Quote
HankM

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
HankM
The last 10-15 years seem like the gilded age of touring, with acts making 20-30 times more per night compared to tours back when tickets cost 10-30 bucks and the tour was mostly a way to market the new album.

I think it's due to all of the '60s and '70s bands aging along with their fanbase, and the baby boomers having more and more disposable income and a desire to relive their teens and twenties.

The only band in the Top 20 who caters to teens is One Direction, and that's a flash in the pan group.

Coldplay is on the border...their first album came out in 2000, so most of their fans are probably currently in their mid 20s through early 40s.

Not just them, but also I see box office take for acts like Katy Parry, Jackson bleiuber, Tailer Swifp and other of their ilk that are phenomenal. I am guessing the money being spent on those teeny acts is coming from the same wallet/purse that is spending money on the aging groups tickets aka the parents money.

The producers, arenas owners, ticket sellers etc etc seem to have the marketing plan down to a science these days and they are making so much money...

That's very true...I just mean to get into the upper echelon of touring acts ($300-700 million), you need to (a) play a LOT of shows in large venues and (b) charge a lot per ticket, which older fans have.

You're right though...I am amazed by the grosses of some of the younger acts. They're not in the Stones/U2/Madonna category, but they're getting close in some cases. I guess parents have no compunction about spending big bucks on their kids' teenybopper acts.

Still, I do wonder where the concert industry will be in 10-20 years. I don't see any bands that can fill stadiums the way the Stones, Springsteen, McCartney U2, AC/DC can.

Quote
HankM
a £25 ticket in 1990 would cost ten times that today.

According to these guys, a $25 ticket (considering inflation alone) would cost 44 bucks today.

Looks like £25 in pounds is now £57

But indeed tickets these days seem to cost 10-20 more than they did back in 1990.

What it looks like to me is that the Stones ticket prices have risen far above inflation.
The reality is i paid £25 to see them in 1990 i can prove it. I saw them in that year 3 times, twice in Wembly Stadium and once in Paris Stade de France, i still have the ticket stubs. I paid more than 10 times that amount to see them this year at the same stadium in France.

Quote
keefriff99


Still, I do wonder where the concert industry will be in 10-20 years. I don't see any bands that can fill stadiums the way the Stones, Springsteen, McCartney U2, AC/DC can.

All gilded ages come to an end.
It will be interesting to see what the concert industry looks like in 2030.

The stuff that passes for music these days... ah... I guess I shouldn't negatively go on and on... but I agree with you, I do not see these acts staying in business for as long as the acts you mention. Manufactured acts like the janus brothers and bleieber make a shiton of money and retire. Can/will they come back? Maybe, but it will be up to the larger music machine to say if they are allowed to. They kids in these acts are tiny replaceable cogs and newer shinier, prettier, younger acts are coming along all the time.


yikes...
Thinking about it... how horrifying it would be if Hanna Montana or The Spice Girls were my Rolling Stones. To look back later and realize the act I loved as a kid was made up BS manufactured, auto-tuned, produced to a specific beat pattern... and is long long gone. Took the money and ran.

Which is why I love The Stones. They have never let me down.
They are still cooking and still sounding great. I got lucky... picked the right horse.

Thanks Rolling Stones, you guys are awesome!!


STONES!!!

Quote
stone4ever

What it looks like to me is that the Stones ticket prices have risen far above inflation.

They certainly have risen far above inflation.

1978 10 bucks, 1981 17 bucks, 1989 45 bucks... and up up and away from there.

Quote
HankM

Quote
stone4ever

What it looks like to me is that the Stones ticket prices have risen far above inflation.

They certainly have risen far above inflation.

1978 10 bucks, 1981 17 bucks, 1989 45 bucks... and up up and away from there.

I'm trying not to whine Hank , but consider this more of a rant.
The prices for Stones tickets at the last Vegas shows were seriously outrageous. All floor and most lower level were at $750 +fees, upper mid level and mediocre nosebleeds at $350+, and horrible nosebleeds at $150+. There may have been a few available at $75+ up in the rafters next to the air conditioners, as well as a few "lick dips". I don't recall what some of the VIP tix were going for, but I think they were between $2500 -$5,000?
I paid $250 on stubhub for back of the floor seats the day of show (normal face $750), and I still felt kind of cheated - especially as it was an abbreviated show. If they ever return to the US, will the greedy prices go up even further? If they only play about six shows they might get away with it, but really...it would be insulting.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

financial comparisons have to be adjusted for inflation or they mean nothing.

its obvious the stones will never be the biggest selling artist of all time in terms of cash spent as they had their best days in the 60,s and 70,s when concert prices were a lot cheaper even allowing for inflation.

the stones/u2 tours comparisons are pointless, all u2 have to do is wait till the stones retire or die, then arrange tours to beat their total, and another band will come along to do the same to u2.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
HankM

Quote
stone4ever

What it looks like to me is that the Stones ticket prices have risen far above inflation.

They certainly have risen far above inflation.

1978 10 bucks, 1981 17 bucks, 1989 45 bucks... and up up and away from there.

I'm trying not to whine Hank , but consider this more of a rant.
The prices for Stones tickets at the last Vegas shows were seriously outrageous. All floor and most lower level were at $750 +fees, upper mid level and mediocre nosebleeds at $350+, and horrible nosebleeds at $150+. There may have been a few available at $75+ up in the rafters next to the air conditioners, as well as a few "lick dips". I don't recall what some of the VIP tix were going for, but I think they were between $2500 -$5,000?
I paid $250 on stubhub for back of the floor seats the day of show (normal face $750), and I still felt kind of cheated - especially as it was an abbreviated show. If they ever return to the US, will the greedy prices go up even further? If they only play about six shows they might get away with it, but really...it would be insulting.

No boutadoubtit Hairball, tickets are expensive these days. It makes me all the more delighted that I got while the getting was good back in the day when I was happy pay $250-$300 for a scalped ticket, but it was a ticket in the front row (to 5th row) center.

This newfangled concert BS where tickets in the far away balcony cost $100-250-300 face value is redonkulous... but as long as people will pay that, the bands might as well charge that... at least the money goes to the band, not scalpers.


Anyway... It has caused me to cut back on my arena/stadium ticket purchases drastically. I used to be the concert king, I saw everybody all the time back when tickets cost 5-20 bucks. Most bands lost me when it became common to charge 75-100-200-750 a ticket withg no lucky options.

Last time I saw The Stones, on the Zipper tour tour, it cost me $45.00 for a lucky dip.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
jlowe
Rather than looking at gross takings, what about a comparison of Attendances/ tickets sold?
At least with that measure, inflation isn't a factor.
Anyone have the information?

You can sort by any number on the Wiki page.

[en.wikipedia.org]

For instance, the Voodoo Loung tour is #11 by raw gross, but it's number #2 all time for total attendance (6.3 million). Only U2's 360 had more in attendance (7.7 million).

That, in my opinion, says WAY more about how massive a draw the Stones were back then than any ticket gross number.

The 360 Tour went on two years and one month, VL one year and one month. If VL had continued (as was planned) it would have been by far the most visited tour ever.

The 360 Tour was 110 shows. Part of it was delayed and dates pushed back to 2011 because of Bono hurting his back (9 months went by between the first US and European tours, partially because of the back injury). So it's not like the tour was actually 2 years. They also had 100% attendance with 7,272,046 people.

The Stones' BANG tour was 147 shows. I can't recall which came first, the money record or the attendance record, that U2 broke of the Stones' BANG tour but they did both with shows number 74 and 77 or something.

Quote
buttons67
the stones/u2 tours comparisons are pointless, all u2 have to do is wait till the stones retire or die, then arrange tours to beat their total, and another band will come along to do the same to u2.

Pointless to compare? Why?

Both are huge stadium rock bands, separated by one generation. They both innovated massive stage shows in the late '80s with the help of Mark Fischer. I think comparing them makes 100% sense.

What does the Stones retiring have to do with U2 breaking their own record? Do you think it was an easy feat for U2 to accomplish what they did on the 360 tour in terms of attendance and gross? You act like acts are just biding their time to do it.

I think that record is going to stand for a couple of decades at least. There's no one on the scene who could come close to achieving that.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
jlowe
Rather than looking at gross takings, what about a comparison of Attendances/ tickets sold?
At least with that measure, inflation isn't a factor.
Anyone have the information?

You can sort by any number on the Wiki page.

[en.wikipedia.org]

For instance, the Voodoo Loung tour is #11 by raw gross, but it's number #2 all time for total attendance (6.3 million). Only U2's 360 had more in attendance (7.7 million).

That, in my opinion, says WAY more about how massive a draw the Stones were back then than any ticket gross number.

The 360 Tour went on two years and one month, VL one year and one month. If VL had continued (as was planned) it would have been by far the most visited tour ever.

Hmm, I've never heard about the VL tour being cut short. Do you have any additional info on why that was?

There was a tour in US major markets, South America and Asia (incl. Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok etc.) planned for 1996. See Beggars Banquet fanzine.

Wasn't able to find much more info.

What exactly scuttled their plans for extending the tour though?

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
HankM
a £25 ticket in 1990 would cost ten times that today.

According to these guys, a $25 ticket (considering inflation alone) would cost 44 bucks today.

Looks like £25 in pounds is now £57

But indeed tickets these days seem to cost 10-20 more than they did back in 1990.

What it looks like to me is that the Stones ticket prices have risen far above inflation.
The reality is i paid £25 to see them in 1990 i can prove it. I saw them in that year 3 times, twice in Wembly Stadium and once in Paris Stade de France, i still have the ticket stubs. I paid more than 10 times that amount to see them this year at the same stadium in France.

You didn't see anyone in the Stade De France in 1990.

Nate

Quote
Nate

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
HankM
a £25 ticket in 1990 would cost ten times that today.

According to these guys, a $25 ticket (considering inflation alone) would cost 44 bucks today.

Looks like £25 in pounds is now £57

But indeed tickets these days seem to cost 10-20 more than they did back in 1990.

What it looks like to me is that the Stones ticket prices have risen far above inflation.
The reality is i paid £25 to see them in 1990 i can prove it. I saw them in that year 3 times, twice in Wembly Stadium and once in Paris Stade de France, i still have the ticket stubs. I paid more than 10 times that amount to see them this year at the same stadium in France.

You didn't see anyone in the Stade De France in 1990.

Nate

Construction started: May 2, 1995

LOL

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
jlowe
Rather than looking at gross takings, what about a comparison of Attendances/ tickets sold?
At least with that measure, inflation isn't a factor.
Anyone have the information?

You can sort by any number on the Wiki page.

[en.wikipedia.org]

For instance, the Voodoo Loung tour is #11 by raw gross, but it's number #2 all time for total attendance (6.3 million). Only U2's 360 had more in attendance (7.7 million).

That, in my opinion, says WAY more about how massive a draw the Stones were back then than any ticket gross number.

The 360 Tour went on two years and one month, VL one year and one month. If VL had continued (as was planned) it would have been by far the most visited tour ever.

Hmm, I've never heard about the VL tour being cut short. Do you have any additional info on why that was?

There was a tour in US major markets, South America and Asia (incl. Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok etc.) planned for 1996. See Beggars Banquet fanzine.

Wasn't able to find much more info.

What exactly scuttled their plans for extending the tour though?

I think the US arena tour wouldn't have brought enough money these days. There was talk about 6-7 nights at MSG and things like that. A reported problem was the bad condition or small size of Asian stadiums. I think the tour was already pre-booked. They nixed it in favour of the next worldwide stadium (and arena) tour beginning only 1,5 years later.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Nate

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
HankM
a £25 ticket in 1990 would cost ten times that today.

According to these guys, a $25 ticket (considering inflation alone) would cost 44 bucks today.

Looks like £25 in pounds is now £57

But indeed tickets these days seem to cost 10-20 more than they did back in 1990.

What it looks like to me is that the Stones ticket prices have risen far above inflation.
The reality is i paid £25 to see them in 1990 i can prove it. I saw them in that year 3 times, twice in Wembly Stadium and once in Paris Stade de France, i still have the ticket stubs. I paid more than 10 times that amount to see them this year at the same stadium in France.

You didn't see anyone in the Stade De France in 1990.

Nate

Construction started: May 2, 1995

LOL

Parc Des Princes




"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
I think the US arena tour wouldn't have brought enough money these days. There was talk about 6-7 nights at MSG and things like that. A reported problem was the bad condition or small size of Asian stadiums. I think the tour was already pre-booked. They nixed it in favour of the next worldwide stadium (and arena) tour beginning only 1,5 years later.

Interesting! Thanks for the info.

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
Nate
Coldplay are about as exciting as a letter from the taxman.

Nate

So er ........ very very very exciting then ?

I guess it depends if your due a tax rebate or not!

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

The 360 Tour went on two years and one month, VL one year and one month. If VL had continued (as was planned) it would have been by far the most visited tour ever.

doesnt matter how long a tour goes on; of course what matters is the sheer number of gigs and the average attendance.
VL had 129 shows, 360 had only 110; but 360's average attendance was way higher because of the 360 stage setup.
360 had "only" 110 shows scattered on 2 years, for a number of reasons: U2 recording another album, "songs of ascent", during the tour; Bono and Edge working on the Spiderman musical, which opened in june 2011 after much delays and setbacks; Adam Clayton having a baby, born in early 2011; and Bono injuring his back in may 2010 and undergoing an operation, which caused 2 months of US shows being postponed from summer 2010 to summer 2011.
when the tour was announced in march 2009, the original plan was to play 100 shows and have it over by the end of 2010, with the Songs of Ascent album released in mid 2010. the album was ultimately not released
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-02 18:10 by superglen.

Quote
superglen

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

The 360 Tour went on two years and one month, VL one year and one month. If VL had continued (as was planned) it would have been by far the most visited tour ever.

doesnt matter how long a tour goes on; of course what matters is the sheer number of gigs and the average attendance.
VL had 129 shows, 360 had only 110; but 360's average attendance was way higher because of the 360 stage setup.
360 had "only" 110 shows scattered on 2 years, for a number of reasons: U2 recording another album, "songs of ascent", during the tour; Bono and Edge working on the Spiderman musical, which opened in june 2011 after much delays and setbacks; Adam Clayton having a baby, born in early 2011; and Bono injuring his back in may 2010 and undergoing an operation, which caused 2 months of US shows being postponed from summer 2010 to summer 2011.
when the tour was announced in march 2009, the original plan was to play 100 shows and have it over by the end of 2010, with the Songs of Ascent album released in mid 2010. the album was ultimately not released
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]

Danke, Herr Lehrer!

What's kind of surprising is that Roger Waters holds the record for being the highest-grossing tour for a solo musician.
I would have thought Paul McCartney based on mass appeal, though I don't know how long his tours are. Or Springsteen maybe, but when he tours with the E.Street band I guess it can't be considered solo.

Granted, Water's Wall tour was a three year extravaganza with multiple legs (arenas and stadiums) so maybe that helps account for the record. It's also surprising though that he is third on the all time list of highest grossing tours. Wondering if his current tour "Us and Them" will be able match or even surpass that record - rumour has it he'll continue to tour with no end in sight - South America, Australia, Europe, etc., then a return to the US in stadiums, and possible returning to all of the above for multiple legs.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
What's kind of surprising is that Roger Waters holds the record for being the highest-grossing tour for a solo musician.
I would have thought Paul McCartney based on mass appeal, though I don't know how long his tours are. Or Springsteen maybe, but when he tours with the E.Street band I guess it can't be considered solo.

Granted, Water's Wall tour was a three year extravaganza with multiple legs (arenas and stadiums) so maybe that helps account for the record. It's also surprising though that he is third on the all time list of highest grossing tours. Wondering if his current tour "Us and Them" will be able match or even surpass that record - rumour has it he'll continue to tour with no end in sight - South America, Australia, Europe, etc., then a return to the US in stadiums, and possible returning to all of the above for multiple legs.

The guy is a real work horse. I know that he's not a performer like Mick or Bruce in terms of physicality, but at 74 years old, just standing there for 2+ hours is taxing. I give him a lot of credit.

I think the only reason The Wall tour is where it is on the list is because of the length of the tour. 219 shows...only the Brooks/Yearwood tour has more (333). AC/DC is third with 167, so no one else is really close.

Roger's avg attendance is 17th on the list out of 20, so it really comes down to the sheer volume of shows he did coupled with the ticket prices.

Quote
Hairball
What's kind of surprising is that Roger Waters holds the record for being the highest-grossing tour for a solo musician.
I would have thought Paul McCartney based on mass appeal, though I don't know how long his tours are. Or Springsteen maybe, but when he tours with the E.Street band I guess it can't be considered solo.

Granted, Water's Wall tour was a three year extravaganza with multiple legs (arenas and stadiums) so maybe that helps account for the record. It's also surprising though that he is third on the all time list of highest grossing tours. Wondering if his current tour "Us and Them" will be able match or even surpass that record - rumour has it he'll continue to tour with no end in sight - South America, Australia, Europe, etc., then a return to the US in stadiums, and possible returning to all of the above for multiple legs.

I think they forgot Dylan with his never ending tour

Quote
hockenheim95

Quote
Hairball
What's kind of surprising is that Roger Waters holds the record for being the highest-grossing tour for a solo musician.
I would have thought Paul McCartney based on mass appeal, though I don't know how long his tours are. Or Springsteen maybe, but when he tours with the E.Street band I guess it can't be considered solo.

Granted, Water's Wall tour was a three year extravaganza with multiple legs (arenas and stadiums) so maybe that helps account for the record. It's also surprising though that he is third on the all time list of highest grossing tours. Wondering if his current tour "Us and Them" will be able match or even surpass that record - rumour has it he'll continue to tour with no end in sight - South America, Australia, Europe, etc., then a return to the US in stadiums, and possible returning to all of the above for multiple legs.

I think they forgot Dylan with his never ending tour

What Dylan thinks about the label "Never Ending Tour""

Dylan has been dismissive of the Never Ending Tour tag. In the sleeve notes to his album World Gone Wrong (1993), Dylan wrote:

"Don't be bewildered by the Never Ending Tour chatter. There was a Never Ending Tour but it ended in 1991 with the departure of guitarist G. E. Smith. That one's long gone but there have been many others since then: "The Money Never Runs Out Tour" (Fall of 1991) "Southern Sympathizer Tour" (Early 1992) "Why Do You Look At Me So Strangely Tour" (European Tour 1992) "The One Sad Cry Of Pity Tour" (Australia & West Coast American Tour 1992) "Outburst Of Consciousness Tour" (1992) "Don't Let Your Deal Go Down Tour" (1993) and others, too many to mention each with their own character & design".

In a 2009 interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Dylan queried the validity of the term Never Ending Tour, saying:

"Critics should know there is no such thing as forever. Does anybody call Henry Ford a Never Ending Car Builder? Anybody ever say that Duke Ellington was on a Never Ending Bandstand Tour? These days, people are lucky to have a job. Any job. So critics might be uncomfortable with my working so much. Anybody with a trade can work as long as they want. A carpenter, an electrician. They don't necessarily need to retire".

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
What does it mean? Were the ABB tour tickets too cheap ;-)

It means in the end there was nothing particularly special about the Stones. Any large and dedicated fan base can also be totally fleeced.

Quote
jlowe
Rather than looking at gross takings, what about a comparison of Attendances/ tickets sold?
At least with that measure, inflation isn't a factor.
Anyone have the information?

Rolling Stones Steel Wheels, Pink Floyd A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, The Jacksons Victory tour, Bruce Springsteen Born In The USA and Elvis Presley's endless comeback were all massive in a way few current tours can compete with.

Elvis just because he pioneered the nostalgia tour with high ticket prices. He was getting $15 a ticket when most concerts were $5-7.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
jlowe
Rather than looking at gross takings, what about a comparison of Attendances/ tickets sold?
At least with that measure, inflation isn't a factor.
Anyone have the information?

You can sort by any number on the Wiki page.

[en.wikipedia.org]

For instance, the Voodoo Loung tour is #11 by raw gross, but it's number #2 all time for total attendance (6.3 million). Only U2's 360 had more in attendance (7.7 million).

That, in my opinion, says WAY more about how massive a draw the Stones were back then than any ticket gross number.

Thanks very much.
U2 records will take some beating.
I wonder which Act generates the most profit? The running costs of the Stones shows, despite Mick's oversight,seem to be at the top end.
Roger Waters, as a solo performer must be taking home the most dosh. Or perhaps Macca?

Ramones toured with a van and Uhaul and 2 roadies when lesser bands still used a bus and had one of the highest T shirt per capitas. They knew how to cut corners and tour on the cheap. Joey and Johnny legit retired with millions in the bank at age 45. They mostly toured clubs with some festivals and mid size venues.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
I think the US arena tour wouldn't have brought enough money these days. There was talk about 6-7 nights at MSG and things like that. A reported problem was the bad condition or small size of Asian stadiums. I think the tour was already pre-booked. They nixed it in favour of the next worldwide stadium (and arena) tour beginning only 1,5 years later.

You're right about one thing - it was pre-booked:

As in, which means, the spring 1996 South America and Asian tour(s) never got booked.


Talk persisted that the band would return to South America this spring and then to Southeast Asia as part of the tour's final leg but those plans fell apart in January when the South American promoter was unable to finalize plans... Without revenues from the lucrative South American dates, the costly Asian stint was ruled out. The band's spokeswoman said no contracts were signed for the canceled shows and no tickets were sold.

[www.rollingstone.com]

They were going to do an arena tour in 1996 for Stripped, basically the same pricing model they used for No Security. There was an earlier article in the LA Times speculating whether fans would pay $300 for concert tickets. I can't find it.

In spite of more broken records for Voodoo Lounge, I am sure seeing empty seats at many shows for the first time might have had something to do with it.


[articles.latimes.com]

Quote
Dan
They were going to do an arena tour in 1996 for Stripped, basically the same pricing model they used for No Security. There was an earlier article in the LA Times speculating whether fans would pay $300 for concert tickets. I can't find it.

In spite of more broken records for Voodoo Lounge, I am sure seeing empty seats at many shows for the first time might have had something to do with it.


[articles.latimes.com]

I've never been able to find it online but I recall seeing a total a few days after their New Orleans stop on the VOODOO tour and it was jaw droppingly bad, something like 19,000 people out of 65,000 or so available.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Dan
They were going to do an arena tour in 1996 for Stripped, basically the same pricing model they used for No Security. There was an earlier article in the LA Times speculating whether fans would pay $300 for concert tickets. I can't find it.

In spite of more broken records for Voodoo Lounge, I am sure seeing empty seats at many shows for the first time might have had something to do with it.


[articles.latimes.com]

I've never been able to find it online but I recall seeing a total a few days after their New Orleans stop on the VOODOO tour and it was jaw droppingly bad, something like 19,000 people out of 65,000 or so available.

The Wiki pages says 32,687 / 40,000.

Now, Birmingham and Indianapolis had really bad attendance:

19,893/50,000 and 25,000/50,000.

[en.wikipedia.org]