anyone know, and where do the stones fit in.

been trying to find this on the web for ages, and no matter how many times i change my search criteria i never get a straight answer.

the answers i get range from highest grossing single tour to highest grossing tour for a single year, to highest record sales and cannot get the answer i want.

does anyone know which band has earned the most from all concerts in total throughout their entire career, or where i can find the answer.

surely it must be the stones. also inflation to be taken into account to create a more realistic comparison.

Not sure where you'd get the actual career numbers, but The Rolling Stones appear more than any other band (4 times) in the 20 top grossing tours of all time according to Billboard.

This list represents the top 20 grossing tours (by actual gross, not adjusted for inflation) of all time.

Rank Actual gross Inflation
(adjusted 2016 gross) Artist Tour name Year(s) Shows Attendance Average
gross (millions) Average
attendance Ref.
1 $736,421,584 $774,658,859 U2 U2 360° Tour 2009–11 110 7,272,046 6.7 66,110 [1]

2 $558,255,524 $637,097,582 The Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang Tour 2005–07 144 4,680,000 3.8 32,500 [1]

3 $458,673,798 $465,947,054 Roger Waters The Wall Live 2010–13 219 4,129,863 2.09 18,858 [2]

4 $441,121,000 $478,683,264 AC/DC Black Ice World Tour 2008–10 167 4,846,965 2.6 29,023 [3][4][5]

5 $408,000,000 $450,021,405 Madonna Sticky & Sweet Tour 2008–09 85 3,545,899 4.79 41,716 [6]

6 $389,047,636 $456,671,796 U2 Vertigo Tour 2005–06 131 4,619,021 2.96 35,259 [7]

7 $362,000,000 $397,864,297 The Police The Police Reunion Tour 2007–08 156 3,300,912 2.3 21,160 [8]

8 $355,600,000 $361,238,800 Bruce Springsteen Wrecking Ball World Tour 2012–13 127 3,650,535 2.8 28,744 [9][10]

9 $320,000,000 $496,946,932 The Rolling Stones Voodoo Lounge Tour 1994–95 124 6,336,776 2.6 51,103 [11]

10 $311,000,000 $400,058,068 The Rolling Stones Licks Tour 2002–03 115 3,470,945 2.6 30,182 [12]

11 $305,158,363 $314,535,602 Madonna The MDNA Tour 2012 88 2,212,345 3.47 25,140 [12]

12 $290,178,452 $290,056,083 One Direction Where We Are Tour 2014 69 3,439,560 4.2 49,848 [13]

13 $279,200,000 $306,861,082 Celine Dion Taking Chances World Tour 2008–09 132 2,200,000 2.1 16,667 [3][4][14]

14 $275,700,000 $275,700,000 Paul McCartney Out There! Tour 2013–15 84 1,958,754 3.28 23,319 [10][15][16]

15 $274,000,000 $397,797,877 The Rolling Stones Bridges to Babylon Tour 1997–98 108 [12]

16 $259,500,000 $263,614,929 Bon Jovi Because We Can 2013 102 2,657,502 2.67 27,397 [10]

17 $251,112,882 $272,495,606 Eagles Long Road out of Eden Tour 2008–11 155 2,001,773 1.6 12,915 [3][4][5][17]

18 $250,733,097 $250,733,097 Taylor Swift The 1989 World Tour 2015 85 2,278,647 3.02 33,477 [18]

19 $250,000,000 $399,135,608 Pink Floyd The Division Bell Tour 1994 120 6,000,000 2.3 45,000 [19]

20 $250,000,000 $302,905,095 Cher Living Proof: The Farewell Tour 2002–05 325 3,500,000 0.6 10,800 [20]

Yet their concert ticket prices are as steal...

Mike


[www.flickr.com]

The thing about the U2 360 tour is it lasted like for three years or something like that. Went on forever

As did The Wall tour, which seemed to go everywhere twice.

As did Cher's farewell tour which lasted 4 years, longer than some bands stay together!

No one can beat the Stones' here:

1989-1990 - Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle - $189 million - Attendance: 6.3 million
1994-1995 - Voodoo Lounge Tour - $320 million - Attendance: 6.4 million
1997-1999 - Bridges To Babylon/No Security - $363 million - Attendance: 5.7 million
2002-2003 - Licks Tour - $311 million - Attendance: 3.5 million
2005-2007 - A Bigger Bang - $558 million - Attendance: 4.7 million
2012-2016 - 50 & Counting/14 On Fire/Zip Code/Ole - $508 million - Attendance: 3.1 million (+Glastonbury+Cuba)

Total since 1989:
Attendance: 29.700,000 (+ Glastonbury + Cuba)
Gross: $2.250.000.000

Quote
georgelicks
No one can beat the Stones' here:

1989-1990 - Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle - $189 million - Attendance: 6.3 million
1994-1995 - Voodoo Lounge Tour - $320 million - Attendance: 6.4 million
1997-1999 - Bridges To Babylon/No Security - $363 million - Attendance: 5.7 million
2002-2003 - Licks Tour - $311 million - Attendance: 3.5 million
2005-2007 - A Bigger Bang - $558 million - Attendance: 4.7 million
2012-2016 - 50 & Counting/14 On Fire/Zip Code/Ole - $508 million - Attendance: 3.1 million (+Glastonbury+Cuba)

Total since 1989:
Attendance: 29.700,000 (+ Glastonbury + Cuba)
Gross: $2.250.000.000

So who are the only acts that could challenge them? Could Bruce have grossed more for career?

Quote
stanlove

Quote
georgelicks
No one can beat the Stones' here:

1989-1990 - Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle - $189 million - Attendance: 6.3 million
1994-1995 - Voodoo Lounge Tour - $320 million - Attendance: 6.4 million
1997-1999 - Bridges To Babylon/No Security - $363 million - Attendance: 5.7 million
2002-2003 - Licks Tour - $311 million - Attendance: 3.5 million
2005-2007 - A Bigger Bang - $558 million - Attendance: 4.7 million
2012-2016 - 50 & Counting/14 On Fire/Zip Code/Ole - $508 million - Attendance: 3.1 million (+Glastonbury+Cuba)

Total since 1989:
Attendance: 29.700,000 (+ Glastonbury + Cuba)
Gross: $2.250.000.000

So who are the only acts that could challenge them? Could Bruce have grossed more for career?

According to Wikipedia Bon Jovi had "performed more than 2,700 concerts in over 50 countries for more than 34 million fans". (that was in 2008).

Of course Stones has the tours from 1982 and earlier.

i read last year that the stones had performed approx 2000 concerts and averaged 18,000 per gig, which totals approx 36 million people, so if they have been watched by 29.7 million since 1989 then pre 1989 figure is approx 6.3 million which seems rather low considering the amount of gigs performed from 1962 to 1982.

U2

Quote
jumpontopofmebaby
The thing about the U2 360 tour is it lasted like for three years or something like that. Went on forever

felt the same if you took on an individual show.

Georgelicks estimatesA "Total since 1989:Attendance: 29.700,000 (+ Glastonbury + Cuba)"

I think you miss something, Georgelicks. Rio! It is 29,7 million + Rio + Glastonbury + Cuba. Actually over 31 million. Incredible numbers, anyway.

What no RUSH in there? I'm still looking for my arm and leg...good for the Police, the trademark of quality...

Those four black highlighted Stones tours alone come to:

748, 100.94 trillion US$

That alone is probably enough to make them the top money makers of all time in music. They didn't make squat in the 1960s...

The U2 360 Tour and the Bigger Bang Tour were roughly the same in length, just a little over 2 years long. BUT, both tours had large portions that had to be postponed for an entire year, due to health concerns (Bono's back surgery, Keith falling out of tree). Had this not happened, 360 wouldn't have extended into 2011, and ABB wouldn't have extended into 2007.

The results probably would've still be as close to how they turned out because of U2 selling every show out and the Stones not.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Those four black highlighted Stones tours alone come to:

748, 100.94 trillion US$

That alone is probably enough to make them the top money makers of all time in music. They didn't make squat in the 1960s...

I think if they made $748,100.94 trillion, and i don't doubt it, means they made more money than everyone else in the history of the world combined, to this point.

I used Google's calculator to add those 4 tours up. And now that I just looked at it again, because that does seem just whack, I think I didn't notice the inflation amount vs the actual amount (according to Billboard they made 736,137,344). So... they made, from those 4 tours...

1,463,255,524 US $. What is that? 1.46 billion?

That seems quite more reasonable, eh?

I'd guess either U2 or the Stones. I'd give the edge to the Stones because of longevity and because every big tour U2 has had the Stones had a comparable one (Zoo TV vs. Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle, Popmart vs. Voodoo Lounge/No Security, Vertigo vs. A Bigger Bang). But boy, when you think of the 1987-2007 touring period, its amazing how the right group could just make billions on billions from it.

Is it too vulgar to ask how much dosh went into the main participants(4 in each case) pockets?
I would imagine the Stones overheads are higher than U2, but have no hard facts to back that up.

Quote
jlowe
Is it too vulgar to ask how much dosh went into the main participants(4 in each case) pockets?
I would imagine the Stones overheads are higher than U2, but have no hard facts to back that up.

Although I don't doubt that the overheads for both bands have been huge, I do remember seeing a documentary where U2's drummer talked about wanting to make sure that their tours needed to be profitable in addition to being "big spectacles". If I remember correctly, he may have been talking about the ZooTV tour actually losing money for the band and wanting to make sure that didn't happen again in the future.

Possibly someone else remembers this better than I...

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
jlowe
Is it too vulgar to ask how much dosh went into the main participants(4 in each case) pockets?
I would imagine the Stones overheads are higher than U2, but have no hard facts to back that up.

Although I don't doubt that the overheads for both bands have been huge, I do remember seeing a documentary where U2's drummer talked about wanting to make sure that their tours needed to be profitable in addition to being "big spectacles". If I remember correctly, he may have been talking about the ZooTV tour actually losing money for the band and wanting to make sure that didn't happen again in the future.

Possibly someone else remembers this better than I...

Peace,
Mr DJA

I never understand how U2 is that big in concert. I have never met one U2 fan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-07-19 21:18 by stanlove.

U2 or the Stones, who else is even close?

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
jlowe
Is it too vulgar to ask how much dosh went into the main participants(4 in each case) pockets?
I would imagine the Stones overheads are higher than U2, but have no hard facts to back that up.

Although I don't doubt that the overheads for both bands have been huge, I do remember seeing a documentary where U2's drummer talked about wanting to make sure that their tours needed to be profitable in addition to being "big spectacles". If I remember correctly, he may have been talking about the ZooTV tour actually losing money for the band and wanting to make sure that didn't happen again in the future.

Possibly someone else remembers this better than I...

Peace,
Mr DJA

Yeah, that would be the other reason I'd say the Stones. I know U2 has said on many occasions, even recently, that they don't even make money till like the final show of the tour. Now obviously thats an exaggeration, but like DJA says, they have the big spectacle too and they have to get that paid for. So while their ticket prices are high, they aren't making as much as people would think (I'm guessing). I know most bands get a guarantee and maybe U2's is different because they have such a large show. I'm not sure; I've heard them talk a lot about how a lot of the money goes back into the show and I wouldn't be shocked about that.

The Stones on the other hand, I believe each make a ton per show, and never "sacrifice" money for the sake of the show. They make what they make and just raise the price to cover other costs I imagine. Same as GNR right now. Axl, Slash and Duff are making 1 mil per show regardless of how it sells. The rest of the money is split between the other hired guns and the stage production, but the main guys are certainly getting paid upfront like the Stones do, and maybe U2 doesn't operate like that. Its all original members still, I assume they all get the same amount. Maybe they collectively have said they don't care if they make a little less and just jointly agree on a big show over guarantees.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
Those four black highlighted Stones tours alone come to:

748, 100.94 trillion US$

That alone is probably enough to make them the top money makers of all time in music. They didn't make squat in the 1960s...

I think if they made $748,100.94 trillion, and i don't doubt it, means they made more money than everyone else in the history of the world combined, to this point.

That's 748 quintillion dollars, at least the way GLS typed it out

The current GDP of the planet is $105 trillion.

It would many millennia for the human race to generate that much wealth. We'll be extinct before then.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
Those four black highlighted Stones tours alone come to:

748, 100.94 trillion US$

That alone is probably enough to make them the top money makers of all time in music. They didn't make squat in the 1960s...

I think if they made $748,100.94 trillion, and i don't doubt it, means they made more money than everyone else in the history of the world combined, to this point.

That's 748 quintillion dollars, at least the way GLS typed it out

The current GDP of the planet is $105 trillion.

It would many millennia for the human race to generate that much wealth. We'll be extinct before then.

that bastard (skippy) exaggerates all the time.

Impressive numbers.