My first U2 live experience yesterday, in Gelsenkirchen/Germany.
Just the four of them, not even an additional keyboard player (expect Bono, the other three members played some)
All songs stood firm, from the oldest ones like 'Electric Boy/girl(?)' till Vertigo (played twice). They messed up 'Party Girl' and than started improvising, what would not have been possible with the tons of background musicians the Stones use.
If Keith and Ron together play half of the amount of guitar of what the Edge (no posing, just play) does alone , I'll sign up for the complete European leg of the new tour.
The greatest light show I ever witnessed. Very good sound in an 60,000 seat arena. So much better than the sound of the Stones in the Amsterdam arena during the BtB and Licks tour.
The audience, approx. 80% in their thirties, seem to know and appreciate all the songs. They have grown more with the band than most people at a Stones gig. And the band is not afraird to play new songs, they played some 7 songs from 'how to dismantle'.
Only I don't like Bono's preaching. Too much UN/Africa stuff. And he is by far not the performer Jagger is.

Wait until they are in their sixties...
You have to compare them with the stones from 81/82, concerning the age.
For me it's clear which band to choose, I don't mind about U2s music since the 80ies, and Bono sucks.

And in all other cases, thanx for the info. Have fun at your next U2 gigs, I'm looking forward to MSG.

The Stones are the Stones, not more to say.

"Wait until they are in their sixties...
You have to compare them with the stones from 81/82, concerning the age."

(micawber, above)

First line is really well put.
Comparison thought well thought, though actually the Stones of 1986-88 would be a more fair period. Bono is 45 now, not really a youngster.

Let´s be honest, we all envy those U2 fans a bit. The band has at least 10 years to go. They sell out everything and take reasonable prices. They don´t need any background crap and seem to have a guitar player who works on stage. Their sound engineers blow the people away with a clear and hard sound. That´s something I would like for the next Stones tour.

BUT: I hate those preaching attitude, R+R is not about the UN (except Eddie Cochran´s Summertime Blues). Imagine U2 playing a Chuck Berry tune! An awful thought. And I don´t want to be reminded how bad this @#$%& world is in a rock show. I´d join Attac! instead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-13 10:58 by TooTough.

Just read a review of the consert in Bruxelles and they didn't get the best critics - just an average so so consert....

It was only after about 1 hour they hit their normal standard..... so even the highly praised U2 are normal ones.....

Don't talk daft.Like comparing coca cola with champagne.

U2 are great live and Pop is a greta record and they have had very good singles after that album. They are exciting.

The Stones were exciti9ng at the PC - they were a band there. No back up means they are good and exciting. Bono is a much better singer though. And they play interesting songs, Stones do their Vegas show a bit too often. Maybe that will change this year?

I saw them in Brussels. And it wasn't the best performance. Bad sound also.

But I know they can do a lot better. They are a supurb live band. And The Edge is one of the most underestimated guitarists around.
One of the most distinctive sounds around.

All these comparisions between U2 and The Stones is ridiculous. They are different bands. I guess Stones fans are just jealous of U2. Because let's face it... the biggest band around is U2 and not The Stones. U2 is still hot, while The Stones are touring because they have the status of a legendary band. U2 can still release an album competing with their best (Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby - although I think HTDAAB is disapointing)... The Stones can't.

And Bono is a frontman with guts. I always admired him. He doesn't care what people think of his 'making this world a better place'... he just keeps on doing it. The man is rock & roll.

U2 are a great sounding band on CD,there is no doubt about that.But live they are bland.They try and liven things up with the "Stage show",but take away the gimmicks and your left with a product that is dulland liveless.Bono is embarassing as a live performer,almost as embarassing as his interviews.Mick has more talent in his little finger than Bono has in his entire fat little body.To say he is a better singer is utter crap,your obviously on the wrong site.

Bono is more like having a cup of tea with the prime minister, Keith is Mr. Rock'n'Roll!

6 out of 6 in the norwegian press. BTW, 6 is the best

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones were exciti9ng at the PC - they were a
> band there. No back up means they are good and
> exciting. Bono is a much better singer though. And
> they play interesting songs, Stones do their Vegas
> show a bit too often. Maybe that will change this
> year?
>
> and Ay ay baby it hurts


Best I´ve heard from you, La, in decades!
Right on!

I saw U2 in 82 - unforgettable!
Saw them again 85 - forgettable.

They had their major impact during a tiume when the Stones were
low down. Stones were The Greatest Rock'n' Roll Band In The World

som 17-18 years before U2:s prime time; and the same goes for a similar time period after their prime times ending (which I put at about 1987).

... and again... the comparisons with the stones... why? how?

U2 is a band like no other. Just like The Stones.
I prefer The Stones too, but I also adore U2. You can like both you know.

I also like both. Will always do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-13 13:09 by Baboon Bro.

I heard that U2 had a keyboarder named Terry Lovelace under the stage during their last tour, who played only small parts that their guitarist was not able to put into a song. Or is this just a rumour?

They had a keyboard player or (recorded keyboard) somewhere/somehow last tour - you can hear the keybaord without any of the four playing it......

Though short time to post, I want to develop, slightly, my post above.
The fact that I was not satisfied with my U2-experience in 85 doesnt mean I say U2 was 'over' by then... On the contrary. They had a real upwards period in late 80´s. I wrote 87, above; which was mean, because they did some damn good thing in 88 and some more year. The 90´s they did the rock star trip and didnt no longer run ahead ot their time imho... It was like most of the 80´s was for the Stones (and to some extent also the 90´s).
But in years 1980-84 they were first, ahead, avantgarde... You name it! I still think the Edge´s guitar is a painfully nice goosebumper and still it feels fresh (like Keith do, when groovin in barbed wire-rock style; or Jagger when the right blues or r'n'r button is pushed; Ronnie in the mood; Charlie almost always & Darryl at his best).
I had the occasion to see U2 while breaking internationally (first - along with the Isles, as I got it, in Scandinavia) in the early summer of 1982. It happened to be at my first concert at my first Roskilde festival, first night, Friday night, dont remember the date but it copuld have been the 30th of June... They played at Stones old canopy-stage (have a friend which mind i stuck with the wish & vision that the Stones should play Roskilde´ 05 at their own stage... But when considering it, I wonder if they havent cut these stage into little pieces).

Otherwise I think Stones themselves (esp. Mick) as well as their fans have always been obsessed with 'competing' bands at the higher level.

U2 is an awesome live band, one of the best!!!!
They put on a great show. They always seem to have a good light show with every song. But with there music they can do a lot more with light etc then let's a rock 'n roll band like the stones because of the different type of music. Edge is still an awesome guitarist, very consistent!!!

I agree with everybody here that you can't compare the two bands other then that they are among a few that have big staium tours.

I'm going to see them in Amsterdam this tour and i'm looking forward to it. I've been to all three shows in Holland during the lastb tour and they were all great.



ps. They have someone playing keyboards playing on some songs because it has to be there because of the song. I really admire them for having such a great sound with just four, sometimes five people playing. We saw it at the PC, the stones can still rock like the old days with just the five of them!!!

Cheers,
Wuudy

Someone said Bono is a better singer... That's the worst thing one could say in comparison to Mick.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-13 14:31 by Rutger.

U2 has always hide their backing musicians, During the ZooTV tour, my friend had seats to see them that were towards the side of the stage and he told me that they even had a backing guitarist.

The Edge constantly experiments with new gear in the studio, Keith and Ron stick to their stuff.

Hi,
I don`t see how to compare them...The Edge is a great guitarist...
but, comparing him to Keith is not fair...I mean, it`s the Stones, man.
I don`t like that "Who is better" thing at all...
You should not compare musicans to each other, as it`s all kind of personal taste...so there is no right or wrong, which means there is no better or worse.

Maybe someone who is playing an instrument can say that player a is technically better than player b...but what does that mean ?
People say, that Dire Straits is one of the best guitar players in the world technicaly...far better than Keith or Ronny ever will be....so what ?

The Stones are out of competition for years, since they reached their own orbit.

By the way...U2 does use backing musicans, of course. They are just hidden behind the stage.

See you on the tour
Salar

It's obvious that even the hard core fans have lost their faith in the Stones.

billwebster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Edge constantly experiments with new gear in
> the studio, Keith and Ron stick to their stuff.


I´m 100% sure you mean this in a positive way,
but it could be read negative.

The same thing as you call "Stuff", could also be called
"always working on refining rock 'n' roll... "

keith and ron together dont compare to the edge alone
even with the help of jagger and blondie, its sad really
btw u2 does not use backstage help, lets not go there
give the edge the credit he deserves, he is a genius player
and i love the stones way more than u2, but iam being honest



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-13 19:28 by melillo.

Talking about Edge versus Keith/Ron - the music they play is quite different.... so in that respect you can't compare them......

Funny enough, the Edge doesn't play the endless solo's - so in that respect I like him quite much.....

"btw u2 does not use backstage help, lets not go there"

You can't be serious, don't be fooled. They use plenty of back up musicians they just hide them. But often don't do a great job depending on what kind of venue they play. When the lights go on they are all visible most of the time.

The Edge has a brain and he uses it. He plays guitar and expermints with production etc. He's a guitar genius if you want. A unique style of his own. Keith makes his same old 'dis guitah is too 'ot to touch and Ronnie dances. Now, Keith can play Im sure but he should reallyjust focus on playing the guitar.

The Edge is a brilliant improvisational guitar player. Watching him on stage is a constant amazement - the way he uses the different foot pedals and boxes, plus his slide to get those strange unique sounds out of his guitar are a real lesson in exploring the boundaries of the instrument. But he can also play a straight ahead rock song when he plays something like Vertigo. Just a Telecaster, three chords and an insistent riff that goes right to your spine and head.
Don't compare the Edge with Keith or Ronnie. They are three different guitarists who probably have an amazing amount of respect for each other. So should we.