1 with the modification that they are a very different band today. That band is as good as the 68-72 Stones, but in a very different way.

JumpingKentFlash

2 - they still write some good songs but have lost a little with the song writing in the last 20 years.

2

2

Is a good opinion....very R&R!!!With energy!!!

I like the style of the Stones (not clothing) more than the style of U2 (not clothing) but I must admit that U2 still pulls out relevant song material and PLAY it in their concerts.
Still, the Stones stole my heart and won't give it back (we all know how greedy they are). So I choose 2.

u2 still puts out very powerfull albums while the stones do not

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> u2 still puts out very powerfull albums while the
> stones do not

I think you are right to some degree but I think that is perception more than reality. The last three Stones albums are just as good as the last three U2 albums going back to that album in 1997 (Pop?).

It isn't just me saying that look at the reviews. Both bands have averaged three and a half stars from AMG over their last three albums. ABB was slightly higher than "HTDAAB" in Rolling Stone.

Of course perception is that the newer U2 albums are better but a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Stones are much older and their new stuff doesn't get the same airplay as U2 and the songs never get a chance to "grow" on the public.
If ABB were released in 1981 it would have gotten airplay galore and some songs like "Rough Justice"
would be classics by now.

You also have to remember the media loves U2. They may love the Stones even more but not as far as their new stuff which is handicapped before it gets out of the starting gate.

U2 is a great band but do they really deserve all those grammys? Sometimes I think Bono could fart a song into the microphone and win a grammy. That's how much the grammy voters love him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-28 04:17 by FrankM.

1

1

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1 with the modification that they are a very
> different band today. That band is as good as the
> 68-72 Stones, but in a very different way.


Disagreed! Face it, man...much as i hate to admit it, Keef cannot play like he used to and Ronnie is nowhere near MT. The songs they wrote back then? Come on, you can't compare what they're writing today to what they wrote then..not even close. as good as the 68-72 Stones??? No way...!

Depends on which day you catch them but I got to say a 1 or 2

NickB

Good post!

2.

the stones are no where near as good as they were, as a studio band they have progressively got worse, but that dosent detract anything from the standard of songs they have recorded recently or in the 90,s, 80,s and most of the 70,s.
its just that the songs they recorded from 1965-73 were the best ever rock/pop/blues/soul music ever recorded and would never ever be beaten by anybody, not even the stones themeselves.

2

I know I will be tortured to death on this board for saying this, but download Midnight Rambler from the (I think) Satima show (It was in that collection of 36 ABB tour songs posted on here a while back) and tell me that (minus a couple of mistakes) it does not stomp all over Rambler on the Ya Ya's album.

wee bobby lennox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the stones are no where near as good as they were,
> as a studio band they have progressively got
> worse, but that dosent detract anything from the
> standard of songs they have recorded recently or
> in the 90,s, 80,s and most of the 70,s.
> its just that the songs they recorded from
> 1965-73 were the best ever rock/pop/blues/soul
> music ever recorded and would never ever be beaten
> by anybody, not even the stones themeselves.

Obvioulsy their newer stuff in not as good as the 60's/70's stuff but I disagree that their studio output has gotten "progressively worse". Their last four studio albums (ABB,BTB,VL,SW) are better than the previous four (DW,UC,TY,ER). It isn't even close in my opinion.

It must be hard to find songs to write about after 45 years! they've pretty much covered it. We'll keep getting the same songs recycled.

Sometimes 1, sometimes 2...never 3 or 4....

1 and in a few cases 2

Hovering at 2.5 with short-term surges/spikes up to 1 and occasional dips down to the high 3's

opinion of the modern day Rolling Stones - Damn good businessmen

2

2

II

none of the above, they are still great, but they are different than they used to be--more polished. is that better or worse

1-2
the twist on my answer is, the stones werent the same band they were in the 60s vs the 70s, nor were the stones of the 70s the same as the stones of the 80s, and etc on and on until the present day.
of course the stones are a different band now, they are older, and the times have changed. i do feel listening to ABB that they are on top of the game they are playing NOW, not the game they were playing in the 60s or the 70s

I don't think there's a catagory which reflects my views.

I believe the Stones today are in essence a tribute band to their former selves much like the Counterfeit Stones and countless others - the only difference being this group were once the real thing. The modern day Stones can be enjoyed in a nostalgic sort of way bringing back memories for some of the older audience of their youth and for the younger people some curiosity in being in the prescence of such legends and i've no doubt on a good night they can produce a fairly impressive performance which may include the odd half decent more recent songs. However in my opinion standing aside from their history and taken on their own terms today they're nothing special.

If i want to hear the authentic Stones when they were truly great i'll listen to the albums and bootlegs from the 60s and 70s. I wouldn't compare the Stones with U2 because they have very little in common as for me U2 have always represented highly polished, high tech, corporate anthemic rock which is typical of the conservative 80s. The Stones were always a more threatening proposition at their peak displaying a level of raw energy, creativity and abandonment U2 could only dream of.

The essence of the Stones - that which made them so great is long gone but that doesn't neccesarily mean they can't be enjoyed today in a nostalgic sort of way.

1

1, sometimes 2 and however it's not an option rarely 3...

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Hi all.

Number 2. Still the best group on the planet.

(By the way, who the f* is U2?)