Radiohead us tour - Page 4

Nimrod's Son · 01-14-2008, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

yes, we are. redbreegull and nimrod are trying to debate something that is entirely irrelevant to the initial discussion.

people would recognize 1979 and Today before any Radiohead song, but that doesn't mean the Pumpkins will sell more concert tickets in 2008. jesus christ.

Well this is largely because the Pumpkins have never really re-formed, and people stopped caring.

Still though more people would buy Pearl Jam concert tickets than Radiohead, which was the entire point.

Eulogy · 01-14-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Still though more people would buy Pearl Jam concert tickets than Radiohead, which was the entire point.

i don't think this is correct. sure, they have a big following as a live act, but to say that they would definitely outdraw radiohead in a given U.S. city is wrong.

Eulogy · 01-14-2008, 06:30 PM

but i don't expect you to speak objectively when pearl jam is being discussed.

redbull · 01-14-2008, 06:31 PM

I bet more people recognize "There There" or "Go To Sleep" than "World Wide Suicide"

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbull

I bet more people recognize "There There" or "Go To Sleep" than "World Wide Suicide"

jeremy, go, even flow, alive, spin the black circle, given to fly, black, immortality, daughter, last kiss

Eulogy · 01-14-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

jeremy, go, even flow, alive, spin the black circle, given to fly, black, immortality, daughter, last kiss

some of these are not true, but you're missing his point anyway.

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:42 PM

go on Eulogy, explain it to me.

Eulogy · 01-14-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

go on Eulogy, explain it to me.

he's saying that in the last 6 or whatever years, Radiohead has grabbed a lot more attention and put out a lot more shit that would be recognized by the general public.

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:46 PM

yeah im not missing that point. But Pearl Jam have been around longer than 6 years, so i dont see how this is relevant. All of their most recognisable shit is from the early-mid 90's, sure, but how does this make Radiohead the more popular band?

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:47 PM

oh Pearl Jam are terrible

Shapan · 01-14-2008, 06:48 PM

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:48 PM

but that doesnt mean shit.

Eulogy · 01-14-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

yeah im not missing that point. But Pearl Jam have been around longer than 6 years, so i dont see how this is relevant. All of their most recognisable shit is from the early-mid 90's, sure, but how does this make Radiohead the more popular band?

because not everyone who leaves the radio on when Jeremy comes on will go see PJ in concert.

the conversation is not about overall historical popularity. it's about current relevance and how that translates into concert ticket sales.

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:49 PM

so Led Zeppelin are less popular because they havent released anything for 50 years?

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

it's about current relevance and how that translates into concert ticket sales.

but that is complete horse shit

Eulogy · 01-14-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

but that is complete horse shit

i don't think it is. pearl jam doesn't have the kind of lasting popularity that led zeppelin does. christ almighty.

redbull · 01-14-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

but that is complete horse shit

explain how current popularity does not translate into ticket sales please

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

i don't think it is. pearl jam doesn't have the kind of lasting popularity that led zeppelin does. christ almighty.

your brain is made of concrete.

Michael Jackson would put more asses on seats than Radiohead. Current relevance/popularity doesnt mean anything.

redbull · 01-14-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

your brain is made of concrete.

Michael Jackson would put more asses on seats than Radiohead. Current relevance/popularity doesnt mean anything.

neither Pearl Jam nor Radiohead are on the level of someone like Michael Jackson or Zeppelin or U2 or The Beatles or whomever

Nate the Grate · 01-14-2008, 06:55 PM

....because Michael Jackson is more popular than Radiohead.

And Radiohead is more popular than Pearl Jam.

Can we at least agree that Pearl Jam sucks?

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbull

explain how current popularity does not translate into ticket sales please

i didnt say that current popularity DOESNT translate into ticket sales.

my point is, you cant just come out and say that Pearl Jam would sell less tickets because their recent material hasnt been strong. Look at Zeitgeist, for example; it's shit, but people still went to the shows. Michael Jackson fucks children, but people would fucking flock to his shows. Look at the stir Pink Floyd created when they "reformed" for the Live 8 concert.

victory to me

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbull

neither Pearl Jam nor Radiohead are on the level of someone like Michael Jackson or Zeppelin or U2 or The Beatles or whomever

goddamn exactly. Current popularity does not automatically mean that band x will sell more tickets. How hard is this to understand?

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

....because Michael Jackson is more popular than Radiohead.

precisely, even though Jackson hasnt done anything for the past decade except touch young boys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

And Radiohead is more popular than Pearl Jam.

currently? yes. Overall? no

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

Can we at least agree that Pearl Jam sucks?

absolutely

Shapan · 01-14-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

your brain is made of concrete.

Michael Jackson would put more asses on seats than Radiohead. Current relevance/popularity doesnt mean anything.

uh this entire argument is about popularity.

Eulogy · 01-14-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shapan

uh this entire argument is about popularity.

ahhh no it's not

Eulogy · 01-14-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

i didnt say that current popularity DOESNT translate into ticket sales.

my point is, you cant just come out and say that Pearl Jam would sell less tickets because their recent material hasnt been strong. Look at Zeitgeist, for example; it's shit, but people still went to the shows. Michael Jackson fucks children, but people would fucking flock to his shows. Look at the stir Pink Floyd created when they "reformed" for the Live 8 concert.

victory to me

the mid-sized venue i saw the pumpkins in was maybe 70% full. the larger venue i saw radiohead in the last time they came around was completely full. so, yeah.

and stop comparing PJ to these larger-than-life performers that will always sell out no matter what.

Nate the Grate · 01-14-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm Hardcore

Overall? no

See I disagree with this part...I guess...but at least we agree on the really important things. Like them sucking.

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shapan

uh this entire argument is about popularity.

dude. jesus.

i will spell this out, in even clearer terms.

Michael Jackson. History Tour. sells millions of fucking tickets. Great success! But hasnt done anything musically relevant for a long time.

Radiohead. sell alot of albums. popular band.

go ahead and convince me that a Radiohead world tour would gross more $$$ than History pt.2. not gonna happen.

I'm Hardcore · 01-14-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

and stop comparing PJ to these larger-than-life performers that will always sell out no matter what.

Eulogy, for fucks sake. Pearl Jam have sold 60 Million records. SIXTY MILLION.

Nate the Grate · 01-14-2008, 07:07 PM

Yeah but Michael Jackson's popularity was at a level so great that he will sell tickets as long as he hits the stage. He was on a different level than Pearl Jam ever dreamed of. I submit that the Smashing Pumpkins are a much better comparison for Pearl Jam...and they're not exactly the hottest ticket in town.

01-14-2008, 06:48 PM	#101
Shapan Socialphobic Location: intellectual hobo Posts: 11,826	del

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
new radiohead box set	davin	Music Board Archive	32	11-08-2007 07:35 AM
stockhausen / radiohead link?	disslunker	Music Board Archive	4	02-13-2007 05:02 AM
Radiohead current 2006 tour question	davin	Music Board Archive	21	06-21-2006 01:03 PM
Radiohead Announce North American Tour, Finally!	House of Bread	Music Board Archive	84	06-11-2006 03:46 PM
Cymbal Rush is NOT a new Radiohead song....	davin	Music Board Archive	10	05-16-2006 04:13 AM

01-14-2008, 06:30 PM	#93
Eulogy huh Posts: 54,785	but i don't expect you to speak objectively when pearl jam is being discussed.

01-14-2008, 06:31 PM	#94
redbull Immortal Location: i am the best rapper alive Posts: 20,049	I bet more people recognize "There There" or "Go To Sleep" than "World Wide Suicide"

01-14-2008, 06:42 PM	#97
I'm Hardcore Socialphobic Location: slutopia Posts: 13,610	go on Eulogy, explain it to me.

01-14-2008, 06:46 PM	#99
I'm Hardcore Socialphobic Location: slutopia Posts: 13,610	yeah im not missing that point. But Pearl Jam have been around longer than 6 years, so i dont see how this is relevant. All of their most recognisable shit is from the early-mid 90's, sure, but how does this make Radiohead the more popular band?

01-14-2008, 06:47 PM	#100
I'm Hardcore Socialphobic Location: slutopia Posts: 13,610	oh Pearl Jam are terrible

01-14-2008, 06:48 PM	#102
I'm Hardcore Socialphobic Location: slutopia Posts: 13,610	but that doesnt mean shit.

01-14-2008, 06:49 PM	#104
I'm Hardcore Socialphobic Location: slutopia Posts: 13,610	so Led Zeppelin are less popular because they havent released anything for 50 years?

01-14-2008, 06:55 PM	#110
Nate the Grate Minion of Satan Location: Lewiston, ME Posts: 6,215	....because Michael Jackson is more popular than Radiohead. And Radiohead is more popular than Pearl Jam. Can we at least agree that Pearl Jam sucks?

01-14-2008, 07:07 PM	#120
Nate the Grate Minion of Satan Location: Lewiston, ME Posts: 6,215	Yeah but Michael Jackson's popularity was at a level so great that he will sell tickets as long as he hits the stage. He was on a different level than Pearl Jam ever dreamed of. I submit that the Smashing Pumpkins are a much better comparison for Pearl Jam...and they're not exactly the hottest ticket in town.