2009 Top Tours and Albums

[Scafeets]

I found this interesting....

 

10 Albums (Sales) in 2009

1. Taylor Swift 2.6M units

2. Lady Gaga 1.8M

3. Susan Boyle 1.8M

4. Hanna Montana 1.7M

5. Black Eyed Peas 1.5M

6. Eminem 1.5M

7. Andrea Bocelli 1.4M

8. Jay-Z 1.2M

9. Kings of Leon 1.2M

10. Nickelback 1.2M

 

Top Tours in 2009

1. U2 $311,637,730

2. Madonna $222,017,248

3. Bruce Springsteen $156,340,910

4. AC/DC $135,287,350

5. Pink $102,878,271

6. Britney Spears $94,813,948

7. Billy Joel & Elton John $90,218,314

8. Tina Turner $86,372,137

9. Coldplay $84,369,360

10. Metallica $76,613,910

 

 

Some observations:

None of the Top Touring Acts are on the Top Album List

Most of the artists on the Top Tour list made more money touring than they would have received if they got royalties from all Top 10 Albums combined.

The average age of the Top Touring artists is roughly twice that of the Top 10 Album artists.

There’s a good chance that half of the Top Album sales artists won’t be able to fill a 3,000-seater in three years.

 

Any other observations?

[JohnMCA72]

The top 3 touring acts were all named in the chorus of Bowling for Soup's song "1985".

[Surrealistic]

There’s a good chance that half of the Top Album sales artists won’t be able to fill a 3,000-seater in three years. Any other observations?

Well there's the obvious retort:- most of the top touring acts won't be alive in three years

 

Seriously though, a very interesting list that seems to support what most of us believe about the music biz currently.

 

Here's a question. As the current top touring acts got that way by being (at one time) the top album selling acts, it begs the question: Where is the next set of top touring acts going to come from?

[Poker99]

Susan Boyle. Facepalm * 10

[richardmac]

Oh God. My wife got the Susan Boyle CD for Christmas and so did my parents. She can sing, yes, but people who sing as well as she does are actually extremely common. There might be 1,000 women in my state alone who can sing that well or better. All the songs on the CD are popular AC covers. She's having her 15 minutes of fame. That's fine. But it's more like a lottery winner than anything else. She's no "rare talent." And I don't get the idea of getting a CD of some unknown 15 minute fame talent singing a bunch of covers.

 

But back on topic. The big mega stadium tour artists are going to be gone once the current stable retires. Who in that top selling list will still be touring 20 years from now? Here's another point - none of those top touring acts have put out good music in a long long time. Some have put out music, but it doesn't stand up against their past catalog. At all. We've said all this here before.

 

So at some point in time, the only big mega tours will be festivals where a bunch of 1.2 million selling artists will get dumped together. That will probably continue.

 

And as pointed out, it's pretty obvious that the money is in selling tickets based on your past archive of music, as opposed to selling new music. And the more music you've sold, the bigger the audience. And since people are selling less and less music, well, you can see where everything is headed in the future.

 

One more thought. I'm sure that those top 10 selling artists, when they tour, DO make what we would consider a lot of money. Just not a hundred million dollars. Pretty sure that "Hannah Montana" rakes in the cash on tour...

[3shiftgtr]

The top 3 touring acts were all named in the chorus of Bowling for Soup's song "1985".

 

^^^^^:lol::lol::lol:^^^^^^^^

[BlueStrat]

 

Any other observations?

 

 

 

Of the top 10 touring acts, 8 out of 10 have been together and making hit records for over 10 years, 7 of them for over 15 years, and 6 for over 20.

 

All of the top 10 albums have enough world wide mass appeal to earn money through sales in spite of pirating.

 

The income generated by the touring acts is gross dollar amounts. I would be curious to see what the net is to each act.

[daddymack]

The income generated by the touring acts is gross dollar amounts. I would be curious to see what the net is to each act.

That would be a more valid and informative comparison...I would also like to see the net amount that actually went into the pockets of the top sellers...

[sabriel9v]

 

Top Tours in 2009 1. U2 $311,637,730 2. Madonna $222,017,248 3. Bruce Springsteen $156,340,910 4. AC/DC $135,287,350 5. Pink $102,878,271 6. Britney Spears $94,813,948 7. Billy Joel & Elton John $90,218,314 8. Tina Turner $86,372,137 9. Coldplay $84,369,360 10. Metallica $76,613,910

 

 

I'm surprised Pink is on the list. All the dinosaur artists make sense though. Their fanbases have much more disposable income than the younger alternative fanbases.

[BlueStrat]

I'm surprised Pink is on the list. All the dinosaur artists make sense though. Their fanbases have much more disposable income than the younger alternative fanbases.

 

Maybe, but we're less likely to spend it on music as something else: kids in college (I had two, now just one), more expensive toys (I have the motorcycle I could never afford when the kids were little, and I'm back to 7 guitars), better cars, nicer homes, better home maintenance, better vacations, etc etc. When you're 25, you're less likely to care about whether your gutters leak, your grass has bare spots, your car gets a regular servicing, your tires get rotated, your bedroom gets a new coat of paint every few years, etc etc than when you're 50. So while it may be true we have more income, we have lots more things we feel we need to spend it on than some young band blowing through town we've never heard of.

 

My son in college and his friends go to an average of 2 live music shows a month, mostly newer bands playing at a smaller concert venue here in town, sometimes bigger ones at the Gorge Amphitheater in central Washington. I go to one or two a year. Most of my friends are like me, and I'm a frigging musician. It's just that when we do go to that one or two live music shows, it's usually to see a big act. It takes a lot to get us out of the house anymore.

[sabriel9v]

 

So while it may be true we have more income, we have lots more things we feel we need to spend it on than some young band blowing through town we've never heard of.

 

 

I feel that's more of a time issue and not really a money constraint. Older people who are 35+ just don't go out to shows the way they used to when they were younger. Really most people 35+ don't go out the way they did in their early twenties period. Watching some young band blow through town holds very little interest because you're not going out on a nightly basis like when you were 21, 22 years old. If I was 40, I could probably care less about the hot new local band in town cause I know there will be another 15 bands that will take their place over a course of 3-4 years. But watching Pink Floyd perform live at a stadium is always a good time...even if you peek over the stage and see David Gilmour popping some Geritol and cod liver oil before he hits the stage.

[Dancebass]

The top touring figures proves once again what a significant cultural force MTV was from 1980 - 1990.

 

Their decision to abandon the original format and opt for the more expensive choice of producing their own original content has gutted the American music industry more than any technological changes.

 

Years ago they launched MTV2 which was marketed as a "return" to the original format. This attempt lasted approximately 3 months before they begin to air original MTV produced programs. Within a year MTV2 had all but abandoned the original concept. VH1 Classics was launched shortly after which was marketed as a "return" to the original farmat, including the original content!!! Currently VH1 Classics runs its own original MTV produced programs with a smattering of specialized nastalgia video shows.

 

Other "limited" cable channels like FUSE and others have tried to fill the void left by MTV's departure from music but it proved to be a little too late. Labels had long since cut way back on video budgets. They could not find enough content apparently. Also, MTV has used it's left over leverage to bully industry leaders into "exclusivity" deals. If "for example" My Chemical Romance was released to FUSE and became a big hit, then you sure as {censored} would not be seeing My Chemical Romance and the MTV Music Awards that year. Instead you will see 4 hours of Beyonce sitting next to Jay-Z for the third year in a row.

 

There is a void that needs to be filled. Anyone who does it is going to make bank and it aint {censored}ing YOUTUBE!!!

[BlueStrat]

 

The top touring figures proves once again what a significant cultural force MTV was from 1980 - 1990. Their decision to abandon the original format and opt for the more expensive choice of producing their own original content has gutted the American music industry more than any technological changes. Years ago they launched MTV2 which was marketed as a "return" to the original format. This attempt lasted approximately 3 months before they begin to air original MTV produced programs. Within a year MTV2 had all but abandoned the original concept. VH1 Classics was launched shortly after which was marketed as a "return" to the original farmat, including the original content!!! Currently VH1 Classics runs its own original MTV produced programs with a smattering of specialized nastalgia video shows. Other "limited" cable channels like FUSE and others have tried to fill the void left by MTV's departure from music but it proved to be a little too late. Labels had long since cut way back on video budgets. They could not find enough content apparently. Also, MTV has used it's left over leverage to bully industry leaders into "exclusivity" deals. If "for example" My Chemical Romance was released to FUSE and became a big hit, then you sure as {censored} would not be seeing My Chemical Romance and the MTV Music Awards that year. Instead you will see 4 hours of Beyonce sitting next to Jay-Z for the third year in a row. There is a void that needs to be filled. Anyone who does it is going to make bank and it aint {censored}ing YOUTUBE!!!

 

 

 

What this should show you is that 1) there is no market for music videos, and 2) MTV was briefly a director of the pop culture, but soon became a reflector of it. No one cares about music videos anymore. It's not a void that needs to be filled. If there were the slightest demand for it, it would be being filled. Music videos, like the CDs they're designed to promote, aren't that expensive to producer anymore. But like the CD, they've outlived their usefulness.

 

When videos first hit the scene, they were new technology, playing to an audience just getting a taste of it, in a world where Atari was high tech, most cable companies offered only 30 channels of mostly syndicated programming of network shows, HBO was the only movie channel around, and there were no PCs, MP3 players or cell phones. Now, new technology is passe. When my daughter can text and send video clips to her friends in Europe and across the country while listening to one of five thousand songs on an ipod as she's on her way to somewhere else after just updating her facebook, sitting down to watch a music video seems as quaint as sitting around the radio to listen to Amos and Andy. What band needs a video when they can tweet their every move directly to their fans?

[sabriel9v]

 

Music videos, like the CDs they're designed to promote, aren't that expensive to producer anymore. But like the CD, they've outlived their usefulness.

 

 

I don't agree with this at all. I feel that music videos were and still are a great way for artists to connect with their fans and on a much deeper and significant level than twitter, myspace or any of the social networks.

 

I remember when I was younger and used to watch old Metallica videos, the band was so scary to me. I liked how everything was filmed so dark and kinda creepy and it said a lot about the group to me. Other artists like Foo Fighters, Butthole Surfers and Beck used to utilize a lot of comedy in their videos. Other artists like Bjork and Tool were just plain weird, but it was cool and the angles, storylines and characters used in their videos were appropriate the music. Even Kanye West had really cool and innovative video concepts.

 

My point is, film is never an outdated medium. Using film to convey a message or idea will never get old and I miss the days when MTV was truly music television and not reality tv. They have failed tremendously and it had very little to do with what their clientele truly wants. They just shifted because it'd be easier and a quick way to make money. The majority of people who still tune in to the mindless drivel that is MTV wish they played videos more.

[BlueStrat]

 

I don't agree with this at all. I feel that music videos were and still are a great way for artists to connect with their fans and on a much deeper and significant level than twitter, myspace or any of the social networks.

 

 

It doesn't mater what you feel. The reality tells a different story.

 

 

 

My point is, film is never an outdated medium. Using film to convey a message or idea will never get old and I miss the days when MTV was truly music television and not reality tv. They have failed tremendously and it had very little to do with what their clientele truly wants. They just shifted because it'd be easier and a quick way to make money. The majority of people who still tune in to the mindless drivel that is MTV wish they played videos more. __________________

Then why, pray tell, has every singe channel who has tried an all video format since 1990 abandoned it?

 

One word: ratings. Ratings is what drives commercial media. It isn't any more complicated than that. Saying that reality programming is less expensive to produce than music videos (which I highly doubt- record companies subsidized music videos heavily and actually paid networks to broadcast them) is irrelevant. Networks rely on money. Money comes from advertisers. Advertisers come from ratings.

 

I'll say it again: if there was a demand for music video, they'd be doing it. Right now, the only music videos with an audience are rap and R&B artists and some country guys, and their audiences are dwindling too.

 

The hot music channels now are the live performance ones on HDTV- Palladia, HGNet, and so on, featuring all live concerts in HD.

[sabriel9v]

I think we need some hard statistics and data before we can have an honest debate on this topic. Everyone makes fun of the cheesy and just plain bad reality shows on VH1 and MTV. You hear from all angles that people want more music videos.

[Dancebass]

 

It's not a void that needs to be filled.

 

 

It doesn't need to be video's or MTV, but currently music is just simply not as important to a kids identity as it was when I was younger. It plays a less significant role, it's more background. Kids today are passive listeners.

 

I believe that will change, I think it will have it's time again someday.

[BlueStrat]

 

You hear from all angles that people want more music videos.

 

 

Yes, you hear that. Everyone says they hate reality TV. But the ratings don't lie. Every time an all video format is tried, it fails. Every. Single. Time. You don't need 'hard statistics'. Just look at the programming schedule. They only broadcast what gets watched, and if it doesn't, it's off the air in a few weeks.

 

People may say they want a lot of things they don't support. Just like you hear from fans of TV shows about to be canceled that they want them to stay. The network gives the show a reprieve, only to find the ratings back in the toilet.

[Pankot]

Interesting - here in the UK there are still quite a few all-video channels: some on subscription and some free-to-air. Perhaps the economics are different compared with the US.

 

Nevertheless, I can see one reason why a channel might be tempted to stray from video-only programming. Even though the channels are genre based (chart, dance, metal), the music scene is so much more splintered than 20 years ago that it's difficult to retain viewer attention.

 

For example, if the "metal" channel mixes it up, you'll have AC/DC next to the emo-mob du jour next to Slipknot, then maybe Metallica. With audiences more and more narrowly genre-focussed, the above will probably have a 25% hit rate. Result: change the channel.

 

If the channel tries to group things a bit more, e.g. "Classic Metal hour" followed by "Best new bands 2010", then you just alienate 75% of your audience for an hour at a time

 

Presumably the theory is that even though a viewer might not like Slipknot's music, they might at least stay watching "I'm Slipknot's Road Crew, Get Me Out of Here!"

[BlueStrat]

It doesn't need to be video's or MTV, but currently music is just simply not as important to a kids identity as it was when I was younger. It plays a less significant role, it's more background. Kids today are passive listeners. I believe that will change, I think it will have it's time again someday.

 

I don't disagree with any of the first paragraph. I have my doubts about the second one.

[sabriel9v]

 

Yes, you hear that. Everyone says they hate reality TV. But the ratings don't lie. Every time an all video format is tried, it fails . Every. Single. Time. You don't need 'hard statistics'. Just look at the programming schedule. They only broadcast what gets watched, and if it doesn't, it's off the air in a few weeks.

 

 

But you're missing something. MTV was an all video network for all of maybe 3-5 years. The MTV everyone knows and misses had really cool and original shows that people loved (Beavis and Butthead, Daria, Singled Out, Buzzkill, the Tom Green Show). And MTV had MTV News, MTV Jams, Headbangers Ball, the vjs were somewhat interesting and eccentric people. So it's not just videos that the network is lacking, it's everything. They changed up their entire agenda and they own VH1, VH1 Classic, and MTV2 and it's {censored}in everything up.

[Matximus]

 

The top touring figures proves once again what a significant cultural force MTV was from 1980 - 1990. There is a void that needs to be filled. Anyone who does it is going to make bank and it aint {censored}ing YOUTUBE!!!

 

 

Dead. Wrong.

 

MTV's hey-day was a cultural and historical curiousity. You'll never see another thriving all-video channel. There simply isn't a demand.

 

There's a reason MTV took videos off the air: Ratings. Nobody wants to watch music videos on TV anymore. It's as simple as that. And Youtube and other Web sites are certainly filling the void. Miley Cyrus "7 Things" has more than 100 million Youtube views. Pitbul has like 95 million. That's stunning.

 

Audiences are fragmenting, sure. But I'm optimistic that you'll see a class of new young acts evolve into stadium heavyweights. Britney's still rocking it fantastic and she's still in her 20s. John Mayer. Coldplay. Kings of Leon if they knock it out of the park with their new record.

 

You don't need MTV to sell records or make a name: Lady Gaga's rise was mostly fueled by internet buzz. You'll see others repeat her success. It's about the content; not the carrier.

[Matximus]

Nobody Wants Videos on TV: Why MTV Axed TRL - NY Times November 2008

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/arts/television/18trl.html

 

"At its peak in 1999 and 2000 “TRL” — which began as “Total Request Live” but has long since been known by its initials — had a daily average of more than 700,000 viewers, according to Nielsen. But in recent years it has steadily been losing its audience faced with increased competition from the Internet, where a song’s popularity can be measured in clicks and virtually any music video is just a keyword search away. For the last several years it has had about half the viewers it had at the turn of the century. By contrast MTV’s most popular show, the reality drama “The Hills,” regularly has up to four million viewers"

[Dancebass]

 

Lady Gaga's rise was mostly fueled by internet buzz.

 

 

No effing way man. That chicks been on every single available television music outlet from day one.

[sabriel9v]

 

Nobody Wants Videos on TV: Why MTV Axed TRL - NY Times November 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/arts/television/18trl.html "At its peak in 1999 and 2000 “TRL” — which began as “Total Request Live” but has long since been known by its initials — had a daily average of more than 700,000 viewers, according to Nielsen. But in recent years it has steadily been losing its audience faced with increased competition from the Internet, where a song’s popularity can be measured in clicks and virtually any music video is just a keyword search away. For the last several years it has had about half the viewers it had at the turn of the century. By contrast MTV’s most popular show, the reality drama “The Hills,” regularly has up to four million viewers"

 

 

Once again, at one point in time MTV was more than just music videos. They had several other programs that didn't consist of just music videos. But they always made their programs about the music and managed to fit in new and talented acts. Did you even watch MTV circa 1990-2000?

 

 

No effing way man. That chicks been on every single available television music outlet from day one.

 

 

She has...media whore