July 11-12, 2009
Paris, France
Stade De France
GROSS: $20,902,760 (RECORD)
ATTENDANCE: 186,544 (RECORD)
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $112.05

Thanks. We were, well, 55.000 in 2007 at the same place for the Stones ?

I don't think I've ever read anything about how happy it makes Mick and Keith et al for a tour to make big money. Ronnie has stated it but I don't think I've ever read anything from Mick - "Wal, it was our biggest tour evuh! Loads of people, loads of money - the best yet!" I know Mick has talked about the 81 tour being their biggest tour but that's basically all he said, that it was their biggest. Nothing about the band or how they played, really. Pleased with demand and that's about it.

What makes a great tour? I would think the performance of the music making a happy band making happy fans. I've gone to plenty of shows and not bought one thing with exception for the ticket and had a blast. The interest of the band in the songs is what makes it for me. Based on things I've seen/heard, there was more of a phoning it in interest with the Stones on the Bang tour compared to Licks and Bridges. 'We're here, let's get it done with'. Which is what it seems like the 81 tour was like if you go by how they played SOME of the songs on that tour - 100 mph and sloppy beyond sloppy.

It does seem obvious though that the success of a tour is measured in dollar amounts first followed directly by attendance amounts measured up to the number of shows etc. Not sure I've ever read about the Stones (or U2 or whoever for that matter) expressing any real interest in the music other than Keith saying something typical like 'All the engines were firing by the end of the tour' and the usual 'It just gets better and better', which I am highly suspect of with Keith vs reality. With all that rehearsal and 'interest' in playing one might think all engines would be firing from the first show onward.

For example, The Cult - they play 1000 to 7000 seat venues (or something like that) and put on a fantastic show. They make enough money, of course, but don't seem to be really doing it for the money. I would say they make a respectable amount of money but they're motivated by playing. They don't seem to be interested in charging like a lot of the other bands. They also don't play forever or have the big stage props, which I like. It's just a simple kick ass rock show all about the songs. Fans have been ecstatic about their performances the past 3 tours. What you won't read is how successful their tour is because they aren't charging $300 a ticket and making hundreds of millions of dollars but you will read about how happy the fans are. They are glad that people come to see them - they - the band and fans - enjoy it.

I'm not saying the Stones don't - but there is a pretty big difference between the big stadium acts and the theatre/club acts.

U2's sound hasn't changed a whole lot live since ZOO TV. There was an obvious change from the previous tours with that one. But since then they've sort of sounded the same. The Stones, even though this is only about the so called Vegas Years or Tours, have had some changes for each tour - Voodoo was more exploratory of their back catalogue (I'm guessing partially because of the remasters) while playing a nice selection of new songs but a bit sloppy; Bridges was a more focused and tighter performance with the old songs sounding pretty good and the new songs sounding pretty good. Licks was probably their most focused since they had chosen to cover such a variety of their catalogue.

I know bands tend to stick with what works. And I guess the need to reinvent your sound depends on the boredom within the band but sticking somewhere near that fine line of sounding like who you are, which I guess is the nice thing about doing so many big tours is that you get to tweak that and hone it show after show.

Not sure what all of that has to do with record setting tours but I thought I'd throw it in there. I guess maybe in a sense does word of mouth get out that they are really firing (or really misfiring) and one should go see (or not bother, ha ha) this tour blah blah blah...or is there, like with this U2 tour, enough interest from the get go that how they play, ha ha, doesn't really matter, especially if one walks away from the show thinking 'What the hell are they doing?'?

I think the Stones started playing 100 mi/hr and sloppy in '72, but back then it sounded great, and full of energy. The '81/'82 tour seems tired compared to previous tours. Then everything that followed, from 89 onward, had the feel of a bit of a hits review, even '94. The best Stones show I saw was in '97, but still, the energy from the band, and the playing/ singing sans production was not anything like those pre-'81 tours. It's a great show nowadays, but for different reasons.

U2 still is musically capable of playing as solid as ever. They know how to play their instruments much better than they did in the early days!! BUT... they refuse to let go of a number of standards, which is beginning to make their shows seem slightly tired nowadays as well, which is a shame. I have not seen this latest tour, which looks great, but they need to let go of Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride and Mysterious Ways maybe.

Looks like with the stadium design (no obstructed spots on field or in rear of stadium) they are on course to outgross the Stones on this tour.

Every band has their warhorses. I think the biggest 'problem' with the Stones doing them is they've been the end of the set lists for eons. The Hot Rocks set etc. Just about everyone on the planet knows they're gonna close with Sympathy, IORR, Brown Sugar and Jumpin' Jack and or however else it has been for a while.

The funniest complaint I've read about for the entire 360 tour is that they are NOT doing Bullet The Blue Sky! I guess with the 360 shows they are pretty much front loading the set with the new album and some obscure tunes, even songs they've never played before this tour, and then they get down to the casual fan experience of the big hits. But the encore is not what one might expect, which I think is pretty cool. Imagine if the Stones did an encore with, I dunno, Casino Boogie, Dance Little Sister and Emotional Rescue. That sort of thing. Obscure to the casual fan and a nice glee for the diehard.

Skip, that would be a perfect encore, I think fans would be perfectly happy with that, even casual fans. (And who wouldn't recognize a song like Emotional Rescue?) As for U2, I read in the recent issue of RS that they even tried 'Your Blue Room' from the Passengers album... which I would have loved. They mention in the article, though, that when U2 came to America for this recent leg, they were hesitant to open with as many new songs. Clearly, our audiences here in America seem to prefer the recognizable, and the predictable, which is too bad. I wish U2 and the Stones could just enjoy the ticket sales and play a more interesting set, rather than catering to the casual fan. Looks like U2 did that in Europe, but are somewhat caving to the pressure here in the U.S.

As a fan of both bands, I've never concerned myself with how much someone I'm going to see perform gross. I could care less about what they make. My participation as a ticket holder is to enjoy a concert and experience the live event from the band playing, the production of the show and the crowds interaction with the band.

Variety in the set list and obscure tunes always make for a much better experience however as both Skipstone and Tate have eluded to, the bands must make sure they appeal to a wide swath of patrons.

They are not handing me a cashiers check or ingots of gold for my attendance. My payment is walking out of the Club, Arena, open field or Stadium with good memories of what I just experienced.

CBII

So I'm reading through this string and seeing how silly people can really be.

Let me introduce myself. I'm a huge fan of Rock Bands (U2, Stones, Pearl Jam, AC/DC, ect.)

Lets set the record straight

ALL OF THEM LIKE TO MAKE MONEY.
ALL OF THEM PUT ON GREAT LIVE SHOWS.
Stones and AC/DC don't put out good music anymore - not even playable really.

Ok so the debate here is will U2's 360 tour outgross Bigger Bang??
I think it will. I've never seen a tour selling so many tickets. Lets give credit here, I went to Giants Stadium and couldn't believe how full. Chicago and Boston same thing.

Does this make the Stones any less great live - NO. I love them too and I can love U2 also.

Now Stones vs U2 in album sales. There is no comparision at this point. Stones sell an average of 850K per album, U2 6million +. Now you might say well this isn't true with this album.. but look 2.5-3million world wide at this point is great considering NO one is selling albums right now.

I am not hear to bash either band, its just silly. Enjoy the Stones while you can their end is very near (if they do 2 full tour we'll be lucky at this time).

As a final note, I saw Bruce Springsteen 3 times this week. Not great, last show was pretty disappointing considering no special guests or anything like that!

Quote
njmusiclover2001
As a final note, I saw Bruce Springsteen 3 times this week. Not great, last show was pretty disappointing considering no special guests or anything like that!

So, why did you see him 3 times if you thought he wasn't great?

They played in Tampa last night, about 20 miles from where I am at. It was the only show for them in Florida and they said the attendance was around 70,000. I never thought about going, have seen then once and that is enough.

Mike

I like the new AC/DC record and think there are some fantastic songs on it. As well as the last Stones album. Perhaps my level of snobbery is not nearly as high as yours, njmusiclover2001? Do you like the new Pearl Jam or is that unplayable as well because it's new? Why bother then with anything new if you just want the same old songs then?

When U2 toured ZOO TV they played, almost, the entire Achtung album. In the US, in Europe, Far East, etc...even when it started to incorporate Zooropa. Why they would be shy about playing so much of the new album in the US tells me that they are either very aware that the album, of which I do not know any sales figures for, which debuted at #1 but quickly fell off the charts OR they have lost their stance with the record.

Which I've always hated about bands. 'We've got a new record coming out, it's great! It's out, it's fantastic! Uhhh, well, there are some good tunes on it. Er, it's awful, really.'

U2 has always played a lot from the new album they're touring. Them doing anything less on the 360 tour, even though I can't stand, what, Gonna Go Crazy or whatever, especially that stupid dumbass 'remix' they do, from the new album would be a shame.

They did play Your Blue Room, as well as some other obscure tunes, on the tour. They have continued to play obscure songs here and there. Hell, part of their encore is a back of the album track Ultra Violet - not a hit, not a war horse, not a single. So they have changed things up from previous tours. They're not doing the same ol' same ol' like other bands. Ha ha.

They apparently booked their extended 3rd Stade de France within less than one hour. Impressive. I do believe only Led Zeppelin could presumably outscore this in France.

I unfortunately saw U2 on the Vertigo tour,in my opinion they are worthless pish. They were always dull student music,but they don't even play their boring music very well any more.

The tickets for the concert in Portugal in October the next year sold out in 7 hours. They start selling them today. Amazing.

Quote
njmusiclover2001
So I'm reading through this string and seeing how silly people can really be.

Let me introduce myself. I'm a huge fan of Rock Bands (U2, Stones, Pearl Jam, AC/DC, ect.)

Lets set the record straight

ALL OF THEM LIKE TO MAKE MONEY.
ALL OF THEM PUT ON GREAT LIVE SHOWS.
Stones and AC/DC don't put out good music anymore - not even playable really.

Ok so the debate here is will U2's 360 tour outgross Bigger Bang??
I think it will. I've never seen a tour selling so many tickets. Lets give credit here, I went to Giants Stadium and couldn't believe how full. Chicago and Boston same thing.

Does this make the Stones any less great live - NO. I love them too and I can love U2 also.

Now Stones vs U2 in album sales. There is no comparision at this point. Stones sell an average of 850K per album, U2 6million +. Now you might say well this isn't true with this album.. but look 2.5-3million world wide at this point is great considering NO one is selling albums right now.

I am not hear to bash either band, its just silly. Enjoy the Stones while you can their end is very near (if they do 2 full tour we'll be lucky at this time).

As a final note, I saw Bruce Springsteen 3 times this week. Not great, last show was pretty disappointing considering no special guests or anything like that!

The best acts in the world dont really need 'special guests' to elevate a show into the 'great' category. Bruce doesnt, the Stones dont and U2 dont either.

Sounds like you went just for the event and to hope someone else turned up. Strange reason for buying a ticket.

Quote
Mr.Ed
At least U2 has the guts to play 70-80% of their new album and even more, they start the show with 4 new songs.
I don't see the Stones do that in their lifetimes anymore because unfortunatly they can't produce a new good album........... that's Sad Sad Sad.

Mr.Ed

I dont think the Stones failure to do play more songs from their latest release has ANYTHING to do with the quality of their new music. Its really got more to do with the quality of the audience they're aiming for.

Quote
humanriff77
I unfortunately saw U2 on the Vertigo tour,in my opinion they are worthless pish. They were always dull student music,but they don't even play their boring music very well any more.

yeah well every night 70,000 people disagree with you

Actually, having a closer look at the figures, U2 grossed 299.000.000$ after having played to 3.000.000 paying people. Thats great, but nothing that can't be surpassed by the Stones.
This wiki states [en.wikipedia.org] that the ABB attendance was around 4,7mio. I don't know if this includes the Rio concert which was free. If it does then the Stones grossed almost $560mio with only around 3 - 3.5 mio. paying people which is far more than U2's 360 tour.

Should the Stones announce their next tour as their final one then they will top the tour grossing charts again easily.

Anyway, who cares after all? :-)

Fox Business channel is saying that U2 with all their record breaking attendance figures and Grosses at the box office are operating in the RED.

For those of you interested in a live webcast of todays show in LA, check this page at 8:30pm LA (PT) / 4:30am Paris today:

[www.youtube.com]

More info here:
[www.u2.com]

Quote
nick
Fox Business channel is saying that U2 with all their record breaking attendance figures and Grosses at the box office are operating in the RED.

Old news and not that unusual. The most expensive tour overheads such as the staging are paid in advance and a tour on that scale always takes some time to break even. The Stones' Licks tour, for example, didnt break even until after about 30-35 shows.

Quote
Sir Oliver
For those of you interested in a live webcast of todays show in LA, check this page at 8:30pm LA (PT) / 4:30am Paris today:

[www.youtube.com]

More info here:
[www.u2.com]

Look for me, I will be 75 rows up on the left side of the stage.

U2 360 TOUR 2009-2010: Tour Stats to date
GROSS: $443,140,099
ATTENDANCE: 4,384,074
Average Gross: $6,714,244
Average Attendance: 66,425
Average Ticket Price: $101.08
Shows: 66
Sellouts: 66

(source Billboard)

The numbers for european 2010 shows are known now ( [www.billboard.com] ).
2010 Oceania dates, 2011 north America, south America and South Africa are NOT included in the numbers above (approx. 40 more sold out shows).

So yes, we can say now that Bigger Bang Tour will be outgross by 360° Tour.
And more than this, the Voodoo Lounge Tour attendance record 'll be broken by U2 next year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 10:43 by Massimo68.

U2 are a great,great band.i dont understand why some stones fans get all pissy about their success.you're lucky anyone is out there carrying on the rock and roll tradition at all.

sunday bloody sunday is a bad song? streets have no name? one? mysterious ways? vertigo? pride[in the name of love]? i will follow? come'on,anyone of you who has enough taste to like the stones knows these are great songs and they have many more.

the stones are the stones and their legend is secure enough that we shouldnt be worried about some box office record.keith and mick have both appeared onstage with U2 so i would assume they also think its a pretty good band.dont worry so much,records are made to be broken.

It seems it does outsell ABB. One of the reason is that as I already pointed out is the favorable FX : the shows in EU were sold at an FX of 1.50 as it is now 1.33. This translates into a difference of 12 % on EU shows and non US performaces. Nevertheless, 360 is over ABB in terms of gross. And so what?. U2 more poular than The Stones. Could be. But in the long run....Coldplay ( dont laugh) will one day outsell U2. Circle of Life.

Also look at the amount of shows the Stones did for the Bang tour and then look at the amount U2 is doing for 360. Huge difference.

And to think that a good number of Stones shows were not even close to sell outs! They overplayed their markets. U2 seem to be underplaying - but making plenty of room for people to get to one of two shows or whatever.

Quote
MKjan
more money for bono to hoard, enhancing his hypocrite status while preaching about poverty.

He should take his company back to Ireland, pay taxes and help Ireland back on the feet before it goes completely bankrupt. But, to Bono it is easy to talk, make other people pay - but himself, he wants to spend his life in luxury. Huh.
Do I sound like a frustrated drunk in the icecold winter - probably. The terrible thing is, the winter will last 2-3 months ahead with darkness and - xx C )

Of course they will outgross BB - just a matter of extending the tour. The attendance is bigger than BB. If it hasn't already outgrossed, it will when they will hit N.A. next year.

So you're taking jabs at Bono for making money but have nothing to say about Mick's worth? Isn't that...doesn't that seem odd somehow? Why do you think Bono makes all that money anyway?

So what if the tour is "extended". It's not actually. Just delayed. I'm guessing on a pretty good hunch that U2 will end up doing a good bit less amount of shows than the Stones did for the Bang tour, which went to some odd places and overplayed in some places because they simply wanted to make money (obviously). U2's greed is seemingly less so than the Stones' was for these compared tours. If U2 was to do the exact same amount of shows for the 360 tour, whether in 2 years or 3 years, how does that make it different? They'd certainly make a lot more just by volume - granted, if all the shows were sold out too - thant the Stones did. They got a bit more inovative with their stage. Maybe the Stones will do something similar and out gross U2 if they do indeed tour again.

Only six more months until I get to see the show I bought tickets for in 2009.

It's really none of our concern. As long as people had a good time at one of the shows that's all that mattered.