Pollstar's Top 25 tours chart for 2004

December 24, 2004 1:35 PM

Pollstar's Top 25 tours chart for 2004 is out and You'll never guess who was Number 1! Here's a Hint:
"His 69-city/96-show tour was "by far the biggest tour he has ever done," Gary Bongiovanni, editor-in-chief of Pollstar, the concert industry trade publication, told The Associated Press. "It's kind of a renaissance for him."
"HE" grossed $87.4 million. Celine Dion, Madonna, Metallica and and Bette Midler round out the top 5. Other acts in the top 10: Van Halen, Kenny Chesney, Sting, Toby Keith and Elton John. Yes, this is 2004, not 1984.
posted by Blake (37 comments total)

Not to be a dick, but help us understand why this is important/cool/worthy of an FPP/best-of-the-web.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:43 PM on December 24, 2004

I thought Mike Ness had it in the bag for sure.
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:45 PM on December 24, 2004

Metafilter: From Drudge to the Front Page in Two Clicks.
posted by mkelley at 1:51 PM on December 24, 2004

The most expensive concert ticket? Elton John, at an average of $158 per ticket.

Wow. I'd pay $20, at most, to see Elton John. Maybe.
posted by crunchburger at 1:53 PM on December 24, 2004

The Elton John price might be slightly more worth it if Billy Joel was included. I saw that show and I've never really been a fan, but I woke up and was entertained every time he took over.
posted by pantload at 1:57 PM on December 24, 2004

I saw Elton for free once. He was totally worth every dime!
posted by miss lynnster at 1:57 PM on December 24, 2004

I actually think this FPP is a pretty interesting social phenomenon. Why are so many of the top-grossing rock/pop artists people over 40? That seems fucked up.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:59 PM on December 24, 2004

I actually think this FPP highlights a pretty interesting social phenomenon. Why are so many of the top-grossing rock/pop artists people over 40? That seems fucked up.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:59 PM on December 24, 2004

Because their fans have the money to spend.
posted by Doohickie at 2:00 PM on December 24, 2004

And, kids, the above is what happens when you hit "Post" and then "Stop" in a vain, desperate attempt to keep your idiocy from spreading. It's a Christmas Miracle (TM)!
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:00 PM on December 24, 2004

These people are the highest grossers because their name recognition allows them to charge top dollar. The article grudgingly admits this: "Another factor could be the cost of tickets, which for the top 100 acts came at a record average of $52 each."

Show me a list of actual audience sizes, and don't forget to include the free venues. (What? Prince, Madonna and Elton John don't play free venues? What a shame.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:00 PM on December 24, 2004

I'd pay $158 to go back in time and see EJ before he was a terrifying ghoul.
posted by kavasa at 2:02 PM on December 24, 2004

It's true that the over-40s have more money, Doohickie. But people are always jibber-jabberin' about how the demographic with the biggest disposable income is the 18-34-year-old bracket. Why doesn't the concert tour economy seem to demonstrate that in the way, say, the fashion economy or the Hollywood film economy does?
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:02 PM on December 24, 2004

Those artists also have a huge repertoire to draw on -- 20, 30 years worth of music, and they appeal to several generations of music fans -- hence, probably, their huge box-office draw.
posted by davidmsc at 2:08 PM on December 24, 2004

That list of top grossing acts shows how ossified and moribund the live music biz is becoming. I saw Van Halen in 1978 fer cryin' out loud.

The scary thing is that if jerry was still alive, the grateful dead would still be up there at the top.
posted by telstar at 2:09 PM on December 24, 2004

I would also expect that Prince puts on one helluva show. I'd expect the same of Madonna, Elton, and the others.

I simply can not imagine that Britney puts on anything worth experiencing. No showmanship in posers like her.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:16 PM on December 24, 2004

And, too, Britney and her ilk have nothing actually worth paying to listen to, whereas a live Prince concert is going to be really and truly live. No canned tracks and lyrics. A lead singer who might dare to do something unexpected and a capable backing band who will be able to deal with it; and musicians who, given half a chance, are going to jam.

Not like, say, the Ashlee Simpson debacle where she didn't have the chops to deal with the unexpected, and where she wasn't even singing to begin with. Who the hell would want to pay for that sort of crap?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:20 PM on December 24, 2004

"Why doesn't the concert tour economy seem to demonstrate that in the way, say, the fashion economy or the Hollywood film economy does?"

That's a pretty good question Sidhedevil. Must have something to do with how people at different ages choose to spend their time/money? Does most of the over-40s disposable income get "disposed of" by those in the 18-34-year-old bracket?

I too would like a list of actual audience sizes, it must be around somewhere.
posted by Blake at 2:27 PM on December 24, 2004

I'd have loved to see Prince perform before he began spreading Jehovah's Witness propaganda in between songs.
posted by letitrain at 2:44 PM on December 24, 2004

Telstar, the Grateful Dead used to make that kind of list because they played a crazy number of shows--they have always tried to keep prices down. Phish, who put on the greatest rock show I've ever seen, just started charging in the $40 range before they quit, after years and years in the twenties. The skyrocketing costs (even The Dead, jerryless, charged over $50 in 2004) are the reason why I'm worried there won't be anybody taking over the touring mantle--only the most serious trustfund heads will be able to do three or four shows a week at those prices. I'm just about to pay fifty for the Cheese, but I'll only do that once a year.

(fandango_matt, let's not overdo the self-policing bit. Not interested? Don't click.)
posted by muckster at 2:45 PM on December 24, 2004

Okay. Sorry for the overzealous initial "Why the ding-dong hey is a Yahoo! news story about Prince an FPP?" reactionary post.

Merry Christmas, and all that good stuff.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:57 PM on December 24, 2004

Another perspective on the summer concert season... Concert biz still ill with summer flu Ticket prices are unrealistically high and must be brought under control before next year. [...] Norah Jones’ ticket sales were so poor in some markets that the singer had to move five concerts out of arenas and amphitheaters, which typically hold 15,000 to 20,000 people, and into venues holding about 4,000. The Lollapalooza tour was canceled amid lackluster sales.

And I'm sorta surprised to see Van Halen up there after reading this article about them only selling 4,618 tickets in North Dakota.
posted by bobo123 at 3:16 PM on December 24, 2004

The "baby boomer"-generation is the first one to attend such huge concerts. And they are going to watch them the rest of their lives. I bet there will be a Prince 2035 jubileum tour. Most of the stadiums will be packed with wheelchairs, but so what?

Another aspect (at least here in Europe) is that companies buy tickets to such events for their employees. Presumably at least 1/3 of the audience don't pay for the tickets themselves. Hence the high prices.

I hate stadium concerts. I'd rather see one medium-sized rock band in a good music club than 4 huge "super acts" in an arena.
posted by hoskala at 3:18 PM on December 24, 2004

And I'm sorta surprised to see Van Halen up there after reading this article about them only selling 4,618 tickets in North Dakota.

Well, there are only 4,618 people in North Dakota, after all.

I saw Bob Dylan about a month ago in Manhattan, Kansas. The tickets were thirty bucks, and the place was pretty full (it was a converted basketball stadium.

This was the first "big name" act I've ever seen, and it was really weird; Dylan never once spoke to the crowd, and it wasn't like every other show I've ever been to, where you could hang out with the band and talk to them afterwards.
posted by interrobang at 3:21 PM on December 24, 2004

(also, the show was terrible. He sang the same damned tune for every song.)
posted by interrobang at 3:25 PM on December 24, 2004

This might sound crazy, but does the fact that those artists first offered their recordings to us on LP's make a difference? They were frickin huge, and fragile. You had to be careful not to scratch them. You babied them.

the Ashlee Simpson debacle...I'd love to see freddie's rendention of that evening.
posted by Cedric at 3:28 PM on December 24, 2004

The Lollapalooza tour was canceled amid lackluster sales.

That was unfortunate. It was best line-up they'd had in years, and tickets were only $20 if you got them online through Ticketmaster (Clear Channel *cough*).

I think the era of big concerts/venues is slowing down which is why the older entertainers bring in the $$. The people who are attending are the same ones who attended back when big shows were big business.

Granted, Spears/Simpson/Jones et al will still "sell-out", but you'll never see the rampage for tickets like there was before (long lines, concerts sold-out in minutes etc.).

It's sad, and possibly just part of a normal ebb-and-flow (which, remarkably, may have something to do with the quality of popular music at the moment) and big shows will most likely become vogue again at some point in the future.
posted by purephase at 4:46 PM on December 24, 2004

i saw about two dozen shows last year. prince was easilly the best.

my question is wtf is bette midler doing making $58 million. tell me thats a misprint.
posted by tsarfan at 5:10 PM on December 24, 2004

Someone paid $158 to see Elton John? WTF? I could see 20 amazing bands for that money.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 5:37 PM on December 24, 2004

Does anyone know if Prince's tour was 69 cities and 96 shows by accident or did he plan that? I mean really, the guy that gave us Head , Dirty Mind and well, you get the idea. Was it planned or just fate that gave him 69 concerts?

I am being serious, it's not like he is the master of subtle...

Anyways, need more info on Prince ----> Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
posted by fluffycreature at 6:45 PM on December 24, 2004

Someone paid $158 to see Elton John? WTF? I could see 20 amazing bands for that money.

I'd pay $158 not to have to hear about or see Elton John for the next year, easily. It'd be like a 401k of good taste.
posted by interrobang at 6:50 PM on December 24, 2004

Feh. The top grossing tours are going to be expensive tickets for well-known acts in sport caverns/venues. Much Miller light will be sold at these events.

The top grossing tour by an artist without a publicist or booking agent might be more interesting.

This christmas season, I'm grateful for NYC venues ala The Knitting Factory, Bowery Ballroom, Tonic, Mercury Lounge, good music, good sounds, rational prices.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 11:13 PM on December 24, 2004

It's true that the over-40s have more money, Doohickie. But people are always jibber-jabberin' about how the demographic with the biggest disposable income is the 18-34-year-old bracket. Why doesn't the concert tour economy seem to demonstrate that in the way, say, the fashion economy or the Hollywood film economy does?

My guess, based on my own personal experience and friends' experiences, is that kids spend more money on concerts, but they distribute it. In high school, I used to go to concerts a hell of a lot. Each show was about $20 or so (for big artists like Ministry, They Might Be Giants, Nirvana, etc.), and far less ($5 or so) for local bands. If I went to two big shows a month, that's $480 right there. Compare this with a (unfortunately hypothetical) 30something who goes to two concerts a year, each costing $100. He has spent less than half what I've spent, but when you consider how much each artist has made, they've made 5 times as much off him than my artists did off me.

As such, it's not too surprising that, while adults spend less money on shows than kids do, the money tends to concentrate in fewer places, resulting in their artists making more money off of shows than kids' artists.
posted by Bugbread at 5:23 AM on December 25, 2004

Part of Prince's success is that he "bundled a copy of his latest CD along with the price of a concert ticket, perhaps kicking off a music industry revolution." So to concert goers it seemed like they were getting a free CD, but it just bumped up revenue.
posted by Monday at 5:26 AM on December 25, 2004

And Prince can count the 'free cds' towards his music sales.
posted by Arch Stanton at 6:21 AM on December 25, 2004

Industry revolution?

On the album "Pure Frosting" by The Presidents of the United States of America there's a live track in which they mention that everyone on the floor in the audience had to buy the CD to get there.

And this was awhile ago. Mid 90s maybe.
posted by ODiV at 3:01 PM on December 25, 2004

Prince is an amazing performer and I would continue to pay a great deal to go to see him live. I'd practically cut off my right leg to get into his vault of unreleased music. He's a musical genius.
posted by codeofconduct at 12:16 AM on December 28, 2004