It's funny to me that the Rolling Stones competition these days is U2...much like Bruce Springsteen was in the Eighties, Led Zeppelin in the Seventies, and, of course, the Beatles in the Sixties.

Now, I am no fan of U2's live shows (I've seen several), but I must say--and any rational person would agree--they certainly put a LOT more thought and effort into their albums than the Stones (i. e., Mick) do. Compare the latest two from both...the care taken in songwriting and production of 'How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb' is so obvious...you can tell they CARE what the record sounds like and how it will stand up in their catalog. Whereas, 'A Bigger Bang' sounds like it was thrown together with some Mick songs and hustled out with no worries as to its lasting impression.

Can you imagine eight years between U2 albums and Bono & the Edge rush into the studio with a bunch of Bono left-overs and they record the basic tracks then have the drummer & the bassist come in as sessions players, overdubbing their parts in 4 days? And then imagine Bono saying, as Mick did about Ronnie, "Oh, they loved it...they didn't have to think about it, they just came in and did it."

Never happen in a million years. The four members of U2 LOVE their band...unfortunately Mick, who now IS the Rolling Stones, I think could care less. He likes to perform because HE'S in the spotlight. Unfortunately, the one who probably loves the band the most--Ronnie--is treated by Mick as a sessions player with NO say so about anything.

Sad legacy.










Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-17 22:02 by Jack Knife.

Jack Knife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sad legacy.

Sad post.

Sad Post indeed....wish I could entirely disagree with it....

If you think How to dismantle is a good album, then we'd have to agree to disagree. I think it's a pile of uninspired crap, the same as a lot of things they've done (better) in the past, regardless on any competition or opinion of ABB whatsoever.

The rest of your post is just the usual Mick-bashing bullshit... yawn.

As someone who likes both bands (although not on the same level) I have to say I prefer the Stones' one. U2's is a good record with a couple of great songs, but for me they havent made a GREAT album since Achtung Baby

Bottom line is the quality of the end product - the way they go about making the record is irrelevant. The end justifies the means.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Bottom line is the quality of the end product -
> the way they go about making the record is
> irrelevant. The end justifies the means.

I'm with you all the way, my Machiavellian friend!

"The four members of U2 LOVE their band...unfortunately Mick, who now IS the Rolling Stones, I think could care less. He likes to perform because HE'S in the spotlight. Unfortunately, the one who probably loves the band the most--Ronnie--is treated by Mick as a sessions player with NO say so about anything. "

Bono IS U2 - his ego is much bigger than Mick - there is no comparison at all - Bono has become the biggest asslicker of all asslickers.....

Never ever in the history of entertainment you have had an bigger asslicker than Bono - he runs after politicians, business men etc - just to be seen / photografed together with those people.....

Maybe Mick has become knighted (Sir), but he has never acted so ridiculous as Bono......

Bono loves music..... nowadays he loves himself more than anybody else... he thinks he is god almighty.....

Stones versus U2's latest album.... caring about what's on the album.... don't think one or the other is better....

I love U2 but their last 2 CDs - IMO - have been their weakest. And so what about great production. The songs just aren't that strong.

It's always the song, not the singer.

Whatever the merits or otherwise, of "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb", at least the band have enough faith in the record to perform eight or nine songs from it every night, along with a shed load of other recent stuff.

As more of a Stones fan than a U2 follower, I can only dream of such modern contemporary setlists from Mick and the boys.

If one is better than the other is a discussion we had many times before and there is no awnser because it is a matter of taste.

BUT, Jack Knife does have a point!!! I do't get the feeling that the stones are into it with albums like ABB and B2B in comparison to the "old" albums. Of course there is a big differents because when you are young and eager you are more into it because everybody depends on it in comparison to when you are established after 30 years and you are making another album. I like both a lot that is not the discussion for me but i do get the feeling that U2 are still more into it than the stones.

Cheers,
Wuudy

How to dismantle an atomic bomb is a very poor record but you are right about The Stones not putting much effort into their latest work.Why don't The Stones try to record something better than bunch of forgettable tracks,something more meaningful like Macca's last one.

Good point stones_serb. Macca's last album is indeed, a brilliant piece of work.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good point stones_serb. Macca's last album is
> indeed, a brilliant piece of work.


Yeah,and it's obvious that Paul didn't make it in order to sell zillons of records but to make a kind of personal statement.Maybe The Stones thought they would attract a lot of young people by making dumb but easily accessible record like ABB.They were wrong,not only did ABB sold poorly but they also disappointed the real fans.Bridges,at least had several excellent cuts like Out of Control and Flip the switch.

Saddest Mick bashing post I've seen on this site.

>>>Maybe The Stones thought they would attract a lot of young people by making dumb but easily accessible record like ABB.They were wrong,not only did ABB sold poorly but they also disappointed the real fans

Totally agreed. Just see the three singles releases from the album: SOL, Rain Fall Down and now Biggest Mistake!

The Stones offered better wine.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As someone who likes both bands (although not on
> the same level) I have to say I prefer the Stones'
> one. U2's is a good record with a couple of great
> songs, but for me they havent made a GREAT album
> since Achtung Baby


exactly
long gone are the days U2 make a relevant album

So they joined the stones pretty much early in their carrer (this is of course my taste)

It is true though that Stones should challenge themselves more in studio. First making more records (!) than 2 in 8 years. Then not sourrounding themselves with "safe" people that say too many yes

Anyway they got to put out a good record

Only complaint is that i think they can still make it great

What both albums have in common is that they are slightly below par in sound quality.

???????

Which album went to #1, sold millions of copies & won the Grammy for Best Album of the Year & Best Rock Album of the Year?

Which album got to #3, sold less than 500, 000 copies and has won nothing anywhere?

I K-N-O-W a lot of you think these things don't matter but you live in a Stones Bubble, I'm sorry.

But now that we know that this is the Last Tour & Album, it's all a moot point anyway. U2 will carry on touring and making big-selling & award-winning albums and the Rolling Stones will be history, their last great album released 25 years before they quit.

I'm frustrated and sad.

(And, yes, I know the U. S. isn't the whole world, but where do the Stones ALWAYS start their tours and where are they playing the last 18 shows of their career? However, they will of course play the last REAL farewell shows in England in 2007! No question about that.)

so then the Eagles greatest hits it the best album ever? It is the biggest selling . . .

I don't understand your logic, Mr. Knife.

U2 splits the spoils equally between them regardless of songwritting credits.
This promotes unity in the band since they all have an equal interest in the result.

Mick does not want to split the spoils equally, so to preserve his Jagger/Richards song writing legacy he now dominates the recording sessions. (maybe always has except for his solo career vacation)

I personlly do not like U2.

I love listening to Ronnie and Keith playing the songs, that is The Stones to me.
A bigger Bang is missing this. Mick has played alot of guitar since '78, but not taking the left or right position, just the middle, more fill in rythmn.

Bigger Bang is a Mick and Keith guitar album. Mick plays solid but nothing like Ronnie.

Don't be silly...I'm saying that an album by someone of the stature of the Rolling Stones should at least sell as many copies & get as many awards as U2. I just don't think their albums should sell & get about as much recognition as the latest album from Scott Stapp, for instance.

and i think you're right about that.

I don't think saying Mick is writing all by himself is Mick's bashing. If he had some more competition from the other other members or Keith even pretending he cares about writing good songs, I don't think he would mind. I genuinely think he still wants to put the best album out there, whoever (between Keith or him) writes the song. Otherwise he'd just release a new solo album. The sad reality is Keith decided Mick is the leader and that's it. I don't think Mick planned a coup or something like that. Without Mick's involvement in and outside the band, there would be no Stones, period.


As for U2's last albums, there are pretty bad, even though they appeal to the masses -- but then again, so does Jessica Simpson. And their writing process has always been different so comparing the two just doesn't make sense.

Maybe there's more work put into U2's albums but so what??? See their albums suck BIG TIME no matter how hard they work on it it seems. The Stones can do recording sessions in short time and still bring down the house. See that's TALENT!!!

JumpingKentFlash

Good 2 see the ol positive outlook coming through again.

Makes a change comparing everything to U2 as well..... mmmmmm only about a 15 year gap between the too!

ABB gets the best reviews in years but ya still gripe!

Unbelievable......

Perhaps if the band had bothered to take any semblence of time into making ABB into the decent album that it COULD have been, they wouldn't have the problem of trying to move the huge ticket mountain that exists in Europe at the moment.

U2, on the other hand, with a half-decent album (by their own high standards) sold out EVERYWHERE.

I've said it before, the stones have no faith in their own contemporary music output which is why they hardly ever perform it live.

I'm sure you can find a U2 fan site out there somewhere......

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure you can find a U2 fan site out there
> somewhere......

or ,in your case, a sycophantic-Stones site ,
where criticizm (constructive or otherwise) isn't tolerated.
(rs.com message boards, spring to mind)

Oh, the handbags are out today!!

Hey, I know, why don't ya start a thread about how the Beatles were always crap? We aint had that one for a while?