Can U2 ever come back?

[bethere]

I think your numbers prove my point. As a rock band ages the sales figures go down, not up. Wrecking Ball being the 23rd highest selling record in 2012 at 440,000 units is nothing compared to Springsteen's recordings in his younger days. The albums great, but aside from his own fans no one is buying it. It isn't getting any airplay at all.

             EVERYONE in the music industry, young, middle age, or old, is selling LESS than they did 5 years, 10 years and 20 years ago. You can't compare album sales of any artist in 2012 to 10 years ago and 20 years ago ong the public.

That's as good as Springsteen has ever done? Ever heard of Born to Run, Born in the USA, Tunnel of Love.......

For bands like U2 and Springsteen, being in 7th or 10th has to be considered a drop off. Since Joshua Tree how many U2 albums finished below 5th? Off the top of my mind I'd say only 2, Pop and No Line.

For me I really don't care at this point how many records my fav artists sell. It's how good the record is.

        Well, I don't have the year end chart for 1975, but I do know that "Born To Run" only peaked at #3 and spent just 12 weeks in the top 40. I'm sure it went platinum in the USA in its first year, but I doubt it was even in the top 20 in the United States in 1975. They were 19 albums that managed to hit the #1 spot in 1975 and all of them spent more than 12 weeks in the top 40. "Born To Run" did not hit the 3 million mark, in the USA, until late 1986 after the Born In The USA album and tour and more than 10 years after it was released.

           So yes, I would say Wrecking Ball in 2012 has sold just as much relative to the rest of the market as Born To Run did in 1975. Born to Run was not one of the 20 biggest selling albums of 1975. Wrecking Ball isn't either in 2012 unless your looking at the Global Market where it ranks at #7. I'd say looking at the global market, Wrecking Ball is easily a more successful album in 2012, than Born To Run was in 1975.

           You realize the difference between finishing #5 and #10 can be very small.  What makes finishing in the top 5 the absolute standard for success? Rattle And Hum, Zooropa, POP, and No Line On The Horizon did not make the top 5 worldwide, but No Line and Rattle And Hum came very close.

           With the exception of Goyte, Springsteen has the top selling album by a male solo artist in 2012. How is that a "drop off"?

[So Cruel]

I think your numbers prove my point. As a rock band ages the sales figures go down, not up. Wrecking Ball being the 23rd highest selling record in 2012 at 440,000 units is nothing compared to Springsteen's recordings in his younger days. The albums great, but aside from his own fans no one is buying it. It isn't getting any airplay at all.

             EVERYONE in the music industry, young, middle age, or old, is selling LESS than they did 5 years, 10 years and 20 years ago. You can't compare album sales of any artist in 2012 to 10 years ago and 20 years ago ong the public.

That's as good as Springsteen has ever done? Ever heard of Born to Run, Born in the USA, Tunnel of Love.......

For bands like U2 and Springsteen, being in 7th or 10th has to be considered a drop off. Since Joshua Tree how many U2 albums finished below 5th? Off the top of my mind I'd say only 2, Pop and No Line.

For me I really don't care at this point how many records my fav artists sell. It's how good the record is.

        Well, I don't have the year end chart for 1975, but I do know that "Born To Run" only peaked at #3 and spent just 12 weeks in the top 40. I'm sure it went platinum in the USA in its first year, but I doubt it was even in the top 20 in the United States in 1975. They were 19 albums that managed to hit the #1 spot in 1975 and all of them spent more than 12 weeks in the top 40. "Born To Run" did not hit the 3 million mark, in the USA, until late 1986 after the Born In The USA album and tour and more than 10 years after it was released.

           So yes, I would say Wrecking Ball in 2012 has sold just as much relative to the rest of the market as Born To Run did in 1975. Born to Run was not one of the 20 biggest selling albums of 1975. Wrecking Ball isn't either in 2012 unless your looking at the Global Market where it ranks at #7. I'd say looking at the global market, Wrecking Ball is easily a more successful album in 2012, than Born To Run was in 1975.

           You realize the difference between finishing #5 and #10 can be very small.  What makes finishing in the top 5 the absolute standard for success? Rattle And Hum, Zooropa, POP, and No Line On The Horizon did not make the top 5 worldwide, but No Line and Rattle And Hum came very close.

           With the exception of Goyte, Springsteen has the top selling album by a male solo artist in 2012. How is that a "drop off"?

Bruce Springsteen in 1975 was virtually an unknown artist with no fan base. Born to Run has sold over 10 million units world wide. Wrecking Ball has the benefit of being released well into Bruce's career when he has built up a fan base who will buy his records. His current releases will sell between 1 to 2 million units based on his huge fan base, not because they are making a dent in popular culture. Once his own fan base own the record, they will drop off because the general public really do not care anymore about him.

This is from a great article about Springsteen in the New Yorker:

"It’s a sweet day for Springsteen. “Wrecking Ball” is the No. 1 album in the U.S. and in the United Kingdom, passing Adele’s blockbuster “21.” “This is great news, but we’ll see where we are in a few weeks,” Landau says. Springsteen will never again have huge sellers like “Born in the U.S.A.,” but he will always get an initial burst of sales from his fan base. How sales sustain over time is the question. (The answer is that they don’t: after a month, “Wrecking Ball” dropped to No. 19. By summer, it had fallen off the charts.) What makes Springsteen an economic power at this point is his status as a live performer."http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/07/30/120730fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all

That's the sum of it. When artists get older they will get a great first few weeks sales as their large fan base buys the albums, but because they do not get the radio play/the TV time that they used to they won't sustain it. It happened to the Stones, it happened to Springsteen, and it has started with U2.

[bethere]

I think your numbers prove my point. As a rock band ages the sales figures go down, not up. Wrecking Ball being the 23rd highest selling record in 2012 at 440,000 units is nothing compared to Springsteen's recordings in his younger days. The albums great, but aside from his own fans no one is buying it. It isn't getting any airplay at all.

             EVERYONE in the music industry, young, middle age, or old, is selling LESS than they did 5 years, 10 years and 20 years ago. You can't compare album sales of any artist in 2012 to 10 years ago and 20 years ago ong the public.

That's as good as Springsteen has ever done? Ever heard of Born to Run, Born in the USA, Tunnel of Love.......

For bands like U2 and Springsteen, being in 7th or 10th has to be considered a drop off. Since Joshua Tree how many U2 albums finished below 5th? Off the top of my mind I'd say only 2, Pop and No Line.

For me I really don't care at this point how many records my fav artists sell. It's how good the record is.

        Well, I don't have the year end chart for 1975, but I do know that "Born To Run" only peaked at #3 and spent just 12 weeks in the top 40. I'm sure it went platinum in the USA in its first year, but I doubt it was even in the top 20 in the United States in 1975. They were 19 albums that managed to hit the #1 spot in 1975 and all of them spent more than 12 weeks in the top 40. "Born To Run" did not hit the 3 million mark, in the USA, until late 1986 after the Born In The USA album and tour and more than 10 years after it was released.

           So yes, I would say Wrecking Ball in 2012 has sold just as much relative to the rest of the market as Born To Run did in 1975. Born to Run was not one of the 20 biggest selling albums of 1975. Wrecking Ball isn't either in 2012 unless your looking at the Global Market where it ranks at #7. I'd say looking at the global market, Wrecking Ball is easily a more successful album in 2012, than Born To Run was in 1975.

           You realize the difference between finishing #5 and #10 can be very small.  What makes finishing in the top 5 the absolute standard for success? Rattle And Hum, Zooropa, POP, and No Line On The Horizon did not make the top 5 worldwide, but No Line and Rattle And Hum came very close.

           With the exception of Goyte, Springsteen has the top selling album by a male solo artist in 2012. How is that a "drop off"?

Bruce Springsteen in 1975 was virtually an unknown artist with no fan base. Born to Run has sold over 10 million units world wide. Wrecking Ball has the benefit of being released well into Bruce's career when he has built up a fan base who will buy his records. His current releases will sell between 1 to 2 million units based on his huge fan base, not because they are making a dent in popular culture. Once his own fan base own the record, they will drop off because the general public really do not care anymore about him.

This is from a great article about Springsteen in the New Yorker:

"It’s a sweet day for Springsteen. “Wrecking Ball” is the No. 1 album in the U.S. and in the United Kingdom, passing Adele’s blockbuster “21.” “This is great news, but we’ll see where we are in a few weeks,” Landau says. Springsteen will never again have huge sellers like “Born in the U.S.A.,” but he will always get an initial burst of sales from his fan base. How sales sustain over time is the question. (The answer is that they don’t: after a month, “Wrecking Ball” dropped to No. 19. By summer, it had fallen off the charts.) What makes Springsteen an economic power at this point is his status as a live performer."http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/07/30/120730fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all

That's the sum of it. When artists get older they will get a great first few weeks sales as their large fan base buys the albums, but because they do not get the radio play/the TV time that they used to they won't sustain it. It happened to the Stones, it happened to Springsteen, and it has started with U2.

            The reason that Born To Run has sold over 10 million worldwide to date is the success of Springsteens career AFTER the Born To Run album and tour. A lot of the album figures you talk of are not the first year sales, but total sales over decades. Another totaly inaccurate comparison to be making.

          The New Yorker article does not change the fact that as of late August, Bruce Springsteen has the 7th biggest selling album worldwide of the year. Thats just a non-debatable fact. If Springsteens album has done so poorly, why are only 6 albums currently outselling it for the year worldwide?

           As for the Stones, they haven't been in the top 40 for the year or worldwide since the early 1980s. So they can't even be compared at all to what Springsteen has done this year and what U2 have consistently done since 1987.

No Line On The Horizon was the 7th biggest selling album of 2009! It would have been the 5th biggest seller of the year if Michael Jackson had not died in the summer of 2009 leading to massive boost in sales for two older albums. How can that be seen in any way shape or form as a decline? When you have one of the top selling albums of the year, you are anything but in decline. If you raised the bar any further, you'd be claiming they would have to have the #1 selling album each year they released an album or else they would be in "decline". Thats crazy.

                 When you consider that thousands of albums are released every year on major record lables. What U2 did with No Line On The Horizon is amazing.

                  Finally, if your going to explain away any success that U2 has because if its past success, then why are so few veteran acts selling albums at the rate that U2 are? R.E.M.'s last album sold less than 150,000 copies in the USA and less than 500,000 worldwide. But based on your theory that a band past success plus their fanbase automatically generates millions of sales, R.E.M.'s last album should have sold millions and been one of the top selling albums of 2011. It wasn't. It did not make the top 40 for the year worldwide, and in the United States, it did not even make the top 200.

[So Cruel]

I don't really know how to simplify it any more.

Bands like Springsteen and U2 who have large fanbases, will have a huge 1 -2 week initial sales period with anything they release because that is the period that their fanbase is buying the album. Wrecking Ball after a month had fallen to 19, after a few months it was off the charts. It's pretty clear that the initial sales were huge because of his large fanbase, but then it dropped off a cliff 'cause the general public wasn't hearing it and buying it. That is what the New Yorker article made clear. You keep bringing up that it is in the top 10 albums of the year, but without his fanbase it wouldn't of registered at all. U2 and Springsteen will always be in or near the top 10 simply because they have millions of hardcore fans who will buy every album. What they aren't doing now is bringing in the general public like they used to. 

When U2 were in their prime you'd hear at least 3- 4 singles get played on the radio. When No Line came out I heard Boots for about a week and then it disappeared. With Wrecking Ball I can honestly say I haven't heard one song played on the radio. The aging bands will have their old music played on classic rock radio but their new music isn't being played at all on top 40. No one hearing the album means the general public won't be out buying the album.

As far as a band like REM go, they never had as big as a fanbase as Springsteen or U2 and never went after popularity like Springsteen and U2 did. REM were always an arena band and while U2 were going after pop hits like Beautiful Day and Vertigo, REM were writing pretty low key albums.

[Gone]

Agreed, So Cruel.

Large fan bases do make a U2's presence felt upon a release, but age doesn't matter for the guys, I don't think. If this was athletics, it would be a whole different story. But even then, the guys are all looking very healthy. Bono could drop some weight, but that's besides the point.

U2 can sweep the general public again if they really want to. They need to really mix things around and try things new just like in the 90's, and not friendly things up, if you understand what I mean. I'm not saying go back to the 90's, mind you.

I believe U2 can bear the crown as King of the Music World once more if they don't restrict themselves. This is all personal, but the last three records I don't listen to a whole lot aside from CoBL, NLotH, MoS, Breathe, and SIAM. However, I listen to the 1980-1998 U2 all the time.

Anyway, I feel like I am rambling and sounding redundant. It is not improbable that U2 can get back to where they were during the 90's. All they need to do is take risks! Age is just a number.

[bethere]

Bands like Springsteen and U2 who have large fanbases, will have a huge 1 -2 week initial sales period with anything they release because that is the period that their fanbase is buying the album. Wrecking Ball after a month had fallen to 19, after a few months it was off the charts. It's pretty clear that the initial sales were huge because of his large fanbase, but then it dropped off a cliff 'cause the general public wasn't hearing it and buying it. That is what the New Yorker article made clear. You keep bringing up that it is in the top 10 albums of the year, but without his fanbase it wouldn't of registered at all. U2 and Springsteen will always be in or near the top 10 simply because they have millions of hardcore fans who will buy every album. What they aren't doing now is bringing in the general public like they used to. 

            Nearly every album, unless it is a debut album by a new artist, has its highest sales week in its first week of release. What you are describing is not unique to Springsteen and U2, but happens for all artist, especially ever since electronic point of sale tracking was introduced in 1991 to make the charts. Just about every album that has been released this year has experienced the same general chart tragectory in the weeks after its release as Springsteen's album has experienced.

             Something else I found out. Wrecking Ball is NOT off the charts! The most current chart available shows that the album is at #164! So 5 months after release, Wrecking Ball is still charting.

             

              Essentially, your claiming this: If Springsteen had the biggest selling album of 2012, it would not matter and be no accomplishment because its just the dedicated hardcore fan base buying the album. But then if Springsteens not in the top 10 or top 20, its because he is an aging 63 year old who can't get appeal to people who buy albums. You've drifted from the latter point of view once confronted with facts that show Springsteen is still selling very well, and then drifted to the new one to explain away his success.

             Before I get to R.E.M., lets take another look at U2. Lets look at POP. In the United States POP finished at #50 in sales for the year. That was indeed well below their standards. But why did the album finish at #50 since the fanbase is supposed to insure a top 10 or near top 10 finish? Was it Age? I don't think being 37 was in your old catagory? U2 certainly had a big fanbase before POP was released and they were not old with balding gray hair.

             The experience with POP shows there is NO guarantee of anything! The POPMART tour also experienced a significant decline for the band in attendance, something that should not of happened if your claim about the fanbase was true.

              What gets played on the radio is a different matter because its not just a matter of the listening audience, its also heavily impacted by the people who own and program the stations, a relatively small group of people I might add.

            R.E.M. had plenty of pop hits like "Stand", "Orange Crush", "The One I Love", Losing My Religion, Shiny Happy People, Man On The Moon, Bang And Blame etc. The band had 3 10 million selling albums in a row with Out Of Time, Automatic For The People, and Monster. They did do some large scale tours, and yes they did play stadiums. So your claim that they were always an Arena Band is not true. Here are some stadium results and stadiums they played on the Monster Tour:

July 22, 1995
Dublin Ireland
Slane Castle
GROSS: $3,194,076
ATTENDANCE: 78,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $40.95

July 23, 1995
Cardiff Wales
Arms Park
GROSS: $2,059,025
ATTENDANCE: 55,950
CAPACITY: 56,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $36.80

July 25-26, 1995
Huddersfield England
Kirklees Stadium
GROSS: $2,576,000
ATTENDANCE: 70,000
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $36.80

July 27, 1995
Edinburgh Scotland
Murrayfield Stadium
GROSS: $1,722,092
ATTENDANCE: 46,796
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $36.80

July 29-30, 1995
Milton Keynes England
National Bowl
GROSS: $4,796,364
ATTENDANCE: 130,000
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $36.90

They also played the following Stadium on that tour:

5 July 1995 - Ernst Happel Stadion, Vienna, Austria
7 July 1995 - Out In The Green Festival Site, Frauenfeld, Switzerland
8 July 1995 - Trabrennbahn Bahrenfeld, Hamburg, Germany
9 July 1995 - Duren-Badesee, Cologne, Germany
4 August 1995 - Sjohistoriska Museet, Stockholm, Sweden
6 August 1995 - Catania Stadium, Sicily, Italy
9 August 1995 - Ramat Gan Stadium, Tel Aviv, Israel

                                  R.E.M. was definitely a big band.

[santipsedge]

Young generations change over time, and grow up leaving the place to other young generations with other ideas and preferences. And it's normal that time influences also U2 and the other 'our' bands (with our I identify of 'my' time ). Don't you think it would be a mistake to try to pleasure to everyone? I mean: they haven't a duty now to be accepted by all people of every age. They are themselves, with their way to play music, I don't want they try to feat for compete with some boy-band or I don't know, Lady Gaga ect... They always do things in a different and new way, they are big for this.

[Allie79]

I don't really know how to simplify it any more.

Bands like Springsteen and U2 who have large fanbases, will have a huge 1 -2 week initial sales period with anything they release because that is the period that their fanbase is buying the album. Wrecking Ball after a month had fallen to 19, after a few months it was off the charts. It's pretty clear that the initial sales were huge because of his large fanbase, but then it dropped off a cliff 'cause the general public wasn't hearing it and buying it. That is what the New Yorker article made clear. You keep bringing up that it is in the top 10 albums of the year, but without his fanbase it wouldn't of registered at all. U2 and Springsteen will always be in or near the top 10 simply because they have millions of hardcore fans who will buy every album. What they aren't doing now is bringing in the general public like they used to. 

When U2 were in their prime you'd hear at least 3- 4 singles get played on the radio. When No Line came out I heard Boots for about a week and then it disappeared. With Wrecking Ball I can honestly say I haven't heard one song played on the radio. The aging bands will have their old music played on classic rock radio but their new music isn't being played at all on top 40. No one hearing the album means the general public won't be out buying the album.

As far as a band like REM go, they never had as big as a fanbase as Springsteen or U2 and never went after popularity like Springsteen and U2 did. REM were always an arena band and while U2 were going after pop hits like Beautiful Day and Vertigo, REM were writing pretty low key albums.

You are right So Cruel,

Over the decades U2 has gathered millions and millions of fans who will automatically buy the new album upon release, regardless of the content is good or bad.

[jacob]

bethere convinced me: A band who's last album was the 7# selling album of the year and had the highest grossing tour ever, cannot be called "in decline". Besides, they wrote some great songs the last years. Maybe we should accept U2 is not played in every supermarket everyday and not on every single cover of Time magazine. (and that there's not a single bono-poster in our daughters bedrooms)       

[So Cruel]

bethere convinced me: A band who's last album was the 7# selling album of the year and had the highest grossing tour ever, cannot be called "in decline". Besides, they wrote some great songs the last years. Maybe we should accept U2 is not played in every supermarket everyday and not on every single cover of Time magazine. (and that there's not a single bono-poster in our daughters bedrooms)       

I don't think you get what the conversation is about. Springsteen is not in decline. His last album is great. What I am saying is that most aging artists are not making an impact on the general public 'cause their albums are not getting played on the radio like they used to. The album sales are generated from their fanbase, not from the general public hearing the music on the radio and buying it. What behere seems to be saying is because Springsteen is on the charts, he is as popular as ever.

[bethere]

I don't really know how to simplify it any more.

Bands like Springsteen and U2 who have large fanbases, will have a huge 1 -2 week initial sales period with anything they release because that is the period that their fanbase is buying the album. Wrecking Ball after a month had fallen to 19, after a few months it was off the charts. It's pretty clear that the initial sales were huge because of his large fanbase, but then it dropped off a cliff 'cause the general public wasn't hearing it and buying it. That is what the New Yorker article made clear. You keep bringing up that it is in the top 10 albums of the year, but without his fanbase it wouldn't of registered at all. U2 and Springsteen will always be in or near the top 10 simply because they have millions of hardcore fans who will buy every album. What they aren't doing now is bringing in the general public like they used to. 

When U2 were in their prime you'd hear at least 3- 4 singles get played on the radio. When No Line came out I heard Boots for about a week and then it disappeared. With Wrecking Ball I can honestly say I haven't heard one song played on the radio. The aging bands will have their old music played on classic rock radio but their new music isn't being played at all on top 40. No one hearing the album means the general public won't be out buying the album.

As far as a band like REM go, they never had as big as a fanbase as Springsteen or U2 and never went after popularity like Springsteen and U2 did. REM were always an arena band and while U2 were going after pop hits like Beautiful Day and Vertigo, REM were writing pretty low key albums.

You are right So Cruel,

Over the decades U2 has gathered millions and millions of fans who will automatically buy the new album upon release, regardless of the content is good or bad.

             Well, if thats the case, how do you explain what happened with POP and POPMART in terms of sales. Why did POP experience such a steep sales decline? For the POPMART tour why did the tour see such a significant decrease in attendance?


U2 has visited Tampa Florida once on every single tour. Here are the known results of each show. Notice the big decrease in attendance on POPMART. How did that happen if the fanbase is supposed to protect the band from such decreases?

U2
May 3, 1981
Tampa Florida
END ZONE
GROSS: ?
ATTENDANCE: ?
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: ?
Average Ticket Price: ?

U2 Supporting the J.Geils Band
March 5, 1982
Tampa Florida
Curtis Hixon Hall
GROSS: $74,972
ATTENDANCE: 7,600
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $9.87

U2
June 22, 1983
Tampa Florida
Curtis Hixon Center
GROSS: $31,412
ATTENDANCE: 3,702
CAPACITY: 4,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $8.49

U2
May 2, 1985
Tampa Florida
University Of South Florida Sun Dome
GROSS: $147,244
ATTENDANCE: 10,907
CAPACITY: 11,200
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $13.50

U2
December 5, 1987
Tampa Florida
Tampa Stadium
GROSS: $1,089,002
ATTENDANCE: 58,865
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $18.50

U2
October 10, 1992
Tampa Florida
Tampa Stadium
GROSS: $1,257,270
ATTENDANCE: 41,909
CAPACITY: 42,500
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $30

U2
November 10, 1997
Tampa Florida
Houlihan's Stadium
GROSS: $893,865
ATTENDANCE: 17,776
CAPACITY: 70,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $50.29

U2
December 1, 2001
Tampa Florida
Ice Palace
GROSS: $1,487,269
ATTENDANCE: 17,935
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $82.93

U2
November 16, 2005
Tampa Florida
St. Pete Times Forum
GROSS: $1,825,243
ATTENDANCE: 19,354
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $94.31

U2
October 9, 2009
Tampa, Florida
Raymond James Stadium
GROSS: $6,399,375 (RECORD)
ATTENDANCE: 72,688 (RECORD)
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $88.04

                                                         

[So Cruel]

Bands like Springsteen and U2 who have large fanbases, will have a huge 1 -2 week initial sales period with anything they release because that is the period that their fanbase is buying the album. Wrecking Ball after a month had fallen to 19, after a few months it was off the charts. It's pretty clear that the initial sales were huge because of his large fanbase, but then it dropped off a cliff 'cause the general public wasn't hearing it and buying it. That is what the New Yorker article made clear. You keep bringing up that it is in the top 10 albums of the year, but without his fanbase it wouldn't of registered at all. U2 and Springsteen will always be in or near the top 10 simply because they have millions of hardcore fans who will buy every album. What they aren't doing now is bringing in the general public like they used to. 

            Nearly every album, unless it is a debut album by a new artist, has its highest sales week in its first week of release. What you are describing is not unique to Springsteen and U2, but happens for all artist, especially ever since electronic point of sale tracking was introduced in 1991 to make the charts. Just about every album that has been released this year has experienced the same general chart tragectory in the weeks after its release as Springsteen's album has experienced.

             Something else I found out. Wrecking Ball is NOT off the charts! The most current chart available shows that the album is at #164! So 5 months after release, Wrecking Ball is still charting.

             

              Essentially, your claiming this: If Springsteen had the biggest selling album of 2012, it would not matter and be no accomplishment because its just the dedicated hardcore fan base buying the album. But then if Springsteens not in the top 10 or top 20, its because he is an aging 63 year old who can't get appeal to people who buy albums. You've drifted from the latter point of view once confronted with facts that show Springsteen is still selling very well, and then drifted to the new one to explain away his success.

             Before I get to R.E.M., lets take another look at U2. Lets look at POP. In the United States POP finished at #50 in sales for the year. That was indeed well below their standards. But why did the album finish at #50 since the fanbase is supposed to insure a top 10 or near top 10 finish? Was it Age? I don't think being 37 was in your old catagory? U2 certainly had a big fanbase before POP was released and they were not old with balding gray hair.

             The experience with POP shows there is NO guarantee of anything! The POPMART tour also experienced a significant decline for the band in attendance, something that should not of happened if your claim about the fanbase was true.

              What gets played on the radio is a different matter because its not just a matter of the listening audience, its also heavily impacted by the people who own and program the stations, a relatively small group of people I might add.

            R.E.M. had plenty of pop hits like "Stand", "Orange Crush", "The One I Love", Losing My Religion, Shiny Happy People, Man On The Moon, Bang And Blame etc. The band had 3 10 million selling albums in a row with Out Of Time, Automatic For The People, and Monster. They did do some large scale tours, and yes they did play stadiums. So your claim that they were always an Arena Band is not true. Here are some stadium results and stadiums they played on the Monster Tour:

July 22, 1995
Dublin Ireland
Slane Castle
GROSS: $3,194,076
ATTENDANCE: 78,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $40.95

July 23, 1995
Cardiff Wales
Arms Park
GROSS: $2,059,025
ATTENDANCE: 55,950
CAPACITY: 56,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $36.80

July 25-26, 1995
Huddersfield England
Kirklees Stadium
GROSS: $2,576,000
ATTENDANCE: 70,000
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $36.80

July 27, 1995
Edinburgh Scotland
Murrayfield Stadium
GROSS: $1,722,092
ATTENDANCE: 46,796
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $36.80

July 29-30, 1995
Milton Keynes England
National Bowl
GROSS: $4,796,364
ATTENDANCE: 130,000
SHOWS: 2
SELLOUTS: 2
Average Ticket Price: $36.90

They also played the following Stadium on that tour:

5 July 1995 - Ernst Happel Stadion, Vienna, Austria
7 July 1995 - Out In The Green Festival Site, Frauenfeld, Switzerland
8 July 1995 - Trabrennbahn Bahrenfeld, Hamburg, Germany
9 July 1995 - Duren-Badesee, Cologne, Germany
4 August 1995 - Sjohistoriska Museet, Stockholm, Sweden
6 August 1995 - Catania Stadium, Sicily, Italy
9 August 1995 - Ramat Gan Stadium, Tel Aviv, Israel

                                  R.E.M. was definitely a big band.

Of course every album will have it's highest charting position during the first few weeks of release, but big albums from major bands like Springsteen and U2 have staying power. They stay in the top 10 for a long period of time. Wrecking Ball was off the charts within a few months. It may have re-entered at 164 because Bruce is touring the U.S right now but being at 164 is not much for an artist like Springsteen. It's pretty clear from the New Yorker article which was based off of interviews with Jon Landau (Springsteens manager), Springsteen himself, and members of the band, that the albums initial success was from his fanbase. Landau even made the comment  "let's see where we are in a few weeks" (they were off the charts in a few weeks). Jon Landau knows a lot more about this then you or me.

Look at major releases in the last few years from older bands

Pearl Jam - Backspacer 2009
debuted at number 1, out of the top 10 within 2 weeks

Van Halen - A Different Kind of Truth 2012
debuted at number 2, out of the top 10 the next week

Bon Jovi - The Circle 2009
debuted at number 1, out of the top ten the next week

Paul McCartney - Kisses on the Bottom 2012
debuted at number 5, out of the top ten the next week

What does this tell you? It tells me what the New Yorker confirmed about Springsteens Wrecking Ball. That older artists will enter well because their fanbase is buying the album, but the success is not sustained. The albums fall off the charts quickly cause the general public is not hearing the songs on the radio.

[bethere]

bethere convinced me: A band who's last album was the 7# selling album of the year and had the highest grossing tour ever, cannot be called "in decline". Besides, they wrote some great songs the last years. Maybe we should accept U2 is not played in every supermarket everyday and not on every single cover of Time magazine. (and that there's not a single bono-poster in our daughters bedrooms)       

I don't think you get what the conversation is about. Springsteen is not in decline. His last album is great. What I am saying is that most aging artists are not making an impact on the general public 'cause their albums are not getting played on the radio like they used to. The album sales are generated from their fanbase, not from the general public hearing the music on the radio and buying it. What behere seems to be saying is because Springsteen is on the charts, he is as popular as ever.

                What I'm saying is that if your album finishes in the top 10 for the year or is #1 for the year, then it is equivalent to the time 10 years ago or 20 years ago when your album was in the top 10 or you were #1.

                  Also, could you please explain how U2 experienced such a significant decrease in sales for the POP album and POPMART tour WHEN according to you, the FANBASE insures that the band won't experience any significant decrease like that?

[So Cruel]

I don't really know how to simplify it any more.

Bands like Springsteen and U2 who have large fanbases, will have a huge 1 -2 week initial sales period with anything they release because that is the period that their fanbase is buying the album. Wrecking Ball after a month had fallen to 19, after a few months it was off the charts. It's pretty clear that the initial sales were huge because of his large fanbase, but then it dropped off a cliff 'cause the general public wasn't hearing it and buying it. That is what the New Yorker article made clear. You keep bringing up that it is in the top 10 albums of the year, but without his fanbase it wouldn't of registered at all. U2 and Springsteen will always be in or near the top 10 simply because they have millions of hardcore fans who will buy every album. What they aren't doing now is bringing in the general public like they used to. 

When U2 were in their prime you'd hear at least 3- 4 singles get played on the radio. When No Line came out I heard Boots for about a week and then it disappeared. With Wrecking Ball I can honestly say I haven't heard one song played on the radio. The aging bands will have their old music played on classic rock radio but their new music isn't being played at all on top 40. No one hearing the album means the general public won't be out buying the album.

As far as a band like REM go, they never had as big as a fanbase as Springsteen or U2 and never went after popularity like Springsteen and U2 did. REM were always an arena band and while U2 were going after pop hits like Beautiful Day and Vertigo, REM were writing pretty low key albums.

You are right So Cruel,

Over the decades U2 has gathered millions and millions of fans who will automatically buy the new album upon release, regardless of the content is good or bad.

             Well, if thats the case, how do you explain what happened with POP and POPMART in terms of sales. Why did POP experience such a steep sales decline? For the POPMART tour why did the tour see such a significant decrease in attendance?


U2 has visited Tampa Florida once on every single tour. Here are the known results of each show. Notice the big decrease in attendance on POPMART. How did that happen if the fanbase is supposed to protect the band from such decreases?

U2
May 3, 1981
Tampa Florida
END ZONE
GROSS: ?
ATTENDANCE: ?
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: ?
Average Ticket Price: ?

U2 Supporting the J.Geils Band
March 5, 1982
Tampa Florida
Curtis Hixon Hall
GROSS: $74,972
ATTENDANCE: 7,600
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $9.87

U2
June 22, 1983
Tampa Florida
Curtis Hixon Center
GROSS: $31,412
ATTENDANCE: 3,702
CAPACITY: 4,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $8.49

U2
May 2, 1985
Tampa Florida
University Of South Florida Sun Dome
GROSS: $147,244
ATTENDANCE: 10,907
CAPACITY: 11,200
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $13.50

U2
December 5, 1987
Tampa Florida
Tampa Stadium
GROSS: $1,089,002
ATTENDANCE: 58,865
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $18.50

U2
October 10, 1992
Tampa Florida
Tampa Stadium
GROSS: $1,257,270
ATTENDANCE: 41,909
CAPACITY: 42,500
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $30

U2
November 10, 1997
Tampa Florida
Houlihan's Stadium
GROSS: $893,865
ATTENDANCE: 17,776
CAPACITY: 70,000
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $50.29

U2
December 1, 2001
Tampa Florida
Ice Palace
GROSS: $1,487,269
ATTENDANCE: 17,935
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $82.93

U2
November 16, 2005
Tampa Florida
St. Pete Times Forum
GROSS: $1,825,243
ATTENDANCE: 19,354
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $94.31

U2
October 9, 2009
Tampa, Florida
Raymond James Stadium
GROSS: $6,399,375 (RECORD)
ATTENDANCE: 72,688 (RECORD)
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $88.04

                                                         

Come on, does the story of Pop have to be told again? Pop was a great record, but it didn't have the singles. In North America in the mid 90's when teenagers/ college kids were into bands like Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, and STP,  U2 didn't so themeselves any favors coming out dressed as the Village People. Pop sold well because U2 has a huge fanbase that will always move millions of units, but it never caught on with the general public and thus never came close in sales to U2's more successful albums.

[santipsedge]

this is the era of boredom, where everything annoys quickly... it's a pity, for a certain side...