Just had a look at U2.com. The whole world tour seems to be completely sold out in advanceand and that includes 7(!!!) shows at MSG. So even if we don't like it: U2 is definitely the No 1 band in the world these days. No one comes close to them attracting masses of fans (lots of young ones, too) like they do. Lower ticket prices is not the only explanation, even at the same ticket prices as U2 they wouldn't sell out MSG 7 times in hours. What do you think ???

U2 - Selling their souls to Apple probably had something to do w/ it....especially since they have their own Ipod and doing Apple/Ipod TV commercials on MTV ALL THE DAMN TIME...

Ipods are how most "young people" prefer to listen to their music....so, being a spokesperson for that very product gets them more recognition....

interestingly enough, there was a brief blurb in the most recent Newsweek...centering around the total death of cassette tapes...and the Ipod explosion....

And Bono gets his mug on TV for lots more than just music (often times I think he is trying for a Nobel Peace Prize and nothing more....IMHO), so I imagine he is simply more recognizable....

dunno...that's just my take....

You dont figure that the fact that most of their albums sell around 8 - 10 million may have something to do with..gasp...their popularity and the fact they've remained creative and active rather than Apple?

No 1 band in the world based on what? record sales? probably up there but some acts sell more.

As a concert draw? no - its still the Stones. Why base the stats on one venue in one city. The Stones draw more crowds worldwide

if the Stones and U2 put tickets onsale at the same price structure, the Stones would always outdraw U2 in most markets.

Think about it. The Stones will play 3 nights at MSG on this tour plus Giants stadium which holds 3 times the capacity of the Garden. Thats 120,000 tickets and they'll all go...and they could sell more too.

Not knocking their musical prowess or ability or sustained creativity...I like U2 and I think they are very talented...

but, getting your mug on TV (a lot), your songs played on TV commercials, your video in steady rotation, your band's name on the most popular music-downloading/playing device available, and non-stop appearances on all sorts of both musical and political causes has SOMETHING to do w/ it as well...

marketing and advertising, man...name, face, and image recognition is the KEY...

why do you think Ronald McDonald is one of the most recognizable "people" in the world? The quality of the food?

But....yeah....I agree that their talent has SOMETHING to do w/ it...but, marketing is a MAJOR force as well...

the stones could still get a younger public, if they lower the prices, friends of mine wanted to go in 2003 but didn't cos 80 euros where to expensive for them!

And there are thousand and thousands who think the same way and the number of these people will still be growing. So sad sad sad!

It are the stones that are number 1 (Voodoo Lounge Tour) and number 2 (Licks World Tour) on the all time most succesful worldtours list.... not U2.

And so what... who cares if U2 is more popular these days. They're a great band.

The Stones were actually never the most popular band (60s: The Beatles, 70s: Led Zeppelin, 80s: Michael Jackson)... but the stones were incredibly popular in all the decades. No other band could have done that.

It's all about advertising. U2 had great media exposure with their (mediocre) hit album, and that ipod thing they pulled off with Apple. The Stones so far only had their press conference.

I don't give a damn, I like what I like. Do you like the Stone only if they are no. 1? Grow up.

Pfft--I love U2, and there's no point whatsoever in comparing them with the Stones--they are completely different. I've listened to U2's performance in 2005, and it's just comparing apples & oranges.

The world is big enough for both of them, so stop the comparisons. It's an exercise in rhetoric, and has no definitive answer.

In other words, just shut up and enjoy the music.

exactly, bassplayer

being a number one consumer product is by no means an indication of quality...i mean the number 1 eatery in the states is mcdonalds, the numero uno beer is budweiser, etc...U2 to me falls into that category but by no means do i begrudge their success in anyway as long as i don't have to go...

stones are number 1,.saw u2 last night great show,and great stage set up.

john scialfa

U2 have been able to relate to the Zeitgeist a lot better than the stones. They have stayed relavant; the shows, image and records saying something about the culture we live in. The Stones (whose music I vastly prefer) have lived in their own bubble and when they have tried to say something about political/cultural issues its been toe curlingly embarrassing (Blinded by Rainbows - Bono would not have written a anything so trite and superficial)

Why don't we wait how U2 does in 20 years. Because that's the same time span the Rolling Stones have already now.
U2 is a very good band, but never related to anything wild or unacceptable or irrespectable like the Stones are. The Stones are still related as the bad boys of the 60ies and honestly I would charge USD 500 for a ticket if I would be able to do so. Don't forget that tickets for Streisand's concerts have been more than 1000 USD for marginal seats years ago. I do not want to compare, but if there would be no people paying for it, nobody would be there....
Rolling Stones means also Rolling bucks.

@#$%& U2.

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."