|
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. |
|
Honky Tonk Man |
quote: Soldatti wrote:
I don't think so, only 1/4 of the band is living in US.
Exactly. Anyway, just because Keith resides in the US, does that mean he prefers it as a Country? I think him living there has more to do with having an American wife.
He still owns Redlands and until he renounces his British Citizenship, he'll always be a true Englishman.
The man likes Shepard’s Pie, British sausages and Tony Hancock. Can you get any more English?
It's getting silly now, but stupid and unecessary remarks provoke me in such ways. |
|
corgi37 |
U2 are bigger, no doubt. Christ, the Stones had a good run. But, not releasing new stuff from 97-2005 really dented their authority.
Thats an amazing amount of time not to release product.
Though i must say, we havent heard shit about U2's current tour over here, despite the fact they at least are probably gonna tour. Unlike those old fuckers i love/hate so much.
Yet, the Stones announcement made all the major channels news.
|
|
Rutger |
Exile, Sticky, LIB, Beggar's, Aftermath, SG, TY, the list continues.
Come on people, stop comparing U2 to the cream of Rock 'n' Roll. Stop comparing Bono to the greatest frontman of rock and stop comparing the rest of the band with the greatest rhythem section ever!!! |
|
Soldatti |
U2 will be out of the market in few years, I can't see Bono doing tours in ten years. He is into other important things outside the music too. |
|
Some Guy |
Cold Play is the new U2. Their new album is what the new U2 should have been. There is and will never be a new Stones! |
|
Soldatti |
Coldplay's new album is a bit boring too. |
|
Honky Tonk Man |
quote: Soldatti wrote:
Coldplay's new album is a bit boring too.
Indeed. I just don't get Coldplay. I remember when they could only fill theatres. By the time I got round to see them, they were playing arenas and NOW they're part of the elite league and filling stadiums!
I don't actually own X&Y. I own their first two. Enough is enough.
|
|
Gazza |
quote: Some Guy wrote:
Cold Play is the new U2. Their new album is what the new U2 should have been.
Having seen U2 two nights ago, there's no way on earth Coldplay would be capable of putting on a show like that |
|
keith_tif |
quote: Soldatti wrote:
Coldplay's new album is a bit boring too.
Coldplay's new album is a bit boring too.
I bought X&Y, the last Coloplay's album, i confirm it's very boring!
I saw Coldplay in Concert in 2001, it was rubbish and i slept! Coldplay is not made for the stage, it's music for young busyness man with attached case and who knows nothing in music!
Colplay's album is food for pigs!
Groin!!Groin!!Groin!!
When you listened las Coldplay's album, it's depressing and you want to put a ball in your head!
To conclude, don't buy Coldplay's X&Y album!!!Take your money to buy Gorilla's album or the last Springsteen's album!
|
|
corgi37 |
If you were married to Gwenyth Paltrow, would you ever even get out of bed, let alone tour? |
|
Rutger |
Why do people compare U2 to the Stones? A fairly simple question with a simple answer: because the Stones are still touring!
NOBODY compares U2 to Led Zeppelin or the Who or any other band of that status. Just because the Stones still hang around people think they can compare a pop/rock band like U2 with the greatest band that ever hit stage. It's ridiculous. Like someone else said on IORR: they will be comparing Robbie Williams to Bob Dylan soon as well.
Just listen to Midnight Rambler or Jumping Jack Flash live. Those are anthems. True works of art.
U2 is a very good band, but nothing like the Stones. |
|
Gazza |
quote: corgi37 wrote:
If you were married to Gwenyth Paltrow, would you ever even get out of bed, let alone tour?
I would. I cant stand her. She does nothing for me at all. |
|
jb |
quote: Gazza wrote:
I would. I cant stand her. She does nothing for me at all.
She is 1/2 Jewish Gazza!!!!! She needs some tits, though!!! |
|
Joey |
quote: jb wrote:
She needs some tits, though!!!
W- W- W- W- What ?!?!
|
|
Gazza |
She called her child "Apple", Josh - that in itself speaks volumes. The poor kid should have been taken off her at birth.
I'm surprised that a renowned Beatles-hater such as yourself doesnt put her on your own personal shit-list for inflicting such a moniker on her offspring
Your lengthy sabbatical has obviously caused you to lose your old sharpness
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
Gazza |
quote: jb wrote:
She needs some tits, though!!!
So do I, but for entirely different reasons |
|
Saint Sway |
I can't fathom why anyone would even feel the need to debate U2 vs Stones?
The Stones wrote "Gimme Shelter"
everything U2 wrote pales in comparison
end of discussion. |
|
Gazza |
I think youre missing the whole point of the original post which wasnt aimed at making comparisons based on your personal taste, but which always seems to descend into that anyway |
|
Saint Sway |
well music is subjective. So its always about personal taste.
hey I think U2 are allright. And they've earned their spot in rock history. But they don't deserve comparisons to the Stones. Its like comparing REM to The Beatles. |
|
telecaster |
quote: corgi37 wrote:
If you were married to Gwenyth Paltrow, would you ever even get out of bed, let alone tour?
If I was married to her I would go on a 190 country (the current number of countries that are in the UN) 6,300 city tour
And I would play four shows in every town/city
|
|
glencar |
quote: Saint Sway wrote:
well music is subjective. So its always about personal taste.
hey I think U2 are allright. And they've earned their spot in rock history. But they don't deserve comparisons to the Stones. Its like comparing REM to The Beatles.
REM was much better than the Beatles at one point. Now they too suck. |
|
Soldatti |
quote: glencar wrote:
REM was much better than the Beatles at one point. Now they too suck.
REM had two great albums (OOT & AFTP) the rest is average. |
|
Gazza |
quote: Saint Sway wrote:
well music is subjective. So its always about personal taste.
you're right on that point, but I think Alex was comparing U2's "impact" culturally 25 years into their career vs that of the Stones as they were at the same time in theirs as opposed to comparing their music.
|
|
Honky Tonk Man |
That’s pretty much it Gazza. I think this thread has spiralled away somewhat from its original point.
It's my opinion that 25 years into their career, U2 are still as popular as ever, having number 1 singles and getting lots of radio airplay, where as 25 years into the Stones career, they were considered an oldies act and in my opinion, were having less success than U2 today.
I just wanted others opinions.
|
|
Poplar |
a few months ago, when u2 stared their tour - i tried posting a year-by-year comparison of the two bands. Sadly, the formatting wouldn't let it all line up right, so i gave up. it was very telling, however. i may try again. it showed how they produced in different spurts, etc. cool stuff for any music geek.
As for your initial question, i see them as quite equal at the 25 year point as far as "big" goes. That said, U2 is EASILY making more contemporary (relevant ... whatever the right word) music than the stones were 25 years into their career. I think that's a given. Hell, it's as simple as comparing ATYCLB and what .. er, Dirty Work? Yikes. For me, that's a pretty stark contrast.
As for the stuff within those 25 years, different story.
[Edited by Poplar] |
|
Honky Tonk Man |
In agreement with you Poplar. 25 years in and in my opinion, U2 have the upper hand, but as for the music within those 25 years, well, it's The Stones all the way for cultural impact and just plain great rock n' roll. |
|
mmdog |
HTM,
Still diasgree. The Stones were still having hit singles in 1989-1990, The new album sold just as much as U2'S current one. And the tour was much bigger. |
|
Honky Tonk Man |
quote: mmdog wrote:
HTM,
Still diasgree. The Stones were still having hit singles in 1989-1990, The new album sold just as much as U2'S current one. And the tour was much bigger.
I don't doubt that Steel Wheels did see as much as U2's latest and I know The Stones had a couple of top ten hit's in the US at that time too. However, that wasn't the case in the UK, where U2 are still making number 1 in the singles chart and of course they're pretty consistent in the upper reaches of the US singles chart.
I just get the impression that it’s more acceptable to like U2 at this point in they’re career than it was to like the Stones 25 years into theirs.
|
|
Joey |
The decision to play FootBall / Baseball Stadiums was completely unconscionable .
Nobody ..... NOBODY wants to see a Stadium Concert Anymore ( let alone pay five hundred friggin bucks to do so ... )
U2's management should be commended for their astute realization that all these new arenas built in many cities throughout the United States in the past five years can command the Top Concert Dollar .
" The Irish Saved Civilization Ronnie ! "
Cass Elliot ! ™
|
|