6 replies to this topic

[rtremfan]

Ok, like the rest of you, I'm still not pleased that R.E.M. decided not to tour "Collapse Into Now", but maybe I understand a little better why they didn't.

I've gone back through the last 3 major world tours: In Time (2003), Around the Sun (2004/05), and Accelerate (2008).

Over the last three tours, the amount of dates that R.E.M. have done in the US has decreased significantly.

In 2003, they did around 25 dates in Europe as compared to around 30 dates in North America.

In 2004/05, they did around 30 dates in N.A. as compared to around 60 dates in Europe.

And then in 2008 they did around 20 dates in N.A. as compared to around 50 dates in Europe.

I wonder why R.E.M. have spent so much of the past two tours touring Europe more than the U.S. I guess they're still just much more popular there, but I wonder how much touring they'll do in the future. These stats for the US aren't looking good IMO.

[e-botti]

european people love REM much more than the american people and they know that and can feel this feeling...

[thomas08]

i never really understood why REM have been bigger in europe than in the US for most of their career. i think since bill left and they went down the synths and poppy route, they lost alot of their fan base in america. i think its really hard to crack both markets though. for example look how well the great beyond did in europe compared to america.

its like the complete opposite for Pearl Jam who are massive in america and not nearly as big in europe.

[ashurt100]

If I were a band that toured the way REM did, and many other bands do now, I'd probably do what they do with regards to touring in the US. In other words, they may have had a bus for many years, but they were all on it. So, after they got to the point where they could afford separate buses, which I'm sure became a necessity (families, predilections, etc...), they probably won't ever go back to one or even two buses. Now, if they wanted to tour extensively in US, and remain as comfortable as they have grown used to, they would have to raise ticket prices. As we've all witnessed, they aren't capable of selling out in some major markets in the US anymore so what's the point of playing where, for all intents and purposes, the majority of music fans don't care enough to make it worth their while.

Europe, and the rest of the world, give them the attention they need to make touring worthwhile.

[kizmatica]

I think people look way too much into this. I went to see REM on a trip to the USA in 2008 and it was one of the best atmospheres I've been to.

Ok, the band may not be able to sell out huge arena/stadiums anymore, but if the band announced a series of club shows tomorrow they would sell out instantly and be one of the hottest tickets in town. If anything, their legacy and popularity has grown in recent years due to the success of the reissues.

People get way too downcast over little things like this. REM are still a hugely popular band worldwide

[petruchio]

From 17 July 2011 - 01:09 PM:

People get way too downcast over little things like this. REM are still a hugely popular band worldwide

Well said. They can't sell out arenas or amphitheaters anymore, big deal. Most bands I like play smaller venues and so did R.E.M. at one time. They played to 4000 on Around The Sun shows and it was great, and at no point in that show did I wish there was 15 000 more people there. I won't count 2008 as Modest Mouse and The National greatly aided sales. If they were tour a new album they could play shows. This is not a surprise, even in 1995 even the band knew their popularity would not stay at that level.

[REMCHICAGOBOY]

I saw them three times in 2008 when they played America. The crowds were so massive I was awestruck when I looked back from my seat to see all the people. I also couldn't believe how the massive crowds knew all of their catalog, even the younger, newer fans.

They are still massive here in America, when they actually feel like getting out there and playing to the masses.