why is interference never talking about the rolling stones? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2007, 03:55 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 08:07 PM
the beatles quit touring already back in the sixties.

but macca is still touring, so who knows?

i dont think the beatles would ever have stayed together for so long, though, even if the chemistry had still been there. as soon as they realized that they had run out of creativity, they would have split anyway. i couldnt see them stay together and release uninteresting crap album after crap album for decades, just to be able to tour.
__________________

__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 03:57 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
I think they're overrated as hell and of average talent. Actually, their older stuff from the late 60s and early 70s is good enough I guess, but it just really gets me when people try to speak 'The Stones' in the same breath as 'The Beatles'. To me it's not even a discussion. I just don't think the Stones can even begin to touch the realm of the Beatles.
As for overall body of work, I will agree and say the Beatles would be higher, but to say they are "overrated as hell and of average talent" is really misguided. Just listen to Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile On Main Street and you'll get an appreciation of how eclectic their music could really be.

I think some people, not necessarily you, look at how they've had quite a few weaker efforts throughout their later history and use that against them. Sure, they haven't had an album since Tattoo You that you could call a classic, but if The Beatles had continued on as long as they have, we'd be saying the same thing about them, too.
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 03:59 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 08:07 PM
yeah, you gotta know when to call it a day.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 04:00 PM   #34
Refugee
 
annie_vox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Where the wind calls my name
Posts: 1,492
Local Time: 07:07 PM
^^ I agree with that. Stones lost all the creativity they had about two decades ago. To prove that is the fact that they start and end concerts with classic old stuff and only play three or four new songs... That's the thing I don't like about them and that's what I felt at the concert.
__________________
annie_vox is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 04:02 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 08:07 PM
you would have to be pretty daft to think that the rolling stones is anything but a big money machine nowadays - and have been so for quite some time now, but their earlier stuff, when they were GREAT, could be appreciated some more...
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 04:07 PM   #36
New Yorker
 
Yahweh_OMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 2,838
Local Time: 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase




satisfaction
street fighting man
paint it black
sympathy for the devil
gimmie shelter
salt of the earth
jumpin' jack flash
19th nervous breakdown
under my thumb
mother's little helper
ruby tuesday
start me up
wild hoses
get off my cloud
honky tonk woman
brown sugar
beast of burden
angie
miss you
fool to cry
it's only rock and roll
love is strong
out of control
tumbling dice
waiting on a friend
midnight rambler
saint of me


and that's just the ones i can think of off the top of my head... 3 or 4 songs??? boring??? come on now

well.... I agree.... 10-12 songs are good ... but seriously, I've seen them on TV, Live from Buenos Aires and they were bad.... always the same rythm.... something doesn't fit with my tastes.....
__________________
Yahweh_OMG is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 04:28 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
Screwtape2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Drum and Wormwood on Harpsichord!”
Posts: 18,353
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Re: why is interference never talking about the rolling stones?

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man
some might say that historically they have had a much bigger impact on popular music than u2, too.
YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

History can say what it will but when generation after generation listen to the Stones they'll find them overrated and generally unimpressive. They didn't make timeless music. As for poular music impact, how many artists sound like the Stones? They didn't have any unique style so how can you inspire or have any impact at all? U2 on the other hand has had more impact on music in the last twenty years than anyone else.

If the Stones had any impact is it as inspiring artists to sell out.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 04:38 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 08:07 PM
in music history you talk about a 'british invasion', right?

i dont think ive ever seen anyone talk about the 'irish invasion' spearheaded by u2.

the beatles and the rolling stones were the two most important bands in what is known as 'the british invasion' in the sixties.

of course they made timeless music, their biggest hits of the sixties are still being played today.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 04:49 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 08:07 PM
Stones would be nothing today without the laurels of their past and moreso touring, which is their excuse for album making.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 04:59 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
Screwtape2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Drum and Wormwood on Harpsichord!”
Posts: 18,353
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man
in music history you talk about a 'british invasion', right?

i dont think ive ever seen anyone talk about the 'irish invasion' spearheaded by u2.

the beatles and the rolling stones were the two most important bands in what is known as 'the british invasion' in the sixties.

of course they made timeless music, their biggest hits of the sixties are still being played today.
The Dave Clark 5 were as important a band in the British invasion as the Stones. Most people have never heard of them so being a critical part of the British invasion doesn't mean you had an impact of popular music.
U2 had to work their way to the top because it wasn't easy for Irish groups to make it. British bands in the 60's had it is easier. The 'Irish invasion' wasn't possible. However, because of U2 we have been exposed to more Irish artists. That is more important than being part of a musical invasion.
Finally, radio play does not equal timeless music. Culture Club songs are played on radio does that make them timeless? The Stones sound dated and pretty uncreative. Many bands of the time continue to attract new fans but the Stones.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 05:12 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 08:07 PM
in that case i guess i will have to ask you what your definition of 'timeless' is, since you brought it up.

are you saying that the dave clark 5 was as popular as the rolling stones?

kharma chameleon is indeed timeless
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 05:32 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
Screwtape2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Drum and Wormwood on Harpsichord!”
Posts: 18,353
Local Time: 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man
in that case i guess i will have to ask you what your definition of 'timeless' is, since you brought it up.

are you saying that the dave clark 5 was as popular as the rolling stones?

kharma chameleon is indeed timeless
The Beatles, Zeppelin and Pink Floyd all pick up younger fans when they are listened to. The Stones don't pick a lot of younger fans. If you can get even more fans each generation, that's what timeless implies in this case.

Yeah, the DC5 was a lot more popular than the Stones during the British invasion.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 05:53 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 08:07 PM
arent most of the people at the stones shows fairly young?

sympathy for the devil?

satisfaction?

my parents listened to these songs. my kids will know them too.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 06:05 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Screwtape2


The Beatles, Zeppelin and Pink Floyd all pick up younger fans when they are listened to. The Stones don't pick a lot of younger fans. If you can get even more fans each generation, that's what timeless implies in this case.

Yeah, the DC5 was a lot more popular than the Stones during the British invasion.
In my circle of younger friends (early 20s) they're all obsessed with the Beatles right now. They come over and want to hear Sgt. Pepper, which at first baffled me and then I decided it was pretty damn cool. Not one of them has any interest in the Stones, although I will make them watch "Gimme Shelter" with me one of these days.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 01-25-2007, 06:19 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:07 PM
Re: why is interference never talking about the rolling stones?

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man
well, besides u2 fans, this board seems to have a lot of radiohead, beatles, r.e.m., bruce springsteen, arcade fire, wilco, etc. etc. fans.

but i hardly ever hear any praise for the rolling stones. considering that in terms of popularity and money, they are bigger than u2, this might seem a little odd. some might say that historically they have had a much bigger impact on popular music than u2, too.

do rolling stones fans exist on this board? are they scared from posting the same way that the bon jovi and the aerosmith fans are scared from posting?

Well, in terms of popularity, for the last 20 years, U2 has been a much more popular band than the Rolling Stones in terms of album sales combined with concert ticket sales. The Stones have usually been the larger concert seller during this period, but their album sales pale in comparison to U2's. Now even their status as the top touring artist has been breached by U2. Outside of the United States and Canada, U2's Vertigo Tour beat the Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang Tour in just about every market played around the world. The Stones A Bigger Bang Album only sold half a million copies in the USA, while U2's BOMB sold over 3 million copies. Worldwide, the difference in sales was 9 million copies to just under 3 million for the Stones of the their latest releases.

So that plays a factor. Another would probably be the average age of your Rolling Stone fan today. For the Stones is probably early 50s, maybe like 52, and for U2 its mid to late 30s, probably 37. Actually considering that U2 have had recent albums that were very popular and brought in significant numbers of new younger fans, U2 fans average age is probably down around 30. Your going to have a much younger group of fans on any message board or the internet period. The Stones don't have a lot of young fans, and their main fan base is in their late 40s and early 50s now.

Historically and in terms of ranking the biggest or most influential bands of all time, the Stones are still ahead in that area, but U2 is not far behind. More relevant though is the popularity of the two bands over the past 20 years, and whether they continue to reach younger people.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com