After listening to live boots from 2005 from both bands, I'm mystified about the comparisons. They are BOTH great in concert, BUT, why compare them? They come from different worlds, musically, so what's the problem?

I love 'em both, so does that make me marked with a green letter on my chest?

My family happened to be of Irish descent, so I won't apologize for it. Hell, I like Enya, too.

Wished the Stones had stayed with the core band without those backup mucisians.
And that Keith and Ron had stayed in musical shape like the Edge.

Meet U2 in 15 years.

Completely agree with you bassplayer617.

I bought back in 83 the (War album) and have followed them almost as close as I have followed the Stones. I can't understand why people always tend to put them down here. They are miles apart from each other when it comes to musical directions.

I have also seen them live through the years and they are one hell of a live band

U2 Sucks
Stones ROCKS

Simple as that.....

JumpingKentFlash

Definitely, Kent! let's set the record straight, here!

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

Oh yeah baby......

JumpingKentFlash

to kent: what a good way to express your yourself...not

bobo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to kent: what a good way to express your
> yourself...not


In what way would you want me to express it then? Like this???: "I do not like the Irish band of U2, but I do find that the jolly good Englishmen in The Rolling Stones are quite enjoyable to listen to". I mean come on....... U2 sucks, so that's what I write. Rainbow-hugger music. In the vein of Coldplay. It SUCKS!!!!!!

JumpingKentFlash

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bobo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > to kent: what a good way to express your
> > yourself...not
>
>
> In what way would you want me to express it then?
> Like this???: "I do not like the Irish band of U2,
> but I do find that the jolly good Englishmen in
> The Rolling Stones are quite enjoyable to listen
> to". I mean come on....... U2 sucks, so that's
> what I write. Rainbow-hugger music. In the vein of
> Coldplay. It SUCKS!!!!!!
>
>
> Horsens June 8th. I told you so.



he he, I see you got my point

Have no problems with U2. 87 was very good, 93 brilliant, 97 mediocre. I don't compare them to Stones, can't see the point.

well said

U2 live.Same show from mid-eighties and now. Pull a guy from the crowd to play either guitar or keyboards. Same songs played(except new). Same chatter from Bono. Same exclamation that they're the "greatest r&r band" in the world.(Stones never self-proclaimed this). All in all U2- above average show with boring Edge on guitar. Stones- great even with warhorse setlist.

As bp617 originally said, both are great live (and recorded) acts - but they're apples vs. oranges. For the 9375960th time, I don't have a problem with liking the Stones, Beatles, Zep, U2, Elvis, Otis Redding, Hank Williams, Bach, or Muddy Waters all at the same time....



Of course, everybody knows the Stones rule!

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Same exclamation that they're
> the "greatest r&r band" in the world.(Stones
> never self-proclaimed this).


Who's speaking on the beginning of JJF on Get yer Ya-Ya's then??


Who the f*ck is Mick Jagger?

My point of view -

U2 is a great band both in the studio and live in concert.

The Stones is an EVEN greater band in the studio and live in concert.

gia43 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> J.J.Flash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Same exclamation that they're
> > the "greatest r&r band" in the
> world.(Stones
> > never self-proclaimed this).
>
>
> Who's speaking on the beginning of JJF on Get yer
> Ya-Ya's then??
>
>
> Who the f*ck is Mick Jagger?


Not them

It really depends on your definition of a great live band. Some people howl that bands cannot recreate the studio sound on stage. That's truly where the garage band reference comes from. Good in studio........average on stage. The Rolling Stones have never been good at recreating their records on stage. They either exceed the studio performance...Midnight Rambler, Jumping Jack Flash....but sometimes they hardly ever nail the original feel and sound of their classic records. Has there ever been a Honky Tonk Woman that captured the feel of the original? That doesn't mean there haven't been great live versions....there have. The average concert fan wants the band to reproduce the studio sound on stage....the Stones have never been good at this.

ok, so who is it? i always heard mick but i could be wrong...

Who the f*ck is Mick Jagger?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-18 16:37 by gia43.

Who's voice do you think it is? Mick doesn't come out and announce himself. Probably a promoter or something.

That's a good question. Who the hell is it? The voice sounds familiar, like someone in Gimmie Shelter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-18 16:38 by J.J.Flash.

Sam Cutler on Ya Yas.

Shawn20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sam Cutler on Ya Yas.


Thanks Shawn.

thanx

Who the f*ck is Mick Jagger?

I saw a piece a few months ago on Sam Cutler. To hear that classic voice again was so wonderful. The Stones should bring him back to the intros....how great would that be.

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who's voice do you think it is? Mick doesn't come
> out and announce himself.

I always heard Mick and I actually thought it was a VERY funny and cool thing to do!




Who the f*ck is Mick Jagger?

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U2 live.Same show from mid-eighties and now. Pull
> a guy from the crowd to play either guitar or
> keyboards. Same songs played(except new). Same
> chatter from Bono. Same exclamation that they're
> the "greatest r&r band" in the world.(Stones
> never self-proclaimed this). All in all U2- above
> average show with boring Edge on guitar. Stones-
> great even with warhorse setlist.


Stones live show same from '89 'till now. same songs played. Same Jagger frases "everybody ready", "Oooh Yeaaah".
The points you have about U2 do also do for the Stones.


I never get why people are always bashing U2. Everybody must admit that there are a huge band. They sell millions of alnums, sell out huge world tours. You don't have to like a band to admit that they are a big.


Maybe i'm alucky to like them both. I am wondering how U2 is going to be in 15 years time. I think they would still be very consistent live. The stones have declined a lot since '81 and i don't think U2 will. Mainly because they never took many drugs or drank a lot. I think a huge part in the decline of Keith and Ronnies guitar playing is due to all the drug abuse over the years. I still think it is a wonder that that can still strap a guitar around there because a lot of other guys dropped dead or can't do anything anymore. Look at Ozzy Osbourne!

Cheers,
Wuudy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-18 19:57 by Wuudy.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My family happened to be of Irish descent, so I
> won't apologize for it. Hell, I like Enya, too.
>
>
>


Ahhh... Enya.
I read in the paper a few weeks ago that Enya sold around 50 million records worldwide-- without ever having gone on tour. And people think the Stones have it easy.
Man, the things people listen to...

Its a joke to compare the 2 bands.


I saw them 4 days apart in November-Stones Nov 24 in Denver and U2 Nov 28th in Montreal.

I went to U2 for my wife's sake and even she had to admit U2 sucked. I go to a show to relive my youth-sex, drinking, partying etc. not to save the world.

If Bono donated 1/2 the electricity from his light show (which I admit is pretty good) to one of those African villages he is talking about, they wouldn't have any problems.........


(In my opinion)

Oh No, Not Another Stones/U2 thread....

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh No, Not Another Stones/U2 thread....
>
>


better than the old Taylor-Wood thread!