Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
In terms of sales, media presence, attendance etc all rolled into one overall bigness package
Based on predictions I read in an NME in September 2004.
on the music board..crossing over to the dark side? what's got into you?
as a band?
I don't know whose massive in America but less so here though.
you must be joking?
They're big in America and Europe too aren't they?
wow, that's pretty crazy
I admit this is based on "things I think I heard two years ago" and I've not researched this at all.
surprisingly enough, they're huge here in the States, too. I'd say they're climbing the rungs to the top, but they probably (fortunately) won't make it
are big in the states, big in Oz and I imagine plenty of other places. In politics its known as "the tyranny of the majority".
She sells a fuckload more records than U2, Coldplay or the Rolling Stones.
Guilty pleasure on Jools last week, they rooled!
im sorry look at the prices of the royal albert hall gig on ebay - its obscene
if you think in terms of if you put on a band on a stadium tour tomorrow, and how many tickets it would sell/how quickly it would sell out...
Madonna if she was a band.
Then perhaps Metallica, because they're playing stadiums and big big shows in all manner of country that other bands dare not travel, as well as all the usual western rock markets.
The Stones are up there, but they're essentially their own tribute act these days.
are the biggest selling album artists of the decade so far someplace last year, but they're not really household names the way that lot ^ are.
I think. They're bigger in North America than they are in the UK and Europe.
Why would the Rolling Stones not count?
They're a band aren't they? They regularly tour and record. They've had success since the '60s and it doesn't have signs of dwindling even after they die (if that fated day will ever come). So why would they not count? Is it because they've been going for over forty years or something?
I'd say it was The Rolling Stones, anyway, because they've been going for so long thus building up a gigantic fan base and because a lot of different kinds of people like their music.
While U2 sell fuck loads of albums and stuff, they do have a pretty set group of people who can be identified as U2 fans, with many other groups finding the majority of their music dull. However, the majority of the Rolling Stones' back catalogue is appreciated as brilliant.
Rolling Stones albums aren't still selling(in fact never were selling) ten million a pop - I don't think you can really say they have a bigger fanbase than U2's considering their sales are so much lower. They're big as a ticket draw because they've successfully packaged their shows as an authentic taste of the 60s type thing. But the only grounds on which they can be called the planet's biggest band is as a live draw, and even then U2 are probably just as popular
they've got 23 members ffs!
u2, stones or metallica