ramblin rose said:Personally, I think your theory deserves its own thread.
i like your theory regarding my theory
The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass!!!
- Thread starter govikesU2
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i like your theory regarding my theory
ouizy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
The only solution is a battle of the bands in Giants Stadium at the end of September.
Outdoor Vertigo stage set up at one endzone and the Bigger Bang stage set up in the other.
The rest of the field will be GA - no B-stages, no ego ramps.
Mix station on the 50 yard line and Willie Williams has to work for fucking U2 at teh show, not the stones.
They will alternate songs.
U2 will blow the Stones out of the stadium.
Outdoor Vertigo stage set up at one endzone and the Bigger Bang stage set up in the other.
The rest of the field will be GA - no B-stages, no ego ramps.
Mix station on the 50 yard line and Willie Williams has to work for fucking U2 at teh show, not the stones.
They will alternate songs.
U2 will blow the Stones out of the stadium.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
U2's been good more time than anyone and obviously better than the Stones who have not been as they were since 81'
U2 are now greater than the Stones, and the gap will continue to grow in the coming years
U2 is the best band, no question about that and yes The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass too...
U2 are now greater than the Stones, and the gap will continue to grow in the coming years
U2 is the best band, no question about that and yes The Rolling Stones can kiss my ass too...
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
Of course placing U2 3rd in rock history behind The Beatles and Stones may be a bit of a stretch.Headache in a Suitcase said:
L
e
d
Z
e
p
p
e
l
i
n
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
No, its been well documented that the Stones came up with "A Bigger Bang" while discussing the relative merits of Mick's Viagra vs. Keef's CialisHeadache in a Suitcase said:
(What do you expect from a band who has a member nicknamed "Woody")
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Hewson said:
Nope.
T
H
E
W
H
O
blows Zep away every time.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
ouizy said:
Fuckin' A they will.
And just to keep both bands honest, tickets to this show will have to be free.
Slugger
Babyface
martha said:
Nope.
T
H
E
W
H
O
blows Zep away every time.
I agree. The Who are the third greatest band of all-time behind The Beatles and The Stones. It's a shame that they ruined their reputation with their numerous farewell tours, but from 1964 to 1982 they were amazing.
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Nah, U2 comes in at least third. I'm not even sure that I would say that Rolling Stones comes in second anymore. That could very well be U2 soon. I guess the gross and attendance on their current tours might give us a clue. If U2 continue selling the amount of records they do, they will surpass Rolling Stones sooner or later.
Led Zeppelin and The Who - nah, just mere nostalgia from some of you. In a little while, someone is gonna mention Pink Floyd, I can already feel it. Nostalgia.
Last edited:
U2FanPeter
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
<<Battle of the Bands at Giants Stadium>>
Anyone wanna guess the ticket prices on this one?
u2fp
Anyone wanna guess the ticket prices on this one?
u2fp
Slugger
Babyface
U2Man said:
Nah, U2 comes in at least third. I'm not even sure that I would say that Rolling Stones comes in second anymore. That could very well be U2 soon. I guess the gross and attendance on their current tours might give us a clue. If U2 continue selling the amount of records they do, they will surpass Rolling Stones sooner or later.
Led Zeppelin and The Who - nah, just mere nostalgia from some of you. In a little while, someone is gonna mention Pink Floyd, I can already feel it. Nostalgia.
It's not nostalgia for me. I was barely alive when The Who made their last studio album. Those guys rock. Just ask Bono.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
1. The Who
2. U2
3. the rest
And I'm not going by concert grosses, but by talent.
(I don't think it's nostalgia; I was a junior or senior in high school when Keith died, but they were still fucking awesome when I saw them the next year.)
2. U2
3. the rest
And I'm not going by concert grosses, but by talent.
(I don't think it's nostalgia; I was a junior or senior in high school when Keith died, but they were still fucking awesome when I saw them the next year.)
Last edited:
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Album sales
The Who ~40,000,000 UK 60s-00s Rock *(20mil.US)
U2 *~150,000,000 Ireland 80s-00s Rock/Pop 50m.US
Come on. I know there are plenty of artists that have sold more than U2. But a band that has only sold 40 million albums, nearly only a quarter of what U2 has sold, isn't the third best band of all time.
And martha,
, , , The Who have NEVER been more talented than the Beatles.
The Who ~40,000,000 UK 60s-00s Rock *(20mil.US)
U2 *~150,000,000 Ireland 80s-00s Rock/Pop 50m.US
Come on. I know there are plenty of artists that have sold more than U2. But a band that has only sold 40 million albums, nearly only a quarter of what U2 has sold, isn't the third best band of all time.
And martha,
, , , The Who have NEVER been more talented than the Beatles.
Last edited:
H
The Fly
who fucking cares, guys.
Since when was the title of best band dependent on sales? The best band in history could turn out to be some overlooked group from Pauatahanui, New Zealand that sold only 1,000 albums in the Greater Wellington area, for all we know.
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Axver said:
Or me and my buddies.
I do think there is some sort of coherence between sales and quality. Not that crap music cannot sell well but in the great scheme of things, the music that most people find great (I guess that is what we mean by "best"?) will also sell most.
U2Man said:
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Some absolute dross has sold exceptionally well over time (I don't mean crap like Hilary Duff selling a lot now but vanishing into oblivion, I mean consistent sales year after year) - Elvis and Michael Jackson are two very good examples.
And how do we define 'best'? If we mean best in terms of technical talent, Steve Wilson of Porcupine Tree flogs people who have sold 50+ million albums, but most of the time, I feel like I'm the only person who's even heard of Porcupine Tree on this forum! Often incredibly talented musicians compose music that simply does not get radio airplay and fails to crack the mainstream. So if we're talking 'great' and 'best' in technical ability, I'd argue that often, sales and 'best' have no correlation.
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Axver said:
I wouldn't exactly call neither Elvis nor Michael Jackson talentless, although their album sales might be a bit big.
In the end, it all depends of taste, of course - and on one's definition of 'best'.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Album sales do not equal talent. 
martha said:Album sales do not equal talent.
Why do you say that? Doesn't Tom Jones have about 200 million in album sales?
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
What about the case of Slim Whitman...who sold "more albums than the Beatles and Elvis combined"?martha said:Album sales do not equal talent.
Una Poloma Blanca
Hewson said:
i take batting pratice... i take fielding practice... i take anabolic steroids... i take viagra.
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
ouizy said:
Now THAT I would pay $450 for.
two stages? what are we, metalica?
Slugger
Babyface
Axver said:
Yes, Michael Jackson is dross. A couple of months ago, my cousin met jackson's former soundman on a plane, and he said that Michael usually sings along to a backing vocal track at his concerts. Sometimes he even lip syncs. He also said that Michael would frequently cancel concerts simply because he didn't feel like going. Needless to say, Michael Jackson's road crew were very angry about this. The soundman toured with jackson a couple of times, and said the same thing always happened: everything was great in the beginning of the tour, but by the end crew morale was absolutely crushed due to Jackson's behavior.
Jackson is SO overrated. I'll admit that he put out 3 very good albums ('Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad), but their success was largely due to Quincy Jones' talents. On his own, Jackson is completely useless, and he has proven this over the past 20 years or so. His influnce on music has been remarkably small considering just how popular he was in the 70's and 80's. If you're a Justin Timberlake fan you can stop reading now.....MJ is crap.
As for Elvis, I'm not a big fan, but I wouldn't go as far as to call him dross. He was the architypical rock star, and inspired countless numbers of people to pick up the guitar and sing. Without him there would be no Beach Boys, no Beatles, no Stones, no Clash, and ultimately, no U2. Musically, he burnt out very quickly, but his influence still carries on to this day.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
Axver said:
Michael Jackson and Elvis are dross(not exactly what that word means but I'm sure it's not a good thing)? Wacko Jacko is a freak, no arugement. But a good portion of music is quite good. And Elvis? I'm not an Elvis fan but 'Can't Help Falling In Love' is a great, great song.
Slugger
Babyface
U2Man said:Album sales
The Who ~40,000,000 UK 60s-00s Rock *(20mil.US)
U2 *~150,000,000 Ireland 80s-00s Rock/Pop 50m.US
Come on. I know there are plenty of artists that have sold more than U2. But a band that has only sold 40 million albums, nearly only a quarter of what U2 has sold, isn't the third best band of all time.
And martha,
Those figure you quote totally miss the point, which is that sales do not equate greatness. Besides, comparing the Who's sales to U2's is grossly unfair. Record sales in the 60's and 70's (when the Who were kicking ass) were way, way lower than the 80's 90's, and 00's (when U2 sold most of their albums). There were far fewer record buyers. Back in the 60's, a blockbuster album was one that sold over 1 million copies. Now, and 1 million seller doesn't even raise eyebrows. Selling 1 million copies in 1970 is the equivalent of selling 4 or 5 million copies now.
Also, I do think that the Who was a better band than U2. Albums like Tommy, Who's Next, and Quadrophenia are all better than any of U2's albums, even The Joshua Tree or Achtung.
Last edited:
Similar threads
