Touring Info. from 2004 (U.S. Only)

[Popmartijn]

Hey, no need to be rude to people!
And don't take conclusions too rashly.

At the very least, the M-word hasn't been mentioned yet.

 

[NoControl]

Yikes this creep is back...



I'm betting Metfield=NoControl

Oh! Insult, Insult! I'm being insulted! So I'm a creep because I'm proving someone wrong?

I'm not METFIELD. But I admire his passion for Metallica. And he is right regarding their back catalog sales being higher than U2's. He's aslo right regarding the fact that Metallica has sold nearly 100 million albums while having had less albums in total compared to U2, who's sold around 130 Million, which should be considered equal. But regarding his comments that Metallica are a bigger draw than U2, he'd be wrong.

 

[Yahweh]

Its not the same guy because at least this guy knows how to spell. But in no way shape or form as I have stated before is Metallica even the biggest draw in their genre.

AC/DC would outdraw Metallica 2 to 1 if they played the same city at the same time, and I think they would be a much better comparision to U2 for a live touring act.

 

[anitram]

If that was true,

No ifs about it. I actually believe that the Hamilton Spectator published in their review of the show that there were scheduling difficulties because the tour was so compact that they had no choice but to play at Copps.

 

[NoControl]

No ifs about it. I actually believe that the Hamilton Spectator published in their review of the show that there were scheduling difficulties because the tour was so compact that they had no choice but to play at Copps.

Ok, so according to that report it's true that the scheduling conflict happened on that particular date. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have returned to the ACC on the same leg at some point.

 

[anitram]

Yeah, cuz it's more important to inconvenience your entire touring entourage by geographically returning to an area you've already left rather than just play a show down the road where there are a few less seats.

They could have sold out 2 ACC shows in that October, I can near well guarantee it. Hell, a good portion of the GA line up were Americans and people from Montreal who either wanted to see another show or couldn't get tickets in Mtl for the one show they had there.

 

[STING2]

Yes, I said that. But I didn't say that I've lost all respect for U2... just the ways things have been going for the past five years primarily. I still absolutely love their "pushing the envelope" material of the 80s. And their innovative music of the 90s. But after Pop didn't sell, they've been extremely worried about their popularity and are playing it so safe, it's pretty dismal. And apart from being totally sellouts (musically and otherwise), it seems like they're trying to appeal to Neil Diamond fans or something. Yuck!




Give me a break. I've never insulted you or called you any names. Please get over it. And if you remember, someone commented on your GW Bush comment and said something to the effect of, "how sad". So, are you going to get all upset now since another person mentioned the word "sad"???

Did you or did you not refer to me as a "U2 fanboy". Did you tell me that I "need to wipe the egg off my face"?

There are other quotes I could bring up as well.

How about these few recently:

"Trust me, don't listen to STING2 if you want to know about the music industry at large. You can ask me. You'll find me to be by far more objective than him. STING2 is a total U2 "fanboy", "

"I've read his posts for years before joining interference a couple of months ago, and he's been wrong dozens upon dozens of times (I'm not exaggerating) regarding just about anything you can think of regarding the music industry, unfortunately."


Can you explain to me how these qoutes of you above are consistent with the rules you agreed to abide by when you joined this forum?

If you think a person is "wrong", you don't go about discussing it in this manner. I can't imagine telling another member of the forum not to listen to someone because that person disagreed with me about the success of a particular tour from 1994 or another time.

I can't imagine telling someone they have been "wrong dozens of times" simply because there was a disagreement about something.

When members here think information is inaccurate, they either state their opinion and thoughts on it, or post information backed up with sources. They don't go around slamming someone as being "wrong" and "not to be listened to". They also don't refer to people they disagree with as being "U2 fanboys" or tell them "wipe the egg off their face".

This forum does not exist to "prove someone wrong". Its not about Metallica or Pink Floyd. Its a U2 forum. Trolls, those that consistently post the same things over and over again while making personal comments about other posters are not tolerated.

If your reason for posting here is mainly to "prove your thoughts about why U2 is NOT this or that" and to tell anyone that their "wrong" if they think Pink Floyd is not the most popular band in the world or they disagree with your thoughts on some other part of the music industry, then your coming to the wrong website.


Metfield apparently had to go away for a little while because of similar behavior.

So please, be respectful, and if you disagree with something someone says, do so respectfully. Your post prior to the one above is a good start.

 

[NoControl]

Yeah, cuz it's more important to inconvenience your entire touring entourage by geographically returning to an area you've already left rather than just play a show down the road where there are a few less seats.

They could've come back another day within the same period, not necessarily weeks later. There's a four day gap in the schedule after the Baltimore shows, for example.

Originally posted by anitram They could have sold out 2 ACC shows in that October, I can near well guarantee it. Hell, a good portion of the GA line up were Americans and people from Montreal who either wanted to see another show or couldn't get tickets in Mtl for the one show they had there.

Oh absolutely! And it would make total financial sense to play in markets like Kansas City where they did only 14,500 and St. Louis where they only did 16,000 and not play an additional two shows at the ACC in Toronto on a return engagement to nearly 40,000, instead of what they actually did with the basic equivalent of one show in the Toronto area with Hamilton to 17,000!

 

[NoControl]

If you think a person is "wrong", you don't go about discussing it in this manner. I can't imagine telling someone they have been "wrong dozens of times" simply because there was a disagreement about something.

I've never told anyone that they're wrong unless they are wrong. With you, you have been wrong several times, and I've proven you wrong several times. Get over it.

Originally posted by STING2 This forum does not exist to "prove someone wrong". Its not about Metallica or Pink Floyd. Its a U2 forum. Trolls, those that consistently post the same things over and over again while making personal comments about other posters are not tolerated.

It's getting old, STING2. Would you please quit it. I knew you were going to say this. And my response is: just about everything I've posted on this forum directly or indirectly relates to U2. And the comments that I stated towards you that you thought were insults, were MONTHS AGO. Also, there's plenty of sections in forum that don't directly discuss U2, in case you don't know. I guess other people's posts are not tolerated because they have proven you wrong, or don't directly talk about U2 then?

Originally posted by STING2 If your reason for posting here is mainly to "prove your thoughts about why U2 is NOT this or that" and to tell anyone that their "wrong" if they think Pink Floyd is not the most popular band in the world or they disagree with your thoughts on some other part of the music industry, then your coming to the wrong website.

Give me a break. I've PROVEN to you that they are with FACTS. It's not an opinion. There's a difference.

Originally posted by STING2 So please, be respectful, and if you disagree with something someone says, do so respectfully. Your post prior to the one above is a good start.

I've never been disrepectful to anyone on this site, nor have I called them names. On the other hand, I've been called a "creep" by someone today on this site.

 

[STING2]

Well ok but then you should've said so.



That's cool if you disagree. And I agree to a certain extent that no one can estimate the exact amount a return engagement will bring back months later. But I can tell you that that's basically how it works.

But if you're still not convinced, here's a few more examples from the Elevation tour, in order to hammer home my point:

1.

May:
Chicago (United Center) - 78,275 (4 shows)

October:
South Bend, IN (Joyce Center) - 11,000 (approximate)
Chicago (United Center) - 39,368 (2 shows)


Total amount of people who saw them in this market (minus the return engagement after 5 months and 5-10% coming back to multiple shows): 90-95,000

If they could've played to more people on the return, they would've booked three (or more) shows at the United Center instead or three shows on the return with one show in a small arena and two at the United Center in October.


2.

June:
Washington, DC (MCI Center) - 39,971 (2 shows)

October:
Baltimore (1st Mariner Arena) - 13,510

Total amount of people who saw them in this market (minus the return engagement after 4 months and 5-10% coming back to multiple shows): 40,000

If they could've played to more people in the DC area, they would've booked one (or more) show(s) at an arena with a larger capacity, like at the MCI Center, where they played in June.


3.

May:
Toronto (Air Canada Centre) - 39,048 (2 shows)

October:
Hamilton (Copps Coliseum) - 17,000 (approximate)

Total amount of people who saw them in this market (minus the return engagement after nearly 5 months and 5-10% coming back to multiple shows): 40,000

If they could've played to more people in the Toronto area, they would booked an arena with a larger capacity like they did with the Air Canada Centre in May.



U2 clearly couldn't have drawn that many more people than what they did originally with each return engagement...

#1 I don't agree with your thoughts on the number of people who would return for concerts, unless you could provide more information that could prove that theory.

#2 I think it is inaccurate to state, when concerts are full sellouts, that if they could play more shows, they would have. The above shows, which include some that myself and other friends went to were fast sellouts on the day tickets were put on sell. Artist tour area's all the time at various levels without meeting the demand in this or that market.

#3 Do you really think that the reason U2 only played one show in Italy on the Elevation tour was because that was all the demand that was there? U2 could have played multiple nights in Turin as my friends in Italy could attest to. The point here is that playing x number of sellout shows in a particular market does not mean that demand for that market was met. The Elevation tour was origionally only going to be two legs and it was only after the end of the European tour that they agreed to do a few more shows in North America.

In my opinion, if some of the return dates in Chicago or elsewhere had not completely soldout, then you could start to make an arguement that the band had reached the point of saturation or it was getting close to that point.

Dallas and Atlanta were indeed cities where U2 was approaching the saturation point for playing full house arena shows. Each of the return dates for those cities had 1,000 to 2,000 seats not put up for sell behind the stage that were sold back in the spring.

Playing the smaller arena on the return date could be a sign of playing it safe in that particular market, but given the speed of the sellout, I don't think so. Everything to me indicates the band failed to meet the demand in any of these huge markets.

 

[NoControl]

#1I don't agree with your thoughts on the number of people who would return for concerts, unless you could provide more information that could prove that theory.

Well, I don't see how you could see that. I've given very clear examples and they make sense. What other info do you want given? I can give you examples of return engagements from one of my favourite band's past touring history, Rush, if you'd like?

Originally posted by STING2 #2 I think it is inaccurate to state, when concerts are full sellouts, that if they could play more shows, they would have. The above shows, which include some that myself and other friends went to were fast sellouts on the day tickets were put on sell. Artist tour area's all the time at various levels without meeting the demand in this or that market.

Well, U2 knew demand was there by sales of the first leg of the Elevation tour. So they would've added more shows in larger markets on the return engagement if they could've played to more people. Especially since they played smaller markets on the Elevation tour like Kansas City, St. Louis, Tampa and Sacramento that didn't even sellout. It just doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by STING2 #3 Do you really think that the reason U2 only played one show in Italy on the Elevation tour was because that was all the demand that was there? U2 could have played multiple nights in Turin as my friends in Italy could attest to. The point here is that playing x number of sellout shows in a particular market does not mean that demand for that market was met. The Elevation tour was origionally only going to be two legs and it was only after the end of the European tour that they agreed to do a few more shows in North America.

No, I believe there was more demand for U2 in Italy on the Elevation tour, which is a very big market for them. But the only way they could've played multiple nights in Turin though is if they only played that one city in Italy on the Elevation tour (which they did). If they performed in other cities there last tour, they could've only done one show in Turin. There obviously was some kind of conflict.

And the only reason why U2 played to 150,000 people with one show in the northern part of the country is that they only did two shows there on the PopMart tour. They wouldn't have been able to draw that amount otherwise.

Originally posted by STING2 # In my opinion, if some of the return dates in Chicago or elsewhere had not completely soldout, then you could start to make an arguement that the band had reached the point of saturation or it was getting close to that point.

That doesn't explain why they played the Joyce Center in nearby South Bend, IN (which is half the size of the United Center), instead of another show at the United Center, does it? I mean it's an 8,000 attendance difference. Which monetarily adds up to more than $600,000 lost if they could've played to more people in Chicago last tour, which I don't think they could have. Also when shows sellout fast, it doesn't mean there's necessarily much more deamnd for a second show. For example, Prince played two arena shows in Sydney, Australia in the Fall of 2003 and sold out his first show in only twenty minutes but failed to sellout his second show there.

Originally posted by STING2 # Dallas and Atlanta were indeed cities where U2 was approaching the saturation point for playing full house arena shows. Each of the return dates for those cities had 1,000 to 2,000 seats not put up for sell behind the stage that were sold back in the spring.

Agreed.

 

[STING2]

I've never told anyone that they're wrong unless they are wrong. With you, you have been wrong several times, and I've proven you wrong several times. Get over it.





It's getting old, STING2. Would you please quit it. I knew you were going to say this. And my response is: just about everything I've posted on this forum directly or indirectly relates to U2. And the comments that I stated towards you that you thought were insults, were MONTHS AGO. Also, there's plenty of sections in forum that don't directly discuss U2, in case you don't know. I guess other people's posts are not tolerated because they have proven you wrong, or don't directly talk about U2 then?




Give me a break. I've PROVEN to you that they are with FACTS. It's not an opinion. There's a difference.




I've never been disrepectful to anyone on this site, nor have I called them names. On the other hand, I've been called a "creep" by someone today on this site.

""Trust me, don't listen to STING2 if you want to know about the music industry at large. You can ask me. You'll find me to be by far more objective than him. STING2 is a total U2 "fanboy","

Do you consider your above words from yesterday to be respectful and compliant with the rules of the forum?

Do you understand the past problem with Metfield?




Something that is fact is a specific figure from Amusement Business or RIAA etc.

Something that is opinion is one's theory on what criteria should be used in determining the biggest artist and who the biggest artist is based on that criteria.

In either case, your not supposed to be direspectful to another poster in correcting a factual figure from Amusement Business or RIAA, or explaining why you believe in your particular theory about something.

 

[NoControl]

""Trust me, don't listen to STING2 if you want to know about the music industry at large. You can ask me. You'll find me to be by far more objective than him. STING2 is a total U2 "fanboy",

Do you consider your above words from yesterday to be respectful and compliant with the rules of the forum?

Do you understand the past problem with Metfield?

I guess you have a penchant for repeating yourself over and over again. I fail to see how calling someone a fanboy is inappropriate or violating the rules of this forum?

Originally posted by STING2 Something that is fact is a specific figure from Amusement Business or RIAA etc.

I don't know why you see Amusement Business as the gospel (the RIAA is worse)? They've been wrong before. And I've gone over many times and have proven why Floyd are what they are. And apart from Amusement Business' erroneous Yankee Stadium stats for the last show there in '92, Bowie's show at GM Place in Vancouver a year ago was reported as a sellout to 11,617. But guess what? It wasn't sold out...I was there and there was a couple of hundred tickets left in the 180 degree end stage configuration Bowie used. The capacity must have been 12,000 for this show.

Originally posted by STING2 Something that is opinion is one's theory on what criteria should be used in determining the biggest artist and who the biggest artist is based on that criteria.

Well, I believe you used a certain criteria to make you favourtie band look like they're more popular than they really are.

Has U2 sold more records than Floyd?
Has U2's concert attendances been higher than Floyd's?
Are U2's back catalog sales higher than Floyd's are?

If so, then you'd be right. But you're not.

Originally posted by STING2 In either case, your not supposed to be direspectful to another poster in correcting a factual figure from Amusement Business or RIAA, or explaining why you believe in your particular theory about something.

What are you talking about? Give me a break. There are two pieces of evidence contradicting Amusement Business' figures for U2's 2nd Yankee Stadium show in '92 proving that they're wrong.

 

[STING2]

Well, I don't see how you could see that. I've given very clear examples and they make sense. What other info do you want given? I can give you examples of return engagements from one of my favourite band's past touring history, Rush, if you'd like?




Well, U2 knew demand was there by sales of the first leg of the Elevation tour. So they would've added more shows in larger markets on the return engagement if they could've played to more people. Especially since they played smaller markets on the Elevation tour like Kansas City, St. Louis, Tampa and Sacramento that didn't even sellout. It just doesn't make any sense.




No, I believe there was more demand for U2 in Italy on the Elevation tour, which is a very big market for them. But the only way they could've played multiple nights in Turin though is if they only played that one city in Italy on the Elevation tour (which they did). If they performed in other cities there last tour, they could've only done one show in Turin. There obviously was some kind of conflict.

And the only reason why U2 played to 150,000 people with one show in the northern part of the country is that they only did two shows there on the PopMart tour. They wouldn't have been able to draw that amount otherwise.




That doesn't explain why they played the Joyce Center in nearby South Bend, IN (which is half the size of the United Center), instead of another show at the United Center, does it? I mean it's an 8,000 attendance difference. Which monetarily adds up to more than $600,000 lost if they could've played to more people in Chicago last tour, which I don't think they could have. Also when shows sellout fast, it doesn't mean there's necessarily much more deamnd for a second show. For example, Prince played two arena shows in Sydney, Australia in the Fall of 2003 and sold out his first show in only twenty minutes but failed to sellout his second show there.




Agreed.

You don't have information for those specific shows in addition, its impossible to specifically tell how many people who went to the first show went to the second or third show or did not, unless this was somehow recorded.

The reason for playing the smaller markets on the return tour is obviously to promote the band and the album. Because a band chooses to play a show in St. Louis does not mean they were not able to play another show in Washington DC or New York City instead.

Unless I see a decrease in attendance on a return date, I would never conclude that demand in that city had been met.

Also, bands and artist do not simply tour until they have reached the level of demand out there, or played every market possible. Many tours are capped at a certain length for a variety of reason having nothing to do with the ability to do more business.

Still, if you were to apply your general criteria for the return dates in big markets in the USA, you would have to say that they met the demand in Italy. The point here being, just because the this show was not added here or played there does not mean there was not enough demand for a one show or multiple more shows.

A lot of Italians missed out on POPMART because there were only two shows. Most people who would normally see U2 in Naples did not get to see U2 this time. Amusement business list the Reggio Concert as a sellout and my friends that were there can attest to that fact. They also would agree that the band could have played more shows, perhaps not as much as ZOO TV, but their was no indication to them that demand had been met. Either way, there is no way to conclusively tell because more shows were not booked. The only way you can tell is when you see attendance at various shows start to fall off from the first show. When everything is soldout, its not possible to tell for sure how much more demand there is.

Again, with the smaller markets that were played, they were played to promote the album and the band in those regions. Playing a show in St. Louis or South Bend is not evidence that another show could not be played in Chicago or New York City in my opinion, especially when the Chicago and New York shows were full sellouts on the day they went on sale.

I understand what you said about Prince in 2003 in Australia, but no one knows if that would have been the case or not with U2 on some of these return dates in larger cities.

 

[STING2]

I guess you have a penchant for repeating yourself over and over again. I fail to see how calling someone a fanboy is inappropriate or violating the rules of this forum?




I don't know why you see Amusement Business as the gospel (the RIAA is worse)? They've been wrong before. And I've gone over many times and have proven why Floyd are what they are. And apart from Amusement Business' erroneous Yankee Stadium stats for the last show there in '92, Bowie's show at GM Place in Vancouver a year ago was reported as a sellout to 11,617. But guess what? It wasn't sold out...I was there and there was a couple of hundred tickets left in the 180 degree end stage configuration Bowie used. The capacity must have been 12,000 for this show.



Well, I believe you used a certain criteria to make you favourtie band look like they're more popular than they really are.

Has U2 sold more records than Floyd?
Has U2's concert attendances been higher than Floyd's?
Are U2's back catalog sales higher than Floyd's are?

If so, then you'd be right. But you're not.




What are you talking about? Give me a break. There are two pieces of evidence contradicting Amusement Business' figures for U2's 2nd Yankee Stadium show in '92 proving that they're wrong.

People at Amusement business will tell you that what they consider to be a sellout is based on how the capacity is set, not on the maximum number that the venue can hold.

If you think there were less than 104,000 people at the two combined Yankee stadium shows and that the GROSS Amusement Business listed was incorrect, where is your evidence?

The RIAA does audits of record shipments to retailers. If you think an audit was wrong, where is your evidence?

If you don't agree that what is published by these organizations is fact, barring small errors from time to time, then I doubt there will be much that the members of this forum and yourself will agree on.

Well, my criteria for determining the most popular band currently is based on a few things.

#1 The sales of the artist latest album

#2 The concert ticket demand on the bands latest tour. Notice that is not necessarily the total number of tickets sold on the entire tour as some bands choose to tour less than others for a variety of reason having nothing to do with the business.

#3 That the band still be active and together.

Pink Floyd is not #1 one in any of the first two area's and is not a band anymore in my opinion. But I'm not going to be disrespectful to you by telling you "See your wrong" or tell you to "wipe the egg off your face" or refer to you as a "fanboy".

I have enough respect for your opinion on that particular issue to simply say I disagree with it.

 

[STING2]

No Control,

"I guess you have a penchant for repeating yourself over and over again. I fail to see how calling someone a fanboy is inappropriate or violating the rules of this forum?"

Your not supposed to be calling anyone ANY names!

If you want to persist in similar type of behavior, ok. I'm not going to say anymore about the issue.

You know what happened to Metfield.

Good Luck

 

[NoControl]

You don't have information for those specific shows in addition, its impossible to specifically tell how many people who went to the first show went to the second or third show or did not, unless this was somehow recorded.

Look, you may not agree (which is fine), but thats basically how it works. And I never said that's the exact amount of people who returned. But it's a damn good way of estimating of the basic amount one could draw on a return engagement. I can given you dozens of more "return" examples with artists like Rush, Floyd, Zappa, Queensryche, etc.

Originally posted by STING2 The reason for playing the smaller markets on the return tour is obviously to promote the band and the album.

I don't agree.

Originally posted by STING2 Because a band chooses to play a show in St. Louis does not mean they were not able to play another show in Washington DC or New York City instead.

Well, it sure seems so, epecially since it's a weak market for U2.

Originally posted by STING2 Unless I see a decrease in attendance on a return date, I would never conclude that demand in that city had been met.

What exactly do you mean? Do you mean the decrease in attendance with each and every return on the Elevation tour, where it was from 1/3 to 1/2, as I've gone over countless times.

Originally posted by STING2 Also, bands and artist do not simply tour until they have reached the level of demand out there, or played every market possible. Many tours are capped at a certain length for a variety of reason having nothing to do with the ability to do more business.

Not necessarily.

Originally posted by STING2 Still, if you were to apply your general criteria for the return dates in big markets in the USA, you would have to say that they met the demand in Italy. The point here being, just because the this show was not added here or played there does not mean there was not enough demand for a one show or multiple more shows.

Well, that's true with a handful of markets, as there's always a few venues with each tour that have conflicting schedules and preclude the date being scheduled. But for the most part, they'd be out a lot of money if they didn't add additional shows in larger markets. And since this is a business, that's what it's all about.

Originally posted by STING2 A lot of Italians missed out on POPMART because there were only two shows. Most people who would normally see U2 in Naples did not get to see U2 this time. Amusement business list the Reggio Concert as a sellout and my friends that were there can attest to that fact. They also would agree that the band could have played more shows, perhaps not as much as ZOO TV, but their was no indication to them that demand had been met. Either way, there is no way to conclusively tell because more shows were not booked. The only way you can tell is when you see attendance at various shows start to fall off from the first show. When everything is soldout, its not possible to tell for sure how much more demand there is.

There is a way to tell the demand if you can find the proper formulas.

Originally posted by STING2 Again, with the smaller markets that were played, they were played to promote the album and the band in those regions. Playing a show in St. Louis or South Bend is not evidence that another show could not be played in Chicago or New York City in my opinion, especially when the Chicago and New York shows were full sellouts on the day they went on sale.

So U2 is going to forget about playing to an additional 40,000 people in Chicago and go to St. Louis to play to 14,500 people?

And like I said, fast sellouts don't always mean there's demand for additional shows.

Originally posted by STING2 I understand what you said about Prince in 2003 in Australia, but no one knows if that would have been the case or not with U2 on some of these return dates in larger cities.

Well, I'm giving you an example. And that's a good one, especially since U2 isn't that much more popular than him.

 

[NoControl]

People at Amusement business will tell you that what they consider to be a sellout is based on how the capacity is set, not on the maximum number that the venue can hold.

I know that, what's your point?

Originally posted by STING2 If you think there were less than 104,000 people at the two combined Yankee stadium shows and that the GROSS Amusement Business listed was incorrect, where is your evidence?

An interference forum member attended both Yankee Stadium shows in '92 and said that the 2nd show wasn't full. Also, the Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses video clearly shows the upper deck of Yankee not full. Again, you couldn't sell more than 52,000 tickets to a 270 degree end stage configuration concert at Yankee. So that obvioulsy would be the capacity of the show, since it was the same configuration both nights. I don't know why I have to keep telling you this??

Originally posted by STING2 The RIAA does audits of record shipments to retailers. If you think an audit was wrong, where is your evidence?

I didn't say that. I'm referring to them being out of date with many of their certifications. For example with Pink Floyd, The Wall sells 200,000 units annually in the US and it was last certified in 1999. It hasn't been certified for 12x Platinum yet. But it should be, as it's reached that figure by now. Wish You Were Here sells 150,000 units annually in the US and is at 7 Million by now but it hasn't been certified since 1997, where it was certified for 6 Million. The Dark Side Of The Moon sells 450-500,000 units annually in the US and is really at 18 Million units sold in the US. But it's last certification was for 15 Million and that was in 1998, etc., etc., etc.

Originally posted by STING2 If you don't agree that what is published by these organizations is fact, barring small errors from time to time, then I doubt there will be much that the members of this forum and yourself will agree on.

I didn't say they're wrong all the time. Just that they have been wrong. I'd agree with the vast majority of their stats.

Originally posted by STING2 Well, my criteria for determining the most popular band currently is based on a few things.

#1 The sales of the artist latest album

#2 The concert ticket demand on the bands latest tour. Notice that is not necessarily the total number of tickets sold on the entire tour as some bands choose to tour less than others for a variety of reason having nothing to do with the business.

#3 That the band still be active and together.

Pink Floyd is not #1 one in any of the first two area's and is not a band anymore in my opinion. But I'm not going to be disrespectful to you by telling you "See your wrong" or tell you to "wipe the egg off your face" or refer to you as a "fanboy".

And I'm not going to go over what I've already done a million times now to show you why you're wrong. And I don't see why saying someone is wrong is disrespectful at all. You have to be joking?

 

[STING2]

"Look, you may not agree (which is fine), but thats basically how it works. And I never said that's the exact amount of people who returned. But it's a damn good way of estimating of the basic amount one could draw on a return engagement. I can given you dozens of more "return" examples with artists like Rush, Floyd, Zappa, Queensryche, etc."

I understand thats how you think it works and I respect that. I've got several years of Amusement Business stats on file from Billboard, so I've seen plenty examples of return engagements besides U2's.

"I don't agree."

I know.


"Well, it sure seems so."

I understand to you it does.

"What exactly do you mean? Do you mean the decrease in attendance with each and every return on the Elevation tour, where it was from 1/3 to 1/2, as I've gone over countless times."

When I speak of attendance, I'm not talking about the total attendance in a given market which may simply be less because than the first leg because the band played less shows.

What I mean is if the band played market x, soldout the arena with 18,000 seats, but on the second night only made it to 14,500 in sold tickets. You can tell from results like that the point of saturation had been reached. A third show would likely have even less attendance.

But if the band had soldout both nights as fast as tickets could be sold, it would not be possible to accurately state whether a third or fourth night would sellout or not.


"Not necessarily."

No not in every case, but definitely in many cases.


"Well, that's true with a handful of markets, as there's always a few venues with each tour that have conflicting schedules and preclude the date being scheduled. But for the most part, they'd be out a lot of money if they didn't add additional shows in larger markets. And since this is a business, that's what it's all about."

The band is under time constraints and elected to tour for a certain amount of time. There are kinds of markets that U2 did not play on the last tour. It is a business, and part of the business involves playing area's outside the biggest cities even if that means giving up playing another show in that city. By bringing the tour to more remote area's, album sales are increased and it generates media for the band in that smaller market which sells more albums.

"There is a way to tell the demand if you can find the proper formulas."

You can attempt to estimate what demand would be at another show, but your never going to know how well that show would do unless you go ahead and put it on sale.


"So U2 is going to forget about playing to an additional 40,000 people in Chicago and go to St. Louis to play to 14,500 people?"

Happens all the time in the touring industry with the big markets and big artist. U2 could have played to over a million more people in Europe on the Elevation tour if they had elected to do a stadium tour with more shows. You won't believe how many Europeans complain about being left out on the Elevation tour on this website.

"And like I said, fast sellouts don't always mean there's demand for additional shows."

No, but its often an indicater that there could be more demand.

"Well, I'm giving you an example. And that's a good one, especially since U2 isn't that much more popular than him."

I see an example that a fast sellout does not always mean another show will sellout which I think everyone realizes. Its an example from Australia with an artist that is popular, but not on the same general level as U2.

 

[STING2]

I know that, what's your point?



An interference forum member attended both Yankee Stadium shows in '92 and said that the 2nd show wasn't full. Also, the Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses video clearly shows the upper deck of Yankee not full. Again, you couldn't sell more than 52,000 tickets to a 270 degree end stage configuration concert at Yankee. So that obvioulsy would be the capacity of the show, since it was the same configuration both nights. I don't know why I have to keep telling you this??




I didn't say that. I'm referring to them being out of date with many of their certifications. For example with Pink Floyd, The Wall sells 200,000 units annually in the US and it was last certified in 1999. It hasn't been certified for 12x Platinum yet. But it should be, as it's reached that figure by now. Wish You Were Here sells 150,000 units annually in the US and is at 7 Million by now but it hasn't been certified since 1997, where it was certified for 6 Million. The Dark Side Of The Moon sells 450-500,000 units annually in the US and is really at 18 Million units sold in the US. But it's last certification was for 15 Million and that was in 1998, etc., etc., etc.











I didn't say they're wrong all the time. Just that they have been wrong. I'd agree with the vast majority of their stats.




And I'm not going to go over what I've already done a million times now to show you why you're wrong. And I don't see why saying someone is wrong is disrespectful at all. You have to be joking?

You have an opinion which I think is incorrect about the Yankee Stadium show. Amusement Business which I consider FACT, shows that the band played two shows to a combined 104,000 people. I realize there were empty seats at the second show, but that does not change the fact that the band sold 104,000 tickets for their two dates at Yankee stadium. If you don't believe the amusement business figure for the show, then there is really nothing more to talk about. I do, and unless you can prove that the figure is incorrect, I'm sticking with it. And no, a person at a stadium cannot caculate for themselves precisely how many tickets were sold and how many were not.


I know why you think your criteria for saying or estimating that this artist is overall more popular than that artist is correct, but I don't agree with it and I have my own criteria, just as many other members of the forum have their own criteria.

In my opinion and from what I have seen and read, including your own information, Pink Floyd is no longer a band, if they still were, based on my criteria, they would not be the most popular band. Unless you have something NEW to substantially add to what you have already written to demonstrate your point of view, what I've already said is not going to change.

 

[NoControl]

Originally posted by STING2 I understand thats how you think it works and I respect that. I've got several years of Amusement Business stats on file from Billboard, so I've seen plenty examples of return engagements besides U2's.

Well, then show me. I've requested stats from you several times, but no response. And I've asked if you've wanted stats, but no response. I gone into explicit detail as to why it makes sense, but yet you haven't. All you are doing is saying essential that I'm not right without any stats to back it up.

Originally posted by STING2 When I speak of attendance, I'm not talking about the total attendance in a given market which may simply be less because than the first leg because the band played less shows.

What I mean is if the band played market x, soldout the arena with 18,000 seats, but on the second night only made it to 14,500 in sold tickets. You can tell from results like that the point of saturation had been reached. A third show would likely have even less attendance.

That's not the only way, you can also tell from other factors too, such as if a show sells out right before show time, etc.

Originally posted by STING2 But if the band had soldout both nights as fast as tickets could be sold, it would not be possible to accurately state whether a third or fourth night would sellout or not.

It would be possible, but just difficult to do so.

Originally posted by STING2 It is a business, and part of the business involves playing area's outside the biggest cities even if that means giving up playing another show in that city.

That doesn't make any business sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by STING2 By bringing the tour to more remote area's, album sales are increased and it generates media for the band in that smaller market which sells more albums.

Again, it doesn't make that much sense, as U2 are more concerned with selling albums in Washington, DC than Baltimore, MD.

Originally posted by STING2 You can attempt to estimate what demand would be at another show, but your never going to know how well that show would do unless you go ahead and put it on sale.

I've attempted many times before for other artists as well before their tours have started. And I've been right most of the time.

Originally posted by STING2 Happens all the time in the touring industry with the big markets and big artist. U2 could have played to over a million more people in Europe on the Elevation tour if they had elected to do a stadium tour with more shows. You won't believe how many Europeans complain about being left out on the Elevation tour on this website.

It doesn't happen all the time but some of the time. And you're correct in U2's situation in Europe last tour. And that's mainly because the arenas there are 50% of the size of the arenas here.

Originally posted by STING2 No, but its often an indicater that there could be more demand.

Debatable.

Originally posted by STING2 I see an example that a fast sellout does not always mean another show will sellout which I think everyone realizes. Its an example from Australia with an artist that is popular, but not on the same general level as U2. [/B]

Prince drew 120,000 in Sydney in 1992. U2 have never drawn that there. In 2003, his prices were through the roof and he did 19,000 in Sydney with the average price being around $100 I believe. Last year, Prince was of equal draw to U2 in Washington, DC and Philadelphia and was a bigger draw than U2 in LA, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, Detroit and Atlanta.

 

[NoControl]

You have an opinion which I think is incorrect about the Yankee Stadium show. Amusement Business which I consider FACT, shows that the band played two shows to a combined 104,000 people. I realize there were empty seats at the second show, but that does not change the fact that the band sold 104,000 tickets for their two dates at Yankee stadium. If you don't believe the amusement business figure for the show, then there is really nothing more to talk about. I do, and unless you can prove that the figure is incorrect, I'm sticking with it. And no, a person at a stadium cannot caculate for themselves precisely how many tickets were sold and how many were not.

Yes it does change the fact that that figure is incorrect. There's two pieces of evidence that show that it is wrong. You can believe what you want...

Originally posted by STING2 I know why you think your criteria for saying or estimating that this artist is overall more popular than that artist is correct, but I don't agree with it and I have my own criteria, just as many other members of the forum have their own criteria.

Well, you're criteria is very odd and seems to make U2 look like they're more popular than they are.

Originally posted by STING2 In my opinion and from what I have seen and read, including your own information, Pink Floyd is no longer a band, if they still were, based on my criteria, they would not be the most popular band. Unless you have something NEW to substantially add to what you have already written to demonstrate your point of view, what I've already said is not going to change.

And unless you can show me proof that David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Rick Wright have said they've quit for good, you're wrong. Pink Floyd is still officially a band whether you like it or not. And that's a fact, not an opinion. And even if they weren't a band anymore, it certainly doesn't do anything to diminish the fact that they're more popular than U2. I'll go over this again, one more time for the world:

U2's concert attendances overall have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have (the DB tour grossed at least more than PopMart did, while only playing two continents)
U2's record sales have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have
U2's back catalog sales have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have

That's all the criteria you would really need. The latest album sales argument is so redundant, it shouldn't even be a factor, as it's just one album taken into consideration. And I think anyone can see this, so I don't know why you continue to think otherwise.

But again, believe what you want.

 

[Yahweh]

All ive got to say is Metallica sucks donkey balls whether theyve sold 100 million records or 1 record, they are absolutely one of the most over rated bands in the history of "heavy metal" or "alternative" or whatever you prefer to call them. If Metallica is around for 25 years and still selling albums fine but I doubt they will be and it has been proven with the last 2 records especially that their fanbase has erroded to the point of not being much more then an above average selling musical act...and certainly not a globally large act at all anymore other then a few areas in Europe.

Well over half of Metallicas sales have come out of 1 country the USA, comparing that to U2 who have about 35 percent of sales coming from the USA, which shows me that U2 is a much bigger pressence on the world wide touring stage.

Additionally How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb outsold Metallica's total album sales for St. Anger in 5 weeks, and the tour hasnt even started yet.

 

[Popmartijn]

Guys, please stop bickering as two little kids.
It isn't a race whether U2 is the biggest band or Pink Floyd (or Metallica). It's simply about collecting some numbers, data, facts, statistics. For that, we use reliable sources and unless someone brings up an even more reliable source (or make organisations such as RIAA, Pollstar, Billboard, Amusement Business publish corrections), those are the most accurate figures we have.



Marty

 

[Dima]

U2's concert attendances overall have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have (the DB tour grossed at least more than PopMart did, while only playing two continents)
U2's record sales have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have
U2's back catalog sales have never been higher than Pink Floyd's have

Pink Floyd lasted 7 years as a popular band (from 1973 with DSOTM to 1979 with the Wall) in terms of album sales...U2 sold a lot with JT back in 1986 and still sell strong in 2004 (19 years)...the DB tour hasn't grossed more than Popmart and the total attendance was lower...Pink Floyd never had a Tour like ZooTv with more than 5 millions gig goers

 

[doctorwho]

What the? What happened to this poor thread? All I did was post some 2004 touring data so that we can use it for comparison come Dec. 2005.

Many artists have outsold U2. Many artists have a bigger demand in concert than U2. But few have consistently had both big sales and big tours for as long as U2.

Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is a double album and is certified as such. Meaning, if 6 million units are sold, it's certified as 12x Platinum as it has 2 records. That's their rules and so be it. But we must consider that when looking at certifications.

Metallica has a very strong back catalog. At present, only U2's 80's "Best Of" continues to sell well. However, with the new album out, I'm sure JT, ATYCLB and maybe AB (or the 90's "Best Of") are popping onto the Catalog charts. JT sells around 100,000 copies per year. The 80's "Best Of" sells around 200K per year. Keep in mind, these are rough estimates in non-touring years.

While artists like Pink Floyd and Metallica certainly have a strong fan-base, I don't see the point in arguing. Pink Floyd, if they are still together, haven't released a new album in ages. And I just don't see Metallica selling almost 900,000 copies of their album in a debut week. But the truth is, all artists have markets where they sell and won't sell. All artists will stumble and all artists will have "flops". Even the Rolling Stones can't sell out every venue.

So stop the arguing. U2 has been a consistent draw since 1987. But it doesn't mean they are the only artist who sells.

 

[NoControl]

Originally posted by doctorwho Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is a double album and is certified as such. Meaning, if 6 million units are sold, it's certified as 12x Platinum as it has 2 records. That's their rules and so be it. But we must consider that when looking at certifications.

Incorrect. The Wall had sold at least 11.5 Million copies in the US and had been certified with 23 Million copies shipped (since it's a double album) in the US by 1999. Today, it's sold at least 12.5 Million copies in the US and 2 Million copies sold in Canada...and has sold at least 25 Million copies worldwide (possibly 30 Million).

 

[NoControl]

Pink Floyd lasted 7 years as a popular band (from 1973 with DSOTM to 1979 with the Wall) in terms of album sales...U2 sold a lot with JT back in 1986 and still sell strong in 2004 (19 years)...the DB tour hasn't grossed more than Popmart and the total attendance was lower...Pink Floyd never had a Tour like ZooTv with more than 5 millions gig goers

Totally erroneous.

Pink Floyd's back catalog sells 4 Million worldwide annually (2 Million in the US) and have sold nearly 200 Million records worldwide to date. Pink Floyd's 1994 Division Bell tour sold 5.4 Million tickets (3 Million in the US and 2.4 Million in Europe), while only playing two continents and grossed at least $185 Million (103.5 Million in the US) with the average price at $34.50. Pink Floyd's 1987-88-89 A Momentary Lapse Of Reason tour sold 5.5 Million tickets while performing in four continents at an average price of $20.00.

PopMart's total attendance was 3.9 Million at an overall average price of $43.50.

Please get your facts straight.

Thanks.

 

[erdem_ataköy]

no control is right.pink floyd is real big rock legend.u2 catalog sales so poor compare to real rock bands(led zeppelin,metallica,acdc) because pop albums usually cant sell well after first 2 years.if you look at jushua tree hasnt updated in years because u2 albums not classic rock record.when u2 retire they cant sell millions anymore

 

[NoControl]

no control is right.pink floyd is real big rock legend.u2 catalog sales so poor compare to real rock bands(led zeppelin,metallica,acdc) because pop albums usually cant sell well after first 2 years.if you look at jushua tree hasnt updated in years because u2 albums not classic rock record.when u2 retire they cant sell millions anymore

Good points, erdem_atakoy. And it's good to see that someone can admit that U2 isn't the biggest band in the world.