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.