R.E.M.- Second Biggest Band in the World?

[Sleep Over Jack]

Around the Sun is a fine album. Most people just didn't listen to the songs enough times, decided instead that they didn't like it immediately, helped along by incompetent music journalists.

That sounds like wishful thinking on your part..how can you categorise everyone who didn't like the album in that way? ridiculous!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i never thought i'd agree with sting2, but i am.

r.e.m. have to have a hit album again before they can be considered a big band, much less the second biggest band. don't get me wrong, i like them, but their new stuff is nowhere near as popular as their older stuff was.

 

[U2Man]

That sounds like wishful thinking on your part..how can you categorise everyone who didn't like the album in that way? ridiculous!

I didn't categorise everyone, and it was obviously tongue-in-cheek. (notice the smiley).

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: R.E.M.- Second Biggest Band in the World?

Wahay somebody agrees!

With regards to Green Day being the second biggest!....Oh please!!!!!! Frankly, any world where Green Day is even mentioned in the top 100 biggest bands at the moment is a bad one!

Also regarding the other point that REM could be mentioned ten years ago, i disagree. 10 or so years ago, REM WERE the biggest in the world along side U2.

However despite all this, i'm not that dillusional and i do realise that their popularity has declined hugely with Around The Sun. An album i can even admit is very weak, compared to their previous efforts. In saying that, it's still better than half the other shit out nowaday's.

I do agree that the Stones are bigger, of course. In terms of 'stature' though, there has been no other example which i can see as bigger than REM(Again, in terms of 'stature' or their 'name'.) Definately not Green Day, and for the love of God not Coldplay.

REM were very popular 10 to 15 years ago. Their trio of mega albums, Out Of Time, Automatic For The People, and Monster were some of the top sellers worldwide in the early 1990s.

From the concert stand point, REM did not play live for "Out Of Time and Automatic For The People. They went from 1989 to 1994 without launching a new tour. When they finally toured for Monster, they were able to sellout Arena's(20,000 seaters) for the first time in their career, and the band did a good arena tour of most of the world. In Europe, they were able to sellout a several big Stadium shows, but it was only in Europe where this was the case.

REM were more popular than Pearl Jam or Nirvana(prior to the death of Kurt Cobain) but because they were not a stadium level act worldwide, they fell short of being able to compete with U2, even though they were selling as many albums. Also, Guns N Roses would beat them for a #2 position behind U2 back then. Metallica and the Cranberries would also be biting at their heels.

By the end of 1996 though, REM's popularity of the early 1990s had for the most part disappeared. The new album, New Adventures in Hi Fi, only sold 3 million copies worldwide, a small fraction of what the previous three albums had sold.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

I didn't categorise everyone, and it was obviously tongue-in-cheek. (notice the smiley).

Or those were your real thoughts and if anyone pulled you up on them you left the smiley in there so you could say you were being tongue in cheek.

 

[U2Man]

Or those were your real thoughts and if anyone pulled you up on them you left the smiley in there so you could say you were being tongue in cheek.

Now you're just assuming. Nice try, though.

Well, to some extent, those are my real thoughts. It's my impression that many people didn't listen enough to this album before they decided it was boring.

 

[Final Straw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: R.E.M.- Second Biggest Band in the World?

the Cranberries would also be biting at their heels.

I can relate to nearly everything you said except for this. The Cranberries being up there with REM? They supported REM for most of the Monster tour. They weren't near REM's status, I don't care what ya say. The rest though does make sense. Even so, they were still in the top 5 in the world, DEFINATELY!

 

[Zoots]

U2 Man and Sleep Over Jack! Now you too don't start fighting!

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R.E.M.- Second Biggest Band in the World?

I can relate to nearly everything you said except for this. The Cranberries being up there with REM? They supported REM for most of the Monster tour. They weren't near REM's status, I don't care what ya say. The rest though does make sense. Even so, they were still in the top 5 in the world, DEFINATELY!

They supported REM at several of the big Stadium shows in Europe and it could be argued that the reason REM was able to sellout several of these shows was because of the support of the Cranberries. The Cranberries had a trio of albums that sold 30 million copies worldwide over the same time period. While they may not have been as popular a concert draw, they sold a similar number of albums of current product, and they did successfully launch their own global arena tour.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

around the sun sold as much as bigger bang? i thought that bigger bang sold at least 1 million in the states? and around the sun sold less then 500,000? are u saying ABB only sold 1 million in other places and ATS sold 1.6 in other places?

 

[Westport]

Hate to say it here but I kind of agree with Paul McCartney...the Beatles will always be number 1 and number 2....

U2 can be number 3.

REM? I loved, loved their earlier work but I would say that they haven't had a relevant album in the past 10 years. Their heart and soul left the audition when Bill Berry left the band.

And Michael Stipe has been too busy having his head up Hollywood's ass.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

it took me quite a while to get into achtung baby after rattle and hum. granted, i was 8 at the time but the point remains.

8!?

 

[theblazer]

I can't really see how Radiohead isn't #2 in overall standing right now.

 

[Final Straw]

Because they're depressing fucks! I'm sorry, i don't mean to be so blunt, but does anyone at ALL out there agree with me that Radiohead along with Nirvana are the 2 most over-rated bands in history?!

 

[vivaSA]

I saw REM and U2 live last year, they simply can't compare. U2 is just the best.

 

[bsp77]

Because they're depressing fucks! I'm sorry, i don't mean to be so blunt, but does anyone at ALL out there agree with me that Radiohead along with Nirvana are the 2 most over-rated bands in history?!

You are asking about the biggest bands so, sorry to say, your opinion about the bands means nothing. That is an objective question.

I love REM but they just aren't that big anymore. The biggest bands are U2, Rolling Stones, Coldplay, Green Day and Radiohead (and maybe a couple others). The Beatles don't count because they are no longer around.

There are also a lot of die-hard Radiohead fans here (including me) so be careful.

 

[bsp77]

BTW, I would love for REM to rise up and be one of the biggest bands again, I just don't see it happening.

 

[STING2]

around the sun sold as much as bigger bang? i thought that bigger bang sold at least 1 million in the states? and around the sun sold less then 500,000? are u saying ABB only sold 1 million in other places and ATS sold 1.6 in other places?

"A Bigger Bang" actually did ship 1 million copies in the United States, but 5 months after its release, it has sold less than 500,000 copies to consumers in the United States according to soundscan which tracks 95% of sales in the United States at retail and over the internet. It is unlikely that the album will have actually sell 1 million copies at this point since it is now selling less than 5,000 copies a week and dropping. In almost all cases, retailers order an amount of product that they know they can sell and the shipment figure usually always nearly equals the sales figure after a few months or more. But in the case of "A Bigger Bang" in the United States, it appears retailers will be biting the bullet on this one.

www.mediatraffic.de covers album sales all around the world. It has about 95% coverage of all retail and internet sales around the world. In its top 40 year end list for the biggest selling albums from January 1 2005 to December 31 2005, "A Bigger Bang" did not make the list. The #40 album on the list sold 1.4 million copies worldwide.

We know that "A Bigger Bang" has sold less than 1 million copies in Europe, while "Around The Sun has sold more than 1 million copies in Europe, from certifications found at www.ifpi.org which certifies all albums that reach the 1 million mark in Europe.

So "Around The Sun" has better sales outside the United States than "A Bigger Bang". Inside the United States, when looking at Soundscan, "A Bigger Bang" has only sold about 100,000 copies more than "Around The Sun".

 

[STING2]

Hate to say it here but I kind of agree with Paul McCartney...the Beatles will always be number 1 and number 2....

U2 can be number 3.

REM? I loved, loved their earlier work but I would say that they haven't had a relevant album in the past 10 years. Their heart and soul left the audition when Bill Berry left the band.

And Michael Stipe has been too busy having his head up Hollywood's ass.

If your talking about an "All Time list" then yes. But thats not whats being discussed. The discussion is about the current popularity of artist that can still be considered as "active". The Beatles for the purposes of this list are not active, just like Led Zep, Pink Floyd, The Police etc.

 

[STING2]

I can't really see how Radiohead isn't #2 in overall standing right now.

The standings are based on the popularity of the most recent tour, and the sales of the latest album. Radiohead have done some good business at what would be considered the Arena Level(venues with around 20,000 capacity) but in terms of album sales, their last album only sold about 1.5 million copies worldwide. So despite their wide appeal on the indie scene and critical popularity in music magazines, the popularity from a purely business perspective would not even put them in the top 20 at this point in time. In fact, it could be argued that REM currently could do more business in terms of concert ticket sales and album sales worldwide than Radiohead.

 

[STING2]

You are asking about the biggest bands so, sorry to say, your opinion about the bands means nothing. That is an objective question.

I love REM but they just aren't that big anymore. The biggest bands are U2, Rolling Stones, Coldplay, Green Day and Radiohead (and maybe a couple others). The Beatles don't count because they are no longer around.

There are also a lot of die-hard Radiohead fans here (including me) so be careful.

You must realize though that Radioheads last album only sold about 1.5 millioin copies worldwide which is a little less than what REM's album "Around The Sun" sold. In addition, REM can play to equal or large crowds in most parts of the world.

Radiohead never really got "Big" from a commercial standpoint, with the possible exception of the "OK Computer" album.

 

[Hallucination]

Ok, even though my big love is REM, U2 being my second fave band closely behind, i can admit that U2 are definately the BIGGEST band in the world. And frankly, i'm proud since their from Ireland.

However, who is the second biggest after them? R.E.M. perhaps? or am i just dillusional? I honestly can't think of a bigger one. Coldplay certainly haven't reached their heights especially with X and Y being slated by many in America lately. So, REM?

PS: Were talking about purely bands that are still on the go.

Absolutely not! I went and saw them in calgary in December of 2004 and it didn't sell out and the crowd enthusiams was non existent. REM aren't even in the top 100 anymore.

STING2 don't foget about RHCP. they're pretty huge.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: R.E.M.- Second Biggest Band in the World?

Absolutely not! I went and saw them in calgary in December of 2004 and it didn't sell out and the crowd enthusiams was non existent. REM aren't even in the top 100 anymore.

STING2 don't foget about RHCP. they're pretty huge.

They are definitely in the top 5, perhaps even ahead of Coldplay, but probably not Green Day. Still, their miles behind U2 overall.

 

[Hallucination]

Re: Re: Re: R.E.M.- Second Biggest Band in the World?

They are definitely in the top 5, perhaps even ahead of Coldplay, but probably not Green Day. Still, their miles behind U2 overall.

They all are. Even my friends who used to argue that have come around and agree. And sure the Stones made more money last year on tour but U2 was actually the biger draw/requested event through ticketmaster. U2 is the biggest in the world no doubt. I'm still not sure how REm was even considered at this point in time. It's a no brainer.....NO WAY!

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: R.E.M.- Second Biggest Band in the World?

They all are. Even my friends who used to argue that have come around and agree. And sure the Stones made more money last year on tour but U2 was actually the biger draw/requested event through ticketmaster. U2 is the biggest in the world no doubt. I'm still not sure how REm was even considered at this point in time. It's a no brainer.....NO WAY!

Actually U2 made more money than the Rolling Stones last year worldwide. U2 made 294 million dollars, while the Stones made 162 million dollars. It was only U2's North American total (139 million dollars) that was smaller than the Stones total (162 million dollars).

 

[Hallucination]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R.E.M.- Second Biggest Band in the World?

Actually U2 made more money than the Rolling Stones last year worldwide. U2 made 294 million dollars, while the Stones made 162 million dollars. It was only U2's North American total (139 million dollars) that was smaller than the Stones total (162 million dollars).

Well there ya go then. Good to know. Thanks

 

[lazarus]

The difference is that the Stones show are filled with a bunch of yuppie assholes who don't have a problem shelling out $200 to see a collection of washed-up senior citizens tread through the same old crap, and take bathroom breaks during the, what, 4 new songs that the band plays on a nightly basis? These are the same douchebags that pay to see The Eagles.

The Stones may be the elder statesmen, but U2 is still the biggest band in the world, simply because their new material is outselling the Stones 5 times over. Also, the Grammy attention U2 just received is colossal compared to the measly 1 nomination that the Stones had. The record-buying public thinks U2 is bigger, the industry thinks they are bigger. A bunch of middle-aged white people going to stadium shows does not put the Stones at the top of any popularity list, beachfront show in Brazil or no.

And I'm not a fan of The Dave Matthews Band, but aren't they pretty big worldwide at this point? And while I hate Oasis with a passion, I would say they are still more popular than R.E.M. on a ticket and album sales basis.

 

[STING2]

The difference is that the Stones show are filled with a bunch of yuppie assholes who don't have a problem shelling out $200 to see a collection of washed-up senior citizens tread through the same old crap, and take bathroom breaks during the, what, 4 new songs that the band plays on a nightly basis? These are the same douchebags that pay to see The Eagles.

The Stones may be the elder statesmen, but U2 is still the biggest band in the world, simply because their new material is outselling the Stones 5 times over. Also, the Grammy attention U2 just received is colossal compared to the measly 1 nomination that the Stones had. The record-buying public thinks U2 is bigger, the industry thinks they are bigger. A bunch of middle-aged white people going to stadium shows does not put the Stones at the top of any popularity list, beachfront show in Brazil or no.

And I'm not a fan of The Dave Matthews Band, but aren't they pretty big worldwide at this point? And while I hate Oasis with a passion, I would say they are still more popular than R.E.M. on a ticket and album sales basis.

The Dave Matthews Band has been VERY big in the United States for the past 10 years, but they are still virtually unknown outside of the North America. They opened for the Stones back in 1998 all over Europe, but it unfortunately did not help.

Because of this, they have always been behind REM in terms of total global popularity even at this point.

As for Oasis VS REM, in terms of albums sold of the latest release, REM comes out on top. Oasis last album only sold 180,000 copies in the United States, and while REM's "Around The Sun" did not reach gold(500,000) it sold more than 180,000 copies. In Europe, REM hit the 1 million mark, while Oasis last album did not, according to IFPI certifications.

The only places Oasis appears to be ahead of REM are in the United Kingdom and Canada. All in all though, both are not selling in giant numbers and the difference between each worldwide is not much, but REM is still on top of them.

 

[Soldatti]

We know that "A Bigger Bang" has sold less than 1 million copies in Europe, while "Around The Sun has sold more than 1 million copies in Europe, from certifications found at www.ifpi.org which certifies all albums that reach the 1 million mark in Europe.

The latest Stones album has sold more than 1 million copies in Europe, but IFPI's certifications are very late sometimes. According to certifications from all the available European countries, their latest album is on 1.030,000.

 

[STING2]

The latest Stones album has sold more than 1 million copies in Europe, but IFPI's certifications are very late sometimes. According to certifications from all the available European countries, their latest album is on 1.030,000.

Then the next question would be how much have they actually sold at retail. We know that in the United States, its shipped 1 million copies but has only sold half that at retail. The album did not figure in Mediatraffics top 40 year end list with the #40 album selling 1.4 million copies. Mediatraffics numbers are based on sales to consumers rather than shipments.