Originally Posted by DevilsSon

Look, Creep (don't even need to have a go at you, hah) - I never denied that U2 is a 'slightly' bigger band. Go back to Faceman's post and see a perfect explanation of why that is. In fact, given how Bon Jovi never ever had a favourable review for anything they've ever done, it's amazing how well they have done (5th highest grossing act in the world since 1990).

But that's secondary. Since 1990 Bon Jovi have grossed $1,030 Million. U2 have grossed $1,514 Million (578 vs. 526 shows). Now take out the last tours each have done and suddenly they are both at around 800- 900 million with, again, a very similar number of shows. My point is that both these last tours have only been as successful because of their production. Now if Bon Jovi invested 1 million PER DAY in their tour we may be talking very different figures here with a completely different drawing power in any of the markets you mentioned. But if in the end, it doesn't make any money, why do it?

Right. And there isn't more to say about this. For every example of 'Bon Jovi did not sell out this' there is a counter example where U2 or the boss haven't either so I won't even attempt to go into it. But yeah, good old Bono NEEDS his massive penis extensions to draw the crowds. Don't get me wrong, so does Jon Bon Bon (especially with no Sambora) but really - we are talking about completely different levels of Marketing and Production. And that's the end of it.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...nes?page=0%2C1