Will they sell out stadiums in the USA?

[The_acrobat]

Yes, but this is a very small portion of concert goers, not "half the draw" as the original post suggested.

Agreed a very small portion. U2 are just a huge draw. They've built their reputation on being a great live band. Anybody who thinks U2 are overrated have never seen them live. They make GOOD records, but put on GREAT live shows. That's why they are still around nearly 30 years later.

Now, had they actually been smart about the album's first single, NLOTH would be HUGE right now, and these shows would all be sold out already. Not to say most won't sell out eventually, but there is not much CURRENT HYPE surrounding them. They should have released "Breathe" as the first single and then quickly released "Magnificent". Perfect 1-2 punch, like "Violet Hill" and "Viva la Vida".

 

[rantor49]

That kind of logic works for sporting events, not concerts. Families(couples, etc) will go to a football, baseball, basketball game just to go and a new stadium would definately peak some interest for a family that hasn't gone to a game in awhile, but concerts will be attended by people who like the music regardless of the venue. A new stadium isn't going to peak my interest into attending a New Kids on the Block reunion.

I'm not a big baseball fan but when I lived in Chicago would catch a live game every once in awhile because it was Wrigley field and a fun social event. But no venue in the world is going to make my father entertain the idea of going to a U2 concert, that logic just isn't interchangable.

I disagree, I am going to the Norman show, but I would like to check out the Dallas show specifically to check out the new stadium. If they were playing at the cotton bowl I could care less. But the new stadium is definitely a draw for me. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. I guess the argument comes down to the Percentage of people like me, but the theory is sound IMO.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You're assuming that the Cowboys aren't sold out in advance. Dallas has a season ticket waiting list this year for the first time in several years, even though the capacity in the new stadium is 15,000 more than Texas Stadium.

FYI, George Strait plays the first event in the new stadium in June, and it's completely sold out as well.

The Washington Redskins have had a waiting list since 1961, but season ticket holders are out selling their tickets to EVERY game or selling them on the internet. RFK Stadium capacity 56,000 , FEDEX FIELD capacity 92,000.

In addition, the pre-season tickets for each are easier to get.

FYI, George Strait is NOT playing in the round like U2. The configeration he is playing only allows for using 50,000 to 60,000 of the seats. In addition he has Reba McEntire, Blake Shelton, and Julianne Hough playing before him on stage.

This is a country music festival, the U2 concert is a concert by one main artist. Country music is naturally more popular in Texas than in other parts of the country. The Festival is on a Saturday, the U2 concert is during the week. George Strait and his opening acts are not playing stadium shows else where in Texas or in Oklahoma.

Next, consider the fact that the most people that U2 have ever played to in Texas before this show is 39,000! So once you consider all these factors, its amazing that U2 have nearly soldout the Cowboys Stadium with the in the round set up. This will likely be the highest attended concert and and will be the highest grossing concert in the history of Texas. Attendance will be 80,000 plus however many people they allow to be on the field.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Not sure where you got the daily costs of each tour, but do off days count on your cost estimates?

Most days are "Off" days and they sure do count. Paying the road crew, food, fuel, lodging, etc., these are the daily cost. There really is no such thing as and "Off day" in terms of tour costs.

U2 in the USA by Carter Alan has the cost for ZOO TV and POPMART. It was also reported in the USA TODAY feature article on the POPMART tour back in 1997. The cost for the Vertigo Tour came from the Irish Times and was for the Stadium portion of the tour. The arena legs of the tour is an estimate based on the cost of the Stadium legs of the tour.

 

[Chizip]

Considering Texas is the second most populous state in the United States, they severly underplayed it on the Vertigo Tour. They only got 2 shows total, the same amount as the city of Detroit and 11 less than California got.

It's not surprising that these shows sold out fast, especially considering the new stadium in Dallas.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Whoever thought that they'd sell 34,000 tickets in Dallas was crazy - U2 could play the Cotton Bowl and get 50k; it's the fourth-largest metro region in the US. But the quick sellout likely has a lot to do with the stadium.

Well, the Jonas Brothers are coming to Cowboys stadium with very cheap ticket prices and the stadium is less than half full based on ticket availability. If the fact that its a new stadium is such a major selling point, why has the Jonas Brothers show not sold so well, even though they have very cheap ticket prices?

This proves that the fact that its a new stadium has very little to do with how well artist will sell tickets in the area.

Plus, remember, the most people U2 have ever played to in Texas is 39,000. That show was in Dallas on ZOO TV. My prediction for the show this October was 55,000 by show time . The fact that they sold over 70,000 tickets the first day is amazing.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Considering Texas is the second most populous state in the United States, they severly underplayed it on the Vertigo Tour. They only got 2 shows total, the same amount as the city of Detroit and 11 less than California got.

It's not surprising that these shows sold out fast, especially considering the new stadium in Dallas.

U2 have never played to more than 39,000 people in Texas. These two shows in Texas alone will play to as many people as they have played to in Texas on POPMART, Elevation, and Vertigo combined!

In addition, I don't know of anyone that has played a concert to more than 80,000 people in Texas before, ever.

These shows have sold very well, amazingly well, but their not soldout yet. Dallas will sellout for sure, Houston will require a little more work, but should sellout.

 

[Chizip]

Well, the Jonas Brothers are coming to Cowboys stadium with very cheap ticket prices and the stadium is less than half full based on ticket availability. If the fact that its a new stadium is such a major selling point, why has the Jonas Brothers show not sold so well, even though they have very cheap ticket prices?

Because 20-50 year old men can't justify going to see the Jonas Brothers to see the new stadium. U2 is a much better alternative.

I was deciding between DC and Dallas to go see U2, and I would have picked Dallas if I had known Muse was the opener, just so I could see the stadium as well. It's supposed to be unbelievable.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I miss the feeling of utter pandamonium that surrounded U2's tour last time. Each show was sold out instantly, and it really made you feel like U2 was so huge.

Now even though U2 have actually probably sold more tickets in the US than they did on the US Vertigo tour, it just doesn't feel right. If I wanted to, I could get online right now and buy tickets to just about any show I wanted. Luckily for my wallet, Chicago N2 is the only show I can make it to due to fall being the busiest time of year for my work, and being a groomsman in a wedding during Chicago N1.

Stadium tours usually do not sellout instantly. U2 only sold out one stadium show in California on the Joshua Tree tour. ZOO TV never soldout 25% of its stadium shows in North America. Dallas, Houston, Montreal, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Miami, Tampa on ZOO TV did not actually sellout, even by show time. Yet, ZOO TV is regarded as the most successful and in demand tour of U2's career.

Remember, this is the first time anyone has done a Stadium tour in the round. That means you can play to people who would normally be behind the stage for a stadium show unable to see anything. You can only played to 55,000 to 60,000 people at Giants Stadium near New York with a standard set up, but with U2's set up, you can play to 90,000 people.

The attendance on U2's first leg of North America may actually come close to matching the number of people they played to in North America with 78 shows on the last tour. Thats because the average show on this North American tour might be 65,000 per night. The Vertigo Tour only played to an average of 18,500 people per night.

With the exception of the Vegas show, the other 16 shows in the United States will have attendence levels above 60,000. Prior to this tour, U2 had only ever played 5 shows in the United States to 60,000 or more people over their nearly 30 year career. On this first leg alone, they will play 16 shows in the United States to 60,000 or more people.

Then U2 will return for the 2nd leg of the tour in 2010, and play another 20 shows to large crowds. By the time the 2nd leg is finished, U2 will have likely played to more people on this tour in North America than any U2 tour prior to this one, even though it will have the smallest number of shows of any U2 tour of North America, to date.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Because 20-50 year old men can't justify going to see the Jonas Brothers to see the new stadium. U2 is a much better alternative.

LOL, I'm sure there have been studies have have confirmed that. I'm sure if someone ran a scientific poll outside the stadium the day of the show, they would find that less than 10% of the attendees were influenced by the fact that the show is being played in the new stadium. By the way, half of
U2's fanbase are females. If you were talking about Metallica, you might have some room for debate there.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

There are A LOT of people out there who like U2's music but would probably never go to their concert. But if you're from Texas, a Cowboys fan, and U2 is playing at the brand new stadium, I'm sure these people would be more inclined to go to the stadium. I know a lot of Ohio State fans who would probably go to a U2 concert at OSU stadium just because of where it is, not to mention it's a band they sorta like.

Some people go to concerts for dumb reasons. I once went to a Creed concert because a girl I liked was going. A friend of mine went with us to the May 7th Vertigo concert in Chicago. He had a slight interest in their music, but he mainly just wanted to see Chicago.

But a "LOT of people" in this case is probably only 2,000 to 4,000 people if that.

Reliant Stadium in Houston is not new, but its on its way to a sellout as well. It seats 72,000 people. Cowboys stadium seats 80,000 people. Not including the field in either stadium.

U2 have always done more business in Dallas than Houston, but your suggesting that business would be equal or less than Houston if U2 were not playing in the Cowboys new stadium. It does not appear to be that way at all. It will also be interesting to see what impact the strong sales in Dallas may have on Norman Oklahoma. Increasing attendance for Norman Oklahoma from northern Texas would also be a sign that the "new stadium" thing has no serious impact.

 

[BVS]

I disagree, I am going to the Norman show, but I would like to check out the Dallas show specifically to check out the new stadium. If they were playing at the cotton bowl I could care less. But the new stadium is definitely a draw for me. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. I guess the argument comes down to the Percentage of people like me, but the theory is sound IMO.

Fair enough, but your original post made it sound like people who wouldn't normally go see U2 will now spend 55 or 95 dollars to see the stadium, you were already planning on seeing U2.

 

[digitize]

I'm really glad to hear about my home state.

Way to go, Texas. We are finally doing something right.

 

[digitize]

Stadium tours usually do not sellout instantly. U2 only sold out one stadium show in California on the Joshua Tree tour. ZOO TV never soldout 25% of its stadium shows in North America. Dallas, Houston, Montreal, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Miami, Tampa on ZOO TV did not actually sellout, even by show time. Yet, ZOO TV is regarded as the most successful and in demand tour of U2's career.

Remember, this is the first time anyone has done a Stadium tour in the round. That means you can play to people who would normally be behind the stage for a stadium show unable to see anything. You can only played to 55,000 to 60,000 people at Giants Stadium near New York with a standard set up, but with U2's set up, you can play to 90,000 people.

The attendance on U2's first leg of North America may actually come close to matching the number of people they played to in North America with 78 shows on the last tour. Thats because the average show on this North American tour might be 65,000 per night. The Vertigo Tour only played to an average of 18,500 people per night.

With the exception of the Vegas show, the other 16 shows in the United States will have attendence levels above 60,000. Prior to this tour, U2 had only ever played 5 shows in the United States to 60,000 or more people over their nearly 30 year career. On this first leg alone, they will play 16 shows in the United States to 60,000 or more people.

Then U2 will return for the 2nd leg of the tour in 2010, and play another 20 shows to large crowds. By the time the 2nd leg is finished, U2 will have likely played to more people on this tour in North America than any U2 tour prior to this one, even though it will have the smallest number of shows of any U2 tour of North America, to date.

Sounds like a decent business model to me.

 

[U2FloridaFan]

U2 have never played to more than 39,000 people in Texas. These two shows in Texas alone will play to as many people as they have played to in Texas on POPMART, Elevation, and Vertigo combined!

In addition, I don't know of anyone that has played a concert to more than 80,000 people in Texas before, ever.

These shows have sold very well, amazingly well, but their not soldout yet. Dallas will sellout for sure, Houston will require a little more work, but should sellout.

There must be a hell of a lot of illegal downloading of NLOTH going on, because if you based U2's ability to sell out on the success of the album (sales) they're touring on, you certainly wouldn't be coming up with these record-breaking crowds, if these are indeed correct and I don't doubt what you're saying. I'm just a bit confused. So that's why I say there must be a heck of a lot of illegal downloading going on. The album only gets 3 1/2 stars right now on Amazon...had been 4 up until a week or so ago. Only it and HTDAAB have ever gotten 3 1/2 stars--all other albums of new material have gotten 4 or better. I can't imagine people just want to come because it's a new stadium or because it's some innovative 360 degree set up-don't get me wrong I'm glad they're selling a lot of tickets..can't wait for the tour.

 

[U2FloridaFan]

The attendance on U2's first leg of North America may actually come close to matching the number of people they played to in North America with 78 shows on the last tour.

They should have named this tour the "Preserving Bono's Voice Tour."

 

[ramblin rose]

There must be a hell of a lot of illegal downloading of NLOTH going on, because if you based U2's ability to sell out on the success of the album (sales) they're touring on, you certainly wouldn't be coming up with these record-breaking crowds, if these are indeed correct and I don't doubt what you're saying. I'm just a bit confused. So that's why I say there must be a heck of a lot of illegal downloading going on. The album only gets 3 1/2 stars right now on Amazon...had been 4 up until a week or so ago. Only it and HTDAAB have ever gotten 3 1/2 stars--all other albums of new material have gotten 4 or better. I can't imagine people just want to come because it's a new stadium or because it's some innovative 360 degree set up-don't get me wrong I'm glad they're selling a lot of tickets..can't wait for the tour.

I don't think the people will go or not go to a U2 show because of a new album. There are quite a few people from my office that were super excited about this tour, not because of the album (a few didn't even know there was a new album) but because of the fact that they were actually going to have a chance to get tickets for a U2 show because it was at a stadium. U2's back catalog stands on it's own. When I mentioned to one of the people that there was a new album, they said they were going to go out and buy it so they would know the songs and be able to sing along, however, they were very familiar with all of the popular songs, i.e. IWF, the JT songs, One, Beautiful Day, Vertigo, etc.

It made me realize that it's these fans that U2 are always catering to. Another person commented to me that they "better play One", that was the only song they were dying to hear, as I said to myself, God if I have to listen to One one more time.

 

[U2FloridaFan]

When I mentioned to one of the people that there was a new album, they said they were going to go out and buy it so they would know the songs and be able to sing along

You mean you haven't been blasting NLOTH in the office for them, Rosa? I find that hard to believe...lol.

It made me realize that it's these fans that U2 are always catering to. Another person commented to me that they "better play One", that was the only song they were dying to hear, as I said to myself, God if I have to listen to One one more time.

Ditto...it's about the only song of theirs that I like the studio version better than any live version...but if they play it on this tour...which I won't know cause I'm not looking at any setlists!!! it'll be a surprise...I'll be right there with everyone else singing along

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

There must be a hell of a lot of illegal downloading of NLOTH going on, because if you based U2's ability to sell out on the success of the album (sales) they're touring on, you certainly wouldn't be coming up with these record-breaking crowds, if these are indeed correct and I don't doubt what you're saying. I'm just a bit confused. So that's why I say there must be a heck of a lot of illegal downloading going on.

Most people obtain music for free in 2009. They no longer purchase music, at least most of the time. But, when it comes to concert tickets, you have to buy the ticket to gain admission.

Here is an example of how much damage the various ways of obtaining music for free have damaged the music industry:

After the first 14 weeks of 2004, this is what the top 40 selling albums at that point in time had sold, in the first 14 weeks of 2004:

01 - 2,458,954 - FEELS LIKE HOME - Norah Jones
02 - 1,585,699 - CONFESSIONS - Usher
03 - 1,524,955 - WHEN THE SUN GOES DOWN - Kenny Chesney
04 - 1,428,610 - SPEAKERBOXXX/THE LOVE BELOW - Outkast
05 - 1,395,714 - FALLEN - Evanescence
06 - 1,304,494 - CLOSER - Josh Groban
07 - 1,238,935 - THE COLLEGE DROPOUT - Kanye West
08 - 1,110,029 - KAMIKAZE - Twista
09 - 1,056,680 - THE VERY BEST OF - Sheryl Crow
10 - 974,644 - IN THIS SKIN - Jessica Simpson
11 - 854,593 - THE DIARY OF ALICIA KEYS - Alicia Keys
12 - 799,083 - SHOCK'N Y'ALL - Toby Keith
13 - 777,424 - IN THE ZONE - Britney Spears
14 - 738,497 - SOULFUL - Ruben Studdard
15 - 716,453 - A CROW LEFT OF THE MURDER - Incubus
16 - 712,746 - THE BLACK ALBUM - Jay-Z
17 - 711,041 - JACKPOT - Chingy
18 - 705,558 - NOW 14 - Various
19 - 694,306 - THE LONG ROAD - Nickelback
20 - 689,826 - THE SINGLES 1992-2003 - No Doubt
21 - 669,647 - SONGS ABOUT JANE - Maroon 5
22 - 651,031 - BEG FOR MERCY - G-Unit
23 - 639,103 - ONLY YOU - Harry Connick Jr
24 - 631,192 - DANGEROUSLY IN LOVE - Beyonce
25 - 581,393 - CHICKEN*N*BEER - Ludacris
26 - 569,796 - NOW 15 - Various
27 - 562,693 - METAMORPHOSIS - Hilary Duff
28 - 546,405 - COME AWAY WITH ME - Norah Jones
29 - 526,912 - METEORA - Linkin Park
30 - 511,313 - UNLEASHED - Toby Keith
31 - 507,430 - 2004 GRAMMY NOMINEES - Various
32 - 493,671 - AFTERGLOW - Sarah McLachlan
33 - 475,960 - BLINK 182 - Blink 182
34 - 454,746 - GREATEST HITS VOLUME II - Alan Jackson
35 - 422,189 - I DON'T WANT YOU BACK - Eamon
36 - 415,356 - MOTOWN - Michael McDonald
37 - 406,026 - AWAY FROM THE SUN - 3 Doors Down
38 - 405,712 - LIFE FOR RENT - Dido
39 - 403,559 - AS TIME GOES BY-GREAT AMERICAN SONGBOOK VOLUME II - Rod Stewart
40 - 395,499 - LONG BLACK TRAIN - Josh Turner




Now, here are the top 40 selling albums of 2009 as of week 14:

WEEK 14

Rank - Sales - TITLE - Artist
01 - 865,265 - FEARLESS - Taylor Swift
02 - 780,478 - NO LINE ON THE HORIZON - U2
03 - 604,802 - DARK HORSE - Nickelback
04 - 592,774 - TWILIGHT - Soundtrack
05 - 590,666 - I AM…SASHA FIERCE - Beyonce
06 - 501,910 - WORKING ON A DREAM - Bruce Springsteen
07 - 452,778 - THE FAME - Lady GaGa
08 - 451,488 - THE FRAY - The Fray
09 - 447,081 - 808S AND HEARTBREAK - Kanye West
10 - 438,313 - INTUITION - Jamie Foxx
11 - 431,129 - ALL I EVER WANTED - Kelly Clarkson
12 - 376,352 - A DIFFERENT ME - Keyshia Cole
13 - 374,469 - CIRCUS - Britney Spears
14 - 335,959 - PAPER TRAIL - T.I.
15 - 311,104 - NOW 29 - Various
16 - 295,922 - FUNHOUSE - Pink
17 - 281,185 - WE SING WE DANCE WE STEAL THINGS - Jason Mraz
18 - 273,502 - FREEDOM - Akon
19 - 271,491 - LOVE VS MONEY - The-Dream
20 - 269,725 - VIVA LA VIDA OR DEATH AND ALL HIS FRIENDS - Coldplay
21 - 256,006 - DAVID COOK - David Cook
22 - 254,410 - ONLY BY THE NIGHT - Kings Of Leon
23 - 249,514 - SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - Soundtrack
24 - 246,819 - 19 - Adele
25 - 233,505 - NOW 30 - Various
26 - 232,747 - YEAR OF THE GENTLEMAN - Ne-Yo
27 - 230,985 - MAMMA MIA - Soundtrack
28 - 227,979 - THA CARTER III - Lil' Wayne
29 - 225,281 - HANNAH MONTANA THE MOVIE - Soundtrack
30 - 220,274 - ROCK N ROLL JESUS - Kid Rock
31 - 211,580 - GOOD GIRL GONE BAD - Rihanna
32 - 210,588 - ONE OF THE BOYS - Katy Perry
33 - 208,884 - TAYLOR SWIFT - Taylor Swift
34 - 205,249 - RAISING SAND - Robert Plant & Alison Krauss
35 - 201,208 - THE FOUNDATION - Zac Brown Band
36 - 193,448 - TESTIMONY:VOL 2-LOVE AND POLITICS - India.Arie
37 - 192,420 - WHEN THE WORLD COMES DOWN - All-American Rejects
38 - 192,234 - LEARN TO LIVE - Darius Rucker
39 - 188,904 - 2009 GRAMMY NOMINEES - Various
40 - 188,442 - LOVE ON THE INSIDE - Sugarland




As you can see, there has been over a 50% decrease in album sales in just the past 5 years do to people's ability to obtain music for free. The decline since 2000 is even more than this, perhaps as much as 75% to 80%.

In 2008, there were only 80 albums that sold 500,000 copies in the USA, and only 25 albums that made it to the 1,000,000 mark. There were LESS half million sellers in 2008, than there were in 1969!

 

[starsgoblue]

Stadium tours usually do not sellout instantly. U2 only sold out one stadium show in California on the Joshua Tree tour. ZOO TV never soldout 25% of its stadium shows in North America. Dallas, Houston, Montreal, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Miami, Tampa on ZOO TV did not actually sellout, even by show time. Yet, ZOO TV is regarded as the most successful and in demand tour of U2's career.

Remember, this is the first time anyone has done a Stadium tour in the round. That means you can play to people who would normally be behind the stage for a stadium show unable to see anything. You can only played to 55,000 to 60,000 people at Giants Stadium near New York with a standard set up, but with U2's set up, you can play to 90,000 people.

The attendance on U2's first leg of North America may actually come close to matching the number of people they played to in North America with 78 shows on the last tour. Thats because the average show on this North American tour might be 65,000 per night. The Vertigo Tour only played to an average of 18,500 people per night.

With the exception of the Vegas show, the other 16 shows in the United States will have attendence levels above 60,000. Prior to this tour, U2 had only ever played 5 shows in the United States to 60,000 or more people over their nearly 30 year career. On this first leg alone, they will play 16 shows in the United States to 60,000 or more people.

Then U2 will return for the 2nd leg of the tour in 2010, and play another 20 shows to large crowds. By the time the 2nd leg is finished, U2 will have likely played to more people on this tour in North America than any U2 tour prior to this one, even though it will have the smallest number of shows of any U2 tour of North America, to date.

Very interesting read.

 

[U2FloridaFan]

It's too bad then that we don't know the "actual" number of album sales if we considered all illegal download as a sale.

At this very moment on Mininova I counted about 500 people downloading the album and I can imagine it was a lot more than that at any given time when the album was first released.

 

[bathiu]

It's too bad then that we don't know the "actual" number of album sales if we considered all illegal download as a sale.

At this very moment on Mininova I counted about 500 people downloading the album and I can imagine it was a lot more than that at any given time when the album was first released.

There were at least 3 different torrents right after the leak, all of them 2000-5000 seeding/downloading, then many, many more torrents each day after the album was released for around two weeks, all of them with thousands of dowloads, there were 192, 256, 320 kB/s versions and a few 'lossless' audio torrents... and that's mininova alone, I don't know any other torrent sites...
Today you can download an album in about 5-10 minutes, so if you saw 500 downloading right now it's still thousands every day.
...not to mention older p2p softwares, Kazaa, Limewire and many, many more.
Worldwide, I think it's safe to say, the album was downloaded a few millions of times illegally

 

[BWU2Buffs]

There were at least 3 different torrents right after the leak, all of them 2000-5000 seeding/downloading, then many, many more torrents each day after the album was released for around two weeks, all of them with thousands of dowloads, there were 192, 256, 320 kB/s versions and a few 'lossless' audio torrents... and that's mininova alone, I don't know any other torrent sites...
Today you can download an album in about 5-10 minutes, so if you saw 500 downloading right now it's still thousands every day.
...not to mention older p2p softwares, Kazaa, Limewire and many, many more.
Worldwide, I think it's safe to say, the album was downloaded a few millions of times illegally

Wow - - I never ever thought I'd say this after starting old school Napster @ 28BPS so long ago, but this is just wrong.

Time to crackdown on the ISPs cuz the "don't download" campaign aint working and artists should get paid.

I'm all for downloading music, but pay for it will ya.

Somebody's mom or dad needs an income from their art.

 

[bfloxng]

Time to crackdown on the ISPs cuz the "don't download" campaign aint working and artists should get paid.

I'm all for downloading music, but pay for it will ya.

Somebody's mom or dad needs an income from their art.

I don't think it's hurting moms and dads, or even bands that depend on 500,000 sales. It's hurting the BIG bands and the record companies. So be it.

I never understood why some guy at Sony corporate should be raking in millions off the backs of performers any way. Similarly, I think U2 and similar bands do just fine for themselves financially, particularly since they spend the time and effort touring.

I think the world would be a better place if Michael Jackson and Madonna, to name two, didn't have countless millions at their disposal to the point that they live like absolute pompous grossly wealthy priviliged f***s who forget where they came from and precisely who (the fans) put them there (see also, Posh Spice, for example).

There's enough douchebags in the world without them, no matter how good their "art" is. I have no pity for a band who sells a million albums but loses the revenue from the other 2 million that might get downloaded by someone making $8 an hour at Starbucks.

 

[Irishteen]

90% of albums make losses for Record Company's while artists get a guaranteed minimum pay check for each record, the record company have every right to make money on big albums because otherwise they couldn't fund the other 90% of albums they release and artists they pay

 

[BWU2Buffs]

I don't think it's hurting moms and dads, or even bands that depend on 500,000 sales. It's hurting the BIG bands and the record companies. So be it.

Really, I think it does hurt other small bands -- if record companies lose $$ on the Big ones, they have no cash to invest in new / small bands.

I never understood why some guy at Sony corporate should be raking in millions off the backs of performers any way. Similarly, I think U2 and similar bands do just fine for themselves financially, particularly since they spend the time and effort touring.

Yes, big bands do fine. But corporate Sony is just part of capitalism.

I think the world would be a better place if Michael Jackson and Madonna, to name two, didn't have countless millions at their disposal to the point that they live like absolute pompous grossly wealthy priviliged f***s who forget where they came from and precisely who (the fans) put them there (see also, Posh Spice, for example).

Hmm, there are idiots in all walks of life, and you are not mentioning the occasional social good that these people contribute. There are worse arse-holes living in the rich suburbs of any big city than Madonna would be my take - at least she gives back in some manner on occasion.

There's enough douchebags in the world without them, no matter how good their "art" is. I have no pity for a band who sells a million albums but loses the revenue from the other 2 million that might get downloaded by someone making $8 an hour at Starbucks.

Too bad we can't download coffee for free, your opinion might change; and where do you live pray tell -- Starbucks only pays $6.25 here in the Midwest.

 

[bfloxng]

90% of albums make losses for Record Company's while artists get a guaranteed minimum pay check for each record, the record company have every right to make money on big albums because otherwise they couldn't fund the other 90% of albums they release and artists they pay

That's actually quite inaccurate. Artists do not always get a minimum check per record. Every contract is different. Some artists get a paltry sum for a record, plus royalties that may be pennies for each sale or a set sum after a given number of sales. Other artists get a flat rate for X number of records.

But certainly, record labels do not lose money on 90% of albums sold. Unless, of course, you don't count a multi-million dollar "salary" of a record executive as a profit but rather as an "expense."

A no-name newly discovered band will typically take it in the ass in their first contract and the record label will make a MINT. An established band like U2 or the Stones can get a big fat guaranteed contract, but the record label also makes out via huge numbers in terms of sales of the record.

 

[Irishteen]

That's actually quite inaccurate. Artists do not always get a minimum check per record. Every contract is different. Some artists get a paltry sum for a record, plus royalties that may be pennies for each sale or a set sum after a given number of sales. Other artists get a flat rate for X number of records.

But certainly, record labels do not lose money on 90% of albums sold. Unless, of course, you don't count a multi-million dollar "salary" of a record executive as a profit but rather as an "expense."

A no-name newly discovered band will typically take it in the ass in their first contract and the record label will make a MINT. An established band like U2 or the Stones can get a big fat guaranteed contract, but the record label also makes out via huge numbers in terms of sales of the record.

Most bands are given an advance that is to pay for the recording of the album and anything left is for them to keep. The band don't get any royalities until this is paid off which is fair. 90% of bands (I can't remember where I read this, some book or article) never get paid royalities, because the record label doesn't make profit on them. 10% of releases in music finance the other 90%. If record companies don't make money, they won't invest in new artists and only release safe albums that guarantee them profit.

 

[bfloxng]

Too bad we can't download coffee for free, your opinion might change; and where do you live pray tell -- Starbucks only pays $6.25 here in the Midwest.

Since you see fit to compare coffee downloads, then fess up that you can't download U2's new CD for free either. You can only download a digital copy of the music. I suppose if I could digitalize the flavor and aroma of Starbucks coffee, they might be pissed that I offered it for free on Kazaa, but then again, those who download my coffee wouldn't get the whole experience of Starbuck's coffee, would they now?

It's probably an incorrect assertion to claim free downloading isn't huring small bands. But on the same token it helps them by giving them exposure as well. Many people still want the CD, jewel case, etc., rather than just the music. No Doubt, for example, is giving away digital downloads of their entire collection with each ticket purchase. Why? For exposure and to sell concert tickets. That's where they make their money, as should most bands. I don't agree with the notion that a band should be entitled to $10 million for sitting in the studio and selling copies of their "art." A performing artist (like U2) should be expected to "perform" to earn the big bucks.

 

[Irishteen]

It's probably an incorrect assertion to claim free downloading isn't huring small bands. But on the same token it helps them by giving them exposure as well. Many people still want the CD, jewel case, etc., rather than just the music. No Doubt, for example, is giving away digital downloads of their entire collection with each ticket purchase. Why? For exposure and to sell concert tickets. That's where they make their money, as should most bands. I don't agree with the notion that a band should be entitled to $10 million for sitting in the studio and selling copies of their "art." A performing artist (like U2) should be expected to "perform" to earn the big bucks.

The problem for small bands is, tours aren't half as profitable as they are for bands who are huge. U2 could live off tours, so could any remotely big bands. Small bands however who can only play clubs that fit 500 people and only charge 15-20 euro for a ticket aren't gonna make much money that way