How is that relevant? Your premise was that AC/DC do not have cumulative live attendance figures, that merit 209M EAS. You can't make that statement, then make caveats, because it doesn't actually ring true. It's abundantly clear, that live attendances do not have a direct corelation to sales.

I'm not sure what you mean by "People before the 80s, didn't have a live concert mentality". Do you mean the general public or the artists and their management?

Obviously for the general public, put U2 in the 60s or 70s and they can only dream of the live numbers they did in the 90s or 2000s.

But it wasn't the publics lack of interest, in seeing an act live, that resulted in lower attendances, it was the nature of the touring industry, that resulted in smaller venues and lower attendances. Take Led Zeppelin, every US tour in the 70s, was a complete sell out, they could have played stadium tours, as oppose to stadium and arenas tours but the industry didn't really do full on stadium tours back then. On the sold out US 77 US tour, they played to 77,000 at the Pontiac Silverdome and sold out 95,000 tickets at the JFK stadium, yet they were also playing arenas that held only around 18,000.

Lets go back to your AC/DCs live attendances not meriting 209M EAS, surely then, Led Zeppelins 210M EAS is even less merited, given their live attendances and The Beatles 522M EAS, completely unmerited.