U2 CD due out imminently. How many here will pretend/deny that U2 is less relevant today and fast approaching the Stones relevance historically?

Not I.

[thepowergoats.com]

Not even close. I doubt if many people on this board are going to say yes...

Nor I.

JR

U2 are till very relevant with great singles from every album and with all original members witch is very special IMO

Who cares? They suck and the new single is @#$%& terrible.

Quote
lynn1
U2 CD due out imminently. How many here will pretend/deny that U2 is less relevant today and fast approaching the Stones relevance historically?

they're obviously more 'relevant' today (whatever that means) because they're around 17 years younger than the Stones are. They're still seen as a 'current' band, which in fairness is something that the Stones themselves gave up on a decade ago for the nostalgia route.

Approaching the Stones' relevance historically? No - not even close. Rock n roll doesnt have the cultural impact now that it did decades ago and its too 'splintered' as an industry in the modern era for one act to have the relevance on society that artists did in the Stones' heyday.

YEAH JUST LIKE EMOTIONAL RESCUE AND HARLEM SHUFFLE RIGHT?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-01 19:01 by melillo.

No way, artistically or culturally. Lots more important artists culturally (in terms of shaking foundations) and artistically "relevant" , still out there i.e. Patti Smith. U2 are still very commercially relevant and making rock that resonates with a large audience, but they're hardly original or brilliant musically or in terms of sensibility, iconography etc. Heck their lowly producer Eno has been more influential in the long run despite minimal commercial success.

Has U2 finally lost their relevance?

We go through the six stages that every 'It' band goes through -- eventually

Toronto Sun, March 01, 2009

Darryl Sterdan


It happens to the best of them. In fact, it only happens to the best of them. And it seems it's finally happening to U2.

After more than a quarter-century of virtually uninterrupted tenure as The Most Important Band in the World (TM), it would appear Bono, The Edge, Larry Mullen Jr. and Adam Clayton have reached the ultimate plateau in a band's life -- the magical place where fame meets irrelevance.

Just look at the initial response to their 12th studio album, No Line on the Horizon, in stores and online Tuesday. Oh sure, it's getting plenty of attention -- but not the same sort of attention as their previous discs. Despite its much-hyped global premiere in January, the upbeat leadoff single "Get On Your Boots" didn't have legs, barely denting the Billboard Hot 100 before it tumbled off the chart. Their performance at last month's Grammy Awards was met with yawns of disinterest, with many fans suggesting Bono seemed tired and out of breath. None of it bodes well for Horizon's prospects with the public, which seems to feel that with U2, they've been there, heard that and thrown away the T-shirt already.

Bet Bono didn't see that coming. Tell the truth, neither did we. But we did know it was bound to happen. As any music geek can tell you, there are several stages in the life of an artist. And every act that hangs around long enough walks the same path: Aerosmith, AC/DC, Bowie, Dylan, KISS, R.E.M., Madonna, Springsteen, and countless others. Granted, not all of them go through the stages in the same order or at the same rate. Some skip stages. Others repeat them. A few get stuck in one for most of their careers. But eventually, most get to where U2 now find themselves.

Of course, the band that blazed the trail -- like so many others -- is none other than The Rolling Stones. Now that U2 is catching up, let's follow the line that the British rock gods drew -- and that leads inexorably to the Irish icons' limited horizons.

STAGE 1 - Baby Steps


Every act starts out the same: Lean, hungry, committed -- and convinced they're destined to rule the world. Any musician who tells you different is a liar.

- Rolling Stones: 1962-1964 -- From their formation to their first album. Fresh from the blues clubs, they were still basically a glorified cover band.
- U2: 1976-1981 -- From their formation to their first two albums. Boy started the ball rolling with I Will Follow, but the following dwindled after the sophomore-slump October, featuring the aptly titled I Fall Down.

See Also:
- Elvis' Sun Sessions
- The Beatles in Hamburg
- Bob Dylan's first album
- Nirvana's Bleach
- Madonna's first album

STAGE 2 - Hitting Your Stride

You're not an amateur any more, but you're not yet at the top of your game -- artistically or commercially.

- Stones: 1964-1965 -- From their first album to Satisfaction. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards started writing songs -- after famously being locked in a room together -- while the band's relentless touring made inroads in America.
- U2: 1983-1984 -- War and Unforgettable Fire. Okay, maybe Fire wasn't that unforgettable. But on War, Bono found his political feet with Sunday Bloody Sunday and New Year's Day. A glimpse of the greatness to come.

See Also:
- Metallica's Ride the Lightning & Master of Puppets
- R.E.M. from Reckoning to Life's Rich Pageant
- KISS' Hotter Than Hell & Dressed to Kill
- The Clash's Give 'Em Enough Rope
- Eagles' Desperado & On the Border

STAGE 3 - At the Summit

The glory days when you can do no wrong. Everything you release turns to gold (and then platinum). Every show is a sellout and every award has your name on it.

- Stones: 1965-1972 -- From Satisfaction to Exile on Main St. The era of Jumpin' Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar, Street Fightin' Man, and nearly every other Stones classic. Even Altamont, Their Satanic Majesties Request and the death of Brian Jones couldn't stop them.
- U2: 1985-1990 -- Live Aid, Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum. They played for millions. Joshua earned them their first Grammys. Even Bono's giant white flag (and equally outsized ego and ambition) couldn't stop them.

See Also:
- Bruce Springsteen from Born to Run to Born in the U.S.A.
- Elton John from Your Song to Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
- Pink Floyd from Dark Side of the Moon to The Wall
- Michael Jackson from Thriller to Dangerous
- Nirvana from Nevermind onward

STAGE 4 - Missteps & Stumbles

Self-indulgence, supermodels, substances and solo albums -- they all take their toll. And when you're at the top, there's only one way to go.

- Stones: 1973-1977 -- Goat's Head Soup to Black & Blue. Mick marries Bianca. Keith gets busted in Toronto. Bill Wyman makes solo albums. Things get so bad Mick Taylor quits the best-paying gig he'll ever have. Yep, it's only rock 'n' roll -- but they've lost it, lost it, yes they have.
- U2: 1991-1999 -- Achtung Baby, Zoo TV, Zooropa, Pop. Bono called Achtung "the sound of four men trying to chop down The Joshua Tree." It worked. High-concept tours with Bono as MacPhisto, umpteen TV screens and giant lemons didn't help. On the plus side: Clayton didn't marry Naomi Campbell.

See Also:
- Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his cousin
- KISS solo albums
- Van Halen hiring Gary Cherone
- Britney Spears shaving her head (and marrying Kevin Federline, and, and, and ... )
- Virtually every decision Axl Rose made between 1995 and 2008

STAGE 5 - Reclaiming the Throne

F. Scott Fitzgerald said there were no second acts in American lives. Maybe he was right -- but everybody know there are encores in rock 'n' roll. And every band gets one. Sometimes more.

- Stones: 1978 -- Some Girls. Revitalized and challenged by the no-nonsense spirit of punk, they shake off the cobwebs, reawaken their inner rockers and produce their last undeniably brilliant work. And their biggest-selling CD to date.
- U2: 2000-2006 -- All That You Can't Leave Behind & How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. As Bono put it, they reapplied to be the best band in the world. And they got the job by getting back to basics with straightforward songs and shows that connect with fans.

See Also:
- David Bowie's Let's Dance
- Tina Turner's Private Dancer
- AC/DC's Back in Black
- KISS' reunion tour
- Led Zeppelin's 2007 reunion concert

STAGE 6 - The Endless Plateau

You'll always be huge. You'll sell out stadiums. You might even make some great albums. But you'll never be the It Band again. You're too big, too rich, too coddled, too removed from the streets, the kids and the zeitgeist -- no matter how much your personal assistants and image consultants assure you otherwise.

- Stones: 1980 - ? Everything from Emotional Rescue to A Bigger Bang. Some of it's good. Some of it's bad. But none of it matters.
- U2: 2009 - ? It begins with No Line on the Horizon. Who knows how it will end? With one final return to greatness? Or with The Edge falling out of a coconut tree?

very easy, just rotate the N in BONO 90 degrees, clockwise or counterclockwise, your choice.

The Toronto Sun article places it all just about right, I'd say. There's some of Joseph Campbell mythology going on in this tale.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
lynn1
U2 CD due out imminently. How many here will pretend/deny that U2 is less relevant today and fast approaching the Stones relevance historically?

they're obviously more 'relevant' today (whatever that means) because they're around 17 years younger than the Stones are. They're still seen as a 'current' band, which in fairness is something that the Stones themselves gave up on a decade ago for the nostalgia route.

Approaching the Stones' relevance historically? No - not even close. Rock n roll doesnt have the cultural impact now that it did decades ago and its too 'splintered' as an industry in the modern era for one act to have the relevance on society that artists did in the Stones' heyday.

Well said, Gazza.

"No Anchovies, Please"

30 years into their career, and U2 are more relevant than the Stones were at the same point

The Stones were seen as a nostalgia act by the time of the Steel Wheels tour. People went to hear solely the hits. I envisage far more attending the upcoming U2 shows will be eager to hear the latter-day songs of theirs.

In hindsight, perhaps this was expectent. After all, the Stones were the first to sustain themselves for a long period. Perhaps if the Stones were to rewind, they would still be viewe as currnt come 1989.

Stones are apples, U2 are oranges. While some varieties are sweeter than others, I will always enjoy them both immensely.

Comparing them is completely pointless. Their music is great. To me, they will always be relevant. Both bands. When I get sick of eating apples and oranges, I move on to grapes and bananas, but eventually I return to the apples and oranges. I never analyze which is better, or more relevant.

Music either sounds good or it doesn't. Sometimes it is an acquired taste, as in much of U2's music, and sometimes it hits you in the face, as in much of the Stones music. U2 and the Stones are like Pavarotti and Miles. If you hate opera, you'll be more into Miles, and if you hate jazz, you may prefer Pavarotti. Or, you might dig them both. Apples and Oranges.

U2 has never been really relevant. Their music has always been mass marketwith a lot of pathos. The new album doesn't have songs any more it just consists of sounds and the boring ego of the producers. They should have kept on working with Rick Rubin. The U2 line is still original but I don't think they get along very well and like the stones the real fire and energy is gone.

u2 will never be as big as the stones.

u2 musically havent done great songs on a regular basis since the 1980,s.

U2-2009-02-27-Rooftop BBC - Magnificent

The Stones have always been more relevant than U2 in that they helped changed both the music and music business (w Beatles & Dylan, the move away from 45s as main medium to album format, the album as novel to short story, or feature film), bringing loads of young-uns in to discover the RS' BLACK influences; establishing an unsentimental, acerbic, songwriting sensibility that was far less youth oriented than peers such as The Who, or the early Beatles thus insuring like Dylan they could play them as they/their audience aged; as a hugely popular act that thru songs and public attitudes and self posession truly threatened more conservative folks in the '60s: they stated support for abortion, and gays pre Stonewall (Brian especially), never apologized for much of anything (like the 'black girls' line, or imagine Keith cowering or blathering about 12 step recovery after his public drug arrests and well known addictions) and publicly dealt with rabid police harassment - recall Keith's comments in court '67 - til they won out by sheer perserverance after Brian's departure, then thru the '70s France to K's Canada bust, til the 90s really when they finally could go to many countries that banned them for decades as moral hazards. And they offered an adult perspective as they celebrated and reveled in and dealt with subjects like class, every shade of sex/power dynamics, sex and love, lust, drugs and aging, ennui, confusion, loss, grief, rejuvenation, impotence, hedonism and the allure of youth in frank yet never (well, streets of love excepted) bombastic or overblown. This sort of body of work really does stimulate social and personal growth as we listen and ewatch, in my case over a lifetime, the Stones live a (wealth afforded, but still) intoxicating and dangerous but inspiring degree of personal autonomy that has less to do with materialism than their own sense of self posession, personal authority and collective confidence - allowing mistakes and near catastrophes that dont (quite) sink them. A freedom of the sort that risks self indulgence or destruction but is also an inspiration to me and millions of others. None of this would be possible without the art, meaning you're drawn to even pay attention to the 'meanings' of the RS because youre drawn in, happily, by the enormous body of work live and on record, the pure pleasure their rock and roll offers, visceral, body pleasure that can make you feel alive after you've been down with a spike right through your head and helps your soul survive the cutthroat crews all around us. That's RELEVANCE. U2 give good pop and sometimes detailed soundscapes and tell us what we want to hear, vague hope, yearning, and liberal good will, and gee they even make me think about consumerism and stuff.

"U2 give good pop and sometimes detailed soundscapes and tell us what we want to hear, vague hope, yearning, and liberal good will, and gee they even make me think about consumerism and stuff."

But do they make you think of GOD???

Here is the dirty little secret


As long as god has relevance?

U2 will have relevance

since they have a strong belief in god and half their songs are written about god



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-08 22:23 by U2Stonesfan.

......BOY to Achtung Baby is an amazing run.....one of the big voices of their generation certainly.....

U2 is a very relevant band at this stage in the Stones career they did Steel Wheels which at the time was relevant. U2 is a great band but do they rival the Stones? No. I've even heard Bono say that there is nobody to compare to the Stones and he'd love to have the catalog that the Stones have,

Nice post john r.

U2 has no relevance , especially obvious when compared to the
Stones. They have been trying so hard with all the marketing forces
and photos op's Bono can find, but music wise they can't approach
the Stones. They should feel lucky they get this attention.

Come on U2 sells out everywhere they go. I admit that the they can in no way approach the Stones but they have their own unique sound and have made some fine music.

Nice post, U2Stonesfan!

You can't compare the Beatles and the Stones so it's even more impossible to compare the Stones and U2.

The only thing you can say is that U2 manage to be a top selling cd act over all the years but even that is hard to compare because so many things have changed. U2 always have been really good at marketing there product. I always feel that the stones sort of gave up on that a bit in the 90's. I mean if you look at how U2 promote there new albums with a week long on Letterman, another roof top gig in London or that performance on the flatbed truck a couple of years ago (yeah i know they stole the idea from the stones who stole the idea from the old jazz musicians) and always a lot of commercials etc, it's a shame that the stones aren't more in your face with promoting the cd's. i het the feeling they don't care that much for it anymore because they will make a lot of money with touring anyway.

You can like U2 or not but i think they are still very relevant selling wise and they always try to push the envelope abit with there new cd. It's always a bit different and therefor risky.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Relevant?

U2 is the ONLY band that I have had real trouble getting tickets for over the past 20 years (without going to a broker).

U2's last two studio albums had sales of 23+ million copies combined, that's way more than the sales of Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Ya-Ya's, Sticky Fingers and Exile combined.

God? Well to paraphrase Jagger I do believe in gospel music but God and U2
imo have a somewhat less ecstatic effect on me than Howard Tate's 'Get It While You Can' or the Curtis Mayfield song (by Gene Chandler) 'God Bless Our Love' just to mention two...
U2 is a talented band, I think I said that, but for me just not in the same league of the RS - not to mention Nirvana...or Husker Du...or PiL...etcetera.

I think if you want to claim that U2 is relevant, a qualitative analogy would be a better effort, whereas quantifying record sales and the difficulty of getting a ticket is not very convincing. McDonalds sells billions of burgers and they are hardly the best.

Quote
MKjan
I think if you want to claim that U2 is relevant, a qualitative analogy would be a better effort, whereas quantifying record sales and the difficulty of getting a ticket is not very convincing. McDonalds sells billions of burgers and they are hardly the best.

McDonalds' burgers may be crap, but they ARE relevant, like it or not.