The Joker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back to Bono...
>
> The bottom line is : Bono wants to change the
> world, Jagger does not.


Jagger doesnt need to. Thanks to us, he owns most of it.

My take on this is that the Stones are an "old" band. They aren't really bringing in that many new fans. I'm sure U2 is bringing in more "new" fans than the Stones are and that will probably be the case from here on. U2 is about 25 years old and a lot of people "believe" in Bono and his mission and there will always be people who are drawn to an artist because of his/her poiltical beliefs and efforts so U2 has that going for them along with their music and legend etc... I don't know about any of the Stones' missions or causes but they aren't on TV or the radio here in the States promoting them.The Stones hve music, legend,and their live act but not much else...which is all I want from a rock band!

Like someone posted earlier: Mick doesn't want to change the world. He probably doesn't want to do anything but make good music (we hope) and make money.

That's ok by me

Keith of course is completely straight

Even if U2 sold out 2 stadium shows in Paris, it is not possible to compare their small America and Europe Tour with the Licks World Tour!!!

How many shows will U2 play in America, and how many STADIUM shows?????

So few....

It is very easy to quickly sell out an Arena Tour...

And will U2 go to Australia, Japan, India, Hong Kong???

NO!!!

How many shows will they play in Europe???

Come on everybody,

Their small tour cannot be compared with ANY of the latest 5 World Tours oh the Stones

So far, U2 have booked 28 arena shows in North America, 31 stadium shows in Europe and an additional 33 arena shows in North America.
They will add more arena shows in North America. And they will go to Australia and Japan.

If the Stones plan to tour only arenas, which is for me non sense,as they are still the greatest act which implies Stadiumsi accrosn Europe and the Americas, that does mean that this ultimate Album desperately waiting on by Fans is not coming and will never be released. That will be the end of the Stones as we have always known them : at the top.That is for me all along these 40 years of
hearing those riffs and a guy who cannot imagine this world without Mick, Keith, Charlie and Bill an earthquake.
Regards to all and welcome to U2 and others like Coldplay

i really-----Dont like their music---thats all

who - the Stones?

lol----like U2s--first ones---Theyll never top the Stones

I really think that there is no band that can even be compared with our favorite band ! that's for sure...
but the point is that there are other music and other bands than the RS.
so let's be open-minded !

Rock and Roll has changed a lot from its beginning to nowadays : thanx to great band like the RS. but also thanx to bands like U2 that has brought obviously something to R & R.

That is in, fact a F@!.in' great news that Rock bands can sell out 2 paris shows and other venues all over the world.

Rock is not dead ! o)))))))

What a fuss about U2....

Lots of acts of worse quality are selling out venues around the world, e.g. Celine Dion, Britney Spears, Real TV offsprings etc...

I really don't care...


[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

Hey Doc......leave Britney alone!She can't help it if she has no talent but a really great body!

I think U2 are doing so well because they have the youth following them right now.

The same phenomenon when the Stones were back in 1981 when the audience in the US was YOUNGer again. They would not have had such a BIG tour without a new generation wanting to see them.

But I don´t know if U2 are still there in 24 years...

Thats a fair point but the problem with the Stones is that their ticket prices and comparitive invisibility and low profile for long periods means that they arent attracting a new audience anymore like they used to.

Obviously there are exceptions and there are several young people on this board who are big fans, but in general most people under about 25 dont know who they are, arent exposed to their music (not necessarily through any fault of their own) and simply cant afford to or WONT buy concert tickets that are often 4-5 times as high as many major acts that they also like.

the Stones, with each successive tour, are playing to a more ageing fanbase which is diminishing through time because they're not 'recycling' it.

It's a fair analysis but you do not conclude or propose any pro-active actions .
I have heard this kind of reasoning too many times. The Stones regained popularity each time they threw out Rock songs like Stat me up or some stuff in Steel Wheels. Don't Stop was nice but... On my point of view the answer lies with Mick and Keith daring to write # 1 top selling songs and we know they have the ability to do so provided they can stay together with Charlie in a room for some times.

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a fair analysis but you do not conclude or
> propose any pro-active actions .


Didnt realise I was supposed to.:-) Thats their 'problem',if they want or care enough to do something about it. I don't see any signs that they do, to be honest.


I think the solutions are there in what I posted. Be more high profile, musically active and drop their ticket prices. I dont envisage any of those 3 taking place.

Thanks for this conclusion which was in fact in between the lines of your prior mail. As you are much better informed than I( I got none), this means that the new CD will add nothing, that the new tour will be arenas ( no new Wembley) and thus the Stones have to drop and play in movies like the Pirates in Carrabeans.
Best Regards and good WE.

I wouldnt say I'm that well informed..lol

I do think the new tour will be mostly arenas but with some stadiums and theatres too. I do think they will play the new Wembley Stadium. I'd put money on it, in fact.

as for the new album - well, who can tell?

While I do agree with everything gazza has said about higher profile, lower prices etc I don't think that there is any way for the Stones to gain new fans anymore. Through no fault of the Stones or the fans. It's just the way of the world. The Stones are too old. Teenagers will never ever make a song by 60 year olds a number one hit. It doesn't matter what that song does. The artist matters as much as the tune. If I'm 20 years old I am just not intersted in what a 60 year old man has to say. Or how he hops around in concert.
I think the Stones have done an amazing job throughout their career to relight the flames. They practically gave re-birth to themsleves 3 to 4 times. And each time gathered a whole new generation of fans. But even the fans they gained in one of thei later rebirths are by now middleaged. Remember "Steel Wheels" (a VERY late Stones album) is already 16 years old. If I discovered the Stones back then as a young whippersnapper I am now approaching 40.
The sad but real truth is that time moves on and the Stones need to hang it up. At least on a lage scale. Yeah, Solomon, BB KIng play on till the day the die; the Stones might do the same. But at some point you become part of a different type of musical act. I wouldn't say nostalgia act. But you are just not part of the top A-team anymore.
I don't think that anyone ever will go asd long as the Stones have gone.
IMO U2 is still part of the A team. For that reason I don't comopare the two acts.
I just hope the Stones have the sense and balance to pull back with grace. There is nothing, NOTHING I would hate more than to see my boys end this untouchable career not in style.

I'm not so sure its impossible for younger people to appreciate acts as old as the Stones. I see a higher propotion of young people (I mean, 25 and under) at Bob Dylan concerts than Stones shows, for example. Bob tours all the time and his shows are affordable. Obviously he's not going to have hit singles, but few people over the age of 16 take that genre seriously anyway, so its still possible to attract a younger audience with an appreciation of what your music represents without having to look like Justin Timberlake.

How old are Aerosmith, for example? They must all be on the wrong side of 50. They've now actually passed the Stones (within the last year) in all time record sales. Even if I dont care for their music at all, they're obviously doing something right.

You make a lot of good points, though

Aerosmith has sold more records than the Rolling Stones? Wow, that's incredible news. Aerosmith did have a late string of hits in the last 15 years, where as the Stones wasted so much good material on solo albums. That's the problem with solo albums. If the best of Primitive Cool, Wandering Spirit, She's the Boss, Goddess in the Doorway, Talk is Cheap, & Main Offender would have put on Rolling Stones albums....they legacy might be even stronger than it is.

Aerosmith doesnt have the track record sales wise - with 2 or 3 (Geffen label) exceptions, as Shawn says. And the Stones put out 11 studio albums in the 60s, U2 has put out 11 from 1980 - 2004. Lets see if U2 are still going platinum plus(a la 40 Lix, VL & B2in 2020 or after 14 more studio albums, whichever comes first (let me guess which it will be)...or recruiting all their fans to stadiums or arenas...speaking of attracting new fans, the U2 "Bomb" cd dropped down the Billboard 200 charts rather precipitously after the first couple weeks, a hit for sure but not one that appears to be converting newbies much (rather like a stones albums of the past decade)....not that it means everything, natch, since except to see the RS I never go to stadiums (or even arenas since Jimmy Page in 1988)....but really, the Stones' record of 40 years of top 5 studio (and then some) albums & record setting tours looks unbeatable for some time to come

Great post john R
I agree. U2 is a middle aged band, and they don't beat the Stones at any point. And they never will. I would bet my entire collection that U2 ain't gonna hold until they're the Stones' age.

JumpingKentFlash