I say "no" because U2 hasn't that legendary name than The Rolling Stones...they are the real legends!

Who is going to fill the Stones shoes???????

PRINCE.

He's been around since the late seventies, U2 might have sold more albums but the cat has had a lot of single success. Top grossing tour a few back too. Plus he is the hardest working man in show business. I am not worried about who is going follow the Stones. I am more worried about who is going to follow Prince, Springsteen and U2, those are almost the last big time guys that have that rock and roll blood in them. Of course I am a bigger fan of Prince but I have to give the other guys their props. In reality the Stones shoes might be too damn big.

Are you too the next Rolling Stones?

No. Nor will anyone else. The Rolling Stones are inimitable.

There will never, ever be anyone remotely like the Rolling Stones.

U2 the new Rolling Stones? The question isn't serious, is it?

Well said, LOGIE!!

(PS - Thanks for those excellent goodies!! Am waiting impatiently to get home so I can sample them.)

Honestly, not a bad question. Assuming the Stones are on the decline, U2 is in their prime. Right now U2 very well could be the most popular band in the world, and certainly seems as if they can continue that popularity for a good long time. Now as far as who I would prefer to listen too. Hands down Stones, always.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

no.

john scialfa

chrisking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> u know U2 IS THE BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD TODAY.
> Sorry but Album sales wise and ticket wise they r.
> I love our Stones but lets face it, album sales
> worldwide no one cares except for the Hits albums.
> Ticket sales wise if U2 charged more than they do
> it might be a different story about top grossing
> tours. Anyways it doesnt matter because this place
> has always been anti-U2 but im not so ill stick my
> neck out there. BUT THEY STILL WILL NEVER BE AS
> GREAT AS THE ROLLING STONES

U2 is apparently NOT the biggest band in the world in light of the new billboard numbers. ABB tour will greatly outgross the Vertigo tour. Granted they sell more albums as far as their newer stuff but that is really not a good comparison since they are at different stages of their careers. The Stones sold more albums in their first 25 years than U2 has up to this point- even though many of the Stones best albums came out when record sales were not what they are today.

You can argue that the difference between ABB and Vertigo grosses is just ticket prices but what does that tell you? You can only charge what people are willing to pay. U2 can't charge Stones prices because they aren't the Stones. You can't charge Jaguar prices for a Mustang.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-26 04:11 by FrankM.

Having been to both Stones shows in Oz this year, I saw U2 last week in Melb and they were boring, I couldn't connect with the show at all and the political messages were getting a bit tiresome. Big difference in Bono's ability to keep a crowd on its feet compared to Jagger - no contest with Jagger & the Stones miles ahead of anyone else. I also saw Pearl Jam 3 days earlier than U2 and they were fantastic - just like you want a rock'roll band to be - energetic and loud with a great set list.

pool's in but the patio ain't dry

I think people often forget that rock and roll is supposed to be fun. Some bands have too much of a super serious persona. All these political messages and phony boloney grunge rock bands with their super serious attitiudes. Yeah sometimes rock and roll is about rebellion and having a chip on your shoulder but it is rock and roll and is all about getting on your feet and moving to the music.

I much prefer the tongue in cheek attitude the Stones have had over the years. They are professionals but don't take themselves too seriously in stark contrast to the somber U2 who always has to attach a message to the music.
They remind me of those people that won't give out candy on Halloween for fear that kids will get cavities- so instead they give out toothbrush/toothpaste kits. It's rock and roll- have some fun.

oh please......

Looks like it is a landslide against U2.
Better luck next time for Bono and the gang. BTW; Did U2 ever explain why they all have those silly nicknames instead of using their real names?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-26 05:15 by FrankM.

Does everybody feel a bit better now cause their "team" - the Stones - won over U2? How patheic, it's not a competition. In art, there's room for anybody and as many that are good (and U2 are art because the definition of art is to be creative and they are that. The Stones are also creative so they are art). But everybody has to get on here and to feel better about themselves put another VERY talented band down (it's also done alot with The Beatles and Macca on here). You can take the question to mean different things. I took it to mean will U2 be the biggest/most popular band/act/show when the Stones are no longer? I would have to say yes. I would not compare U2 to the Stones cause it's a different thing - not better or worse, just DIFFERENT (just like Pizza is different than Chinese Chicken Cashew Nut with rice but they're both great meals). If you wanna feel good about yourself don't attach yourself to a band or sports team but go out and create your own thing. Paint a great picture, write a great book, take a great photo, write a great song...invent something, change something meaningful...just don't put others down to make yourself feel better. In ART there's room for EVERYBODY......and that's one of the great things about it. You ever notice that Museums keep expanding? They never have a Full - no vacancy sign up....enough with the competition, this isn't FOOTBALL (thank God)........

i believe Adam was busted for pot one time

As usual Micksbrain blows more wind than a hurricane and yet says nothing that makes any sense. Of course it is not a competition the same way football or baseball is but bands are compared to each other constantly. There are lists that compare the greatest bands of all time- that doesn't mean you have to take them for gospel but bands are compared nonetheless.

It also doesn't mean you have to like or dislike a band just because of their postition on a list or their performance in a competition. I like the Stones which rank high in chart hits, gold and platinum records etc.. I also like Jim Croce who would be at the top of no list- unless you made a list of the most underrated songwriters of all time.

There is plenty of room for U2 in the music world and I give them credit for sticking around. They are probably the best band to emerge over the last thirty years. All most of us in this thread are saying is that they are not the Rolling Stones and not even close.

Hey, as much wind as MB blows. God forbid he made some decent points. There is a lot of U2 hating on this board. Why stones fans feel threatened by U2 I don't know. They are a very good band. Ignoring the political shit that is anyway.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

I get what MicksBrain is saying...he's right on. Nothing against the Stones at all.

I never denied they were a good band- just said you can't compare them to the Stones. That was the question that was posed by the writer of this thread. You can't compare Aerosmith to the Stones either but I like Aerosmith a lot.

U2 calls themselves the worlds biggest band. Make a statement like that and you should be able to back it up. Doesn't mean that U2 is a garbage band just because they are not as good as the Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-26 10:28 by FrankM.

Back in '89 The Stones were in the same situation as U2. They were old but "cool", so to speak, and they had legions of fans, young and old.


Just wait, in 17 years, U2's fans will be complaining about how they postpone shows, play small setlists with no variety, and how they charge so much per ticket.

The sucking of U2 aside, I think it's fairly safe to say that they are the new Stones. Touring-wise that is. Musically it's more in the vein of Springsteen, which of course bodes for an interesting mix of things. However: I don't like it.

JumpingKentFlash

Yup...and how they play their warhorses like Sunday Bloody Sunday, Angel of Harlem, I will Follow, Beautiful Day, etc every damn show!

no

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Yes, and I am going to marry the Prince of Wales tomorrow.

Facts are...in 10 years time....U2 will have the biggest grossing tour in history. There is no one on the horizon that will ever top it...so ...in a way..U2 will get the last laugh.....simple economics

U2 are not the Rolling Stones as the Rolling Stones are not U2.

U2 will become the musical mainstay for the next generation after the Rolling Stones .
U2 is more futuristic and moderner.
Stones are classic.

U2??

never liked them

I like U2, but they just dont have the musical range the stones have. their sound is much more limited.

I Wish I Never Met You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not even close.

Precisely !