GNR North American Sales Figures - Steep drop in 2012

[TheSeeker]

Bet he won't post the numbers from the South American tour. Whoops.

I think GNR didn;t play SA in 2012...Also they played Europe...

And yes probably in next years we can except 6000 shows and festivals

Right, but since he was comparing tours from 2002 to present, I think it would be more representative to look at the worldwide numbers during those years. The 2011 South American tour put up some big numbers.

Ok, let's do that:

(Worldwide touring data not available from 2008 and before)

2009 Top 50 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 50 worldwide touring acts

2010 Top 50 Tours (Source)

29. Guns N' Roses

Gross: 39.7 million dollars

Average ticket price: $71.81

Average tickets sold: 9,370

Total tickets sold: 552,847

Average gross: $672,881

Cities/Shows played: 59/60

Booking agency: CAA/International Talent Booking

2011 Top 25 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 25 worldwide touring acts

2012 Top 50 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 50 worldwide touring acts

Edited March 17, 2013 by TheSeeker

[Apollo]

Bet he won't post the numbers from the South American tour. Whoops.

I think GNR didn;t play SA in 2012...Also they played Europe...

And yes probably in next years we can except 6000 shows and festivals

Right, but since he was comparing tours from 2002 to present, I think it would be more representative to look at the worldwide numbers during those years. The 2011 South American tour put up some big numbers.

Ok, let's do that:

(Worldwide touring data not available from 2008 and before)

>2009 Top 50 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 50 worldwide touring acts

2010 Top 50 Tours (Source)

29. Guns N' Roses

Gross: 39.7 million dollars

Average ticket price: $71.81

Average tickets sold: 9,370

Total tickets sold: 552,847

Average gross: $672,881

Cities/Shows played: 59/60

Booking agency: CAA/International Talent Booking

2011 Top 25 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 25 worldwide touring acts

2012 Top 50 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 50 worldwide touring acts

Whoops.

But for the adults................yes, it's obvious that GnR isn't as big as they used to be. The nutswingers can try and argue that all day long, but at the end of the day, the numbers don't lie.

Axl has chosen to run the band as more of a nostalgic act now and that is why their concert numbers fall where they do. You can't just play the classic songs and except your touring numbers to increase. The only way to increase those numbers is by producing new relevant music. That will not only gain you new fans, but also inspire some old time fans that might not come see the show (if they'd already seen it several times) to start coming again.

But at the end of the day, what does it really matter in terms of whether or not you enjoy a show? I'd rather see GnR in a smaller venue than see them in a stadium with 80,000 people. A bigger crowd doesn't mean that the concert is better. As a fan I just hope that they make enough money on tour to convince everybody that they should stay active as a band - recording and touring. The fact that Motley Crue is a bigger selling act right now shouldn't make anybody mad. Who cares. Enjoy what you enjoy.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

It doesn't really make sense for people to criticize GNR's tour numbers, just like it doesn't make sense to criticize CD's sales. Axl did nothing to promote the album, he does basically nothing to promote the band. They do pretty well considering.

[saber_]

It doesn't really make sense for people to criticize GNR's tour numbers, just like it doesn't make sense to criticize CD's sales. Axl did nothing to promote the album, he does basically nothing to promote the band. They do pretty well considering.

The voice of reason.

I'll point to the numbers in India and South America in recent years as a different barometer of GnR's appeal. How many people attended those shows? GnR has a worldwide appeal, apparently to the chagrin of some on this board. Strange.

For years, there have been claims of impending doom for GnR's tour, just like this thread. Uncannily similar actually. And every year, the band keeps touring the world, seemingly unaffected by the statistics which mean so much to certain posters here.

As some are fond of pointing out, GnR has released one unpromoted album in the last decade. Of course their numbers are gonna drop. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. But they're still big in other parts of the world besides the U.S.

Edited March 18, 2013 by brainsaber

[Randy Lahey]

Axl's been playing sold out US arena tours according to his last interview.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Randy Lahey

[Ali]

Bet he won't post the numbers from the South American tour. Whoops.

I think GNR didn;t play SA in 2012...Also they played Europe...

And yes probably in next years we can except 6000 shows and festivals

Right, but since he was comparing tours from 2002 to present, I think it would be more representative to look at the worldwide numbers during those years. The 2011 South American tour put up some big numbers.

Ok, let's do that:

(Worldwide touring data not available from 2008 and before)

2009 Top 50 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 50 worldwide touring acts

2010 Top 50 Tours (Source)

29. Guns N' Roses

Gross: 39.7 million dollars

Average ticket price: $71.81

Average tickets sold: 9,370

Total tickets sold: 552,847

Average gross: $672,881

Cities/Shows played: 59/60

Booking agency: CAA/International Talent Booking

2011 Top 25 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 25 worldwide touring acts

2012 Top 50 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 50 worldwide touring acts

This is completely flawed. You are trying to make year over year comparisons when the circumstances are bot the same, especially when you look at Pollstar, which is based on total gross. GN'R played a handful of shows in 2009, and didn't start touring until October of 2011. As was said before, GN'R played the UCAP tour in the US along with the Vegas residency, which were all in smaller venues.

Ali

[Apollo]

Bet he won't post the numbers from the South American tour. Whoops.

I think GNR didn;t play SA in 2012...Also they played Europe...

And yes probably in next years we can except 6000 shows and festivals

Right, but since he was comparing tours from 2002 to present, I think it would be more representative to look at the worldwide numbers during those years. The 2011 South American tour put up some big numbers.

Ok, let's do that:

(Worldwide touring data not available from 2008 and before)

>2009 Top 50 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 50 worldwide touring acts

lockquote>

>2010 Top 50 Tours (Source)

29. Guns N' Roses

Gross: 39.7 million dollars

Average ticket price: $71.81

Average tickets sold: 9,370

Total tickets sold: 552,847

Average gross: $672,881

Cities/Shows played: 59/60

Booking agency: CAA/International Talent Booking

2011 Top 25 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 25 worldwide touring acts

2012 Top 50 Worldwide Tours (source)

GNR did not break the Top 50 worldwide touring acts

This is completely flawed. You are trying to make year over year comparisons when the circumstances are bot the same, especially when you look at Pollstar, which is based on total gross. GN'R played a handful of shows in 2009, and didn't start touring until October of 2011. As was said before, GN'R played the UCAP tour in the US along with the Vegas residency, which were all in smaller venues.

Ali

It isn't flawed at all. Because you are doing the same thing - basing your numbers on what is relevant to GnR and not to every other band.

Sure, GnR didn't play 365 shows a year and they played some small venues. But those facts are relevant to EVERY other band as well.

GnR would have been higher if they played more shows???? Well Duh. So would every other band.

GnR would have been higher if they didn't play smaller venues? Well duh. So would every other band.

Maybe if the band that was one spot behind GnR had played 2 more shows, they would have passed GnR in the rankings. See how that works? All the excuses you make for GnR can be applied to every other band.

You act like the charts aren't fair because GnR played a scaled back tour all these years while every other band in the world played 365 shows at 100,000 seat stadiums. Ridiculous.

Everybody plays by the same set of rules. Anytime something isn't pro-GnR it isn't because the "thing" is biased against Axl.

GnR isn't a top 50 touring band anymore. And they haven't been for a very long time. Regardless of any excuses you have.

[maynard]

hahaha, i love how stupid some posters look after groghan tells it like it is!

[Ali]

No, Groghan, it is completely flawed. It is not in any way, shape or form an apples-to-apples comparison to compare year to year gross for GN'R (and the comparison being made was GN'R year over year) when the number of shows played per year varies so greatly. Gross is directly proportional to the number of shows played. Even if you disregard the choice to play a theater-sized residency and play club shows in 2012, the more accurate metric for year to year comparisons would be gross/show. That way you take the number of shows played per year out of the equation.

Ali

Edited March 18, 2013 by Ali

[volcano62]

2+2 is 4 Groghan.....

[fantomas]

Powerage5 brings up a great point. Also, look at average ticket pricing. Down economy and tighter budgets, Ticket prices doubled since 2002 and people have limited funds. There are a lot of good bands touring and most can't afford to go to see every one of them. I paid $300 for two Muse tickets this past weekend. If another band I liked came this month, I'd have to forgoe it. Has nothing to do with the band and everything to do with balancing a budget. I can't blow $500 a month on concert tickets and much as I'd like to. Add in gas and parking and food and drink if I want it plus all the ticket master and venue fees, you're looking well over $650. Every quarter I plan out who is coming to town, how much are the tickets, have I seen them before, what setlist are they doing, will I need to take time off of work? These are all factors to consider. This year I plan on seeing a ton of bands. Muse, NIN, Stereophonics, Kasabian, Garbage, Marilyn Manson. If Gn'R isn't doing anything new, in fact playing a shorter set than when I saw them in Phoenix in Dec 2011 (which, for the record, I LOVED that show), my money has to go elsewhere. That does not make me any less of a Gn'R fan. It just means I have to be smart with my money.

Edited March 18, 2013 by fantomas

[Apollo]

Powerage5 brings up a great point. Also, look at average ticket pricing. Down economy and tighter budgets, Ticket prices doubled since 2002 and people have limited funds. There are a lot of good bands touring and most can't afford to go to see every one of them. I paid $300 for two Muse tickets this past weekend. If another band I liked came this month, I'd have to forgoe it. Has nothing to do with the band and everything to do with balancing a budget. I can't blow $500 a month on concert tickets and much as I'd like to. Add in gas and parking and food and drink if I want it plus all the ticket master and venue fees, you're looking well over $650. Every quarter I plan out who is coming to town, how much are the tickets, have I seen them before, what setlist are they doing, will I need to take time off of work? These are all factors to consider. This year I plan on seeing a ton of bands. Muse, NIN, Stereophonics, Kasabian, Garbage, Marilyn Manson. If Gn'R isn't doing anything new, in fact playing a shorter set than when I saw them in Phoenix in Dec 2011 (which, for the record, I LOVED that show), my money has to go elsewhere. That does not make me any less of a Gn'R fan. It just means I have to be smart with my money.

No, Groghan, it is completely flawed. It is not in any way, shape or form an apples-to-apples comparison to compare year to year gross for GN'R (and the comparison being made was GN'R year over year) when the number of shows played per year varies so greatly. Gross is directly proportional to the number of shows played. Even if you disregard the choice to play a theater-sized residency and play club shows in 2012, the more accurate metric for year to year comparisons would be gross/show. That way you take the number of shows played per year out of the equation.

Ali

Lolcano - let the adults talk. I'm guessing you probably had to use a calculator to figure out your answer. If we want to know why DJ is better than Izzy and how cute Axl is, we'll ask for your opinion. But you shouldn't really try and contribute to the adult conversations.

Ali,

It isn't flawed, no matter how desperately you try and make excuses for GnR.

The reason it isn't flawed is because all the polls (whichever ones people look at) apply the same set of standards to EVERY band - and then they rank the bands by how they fall into that criteria. If the ranking is for overall top grossing tour - then thats what the criteria is going to be. TOP GROSSING TOUR.

So all the excuses you make for GnR have to be applied to all other bands as well. If GnR isn't playing a full year of shows and are playing small venues, then they won't place very high.

You are aruging two different things.

The polls aren't flawed - you just don't like the way they measure things.

Using an EVEN playing field, GnR is not a top 50 touring band anymore in terms of gross. No matter how much that bothers you, the numbers don't lie.

Gross doesn't just measure the amount of shows you play - so you are also wrong about that. It also matters how big those venues are. Ten shows at a 2,500 seat theatre isn't going to gross you as much as three shows at a 25,000 seat stadium. Ticket prices also matter.

The point you also missed is that you have to apply your criteria to other bands as well. GnR isn't the only band not playing hundreds of shows and also playing small venues. So changing the criteria around isn't going to magically propel GnR from 87th to 8th. Because every other band that is in the same boat would have their numbers effected as well.

No matter how you want to change it, re-arrange it, use different standards/criteria for GnR than everybody else.....GnR isn't a top 50 touring band anymore. WHY is that such an issue for you? What does the amount of money the band makes have to do with your enjoyment of their music?

Fantomas...........like I've tried to explain to Ali. What you are saying is valid - money is tight for people and lots of bands are on tour. BUT those facts apply to ALL bands and their gross - not just GnR. You said that you have a certain amount of money to apply to a certain amount of concerts. Just like we all do. Everybody then has to decide which band to apply that money towards. Twenty years ago, MORE people would apply that money towards GnR than they do now.

You guys keep making excuses as to why GnR isn't a great money-making touring band........but you don't apply the same criteria to every other band touring. The economy and number of bands touring has to apply towards ALL bands, not just GnR.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Groghan

[ironmt]

Another great post and spot on Groghan.

[Ali]

Powerage5 brings up a great point. Also, look at average ticket pricing. Down economy and tighter budgets, Ticket prices doubled since 2002 and people have limited funds. There are a lot of good bands touring and most can't afford to go to see every one of them. I paid $300 for two Muse tickets this past weekend. If another band I liked came this month, I'd have to forgoe it. Has nothing to do with the band and everything to do with balancing a budget. I can't blow $500 a month on concert tickets and much as I'd like to. Add in gas and parking and food and drink if I want it plus all the ticket master and venue fees, you're looking well over $650. Every quarter I plan out who is coming to town, how much are the tickets, have I seen them before, what setlist are they doing, will I need to take time off of work? These are all factors to consider. This year I plan on seeing a ton of bands. Muse, NIN, Stereophonics, Kasabian, Garbage, Marilyn Manson. If Gn'R isn't doing anything new, in fact playing a shorter set than when I saw them in Phoenix in Dec 2011 (which, for the record, I LOVED that show), my money has to go elsewhere. That does not make me any less of a Gn'R fan. It just means I have to be smart with my money.

>>No, Groghan, it is completely flawed. It is not in any way, shape or form an apples-to-apples comparison to compare year to year gross for GN'R (and the comparison being made was GN'R year over year) when the number of shows played per year varies so greatly. Gross is directly proportional to the number of shows played. Even if you disregard the choice to play a theater-sized residency and play club shows in 2012, the more accurate metric for year to year comparisons would be gross/show. That way you take the number of shows played per year out of the equation.

Ali

Lolcano - let the adults talk. I'm guessing you probably had to use a calculator to figure out your answer. If we want to know why DJ is better than Izzy and how cute Axl is, we'll ask for your opinion. But you shouldn't really try and contribute to the adult conversations.

Ali,

It isn't flawed, no matter how desperately you try and make excuses for GnR.

The reason it isn't flawed is because all the polls (whichever ones people look at) apply the same set of standards to EVERY band - and then they rank the bands by how they fall into that criteria. If the ranking is for overall top grossing tour - then thats what the criteria is going to be. TOP GROSSING TOUR.

So all the excuses you make for GnR have to be applied to all other bands as well. If GnR isn't playing a full year of shows and are playing small venues, then they won't place very high.

You are aruging two different things.

The polls aren't flawed - you just don't like the way they measure things.

Using an EVEN playing field, GnR is not a top 50 touring band anymore in terms of gross. No matter how much that bothers you, the numbers don't lie.

Gross doesn't just measure the amount of shows you play - so you are also wrong about that. It also matters how big those venues are. Ten shows at a 2,500 seat theatre isn't going to gross you as much as three shows at a 25,000 seat stadium. Ticket prices also matter.

The point you also missed is that you have to apply your criteria to other bands as well. GnR isn't the only band not playing hundreds of shows and also playing small venues. So changing the criteria around isn't going to magically propel GnR from 87th to 8th. Because every other band that is in the same boat would have their numbers effected as well.

No matter how you want to change it, re-arrange it, use different standards/criteria for GnR than everybody else.....GnR isn't a top 50 touring band anymore. WHY is that such an issue for you? What does the amount of money the band makes have to do with your enjoyment of their music?

Fantomas...........like I've tried to explain to Ali. What you are saying is valid - money is tight for people and lots of bands are on tour. BUT those facts apply to ALL bands and their gross - not just GnR. You said that you have a certain amount of money to apply to a certain amount of concerts. Just like we all do. Everybody then has to decide which band to apply that money towards. Twenty years ago, MORE people would apply that money towards GnR than they do now.

You guys keep making excuses as to why GnR isn't a great money-making touring band........but you don't apply the same criteria to every other band touring. The economy and number of bands touring has to apply towards ALL bands, not just GnR.

I can't comprehend what you're not getting about this, Groghan. I may regret this later, but I'll try one more time. Total year end gross is proportional to the number of shows you play. The more shows you play, the more your gross will go up. Of course, there are other factors, like ticket prices and venue size/attendance. But, comparing GN'R year to year, NOT comparing GN'R relative to other acts (year over year or on a per year basis), when in one year (2009) they played a handful of shows in Asia in December vs. 2010 when they played from mid Jan. to early Feb. in Canada, early March to mid April in South America, early to mid June and late August to late October in Europe, and December in Australia and UAE is not an apples to apples comparison at all.

In other words, of course GN'R would've grossed more total dollars in a year where they had tour legs running from January to December, as opposed to a year where they only played a handful of shows in December. So, it is not the right metric to use to compare GN'R's financial success year to year. If you want to look at how much they grossed year to year, I think a better relative metric would be gross/show. I think that would be better year to year metric to use for ALL bands, not just GN'R.

Think of it this way: By your logic, U2 was one of top 3 worldwide grossing bands from 2009-2011. As of 2012, they aren't even in the top 50 anymore. Does that really tell the whole story? No

Ali

Edited March 19, 2013 by Ali

[fantomas]

Groghan, I assume you did not read my post then mate. I said every quarter I plan out who is coming to town, how much are the tickets, have I seen them before, what setlist are they doing, will I need to take time off of work? At what point do I say that I just apply this to Gn'R? I use this with every band I see. I won't pay to see the same show twice regardless of who it is. And I love the fact you say "let the adults talk" when you start a post with lolcano. If you really bothered to read my post you would have seen that I said ticket prices had doubled and that contributed to lower sales. At what point did I make an excuse as to why GnR isn't a great money-making touring band? They have toured consistently with roughtly the same setlist, ticket prices have doubled and there is less value for money. In a down economy and higher ticket prices, people have to be more selective and that is with ALL bands. You have it in your head that I am pro Gn'R and I ignore all the facts. Fact is, you didn't read my post. Had you bothered to, you would have seen that it wasn't a pro Gn'R post at all. I actually said if Gn'R doesn't offer anything new, I won't go again. But feel free to be an adult and twist this post into a pro Gn'R rant.

[jmapelian]

So for the last 3 yrs, the "band" only made 23 mil touring? Given the start and finish times for their shows, the number of members of the "band", and all the roadcrew involved, Axl must barely clear shit for himself......the OT alone for cops and venue staff must eat up a good chunk of that.....hahaha

[jmapelian]

Groghan, I assume you did not read my post then mate. I said every quarter I plan out who is coming to town, how much are the tickets, have I seen them before, what setlist are they doing, will I need to take time off of work? At what point do I say that I just apply this to Gn'R? I use this with every band I see. I won't pay to see the same show twice regardless of who it is. And I love the fact you say "let the adults talk" when you start a post with lolcano. If you really bothered to read my post you would have seen that I said ticket prices had doubled and that contributed to lower sales. At what point did I make an excuse as to why GnR isn't a great money-making touring band? They have toured consistently with roughtly the same setlist, ticket prices have doubled and there is less value for money. In a down economy and higher ticket prices, people have to be more selective and that is with ALL bands. You have it in your head that I am pro Gn'R and I ignore all the facts. Fact is, you didn't read my post. Had you bothered to, you would have seen that it wasn't a pro Gn'R post at all. I actually said if Gn'R doesn't offer anything new, I won't go again. But feel free to be an adult and twist this post into a pro Gn'R rant.

That's been my logic behind not seeing this band since 2006 - that and all the extra aggravation that goes into a gnr show - most bands ( actually I think just about all bands I've seen) don't require an ungodly wait between opener and headliner, hotel accomadations, as well as taking the next day off from work, not to mention spending nearly $100 for the ticket itself - there are much better values for your dollar than this band and to only have 1 album of original material forr the $$ they want is absurd to me, but I'm just a relic of the cold war

[fantomas]

Groghan, I assume you did not read my post then mate. I said every quarter I plan out who is coming to town, how much are the tickets, have I seen them before, what setlist are they doing, will I need to take time off of work? At what point do I say that I just apply this to Gn'R? I use this with every band I see. I won't pay to see the same show twice regardless of who it is. And I love the fact you say "let the adults talk" when you start a post with lolcano. If you really bothered to read my post you would have seen that I said ticket prices had doubled and that contributed to lower sales. At what point did I make an excuse as to why GnR isn't a great money-making touring band? They have toured consistently with roughtly the same setlist, ticket prices have doubled and there is less value for money. In a down economy and higher ticket prices, people have to be more selective and that is with ALL bands. You have it in your head that I am pro Gn'R and I ignore all the facts. Fact is, you didn't read my post. Had you bothered to, you would have seen that it wasn't a pro Gn'R post at all. I actually said if Gn'R doesn't offer anything new, I won't go again. But feel free to be an adult and twist this post into a pro Gn'R rant.

That's been my logic behind not seeing this band since 2006 - that and all the extra aggravation that goes into a gnr show - most bands ( actually I think just about all bands I've seen) don't require an ungodly wait between opener and headliner, hotel accomadations, as well as taking the next day off from work, not to mention spending nearly $100 for the ticket itself - there are much better values for your dollar than this band and to only have 1 album of original material forr the $$ they want is absurd to me, but I'm just a relic of the cold war

When I saw them in 2011, they came on exactly 45 mins after the opener and played for just under three hours. Started at 11 and ended at 2. They played over 30 songs and I sure as hell got value for my money. It was an amazing show Then. Now, the story is different. Civil War is gone, Madagascar is gone, Street of Dreams, Shacklers, Sorry are gone etc... The last Australia show had 8 less songs than when I saw them play, That is substantial. I have a feeling that was last time I will see Gn'R and I am happy it was on a high note. I'm not pro Gn'R and I'm not anti Gn'R I'm just indifferent these days. CD has been played live since 2001. It's time for some new material. In the meantime, I have 100's of other bands I like putting out music and touring at reasonable prices. If Axl sorts his shit out, I'll buy the new album. If not, then it was a fun ride and I move on with my life.

[Apollo]

Groghan, I assume you did not read my post then mate. I said every quarter I plan out who is coming to town, how much are the tickets, have I seen them before, what setlist are they doing, will I need to take time off of work? At what point do I say that I just apply this to Gn'R? I use this with every band I see. I won't pay to see the same show twice regardless of who it is. And I love the fact you say "let the adults talk" when you start a post with lolcano. If you really bothered to read my post you would have seen that I said ticket prices had doubled and that contributed to lower sales. At what point did I make an excuse as to why GnR isn't a great money-making touring band? They have toured consistently with roughtly the same setlist, ticket prices have doubled and there is less value for money. In a down economy and higher ticket prices, people have to be more selective and that is with ALL bands. You have it in your head that I am pro Gn'R and I ignore all the facts. Fact is, you didn't read my post. Had you bothered to, you would have seen that it wasn't a pro Gn'R post at all. I actually said if Gn'R doesn't offer anything new, I won't go again. But feel free to be an adult and twist this post into a pro Gn'R rant.

Funny stuff, thanks for the chuckle.

You are soooo itching for a fight that you pretty much did what you accuse me of doing. But that's OK. I would throw in some insult here, but your post makes you look silly enough.

Fact is, I did read your post. Fact is, your explanation here proves my point.

So let's try this again. And let's see if you can keep up.

I'm agreeing with all you said.

Times are tough. Ticket prices are high. Lots of bands are touring. People have to make choices of what shows they spend their money on.

For various factors you (and millions of other people) are in the position where they have to choose where to spend their money.

Twenty years ago, GnR coming to town was the biggest rock show of the year for most fans of hard rock. I suspect that you going to see them would have been a no-brainer. GnR is coming to town in support of the Illusions albums - Fantomas is going. End of story.

Today??????? You yourself say that isn't the case anymore.

Now explain to me what I missed about your post?

The side point about the Nutswingers on here do not understand, because of their Axl worship, is that they use all these factors as a reason that GnR sales are down compared to the past BUT they don't apply them to other bands as well. In their little sheltered worlds, ONLY GnR is effected by the economy, ticket prices, number of bands touring, etc.

[Apollo]

Ali,

You continue to miss the point. I'm not sure if you are doing it on purpose, or if your undenying worship of All Things Axl has just made it impossible for you to look at any situation that Axl is involved in with a logical eye.

I understand that you don't like the way that Pollstar tracks tours. I understand that you think the entire music industry is WRONG in how they track tours. Odd that if people in the business didn't think this was a proper way to do it, that nobody has changed it - but what can you do. Maybe you do know better than everybody else.

No matter what formula you use, it isn't going to move GnR from being in the 50-to-100 range up to being a top 10 touring band again. No matter HOW badly you want it - it just isn't going to happen. The numbers don't lie. Your entire theory is based on "if" and "if" and "if"........so yes. If GnR played 150 shows this year, and IF they sold out every show, and IF ticket prices were $100 each and IF they were averaging 30,000 people per show..........IF all those things actually happened, GnR would be the number one touring band of the year. BUT those things aren't happening.

Player X plays the entire baseball season and hits 30 homers and has a batting average of .290. Player B only plays in 5 games, and ends up with 2 homers and a batting average of .400. The argument you keep making is similar to somebody saying that Player B had the better season. Because his average was higher and because if you averaged his homers-per-games-played it would also be higher than Player X. If Player B did his stats over 160 games instead of 5 games, he would be MVP of the league. IF, IF, IF.

This simply isn't true.

The other point you keep missing is in applying all your various number crunching towards GnR, you aren't doing it towards other bands. You don't like rankings by overall gross...........so you start using different formulas that make GnR's numbers more appealing..............BUT YOU AREN"T APPLYING THOSE SAME NUMBERS to every other band.

I would be willing to bet that any set of criteria you would choose to use, GnR wouldn't move up the list in a significant amount.

The fact that you think your U2 example proves that the current polls are wrong just shows you aren't grasping the concept. Your example shows that the poll is working. It in fact TELLS the entire story. You just don't seem to be able to read it.

If the Poll is for top grossing band for ONE specific year - and U2 isn't in the top 20 - then for THAT specific year, the poll is 100% accurate and correct. The numbers don't lie.

If the Poll is for the top grossing bands for a THREE year period - and U2's concert numbers over that three period puts them at the top of the list - then the Poll for that three year period is 100% accurate and correct. The numbers don't lie.

At the end of the day, even though Axl is my favorite rock singer, GnR is my favorite rock band of all time, and I think that CD is the best rock album of the last decade, I can still look at the FACTS and realize that GnR isn't one of the top touring bands anymore in terms of commercial success. That fact doesn't matter 1% to me in terms of how much I enjoy GnR music.

For some reason to guys like you though, it seems to matter a lot.

[Spirit]

Ali,

You continue to miss the point. I'm not sure if you are doing it on purpose, or if your undenying worship of All Things Axl has just made it impossible for you to look at any situation that Axl is involved in with a logical eye.

I understand that you don't like the way that Pollstar tracks tours. I understand that you think the entire music industry is WRONG in how they track tours. Odd that if people in the business didn't think this was a proper way to do it, that nobody has changed it - but what can you do. Maybe you do know better than everybody else.

No matter what formula you use, it isn't going to move GnR from being in the 50-to-100 range up to being a top 10 touring band again. No matter HOW badly you want it - it just isn't going to happen. The numbers don't lie. Your entire theory is based on "if" and "if" and "if"........so yes. If GnR played 150 shows this year, and IF they sold out every show, and IF ticket prices were $100 each and IF they were averaging 30,000 people per show..........IF all those things actually happened, GnR would be the number one touring band of the year. BUT those things aren't happening.

Player X plays the entire baseball season and hits 30 homers and has a batting average of .290. Player B only plays in 5 games, and ends up with 2 homers and a batting average of .400. The argument you keep making is similar to somebody saying that Player B had the better season. Because his average was higher and because if you averaged his homers-per-games-played it would also be higher than Player X. If Player B did his stats over 160 games instead of 5 games, he would be MVP of the league. IF, IF, IF.

This simply isn't true.

The other point you keep missing is in applying all your various number crunching towards GnR, you aren't doing it towards other bands. You don't like rankings by overall gross...........so you start using different formulas that make GnR's numbers more appealing..............BUT YOU AREN"T APPLYING THOSE SAME NUMBERS to every other band.

I would be willing to bet that any set of criteria you would choose to use, GnR wouldn't move up the list in a significant amount.

The fact that you think your U2 example proves that the current polls are wrong just shows you aren't grasping the concept. Your example shows that the poll is working. It in fact TELLS the entire story. You just don't seem to be able to read it.

If the Poll is for top grossing band for ONE specific year - and U2 isn't in the top 20 - then for THAT specific year, the poll is 100% accurate and correct. The numbers don't lie.

If the Poll is for the top grossing bands for a THREE year period - and U2's concert numbers over that three period puts them at the top of the list - then the Poll for that three year period is 100% accurate and correct. The numbers don't lie.

At the end of the day, even though Axl is my favorite rock singer, GnR is my favorite rock band of all time, and I think that CD is the best rock album of the last decade, I can still look at the FACTS and realize that GnR isn't one of the top touring bands anymore in terms of commercial success. That fact doesn't matter 1% to me in terms of how much I enjoy GnR music.

For some reason to guys like you though, it seems to matter a lot.

I don't know if you caught Ali's point...

He said that it's flawed to use a year-to-year total gross as a base to say that GN'Rs sales are going down. He didn't mention anything about their position on the ranking relative to other bands, just GN'R year-to-year.

Did you see the 2009-2010 example? In 2009 GN'R played 4 shows, while in 2010 they played 60 shows, therefore grossing a lot more. Would you then say, based on those statistics that GN'R all of a sudden got 1000% more popular? No, of course not.

If anything it would be more correct to look at their average number of tickets sold per concert. Even then, when they do a club-tour (presumably by choice, not of necessity) the numbers will fool you.

Ali's point was not about GN'R being a "top 50 touring band", but about using the numbers as a base for saying their sales numbers are dropping for each year. In GN'Rs case the numbers fluctuates from year to year because of different amount of shows and varying size of venues.

If GN'R did a standard arena tour each year with the same amount of shows, and then the total gross declined for each year, you could say for certain that the popularity is dropping for each year.

No one is disputing the validity of the pollstar numbers, they are of course correct.