TJT
Active topics
2019-11-19 - Adelaide
 Tour: Joshua Tree Tour 2019
Songs played: 25
Audio recordings: 2
  1. Originally posted by deanallison:Despite the criticism or perhaps just concern sometimes from people, myself included, u2 have proved they are still one of the top 10 probably 5 live acts in the world. Not ‘the’ biggest anymore but not many can beat them over a world tour, Ed Sheeran is up there, Taylor swift was getting good numbers, the Rolling Stones are up there, Coldplay have cracked it too, but you’d struggle to find many more consistently getting close to U2’s attendance numbers and on a show per show basis maybe only the Rolling Stones can beat them in terms of money brought in.
    Think you're right, or might even be underestimating the (potential) draw of U2. So while we're waiting for the boxscore on U2 Adelaide, let's compare these tours..

    Stones did 1 (!) stadium show in AUS in 2014, and a couple of Arena shows. To top that they did 1 stadium show in Auckland.

    U2 does 6 stadiums shows in AUS, and 2 stadium shows in NZ. Stones played to a "whopping" total of 176K people during their whole leg of Oceania. Even if some U2 shows wouldn't "technically" sell out, they'd still easily double the stones numbers..
  2. Originally posted by melon51:[..]
    Think you're right, or might even be underestimating the (potential) draw of U2. So while we're waiting for the boxscore on U2 Adelaide, let's compare these tours..

    Stones did 1 (!) stadium show in AUS in 2014, and a couple of Arena shows. To top that they did 1 stadium show in Auckland.

    U2 does 6 stadiums shows in AUS, and 2 stadium shows in NZ. Stones played to a "whopping" total of 176K people during their whole leg of Oceania. Even if some U2 shows wouldn't "technically" sell out, they'd still easily double the stones numbers..
    It’s difficult to compare. There’s nothing to say if the stones had played stadiums instead of arenas they wouldn’t have at least matched U2’s attendances and as the Rolling Stones are a more expensive ticket brought in more money. But I guess at that level it’s almost irrelevant, anyone in that league when it comes to touring can claim to be amongst the biggest bands/acts in the world and more than 40 years into there career for u2 that’s impressive.
  3. Ed Sheeran is the top live act in the world currently.

    The Rolling Stones are the most successful live act of all time.

    U2 are the second most successful live act of all time.

    Pretty much sums it up.
  4. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    It’s difficult to compare. There’s nothing to say if the stones had played stadiums instead of arenas they wouldn’t have at least matched U2’s attendances and as the Rolling Stones are a more expensive ticket brought in more money. But I guess at that level it’s almost irrelevant, anyone in that league when it comes to touring can claim to be amongst the biggest bands/acts in the world and more than 40 years into there career for u2 that’s impressive.
    It is I suppose, but U2 and the Stones have the same promoter, as far as I know. Wouldn't they try to get the maximum out of each market for each band?

    Of course it could be that U2 is the bigger draw in terms of people, and the Stones have a bigger revenue.. Would you know how average icket prices compare?
  5. Originally posted by Welsh_Edge:Ed Sheeran is the top live act in the world currently.

    The Rolling Stones are the most successful live act of all time.

    U2 are the second most successful live act of all time.

    Pretty much sums it up.
    There it is.

    I was only guessing 45,000 on the Adelaide figure. It may very well be more, but I'd say no fewer than 45,000 at that gig. We'll find out soon enough. Ed Sheeran had 62,000 at the Adelaide Oval. The Stones in 2014 had 54,000. The last time U2 played Adelaide in 2006 they had 60,000+, at a different stadium. They only got about 30,000 in Adelaide 1993, so they're doing a lot better this time.

    Whatever the number is, they did pretty good for Adelaide on a Tuesday night. On the last 2 tours, Coldplay only hit Auckland, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, totally leaving out Adelaide and Perth. The Stones in 2014 is an unusual case... stadiums in Adelaide and Auckland, arenas in the others.
  7. home sweet home, THX Australia for two great nights……...
  8. Originally posted by deanallison:Despite the criticism or perhaps just concern sometimes from people, myself included, u2 have proved they are still one of the top 10 probably 5 live acts in the world. Not ‘the’ biggest anymore but not many can beat them over a world tour, Ed Sheeran is up there, Taylor swift was getting good numbers, the Rolling Stones are up there, Coldplay have cracked it too, but you’d struggle to find many more consistently getting close to U2’s attendance numbers and on a show per show basis maybe only the Rolling Stones can beat them in terms of money brought in.


    I'm not an Ed Sheeran or a T-Swift fan. But I'm not gonna disrespect them either.

    However, most of T-Swift's boxscores usually come from North America and Asia. She's not that popular in Oceania or Continental Europe. In fact, her last big tour bombed in the UK and Ireland, where her concert tickets were being given away for free.

    This is opposite of an artist like P!nk who has dominated Europe and Australia with big tours year after year. What's funny about P!nk is that despite being an arena act, and despite not being a top earner like T-Swift or Beyonce, she currently has the second-highest grossing tour for a solo female.

    Finally, I'm a bit surprised by Ed Sheeran's attendance numbers, seeing as how his last tour didn't have a "360" configuration like 360 did.
  9. Originally posted by HBK79:[..]


    I'm not an Ed Sheeran or a T-Swift fan. But I'm not gonna disrespect them either.

    However, most of T-Swift's boxscores usually come from North America and Asia. She's not that popular in Oceania or Continental Europe. In fact, her last big tour bombed in the UK and Ireland, where her concert tickets were being given away for free.

    This is opposite of an artist like P!nk who has dominated Europe and Australia with big tours year after year. What's funny about P!nk is that despite being an arena act, and despite not being a top earner like T-Swift or Beyonce, she currently has the second-highest grossing tour for a solo female.

    Finally, I'm a bit surprised by Ed Sheeran's attendance numbers, seeing as how his last tour didn't have a "360" configuration like 360 did.
    There was a good interview in one of the music trade press here in the UK (can’t remember) which w/ Sheerans manager following their 360 beating world tour (money taken anyway) world tour. BTW his manager’s fav band growing up was U2. Anyway he put it down to ticket price - the tickets to see Ed where relatively ‘affordable’ compared to the prices that some (including U2) play. However the way they beat the records in terms of takings was simply number of shows. They nailed the supply & demand in essence. He played a staggering 258 shows over 14 legs!! Granted it was over a 2 year period (and he’s young) but still it’s a massive undertaking. You’ve also got to remember that the costs of putting on what is basically 1 man, a bunch of fx pedals and a screen is a whole lot simpler than any U2 tour since the first JT shows back in the 80’s. He is also phenomenally popular (across a broad range of ages) but i think keen pricing & multiple shows meant that he is more ‘accessible’ than a lot of other acts today.
  10. Originally posted by melon51:[..]
    It is I suppose, but U2 and the Stones have the same promoter, as far as I know. Wouldn't they try to get the maximum out of each market for each band?

    Of course it could be that U2 is the bigger draw in terms of people, and the Stones have a bigger revenue.. Would you know how average icket prices compare?
    Well if you take the Rolling Stones no filter tour as an example, per attendee they were grossing $180. For the JT2017 tour u2 grossed $116 per attendee. So the Rolling Stones would only need to achieve 2/3 of what u2 can attendee wise to make the same money and I’d say give or take the Stones can match u2 attendance wise.
  11. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    Well if you take the Rolling Stones no filter tour as an example, per attendee they were grossing $180. For the JT2017 tour u2 grossed $116 per attendee. So the Rolling Stones would only need to achieve 2/3 of what u2 can attendee wise to make the same money and I’d say give or take the Stones can match u2 attendance wise.
    Hm, agree for the most part. But if the demand for the stones (in attendance, not revenue) is similar, why did they bother playing 6-8 arena shows then? For the band it's the same effort as doing stadiums?
  12. Originally posted by melon51:[..]
    Hm, agree for the most part. But if the demand for the stones (in attendance, not revenue) is similar, why did they bother playing 6-8 arena shows then? For the band it's the same effort as doing stadiums?
    Just to mix things up a bit. The same reason why u2 don’t always do stadiums. It’s not always about demand but more about the type of show the band want to put on. Maybe the Stones have played certain stadiums and don’t like the atmosphere compared to arena’s which are more built more for concerts anyway.