Mr L on Shidoobee will be pleased to know that the biggest selling album in the world for 2005 was x & y by Coldplay with 8.3m sales.
Tis a real strange business when an album of songs with no real guts and glory about them can sell to extreme.
The music business has always been fickle but nowadays acts such as Coldplay & James Blunt have become forefront in music sales and trends with no obvious talent or gimics.
U2's How to Dis-Arm an Atom Bomb is one of their poorest albums yet because of all the hype by their record label
and the pop critics people rushed out in the 1st week and bought loads of copies worldwide.(excellent marketting)
On the back of this U2 have had an extremely successfull
world tour that Coldplay would give an arm & a leg to be able to pull off.
Yes the music business is really fickle when a bunch of older musicians in their 43 Yr year can attract more people on the N.American leg of the tour than the great U2 or that Coldplay will do perhaps in their entire lifespan.
That band is the' Rolling Stones' and lets all recognise this achievement by the skinny English cats from London who
always excell in live Rock & Roll concert.

Stones have always sold consistently well but the truly phenomenal stuff sales wise almost has to be somewhat bland, or at least accessible enough to appeal to 6, 7, 10, or 24 (Thriller, Eagles Greatest Hits) million: like, Christopher Cross' debut album (Grammy New Artist of the year, 1980)...The Sound Of Music soundtrack and Herb Albert were huge in the 60s, Jesus Christ Superstar was one of the biggest of '70, and Boston's 1976 debut sure sold a lot...And let's not forget Whitney Houston's "My Bodyguard" soundtrack, or that Elton John soundtrack from around 5 years ago for which I am grateful to have forgot the title...

U2's album came out in November 2004, not 2005....

this post is annoying. i dont really see any point to it besides the opportunity to complain. And also, I do think that both Coldplay and James Blunt have talent. Please don't complain that this years biggest hits are 2 artists that play good music, play their own instruments and write their own music. A few years ago Limp Bizkit had the year's biggest song with a cover of 'Faith.' This year our biggest hits are talented musicians who actually perform and don't lip sync. So what if it's not the Stones. I would much rather have Coldplay than Britney Spears. Also, I don't think U2's record was a flop. It's still doing well in the charts and I bet they have the best selling record for their age group.

jumpinjackgreg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Also, I don't think
> U2's record was a flop. It's still doing well in
> the charts and I bet they have the best selling
> record for their age group.


well yeah, that's not hard when your competition is either Andrea Bocelli or dead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-02 06:50 by nikkibong.

U2 came in at #16 with 2,899,000 in sales , but there were another 6.7 million in sales in the last 6 weeks of 2004 that were not counted for the 2005 Mediatraffic chart, but showed up on the 2004 Mediatraffic chart.

Its important to keep in mind that depending on the chart eligibility period, many of these artist sales will get cut off from their total. If we were going by the time period for Billboards year end chart, which starts the last week November 2004 and goes to the 3rd week November 2005, U2's BOMB would be listed as the #1


Just as important as album sales are concert ticket sales.
In 2005, no one came close to U2's Vertigo Tour which to date has done the following:

GROSS: $333,206,884
ATTENDANCE: 3,983,650
SHOWS: 118
SELLOUTS: 118


Coldplay's figures are a tiny fraction of U2's for concert touring. Coldplay has yet to reach the level U2 was at on the Unforgettable Fire Tour in terms of concert drawing power, despite the fact they have had 3 mega selling albums in a row and blanket airplay and promotion.

While Coldplay became one of the top album sellers with just their second album, it remains to be seen whether their success in album sales will be matched with a concert drawing strength that will allow them to play stadiums. U2 became the 2nd biggest stadium artist in the world only 7 years after the release of their first album and only with their first mega selling album.

Those figures for U2 are impressive. That means that The Stones eleven years old record in terms of attendance will be matched. I would have thought ABB tour would be close to a 4 Millions attendance. No way. It's gonna be only slightly over 40 Licks,if over.

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those figures for U2 are impressive. That means
> that The Stones eleven years old record in terms
> of attendance will be matched. I would have
> thought ABB tour would be close to a 4 Millions
> attendance. No way. It's gonna be only slightly
> over 40 Licks,if over.

That is not true, PHD.

Voodoo lounge Tour : 6,7 million tickets sold...

Don't misunderstand. I don't bother with U2 and will never attend one of their show. I simply recognize that they are currently the top act in terms of attracting audience. When The Edge' daughter will have recovered, the sooner the better, this group can plan 70 or so stadium gigs with all sold out. In Europe, they did not do all the venues they could have. Where The Stones perform one gig, and I am deep down happy with that after 43 years, U2 make 2 or 3 shows.
Coldplay is another issue. I do think they did not anticipate the success of their last album. Had they, they would have done Stadiums. In Europe anyway. If Robbie Williams can sell out 5 Wembley II, then they can do it too. The Stones have already booked that. They have nothing to prove anymore.

The ABB tour will have around 4 millon people (depends on the remaining Europe tour)...

If you include Rio, it will go close to 5,5 and then what if the ABB-tour will continue in US in the fall the attendance will be even higher....

Amazing for a band in their age..... playing to around 4 million people (5,5) in more than 110 shows in a period of 1 year.

No way. US 05 : 1.2 - US 06 : .3 - SA : .2 - Pacific : .3 - EU : 1.4 . That is
3.4 equal to 40 Licks. Which is highly satisfying . I would never anticipate that they could have achieved that audience.

I think your EU figures are too low - should be some hundred thousand higher....

If you have summed up the numbers from IORR, then check out that some stadiums have no numbers for capacity..... fx. Paris.....

If you add up, you are right. Now, Wembley 180 turned to 110 at max , and tickets are still on sale for Twick ,. So UK will be similar to 40 Licks. Germany is on poor trend. Holland also. Those 2 countries on which 40 Licks success was built on. Thus, 2.0 x 70 % = 1.4. Which is a very good level. I was not convinced at all of that a few weeks ago. But reality is... I am happy with those figures. Let's rock.

country honk said about the Stones: "Amazing for a band in their age..... playing to around 4 million people (5,5) in more than 110 shows in a period of 1 year."

country honk, add up two more factors. (A) these @#$%& ticket prices and ( the extremely high frequency of their tours in the last years. Considering these factors, it's amazing their ability to attract in 2005/06 more people than during 1981/82 (then, 3.5 million).

phd wrote: "That means that The Stones eleven years old record in terms of attendance will be matched."

I think you' re wrong. I saw somewhere that Vertigo tour, the most ambitious and successful round of the entire U2 history, will have 4.4 million. Every Stones tour since 1989, except Licks, attracted a bigger number: 1989/90 tour 6.2, 1994/95 tour 6.7, 1997/99 tour 5.6, 2002/03 tour 3.5. In a period of 14 years (1989-2003) 22 million and still counting...