Paul Makes List of Top US Concert Acts Since 1990 at #...
-
#13, but with far fewer shows than anyone else on the list (220). Fascinating list, headed by the Stones: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6099232/top-live-artists-touring-grosses-rolling-stones?page=0%2C1 And here's the article that goes with it: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6099232/top-live-artists-touring-grosses-rolling-stones
-
Paul's numbers for that period: Gross: $505,534,809 Attendance: 5,248,175 Shows: 220
-
Since 1990? That is a long time ago. If you start counting in 2000, I'll bet Paul zooms up the list since he started seriously hitting the road in 2002.
-
Also, note that Paul did this in only 220 shows. Everyone else in the top 25 had more shows.
-
I wonder if they're counting the big festivals and one-offs like the Coliseum concert which drew a half-million?
-
beatlesfanrandy:
I wonder if they're counting the big festivals and one-offs like the Coliseum concert which drew a half-million?
Seems to be only the US, so that one wouldn't count. Not quite sure about festivals in general.
-
As if only U.S. concert attendance is the only metric that counts.
-
liv4art:
Also, note that Paul did this in only 220 shows. Everyone else in the top 25 had more shows.
But the Stones still made more money per show.
-
Nancy R:
liv4art:
Also, note that Paul did this in only 220 shows. Everyone else in the top 25 had more shows.
But the Stones still made more money per show.
Not by all that much. I did the math, and the Stones have made about $2.9 million per show since 1990. Paul made about $2.3 million per show since 1990, and he's played less than half as many shows as the Stones. And the Stones are splitting their chunk of the money evenly between 4 guys. Paul certainly pays his bandmates well (or they wouldn't stick around) but I doubt they earn what he's earning since he's the reason people bought the ticket. Unlike the Stones, Paul doesn't have to split his share evenly with anyone else. So in fact, he's doing a lot better than the individual Stones. I bet that irritates Mick.
-
liv4art:
As if only U.S. concert attendance is the only metric that counts.
I think that's because Billboard is an American magazine, mainly for an American audience. They don't have a whole lot of international coverage, and I'm sure the US numbers are right in their database, where all those other numbers would be harder to come by. Would be interesting to know, though!