Personally I think they have a mixed bag, I'm not a big fan but some of their stuff is top drawer! They've already been on the go 30 years or so. With the fan base that they have I think that they have many more years in front of them and they are still writing some great music. Also their tours are massive.

OK, they will never be The Rolling Stones, the Stones were the catalists, the front runners, the trend setters, the barrier breakers,

But when the Stones are finished. who will earn the crown as the greatest rock and roll band in the world?

Controversial question maybe? But.....?

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

It's simple U2 are POP not rock n' roll.

End of story.

People even today say from ignorance that U2 is the best rock group,but I don't consider them rock at least in the way I consider Stones.

like comparing McDonald's burgers to Prime Rib imho

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


Weren't the stones once pop? What is pop? Music that appeals to the masses? And when the stones are gone and people are looking for a band that played the music of their generation and are still selling out stadiums, who will they be looking at?

Maybe my question is phrased wrong because there will never be another Rolling Stones, but who will take over the crown?

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

skelly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally I think they have a mixed bag, I'm not
> a big fan but some of their stuff is top drawer!
> They've already been on the go 30 years or so.
> With the fan base that they have I think that they
> have many more years in front of them and they are
> still writing some great music. Also their tours
> are massive.
>
> OK, they will never be The Rolling Stones, the
> Stones were the catalists, the front runners, the
> trend setters, the barrier breakers,
>
> But when the Stones are finished. who will earn
> the crown as the greatest rock and roll band in
> the world?
>
> Controversial question maybe? But.....?

Nah, U2 aren't nearly as relentlessly (re)inventive as the Stones were up until 1989. Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop aside (those the only U2 albums I own), they've tended to make safe, familiar music that barely challenges the listener. Break them down to the sum of their parts - The Edge ain't Keef, Ronnie, Taylor and DEFINITELY not Brian Jones. Larry and Adam don't have Charlie and Bill's talent - in fact, Adam Clayton has to be the luckiest mofo in music. Ah, and then there's Bonzo ... well, who would you rather have a beer with? Not to discredit Bonzo's charitable endeavours - they're noble and his heart's obviously in the right place - BUT he's an insufferable, crushing, self-righteous bore.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-25 22:40 by Nikolai.

Not even close.

Wow skelly...I "almost" started a thread like this but then I figured it was a loaded question on this board, so I did not.

But seeing you brought it up...

I prefer the Rolling Stones to U2, Stones over U2 any day of the week...

However, comma, I think U2 is a Rolling Stones for today's generation...
U2 has played to the most fans, sold more CD's, more top 100 hits for any band formed since 1980.
U2 is a mixture of Rock, Pop, R&B...many people forget they came out of the "New Wave" era...what you would call "Alternative Music" today. I always felt ALL music is an alternative to another...hehe

While the Stones have dabbled in intertwining political consciousness into their music, U2 has focused on political & world issues and they have dabbled in R&B.
Each band has a different focus.
Now as far as the sterotyped "Spinal Tap" rock n' roll image and lifestyle... The Rolling Stones ALL THE WAY! Nobody comes close... Never heard about any U2 drug raids or TV sets out of their hotel rooms, or paternity suits.

It is fair to say that U2 is the biggest thing "since" the Rolling Stones that's still around, as far as number of fans, concert attendees, music releases, etc.

Also, U2 and the Stones are very close friends with mutual admiration!

I'm going to see U2 on December 9th in Hawaii...my first U2 show since a theater show at UMASS Amherst in 1982. Oughtta be fun. Hope they play "Ruby Tuesday!"

YEP. They're very creative, innovative, put on great shows, and keep on working when they could be kicking back. Ever CD since JOSHUA TREE has been Very Good to Excellent....GREAT BAND !!!

LOL

U2 makes great songs like Electrical storm along with great albums, one is Pop, very underrated. Their 90s beats the crap out of Stones but maybe their 90s are more like the Stones 70s?

no

Wow...all of this has inspired me to a new thread...hehe

...........you can't really compare them. The Stones are icons, and they are a prototype band for the ages.........U2 are a great band and they have consistently put out good work and give excellent performances but the Stones especially, Mick and Keith are in another league.

They're the best pop band in the world.

It's like comparing a Mcrib sandwich to a prime rib dinner.

It's like this...if Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Malcom X were in a band, it would be U2.

If Bill Clinton, Dennis Rodman, Mickey Mantle, Charlie Sheen and Jack Nicholson were in a band, it would be the Rolling Stones.

hehe

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

To each their own. My answer: Hell no! I liked Rattle & Hum and Achtung Baby...and I like a few other individual U2 songs but....to me they will never be the Stones. The Stones' music AND personality is their appeal. U2 takes themselves way too seriously...as some sort music missionaries. Too politcal. Rare that they (U2) show a sense of humor. I've given U2 a few chances....no schwing.

My best friend LOVES U2....he also loves trance "music"...enough said,

U2- boring concerts! Saw them in '86 or '87 then in 2002. same damn show!

during the late 80,s i got right into u2, got hold of thier early to mid 80,s stuff and thought i would never find anything better in that field.

then i got into the stones and interest in u2 dwindled over the years.

u2 are the biggest band in the world and have a great collection of songs, but they are not the same as the stones, and never will be, although i can see them go on for years yet.

Not even close, because it goes beyond the music. U2 lacks the character of the Rolling Stones. The Edge is the most boring guy I've ever seen. Then look at Keith. Enough said. Bono is a big star and all, but can you really compare him on stage to Jagger? The Rolling Stones ARE rock and roll. U2 plays rock and roll (kind of/sometimes). That's the difference and that's why the answer is- no, U2 is not the new Rolling Stones.

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

..... idiotic question

....straight shot Wal....



ROCKMAN

U2 is highly overrated and Bono is looking like he eats at McDonalds everyday for lunch. What's with those Elton John orange glasses?

A really meaningless question. It reminds me of the early sixties when Rolling Stones always had to compare themselves to The Beatles. Besides, U2 started in the late seventies, why would they be the new anything?

Well, this true...
U2 has NEVER had 1,000s of females screaming for them like the Stones did
*See videos from their early days on youtube

U2 has NEVER had their blood drained from their bodies and replaced with new and fresh blood.

U2 has NEVER been reported to having wife-awapped or traded girlfriends.

U2 has NEVER been busted for drugs.

U2 has NEVER swung from a GIANT penis on stage.

While Keef may be a "Johhny 3-chord", The Edge is merely a Johhny 2-note.
*The Edge sounds like "dun-nun-nun-nun-nun-nun-nun dun-nun-nun-nun-nun-nun-nun" in every song.

So, if you put it like that... STONES RULE!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-26 00:05 by NumberOneStonesFan.

soundcheck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..... idiotic question


Thanks for your input!

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

Not comparable

__________________________

It's not really a question of who is best, because for me (and everyone else on this board) that isn't a sensible question. What i realy mean to ask then is, who carries on the torch of the greatest rock and roll band in the world?

(Not that I don't believe that the stones will rock on for many more years to come, but...)

And to quote NumberOneStonesFan, "It is fair to say that U2 is the biggest thing "since" the Rolling Stones that's still around, as far as number of fans, concert attendees, music releases, etc."

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

When the Stones are gone the world's greatest rock n' roll band will change fundamentally from a single group, the Stones, to whatever band clicks in that magical way for how many moments on any given night anywhere on the planet...in a garage, a bar, at a wedding, etc. There will be other good, even great musical acts, but no more an enduring world's greatest.

Savor them while you can.