Author Topic: Can U2 ever come back?  (Read 35883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #60 on: August 20, 2012, 12:53:10 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In response to all of the people who have defended U2's position as the biggest band in the world due to the success of the tour: The Rolling Stones had the highest grossing tour of all time before U2 broke the record, and the RS tour was from 2005-2007.  No one can say that the Stones were either relevant or popular by this point.   People were going just because it was the Stones, not for a new album.  I feel that U2 had similar success for the same reason.

          Well then, why wasn't U2's POPMART Tour such a smashing success with every show soldout? I mean, after all every show should have been soldout despite the relative steep sales decline of the album POP, right? Based on your theory, U2 should of had no problem filling and selling out stadiums on that tour, but they did. With U2, the new album and new material impact the success of the tour heavily. 
 

The Stones last few tours have been a combo of stadiums, arena's, and club shows. It's not really fair to make a straight comparison against 360 as all 360 shows were stadiums.

Also, you are comparing No Line against the latest Stones album. U2 released No Line when they were in their late 40's, the Stones released their last record when they were in their mid-60's. That's a big difference. As the years go by the interest in new material will keep going lower. A lot of the early Stones fans are well past the record buying age. My uncle loved the Stones when he was young but he's in his 60's now and probably hasn't bought an album in 20 years.

                    When the Stones have played arena's on the last few tours, its been because they were unable to fill a stadium show in that particular market. The choice of venue does not really matter. What matters is overall attendance and gross. The Stones went out on each tour to gross and play to as many people as possible. In fact, by not restricting themselves to just playing stadiums, the Stones were able to increase the number of people they played to, because it allowed them to do shows in markets where a stadium show was not possible given the level of demand. U2 on the other hand restricted themselves to playing ONLY stadiums in 360 meaning that each show played had to at a minimum be able to attract 50,000 to 60,000
people given the greater capacity of playing stadiums in 360. This requirment reduced the number of shows U2 could play as well as preventing from visiting some markets. Had U2 been featured shows in arena's as well, they would have been able to visit certain markets they skipped plus add shows in many other markets already visited by the tour, there by increasing the overall gross and attendance for the tour even beyond its record breaking levels.

             As for the age of the band when each released their last studio albums, 49 for U2, 62 for the Stones, there is little difference. When the Stones released Bridges To Babylon when they were 54, it did not do any better. Voodoo Lounge, age 51, and Steel Wheels, age 46, did do a little better but not much. The last truely successful and popular Rolling Stones album around the world was Tattoo You from 1981. 

             Also, what is the "record buying age"? People of all ages buy music. For the artist, what matters is their album and ticket sales. If those are large enough to be in the top 10 or break records, then the artist is clearly very popular or the most popular. The age of the consumer is irrelevant.

Offline singnomore

  • Administrator
  • Airborne Ranger
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,501
  • These city lights, they shine as silver and gold
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #61 on: August 20, 2012, 01:54:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 is still one of the best, if not the best band out there. We all agree to that.
The recent talk about U2 wanting to be relevant, isn´t about the music they make.
When Bono says he wants to be relevant, what he really means is he wants U2 to be in the eye of popular mainstream media again, regardless of the music. There´s nothing wrong with that ambition but unless they release a true masterpiece that´s not going to happen. First of all U2 is a golden oldy for popkids nowadays and second they have a huge image problem. To a lot of people U2 are just a bunch of rich tax dodging hypocrites. The days when they ruled the planet are over, they should focus on making the music they want to make instead of trying to be relevant.


            Well, U2 do rule the world of music by the usual factors that measure that. The band had the #7 album of the year in 2009 worldwide. The tour to promote that album did the following:

U2 360 TOUR
GROSS: $736,421,586
ATTENDANCE: 7,272,046


              This tour set records every where by large margins that will probably never be broken except maybe by U2. During the two years U2 promoted the album and tour, the band grossed over 1 BILLION DOLLARS WORLDWIDE, from concerts, album sales, single sales, and merchandise sales. Its the first time any artist had done that in music history with a single album and tour.

                         Whether or not some teenagers from Wales is into U2 or knows who U2 is, is irrelevant. When you have one of the top selling albums and the highest grossing tour of all time, your untouchable.

Snot nosed teenager....? Loads of teenagers on here with great opinions. Also whats wrong with Wales? lol   ;)

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #62 on: August 20, 2012, 12:22:52 PM »
There is nothing wrong with Wales. The only thing wrong is this perception that because a teenager in some part of the globe doesn't like U2 or does not know who U2 are, then U2 are no longer relevant.

hrsan

  • Guest
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #63 on: August 20, 2012, 01:47:11 PM »
Come back?  I didn't realize they went away.

Offline dovesfan

  • Stranger in a Strange Land
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • U2, Celtic, Women
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #64 on: August 20, 2012, 01:47:29 PM »
Wow, thats such a negative way of viewing things buddy. I'll address few points:

- I dont feel compelled to check if they are doing any recent work as they have enough music in the library that keep me going back and back again, the other bands dont have as much as U2 yet so its easier to get bored and check for new material with other bands.

- To say they are washed up is entirely an opinion of yours therefore i can't argue with it.  I don't know anyone who thinks U2 are washed up and in the same comparison as Rolling Stones.  Thats all i can say about that

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #65 on: August 20, 2012, 09:50:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In response to all of the people who have defended U2's position as the biggest band in the world due to the success of the tour: The Rolling Stones had the highest grossing tour of all time before U2 broke the record, and the RS tour was from 2005-2007.  No one can say that the Stones were either relevant or popular by this point.   People were going just because it was the Stones, not for a new album.  I feel that U2 had similar success for the same reason.

          Well then, why wasn't U2's POPMART Tour such a smashing success with every show soldout? I mean, after all every show should have been soldout despite the relative steep sales decline of the album POP, right? Based on your theory, U2 should of had no problem filling and selling out stadiums on that tour, but they did. With U2, the new album and new material impact the success of the tour heavily. 
 

The Stones last few tours have been a combo of stadiums, arena's, and club shows. It's not really fair to make a straight comparison against 360 as all 360 shows were stadiums.

Also, you are comparing No Line against the latest Stones album. U2 released No Line when they were in their late 40's, the Stones released their last record when they were in their mid-60's. That's a big difference. As the years go by the interest in new material will keep going lower. A lot of the early Stones fans are well past the record buying age. My uncle loved the Stones when he was young but he's in his 60's now and probably hasn't bought an album in 20 years.

                    When the Stones have played arena's on the last few tours, its been because they were unable to fill a stadium show in that particular market. The choice of venue does not really matter. What matters is overall attendance and gross. The Stones went out on each tour to gross and play to as many people as possible. In fact, by not restricting themselves to just playing stadiums, the Stones were able to increase the number of people they played to, because it allowed them to do shows in markets where a stadium show was not possible given the level of demand. U2 on the other hand restricted themselves to playing ONLY stadiums in 360 meaning that each show played had to at a minimum be able to attract 50,000 to 60,000
people given the greater capacity of playing stadiums in 360. This requirment reduced the number of shows U2 could play as well as preventing from visiting some markets. Had U2 been featured shows in arena's as well, they would have been able to visit certain markets they skipped plus add shows in many other markets already visited by the tour, there by increasing the overall gross and attendance for the tour even beyond its record breaking levels.

             As for the age of the band when each released their last studio albums, 49 for U2, 62 for the Stones, there is little difference. When the Stones released Bridges To Babylon when they were 54, it did not do any better. Voodoo Lounge, age 51, and Steel Wheels, age 46, did do a little better but not much. The last truely successful and popular Rolling Stones album around the world was Tattoo You from 1981. 

             Also, what is the "record buying age"? People of all ages buy music. For the artist, what matters is their album and ticket sales. If those are large enough to be in the top 10 or break records, then the artist is clearly very popular or the most popular. The age of the consumer is irrelevant.

Age of the consumer is relevant when you are talking about some of their early 60's fans whom some are either dead, in retirement homes, or are in their 60's/70's now. My mom and dad liked the early Stones stuff, and they wouldn't be able to name a song since the 70's. My dad is in his mid 70's with a hearing aid, he's not out buying cd's. My uncle was a big Stones fan, he's in his late 60's and hasn't bought a Stones album in at least 25 years. It's a lot different when a big part of your fan base is in their 60's and 70's when compared to U2's who are in their 30's and 40's. U2 will face the same thing. The very hardcore fans like us will continue to buy them, but the record sales will not be the same as they were.

The Stones albums in the last 25 years have sold at respectable levels. 1 million at the low end and 2 million at the high end. But to be realistic, they could have released an album as good as Sticky Fingers or Let it Bleed and it still wouldn't of sold a ton. These guys are old, they have not been played on Top 40 radio in 30 years. They were already old when MTV came out and pi*s poor bands were selling millions based on image alone. It's the same thing that happened to Springsteen. The Rising is probably the best album released in the 2000's but it hasn't sold close to albums like Born in the USA or Born to Run. Wrecking Ball is a fantastic album, but it's barely made a dent on the charts. The guys in his 60's. He's not gonna be played on the radio anymore no matter how good his songs are.

If you think U2 will be selling albums at the same rate in their 50's and 60's as they were in their prime you're gonna be disappointed. As fans we should just hope that the music they make is good, no matter how well it sells.

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #66 on: August 20, 2012, 11:34:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In response to all of the people who have defended U2's position as the biggest band in the world due to the success of the tour: The Rolling Stones had the highest grossing tour of all time before U2 broke the record, and the RS tour was from 2005-2007.  No one can say that the Stones were either relevant or popular by this point.   People were going just because it was the Stones, not for a new album.  I feel that U2 had similar success for the same reason.

          Well then, why wasn't U2's POPMART Tour such a smashing success with every show soldout? I mean, after all every show should have been soldout despite the relative steep sales decline of the album POP, right? Based on your theory, U2 should of had no problem filling and selling out stadiums on that tour, but they did. With U2, the new album and new material impact the success of the tour heavily. 
 

The Stones last few tours have been a combo of stadiums, arena's, and club shows. It's not really fair to make a straight comparison against 360 as all 360 shows were stadiums.

Also, you are comparing No Line against the latest Stones album. U2 released No Line when they were in their late 40's, the Stones released their last record when they were in their mid-60's. That's a big difference. As the years go by the interest in new material will keep going lower. A lot of the early Stones fans are well past the record buying age. My uncle loved the Stones when he was young but he's in his 60's now and probably hasn't bought an album in 20 years.

                    When the Stones have played arena's on the last few tours, its been because they were unable to fill a stadium show in that particular market. The choice of venue does not really matter. What matters is overall attendance and gross. The Stones went out on each tour to gross and play to as many people as possible. In fact, by not restricting themselves to just playing stadiums, the Stones were able to increase the number of people they played to, because it allowed them to do shows in markets where a stadium show was not possible given the level of demand. U2 on the other hand restricted themselves to playing ONLY stadiums in 360 meaning that each show played had to at a minimum be able to attract 50,000 to 60,000
people given the greater capacity of playing stadiums in 360. This requirment reduced the number of shows U2 could play as well as preventing from visiting some markets. Had U2 been featured shows in arena's as well, they would have been able to visit certain markets they skipped plus add shows in many other markets already visited by the tour, there by increasing the overall gross and attendance for the tour even beyond its record breaking levels.

             As for the age of the band when each released their last studio albums, 49 for U2, 62 for the Stones, there is little difference. When the Stones released Bridges To Babylon when they were 54, it did not do any better. Voodoo Lounge, age 51, and Steel Wheels, age 46, did do a little better but not much. The last truely successful and popular Rolling Stones album around the world was Tattoo You from 1981. 

             Also, what is the "record buying age"? People of all ages buy music. For the artist, what matters is their album and ticket sales. If those are large enough to be in the top 10 or break records, then the artist is clearly very popular or the most popular. The age of the consumer is irrelevant.

Age of the consumer is relevant when you are talking about some of their early 60's fans whom some are either dead, in retirement homes, or are in their 60's/70's now. My mom and dad liked the early Stones stuff, and they wouldn't be able to name a song since the 70's. My dad is in his mid 70's with a hearing aid, he's not out buying cd's. My uncle was a big Stones fan, he's in his late 60's and hasn't bought a Stones album in at least 25 years. It's a lot different when a big part of your fan base is in their 60's and 70's when compared to U2's who are in their 30's and 40's. U2 will face the same thing. The very hardcore fans like us will continue to buy them, but the record sales will not be the same as they were.

The Stones albums in the last 25 years have sold at respectable levels. 1 million at the low end and 2 million at the high end. But to be realistic, they could have released an album as good as Sticky Fingers or Let it Bleed and it still wouldn't of sold a ton. These guys are old, they have not been played on Top 40 radio in 30 years. They were already old when MTV came out and pi*s poor bands were selling millions based on image alone. It's the same thing that happened to Springsteen. The Rising is probably the best album released in the 2000's but it hasn't sold close to albums like Born in the USA or Born to Run. Wrecking Ball is a fantastic album, but it's barely made a dent on the charts. The guys in his 60's. He's not gonna be played on the radio anymore no matter how good his songs are.

If you think U2 will be selling albums at the same rate in their 50's and 60's as they were in their prime you're gonna be disappointed. As fans we should just hope that the music they make is good, no matter how well it sells.

Well, the main fanbase in 2012 includes people from the ages of 46 to 69. Yes, there are some younger and some older, but the main fanbase is in that age range. 15 years ago when Bridges To Babylon came out those numbers were 31 to 54. Thats similar to U2 today, yet Bridges To Babylon was not one of the top 10 selling albums of the year, in fact, like most if not all Stones releases post 1983, it did not feature in the top 40 worldwide in album sales for the year it was released. So the Stones decline in album sales started long before you get to your "alleged age drop out from buying music".

           As for U2, No Line On The Horizon was the 7th biggest selling album of the year and would have been the 5th biggest of the year if Michael Jackson had not died in 2009. That shows that with U2's latest album release, they are hitting the same or similar heights that they did at any other time of their career, 5 years before, 10 years before, 20 years before, 30 years before, etc. There is no let up, the band is just as competitive for the top selling album of the year as they were at any other time of their career.

            Despite your own family, people of all ages still buy music and go to concerts. Yes, there are some people who drop out from it, but that can happen at any age. Also, remember, that a majority of people in 2012 obtain their music for free over the internet, so its inaccurate to compare the sell of new albums with how much albums sold 5 years, 10 years or 20 years ago. For example, in the United States this year, it appears there may only be 5 albums that will sell 1 million copies or more by the end of 2012. Compare that to 2001 when over 100 albums hit or passed the 1 million mark during the year. So that is something to keep in mind. The key comparison is how well the album does VS all the other albums in the market for that year. How does the album place in terms of sales among the top albums of the year. U2 are still a top selling album band and have been since 1987. The Stones dropped from that perch after about 1982, before Mick Jagger and Keith Richards had hit age 40.

           The Rolling Stones have had songs that got top 40 airplay over the past 30 years. Here is a list of the Stones top 40 hit songs since 1983 and the position each song peaked at in the top 40:

01. Under Cover Of the Night #9
02. Harlem Shuffle #5
03. One Hit To The Body #28
04. Mixed Emotions #5
05. Rock And A Hard Place #23

          Rock And A Hard Place peaked at #23 in early 1990, so its been about 22 years since they got top 40 radio airplay.


As for Springsteen and Wreaking Ball, he is not doing to badly in the United States so far this year. He has the 23rd best selling album of the year in the United States to this point in 2012. Here is the top 30 best selling albums of the year 2012 to date in the United States:

01   -    3,862,000    -   21   -   Adele   
02   -    1,103,000    -   UP ALL NIGHT   -   One Direction   
03   -    970,000    -   TUSKEGEE   -   Lionel Richie   
04   -    840,000    -   THE GREATEST HITS   -   Whitney Houston   
05   -    749,000    -   BELIEVE   -   Justin Bieber
06   -    733,000    -   NOW 41   -   Various   
07   -    698,000    -   TAILGATES AND TANLINES   -   Luke Bryan     
08   -    689,000    -   BLOWN AWAY   -   Carrie Underwood   
09   -    624,000    -   MAKING MIRRORS   -   Gotye   
10   -    612,000    -   PINK FRIDAY: ROMAN RELOADED   -   Nicki Minaj   
11   -    594,000    -   TAKE CARE   -   Drake   
12   -    579,000    -   19   -   Adele   
13   -    497,000    -   OWN THE NIGHT   -   Lady Antebellum   
14   -    496,000    -   SOME NIGHTS   -   Fun.   
15   -    494,000    -   EL CAMINO   -   Black Keys   
16   -    493,000    -   MDNA   -   Madonna   
17   -    460,000    -   TALK THAT TALK   -   Rihanna   
18   -    455,000    -   TEENAGE DREAM   -   Katy Perry   
19   -    453,000    -   MY KINDA PARTY   -   Jason Aldean   
20   -    447,000    -   MYLO XYLOTO   -   Coldplay   
21   -    445,000    -   CHIEF   -   Eric Church   
22   -    441,000    -   BORN AND RAISED   -   John Mayer   
23-       440,000    -   WRECKING BALL   -   Bruce Springsteen   
24   -    438,000    -   STRONGER   -   Kelly Clarkson   
25   -    434,000    -   OVEREXPOSED   -   Maroon 5   
26   -    432,000    -   UNCAGED   -   Zac Brown Band   
27   -    424,000    -   THE HUNGER GAMES   -   Soundtrack   
28   -    409,000    -   NOW 42   -   Various   
29   -    408,000    -   WELCOME TO THE FISHBOWL   -   Kenny Chesney   
30   -    404,000    -   A DIFFERENT KIND OF TRUTH   -   Van Halen   


                         I'd Springsteen has made a pretty nice dent in the charts in 2012, especially when you consider that several of the above albums were released in 2011. If we were just looking at albums released in 2012, Springsteen would rank even higher. In fact, for albums released in 2012, Wreaking Ball is the 10th best selling album of the year!


Well, U2 had the 7th biggest selling album WORLDWIDE of 2009. You claim that U2 are going to do worse their next time out. So whats your prediction of where the next album will rank in terms of worldwide sales for the year?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 11:38:45 PM by bethere »

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #67 on: August 21, 2012, 02:43:35 AM »
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.

You really can't compare U2's album sales vs the Stones. U2 has always averaged more album sales then the Stones. When the Stones were in their primes and creating some of the best music in recording history, it was a different ball game. They made a record fairly quickly and were releasing at least a record every year. They released it, had 1 or 2 singles, toured it for 4 -5 months, and then went back in the recording studio. Since the mid 80's, bands release an album, release 3-5 singles, tour it for 1 to 2 years with a huge marketing push, make videos to help sell it. The highest selling album the Stones had (12 million units) was Hot Rocks which is a greatest hits package. Some of the best albums in music history like Beggars Banquet (Sympathy for the Devil, Street Fighting Man) and Let it Bleed (Gimme Shelter, You Can't Always Get What You Want) only sold 1 -2 million units. They haven't had 1 non-greatest hits record come close to 10 million units. U2 has 5 non greatest hits albums with over 10 million units sold.  When you look at the fall off from some of the Stones best selling albums (Some Girls 6 million units, Tattoo You 4 million units) to what they have sold in the last 25 years it isn't as dramatic as you make it. Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge sold 2 million units which is pretty good. The others fall in at about 1 million.

The Stones highest selling albums sold between 3 million - 6 million, now they average between 1 -2 million.

Springsteen highest selling albums were between 10 million - 20 million, his latest album is sitting at 440,000 units and the ones in the last decade didn't come close to his earlier highs.

U2's highest sellers were between 10 million - close to 20 million, No Line sold about 5 million.

Name one rock band who once they hit 50 sold the same as they did in their primes. I can't think of one. I don't know how old you are but i'm in my 30's and I don't listen to no where close to the amount of music I once did. The only person I know who does is my oldest brother and that's cause he never married. Once you get married, raise kids, look after a home, go to work, there isn't really time to sit around and listen to music all day like I used to. Bands that I used to love I haven't bought a new CD from in years cause I just don't have the time to get into it. I basically will buy my very fav bands music (U2, Bruce, Pearl Jam) but thats about it. I used to love REM, Maiden, Van Halen, Prince, Petty, T. Hip, and tons of others but I haven't bought one of these bands albums in years. The only new band i've bought an album off in the last decade is the Killers. I just have other things that take up my time. As people age things change. My 2 bros who are married with kids used to love U2 but they haven't bought an album of U2's in years. It's the same thing, they have other things to do. It is the primary reason why most aging bands record sales go down, their fan base is aging and instead of rock n rolling all night and partying every day, they only rock n roll once a month and party a few times a year.

Offline imedi

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,562
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #68 on: August 21, 2012, 04:18:25 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In response to all of the people who have defended U2's position as the biggest band in the world due to the success of the tour: The Rolling Stones had the highest grossing tour of all time before U2 broke the record, and the RS tour was from 2005-2007.  No one can say that the Stones were either relevant or popular by this point.   People were going just because it was the Stones, not for a new album.  I feel that U2 had similar success for the same reason.

          Well then, why wasn't U2's POPMART Tour such a smashing success with every show soldout? I mean, after all every show should have been soldout despite the relative steep sales decline of the album POP, right? Based on your theory, U2 should of had no problem filling and selling out stadiums on that tour, but they did. With U2, the new album and new material impact the success of the tour heavily. 
 

The Stones last few tours have been a combo of stadiums, arena's, and club shows. It's not really fair to make a straight comparison against 360 as all 360 shows were stadiums.

Also, you are comparing No Line against the latest Stones album. U2 released No Line when they were in their late 40's, the Stones released their last record when they were in their mid-60's. That's a big difference. As the years go by the interest in new material will keep going lower. A lot of the early Stones fans are well past the record buying age. My uncle loved the Stones when he was young but he's in his 60's now and probably hasn't bought an album in 20 years.

                    When the Stones have played arena's on the last few tours, its been because they were unable to fill a stadium show in that particular market. The choice of venue does not really matter. What matters is overall attendance and gross. The Stones went out on each tour to gross and play to as many people as possible. In fact, by not restricting themselves to just playing stadiums, the Stones were able to increase the number of people they played to, because it allowed them to do shows in markets where a stadium show was not possible given the level of demand. U2 on the other hand restricted themselves to playing ONLY stadiums in 360 meaning that each show played had to at a minimum be able to attract 50,000 to 60,000
people given the greater capacity of playing stadiums in 360. This requirment reduced the number of shows U2 could play as well as preventing from visiting some markets. Had U2 been featured shows in arena's as well, they would have been able to visit certain markets they skipped plus add shows in many other markets already visited by the tour, there by increasing the overall gross and attendance for the tour even beyond its record breaking levels.

             As for the age of the band when each released their last studio albums, 49 for U2, 62 for the Stones, there is little difference. When the Stones released Bridges To Babylon when they were 54, it did not do any better. Voodoo Lounge, age 51, and Steel Wheels, age 46, did do a little better but not much. The last truely successful and popular Rolling Stones album around the world was Tattoo You from 1981. 

             Also, what is the "record buying age"? People of all ages buy music. For the artist, what matters is their album and ticket sales. If those are large enough to be in the top 10 or break records, then the artist is clearly very popular or the most popular. The age of the consumer is irrelevant.

Age of the consumer is relevant when you are talking about some of their early 60's fans whom some are either dead, in retirement homes, or are in their 60's/70's now. My mom and dad liked the early Stones stuff, and they wouldn't be able to name a song since the 70's. My dad is in his mid 70's with a hearing aid, he's not out buying cd's. My uncle was a big Stones fan, he's in his late 60's and hasn't bought a Stones album in at least 25 years. It's a lot different when a big part of your fan base is in their 60's and 70's when compared to U2's who are in their 30's and 40's. U2 will face the same thing. The very hardcore fans like us will continue to buy them, but the record sales will not be the same as they were.

The Stones albums in the last 25 years have sold at respectable levels. 1 million at the low end and 2 million at the high end. But to be realistic, they could have released an album as good as Sticky Fingers or Let it Bleed and it still wouldn't of sold a ton. These guys are old, they have not been played on Top 40 radio in 30 years. They were already old when MTV came out and pi*s poor bands were selling millions based on image alone. It's the same thing that happened to Springsteen. The Rising is probably the best album released in the 2000's but it hasn't sold close to albums like Born in the USA or Born to Run. Wrecking Ball is a fantastic album, but it's barely made a dent on the charts. The guys in his 60's. He's not gonna be played on the radio anymore no matter how good his songs are.

If you think U2 will be selling albums at the same rate in their 50's and 60's as they were in their prime you're gonna be disappointed. As fans we should just hope that the music they make is good, no matter how well it sells.

Well, the main fanbase in 2012 includes people from the ages of 46 to 69. Yes, there are some younger and some older, but the main fanbase is in that age range. 15 years ago when Bridges To Babylon came out those numbers were 31 to 54. Thats similar to U2 today, yet Bridges To Babylon was not one of the top 10 selling albums of the year, in fact, like most if not all Stones releases post 1983, it did not feature in the top 40 worldwide in album sales for the year it was released. So the Stones decline in album sales started long before you get to your "alleged age drop out from buying music".

           As for U2, No Line On The Horizon was the 7th biggest selling album of the year and would have been the 5th biggest of the year if Michael Jackson had not died in 2009. That shows that with U2's latest album release, they are hitting the same or similar heights that they did at any other time of their career, 5 years before, 10 years before, 20 years before, 30 years before, etc. There is no let up, the band is just as competitive for the top selling album of the year as they were at any other time of their career.

            Despite your own family, people of all ages still buy music and go to concerts. Yes, there are some people who drop out from it, but that can happen at any age. Also, remember, that a majority of people in 2012 obtain their music for free over the internet, so its inaccurate to compare the sell of new albums with how much albums sold 5 years, 10 years or 20 years ago. For example, in the United States this year, it appears there may only be 5 albums that will sell 1 million copies or more by the end of 2012. Compare that to 2001 when over 100 albums hit or passed the 1 million mark during the year. So that is something to keep in mind. The key comparison is how well the album does VS all the other albums in the market for that year. How does the album place in terms of sales among the top albums of the year. U2 are still a top selling album band and have been since 1987. The Stones dropped from that perch after about 1982, before Mick Jagger and Keith Richards had hit age 40.

           The Rolling Stones have had songs that got top 40 airplay over the past 30 years. Here is a list of the Stones top 40 hit songs since 1983 and the position each song peaked at in the top 40:

01. Under Cover Of the Night #9
02. Harlem Shuffle #5
03. One Hit To The Body #28
04. Mixed Emotions #5
05. Rock And A Hard Place #23

          Rock And A Hard Place peaked at #23 in early 1990, so its been about 22 years since they got top 40 radio airplay.


As for Springsteen and Wreaking Ball, he is not doing to badly in the United States so far this year. He has the 23rd best selling album of the year in the United States to this point in 2012. Here is the top 30 best selling albums of the year 2012 to date in the United States:

01   -    3,862,000    -   21   -   Adele   
02   -    1,103,000    -   UP ALL NIGHT   -   One Direction   
03   -    970,000    -   TUSKEGEE   -   Lionel Richie   
04   -    840,000    -   THE GREATEST HITS   -   Whitney Houston   
05   -    749,000    -   BELIEVE   -   Justin Bieber
06   -    733,000    -   NOW 41   -   Various   
07   -    698,000    -   TAILGATES AND TANLINES   -   Luke Bryan     
08   -    689,000    -   BLOWN AWAY   -   Carrie Underwood   
09   -    624,000    -   MAKING MIRRORS   -   Gotye   
10   -    612,000    -   PINK FRIDAY: ROMAN RELOADED   -   Nicki Minaj   
11   -    594,000    -   TAKE CARE   -   Drake   
12   -    579,000    -   19   -   Adele   
13   -    497,000    -   OWN THE NIGHT   -   Lady Antebellum   
14   -    496,000    -   SOME NIGHTS   -   Fun.   
15   -    494,000    -   EL CAMINO   -   Black Keys   
16   -    493,000    -   MDNA   -   Madonna   
17   -    460,000    -   TALK THAT TALK   -   Rihanna   
18   -    455,000    -   TEENAGE DREAM   -   Katy Perry   
19   -    453,000    -   MY KINDA PARTY   -   Jason Aldean   
20   -    447,000    -   MYLO XYLOTO   -   Coldplay   
21   -    445,000    -   CHIEF   -   Eric Church   
22   -    441,000    -   BORN AND RAISED   -   John Mayer   
23-       440,000    -   WRECKING BALL   -   Bruce Springsteen   
24   -    438,000    -   STRONGER   -   Kelly Clarkson   
25   -    434,000    -   OVEREXPOSED   -   Maroon 5   
26   -    432,000    -   UNCAGED   -   Zac Brown Band   
27   -    424,000    -   THE HUNGER GAMES   -   Soundtrack   
28   -    409,000    -   NOW 42   -   Various   
29   -    408,000    -   WELCOME TO THE FISHBOWL   -   Kenny Chesney   
30   -    404,000    -   A DIFFERENT KIND OF TRUTH   -   Van Halen   


                         I'd Springsteen has made a pretty nice dent in the charts in 2012, especially when you consider that several of the above albums were released in 2011. If we were just looking at albums released in 2012, Springsteen would rank even higher. In fact, for albums released in 2012, Wreaking Ball is the 10th best selling album of the year!


Well, U2 had the 7th biggest selling album WORLDWIDE of 2009. You claim that U2 are going to do worse their next time out. So whats your prediction of where the next album will rank in terms of worldwide sales for the year?
i agree with u bethere and i have to say if u go to u2 concerts in mainland europe there seems to be a much higher % of younger fans going to u2 there than in the us or uk i think its true in south america too that they seem to have held on to the younger fanbase as opposed to the usa ...i wonder why that is though

Offline santipsedge

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Don't let the bastards grind you down
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #69 on: August 21, 2012, 07:26:43 AM »
  I've read more of these discussions in other forums.... at the end the same story :)
But it's  strange someone says NLOTH is a delusion... The most of people identify it like a return at the atmosphere of Passengers's era, with very deeper songs, exept some like GOYB (i'm not totally agree but world is beautiful 'cause is various).
I think in every artist's work there is a story, a piece of their life, their essence... They transmit what they are in that moment. Ok not always we can accept or love this, but i'd never understood completely why say 'Delusion.... They are at the end.... It's better they exit from the scene'... :D
I'm agree with who say a new phase could begin. And I'm sure they  will be wonderful like always
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 07:45:53 AM by santipsedge »

Offline mdmomof7

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,694
  • I’m born again to the latest sound
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #70 on: August 21, 2012, 08:54:49 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  I've read more of these discussions in other forums.... at the end the same story :)
But it's  strange someone says NLOTH is a delusion... The most of people identify it like a return at the atmosphere of Passengers's era, with very deeper songs, exept some like GOYB (i'm not totally agree but world is beautiful 'cause is various).
I think in every artist's work there is a story, a piece of their life, their essence... They transmit what they are in that moment. Ok not always we can accept or love this, but i'd never understood completely why say 'Delusion....They are at the end.... It's better they exit from the scene'... :D
I'm agree with who say a new phase could begin. And I'm sure they  will be wonderful like always

Love this outlook!

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #71 on: August 21, 2012, 08:55:56 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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 and use it has evidence of some sort of a decline because of AGE. The sales decline in the music industry effects everyone regardless of age. Most people obtain their music for free in 2012 and so you can't make any sort of sales comparison with the year 2000 or 1985 and what x artist sold back then. 

            Lets look at YEAR TO DATE sales for albums that were actually 2012 releases:

01   -    1,103,000    -   UP ALL NIGHT   -   One Direction   
02   -    970,000    -   TUSKEGEE   -   Lionel Richie   
03   -    749,000    -   BELIEVE   -   Justin Bieber
04   -    733,000    -   NOW 41   -   Various   
05   -    689,000    -   BLOWN AWAY   -   Carrie Underwood   
06   -    612,000    -   PINK FRIDAY: ROMAN RELOADED   -   Nicki Minaj   
07   -    496,000    -   SOME NIGHTS   -   Fun.   
08   -    493,000    -   MDNA   -   Madonna   
09   -    441,000    -   BORN AND RAISED   -   John Mayer   
10   -    440,000    -   WRECKING BALL   -   Bruce Springsteen   
11   -    434,000    -   OVEREXPOSED   -   Maroon 5   
12   -    432,000    -   UNCAGED   -   Zac Brown Band   
13   -    424,000    -   THE HUNGER GAMES   -   Soundtrack   
14   -    409,000    -   NOW 42   -   Various   
15   -    408,000    -   WELCOME TO THE FISHBOWL   -   Kenny Chesney   
16   -    404,000    -   A DIFFERENT KIND OF TRUTH   -   Van Halen   
17   -    400,000    -   LIVING THINGS   -   Linkin Park   
18   -    361,000    -   BLUNDERBUSS   -   Jack White   
19   -    342,000    -   2012 GRAMMY NOMINEES   -   Various   
20   -    341,000    -   LITTLE BROKEN HEARTS   -   Norah Jones   

                Bruce Springsteen has the 10th highest selling album of the year that was actually released in 2012.

            Springsteen's album the River finished at #10 for the year in its first year of release. The Rising finished at #34 for the year 2002. In that light, Is Wrecking Ball really doing any different if it finishes the year at #23 where its at in late August?


             Then, I just found the YEAR TO DATE WORLDWIDE SALES for 2012. Here is the Top 40. This includes albums that were released in any year like Coldplay's Mylo Xyloto which was released in 2011 but has continued to sell large numbers of albums in 2012, 1,762,000 in 2012 for the #4 position so far this year. Springsteen is not far behind that! Check out where Bruce Springsteen's Wrecking Ball is at:

1.Adele - 21 7.761.000
2.One Direction - Up All Night 2.478.000
3.Lana Del Rey - Born To Die 2.059.000
4.Coldplay - Mylo Xyloto 1.762.000
5.Gotye - Making Mirrors 1.535.000
6.Madonna - MDNA 1.469.000
7.Bruce Springsteen - Wrecking Ball 1.410.000
8.Justin Bieber - Believe 1.398.000
09 Rihanna - Talk That Talk 1 325 000
10 Adele - 19 1 295 000
11 Whitney Houston - The Greatest Hits 1 269 000
12 Lionel Richie - Tuskegee 1 242 000
13 The Black Keys - El Camino 1 209 000
14 LMFAO - Sorry For Party Rocking 1 145 000
15 David Guetta - Nothing But The Beat 1 143 000
16 Linkin Park - The Living Things 1 132 000
17 Mr.Children - 2005-2010 Macro 1 121 000
18 Nicki Minaj - Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded 1 075 000
19 Mr.Children - 2001-2005 Micro 1 057 000
20 Bruno Mars - Doo-Wops & Hooligans 1 057 000
21 Ed Sheeran - Plus 1 027 000
22 Katy Perry - Teenage Dream 983 000
23 Maroon 5 - Overexposed 968 000
24 Amy Winehouse - Lioness: Hidden Treasures 956 000
25 Florence + The Machine - Ceremonials 930 000
26 Drake - Take Care 924 000
27 Leonard Cohen - Old Ideas 888 000
28 Emeli Sande - Our Version Of Events 843 000
29 Norah Jones - Little Broken Hearts 839 000
30 Exile - Exile Japan 835 000
31 Van Halen - A Different Kind Of Truth 795 000
32 Carrie Underwood - Blown Away 783 000
33 Kelly Clarkson - Stronger 766 000
34 Lady Antebellum - Own The Night 720 000
35 Jack White - Blunderbuss 719 000
36 Nickelback - Here And Now 685 000
37 Fun. - Some Nights 684 000
38 John Mayer - Born And Raised 678 000
39 Paul McCartney - Kisses On The Bottom 666 000
40 Jason Mraz - Love Is A Four Letter Word 655 000


                               Think about it. Wrecking Ball is the 7th biggest selling album of the year around the world in 2012 as of late August! Provided he stays in that position or close to it by the end of the year, thats as good a year as any Springsteen has ever had in terms of the sales of one album vs the other artist. You could only argue that Born In The USA did better because it was a top album in two different years instead of just one.




Quote
The Stones highest selling albums sold between 3 million - 6 million, now they average between 1 -2 million.

Springsteen highest selling albums were between 10 million - 20 million, his latest album is sitting at 440,000 units and the ones in the last decade didn't come close to his earlier highs.

U2's highest sellers were between 10 million - close to 20 million, No Line sold about 5 million.

             You can't compare albums this way because of the decline of the music industry sales which effects all artist. No Line On The Horizon was the 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. That performance is NOT a decline from what U2 have done in the past. Bruce Springsteens Wrecking Ball is also on track to finish as the 7th biggest selling album of 2012. Again that is as good as Springsteen has ever done. Unit to Unit comparisons between albums released today and 10 or 20 years ago is impossible for all artist because the majority of people obtain music for free these days. The only comparison that can be made is how well the album sold in the year it was released vs all the other albums that year. Where did the album end up on the year end chart. The year end chart shows you who had the most popular albums of the year. If you have one of the most popular albums of the year, then your doing just as well as you ever did period in terms of how popular you are among the public.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 09:03:30 AM by bethere »

Offline imaginary friend

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,839
  • the vaccine for your wack scene
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #72 on: August 21, 2012, 09:22:48 AM »
Adele's really bringing home the bacon.

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,182
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #73 on: August 21, 2012, 09:25:39 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Adele's really bringing home the bacon.

Adele is the wild exception and her album 21 is the equivalent of Thriller once you adjust for the decline of the music market.

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Can U2 ever come back?
« Reply #74 on: August 21, 2012, 10:14:11 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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 and use it has evidence of some sort of a decline because of AGE. The sales decline in the music industry effects everyone regardless of age. Most people obtain their music for free in 2012 and so you can't make any sort of sales comparison with the year 2000 or 1985 and what x artist sold back then. 

            Lets look at YEAR TO DATE sales for albums that were actually 2012 releases:

01   -    1,103,000    -   UP ALL NIGHT   -   One Direction   
02   -    970,000    -   TUSKEGEE   -   Lionel Richie   
03   -    749,000    -   BELIEVE   -   Justin Bieber
04   -    733,000    -   NOW 41   -   Various   
05   -    689,000    -   BLOWN AWAY   -   Carrie Underwood   
06   -    612,000    -   PINK FRIDAY: ROMAN RELOADED   -   Nicki Minaj   
07   -    496,000    -   SOME NIGHTS   -   Fun.   
08   -    493,000    -   MDNA   -   Madonna   
09   -    441,000    -   BORN AND RAISED   -   John Mayer   
10   -    440,000    -   WRECKING BALL   -   Bruce Springsteen   
11   -    434,000    -   OVEREXPOSED   -   Maroon 5   
12   -    432,000    -   UNCAGED   -   Zac Brown Band   
13   -    424,000    -   THE HUNGER GAMES   -   Soundtrack   
14   -    409,000    -   NOW 42   -   Various   
15   -    408,000    -   WELCOME TO THE FISHBOWL   -   Kenny Chesney   
16   -    404,000    -   A DIFFERENT KIND OF TRUTH   -   Van Halen   
17   -    400,000    -   LIVING THINGS   -   Linkin Park   
18   -    361,000    -   BLUNDERBUSS   -   Jack White   
19   -    342,000    -   2012 GRAMMY NOMINEES   -   Various   
20   -    341,000    -   LITTLE BROKEN HEARTS   -   Norah Jones   

                Bruce Springsteen has the 10th highest selling album of the year that was actually released in 2012.

            Springsteen's album the River finished at #10 for the year in its first year of release. The Rising finished at #34 for the year 2002. In that light, Is Wrecking Ball really doing any different if it finishes the year at #23 where its at in late August?


             Then, I just found the YEAR TO DATE WORLDWIDE SALES for 2012. Here is the Top 40. This includes albums that were released in any year like Coldplay's Mylo Xyloto which was released in 2011 but has continued to sell large numbers of albums in 2012, 1,762,000 in 2012 for the #4 position so far this year. Springsteen is not far behind that! Check out where Bruce Springsteen's Wrecking Ball is at:

1.Adele - 21 7.761.000
2.One Direction - Up All Night 2.478.000
3.Lana Del Rey - Born To Die 2.059.000
4.Coldplay - Mylo Xyloto 1.762.000
5.Gotye - Making Mirrors 1.535.000
6.Madonna - MDNA 1.469.000
7.Bruce Springsteen - Wrecking Ball 1.410.000
8.Justin Bieber - Believe 1.398.000
09 Rihanna - Talk That Talk 1 325 000
10 Adele - 19 1 295 000
11 Whitney Houston - The Greatest Hits 1 269 000
12 Lionel Richie - Tuskegee 1 242 000
13 The Black Keys - El Camino 1 209 000
14 LMFAO - Sorry For Party Rocking 1 145 000
15 David Guetta - Nothing But The Beat 1 143 000
16 Linkin Park - The Living Things 1 132 000
17 Mr.Children - 2005-2010 Macro 1 121 000
18 Nicki Minaj - Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded 1 075 000
19 Mr.Children - 2001-2005 Micro 1 057 000
20 Bruno Mars - Doo-Wops & Hooligans 1 057 000
21 Ed Sheeran - Plus 1 027 000
22 Katy Perry - Teenage Dream 983 000
23 Maroon 5 - Overexposed 968 000
24 Amy Winehouse - Lioness: Hidden Treasures 956 000
25 Florence + The Machine - Ceremonials 930 000
26 Drake - Take Care 924 000
27 Leonard Cohen - Old Ideas 888 000
28 Emeli Sande - Our Version Of Events 843 000
29 Norah Jones - Little Broken Hearts 839 000
30 Exile - Exile Japan 835 000
31 Van Halen - A Different Kind Of Truth 795 000
32 Carrie Underwood - Blown Away 783 000
33 Kelly Clarkson - Stronger 766 000
34 Lady Antebellum - Own The Night 720 000
35 Jack White - Blunderbuss 719 000
36 Nickelback - Here And Now 685 000
37 Fun. - Some Nights 684 000
38 John Mayer - Born And Raised 678 000
39 Paul McCartney - Kisses On The Bottom 666 000
40 Jason Mraz - Love Is A Four Letter Word 655 000


                               Think about it. Wrecking Ball is the 7th biggest selling album of the year around the world in 2012 as of late August! Provided he stays in that position or close to it by the end of the year, thats as good a year as any Springsteen has ever had in terms of the sales of one album vs the other artist. You could only argue that Born In The USA did better because it was a top album in two different years instead of just one.




Quote
The Stones highest selling albums sold between 3 million - 6 million, now they average between 1 -2 million.

Springsteen highest selling albums were between 10 million - 20 million, his latest album is sitting at 440,000 units and the ones in the last decade didn't come close to his earlier highs.

U2's highest sellers were between 10 million - close to 20 million, No Line sold about 5 million.

             You can't compare albums this way because of the decline of the music industry sales which effects all artist. No Line On The Horizon was the 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide. That performance is NOT a decline from what U2 have done in the past. Bruce Springsteens Wrecking Ball is also on track to finish as the 7th biggest selling album of 2012. Again that is as good as Springsteen has ever done. Unit to Unit comparisons between albums released today and 10 or 20 years ago is impossible for all artist because the majority of people obtain music for free these days. The only comparison that can be made is how well the album sold in the year it was released vs all the other albums that year. Where did the album end up on the year end chart. The year end chart shows you who had the most popular albums of the year. If you have one of the most popular albums of the year, then your doing just as well as you ever did period in terms of how popular you are among 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.