bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
You can't compare the
> Stones and U2 because U2 is a much younger band,
> they are only 4, they don't use backup musicians,
> they have probably never been in jail, they have a
> nice little story but they are not really sex
> drugs and rock'n'roll.

You state these things as if they are negatives against U2 compared to the Stones, but in reality they are all positives. Almost everyone on this site would prefer the Stones not to use backup musicians.

The "never been in jail" is just a ridiculous statement. As if this truly makes an artist better by being a screwup and going to jail. We're not talking the rap world here, where mindless fans respect the rappers even more after they go to jail. If this is how we make judgments as to what musicians we love, then we should all be massive David Crosby fans, even more than Stones fans. To believe in this silly "sex drugs and rock 'n' roll" creed is pathetic. I like Keith Richards in spite of his drug usage and run ins with the law, not idolize him because of this. By the way, U2 bassist Adam Clayton was arrested in August 1989 for marijuana possession, so spreading that around that can help U2's "street cred".

It's a bit naive to go to a U2 concert knowing some fo their biggest songs are Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride and Bullet The Blue Sky and not expect to get a political message during part of the show. The Clash and other punk bands of the mid 70s were a huge influence on U2 and you certainly expected politics when you went to see these bands. U2 is just carrying on that tradition. Personally I prefer hearing that to hearing Keith say "It's good to be here, it's good to be anywhere".

> - 50% playback

That should be closer to 5%. As mentioned earlier, U2 reportedly does have some keyboards played by one of their techs beneath the stage. I believe the majority of the sounds not played by U2 onstage are actually triggered by The Edge from his pedals. Things like the keyboards on Bad and One.

bv Wrote:
Wait half a year and I am sure the Stones will announce a lot ofr - may
be 40 - shows in Europe.
If they are still around.

That's kind of a weird statement. At first it is optimistic, saying you are sure they will announce a lot of shows, even though instead of in the case with u2 they shows were only postponed, not officially cancelled. Later you state "if they are still around", calling into question wether the Stones will still be around, in existence, to play those shows. Hmmm.

Im tired of seeing the name U2 on this board. Its always about things which are irrelevant to actually making records. U2 havent made a good record since Joshua Tree, in spite of what there legion of minions will attempt to persuade us. They are the same as all the other bores, Phil Collins, Bon Jovi, Madonna, all of them famous in the era of hype, but the music to back it,is just not there.
I saw them live last year by the way, worthless, bloated tripe, and not just that, the drumming and singing were on the level of the local pub cover band.

humanriff77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im tired of seeing the name U2 on this board.

It's maybe due to the fact that U2 is currently the # 1 rock band and not this forum band. Harsh to admit this.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it WASNT the reason for the subsequent
> > cancellations of the shows that were initially
> > 'postponed', eg Barcelona, Madrid, Gothenburg
> etc.
> > They just said they couldnt reschedule them
>
>
> Maybe they couldn't???


what? in 12 months time? Are the stadiums booked that far in advance? bollocks

Halup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> You can't compare the
> > Stones and U2 because U2 is a much younger
> band,
> > they are only 4, they don't use backup
> musicians,
> > they have probably never been in jail, they have
> a
> > nice little story but they are not really sex
> > drugs and rock'n'roll.
>
> You state these things as if they are negatives
> against U2 compared to the Stones, but in reality
> they are all positives. Almost everyone on this
> site would prefer the Stones not to use backup
> musicians.

Count me in

>
> The "never been in jail" is just a ridiculous
> statement. As if this truly makes an artist better
> by being a screwup and going to jail. We're not
> talking the rap world here, where mindless fans
> respect the rappers even more after they go to
> jail. If this is how we make judgments as to what
> musicians we love, then we should all be massive
> David Crosby fans, even more than Stones fans. To
> believe in this silly "sex drugs and rock 'n'
> roll" creed is pathetic. I like Keith Richards in
> spite of his drug usage and run ins with the law,
> not idolize him because of this. By the way, U2
> bassist Adam Clayton was arrested in August 1989
> for marijuana possession, so spreading that around
> that can help U2's "street cred".

Bv, so you are a fan of Pete Doherty :-)

tussler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > they have probably never been in jail, they have
> a
> > nice little story but they are not really sex
> > drugs and rock'n'roll.
>
>
> Band doesen`t need to copy Stones to be a good
> band. They are young compared with the Stones. And
> from their generation there is no band that come
> close to their suxsess. It is not my favourite
> band, but something have they done right.

Oh yes they make good on ther obligation to there fans, and thats what it's all about.
I'm a huge fan of the Stones but don't compare KR and RW with the Edge it's no match. The Edge is the far good guitarplayer then both of them.

.... U-2 spy plane was shot down!

phd you dont understand, i dont care who the "number one band" is , that means nothing, sales = marketing, if you dont know that by now.

i'm sitting here listening to a Detroit band called Destroy All Monsters from 1977, the 3 singles they made are better than the whole catalogue of U2, its about music, not whose the biggest. I dont need sales figures to tell me what good music is, otherwise I would go and buy a copy of Phil Collins greatest hits.

And Glennta what is a "good guitarist" , thats nonsense, but then again you probably never heard of Joy Division or Television or many other bands that your hero copped all his licks from.

That's right Joy division. The edge can't even come close to the licks of joy division. even though he probably dreams about it.Glennta if you never heard joy division if you have the moveie heat throw it in and when Al Pacino is tearing down the freeway after Deniro That's Joy division cranked up in the chase.

Why bother with this story? The Stones will be back in Europe next year. Nothing to worry about. i don't agree at all that they don't take care of their fans. Right now they are doing Europe like maniacs. Playing rock'n roll like hell. Just saw them in Milano, Berlin and Amsterdam, and they just kick ass like a new f...ing garage band! Just f...king amazing.

And they will be back!

Niklas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why bother with this story? The Stones will be
> back in Europe next year. Nothing to worry about.
> i don't agree at all that they don't take care of
> their fans. Right now they are doing Europe like
> maniacs. Playing rock'n roll like hell. Just saw
> them in Milano, Berlin and Amsterdam, and they
> just kick ass like a new f...ing garage band! Just
> f...king amazing.
>
> And they will be back!

Yes, they are taking care of their fans...in the 21 cities that will be getting shows this summer in Europe. They are not taking care of their fans in the 12 cities that lost out entirely on shows.

The whole point of the original post was that even though it took U2 over 4 months to announce new tour dates to make up for the postponed dates from March and April, they are going to every city originally affected and in the case of Sydney, a third date not originally planned was just announced.

In contrast, the Stones have officially cancelled the concerts in the 12 cities they are not playing in this summer. That's a huge difference. There are indications that they will play in Europe in 2007, but nothing definite. Even if they do play there in 2007, they may not play in all of the 12 cities affected.

U2's fans were left in limbo not knowing exactly when the dates would happen, but were assured by the band that they would happen. The Stones to this point have given every public indication that their cancelled shows will not happen. That is why they are not properly taking care of their fans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-04 01:20 by Halup.

Halup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Niklas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why bother with this story? The Stones will be
> > back in Europe next year. Nothing to worry
> about.
> > i don't agree at all that they don't take care
> of
> > their fans. Right now they are doing Europe
> like
> > maniacs. Playing rock'n roll like hell. Just
> saw
> > them in Milano, Berlin and Amsterdam, and they
> > just kick ass like a new f...ing garage band!
> Just
> > f...king amazing.
> >
> > And they will be back!
>
> Yes, they are taking care of their fans...in the
> 21 cities that will be getting shows this summer
> in Europe. They are not taking care of their fans
> in the 12 cities that lost out entirely on shows.
>
>
> The whole point of the original post was that even
> though it took U2 over 4 months to announce new
> tour dates to make up for the postponed dates from
> March and April, they are going to every city
> originally affected and in the case of Sydney, a
> third date not originally planned was just
> announced.
>
> In contrast, the Stones have officially cancelled
> the concerts in the 12 cities they are not playing
> in this summer. That's a huge difference. There
> are indications that they will play in Europe in
> 2007, but nothing definite. Even if they do play
> there in 2007, they may not play in all of the 12
> cities affected.
>
> U2's fans were left in limbo not knowing exactly
> when the dates would happen, but were assured by
> the band that they would happen. The Stones to
> this point have given every public indication that
> their cancelled shows will not happen. That is why
> they are not properly taking care of their fans.

If you've been in this game a while, you should know The Stones by now. They never give announcements of a new tour, or a new leg of an ongoing tour, until they are close to the openening of it. Have a little faith, and give them the time to do what they do. They always do it like this, and that's why we shouldn't worry. Thera are absolutely no reasons for them to not play Gøtenborg for example. They will be there, just wait till the end of the American leg of the tour.

And if you're such a fan of the U2, why not concentrate on them and t¨leave The Stones alone?

> And if you're such a fan of the U2, why not
> concentrate on them and t¨leave The Stones alone?

I find that I do not have to 100% focus on only 1 band. I concentrate on many different acts at the same time because I like so many. I'm up to date with U2 and have seen them 11 times so far on their current tour. I'm also up to date with the Stones and have seen them 5 times so far on this tour and am looking forward to at least a few more this fall and possibly more in 2007 if they happen. At the same time, I've been following The Who tour daily and am looking forward to seeing them this fall. I'm excited by the 3 Roger Waters shows I'll be seeing in October.

There's plenty of good music out there, so I follow as much as I can, from older acts to newer acts that have only been around for a year or 2.

I have seen U2 twice. That's enough to me. Not a bad live band, of course. Not at all. But also not a great one. Rock feeling? Relativy weak. Bono? Very good performer, but he isn't Mick. Edge? Yes, he plays a lot. But in soooo monotonous and "flat" way...

PS Every discussion about U2 reminds me of my brother who is dying for them. Hugest fan. But he admits than the Stones outplay them. Well, i love my honest brother!!!

I've seen them in March and it was average, the show ended with 4 ballads (some good ones as Love Is Blindness) but the stadium was half asleep. No screens also, so I didn't see a damn thing.

Well - Í´ve heard the Edge´s SON has got cancer - and that´s a reasonalble fact for tour delayment or cancellation

BUT , anyway

You can you never compare U2 to the Stones !!!!!!!!!!!

I like U2 but they act in a totally different league compared to the Stones -- even if Bono likes to have a drink with Ronnie once in a while in a pub in Dublin -
cheers!

ThroughTheLonelyNights Wrote:
> You can you never compare U2 to the Stones
> !!!!!!!!!!!
>

the point of the entire thread wasnt doing so from a musical perspective, but as usual some people choose to ignore the point completely

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThroughTheLonelyNights Wrote:
> > You can you never compare U2 to the Stones
> > !!!!!!!!!!!
> >
>
> the point of the entire thread wasnt doing so from
> a musical perspective, but as usual some people
> choose to ignore the point completely


Well Gazza, you tried to make that clear a few times but you are in the land of the blind here

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What? in 12 months time? Are the stadiums booked
> that far in advance? Bollocks


Who knows....

JumpingKentFlash

humanriff77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> phd you dont understand, i dont care who the
> "number one band" is , that means nothing, sales =
> marketing, if you dont know that by now.
>


Sorry not to be at your brightness level. I just solely wanted to single out, from my dumb brain, that if the selling positions were exactly the opposite, noone would post here about U2, I mean in those terms. As about Sales = marketing, in the short term maybe, but in a longer run I doubt it seriously.
But if you wanted to say that the top selling are not musically the top, it depends on each one, though I agree on this statement concerning the rock scene.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What? in 12 months time? Are the stadiums
> booked
> > that far in advance? Bollocks
>
>
> Who knows....


be serious. What football stadiums are fully booked for anything in the close season a year in advance? Especially when its not a World Cup/European championship year

Maybe it isn't about that at all. How can we know? I'm not saying I'm right, but I just contemplate the ifs. How do you know that Charlie hasn't DEFINITIVELY said no to do more after U.S.???

JumpingKentFlash

A tour is usually booked 12-18 months before it happens. That is why it is pretty good to reschedule shows like the Stones did this summer on just a few weeks notice. They had a license to play two shows at Twickenham long time before the Wembley delays happened, because they knew it might happen. But they can't sit on licenses for any date and any venue and any time. Some city authorities allow only one show per yeay and only in the summer. Others take months to process the application for shows. It is a long process. It is not like you cann a stadium and book it like you book a table at a restaurant and next week there is a show. Some act like small children asking for candy when they demand the Stones to reshedule a European tour from June/July to Sept/Oct. It is just like asking somebody to make a baby in 5 months. It is possible but it is not the way to do it. Things do take time.

As for U2, they use a lot more tape i.e. canned music - playback - on stage than the Stones. That's a fact. With 4 people on stage it is only natural. I don't care if extra people is under a pedal or behind a curtain or in a box but they are not on stage. Personally I prefer music played live vs. coming from a tape. I.e. performed there and then by a human being. The more music you have on tape the less space there is for improvisation.

Bjornulf

Halup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Wait half a year and I am sure the Stones will
> announce a lot ofr - may
> be 40 - shows in Europe.
> If they are still around.
>
> That's kind of a weird statement. At first it is
> optimistic, saying you are sure they will announce
> a lot of shows, even though instead of in the case
> with u2 they shows were only postponed, not
> officially cancelled. Later you state "if they are
> still around", calling into question wether the
> Stones will still be around, in existence, to play
> those shows. Hmmm.

I have to admit that, after reading all the post here, it surprises me that only Halup has pointed this comment from BV. I did notice the comment about "if they are still around", which quite amazes me after the hint af a big announcement. Does that "if they're still around" mean anything important? Or maybe my english did me a trick and I understood something out of meaning?

[There'll be no wedding today...]

bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for U2, they use a lot more tape i.e. canned
> music - playback - on stage than the Stones.
> That's a fact. With 4 people on stage it is only
> natural.


I didn't know that and I'm not sure it's correct. I've read that The Edge does all those weird sounds on his guitar, which is, though boring to me, pretty impressive. It certainly doesn't look like they use tape.

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-04 13:49 by JumpingKentFlash.

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Halup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > bv Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Wait half a year and I am sure the Stones will
> > announce a lot ofr - may
> > be 40 - shows in Europe.
> > If they are still around.
> >
> > That's kind of a weird statement. At first it
> is
> > optimistic, saying you are sure they will
> announce
> > a lot of shows, even though instead of in the
> case
> > with u2 they shows were only postponed, not
> > officially cancelled. Later you state "if they
> are
> > still around", calling into question wether the
> > Stones will still be around, in existence, to
> play
> > those shows. Hmmm.
>
> I have to admit that, after reading all the post
> here, it surprises me that only Halup has pointed
> this comment from BV. I did notice the comment
> about "if they are still around", which quite
> amazes me after the hint af a big announcement.
> Does that "if they're still around" mean anything
> important? Or maybe my english did me a trick and
> I understood something out of meaning?


I really hope they get the cancelled shows back on line, if it's in 2007, fine. But woulden't it be quit strange just to play those gig or are the mayby planing to do a complete secound leg?

well u2 uses a keyboarder under the stage
but thats not a classical playback

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well u2 uses a keyboarder under the stage
> but thats not a classical playback

A lot of what U2 uses are prerecorded keyboard sounds, like on Bad, Where The Streets Have No Name and One which are triggered by The Edge at his foot petals.

The Who always uses the keyboard backing track for Won't Get Fooled Again. It's the original 1971 recording of Pete playing it that is used, not John "Rabbit" Bundrick playing it live.

halup
that is true with bad and mysterious ways

but on streets and one the keyboarder plays the sound

I think mel gibson should open up for U2 on this part of the tour!!!!!!!