Rolling Stones top U2 - top grossing tour

[Mulvanaghty]

Most of the Stones shows that did not sellout were in Europe. You could still buy tickets at EVERY price range including the cheap tickets the day of the show, so the idea that people did not attend because of the prices is simply false.

That's not true.

In addition, regardless of prices, U2 outgrossed the Stones, in Europe and just about every other place outside the United States.

That's not true either. The Rolling Stones haven't toured the UK/Europe PROPERLY on this tour yet and have only performed about 20 shows and there are additional shows being planned in UK/Europe next year, so I don't know how you could say that. Also, not only are the Stones a larger draw than U2 is in the US, but they are a larger draw than U2 is in Japan, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and several other markets once they get down performing in Europe next year.

Argentina, a long time base for Stones popularity anywhere, where the Stones had previously beaten U2 in concert gross and attendance, did not happen this time around. Despite similar ticket prices, U2's attendance level and gross were higher for their shows in Argentina than the Stones.

Not by very much.

Just name the country and role the stats out, and you'll see U2 is now the bigger draw. Only in the United States and Japan, can the Stones still make a claim to be a bigger draw than U2.

As already stated, that's not true.

Prior to these two tours, the Stones had always had higher attendance than U2 regardless of ticket price and had grossed sometimes close to double of what U2 had grossed. This time around, U2 has a much higher attendance, and the Stones will only marginally gross more than U2 because U2 elected not to return to Europe and North America this past summer, despite the heavy demand in both regions for more shows.

The Stones will have grossed well over $500 million USD by the time they're finished touring next summer and they'll ALWAYS be a larger draw than U2 is. Also, there wasn't/isn't "heavy" demand for additional U2 shows but I agree they could've played to 10-20% more fans based on the sales of their current album and if they charged the same amount of money they did last year.

U2 now has the highest grossing tour in the history of Europe with the Vertigo Tour.

Once the Stones get through touring the UK/Europe next summer, that record will be broken.

The facts are above, pick whatever country you want to compare.

Likewise.

As for that final Pink Floyd tour, its about as much wishful thinking as the next Beatles tour I think. No doubt, if Pink Floyd were to magically get back together and tour, they would obviously set the gross record in whatever year they toured, primarily because people would see it as the last oportunity to ever see Pink Floyd.

No, Pink Floyd would break the Stones' record because Floyd have sold more albums than ANY band EVER, apart from The Beatles and because Floyd's tour attendance increases on every tour they perform regardless of the fact that their ticket prices increase. Nice try though.

Sure the Stones could tour next year, but given the large numbers of shows that did not sellout and the few remaining markets that have yet to be played, they would be better off taking the time off, so they can be ready again to tour before the end of this decade. U2 on the other hand could return to just about every place they played in 2005 given all the fast sellouts and fans left without tickets.

Once again, the Stones haven't toured the UK/Europe PROPERLY yet. They've only done around 20 shows there. And just because U2 sold out their shows quicker or a had higher attendance than the Stones comparatively on their recent tours, it doesn't mean that the Stones are a less of a draw than U2 is because the Stones' ticket prices and grosses are HIGHER than U2's, which makes a difference and means they're a bigger draw than U2 is worldwide overall. Not only that but the capacity of venues can be adjusted to look like it is sold out, when in fact it may not be - which is something that happens all the time because if you take a look at ANY stadium or arena show and that particular show is listed as sold out, the capacity/attendance is ALWAYS different.

I don't see any indication though that the Stones are really going to continue the tour into 2007 at this time.

Michael Cohl: "I don't think we're done."

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/art ... 1003438485

It is true that in Europe, that there were plenty of tickets left at the lower price levels for the Stones. I attempted to buy such tickets for each of though shows and they were available either the day before or the day of the show.

The Stones just played 21 shows in Europe and failed to sellout most of the shows. In addition, a few shows were cancelled because not enough tickets were sold. That does not bode well for return dates the following year, but obviously, with a year away from the market, some of the demand will naturally return to support more shows. In contrast all of U2's 32 shows in Europe were soldout within minutes or hours. The 32 shows were done in under 3 months. There is plenty of untapped demand for U2 in the European market given the rapid rate of sellout, attendance level, and the record breaking gross. The same cannot be said for the Stones.

No band or artist is ALWAYS a larger draw than another. That smacks of wishful thinking. Let the results come in, and everyone judge the results based on the facts rather than purely imagining that its this way or that way.


Pink Floyd have only had two full world tours since the end of their Animals tour in 1977. Far to little to make any sort of meaningful estimate about a hypothetical Pink Floyd tour in the future, especially since they have not done anything in 13 years. Lets stick with artist that are actually active and have relevant concert statistics that can actually be compared instead of getting into rock n'roll fantasy land where ones favorite classic rock band goes on tour and conquers all before them.



Anyways, hear are the results for both tours for outside USA/Canada:

Rolling Stones: A Bigger Bang Tour(outside USA/Canada)

GROSS: $155,512,086
ATTENDANCE: 1,557,137
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,319,780
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 43,254
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $99.87
SHOWS: 36
SELLOUTS: 11


U2: VERTIGO TOUR(outside USA/Canada)to date:

GROSS: $233,384,037
ATTENDANCE: 2,995,489
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,965,618
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 63,734
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $77.91
SHOWS: 47
SELLOUTS: 47


The Rolling Stones FAILED to sellout a single stadium sized venue in Europe this past summer! That alone really sums it up.

[MJDangerous]

Mulvanaghty in the point that the Bigger Bang Tour was not as stronger as the Vertigo one in Europe. They have aired TV spots in the first chanel during weeks in France to sold their tickets (the Stones) while for U2 in a few time in the web all tickets were sold without any promotion.

[Moggio]

It is true that in Europe, that there were plenty of tickets left at the lower price levels for the Stones. I attempted to buy such tickets for each of though shows and they were available either the day before or the day of the show.

You do know that scalpers have up to 50% of the house for major concerts, don't you? And once again, the Stones' ticket prices are HIGHER than U2's and that makes a DIFFERENCE in terms of the amount of tickets to be sold.

The Stones just played 21 shows in Europe and failed to sellout most of the shows. In addition, a few shows were cancelled because not enough tickets were sold.

Once again, since you can't seem to get this through your head, the Stones' ticket prices are HIGHER than U2's and that makes a DIFFERENCE in terms of the amount of tickets to be sold.

That does not bode well for return dates the following year, but obviously, with a year away from the market, some of the demand will naturally return to support more shows.

They'll also be playing in several markets that they didn't hit earlier this year.

In contrast all of U2's 32 shows in Europe were soldout within minutes or hours. The 32 shows were done in under 3 months. There is plenty of untapped demand for U2 in the European market given the rapid rate of sellout, attendance level, and the record breaking gross. The same cannot be said for the Stones.

Totally incorrect, as I've already gone over.

No band or artist is ALWAYS a larger draw than another. That smacks of wishful thinking.

I know that. I'm specifically talking about the Stones compared to U2.

Let the results come in, and everyone judge the results based on the facts rather than purely imagining that its this way or that way.

I'm not imagining anything. I'm simply telling you that U2 WILL NOT hold the UK/European tour gross record for long. And I know you know that.

Pink Floyd have only had two full world tours since the end of their Animals tour in 1977. Far to little to make any sort of meaningful estimate about a hypothetical Pink Floyd tour in the future, especially since they have not done anything in 13 years. Lets stick with artist that are actually active and have relevant concert statistics that can actually be compared instead of getting into rock n'roll fantasy land where ones favorite classic rock band goes on tour and conquers all before them.

After Floyd's reunion at Live 8 in July of 2005, Michael Cohl offered them $150 million USD of pure profit (the gross would've been around $200 million USD) for a North American tour. They turned it down. Cohl then offered them $250 milion USD of pure profit (the gross would've been around $375 million) for a North American AND UK/European tour. They again, turned it down. And if they were offered shows in Australia, New Zealand, Japan & South America, Floyd would've grossed at least $500 million USD and a pure profit of $375 million USD, WITHOUT any return engagements.

So to say Floyd couldn't outdraw U2 or the Stones, is simply wrong.

Anyways, hear are the results for both tours for outside USA/Canada:

Rolling Stones: A Bigger Bang Tour(outside USA/Canada)

GROSS: $155,512,086
ATTENDANCE: 1,557,137
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,319,780
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 43,254
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $99.87
SHOWS: 36
SELLOUTS: 11

U2: VERTIGO TOUR(outside USA/Canada)to date:

GROSS: $233,384,037
ATTENDANCE: 2,995,489
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,965,618
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 63,734
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $77.91
SHOWS: 47
SELLOUTS: 47

The Rolling Stones FAILED to sellout a single stadium sized venue in Europe this past summer! That alone really sums it up.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. ONCE AGAIN, the Stones HAVE NOT finished touring this album and HAVE NOT toured the UK/European PROPERLY yet. Once they do, U2's record will be broken by the Stones. And ONCE AGAIN, the Stones' ticket prices are HIGHER than U2's. If the Stones' ticket prices were the same as U2's, the Stones wouldn't have trouble selling out their shows at all. Not only that but U2 performed 25% more shows outside North America than the Stones have done so far, so OF COURSE U2's gross is going to be higher FOR THE TIME BEING.

Please stop spinning the facts.

[Moggio]

Mulvanaghty in the point that the Bigger Bang Tour was not as stronger as the Vertigo one in Europe.

Well, that's incorrect, as the Stones have not finished touring the UK/Europe yet.

[MJDangerous]

Mulvanaghty in the point that the Bigger Bang Tour was not as stronger as the Vertigo one in Europe.

Well, that's incorrect, as the Stones have not finished touring the UK/Europe yet.

We don't need to wait until the end of their tour to see that in Europe they have much more difficulties to sold their tickets than U2, a big difference that can't be explain only by the higher price of Stones' tickets

[bergkamp2004]

Look, they will never has the biggest grossing tour or the biggest ever tour but;

In 1996 when oasis played knebworth 2 shows of 125k each night, the demand for tickets was so much that according to a documentary i saw there was a demand of 3.5 million people who applied for tickets. I remember as on the news it said all the phone networks crashed for hours.

On the documentary Noel said he should have done all those possible shows looking back now!

Its a shame they did not.

[Fedepeti]

Argentina, a long time base for Stones popularity anywhere, where the Stones had previously beaten U2 in concert gross and attendance, did not happen this time around. Despite similar ticket prices, U2's attendance level and gross were higher for their shows in Argentina than the Stones.

We're talking about 9,000 tickets difference on 2 shows. The Stones stage was bigger, plus they had the b-stage in the middle of the stadium and the corridor, the 9,000 tickets difference is there, U2 had the full field.

And about ticket prices, the Stones audience here is a lot younger and poor than U2, the tickets prices were around $60 USD average, that's about 50% of the monthly salary for the 60% of the country. I spent 60% of my monthly salary for both, Stones and U2 shows.
During both Stones shows it was a chaos of poor people without tickets near the stadium, mostly very wild: I've seen many robberies of tickes, fights with knifes, guns!!! and many injuries, it was very scary and a complete disaster. The local promoter has had a demand of almost 1,000 people and the legal issues are still on the court after 9 months.

Contrarily, I had no problems during the U2 concert, other kind of people, much "richer" to say something, no robbery of tickets and zero fights in the streets.

Finally, with tickets at $10 USD the Stones could sell 10 times or more the stadium, U2 about 6, not more. Word.

[Moggio]

We don't need to wait until the end of their tour to see that in Europe they have much more difficulties to sold their tickets than U2, a big difference that can't be explain only by the higher price of Stones' tickets

Is that a joke? I assume it is because of your wink icon...

[Mulvanaghty]

It is true that in Europe, that there were plenty of tickets left at the lower price levels for the Stones. I attempted to buy such tickets for each of though shows and they were available either the day before or the day of the show.

You do know that scalpers have up to 50% of the house for major concerts, don't you? And once again, the Stones' ticket prices are HIGHER than U2's and that makes a DIFFERENCE in terms of the amount of tickets to be sold.

The Stones just played 21 shows in Europe and failed to sellout most of the shows. In addition, a few shows were cancelled because not enough tickets were sold.

Once again, since you can't seem to get this through your head, the Stones' ticket prices are HIGHER than U2's and that makes a DIFFERENCE in terms of the amount of tickets to be sold.

That does not bode well for return dates the following year, but obviously, with a year away from the market, some of the demand will naturally return to support more shows.

They'll also be playing in several markets that they didn't hit earlier this year.

In contrast all of U2's 32 shows in Europe were soldout within minutes or hours. The 32 shows were done in under 3 months. There is plenty of untapped demand for U2 in the European market given the rapid rate of sellout, attendance level, and the record breaking gross. The same cannot be said for the Stones.

Totally incorrect, as I've already gone over.

No band or artist is ALWAYS a larger draw than another. That smacks of wishful thinking.

I know that. I'm specifically talking about the Stones compared to U2.

Let the results come in, and everyone judge the results based on the facts rather than purely imagining that its this way or that way.

I'm not imagining anything. I'm simply telling you that U2 WILL NOT hold the UK/European tour gross record for long. And I know you know that.

Pink Floyd have only had two full world tours since the end of their Animals tour in 1977. Far to little to make any sort of meaningful estimate about a hypothetical Pink Floyd tour in the future, especially since they have not done anything in 13 years. Lets stick with artist that are actually active and have relevant concert statistics that can actually be compared instead of getting into rock n'roll fantasy land where ones favorite classic rock band goes on tour and conquers all before them.

After Floyd's reunion at Live 8 in July of 2005, Michael Cohl offered them $150 million USD of pure profit (the gross would've been around $200 million USD) for a North American tour. They turned it down. Cohl then offered them $250 milion USD of pure profit (the gross would've been around $375 million) for a North American AND UK/European tour. They again, turned it down. And if they were offered shows in Australia, New Zealand, Japan & South America, Floyd would've grossed at least $500 million USD and a pure profit of $375 million USD, WITHOUT any return engagements.

So to say Floyd couldn't outdraw U2 or the Stones, is simply wrong.

Anyways, hear are the results for both tours for outside USA/Canada:

Rolling Stones: A Bigger Bang Tour(outside USA/Canada)

GROSS: $155,512,086
ATTENDANCE: 1,557,137
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,319,780
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 43,254
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $99.87
SHOWS: 36
SELLOUTS: 11

U2: VERTIGO TOUR(outside USA/Canada)to date:

GROSS: $233,384,037
ATTENDANCE: 2,995,489
AVERAGE GROSS PER SHOW: $4,965,618
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE PER SHOW: 63,734
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $77.91
SHOWS: 47
SELLOUTS: 47

The Rolling Stones FAILED to sellout a single stadium sized venue in Europe this past summer! That alone really sums it up.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. ONCE AGAIN, the Stones HAVE NOT finished touring this album and HAVE NOT toured the UK/European PROPERLY yet. Once they do, U2's record will be broken by the Stones. And ONCE AGAIN, the Stones' ticket prices are HIGHER than U2's. If the Stones' ticket prices were the same as U2's, the Stones wouldn't have trouble selling out their shows at all. Not only that but U2 performed 25% more shows outside North America than the Stones have done so far, so OF COURSE U2's gross is going to be higher FOR THE TIME BEING.

Please stop spinning the facts.

U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour. Its more accurate to say that U2 have not toured the world properly than to that the Stones have not.

Having ticket prices that are on average 25% higher does not explain why the Stones failed to sellout a single stadium sized venue in Europe! The fact is, there were plenty of tickets available at ALL TICKET PRICE LEVELS the day of show in nearly all the shows in Europe. Fans who could not afford the more expensive tickets could have purchased the cheapest tickets because they were still available in large quantities. In addition, scalpers attempting to avoid losing money sell their tickets below market value when shows fail to sellout. The fact of the matter is, this was a buyers market once it came down to show time with so many tickets not sold.

An average of 20 dollars difference in ticket price does not explain the huge difference in sales performance between U2 and the Stones in Europe. On the one hand, you have U2 selling out 32 stadium shows within minutes or hours of going on sale leaving tens of thousands of fans in each market without tickets, then you have the Stones putting tickets on sale a full 6 months before shows are suppost to happen and they can't manage to sellout EVEN ONE STADIUM in EUROPE! Yet, were supposed to believe the only reason this happened is because the Stones charged on average an extra $20 dollars for tickets? Anyone with any sort of knowledge of business can see that based on the results for Europe so far, the Stones are the weaker artist this time around in touring.

Take a place like Argentina where the Stones have always prior to these two tours, had considerably higher attendance and gross. This time around, average ticket price was roughly equal with U2's slightly higher and U2 outgrossed and higher attendance than the Stones. The Stones did not even try in Brazil, and instead had a FREE concert. What happened to the Stones Hawaii concert? It was cancelled do to poor ticket sales.

Sure, the Stones technically could tour Europe next summer, but so could U2 as well, and we all know that based on the previous results, that U2 would continue to outpace the Stones in Europe.


Don't know what your source is for Michael Cohl and his offers for a Pink Floyd tour, but those figures are not really that impressive. There more in line with what the Stones and U2 are doing now, rather than being something on a much grander scale. Hell, Michael Cohl's deal with U2 back in 1997 for POPMART was $100 million dollar profit. I can't believe his initial offer for a Pink Floyd tour in 2007 was only $150 million dollars. Thats lower than what he is paying for the Stones or what U2 is getting in todays terms.

In any event, any talk of Pink Floyd and what they could do is just that, TALK. About is relevant as discussing what the Beatles, Zepplin, Abba, Police, or any other rock band that is no more could do on the reunion concert circuit scene.

Finally, any artist who sells out a show or multiple shows in minutes or hours has yet to come close to satisfying the demand in that particular market. The only evidence that shows a band has reached the saturation point in a particular market is when shows stop selling out, or take a very long time to sellout. In, a nutshell, that is the difference between U2's Vertigo Tour in Europe, and the Stones Bigger Bang Tour in Europe.

[Mulvanaghty]

double post

[Mulvanaghty]

Argentina, a long time base for Stones popularity anywhere, where the Stones had previously beaten U2 in concert gross and attendance, did not happen this time around. Despite similar ticket prices, U2's attendance level and gross were higher for their shows in Argentina than the Stones.

We're talking about 9,000 tickets difference on 2 shows. The Stones stage was bigger, plus they had the b-stage in the middle of the stadium and the corridor, the 9,000 tickets difference is there, U2 had the full field.

And about ticket prices, the Stones audience here is a lot younger and poor than U2, the tickets prices were around $60 USD average, that's about 50% of the monthly salary for the 60% of the country. I spent 60% of my monthly salary for both, Stones and U2 shows.
During both Stones shows it was a chaos of poor people without tickets near the stadium, mostly very wild: I've seen many robberies of tickes, fights with knifes, guns!!! and many injuries, it was very scary and a complete disaster. The local promoter has had a demand of almost 1,000 people and the legal issues are still on the court after 9 months.

Contrarily, I had no problems during the U2 concert, other kind of people, much "richer" to say something, no robbery of tickets and zero fights in the streets.

Finally, with tickets at $10 USD the Stones could sell 10 times or more the stadium, U2 about 6, not more. Word.

What ever excuse you want to use, it does not change the fact that U2 solidly beat the Stones in Argentina, a market where the Stones had previously had a strong lead. U2's stage is just as large as the Stones in terms of what it takes up on the field. The Stones have had no problem attempting to play to similar capacitities of people at the same venues that they did on previous tours. The difference in ticket sales and GROSS is not do to the size of the stage, but to demand in the market.

Debating the income of fans of particular bands is irrelevent to the discussion really, and can only be assumed because no study was done to track and record whether this assumption is true or not. If anything, Stones fans come from a broader age demographic weighted towards older fans who will on average have more money than younger fans.

If the Stones really still do have the stronger fan base in Argentina than U2, they would have outgrossed and higher attendance than U2 on their recent tour there, but the fact is they did not.

[Moggio]

U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour. Its more accurate to say that U2 have not toured the world properly than to that the Stones have not.

Why do you continue to spin the facts? U2 could not play to more than 10-20% more people in ANY market worldwide than they already have on their current tour due to the sales based on their latest studio album. If U2's demand is as high as you say it is, then they would've done a second UK/European leg this year. But have they? NO. They're touring primarily in the Southern Hemisphere this year, where they are making less money than they would be making if they booked a second UK/European leg.

Having ticket prices that are on average 25% higher does not explain why the Stones failed to sellout a single stadium sized venue in Europe!

Yes it does. Do you know ANYTHING about economics?

The fact is, there were plenty of tickets available at ALL TICKET PRICE LEVELS the day of show in nearly all the shows in Europe. Fans who could not afford the more expensive tickets could have purchased the cheapest tickets because they were still available in large quantities. In addition, scalpers attempting to avoid losing money sell their tickets below market value when shows fail to sellout. The fact of the matter is, this was a buyers market once it came down to show time with so many tickets not sold.

The only fact here is that what you're saying is wrong because the Stones wouldn't be planning a second PROPER UK/European leg next year if that was true.

An average of 20 dollars difference in ticket price does not explain the huge difference in sales performance between U2 and the Stones in Europe. On the one hand, you have U2 selling out 32 stadium shows within minutes or hours of going on sale leaving tens of thousands of fans in each market without tickets, then you have the Stones putting tickets on sale a full 6 months before shows are suppost to happen and they can't manage to sellout EVEN ONE STADIUM in EUROPE! Yet, were supposed to believe the only reason this happened is because the Stones charged on average an extra $20 dollars for tickets? Anyone with any sort of knowledge of business can see that based on the results for Europe so far, the Stones are the weaker artist this time around in touring.

Once again, do you know anything about economics whatsoever? Of course it has to do with the ticket prices as to why the Stones aren't selling more tickets than U2 in the UK/Europe. You must be joking. For example, since the Stones grossed about $155.5 million USD from 36 shows outside the US/Canada on this tour at an average of around $100 USD, it means that since U2 grossed about $233 million USD from 47 shows outside of the US/Canada at an average of about $78 USD, that the Stones would've grossed around $200 million USD from their 36 shows outside of the US/Canada if their average ticket price was the same as U2's. And again, since the Stones aren't finished touring the UK/Europe yet, it means that next summer all they will have to do is book 10 more shows at U2's prices or 16 shows at their own prices (they'll surely book more though) there to top U2's European tour gross record, since the Stones average over $4 million USD per show.

Take a place like Argentina where the Stones have always prior to these two tours, had considerably higher attendance and gross. This time around, average ticket price was roughly equal with U2's slightly higher and U2 outgrossed and higher attendance than the Stones. The Stones did not even try in Brazil, and instead had a FREE concert. What happened to the Stones Hawaii concert? It was cancelled do to poor ticket sales.

THE STONES' ARE NOT FINISHED TOURING YET. And this example you've brought up is a rare occurrence because as previously stated by a poster, the Argentinian economy is not stable at the moment...

Sure, the Stones technically could tour Europe next summer, but so could U2 as well, and we all know that based on the previous results, that U2 would continue to outpace the Stones in Europe.

But that's not true, as I've explicitly gone over.

Don't know what your source is for Michael Cohl and his offers for a Pink Floyd tour, but those figures are not really that impressive. There more in line with what the Stones and U2 are doing now, rather than being something on a much grander scale. Hell, Michael Cohl's deal with U2 back in 1997 for POPMART was $100 million dollar profit. I can't believe his initial offer for a Pink Floyd tour in 2007 was only $150 million dollars. Thats lower than what he is paying for the Stones or what U2 is getting in todays terms.

LOL! Floyd's tour offers were ALL over the media last year. You must be joking. NO ONE has been offered that much money in pure profit for a world tour WITHOUT any return engagements in HISTORY.

U2's $100 million USD profit in 1997-98 was for their ENTIRE PopMart world tour, not just for their North America legs, like Floyd's recent offer was for. And it is not lower than what the Stones or U2 would be receiving for a single tour WITHOUT return engagements. U2 will have a pure profit of basically $275 million USD, including return engagements, for their ENTIRE Vertigo tour when it finishes next week. While the Stones will have a pure profit of at least $375 million USD, including return engagements, once they finish their tour next year.

In any event, any talk of Pink Floyd and what they could do is just that, TALK. About is relevant as discussing what the Beatles, Zepplin, Abba, Police, or any other rock band that is no more could do on the reunion concert circuit scene.

It is not just talk. They are FACTS, as of at least last year.

Finally, any artist who sells out a show or multiple shows in minutes or hours has yet to come close to satisfying the demand in that particular market. The only evidence that shows a band has reached the saturation point in a particular market is when shows stop selling out, or take a very long time to sellout. In, a nutshell, that is the difference between U2's Vertigo Tour in Europe, and the Stones Bigger Bang Tour in Europe.

In a nutshell, you're off the mark, as I've previously and explicitly gone over.

[TheRock1984]

We don't need to wait until the end of their tour to see that in Europe they have much more difficulties to sold their tickets than U2, a big difference that can't be explain only by the higher price of Stones' tickets

Is that a joke? I assume it is because of your wink icon...

The guy knows much about music charts he is kinda a nerd but he doesn't know a sh*t about tours and all the buissnness

[TheRock1984]

I'd like to see if U2 sells as much ticket as the Stones in 20 years because you can't really compare a band whose been touring non stop for 40 years and another for 20 years...

[john2000]

One of the main reason of the huge success of U2 last tour is that they do play so often in stadiums.

When was the last stadium tour in Europe ? 8 or 9 years before or something like that. So no surprise they sold out. If they were touring like some bands every year or 2 years, it would not be the same thing ...

[Mulvanaghty]

One of the main reason of the huge success of U2 last tour is that they do play so often in stadiums.

When was the last stadium tour in Europe ? 8 or 9 years before or something like that. So no surprise they sold out. If they were touring like some bands every year or 2 years, it would not be the same thing ...

For a full stadium tour, it was 8 years between 1997 and 2005. But U2 did do 30 arena shows, and 3 stadiums in Europe in 2001.

Typically, as long as you wait at least 3 years before you hit a particular market again, you will not experience any saturation problems from the market being played too often. In addition, waiting any longer beyond beyond 3 years will only marginally improve results and in some cases, could make them worse as to much time away sometimes has a negative effect. At the same time coming back after 15 to 20 years makes a tour seem like potentially the last one which revs up ticket sales.

Most of the bands who tour every year or two years are still struggling to build up a fan base and would probably see their concert stats worsen with more time away. If U2 or the Stones toured every year, they would obviously see their average results drop, but they would still be way ahead of most other artist touring that frequently.

[Mulvanaghty]

I'd like to see if U2 sells as much ticket as the Stones in 20 years because you can't really compare a band whose been touring non stop for 40 years and another for 20 years...

You can compare any artist latest tour and album to any other artist latest tour album. Does not matter how long you have been in the industry in terms of what is currently popular.

[Fedepeti]

Argentina, a long time base for Stones popularity anywhere, where the Stones had previously beaten U2 in concert gross and attendance, did not happen this time around. Despite similar ticket prices, U2's attendance level and gross were higher for their shows in Argentina than the Stones.

We're talking about 9,000 tickets difference on 2 shows. The Stones stage was bigger, plus they had the b-stage in the middle of the stadium and the corridor, the 9,000 tickets difference is there, U2 had the full field.

And about ticket prices, the Stones audience here is a lot younger and poor than U2, the tickets prices were around $60 USD average, that's about 50% of the monthly salary for the 60% of the country. I spent 60% of my monthly salary for both, Stones and U2 shows.
During both Stones shows it was a chaos of poor people without tickets near the stadium, mostly very wild: I've seen many robberies of tickes, fights with knifes, guns!!! and many injuries, it was very scary and a complete disaster. The local promoter has had a demand of almost 1,000 people and the legal issues are still on the court after 9 months.

Contrarily, I had no problems during the U2 concert, other kind of people, much "richer" to say something, no robbery of tickets and zero fights in the streets.

Finally, with tickets at $10 USD the Stones could sell 10 times or more the stadium, U2 about 6, not more. Word.

What ever excuse you want to use, it does not change the fact that U2 solidly beat the Stones in Argentina, a market where the Stones had previously had a strong lead. U2's stage is just as large as the Stones in terms of what it takes up on the field. The Stones have had no problem attempting to play to similar capacitities of people at the same venues that they did on previous tours. The difference in ticket sales and GROSS is not do to the size of the stage, but to demand in the market.

Debating the income of fans of particular bands is irrelevent to the discussion really, and can only be assumed because no study was done to track and record whether this assumption is true or not. If anything, Stones fans come from a broader age demographic weighted towards older fans who will on average have more money than younger fans.

If the Stones really still do have the stronger fan base in Argentina than U2, they would have outgrossed and higher attendance than U2 on their recent tour there, but the fact is they did not.

Dude, I live here and I know the audience of both bands, it's the day and the night: the Stones fans are mostly young kids from the worst side of the country, U2 fans are people with money. Back in 1995 or 1998 the economy was much better than now and the differences between siciety levels was much less than now. In 2001 all went to hell here, we had 5 presidents in a week, 50 deaths in the streets during that week and 5 years later the rich people is much richer now and the poor people is almost excluded.
The Stones fan base here is 2 or 3 times the size of U2's fanbase, the difference is MONEY.

[TheRock1984]

If U2 or the Stones toured every year, they would obviously see their average results drop

Exactly!

for exemple When KISS made their reunion tour with all 4 former members in 1996-97 they sold out many stadiums and arenas worldwide with a top grossing tour. after that they release a new album in 1998 with also the original members, "psycho circus" which was a top 3 album and went gold in the states and the 98-99 worldwide tour in support of the album was also huge, then they began their farewell tour with all the original members in 2000, at first it was a hit in 2000 and 2001 but then by 2002 they saturated the market beacuse of the non stop touring since the reunion tour never coming to an end and many shows were not sold out. They had to team up with Aerosmith in 2003 and it was a success but then still decided to tour in 2004 with a world tour and even if the tour grossed good bucks most of shows were very poor in terms of tickets sold because they have saturated too much the market from touring each year since 1996... that's definetely not the case with U2 and the stones because they tour each 3 or 4 years.

[Mulvanaghty]

U2 have not met the demand in for them in virtually all of the regions they have played so far on tour. Its more accurate to say that U2 have not toured the world properly than to that the Stones have not.

Why do you continue to spin the facts? U2 could not play to more than 10-20% more people in ANY market worldwide than they already have on their current tour due to the sales based on their latest studio album. If U2's demand is as high as you say it is, then they would've done a second UK/European leg this year. But have they? NO. They're touring primarily in the Southern Hemisphere this year, where they are making less money than they would be making if they booked a second UK/European leg.

Having ticket prices that are on average 25% higher does not explain why the Stones failed to sellout a single stadium sized venue in Europe!

Yes it does. Do you know ANYTHING about economics?

The fact is, there were plenty of tickets available at ALL TICKET PRICE LEVELS the day of show in nearly all the shows in Europe. Fans who could not afford the more expensive tickets could have purchased the cheapest tickets because they were still available in large quantities. In addition, scalpers attempting to avoid losing money sell their tickets below market value when shows fail to sellout. The fact of the matter is, this was a buyers market once it came down to show time with so many tickets not sold.

The only fact here is that what you're saying is wrong because the Stones wouldn't be planning a second PROPER UK/European leg next year if that was true.

An average of 20 dollars difference in ticket price does not explain the huge difference in sales performance between U2 and the Stones in Europe. On the one hand, you have U2 selling out 32 stadium shows within minutes or hours of going on sale leaving tens of thousands of fans in each market without tickets, then you have the Stones putting tickets on sale a full 6 months before shows are suppost to happen and they can't manage to sellout EVEN ONE STADIUM in EUROPE! Yet, were supposed to believe the only reason this happened is because the Stones charged on average an extra $20 dollars for tickets? Anyone with any sort of knowledge of business can see that based on the results for Europe so far, the Stones are the weaker artist this time around in touring.

Once again, do you know anything about economics whatsoever? Of course it has to do with the ticket prices as to why the Stones aren't selling more tickets than U2 in the UK/Europe. You must be joking. For example, since the Stones grossed about $155.5 million USD from 36 shows outside the US/Canada on this tour at an average of around $100 USD, it means that since U2 grossed about $233 million USD from 47 shows outside of the US/Canada at an average of about $78 USD, that the Stones would've grossed around $200 million USD from their 36 shows outside of the US/Canada if their average ticket price was the same as U2's. And again, since the Stones aren't finished touring the UK/Europe yet, it means that next summer all they will have to do is book 10 more shows at U2's prices or 16 shows at their own prices (they'll surely book more though) there to top U2's European tour gross record, since the Stones average over $4 million USD per show.

Take a place like Argentina where the Stones have always prior to these two tours, had considerably higher attendance and gross. This time around, average ticket price was roughly equal with U2's slightly higher and U2 outgrossed and higher attendance than the Stones. The Stones did not even try in Brazil, and instead had a FREE concert. What happened to the Stones Hawaii concert? It was cancelled do to poor ticket sales.

THE STONES' ARE NOT FINISHED TOURING YET. And this example you've brought up is a rare occurrence because as previously stated by a poster, the Argentinian economy is not stable at the moment...

Sure, the Stones technically could tour Europe next summer, but so could U2 as well, and we all know that based on the previous results, that U2 would continue to outpace the Stones in Europe.

But that's not true, as I've explicitly gone over.

Don't know what your source is for Michael Cohl and his offers for a Pink Floyd tour, but those figures are not really that impressive. There more in line with what the Stones and U2 are doing now, rather than being something on a much grander scale. Hell, Michael Cohl's deal with U2 back in 1997 for POPMART was $100 million dollar profit. I can't believe his initial offer for a Pink Floyd tour in 2007 was only $150 million dollars. Thats lower than what he is paying for the Stones or what U2 is getting in todays terms.

LOL! Floyd's tour offers were ALL over the media last year. You must be joking. NO ONE has been offered that much money in pure profit for a world tour WITHOUT any return engagements in HISTORY.

U2's $100 million USD profit in 1997-98 was for their ENTIRE PopMart world tour, not just for their North America legs, like Floyd's recent offer was for. And it is not lower than what the Stones or U2 would be receiving for a single tour WITHOUT return engagements. U2 will have a pure profit of basically $275 million USD, including return engagements, for their ENTIRE Vertigo tour when it finishes next week. While the Stones will have a pure profit of at least $375 million USD, including return engagements, once they finish their tour next year.

In any event, any talk of Pink Floyd and what they could do is just that, TALK. About is relevant as discussing what the Beatles, Zepplin, Abba, Police, or any other rock band that is no more could do on the reunion concert circuit scene.

It is not just talk. They are FACTS, as of at least last year.

Finally, any artist who sells out a show or multiple shows in minutes or hours has yet to come close to satisfying the demand in that particular market. The only evidence that shows a band has reached the saturation point in a particular market is when shows stop selling out, or take a very long time to sellout. In, a nutshell, that is the difference between U2's Vertigo Tour in Europe, and the Stones Bigger Bang Tour in Europe.

In a nutshell, you're off the mark, as I've previously and explicitly gone over.

U2 reserved dates for Stadiums in both Europe and North America for 2006, but did not take up the option to tour there because of an illness in the Edge's family. In fact, the band almost did not tour at all because of this illness in his family. It impacted the entire tour and forced the the band to postpone tour dates this year as well as scrub idea's about hitting the North American and European markets in the summer of 2006.

You have to realize there are a whole host of other factors that come in to whether a band tours certain markets, plays x number of shows etc, other than just market demand for the artist. If U2 were not completely selling out their shows in Europe like the Stones, then you could claim that the band had properly played the European market and had reached the saturation point. Album sales are not really a factor when you selling out 60,000 tickets in individual markets in minutes or hours.

Here are some facts from Paul McGuinness of U2 on the tour from the U2 by U2 biography just released:

"The tour was scheduled around Edge getting home at night, the core idea being that, certainly on the American leg of the tour he would never be away from his fmaily in LA for more than three days. So we had to completely reschedule at short notice, there were a lot of gaps built in and a lot less dates, with the result that when the tickets went on sale there were a lot of disappointed people, which I suppose is inevitable in a SITUATION WHERE WE WERE UNDERPLAYING WORLDWIDE."


I understand economics, especially the term price elasticity which is something Michael Cohl took advantage of in the price ranges he charged for the Stones in Europe and North America. The Stones average ticket price was pushed up by charging $350 dollars or 300 Euro for the best seats in the house. The price elasticity for such seats is inelastic because the seats our purchased by fans that for whom price is not really much of factor compared to the average fan.

Still, for the cheapest seats, there were STILL TICKETS available which knocks down this whole idea that the Stones did not sellout because the prices were to high. If that was really the case, all of the cheap tickets would have soldout, but they didn't.

As Paul McGuinness correctly stated, U2 underplayed the world on the Vertigo tour, based on the number of shows they played, and the rate of and number of sellouts. Anyone who works in any sort of business can easily recognize a HIGH IN DEMAND product when it sells immediately when its put on the shelf for sale. That is what has happened with every U2 show on the Vertigo tour. There is no doubt that U2 could have returned to Europe for another 30 shows in the summer of 2006 if they had felt like it, and Edge did not have an ill person in his family that caused restrictions on the tour.

I know you want to desperately believe otherwise, but the concert statistics so far tell the truth. The Stones have always generally had a higher ticket price than U2 but it did not prevent them from selling out their shows in Europe! The Stones average ticket price is not so much higher than U2's, only 25% in fact, that it would prevent them from selling out any of their shows in Europe. Its not saying that ticket prices are never factors, but that an average ticket price that is 25% higher does not explain the difference between an artist who cannot sellout a single show, and one that sells out ALL their shows in only minutes or hours of going on sale. Everyone should be able to see the difference.

If the ticket prices were the issue, we would see sellouts of all the tickets priced in the lower ranges and large blocks of tickets still available at the higher prices. But, you could still purchase tickets at ALL PRICES for the entire 6 months that most Stones shows were still on sale.

The only return engagements that U2 had on the Vertigo tour were for a small number of markets in North America. Fantasize all you want to about Pink Floyd or any other classic rock band that has not done anything in years or decades, but lets deal with artist that are actually active and relevant to the discussion.

[TheRock1984]

I'd like to see if U2 sells as much ticket as the Stones in 20 years because you can't really compare a band whose been touring non stop for 40 years and another for 20 years...

You can compare any artist latest tour and album to any other artist latest tour album. Does not matter how long you have been in the industry in terms of what is currently popular.

well in 2026 when the Stones had retired (I hope so ) and if U2 will still be touring a la Stones this year we'll see if they draw as much people and gross so much money. U2 is definetely the #1 band in the world nowadays in terms of selling records and tours but the stones have been in the industry for twice more time and that's quite an achievment because I don't see many bands from their era making huge tour these days so to be fair we'll have to see what U2 does in the next years.

[Mulvanaghty]

Here is a further break down and comparison of how the U2 Vertigo Tour did in Europe compared to the Stones A Bigger Bang Tour:

Rolling Stones: A Bigger Bang Tour Europe

GROSS: $102,902,054
ATTENDANCE: 985,819
AVERAGE GROSS: $4,900,097
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 46,943
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $104.38
SHOWS: 21
SELLOUTS: 1


U2: VERTIGO TOUR EUROPE

GROSS: $155,932,214
ATTENDANCE: 1,982,458
AVERAGE GROSS: $4,872,882
AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 61,952
AVERAGE TICKET PRICE: $78.66
SHOWS: 32
SELLOUTS: 32


With shows from other parts of the world edited out, the Stones figures improve slightly vs. U2's figures but the results are essentially the same. U2 had a 50% higher gross, and played to more than TWICE as many people as the Stones did in Europe. Average gross for the Stones in Europe is about $27,000 dollars higher than U2's average gross, but if U2 simply had an average ticket price that was only 45 cents higher, U2's average gross would still be higher. In addition, average attendence is a full 33% higher than the Stones average attendance.

[Mulvanaghty]

I'd like to see if U2 sells as much ticket as the Stones in 20 years because you can't really compare a band whose been touring non stop for 40 years and another for 20 years...

You can compare any artist latest tour and album to any other artist latest tour album. Does not matter how long you have been in the industry in terms of what is currently popular.

well in 2026 when the Stones had retired (I hope so ) and if U2 will still be touring a la Stones this year we'll see if they draw as much people and gross so much money. U2 is definetely the #1 band in the world nowadays in terms of selling records and tours but the stones have been in the industry for twice more time and that's quite an achievment because I don't see many bands from their era making huge tour these days so to be fair we'll have to see what U2 does in the next years.

Well, in that sense, I understand. U2 may retire prior to turning 60 in which case the comparison will never be made. I'll say this though, U2 are selling more albums of their latest product relative to what the Stones were selling of their latest releases at this comparable time in their career. I realize a direct comparison is not totally accurate do to differences in the market between decades, but relative to how well they were doing in the market in the respective time periods, U2's albums are selling better.

[Mulvanaghty]

Lets go into even more detail about the numbers for the two tours outside the USA/Canada. The recent U2 and Stones tours played 15 of the same cities. In these 15 cities, U2 outgrossed the Stones in 13 of them. In the two cities where the Stones managed a higher gross, their shows did not sellout while U2's shows had soldout within minutes or hours showing that U2 had underplayed the city while the Stones had exhausted demand in these cities and could not add more shows unlike U2.


BUENOS AIRES

U2
March 1-2, 2006 : River Plate Stadium : GROSS $6,966,821 : ATTENDANCE 150,424 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

The Rolling Stones
February 21,23, 2006 : River Plate Stadium : GROSS $6,483,997 : ATTENDANCE 141,092 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

Buenos Aires used to be a city that was always dominated by the Stones. But that is no longer the case now.




MEXICO CITY

U2
February 15-16, 2006 : Estadio Azteca : GROSS $10,257,284 : ATTENDANCE 141,278 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

The Rolling Stones
February 26, 2006 : Foro Sol : GROSS $5,206,428 : ATTENDANCE 51,482 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

U2 come away with near double the GROSS of the Stones in Mexico City.




SYDNEY

U2
November 10-11, 13, 2006 : Telstra Stadium : GROSS $18,538,724 : ATTENDANCE 206,568 : SHOWS 3 : SELLOUTS 3

The Rolling Stones
April 11, 2006 : Telstra Stadium : GROSS $5,036,002 : ATTENDANCE 58,611 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

Both U2's GROSS and ATTENDANCE are nearly 4 times that of the Stones Gross and Attendance in Sydney. Here, the Stones appear to be more the level of Billy Joel and Pearl Jam, rather than U2.






MONTERREY

U2
February 12, 2006 : Estadio Tecnologico : GROSS $4,504,026 : ATTENDANCE 50,347 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

The Rolling Stones
March 1, 2006 : Estadio Universitario : GROSS $2,748,492 : ATTENDANCE 28,660 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

Much like Mexico City, U2 do nearly double the Business of the Stones in Monterrey.




LONDON

U2
June 18-19, 2005 : Twickenham Stadium : GROSS $13,677,410 : ATTENDANCE 110,796 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

The Rolling Stones
Aug. 20, 22, 2006 : Twickenham Stadium : GROSS $13,526,368 : ATTENDANCE 100,540 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 0

As close to being the Stones hometown as any other major city in England, but the Stones still are beaten handily in London by U2. Higher Gross, higher attendance, plus one of the fastest sellouts in the history of the venue for U2. The Stones shows here were on sale for 6 months, and tickets in the low price ranges were still available the day of the show.



MELBOURNE

U2
November 18-19, 2006 : Telstra Dome : GROSS $11,188,720 : ATTENDANCE 127,275 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

The Rolling Stones
April 13, 2006 : Melbourne Park, Rod Laver Arena : GROSS $2,349,428 : ATTENDANCE 13,008 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

U2 do 5 times the GROSS and 10 times the ATTENDANCE vs. the Stones. To say the Stones got crushed in this city would be an understatement.





PARIS

U2
July 9-10, 2005 : Stade De France : GROSS $11,822,645 : ATTENDANCE 160,349 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

The Rolling Stones
July 28, 2006 : Stade De France : GROSS $5,956,525 : ATTENDANCE 62,761 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

This time around the Stones get crushed by figures that show U2 grossing double of what the Stones did and doing nearly 3 times the attendance. The sellouts here for U2 were some of their fastest on the tour. Tickets were sold as fast as orders could be processed. In the end, many Paris U2 fans did not get tickets. The Stones only show leaves 20,000 tickets unsold after 6 months being on sell, in all price ranges.





AMSTERDAM

U2
July 13, 15-16, 2005 : Amsterdam Arena : GROSS $13,022,200 : ATTENDANCE 165,516 : SHOWS 3 : SELLOUTS 3

The Rolling Stones
July 31, 2006 : Amsterdam Arena : GROSS $5,585,441 :
ATTENDANCE 50,001 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

U2 do more than double the GROSS and 3 times the attendance in the city that previously was a stronger market for the Stones than U2. After being on sale for 6 months, the Stones barely cross the 50,000 mark in attendance. U2 soldout all three of its shows in just a few hours leaving many fans without tickets.





CARDIFF

U2
June 29, 2005 : Millennium Stadium : GROSS $6,406,073 : ATTENDANCE 63,677 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

The Rolling Stones
Aug. 29, 2006 : Millennium Stadium : GROSS $5,534,100 : ATTENDANCE 48,988 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

U2 outgross the Stones in another city in the Stones own country the UK. The Stones struggle for months to get across the 50,000 mark, but are simply unable to with tickets still available at all price levels day of show.




GLASGOW

U2
June 21, 2005 : Hampden Park : GROSS $5,819,053 : ATTENDANCE 53,395 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

The Rolling Stones
Aug. 25, 2006 : Hampden Park : GROSS $4,022,000 : ATTENDANCE 31,495 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

The Stones get beat in yet another city in their own country by U2.





MILAN

U2
July 20-21, 2005 : Stadio San Siro : GROSS $7,565,264 : ATTENDANCE 137,427 : SHOWS 2 : SELLOUTS 2

The Rolling Stones
July 11, 2006 : Stadio San Siro : GROSS $3,850,513 : ATTENDANCE 56,175 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

Nearly double the GROSS of the Stones and closing in on 3 times the attendance, the Stones get crushed in Milano.






VIENNA

U2
July 2, 2005 : Ernst Happel Stadion : GROSS $4,200,416 : ATTENDANCE 55,645 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

The Rolling Stones
July 14, 2006 : Ernst Happel Stadion : GROSS $3,512,366 : ATTENDANCE 39,328 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

The Stones lose again in another city that they used to be the biggest draw in.




ZURICH

The Rolling Stones
Aug. 5, 2006 : Dubendorf Airfield : GROSS $8,146,543 : ATTENDANCE 65,135 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

U2
July 18, 2005 : Stadion Letzigrund : GROSS $3,574,993 : ATTENDANCE 44,260 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

Finally, the Stones find a city where they actually are able to top U2. But considering that the U2 show here soldout in only a few hours, one wonders how much more business U2 could have done in Zurich. The Stones like all the other markets they have played on this tour exaust all demand failing once again to sellout.





MUNICH

The Rolling Stones
July 16, 2006 : Olympiastadion : GROSS $5,770,265 : ATTENDANCE 53,501 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

U2
August 3, 2005 : Olympiastadion : GROSS $5,343,379 : ATTENDANCE 77,435 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

The Stones achieve a slightly higher GROSS than U2 in Munich, but the U2 show soldout in only a few hours leaving plenty of fans in the area without tickets. In contrast, the Stones show is on sell for months, and barely makes it across the 50,000 mark. Its another city that is perhaps underplayed by U2, and one in which the Stones exaust all available demand. U2's rapid sellout and comparable gross really make this a city where U2 is the stronger concert drawer.





NICE

U2
August 5, 2005 : Parc des Sports Charles-Ehrmann : GROSS $3,548,702 : ATTENDANCE 51,900 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 1

The Rolling Stones
Aug. 8, 2006 : Le Palais Nikala : GROSS $3,356,525 : ATTENDANCE 46,882 : SHOWS 1 : SELLOUTS 0

Yet another European city where U2 outgrosses the Stones.





Despite the Stones and Michael Cohls best efforts, the Stones were only able to outgross U2 in two of the same cities which both tours visited, Zurich and Munich. But even in these two cities, its unknown how much more business U2 could have done because the shows were rapid sellouts on the day of sale. The Stones by comparison maxed out in each city. The other 13 cities show that U2 is now the dominate band in terms of touring outside the USA/Canada.

[Basil]

Fact is, The Stones have toured too much.

N.B. - I'm a great fan and saw them
Stafford - 1976
Wembley - 1982
Wembley - 1990
Twickenham - 2002

The 1976 show was the greatest gig I've ever seen. They delivered a blistering set with few props and staggering energy and a devastating last 20 minutes.

They were at their (live show) peak in 1973 with Mick Taylor. Alas I was too young to attend. Because of contractual hassles they couldn't release a live album then - and still can't for 1973. However bootleg tapes demonstrate their prowess at that time.

Also the audience was under 30 and matched the energy of the band.

1982 was good but in a bl**dy stadium

1990 was still good - but I swore no more stadiums ever.

2002 broke the stadium rule to take young family members as a treat. Band the best I've seen them since 1976.

Now they are touring yet again and I won't be going. It's a case of diminishing returns.


Throughout the 90's they were the biggest touring band. They played no less than 6 nights in stadiums in places like Oakland, Buenos Aires, New York and Tokyo. No other bands could compete at that time.

In Europe their biggest markets were Germany and Holland - 6 nights at the Amsterdam Arena.


However, anyone who has ever wanted to see them already has by now - both older fans and younger ones who are curious about such a legendary band.

They still put on a great show - maybe even better than U2 for some - but that is irrelevant because for older fans it's the same old set list (with a few night to night variations) and for younger fans they have seen the band once and satisfied their curiosity.

Finally, the ticket prices are now ludicrous and I refuse to pay so much for a stadium show.

They would have been better advised to play arenas in Europe and the UK - I would maybe have gone to see them then.