Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> In The U.S., Stones arena tours had an average
> price of almost twice U2 (though U2 sold out the
> full 360 without any seats blocked), but in Europe
> it was about even with U2 selling far more
> tickets.


Dont know about the rest of Europe, but in the UK the top price for U2 in 2005 was £85. I think most tickets were around £60-65. The top price for the Stones in 2006 was £150, with an average of about £90 (not counting the £350 obscenity that was the 'on stage experience'). As far as ticket sales were concerned, U2's sold much faster. They were selling out stadium shows in minutes.

Dan; you can knock Voodoo Lounge if you want but it was a great achievement for a band that had been around thirty plus years at the time of it's release. Went double platinum, won the grammy for best rock album and topped the charts in the Uk. Also had four top forty hits in the Uk. It's not a good album because DAN doesn't like it?

I'll take the last three Stones albums over the last three U2 albums any day of the week.

Whatever U2 achieves in their later years will not be able to compare to the Stones anyway since they have a much easier path. The guy who paves the road has a much harder time than the guy that drives down that paved road.

"Dan; you can knock Voodoo Lounge if you want but it was a great achievement for a band that had been around thirty plus years at the time of it's release. Went double platinum, won the grammy for best rock album and topped the charts in the Uk. Also had four top forty hits in the Uk. It's not a good album because DAN doesn't like it?"

It was alright, I don't even think it was the best album to come out that week. I liked it at first but it got boring really quick. 1994 was a great year for new music, but so-so for "classic rock." Now I have like 3 or 4 songs on a mix disc of later material. Yeah a great achievement because some old geezers put together a throwaway record for an excuse to tour.

U2 is "new wave" - remember, any band that got big in the early 80s was new wave. now they call it alternative.

i liked them a lot in the early 80s, saw them in '84, but their music became commercial in 1986 and that's when i stopped caring.

i did see them early this year for $10 - got the ticket from a scalper last minute and went by myself out of curiosity. they were good. worth $10.

however, keith made bono look like such a fool at the aragon theater show in '02 - the look keith shot him when bono sang over keith's riff. that reduced bono to a puddle (in my eyes) in a second.

everyone went nuts when bono came on stage at that show and i was front row center but he was nothing compared to the excitement of mick and keith right in front of me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 06:07 by little queenie.

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Dan; you can knock Voodoo Lounge if you want but
> it was a great achievement for a band that had
> been around thirty plus years at the time of it's
> release. Went double platinum, won the grammy for
> best rock album and topped the charts in the Uk.
> Also had four top forty hits in the Uk. It's not a
> good album because DAN doesn't like it?"
>
> It was alright, I don't even think it was the best
> album to come out that week. I liked it at first
> but it got boring really quick. 1994 was a great
> year for new music, but so-so for "classic rock."
> Now I have like 3 or 4 songs on a mix disc of
> later material. Yeah a great achievement because
> some old geezers put together a throwaway record
> for an excuse to tour.

Well you can't force someone to have a good ear for music which you apparently don't have.

The real question is this; If they are old geezers why do you spend time here on the forum? Not much of a life Dano?

FrankM Wrote:

> Well you can't force someone to have a good ear
> for music which you apparently don't have.
>

Good gawd, the kind of people who only listen to one band must have been desperate as hell to get something new. It was good at first then got boring. Love Is Strong, You Got Me Rocking etc. Some of the most boring songs lyrics wise the band ever wrote.

> The real question is this; If they are old geezers
> why do you spend time here on the forum? Not much
> of a life Dano?

The Stones are the designated band when I start feeling all nostalgic. And it isn't really all that different than what you said except that it's supposed to be a good album for guys who are all old and stuff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 06:30 by Dan.

ok point taken dan you have no ear for music lol.

It was a very good album period. A great accomplishment when you take their age into account. If anything their age worked against them in this instance. It would have been even bigger if it were released ten years earlier. U2 has it a lot easier than the Stones since the Stones were the first to go on into a late age. Now when U2 releases something it won't be poo pooed because they are fifty years old like it was with the Stones. Like I said it is easier to drive down a paved road than to pave the road yourself.

If you want to hear some bad music dan listen to the new song from U2. Sounds like a watered down Beach Boys outtake lol. Not even as good as the worst song on Voodoo Lounge.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 06:58 by FrankM.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok point taken dan you have no ear for music lol.

I've seen the Stones 30 times. Are you saying the Stones suck or something. Why are YOU here?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 06:54 by Dan.

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ok point taken dan you have no ear for music
> lol.
>
> I've seen the Stones 30 times. Are you saying the
> Stones suck or something. Why are YOU here?

What is this a ticket buying contest? If you think Voodoo Lounge was a bad album then yes in my opinion you have no ear for music. Why would you go see them thirty times anyway if they are old geezers as you put it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 07:09 by FrankM.

"What is this a ticket buying contest? If you think Voodoo Lounge was a bad album then yes in my opinion you have no ear for music. Why would you go see them thirty times anyway if they are old geezers as you put it?"

Around here it's a term of affection.

"No Dan actually I'm saying you suck not the Stones."

Right back atcha polesmoker.

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "What is this a ticket buying contest? If you
> think Voodoo Lounge was a bad album then yes in my
> opinion you have no ear for music. Why would you
> go see them thirty times anyway if they are old
> geezers as you put it?"
>
> Around here it's a term of affection.
>
> "No Dan actually I'm saying you suck not the
> Stones."
>
> Right back atcha polesmoker.

Sticks and Stones may break my bones but anything said by some moron named dan can never hurt me.

Still doesn't change the fact you have no ear for music.

"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but anything said by some moron named dan can never hurt me.

Still doesn't change the fact you have no ear for music."

I don't think some dumbass named Frank would know the first thing about my ears but keep enjoying that generic already dated disc and I will stick with the timeless stuff from they still had an edge.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dont know about the rest of Europe, but in the UK
> the top price for U2 in 2005 was £85. I think most
> tickets were around £60-65. The top price for the
> Stones in 2006 was £150, with an average of about
> £90 (not counting the £350 obscenity that was the
> 'on stage experience'). As far as ticket sales
> were concerned, U2's sold much faster. They were
> selling out stadium shows in minutes.

I don't really remember the exact prices, just it seemed more than the arena shows in the states and they were grossing about $4-7 million a gig (that's using current exchange rates from Euro to USD). It was about what the STones were grossing playing stadiums in the states at the time.

Good stay in your small minded time warp- constantly comparing every Stones album to Exile and Sticky Fingers. I really don't give a rats rear what you listen to- probably a closet K.C. And The Sunshine Band Fan Anyway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 07:32 by FrankM.

U2 is one of the few bands where not only hardcore fans know each band member by their names.
U2 the new Rolling Stones? You can't compare them musically. I'm a huge fan of both of them. Hard to think of any (comparably) "new" band still being active and influential in 20 or 30 years and filling stadiums like the Stones or U2 are and do.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good stay in your small minded time warp-
> constantly comparing every Stones album to Exile
> and Sticky Fingers.

Uh, no. Mediocre compared to almost anything, before OR since.


>I really don't give a rats
> rear what you listen to- probably a closet K.C.
> And The Sunshine Band Fan Anyway.

None of my music is in the closet. If I had a K.C. record, I would have no problem admitting it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 19:06 by Dan.

I am in Tokyo right now, and saw U2 last week, and Clapton last night. They were both very good. But in a live setting, they can't touch the Stones.

This isn't who is better, the Stones or U2 debate... it's about who is the next biggest musical phenomena to carry on after the Stones...

U2 is next in line after the Stones...

Tour-wise? Yes, when the Stones are done.

Album-wise? They've been so since '87.

jamesfdouglas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tour-wise? Yes, when the Stones are done.
>
> Album-wise? They've been so since '87.


I dunno, if bv says there are 2007 shows in Europe, I believe him.

The last classic album was 1981 Tattoo You...nothing classic after that.

U2 is still producing classic hits/recordings

My answer to the above question....CERTAINLY NOT!

Among other items, those "I've got a ton of money" Porsche sunglasses are quite the affectation for a man of the peoople. They practically scream, "I'm Famous.
SO uncool.

>>U2 is still producing classic hits/recordings


U2 is still producing #1 albums and Top 10 singles, in the last 6 years they had 4 UK #1 singles, 4 UK #2 singles and 4 UK Top 5 singles.
The Stones' last UK #1 was Honky Tonk Women almost 38 years ago and their last top 10 hit was Start Me Up.

In US, U2 is still a Top 40 visitor on this current R&B market, 2 impressive hits in 2000-2001 and 2004 plus 5 Hot 100 hits since 2000, the last one currently at #50.
The Stones' last US Top 50 hit was Almost Hear You Sigh.

LOL

georgelicks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>U2 is still producing classic hits/recordings
>
>
> U2 is still producing #1 albums and Top 10
> singles, in the last 6 years they had 4 UK #1
> singles, 4 UK #2 singles and 4 UK Top 5 singles.
> The Stones' last UK #1 was Honky Tonk Women almost
> 38 years ago and their last top 10 hit was Start
> Me Up.
>
> In US, U2 is still a Top 40 visitor on this
> current R&B market, 2 impressive hits in 2000-2001
> and 2004 plus 5 Hot 100 hits since 2000, the last
> one currently at #50.
> The Stones' last US Top 50 hit was Almost Hear You
> Sigh.

Not sure your numbers mean anything George- different bands have different career characteristics so to speak. The Stones were legendary by their fifth year, peaked around 72' and have gradually come down from that peak remaining very good and very popular even if not at their 72' peak.

On the other hand U2 has actually gotten better as time goes on- at least as far as the UK charts you are quoting, but since they only have six or seven number one hits in the UK that would mean that if they have four in the last six years they only had two or three in their first twenty years unlike the Stones who had at least 8 number one hits in their first twenty years.

As far as US Charts- Stones had top five hits in 86' and 89'- Twenty five plus years into their career. What was the last top ten hit U2 had in the US? Vertigo peaked at 26- not even close to the top ten.

Total chart success for their careers;

UK- very close- think Stones may have one or two more number one hits, a few less top ten hits, and a few more top forty hits.

US- A whooping to say the least. Stones have four times as many number one hits, at least three times as many top ten hits and nearly three times as many top forty hits.

Combine both charts and it's not even close.

Don't forget where the Stones are classic and gritty, U2 is futuristic and modern.

drbryant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am in Tokyo right now, and saw U2 last week, and
> Clapton last night. They were both very good.
> But in a live setting, they can't touch the
> Stones.

i checked for clapton tickets for chicago but there's no date here scheduled! maybe it already happened and i was lost in my stones fugue.

NumberOneStonesFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jamesfdouglas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tour-wise? Yes, when the Stones are done.
> >
> > Album-wise? They've been so since '87.
>
>
> I dunno, if bv says there are 2007 shows in
> Europe, I believe him.
>
> The last classic album was 1981 Tattoo
> You...nothing classic after that.
>
> U2 is still producing classic hits/recordings

Me said WHEN they're done

little queenie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> drbryant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am in Tokyo right now, and saw U2 last week,
> and
> > Clapton last night. They were both very good.
> > But in a live setting, they can't touch the
> > Stones.
>
> i checked for clapton tickets for chicago but
> there's no date here scheduled! maybe it already
> happened and i was lost in my stones fugue.


Eric Clapton still has the chops, but has the stage presence of Bill Wyman. Derek Trucks, who I assume is the son of Butch Trucks of the Allmans (?) is a monster on slide, but is about as active as Mick Taylor.

Wait a minute, Frank, I like K. C. and the Sunshine Band. Nothing like shakin' yo' booty with yo' boogie shoes on. That's the way I like it. Uh huh, uh huh!

A friend wants to know if there is a BUY/SELL/TRADE site like HOT STUFF for U2 fans?