| February 9th, 2006 01:29 PM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
In the entertainment header covering the "Shammies"...USA Today states..."U2 The Greatest (sorry Rolling Stones) Rock Band in the World perform at last nights awards"....
This has got to stop!..... |
| February 9th, 2006 01:33 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
In the entertainment header covering the "Shammies"...USA Today states..."U2 The Greatest (sorry Rolling Stones) Rock Band in the World perform at last nights awards"....
This has got to stop!.....
I shall from here on out refuse my free USA Today with my Marriot Rewards card as I travel! |
| February 9th, 2006 01:34 PM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
although I am not into u2, I think thet are right, the stones stopped taking risks in 1989, and u2 is about the same age, and they will keep on doing what they want and really tour behind an album, and the stones are an oldies act nowadays. We can only blame the stones on this, if they'd only lower the ticketprices ABB would have sold better and more young people would have seen them. The marketing of the stones really, really sucks |
| February 9th, 2006 01:36 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Moonisup wrote:
although I am not into u2, I think thet are right, the stones stopped taking risks in 1989, and u2 is about the same age, and they will keep on doing what they want and really tour behind an album, and the stones are an oldies act nowadays. We can only blame the stones on this, if they'd only lower the ticketprices ABB would have sold better and more young people would have seen them. The marketing of the stones really, really sucks
the club shows of 2002 were a great risk, we must give credit where it is due! |
| February 9th, 2006 01:40 PM |
|
|
| Ihavelotsajam |
With dedicated fans like us, the only fandom out there that is first to bash their "favorites" on a fan board, it could only last so long anyway. |
| February 9th, 2006 01:43 PM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Its still "lasting".... |
| February 9th, 2006 01:45 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
U2, best "rock" band?? This strikes me as odd, when did they put out an album that "rocks", must have slipped by me some how. It must have been one hell of a "rock" album if it makes them the greatest rock band in the world!! Isn't it funny that when they did
"When Love Comes To Town" with B.B. King 18 years ago B.B.'s lead guitar totally dominated that song, listen to the background music U2 is playing in that song and notice how much more talented Mr. King is. |
| February 9th, 2006 01:50 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
U2, best "rock" band?? This strikes me as odd, when did they put out an album that "rocks", must have slipped by me some how. It must have been one hell of a "rock" album if it makes them the greatest rock band in the world!! Isn't it funny that when they did
"When Love Comes To Town" with B.B. King 18 years ago B.B.'s lead guitar totally dominated that song, listen to the background music U2 is playing in that song and notice how much more talented Mr. King is.
Sadly, Bono is the media's "Golden Boy" and can do no wrong...he could release a cd of him taking a leak and the press would give it/him many awards and call it innovative.
Regretfully, we are hated by mainstream music fans/media as it is now a U2/U2 tribute band world. |
| February 9th, 2006 01:56 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
Sadly, Bono is the media's "Golden Boy" and can do no wrong...he could release a cd of him taking a leak and the press would give it/him many awards and call it innovative.
Regretfully, we are hated by mainstream music fans/media as it is now a U2/U2 tribute band world.
Yep, he is indeed the media whore / darling and has been for some time, I'm just trying to understand why!! It's nowhere near what I like to think of as rock music, something like gloified church music with a pseudo-intellectual spewing off non-stop PC rants like he's the second coming. When I go to a concert, I go to rock out and have a good time, not to hear about someone's spirituality or political views non-stop. |
| February 9th, 2006 02:13 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
Yep, he is indeed the media whore / darling and has been for some time, I'm just trying to understand why!! It's nowhere near what I like to think of as rock music, something like gloified church music with a pseudo-intellectual spewing off non-stop PC rants like he's the second coming. When I go to a concert, I go to rock out and have a good time, not to hear about someone's spirituality or political views non-stop.
I couldnt have agreed with my more....something fishy is definitely going on here! |
| February 9th, 2006 02:15 PM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
the club shows of 2002 were a great risk, we must give credit where it is due!
Howe on earth would that be a risk!!! No way. They knew they would make enough money on the larger shows to cover expenses for the club shows. And as there were only 11 worldwide (it wasn't just 2002 in the US, as you may or may not remember...), a 5 year old could have figured out they would have no trouble selling out 11 club dates...
It was a nice choice, it was one of the few things in Stones land that stood out in 20 years (including the '95 club shows), it made them look like they cared about satisfying their fan base.
It wasn't a bold choice and it wasn't a risk. Unfortunately, they have taken away (imo) that warm fuzzy feeling again with this expensive stadium tour, no matter how nice it is to see them again.
U2 does put a lot more effort in their shows and especially their albums, even though they leave me close to cold.
But U2 aren't the Stones' peers Rik, they are over a decade their juniors, so I would think that makes a whole lotta difference. The Stones won Grammies in, what, 1987 and 1995? They won a 'best album' Grammy years after they won a Lifetime Achievement Award, and even that is more than 10 years ago. So let's just wait and see what U2 has to offer in 10 to 15 years shall we? I won't hold my breath  |
| February 9th, 2006 02:20 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
Howe on earth would that be a risk!!! No way. They knew they would make enough money on the larger shows to cover expenses for the club shows. And as there were only 11 worldwide (it wasn't just 2002 in the US, as you may or may not remember...), a 5 year old could have figured out they would have no trouble selling out 11 club dates...
It was a nice choice, it was one of the few things in Stones land that stood out in 20 years (including the '95 club shows), it made them look like they cared about satisfying their fan base.
It wasn't a bold choice and it wasn't a risk. Unfortunately, they have taken away (imo) that warm fuzzy feeling again with this expensive stadium tour, no matter how nice it is to see them again.
U2 does put a lot more effort in their shows and especially their albums, even though they leave me close to cold.
But U2 aren't the Stones' peers Rik, they are over a decade their juniors, so I would think that makes a whole lotta difference. The Stones won Grammies in, what, 1987 and 1995? They won a 'best album' Grammy years after they won a Lifetime Achievement Award, and even that is more than 10 years ago. So let's just wait and see what U2 has to offer in 10 to 15 years shall we? I won't hold my breath
sorry, i wasnt implying a financial risk, i meant a risk performing songs they are not nearly as familiar with. |
| February 9th, 2006 02:23 PM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
sorry, i wasnt implying a financial risk, i meant a risk performing songs they are not nearly as familiar with.
Well, yeah, ok, that was quite gutsy, I admit, and I really loved them for having the balls, true. And in that light, you're right about just 2002, because the 5 Euro clubs in 2003 were all basicly the same stuff, I guess they were tired already by then of taking risks. |
| February 9th, 2006 02:30 PM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
it's risky for the stones, not for Bruce springsteen or dylan who do it every night they play |
| February 9th, 2006 02:34 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Moonisup wrote:
it's risky for the stones, not for Bruce springsteen or dylan who do it every night they play
Springsteen or Dylan are not in the Stones class and thus cannot be compared. |
| February 9th, 2006 02:49 PM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
Springsteen or Dylan are not in the Stones class and thus cannot be compared.
You forgot the 'im(h)o' part... |
| February 9th, 2006 02:50 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
You forgot the 'im(h)o' part...
They are both very important, but i have yet to see a valid arguement that either of these acts have been more important/influential in music than the Stones. |
| February 9th, 2006 02:52 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
I still want to know why the hell U2 got grammies so early on and it took the academy 30 years to recognize the Stones existence. |
| February 9th, 2006 02:54 PM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
They are both very important, but i have yet to see a valid arguement that either of these acts have been more important/influential in music than the Stones.
Arguments are meaningless when it comes down to taste. IMHO of course  |
| February 9th, 2006 02:55 PM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
I still want to know why the hell U2 got grammies so early on and it took the academy 30 years to recognize the Stones existence.
Because the Stones have never been so transparant, mellow and obvious is my guess. I see it as a compliment to the Stones! |
| February 9th, 2006 02:58 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
Because the Stones have never been so transparant, mellow and obvious is my guess. I see it as a compliment to the Stones!
You make a good point, it seems those who have been the most relevant musically are the most ignored!! It also seems those who win for best new artist never have that long of a career. |
| February 9th, 2006 02:59 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
Arguments are meaningless when it comes down to taste. IMHO of course
I see no situation where I want to argue with you...I respect your opinions and posts! |
| February 9th, 2006 03:00 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
I couldnt have agreed with my more....something fishy is definitely going on here!
You must be a man of wealth and good musical taste then. |
| February 9th, 2006 03:00 PM |
|
|
| nanatod |
"I have yet to see a valid arguement that either of these acts have been more important/influential in music than the Stones."
Springsteen isn't even as important as David Crosby.
Bob Dylan on the other hand....
"Blowin' in the Wind"
"Like a Rolling Stone"
"My Back Pages"
"All Along the Watchtower"
"Masters of War"(truer now than ever)
"Subterranean Homesick Blues"
"Forever Young"
George Harrison used to say that in several hundred years, when people have forgotten about the Beatles, they will remember Bob Dylan.
One last thing, at Live Aid in Philadelphia in 1985, right before the finale, didn't Ron Wood and Keith Richards join Bob in a ragged, but great version of Blowin' in the Wind? |
| February 9th, 2006 03:01 PM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
And so do I! If only the world could be more like us, oh boy... |
| February 9th, 2006 03:03 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
nanatod wrote:
"I have yet to see a valid arguement that either of these acts have been more important/influential in music than the Stones."
Springsteen isn't even as important as David Crosby.
Bob Dylan on the other hand....
"Blowin' in the Wind"
"Like a Rolling Stone"
"My Back Pages"
"All Along the Watchtower"
"Masters of War"(truer now than ever)
"Subterranean Homesick Blues"
"Forever Young"
George Harrison used to say that in several hundred years, when people have forgotten about the Beatles, they will remember Bob Dylan.
One last thing, at Live Aid in Philadelphia in 1985, right before the finale, didn't Ron Wood and Keith Richards join Bob in a ragged, but great version of Blowin' in the Wind?
I agree!! I thought it was perhaps the highlight of that festival. |
| February 9th, 2006 03:10 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
I just think that in order to be given the title "Worlds Greatest R&R Band" you should at least be able to play Rock & Roll music.
I'm sure theres a more appropriate title we could give to those Dubliers, in terms of the type of music they play...
like maybe... "Worlds Greatest Faux Emotional Ballad/Commercial Radio Cookie-Cutter Band"
and then we can let the Coldplay & U2 fans duke it out over who truly deserves that title.
this way, everyones happy. |
| February 9th, 2006 03:13 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
I just think that in order to be given the title "Worlds Greatest R&R Band" you should at least be able to play Rock & Roll music.
I'm sure theres a more appropriate title we could give to those Dubliers, in terms of the type of music they play...
like maybe... "Worlds Greatest Faux Emotional Ballad/Commercial Radio Cookie-Cutter Band"
and then we can let the Coldplay & U2 fans duke it out over who truly deserves that title.
this way, everyones happy.
Preach on!! As far as Coldplay goes, their more of a radio-friendly version of Radiohead than anything. |
| February 9th, 2006 05:05 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
I still want to know why the hell U2 got grammies so early on and it took the academy 30 years to recognize the Stones existence.
because there was no rock category at the Grammys between 1966 and 1979 - thereby missing the Stones' best period |
| February 9th, 2006 05:07 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
well, USA Today certainly isn't on ANYONE'S "Best" list. |
