X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-10 20:20 by UrbanSteel.

So what would you rather have a tour that makes money with sloppy playing or a tour that doesn't make a cent which is their strongest ever.

This top ten is the sort of thing detractors use to show that the Stones are just a money making machine and the music is secondary and they have a point.

yep embarassing...

And what is the ratio between the number of shows against the money total?
In other words, what was the average they earned per show.
That would be a more interresting figure to compare.

For example, maybe The Police did only 75 shows, that makes per show about 4.83 million per show.
The Stones did maybe 120 shows (I can't find that quick the right numbers...), that makes per show about 4.65 million.

If you compare these figures I should say The Police did a better job.....

Mr.Ed

As shown in other treads, it seems that this figures also make some Stones fans proud. In reality is only meaningfull for those behind this business. When I go to a concert I could not care less if they are making 3.75 or 3.12 million or what ever, I only care about having a good time, which is the case all the time.

And yes, I would love for them to make me pay LESS, but again this is not the main reason why I attend or not a Stones concert.

And to think that if Percy wanted Zep could top all that so easely.

ZZ TOP's - World Wide Texas Tour 1976

Are there any stats on actual total audience attendances on these tours? Would it jig the order of the top 10 much I wonder.
That (to me at least) is more relevant than the Great $ God.

Madonna never plays that many shows on her tours. She must have been asking a mint for her tickets.

It would be great to see the list modified to show top 10 as far as total attendance and number of shows.

Quote
leteyer


And to think that if Percy wanted Zep could top all that so easely.

So could Gilmour, Waters, and Mason, if they toured as Pink Floyd.

Quote
Mr.Ed
And what is the ratio between the number of shows against the money total?
In other words, what was the average they earned per show.


Mr.Ed

I think these number are what is earned by selling tickets. It would be interesting business wise if they had the numbers on what they actually earned on eacht tour. So take away all the costs and only show the actual profit.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
DGA35
It would be great to see the list modified to show top 10 as far as total attendance and number of shows.

[www.iorr.org]

IMHO....I think the really important list here is...Who has sold the most concert tickets ?....choose your year or decade...but I think "The WHO" hold this record....I would bet the top 20 list would look very different....peter

Quote
peter
IMHO....I think the really important list here is...Who has sold the most concert tickets ?....choose your year or decade...but I think "The WHO" hold this record....I would bet the top 20 list would look very different....peter

From a post in another thread

For the sake of giving Billboard Boxscore manager Bob Allen something more to do, we decided to compile an unofficial list of the top 10 best-attended tours of all time and see how it compares with the top 10 grosses list.
As I suspected, the Stones' Voodoo Lounge tour reigns supreme with a staggering 6.4 million tickets sold. Next is Garth Brooks' 1996-98 tour, which attracted nearly 5.5 million fans with $20 tickets. The rest of the top 10 in terms of attendance are Bridges to Babylon (5 million), A Bigger Bang (4.7 million, according to tour producer Michael Cohl), Vertigo (4.6 million), PopMart (4 million), Licks (3.5 million), Hell Freezes Over (3.4 million), the Police (3.3 million) and the Stones' 1989 Steel Wheels tour (3.26 million).
So what does the all-time best-attendance list tell us? Not much that we didn't already know: The Rolling Stones are the biggest band in the world. U2 is the second-biggest band in the world. Ticket prices are higher now than they were 15 years ago. Prices clearly have a lot to do with the top 10 grosses rankings, as only one of this year's new entrants - the Police - cracks the top 10 in terms of attendance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-16 11:53 by Ket.

Do the Bigger Bang figures include the free show in South America?

Quote
The GR
Do the Bigger Bang figures include the free show in South America?

don't think so as there were no tickets issued free or otherwise

Quote
peter
IMHO....I think the really important list here is...Who has sold the most concert tickets ?....choose your year or decade...but I think "The WHO" hold this record....I would bet the top 20 list would look very different....peter

the Who wouldnt even be close to the top, and as their 80's tours were basically limited to 81-82 and 89, thats one decade at least that you write off.

"the Stones are just a money making machine and the music is secondary and they have a point."

If the money was more important than the music then why does it explain their success over the years. There must be some reason to continually wanting to see the stones? It surely isn't a novelty anymore??

The reason for their 'success over the years' (I presume you're referring to the last decade or so) and their own modus operandi dont have to be the same, especially as it depends primarily on the public.

The public obviously still like going to see them because they're excellent entertainers. After over 2,000 shows they should be. Their ability and desire to entertain doesnt necessarily mean that it outstrips their ability and desire to generate large sums of money.

Quote
ablett
"the Stones are just a money making machine and the music is secondary and they have a point."

If the money was more important than the music then why does it explain their success over the years. There must be some reason to continually wanting to see the stones? It surely isn't a novelty anymore??

Explaining away the ongoing popularity of certain acts is another matter altogether. I cannot see, for example why Garth Brooks is so popular but he clearly is.Appeal is difficult to define, per se. As is star quality.

Seeing the Stones is a mixture of many things - being a fan of their music/ the spectacle / nostalgia. It doesn't seem to matter that you may be seeing a virtual repeat of a previous show some years previous.
I mean some people will watch the same film over and over again. Why?
Because they like it.
People will still go and see an old warhorse years after their best...they enjoy the show, just for what it is.
Of course, there could be a point when attendance numbers will diminish but as far as I can guage the Stones haven't reached that. They have though in terms of recorded sales I feel.
I think Mick has been very canny in limiting the concerts/tours...so whilst they give the impression of touring a lot, the actual figures don't bear this out (compared to say, Dylan and Young).
So that has helped keep the interest going, IMO.

Garth Brooks is not on the same league as The Stones, Garth Brooks is a local product completly unknown around the world. You can talk about RBD that sells stadiums in spanish speaking countries (and a few, very few others) or Mylene Farmer whom sells out her tour in minutes, but who outside French speaking countries have ever heard about her. Surely most people in this forum have never heard of them.

Garth Brooks would never gather 1 million people on the beaches of Rio unless he pays them and The Stones can play to large audience all over the world.

I'm not sure how liking any of the Stones' 1960s and 1970s songs can be classified as nostalgia. But in a way I get why it - seeing the Stones - can be nostagic for people. I personally think if you like the songs it doesn't matter what year or band era they are from - you just like the songs. For instance, if Gimme Shelter had come out in 2005, it certainly might not have the same monster reputation it has seeing that it's been around since 1969 but people would still love it. I know technically that is not debatable but I think you can get the gist (or is it jist?) of what I'm saying.

It's just good music, good songs, a good band, etc...and that is reason enough to like a band or a solo artist. With the Stones, that's world wide. With, as it's been mentioned, Garth Brooks - the dude is HUGE in the States. So...as far as the world goes, I dunno if it 'matters' how big GB is in Europe or China. He did what he did in the States and it worked. I don't think it's exactly a detailed importance to being popular all over the entire world if one doesn't need to be. I've never gotten the impression that country music (and any of what it is now, which is not country) is big outside of the States.

Would Led Zeppelin be big in China and Australia and Japan and wherever else the Stones are if they were to get it back together and tour? For certain I do not know the answer to that. I don't know if they are anyway.

The Rolling Stones are obviously a world wide popular band period. Their tour records - if really looked at - show that. It's not just the money - it's where they go and the audiences they draw. I think that says more than the record amounts of money made - it translates to that anyway, right? just by pure attendance. But it's the popularity that allows that to be.

And I guess that's why U2 are second on that list - they are huge across the world too.

From the Billboard article: "As I suspected, the Stones' Voodoo Lounge tour reigns supreme with a staggering 6.4 million tickets sold. Next is Garth Brooks' 1996-98 tour, which attracted nearly 5.5 million fans with $20 tickets."

I wonder how many tickets the Stones [and others] could sell if they charged only 20 bucks a head ??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-16 23:21 by gmanp.