Revolution Radio Promotion and Commercial Performance

[Chin for a Day]

4 hours ago, MillenniumFan said:

I’m almost certain after doing this tour, even though they did profit from it, they’ll probably sit down with management and talk about refreshing their live act, because these numbers are still depressing. You can rationalise it all you want, but this is Green Day and they should be able to sell out an arena / small-medium amphitheatre!

I don't think you can take those numbers at face value. We don't know how the numbers were calculated. There could be factors that make them seem worse than they are.

Most of the stops on the summer US tour were outdoor amphitheaters. A large portion of these theaters have a seating capacity and then they have lawn seats. For example, I went to the show at the Xfinity Theater in Hartford. That theater has roughly 10,000 actual seats and they can fit 20,000 on the lawn (and it is a tight squeeze). I think lawn seats are hard to sell out. They are very far away from the stage, you won't necessarily have a good view because it depends what is in front of you. Plus, you always take the chance of having to watch the show in the rain. From what I saw, the seat portion was most pretty darn close to sold out. So, the theater may say that they attendance was 15,000 with a seating capacity of 30,000. But the more accurate way to say it is seat capacity of 10,000 with an attendance of 10,000 and a lawn capacity of 20,000 with an attendance of 5,000.

I also went to a show in March at the DCU Center in Worcester MA. I was curious to see if the show sold out, so on the day of the show I went to Live Nation and looked at the tickets and it said No Tickets Available. However, when the numbers were posted here, it said the show was not sold out. 

I think there could be several reasons for that. First, they are counting the gate not total tickets sold. The one I think is more likely is that they are including the unsellable tickets in the total capacity. For a concert there is usually a certain amount of tickets that can't be sold because they have no view, the ones behind the stage. So if a theater has 15,000 seating capacity, they may only sell 12,000 for a concert. They may be reporting on the total seating capacity even though they are not selling the entire arena.

A way to tell how good or bad these numbers are is to look at similar artists and how they sold at the same arenas. How did the Chili Peppers or Metallica, for example do at the same venues?   

They may sit down with management and talk about the setlist, but I don't think the setlist has as much influence on attendance as you think. Our universe, the universe of psycho people that talk about the band every day and track every bowel movement is small. There are maybe 100 or show people that frequent this site, and that is all over the world. I checked setlist for Darien Lake, as an example, and there were 22 people that checked in that they were there, out of over 14,000. Even if you multiply that number by 10, to estimate how many people check setlist, it is still a very small percentage. Most of the people that are going to these shows do not track the bands every movement nor do they check setlist on a regular basis. Most of the people going to these shows have no idea that they played the same setlist every show.  Also, most people don't go to multiple shows, the percentage that do is very small. 

I think the attendance is more attributed to the fact that rock in general is not a popular genre anymore. GD is not as popular as they once were.  

[Montclare]

2 hours ago, Scattered Wreck said:

A way to tell how good or bad these numbers are is to look at similar artists and how they sold at the same arenas.

I think the attendance is more attributed to the fact that rock in general is not a popular genre anymore. 

Exactly.  When you look at a similar artist, like the Foo Fighters, they have seats open too.  Most of the rock ones that have sellouts are the more vintage acts that have been around since the 80's or before.

Also, when you look at a rank like 15 for the Wrigley show, that can look low, but it's based on money rather than seats, and a lot of the artists listed above it either charge way more than Green Day or list several of their shows together.  They may average 10,000-15,000 people per show, similar to GD's numbers, it just makes them look higher.

[MillenniumFan]

You have a fair point with how numbers are calculated, they might very well be misleading. However, I don't agree with you later points. I never said refreshment was needed just because of the setlist, it's a variety of other factors, though the setlist (and general planned manner of the show) probably is the primary culprit. I also think the ''check-in'' numbers on setlist.fm are misleading, because I went to two Green Day gigs and never checked in to confirm that I was there and some other people probably did the same. Plus, in the days of the internet, people will more easily find out about the repetitive nature of Green Day shows through other means (mostly social media). I think the more dedicated fans (and that is not limited to the small number of people on this forum, I myself have been a fan for around 11 years and have only recently opened an account here) will realize at some point that the band still plays pretty much the same songs as in 2013 (if you add RevRad and take out all trilogy and Insomniac songs) and to make matters worse, only very rarely change things up. I think those kind of people are more than willing to see the band once or twice, but after that, they might loose interest.

The second largest problem in my opinion is lack of promotion. Sure, the band did do some interviews, some live performances, as well as upload a handful of music/lyric videos etc. But they did a poor job of redirecting traffic on their social media sites to the newer material and they didn't publish / permit almost any live pro-shot video/audio recordings during the whole world tour. This is especially frustrating, because they have a following of more than 2Mio followers on both YouTube and Instagram and live videos always get more views than any other kind of video besides lyric/music videos. So, it's a really bad decision to not go further down that path.

Of course, in part, it's all down to the declining popularity of all of rock as a genre, but I think Green Day as a band could do a lot more than they currently do.

Don't you think more fans would go to their shows if: 1. More people (especially casual fans) even knew they were on tour and/or that they had a new album out. 2. Fans would know that their live shows are a bit more of a mixed bag, i.e. ''they might play my favorite song, they might not, but at least there's a possibility and the element of surprise''?

Many casual fans will of course admit that their favorite Green Day song is something currently on the setlist like When I Come Around, Basket Case or that ''I walk alone'' song. But what about the people who like other hits (or songs popular among fans) that aren't currently (or only temporarily) on the setlist: 21 Guns, Wake Me Up When September Ends, Stray Heart, Brain Stew, Waiting, 21CB, East Jesus Nowhere, Welcome To Paradise, Geek Stink Breath, Walking Contradiction, Nice Guys Finish Last, Redundant etc. 

During this year's tour, there was/is little to no hope for someone expecting them to play these songs. This wasn't the case in 2013, even less so in 2009/2010. Yes, Green Day have always stuck to a basic formula, but they varied at least a bit. This tour has been the most repetitive / static tour since American Idiot. They play the same songs each night, Billie says almost the same things and though there is fan-participation, it's always during the same songs. If their album / the genre rock in general was popular, they wouldn't have a problem, they'd sell out every show anyway. But Rock isn't as popular as it once was and neither are Green Day, which is why they need to rely strongly on their fanbase (which as I pointed out isn't exactly small). 

[Jonas01]

8 hours ago, MillenniumFan said:

I’m almost certain after doing this tour, even though they did profit from it, they’ll probably sit down with management and talk about refreshing their live act, because these numbers are still depressing. You can rationalise it all you want, but this is Green Day and they should be able to sell out an arena / small-medium amphitheatre!

Agree. Something has got to happen ...

[gaslight13]

I agree with the points being made about amphitheaters. I can't imagine those ever sell out for virtually anyone. The lawn is just too unappealing and it's usually 2/3 of the venue capacity. 

The sell outs are mostly vintage acts also because they have older fans as I think someone mentioned. While a band like U2 probably has at least one fan under 10 in the crowd, I bet most of their fans are over 40. Older rock fans tend to have more money, and more job flexibility. I have older friends who follow bands for 10 shows like it's nothing. I'm as dedicated but I could never afford to do that.  I'd love to see an age break down of GD fans at shows vs U2 or other bands like that. Because when you think about it, if GD has fewer people in attendance but a greater number of people between the ages of 16-40, that's a sign of relevancy.

And I do agree that set lists/live act is a big factor. Because when you take those older rock fans, the ones with the money to go to multiple shows, what incentive do they have to do that with GD? Or the young kids who can maybe afford to go to 2-3 nights if they really save their money. Again, what incentive? Even casual fans would benefit from hearing more non hits. Might draw them to some stuff they didn't know. You can't go to the bathroom ten times a show after all. 

And yeah you can't go off of things like this forum or checking in on set list fm. A lot of people just aren't forum people or all that attached to the internet. I only just signed up on here and I never check in anywhere online.

Regarding promotion, I agree that there's not enough but I think the problem is specifically lack of promotion OUTSIDE their fanbase. They're great on socials and stuff but how do you reach the potential fans who don't already follow you? 

[That Dude]

All this talk about changing the set lists. They have so many great songs, so many hits that I don't doubt they could totally change their live show and make it better.  With a greatest hits album coming out they could focus on the hits almost entirely, with maybe two random songs thrown in for the hardcore fans.  They have about 43 singles now so even a hits set only could widley vary. 

I can't wait to see and hear what they do next!!!! 

Album 13!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chin for a Day]

1 hour ago, MillenniumFan said:

You have a fair point with how numbers are calculated, they might very well be misleading. However, I don't agree with you later points. I never said refreshment was needed just because of the setlist, it's a variety of other factors, though the setlist (and general planned manner of the show) probably is the primary culprit. I also think the ''check-in'' numbers on setlist.fm are misleading, because I went to two Green Day gigs and never checked in to confirm that I was there and some other people probably did the same. Plus, in the days of the internet, people will more easily find out about the repetitive nature of Green Day shows through other means (mostly social media). I think the more dedicated fans (and that is not limited to the small number of people on this forum, I myself have been a fan for around 11 years and have only recently opened an account here) will realize at some point that the band still plays pretty much the same songs as in 2013 (if you add RevRad and take out all trilogy and Insomniac songs) and to make matters worse, only very rarely change things up. I think those kind of people are more than willing to see the band once or twice, but after that, they might loose interest.

The second largest problem in my opinion is lack of promotion. Sure, the band did do some interviews, some live performances, as well as upload a handful of music/lyric videos etc. But they did a poor job of redirecting traffic on their social media sites to the newer material and they didn't publish / permit almost any live pro-shot video/audio recordings during the whole world tour. This is especially frustrating, because they have a following of more than 2Mio followers on both YouTube and Instagram and live videos always get more views than any other kind of video besides lyric/music videos. So, it's a really bad decision to not go further down that path.

Of course, in part, it's all down to the declining popularity of all of rock as a genre, but I think Green Day as a band could do a lot more than they currently do.

Don't you think more fans would go to their shows if: 1. More people (especially casual fans) even knew they were on tour and/or that they had a new album out. 2. Fans would know that their live shows are a bit more of a mixed bag, i.e. ''they might play my favorite song, they might not, but at least there's a possibility and the element of surprise''?

Many casual fans will of course admit that their favorite Green Day song is something currently on the setlist like When I Come Around, Basket Case or that ''I walk alone'' song. But what about the people who like other hits (or songs popular among fans) that aren't currently (or only temporarily) on the setlist: 21 Guns, Wake Me Up When September Ends, Stray Heart, Brain Stew, Waiting, 21CB, East Jesus Nowhere, Welcome To Paradise, Geek Stink Breath, Walking Contradiction, Nice Guys Finish Last, Redundant etc. 

During this year's tour, there was/is little to no hope for someone expecting them to play these songs. This wasn't the case in 2013, even less so in 2009/2010. Yes, Green Day have always stuck to a basic formula, but they varied at least a bit. This tour has been the most repetitive / static tour since American Idiot. They play the same songs each night, Billie says almost the same things and though there is fan-participation, it's always during the same songs. If their album / the genre rock in general was popular, they wouldn't have a problem, they'd sell out every show anyway. But Rock isn't as popular as it once was and neither are Green Day, which is why they need to rely strongly on their fanbase (which as I pointed out isn't exactly small). 

You misunderstood me. I never said their fanbase is small. What I said was the number of people that follow them closely enough to know that they play the same setlist every night is small. I think you are grossly overestimating the amount of people that follow them, or any band for that matter, that closely. Just because you don't follow every move a band makes does not mean you are not a fan. There are more people that enjoy music and enjoy going to concerts and that is where it ends. They are going to purchase the album, or at least some songs on the album and they will go to a concert. They are not going to watch the Facebook live or follow them on Instagram. Most people aren't that interested nor do they have the time to pay that much attention. 

There is usually a budget involved with any type of promotion. That budget is going to be predicated on an expected return. Also the performers are generally paid when they appear on talk shows, so talk show hosts are only going to book ones they think can bring some ratings in. The band did appear on some very prestigious talk shows, Fallon, Howard Stern, etc. So they did do a decent job of getting the word out there. You mentioned that they have 2 M followers on instagram and youtube. That is out of a world population of 7.6B. That is an extremely small number. So, they can do live streams, release videos and do live videos, but it is still reaching a very small audience. 

A large portion of the people going to a concert don't know what Stray Heart or Waiting, Nice Guys Finish Last, Redundant or EJN are. Most of these people want to hear the super hits because that is what they know. 

I am the type of person that honestly doesn't give a shit what they play. I know that for 2 1/2 hours, I'm on my feet, I'm singing I'm dancing and I'm having a hell of a good time. Even the songs I despise (such as Youngblood) are fun in concert. Are their songs I would like to hear that they didn't play, sure. But the fact that they did not play them doesn't take away the experience.

I am not saying that I think the set list changing up a bit will not matter, I just don't think it has as much relevance as you think it does. I think it has to do more with the fact that their genre itself is just not as popular anymore. I think most rock bands are having a hard time. Their could be exceptions, and I'm sure there are, but for the most part, it is a struggle compared to where they were.       

[pacejunkie punk]

2 million online followers is miniscule in a world where the average teenage YouTuber playing video games draws 100 million. 

[gaslight13]

43 minutes ago, Scattered Wreck said:

I am not saying that I think the set list changing up a bit will not matter, I just don't think it has as much relevance as you think it does. I think it has to do more with the fact that their genre itself is just not as popular anymore. I think most rock bands are having a hard time. Their could be exceptions, and I'm sure there are, but for the most part, it is a struggle compared to where they were.       

I agree, but they could be doing better just within the genre. Just for the sake of comparing them to two of the biggest rock bands that are somewhat close to their age....

Not that this is a perfect comparison without other variables, but if you compare them to a band like Pearl Jam, who have a reputation for dramatically changing their setlist every night, and easily sell out arenas, there's an argument to be made. Pearl Jam fell mostly out of the mainstream after only a few years and haven't ever really had a major return like Green Day did. They aren't currently relevant and do very little promo. They also have far fewer hits. By logic, there's no real reason for them to be selling more tickets than Green Day (according to pollstar they avg. 3x as many tickets sold). But they do have A LOT of major fans who travel all over the world for them or just within their own country and go to a bunch of shows. People literally collect songs. Maybe that's because a far greater number of their fans are passionate vs casual, but I don't know if I believe that it's that great a difference. I think there's just more excitement about going to multiple shows and excitement leads to dumb and careless decisions with your money. Or at least it does for me, haha. Fan age is of course going to throw this off too but I still think their stats should be closer.

Foo Fighters also sell twice as many tickets and Green Day has had more (and bigger) hits than them. From a quick glance on Set list fm, they don't change their entire set but there's at least 4-5 changes night to night. 

It's not going to be one factor only but they definitely have to look at some things because they should be able to sell more tickets.
 

[Cunt]

Here’s the thing. While I don’t really trust the numbers all the much there are things to consider. We need to accept that Green Day isn’t Pearl Jam, GNR or U2. Sure Green Day has had their huge moments but they’ve never really been a band that can pull of a 25 date US baseball and football stadium tour. Before I get to the point look at a band like Rush. In the mid 70s they started out as a new promising prof rock band. They first struck success in 1976 with 2112, but had their ups and downs over the next little while. In 1981 they hit really big with Moving Pictures. They became a band that was consistently filling arenas. Through he rest of the 80s they declined in success, they were still playing in arenas, but albums weren’t selling as well as earlier albums and the crowds weren’t as large. They started to work there way up back towards bigger crowds and more album sales through the 90s. In 2007, at the tail end of their career they hit more success than they ever had and over the last ten years they have done amazing business. Now the the point. Rush was never a stadium band. Green Day has found much more success than rush, but they also aren’t a stadium band. Every band goes through ups and downs as far as selling tickets and albums go. Green Day was huge when they released American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown. But in the spring us tour I realized they were kinda opting to play smaller arenas. In Denver, the show I went to, they played an arena that was half the size of the Pepsi Center. In El Paso they opted to play the smaller arena. In Las Vegas they played MGM instead of T-Mobile. In Atlanta they played the smaller arena. And they only play Barclays center in the New York area. Usually bands tend to hit the Prudential center in Newark an MSG in Manhattan. And they hit a lot of amphitheaters over the summer because it’s easier to sell tickets at Amphitheater’s, because lawn seats are cheap and seats at amphitheater  shows tend to go a little cheaper than arena shows. That’s not the case always, but lawn seats are a huge reason band play amphitheaters. They sell. Then look at the success of the trilogy and RR. Green Day just isn’t the band they were from 2005-2010. There’s no shame in that at all. They had at least 18,000 people at the Salt Lake City show and from all of the pictures I’ve seen it looks like they are consistently selling out or coming close to selling out small arenas and amphitheaters. So that leads me to believe that these numbers are for the most part wrong, even though they aren’t the biggest band in the world. There will be times, probably especially later in their career, that Green Day will become a lot bigger. Look at Rush, Def Leppard, AC/DC, and that list keeps growing. Green Day just probably needs there next album to do really amazing  and have a strong follow up for them to be a band that will sell out large arenas and place like Wrigley Field and the Rose Bowl. But now is not their time 

[CherryBombs&Gasoline]

Music is not a competition, it doesn't really matter if one band is more succesful than another band. I understand that every fan wants his or her favourite artist to do well, but that doesn't have any effect on the music itself. 

I heard the name of the Foo Fighters quite often, so let me say something about them: they charge 100 Euro for one ticket here in Germany, that's 30 Euro more than Green Day did. Seriously, I don't want Green Day to start doing this. I don't care how many tickets they sell, as long as I can afford a ticket to their shows. 

Green Day is probably the most influential rock band of the 90s and 2000s. Does it really matter if 20,000 or 15,000 people attend their concerts? 

The RevRad era was so much fun. I prefer a band that has fun and connects with the fans. That's way better than beeing omnipresent. I'm annoyed by the way Dave Grohl acts as the "face" of rock music. Green Day is not a band like this, and that's a good thing. 

[Jonas01]

More pro shot footage in this video than GD has published during the whole tour. 

 

[pacejunkie punk]

That was awesome! Interesting to see how a drum is made, those guys are serious craftsmen, and great interview with Tre. I remember when we saw the pics from the tour from SJC and Bourdain when they brought him the drum (was it Tampa?). Nice to see the finished product.

[Cunt]

5 hours ago, CherryBombs&Gasoline said:

Music is not a competition, it doesn't really matter if one band is more succesful than another band. I understand that every fan wants his or her favourite artist to do well, but that doesn't have any effect on the music itself. 

I heard the name of the Foo Fighters quite often, so let me say something about them: they charge 100 Euro for one ticket here in Germany, that's 30 Euro more than Green Day did. Seriously, I don't want Green Day to start doing this. I don't care how many tickets they sell, as long as I can afford a ticket to their shows. 

Green Day is probably the most influential rock band of the 90s and 2000s. Does it really matter if 20,000 or 15,000 people attend their concerts? 

The RevRad era was so much fun. I prefer a band that has fun and connects with the fans. That's way better than beeing omnipresent. I'm annoyed by the way Dave Grohl acts as the "face" of rock music. Green Day is not a band like this, and that's a good thing. 

Love it! Completely agree about Dave Grohl

[TimmyChunks]

3 hours ago, Jonas01 said:

More pro shot footage in this video than GD has published during the whole tour. 

 

Wow, just wow. I was at that show at the afterparty in the exact area where they shot this, and some guys from SJC were there handing out some of this whiskey as gifts. A few times people were namedropping Bourdain and I just thought they were being namedropping starfuckers, but a day or two later I found out about this and realized that he had been there as part of this very Bourdain shoot.

Funny how at the Worcester show there were a lot of Zildjian people there and he had toured the facility earlier in the day. Who knew Massachusetts was such a drumming mecca?

My own personal favorite part of the interview was when Tre referenced burning drums "at this venue before". I was there- Nimrod/ Warning era festivals. He absolutely lit his drums on fire at those shows. And now he's talking about it all these years later. It's been a blast to grow up with these guys!

 

[Joe.]

10 hours ago, CherryBombs&Gasoline said:

Music is not a competition, it doesn't really matter if one band is more succesful than another band. I understand that every fan wants his or her favourite artist to do well, but that doesn't have any effect on the music itself. 

I heard the name of the Foo Fighters quite often, so let me say something about them: they charge 100 Euro for one ticket here in Germany, that's 30 Euro more than Green Day did. Seriously, I don't want Green Day to start doing this. I don't care how many tickets they sell, as long as I can afford a ticket to their shows. 

Green Day is probably the most influential rock band of the 90s and 2000s. Does it really matter if 20,000 or 15,000 people attend their concerts? 

The RevRad era was so much fun. I prefer a band that has fun and connects with the fans. That's way better than beeing omnipresent. I'm annoyed by the way Dave Grohl acts as the "face" of rock music. Green Day is not a band like this, and that's a good thing. 

I don't deny anything you just said, but in the UK Foo Fighters and Green Day charged the same for tickets. I'd guess that the reason for FF having higher ticket prices is because they regularly sell out huge stadiums. They just sold out 2 nights at the London Stadium, which Green Day haven't been doing.

On a side note whilst I'm biased as I'm a Foo fan I don't think Dave has aimed to have that role, he's just a charismtic guy and there's not really much competition for that role in rock music, but I digress.

[CherryBombs&Gasoline]

23 minutes ago, JoeFrusciante said:

I don't deny anything you just said, but in the UK Foo Fighters and Green Day charged the same for tickets. I'd guess that the reason for FF having higher ticket prices is because they regularly sell out huge stadiums. They just sold out 2 nights at the London Stadium, which Green Day haven't been doing.

On a side note whilst I'm biased as I'm a Foo fan I don't think Dave has aimed to have that role, he's just a charismtic guy and there's not really much competition for that role in rock music, but I digress.

I think the Foo Fighters are the textbook example of a stadium rock band. And I don't mean that in a negative way. I may come across as someone who likes to criticize them but I'm actually a fan of their music. They are very good at self-marketing and they are closer to the "oldschool rock bands" than any other artist out there right now. I guess that's why they sell out so many stadiums around the world. Their music is almost made to be performed in a huge stadium. 

Green Day, on the other hand, is a phenomenon because they managed to revitalize a genre that was almost dead and they are the only international band with their roots in punk rock that is still selling millions of records worldwide and selling out huge venues. The point is: unlike the Foo Fighters, Green Day's music wasn't originally made for a mainstream audience. However, they became insanely successful. And even if they don't sell out stadiums these days, their record sales are still impressive. I highly doubt that the Foo Fighters ever released an album that was even half as successful as Dookie or AI in terms of record sales. 

No one can deny the impact that Green Day had on punkrock and rock music in general. And they keep making good music after 30 years, which is NOT self-evident. So I'm totally fine with the way things are right now. Again: music is not a competition. It's great that the Foo Fighters and other rock bands are doing fine. I just want to listen to good music and as long as that's the case, I'm totally happy.

[Joe.]

9 minutes ago, CherryBombs&Gasoline said:

I think the Foo Fighters are the textbook example of a stadium rock band. And I don't mean that in a negative way. I may come across as someone who likes to criticize them but I'm actually a fan of their music. They are very good at self-marketing and they are closer to the "oldschool rock bands" than any other artist out there right now. I guess that's why they sell out so many stadiums around the world. Their music is almost made to be performed in a huge stadium. 

Green Day, on the other hand, is a phenomenon because they managed to revitalize a genre that was almost dead and they are the only international band with their roots in punk rock that is still selling millions of records worldwide and selling out huge venues. The point is: unlike the Foo Fighters, Green Day's music wasn't originally made for a mainstream audience. However, they became insanely successful. And even if they don't sell out stadiums these days, their record sales are still impressive. I highly doubt that the Foo Fighters ever released an album that was even half as successful as Dookie or AI in terms of record sales. 

No one can deny the impact that Green Day had on punkrock and rock music in general. And they keep making good music after 30 years, which is NOT self-evident. So I'm totally fine with the way things are right now. Again: music is not a competition. It's great that the Foo Fighters and other rock bands are doing fine. I just want to listen to good music and as long as that's the case, I'm totally happy.

I'll happily continue this discussion in Foo Fighters subforum to not derail the thread but FF didn't set out to be mainstream successes - the first album is literally just Dave playing and writing songs, his own solo project.

i know what you mean about the stadium rock songs, I think it's just Foo Fighters have made consistently decent music, whilst GD have made incredible music and then some more mediocre songs

[TimmyChunks]

18 hours ago, JoeFrusciante said:

I'll happily continue this discussion in Foo Fighters subforum to not derail the thread but FF didn't set out to be mainstream successes - the first album is literally just Dave playing and writing songs, his own solo project.

i know what you mean about the stadium rock songs, I think it's just Foo Fighters have made consistently decent music, whilst GD have made incredible music and then some more mediocre songs

All good points, and to top it off the Foo Fighters are a truly multi-generational band like Green Day, with the added kicker that they have always benefited (and rightly so) from the Nirvana association, which can't hurt.

And to tie it back into the core discussion, I'm not 100% certain about these numbers- I was at a few of these shows which were supposedly less than "sold out" (with the most egregious example being Hartford) and going by the eye and feel test on those nights...the venues certainly felt and looked sold out. I'm not qualified to quibble as to how many people they could have packed into the lawn seats at Hartford, for example, but every seat under the roof was filled and the lawn looked pretty packed whenever I looked back there. I'm sure the gate stats must be right (why would they report them inaccurately?), but the place seemed completely full. So, on this tour, every night I've been present has been reported as not sold out but on some dates tickets showed as sold out on Ticketmaster and on others the place also looked full. So whatever- I'm not going to get hung up on whether it was an official sellout or not, all the dates looked and felt really full and I don't think anyone who attended ended up leaving thinking "man, this place has so many unsold tickets". That wasn't the case. And I've been to shows and games where entire sections or parts of sections have been empty, that wasn't the case on this tour.

[DookieLukie]

Take the Nirvana association away from Foo Fighters and they're just a generic rock band. Grohl doesn't have one song that comes close to matching the worst song Kurt wrote.

[Joe.]

8 hours ago, DookieLukie said:

Take the Nirvana association away from Foo Fighters and they're just a generic rock band. Grohl doesn't have one song that comes close to matching the worst song Kurt wrote.

True. Considering they struggled until everlong became a hit it hasn't paticularly benefited them, they just consistently turn out hits

[TimmyChunks]

22 hours ago, DookieLukie said:

Take the Nirvana association away from Foo Fighters and they're just a generic rock band. Grohl doesn't have one song that comes close to matching the worst song Kurt wrote.

I don't know- I love just about everything you post, but Everlong to me is pure genius and several steps above much (but not all) of the Nirvana catalogue. That's a great, pure classic rock song. I can see your point for sure as the Nirvana catalogue is deep and impressive, but I can't agree that Grohl hasn't had one song close to Nirvana. And I'm a huge Nirvana fan. And beyond Everlong there are some other solid tracks as well, so it's not a one song lucky strike. Don't get me wrong, I am way more into Nirvana than Foo, but I think Grohl has written a few songs which either match or surpass some of Kurt's songs.

[gaslight13]

23 hours ago, DookieLukie said:

Take the Nirvana association away from Foo Fighters and they're just a generic rock band. Grohl doesn't have one song that comes close to matching the worst song Kurt wrote.

I'm not really a big Foo Fighters fan but I think there are a few that are better than the worst Nirvana songs. I agree though that they seem pretty generic. I think it's a combo of the Nirvana connection and Dave Grohl being well liked as a person that makes the so popular. They also don't have a ton of competition for bands their age who are true rock bands. Take away all that and I don't think they'd be very big if the music stood alone. 

I think Green Day somehow suffers from often being misunderstood in a negative way and Foo Fighters benefits from being misunderstood in a positive way. I don't know if that's chance, lousy promo (for GD), or what, but it's interesting how differently (and in my opinion incorrectly) these two bands are perceived.

[Joe.]

5 hours ago, gaslight13 said:

I'm not really a big Foo Fighters fan but I think there are a few that are better than the worst Nirvana songs. I agree though that they seem pretty generic. I think it's a combo of the Nirvana connection and Dave Grohl being well liked as a person that makes the so popular. They also don't have a ton of competition for bands their age who are true rock bands. Take away all that and I don't think they'd be very big if the music stood alone. 

I think Green Day somehow suffers from often being misunderstood in a negative way and Foo Fighters benefits from being misunderstood in a positive way. I don't know if that's chance, lousy promo (for GD), or what, but it's interesting how differently (and in my opinion incorrectly) these two bands are perceived.

Again I'm trying to not derail this thread, but I really think you guys are overrating the Nirvana connection - it certainly helped initial interest but FFs longevity is due to them consistently turning out hits. In the early days Nirvana fans went to FF shows expecting and shouting for Nirvana covers, e.g. Marigold- so it's been positive as well as negative

[CherryBombs&Gasoline]

I think Green Days "problem" is that two of their records were insanely successful and everything that they released after Dookie and/or AI is constantly compared with these two albums, so even if records like Insomniac, Nimrod or even Warning and 21stCBD were (in terms of sales) more succesful than 90% of the stuff that other rock bands released, it is still seen as a failure I'm comparison to Dookie and AI (which isn't fair).