Bomber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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

It's doubtful that U2 will ever top the Stones unless ticket prices continue to soar and I just don't see it happening. The Stones will finish well over four hundred million and U2 will have to do a tour far more lucrative than the Vertigo tour to top that.

I think the popularity of U2 will start to diminish anyway as they get older and older, but even if they do have a bigger tour than ABB what does it mean? Only means they existed at a time when concert tickets were higher. Not the "last laugh" by any stretch of the imagination. I mean Derek Jeter will make a lot more money in his career than Joe Dimaggio- doesn't mean he is better. Just means the money was different in the two eras.

This time period is the best time to judge the two bands since they have both toured in the last two years and are playing on a level playing field- and clearly The Stones are the bigger draw.

U2 will never come close to the Stones.
And if we would need a substitute for the Stones it'll be the
Stones own records and not another band.

Still U2 is a great band too, but not enough rock and roll!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

U2 popularity is on their all time high now, their fan base grew 2x or 3x since 2000, they can fill any stadium in the world in minutes, they're media darlings and with the same line up in almost 30 years.
U2 has potential to be even bigger than the Stones in 10 years or less...

U2 blow...

U2 = Great, talented, long-term band
The Rolling Stones = One of a kind

Lotta difference.

I wouldn't say U2 "is the new Rolling Stones" as there is only one Rolling Stones... U2 definitely is the next sustained musical phenomena since and after the Stones tho'...
Each has a different musical tactic/approach and different types of fans...
Stones has always been a Rock n' Roll party band, crank up the volume, rock out and dance.
U2 is is more of an art-rock band directed at intellectuals with their quasi-political and humanity overtones. U2 tries o save the world, the Stones just want to ROCK the world!

Markdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's simple U2 are POP not rock n' roll.
>
> End of story.


Naaah, it's not that easy. Ever listened to I Will Follow, Rejoice, Desire and other U2 rockers? they can rock like mad, albeit in a different way than Stones. I am not the biggest U2 fan in the world, but they have great songs, a unique sound, theyre not the Stones obviously, and nobody can replace the Stones, but when the Stones are gone, U2 will probably be the biggest active (!)band.

i agree with Markdog..what U2 does is not rock'n'roll.. there is no ROLL in their music..

its rock..sure i will grant you that..

but where's the fun rockn'roll spirit in their music..

NOWHERE! thats where!

I love'em both. Yes there are differences, someone said the Stones have more musical range, true.

U2's live playing is more consistent, much more, they don't screw up much.

They are also a wee bit younger. If they are still performing in their sixties they will have their share of screw ups.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 05:32 by Beelyboy.

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U2 = Great, talented, long-term band
> The Rolling Stones = One of a kind
>
> Lotta difference.


Well put Elmo.

comparing U2 to the rolling stones is like when people used to compare beck to dylan ...

sorry.. there's only ONE rolling stones

they will never be topped at what they do.

stoned_in_dc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> comparing U2 to the rolling stones is like when
> people used to compare beck to dylan ...
>
> sorry.. there's only ONE rolling stones
>
> they will never be topped at what they do.


My favorite quote is what Bill Graham used to say about the Grateful Dead. It's not just that they are the best. at what they do, they are the only ones, who do what they do. That could be apllied to the Stones as well.

Well, I'm going to see U2 in concert 11 days from now so I'll have a fresh perspective then. One thing about them is their setlists are dynamic and they don't play the same warhorses every night in the same order. Gotta give 'em props there...

Thanks, charmed. Kinda like a Keef riff, direct and to the point.

I find this post incredibly offensive. The title alone is cause for outrage. I reluctantly accept that U2 are a hugely popular band but as for the comparisons to the greatest rock n' roll band that seem to happen all too often here, I find it rediculous and an insult to our heroes.

U2 IMO of course, is not rock n' roll. Sure they have guitars but that doesn't mean they rock. When your guitar sounds more like a synth or a keyboard, it ain't rock n' roll.

Now I realize that these 2 groups have some similarites. They have a large loyal fan base that spans the globe and various ages and are of a select few that can sell out stadiums wordwide. That being said, so can Madonna but we don't compare her with the Stones do we? Just because you may like both bands, the constant comparison is without merrit and they are very differnt bands.

U2 do not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance as our boys. They play a different game.

Untill the Edge (lame ass name BTW) actually sounds like he has a guitar on, comapre them to INXS or some other synthy group. Not a dirty bluesy rock band.

Whether they suck or not is of course a matter of opinion, but I feel they are a differnt breed of group and the two should not be compared. THEY WILL NEVER BE THE NEW STONES. No one ever will be. There can only be one. Popularity does not warrant this comparison, with that logic, next we will be debating if Justin Timberlake is the new Mick Jagger. I call blasfamy and heresy here!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-27 18:38 by lettingitbleed.

U2 is an excellent band and great to see live..they kick azz with only 4 members and the Edge is cool.

They are no Mick and the Boys ...but easily worth the price of addmission.

There was once a video of the Edge presenting The Clash with some type of award and during his speech he called the Stones the greatest rock and roll band ever...he called the Beatles a Pop Band...and called U2's music something off the wall...I really cant't remember

But it was cool to see the Edge giving the Stones the credit the deserve.

If someone can find that video...link it here...it was on youtube.

No. But they're good anyway.

I've watched this thread get three pages long..and have resisted the temptaion to comment..but I can't resist any longer.

In response to the title question.

Don't be so bloody silly ! ;^)

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've watched this thread get three pages long..and
> have resisted the temptaion to comment..but I
> can't resist any longer.
>
> In response to the title question.
>
> Don't be so bloody silly ! ;^)

Completely agree.....I've tried hard to listen to U2 for many years. Got a fantastic bootleg from their latest Copenhagen-concert. My god it's boring and very very bad. But people sing-a-long, Bono talks and everybody has seen their show-saviour. And the guitar-player plays one note for 90 mins......etc. But they have done a few excellent songs.

No one, will EVER be the next Stones....once in a lifetime band....

JR

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> like comparing McDonald's burgers to Prime Rib
> imho


both are good but, you know... Prime Rib? Who can beat the taste?

U2 is shit in my opinion. I have tried hard to like them. Bought several of their records, but cannot bear to listen to them. Most off-putting to me is their sanctimoniousness and self-righteousness, but the music is pretty terrible too.

thank you Raoul. Sometimes it feels like this is the u2 board w/all these pro U2 posts.

Glad I'm not the only one

Raoul, why didn't you stop buying them after the first one? Slow learner?

cool video of the edge

Let's rename The Edge. How about self-important a-hole. No, wait, Bono already has that one.

They're not even the old RS's, much less the new ones

Seems Mick like's Bono...right?

And I like the fact that Bono actually stands for something.