones can charge so much more (their most expensive ticket is ~3x higher than U2's most expensive ticket) and still sell out stadiums, then clearly they are in demand.

So overall, I'd say it was a draw.

Total GROSS for Elevation was $143 million dollars. Total GROSS for the VERTIGO tour will be $400 million dollars plus, and the tour is ending without fully satisfying demand!

 

[thelaj]

what would that be inflation adjusted?
how many people saw the Elevation Tour?
Elevation Tour was all arena other than Slane was it not?

 

[STING2]

what would that be inflation adjusted?
how many people saw the Elevation Tour?
Elevation Tour was all arena other than Slane was it not?

The 2001 Elevation tour GROSS of $143 million dollars adjusted for inflation in 2005 would be $155 million dollars. Not much of a difference do to the low inflation of the past 4 years.

About 2.2 million people saw the Elevation tour.

Elevation tour consisted of 113 shows, 110 Arena shows and 3 Stadium size shows. The 3 stadium size shows, were the 2 Slane Castle Shows and the one Turin Italy show. 80 of the 113 shows took place in North America. There were no shows outside of North America and Europe. The Turin stadium show was set up as a practice for the Slane Castle shows.

Obviously, U2 did not meet demand in many area's around the world on the Elevation tour, including several cities in the United States and obviously every city in Europe.

 

[thelaj]

Do you have any ideas on why they would do so few concerts?
Is it possible they were unsure of the reaction to the new album or were they seeking to increase the buzz around the tour.

 

[Popmartijn]

Elevation tour consisted of 113 shows, 110 Arena shows and 3 Stadium size shows. The 3 stadium size shows, were the 2 Slane Castle Shows and the one Turin Italy show.

The 3 shows in the Netherlands were also in a (small) stadium. So the total of stadium size shows is 6.

 

[Vox02]

The 3 shows in the Netherlands were also in a (small) stadium. So the total of stadium size shows is 6.

Yeah 107,000 tickets sold!

I remember when Stones play 5 nights at ArenA. I think U2 could have done 2 more nights in that stadium

Vox

 

[Vox02]

Well, I was thinking more the U.S. in my point (as it was arena only), but as you and Sting nicely illustrated, I'll be corrected.

However, these figures just prove my statement. If U2 played bigger stadiums than the Stones and sold them out in a flash, while still not meeting demand, then it suggests to me that perhaps U2 are indeed the top ticket for this year!

Even in arena settings U2 sold out, what, 7 Boston shows and 8 NY concerts? How many in Chicago? It's clear that they could have done even more in these cities! I'm not saying U2 would have dominated all parts of the country, but it does appear this tour was perhaps an even bigger success than the last tour.

This in turn suggests that U2 probably could have done stadiums in the U.S. (or at least in certain cities) and matched the Stones or surpassed them.

But the Stones, because of their much higher ticket prices, may ultimately win the battle due to grosses. And this is fair. If the Stones can charge so much more (their most expensive ticket is ~3x higher than U2's most expensive ticket) and still sell out stadiums, then clearly they are in demand.

So overall, I'd say it was a draw.

In my opinion, U2 could have done stadiums in U.S. and Canada!

Maybe next tour

3-4 shows in NY
1-2 in Philly
2-3 in Boston
Hartford
Washington
1 Montreal
2-3 Toronto
2-3 Chicago
Detroit
Cleveland or Columbus
2 Los Angeles
1-2 Oakland/San José/San Francisco
Phoenix
Vancouver
Dallas or Houston
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Denver
Salt Lake City
Edmonton (maybe 2)

And maybe maybe:

Las Vegas
Seattle or Portland or Eugene (only one concert for both states: Oregon and WA)
Houston or Dallas
Charlotte
Lousiana
St Louis
Minneapolis


Vox

 

[STING2]

Do you have any ideas on why they would do so few concerts?
Is it possible they were unsure of the reaction to the new album or were they seeking to increase the buzz around the tour.

Well, 113 shows is a lot of shows. U2's longest tour ever was 157 shows. Vertigo looks like it will be 130, and POPMART was 93 shows.

The reason the band played arena's is because they were very uncertain about the reaction the album and tour would have after POP and POPMART. The Elevation tour initially was only supposed to be a 5 month tour with not more than 80 shows. Then they decided to add the third leg because of the huge demand and the continued strong sales of ATYCLB. But they really wanted to get back in the studio and get the next album out quickly. As it turns out, they had trouble recording HTDAAB and it was 4 years and 1 month between the release of ATYCLB and HTDAAB, the longest it has ever taken U2 to put out a new album.

 

[OpperGoeroe]

Yeah 107,000 tickets sold!

I remember when Stones play 5 nights at ArenA. I think U2 could have done 2 more nights in that stadium

Vox

U2 could have easily played more than 5 nights in that stadium I think, the demand was very high, 150.000 tickets sold in 1,5 hours. Every big artist can sellout a lot of Amsterdam Arena's here in the Netherlands, the Stones (5 times and 2 times next year), Robbie Williams (4 times next year), U2 (3 times this year). It's not quite difficult I suppose, the demand here in the Netherlands is a lot for such big acts.

The popularity of U2 is huge here, the album did a good job on the charts and so is the DVD now, 5 weeks at number one in the DVD top list in a row.

 

[Halup]

Well, 113 shows is a lot of shows. U2's longest tour ever was 157 shows. Vertigo looks like it will be 130, and POPMART was 93 shows.

The reason the band played arena's is because they were very uncertain about the reaction the album and tour would have after POP and POPMART. The Elevation tour initially was only supposed to be a 5 month tour with not more than 80 shows. Then they decided to add the third leg because of the huge demand and the continued strong sales of ATYCLB. But they really wanted to get back in the studio and get the next album out quickly. As it turns out, they had trouble recording HTDAAB and it was 4 years and 1 month between the release of ATYCLB and HTDAAB, the longest it has ever taken U2 to put out a new album.

I can't speak about what U2's intentions for the length of the Elevation tour were in late 2000 or January 2001 when tickets first went on sale, but I do know that by April 2001, the Elevation tour was being planned to being bigger than it turned out to be.

On April 25, 2001, I got into a nice conversation with Bono's bodyguard John Sampson about the tour. This was the night off between the Anaheim 2 and 3 shows and Bono and The Edge were spending the evening at a concert at UCLA that featured Gavin Friday, Elvis Costello, Daniel Lanois and others. I guessed correctly that they would attend and met Bono and Edge that night.

John is a very cool guy and he layed out to me the plans for the rest of the tour. He told me that day that the third leg return to the US was definite. It was to have been for 6 weeks, which we can see would have ended with the final Los Angeles show on November 19th. That was to have been followed by visits to Japan and Australia and in January 2002, the tour was to end in South America, where one can only assume they would have used the stadium stage from those few dates in Europe.

As we later saw, those plans were dropped and they added 2 extra weeks in the US after the L.A. show that was previously intended to be the US finale and the tour did not continue into South America in 2002. The main culprit for all this would have to have been currency issues. Australian currency was real low in 2001 and Argentina's economy fell apart, dragging down Brasil and Chile with it, causing those plans to fall apart.

John later told me in November 2002 when he was working for the Rolling Stones that after the Grammys in 2002, U2 came to feel that the whole Leave Behind/Elevation cycle was now complete and at that time they decided to pull the plug on the planned 2002 summer European stadium leg of the tour in order to concentrate on moving into the future.

 

[pepokiss]

you guys know so much...


and they were going to come here with ELEVATION?

 

[-macphisto-]

All I know is that I got a free ticket to there show in Vegas MGM, and I walked out less then half way through it, I was bored, and there music is boring.

 

[Yahweh]

Who cares about the Rolling Stones and their rolling greatest hits tours....rehashing the same songs over and over again not playing any new stuff cause nobody gives a crap about it.

 

[Halup]

Who cares about the Rolling Stones and their rolling greatest hits tours....rehashing the same songs over and over again not playing any new stuff cause nobody gives a crap about it.

Hey, did you sneak over here from Rocks Off or iorr.org? You're sounding just like one of the hardcore setlist-whining Stones fans over on those sites!

 

[Yahweh]

No I am not even a fan of the Rolling Stones its just something they have been doing with regularity over the last 15 years. Rolling Stones are obviously wanting to be the biggest tour of 2006 while U2 will be biggest in 2005, they are always trying to outdue U2 at the gates and fix the figures so they do. Rolling Stones are a terrrible band in my opinion I wouldnt pay 5 cents to see them.

 

[bsp77]

Who cares about the Rolling Stones and their rolling greatest hits tours....rehashing the same songs over and over again not playing any new stuff cause nobody gives a crap about it.

I hate ignorant comments like this. Below is the setlist to a concert I saw in Chicago in 2002. There are about 7 greatest hits on there, the rest are album tracks. BTW, Bono came out unannounced and dueted on "It's Only Rock and Roll"

Start Me Up
Live With Me
Rocks Off
Hand Of Fate
Torn And Frayed
Worried About You
Everybody Needs Somebody To Love
(You Gotta) Walk And Don't Look Back
Dance Pt. 1
Bitch
Slipping Away
Happy
It's Only Rock 'n' Roll
I Just Wanna Make Love To You
Honky Tonk Woman
Rip This Joint
Can't You Hear Me Knockin'
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice

 

[roy keane]

I guess Stones message boards could use some help from peeling of those dollar bills.On ioor.org some fan asked about sales of Green Day , Stones , Coldplay ,U2 ,Bon Jovi.... And an answer from one of their's "sales" expert was:X&Y more then 9 million , American Idiot 16!!! million.For U2 he didn't know but he thinks HTDAAB sold less then X&Y.

 

[edge3]

I guess Stones message boards could use some help from peeling of those dollar bills.On ioor.org some fan asked about sales of Green Day , Stones , Coldplay ,U2 ,Bon Jovi.... And an answer from one of their's "sales" expert was:X&Y more then 9 million , American Idiot 16!!! million.For U2 he didn't know but he thinks HTDAAB sold less then X&Y.

Yes indeed... the world chart site at geocities.com/inthitlists/albums.htm puts Am. Idiot at 15M & X&Y at 9M but this is just Bull Shit. Their weekly sales figures, for all albums, are virtually always too high. Plus no one seems to know where or how they calculate their weekly sales figures - though i assume they must, very much, use a points system based only on chart positions as opposed to actual sales info.

Mediatraffic, on the other hand, use the actual sales info & a points system from around 23 official charts & is therefore much more accurate & reliable - though they 'only' cover around 90-94% of total sales & only include the sales when an album is on their weekly top 40 chart. 3 weeks ago Mediatraffic updated their all time chart with Am. Idiot at 11,079,000 & X&Y at 7,050,000 - & both these figures are from consecutive weekly sales on their top 40 chart. Bomb's total currently stands at 8,188,000 & has done since it was last on their top 40 chart 16 weeks ago (at # 40 with sales of about 31k).

Overall then, if we now consider both 100% of total sales & current up to date sales then :

Am. Idiot is now close to 12M
Bomb is now just over 9M
X&Y is now close to 8M

 

[Halup]

I hate ignorant comments like this. Below is the setlist to a concert I saw in Chicago in 2002. There are about 7 greatest hits on there, the rest are album tracks. BTW, Bono came out unannounced and dueted on "It's Only Rock and Roll"

Start Me Up
Live With Me
Rocks Off
Hand Of Fate
Torn And Frayed
Worried About You
Everybody Needs Somebody To Love
(You Gotta) Walk And Don't Look Back
Dance Pt. 1
Bitch
Slipping Away
Happy
It's Only Rock 'n' Roll
I Just Wanna Make Love To You
Honky Tonk Woman
Rip This Joint
Can't You Hear Me Knockin'
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Brown Sugar
Tumbling Dice

You saw the great Aragon Ballroom show. I was shut out from getting into the Wiltern, but through the fan club I was able to get tickets for the theater show in at the Vredenburg in Utrecht, Holland. I went over the for that show plus arena and stadium shows in Rotterdam.

Currently I am planning to go to the Stones show in Rio, followed by U2 in Sao Paulo.

 

[Halup]

Soldatti, will you be going to Rio for the Stones or are you only seeing them at Estadio River Plate? I've always heard how great the Argentine fans are for the Stones, but I've assumed the Brasilians must be close to them in how they react.

 

[Soldatti]

I'm going to all the shows of the Stones and U2 here, but I'm not going to Brazil because I'm working in March and my vacations are from January 2-16, in 10 days!!
Today I bought my tickets for the first show of U2 and my account is already in red with the Stones tickets and holiday gifts.

The crowd of the Stones is very young and wild here, the average of the attendance are kids from 18-25. In 1995 and 1998, a group of 300-500 kids were singing Stones' songs in front of the hotel during various nights, Jagger was very furious because he didn't sleep.
The U2 crowd is more tranquil, more civilized, more normal.
I went to both shows in 1998 (U2 and Stones) and were very different, with U2 the people went to listen and enjoy a show; with the Stones was a madness of screams, jumps, t-shirts throws to the stage, the people singing over the songs, ovations of 2-3 minutes to each member, it's all well documented on the live album, No Security. It was like all those 60's concerts but more furious. You need to get the videos to see it yourself.

 

[STING2]

Here is a comparison of the first times that the Rolling Stones and U2 went to South America. The Rolling Stones first shows in South America were in 1995 when they played 10 shows. U2's first shows in South America were in 1998 when they played 7 shows.

Rolling Stones

Voodoo Loung World Tour 1995 South America

Sao Paulo, Brazil : January 27-28, 1995 : Morumbi Stadium : GROSS $4,527,556 : ATTENDANCE 131,253 : SHOWS 2

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil : February 2, 4, 1995 : Maracana Stadium : GROSS $3,067,410 : ATTENDANCE 141,053 : SHOWS 2

Buenos Aires, Argentina : February 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 2005 : River Plate Stadium : GROSS $19,796,750 : ATTENDANCE 344,144 : SHOWS 5

Santiago, Chile : February 19, 2005 : Estadio Nacionale : GROSS $1,386,195 : ATTENDANCE 45,945 : SHOWS 1





U2

POPMART WORLD TOUR 1998 South America


Rio De Janeiro, Brazil : January 27, 1998 : Nelson Piquet Autodromo : GROSS $2,654,715 : ATTENDANCE 66,949 : SHOWS 1

Sao Paulo, Brazil : January 30-31, 1998 : Morumbi Stadium : GROSS $6,103,065 : ATTENDANCE 154,056 : SHOWS 2

Buenos Aires, Argentina : February 5,6,7, 1998 : River Plate Stadium : GROSS $8,668,840 : ATTENDANCE 160,478 SHOWS 3

Santiago, Chile : February 11, 1998 : Estadio Nacional : GROSS $2,171,112 : ATTENDANCE 67,633 : SHOWS 1




This is the first time either of these artist went to South America and it makes for an interesting comparison. In 1995, the Rolling Stones had been a worldwide well known band for 30 years having had its first chart topping albums and singles back in 1965. U2 were not known worldwide until 1985, and were not a global chart topping act until 1987. In fact, fans from Brazil on interference have stated that the first U2 album released in Brazil was the Unforgettable Fire in 1985.

So, the Rolling Stones had been in the spotlight much longer than U2 by the time they first ventured down into South America.

Clearly the Stones were way ahead in Argentina in regards to these first tours. U2 was ahead though in Sao Paolo, Brazil and ahead by a considerable margin in Chile in regard to these first tours. U2 played a different stadium than the Stones for Rio and only played one night there. Difficult to say overall who would top who in Brazil on these first tours, so I'd say its even for Brazil, with U2 on top in Chile, but the Stones on top in Argentina.


The Stones actually played South America in 1998 playing another 5 shows in Argentina at the River Plate Stadium, but I don't have the figures for it. There were only two other Stones shows in South America in Brazil, one in Rio to only 28,000 people and one in Sao Paulo to 48,000 people in 1998, much smaller than the shows they did back in 1995. Chile did not get a show for Bridges To Babylon 1997-1999 tour.

This time, 2006, the Stones are only doing 3 shows in South America, 2 in Argentina and 1 in Brazil. U2 are already schedual for 5 shows total and that may go up to 7. Its been 8 years since both bands have been down there, so it will be interesting to compare the final results, that is if the Rolling Stones release them.

 

[fedeu2]

As I said in a previous post, while Rolling Stones popularity in South America is on the way down ever since 1995, U2 seem to get more and more popular with every album they release.

By the way, Soldatti stated that the bomb has sold only 20,000 copies in Argentina as opposed 40,000 copies for A bigger bang.

Now, I don´t remember the specific sources but I´m quite positive I´ve read that the bomb is double platinum in Argentina. That would mean 60,000 copies right?

Here is a comparison of the first times that the Rolling Stones and U2 went to South America. The Rolling Stones first shows in South America were in 1995 when they played 10 shows. U2's first shows in South America were in 1998 when they played 7 shows.

Rolling Stones

Voodoo Loung World Tour 1995 South America

Sao Paulo, Brazil : January 27-28, 1995 : Morumbi Stadium : GROSS $4,527,556 : ATTENDANCE 131,253 : SHOWS 2

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil : February 2, 4, 1995 : Maracana Stadium : GROSS $3,067,410 : ATTENDANCE 141,053 : SHOWS 2

Buenos Aires, Argentina : February 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 2005 : River Plate Stadium : GROSS $19,796,750 : ATTENDANCE 344,144 : SHOWS 5

Santiago, Chile : February 19, 2005 : Estadio Nacionale : GROSS $1,386,195 : ATTENDANCE 45,945 : SHOWS 1





U2

POPMART WORLD TOUR 1998 South America


Rio De Janeiro, Brazil : January 27, 1998 : Nelson Piquet Autodromo : GROSS $2,654,715 : ATTENDANCE 66,949 : SHOWS 1

Sao Paulo, Brazil : January 30-31, 1998 : Morumbi Stadium : GROSS $6,103,065 : ATTENDANCE 154,056 : SHOWS 2

Buenos Aires, Argentina : February 5,6,7, 1998 : River Plate Stadium : GROSS $8,668,840 : ATTENDANCE 160,478 SHOWS 3

Santiago, Chile : February 11, 1998 : Estadio Nacional : GROSS $2,171,112 : ATTENDANCE 67,633 : SHOWS 1




This is the first time either of these artist went to South America and it makes for an interesting comparison. In 1995, the Rolling Stones had been a worldwide well known band for 30 years having had its first chart topping albums and singles back in 1965. U2 were not known worldwide until 1985, and were not a global chart topping act until 1987. In fact, fans from Brazil on interference have stated that the first U2 album released in Brazil was the Unforgettable Fire in 1985.

So, the Rolling Stones had been in the spotlight much longer than U2 by the time they first ventured down into South America.

Clearly the Stones were way ahead in Argentina in regards to these first tours. U2 was ahead though in Sao Paolo, Brazil and ahead by a considerable margin in Chile in regard to these first tours. U2 played a different stadium than the Stones for Rio and only played one night there. Difficult to say overall who would top who in Brazil on these first tours, so I'd say its even for Brazil, with U2 on top in Chile, but the Stones on top in Argentina.


The Stones actually played South America in 1998 playing another 5 shows in Argentina at the River Plate Stadium, but I don't have the figures for it. There were only two other Stones shows in South America in Brazil, one in Rio to only 28,000 people and one in Sao Paulo to 48,000 people in 1998, much smaller than the shows they did back in 1995. Chile did not get a show for Bridges To Babylon 1997-1999 tour.

This time, 2006, the Stones are only doing 3 shows in South America, 2 in Argentina and 1 in Brazil. U2 are already schedual for 5 shows total and that may go up to 7. Its been 8 years since both bands have been down there, so it will be interesting to compare the final results, that is if the Rolling Stones release them.

 

[Vox02]

Here is a comparison of the first times that the Rolling Stones and U2 went to South America. The Rolling Stones first shows in South America were in 1995 when they played 10 shows. U2's first shows in South America were in 1998 when they played 7 shows.

Rolling Stones

Voodoo Loung World Tour 1995 South America

Sao Paulo, Brazil : January 27-28, 1995 : Morumbi Stadium : GROSS $4,527,556 : ATTENDANCE 131,253 : SHOWS 2

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil : February 2, 4, 1995 : Maracana Stadium : GROSS $3,067,410 : ATTENDANCE 141,053 : SHOWS 2

Buenos Aires, Argentina : February 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 2005 : River Plate Stadium : GROSS $19,796,750 : ATTENDANCE 344,144 : SHOWS 5

Santiago, Chile : February 19, 2005 : Estadio Nacionale : GROSS $1,386,195 : ATTENDANCE 45,945 : SHOWS 1

BAires/Chile 2005? Obviously an error

Vox

 

[doctorwho]

I'm going to all the shows of the Stones and U2 here, but I'm not going to Brazil because I'm working in March and my vacations are from January 2-16, in 10 days!!
Today I bought my tickets for the first show of U2 and my account is already in red with the Stones tickets and holiday gifts.

The crowd of the Stones is very young and wild here, the average of the attendance are kids from 18-25. In 1995 and 1998, a group of 300-500 kids were singing Stones' songs in front of the hotel during various nights, Jagger was very furious because he didn't sleep.
The U2 crowd is more tranquil, more civilized, more normal.
I went to both shows in 1998 (U2 and Stones) and were very different, with U2 the people went to listen and enjoy a show; with the Stones was a madness of screams, jumps, t-shirts throws to the stage, the people singing over the songs, ovations of 2-3 minutes to each member, it's all well documented on the live album, No Security. It was like all those 60's concerts but more furious. You need to get the videos to see it yourself.

Wow! That is interesting... I'd argue that what you described for your country is basically reversed here in the U.S. It's not that the Stones aren't popular - clearly they are a big concert draw. But I just don't see that type of passion and devotion from Stones' fans here in the U.S. as I do for U2. For example, U2 fans had thousands of "Thank You" cards held aloft during the last show! I don't think that would occur at a Stones' concert. Likewise, while both bands attract younger audiences, it seems U2 has far more of today's U.S. youth than the Stones.

So it's interesting to see the reaction between the two bands abroad.

 

[fedeu2]

Even though what Soldatti says about the Stones fever in Argentina is true, I won´t describe it as a passive crowd the one that attended the U2 shows in Bs. As. back in 1998.
I´m sure americans (and even europeans) would be very surprised (dare I say scared) by the energy and passion argentinian (and south american in general) people showed at those Popmart concerts.
I was on the field, very close to the stage at the very beginning. Yet, due to the pushing and shovelling I had to withdraw several meters away. Those beginnings with Pop Musik and Mofo were just crazy!!!!!!!!!!

Wow! That is interesting... I'd argue that what you described for your country is basically reversed here in the U.S. It's not that the Stones aren't popular - clearly they are a big concert draw. But I just don't see that type of passion and devotion from Stones' fans here in the U.S. as I do for U2. For example, U2 fans had thousands of "Thank You" cards held aloft during the last show! I don't think that would occur at a Stones' concert. Likewise, while both bands attract younger audiences, it seems U2 has far more of today's U.S. youth than the Stones.

So it's interesting to see the reaction between the two bands abroad.