ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
RIP Brian
© Retna with thanks to Gypsy
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2003 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: 25 Years In: U2 Vs The Rolling Stones Return to archive Page: 1 2 3
June 21st, 2005 11:17 PM
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.
June 22nd, 2005 07:09 AM
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.
June 22nd, 2005 09:04 AM
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.

June 22nd, 2005 03:27 PM
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!!!
June 22nd, 2005 07:28 PM
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.
June 22nd, 2005 07:46 PM
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!
June 22nd, 2005 08:07 PM
Soldatti Coldplay's new album is a bit boring too.
June 23rd, 2005 05:40 AM
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.
June 23rd, 2005 08:26 AM
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
June 23rd, 2005 09:05 AM
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!

June 23rd, 2005 10:38 AM
corgi37 If you were married to Gwenyth Paltrow, would you ever even get out of bed, let alone tour?
June 23rd, 2005 10:58 AM
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.
June 23rd, 2005 03:16 PM
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.
June 23rd, 2005 03:18 PM
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!!!
June 23rd, 2005 03:23 PM
Joey
quote:
jb wrote:
She needs some tits, though!!!




W- W- W- W- What ?!?!





June 23rd, 2005 03:26 PM
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]
June 23rd, 2005 03:28 PM
Gazza
quote:
jb wrote:
She needs some tits, though!!!



So do I, but for entirely different reasons
June 23rd, 2005 06:27 PM
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.
June 23rd, 2005 06:31 PM
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
June 23rd, 2005 06:35 PM
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.
June 23rd, 2005 06:39 PM
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

June 23rd, 2005 07:01 PM
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.
June 23rd, 2005 09:42 PM
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.
June 24th, 2005 05:11 AM
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.

June 24th, 2005 05:46 AM
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.
June 24th, 2005 05:50 AM
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]
June 24th, 2005 06:21 AM
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.
June 24th, 2005 01:24 PM
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.
June 24th, 2005 02:56 PM
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.
June 24th, 2005 03:10 PM
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 ! ™

Page: 1 2 3
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)