Hey stonesrule, obviously you don't get it. I find your kind of tunnel vision, which I would expect just as much from some other people that, oddly enough, did not have such a thing in comments in this thread, offensive.

Waow!
We need the Stones.Discussing about U2 on this forum is weird.
Somebody sees the Stones 3 times in 30 years (and this is not a money problem) and find U2 better? Good for him, but it doesn't mean that the Stones are dead and burried.
Don' t cry after a tour this year, I don't believe in "miracles", but I keep faith in the Stones and I prefer to think about an hypothesis (sorry I'm french, broken english etc...) like: we don't tour without an album because it's a nonsense, so we're warming up this summmer, we'll recordind on autumn the record will be ready for Christmas and we go on tour in 2010. OK some would say I'm a dreamer... but they always made me dream.

didnt the Rio concert (a bigger bang) have over 1 million people?

Feel The Fear
And Do It Anyway

Maybe more. Does that make the Stones better? So what if 92,000 or whatever amount of people saw U2 the other night. THEY WANTED TO!

What is so difficult about that? Why has this turned in to some kind of competition thing? Does anyone read what Gazza says? Does anyone know that the people who have done the Stones' stages do U2's stages? Yet alone others?

Why is it a big deal? So what if someone saw U2 and enjoyed it and thought it was better than the Stones in 1981. There are plenty of people who think - gee, not only the Stones but other acts - have been or are better than the Stones in 1981. I saw them in 89 and 94. I liked the 94 show better but the 89 show was better overall.

So what. Come on. Grow the F up.

Quote
Hansel
Cant stand U2 post 1989,they followed trends in the 90's instead of being themselves.

The Stones have followed trends too. Some Girls was a great record. There is some Punk, disco, new wave, /R&B, etc..

A real masterpiece

Quote
dcba
"Tele Tubbies" ..

That's a reference I never expected to see on the IORR boards. Hats off to you!

One thing about the Stones vs. U2 thing, or comparisons of the two, U2 play better, they do not screw up, U 2 are more consistent, whereas The stones have routinely played terribly and still charged the fans a lot money.

When you go to see U2, they deliver a professional show. They play and sound great.

When you go to see the Stones, you never know what you're going to get; in fact, it is liable to be poor, well blow par. And it is not Charlie and Mick's fault(well ticket prices excluded).

Truth.

>Truth.

Opinion.

Well, I am feeling somewhat vindicated...
I saw them many moons ago (front row.) A friend had asked me otherwise I would have never gone. I must have been the only girl @ the front of the stage looking nonplussed!

I saw U2 some years ago in Norway and I did not like their live act.
I will not go to their shows anymore.
Meanwhile I have been enjoying lots and lots of Stones shows later on.
I could have told all U2 fans that U2 are gone and bad.
But I have taste and respect of othes.
I do know that musical tast is different.
Like some love boys and other love girls.
We can not have the same preferences in life.

Next time the Stones tour your friend will not be at the show,
but there will be thousands of others who enjoy the show.
OK for me. I don't see the problem.

Bjornulf

After seeing last week Springsteen in Munich and Lucinda Williams in Holland, Sa. was reserved for U2 in Paris.

No fos this time but somewhere half way standing with a great view over the whole stadium which was a sold out crowd with approx. 80,000 people.

The crowd was really into from the start, I did not expect the French to be so wild . Stones fans in Holland, the USA and Germany are very lukewarm compared to this crowd. I guess it's because U2 crowd contains less 'tourists' and they do actually own most of what U2 has released. Although the Germans went wild too at Bruce his gig last week.

The band showed guts by starting with 4 new songs. But quality wise these songs are not up to the songs on the two albums released before 'Horizon' .

The sound was just average. Bono is voice was not very good.

Although I appreciated it that they don't use many back ground vocalists/musicians etc as much as the Stones do, they sounded rather 'thin' live with only the Edge on guitar.

Their classic songs like 'Streets' , 'One' etc can compete with the best what the Stones have released in my opinion. But no surprises at all when these songs were performed, same arrangements for many years now. Although not as boring as listening to anothe version of Miss You yet.

The 'space shuttle' and 'kissing' stuff was useless I did not care much for Tutu is speech too.

Band tried hard to give the people behind the stage value for money too.

Visual effects were ok but when you rock and give quality like Bruce does, not needed.

All together is was an ok experience but both Bruce and Lucinda rocked much better. But it was not as bad as the last time when I saw the Stones during the LIve LIcks tour in Koln.

I was at the U2 Paris show on Saturday night and was very impressed with the space ship stage they played on, but not moved by their new music that dominated the concert. In fact, I have not liked their last 2 CD's.. it is a band that I am growing apart from, and that is sad. And although the stage, lights, etc were the best I've ever seen, I think it made the concert a little impersonal and ultimately detracted from the music. I'd take the Bigger Bang stage over U2's "Claw" for that reason alone. It's more rock and roll and that's what I like.

I do agree a lot with Kees...

I saw Springsteen two weeks ago in Berne, saw U2 last week in Milano. For Springsteen no special effects, but one of the best shows I've ever seen. U2 was huge... the San Siro, the stage, the audience... and I think if the Stones would have had such a stage, people (who bash U2 here) would have loved it. Apparently, I am one of the few that really likes No Line On The Horizon and it was really cool that they play so many songs of the new album. For the rest no big surprises at the show.

I still hope for another Stones tour again, but it should be something different, no Bigger Bang No.2, perhaps scaling it down again to arena's... and other songs.

Sjouke

I'm not a U2 fan but have a question regarding the song BEAUTIFUL DAY.

Have you ever compared it with a song from scandinavian pop group A-HA, named THE SUN ALWAYS SHINES ON T.V. dated 1985?

Amazingly the same identical riff and part of the text as well.

soembody already found out and put on youtube:



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-14 00:13 by straycat58.

Quote
Glam Descendant
>Truth.

Opinion.

"The stones have routinely played terribly and still charged the fans a lot money."

Truth.

I still love the Stones though and will see them again.

Quote
deadegad
One thing about the Stones vs. U2 thing, or comparisons of the two, U2 play better, they do not screw up, U 2 are more consistent, whereas The stones have routinely played terribly and still charged the fans a lot money.

When you go to see U2, they deliver a professional show. They play and sound great.

When you go to see the Stones, you never know what you're going to get; in fact, it is liable to be poor, well blow par. And it is not Charlie and Mick's fault(well ticket prices excluded).

Truth.

Well, actually, that's opinion, not truth. Personally, I'd rather have a truly exciting somewhat improvisational Stones show, even if mistakes are made, than something that is played the same way every night and sounds like the record.

I like the way the Edge tries to contribute to the sonic texture and doesn't try to show off all the time, but have you seen him demonstrating what he's actually playing compared to what you hear with all the effects? Even with his toys, on his best day, the Edge never comes close to generating any real emotion with his instrument, something that Keith Richards can do, even today. Plus, he's a one-trick pony -- he's never even attempted the breadth of musical stylings that ALL of the Rolling Stones guitarists have long since mastered...

Have you noticed U2 uses tape in concert?

I really like U2 -- I've seen them a couple of times and was not disappointed. But, if you can't notice they too are aging, and much less spontaneous and powerful than at Red Rocks, well, I think we are talking about two different bands.

SwayStones -- relax honey. It's all good...

The Stones builded one the most impressive music catalogs in their first 2 decades
but continued to dazzle in later decades by going along with the times.
Reaggae, punk, disco, etc, But if you listen to Bigger Bang you can be greatful
that they have stucked to their sound for so many decades and still are able to come out and put a decent stones record.

Impressive is also the fact that they have kept their live shows in crescendo even if this contributes to the "brand" more than the "band" image they have now days.

Impressive is that all four of them have aged so perfectly into the image of perfect Rolling Stones and that Mick is still capable of doing what he does the way he does.

I guess my point is that U2 has a long way to go, and even if their first 2 decades where also their best, they did not came close to what the Stones did, and I don't think they'll ever do. And the way Bono is aging, I don't see him
hanging for 2 or 3 more decades the same way.

I'll be at Giant Stadium for the 360 tour and hope to enjoy the show, but I'm sure it wont change my mind about the Stones and their contributions to music and history.

Who is better? Abba or Stones? Come on. U2? You can talk U2 or B´52, Duran Duran, Talking Heads, Men at Work but NEVER U2 or Stones.
The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world. U2 is only a good pop band.

Quote
carlostones10
Who is better? Abba or Stones? Come on. U2? You can talk U2 or B´52, Duran Duran, Talking Heads, Men at Work but NEVER U2 or Stones.
The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world. U2 is only a good pop band.

this is sooooo true.

My brother, a Stones fan since 20 years, went to the Paris show Saturday. He was very impressed by the 360° stage, that U2 was for that years in advance of every band he saw. But....musically, it was so, so.

I am a huge Stones fan (imo) Seen at least one show on every US tour since 78. I am also a big U2 fan. On the last Tours (Stones and U2) I saw 5 Stones Shows and 4 U2 shows. Both are the best bands in the world. Both had great moments. My biggest thrill comes from the Stones Live shows. U2 will be without a doubt the top act in the world when the Stones stop touring. I currently have General Admission Floor tickets for Atlanta and Tampe when U2 gets here in October. PLEASE GIVE US ANOTHER STONES TOUR!
Fred Hardin
Pleased to meet you.......

Someone wrote that U2 hide side musicians when they are playing live!

Is it true???

maybe blondie chaplin an c.leavell???

Quote
carlostones10
Who is better? Abba or Stones? Come on. U2? You can talk U2 or B´52, Duran Duran, Talking Heads, Men at Work but NEVER U2 or Stones.
The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world. U2 is only a good pop band.

Jesus wept. The old infantile pop v rock nonsense. U2 are a "pop" band? What the f**k is "Streets of Love", then?

Stones versus U2. Entirely different bands here. I never considered U2 to be in the same league with the Stones. The Stones are an official,bonafide.certified rock and roll band. The greatest rock and roll band in the world. I'm not sure how I classify U2 to be honest. I always considered them to be one of the best bands that came out of the heavily synthesized 80's-90's. Then again I think INXS was better than U2 by far with Michael Hutchence being pretty close to Mick in his stage presence and mannerism's. U2 is indeed a good band but I have only had 2 of their albums that I liked enough to buy.I no longer have them though. I still have all of my INXS albums and the music always seems to be fresh and still ahead of it's time whenever I get one out and play it. So, the Stones will always be the greatest rock & roll band in the world even when they are gone and U2 will be whatever U2 is until they are gone as well. At best I would say that U2 is a somewhat watered down rock band, not a true rock & roll band. Not enough of the old blues roots present in their music.

I´m sorry Gazza. I am not deaf. If you think Stones and U2 play similar music, well, I´m sorry, but you need a doctor. You aren´t listening very well. lol lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 04:35 by carlostones10.

Quote
carlostones10
Who is better? Abba or Stones? Come on. U2? You can talk U2 or B´52, Duran Duran, Talking Heads, Men at Work but NEVER U2 or Stones.
The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world.


U2 is only a good pop band.

U2 is only a good pop band?? No, they're not that good!

yeah right its all done with mirrors and putting guns to peoples heads to fill these stadiums, they cant just be good now can they?

Quote
melillo
yeah right its all done with mirrors and putting guns to peoples heads to fill these stadiums, they cant just be good now can they?

I knew I was gonna catch something on this one.