I loved it when Mick said 'We're not the fu-cking Beach Boys, we do new records and play new songs.' Yet...

So that's why I say the difference between the two bands live is a relevance trip - NEW record, tour named with something to do with the new record, PLAYING new songs, giving the new album a life live. I find that to be relevant within the existence of being a creative band doing new things. They stand behind their new records.

NEW record, tour named after the album, 'well we might play a new one. In fact, we're filming something for a movie and the newest track we're gonna do was released as a single in 1984'...leaving the new album rather dead. A Bigger Bang has some great songs on it - and a good bit of them would have gone over fantastically live. But no, instead they play total shit like Rain Fall Down and Streets Of Love.

That's my take anyway.

What's REALLY funny though is how upset some Stones fans are about U2. I find it amazing! Nobody gets upset about Metallica. Who's another huge band? Well, The Who don't really count now do they. That's it as far as huge bands go. Ha ha.

I've seen the Stones 3 times and U2 once. I liked all of the shows. I like both bands. I don't see what the big deal is. It's just the same as anyone else, only I think I'd really be able to understand if Dave Matthews or Oasis got the kind of press and hype U2 gets.

I say this with a grin on my face (on this board), but I'm not kidding. I'd love to hear Taylor play with The Edge. They can overdub it in the studio, but for me the band's live sound lacks something a swirling lead guitar would give. Think about it.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
Wuudy

Quote
phd
The Stones have given to Rock its credentials. Not U2.

That's not all the issue here. By saying a band is still relevant does not mean that they have to be better than another band. Even if you don't like a band you can still say they are relevant.

Yes, and in that context, the Stones are the better band, and U2 and Milli Vanilli
are relevant.

It's not the discussion who's better. It's basicly a matter of taste who's better.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
skipstone
1978 was the last time the Stones toured an album with authority - they did every song except Before They Make Me Run (this is, of course, according to Bill Wyman's Rolling With The Stones).

U2 commonly play a majority of their new album when touring it. They played almost everything from Achtung every show of the ZOO TV tour except when Zooropa came out. They've always been that way. The Stones hardly touched Exile on that tour. Sure, they're not going to play a lot of a new album when they have 18 million albums out. But, for example, A Bigger Bang was heralded as this and that and...next to nothing overall for the entire tour.

The biggest difference - and this is a relevance trip in a way - between the Stones and U2 is promoting their new albums is one band believes in their new album, the other uses it as an excuse to go play the same tired songs again and break their previous record for money made. That might be a bit much because I know the do play some new songs but overall...it's a fat plucking of the back catalogue.

Agree with the third paragraph 100%. Not sure about the first one. They definitely promoted Some Girls ok (8 out of 10 songs every show - they didnt do the title track either - prety much half the show).

As for the Exile comment. Maybe not a good comparison. Back then, they werent doing a world tour behind every new release. Most albums in the 70's were only toured in one market. They didnt tour behind Satanic Majesties or Beggars, most of the '69 US tour actually preceded the release of Let It Bleed, and you could say that the 1970 European tour - their first in 3 years - saw a lot of never before played songs and even some unreleased ones. The only touring behind Sticky Fingers wasa short UK tour where only about 35,000 people saw the shows.

So, when they toured North America in 1972, they were playing to audiences who not only hadnt heard the Exile songs played, but had also never heard the Sticky Fingers songs or most of Let It Bleed. They played ten of the 18 Exile songs on that tour (it would be 25 years before they played ten songs from their new album again) and on the average show of 14-15 songs, they were usually doing 6 per night, with no Jagger-Richards compositions that were more than 4 years old (ie before 'Beggars'). So, pretty much no 'warhorses' at all. It was all pretty new stuff with a couple of covers.

Bill has the set list from the 78 tour in his book and all that's missing is BFTMRun. I saw that they didn't do Some Girls every night but they did do it. That's why I said that bit. I'll have to look again but I remember counting 9 songs. Not that he's always right but that seemed to be accurate. But...

According to nzentgraf they did 6 Exile songs on the Exile tour (Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, Happy, All Down The Line, Sweet Virginia, Tumbling Dice). They averaged 16 songs a show. That's close to how they've been recently (Steel Wheels, Voodoo, Bridges) as far as how many new songs on a tour. But certainly more percentage wise then than lately due to a shorter set list.

I was thinking in terms of touring a double album it seems like they'd play a good bit of the album. But like you pointed out, Brown Sugar, Bitch and the other Bleed and Beggars songs took up the rest of the set list and a lot of places they went they didn't get to in 1969.

If not a huge amount of new songs at least they were consistent! Bill said they did all but one song for Some Girls but nzentgraf doesn't show that. They did 8.

What's really cool about that tour is that they did the Some Girls songs all together. Almost like they let the needle bounce. I saw they did 4 Bridges songs on average in 1997 with one exception being 5 and a few MSG shows in 98 with 5 and one with 6 (Thief In The Night and You Don't Have To Mean It - what a treat that must have been!). Yet tally them up they did Flip The Switch, Anybody Seen My Baby?, Low Down, Might As Well Get Juiced, Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, You Don't Have To Mean It, How Can I Stop, Thief In The Night and Already Over Me over the entire tour, which is 10 like you said.

And that's it huh. That's the last tour that they - they didn't even dig into Voodoo like that. I know towards the end of the Steel Wheels tour hey were doing about 5 or 6. So is it safe to say that the album with the most played songs live - of course this has nothing to do with how many are on the album - is Bridges To Babylon? Percentage wise Some Girls still wins though.

I know they have their back catalogue to compete with but one might think they'd really plug a new record for once. I think Bang would have sold better and would be held in a brighter light had they of played 3 or 4 more songs - albeit the better songs - than what they did. I'm still convinced the set lists should have included not only Rough Justice and ONNYA but also She Saw Me Coming, It Won't Take Long, Dangerous Beauty. The rocking tracks. But noooo, they had to be all soft and trendy and do Streets Of Love and Rain Fall Down. So Mick screwed that one up by trying to make the Stones hip. I thought he did that with Bridges?

I do think that they should have played a lot more of ABB. I think a great track from that album is LIND. Would have been great live.

78/81 they were PLAYING their new songs they even did LMG and SSC from ER in 81. They should work a new album like they did then and give it some vitality.

Quote
skipstone
Bill has the set list from the 78 tour in his book and all that's missing is BFTMRun. I saw that they didn't do Some Girls every night but they did do it. ?

Bill is wrong. The Stones never performed "Some Girls" while he was in the band. Its live debut was in Oakland in 1999.

Theres a few setlist errors in his book. He also has them playing "Johnny B Goode" in 1972, which is also incorrect.

Quote
skipstone
According to nzentgraf they did 6 Exile songs on the Exile tour (Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, Happy, All Down The Line, Sweet Virginia, Tumbling Dice). They averaged 16 songs a show. That's close to how they've been recently (Steel Wheels, Voodoo, Bridges) as far as how many new songs on a tour. But certainly more percentage wise then than lately due to a shorter set list.

First night of the tour they did 9 Exile songs in an 18-song set. The six you mention, plus Loving Cup, Torn & Frayed and Ventilator Blues, all of which were soon dropped. Sweet Black Angel was played once 3 weeks later in Fort Worth. They played 16-17 songs until 13th June, then almost always 15 for the rest of the tour, with about 8 exceptions where it was 16 (mostly towards the end of the tour when they added the Uptight/Satisfaction medley .

Quote
skipstone
I was thinking in terms of touring a double album it seems like they'd play a good bit of the album. But like you pointed out, Brown Sugar, Bitch and the other Bleed and Beggars songs took up the rest of the set list and a lot of places they went they didn't get to in 1969.

If not a huge amount of new songs at least they were consistent! Bill said they did all but one song for Some Girls but nzentgraf doesn't show that. They did 8.

What's really cool about that tour is that they did the Some Girls songs all together. Almost like they let the needle bounce.

Good way of describing it. Hitting the audience up the face with their new release. Thats the way to do it!

Quote
skipstone
I saw they did 4 Bridges songs on average in 1997 with one exception being 5 and a few MSG shows in 98 with 5 and one with 6 (Thief In The Night and You Don't Have To Mean It - what a treat that must have been!). Yet tally them up they did Flip The Switch, Anybody Seen My Baby?, Low Down, Might As Well Get Juiced, Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, You Don't Have To Mean It, How Can I Stop, Thief In The Night and Already Over Me over the entire tour, which is 10 like you said.

yeah, generally it was about 5. They brought Flip The Switch and You Dont Have To Mean it into the show late in 1997. How Can I Stop, Already Over Me, Lowdown were only played 1-3 times each, mostly in early 1998. Five would have been standard in Europe in 1998 (FTS,ASMYB, OOC, Thief plus one of Keith's songs).

Voodoo Lounge saw 7 songs from that album played on opening night, and 6-7 being standard for much of the US leg.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-06 01:39 by Gazza.

It's kind of irrelevant, isn't it? If you're on this board you like the Stones or you're in the wrong place. Every other band you happen to like is just a bonus for you and a matter of personal tastes.

johnr paragraphs exist for a reason. I have always skipped what you write because of this.

U2 stopped being musically relevant with All you can't leave behind.

Yes they are more relevant 30 years into their career than the Stones were by VL, but this is only their 12th album. The Stones had notched up that much worth by what..the early 70's?

They just need to go away. They sound samey and now tiresome. Rooftop gigs - I mean how unoriginal do they wanna get? Obama's party group; Letterman's in house band for a week and now an album that will have 6 or 7 singles to endlessly promote it followed by the gratuitous 4 or 5 grammys they will receive as they come up with the rashions - followed by another tour.

I wish they would call it a day. I'm even sick of Bono's great voice.

And how the F::K did Clayton ever survive as anyone's bassist???

Now I discovered this article: [www.atu2.com] which fits here exactly. Now...I can say I like U2, but this is what I call a stupid article... I think the best thing is just to have a laugh...I think that U2 are rally not to blame. How can some journalists earn money for living?

Just had this :

U2 are poised to join the ROLLING STONES, THE BEATLES and ELVIS PRESLEY in the U.K. chart history books this weekend - their new album looks set to become their 10th number one.
No Line on the Horizon is expected to shoot straight to the top of the chart on Sunday (08Mar09), equalling the Rolling Stones' record.
But the Irish band has some way to go to become the most successful chart act - The Beatles lead the way with 15 number ones, followed by Elvis with 11.

Ah but those types of things are misleading. The Beatles had 15 #1 albums? Or releases? Didn't they only have 12 actual albums? They debuted at #1 or went #1 based on orders, not what was actually bought. Back in the day 'We shipped 500,000 copies this week' is grounds for a gold album and whatever excuse to chart how high. Etc...

It's too bad there wasn't an accurate way of keeping track back then like there has been since 1990 whatever with Soundscan.

Quote
skipstone
It's too bad there wasn't an accurate way of keeping track back then like there has been since 1990 whatever with Soundscan.

The Beatles had 4 US #1 albums in U.S during the Soundscan era too, all with monster first week sales.

Too bad about U2 equalling the Stones' record, they will pass that record in few years...

U2 have vanished up their own backsides.Recent interviews have shown them to be aloof and arrogant.How can people call them the biggest band in the world,what a load of shite that is.Tracks from their recent album suck.As a live act they are a gross embarassment.Bono prancing around like some over weight elephant,
U2 are division 2.And from their latest efforts they will be division 3.The Rolling Stones are icons.Comparable with Dylan,Elvis and Sinatra.To compare the Stones to U2 is akin to comparing caviar to herring.

Quote
stargroover
U2 have vanished up their own backsides.Recent interviews have shown them to be aloof and arrogant.How can people call them the biggest band in the world,what a load of shite that is.Tracks from their recent album suck.As a live act they are a gross embarassment.Bono prancing around like some over weight elephant,
U2 are division 2.And from their latest efforts they will be division 3.The Rolling Stones are icons.Comparable with Dylan,Elvis and Sinatra.To compare the Stones to U2 is akin to comparing caviar to herring.

I would like to finance a trip for Bono to go ice fishing on a warm day. His music and his African photo ops are just a prop to feed his ego which is the size of Jupiter. Even in Africa, some have asked him to stay home, because they know!!!
If his heart was truly in it, why would he let a few hundred mil sit in the bank while acting like he really cares. Put up or shut up Bono. To compare u2 to the Stones is a comparison that even bono knows is pure fantasy.

I know what you mean. It is flat out disgusting for a multi-millionaire rock star to solicit a government funded by hard earned tax payer dollars to further his cause while sitting on millions and millions of dollars. And the idiot Bush always went along with his self fulfilling ventures.

LOl!So true.
U2 RIP

If bono gave 90% of his wealth to the poverty stricken, he would still live a life of luxury, and thinking people would say he really cares The hypocrisy of it all, bono you silly thing.

and yes U2, RIP

and bush....ugh!!

Their new music is so inadequate that I wouldn't be surprised if they continue promoting their CD by using "Christmas Caroling" techniques.

1. Doorbell "Ding Dong"
2. Honey, sweetheart, please answer the door ..I hear music
3. Noise is heard "Get on Your Boots" "Get on Your Boots" Get on Your Boots"
4. Wife opens front door... gives U2 a dime
5. Bono responds "Thank you for helping everyone in the World!"

Chiming in late, but how Sterdan could place Achtung Baby in the Missteps and Stumbles category is beyond me. That record is one of the best reinventions by any band ever. It's almost U2's Bitches Brew, imo.

Rattle and Hum at the Summit? What a tired record that was. Aside from a few new tracks, that was a deep-freeze turkey. (Words applied on the release of Black and Blue from a book I have somewthere...). I take Black and Blue over Rattle and Hum any day.

Quote
TeaAtThree
Chiming in late, but how Sterdan could place Achtung Baby in the Missteps and Stumbles category is beyond me. That record is one of the best reinventions by any band ever.

I completely agree.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
TeaAtThree
Chiming in late, but how Sterdan could place Achtung Baby in the Missteps and Stumbles category is beyond me. That record is one of the best reinventions by any band ever. It's almost U2's Bitches Brew, imo.

Achtung Baby is way better than any Stones' album since Exile, one of the best 5 albums of the last 25 years.

What are the 4 Beatles albums that have been #1 since Soundscan!? Are you serious!?? I know that hits comp sold really well but I didn't know it went #1.

What else is there? The silly musical thing? Or the silly tightrope people thing? I forget the proper names.

Quote
skipstone
1978 was the last time the Stones toured an album with authority - they did every song except Before They Make Me Run (this is, of course, according to Bill Wyman's Rolling With The Stones).

U2 commonly play a majority of their new album when touring it. They played almost everything from Achtung every show of the ZOO TV tour except when Zooropa came out. They've always been that way. The Stones hardly touched Exile on that tour. Sure, they're not going to play a lot of a new album when they have 18 million albums out. But, for example, A Bigger Bang was heralded as this and that and...next to nothing overall for the entire tour.

The biggest difference - and this is a relevance trip in a way - between the Stones and U2 is promoting their new albums is one band believes in their new album, the other uses it as an excuse to go play the same tired songs again and break their previous record for money made. That might be a bit much because I know the do play some new songs but overall...it's a fat plucking of the back catalogue.

But who cares anyway? They're playing MANY old songs and hits. So what? Where's the written rule that a band HAS to play new songs at a concert? Show me and I'll join the choir of setlist bitchers. U2 may play many new songs and congrats with that. It's boring shite anyway. So make this comparison if you please:




The Stones playing old songs, but rockin' to the max.

vs.

U2 playing many new songs, but you're falling asleep.

Whaddaya choose?

Maybe we should all go to a Dylan or Springsteen show?






















Nah......



JumpingKentFlash

Quote
skipstone
What are the 4 Beatles albums that have been #1 since Soundscan!? Are you serious!?? I know that hits comp sold really well but I didn't know it went #1.

What else is there? The silly musical thing? Or the silly tightrope people thing? I forget the proper names.

Beatles during the Soundscan era/first week sales/total

1994 - LIVE AT THE BBC (#4, 360.000, 2.000.000)
1995 - ANTHOLOGY 1 (#1, 855.000, 4.000.000)
1996 - ANTHOLOGY 2 (#1, 442.000, 2.000.000)
1996 - ANTHOLOGY 3 (#1, 237.000, 2.000.000)
2000 - 1 (#1, 1.259.000, 11.000.000)
2003 - LET IT BE... NAKED (#5, 280.000, 1.200.000)
2006 - LOVE (#4, 272.000, 2.000.000)

The only Stones' album that had a great first week sales during the Soundscan era was Forty Licks with 310.000 copies, but it didn't hit the #1. Bridges To Babylon came second with 160.000 and all the other albums under that mark.

The last Stones' US #1 album was Tattoo You...28 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-08 19:52 by georgelicks.

agree here with slew - prefer Voodoo or Bridges 2 Babylon to the entire U2 cantalog, tho I admit re U2 they're BIG and effective at what they do & their last couple records got better airplay and sales than recent Stones. But really can any band have the effect ('relevence') on the culture post '80s that the RS, Dylan etc had in the '60s and beyond? Musically there is more going on on "How Can I Stop" than on the previous (not the new one, only a quick listen or 2) U2 album. Of course the Stones will be remembered in 50 years - theyre remembered now, say the Abkco stuff, 46 - 40 years after release.
BTW Steel Wheels did get lots of MTV play, a top 5 hit, and another top 30 hit. It was their 22nd studio album. Since then the airplay has been more el;usive, as has been the younger audiences. Louis Armstron played very conservitave setlists during the last 30 years of his career, so what he's still one of THE giants in 20th century music because the Hot 5s & 7s, his real innovative stuff changed the world.

Springsteen has been the most relevant act for the past 30 years. As much as I love the stones I don't think they have been as relevant. They still sell alot of tickets but it's basically for greatest hits tours. Nothing new.IMHO. But I still go and love it.

same here

Springsteen? I cannot tell the difference between one song and the next and his political sermons are WAY more annoying than Bono's

At the fnac store here in Milano today, while my girlfriend was shopping I found myself at a listening station serving up NLOTH. I decided ok, I'll go it again.

Well, it didn't take long at all, and I think that using NLOTH as evidence, one can make a convincing case that rock'n'roll is indeed dead. The tix sales just reflects a yearning for good music...and marketing. The standard set by great bands like the Stones aren't even remotely approached.

As for Springsteen, he only appears relevant if you buy into all the blue collar look at my worn shoes hype. Please, 0 credibility= 0 relevance.