Rollingstone.com poll - best live band

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Despite U2's amazing live show, there's one band on the planet that can beat them. Pearl Jam. The other two bands in the poll, DMB and Bruce Springsteen seem to give it their all on stage, but what's the point when all of your songs sound the same and aren't that amazing to begin with?
 
Hrmmm...I dunno BigMac, but I always thought Bruce's songs were pretty amazing. His lyrics are vivid and heartfelt and his band kicks arse.

And hey, look at the bright side - at least U2 are losing to some very respectable artists and not bands like Creed and *NSync and the like. :barf:
 
Johnny Swallow said:
KNOCK KNOCK...

Who's there?

WHO CARES!?!?!!


Knock Knock...

Who's there?

Shad?

Shad who?

Shaddup ya trap!



O.K., that was pathetic, but it's how I feel. :p

I care and I can't help but be a little annoyed that Dave Matthews and Pearl Jam have dominating U2. I could understand Bruce winning this poll, but with U2 in second. U2 have made their reputation on being a live band.

But I guess U2 fans don't care enough to vote. Okee dokee.
 
BigMacPhisto said:
Despite U2's amazing live show, there's one band on the planet that can beat them. Pearl Jam. The other two bands in the poll, DMB and Bruce Springsteen seem to give it their all on stage, but what's the point when all of your songs sound the same and aren't that amazing to begin with?

I disagree with the PJ thing -

I suppose it depends on how big of a fan you are of PJ, thus possibly biasing your favor of a PJ concert.

To some, all of PJ's songs sound the same too.

I find Radiohead and DepecheMode exhilarating in concert.
 
For those of you who have some time on your hands and want to see U2 win, you can vote more than once per day by deleting your cookies on your pc and then reloading the rollingstone.com page again and you can keep on voting!

I did this 5 times and they're atleast in #2 risht now, Bruce has a big lead.

Just an option, I don't want all of you to think I'm sick or something over a poll!!
 
I've changed my mind, who cares about a worthless poll! We already know who the best live band on the planet is and who cares what everybody else thinks!!

(Sour Grapes from Bruce running away with it! :sexywink:
 
Diemen said:
LMAO. Sure, Bruce puts on a kickass live show, but come on, some Boss fans obviously have waaaaaaaay too much time on their hands.

I dunno about too much time. Either that or too much brains, though. It's relatively easy if you know what you're doing (I wouldn't) to make a program that votes over and over again.. several times a second. KevM has done that and won u2 more than a few polls back in the day.
 
BigMacPhisto said:
Despite U2's amazing live show, there's one band on the planet that can beat them. Pearl Jam. The other two bands in the poll, DMB and Bruce Springsteen seem to give it their all on stage, but what's the point when all of your songs sound the same and aren't that amazing to begin with?

I enjoy Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam, but not DMB. They do absolutely NOTHING for me, but, of course, this is my own personal opinion and may not amount to a hill of beans to someone else. :lol:

If you ask me, U2 losing to ANYONE is just a travesty! :madspit:

Oh, well...It's just a stupid poll, right?
 
I am a huge fan of both U2 and PJ and I have to give the edge to PJ (no pun intended).

It's kind of comparing apples to oranges, 'cause U2, since ZOOTV, has been awesome at presenting a "show" atmosphere, whereas PJ just comes out and plays their songs.

One isn't necessarily better than the other, but I think if U2 was forced to just play their songs, without the elaborate stage setups (Elevation was still pretty elaborate and showy), they would not be as interesting, as high energy or as tight musically as PJ is.

PJ crowds are also prone to more energetic responses to the band, but being in a PJ crowd - near the front - is a pretty unreal experience.

All in all, they are both awesome, for different reasons - but, IMO, PJ could jump onstage impromptu and kick ass, whereas U2 would suffer by comparison.
 
* wonders if I missed you or not

You started it by trashing this thread!
 
I've heard all four are amazing, but I've only seen U2 live. So, my vote is with the boys...though after I see Springsteen in December, I may change my mind.
 
the fact that radiohead isnt even on there makes this list laughable.

i wonder if u2 would change more than a couple of songs if there were to play msg 10 nights in like 14 nights like the boss did a few years ago?

i think not.

the ability to create spontaneous and unscripted moments are necessary for a true rock performance. however, zootv and popmart would have made that harder, there was absolutely NO excuse for not tamering around more during elevation.

and dont give me shit about how many different songs they played, cause i know.

man am i crusty.

i do in fact like u2, btw.

i hope i snap out of this bitching about u2 all the time attitude.

ah well, forigive me.
 
you're overlooking the fact that U2 played about 10 different songs once each, and when you count the 20 different snippets Bono added (couple of phrases or maybe even a verse) here and there, the band played quite possibly 70 songs during the Elevation Tour, oh now wait, you did count them? ok, so it was only 40 then

don't get me wrong, if I could get any band in the world to play at my birthday bash extravaganza, it would definitely be U2... opening up for Radiohead I think, it would be a close call to decide which band was the official "headliner" :angry:
 
Their choices for best live act aren't that bad, and losing to Springsteen is no shame in the least. I voted for U2 out of loyalty (and because I enjoy their style of music a bit more), but man Springsteen is an insane live performer. Every show is DIFFERENT, (Like PJ) every show is INTENSE (like U2 and PJ) and every show is LONG (like no other)! He screams and yells and jumps around the stage for at least 2 1/2 hours per show. I saw him in Kansas City on his last tour and it was one of the shortest shows of the tour at 2 hours and 40 mins w/23 songs. His last show at Madison Square Garden went on for 3 1/2 hours. He never takes it easy on himself, and is always doing every song like it's the last. I swear he's not human...
 
Radiohead - BLECH!

Radiohead's music sucks so bad that the thought of seeing them live actually makes me ill. I'm thrilled that RollingStone showed an iota of intelligence by NOT including them in that poll. I would only see Radiohead if I was battling insomnia or if the N'Sync concert was sold out and I was inexplicably desperate to see morons on stage.
 
Re: Radiohead - BLECH!

doctorwho said:
Radiohead's music sucks so bad that the thought of seeing them live actually makes me ill. I'm thrilled that RollingStone showed an iota of intelligence by NOT including them in that poll. I would only see Radiohead if I was battling insomnia or if the N'Sync concert was sold out and I was inexplicably desperate to see morons on stage.

Whats the matter with you? Is your rocking chair getting uncomfortable on the ole' back again??

_____

:angry:
 
The Wanderer said:
docwho, please limit your posting to FYM, thank you.

I haven't heard anything good from Radiohead since the mid-90's. I used to like them. Now you couldn't pay me to see them. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could possibly consider U2 an "opening act" for Radiohead.

So therefore, I would appreciate it Wanderer, if you never posted at all. It would not hurt Interference in the least.

Thank you.

Ooopsy - time for the admins to close another thread as this one has become all "nasty." Blah...
 
Last edited:
JaraU2 said:
Ooopsy - time for the admins to close another thread as this one has become all "nasty." Blah...

You can leave your sarcastic comments at the door thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom