my calculator says that this works out to about 15 million girls! yow

http://www.mtv.co.uk/news/one-direction/398007-one-direction-1billion-where-we-are-tour

(related: U2 dropped their long awaited new single a
few weeks ago, and it made not the slightest
dent on radio or on the charts. Their single was
Mandela themed, they knowingly timed it for
release just before the plug was pulled on Mandela's
life support, and still... Nothing. The world really is
changing fast all of a sudden.)

I worked security at their show this summer in a just under 20K facility.  Clean, family fun, not an f bomb in the place.
Lots of 35-50 women bringing their kids
Pretty meteoric for them to go to 60K + venues in that amount of time
They will have two nights @ The Razor here, that's a lot of ducats..

The times, they are a changin'



Still, I find it amazing that a group of "pretty boys" with only singing talent can get so big so fast.

Guess I'm geting old.

this aint bringing JB back........

Lets say an average of $75 per ticket and 60,000 seats per show. That's 4.5 million a night. they'd need over 200 shows like that to get a billion. isn't happening but nice way to get some publicity. Amazing a group I have never heard or know much about even gets a stadium tour.

Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 9:40am:

my calculator says that this works out to about 15 million girls! yow http://www.mtv.co.uk/news/one-direction/398007-one-direction-1billion-where-we-are-tour (related: U2 dropped their long awaited new single a few weeks ago, and it made not the slightest dent on radio or on the charts. Their single was Mandela themed, they knowingly timed it for release just before the plug was pulled on Mandela's life support, and still... Nothing. The world really is changing fast all of a sudden.)

Their new tune and album drops later, see below-

http://www.atu2.com/news/la-times-u2-album-in-april-new-song-called-invisible.html

*I don't know much about One'd erection and typically turn when I see them. My butthole is one direction.

Some Guy wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 6:08pm:

Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 9:40am: (related: U2 dropped their long awaited new single a few weeks ago, and it made not the slightest dent on radio or on the charts. Their single was Mandela themed, they knowingly timed it for release just before the plug was pulled on Mandela's life support, and still... Nothing. The world really is changing fast all of a sudden.) Their new tune and album drops later, see below- http://www.atu2.com/news/la-times-u2-album-in-april-new-song-called-invisible.html

the U2 single that was released a couple weeks ago
and bombed, despite a nice lyrics video, is "ordinary
love", which not a few critics immediately labeled
as very ordinary indeed. this is in sharp contrast
to what mr. bono said at the release party: that
this extraordinary man Mandela deserved an
extraordinary tune and that that was what U2 had
come up with. apparently not.

if it had been a hit, you can be sure it would have
been on the new album. but now "ordinary love"
will just be politely forgotten and the hype will focus
on "invisible". after "ordinary love" quickly becoming
just "ordinary", they are really tempting fate naming
their next single "invisible"

related: Cohl and U2 have had to finally admit defeat
for their Spiderman on Broadway, the show closes in
January, years short of the break-even point. But
they are apparently going to try to see if they can
take it on the road into MSG-sized arenas. A Broadway
show in an arena, that seems like a tough sell to me,
especially given the mediocre reviews.

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 4:10pm:

Lets say an average of $75 per ticket and 60,000 seats per show. That's 4.5 million a night. they'd need over 200 shows like that to get a billion. isn't happening but nice way to get some publicity. Amazing a group I have never heard or know much about even gets a stadium tour.

you're right, the numbers simply don't add up for a
one-year tour, but maybe this media report was
wrong about it being only a one-year tour. U2 and
the Stones hit their numbers over more than two
years I think, so maybe the 1D tour will extend into
2015 or even 2016.

Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 4:10pm: Lets say an average of $75 per ticket and 60,000 seats per show. That's 4.5 million a night. they'd need over 200 shows like that to get a billion. isn't happening but nice way to get some publicity. Amazing a group I have never heard or know much about even gets a stadium tour. you're right, the numbers simply don't add up for a one-year tour, but maybe this media report was wrong about it being only a one-year tour. U2 and the Stones hit their numbers over more than two years I think, so maybe the 1D tour will extend into 2015 or even 2016.

Don't kids forget about boy bands every 24 months or so?

Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 10:07am:

Some Guy wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 6:08pm: Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 9:40am: (related: U2 dropped their long awaited new single a few weeks ago, and it made not the slightest dent on radio or on the charts. Their single was Mandela themed, they knowingly timed it for release just before the plug was pulled on Mandela's life support, and still... Nothing. The world really is changing fast all of a sudden.) Their new tune and album drops later, see below- http://www.atu2.com/news/la-times-u2-album-in-april-new-song-called-invisible.html the U2 single that was released a couple weeks ago and bombed, despite a nice lyrics video, is "ordinary love", which not a few critics immediately labeled as very ordinary indeed. this is in sharp contrast to what mr. bono said at the release party: that this extraordinary man Mandela deserved an extraordinary tune and that that was what U2 had come up with. apparently not. if it had been a hit, you can be sure it would have been on the new album. but now "ordinary love" will just be politely forgotten and the hype will focus on "invisible". after "ordinary love" quickly becoming just "ordinary", they are really tempting fate naming their next single "invisible" related: Cohl and U2 have had to finally admit defeat for their Spiderman on Broadway, the show closes in January, years short of the break-even point. But they are apparently going to try to see if they can take it on the road into MSG-sized arenas. A Broadway show in an arena, that seems like a tough sell to me.

it's over.

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 10:16am:

Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 25th, 2013 at 10:11am: gimmekeef wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 4:10pm: Lets say an average of $75 per ticket and 60,000 seats per show. That's 4.5 million a night. they'd need over 200 shows like that to get a billion. isn't happening but nice way to get some publicity. Amazing a group I have never heard or know much about even gets a stadium tour. you're right, the numbers simply don't add up for a one-year tour, but maybe this media report was wrong about it being only a one-year tour. U2 and the Stones hit their numbers over more than two years I think, so maybe the 1D tour will extend into 2015 or even 2016. Don't kids forget about boy bands every 24 months or so?

kinda. probably more accurate to say that they get
forgotten 24 months after their biggest chart success.
they've got 3 albums now, with the current one being
their biggest. so theoretically at least, this might just
be their prime 24-months coming up, to reap what
they have sown.

Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 25th, 2013 at 10:16am: Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 25th, 2013 at 10:11am: gimmekeef wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 4:10pm: Lets say an average of $75 per ticket and 60,000 seats per show. That's 4.5 million a night. they'd need over 200 shows like that to get a billion. isn't happening but nice way to get some publicity. Amazing a group I have never heard or know much about even gets a stadium tour. you're right, the numbers simply don't add up for a one-year tour, but maybe this media report was wrong about it being only a one-year tour. U2 and the Stones hit their numbers over more than two years I think, so maybe the 1D tour will extend into 2015 or even 2016. Don't kids forget about boy bands every 24 months or so? kinda. probably more accurate to say that they get forgotten 24 months after their biggest chart success. they've got 3 albums now, with the current one being their biggest. so theoretically at least, this might just be their prime 24-months coming up, to reap what they have sown.

Who is your favorite 1D member? Malcomb?? Seth??

Harry!

the one that has been rumoured to both be the object
of Georgia Jagger's affection AND to be the leading
candidate to play Mick in Branson's Exile movie.

Some Guy wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 10:30am:

Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 25th, 2013 at 10:25am: gimmekeef wrote on Dec 25th, 2013 at 10:16am: Rev 20 Redlights wrote on Dec 25th, 2013 at 10:11am: gimmekeef wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 4:10pm: Lets say an average of $75 per ticket and 60,000 seats per show. That's 4.5 million a night. they'd need over 200 shows like that to get a billion. isn't happening but nice way to get some publicity. Amazing a group I have never heard or know much about even gets a stadium tour. you're right, the numbers simply don't add up for a one-year tour, but maybe this media report was wrong about it being only a one-year tour. U2 and the Stones hit their numbers over more than two years I think, so maybe the 1D tour will extend into 2015 or even 2016. Don't kids forget about boy bands every 24 months or so? kinda. probably more accurate to say that they get forgotten 24 months after their biggest chart success. they've got 3 albums now, with the current one being their biggest. so theoretically at least, this might just be their prime 24-months coming up, to reap what they have sown. Who is your favorite 1D member? Malcomb?? Seth??

Putting your "to be greeted" status on the line?...lmao

Howe long will they last though...

3 more years imo.

Not that I follow them at all but I'm a good guesser & think after this tour, they all go solo, forever and then die.

" Not that I follow them at all but I'm a good guesser & think after this tour, they all go solo, forever and then die. "


Merry Christmas Baby ........

Weeding ?!


Hashishin'  .. ?!


Are you weeding today ?!  ....... Hashishin'  ..... ?!


Please , ...... babe   ...... I's just's got's to knows .......  Weeding ?!


Are you Hashishin ..... ?!


Baby Joe

Joey wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

" Not that I follow them at all but I'm a good guesser & think after this tour, they all go solo, forever and then die. " Merry Christmas Baby ........ Weeding ?! Hashishin'  .. ?! Are you weeding today ?!  ....... Hashishin'  ..... ?! Please , ...... babe   ...... I's just's got's to knows .......  Weeding ?! Are you Hashishin ..... ?! Baby Joe

Oh I'm doing everything under the Sweet Summer Sun You C10 Bastard.

But crack and heroin...

Boy oh boy. I didn't even know about this u2 song at all. No one here has talked about it. I haven't heard it played on any station at all.

one direction is the biggest group in the world.

it says so in the tv commercial for their new album.

By the way, I thought The Bigger Bang Tour brought in a Billion dollars when it was over no?

steel driving hammer wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

By the way, I thought The Bigger Bang Tour brought in a Billion dollars when it was over no?

we're number 3.

Jees, is one direction touring Global like the Stones to break this world record?

break this-

http://youtu.be/JcgZIz0Fd-w

Some Guy wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

break this- http://youtu.be/JcgZIz0Fd-w

Greatest Boy Band In the World

The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago.

Pdog wrote on Dec 28^th, 2013 at 9:16am:

The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago.

With the key difference they actually played instruments and wrote some of their own songs.

Pdog wrote on Dec 28^th, 2013 at 9:16am:

The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago.

No they werent - they were two groups of friends who got together due to a mutual love of the same music. Boy bands are brought together by media moguls through a process of auditions to make money, some of them not even knowing each other beforehand.

Gazza wrote on Dec 28^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

Pdog wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 9:16am: The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago. No they werent - they were two groups of friends who got together due to a mutual love of the same music. Boy bands are brought together by media moguls through a process of auditions to make money, some of them not even knowing each other beforehand.

You are correct Gazza, the term Boy bands wasn't around in '64, The Beatles who got The Stones into writing their own music, were the first to actually write their own music, before that they had songwriters to write their music, Frankie Avalon, Fabion, you name it, they were made to be tenny bopper idols, the Beatles/Stones changed all that, I was around in '64, so I know what I'm talking about.

http://youtu.be/TbBITrZa6Ok

It seems that after a break of 7 years U2 will be returning to their original record label Island Records, leaving Mercury Records.


Reports from the NME suggest that a source close to the band states that U2 are 'going back to their spiritual home' for their next album release, due in the spring of 2014.


The break from Island Records in 2006 coincided with the release of 18 Singles, when former Island Records label executive Jason Iley left to join Mercury, shortly followed by U2.


It would appear that earlier this year Mercury Records was absorbed into the newly formed Virgin EMI, a subsidiary of Universal Music UK.


In fact perhaps this news should not be such a surprise as a close look at the back cover and labels of the recent release of Ordinary Love shows no mention of Mercury. It would appear that in the US, U2 will continue to be signed to Interscope.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Dec 28^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

Gazza wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 2:05pm: Pdog wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 9:16am: The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago. No they werent - they were two groups of friends who got together due to a mutual love of the same music. Boy bands are brought together by media moguls through a process of auditions to make money, some of them not even knowing each other beforehand. You are correct Gazza, the term Boy bands wasn't around in '64, The Beatles who got The Stones into writing their own music, were the first to actually write their own music, before that they had songwriters to write their music, Frankie Avalon, Fabion, you name it, they were made to be tenny bopper idols, the Beatles/Stones changed all that, I was around in '64, so I know what I'm talking about.

I know the term wasnt around - my point was that the concept of what became a 'boy band', ie manufactured groups where the band members auditioned - wasnt what those bands were.

You could argue that the Monkees fitted more into that category, but that was a few years later. Apparently Stephen Stills auditioned for them - and may have got the job if he'd had better teeth.

Gazza wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

Heart Of Stone wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 5:53pm: Gazza wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 2:05pm: Pdog wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 9:16am: The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago. No they werent - they were two groups of friends who got together due to a mutual love of the same music. Boy bands are brought together by media moguls through a process of auditions to make money, some of them not even knowing each other beforehand. You are correct Gazza, the term Boy bands wasn't around in '64, The Beatles who got The Stones into writing their own music, were the first to actually write their own music, before that they had songwriters to write their music, Frankie Avalon, Fabion, you name it, they were made to be tenny bopper idols, the Beatles/Stones changed all that, I was around in '64, so I know what I'm talking about. I know the term wasnt around - my point was that the concept of what became a 'boy band', ie manufactured groups where the band members auditioned - wasnt what those bands were. You could argue that the Monkees fitted more into that category, but that was a few years later. Apparently Stephen Stills auditioned for them - and may have got the job if he'd had better teeth.

Stills may have been eliminated when they found out he actually could play guitar.....

Monkees the 1st boy band!

And Peter Tork was my fave.

More likely The Banana Splits, albeit you couldn't ever really see the BS's bollocks thru their trous.

Also...
In '14, will the Spunky-Monkeys be unleashing new Sticky Sticky Thingies and lovely liveness and fresh tunerizations? Not much of a Chauncey Gardiner, guvnor.

Yeah, obviously the Beatles and Stones were not boy
bands in the sense they had been put together by some
management group to specifically target the free-
spending young female demographic.

BUT nonetheless it is that same demographic that
changed the world by suddenly deciding they liked
boys with guitars and long hair more than those
without. It was pure luck in a way (as it had been
with Sinatra and Elvis) that the subjects of this
young female passion also happened to have lasting
musical impact and import.

For all those waiting and hoping for a return to
massively popular rock-guitar-based music (which
I think has about the same odds as a return to
dominance of Swing), your only hope is that someday
young girls en masse find the 19 year old purveyors of
such music to be irresistably cute beyond all the others
competing for their dollars and/or yuan.

I'd like to see if this little punk moof could handle some 80s acid!  He's a punk.  Punks can't handle goddam acid.

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 8:03am:

Gazza wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 5:25pm: Heart Of Stone wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 5:53pm: Gazza wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 2:05pm: Pdog wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 9:16am: The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago. No they werent - they were two groups of friends who got together due to a mutual love of the same music. Boy bands are brought together by media moguls through a process of auditions to make money, some of them not even knowing each other beforehand. You are correct Gazza, the term Boy bands wasn't around in '64, The Beatles who got The Stones into writing their own music, were the first to actually write their own music, before that they had songwriters to write their music, Frankie Avalon, Fabion, you name it, they were made to be tenny bopper idols, the Beatles/Stones changed all that, I was around in '64, so I know what I'm talking about. I know the term wasnt around - my point was that the concept of what became a 'boy band', ie manufactured groups where the band members auditioned - wasnt what those bands were. You could argue that the Monkees fitted more into that category, but that was a few years later. Apparently Stephen Stills auditioned for them - and may have got the job if he'd had better teeth. Stills may have been eliminated when they found out he actually could play guitar.....

IMO
The Osmonds,
The Jackson 5,
The Monkees
Fit the bill!
As first in the thin called Boy Bands!

The DiFranco family.  A heartbeat, it's a love beat, and when we meet, it's a good sensation!

sirmoonie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

The DiFranco family.  A heartbeat, it's a love beat, and when we meet, it's a good sensation!

Yeah I even got their album/cass as a freebie from the old BMG Record company Club.
Good one I had forgot them.

The Osmonds were Mormons.  When asked why their religion banned black people from being made, Donald O. said "That's the way god wants it." That was in 1977.  The video is on YouTube.

I've heard that Mormons are now eligible to adopt black babies.

I met Donald once at a charity gig.  He's a decent enough guy in a robotic way.  He can't drop his schtick for a second, though.  He's time locked in Puppy Love for life.  What a Mormon geek.  What's the point?

Kilroy wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

gimmekeef wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 8:03am: Gazza wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 5:25pm: Heart Of Stone wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 5:53pm: Gazza wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 2:05pm: Pdog wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 9:16am: The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago. No they werent - they were two groups of friends who got together due to a mutual love of the same music. Boy bands are brought together by media moguls through a process of auditions to make money, some of them not even knowing each other beforehand. You are correct Gazza, the term Boy bands wasn't around in '64, The Beatles who got The Stones into writing their own music, were the first to actually write their own music, before that they had songwriters to write their music, Frankie Avalon, Fabion, you name it, they were made to be tenny bopper idols, the Beatles/Stones changed all that, I was around in '64, so I know what I'm talking about. I know the term wasnt around - my point was that the concept of what became a 'boy band', ie manufactured groups where the band members auditioned - wasnt what those bands were. You could argue that the Monkees fitted more into that category, but that was a few years later. Apparently Stephen Stills auditioned for them - and may have got the job if he'd had better teeth. Stills may have been eliminated when they found out he actually could play guitar..... IMO The Osmonds, The Jackson 5, The Monkees Fit the bill! As first in the thin called Boy Bands!

A group of brothers forming a band, encouraged by pushy parents was hardly a new thing.

Nothing The Beach Boys and others hadn't done years earlier.

Gazza wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 4:19pm:

Kilroy wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:52pm: gimmekeef wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 8:03am: Gazza wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 5:25pm: Heart Of Stone wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 5:53pm: Gazza wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 2:05pm: Pdog wrote on Dec 28th, 2013 at 9:16am: The Stones and Beatles were boy bands 50 years ago. No they werent - they were two groups of friends who got together due to a mutual love of the same music. Boy bands are brought together by media moguls through a process of auditions to make money, some of them not even knowing each other beforehand. You are correct Gazza, the term Boy bands wasn't around in '64, The Beatles who got The Stones into writing their own music, were the first to actually write their own music, before that they had songwriters to write their music, Frankie Avalon, Fabion, you name it, they were made to be tenny bopper idols, the Beatles/Stones changed all that, I was around in '64, so I know what I'm talking about. I know the term wasnt around - my point was that the concept of what became a 'boy band', ie manufactured groups where the band members auditioned - wasnt what those bands were. You could argue that the Monkees fitted more into that category, but that was a few years later. Apparently Stephen Stills auditioned for them - and may have got the job if he'd had better teeth. Stills may have been eliminated when they found out he actually could play guitar..... IMO The Osmonds, The Jackson 5, The Monkees Fit the bill! As first in the thin called Boy Bands! A group of brothers forming a band, encouraged by pushy parents was hardly a new thing. Nothing The Beach Boys and others hadn't done years earlier.

and lets not forget the joke that was Dino Desi and Billy!

Where would the Partridge Family fit in all this ?

Edith Grove wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

Where would the Partridge Family fit in all this ?

Or The Cowsills
but both of those had a gurl in them!

Kilroy wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

Edith Grove wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 5:01pm: Where would the Partridge Family fit in all this ? Or The Cowsills but both of those had a gurl in them!

Did you know the Partridge Family was inspired by The Cowsills ?

Susan Cowsill still performs in New Orleans and elsewhere.

Barry Cowsill died during or after Katrina:

Cowsill was living in New Orleans when the city was hit by Hurricane Katrina. He left a very distraught message on sister Susan's voice mail and was never heard from again. There was a search for him that ended tragically, as his body was found in late December washed ashore on the Mississippi near the Chartres Street wharf, near the home he and his family lived in for some years in Fauborg Marigny, just outside of the French Quarter. His body was subsequently identified by comparison to dental records, and the death was ruled a drowning as a result of the Federal Flood following Hurricane Katrina.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cowsill


I have my doubts about Barry's death.
If he lived in the Fauborg Marigny as the article states, then he was only blocks away from my place in the French Quarter.
That area got either no flooding or very minor street-type flooding, not nearly enough to drown in unless you were passed out in a gutter somewhere.

Edith Grove wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 5:51pm:

Kilroy wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 5:21pm: Edith Grove wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 5:01pm: Where would the Partridge Family fit in all this ? Or The Cowsills but both of those had a gurl in them! Did you know the Partridge Family was inspired by The Cowsills ? Susan Cowsill still performs in New Orleans and elsewhere. Barry Cowsill died during or after Katrina: Cowsill was living in New Orleans when the city was hit by Hurricane Katrina. He left a very distraught message on sister Susan's voice mail and was never heard from again. There was a search for him that ended tragically, as his body was found in late December washed ashore on the Mississippi near the Chartres Street wharf, near the home he and his family lived in for some years in Fauborg Marigny, just outside of the French Quarter. His body was subsequently identified by comparison to dental records, and the death was ruled a drowning as a result of the Federal Flood following Hurricane Katrina.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cowsill I have my doubts about Barry's death. If he lived in the Fauborg Marigny as the article states, then he was only blocks away from my place in the French Quarter. That area got either no flooding or very minor street-type flooding, not nearly enough to drown in unless you were passed out in a gutter somewhere.

I agree......Strange

The DiFrancos claimed they were Canadian, but I suspect they were Italian.