|
|
| corgi37 |
Like Qwest for example?
Bloody hell, you Paltrow haters amaze me. She was hot as a bald mans head in summer in "Shallow Hal" (when she wasnt in the fat suit).
Sure, she needs some titties and needs to eat some frigging red meat, but she is pretty cute.
If Colplay are the new U2, then i want the old one. But U2 are not the new Stones. But, they very well may be. They have enough momentum to easily cruise through the next 5-10 years.
The Stones dont have that luxury. And sure, the Stones impact on rock is massive. But hey, all them 60's fans (like me) are really, really getting on now and are seen as very, very quaint. Even original punks are in their bloody 40's now! The drummer in the Stranglers is about Charlies age. It all seems so long ago, and frankly, its all so out dated and passe to todays fans.
And, thats not even taking into account rock is fucked and the rap, hip-hop, r&b, urban music stuff has taken over.
To cut a long story short
U2 sux
Beatles - 2 down, 2 to go
Coldplay is valium for the masses
Gwyneth Paltrow is "do-able" - but maybe Liz Hurley is more so.
Aussies are the nicest people
And the Stones are ...
nah, i aint praising them. Fuck them for not touring here. The old goats. |
|
|
| Gazza |
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.
They were having minor hit singles - not number one singles
I'd seriously doubt Steel Wheels sales were at U2's level -Some Girls and Tattoo You certainly would have been, though.
The 1989 tour was indeed much bigger as you say. Being the first one for eight years certainly helped. But on a level playing field, (ie with ticket prices being in the same range), the Stones will always far outsell everyone else. It's the one area where their status as no. 1 is and always has been indisputable |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
They were having minor hit singles - not number one singles
I'd seriously doubt Steel Wheels sales were at U2's level -Some Girls and Tattoo You certainly would have been, though.
The 1989 tour was indeed much bigger as you say. Being the first one for eight years certainly helped. But on a level playing field, (ie with ticket prices being in the same range), the Stones will always far outsell everyone else. It's the one area where their status as no. 1 is and always has been indisputable
Amen Gazza-------------------------------thanks for realizing what I have been saying......the rejection of U2 is not so much because of them, but b/c of our love of the Stones.. |
|
|
| texile |
u2 at thier best is achtung - but culturally, it's not exile...........
u2 is certainly more relevant today, the stones lost that after tattoo.......but still - the stones are the stones -
has norman mailer ever referred to u2? no, cos it's different nowadays - rock and roll is more celebrity-oriented than it was when the stones were at their peak.
can you imagine a rock and roll tour with truman capote today?
what would be the equivalent? |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
texile wrote:
u2 at thier best is achtung - but culturally, it's not exile...........
u2 is certainly more relevant today, the stones lost that after tattoo.......but still - the stones are the stones -
has norman mailer ever referred to u2? no, cos it's different nowadays - rock and roll is more celebrity-oriented than it was when the stones were at their peak.
can you imagine a rock and roll tour with truman capote today?
what would be the equivalent?
I agree with you ...... |
|
|
| telecaster |
An hour ago I just talked to my 26 yr old nephew who saw U2 in Chicago a couple weeks ago
Without comment I simply asked him how it was
"it sucked, you couldn't here Bono except for 1 song
"the band was off, and the sound was lousy"
"then Bono started lecturing us how Muslims, Christians, Jews and aethists are all the same and blah blah blah
jb is right on this one
God Bless the Rolling Stones
|
|
|
| jb |
You will be greeted... |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
It's a bit silly to compare u2 to the stones, it makes about as much sense as comparing the Stones to jimmy buffett
I do think the Stones are gonna kick some serious ass on this tour, even the stones on a bad night rock harder than Boners boys could ever imagine doing in their sleep, if I've read correctly their gonna mix up the setlists to include some of their not oft played gems like they did on the licks tour, sounds like a plan to me, but I'm also fairly confident that the new album is going to suck major dicks just like the last u2 album did
so there
|
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Like Qwest for example?
Damn Straight My Stonesian Kin .............
Corgi is " THE KING " !!!! |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
I have just realised that I’ve made a little mistake in my calculations!
25 years into they’re career and The Rolling Stones were recording Steel Wheels, NOT Dirty Work! Ha, Ha, oh well, I don’t suppose it really matters. I still think my original point holds up.
|
|
|
| corgi37 |
It stands up fine. |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
I have just realised that I’ve made a little mistake in my calculations!
25 years into they’re career and The Rolling Stones were recording Steel Wheels, NOT Dirty Work! Ha, Ha, oh well, I don’t suppose it really matters. I still think my original point holds up.
No, you were reasonably accurate first time around
DW was recorded in 1985 and released in march 86
SW was recorded and released in 1989
The Stones 25th anniversary as a band was July 1987.
They didnt work at all in 1987 as a unit, so Dirty Work is a good enough cut off point for where they were after 25 years.
|
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
They didnt work at all in 1987 as a unit, so Dirty Work is a good enough cut off point for where they were after 25 years.
Man looks in the abyss and sees the " Dirty Work " album staring back up at him .
It is at THAT point that man finds his character ....
....and THAT is what keeps man out of the abyss .
Joey Gekko ! |
|
|
| glencar |
Love Dirty Work. |
|
|
| Jaxx |
the stones are far and away superior to U2 in concert. the stones keep me involved and interested. the energy put forth by the stones every time they tour is amazing.
sad as it may sound, the U2 concert got old about 1/2 through their set. it was too loud and the vocals and guitars were garbled because of it. as excellent as the acoustics are in the venues these days, there is no reason to play that loud, imo. i enjoyed this band at the beginning of their career. the under a blood red sky concert was awesome. the november show couldn't hold a candle to it. i'm glad my tix were freebies. |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Jaxx wrote:
the stones are far and away superior to U2 in concert. the stones keep me involved and interested. the energy put forth by the stones every time they tour is amazing.
sad as it may sound, the U2 concert got old about 1/2 through their set. it was too loud and the vocals and guitars were garbled because of it. as excellent as the acoustics are in the venues these days, there is no reason to play that loud, imo. i enjoyed this band at the beginning of their career. the under a blood red sky concert was awesome. the november show couldn't hold a candle to it. i'm glad my tix were freebies.
You shall be greeted. |
|
|
| Joey |
" the stones are far and away superior to U2 in concert. the stones keep me involved and interested. the energy put forth by the stones every time they tour is amazing."
<----- You SHALL be greeted
Yes , at THE QWEST CENTER this FALL Lil' Buddy
Jacky ! ™
|
|
|
| mmdog |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
They were having minor hit singles - not number one singles
I'd seriously doubt Steel Wheels sales were at U2's level -Some Girls and Tattoo You certainly would have been, though.
The 1989 tour was indeed much bigger as you say. Being the first one for eight years certainly helped. But on a level playing field, (ie with ticket prices being in the same range), the Stones will always far outsell everyone else. It's the one area where their status as no. 1 is and always has been indisputable
Gazza,
I can't find sales figures for U2's latest. However it's already out of the Top 100. I don't think it's going to go more than double platinum based on that. Vertigo might have made number 1, and there hype around that song from the IPOD commercial. However the hype around the album, and the quality of it reall died down after that. Of course the tour is generating great hype, but so did The Steel Wheels Tour.
Also, Mixed Emotions went Top 5 in the U.S., I don't know that that is minor. I think people look back 16 years and say that the Steel Wheels album does not compare to prior output, and downgrade it. Maybe that's true. At the time, it gained good reviews and pop hits. I think 16 years from now, people are going to look back at the new U2 album, and say that it didn't compare to their best work either.
|
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Gazza,
I can't find sales figures for U2's latest. However it's already out of the Top 100. I don't think it's going to go more than double platinum based on that. Vertigo might have made number 1, and there hype around that song from the IPOD commercial. However the hype around the album, and the quality of it reall died down after that. Of course the tour is generating great hype, but so did The Steel Wheels Tour.
Also, Mixed Emotions went Top 5 in the U.S., I don't know that that is minor. I think people look back 16 years and say that the Steel Wheels album does not compare to prior output, and downgrade it. Maybe that's true. At the time, it gained good reviews and pop hits. I think 16 years from now, people are going to look back at the new U2 album, and say that it didn't compare to their best work either.
Its already more than double platinum - it sold by the absolute shitload in the first week or two. Plus its been out since November - being out of the top 100 after 7-8 months is hardly an embarrassment. There are other markets than the US, dont forget. Its been a huge selling album worldwide. It'll probably shift around ten million worldwide by the time this tour ends.
Stones albums dont last that long in the charts, nor (sadly) do they sell as well, even though they may chart pretty highly when they first come out.
I wasnt comparing the quality of the respctive releases. I dont think U2's new album is a patch on Joshua Tree or Achtung baby (their finest work IMO) but its decent enough. Some of it is great, some of it is good and some of it is just OK.
For the record, I'm actually a Stones fan who quite likes their last three studio albums. I rate BTB quite highly. They're not Exile, but then what is? They're good enough records by anyone's standards, including U2's! |
|
