|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Okay, so maybe there have been enough threads with u2 content recently, but it’s now been 25 years since U2 burst onto the scene and I was wondering how they compare to the Stones 25 years into they’re career.
Concerts to one side, the way I see it is that U2 are still producing critically acclaimed albums, having top ten singles and getting regular airplay on the commercial radio stations.
25 years after they’re debut, the Stones are recording Dirty Work, no longer having success in the singles chart and I suspect they were getting considerably less air play on the radio.
What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
| Some Guy |
The new U2 does not move me. |
|
|
| Gazza |
No contest.
Even aside from any musical comparison which is purely subjective (and in my own personal opinion as a fan of both bands, something I can say without prejudice that the Stones win hands down),the Stones helped shape popular culture in the first decade of their career.
No band in the last 25 years can claim to have done that. Its a different world now entirely.
Plus, U2 have only made, what,eleven studio albums in that time (twelve, I guess, if you count "Passengers"). The Stones in their first quarter century released exactly 271 songs. Their Decca output alone (the first 7 years of their career) is comparable in quantity to what U2 released in a period almost four times as long.
The Stones WERE actually still getting a fair amount of TV & radio airplay by the late 80's. Its only since the '90's that radio in the UK (and I think in the US and elsewhere) has become increasingly genre and age obsessed.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Some fair points there Gazza. It’s just that to me it seems U2 are still considered trendy and while everyone knows they’ve been round the bock a few times, people do not endlessly go on about they’re ages or when they’re going to pack it in. They’re treated the same as today’s younger bands where as the Stones were being treated as an oldies act by the 80’s and maybe even earlier. |
|
|
| Gazza |
yeah but you have to realise that U2 are in their mid 40's and its NOW not a big deal to still be making music at that age or be in a band
When the Stones were hitting 40, rock n roll (as we know it) was still barely a quarter of a century old and the concept of someone playing and performing into their 40's -let alone a band still being together after 25 years - was unheard of.
None of the first 'wave' of rock n roll had stuck the pace. With the exception of Elvis, and he'd pegged out at 42.
I first saw the Stones in '82. Mick was almost 39. In a post-punk world, that was considered ANCIENT. At the time I didnt think I'd see them do another tour, simply because it was unheard of for band to still be playing two hour plus shows in their 40's. That was the press mentality at the time too. It was like there was some magical cut off point of 40 years of age, and you were considered geriatric after that.
U2 have become popular in a generation where (thanks to acts like the Stones) making good music and putting on great live shows into your 40s and even beyond isnt unusual anymore. So, they're not going to get the 'wrinkly rockers' crap from the press - partly because as long as the Stones and bands of THEIR generation are still around, they'll have that tag to themselves!
Dont forget also, that in the mid 80's, there werent very many FANS of rock music who were in their 50's and above because the music had only been around 30 years. Thats also no longer the case.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
Concerts to one side, the way I see it is that U2 are still producing critically acclaimed albums, having top ten singles and getting regular airplay on the commercial radio stations.
I don't think the point is "who gets acclaimed", but "who gets produced". And U2 haven't stopped working for the music industry. Nevertheless, very few discographies are worthy of comparison to what the Stones have achieved - I'm sure that Bono and his hard-working acolytes would agree.
We'll see when these guys become sexagenarians; other bands will be there, and not necessarily 'better'. |
|
|
| M.O.W.A.T. |
U2 gets considerably more air time because their music can be played on many formats (ie: Modern/Alternative Rock, Classic Rock, Top 40, Easy Listening...) while the Stones at best score big on Classic Rock. |
|
|
| maumau |
i agree with gazza 100%
the first 25 years of the stones are not comparable with the first 25 years of U2 if you talk either of musical production or cultural impact
i think thhat bono himself acknowledges that
beside that, but this is a matter of taste, i think that after achtung baby U2 has proudly entered their "post exile" era producing music either that has appealed to media and audience (cause/effect)because they were clever in the choice of cutting edge producers and engineers or in a kind of "stones style" that is "covering themselves" again and again. Pop is a perfect example of the first attitude All that you can... of the second. HTDTAM is unbearable to my ears.
I think they're smarter/less lazy than stones in listening to what's up in music business. They go for alternative while mick goes for pop. So that Bono and the Edge can apply the up to date "sound skin" to their nowadays derivative songs, while the stones are caught in between mick's fixation about being pop and "contemporary" and keith conservative and not curious attitude. So that, in the past 20 years, they neither got much "on the edge" of anything, nor kept in the house of blues.
nevertheless stones win hands down |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
quote:
M.O.W.A.T. wrote:
U2 gets considerably more air time because their music can be played on many formats (ie: Modern/Alternative Rock, Classic Rock, Top 40, Easy Listening...)
Well, I hope that the Stones will never be played under that format.
[Edited by MrPleasant] |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
25 years after they’re debut, the Stones are recording Dirty Work, no longer having success in the singles chart and I suspect they were getting considerably less air play on the radio.
Harlem Shuffle reached #5 in US, U2 didn't reach that high since "Desire" in November 1988. Mixed Emotions reached #5 in US too, I want to see if U2 will reach that high with a single in US in 2010.
In UK the story is different, since 1983 the Stones reached only the Top 20 during 4 times from 22 chart entries and no Top 10 at all since Start Me Up.
U2's last album achieved 3 Top 3 hits (2 were #1).
The Stones last UK #1 single was in 1969...
Question:
¿Why they didn't release Satisfaction again for the 40th anniversary?
Elvis had an amazing string of Top 5 hits this year in UK and the same happens with re-issues of classic hits as God Save The Queen or We Will Rock You. |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Thanks for all the info Soldatti.
It just seems to be U2 Mania over here at the moment. It's because they're touring of course. I just wanted to know if the Stones were being hyped in the same way 25 years into they're career. As you pointed out, U2 are still having number 1 singles where as the Stones singles were scraping the UK top 20 in the mid-80's.
It'll be interesting to see how it pans out for U2. Will they be having huge success in 15-20 years time? Touring wise, yeah, but in the studio?
|
|
|
| Gazza |
The Stones stopped being a singles orientated band in the late 60's. Beggars and Let it bleed didnt have a single in the UK and the first four albums on their own label only had one single each in the UK (even though all were big hits)
U2 simply promote themselves in a slightly different way when it comes to pushing a single. The Stones no longer bother with that market. In the UK, singles are aimed exclusively at teenagers and have a short shelf life. The fact that there are on average about 35 different number 1's in the Uk each year, almost all of which top the charts in the first week of release shows how much that market has changed down the years. In the 70's going straight in at number 1 was almost unheard of. Nowadays, hit singles always peak in their first week of release - they never climb the charts.
And obviously with U2's tour reaching the UK this week they're getting a lot of press. But no more than the Stones have traditionally got down the years. It helps that they're touring on the back of an album thats only been out for six months which is still selling well and having singles pulled from it. They're also only 3 months into their tour.
You have to remember that the Stones NEVER tour Europe behind a new album. They always come here about a year into the tour and the same length of time after the album has come out, so there isnt the same type of record company promotion involved either.
It makes good comemrcial sense for U2 to tour BOTH North America and Europe soon after the album's release to maximise sales and impact in both markets before going back to America later in the year. It's something the Stones really should think of doing because while they make more money in America, they actually have a bigger potential audience (and on the last tour, played more shows and to more people) in Europe.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Good points Gazza and I think you've left me with nothing more to add to this thread. However, did ANY of the UK Decca LP's contain singles? I can't think of any other than the compilations Good Big Hits and Through The Past Darkly. Oh, and of course TSMR had She’s A Rainbow, though be it with an annoying minute of noise at the beginning! |
|
|
| Gazza |
not too many, I guess but back in the mid 60's there was an album every six months or so anyway and three-four singles a year.
The surprising thing when you look at how active the Stones were from 1968-74, they only released 6 singles in the UK in all that time -
Jumpin Jack Flash, Honky Tonk women, Brown sugar, Tumbling dice, Angie and IORR
In the same period, they released twice as many in the US - all the above plus Street Fighting Man, Wild Horses, Happy, Heartbreaker and Aint Too Proud To Beg - not forgetting the extra 'Satanic Majesties' singles immediately preceding it, like "In Another Land" ! |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
Although it doesn’t explain things in the US, you should also remember that from TSMR onwards, the Stones albums were shorter. I personally think that two or more singles taken from a 10-song album is a rip off, especially when the b-sides were sometimes album tracks too! Maybe they didn’t have so much control over they’re US releases? |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
U2 does well because they really have very little competition. |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
U2 does well because they really have very little competition.
Amen !!!
BEST U2 YET !!!! |
|
|
| 69 Chevy |
U2 have done a good job marketing themselves. I-Pod tie in, performing at the Super Bowl, discount pricing(I only paid $9.99 for their latest release), and you can't open a paper or magazine without reading something about Bono. Their last 2 releases were well recieved and a couple greatest hits/rarities packages haven't hurt either. That said U2 will never be the groundbreakers the Stones were, simply because there is a lot less ground to break. The Stones have done it all and done it well! |
|
|
| mmdog |
Gazza has already done a good job of making the case, but I don't think this is a contest. I am speaking about North America. First off no one will ever come close to the attendance of the Steel Wheels tour. They AVERAGED over 60,000 fans a show over 59! shows. U2's arena tour will not come near that.
As far as albums and singles go, that is very comparable. Steel Wheels was still in the Top 10, well into 1990. As Soldatti stated Mixed Emotions was a top 5 single. Rock and a Hard Place made the Top 30. I was in High School then, and The Stones were still played on Top 40 stations then. Mixed Emotions would be followed by Bobby Brown or Martika. U2's latest is not on pace to go more than 2-3 times platinum. It's not even in the top 100 any longer, so it will probably end up 2X Platinum like Steel Wheels. |
|
|
| mmdog |
Gazza has already done a good job of making the case, but I don't think this is a contest. I am speaking about North America. First off no one will ever come close to the attendance of the Steel Wheels tour. They AVERAGED over 60,000 fans a show over 59! shows. U2's arena tour will not come near that.
As far as albums and singles go, that is very comparable. Steel Wheels was still in the Top 10, well into 1990. As Soldatti stated Mixed Emotions was a top 5 single. Rock and a Hard Place made the Top 30. I was in High School then, and The Stones were still played on Top 40 stations then. Mixed Emotions would be followed by Bobby Brown or Martika. U2's latest is not on pace to go more than 2-3 times platinum. It's not even in the top 100 any longer, so it will probably end up 2X Platinum like Steel Wheels. |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Jumpin Jack Flash, Honky Tonk women, Brown sugar, Tumbling dice, Angie and IORR
In the same period, they released twice as many in the US - all the above plus Street Fighting Man, Wild Horses, Happy, Heartbreaker and Aint Too Proud To Beg - not forgetting the extra 'Satanic Majesties' singles immediately preceding it, like "In Another Land" !
Outstanding Analysis ............................
Well Written , lucid , cognitive , thoroughly informative with just a hint of surreptitious insouciance .
I would like to nuzzle you .
Flacky ! ™
|
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
After much thoughtful analysis I must conclude that Bono is a wanker and U2 is unworthy of comparison with the Stones.
Perhaps U2 will soon have it's own reality TV show to find a decent lead singer, preferably one would never had a mullet cut. |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
After much thoughtful analysis I must conclude that Bono is a wanker and U2 is unworthy of comparison with the Stones.
Perhaps U2 will soon have it's own reality TV show to find a decent lead singer, preferably one would never had a mullet cut.
You make Joey smile |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
U2 is touring and the Stones will be touring. If it wasnt for coming out of my cave to check this board, I would not have know that. |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
The surprising thing when you look at how active the Stones were from 1968-74, they only released 6 singles in the UK in all that time -
Jumpin Jack Flash, Honky Tonk women, Brown sugar, Tumbling dice, Angie and IORR
In the same period, they released twice as many in the US - all the above plus Street Fighting Man, Wild Horses, Happy, Heartbreaker and Aint Too Proud To Beg - not forgetting the extra 'Satanic Majesties' singles immediately preceding it, like "In Another Land" !
Here a comparison in the period 1968-1976 for Stones UK & US singles:
UK:
06/1968 - JJF (#1)
07/1969 - HTW (#1)
05/1971 - BS (#2)
07/1971 - Street Fighting Man (#21)
05/1972 - TD (#5)
09/1973 - Angie (#5)
09/1974 - IORR (#10)
09/1975 - Out Of Time (#45)
05/1976 - Fool To Cry (#6)
9 singles
US:
01/1968 - In Another Land (#87)
06/1968 - JJF (#3)
09/1968 - SFM (#48)
08/1969 - HTW (#1)
05/1971 - BS (#1)
07/1971 - Wild Horses (#28)
05/1972 - TD (#7)
08/1972 - Happy (#22)
05/1973 - YCAGWYW (#42)
09/1973 - Angie (#1)
01/1974 - Heartbreaker (#15)
09/1974 - IORR (#16)
12/1974 - Ain't Too Proud To Beg (#17)
07/1975 - I Don't Know Why (#42)
09/1975 - Out Of Time (#81)
05/1976 - Fool To Cry (#10)
07/1976 - Hot Stuff (#49)
17 singles
The same comparison but in the period 1994-2003:
UK
07/1994 - Love Is Strong (#14)
10/1994 - YGMR (#23)
12/1994 - Out Of Tears (#36)
07/1995 - I Go Wild (#29)
11/1995 - LARS (#12)
10/1997 - ASMB (#22)
02/1998 - Saint Of Me (#26)
08/1998 - Out Of Control (#51)
12/2002 - Don't Stop (#36)
09/2003 - SFTD (#14)
10 singles
US
08/1994 - Love Is Strong (#91)
11/1994 - Out Of Tears (#60)
01/1995 - YGMR (#113)
12/1995 - LARS (#109)
03/1998 - Saint Of Me (#94)
10/2003 - SFTD (#97)
6 singles (2 didn't make the Hot 100)
|
|
|
| MrPleasant |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
01/1968 - In Another Land (#87)
That has to be one of the least typical Stones singles. And it's actually: BILL WYMAN'S IN ANOTHER LAND (WITH THE LANTERN, BY THE ROLLING STONES).
http://discosantigos.com/Singles/1967_InAnotherLand.jpg |
|
|
| winter |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
The surprising thing when you look at how active the Stones were from 1968-74, they only released 6 singles in the UK in all that time -
Jumpin Jack Flash, Honky Tonk women, Brown sugar, Tumbling dice, Angie and IORR
In the same period, they released twice as many in the US - all the above plus Street Fighting Man, Wild Horses, Happy, Heartbreaker and Aint Too Proud To Beg - not forgetting the extra 'Satanic Majesties' singles immediately preceding it, like "In Another Land" !
Once again proving that the Stones like the US better than the UK. Keith Richards is an american, god bless his connecticut living soul.
Happy 4th of July everyone!
|
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
winter wrote:
Once again proving that the Stones like the US better than the UK. Keith Richards is an american, god bless his connecticut living soul.
Happy 4th of July everyone!
If you want to get technical, Keith Richards is in fact dual-nationality. He holds BOTH a UK and US Passport.
It is true that he is a citizen of the United States, but that DOES NOT make it his nationality. If he no longer wanted to be a UK citizen, he wouldn’t of renewed his UK Passport in 1998
I think been born and bought up in England makes him English.
Slash for instance, well, you'd think he was as American as apple pie, but in interviews he has in the past declared himself to be British and he hasn't lived here since he was about twelve!
|
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
winter wrote:
Once again proving that the Stones like the US better than the UK.
I don't think so, only 1/4 of the band is living in US. |
|
|
| texile |
u2 is incomparable - along the clash, they were the beatles and stones of my generation - to me at least.
but there's just no way you can measure the stones cultural impact with u2's .......
achtung baby is thier exile but it ain't no exile. |
|
