The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!

[ramblin rose]

No...just better than the Vertigo shows.

All tickets (save one pair for Chicago 3 which was a spur of the moment anniversary gift to my wife) were bought before seeing one show...tickets went on sale for all of the first leg shows before they played a single note, remember?

Why in the world would you give your wife for your anniversary tickets to a show you don't even like? Wasn't something you both would have enjoyed a better gift, maybe even more economical and definately less stressful to get?

 

[kellyahern]

Not much to say on this topic, since I know it's only a bit of friendly competition between bands, but I will say that you gotta know somewhere, someone thinks that pic of Mick is sexy.

Mick is not sexy.




















Keith, on the other hand . . .

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

As far as I'm concerned, U2 earned its place along the greats of rock and that includes the both bands you mentioned. Live and studio catalogue.

Being around for long isn't everything - Stones are and have been a touring act for years now. I'd like to see them sell 10+ millions of albums now and make social commentaries with their tours like U2 and be relevant with their music and play less hits and more fresh material live.

earned their place? yea... fine. no problem. but come on... the stones and the beatles are in a place by themselves, just like hendrix, dylan, cash, sinatra, elvis and a few others i'm leaving out. that's not an insult. to even be in the same discussion with these greats is an honor. but let's calm down...

it's like the u2 fans getting pissed at the people who say coldplay are better than them. sure, coldplay's good... but let's take a step back into reality for a second.

and on to your second paragraph... the stones have been around for over 40 years. when they were 25 years in, they were selling out stadiums and selling 10+ million copies of their albums... 30 years in... 35 years in... even now, 40 years in, i'd say it's a pretty safe bet that when the stones new album hits in two weeks, it'll debut at #1, and be one of the biggest selling albums of the year... 40 years in.

being third behind the beatles and the stones ain't exactly an insult.

 

[Nube Gris]

They are not behind the Stones sorry
To be around as long as the Stones have, doesn't make them above U2, for what U2 has accomplished in 27 years
U2's had 27 solid years, The Stones couldn't had that

U2 are above the Stones, and to say that U2 are what The Stones were in 1989 is the most stupid thing iv ever heard, makes no sense at all...

The question could be U2 or The Beatles, that's the match
Not the Stones

 

[U2@NYC]

I think that, by pretending that U2 is greater than the Stones... we run the risk of sounding like selfish megalomaniacs...

U2 is a great band. But so are the Stones.

You may or may not like their music (I personally do not love it). But they are the active band with the greatest track record, and that has been around the longest. And, as Headache says, it is very impressive that they are still filling up stadiums 40 years after they started.

 

[U2Man]

They are not behind the Stones sorry
To be around as long as the Stones have, doesn't make them above U2, for what U2 has accomplished in 27 years
U2's had 27 solid years, The Stones couldn't had that

U2 are above the Stones, and to say that U2 are what The Stones were in 1989 is the most stupid thing iv ever heard, makes no sense at all...

The question could be U2 or The Beatles, that's the match
Not the Stones

No, Rolling Stones have only had 45+ solid years at the top two of all bands in the world. Yes, they really are a crap band. I'm sure if you asked Bono, he would agree.

 

[U2girl]

earned their place? yea... fine. no problem. but come on... the stones and the beatles are in a place by themselves, just like hendrix, dylan, cash, sinatra, elvis and a few others i'm leaving out. that's not an insult. to even be in the same discussion with these greats is an honor. but let's calm down...

it's like the u2 fans getting pissed at the people who say coldplay are better than them. sure, coldplay's good... but let's take a step back into reality for a second.

and on to your second paragraph... the stones have been around for over 40 years. when they were 25 years in, they were selling out stadiums and selling 10+ million copies of their albums... 30 years in... 35 years in... even now, 40 years in, i'd say it's a pretty safe bet that when the stones new album hits in two weeks, it'll debut at #1, and be one of the biggest selling albums of the year... 40 years in.

being third behind the beatles and the stones ain't exactly an insult.

Stones/U2 is hardly the same comparison as U2/Coldplay.

I don't see why it's such an outrage to some people that a band with 25 years of history and albums such as War, JT and Achtung Baby (even if we left out anything else) and groundbreaking tours should not be compared to the legends of the past?

Should they have additional 20, 30 years on their backs or dead members for that?

To your second paragraph - U2 is now 25 years in and is currently selling out stadiums too and selling over 10 million albums. (even a Best of)
Have a look at Sting2's data for sales of Steel Wheels or Vodoo Lounge. I'm pretty sure U2 will do better than that in a few years' time when they hit Stones' age careerwise when they released those albums.
(edit: Stones first album was in 1964 right? so if Steel Wheels is from 89 that is 25 years later, about the same as Bomb for U2. Only 4 more years till they get to their "Vodoo Lounge")

 

[KUEFC09U2]

No...just better than the Vertigo shows.

All tickets (save one pair for Chicago 3 which was a spur of the moment anniversary gift to my wife) were bought before seeing one show...tickets went on sale for all of the first leg shows before they played a single note, remember?

very weaird that you didnt enjoy the show, yet you still went 5 times, and how many times in the fall?

AND gave your wife a ticket for your anniversery

 

[Bonochick]

after my band's last show, that's what i told the other guys.

well you can kiss my ass

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I really don't see a need for this thread to be closed. I don't see any personal attacks or anything (I trust Chizip was being humorous, considering the context). Keep on going with a nice debate!

 

[U2@NYC]

In my humble view, Stones and Beatles (again, even if you like them or not) are still a step above U2... maybe due to trajectory, maybe due to influence in music or maybe just on unfounded reputation.

As Maja states, I think that, when we look at U2 in perspective 15 / 20 years down the road, I am sure that their legacy will allow them to reach this same place.

 

[U2Man]

Stones/U2 is hardly the same comparison as U2/Coldplay.

I don't see why it's such an outrage to some people that a band with 25 years of history and albums such as War, JT and Achtung Baby (even if we left out anything else) and groundbreaking tours should not be compared to the legends of the past?

Should they have additional 20, 30 years on their backs or dead members for that?

To your second paragraph - U2 is now 25 years in and is currently selling out stadiums too and selling over 10 million albums. (even a Best of)
Have a look at Sting2's data for sales of Steel Wheels or Vodoo Lounge. I'm pretty sure U2 will do better than that in a few years' time when they hit Stones' age careerwise when they released those albums.

Well, the fact is, that Rolling Stones are currently still capable of making more money on their tours than U2 in spite of their age. I would say that is pretty impressive.

 

[govikesU2]

I've created a monster!

 

[U2Man]

In my humble view, Stones and Beatles (again, even if you like them or not) are still a step above U2... maybe due to trajectory, maybe due to influence in music or maybe just on unfounded reputation.

As Maja states, I think that, when we look at U2 in perspective 15 / 20 years down the road, I am sure that their legacy will allow them to reach this same place.

The Beatles are definitely beyond comparison. Neither Rolling Stones nor U2 are anywhere near The Beatles.

MY prediction is that U2 will never reach the Beatles in popularity and musical influence.

 

[U2@NYC]

The Beatles are definitely beyond comparison. Neither Rolling Stones nor U2 are anywhere near The Beatles.

MY prediction is that U2 will never reach the Beatles in popularity and musical influence.

I think you may have a point... Beatles pretty much transformed music.

 

[U2girl]

Well, the fact is, that Rolling Stones are currently still capable of making more money on their tours than U2 in spite of their age. I would say that is pretty impressive.

By playing more countries and moreso charging much more for tickets.

 

[U2@NYC]

By playing more countries and moreso charging much more for tickets.

Well, Maja, but people are still willing to pay more for tickets... so it is not necessarily their fault.

Regardless of prices and locations, no one can deny that this Rolling Stones tour seems to be a success so far... and that is impressive.

 

[Chizip]

Being able to sell out stadiums with tickets costing 435 dollars to be on the floor, and 200 nosebleeds is pretty impressive. Could U2 do that? I'm not so sure...

 

[U2Man]

By playing more countries and moreso charging much more for tickets.

If U2's management could get away with charging more for tickets and still sell out the shows, they would do it. If they were sure that they could make a lot of money by playing more countries, U2 would play these countries. Like it or not, these big tours are business, and the objective from the management's point of view is to maximize the profits.

 

[U2girl]

"Impressive" is not the word that comes to my mind.

Imagine the uproar among U2 fans if they charged anywhere near as much for tickets.
(I never thought I'd see U2 fans defending high prices...though I think U2 could still sell out with higher ticket prices - there will always be people prepared to pay more money)

 

[U2@NYC]

If U2's management could get away with charging more for tickets and still sell out the shows, they would do it. If they were sure that they could make a lot of money by playing more countries, U2 would play these countries. Like it or not, these big tours are business, and the objective from the management's point of view is to maximize the profits.

Well, my sense is that U2 could do this in certain markets like NYC, San Francisco, LA, Boston, Chicago or some of the largest European capitals. But then it would have to apply a differential pricing scheme for different places in the same country / region which would make things unfair.

Also, the Stones have just announced that they are coming down to Argentina for 2 shows... (and they have been there like 5 times already). Even though they would have to charge much less, so my sense is that some of these European / U.S. shows are subsidizing the LatAm shows. U2's management could learn a lesson about this and go down to LatAm more often...

 

[cmb737]

Depends on taste. I'm sure I would be able to find several songs on the recent Rolling Stones albums that are much, much, much weaker than Yahweh.

For sure, but the poster was saying that U2 has never done ANYTHING as BAD as Start Me Up. My contention is simply that Yahweh is worse than Start Me Up (which I feel is a great song)

 

[U2Man]

For sure, but the poster was saying that U2 has never done ANYTHING as BAD as Start Me Up. My contention is simply that Yahweh is worse than Start Me Up (which I feel is a great song)

Well OK, then I hadn't read that. Thanks for clearing that up

 

[Chizip]

"Impressive" is not the word that comes to my mind.

Imagine the uproar among U2 fans if they charged anywhere near as much for tickets.
(I never thought I'd see U2 fans defending high prices...though I think U2 could still sell out with higher ticket prices - there will always be people prepared to pay more money)

Oh I'm not defending the high prices, I think they are ridiculous. But that they are actually selling out stadiums with those ridiculously high prices is damn impressive.

 

[U2Man]

"Impressive" is not the word that comes to my mind.

Imagine the uproar among U2 fans if they charged anywhere near as much for tickets.
(I never thought I'd see U2 fans defending high prices...though I think U2 could still sell out with higher ticket prices - there will always be people prepared to pay more money)

A ticket is a commodity like any other. If the demand is big enough, someone will sooner or later increase the price. What is meant by "impressive" is that the demand for Rolling Stones tickets is, apparently, "impressive" enough that it allows them to have such insanely high ticket prices and still sell out the stadiums. That is an impressive demand.

 

[cmb737]

Why in the world would you give your wife for your anniversary tickets to a show you don't even like? Wasn't something you both would have enjoyed a better gift, maybe even more economical and definately less stressful to get?

Please quote me as saying I didn't like the Vertigo shows, or please don't assume what you do not know. What I said was the Coldplay show I saw the night before last was better than the five Vertigo shows I saw this tour...in addition, relative to the subject at hand, the Bridges to Babylon show I saw in San Diego was up there with those Vertigo shows.

Please get some context before you flame.

 

[starvinmarvin]

First off, your album sales totals for Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge are Grossly inaccurate.

Neither album topped 5 million in sales and I have confirmed sources which show this.

For Voodoo Lounge:

This album sold 2 million copies in the United States as certified by RIAA. Go to www.riaa.com The United States is 1/3 of the global market and the Stones typically sell half of the albums in the United States and the other half outside the United States.

Next, Europe accounts for another 1/3 of the entire global market where albums are sold. Here Voodoo Lounge only sold 1 million copies. IFPI certifies album sales since 1996 in Europe and albums released from January 1994 on are eligible for certification. Go to www.ifpi.org and you will see that Voodoo Lounge only sold 1 million copies in Europe.

Canada, a tiny market compared to the United States and Europe, still accounts for 3.5% of the global market. Here Voodoo Lounge did better relative to its sales in Europe and the USA, selling 300,000 copies. The CRIA certifies album sales in Canada. Go to www.cria.ca .

So with 70% of the worldmarket covered, Voodoo Lounge has total sales of 3,300,000 copies. The remaining 30% of the world involves primarily third world countries that have small markets for album sales. At most your looking at another 1 million copies for a total of 4.3 million worldwide for Voodoo Lounge.


Steel Wheels:

In the United States, Steel Wheels sold 2 million copies. ( www.riaa.com ) .

In Europe the IFPI did not yet exist, so I don't actually have a certified total for sales there. But as an accurate gauge to use in its place, take a look at the sales of Steel Wheels in the Rolling Stones home country, the United Kingdom. BPI certifies album sales in the United Kingdom. Go to www.bpi.co.uk . Here you will see that Steel Wheels is certified GOLD for 100,000 in sales. Voodoo Lounge is also certified GOLD for 100,000 copies sold. So it is reasonable to assume that sales of Steel Wheels in Europe were similar to sales of Voodoo Lounge in Europe based on this. This puts sales in Europe at 1 million.

In Canada once again, this album like Voodoo Lounge is certified for selling 300,000 copies. www.cria.ca .

Again, we arrive at the same total of 3,300,000 copies sold in Europe, United States and Canada, 70% of the global market. Adding a generous 1 million copies for the remain 30% of the planet, brings the total to 4,300,000 copies.


So once again, the Stones have not had a major hit album since Tattoo You and this fact was recently brought up on CNN when they were discussing the Stones new "political" song.

This is NOT to dismiss selling 4,300,000 copies or even 3 million copies or 2 million copies. But these are not top 10 superstar figures for total global sales.

By the way, if you add the figures from the "No Security Tour" to the Bridges Of Babylon tour, Bridges To Babylon is the highest Grossing tour of all time at around 350 million. But U2 could easily surpass that on the Vertigo tour, although they may decide not to tour long enough to do so. U2 has already out Grossed the Rolling Stones Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge, and Bridges To Babylon tours in Europe with just 32 Vertigo tour dates.

Is there anyone out there who knows where to find accurate stats on worldwide album sales?

Hey Sting2, my apologies on the inaccurate stats. I got them from a Stones related website, and I should have checked elsewhere to verify their accuracy. From what i understand, it is very difficult to find out global album sales - there just isn't a standard in place for compiling the data. However, I still feel that you are underestimating the number of copies of Steel Wheels that were sold worldwide. Don't forget, trhese guys are/were wildly popular in South America (they actually Go there), Australia, and parts of Asia. Were you alive in 1989? If so, you would know that Steel Wheels was a very popular album, arguably more popular than Tattoo You in 1981. Don't listen to CNN. Steel Wheels was a comeback album, and introduced a whole new generation of fans to the group's music. I do not jest when I say that Mixed Emotions was as omnipresent as Vertigo is today.

Statistics and album sales aside, I guess my basic point is that U2 is not yet an equal to The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, or even solo Paul McCartney. They are 20 years younger than these legendary artists, and just haven't been around long enough to be considered their equal. However, I will say this: if ever there was a band who stands a chance of matching or possibly even surpassing these vbands, it would be U2. For U2 to have been so succesful for 25 years is amazing. The boys still have a way to go, and they know this.

To compare U2 and The Rolling Stones in 2005 is completely illogical. The Stones are 20 years older than U2. It's like comparing U2 to Coldplay- they are two bands in different stages of their careers. Even if you feel that Coldplay is currently making better music than U2, it's retarded to say they are "better" than U2. Maybe if they're around 20 years from now and making good music, we'll talk. But until then, shut up! Apples and oranges, people....

 

[one4u2]

I'll take a Bono with a side of Edge and extra Silver Fox please.

 

[ramblin rose]

Please quote me as saying I didn't like the Vertigo shows, or please don't assume what you do not know. What I said was the Coldplay show I saw the night before last was better than the five Vertigo shows I saw this tour...in addition, relative to the subject at hand, the Bridges to Babylon show I saw in San Diego was up there with those Vertigo shows.

Please get some context before you flame.

I don't think I was flaming you but that's neither here nor there. I'm just basing my post on all of the moaning I've read from you since the tour started. "Oh, it could be so much more", "Oh, compared to the 49 nine combined shows me & my wife have gone to the Vertigo shows don't stand up", "Oh, I've yawned at some of the Vertigo shows I've gone to", blah blah blah.

Yes, I'm sure you still love U2, but from the comments I've read from you, this tour is obviously not wowing you so I still don't understand why you would make it the centerpiece of your anniversary.

Maybe it's the way you put things that makes me not think you're not enjoying these shows. Maybe you're enjoying them enormously but are just expressing the negatives. Who knows.

As far as the Stones go, I love them and think this thread is funny, as I thought it would be when it first started.

 

[cmb737]

I don't think I was flaming you but that's neither here nor there. I'm just basing my post on all of the moaning I've read from you since the tour started. "Oh, it could be so much more", "Oh, compared to the 49 nine combined shows me & my wife have gone to the Vertigo shows don't stand up", "Oh, I've yawned at some of the Vertigo shows I've gone to", blah blah blah.

Yes, I'm sure you still love U2, but from the comments I've read from you, this tour is obviously not wowing you so I still don't understand why you would make it the centerpiece of your anniversary.

Maybe it's the way you put things that makes me not think you're not enjoying these shows. Maybe you're enjoying them enormously but are just expressing the negatives. Who knows.

As far as the Stones go, I love them and think this thread is funny, as I thought it would be when it first started.

Am I the only in the world, besides Chizip and Ouizy, that understands what a critique is in reference to a thread that is in itself a critique?

Apparantely so.

Again for the record Ramblin - here is my position clearly stated for you to understand.

I like Vertigo. It is not their best tour, or the best tour of the year in my opinion. It has elements of greatness balanced by elements that bore me. That is why it is not my favorite U2 tour. I purchased the tickets for my wife, as it would have been exactly what SHE wanted. I purchased my tickets before seeing any shows, and wouldn't have purchased as many if I had seen the show prior or had learned of the GA policy prior to the morning of the tour opener.

I refuse to be a knee jerk defender of this band. I choose to be a fan that is challenged by the bands I love. They can do better, and the Rolling Stones are setting the bar higher every day. Proof (to me) of this is, as stated by you, my wife and I have seen dozens of U2 shows and Coldplay blew the Vertigo shows out of the water in a small amphitheater with less than 10,000 fans in the desert...with virtually a static setlist.

 

[ramblin rose]

Am I the only in the world, besides Chizip and Ouizy, that understands what a critique is in reference to a thread that is in itself a critique?

Apparantely so.

Again for the record Ramblin - here is my position clearly stated for you to understand.

I like Vertigo. It is not their best tour, or the best tour of the year in my opinion. It has elements of greatness balanced by elements that bore me. That is why it is not my favorite U2 tour. I purchased the tickets for my wife, as it would have been exactly what SHE wanted. I purchased my tickets before seeing any shows, and wouldn't have purchased as many if I had seen the show prior or had learned of the GA policy prior to the morning of the tour opener.

I refuse to be a knee jerk defender of this band. I choose to be a fan that is challenged by the bands I love. They can do better, and the Rolling Stones are setting the bar higher every day. Proof (to me) of this is, as stated by you, my wife and I have seen dozens of U2 shows and Coldplay blew the Vertigo shows out of the water in a small amphitheater with less than 10,000 fans in the desert.

Fair enough. So, just to humor me, how many more Vertigo shows are you going to? I'm really curious.