I think u2 will be the only band to come close to the stones
as far as staying together for decades, and they will most likely
do it with all original members, by the time the stones were together as long as u2 is now they already had three different guitar players, its really amazing
that u2 has stuck it out like they have, they have been together since 78
or even earlier, it may happen, ya never know

I agree...but aerosmith will get there first.

Josh

yeah but some of aerosmiths originals took a five year break, does that still count

good point. I dunno if they still do.

It's just not the same. First the Stones came out at a time when artists had to perform continuously, & once they had a recording contract put out a new hit every couple of months - which the RS did. And now you can hang around forever putting out an album every 3 or 4 years. U2 have put out 11 studio albums since their late '80 or early '81 debut; the Stones issued 11 studio albums in the '60s alone, and that was fairly typical for major bands. Plus the Stones' importance on both rock & roll and what was then called 'youth culture' is immeasurable.

I dont know bono is getting pretty fat these days can he last that long?

TOM

U2 will maybe last long - but that will only be because of their's political activity (mixing politics with music / wanting to win Nobel price) to promote their music (CD's / tours).....

U2 may hang around for a while and Aerosmith is up there but they are not The Rolling Stones.

If Jerry Garcia did not die the dead would have toured forever, but they would never be The Rolling Stones

Milo, NYC
I wrote that @#$%& book

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah but some of aerosmiths originals took a five
> year break, does that still count


Well the stones took a little break from '85 'till '89 so that still counts.

Cheers,
Wuudy

yeah but they never broke up, aerosmith did in a way

and dont forget u2 is doing it with all original members, unheard of

THE PROBLEM WITH U2 IS, THEY AINT NASTY AND WILD

What about AC/DC? Ok they replaced the singer, but it was not that they had a choice and are still succelfull.

Cheers,
Wuudy

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.

ALL RIGHT REP CAN I GET A WITNESS

Oh yeah and they ain't nasty and wild. That's what the girls liked about them in the 60's. Nowadays girls want wimps that go to Africa to help those skinny kids on telivision. "Hey look at me! I have sympathy for poor Africans kids! My new album's out 13-10-05!".

HEY REP WHEN DO THE STONES PLAY AFRICA!

u2 has released just a fraction of material compared to the rolling stones.
time will tell...

TIME DOES NOT WAIT FOR U2 ONE IS ONE HELL OFF A MOTHER!STONES HAVE A THOUSAND ONES

..The comment that makes me finally delete IORR from my desktop..

"Nowadays girls want wimps that go to Africa to help those skinny kids on telivision. "Hey look at me! I have sympathy for poor Africans kids!"
d
At least they are trying to bring the fate of thousands of children to the eyes and minds of the rest of the world....

NOW THATS SHITTTTEEEEEEEE ROLLING STONES CARE AND GIVE MORE ITS SECRET AN YA OUGHT THA KNOW!

at least as a political party!

but u2 will be the first band ever to last 40+ years with all original members
thats what i think anyway , unless there is a death of course

ZZ Top have never had any line-up changes, and they're going on 35 years.

As far as U2, I think they could conceivably hold out for 40+ years...although Bono's voice is getting a little weak in the upper registers. Too much smoking I think.

Also, his activism may end up taking up more and more of his time. I'm not sure if the other members are willing to work on his schedule for another 10+ years.

They're a good band, but they'll never be as good as the Stones. They have a chance to last longer, though, because they've all taken care of themselves and never done bunches of drugs. But what good is lasting a long time if you can't have a little fun along the way?

oh i didnt know about zz top i guess they are next in line, but lets face it
they are not in the same league as u2

U2 can't even carry the stones luggage.
stones are in a class of their own.
U2 i turn them off when i hear them
anyone agree

your choice , but it does not take away what u2 has done

Unforgettable Fire & Joshua Tree were very good.

U2 seemed to lose their way after these albums.

Way too much yelling from Bono. Haven't been interested in them since 1987.

the stones also lost there way in the mid 70s and early to mid 80s
with the exception of tattoo you