Eagles to perform Hotel California in its entirety

[WalshFan88]

I agree with everything you said. They do straddle a weird position with them saying publicly that the band isn’t the same without Glenn and that it’s not really the Eagles but at the same time touring as the Eagles.

To me I'd probably have more respect for them at this point if they just came out and said the facts. I'd still be opposed to them moving on, but I'd feel like they aren't being as deceitful.

[WalshFan88]

I wouldn’t be opposed to that though I just personally believe that it’s legitimate band lineup. I wonder how much simplicity of them touring together played a role. Kinda hard to advertise that lineup. Unless they formed a new band...

Oh I definitely think they should have formed a new band.

To perform Hotel California with only 2 original members and charge the prices they are charging is just asinine.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Good point, FF.



Dreamer, what are you basing this on? From everything I’ve read, the tour has been quite successful. I don’t know how the European dates are selling but they sold out concerts in Australia and New Zealand last month. They actually grossed $6.6 million+ in one night at Dunedin, NZ. The planning for the Vegas shows must have started some time ago.

According to Pollstar, the band was ranked the #6 top-grossing act for 2018, ahead of U2 and The Rolling Stones:

Rounding out the Top 10 are Bruno Mars, Eagles, Justin Timberlake, Roger Waters, U2 and The Rolling Stones. The Eagles’ sixth-ranked tour took in $165.9 million at the box office from 964,245 sold tickets at 53 performances – followed by Timberlake at No. 7 who, after a postponement of shows until 2019 because of health reasons, ended the year with 77 shows reported and $150.8 million in earnings from 1.1 million tickets.

https://www.pollstar.com/article/yea...on-2018-136923

They are also nominated for a Best Rock Tour Award by Pollstar.

https://awards.pollstar.live/2019-nominees/

I believe it’s possible for a band to perform for the money, the adulation from the audience and​ because they just love playing music.

Delilah - I didn't say that the tour wasn't successful. As a matter of fact, I think most bands would give anything to be half as successful. However, in comparison to past Eagles tours, I do not believe this one has been as lucrative. The numbers you gave actually make my point. In past years when they toured, the band almost always ranked 1st or 2nd in earnings. Now, you can make an argument that they aren't bringing in the same $$'s because they aren't playing as many dates. However, I would argue back that the reason they aren't playing as many dates is because they have reached their market saturation point where they schedule as many dates as the demand will bear.

And at the risk of repeating myself once again, I don't doubt that they love playing music and I have no problem with them making money for their performances. However, they had many other options to continue performing without continuing as the Eagles. It would seem to me that it would have been much more of an artistic challenge for them to explore other avenues such as collaborating with other artists or focusing on their solo careers.

[Delilah]

Delilah - I didn't say that the tour wasn't successful. As a matter of fact, I think most bands would give anything to be half as successful. However, in comparison to past Eagles tours, I do not believe this one has been as lucrative. The numbers you gave actually make my point. In past years when they toured, the band almost always ranked 1st or 2nd in earnings. Now, you can make an argument that they aren't bringing in the same $$'s because they aren't playing as many dates. However, I would argue back that the reason they aren't playing as many dates is because they have reached their market saturation point where they schedule as many dates as the demand will bear.

Ok, but in your previous post you said the tour hadn’t been as lucrative as they had hoped. I don’t believe any of us can know what financial goal they were hoping for, unless I missed some quote by Don or Irving. Why would they even expect to do as well as previous tours with Glenn? My guess is they are pleased and probably surprised they have been doing as well as they are, all things being considered.

Also so you said they were doing the Vegas shows to “save face” as if their tour numbers were embarrassing. I doubt the public or the number-crunchers or whoever care that much, if at all, that they were #6 last year vs. #1 or#2 in 1996 (or whenever it was).

[WalshFan88]

Delilah - I didn't say that the tour wasn't successful. As a matter of fact, I think most bands would give anything to be half as successful. However, in comparison to past Eagles tours, I do not believe this one has been as lucrative. The numbers you gave actually make my point. In past years when they toured, the band almost always ranked 1st or 2nd in earnings. Now, you can make an argument that they aren't bringing in the same $$'s because they aren't playing as many dates. However, I would argue back that the reason they aren't playing as many dates is because they have reached their market saturation point where they schedule as many dates as the demand will bear.

And at the risk of repeating myself once again, I don't doubt that they love playing music and I have no problem with them making money for their performances. However, they had many other options to continue performing without continuing as the Eagles. It would seem to me that it would have been much more of an artistic challenge for them to explore other avenues such as collaborating with other artists or focusing on their solo careers.

Agreed.

They don't have as high grossing of a tour without Glenn. As it should be.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

@ Delilah - Obviously, we don't know exactly what the band thinks. We are both guessing, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that they do care about the numbers. I don't have the year-by-year numbers, but, IIRC, they consistently came in 1st or 2nd in earnings throughout both the LROOE and HOTE tours.

[WalshFan88]

@ Delilah - Obviously, we don't know exactly what the band thinks. We are both guessing, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that they do care about the numbers. I don't have the year-by-year numbers, but, IIRC, they consistently came in 1st or 2nd in earnings throughout both the LROOE and HOTE tours.

Yep. It wasn't just in 1996. It was as recent as the HOTE tour.

[Delilah]

The subject of lucrative tours piqued my curiosity so I looked at some Pollstar data and discovered some surprising revelations.

These appear to be the most lucrative years for the band in terms of concert revenue:

1995 rank: #1; earnings: $63.3 million, $104,298,380 in 2018 dollars

2003 rank: #3; earnings: $69.3 million, $94,574,539 in 2018 dollars

2005 rank: #4; earnings: $78.4 million, $100,802,810 in 2018 dollars

2008 rank: #3; earnings: $73.4 million, $85,606,117 in 2018 dollars

2014 rank: #8; earnings: $86.5 million, $91,750,900 in 2018 dollars

2018 rank: #6; earnings: $165,900,000

Some notes:

• I saw no year other than 1995 where the Eagles ranked #1 for concert revenue and none where they ranked #2.

• in 2005 the average ticket price was $107.99; in 2014 it was $138.34; in 2018 $172.13

• although the band ranked #3 in 2008, it was actually a relatively low-grossing year for them, probably due in part to the economy at the time. This could go a long way in explaining why they eventually dropped LROOE songs from the setlist—it was affecting their bottom line.

• in 2010 the band had to cancel some dates due to poor sales

• in 1995 the band played about 74 dates; in 2014 they played 61 dates; in 2018 they played 55 dates

• the band’s lower ranking over time can be explained at least in part due to the rise of new acts like Taylor Swift taking over; before then the rankings were dominated by 70s and 80s acts.

These are the numbers that came up when looking into concert revenue. If anyone believes these numbers are wrong then I welcome any corrections and sources for them. These results were not what I expected (although I knew one of the HFO years was exceptional).

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Wow - Those are very interesting numbers. I am positive that the numbers for some years during both the LROOE and HOTE tours had the band coming in 1st or 2nd place. Apparently, the numbers got re-adjusted for some reason. Go figure! In any event, it doesn't change my original premise that the Vegas shows are easy money for the band, relatively speaking. They price out the average fan and substantially weakens the argument that they continue touring because fans want to hear these songs by the band that recorded them. But, like I said in another thread, sadly, residencies seem to be the up and coming trend for successful musical acts these days.

[New Kid In Town]

Delilah - thanks for the research - you are better than me. However, I thought they came out in the top three from 1994 to 1996 for the HFO Tour.