Ok you know what? Aerosmith, U2 and the Rolling Stones are ALL GREAT BANDS. I am so tired of posts comparing these 3 bands. I love them all. They are my favorite bands (along with Bowie and the Smashing Pumpkins),
All 3 do their own thing in their own way. The Stones are the Stones. U2 is U2. And Aerosmith is Aerosmith. They all 3 mimick each other. The Stones wants hits like Aerosmith. U2 wants cool stages like The Stones. Aerosmith wants to go down in history as one of the great aging bands like the Stones. And on and on. I love all 3 of these bands ALMOST equally. Let them be. They each have their plusses and minuses and that's what makes the world great. Be thankful these 3 bands are still out performing and writing new music. Sure you may not like the new U2 or Aerosmith cds, but maybe their fans don't like the new Stones cd. So what. Get over it. It's life. I'm sure everyone in all 3 of these bands have the latest cds from the other 2.
And one more thing. QUIT SAYING AEROSMITH COPIES THE STONES!!! THEY DON"T!!!!! They have a completely different formula about how their write their music and go about their business. Leave them alone. Jesus.

lol, 5.5 mio.? Now where is that figure from? What I read there was a worldwide attendance of about 3 mio. people.
Also grossing $220 is great, but it is also because Bruce has extremely sparse stages and no pyros etc. His tours don't require the logistics a Stones tour does. And still the Stones grossed A LOT more. And charging $50 more wouldn't have been all that good for his ticket sales. People are willig to pay so much money for the Stones, because they know they get an extravaganza show, highenergy performance, great songs and a hypnotic frontman. When the Stones are on stage there is magic in the air.
Dale, you are trying to make Bruce stand a comparison he just can't win. All concert figures of the Stones are far superior to those of "the boss". Ok he sold out 10 times Giants stadium and played to almost 600.000.
Well, the Stones sold out Tokyo Dome 10 times in a row in 1990 and playing to Approx. the same number of people even though Tokyo obviously isn't their hometown. So what about that?
About selling out Twickenham: I don't recall London being the Stones' hometown apart from Charlie. That would be like Bruce selling out each and every stadium in the US 10 times in a row just because he was born in the US.


And by the way I am glad the Stones don't play 3 or even 4 hour shows. My god, this is sick. Imagine having field tickets and being 6 hours on your feet. No thanks. 2 hours or a max. of 2,5 hours (where most stones shows during 89-95 clocked in) is a very reasonable time for a rock show.

Over all thesed years I've seen all of those three: Stones, U2 and Aerosmith.
For me the Stones are still on fire! The toxic twins could be better on stage, because it's just show and roll - they just celebrate their own myth.
Concerning U2 I've to say that they showed us very much better performances in the days of Joshua Tree than they do it today.

Keep on rollin'
Gangster

Thatstheway-

I hear ya bro. BUT.... meadowlands area isnt Bruce's hometown either. Ashbury park is ( if you want to split hairs ). Now, from what your telling me. In your opinion.. people come for the "extravaganza" show. I disagree with you, people come for the MUSIC and if you want to poll people here lets ask them....

Give up the pyros, inflatables, massive stages and get 3 to 3.5 hours of just the Stones stipped down doing 27-30 songs. Just the band and a sparse stage with nice lights.. no extra stuff

OR

Keep it the way it is...


Go ahead VOTE!

The setlist would HAVE to incredible every night!

See,
Its only about the Man and his band and 70,000 with sparse lights.... HIGH energy... and his fans.. for Bruce it was never ment to be any more than that.....and thats what makes him THE BOSS!!!!!!

Well, each to their own.
I would find it rather boring to watch a 4 hour set in a stadium with no visual effects at all.

For me the Stones are the only band on this planet who can put on a great stadium show. There is no other man who commands a stadium stage and audience like Mick does. Basta :-)

I agree with you jumpinjackgreg. I also have heard many times that Aerosmith try to copy RS in their music, but it is totally wrong, because Aerosmith have different musical style from Stones. And i never say that Aerosmith is a bad band, i say that after the first albums, all other are not in the same quality as their first recordings. And Steve Tayler is today the best rock performer after Jagger. I also like Aerosmith and i would like to see them more times in Europe shows. But for the Stones my opinion is (and will never change) is that :
NOTHING IN THE WORLD SHOW-BUSSINES CAN COMPARED WITH A ROLLING STONES CONCERT!!!!!!!

You are correct ThatsWhatISay. It is really boring a 4 hur concert without visual effects.

Dale42 has GOT to be kidding me. The Stones do NOT pretend this blue-collar savior that our EX-Jersey friend does - can you spell "phony"? Bruce indeed sold out many Meadowlands shows but Dale conveniently forgets that for those shows the layout was at 40% capacity/availablity - also, outside of the local New York area there were all sorts of reports that tickets (up in Albany,for example) were begging $20 and less. And factor in what brucie charges - not $450. Recall the Stone sold out SIX shows in Shea Stadium in a FLASH. That's 360,000 seats.

In terms of albums/songs, doesn't just about every Bruce song sound exactly the same? can you say BORINGGGGGGGG. And some of those albums - nebraska and the last two. Oi vey. Sleep time.

Sorry, brucie is not even in the same conversation as The Stones

Joe Perry is one of the best guitarists that has ever existed.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:26 by Beelyboy.

..... airheadsmith??? the poormans rollingstones.. boring band... u-2 is a boring bore too

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:26 by Beelyboy.

Aerosmith played huge stadium gigs in the mid to late seventies.The market for a rock record died in 1994 just after their huge sales success with Get a Grip.Aerosmith still make great records and have toured every year this decade except 2000
2001 Just Push Play
2002 Oh Yeah Greatest Hits tour
2003 Co headliner with Kiss
2004 Honkin' On Bobo tour.
2005 Rockin' the Joint tour (half cancelled)
2006 Co headliner with Motley Crue ( soon to begin)

Looks like as everybody on the board is afraid someone else could beat the stones worldwide. Believe me there is nobody except U2 next to this level and there will be nobody in the near futur. only for a couple of years and in certain countries only.

love u2 and aerosmith,both great live but neither even come close to the stones,the who on the other hand right up there with our boys.(last time i saw them was with entwisle though).2 best live bands ever are the stones and the who,iv'e seen stones over 30x and the who about 5x.

john scialfa

Jimi Hendrix once said: frankly there are only two types of music; good music & bad music....the rest is a matter of taste

I could'nt agree more with your views on Aerosmith and U2. Aerosmith were fun 30 years ago. The problem with them was that they never grew beyond their earlier influences (ie. Stones) and became valid artists in their own right. Although their shows were at least fun, Tyler never had the dangerous edge Jagger did. Also they're songs had no elasticity, only driving rhythms and "C'mon Baby, rock 'n' roll with me" type lyrics. They also managed not to forsee or participate in any other musical genre whatsoever. Perhaps they are too American to ever be true artists!
U2. If ever a band was over-rated this is it. U2 have none of the Stones' sophistication. Don't get me wrong, they put on an okay rock show, but Bono get's lost in the spectacle of it. He has none of Micks presence. Their albums are at best collections of pretty sing-a-longs and faux arty lyrics. Plus Bono is more interested in saving the world than making the greatest album you ever heard. The Stones, despite shameful laziness, can rest easy, as the greatest band of all time!

God, Im from Boston and can't stand our loveable institution, be it the competent bar band Yardbirds cops and their witless double entendres or latter day bombastic ballads commissioned from Diane Warren or whoever...They came out same time as the Dolls, and look who somehow hung on, Lord help us....U2 produce accomplished music that resonates but for me it's overblown, sometimes likeable, but most of the time (saw them once, have "War" have heard the others) the music feels remarkably un-sexual, and I dont mean the words. The drummer keeps the overall feel martial. Nice that Edge still keeps Keith Levene's influence alive.

x



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:18 by Beelyboy.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:18 by Beelyboy.

my answer is a question........"how many rock anthems have U2 or Aerosmith written?"

There's still a bunch of GREAT live rock acts out there...

John Fogerty and CC Revisited
Motley Crue
Neil Young
The Chili Peppers
AC/DC (if they ever tour, they aren't officially 'retired')
The Who back on tour
Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band... they can rock with anyone
The Dead / The Other Ones, in any version
Eric Clapton, especially current tour incarnation, very similar to Derek & the Dominoes
The Moody Blues are still touring...

Aerosmith I've never seen, but have tix for them this October with Motley Crue, should be interesting.

Never seen U2, but everyone says they're a great show...

The lines between "pure rock, and "pop rock" and "country rock" are so blurred now that I don't pay alot of attention to it.

Wow Beelyboy,You've actually scared me. I've guessed from your reply, which I quite enjoyed, you are American. Please accept my sincerest apologies. I realise that my statement looked like a sweeping generalisation but please don't take offence. I simply meant that many Americans like their Pop to be non-challenging. I hope I have not offended you or anyone else on this board.
Despite my posting I'm actually a huge fan of many American/American influenced artists: Dylan, the Dolls, Muddy, Howlin' Jack Wolf, Lou Reed, Hank Williams, The Band, etc. As an Irish person I feel free to question U2 and feel that everyone regardless of nationality/ethnicity does to. Hope this has done something to rectify my previous posts!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-22 13:51 by iamthedj.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-06 07:18 by Beelyboy.

How can one compare Bruce and the Stones - I much prefer the Stones, but Bruce is a serious and major popular artist. But they have totally different sensibilities, and Bruce is much more the earnest populist...Check the lyrics of "Salt of the Earth", how the Stones express such a range of not always endearing attitudes (and I love the fact that the Stones attitudes are usually complicated) towards the kind of folk whose perspective Bruce tries to write songs from, sometimes very movingly (sometimes less so) - they are not trying for the same goals in their work, except maybe at the end some shared sense of music or rock and roll (that it communicates some hard won pleasures or transcendence or joy etc). And I really do not like the E Street Band all that much, tho they have some good musicians I thought the show I saw in the 80s was lacking in band personality (tho not energy or committment). Bruce's darkest albums, some w/out the band, are my favorites, and someone here I want to thank for getting me hooked on "Darkess On the Edge of Town" again first time in 25 years.