Hi
This is my opinion about u2:
People say they are the stones' competition
They talk about cd sales and their tours around world..
They make comparisons with the ROLLING STONES!!!!
The Rolling Stones are rocknrollers! , they liked blues forever , sometimes they play some songs with Mr. Buddy Guy , they played with Muddy Waters , Chuck Berry , at the same time they did stones rock and sometimes disco , i think u2 are pop music , stones rock!
We can't say they are better , they started to play on 1976 , stones in 1961
A great rocknroll band shouldnt be classified by their records sold.
The Stones are the number #4 Greatest Artists of all time on Rolling Stone Magazine , while u2 is the number 22.
The Stones played almost without sleeping at London for one year!
So...
Lets hear at some music of the 2 bands
Stones-Gimme Shelter - Perth , feb 24 1973
-[www.sendspace.com]
U2-Sunday Bloody Sunday-London , jun 12 87
-<a href='[www.sendspace.com];
So, what is the rockiest band?

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-08 04:38 by monkeyman07.

All those comparisons are quite silly.What is the use of them?If somebody likes U2 better, that is ok,it's just that person's personal taste.Nothing more.
Both bands are huge not only in terms of record sales but also in terms of great music they created.The Stones are in my opinion far better and much more influential but as I have said it really doesn't matter.

Im trying to say stones are more rocker than u2

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

say what you will about u2, but they have done it with all original members for almost 30 years, no other band can say that, even though i will always like the stones more, even the vegas version of today

duck geese!!!!!!!!! duck geese??????????

That original members thing is total nonsense in my opinion. So what. By the early eightees the Who did not have all original members and the Bee Gees did. Does that mean that they were better than the Who?

I give U2 credit for hanging around for nearly thirty years but they benefit greatly from the fact that they exist in a music vacuum. When the Stones were in their heyday they existed the same time as acts like Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Kinks etc. etc..

Of course U2 is going to stand out and look good because there are no other big time acts out there now. Not saying U2 is a bad group- if they were they wouldn't stand out at all- but they are very overrated in my opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-08 07:30 by FrankM.

Comparisons are daft.

Different eras and different styles of music, and only an idiot would become obsessed about attendances and gross incomes. Mind you, there are enough of them about on this site.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That original members thing is total nonsense in
> my opinion. So what. By the early eightees the Who
> did not have all original members and the Bee Gees
> did. Does that mean that they were better than the
> Who?
>

of course not, but thats not the point, the point was exactly what i said, u2 is
doing it with all original members and that is not easy at all, plus i dont put the bee gees in the same planet with all those other bands, they are a disco band who harldly even play instruments

i like both groups and comparing them is very difficult.



i was into u2 in a big way and thier early stuff is great



but the stones are the best ever in my opinion.

U2: pop music, nothing really any rock sounding, sorry for U2 fans.

Rolling Stones: rock'n roll at it's best. Simply the best band in the world, non matter what naysayers say.

Simple as that.

I am not a naysayer ok, i like the stones as much or more than you do, but lets face it if they change anymore members they may as well change the name of the band

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I give U2 credit for hanging around for nearly
> thirty years but they benefit greatly from the
> fact that they exist in a music vacuum.

What kind of music vacuum are you talking about?The Eighties were a great decade for rock music even though it might seem opposite you.
There were bands like The Smiths,REM,The Minutemen,Depeche Mode,The Gun Club etc
U2 is actually not even among the best bands of the decade,it is just the most popular.And mind you I do think that U2 used to be an excellent band.They are probably still good to see live but their albums are just disposable.

U2 is a great band. Stones or no, U2 has put together a real book of impressive original work. That is what no one does anymore except for very few bands. Everybody wants to hit the Hall of Fame before really having done anything.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

monkeyman07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi
> This is my opinion about u2:
> People say they are the stones' competition
> They talk about cd sales and their tours around
> world..
> They make comparisons with the ROLLING STONES!!!!
>

The only people I see making comparisons are a few paranoid Stones fans who are overly-obsessive about the 'competition'. This post being an example.

I'd say U2's "competitors" if such a thing exists, would rather be their own contemporaries, like Depeche Mode, Toto, Bon Jovi, Metallica,
but not the Stones.

People just be glad that we are living in a time when those 2 bands and others are walking the earth. Don't know who's gonna play the HONKY TONKS when they are gone. Hey, I have dug the Stones for over half my life, so they are my favorite just like U2 are the favorites of another generation. So what. Gotta keep rocking.

stones_serb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I give U2 credit for hanging around for nearly
> > thirty years but they benefit greatly from the
> > fact that they exist in a music vacuum.
>
> What kind of music vacuum are you talking
> about?The Eighties were a great decade for rock
> music even though it might seem opposite you.
> There were bands like The Smiths,REM,The
> Minutemen,Depeche Mode,The Gun Club etc
> U2 is actually not even among the best bands of
> the decade,it is just the most popular.And mind
> you I do think that U2 used to be an excellent
> band.They are probably still good to see live but
> their albums are just disposable.

REM and the Minutemen? I like REM and have a lot of their stuff but you can't compare them to The Beatles, Bob Dylan etc.

My point was that the sixties were a much better decade for music so if The Stones were one of the acts at the top of the heap in that decade it really says something.

The top act in eightees- whoever you might think it is- probably wouldn't even be one of the top ten acts of the sixties if they existed in that decade.

I have never thought of U2 and the Stones in the same light. One band is legendary and are the kings of rock and roll with a catalog of albums that are mind blowing. The other, a very good band, with several great albums as well, th ebest being 'War' and 'Joshua Tree' which are in the best of the best albums ever.

I don't think you can compare, its like that Aerosmith vs. Stones thing-whats the point? I would assume at a U2 forum they would say the same thing, in favor of U2.

Whats the point? U2 is a great band, the last few albums have been wimpy but hey the strongest Stones material is over 25 years old too.

I wonder if Bono or the Edge could do a solo album, now that would be interesting.

Mind you that 'Satisfaction' kicks the ass of any U2 song.

jjflash73

This version is quite offbeat..

wimpy, you call all that you cant leave behind wimpy? what are you on

the problem with u2 is bono
for sure he could sing good in the 80s and early 90s
but since atyclb album his voice is damaged cause of heavy smoking
and he is an insult to any rock star in the world
in 100 years noone will remember him but mick will always be
in peoples minds

but i have to admit u2 shows are better these days than stones shows
but this is just a question of age of the fans

Pretty simple..its all a matter of personal taste...period.

stones_serb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U2 is actually not even among the best bands of
> the decade,it is just the most popular....

Let's see at the end of ABB.

glimmer twin 81 wrote: "u2 shows are better these days than stones shows"

Well, that's a matter of taste. For example my girlfriend, huge U2 and REM fan (but mainly U2 fan!), has completely different opinion. After having seen the Stones -last summer- for first time in her life, she said "i have to admit that they're clearly better than my heroes, live"...

stones_serb Wrote: "U2 is actually not even among the best bands of
the decade,it is just the most popular...."

What terms in? Green Day, Coldplay and some other bands are selling better than U2. As for their popularity as live act, of course, only U2 can compare with the Stones. Vertigo tour attracted 4.5 million people. ABB tour probably will "catch" something more, but think two factors: the high frequency of Stones tours in the last years and the clear different between ticket prices. So..

Quality of music is the most important thing, of course. But it's a matter of taste. Personally i appreciate every U2 album from their beginning to 1991. But after Achtung Baby, i think something goes wrong with their music. My opinion. But U2 is a respectable, significant band, anyway.

I wrote : "Green Day, Coldplay and some other bands are selling better than U2." I mean albums...

I can't compare them. I saw U2 on Joshua Tree Tour and several times later. 2005 last time. But it's never the same for me. They might had or have influence on other bands, but never the way the Stones had. Not musical. Not the spirit and everything. Songs`? Ok there are plenty of good U2 songs. But there are thousands of good Stones songs (LOL.. I am here on IORR because I am a Stones addict.. not a U2.. ) For me U2 is Pop. But I like Pop sometimes. And I hope to see them again. Will go to get a beer the time Bono makes his speaches.

With me some can talk about comparism U2-Stones in 20 years.

nah u2 is not pop
but you are right mariannerl u2 and the stones
can be compared in 20 or 50 years not now

I'm with Chelsea and weebobby here - U2 is a damn good/even great band, They're not the Stones and don't try to be. I dig their music (not so much Bono's holier-than-thou act).

I don't see the problem with liking the Stones (best of course) and other groups/artists.

"No Anchovies, Please"

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nah u2 is not pop

Well, as a matter of fact they named a record of theirs "Pop". Anyway, they might not be pop to someone's ear, but they're definitely NOT rock - you name it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-09 04:37 by Wild Slivovitz.

I really like your opinions , i started the post because all my friends in my city are bothering me with u2 and they say they're better than stones but we can't say that .
My friends like Green Day and those bands , i can like those bands more than u2!
All i like and need is rock n roll!
So let's hear to 2005 stones and u2:

Vertigo-


Rough Justice:



And who's better in concerts?

u2 live-


stones live-



So..
What is the best ROCKNROLL BAND IN THE WORLD!!??

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

I should post this in an all-bands forum..
Stones have very good blues solos and Ronnie plays the slide guitar pretty well!
U2 hasn't any mother-freakin' solos!
What can i say?
LOL
Jagger also seems to be younger than Bono!
i should close my mouth now! ha

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!