The Rolling Stones V U2

[CrashedCarDriver]

well its no secret that the stones are a great influence on U2's music, especially during the Joshua Tree/ Rattle and Hum era

personally i am not a fan of Mick and Keith's band, Mick totally defines "repulsive" and should act his age, but the whole image U2 has about them in the idea of being around until they all drop dead or something brings out the comparison

also the Stones music is very difficult to 'get' for my generation, i do wonder if people in the next generation, or even the current one we live in will 'get' U2?

sure a song like One will stand the test of time like Unchained Melody, but something like Where the Streets Have No Name probably will merely rank alongside something like 'Gimme Shelter' or something like that

other bands which are sort of on the same plane as u2 are:

The Who - they are a better band overall than U2, Bono can only dream of writing a song like Townshend's Baba O'Riley or Won't Get Fooled Again

Manic Street Preachers - after Everything Must Go, their music has a U2 feel about them

 

[The_acrobat]

I get the Stones, and I'm 21. I got the Stones in high school. My friends and I all went to see them in 1997, when we were 15-16. We were huge Stones fans, still are. Just like we're U2 fans. I think that U2 are still relevant, and the Stones just crank out new stuff for the hell of it. I don't think they should act a certain way because they are 60. Act as young or as old as you feel, I say. The Rolling Stones are a great live band, even still.

U2 will be remembered in 20 years for things you can't even imagine they'll be remembered for. The Joshua Tree will always be their crowning acheivment as far as the media is concerned. But their big hits will live on, as will their legacy for being a fantastic live band. The notorious Popmart tour will one day be seen as pioneering concert entertainment into the 21st century.

 

[u2sangel]

How do you get the impression tht u2 will be around until they are dead?Edge said recently that u2 are not The Stones and will not be around when they are 60+!

 

[U2girl]

did they ever officially say they would play forever?

I also remember Bono saying recently "I'm not sure I want to be in a rock'n'roll band when I'm 60."



I think Stones are basically living off their old fame - yes they're a great live band but they aren't relevant anymore. (I also am thinking they're looking slightly redicioulus now)

*edit* I think all great bands's music will stand the test of time and new generations will find something interesting in them.

 

[MrBrau1]

Exile on Main Street and Sticky Fingers are 2 of the greatest records of all time, on par w/ JT and AB. These bands are equals.

 

[* MoFo *]

...but something like Where the Streets Have No Name probably will merely rank alongside something like 'Gimme Shelter' or something like that

what?

...The Who - they are a better band overall than U2

what?

...Bono can only dream of writing a song like Townshend's Baba O'Riley or Won't Get Fooled Again

what?

 

[Strato Edge]

^ I'm as confused as this guy.

 

[celia]

^ I'm as confused as this guy.

DITTO!

Especially the Where The Streets Have No Name comment.

 

[Zooropa]

comparing U2 to The Who or The Stones is difficult. I mean lets face, the Stones (and The Beatles) helped set the table, so they will always be held high in rock circles. Personally I like The Stones for what they are, a Rock n Roll band. They aren't trying to change the world, just make great rock music. The Who are easier to compare, but still difficult. Townshend is one of rocks greatest writers (penning somewhere close to 90% of all the Who's material, music and vocals) so, yes, I would have to say that Townshend is a better writer than any of the individual writers in U2. However the manner in which U2 composes their music is different then the Who. Townshend essentially wrote everything, play the demos for the band, they would tweak stuff a lil, but the original compositions didn't change much. In U2, it seems like the 4 guys kinda just bang around a bit and see what comes out of it. Neither way is necessarily better, they both work well for their respective bands. With that said, as much as I love U2 (they are my fav) theyve never really come close to equally the The Who's trifecta of Tommy, Who's Next, and Quadrophenia.
U2's greatness is a bit more spread out.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

Have you actually listened to the Stones CCD?

Are you just another incarnation of Jick?

Who are you?

Who the fuck are you?

I really want to know...

 

[Leeloo]

I like both bands, I like U2 better. But a big to the 'act your age' comment towards Mick. That is what the entire rock and roll age is about, man. NOT getting old and becoming 'the man.' You rock Mick! Stay just the way you are. You're an example for every rock star. You're not supposed to give up. I hope he rocks till he drops. It's cool and hilarious as long as it's pissing anyone off. Rock and roll forever!

 

[STING2]

CrashedCarDriver,


"The Who - they are a better band overall than U2, Bono can only dream of writing a song like Townshend's Baba O'Riley or Won't Get Fooled Again"

Where the Streets Have No Name, New Years Day, Pride, and With Or Without You, are all better songs than "Baba O'Riley" or "Won't Get Fooled Again" .

U2 Vs The Rolling Stones, U2 easily gets my vote. Worldwide opinion though based on sales, music critics, and other things, U2 at this point in their career are considered the 4th greatest band of all time. Only the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Led ZEP would rank above them. No one will ever dethrone the Beatles and the same may be said for the Rolling Stones second place position, but U2 may be able to move up to #3.

Strictly in my opinion though, U2 was already #1 years ago.

 

[adamswildhoney]

I personally like both the bands, tho I have a stronger connection to U2's music then the Stones bc I discovered the Stones after I discovered U2.

 

[AcrobatMan]

U2 are better than "The Who", "The rolling stone" and all the 60s group including beatles

 

[shaun vox]

Both bands are making lame albums as they get old.

but rolling stones are bigger than u2.


























































just kidding hehehehehahaha.

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

you mentioned the manics

yes! yes! yes! yes! yes! yes! yes! yes! yes! yes!

 

[brettig]

Why the fuck do we have to rank them? Its a given that everyone here will have an inflated opinion of U2 anyway so any chance of an objective discussion is thrown out the door.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Feisty Betty!
Its not a given that U2 rank the highest in every member's opinion here.
Besides, its human nature to rank everything. The brain looks for order constantly. We make concious choices to do just that too. Hence polls/debates/discussions about who is better than who.

Anyways. I love the Stones. For different reasons to U2. excellence in different measures.