Quote
DragonSky

Quote
keefyboy
Can you really call the U2 tour a tour because any band can just keep playing gigs with a few months break inbetween then after a few years of gigging they can call it the longest tour ever, i think a tour should be a bunch of gigs without a long break.

And the Stones have not done that as well? They've taken quite long breaks between tour legs of one said tour. A Bigger Bang, slightly derailed by injury as was 360, had a nice long break.

It also had a 7 month break after November 2006 until the final run of 30 shows in summer 2007.

If the Stones want to call the 2007 leg the 'Bigger Bang' tour (and they did) then thats exactly what it is.

Quote
brianwalker

Quote
DragonSky
Facts are facts. More people saw U2 than The Rolling Stones for a tour. The financial gross is something else entirely.

If the 1981 Stones had done more shows it still would not have amounted to what U2 did. There's just no way. The whining bit sounds like you're upset that U2 outdrew the Stones and out grossed the Stones.

I am not whinning. I just get annoyed by people making statements that mean nothing unless its put into context. Taking about how much money is earned on a tour is worthless unless put into context. Adjusted by inflation, and how many tour dates would have to be considered befroew any of this is taken seriously. This is obvious.


The same thing happens when a tv announers calls a basketball player the greatest scorer in school history , but ignores that teams play about 40 games a year for 4 years now, compared to 30 games a year for 3 years many years ago. Scoring more career points in that case does not make someone the greatest scorer in school history any more then U2 today making more money then the Stones did 17 years ago makes U2 the biggest touring band. Worthless statement unless all things are taken into consideration. I get anooyed at worthless statements.

Point taken. I understand. However, it is what it is and U2's tour wasn't long after A Bigger Bang. Me putting up numbers is not boasting anything. Someone coming along and breaking a record in, say, baseball, now, versus 30 years ago, that requires the amount of games now to break the record from then (less games) is not exactly a record, is it.

It is for that amount of games. And so on. I have no idea if that is even close to being a fact as far as the amount of games baseball plays - it's just an example. If so and so set a home run record of 70 home runs in 120 games and then someone comes along and does 73 home runs in 182 games, that's technically breaking the record - but it is a new record regardless.

U2 still had more people fill up the stadiums that, I would think, the Stones played at some point. They just had more people show up. So that hasn't changed. And with the world economy being less than it was when A Bigger Bang went around, it's even more amazing that U2 did what they did. And U2 had the most people attending a tour. I don't know the overall numbers of U2's tours and the Stones tours for attendance; certainly the Stones would outweigh that one just by sheer number of years of touring. However, the 360 Tour makes U2's 360 Tour the most attended tour ever.

And that's all it is. It IS amazing that they had that many people attend their tour. Don't you think so too? 360's 110 shows with 7 million plus people attending, A Bigger Bang's 144 shows with 4,680,000 in attendance is quite an astounding difference. U2 did that with less shows and more seating available. And making more money is inevitable at that point. That is astounding.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
DragonSky

Quote
keefyboy
Can you really call the U2 tour a tour because any band can just keep playing gigs with a few months break inbetween then after a few years of gigging they can call it the longest tour ever, i think a tour should be a bunch of gigs without a long break.

And the Stones have not done that as well? They've taken quite long breaks between tour legs of one said tour. A Bigger Bang, slightly derailed by injury as was 360, had a nice long break.

It also had a 7 month break after November 2006 until the final run of 30 shows in summer 2007.

If the Stones want to call the 2007 leg the 'Bigger Bang' tour (and they did) then thats exactly what it is.

Yes I totally agree with you./

Whilst it seems unlikely, there are ways and means; U2 offer a straight buy a ticket see the show deal and due to them still turning out new music and still appealing to the singles charts, they sell well. Obviously, for any band to beat their total they will have to do something pretty massive....or, and this is where the stones might cash in, something along the lines of a mix of small theatres, arenas and stadiums, topped off with a huge spectacular open air copa cobana/Hyde Park event. Spread out over a two - three year period, with plenty of long lay offs in between, TV deals and with the headline that it is the last ever tour, various special shows bringing back Taylor and Wyman. And of course, very high prices for tickets.

I know some of this was done on ABB, but not to the same extent and not with the official 'Last Time' banner. Not just Stones fans, but music fans, nostalgia fans would rock up to say they saw the last tour. Hit a few new countries where they haven't played before and it's possible they could pass U2. Of course, none of this is likely to happen!

ENOUGH ! it does NOT matter !

Dylan has been on the same tour for about 23 years.....does that count ?

I know one thing.....I don't want my bank account emptying to help beat Bongo and his boring band's record.


sc uk

Quote
Dutch guy
Do Stones fans care about ticket records? NO! Rock will always remember ROCKING STONES without worry over ticket numbers!!! What! Ridiculous. No comparison - who will ever remember U2 compared to the ROCKING STONES. ONE BAND EMBODIES ALL THAT IS ROCK AND THE ROLL - THE OTHER DOESN'T. In all way the Rocking Stones are way ahead of the band fronted by a man that looks like a fly.

There's a great deal of subjectivity in your comments Dutch. Looking at the facts, both acts are on a plane few others have achieved.

1. Both bands bring spectacle and excitement to their live performances.
2. Both bring a great deal of appeal to their audiences
3. Both have sold large numbers of tickets.
4. Both have sold large numbers of records (I still call them records).
5. Both bands have made an indelible mark on music and the music industry.

Time will be the ultimate judge as to which is remembered more. I personally prefer the Rolling Stones but I'm not a time keeper or recorder of history, I just like them better.

CBII

yes mick wants to break the record but the stones cant realistically believe they can come even close IMO,unless they go on a three year tour which would be ridiculous at their age



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-01 02:13 by melillo.

1) they ain't gonna tour
2) in this economy, U2 will hold the record for awhile

Is there a worse name than "U2" if a band wants to be remembered by history?

What is U2's famous logo?... I forget... already.... hmmm.... interesting.

What is the Stones logo?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-01 02:59 by Max'sKansasCity.

Get it right Max - the original:

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Is there a worse name than "U2" if a band wants to be remembered by history?

What is U2's famous logo?... I forget... already.... hmmm.... interesting.

What is the Stones logo?

Maybe they just prefer to be remembered for their music than for a logo?

Imagine that.

Cant be a worse way to be 'remembered' than to have your logo worn on t-shirts by clueless idiots who dont even know who it represents, let alone own any of your records.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-01 03:09 by Gazza.

I didnt say original

Quote
Gazza

Maybe they just prefer to be remembered for their music than for a logo?

Imagine that.

Maybe they dont.. maybe they want to be rememebered for everything STONES
imagine that.

well, the 'they' I was referring to was U2.

As for the Stones, recent activity (or lack of it) would suggest the 'brand name' is more a big deal than the music.

U2 is the worst band name of all time

I dunno. I reckon Anal C**t has that honour sewn up.

LOL

This is the U2 LOGO



__________________________

Quote
NICOS
This is the U2 LOGO

LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-01 03:17 by Max'sKansasCity.

The jealousy here is astounding.

Quote
DragonSky
The jealousy here is astounding.

was that the punch line of the thread?

Only if you identify with it as so.

Quote
Gazza
I dunno. I reckon Anal C**t has that honour sewn up.

...and for any nonbelievers, yup that is a real band name [www.myspace.com] sometimes referred to as AxCx

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
Gazza
I dunno. I reckon Anal C**t has that honour sewn up.

...and for any nonbelievers, yup that is a real band name [www.myspace.com] sometimes referred to as AxCx

The "brain" (and I use the term loosely) behind the band to which you refer (Seth Putnam) just died recently.

Drug-related, of course. Hard to believe, I know.

Quote
DragonSky
The jealousy here is astounding.

I made a thread regarding the jealousy and resentment that Stones fans have towards U2 a few years ago.

Needless to say, I didn't get many responses that weren't hostile and kneejerk in nature.

Don't know, but if he does, he should go after the attendance record, and they might just get the highest grossing along the way. If I could get decent tickets for $50 or $75 I'd go to every show I could stand to drive to. How many people do you think get really hyped when they hear the Stones are coming to town, say they're definitely going, then a month later still don't have tickets cause it's just so much money. Gotta lower the prices and get the young people out. During Voodoo, The Eagles and Pink Floyd had already introduced the then astounding $100+ tickets and the Stones were expected to follow, but they didn't. Therefore, they filled the stadiums and set an attendance record that wasn't broken for 17 years. It's become an upper class show, and the upper class is shrinking. Shoot for the masses or do theaters.

[www.non-filters.com]

Perhaps the Stones dont give a shit. Perhaps they realise that newer generations have newer idols. The next generation wont give 2 shits about U2. Probably be Justin Biebers love child from Lady Gaga with a trillion dollar 6 month tour. But thats OK if I am still alive I will put my record on the turntable, play I wanna be Your Man and dream. Man, thats what it was all about.

Quote
ab
So U2 can have it and then spend more money on more cheesy guitar effects to cover up the Edge's limited ability.

How does that ralete to the question? It is funny how any quesion that has the two letters "U2" in them reliably produces those reactions. Why don't you also write that for what The Stones earn, they can hire more backing musicians to...you know what. It is not what I think, but your input logicaly leads to this...

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
U2 is the worst band name of all time

Again...I would just repeat myself...

Anyway, to the question - it is physically impossible. The thing is that those "records" are constantly broken, becuse the tours are getting longer and longer. ABB tour earned more than Vertigo, because it took longer. 360 earned more because it took longer than ABB. And it was constantly selling out 60.000-90.000 stadiums (with difficulities at the end, but still...).

So to break it, the Stones would have to tour and to sell out stadiums for 2,5 - 3 years. It is a nonsence of course, but if we would still think about it, it would mean they would have to tour Europe 3x and US 3x. No act would sell out stadiums returning twice to the same place in a row, let aside the fact that it is physically impossible fot 4 men around the age of 70. Even for The Stones. If I am aware of that, I suspect taht Mick might know it too :-)

So the answer is: No.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-02 17:32 by Happy24.

Quote
straycatuk
ENOUGH ! it does NOT matter !

Dylan has been on the same tour for about 23 years.....does that count ?

I know one thing.....I don't want my bank account emptying to help beat Bongo and his boring band's record.


sc uk

I thing this is very good thought...since the gross of one tour of The Stones or U2 or anyone is counted as log as the act calls it one tour, no matter a half a year break, it would be fair to take in account the amount of money Dylan earned during his Never Ending Tour (so far). I have absoulutely no idea how much would that be and it would be absolutely misleading to put together the prices of the tickets now and 23 years ago, but yes, it is one tour the way the U2 and The Stones tours are judged, so Dylan might be "the winner."

It only shows, how absurd this competition is. But has there ever really been such competition? Did Mick ever mention they had bigger tour than U2 or such thing (or vice versa)? Those are just numbers that appear in media, it doesn't mean the musicians really take part in that made-up contest.

And now I think that Dylan just laughs when he reads all those statistics, because he has a plan - the only reason the keeps on touring is that one day he will draw a thick line, count it all together and make a big announcement that he has just finnished the biggest and most succesfull tour of all time, beating The Stones and U2 together 5 times. And The Stones, U2 and others will stand with their mouth wide open... :-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-01 11:47 by Happy24.

Well if he wants to he better get the Stones together and get ready to tour because it won't happen with Super Heavy!