Every time U2 tours you will get write ups that claim they are the biggest band in the world ... as if the media outlets almost want to "brag" about U2 or something? I don't get this?

Besides this isn't true. The Stones usually out do them. Wait a second ....The Stones always out do them...

*However what really matters is the band and their music to me...not the cash or media attention. Who really cares how "big" an act is? As long as I think they are putting out great stuff I am not concerned with how many millions of dollars they make or how many commercials I hear their music in. As long as their stuff is getting recognized the rest is irrelevant to me. Too much exposure in the wrong spots is a turn off and seems cheezy anyway.

That said, U2 are a "media band". This means a band the media have adopted as their super group. Personally I never was a big fan of them. I recognize they are "good" per the music they make. However I feel the entertainment industry has chosen them in trying to define them as a super group up there with The Stones, The Beatles, The Who, or Led Zeppelin and to me ....they simply aren't?

In fact I think most of their stuff sounds lame and sounds all too much the same. While I will not turn a blind eye to them, and I will say they deserve "some credit" and that they have their own distinct sound (as limited as that sound is....). Also I realize they have stood the test of time in staying together. However I never understood the big fixation that has been artificially placed to them.

I feel the past few generations had no true super group that emerged so the media had to choose U2 to act as if they are. I don't think U2 deserve to be compared to the Stones rightfully. The Stones have done soooooo friggin much more for music, influenced sooooo much more, and been through so much more, and stayed afloat in many more era's when there was true talent and competition (not like the past 20 years where it has been so thin). The Stones are key players in how music has been shaped. They wrote the book on what a real band is. Not only do I not feel U2 are not justly comparable side by side, I don't think they belong in the same paragraph. As far as personal taste goes for me U2 doesn't even come to mind.  

Anyone feel as put off from all this as I do or anyone feel differently?


Ian

Joshy??? Is that you????

Gazza please check Ian's IP addy and advise if he's posting from Boca!

LJ.

U2 went through a period of creativity in the late 80s that is the nearest thing anyone can get to beatles 67-70 or stones 68-72. joshua tree and rattle and hum are mind blowingly good, bookended by the very good unforgettable fire and the darn good achtung baby.

saw them live once - here's an awesome clip why they are so revered as a live band:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS3IJb7P_l4

Gazza wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 6:27am:


Because the Stones are, and always will be, the best.

U2 doesn't come close.

Nothing left to say now...

steel driving hammer wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 9:21am:



There's die hard fans of both bands... and you can be both or niether... me personally, feel no need to defend what bands I like or don't like, and I could care less if they pack a club or a stadium, as long as the band can survive as an artists and the fans are happy... who gives a fuck about the rest? These mega-tours employee alot of people and make alot of fans happy... If Jagger and bono are comparing dick size in terms of bottom line tour gross, then let them have at it... They both use their money for many great causes and both live great lives... and they both have small cocks!

I agree with Gazza's statement earlier "I don't think there's been a truly great band since The Clash" I feel the same way, U2 I like better then most 80's bands, but still doesn't come close to The Clash & certainly not even close to The Stones, U2 could never do covers very well, they even admit it, they got their start by doing their own material, I don't know that many bands who don't start by doing covers, that's usually how a band starts.

How does Mick compare the two acts? I didn't know any comparison between the two groups got under his skin?

It got under MY skin was the issue.


As was said, Charlie's drumming is better than anything U2 has done....

U2 musically has no "groove". None... As well the only really "rock" on one single song ...."Vertigo". That song I liked alot and I even went and bought the album (HTDAAB). For the first time ever I went out and got a U2 album. The rest of the album didn't really follow that lead. I was dissapointed.

I like Actung Baby. This is a good album and I love the experimentation on that album.
However I can't see comparing them to the fuckin Stones or Beatles guys.... I mean ..seriously.


Ian

It's like comparing apples to oranges. U2 has a "sound". That pretty much sums up their music. Now, I'm not saying that I don't like them...there are songs that I like a lot. I hear their concerts are almost like a religious experience......on the other hand, they are rather one dimensional in the material that they write and record. Um, can't exactly say that about the Stones!  From the early, early blues/covers days, through psychedelia and roots-y music, through disco, reggae and beyond, they have had more variety that any band I can think of! Longevity, yes. But great variety. A working band, coming up the ranks like all great working bands do/did. And they've been at it for almost 50 years now. Amazing.

Sioux wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 6:33pm:


____________________________________


Exactly mate. U2 has a "sound". That "sound" is and has always been for the most part ....the same. Bono sounds the same in every song. I know, I know, ....why wouldn't he sound the same....he's the same guy right? ....well no. Even Scott Weiland takes a different tone and singing approach and he sounds different ...so why can't this supposedly indredulous lead singer Bono??

U2 has a sound. Other than that I can't give em much. That "sound" isn't my cup of tea anyway. I tell people the same as you when debating the greatness of a group Siox: The Stones did it all and experimented from one end of the spectrum and back again... so many different era's...so many different styles yet it is all Stonsey! Some how they just own the style they are trying to incorporate. Nobody is as naturally versatile. Nobody could make it all so easy sounding. As well the stuff was good. It wasn't just mimicking a style. It all made sense and  it always sounded all theirs some how. Still they were a rock and roll band through each and every era and each album had reminders of that no matter what trend they were riding or what styles they were trying.

U2 does ONE thing and always has.... Bono has ONE tone. One..... still not getting how people can not recognize this fact... not only for The Stones sake but for sake of people saying they are such a great band. They are basically as one dimensional as it comes...





Ian

The Stones have had heaps of challengers over the decades. Depending where you are from. From a purely live point of view, as in "the biggest show in town", there has been Ac/dc, Kiss, Springsteen, Lez Zep, Bon Jovi, Pink Floyd etc etc - and no doubting it , U2.

I see U2 as at the "Stones in 89" part of their career. I have never seen them live and have no intention of ever doing so.

Historically, it's only really Beatles & Stones. None are/were bigger or more influential. There might be modern pop due to the Beatles, but there would no rock without the Stones. Lots of kids are probably more into Zep or Ac/dc (if they like dinosaur acts at all these days), but you can hear the Stones in Ac/Dc, & Zep had much the same influences as the Stoneys.

'cept they liked to steal a bit, huh??? lol

"  Personally, I dont think there's been a truly great band since The Clash.  "





" It is a pity that the Clash broke up as I thought they were a really good band " ( Peter Denis Blandford Townshend , November 1985  -- Rockline ) .

So, it looks like Will.i.am is producing the next U2 album. Gotta confess I was more pumped about the album Danger Mouse was working with them on. I did really like the second version of “No Line On the Horizon,” and “I’ll Go Crazy If I Don’t Go Crazy Tonight” has grown on me incredibly since No Line On the Horizon came out, but this is also the guy who produced Fergie’s "London Bridge." I’m really optimistic about the energy he could bring to the band, but I was much more excited about what Danger Mouse could add to a U2 album. I had visions of Gnarls Barkley mixed with Pop. I have always wondered what a less rock-oriented producer could bring to U2, and now we get to find out. Timbaland was the one I was really rooting for. Of course, the Danger Mouse album could still come out, but I suspect the Will.i.am album is a surer bet.

Regardless of which of the two is going to produce their next album, what makes me happy is that U2 are still willing to try new things. These are four men at the half-century mark with 12 hit studio albums to their credit. They could easily release another Lanois/Eno production and it would probably be amazing. They’re not, though. They’re willing to try something new, something out of their comfort zone, something energetic. They’re still willing to go places they haven’t before. Now if only they get the new album out before next summer so we get to hear them live.

Still dont thrill me. I saw a better band at that stadium in April 2006