Blue Room said:
StingII, I'm not going to dispute you because you are the attendence pro. BUT, N. America is the most important market as far as overall money making and attention. There is more than just album sales after all. I'm not saying Europe is not profitable. But there is a reason they spend more time here and its not because they are trying to screw Europe.
I understand that N. America (and Canada) is the most imporant market.
I also think U2 sells more in Europe and ROW together than it does in the US, and that should reflect itself in the shows. Not to mention they are Europeans.
The demand is obvoiusly not the problem, as U2 is again playing indoors in US, and are going back to stadiums in Europe. (and elsewhere?)
The one thing I'd change about U2's habits is less US, more rest-of-the-world on tours. Not only do you get them twice, you get as much - if not more - shows than everyone else
combined . At least make one longer US leg, 5 or 6 months and move on.
Where is Asia (not just Japan - Stones played China and Peppers played Russia), S. America, new members of EU in the east and south parts of Europe?
U2 has heavily neglected all that, and it started with JT tour.
(I don't count Australia because they got a lot of U2 live over the years as well, though I don't agree with the "non profitable" excuse for not going there the last time around. Haven't they got enough money to cover any potential loss out of their pockets - or a promoter that would cover their backs in that case? Prefer money making over pissing off fans?)
And yet they travelled the most with their most expensive tours, Zoo TV and Popmart and far less with the comparable simpler/cheaper shows, JT and Elevation tour.
Go figure.