Re: U2 lasting as long as the stones
Date: October 5, 2005 15:38
U2 will get boring. They're not versatile enough. They're still making 80's/90's poptunes now. I don't think they really suck musically, I've got a couple of songs, but they're so boring. There's nothing in there that's never been done. I couldn't name the other band members except for this Bono and his friend The Edge or something like that.
AC/DC is cool, I like them allot, but when was the last time they had a Top 40 hit? They have some great songs, but only a couple of real classics like Thunderstruck, It's A Long Way To The Top, You Shook Me All Night Long and Highway To Hell. Same goes for U2, Sunday Bloody Sunday etc. You could name loads Rolling Stones classics in an instant. Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, Honky Tonk Woman, Jumping Jack Flash, Start Me Up, You Can't Always Get You Want, Gimmie Shelter, Paint It Black, I could go on for hours. They're not just classics to me because I'm a fan; 90% of the people on this earth would recognise these songs in an instant. AC/DC, U2, Aerosmith and so on will never have this.
There is no "new Stones". The Stones are unique, innovative, versatile. U2 hasn't done ANYTHING that hasn't been done a thousand times, unlike the Stones, who invented a whole new style of music and performance. Most AC/DC are virtually the same, unlike the Stones, who have loads of different styles. They have psychadelic albums, rock 'n' roll, blues, more hard rock, they have disco songs, gospel songs, ballads. They're way, way more versatile than any other band.