U2 Set To Return The Torch To The Police

[STING2]

My problem with this thread is that it assumes that U2 still has the torch. Unless Arcade Fire is opening for the Police I don't how Sting and the gang can get the torch back.

Umm, most people don't even know who Arcade Fire is. You have to be a hell of a lot more than simply a popular indie band to get the "torch".

 

[nightninja56]

My problem with this thread is that it assumes that U2 still has the torch. Unless Arcade Fire is opening for the Police I don't how Sting and the gang can get the torch back.

nobody knows who arcade fire is except people who either A. like U2, or B. spend time on internet forums

 

[kingofsorrow]

If U2 will continue to make this absurd actions - such as bad compilations of 16 singles, improvement of the tiring poverty/Africa speeches, duets with everyone who asks for it - you can bet that they will go on the trash easily.
As I said before, U2 are in a similar situation as they were back in 1989/90, the context is just different.
I won't be surpreised that they will be backlashed by media and the public even if the next album is great.

exactly what i'm thinking.

 

[Aygo]

All the media praise in the world won't make the Arctic Monkeys the biggest band in the world. The closest out of bands you mentioned is Coldplay, and Coldplay is light years away from having the level of attendance at their shows as U2 does. Although the Police have been away for a quarter of a century, by far the longest anyone has been away and then dared to comback, they walk all over Coldplay's recent tour figures nearly to the same degree as U2 recently did.

I don't put my bets in it. Ok, the 4 Sheffield kids just started now, but remember that Oasis exploded in a similar way - the difference is that Oasis are a great band and AM are trash (except that in 1994 internet was taking its first big steps) - and it only failed because of the dying hype and continous backlash after "Be Here Now". Franz Ferdinand is relatively well-known now and their job is being praised.
The big enemy is really Coldplay. The fact that Coldplay's attendance is no justification. It is natural that U2 fills stadiums and Coldplay don't, but that can happen in a very near future. Of course I wouldn't like to see them as sitting in U2's throne because IMO they're not that qualified, but I have to admit that the joint-venture with Brian Eno is very dangerous and scary, mainly when U2 in joining a brand new producer (that is new to the way U2 works), it's a new territory.

Can you imagine the consequences of the new Coldplay album getting all praises, having big hits and sales, starting to sell stadiums (doesn't this remind you of U2 20 years ago?) and in contrast the next U2 album being bashed, not having big hits and not that great sales? U2 are not in their 30's anymore and their sound hasn't being very risky enough to clean any bad step they can take. I still think that U2 must be very very careful with what the do.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Umm, most people don't even know who Arcade Fire is. You have to be a hell of a lot more than simply a popular indie band to get the "torch".

However at the same time, if you are waiting around for some band to reach the size and heights that bands like the Police and U2 reached at their peak, you'll be waiting forever. It is most likely never going to happen again. The conditions have changed completely.

 

[STING2]

However at the same time, if you are waiting around for some band to reach the size and heights that bands like the Police and U2 reached at their peak, you'll be waiting forever. It is most likely never going to happen again. The conditions have changed completely.

and that means its unlikely U2 will be passing the torch to anyone until they decide to disband, which in some ways is what happened with The Police.

 

[STING2]

I don't put my bets in it. Ok, the 4 Sheffield kids just started now, but remember that Oasis exploded in a similar way - the difference is that Oasis are a great band and AM are trash (except that in 1994 internet was taking its first big steps) - and it only failed because of the dying hype and continous backlash after "Be Here Now". Franz Ferdinand is relatively well-known now and their job is being praised.
The big enemy is really Coldplay. The fact that Coldplay's attendance is no justification. It is natural that U2 fills stadiums and Coldplay don't, but that can happen in a very near future. Of course I wouldn't like to see them as sitting in U2's throne because IMO they're not that qualified, but I have to admit that the joint-venture with Brian Eno is very dangerous and scary, mainly when U2 in joining a brand new producer (that is new to the way U2 works), it's a new territory.

Can you imagine the consequences of the new Coldplay album getting all praises, having big hits and sales, starting to sell stadiums (doesn't this remind you of U2 20 years ago?) and in contrast the next U2 album being bashed, not having big hits and not that great sales? U2 are not in their 30's anymore and their sound hasn't being very risky enough to clean any bad step they can take. I still think that U2 must be very very careful with what the do.

U2 reached the mega stadium filling, album selling capacity that it has now in 1987, just 7 years after the release of their first album. By this summer, will be at that same point for Coldplay, but they are no where near being a stadium filling band. In fact, they are not even at the level yet that U2 was by the end of the Unforgettable Fire tour in terms of selling concert tickets.

As far as album sales, they hit the mark they needed to with the second album. They have the album sales, but the concert ticket sales are way behind.

If they are lucky, and keep growing in popularity, the next album should get them close to where they need to be, but it will take another big increase beyond that with another album, so two albums, for them to get to where U2 was with the Joshua Tree, and that is going to be very difficult to do.

A Coldplay backlash has already started in the general public. Its still possible for them to turn things around, but its going to be very difficult. Greenday actually has as equal a shot as Coldplay. But both are longshots and if they don't get there in the next one or two albums, then their time will probably have past in terms of that objective. If you believe age is a factor, Coldplay and Green Day will be in their 40s in the next 7 to 10 years.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

In a sense, yes, the last of the dinosaurs and all that. In the choice people have in music today, the choice people have in how they enjoy it, how they purchase it and how they share it, there is virtually no chance that a megasaurous band will rise again.

We have this "the next U2" discussion in there all the time. It's not going to happen. Plenty of bands are making better music (the aforementioned Arcade Fire being one). Plenty of bands are cooler. Plenty of artists are 'more popular'. None will ever reach U2 size.

Green Day don't stand a chance because they don't have universal appeal. You like them, but would your mother? Your grandmother? Will they ever even hear them? Coldplay have that universal appeal, but they are making music in the 00's, not the 80's. If (a) the musical environment and marketplace today were the same as it were in the 80s and early 90s, and (b) X&Y followed on the path of Parachutes and Rush of Blood in terms of quality and moving forward, I think Coldplay would probably have reached the heights high enough to steak a claim. They tick enough boxes, but as I said, it's just not possible in this day and age.

It won't happen again. We're taking sales off the pointy end of the triangle and dumping them at the wide end.

 

[pepokiss]

why is U2 popular?


besides music... or is music all it takes?

 

[STING2]

In a sense, yes, the last of the dinosaurs and all that. In the choice people have in music today, the choice people have in how they enjoy it, how they purchase it and how they share it, there is virtually no chance that a megasaurous band will rise again.

We have this "the next U2" discussion in there all the time. It's not going to happen. Plenty of bands are making better music (the aforementioned Arcade Fire being one). Plenty of bands are cooler. Plenty of artists are 'more popular'. None will ever reach U2 size.

Green Day don't stand a chance because they don't have universal appeal. You like them, but would your mother? Your grandmother? Will they ever even hear them? Coldplay have that universal appeal, but they are making music in the 00's, not the 80's. If (a) the musical environment and marketplace today were the same as it were in the 80s and early 90s, and (b) X&Y followed on the path of Parachutes and Rush of Blood in terms of quality and moving forward, I think Coldplay would probably have reached the heights high enough to steak a claim. They tick enough boxes, but as I said, it's just not possible in this day and age.

It won't happen again. We're taking sales off the pointy end of the triangle and dumping them at the wide end.

Hold on a second. The level of worldwide Popularity that the Rolling Stones, The Police, U2 and a few others achieved at their peaks was rare even then. So it was not something that was easy or predistined to happen.

While the record industry is having a difficult time today, it has not fallen to the levels seen in the early 1980s. More albums and tickets are still being sold today than were sold in the early 1980s. Of course, the population is larger and the record buying population much larger as well, but the early 1980s did not have the internet, file sharing, CD burning, and other ways of obtaining music for free without any noticable reduction in quality.

While there may be a lot more choice in recorded music, in terms of choice in live artist coming to town, its not necessarily much different.

The only thing holding Coldplay back from reaching the heights of U2 is their concert drawing ability. They have the album sales with the latest album X&Y selling over 10 million copies worldwide. So the key question is why is Coldplay unable to get stadium level demand for its concerts? Why are so many people purchasing Coldplay's albums, as well as getting it for free, but not going to their shows? Their attendance is good by just about any other standard except when compared to the top concert drawers in the industry, and the difference here is huge.

Things could continue to improve for Coldplay in the live department and they have with each successive tour. But if a backlash is now forming against them or if the next album only sells half of X&Y, progress on the live front will probably level off, with the next tour doing about the same level of business as X&Y. Coldplay has a chance unlike most other artist, but its still a longshot at this point. Green Day's chances may actually been less than Coldplay's when you realize their renewed popularity comes from only one album, which could easily evaporate with the next one.

 

[STING2]

why is U2 popular?


besides music... or is music all it takes?

Obviously its the music and the important decisions the band made early in their career as well as their passion, unity, and ideals.

The Under A Blood Red Sky album and video are credited in taking U2 from being a band that only play theaters primarily on the WAR tour, to one that was selling out multiple nights in Arena's and the potential to play a few stadiums on the Unforgettable Fire tour. All that without a top 10 hit or top 10 album in the United States and several other countries around the world. U2 may not have had a large fan base when looking at total record sales, but all the fans they did have were extremely devoted and usually concert goers as well.

Then, comes the Joshua Tree and a song like "With Or With Out You" which broke open all radio stations in all countries around the world for U2's music. Suddenly, you now have a large devoted fan base, getting combined with masses of people from the general public.

The trick then is staying at that highest level of popularity which is very difficult for any artist let alone an artist like U2. The longer you stay at that level of popularity and in the public eye, the harder it becomes to be knocked from there, although its always possible.

 

[jarvis]

A U2 album at the end of 2007 is wishful thinking. The more realistic goal is 2008.

It's an interesting point about the Eagles doing "Hell Freezes Over" after 14 years. That album did commercially very well. But this 23 year hiatus by the Police is something with no precedent so it should be interesting to see.

If The Police won't release new material, U2 are keeping the torch. The torched will be passed if they did have something like Hell Freezes Over. But that is highly doubtful since 23 years have passed and we are in the digital piracy age. So its hard to have a big album nowadays.

On a side note, has U2 ever been an opening act to the Police or vice versa?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Hold on a second. The level of worldwide Popularity that the Rolling Stones, The Police, U2 and a few others achieved at their peaks was rare even then. So it was not something that was easy or predistined to happen.

Yes it was rare then, but while it was exceedingly difficult and rare then, I'd call it impossible now. The ceiling has dropped. The peak is lower.

While the record industry is having a difficult time today, it has not fallen to the levels seen in the early 1980s. More albums and tickets are still being sold today than were sold in the early 1980s. Of course, the population is larger and the record buying population much larger as well, but the early 1980s did not have the internet, file sharing, CD burning, and other ways of obtaining music for free without any noticable reduction in quality.

You are correct about the industry, while suffering a decent decline, it's not faltering as such. That's not what I'm suggesting. It's why I was talking about a triangle. It's not just total figures that are changing. Where sales are occuring is shifting. The average #1 album requires a far lower number of sales then it did 10 years ago. The % drop in that regard in any given week is out of sync with the overall % drop in any given week for total album sales across the market. For anyone who doesn't understand, put it this way: In 1997 the average sales you needed to hit #1 on the charts may have been 10 copies sold, and the average number of albums sold across the whole market by everyone totalled 100 units. In 1997 you need 8 sales to hit # 1, a 20% decrease. However the average sales across the market sits at 90, only a 10% decrease. These stats and percentages are obviously not factual, they are there just as an illustration, however the trend is real. What it shows is that people are buying a wider range of stuff. There is less flocking to the pointy end of the charts.

With access to so much online instantly, satellite radio stations, blogs, with the way communities such as Interference work, you are not limited to the recommendations of a radio station playlist, nor just your circle of friends, but thousands of people telling you, sharing with you. Both expanding your knowledge within your existing tastes, and opening your mind to new ones. Making you aware of great new stuff, and giving you a history lesson. The musical tastes and playlists of the average person are expanding rapidly, and often outside of what is currently charting and being promoted.

This does of course not mean that there aren't huge sellers, mega sellers even. It just means that on the one hand, $X that make up the market are being spread more thinly now across a wider range of titles/artists, and that the perfect storm necessary to create a U2 or Police or Rolling Stones type sensation is far less likely to happen, with the channels of promotion and purchasing far less favourable to such an event. Where it is still available is within communities where being a part of the crowd is important: teenagers.

The real shift within the music industry in this internet/digital age is a shift towards diversity and away from "popularity rules." The share of the pie at the pointy end is getting smaller, while it's getting larger at the flat end. Hence why Tower goes broke while Amazon and iTunes go from strength to strength. Tower used to make most of their money off the very top end of the charts, now they can't compete with the vast range and availability people expect, along with the 'browsing' habits we now want and enjoy.

Arcade Fire are a small band on the grand scale of things, but they are 10,000 times as large in 2007 as they would have been in 1997 thanks to this trend. Meanwhile, it's holding a huge band with a universal sound and appeal like Coldplay back, compared to where they could/would have been a decade ago.

While there may be a lot more choice in recorded music, in terms of choice in live artist coming to town, its not necessarily much different.

That's true. There are trends though, but I haven't really thought too hard about this one. There do seem to be more festivals these days, and tours in general seem to be in smaller venues (I'm talking from my Australian viewpoint here). It's not just that no bands are breaking out into the stadiums, it seems like less are breaking out into the arenas as well. If you look at those that consistently sell out arenas and stadiums, they all seem to be a generation or two ago. Bands that broke out 5 or more years ago for arenas, and 10 or more for stadiums. Again, this is just anecdotal, not based on anything I've read or seen.

If it's true, it probably has a lot to do with the diversity in tastes that I'm talking about, mixed with a bunch of other factors. If 10 years ago the 10 people in the room here at work with me now all were more likely to have one of the last 10 albums we bought in common, we are also more likely to be buying a ticket to a common concert. Today though we are far, far less likely to have a similar purchase in our recent history, despite all being from an almost identical demographic and all having very similar musical tastes. Therefore, not surprisingly (and this is actually true of the 10 people I am currently sharing this room with) we are more likely to all go to a common concert from a generation where we were also more likely to be making common album purchases. Of the 10 people in this room right now, we all regularly attend concerts. In the coming week alone a few of us will be attending a variety that includes the Beastie Boys, Snow Patrol and Damien Rice. The last concert we all had in common? U2 last November. Is what I'm trying to get across making sense?

Again, I simply think that due to the environment they are currently in, it is and will be for the foreseeable future, almost impossible for an artists to break out into being a huge stadium staple. Diversity strikes again.

The only thing holding Coldplay back from reaching the heights of U2 is their concert drawing ability. They have the album sales with the latest album X&Y selling over 10 million copies worldwide. So the key question is why is Coldplay unable to get stadium level demand for its concerts? Why are so many people purchasing Coldplay's albums, as well as getting it for free, but not going to their shows? Their attendance is good by just about any other standard except when compared to the top concert drawers in the industry, and the difference here is huge.

They are not an 'event' act? They haven't earned a strong live reputation? Forget U2, how did Coldplays last tour go against, say, the Red Hot Chili Peppers? I don't think Coldplay are ever going to break into stadiums, even if those album sales creep up a little further.

Things could continue to improve for Coldplay in the live department and they have with each successive tour. But if a backlash is now forming against them or if the next album only sells half of X&Y, progress on the live front will probably level off, with the next tour doing about the same level of business as X&Y. Coldplay has a chance unlike most other artist, but its still a longshot at this point. Green Day's chances may actually been less than Coldplay's when you realize their renewed popularity comes from only one album, which could easily evaporate with the next one.

Yes, I think Greendays resurgance was a flash not a stayer, unless the next one is something really special.

Coldplay will be the closest thing to a universal band that we'll get in this generation, but as I've said, due to trends in a bunch of different areas, they simply won't make it to U2 size and I sincerely doubt we will ever see anyone else do so.

 

[Alisaura]

Lets not throw the lunch down the toilet yet!

Wow, I've never heard that phrase before.

I quite like what I know of Sting, and I don't have very much by the Police but I like what I've heard. A certain weakness for (English) bass players may have something to do with it
I'd go to see the Police if it didn't cost too much, but it will, and they won't get out here anyway. I personally doubt that they're getting back together in a full-time, meaningful way.

 

[Chris Martin]

Coldplay will pass the torch to U2

yep, back to the oldies.

 

[toscano]

no one has mentioned the #1 thing holding Coldplay back. A total lack of charisma. Even Floyd has Waters' cynical sneer, Stones had it in spades, Police did too with Sting and Copeland.

It's not about the state of the industry at all, it's about the state of the band, they juswt don';t have what it takes to get to a Dylan/Springsteen/U2/Police iconic level.

 

[gman]

On a side note, has U2 ever been an opening act to the Police or vice versa?

Yeah Jaris, The two'ers supported The Police in Gateshead i think it was (possibly more dates) around 82-84 if i remember correctly

 

[U2Man]

as if chris would be married to gwyneth if he didnt have charisma

 

[dietcokeofevil]

There will be big bands of the future...but there will be no torch passing. Times have changed.

U2 will fade

Another band will rise, just not in the same way that U2 did. Technology and file sharing make it hard to have a big album in the traditional sense...but it will happen in new ways.

Coldplay may pull it off despite backlash. (U2 has had backlash as its constant travelling companion.)

 

[dietcokeofevil]

Police will not take the torch. They will make long time fans very happy. But they will not win over the youngsters that don't know any better.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe, the Police are just touring again for FUN! Does anyone honestly believe they need the money? Sting's solo career has been longer than when the Police were together. Sting was very happy with his solo career. But, maybe, just maybe, Sting, Andy and Stuart just wanted to go out and see if they could do it one more time.
This whole passing of the torch business is just foolish.
Back in 1986, the Police just made a nice gesture by handing U2 their instruments on stage. Folks called it a passing of the torch, but really the Police weren't really around long enough to even have a torch in their closet. No one passed it to them.

 

[LMP]

Sting needs to save more South American Yellow Wetbelly Tree Slugs.

That's why they're on tour again.

 

[AtomicBono]

Well, U2 themselves disagree with you on that point. Plus, anyone who gets the "torch" from U2 will have to be a lot more than simply the latest popular indie band.

so...U2 think the Police took back their metaphorical torch?? or was there some real torch somewhere that someone stole?

and the bands I mentioned are young bands, with a strong indie/underground following...kind of like when U2 started out. they both only have two albums and a good reputation as a live band. All I was saying is I see great potential in both bands. If they continue to achieve success, they could get bigger and bigger and eventually come the next U2. But like I also said, it's pretty unlikely. I'll be damned if any band manages to stay together and on top for 30 years or more. Sure, there are years in between albums where U2 isn't #1, but whenever U2 releases a new album, everbody's listening.

Earnie Shavers also made some very relevant points about the industry these days. More bands exposed = more money spread out. It's easier these days to have minor success, but much harder to get anywhere near the U2 level.

 

[Rachel D.]

After a rousing performance of "Roxanne"...

I suppose that's why the audience stayed in their seats the whole time?

 

[toscano]

as if chris would be married to gwyneth if he didnt have charisma

big difference, he can't exactly woo all the fans one on one.

some people have no/little "public" charisma (have you ever seen a robert Deniro interview, painful stuff) but can woo a large audience with their personality. Freddie Mercury is another, a painfully shy interviewee, but an absolute monster on stage. Martin has zero stage presence compared to a Bono/Sting/Jagger/Springsteen/Mercury.

 

[STING2]

Yes it was rare then, but while it was exceedingly difficult and rare then, I'd call it impossible now. The ceiling has dropped. The peak is lower.



You are correct about the industry, while suffering a decent decline, it's not faltering as such. That's not what I'm suggesting. It's why I was talking about a triangle. It's not just total figures that are changing. Where sales are occuring is shifting. The average #1 album requires a far lower number of sales then it did 10 years ago. The % drop in that regard in any given week is out of sync with the overall % drop in any given week for total album sales across the market. For anyone who doesn't understand, put it this way: In 1997 the average sales you needed to hit #1 on the charts may have been 10 copies sold, and the average number of albums sold across the whole market by everyone totalled 100 units. In 1997 you need 8 sales to hit # 1, a 20% decrease. However the average sales across the market sits at 90, only a 10% decrease. These stats and percentages are obviously not factual, they are there just as an illustration, however the trend is real. What it shows is that people are buying a wider range of stuff. There is less flocking to the pointy end of the charts.

With access to so much online instantly, satellite radio stations, blogs, with the way communities such as Interference work, you are not limited to the recommendations of a radio station playlist, nor just your circle of friends, but thousands of people telling you, sharing with you. Both expanding your knowledge within your existing tastes, and opening your mind to new ones. Making you aware of great new stuff, and giving you a history lesson. The musical tastes and playlists of the average person are expanding rapidly, and often outside of what is currently charting and being promoted.

This does of course not mean that there aren't huge sellers, mega sellers even. It just means that on the one hand, $X that make up the market are being spread more thinly now across a wider range of titles/artists, and that the perfect storm necessary to create a U2 or Police or Rolling Stones type sensation is far less likely to happen, with the channels of promotion and purchasing far less favourable to such an event. Where it is still available is within communities where being a part of the crowd is important: teenagers.

The real shift within the music industry in this internet/digital age is a shift towards diversity and away from "popularity rules." The share of the pie at the pointy end is getting smaller, while it's getting larger at the flat end. Hence why Tower goes broke while Amazon and iTunes go from strength to strength. Tower used to make most of their money off the very top end of the charts, now they can't compete with the vast range and availability people expect, along with the 'browsing' habits we now want and enjoy.

Arcade Fire are a small band on the grand scale of things, but they are 10,000 times as large in 2007 as they would have been in 1997 thanks to this trend. Meanwhile, it's holding a huge band with a universal sound and appeal like Coldplay back, compared to where they could/would have been a decade ago.




That's true. There are trends though, but I haven't really thought too hard about this one. There do seem to be more festivals these days, and tours in general seem to be in smaller venues (I'm talking from my Australian viewpoint here). It's not just that no bands are breaking out into the stadiums, it seems like less are breaking out into the arenas as well. If you look at those that consistently sell out arenas and stadiums, they all seem to be a generation or two ago. Bands that broke out 5 or more years ago for arenas, and 10 or more for stadiums. Again, this is just anecdotal, not based on anything I've read or seen.

If it's true, it probably has a lot to do with the diversity in tastes that I'm talking about, mixed with a bunch of other factors. If 10 years ago the 10 people in the room here at work with me now all were more likely to have one of the last 10 albums we bought in common, we are also more likely to be buying a ticket to a common concert. Today though we are far, far less likely to have a similar purchase in our recent history, despite all being from an almost identical demographic and all having very similar musical tastes. Therefore, not surprisingly (and this is actually true of the 10 people I am currently sharing this room with) we are more likely to all go to a common concert from a generation where we were also more likely to be making common album purchases. Of the 10 people in this room right now, we all regularly attend concerts. In the coming week alone a few of us will be attending a variety that includes the Beastie Boys, Snow Patrol and Damien Rice. The last concert we all had in common? U2 last November. Is what I'm trying to get across making sense?

Again, I simply think that due to the environment they are currently in, it is and will be for the foreseeable future, almost impossible for an artists to break out into being a huge stadium staple. Diversity strikes again.




They are not an 'event' act? They haven't earned a strong live reputation? Forget U2, how did Coldplays last tour go against, say, the Red Hot Chili Peppers? I don't think Coldplay are ever going to break into stadiums, even if those album sales creep up a little further.



Yes, I think Greendays resurgance was a flash not a stayer, unless the next one is something really special.

Coldplay will be the closest thing to a universal band that we'll get in this generation, but as I've said, due to trends in a bunch of different areas, they simply won't make it to U2 size and I sincerely doubt we will ever see anyone else do so.

The problem with this theory of fragmentation is that artist at every level in the business are being impacted by low sales. Consider the following sales statistics for a week on the Billboard 200 in 2002, and week on there in 2007:

March 2002

#1 album sold 419284
#10 album sold 71269
#20 album sold 54226
#40 album sold 30434
#50 album sold 25587
#100 album sold 13483
#150 album sold 8672
#200 album sold 6327

January 2007

#1 album sold 60,064
#10 album sold 35,423
#20 album sold 28,825
#40 album sold 17,419
#50 album sold 14,872
#100 album sold 7,621
#150 album sold 5,130
#200 album sold 3,743


This translates into a roughly a 40% to 50% drop in ALL album sales in under 5 years, at just about every level.


Here are the top 10 selling albums in the United States for 1996, 2000, and 2006:

2006:

1. High School Musical: 3.72 million
2. Rascal Flatts/Me and My Gang: 3.48 million
3. Carrie Underwood/Some Hearts: 3.02 million
4. Nickelback/All the Right Reasons: 2.69 million
5. Justin Timberlake/Futuresex/Lovesounds: 2.38 million
6. James Blunt/Back to Bedlam: 2.14 million
7. Beyonce/B'day: 2.01 million
8. Hannah Montana: 1.99 million
9. Dixie Chicks/Taking the Long Way: 1.86 million
10. Hinder/Extreme Behavior: 1.82 million



2000:

1. N Sync- No Strings Attached- 9.936.104
2. Eminem- The Marshall Mathers LP- 7.921.107
3. Britney Spears- Oops!...I Did it Again- 7.893.544
4. Creed- Human Clay- 6.587.834
5. Santana- Supernatural- 5.857.824
6. The Beatles- 1- 5.068.300
7. Nelly- Country Grammar- 5.067.529
8. Backstreet Boys- Black and Blue- 4.289.865
9. Dr Dre- 2001- 3.992.311
10. Destiny's Child- The Writing's on the Wall- 3.802.165



1996

1. Jagged Little Pill Alanis Morissette: 7,400,000
2. Falling Into You Celine Dion: 6,000,000
3. The Score The Fugees: 4,500,000
4. Tragic Kingdom No Doubt: 4,400,000
5. Daydream Mariah Carey: 3,000,000
6. All Eyez On Me 2Pac: 3,000,000
7. Load Metallica: 3,000,000
8. Secrets Toni Braxton: 2,900,000
9. The Woman In Me Shania Twain: 2,800,000
10. What’s The Story Morning Glory? Oasis: 2,600,000



So despite all of the huge decreases in album sales, Coldplay is still achieving album sales of 3 to 4 million in the USA, plus a total of over 11 million worldwide which is very impressive in any time period. Coldplay's album sales 10 years ago would likely have only been about 3 million higher worldwide at most. Coldplay has achieved, despite worse odds, the albums sales level required for the most popular bands in the industry. What they have not achieved though is a strong concert drawing ability to go with their huge album sales. Their still not where U2 was in concert drawing ability at the end of the Unforgettable Fire tour. They are about even with the Red Hot Chilli Peppers worldwide. Thing is, they sell about twice as many albums as the Chilli Peppers on the latest releases, which makes them the more popular band.


Another thing to look at is, the difficulty for new artist to get recognition and stay with a record company, make money etc. Its much harder for these bands to survive in this environment, but if things were really so fragmented as you claim, it should be easier for new artist to get into the industry, but it isn't.

At the Rock In Roll Hall of Fame awards, Bono said that if U2 were coming up today, they would have been dropped after their first album.

 

[STING2]

Yeah Jaris, The two'ers supported The Police in Gateshead i think it was (possibly more dates) around 82-84 if i remember correctly

U2 supported The Police at the following shows:


July 27, 1980 Dublin Leixlip Castle
July 31, 1982 Gateshead UK International Stadium
June 11, 1986 Atlanta Omni Arena
June 13, 1986 Chicago Rosemont Horizon
June 15, 1986 East Rutherford, NJ Giants Stadium


REM opened up for the Police on several shows for the Synchronicity tour in North America. The Alarm opened for The Police in the United Kingdom on the Synchronicity Tour. Of course, this was back when almost no one knew who REM or The Alarm were. Michael Stipe joked that the Rain got more applause than they did at Shea Stadium opening for The Police.

 

[STING2]

Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe, the Police are just touring again for FUN! Does anyone honestly believe they need the money? Sting's solo career has been longer than when the Police were together. Sting was very happy with his solo career. But, maybe, just maybe, Sting, Andy and Stuart just wanted to go out and see if they could do it one more time.
This whole passing of the torch business is just foolish.
Back in 1986, the Police just made a nice gesture by handing U2 their instruments on stage. Folks called it a passing of the torch, but really the Police weren't really around long enough to even have a torch in their closet. No one passed it to them.

Well, album sales, concert ticket sales, and critical approval and overall standing in the industry by The Police in 1983 shows that if the torch was not passed to them, then The Police by then had simply siezed it. Many people in the U2 camp, including U2 themselves viewed it as a sort of passing the "torch" changing of the guard, which they would officially have by July 1987 by virtue of the immense popularity of the Joshua Tree album and tour.

 

[STING2]

so...U2 think the Police took back their metaphorical torch?? or was there some real torch somewhere that someone stole?

and the bands I mentioned are young bands, with a strong indie/underground following...kind of like when U2 started out. they both only have two albums and a good reputation as a live band. All I was saying is I see great potential in both bands. If they continue to achieve success, they could get bigger and bigger and eventually come the next U2. But like I also said, it's pretty unlikely. I'll be damned if any band manages to stay together and on top for 30 years or more. Sure, there are years in between albums where U2 isn't #1, but whenever U2 releases a new album, everbody's listening.

Earnie Shavers also made some very relevant points about the industry these days. More bands exposed = more money spread out. It's easier these days to have minor success, but much harder to get anywhere near the U2 level.

Uh, no I just mentioning the fact that U2 does not agree with your contention that The Police did NOT pass the "torch" to U2.

Its much harder today for bands to have minor or any success than it was back when U2 was coming up. Bono said at the Rock Hall of Fame, that if Boy had come out in 2000 instead of 1980, he would be back working at the gas station by the end of 2001. Every part of the music industry crumbling from the top to the bottom. But if you have a NAME and are big, its one thing to see a 50% decline in your sales, but you will survive, while bands with minor success will be forced to disband and it will be increasing harder for anyone to get their foot in the industry.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: U2 Set To Return The Torch To The Police

I suppose that's why the audience stayed in their seats the whole time?

Perhaps you did not see the performance. You can see it on youtube, and everyone is STANDING!!! Everyone was sitting down when U2 performed "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own" two years ago.