Is This It?

[Nick66]

That's like saying the Chicago Bulls weren't the best team in the 90's because they only won 6 titles during that decade.

[emoji106]

 

[mikal]

Yep!







You're a fucking idiot, Blue & Lonesome was more well-received than the last two U2 albums by a mile.

Holy cow man. You're one of my favorite people here but what's with the aggressiveness lately? I personally agree that the Rolling Stones album was not as good as U2's last two. it's not a matter of intelligence it's a matter of opinion.

 

[Hollow Island]

Cobbler is right: it's not a matter of opinion that Blue & Lonesome was received better than U2's last two albums.

 

[Hollow Island]

I should've struck out the critical bit from that quote. I meant that as soon as an album is foisted upon people for free, commercial (money) success is of course not going to happen.

True. But there was nothing close to a hit single either.

U2 were legitimately huge from 87-93 and 01-05. The rest of the time theyve been riding the brand...Just like Stones. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Joey788]

Eh I don't know if I'd say U2 in the late 90s was riding the brand. If anything, Passengers and Pop pushed them further away from their brand. It may not have resulted in hits but I wouldn't say they were coasting.

And actually I wouldn't say they're relying on the brand for their last two albums either, with one key exception: the need for hits. The singles are written to sound like big U2 songs but the album tracks have been a bit weirder and a bit better for it.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

I really doubt that conversation goes on.

sar·casm

[ˈsärˌkazəm]



NOUN

1. the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:
   
   

 

[Hollow Island]

Eh I don't know if I'd say U2 in the late 90s was riding the brand. If anything, Passengers and Pop pushed them further away from their brand. It may not have resulted in hits but I wouldn't say they were coasting.

And actually I wouldn't say they're relying on the brand for their last two albums either, with one key exception: the need for hits. The singles are written to sound like big U2 songs but the album tracks have been a bit weirder and a bit better for it.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that they were big because of the popularity of past work. Their brand was strong. I mean,I also think that Pop and Popmart were commercial successes - biggest tour ever at the time? Second? I forget. Everyone else disagrees though because it wasn't as successful as their past work. Except for the tour.

 

[Diemen]

You're a fucking idiot,

Find a way to disagree with people without insulting them, cobbler.

 

[LemonMelon]

I got what Hollow was saying, it was just poor wording. Their brand kept them commercially afloat while they did absolutely anything but rest on their laurels.

Which, sadly, didn't work out as well for the quasi-experimental NLOTH, but least 360 performed well. They'll always have ticket sales to fall back on no matter what, which to me is a solid excuse to experiment in the studio instead of churning out product, but hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[hasin73]

When was the last ROLLING STONES single a huge commercial success as BEAUTIFUL DAY or VERTIGO ? By commercial I mean heard and known by global audience.

 

[cobl04]

It's been 13 years for U2. And they haven't put an album on everyone's phones, which was a monumental disaster.

 

[lazarus]

A PR disaster has nothing to do with how big a band is, or the quality of the music, which I thought were the two main (and connected) debates going on here.

And it should also be noted that had they not made an idiotic choice for the lead single of No Line, we might not be having this conversation. Same goes for the delivery method and lead single of SOI.

But I'll say it again, the last huge single from the Stones was Mixed Emotions.

 

[Hollow Island]

When was the last ROLLING STONES single a huge commercial success as BEAUTIFUL DAY or VERTIGO ? By commercial I mean heard and known by global audience.

U2 and the Stones both had 20 years of making hits. Neither have had a hit for a long time, but the Stones had more hits in the 60s than U2 have had in 37 years.

The Stones had a few hits in the 90s though. Also, Im weary of calling Vertigo a big hit since I experienced it more as an ad than a song on the radio.

 

[Galeongirl]

When was the last ROLLING STONES single a huge commercial success as BEAUTIFUL DAY or VERTIGO ? By commercial I mean heard and known by global audience.

It's pretty sad using singles as example that were released in 2000 and 2004, 17 and 13 years ago..

Both U2 and the Stones are not relevant to the hip and happening crowds anymore. They have their own fanbase, they have a lot of casual fans who would listen to a new record.. but the mainstream kids? Nope. And that's not a bad thing either. I just wish the band would stop trying way too hard to become relevant again. That's one thing I can applaud the Stones for. They're connecting with their own fanbase, making music in their own style. Not trying to appeal to the kids.

 

[Hollow Island]

AC/DC: at least as big as U2. They sell out stadiums around the world, and their albums still sell. Hugely important and distinctive, too. And they're older than U2.

 

[Nick66]

Oh just stop. At least red hill had the virtue of being new and not knowing any better.

 

[mikal]

AC/DC: at least as big as U2. They sell out stadiums around the world, and their albums still sell. Hugely important and distinctive, too. And they're older than U2.

You're right. I went to a biker bar the other day and AC/DC was playing every other song!

 

[DaveC]

You're right. I went to a biker bar the other day and AC/DC was playing every other song!

sounds like a pretty boring place if they only had two songs on repeat.

 

[gvox]

https://youtu.be/AaTQAaJWW54

 

[coolian2]

 

[hasin73]

A PR disaster has nothing to do with how big a band is, or the quality of the music, which I thought were the two main (and connected) debates going on here.

And it should also be noted that had they not made an idiotic choice for the lead single of No Line, we might not be having this conversation. Same goes for the delivery method and lead single of SOI.

But I'll say it again, the last huge single from the Stones was Mixed Emotions.

 

[Hollow Island]

Oh just stop. At least red hill had the virtue of being new and not knowing any better.

I'm interested in seeing your rationale for AC/DC not being as big as U2. The metrics by which we can measure such things point to them being on the same level, and AC/DC are surely as influential, if not more so.

 

[Nick66]

Irrefutable proof that AC/DC is not bigger than U2.

AC/DC's Bon Scott...

and U2's Bon-no...

Let's recap.

Bon Scott...

Bono...

Discussion ended.
Mods, lock the thread.

 

[Hollow Island]

I don't know where you're looking, but Bon Scott is pretty huge...well, something is. Not sure what, but it looks like it hurts.

Anyway, care to make an actual case as to why AC/DC are not to be considered as big as U2, or why REM were never in the same league, or why Depeche Mode aren't also to be considered in the same league (hey, they're doing yet another stadium tour)?

 

[lazarus]

We're not playing your stupid game any longer.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

ugh, where to begin with this mess of a debate...

Well, if you want to talk about relevance, it's not foolishness. The Stones have been irrelevant culturally for quite some time.

not true. horribly not true.

the rolling stones as a brand has long outlived their relevance as a maker of music. if anything U2's insistence on trying to remain culturally "relevant" has made them LESS culturally relevant. bono's brand work with (red) may be more culturally relevant than the actual band at this point.

meanwhile the stones just had an amazingly well received exhibition in manhattan that's on it's way to chicago next, and a well received album to boot. plus - you see younger generations wearing stones shirts. you see that logo everywhere. not the same with u2. it just isn't.

I believe U2 can climb through this "old guy at the club" cultural malaise and return to their iconic legend status (the JT tour is a good start), and I think the Stones went through a similar phase in the late 90s/early 00s to come out of it on top... but yea, U2 are not very culturally relevant right now at all. most under the age of 30 consider them quite lame. mostly 'cause of bono and songs of innocence.

I would still argue that the Stones are more relevant than U2. No one hates the Stones. A lot of people hate U2. Definitely think U2 are (by a fair way) the better band, and they've put out extremely good music for a much longer period of time than the Stones - and that's really admirable, but outside of us and maybe one or two critics, no one gives a shit.

The Stones may have long ago gone the dinosaur route but it's paid off for them handsomely

yea.

Yeah...no.

No one cares about new Stones tours or music , unlike U2 which still gets, for better or worse, talked about.

the stones are touring artwork, costumes and instruments from their history to select cities around the world and smashing it at the box office with Exhibitionism.

So it would appear that yes, people still care about the stones.

Something just occurred to me:

Have U2 really sustained their popularity? The late 90s are regarded as a commercial failure, their last two albums were critical and commercial failures, and people go to the shows for the old stuff. And if the Stones can't be considered big because they're trading on former glories then the same is true if U2, right?

Just a thought.

so i've spent the entire post so far defending the stones, but now it's time to knock this little theory down a bit and defend U2.

U2 rode a huge wave of "BIGNESS" from 1987 through 2005. Yes, Popmart fizzled in the States, but was still huge elsewhere in the world. It could have been the start of the fall, but Sweetest Thing did very well in 99, and ATYCLB was a smash hit in 2000. Vertigo/Bomb was absolutely massive, and they rode that through the end of 360, which was an unbelievable success.

No Line faltering was the sign that things were changing, and the butchered 2014 release cycle closed the deal. they should have been able to see changing demographics and plan their release method accordingly. failing to do so resulted in the embarrassingly out of touch release method of Songs of Innocence.

When was the last ROLLING STONES single a huge commercial success as BEAUTIFUL DAY or VERTIGO ? By commercial I mean heard and known by global audience.

the late histories of each band are actually very similar...Steel Wheels can be seen as an equivalent release to All That You Can't Leave Behind, Voodoo Lounge their Atomic Bomb (i'd argue Bomb was more popular, but alas).

Bridges to Babylon in 1997 was released 35 years in for the Stones, roughly equivalent to No Line On The Horizon for U2. The albums and tours are relatively similar - mildly successful on the charts, more so in Europe than the US (
Anybody Seen My Baby? hit the top 20 in Europe and top 5 of US Rock charts. #1 in canada, eh. Saint of Me cracked the Billboard Hot 100 (albeit a low 96), and reached #26 on the UK charts) - massively successful mega world tour to accompany that broke all records.

they released 40 licks for their 40th anniversary and toured backing that, and then a few years later released Bigger Bang to mild success in Europe (not much in the US), Tour was still utterly massive (the biggest ever until 360) and saw a show in Canada draw 500k and one in Rio draw over a million. This was at 43 years in... or where U2 will be in 2019.


so can somebody again tell me about how irrelevant the stones were/are in comparison to U2? 'cause that's some bullshit. if anything the two bands "late" history is remarkably similar. comparing the Stones of today to the U2 of today is incredibly unfair; the Stones are 55 years in while U2 is in the middle of their 40th year. you have to look at it from where they were at certain milestones - 20 years in - 30 years in - 40 years in - etc etc etc. when you do that the album success and tour success almost line up perfectly.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

Relevance is all very personal. Not much sense trying to 'prove' or 'disprove' it. There is no single truth for everyone.

As mentioned in my opening comment, for me the band get less relevant every day. But I know that is not true for everyone. And I really don't care how they 'rate' against bands like the Stones or anyone else for that matter.

Truth be told, U2 are and will always be my favorite band. I just find they have been turning me off, slowly but consistently, for quite a while now. I'd say going back to the Vertigo tour. I still listen to them, but they are no longer a 'must see' concert for me. And I say that having seen 3 I+E shows, and 3 360 shows.

I am very interested to see how this next tour goes off and what are the reactions. Based on several folks I know who are going (a very limited sample size, I know), it's gonna be a ton of casual fans who haven't cared about the band in at least 10 years if not 20 or 30. So the atmosphere may be lukewarm (lots of long lines at the beer hall during IGC, ITTYW, etc), the politics is sure to be polarizing (if Bono can't restrain himself) and the actual musical delivery - who knows.

 

[BVS]

Relevance is all very personal. Not much sense trying to 'prove' or 'disprove' it. There is no single truth for everyone.

As mentioned in my opening comment, for me the band get less relevant every day. But I know that is not true for everyone. And I really don't care how they 'rate' against bands like the Stones or anyone else for that matter.

Truth be told, U2 are and will always be my favorite band. I just find they have been turning me off, slowly but consistently, for quite a while now. I'd say going back to the Vertigo tour. I still listen to them, but they are no longer a 'must see' concert for me. And I say that having seen 3 I+E shows, and 3 360 shows.

I am very interested to see how this next tour goes off and what are the reactions. Based on several folks I know who are going (a very limited sample size, I know), it's gonna be a ton of casual fans who haven't cared about the band in at least 10 years if not 20 or 30. So the atmosphere may be lukewarm (lots of long lines at the beer hall during IGC, ITTYW, etc), the politics is sure to be polarizing (if Bono can't restrain himself) and the actual musical delivery - who knows.

Has your personal politics changed recently?

I find it curious you keep harping on this. U2's politics haven't changed that much, so I find it interesting that just now in 2017 it's going to be polarizing.

 

[MrPryck2U]

I think it's official: Iggy Fizz has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. And Hollow Head isn't far behind.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

I realize you folks are quite accustomed to coming here and posting in what seems to be your 'safe zone' - aka where everyone reinforces each others' opinions, including the 'neutral' mods. Can't say I am disappointed in this, as I was warned several times by others as to what to expect in this forum.

BVS - to your specific question - the answer is no, my personal politics hasn't changed much. What I am referring to with the band is their recent change of tone starting with the anti-Trump stuff during their 2 Cali gigs. This is indeed a change of tone, if not necessarily in philosophy. Over the past 20 years or so, the band and B in particular have been mostly issue-driven. I.e. not about a specific candidate or elected official. Now that has changed. And while I personally can't stand Trump, a lot of people will likely be turned off by B's rambling if he chooses to go there. If you disagree, fine.