I just read in a Danish paper, that the Rolling Stones are about to knock off U2 from the throne. The article says that when Stones hit the road they will earn more than U2 are earning on their Vertigo tour. It says that Voodoo Lounge did 3-4 billion kroner!!!

Does that surprise you ??

So what?
Why always compare U2 with the Stones.
No need.


'In the sweet old country...'

Yeah man. The Stones were never off the throne. They just rock away man.

Rart at se en mere fra Danmark i øvrigt.

JumpingKentFlash

michrud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just read in a Danish paper, that the Rolling
> Stones are about to knock off U2 from the throne.
> The article says that when Stones hit the road
> they will earn more than U2 are earning on their
> Vertigo tour.
>


well theyre charging twice as much for tickets which may be a good reason..

Its a pointless and dubious title or honour. Theres no 'pride' or 'achievement' in charging high ticket prices just so you can top some silly "highest grossing" chart and feed your own ego.

And selling lots of tickets doesnt make you a great band either. Making great records and putting on great concerts does. Thats all I measure this or any band by.

So, the New record and Fenway will be the Lord of Justice . Agree on that.
Money don' t prove anything at that level. Or we must admit that Céline Dion is the greatest artist of all times ( after the fab four).
Audience is more of comparable. And responsiveness to ticketselling also. To that point given the $ 450 charged on a marginal basis, U2 is beginning to over pass the Stones. But Mick and Keith love being challenged . ( Who, Zeppelin,and many others who have tried but never made it . Booldy hell for that criminal $ 450.00)

No it does not prove anything, but there is always the sense that the RS might bomb, newer younger bands might displace them, & what many casual fans seem to think, journalists write, or non fans say when I mention them, that they dont sell records anymore (this truism started around No Security, then LL), & the fact that they've been working for 43 years & can still be on top, near the top, etc is something Michrud seems to find satisfying. As do I. I dont know anyone who bought 450$ tix btw, & I certainly couldnt affort that. I think the high prices likely keep younger audiences less likely to go, but my (2nd highest priced) ticket was around 150$ (plus, of course, and then there's the so called fan club), & U2 charged 165$ for their top price last time I checked boxscore.

The Stones live knock out everyone.
Don't look only at the ticket prices, look at the numbers of the selling tickets, even with the so high prices...

In the 1989-2003 period the Stones attracted at their concerts 22.5 million people. Inaccessible record!

I am a huge fan, but this is not correct. There is a much greater demand for Macca and U2 tickets for this tour -- they are much harder to come by and the reason is clearly the ticket prices. Check stubhub.com or ebay.com. The scalpers are going to take a bath on Stones tix, and other than really hot venues like MSG or the Bowl, there will be good seats available below face for us fans.

I never bought "Rolling Stones"-tickets in advance. Bought them everytime 3 hours before concert-----and paid the half.
Stadiums and Arenas!!!!!!

Really getting U2 was much easier

for me

They have one sound no breakthrough and will be no matter how successful a footnote in Rock and Roll history

I love them but it is true

They are building on a foundations the legends set But not creating a new foundation

Think of all there hits where are the clasiics the starway to Heavens Sgt Peppers You can't always get what you want satisfaction etc etc etc

You want to compare "still haven't found what I am looking for.....Please
Who made teh first great live alblum Stones get ya yas out

Who was the first sing rock without bubble gum Satisfaction Let it Bleed Gimme Shelter Paint it Black You can't always get what you want....

The Beatles sang they way they wanted teh world to be "all you need is love."

The Stones song about how it really is. No band in 65 would dare touch that realism. In an age of Hippie ideals

U2 is very very good pop rock thats it. Sting wrote deeper songs
I bought Vertigo and like it.

I am already sick of there eightees stuff out played

And POP was there big try at doing something different URG

The stones stuff always sounds alive.

I bought veritigo and like it a lot

But please don't compare legends with an eightees band that had no competetion

Did they have the Beatles Creame Doors Zep THE Who Pink Floyd etc to compete with like the Stones did? All the legendary bands had peaked or broke up

So they competed against Duran Duran Tears for Fears etc.......

he Police were there biggest competetion but broke up and BTW wrote better stuff.

So keep U2 in the proper prospective.

PLEASE

PHD- I agree with everything you say EXCEPT when you throw Zeppelin in the mix... your dead wrong. First off Zeppelin NEVER had to compete with the Stones or anyone else for that matter. During the Zep days... NOBODY WAS BIGGER!!! They outsold everyone on every level. Ticket sales, concert grossing, record sales, radio play.. etc..... like them or not is not the issue... but the Mighty Zeppelin flew over everyone when they were around....they didnt have to try to compete with the Stones... they simply blew them away. Doesnt make them better... but the bank accounts don't lie during that period. PLUS, even after 25 years of not being around they still sell more records than the Stones do as well..... over 4 million new fans every year!!!!! Thier legacy and staying power challenges the Beatles.. its amazing if you think about it... PLEASE LEAVE THE ZEPPELIN OUT OF THIS... THEY WERE AND STILL ARE THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. Like it or not.... if the remain 3 got together again... the Stones and U2 tours together would look like childs play........read you stats... it wasnt even close when Zep was around......

I'm not talking about quality -- the Stones have a track record that can't be touched. But there is no question that U2 tix are hotter right now.

In response to the original post, how much is a Kroner compared to a US dollar?

Have to agree with Eric with his comments regarding Zeppelin. They were the biggest band in the 70's. Saw an interview with Cameron Crowe where he was discussing the movie Almost Famous, which was loosely based on his life as a young journalist touring with Zeppelin in the early 70's. He mentioned how when Zep and the Stones were touring, Zeppelin tickets were always much more in demand.

The only band to sell more albums in America than Zeppelin is the Beatles and you have to figure they put out at least twice as many albums.

'Who is better? " Just a matter of taste...

But if we are talking about successful live acts, just look at the numbers. The Stones are by far #1...

They are no doubt. However, when rock was GOOD and bands were GOOD the Stones didnt shine on tour $$$$ wise like they do now. Bruce is probably the KING of tours these days... 4hour shows... decent prices.... 3-5 shows per town.... he still gives more back than anyone out there today. He is the only one left that truely EARNS his pay today!

HEY DGA35 ,,,in 77 i got tics for L. Zep @ MSG for 2 shows. they played 7 in all,,,could not get for stones in 75,,which did 7 also,, or 81 @ Continental airlines...Had to wait til 1998 to c my 1st stones @ the garden show ,,,im not a journalist just a great rock band concert goer,,,seen L.Zep in 75 too ,,the 73 ZEP tour i couldnt go i had a broken leg,,,i never had trouble with Zep tics

ZEPLIN WAS ONLY NUMBER ONE WHEN THE Stones went throught down time between

B&B AND SOME GIRLS BUT THAT WAS IT. After Some Girls the Stones were back on top sold 5 million CD'S and concert after concert

Don't forget the Stones lost there founding member Brian Jones who was inovative to some of there early stuff Piant it black etc and still they continued

Zep loses John Bottom and are done. a Drummer a great drummer but Drummer at that

I really believe if Jones was able to hold on there would be no debate who the greatest is.

How many legendary bands lost there founding ,member(s) and still rocked?

ever notice Zeplin would avoid touring during the same time the Stones toured?


How many good CD'S THEY HAD 5 MAYBE 6? AND
ONE BAD IN THROUGH OUT DOORS?

After that they were done..

You can tll how great a band is by how much material it takes to peak

Look how many the Bealtles made etc....


How can you compare that to 17 studio cds in 8 years 64-72 Zep was a great band but very limited and did not go beyond their own fans

Mosy non rock fans can't tell you who robert plant is but all know Mick,

AND WHEN PAGE AND PLANT TOURED TOGETHER WHICH BASICALLY WAS ZEP THERE CONCERT NUMBERS DID NOT COME CLOSE.

And there music did not age as well it was great but how many adults sit and listen to Houses of the Holy?

It was manily great rock for young adult years

But Tumbling Dice etc no comparison.

Zeplin had there moment a great band but PLEASE...................

You think they would sell stadiums like the stones today no way

I know a lot of Zep fans that outgrew them. It was heavey music great with drugs

But very limited they knew it and is why they stopped after so very few alblums.

And tours.

zep was lucky to peak at time the stones had past there made a couple of so so alblums. 1975

Once the Stones came back with Some Girls 78 it was over

Zepplin were great, no doubt about it. They certainly have sold a lot of records, but did they outdraw the Stones in the 70's????? Tickets for the Stones in Mobile in 72 were untouchable....for Zepplin they were an easy score. I know that's one town on one tour, but who sold the most concert tickets in the 70's....the Stones or Zepplin?

Sorry fellas but...
what the @#$%& are U2?

theyre a band that some fans seem ridiculously obsessed with

dr bryant,in september,you will not find a ticket at the msg,on the street,unless box office releases them.

john scialfa

I think the Stones peaked as being the hottest act around the time when their biggest rivals had just gone: 70-71 (The Beatles), 81-82 (Zep). But both decades they were more or less in a shadow of these two. Perhaps the latter period (81-82) was the only time when they clearly were the biggest one in the market. When U2 will call it quits, the Stones will be the biggest again?

- Doxa

But there is a band that could quite easily outdo both U2 and The Stones if they would announce a tour now: Pink Floyd. As Live 8 showed, I think the demand is huge for them.

- doxa

"I think the Stones peaked as being the hottest act around the time when their biggest rivals had just gone: 70-71 (The Beatles), 81-82 (Zep). But both decades they were more or less in a shadow of these two. Perhaps the latter period (81-82) was the only time when they clearly were the biggest one in the market. When U2 will call it quits, the Stones will be the biggest again? "

Blah, blah....

The only throne U2 have have ever been on top of is a porcelain throne, the Stones hit their peak in the mid 60s to 73 but even as old Men they are a bigger draw than U2.

Is there any need to discuss about it. Just wait another 20 years and you'll see if U2 still in....
One thing is true on this thread: Led Zeppelin is and was always a bigger seller in North America. Even today they get so much airplay compare to any other band which has gone long time ago. I mean it's 25 years now.

Here are some stats: www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/l/led_zeppelin.htm.

Country Honk are you kidding?

The only time ZEP was in 75 when the Stone were at there low point in many eyes

after BLA=CK AND BLUE when some Girls came out and sold 5 milliuon and the tour krocked they were back on top in 78

At the same time late 70's Zep released In through the out doors a terrible CD.

Then they broke up

They were so limited.

Is it a coincidence they peaked when the Stones were at a low point the Beatles were gone?

You have it backwards the Stones always had major competition The Who Floyd Bealtles etc and still remained on top in fact peaked during the late 60's to early 70's Beggars banquet let it bleed exile and stick

Would you say during this time they had no competetion? I think the Beatles were still around in the late 60's
Who did U2 to compete with Tears for fears?

And if you want to use statistics please they are so decieving

In 1975 Billboard magazine had the two biggest selling bands in the world guess who

1-Bay City Rollers
2-Abba

So I guess that makes them beter hey Eric