Being 14 years old myself, I can say that the problem is that they're too old. Naturally, I don't agree, but when I ask someone at school whether they like the Stones, they go "Those old geezers?! Are you mad?!". Ask them to name just one Stones song, and they won't know one.

but i am sure your mates could tell ya an u2 song
and for a 14 year old a 45 man like bono is also old
so it is not a question of age

erikjjf wrote : "The crowd in Milan had many young people."


Not only in Milan. I have seen 4 concerts on this tour and all the crowds had many young people. That's a "miracle", given the ticket prices.

Yes, even in Bergen there were many young people in attendance.

glimmer twin 81 wrote : "i am not talking about their albums in the 60s and 70s
but i wonder why a company like emi releases an album like abb
that had to be a flop and for a band like the stones it was a @#$%& flop
a band like that as to sell 10 000 000 albums minimum. so they have to change their songwriting a little less keith maybe. the lyrics are still sexy but the music is NOT THESE DAYS!"

The Stones are themselves. And they consist of conflicting elements: a "dinosaur" and a "chameleon" are fighting each against other! The result IMO is a good balance. In every dacade. As for ABB, it sells better than the Stones albums from 1974, 1976 and 1983- and with very bad managment and marketing. In the years of downloading. Why do you qualify it "flop"? The Stones never created a studio album that sold 10 million copies. It's best selling record, "Some Girls", sold 9+ million. But count how many rock bands outsell these days the Stones. A few. Maybe fewer than in other decades. Given the fact that the Stones never had been "monster" as album sellers (their 1978 album sold 9 million, but 1977 Fleetwood Mac's record sold 30 millions), why do you demand something like that now?

They are still stable enough as album sellers. They clearly outsell all the artists of their generation ("fresh" Dylan included, worldwide). They are still the hugest live act. I suppose they couldn't do these, without a notable number of younger fans. Who made "40 Licks" so successful? Hardcore fans? How many are they? Old fans, who have in their house four-five old compilations, which are including 35 out 40 songs of "40 Licks"? I don't think so..

And you need an older woman!!

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but i am sure your mates could tell ya an u2 song
> and for a 14 year old a 45 man like bono is also
> old
> so it is not a question of age

No they couldn't, no he isn't, and yes it is.

you might change your school then
or are you from iraq?

Everybody thought I was wierd for listening to Stones when I was 15. But now, people at my own age, are all geezers watching "Friends", while I'm still young in mind, and listen to rock.

The youth in Southern America does understands...but they have more feel foo the back-beat!!

I had the same problem ..Erik!!!

My cousins who are 16 and 19 could name plenty of Stones songs and I highly doubt they'd be able to name any U2 songs. I know this because they have asked me about several Stones, mostly hits but their friends and them definitely know a good amount of songs.

when they know stones songs i am sure they also know u2 songs
but it is not important if they know songs

they have to buy them

I don't think young people listen to U2. U2 is for 30-40 year olds.

no i am 25 and i have always listened to u2
and at concerts most people are between 15 and 30

Ive always thought stones shows have a good mix of younger and older.

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> and GAZZA
>
> you might know a lot about the stones

I dont claim to. Thats for other people, but thankfully you saw through it.

but with u2
> you are completely wrong
> popmart has been a huge flop in the us and if such
> a huge show does not work in the us it is a flop
> anyways cause you have to make it on the primary
> market

Sorry, but thats utter nonsense. However, I wouldnt expect you to be aware of how successful that tour was if you base its success/failure solely on how it went in the US. The 30-date stadium tour of the US in spring '97 was so unsuccessful they returned in the autumn to play another 15 stadium shows before ending it. It wasnt the commercial or critical smash that ZooTV was perhaps, but being able to play 45 stadium shows is hardly akin to a "huge flop"

In Europe, it was huge. 30 stadium shows. Which is just as big a market.



> and again GAZZA from 1994 to 00 u2 was dead but
> these days they are even bigger than ever


Yeah, those #1 singles and albums and stadium tour in '97 showed a band who obviously couldnt get arrested. Agree with you though that theyre at least as big now as they were before.

We'll agree to disagree on this one. Cheers, mate.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-09 00:58 by Gazza.

I'm 45, certainly a lot younger than the band. My sons (16 & 11) are fans and concert attendees (although their old man bought the tickets). Lots of folks taking kids, even grandkids. Like the blues, this music reaches across age, sex, and race lines.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-09 00:46 by Elmo Lewis.

They need a big hit !
Start Me Up would still be big if it were released today.
Why do they find it so hard to write a popular song nowadays ?

asmallerbang
you are right

@gazza: even bono called popmart an us desaster

this has also been the reason why they played elevation tour in arenas

Could be a reason, although with the amount of arena shows theyve played in the US on the last 2 tours, they seem to have no problem selling tickets and making enough money there to have filled stadiums. Its the same as with the Stones. Every decent sized American city has indoor arenas of about 18,000 or more and in many of them you couldnt play stadium shows at certain times of the year. So, you can play arenas and charge more money.

Europe has very few arenas that size - which is why the Stones and U2 play stadiums here instead. Plus, they're limited to summer tours as the stadiums are unavailable any other time.

However, if they were able to return to play more stadiums..calling it a 'disaster' is only relative. They played 3 shows at Giants Stadium for example.

I'd love to have a disaster like that! LOL Wouldnt you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-09 01:36 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> However, if they were able to return to play more
> stadiums..calling it a 'disaster' is only
> relative. They played 3 shows at Giants Stadium
> for example.
>
> I'd love to have a disaster like that! LOL
> Wouldnt you?


This is completely true. The U2 Popmart tour was in no means a disaster in the U.S.. The problem was that it came on the heels of the Zoo TV tour which was amazingly successful. As Gazza mentioned, they played 3 shows at Giants Stadium. They also played 3 at Soldier Field in Chicago. For Los Angeles, they only played 1 show at the L.A. Memorial Coliseum compared to 3 stadium and 2 arena shows on the 1992 Zoo TV tour. Still, they sold 65,000 tickets to the Coliseum, which is amazing by any standards. It's only when you compare it to the 125,000-135,000 tickets they sold for the 3 area stadium shows in 1992 that it pales.

In Denver, they sold about 30,000 tickets for the same stadium that they sold over 50,000 in 92. Obviously that's a big drop, but there are very few artists who can even sell 30,000 tickets. The only show that was a near disaster financially was in Jacksonville, where sales hovered around 10-15,000 but with a big increase in the days preceding the show, they got to about 25,000.

There's a lot of reasons for the decrease in tickets sales for U2 in 1997 compared to 1992, chief of which are:

When U2 announced the Popmart tour in February 1997, they announced both North American legs, the second of which ran from late October to mid December. While Europeans are used to buying tickets for shows 9 months in advance, it is very uncommon in North America. As a result, the ticket sales for the shows in the fall started with a splash then died off completely.

Thier 1997 album Pop, while being a very good album aritisically, was a small seller by U2 standards in the U.S.. Like A Bigger Bang, it had a relatively short life despite a #1 debut. By the time those fall shows came around, the album was forgotten by casual fans and ticket selling momentum was gone as people had forgottten about the upcoming U2 shows after all those months.

In 1992, when they announced the fall stadium shows in North America, their ultra successful Achtung Baby album (my own personal choice for best rock album of the 1990s) had been out for about 8 months and was still huge, thus there was much demand to see U2 play stadiums in fall 1992. It really was a must see concert for casual fans, as well as hard core fans.

Another thing U2 intentionally did for Popmart was visit a lot of markets not played on the previous tour. This meant they played a lot of smaller markets that the Zoo TV tour had skipped and they played in a lot of markets they either had never played in or had not since their very early touring days. In some cases like in Jacksonville or Clemson, it didn't pay off as well, while in going to Edmonton for the first time ever, it was similar to the Stones playing in Regina this fall, where the demand was strong enough to sell out 2 stadium shows.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-09 02:22 by Halup.

Harm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> erikjjf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The crowd in Milan had many young people.
>
> Indeed. And the last tour in Barcelona as well.
> That's great. I enjoy seeing young people dig the
> stones. Rather than a fifty-five-year-old fan with
> his way to small old jeans jacket still acting as
> if he were 19.
small old jeans jacket and a piss-green t-shirt lol

Really don't understand this thread. U2 (or REM or Bruce Springsteen, or Right Said Fred) sells more tickets/CDs. So what? Why, as a Stones fanatic, should I care? Do I take chart success as a repudiation of my musical taste?

What are the biggest selling discs of all time? Michael Jackson, Fleetwood Mac, Saturday Night Fever, Alanis Morrisette? Is it important that my favorite band hasn't sold as much as these "artists"? Am I hopelessly out of touch?

20-year olds like 50 Cent, emminem, Korn, and Marilyn Manson more than they like the Stones. I should care because......??????

Popular taste is, IMO, a reflection of the lowest common denominator. That is to say the worst of the "common" culture. I'm proud to be outside of that. I personally look forward to the day when me and 150 60-year olds are the only ones who turn-up for a Stones show. You can tell we're rockin when a little spittle shows up on our chin......

they have a younger audience here in Argentina, the problem is the USA its that they love hip hop and rap, here we love rock n roll.

THE STONES will never have a younger audience as long as they are gouging fans with these ticket prices, which are obviously geared to 'status seekers' who just want to look cool and say they are going to see the STONES before they quit. THE STONES have sold out their long term legacy for a quick buck in the short term.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 06:37 by Beelyboy.

@ Gazza : again I have to say that Popmart has been a flop in the us
at least financially- maybe because the stage was too expensive and the costs of logistics were too high and bad planned because they had to travell the screen from show to show cause they only had one for three stages

and when u2 started the elevation tour they didnt know that they would sell out so many shows in spring 01 so the fall us tour was planned later which also shows that they started elevation in arenas to not play in front of empty stadiums

@KSIE: first i have to say that i know stones are no big sellers anymore but right said fred :-) lol you must be kiddin sorry that is too bad
fat british bastards doin pop trash

and again i am just sayin its okay to me if the stones will bring out another album like abb BUT if they wanna hit the road again they should try to get young people in the stadium cause these shows have turned into an opera event

again watch u2 or r williams live and you know what i am talkin about

the pricket prices? sure...i think that any female between the age of 15 to 25 get's slightly creeped out by a 60 year old grandfather trying to act sexy. the 15 to 25 year old male wants to hear some decent guitar playing and comes away pissed off that he spent quite a few dollars for some nice posing...if this is the supposied last tour, who cares who's in the audience? take the money and run...

for some reason dylan doesn't come off as creepy? when he did that victoria's secret commercial a few years back, you perhaps thought that dylan would be escorting that model after the shoot for a cup of coffee or something...