MR

http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/u2 ... time-26331

U2’s “360°” tour -- the most expensive touring production in rock history -- has passed the Rolling Stones’ “Bigger Bang” as the biggest-grossing rock tour of all-time.

Following U2’s sold-out show in Sao Paulo, Brazil on Monday, Live Nation says the Irish rockers' “in-the-round” stadium tour will dethrone the Stones, who grossed $558 million on “Bigger Bang" between 2005 and 2007.

With 26 shows left before the 110-date, 30-country tour finishes in Canada on July 30, U2's “360°” will set the new record as the top grossing tour of all time, with final ticket sales estimated to surpass $700 million.

U2’s tour -- which launched in 2009 -- is also expected to set record for tickets sold with 7 million, passing the Stones’ previous record of 6.3 million for their “Voodoo Lounge Tour.”

Given the high production costs of U2’s “360°,” I’d bet that the Stones netted a much bigger profit than Bono and co.

Paul McGuinness, U2’s manager, hinted as much on Monday.

“That dollar figure for the gross looks enormous,” McGuinness said. “Of course I can’t tell you what the net is, but I can tell you that the band spend enormous sums on production for their audience.”

Each show has grossed an average of $6.4 million for U2, with 63,600 tickets sold, according to Boxscore.

Smoke & Mirrors, cause the music is lame.....I thought it was all about the music. Everything has to be this huge extravagant production...

i like a couple of their songs but overall i think U2 is way way overhyped.

Easily one of the greatest bands in the history of Rock music...love them...saw this tour in 2009.

Pelata wrote:Easily one of the worst bands in the history of Rock music.

Totally agree! U2 is a great example that HYPE sells more than actual talent and real music

And if they had the exact same musical output but never made it past theater headlining status, the same people who say they are "overhyped" would be saying they're "underrated".

U2 are serendipitous geniuses...like The Beatles, people will still be following U2 music for decades, even centuries, after they're gone.

Truth be told - their music is boring. They are a college radio station band that caught on for some reason. The Edge thinks he is god's gift to the guitar, when his is actually a hack. I guess his is decent enough. Bono is an ego looking for a safety pin.

Comparing U2 to the Beatles is more offensive than The Gallagher brothers claiming they are bigger than the Scarabs....

They came out at the right time, just like the Beatles....if they came out today, they'd fail miserably.

Pelata wrote:And if they had the exact same musical output but never made it past theater headlining status, the same people who say they are "overhyped" would be saying they're "underrated".

.

WRONG,,, people like YOU , who enjoy their garbage, would say theyre underated. They got NOTHING... Lyrics = Shit, music = shit, vocals = utter shit.

I'm not a fan, but I certainly wouldn't disregard them. They've definitely
made an impact on a lot of people/fans and I do enjoy some of their stuff,
but I don't know enough about them to tell you what that impact consists of ...

Michigan Girl wrote:I'm not a fan, but I certainly wouldn't disregard them. They've definitely
made an impact on a lot of people/fans and I do enjoy some of their stuff,
but I don't know enough about them to tell you what that impact consists of ...

Bono's vocals never did do nadda for me. So they never really came up as a blip on my radar. Although I did like a couple songs from the "Where The Streets Have No Name" era, but nothing really, since. Don't own any of their albums, probably never will.

BB, I'm warning you! Take that down OR put their heads back on!

Pelata wrote:And if they had the exact same musical output but never made it past theater headlining status, the same people who say they are "overhyped" would be saying they're "underrated".

U2 are serendipitous geniuses...like The Beatles, people will still be following U2 music for decades, even centuries, after they're gone.

Agreed! They are one of the best bands in history! If you ever been to a U2 concert, you will never leave dissapointed! Their concerts are on a whole different level!

http://youtu.be/eeAzX2i_49I Damn this is great!

I'm still kinda shocked at this...it's their least impressive tour (musically) supporting an album no one liked. But I guess they're coasting on 'being U2' rather than the quality of their new music or performances now, kinda like the Stones.

I would definitely see them. I'm surprised at the hate for them here. I can understand hating Bono personally, but their music is pretty solid.

WalrusOct9 wrote:I'm still kinda shocked at this...it's their least impressive tour (musically) supporting an album no one liked. But I guess they're coasting on 'being U2' rather than the quality of their new music or performances now, kinda like the Stones.

Perhaps they play the minimal two or three songs from the new LP's
and then move on to fan favs ...I've never seen them!!

They played half the new album when I saw them in Oct2009 and people were singing along with those songs just as hard as anything else...

I enjoyed their albums in the early 80s when they still seemed to be angry young men, after that, not so much. Overall, they are a good band, put on a great show and know how to market themselves. They've worked for what they've got and it seems quite a few million people agree.

Bono and his political rampaging calling for everyone to save the rain forest, save ethiopia, save the vulture's that feed off the poor. Hey Bonopart, YOU save
them with the millions you have pal. And for the love of GOD, please don't sing another song. Fuck I hate U2!

True story:

In 1981 I went to see the J.Geils Band at the Cow Palace in San Francisco.... my buddy and I were nearly 1st in line.. so when the gates opened we hoofed it straight to the stage and got great spots right up front...

So the show starts and this young new band called U2 comes out.. charismatic, enigmatic... and genuine... and by the last song they owned the place...


I haven't listened to U2 in a long time.. they've since lost that innocence they had in those early days... but to say they are underrate and overhyped... just not true...

No one gets to where they are without having been able to connect with people... and they did.. and for some still do...

WalrusOct9 wrote:I'm still kinda shocked at this...it's their least impressive tour (musically) supporting an album no one liked. But I guess they're coasting on 'being U2' rather than the quality of their new music or performances now, kinda like the Stones.

Well, they played a lot of songs off their new album (like they always do) in that tour and the songs were very well received from when I watched it on that livestream. I had a friend go see them and she said the same. The Stones coast on their old music. U2 doesn't. But they have a lot of material to cover spanning three decades of albums and do. I loved all the new songs they played and they translated well live, like No Line on The Horizon, Magnificant, Moment of Surrender, Breathe etc., all tremendous songs. And all over YouTube fans from everyhwere were posting the new songs from their concerts, so seemed to be excited about them.

But I remember Bono saying during the middle of the tour that this undertaking was so expensive to put on and that it really didn't make them more money, but that they did it for the fans for being there for them all these years and wanted to give them an amazing concert experience. Can you imagine the breaking down of that set and transporting it all over the world? The costs of this tour had to be astronomical.

That's the only part that sucked seeing them last time. Their first two albums got the shaft in the setlist. Love October but the majority of fans only want to hear what came after that.

Frontiers65 wrote:

Pelata wrote:And if they had the exact same musical output but never made it past theater headlining status, the same people who say they are "overhyped" would be saying they're "underrated".

U2 are serendipitous geniuses...like The Beatles, people will still be following U2 music for decades, even centuries, after they're gone.

Agreed! They are one of the best bands in history! If you ever been to a U2 concert, you will never leave dissapointed! Their concerts are on a whole different level!

http://youtu.be/eeAzX2i_49I Damn this is great!

I love that performance. Amazing song. Watching this from 87, when his voice was so powerful, you realize how much he has lost vocally. It's been so gradual over time, that you don't realize. I thought he was still great in the Vertigo tour in 2004 or whenever it was, but the thinness of his vocals in the high parts was much more noticeable for their most recent album.

The point is that I'm sure a Lady Gaga concert, or a Black-Eyed Peas concert is an out of this world spectacle too....but the music SUCKS.

What's the Frequency, Kenneth?

For Stadium shows, I'd go in this order with how well the whole production was done(from the shows I attended).
1. Pink Floyd
2. U2
3. Journey.
4. Bon Jovi
5. Rolling Stones

S2M wrote:Smoke & Mirrors, cause the music is lame.....I thought it was all about the music. Everything has to be this huge extravagant production...

They did that for the fans, so they would have a better view and enjoyment of the concert even though they were in a huge stadium. To roll your eyes at them spending the kind of money they did and the pain in the a... it caused breaking down and transporting and setting up, when most bands wouldn't want to be bothered, seems . . . well, you know, a little negative.

U2 could have taken the easy route and had just a normal stage setup with expensive tickets. They not only want to great expense to give a show that everyone seated in the venue could actually see, they kept the ticket prices down.

Jana wrote:

S2M wrote:Smoke & Mirrors, cause the music is lame.....I thought it was all about the music. Everything has to be this huge extravagant production...

They did that for the fans, so they would have a better view and enjoyment of the concert even though they were in a huge stadium. To roll your eyes at them spending the kind of money they did and the pain in the a... it caused breaking down and transporting and setting up, when most bands wouldn't want to be bothered, seems . . . well, you know, a little negative.

Just play music. That's all 'real' fans care about...U2 fans strike me as the kind of fans that get caught up in the periphery. Much more interested in trunk space, and what kind of stereo a car has...than whether or not it has a good safety rating, or if it has good gas mileage - when shopping for a car....Just play the damn music.

S2M wrote:

Jana wrote:

S2M wrote:Smoke & Mirrors, cause the music is lame.....I thought it was all about the music. Everything has to be this huge extravagant production...

They did that for the fans, so they would have a better view and enjoyment of the concert even though they were in a huge stadium. To roll your eyes at them spending the kind of money they did and the pain in the a... it caused breaking down and transporting and setting up, when most bands wouldn't want to be bothered, seems . . . well, you know, a little negative.

Just play music. That's all 'real' fans care about...U2 fans strike me as the kind of fans that get caught up in the periphery. Much more interested in trunk space, and what kind of stereo a car has...than whether or not it has a good safety rating, or if it has good gas mileage - when shopping for a car....Just play the damn music.

Agreed. I'm there for the talent not the glitz. I'm not saying U2, Gaga, etc. suck or anything, but strip all the production and glitz and are they as good raw. All I know, is the Mr Big show I saw earlier this month for less than a quarter of what I paid to see the Bon Jovi show I saw was WAY WAY WAY WAY better! Granted seeing a show from front and center in a mid size venue with a thousand other crazy rock-lovin' fans is alot more intimate and beats seeing a show from pretty much anywhere in an arena. Doesn't matter how much production is thrown in, you still gotta have those vocals and musical talent to back it up. Vocal magic/tricks are often used in the big arena shows, where as you can't get away with that in mid/small size shows, so ya usually get (what I pay to see anyways) good old raw talent. And before anybody says anything, I've been a fan of both bands for years, Bon Jovi longer. But comparing BJ's tired vocals and same old shtick to a new and invigorated MB, was just no comparison. MB are hungry to play together again and having a blast, and it shows in spades, and to me Bon Jovi is just getting.......well, tired. I noticed MB isn't scared to take risks with their setlists either, in Japan right now they have all but one song from their new album on the setlists........you can tell it's soooo not just all about the money with this reunion.

Don wrote:U2 could have taken the easy route and had just a normal stage setup with expensive tickets. They not only want to great expense to give a show that everyone seated in the venue could actually see, they kept the ticket prices down.

So true.

Jana wrote:

Don wrote:U2 could have taken the easy route and had just a normal stage setup with expensive tickets. They not only want to great expense to give a show that everyone seated in the venue could actually see, they kept the ticket prices down.

So true.

So what? It has jack shit to do with the music.

Don wrote:U2 could have taken the easy route and had just a normal stage setup with expensive tickets. They not only want to great expense to give a show that everyone seated in the venue could actually see, they kept the ticket prices down.

I'm not sure $43 - $293 is really keeping the ticket prices down!! Even the club level (200'S) was $268, the only decent affordable option was GA on the field and I hate GA!! Besides I'm not a big U2 fan either!