Songs of Ascent: the lost album

[Headache in a Suitcase]

lets also remember that 360 costs a lot more than Bigger Bang yet U2 is charging less than the Stones.

i don't really know how much the stages for 360 and Bigger Bang cost... but Bigger Bang had a stage where the center of it lifted it's self up and transported the band above the crowd down to the opposite end of a football fuck stadium. The stages were also both designed by the same person.

So I'm willing to believe that the 360 stage cost more than Bigger Bang's stage... but Bigger Bang's stage was pretty damned pricey.

Oh, and they were touring Arenas at the same time as they were touring stadiums and obviously did not have the same staging... so the stadium rigs and arena rigs combined probably got that cost up a little closer to that of 360's...

 

[The_Edge89]

it was a u2start member who worked for a production company in Sweden. the post was up at u2start for about 4 days, and then it was taken down because the original poster got in trouble at work for posting details.

Sweden?
The topic I read was started by a Dutch fellow claiming to be working at one of the biggest broadcasting companies in the Netherlands, I don't know if we are even thinking of the same poster here. If there was another poster on u2start claiming the same thing, from another country, it would make things much more interesting though.

The Dutch poster said:

• That the event was scheduled to take place on 13-14th of April.
• A company called Cinevideogroup was said to be in charge of organizing it, who have previously worked with U2 according to their own website. This company specializes in HD-broadcasts and also work internationally, so the shooting might not necessarily occur in Holland. Their showreel even features Always Forever Now from the Passengers record. =)
• A broadcasting van was booked for the event which, according to this guy, implied that a concert would be the most likely event to take place.
• About 4 cameramen were hired to be on the location, again this implies something other than a regular video shooting since if I remember correctly, shooting a video only required 1-2 cameras to be on location.

Then U2Achtung.com said a new single could possibly be released in June.
And even later on, U2Eastlink posted the Rose Bowl + New songs code content on the DVD rumour. This poster claimed that along with the new songs, U2 would launch a minipromo campaign so that their audience would be aquainted with the new material before going back on the road. The plan was, according to this Spanish source, to play a live broadcast promogig in April/May. This correlates rather well with the Dutch information above, stating the april 13-14th as the day of the gig - of course this could also be fabricated for all we know based on the Dutch source and the U2achtung report.

Now for some personal speculation; A photo exhibition of the band's early years opens on April 14th in London according to @U2.com and they had a contest to attend the VIP launch party the day before, April 13th. If I didn't know any better, this would seem like a fitting event to launch new U2 songs, whilst looking back on their past. It's the only confirmed event that matches the rumoured date at least.

Now if there is a Swedish source, I would really like to hear about it!
Perhaps we'll get to see it here as well, then!

 

[U2girl]

ya think so, huh?

see that's a wacky myth that's thrown out there... yes, die hard fans care about the new songs. the majority of the venue doesn't, and often bails for the bathroom during new songs... which is why u2 are smart and load the top of the set with new songs. nobody's bailing on the first 5-6 songs.

if you're gonna tell me that there wasn't a mass bathroom break during unknown caller, then i don't know what shows you were at.

me? i pee durring war horses, because i've seen them a million times and would rather see the new material. but the majority of the crowd are not die hards like us... they want to see the hits and don't give a crap about the new songs.

It's all about the pee break-new songs coordination and nothing at all about believing in your latest album, yes. People see Stones because it's the Stones, not really for the new album. U2, while indeed being an ageing band, just isn't the same story. Beautiful day and Vertigo are essentially a part of the greatest-hits section now; and they still play majority of the new album live.

I didn't do a research on the 60 000 people in Zagreb to see who left to pee during Unknown Caller. Yes, I did think it was the weakest of the new songs. I also remember a strongly positive reaction on NLOTH, Breathe, Magnificent, Boots and Crazy tonight, the latter being a highlight of the show, with Ultraviolet. Not too bad for new songs from nearly 50 year olds.

If the quasi $ellout move of having more tickets (a natural consequence of having a 360 setup, and not resorting to snobby elitism of shutting down the ellipse for "real" fans only) while achieving more reasonable prices is bad, I'd shudder to think what the prices of Stones, Madonna or Macca would be considered. Mass murder on the fan wallets worldwide ?

Lastly, there is of course nothing wrong with being compared to a legendary band like the Stones. But that's not really what's happening. It's just that the thinly veiled "greedy" nature of that comparison doesn't quite stand up when being looked at closely.

edit: thanks to whoever found this, it says so much...

Stones Pricing for Bigger Bang
$350
$175
$100
$50

Pricing for 360
$250
$95
$55
$30

 

[mikal]

oops. i meant Netherlands.

 

[The_Edge89]

oops. i meant Netherlands.

Aw, too bad.

I'd like to take this opportunity and apologize if I came across as a harsh, strict person. I didn't mean to put you into place or anything by correcting you, I just wanted to clear things up. Perhaps I will be the one to mix up information like this the next time, you never know!

 

[lazarus]

see, this is why i always defend the stones when dilusional u2 fans go all nutso about how they're such a joke.

Rolling Stone gave "A Bigger Bang" 4 1/2 stars, more than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb got, and only half a star less than what No Line got... on top of that the record sold 2.4 million coppies in it's first 8 months of release worldwide.

"A Bigger Bang" was a commercial and critical success. for a band nearly 50 years into their existance, that's pretty amazing.

Nice try. I wouldn't use Rolling Stone as a barometer, considering they also gave Mick's solo album Goddess in the Doorway FIVE STARS. Needless to say, it was pretty damned far from a masterpiece, which I found out after buying it BECAUSE of that review.

Also, if you check on Metacritic, A Bigger Bang has a 73 score compared to The Bomb's 79.

you do know that the stones have been around 20 years longer than u2, right? No Line is U2's 13th album... the Stones hadn't even written "Miss You" yet by the time they released their 13th album.

So to ask "how many stones songs from 2000-2009" would the general masses know would be like asking people in 20 years how many U2 songs from 2020 to 2029 do you know?

it's an impossible argument.

Way to twist things to make your points. The correct comparison shouldn't be in terms of number of albums, especially when in the 60's and 70's bands were putting out shit every year. What we should be looking at is how long the bands have been around and the respect for those time periods.

After 20 years together, U2 put together a pretty impressive decade from a commercial and critical standpoint, and as mentioned above there are a number of songs that people could name, and that have become new "standards". By comparison, after Tattoo You there is a serious dearth of recognizable material from the Stones. From Undercover, Dirty Work, Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge you have Mixed Emotions and...well, that's about it, maybe The Harlem Shuffle. How often did they play songs from these albums on subsequent tours?

You can't argue with the fact that the Stones are a jukebox and have been for a long time, playing a few new songs that largely get jettisoned once another tour starts. That's not the approach that U2 has ever taken, and have consistently displayed faith in their current and recent work in the face of better-known songs.

 

[nielsgov]

I'm all for a setlist party of a nonexistent show.




I still have a tiny hope though. This might be the one rumor that's true, you never know. And it's probably the last chance of new material before the tour.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Stones Pricing for Bigger Bang
$350
$175
$100
$50

Pricing for 360
$250
$95
$55
$30

360 had close to 30,000 extra tickets per show, give or take.

They couldn't possibly set the tickets to be the same price with that many extra seats. They wouldn't sell.

I would venture to guess that 360, despite lower prices, made more money per show.


my contention with this stones vs. u2 debate is the misguided notions that

a) most people at a 360 show come for the new music

and

b) u2 isn't doing it for the money like the stones are.


secondly... i never said that what u2 does by making more tickets available is bad. actually quite the contrary... i think it's great. i'm only saying that it's still about making money, and if it didn't make money, they wouldn't do it. and the only reason i bring it up is because of all the bashing about other acts prices.


and if holding the best tickets in the house for fan club members, or making sure that GA tickets can only be picked up at Will Call to stop them from being gobbled up by scalpers, or any of the other things that many other big name artists have done and continue to do is "snobby elitism" to you, then i really don't know what to say.

 

[mikal]

Aw, too bad.

I'd like to take this opportunity and apologize if I came across as a harsh, strict person. I didn't mean to put you into place or anything by correcting you, I just wanted to clear things up. Perhaps I will be the one to mix up information like this the next time, you never know!

no prob! can't wait for the setlist party on Wednesday!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Nice try. I wouldn't use Rolling Stone as a barometer, considering they also gave Mick's solo album Goddess in the Doorway FIVE STARS. Needless to say, it was pretty damned far from a masterpiece, which I found out after buying it BECAUSE of that review.

Also, if you check on Metacritic, A Bigger Bang has a 73 score compared to The Bomb's 79.

And speaking of "way to twist things to make your point," i see that you conveniently left off the fact that No Line On The Horizon has a lower Metacritic score than A Bigger Bang, by a measley little point.

The all around point of the argument was that A Bigger Bang was pretty well received by critics... and fairly close in comparison to U2's two latest albums... which is contrary to the beliefs of many people on these boards.

Way to twist things to make your points. The correct comparison shouldn't be in terms of number of albums, especially when in the 60's and 70's bands were putting out shit every year. What we should be looking at is how long the bands have been around and the respect for those time periods.

After 20 years together, U2 put together a pretty impressive decade from a commercial and critical standpoint, and as mentioned above there are a number of songs that people could name, and that have become new "standards". By comparison, after Tattoo You there is a serious dearth of recognizable material from the Stones. From Undercover, Dirty Work, Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge you have Mixed Emotions and...well, that's about it, maybe The Harlem Shuffle. How often did they play songs from these albums on subsequent tours?

You can't argue with the fact that the Stones are a jukebox and have been for a long time, playing a few new songs that largely get jettisoned once another tour starts. That's not the approach that U2 has ever taken, and have consistently displayed faith in their current and recent work in the face of better-known songs.

well firstly i disagree with your opinion about the comparisons... because i would argue that we're talking about the content, not the time period that passed.

that said... i think love is strong, you got me rocking are fairly recognizable songs to the general public. saint of me is one of my favorite stones songs.


again... my only argument is to counter the arguments by many u2 fans who think the stones and u2 are soooooo different, and more importantly, who take shots at the stones as if they're a joke, while u2 is all hip with the kids.

 

[zoopop]

Headache, I think most of us know U2 does it for the money but they give us a pretty good reason to give them money. New songs and a spectacular tour. I've seen many Stones fans really pissed that they have to spend over $100 to see the same warhorses in a stadium when they feel the Stones should be playing smaller venues. Plus if you look at the Stones past stadium shows vs. U2's stadium shows, U2 has put a major emphasis on technology advancement. Whats crazy is you could see U2 for $55 from the floor on ZooTV (92,93), Popmart, (97), and 360(2010). Same can not be said for the Rolling Stones.

I paid $55 to sit in the very last row of Reliant Stadium to see the Stones in 2003.

I paid $55 to stand on Solider Field and see U2 in 2010

I just saw a band Friday in Austin, Camera Obscura, in a small club for $20. It was a 1 hr show, no effects, no lighting at all, and I even bought a poster for $20. Great show and any show I go to I get excited knowing I'll see U2 in a few months in Miami. And I thought for $42 (fees included) I can see U2 under the claw (biggest rock show ever).......awesome


I do like some songs from post Tattoo You though. And Voodoo Lounge is a very good album.

 

[lazarus]

Headache, when I read the original comparison you made, I only saw A Bigger Bang and The Bomb, and didn't see the "No Line" in that sentence. Sorry.

But it should be noted that A Bigger Bang may have sold 2.8 million worldwide, but The Bomb sold 9. A year earlier. I don't have the worldwide totals for No Line but of course downloading has certainly affected sales figures in the time interval between the two albums.

And this is something that is subjective, but I think the Stones are held to a much lower standard by critics. How else to explain that these albums which aren't even in the same ballpark as former classics are getting three or four star ratings. On the other hand, U2 puts out an album that is more complex than its two predecessors, both lyrically and musically, and wind up with a lower rating. Why? Backlash? Exhaustion? Who knows?

I agree with your general thought that both bands are thought of as dinosaurs by younger people (and the Stones are "cooler" anyway to most of them). What I'm trying to stress that the perception is not the reality. The truth is that the Stones are totally comfortable resting on their laurels, playing the hits, making music that really adds nothing to their palette, and U2 are still trying to play the young man's game and do things they haven't done before. That they aren't recognized for this by the public at large is just something one has to endure as a fan, and one can only hope that people in the future will look back and give credit where credit is due.

 

[TM]

oops. i meant Netherlands.

How on earth can you confuse Sweden with The Netherlands?

 

[digitize]

If this concert does happen on Wednesday, Interference's servers will literally collapse.

I'm sure it won't, but I'd be wise to keep a free schedule after school that day, I guess.

 

[U2387]

see, this is why i always defend the stones when dilusional u2 fans go all nutso about how they're such a joke.

See, you have said a lot more delusional things than I have so be careful with that word. When did I ever call the Stones a joke? I would say that I have only ever called them a great band who make no bones about doing the greatest hits. Same for everyone else I have seen on here. People just don't like the false equating of their philosophy on new material to U2's.

Rolling Stone gave "A Bigger Bang" 4 1/2 stars, more than How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb got, and only half a star less than what No Line got... on top of that the record sold 2.4 million coppies in it's first 8 months of release worldwide.

"A Bigger Bang" was a commercial and critical success. for a band nearly 50 years into their existance, that's pretty amazing.

One album. Contrast that to 3 commercially and critically successful albums this decade from U2. HTDAAB sold more than "A Bigger Bang" and I was not aware that Rolling Stone was the final arbiter on everything. Overall critical opinion was either the same or higher for HTDAAB. Even if Rolling Stone were the only measure of critical success, for the sake of argument, how many U2 albums have they gave glowing reviews this decade? 3 How many for the Stones? 1

U2 in the 2000s and the Stones in the 2000's, as far as quantity of output and commercial and critical success, it is not even close. U2 has sold many more albums, DVD's and tickets for tours that heavily promote new material.

Yes, "A Bigger Bang" was a commercial and critical success, but again, none of the songs are known like U2's 2000's output. No radio hits, etc. That says something, in case you did not notice U2 wanting to have another hit single badly after the (relative) disappointment of NLOTH.

It is amazing for the Stones 50 years into their existence? Of course it is. You would never get me to deny that the Stones are a great band. It is just they are in no way comparable to U2 in the area that we are talking about.

no, i meant sitting side stage in the third row of the actual stands... not on the field. and i purchased the tickets on ticketmaster the day of the show. alanis morrisette opened... i missed ironic 'cause i was stuck in traffic. very disapointing...

the stones were phenomenal, however...

My misunderstanding. 10-4.

Alanis is good live but nothing you have to see before you die

Again, I am not arguing the merits of the Stones, I am sure they were phenomenal.

you really do believe that u2's "no seats" setup on the floor is done for joe schmo fan like you and i, don't you?

sigh...............

NO NO NO, and let me really answer the question..... NO!

I thought I made that clear. Of course they do it to sell more tickets and make more money.

look... they're not dumb. they know how to market themselves and their tickets. but u2 taking seats off the stage was done so that they could fit a significanly larger number of people on the floor. so instead of charging $100 they charge half that, but fit three times as many people on the floor.

on top of that... u2 have made sure that all three of the last tours utilize every possible seat in the venue. that's not about money? come on...

when you open up more seats, you can charge less money per seat and make the same amount, if not more. the rolling stones use end stages... even for arena shows.

if it reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally was all about the fans... why not make the fan club ticketing policy much more fan friendly? why not reserver the heart, ellipse or circle for only fan club? other acts do.

and the last part of it is that i'm 100% fine with it being about the money... it's supposed to be. but to act like it doesn't matter is just silly and naive.

Again, did I ever say they were dumb and not in it for money? Please read posts or if you read my post, at least do not distort it into what you want it to say and then argue against it. I am neither silly nor naive, I have long been aware that the goal of U2 as stated from about 1980 was to be big and make money.

They charge less per seat and get more people in, yet make the same or more money. That is exactly what you say it is.... smart business wise. However, it also allows more people to afford to go to the shows, so it has that added effect of being fan friendly.

A minor difference of stage setup, but worth looking at: The Stones do end stage. If I understand you right, you are saying this should really be kept in mind, as they need to close off a few sections, sell less seats and therefore, charge more per ticket? Ok, well U2 has INNOVATED starting on Elevation and this innovation has helped more people afford tickets. It is not the primary goal, making money of course is, but U2 has said many times they had this in mind as well. How is it not an extension of business smarts to make more money at the same time you charge less for tickets and have more people seeing your shows? The 2 missions, in this case, go hand in hand.

The Stones could do something similar as far as selling more seats. After all, "Circle" type stages are all the rage since U2 started doing them. This would bring down most ticket prices a bit. But I highly doubt they would decide to change the $300-$400 by the stage ticketing policy. Which brings me to my next point.....

Now for the big difference! End stage or Elevation/Vertigo/360 set up, both The Stones and U2 make conscious decisions. U2 specifically and openly chooses to sell the seats for a higher amount than most acts do so that tickets down near the stage remain affordable. This is not a good, help the fans afford the tickets policy? Of course it is.

The Stones could do the same if they wanted to, not saying they should do the same, but all bands make choices.

I would not be able to answer why they do not make the fan club ticketing better, maybe you should write to them? I am not an expert. And it has nothing to do with the comparison to the Stones. All I will say is I never had a problem with the fan club ticketing, and that, in my opinion, it is a bit snobbish to only allow Headache in a suitcase or U2387 super fan down in the ellipse. Limits the opportunity for some 22 yr old to pick up a GA ticket, get down relatively close, be blown away and become a fan. I have converted plenty of my friends this way and talked to many others at shows who have had similar experiences.

If you are trying to insinuate that U2 does not care too much about their fans, otherwise they would do "x, y or z" then that is flat out insane. Not too many bands actually take the time to personally meet their fans to the extent that U2 goes to. I have witnessed it 1st hand numerous times. I work security at concerts in Boston, and I have never seen a band spend an hour on a rope line of fans and certainly never seen anyone else shake every single cop's hand as they make their way from their vehicles to the fans. Follow some other bands like Tool(you never see the lead singer even on stage) or Morrissey or any other prima donna or diva or drug addled rock star.

Not saying U2 is perfect by any means, but to be as big a fan as you are and suggest that they are anything other than 4 of the most humble, gracious, generous and down to earth guys in the show business... I just don't know. I have never had any complaints. The one time they f'd up fan club tickets, they could not make amends fast enough. I could go on, but you get the point.

have ya ever been in the red zone? just asking...

Stood behind it for the encore when I was working security for Foxboro 1 9/20. There are plenty of those types down there, but come on! Do they make up even a substantial minority of the GA field? No. A couple red benches on each side, that's the whole damn stadium!That is using the weakest and numerically smallest example possible to try and make a point that just will not work. The GA people that are right at the front and plenty of others who take their pick of spots are generally the most enthusiastic in the audience and quite visibly so. They are the people who post here that you will find out in the GA line before the cleaning crew has left from the night before.

you do know that the stones have been around 20 years longer than u2, right? No Line is U2's 13th album... the Stones hadn't even written "Miss You" yet by the time they released their 13th album.

So to ask "how many stones songs from 2000-2009" would the general masses know would be like asking people in 20 years how many U2 songs from 2020 to 2029 do you know?

it's an impossible argument.

Of course I realize the Stones have been around 20 years longer. Since we do not have a crystal ball, the hypothetical argument you are making is the one that is quite impossible.

All we can compare is how U2 and The Stones feel about new material today or in the immediately prior decade 2000-2009. I did not realize we were having a discussion about what band has put out more albums or how long U2 will last.

All that matters for this discussion is what I already talked about. Who is still selling and promoting relevant new material today by playing 6 or 7 new songs per night on tour? The one correct answer is U2!

We are not comparing the 2 bands at the same number of years into their career in case you didn't notice. U2 has said many times that they would not be launching massive world tours as an irrelevant act playing the greatest hits and openly promoting the shows as such. They have made very clear that when they are done making the best work they feel they can make, they are done, period.

U2 could have easily gone the Stones route any time after Joshua Tree, but they did not. So when the Stones tour TODAY, we get heavy emphasis on the greatest hits with a few newbies thrown in as afterthoughts. When U2 tours TODAY, it is only in the wake of a new, relevant record that they plan on heavily promoting.

yes... i'm a wacky person.

there is really no point in arguing about pee breaks, so i'll skip that... and i've addressed most of what you said about "songs" elsewhere in this post.



the #1 reason why i get annoyed when people bring up the stones vs. u2 argument is because people act as if being compared to one of the greatest rock acts to ever walk the planet is an insult, and use really bad examples to make their point.

You are making rather foolish sounding arguments and reaching because you feel like The Stones are being attacked here. They are not by any means. Different strokes for different folks, goes for how bands approach touring as well. You and I both enjoy U2 greatly, and we both enjoy other bands who take the greatest hits approach. To point out a difference that is factually present is not an attack on The Stones.

No one is saying comparison is an insult. All we are saying is that, in terms of how they approach new material, both studio releases and live, the 2 acts are not similar.

So to respond, the #1 reason I and others get annoyed is when the false comparison in this one particular area is made to no end. I would applaud any comparison to U2 and The Stones that says both are huge drawing acts, have great music, have impacted rock immensely, have influenced and collaborated with each other, etc.

I really have no problem with The Rolling Stones.

 

[U2387]

Headache, when I read the original comparison you made, I only saw A Bigger Bang and The Bomb, and didn't see the "No Line" in that sentence. Sorry.

But it should be noted that A Bigger Bang may have sold 2.8 million worldwide, but The Bomb sold 9. A year earlier. I don't have the worldwide totals for No Line but of course downloading has certainly affected sales figures in the time interval between the two albums.

And this is something that is subjective, but I think the Stones are held to a much lower standard by critics. How else to explain that these albums which aren't even in the same ballpark as former classics are getting three or four star ratings. On the other hand, U2 puts out an album that is more complex than its two predecessors, both lyrically and musically, and wind up with a lower rating. Why? Backlash? Exhaustion? Who knows?

I agree with your general thought that both bands are thought of as dinosaurs by younger people (and the Stones are "cooler" anyway to most of them). What I'm trying to stress that the perception is not the reality. The truth is that the Stones are totally comfortable resting on their laurels, playing the hits, making music that really adds nothing to their palette, and U2 are still trying to play the young man's game and do things they haven't done before. That they aren't recognized for this by the public at large is just something one has to endure as a fan, and one can only hope that people in the future will look back and give credit where credit is due.

NAIL ON THE HEAD RIGHT HERE

Well said, Lazarus.

Perception vs reality, especially in the area of "coolness." Don't worry, I don't think U2 were ever really considered "cool" in the 80s. It took Zoo TV. They had as good a run as any act ever had that decade, so I don't think it bothers them.

 

[U2387]

i don't really know how much the stages for 360 and Bigger Bang cost... but Bigger Bang had a stage where the center of it lifted it's self up and transported the band above the crowd down to the opposite end of a football fuck stadium. The stages were also both designed by the same person.

So I'm willing to believe that the 360 stage cost more than Bigger Bang's stage... but Bigger Bang's stage was pretty damned pricey.

Oh, and they were touring Arenas at the same time as they were touring stadiums and obviously did not have the same staging... so the stadium rigs and arena rigs combined probably got that cost up a little closer to that of 360's...

Yes, and much has been made about just how much more elaborate and expensive 360 is than the Bigger Bang production.

The Bigger Bang stage would fit under the claw.

I will get some numbers when I get the time, but I would say that given the 3 set ups out simultaneously, cost of crew, etc that Bigger Bang, real or inflation adjusted, came nowhere near the cost of 360.

360 will wind up smashing it in terms of gross revenues.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

this is honestly nausiating to discuss.

in 20 years, when u2 are 50 years in, let's see where they are. if you want to compare numbers, compare 30 years vs. 30 years, or 13 albums vs. 13 albums.

and lastly, anyone who believes that songs off of No Line On The Horizon are popular and well known with the masses is delusional.

 

[monsieur fly]

I think the Stones vs U2 debate is puzzling. I like both bands equally so perhaps I can offer a different perspective to fans who just like U2. Firstly, I don't think it is clear-cut that U2 remain ambitious. Bono might give that impression with his talk of 'punk rock from Venus' but perhaps the truth is more mundane. They have become steadily less prolific and not one of their three albums this decade has pushed the envelope. ATYCLB and HTDAAB were self-consciously conservative albums and though NLOTH was more experimental, it didn't really shake things up as I thought it would. For instance, can we honestly say that the Edge remains an innovative guitarist in the studio? Do not mistake me, I still think U2 are more ambitious than the Stones but the gap is not nearly as great as some are suggesting.

Secondly, I don't think the Stones are as bad as people are making out. Yes, they will never produce another Exile or Sticky Fingers but will U2 produce another Achtung Baby? They might do but it's not guaranteed. Furthermore, A Bigger Bang was a pretty fine record in my view- as a conservative, return-to roots affair, it is probably more effective than HTDAAB. Moreover, their live shows, though offering the predictable warhorses, do throw up some surprises as I mentioned in a previous post. And U2's setlists are not exactly radical by contrast. One, Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday and With Or Without You are all regulars- one suspects Pride and Bullet were dropped through gritted teeth and will soon return.

U2 are more ambitious than the Stones and on the whole, they have been more effective. Nevertheless, in my view, the gap between the two in the 00s has been nowhere near as great as it had been in the 1990s.

 

[zoopop]

^^Good take monsieur fly. One of the main reason I still think U2 still enjoys writing new music is they really talk it up when the promotion begins. Just like a band releasing their 1st album U2 makes is a point to record, promote, and perform new material. When the album is released their playing the new songs live on talk shows & such. People might not really get into it but this what makes U2 keep going. 14 of 24 songs on the 360 show were from this decade.

And this is where I don't see the Stones showcase that ambition. Yes they are older, but with a Bigger Bang they could have played more new material at shows. I don't even think Mick really talked about a Bigger Bang much. Mick comes across as very content just playing live shows to please the crowd with big hits.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think the Stones vs U2 debate is puzzling. I like both bands equally so perhaps I can offer a different perspective to fans who just like U2. Firstly, I don't think it is clear-cut that U2 remain ambitious. Bono might give that impression with his talk of 'punk rock from Venus' but perhaps the truth is more mundane. They have become steadily less prolific and not one of their three albums this decade has pushed the envelope. ATYCLB and HTDAAB were self-consciously conservative albums and though NLOTH was more experimental, it didn't really shake things up as I thought it would. For instance, can we honestly say that the Edge remains an innovative guitarist in the studio? Do not mistake me, I still think U2 are more ambitious than the Stones but the gap is not nearly as great as some are suggesting.

Secondly, I don't think the Stones are as bad as people are making out. Yes, they will never produce another Exile or Sticky Fingers but will U2 produce another Achtung Baby? They might do but it's not guaranteed. Furthermore, A Bigger Bang was a pretty fine record in my view- as a conservative, return-to roots affair, it is probably more effective than HTDAAB. Moreover, their live shows, though offering the predictable warhorses, do throw up some surprises as I mentioned in a previous post. And U2's setlists are not exactly radical by contrast. One, Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday and With Or Without You are all regulars- one suspects Pride and Bullet were dropped through gritted teeth and will soon return.

U2 are more ambitious than the Stones and on the whole, they have been more effective. Nevertheless, in my view, the gap between the two in the 00s has been nowhere near as great as it had been in the 1990s.

NAIL ON THE HEAD RIGHT HERE

 

[U2387]

Firstly, I don't think it is clear-cut that U2 remain ambitious.

Yes, I think it is pretty clear cut. They want every new album to be relevant, are upset when it is not, etc. HTDAAB may have left many of us looking for more, but U2 made the best record they felt they could at the time, and there are many spots where what they were trying to do worked. Vertigo, COBL, Sometimes, Original, etc. Sometimes won song of the year.

You are 100% right, NLOTH may not be as experimental as we thought or hoped it would be, but it is clearly pushing the envelope for 2000s U2! Think about it. Imagine how safe it would have been to release an album, oh, lets say All The Atomic Bomb That You Can't Leave Behind last year and watch the charts blow up and the albums fly off shelves! They consciously decided to not stay where it was at, to not be satisfied, etc. I would say its pretty ambitious to tour an album that was not well known with the biggest production ever and still play 6 or 7 songs off of it.

Bono exaggerates, punk rock from venus, etc, tell us something we do not know! Bono has always been the same, never lacking for words, the other 3 always hoping at some time or another that he shuts up about any given project, etc.

Secondly, I don't think the Stones are as bad as people are making out. Yes, they will never produce another Exile or Sticky Fingers but will U2 produce another Achtung Baby? They might do but it's not guaranteed. Furthermore, A Bigger Bang was a pretty fine record in my view- as a conservative, return-to roots affair, it is probably more effective than HTDAAB. Moreover, their live shows, though offering the predictable warhorses, do throw up some surprises as I mentioned in a previous post. And U2's setlists are not exactly radical by contrast. One, Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday and With Or Without You are all regulars- one suspects Pride and Bullet were dropped through gritted teeth and will soon return.

U2 are more ambitious than the Stones and on the whole, they have been more effective. Nevertheless, in my view, the gap between the two in the 00s has been nowhere near as great as it had been in the 1990s.

I truly do not think anyone is making the Stones out to be bad. Exile and Sticky Fingers are kind of agreed upon like JT and AB. Have the Stones topped either one of those since? I don't think so. Has U2? Close, but not quite. The difference is U2 is still trying and are very vocal about that.

Question for Stones fans: how many over in their forums think anything after Sticky Fingers is their best? We can find alot of people here ready to make a case that Pop or ATYCLB or NLOTH are better than JT or AB.

Nothing wrong with A Bigger Bang, yes, it worked well. I listened to it a few times. I enjoyed it. HTDAAB did a little better sales wise and had the song of the year plus City and Vertigo, so it has to win by objective standards of relevance.

The Stones throw surprises live, but where is the commitment to new and focus on new material that U2 shows? U2 sets the theme of every tour to the album they are promoting, including 360 with its theme of movement through space and time. A Bigger Bang, a bigger stage, I kind of get that, but a group of U2 tours vs a group of Stones tours and the similarity ends.

Both acts of course play warhorses, I mean, even B-/C list acts like Enrique Iglesias play war horses(Escape, Bailamos, Hero)! Anyone who has had some hits plays them live. The question is emphasis on recent material, and it is not there with the Stones, always there with U2!

I have no idea about Bullet, but U2 probably dropped it because they were tired of it, not because someone dragged them kicking and screaming. They do what they want with the set, as is evidenced by the ATYCLB overkill on 360. Pride missed a good amount of Elevation and was effectively absent from the 2nd leg of 360. I think they really get bored with and tired of this, and Bono even said as much in the promo tour interview in Somerville. A girl in the crowd asked if you ever get sick of playing certain songs, and she gave Pride as an example. Bono said yes, and though he did not repeat the song, he did not do as I expected and give a big sermon about the meaning of Pride and the importance of it to the U2 set. With or Without you got some time off on Elevation and Vertigo(whole 1st leg). SBS and NYD have been given a hell of a lot of rest before as well. I Will Follow has not been a consistent nightly since the 80s, save for on Popmart. Desire and Angel of Harlem have been sporadic on every tour since Lovetown. Still Haven't Found has gotten some nice time off.

No, U2 does not have the most dynamic set lists out there, but very few acts in their league emphasize the new and rest the classics to the extent that they do.

The Gap has still been pretty damn big in the 00's. 3 commercially successful and relevant albums versus 1.

 

[U2387]

this is honestly nausiating to discuss.

in 20 years, when u2 are 50 years in, let's see where they are. if you want to compare numbers, compare 30 years vs. 30 years, or 13 albums vs. 13 albums.

and lastly, anyone who believes that songs off of No Line On The Horizon are popular and well known with the masses is delusional.

It does not matter where U2 will be in 20 years, that is irrelevant, we have gone over it already.

Who plays and promotes new material NOW? Again, does anyone have a crystal ball? What we were having a discussion about was someone's premise that "U2 are effectively the Stones" when it comes to new material and live performances! That would be going on what we have seen, NOW, TODAY, no one was suggesting that we look 20 years into the future, and it is impossible to do so.

You still do not seem to understand we are having a discussion about how new material is approached by each band and not a discussion based on speculation as to how the 2 bands will compare in 2030!

Someone said U2 is held to a higher standard and I could not agree more. Who has the expectation placed on them that they are relevant each album out? U2. Who do the critics pick apart more? Time felt free to bash NLOTH for not being coherent enough for them, do you honestly think they would do the same for the Stones? No, and with good reason. The Stones do not expect to be judged by their new material. U2, through their words and actions(promo tours, etc) strongly expect to be held to high standards and expect to be called out on not delivering new material that is effective.

Where did anyone ever make the delusional argument that NLOTH is well liked and popular? Nowhere. I made a specific list of ATYCLB and Bomb songs that are popular and well liked and that was what I was talking about regarding 00s U2. For whatever reason, NLOTH did not do as well on the radio and most people could not name a song off of it. Oh, well. Again, twisting arguments into what YOU want them to say. Congratulations, you made a point by building a straw man, important skill to have!

Regardless of how many people are familiar with NLOTH material, it is still one of the commercially and critically successful albums that contributes to U2's 3-1 lead on the Stones this decade!

It is not well known, but fans expected to hear it and enjoyed hearing it at the shows from all of my experiences. Not to mention what I read of other fans' experiences here. Does anyone go into a Stones show ready to hear how the new album is adapted live and excited to see just how that plays out?

 

[Rachel D.]

I hate to interrupt this off-topic Stones discussion ( ), but I found this article via U2Log.com: The East African: �- Magazine�|Bono: Celebrity is a currency to be used to bring about change

Sorry if it has been posted about already; in case it hasn't, it says the following: “'We have recorded a new set of songs and we are going on tour in June and July. The mood in the band is good,' the singer said in a recent interview with The EastAfrican in Nairobi."

It's been a few weeks since Bono went to Africa, but it's still a pretty recent quote.

 

[mikal]

I hate to interrupt this off-topic Stones discussion ( ), but I found this article via U2Log.com: The East African: �- Magazine�|Bono: Celebrity is a currency to be used to bring about change

Sorry if it has been posted about already; in case it hasn't, it says the following: “'We have recorded a new set of songs and we are going on tour in June and July. The mood in the band is good,' the singer said in a recent interview with The EastAfrican in Nairobi."

It's been a few weeks since Bono went to Africa, but it's still a pretty recent quote.

thank you for hopefully derailing this Stones/U2 topic.

 

[Danny Boy]

thank you for hopefully derailing this Stones/U2 topic.

Hey, if you want to talk about a new album, get your own thread.
.
.
.
What?

 

[monsieur fly]

I enjoyed reading your post, War Child. I agree with some parts but disagree at other times.
I don’t agree with your first point. You seem to be implying that the Stones do not want to make the best records they can, which I doubt. Every band wants to do their best but wanting to be good doesn’t really amount to ambition. And I do not think HTDAAB was an ambitious album. There was certainly no attempt to do something fresh with rock n roll. In fact Miracle Drug, COBL, and Yahweh sound dangerously close to self- parodies in my opinion. I accept your point that HTDAAB did objectively better than A Bigger Bang but there has been a backlash too- as you can tell from the reviews of NLOTH.

NLOTH might sound radical, but that doesn’t say much for ATYCLB or HTDAAB. I agree that they wanted to be more left-field after 2005 but were they REALLY committed to that route? Those three songs in the middle of the record (and I actually like Boots) suggest a certain hedging of bets. That said, I agree that it was brave to play 6 or 7 songs a night. That is why I still consider U2 more ambitious than the Stones. My argument is about extent.

You ask an interesting question about post-Exile Stones. I agree that the Stones have been more patchy than the U2 (drug abuse being the reason) but I think Some Girls and Tattoo You stand up well to Exile, the former especially.


I agree that the Stones play more of their older stuff than U2. Your statistics bear that out. But some things need bearing in mind. Firstly, the Stones have a bigger back catalogue than U2, which must have some effect. Secondly, you are equating ‘recent’ with ‘ambitious’ but is it more ambitious of U2 to play 5 songs from ATYCLB than 5 songs from Pop? ATYCLB may been more recent but I think U2 would have been more daring had they played the likes of Discotheque and Mofo instead.

In short I agree with you that U2 are more ambitious than the Stones. My disagreement is about the margin of difference.

 

[Registered Dude]

a new set of songs.. tells us something.. c'mon EP!

 

[BVS]

Who is War Child?

 

[mikal]

are the Rolling Stones on the new U2 album?