Today U2

Yesterday The Stones

Today: Stones.
Yesterday: Who cares??? Nobody touches the Stones.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-08 13:30 by JumpingKentFlash.

u2: biggest sh.......t. // I listened to all of their music(?), I sold all of that crap very cheap...

I don't make this point because I am a U2 fan, rather from the perspective of current relevance, influence and an overall body of work that is reaching Stones-like proportions. It's okay for citizens of Stones Nation to admit this....

As big as they banged in North America, the Stones were second for the year worldwide to U2's Vertigo, which was the top-grossing trek of 2005, according to Billboard data. Vertigo reported grosses of $260 million and drew more than 3 million people to 90 concerts, all sellouts.



it's just so easy for the Stones.
I mean they are hardly working. All The Stones have to do is show up.

Oh, No, Not This Issue Again!

"As big as they banged in North America, the Stones were second for the year worldwide to U2's Vertigo, which was the top-grossing trek of 2005, according to Billboard data. Vertigo reported grosses of $260 million and drew more than 3 million people to 90 concerts, all sellouts."

No wonder U2 were bigger than the Stones in 2005 - U2 started their tour early spring 2005 and therefore had some 4-5 months more to tour.....

When comparing things, you must consider all main factors being equal as well... else it doesn't make sense....

orange cow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As big as they banged in North America, the Stones
> were second for the year worldwide to U2's
> Vertigo, which was the top-grossing trek of 2005,
> according to Billboard data. Vertigo reported
> grosses of $260 million and drew more than 3
> million people to 90 concerts, all sellouts.
>
>
>
> it's just so easy for the Stones.
> I mean they are hardly working. All The Stones
> have to do is show up.
>


accoerding to Pollstar the Stones had the biggest tour.

As far as grossing is concerned, Stones are going to outsell U2 once more, no doubt about it.
But that's not the matter. if we're talkin' rock'n roll, U2 doesn't fit it. That's not a rock band at all. Stones are a rock band, Aerosmith are ("Just Push Play" notwithstanding). U2 is just a pop band. Listen to their albums.

Even if Rolling Stones anno 2005 is a very controversial matter, I still don't see how anyone can seriously doubt they are the greatest Rock'n Roll band... they're peerless, no one comes close and no one ever will.



"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

I have owned a few U2 records and have enjoyed them pretty well. "Achtung Baby," for one, is amazing--as much a thrilling and atmospheric experience as "Exile."

But I have never ponied up to go see U2. Just haven't felt like it was that important, somehow. And that's pretty significant. It means that somehow a vital connection just hasn't been made.

But when I see them on TV doing "One" with Mary J. Blige or some of the other footage that has emerged from the "Vertigo" tour, I have a sense that what they are doing in concert is a surprising and ecstatic thing. That they are reaching into the audience and lifting it up and that there are real highs and lows involved.

Does the catalogue match up with the Stones? Not for me, not even close. But I sure do wince when the Stones breeze through another high energy, whirlwind glance at their FM radio favorites...I'm not even sure that it's all that sexy anymore.

Keith used to ask the question: "Who's going to grow this music up?" I think it's time that the Stones began to seriously struggle with that and start to offer up something we haven't seen before. I want to see them use that catalogue and those chops to offer up some texture and depth.

Then we won't have to discuss the prospect of U2 swiping the crown...

Stones for me not even close. 2nd favorite may be a suprise but for me its Rush! Mez

well...comparing music is not my business normaly cause it does not work and it does not make sense at all, as it is a matter of taste anyway.

But why are we at this forum ?

To talk about the Stones....to talk about music.

I am a hardcore Stones fan of course....and I am a fan of AC/DC and of U2.

Why do I love Stones more than U2 or AC/DC ?

as I mentioned before it is a matter of taste, but I found out something else.

If I see a U2 show it gets kind of "boring" after 30 minutes cause musicaly it is all the same....it is similar soundwise.

The same with AC/DC...when I saw them in Oberhausen playing before the Stones, they played about 90 minutes....it was fantastic but somehow boring again after half an hour cause you hear oner song you hear them all...you know what I mean?

that does not happen to me when I visit a Stones show.

Their variety is enormous and I am still thrilled by them after 2 hours.

And to those who are seriously comparing the economic success of Stones vs. U2, please keep in mind that A Bigger bang tour started in late August wheras Vertigo started in spring.

The truest compare is to wait until the end of both tours.

I will give my tribut to the Stones in:

Barcelona
Paris ?
Frankfurt
Cologne

see u there

salar

I think you are all missing my point which is to say that although we are dealing with a body of work which is incomparable and defines them as the greatest ever, they have lost their "edginess" vs a band like U2 which is still in a sweet spot creatively and in terms of their impact on the music world today. There is nothing nostalgic about U2 whereas nostalgia pervades the Stones (some their fault and some the fault of time).

To the orange cow...the Stone haven't finished this world wide tour yet so how could you compare them.They will break All the records... As far as U2 goes...They came out some classic discs that I really love but they have lost me with the last two for sure.You can't be the greatest rock n roll band when you are only putting one or two rock tunes on your disc!

"vs a band like U2 which is still in a sweet spot creatively "

Don't see too much creativity in the last CD - How to dismantle .....

How would it sound,if u2 did ''Ýou cat catch me''it woulnt work ,it tells us u2 aint no r&r band ,and damm sure not the greatest.They might be the greatest followers of fashion,and now of there selves.

didn't realize there was a contest. what's the prize again?

getting your sanity back after reading it

For sure a great R'n R band is a band who cares only about music IMO, not marketing and success. I know some but they dont get much airplay on radio & TV.

i still don't get U2 mentioned in the same breath as the Stones......but if somebody mentioned Led Zeppelin, ACDC, Black Sabbath, The Ramones, The New York Dolls, Iggy & The Stooges....those bands with balls, i could understand....U2 has no balls imo

u2 did not play one R&R song in their whole career ,and if they tried it,didnt sound like ''one''(Good song by the by).Luck to them ,its not r&R and they aint baaaaaaad at all.Let them try ,one year of bad behaviour ,they will gladly return the champs belt.

Did keith really like to say, "Who's going to grow this music up?"? I never would have nominated the stones for that job. Anyway, lou reed and neil young have done a pretty good job of it.


I don't get where the basis for comparison is for u2 and the stones, or why this question occurs to people. There are several "breaths" separating them. Considering u2 supposedly came out the new wave or postpunk or ok just late 70s, many years after the stones, I think it just demonstrates how nonessential u2 is. Same goes for tom petty and other mediocre talents accepted by unadventurous classic rock fans.

I don't like U2 music at all, find it tremendously boring. But in terms of audience, I think the Vertigo 1 1/4 year tour could approach the record made by the Stones during SW tour.European 05 leg : 1.9 millions ( 33 shows), US 05 leg :
1.4 millions ( per Pollstar/Billboard), Central and South America 06 leg : .4 million ( up to now 6 shows booked), Australian & N-Zealand 06 leg : .5 Million
( 8 shows ). Total : 4.2 millions so far as more dates will be added both in Europe and the US. As $ is, as someone said but not for me, the only standard, they might top the Stones. Come on Mick & Keith.

what the hell has concert grosses got to do with being the greatest rock n roll band in the world?

Is that the height of some Stones' fans' ambition these days?

Lynn--' I'll bet you were one of those gals who thought that George Michael was straight. There you were, on the dance floor.I can see it now. "I Want Your Sex" comes on over the PA and there you are shaking your booty. You think to yourself "Gosh, that George is hunky and I'd love to shag him. Am I right?

"I may be too old to cut the mustard, but I can still lick the jar".

Rolling Stones-like no other rock and roll band.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what the hell has concert grosses got to do with
> being the greatest rock n roll band in the world?
>
> Is that the height of some Stones' fans' ambition
> these days?


Gazza, as I wrote money is not my standard , far from it. The sole way to measure the legitimacy of an artist is its audience, which in terms give you the will to record new CD. In that sense, touring in Vegas is in no way a push forwar
to write a great opus.

Gee U2 started there tour alot earlier then the Stones and the Stones still grossed more money just goes to prove there is no one, better then the Stones nor will anyone ever be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-01-09 04:55 by Rickster.

Hope you are right. But it will hard for them to attract 2.8 millions people in Europe, South and Central America + Australia and N-Zealand. Not including the free concerts.

When its all over at the end of 2006 the Stones will by far be ahead of U2

how many rock'n'roll standards have U2 written?..........gimme a break........gait receipts have absolutely nothing to do with great rawk'n'roll........there are loads of less popular bands that blow U2 off the planet