Top Concert Grosses for 2003
 

Top Concert Grosses for 2003

By DAVID BAUDER
.c The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) - The top concert acts in 2003 and the money grossed from ticket sales, according to the concert industry publication Pollstar:

Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band - $115.9 million.

Celine Dion - $80.5 million.

Eagles - $69.3 million.

Fleetwood Mac - $69 million.

Cher - $68.2 million.

Simon & Garfunkel - $64.5 million.

Aerosmith-Kiss - $64 million.

Dixie Chicks - $60.5 million.

Billy Joel-Elton John - $50.9 million.

Summer Sanitarium Tour with Metallica - $48.8 million.

Dave Matthews Band - $47.1 million.

Toby Keith - $44.2 million.

Shania Twain - $40.8 million.

The Rolling Stones - $38.5 million.

Phish - $35.8 million.

Kenny Chesney - $34.5 million.

Tim McGraw - $32.7 million.

Justin Timberlake/Christine Aguilera - $31.8 million.

Jimmy Buffett - $29.3 million.

Pearl Jam - $29.1 million.



12/23/03 16:43 EST

Eight of the top ten are veteran acts. That says a lot.

It irks me that the Eagles pipped Fleetwood Mac :)

Thank God...
 

FM beat Cher! I couldn't handle it if they didn't.

DJM

I was thinking the same thing:laugh:

billboard.com article has different numbers theyhave the list as follows :

the Rolling Stones (grossing $299.5 million)

Bruce Springsteen ($181.7 million)

and Cher ($76.3 million).

Fleetwood Mac ($69.2 million)

Dixie Chicks ($62.2 million)

Eagles ($53.7 million)

Dave Matthews Band ($52.6 million)

Aerosmith & Kiss ($50 million)

I don't know why their numbers for the Rolling Stones are so drastically different than the article you posted..lol...oh well...regardless the mac did great

Chris

Hmmm, we'll have to get to the bottom of this! ;) Hey at least they were both pretty much in agreement with the Mac's numbers. I wonder how much Stevie pulled in from that 69 mil? Maybe she'll have enough money to buy a new dress now. :laugh:


Joe

Not bad. How many of the other listed artists vary their sets?

- Jake

Joe

I was wondering if it had to do with timing and cut off dates for when the statistics are gathered.

But what makes it even more odd is that the Pollstar article cites The Rolling Stones 1994 tour as the highest grossing tour of all time with 121 million.

The Billboard article says the Stones grossed 299.5 million in their last tour. That's more than double figures.

one is a list of worldwide sales and the other's US domestic sales only.
still, it doesn't explain how FM managed to gross only 0.2 mil.$ from their european leg of the tour. other than if they were giving away most of the tickets or something, in such case, i've really been screwed!

Rolling Stones tix were $300 for nosebleed, Cher was $80 for floor and lower arena, FM was $125 for floor and lower arena.

I'd like to know who sold the most tickets. One of those sources also said that FM played 71 US shows, it was 70. :D

I'd like to know which acts had the most repeat attendees. Some of us went to multiple shows. Pattie, just how many Celine performances DID you attend?:laugh:

- Jake

The numbers that people are seeing today are US numbers through Mid December. The Billboard numbers were worldwide through Mid November. The Eagles number is wrong. They played 44 US dates this year and grossed 53 million. About 1.2 million per show. Fleetwood Mac played 70 US dates 1 cancelled show is why some reports mention 71. Below are some posts of mine I copied from buckinghamnicks.com board that add some info in relation to the billboard article. They jump around as they answer some other posters' questions.

The numbers posted are for their 70 US dates and do not include the 15 dates they played in Europe in November and December.

My understanding of the money breakdown. The cost per show was around 600-700k. This included a 250k guarantee to the band. (Which is why concerts west got the deal. Clear Channel was only offering a 200k guarantee) The remaing 300k per night was profit. A good chunk of which went to Concerts West. However based on a 300k profit the band was splitting another 100-150k per night in addition to the guarantee. The range there depends on how much the band was giving back as profit sharing to its additional players and 80 or so tour personnel. Rough estimates on what the band made for 70 us dates. Lindsey and Stevie 8-9 mil. Mick and John 5-5.5 mil.
A good 6 months of work. The 15 dates in Europe, the dozen dates down under and 30 dates in the US this summer stand to gross them another 40 million. Profits will be a little less in in EU & Aus, but a little more if they play sheds. So the band members stand to bring in 9-15 million each for there 130-145 dates of touring.






No they don't include merchandise. That is a whole other segment. Most likely that works out to paying the promotions company they contract with to coordinate its design, production, and sale. After costs that company takes it share and the rest is usually split evenly among the band. It is a signifcant chunk of change to you and I, but in terms of the other money we are talking about not all that much. Probably adds another 500k to each of there total takes.




Stevie and Lindsey get more because their agents got them more during negotiations with Concerts West and the band. Nothing to do with songwriting royalties per se. Has to do with the fact Stevie and Lindsey are the front men for the tour and without them there would be no million dollar per night grossing tour. The 50,000 per show guarantee is the most money Mick and John have realized from long term touring ever. This practice is common with established bands. Henley and Frey make more when the Eagles tour. The only money Christine now makes from Fleetwood mac are for songwriting royalities and album share payments for albums in which she was a member.

THANK YOU John Run. Pretty much answered my questions. The band did rather well, to say the least. If it's not for the love of music, I can definitely see what keeps them on the road.... $$. I can't say that they don't deserve to make the money they do. After all, they do bring a lot of happiness and joy to people through their music. If people are willing to pay the price they do for tickets, then more power to FM for exercising their capitalistic opportunities. Honestly, in relation to ticket prices, I would have given Stevie $125 bucks just to sing "Beautiful Child" like she did on the SYW Tour, and better yet to have it to listen to for years to come makes it ALL seem worthwhile. :)


Joe

Wow. That's a lot of cash. Thanks for the info.:)

Jake, it was Justin Timerlake/Christina Aguilera that I followed.:laugh:
But really I wonder how many crazy die hard fans do those other artists have? I knew of a few people that really love the Stones and The Boss but I don't know if they are as insane as I am with The Mac following them to different shows.

I thought the same thing. That sort of rationale doesn't explain other anomalies. Will read John Run's insights later.

Merry Xmas all

Wow, Simon & Garfunkel are incredible. They only started their tour in October. They couldn't have played more than 30 some shows. If these figures are correct, it looks like they're making over 2 million per show.

EW posted an article about it..they have these stats :

1.) Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band $115.9 mill

2.) Celine Dion 80.5 mill

3.) Eagles 69.3 mill

4.) Fleetwood Mac 69 mill

like u said atleast everyone agrees on fleetwood mac's numbers lol

Chris

Sorry, one more example of me misunderstanding your cool accent.:)

- Jake

Even my parents went to see Simon and Garfunkel in Philly. They never go to concerts, especially when it means paying $150.
Of course, Simon and Garfunkel skipped Texas entirely.:distress:

- Jake

I have friends who follow Dave Matthews around and go to all of his shows on the West Coast. I've met other people too at DMB concerts who have seen many of their shows. Dave at least does a different concert every night as does Pearl Jam. I think Pearl Jam have a lot of followers too.

Fascinating! The thing I've been wondering is, does La Nicks make more money per show with Fleetwood Mac than she would if she was touring on her own like in 2001 or 1998? We know those tickets were less expensive and there were often smaller crowds, but then again she wouldn't have to split the cash with any other performer.

So who is richest?
 

This has all got me wondering who is the richest band member. I guess it would probably be Lindsey or Stevie, because of producer royalties and solo careers...but I'm just guessing. Do you have rich-lists in the States? We have them here in the UK all the time - especially at this time of the year. Have the US media ever speculated as to how rich the band members are?

Angela
x

I don't know details of Stevie's touring contracts and guarantees for Enchanted or Trouble.

I do know that the 38 dates on Trouble grossed about 21 million.

The rest of this is guesswork by me, but probably reasonably accurate.

Cost per show was probably around 500k. Included in this was a gt of around 100k. Avg Gross Profit 50-100k per show. Most of that eaten by the promoter. With merchandising she probably made about 120k per show.

During the 70 US dates for Say You Will her average take was about 125k with profit taking. So her earnings per show are about the same. Fleetwood Mac can demand much higher prices and plays to large crowds. The shows gross more and are more profitable. This makes up for the 4 way split, although for her and Lindsey it is more like a 3 way split.

Fleetwood Mac can also do more extensive tours allowing for greater long term overall earnings.

I would venture to say that Lindsey or Stevie are the richest band members...Mick had some bad money problems, and I'm not sure about John..
But Stevie having a successful solo career and great earnings with Fleetwood Mac...even though Lindsey has producing royalties as well, depending on how much she wasted, she should be the richest member..a lot of her songs are still getting royalties (A LA : LANDSLIDE)

Chris

I read somewhere that Stevie made over $5 million off of the Dixie Chicks' remake of Landslide. She also has toured pretty much and on average every other year or so when you consider all of her tours since 1975. Finally, she has had many more solo ventures, all of which went gold or higher. So, I think the combination of those factors probably would offset any "extra" producing money LB made. But, then again, Stevie has said LB has more money because of the producing aspect (but that was pre-Dixie Chicks). I wonder if Stevie and LB sit around and compare balance sheets ;)

Also, I am unsure of how the negotiations went down, but if I was La Nicks' agent, I would have "gone for the jugular" (hey - that is his job :laugh: ) considering Stevie was on a succesful solo wave, she was the one that had to secured in the end, and history has shown without her, the record and concerts would not have sold as well. Interestingly, Stevie and FM may have some agreement that prohibits such "renegotiation" every time they make a record or at least since "The Dance."

In any event, I am just happy they are still putting it out for us to see and hear! :cool:

Absolutely!!

The Dave Matthews Band has a huge following. People fly coast to coast...pack up and set up camp...plan summer road trips around the band...If I had the money and didn't have a mortgage...hell, I'd be doing it too :D

Also, very rarely will DMB EVER repeat a setlist...each and every night you get a wonderful little something different that you weren't expecting...I've been to a few back to back shows and was blown away each time.:nod:

Pearl Jam has a large following too, and yes, they do vary their set list a great deal. I actually credit Eddie Vedder from getting me away from those "hair band boys"...when I first heard Ed sing I was floored...he was so 'brooding' and so beautiful. I still consider him one of the best out there.

My brother follows DMB, Radiohead and Pearl Jam everywhere he can and so does his friends.

Them and Metallica all have the biggest following, but none as big as Bruce.

When he comes to Philly, you just don't understand how crazy it is. Even the rap stations play something Bruce and give away tickets LOL. I guess it's this way everywhere?? I'm guessing there is really no one bigger ( U2 probably comes close...)

I'm just happy at how well FM did!:)

I'm also guessing Stevie is the richest as well. She could easily put out a clothing line or make up or a furniture line. People would buy it and she would definitely make tons more money, especially a clothing line..NOW..it's almost too late. Her clothes were really in! That would have assured her some more $$. I'm surprised she never did that, but it's cool...I respect her for not doing it ( even though if she did I wouldn't disrespect her!)

Christine being a songwriter was miles ahead of John and Mick.

In the 1998 Q list of richest British rockers. Chris came in at number 34 with 25 million pounds while Mick and John were in the 80s with 3 or 4 million.

http://www.lemec.net/welcome.html?page=/hot260501.html

Things will have changed with this tour but Chris probably still has more than Mick or John.

Stevie must be the richest.

Alright Chris! Kids, hone those songwriting skills, and be 10 times richer than the owner of the band:nod:

Dylan changes his set list all the time too.

And his choice of language it seems.

Thanks for posting that list. Christine is doing just fine. No wonder she doesn't have to tour anymore. I'd guess that Chris is still way out ahead of Mick & John. Remember, Chris gets royalty income while Mick & John get nothing to speak of. The only way they make money is by touring as part of Fleetwood Mac.

I also think that everyone here is confusing net worth with making money. Net worth is determined by how much you make PLUS how much you spend & how well or how poorly you invest your money. Stevie has certainly made more than anyone else, but I have no idea if her net worth is higher than the the net worth of Chris and especially Lindsey.

With all of the gazillions to be made on the touring circuit, their take from CD sale royalties must be almost negligible by comparison. Assuming a wholesale price of $10 and sales of 793,000 copies, SYW has grossed about 8 million bucks so far, only a fraction of which goes to the band. And considering that the band is usually responsible for paying all of the agents, lawyers, managers, promotion, videos and recording costs out of their own cut of the proceeds, I would venture to say that they have yet to break even on this album. And it is doubtful this will happen anytime soon, considering the amount of time and effort that went into recording the album.

As far the highest-earning member of the band, this title easily goes to Stevie hands-down. Although she has had only a handful of bonafide hit albums (Bella Donna, Wild Heart, Rock a Little, Timespace), she has written virtually all of her own songs and has received some production credits as well. In addition to all of her mostly successful solo tours, she has put out a number of home videos and contributed tracks to some successful movie soundtracks. Although Lindsey was the producer on the big hit FM albums, these albums sold mostly during the vinyl LP age when royalties were much lower. In addition, he has probably lost money on all but one of his solo albums. And his "Out of the Cradle" tour was a notorious money pit. As for Christine, she could have retired just on the lingering royalties from Rumours, which is still a top catalogue CD title.

The only contest here is who spent the most money on blow, Stevie or Mick?? ;-)

But I think Lindsey, Chris, and John have mostly lived well within their means......a concept Mick has never understood. :laugh: I'm not sure how extravagantly Stevie has lived.

VERY extravagantly, and she still does.

Her room is practically a movie theater for her to watch soaps in. :nod:

How the heck did they beat Cher?! :laugh:

But how is it possible for FM to be the 4th highest grossing tour of the year and yet not sell 1 million records? Why aren't people buying SYW?

People are willing to pay $125 to see them live but NOT spend $9.99 on the cd? (That's all I paid at best buy.) Maybe it is due to all the fans who go to multiple shows, but I wouldn't think so.

I'm sure downloading is in part to blame, even if it's a small part. I found the whole album available in the days following it's release.

Firstly you have to think about how many fans are seeing them twice, three times, four times etc

Secondly, many concert attendees would be going for nostalgic purposes rather than having an interest in their current album.

In Australia, Best of FM constantly pops in and out of the chart but SYW ran its small dash and was never seen again.