| October 23rd, 2004 02:07 AM |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
I pretty much agree with everything you said there, SS. U2 ain't all that great. And besides, Bono's a twat anyway. |
| October 23rd, 2004 06:42 AM |
|
|
| beer |
I just saw a commercial for some army video game, and it had "Paint it Black" playin as the theme song.
Then, on the news, I saw some people in Tacoma gave Bono a notebook that was stolen from U2 20 years ago. evidently stolen from some gig. it had early pictures and lyrics written by bono. I'm pretty sure it was an early diagram on the benefits of wearing sunglasses at all hours of the night.
|
| October 23rd, 2004 07:07 AM |
|
|
| beer |
http://u2log.com/archive/002943.shtml
- |
| October 23rd, 2004 07:10 AM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
SS- not in the top 50, c'mon man! |
| October 23rd, 2004 07:12 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Some Guy wrote:
SS- not in the top 50, c'mon man!
No, no way. Bono's taste in sun glasses completely disqualifies U2.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| October 23rd, 2004 09:24 AM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
No, not in my top 50. Probably not even in my top 100. But I'm sure my tastes run differently from yours.
Look, like whatever you wanna like....I don't care, it's not my ears. But comparing U2 to The Rolling Stones is just crazy talk. |
| October 23rd, 2004 10:10 AM |
|
|
| Navin |
Unfortunately, I happen to share my birthday with
Mr. Twat....on the 10th of May...also born on this date was the late Sid Vicious!!
I was born on May 10, 1972 - Two days before the international release of 'Exile on Main St' |
| October 23rd, 2004 01:20 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
That's funny, beer. I heard that on television last night. I didn't look at the TV; I was up on a chair re-arranging my bookshelves. But I heard enough of it to make me laugh.
SS, U2 is not even in my top 200. They just suck...and Bono is a major twat. |
| October 23rd, 2004 04:51 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
You are going to be reading a lot of this in about a month, so we're getting in early: U2's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is going to be hailed as one of the best albums they've ever made.
Bono, for one, is most excited, and when he makes the claim "This is our first album!" it's easy to see where he's coming from.
While All That You Can't Leave Behind -� where did that four years go? -� was a wonderful record, this one finds the Edge in a very frisky mood. Wall of Edge? Tower of Edge? This time it's more like the Himalayas of Edge.
"You can never tell what he'll be into," Bono explains. "It might be keyboards. Larry will go, 'We'll never get a rock song out of him!' "
No such problems on this occasion. A sneak preview reveals 11 tracks that capture the essence of early U2 while still creating something that's vital and fresh, still with a sense of adventure.
Songs like "Miracle Drug" and "City of Blinding Lights" recall the rush of early albums Boy, October and War. "Love and Peace or Else" couldn't make itself more plain -� "Lay down your guns or else" -� before Edge's monster riffs take hold.
Others get the slow-shimmer treatment, with Larry Mullen giving his toms the full Mo Tucker Effect (that's Mo Tucker of the Velvet Underground) on "One Step Closer."
Hit singles? Loads of them, it seems, but look out for "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own," which starts off with acoustic guitar before kicking into gear with a super-catchy falsetto section in the chorus. Bono wrote the song after the death of his father.
Anthems? All over the shop, and the album concludes with two songs destined to be stage favourites, "Original of the Species" and "Yahweh" (which, translated from the Hebrew, is "God"). Millions will be waving their arms along with them on next year's world tour.
Did we say "world tour"? You bet. What's more, we're assured Australia is in the frame, probably for indoor shows about this time next year. About time.
The album will be released in several formats, including one with bonus DVD and tunes (including the Edge's banjo version of the new single, "Vertigo"!), and a deluxe edition with 48-page booklet, DVD and an extra track, "Fast Cars."
U2-ologists will have to be fast to treat themselves with that for Christmas, with just 15,000 being shipped in Australia.
The band continue their relationship with Apple, cutting a deal with the computer company to sell custom iPods promoting the new album.
Sources close to the group say the U2 edition of the digital music player will come preloaded with the album, along with portions of the band's 25-year catalogue.
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is out on November 22.
|
| October 23rd, 2004 10:38 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
U2 is on my Top 10, they did (and are doing) great records and are the only European band of the 80's (in activity) with appeal for the kids. |
| October 24th, 2004 08:57 AM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
VERTIGO
Storming first single is an ideal introduction to the sound of Atomic Bomb: it's familiar U2 with a big nod to the past but an eye on the present. Bono admits they have hidden references to Stories for Boys, from the first U2 EP, in the song for "trainspotters." The song -- about being in a rock band -- was originally called "Native Son." U2 have owned up to an Echo and the Bunnymen influence in the rhythm section, interestingly the same band that inspired the last Coldplay album. This song also features in a new iPod ad.
Key lyric: "The boys play rock and roll, they know that they can't dance, at least they know."
MIRACLE DRUG
An obvious single -- and anthem-in-waiting -- this powerful yet understated ballad could have come from The Unforgettable Fire. Like most of the ballads on the record, it has a huge finish and even bigger heart. Bono has said the lyrics refer to treatments for AIDS.
Key lyric: "The stars are in your eyes, I see them when you smile, I had enough of the antidote to give it up for a miracle drug."
SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T MAKE IT ON YOUR OWN
Sure to be a single -- this may well be U2's most touching ballad since "One." It's written about Bono's late father and when you hear lyrics such as, "You don't have to put up a fight, you don't have to always be right, let me take some of the punches for you tonight" and learn Bono sat by his dad's bedside most nights as he was dying, it's spine-tingling. Bono sings the chorus in falsetto, and the lyric is highly autobiographic: "You're the reason I have the operas in me" relates to his dad's love of classical music, while he notes similarities to his dad in the line, "It's you when I look in the mirror, it's you when I pick up the phone."
Key lyric: "You and I fight all the time, that's all right, we're the same soul -- if we weren't so alike you'd like me a whole lot more."
LOVE AND PEACE OR ELSE
One of the record's stranger tracks, it starts with a dose of distorted feedback before moving into a weirdly funky groove -- the same kind of grimy swagger Nick Cave has on his records. Always sounds like something's trying to burst out from underneath.
Key lyric: "Lay your love on the track, we're gonna break the monster's back."
CITY OF BLINDING LIGHTS
Written as a love song to New York, it once again has that trademark Edge guitar running throughout and is a very big, very 1980s-sounding (again very Unforgettable Fire) downtempo tune. Bono states, "You look so beautiful tonight in the city of blinding lights."
Key lyric: "Can you see the beauty inside of me?"
ALL BECAUSE OF YOU
Another future single, this is a surprisingly simple U2 rock song -- punchy riffs with a spiky chorus and a live feel. A love song with a raucous finale, in which Bono sings, "I'm not broke but you can see the cracks -- you can make me perfect again."
Key lyric: "I like the sound of my own voice, I didn't give anyone else a choice."
A MAN AND A WOMAN
Bono says the inspiration was to mix the Clash and Marvin Gaye, which creates a very warm feel; there's more falsetto at the end and a great bass line. It's a love song to Bono's wife, with telling lyrics like, "I could never take a chance of losing love to find romance, I could never understand the mysterious distance between a man and a woman."
Key lyric: "The only pain is to feel nothing at all."
CRUMBS FROM YOUR TABLE
More trademark Edge guitar graffiti all over the place on the kind of driving rock song commercial radio will wet its pants over. Impassioned lyrics about the AIDS crisis (Bono mentions by name a Sister Anne he met in a Ugandan AIDS hospice) heighten the mood with a chorus that runs, "I'd believe it if I was able, but I'm living on the crumbs from your table." Big ending too.
Key lyric: "Where you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die."
ONE STEP CLOSER
Another song about Bono's father (Noel Gallagher inspired the title when he told Bono his father was "one step closer to knowing," this slow-burning track could have slipped on to Rattle and Hum; a mixture of guitar and strings that never kicks in, despite threatening to.
Key lyric: "A heart that hurts is a heart that beats."
ORIGINAL OF THE SPECIES
Interesting arrangement -- this keeps building to become a traditional U2 epic, complete with strings, an anthemic feel and some "do do do's" for good measure. The Edge says the song is partially about his daughter Holly; Bono is her godfather. Bono sings, "I want a lot of what you've got, I want nothing that you're not" and "Everywhere you go you shout it, you don't have to be shy about it."
Key lyric: "Some things you shouldn't get too good at, like smiling, crying and celebrity."
YAHWEH
Once again, very Unforgettable Fire. It's your big rock song (very U2) albeit with a folky edge (very U2) taking its title from the Hebrew word for God (very U2). Bono says in religious history, Yahweh isn't meant to be spoken but hopes he got around it by singing it. The final line runs, "No man can own, no man can take, take this heart and make it break."
Key lyric: "Take this soul stranded in some skin and bone and make it sing; take this mouth so quick to criticise and give it a kiss."
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Universal) out Nov. 22.
Fans should keep an eye out for a limited-edition Atomic Bomb box set, which comes with a 48-page book full of Bono's drawings, a bonus track ("Fast Cars"), and a DVD with documentary footage plus live acoustic performances of "Sometimes You Can't Make it on Your Own" and the Edge and Bono playing "Vertigo" on a banjo.
The album's third single will be released in May on the same day their first single for Island Records was released 25 years ago -- to celebrate that record's silver jubilee.
Oh, and they have included Australia on their next world tour -- expect them here this time next year.
|
| October 25th, 2004 02:13 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
SS, some good posts there. You remind me of me, before i found out Live Licks was coming out. Now, all bets are off. I didnt see a posting of record sales. I imagine U2 will sell around 10-13 mill of their new cd. Stones will sell about 300,000k, if lucky. About 150,000 of that will be oldies radio station give aways.
Dont worry too much about the concert takings. U2 will take over that mantle too, one day. All records held by the Stones, will be gone. U2, more than likely, will pinch all their achievements.
And, i hope they do. I hope this U2 tour is a massive successs. Hope it is tour of the year in 2005. As it WILL be voted by punters and critics.
U2 fires on all 4 cylinders in a live situation. With all the hangers-on, the Stones have about 15 cylinders. And not all are working (Ronnie, Chuck, Blondie). I have hated the Broadway versions of Sympathy and Satisfaction for ages. I'm sick to death of 10 minute versions of Honky Tonk Women. If i hear IORR again, i'll scream.
U2 have at least 10 years left. No worries. This cd can propel them through 2-3 duds.
How many years have the Stones got?
I'll tell ya another thing, in your post on (i think) page 4). With all the songs you mentioned, apart from (bizarrely) Hand of Fate, all the other songs are from like a 4 year period. Most of the songs you mentioned are from the same year. 1969. As aweome as those songs are, thats pretty freaking sad, innit? The only good songs you can name are when the bloody Beatles were still around!
This all sounds like i am U2 fanboy #1. I aint. I hate them with a passion of the Christ.
But, their monster success means 1 good thing for us. Or, at least it did. When Mick & Keith were challenged (Beatles, Brian, punk, themselves) they always got their hackles up, and fought back. Often, with devastatingly powerful results. If they still have pride and a hint of ego (as opposed to just being used to being feted and pampered by blinkered fanboys/girls, who say "they owe me nothing") then they can rise to the plate once again, and release a killer cd of their own. I hope.
I tell ya though, Live Licks aint fucking it!
Dont you see the comparisons? U2, the challengers, still hungry and vital, release what looks like to be a monster cd (after their previous cd was also a monster smash) and the old champions, soft of heart and mind, release ANOTHER FUCKING LIVE RECORD OF EDITED, RE-RECORDED, DIFFERENT SHOWS, BORING, CRAP!
Mind you, Brown Sugar is on it!
|
| October 25th, 2004 08:58 AM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>I imagine U2 will sell around 10-13 mill of their new cd. Stones will sell about 300,000k, if lucky. About 150,000 of that will be oldies radio station give aways.<
But so what? Brittany Spears and Celine Dion sells that much too. It doesn't mean anything other than John Q Public has shitty taste and will buy whatever is crammed down their necks...like good consumers will do. If the Stones put out an album of new material it will sell around 2 million copies worldwide. With the success of Four Flicks, I don't see Live Licks selling any better than No Security did. 300,000K sounds about right. I'll buy one. I doubt that I'll listen to it, but I'll buy one for on the shelf.
>U2 fires on all 4 cylinders in a live situation. With all the hangers-on, the Stones have about 15 cylinders. And not all are working (Ronnie, Chuck, Blondie). I have hated the Broadway versions of Sympathy and Satisfaction for ages. I'm sick to death of 10 minute versions of Honky Tonk Women. If i hear IORR again, i'll scream. <
I've seen U2 twice. They are not a bad live band. But they sure as shit ain't no Stones show. Look, The Rolling Stones have painted themselves into a corner, Corgi. The average Joe who plunks down his $100.00 to see the Stones lately expects to see a 10 minute Honky Tonk Women. They scream bloody murder if they don't get to hear IORR, Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, and JJF. Like it or not, the warhorses will always get played. The Stones simply HAVE to play them. It's what 98% of the audience WANTS to hear! They don't let people like you or I make up the set list...it's mass consumption stuff. Once you come to terms with that, the shows are great entertainment. And there are ALWAYS a few spots in those shows where you go "Holy shit! Listen to THAT!".
>I'll tell ya another thing, in your post on (i think) page 4). With all the songs you mentioned, apart from (bizarrely) Hand of Fate, all the other songs are from like a 4 year period. Most of the songs you mentioned are from the same year. 1969. As aweome as those songs are, thats pretty freaking sad, innit? The only good songs you can name are when the bloody Beatles were still around!<
I think if you read the entire paragraph, you will see that I said I could name about 20-30 more songs. I still could if you really really want me to do so. I haven't yet due to brevity. I mean, it's stuff we already know. How's this.....Saint Of Me and Out Of Control are better than anything U2 has ever done. Slave is better than anything U2 have ever done. The entire Some Girls album is better than anything U2 have ever done...even the filler stuff. Good enuff?
>How many years have the Stones got?<
They already got 40 under the belt. I think we'll see a 50th anniversary show. Like I said earlier, let's see what U2 are doing when they are 60 year old men.
>If they still have pride and a hint of ego (as opposed to just being used to being feted and pampered by blinkered fanboys/girls, who say "they owe me nothing") then they can rise to the plate once again, and release a killer cd of their own. I hope.<
Honestly, if the new album is going to be anything like the 4 new songs on 40 Licks, then I hope it never happens. I'm happy with what I already have. I don't "need" to have a new Stones album....especially a mediocre effort. But even if a new album isn't a "killer", I'll bet that there will be at least one or two songs that blow everyone else outta the water.
>and the old champions, soft of heart and mind, release ANOTHER FUCKING LIVE RECORD OF EDITED, RE-RECORDED, DIFFERENT SHOWS, BORING, CRAP!
Mind you, Brown Sugar is on it!<
I understand your righteous indignation about Live Licks. I agree completely. But The Rolling Stones have contractual obligations. With Ronnie and Charlie's health problems a new studio release was pushed back. But the Stones are still under obligation to their record company to deliver product. That is why we get crap like No Security and Live Licks. Dude, it's just business.
And yeah, Brown Sugar IS on it. And that is a good thing...it's a great song. Just because you have heard it a million times doesn't mesan that it's not a great song.
Example: I was just at a college footabll game with 108,000 of my closest pals. While the teams were out warming up before the game, someone decided that it would be a good thing to blast Brown Sugar over the PA system. I kid you not, people were dancing in the aisles, shaking their rumps, and singing along. Young and old alike. The entire stadium was shaking. Then the new U2 song "Vertigo" came on a little while later...to vast indifference. No rump shaking, no singing. No one cared. I think that speaks volumes....no? |
| October 25th, 2004 09:22 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
Thanks Some Guy for all the U2 information --- my friends who happen to like U2 appreciate it .
Er , any news on tour dates ?!?!?! I have heard that most of the major United States Arenas have already been booked .
Tiger ! |
| October 25th, 2004 10:36 AM |
|
|
| F505 |
hi joey see you in the Hollywood Bowl |
| October 25th, 2004 11:30 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
F505 wrote:
hi joey see you in the Hollywood Bowl
Hello F505 -- Big plans for  today ?!?!
|
| October 25th, 2004 11:36 AM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
I'll say this. I've heard the entire U2 album and it is strong. No,they are not in the same league as the Stones,but in this day and age nobody is,or ever will be again. The problem is not the bands,but rather the industry. Had the Stones come out in say 1981 they would have been dropped years ago. That's a sad fact. There is no more artistic development within the record industry. Now the company that releases the cds is the same company that makes the cd players to play them on. It's all about the bottom line these days. That's one reason that U2 should be admired. While they may not be your cup of meat. They still manage to put out music that is not only radio friendly,but is actully catchy and you can shake your ass to it. They also always put asses in the seats when they tour. Considering these qualifications the Stones can only claim the later. They have not put out anything commercially viable since 1994,and that was only marginally successful sales wise.
Obviously the Stones have lost their collective "fire in the belly" that they had for so long. In fact I'd go so far as to say that they lost that fire all the way back in 1981. The last album that they made that was really a "statement" album was Some Girls in '78. At least with U2,like em or hate em,they are still reaching. Not so with the Stones. Mick and Keith no longer have that competitive edge to their work. At least in 1978 they answered the punk movement with Some Girls. You can hardly blame them I suppose. They are victims of their own success,and I have no doubts that they could give two shits about competeing with U2 or anyone else.
So the sad fact is that U2 is the most successfull band in the world that still has credibility with their new work. In an age where a shit band like Incubus can sell out major arenas I long for the days when bands had the real rockstar attitude and the musical chops to back it up. The Stones wrote the book on that attitude and U2 has gladly picked up the torch. Although,with nowhere near the debauchery and swagger that the Stones brought to the game.
The new U2 album is going to be huge. It is a very good record. Whether you like them or not,they are hard to ignore when they put out material this strong.
Riffhard
[Edited by Riffhard] |
| October 25th, 2004 11:53 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
I'll say this. I've heard the entire U2 album and it is strong. No,they are not in the same league as the Stones,but in this day and age nobody is,or ever will be again. The problem is not the bands,but rather the industry. Had the Stones come out in say 1981 they would have been dropped years ago. That's a sad fact. There is no more artistic development within the record industry. Now the company that releases the cds is the same company that makes the cd players to play them on. It's all about the bottom line these days. That's one reason that U2 should be admired. While they may not be your cup of meat. They still manage to put out music that is not only radio friendly,but is actully catchy and you can shake your ass to it. They also always put asses in the seats when they tour. Considering these qualifications the Stones can only claim the later. They have not put out anything commercially viable since 1994,and that was only marginally successful sales wise.
Obviously the Stones have lost their collective "fire in the belly" that they had for so long. In fact I'd go so far as to say that they lost that fire all the way back in 1981. The last album that they made that was really a "statement" album was Some Girls in '78. At least with U2,like em or hate em,they are still reaching. Not so with the Stones. Mick and Keith no longer have that competitive edge to their work. At least in 1978 they answered the punk movement with Some Girls. You can hardly blame them I suppose. They are victims of their own success,and I have no doubts that they could give two shits about competeing with U2 or anyone else.
So the sad fact is that U2 is the most successfull band in the world that still has credibility with their new work. In an age where a shit band like Incubus can sell out major arenas I long for the days when bands had the real rockstar attitude and the musical chops to back it up. The Stones wrote the book on that attitude and U2 has gladly picked up the torch. Although,with nowhere near the debauchery and swagger that the Stones brought to the game.
The new U2 album is going to be huge. It is a very good record. Whether you like them or not,they are hard to ignore when they put out material this strong.
Riffhard
[Edited by Riffhard]
Great Post Riffy ..........Thanks !
Please feel free to take the rest of the day off .............................. |
| October 25th, 2004 03:22 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Thanks so much Joey! I try so hard,but it seems all my most impressive work is ignored by the masses. Alas,you like me. You really like me! That means alot. I always try to post cognizant well thought out posts. As you also are always so meticulous to the nature of your own exceptionaly well reserched posts I consider your praise high praise indeed!
Needless to say you are much loved by the Riffy!
Riffhard |
| October 25th, 2004 03:53 PM |
|
|
| Factory Girl |
I've heard "all that you can't Leave" cd and thought it was horrible and dreary. I think it sold 10 million. I expect the new cd to do no less. It means nothing...U2 lost their fire 10-12 years ago. U2 is so obsolete.
Yawn. |
| October 25th, 2004 04:31 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Obsolete in your mind maybe FG. However,the Stones have not sold 10 million of any of their albums. So obviously U2 is far from obsolete in the eyes of at least 10 million people.
I ain't about praising or ripping on U2. The facts are though that the choices are fairly clear. You can admit that U2 is putting out commercialy viable music that has a good groove(whether you dig that groove is another story)that makes stadiums fill and has people shaking their asses. Or you can say that U2 sucks and that they are nowhere near as good as the Stones were in their heyday. One thing that no one here can claim though is that the Stones are anywhere near as popular as U2 when it comes to selling new music to the masses. Sadly U2 easily wins that race. However,as I stated before the Stones just don't care about the studio output anymore apparently. They have decades of prior success that U2 will never be able to touch.
Given the choice of new U2 and new Incubus,Greenday,Godsmack,Fuel,Linkin Park,Hoobastank,and all the other shit bands out today I will gladly praise and,yes even admire good music by U2 when I hear it. The new U2 is good and damned near great judging by the shit standards of the day. It ain't Exile on Main St.,but then again neither was Bridges to Babylon!
Riffhard |
| October 25th, 2004 04:40 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
As you also are always so meticulous to the nature of your own exceptionaly well reserched posts I consider your praise high praise indeed!
Needless to say you are much loved by the Riffy!
Riffhard
Bless you Riffy ...........Your words mean a lot -- especially on days like today when my I.B.S. ( Irritable Bowel Syndrome ) and Bell's Palsey are BOTH absolutely RAGING !!!! Plus , I have developed a sharp pain in me lower back and I have been coughing up blood due to the " Mass " in the pit of me stomach .
Yet , surprisingly , I feel quite " Frisky " this afternoon and just seeing that AP Shot of Bill Clinton and our Next President of these United ( ?!?! ) States , John Kerry , on stage together in Pennsylvania has gotten me quite erectable .
" Taurus Bull by the horns Ronnie ! "
Little Frisky ! |
| October 25th, 2004 05:29 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Riffhard makes an excellent point. There is no developing in the music industry anymore.
You know where it all started?
Peter Motherfucked Frampton.
That stupid "Peter Frampton Live" sold bazillions, and cost the record company next to nothing to put out...the sales were almost total complete profit. So what happened? This gave the Frampton's record company an idea. We can put out shitty music, on the cheap, and if we have a cute guy on the cover it will sell big and make us bazillions. If it doesn't sell, the company didn't invest much, so it's not a big loss. This is the start of the decline. Record companies no longer offered multi-album deals. You got one shot. If you made the record company enough money(and that bar keeps raising)on your debut, then you got a chance at a second record. If your record fizzeled, you went back to into oblivian.
Which brings me to this. Bands can take back the industry. With better advancements in computers and digital music devices like the iPod, bands can record their own music, and sell it via download or mail order on the internet. Cut out the middle man.
That will be a good thing, IMO. |
| October 25th, 2004 05:35 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Riffhard makes an excellent point. There is no developing in the music industry anymore.
You know where it all started?
Peter Motherfucked Frampton.
That stupid "Peter Frampton Live" sold bazillions, and cost the record company next to nothing to put out...the sales were almost total complete profit. So what happened? This gave the Frampton's record company an idea. We can put out shitty music, on the cheap, and if we have a cute guy on the cover it will sell big and make us bazillions. If it doesn't sell, the company didn't invest much, so it's not a big loss. This is the start of the decline. Record companies no longer offered multi-album deals. You got one shot. If you made the record company enough money(and that bar keeps raising)on your debut, then you got a chance at a second record. If your record fizzeled, you went back to into oblivian.
Which brings me to this. Bands can take back the industry. With better advancements in computers and digital music devices like the iPod, bands can record their own music, and sell it via download or mail order on the internet. Cut out the middle man.
That will be a good thing, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
V |
| October 25th, 2004 05:44 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
You know where it all started?
Peter Motherfucked Frampton.
He contributed certainly, but I think it was the Eagles. Seriously. That mass produced phony garbage for people who listen to music without really feeling one way or the other about it. When the Eagles became the biggest selling band in the world, it was all fucking over.
Now all we have are bongs, alcohol, and several hundred Stones boots to remind us that there ever even was a music god named Mongo. |
| October 25th, 2004 07:09 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
quote:
Joey wrote:
Thanks Some Guy for all the U2 information --- my friends who happen to like U2 appreciate it .
Er , any news on tour dates ?!?!?! I have heard that most of the major United States Arenas have already been booked .
Tiger !
Hello Joey,
I haven't seen tour info yet.
{The Falcons didn't bring their A-game.}
|
| October 25th, 2004 09:01 PM |
|
|
| Poplar |
I've been looking into it. This is the word on the street. Looks like US tour in Spring, Europe in summer. The US tour is also said to be (like Elevation) arenas.
March 2005: Miami (tour opener)
March, 2005: Boston (possible tour opener)
June, 2005: Amsterdam (Arena)
June 26 & 27, 2005: Dublin (Croke Park)
June 2005 or 2006: Glastonbury Festival, UK
July/August: Lisbon, PT (Stadium Jose de Alvalade)
August 10, 2005: Madrid (Vicente Calderon Stadium)
Canada
Europe
Japan
December 2005/early 2006: Australia |
| October 25th, 2004 10:11 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
US is free since June, the Stones will tour there in July/August. |
| October 25th, 2004 10:53 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
SS, good reply once again. I'm being more of a Devils advocate here. As i was prior to the Licks tour. Of course sales mean nothing. If they did, all us Stones fans would be fucked, because just about every major act has outsold us, or will have the potential to do so. Means nothing to me. But, i'd rather they sold 300,000k of a rarities cd, than another live crap-fest.
Your tale of Brown Sugar being played at a game was good. I liked it. And, i fully expect the war horses to be played live. Man, i'd be pissed if i didnt hear jjflash or others of its ilk. But, its their presentation that bugs me. Man, i even hate Sympathy now. It's just a fucking disco song with a couple of solos thrown in.
They USED to re-arrange their tunes arrangements. HTW, Satisfaction and Gimme Shelter are nothing like they were in 69. Sympathy has changed so much since 69, 75 - but has essentially been the same disco stu number since 89. And, those fucking flame graphics and Keith's eyeball in close up have been used since 94! I'd love to see the song resemble something like it was back in its original form. Or (and dont laugh) like it was on love you live.
Live, the Stones are amazing. Cant argue there. But, geez, dont ya just wish they'd ditch a couple of crappy, boring old songs, and try to make classics out of more recent songs? Dont dare try to tell me people go to a gig to hear Street fighting man or IORR. I mean, did you miss MISS YOU? I bloody didnt. Not the 10 minute version anyway. The boring, predictable version, with Ronnie and Bobbie Keys doing their fake "battle" - AGAIN!
Or the now termially dull Gimme Shelter? They had the chance to make something like Love is strong or saint of me killer replacements for some of the old tired stuff. But they didnt. In fact, Love is strong isnt even on the VL video - and it was the major single of the cd! That is just plain bizarre!
Trouble is, and not just the STones, but its all so choreographed due to the lights. But, surely there is potential to make it NOT look so fake and predictable. You could see HTW on every show on VL & B2B, and you would have seen Keith play Chuck's keyboards, and witness the 2 of them kick the keyboards at the end of their "solo". I mean, ok once. Ok, twice for the video - but for 2 freaking tours! Cant say 100% for sure if Chuck did it on Licks.
The most annoying thing that people say, is that they owe them nothing. That is just admitting you are a sheep. You MUST demand more from you band. So long as they insist on being a viable act, and refuse to say they are purely nostalgia, then we all should demand they get off their lazy old asses and do something about it. Anything. Rarities, unreleased stuff - anything. If they say "We've had it, we'll just tour every 3 years, and play all your faves", then so be it. Otherwise, they are bullshitting you and me and everyone. And, with an umpteenth, unwarranted live cd coming out, i feel very angry about being bullshitted to. Why dont they just take up residency in Branson, Missouri, and be done with it?
Yeah, and they are old. Sure. Fine. Quit then. If you havent got it, fucking quit and just be a cashing in touring band every now and then. I'd respect them more if they did. But, do you recall the photo of Keith after the last of the Licks shows? He was almost crying! That doesnt look like a guy ready to call it a day and spend his life tending to his garden. But, then again, Keith just likes playing live. Who can blame him! It's the other shit he aint into anymore. You know, writing new stuff, being inspired to create ("incoming!" as he USED to say), making a contribution. Fuck, he cant even play Satisfaction any more. Blondie does it! Keith mostly poses and spreads his legs. And, at 60, good on him!
Now, SS, its cool to say they are old and shit and dont have to compete with younger bands. Oh, but they do, my friend! They bloody do! It's a tough old world. The young lions challenge the head of the pride all the time. Live, we know the Stones are awesome. But, is it them now? Or is it the 3 back up singers, including 1 sneaky guitar player (Blondie), the 25 thousand strong brass section or the key board guy/music arranger, complete with fucking samples (intro to Sympathy). I mean, the Stones NEED him now. Rely on him! Have done for a decade. What a disgrace! As i said, i dont mind at all hearing the warhorses. But, Satisfaction is more Broadway than rock and roll. It goes way too long, and is just over taken by brass. JJflash is also. It's gay! I expect the Rockettes to come out one day. Cant they even ditch all the side men for the club shows? Just them. Fuck the rest.
Now, after the debacle of Live Licks is over, am i right in saying they have 1 more recording of new material to deliver? Cause if so, that will be the last one. They will not be offered another deal. And, they dont deserve one. Actually, they probably dont want one. By the answers to many of you on this board, you dont want one anyway.
You just want the fluffy old blanket that is "the stuff we know". You people forgive them so easily, that they then think "Fuck the sheep, we can get away with this year after year". What happens next year? A new cd? Cool! I'll buy it! A tour! Cool! If they come here (And dont even get me started on their attitude to touring Oz) i'll see them. And, pay $400 - no problems. What then? If they release a live cd after that, are you going to buy it? Are you going to encourage them to pick your pocket again? And, i just thought of this as i typed it. Damn! I bet there will be another live cd after the next studio one. Fuck!
There will never be another Exile - well der. Not even another Dirty Work. But, for God's sake, i'd still like my fave band, my life since i was 17, to at least TRY. To at least have a bit of pride and heart.
Or, to just put me out of my misery and get it over with. At least then i'll have 40 odd years of unreleased stuff to purchase about this time every year.
P.S. I have a splitting headache.
|
| October 25th, 2004 11:19 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>One thing that no one here can claim though is that the Stones are anywhere near as popular as U2 when it comes to selling new music to the masses. Sadly U2 easily wins that race.<
I've said this before, and I'll keep saying on saying it....being able to claim big sales in today's music climate is meaningless. It has very very little to do with actual music. It's all image and promotion nowadays. The music...the thing that most interests me...is secondary. If you get your face on TRL and your video on the MTV countdown, you will sell big numbers...even when your shit stinks. I mean, c'mon, we all see what is selling big...and it ain't rock and roll music.
The biggest age group demographic that buys most of the music is not going to be interested in a bunch of 60 year old guys who play guitars. It's just a fact. Teens and young adults consider the Stones as "Mom and Dad" music....the Stones don't even have a guy on turntables!
But so what, you know? The Rolling Stones have the very BEST back catalogue of Rock and Roll music. There is no doubt about that. It is my opinion that this is the only proper way to "judge" a band....by the music that they make. When you compare each bands catalogue of songs, not only are the Stones more prolific, but the actual songs are just better and more varied.
Also, as a live act, the Stones know no equals...the Who probably came close in the late 60's and early 70's...and are still a strong live act today. We may bitch about the warhorses and Chuck Leavell's Broadway show tune arrangements, but that is only obsessive fans like us. Your average Joe/Jane finds it entertaining as hell. The Licks shows I was at...the places were going bonkers for Satisfaction and Brown Sugar. Folks were singing as loud as they could for IORR. We hardcore fanatics may be tired of that stuff...but not the unwashed masses. That is what they came to hear.
I've seen U2 twice. The crowd reaction is NOTHING like at a Stones show. I didn't see much dancing...in fact the 2nd time I saw them, everyone on the floor was SITTING in their seats!!! People would stand up after a song and clap or maybe whistle...and then SIT BACK DOWN!!! Can you imagine being on the floor for a Stones show...and sitting in your seat for the entire show?? There is just no way.
So let's add things up.
1. Songs-Stones
2. Live Act-Stones
3. Record Sales Over A Career-Stones
4. Recent Record Sales-U2
Stones win 3 to 1. |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]