U2 vrs. Eagles tour

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Shakenotstirred

Babyface
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
18
I want to do a little comparison here, and I want you guys to tell me what you think.....let's compare the two biggest bands that are probably out there right now.....The Eagles and U2 in tour and other things.

Popularity: Right now, definitely U2, because the Eagles haven't put out a studio album in 26 years....the exact year U2's first single came out.

Album Sales: With only 6 studio albums and two greatest hits albums and a live album and two more variations of GH, the Eagles beat U2 out in the US....but worldwide they are very close. U2 may get the edge there, but it's too close to call. The Eagles have the greatest selling CD of all time and the greatest selling music dvd of all time...

Music Talent: HaHa, any U2 fan will argue with me here....but no one can argue Edge's ability on the guitar, or Bono's songwriting, or Larry's drumming....but when you compare it to Joe Walsh's guitarability (haha) and Don Henley's songwriting or Glen Frey's ability on a number of instruments....it's close, but the Eagles ability to call up any song and play it...and the fact that the entire band sings lead vocals on different songs shows their range. It's very close, but the Eagles have an all star lineup of well-known members. The Eagles also have had time to go off on their own and try their solo careers out...Henley and Walsh had amazing solo careers, both selling over 15 million in album sales with just a few albums, but it's hard to argue against both, but I believe the slight edge goes to the Eagles.

Band Interaction: Advantage U2 here, mainly because of the fact that they have been together for all of time, whereas the Eagles broke up after 7 years together and then it took them 14 more years to get back together. That may have helped them though...but there was obviously a problem there. Walsh had problems with Frey, and Henley and Frey (who many consider the greatest songwriting duo ever) had some arguments. But still, advantage U2.

Actual Tour: Here's where it gets fun. Right away, I call it a slight Eagles advantage. Here's why though...Let's compare the tour. PRICES: Both tours have been very expensive, with the Eagles starting theirs in 2003..But the Eagle's pricing ranges from about 120 for seating on the floor to 70 in the Upper Bowl, and to about 90 for LB seating, compared to 165 for LB seating for U2. But U2's GA tickets are 50, so it about evens out. SHOW LENGTH: Huge advantage to the Eagles right here. At concerts at last Spring's leg and so far at this Spring's leg, the Eagles have been usually doing around 34 songs. Basically two sets of 17 songs, with an intermission. U2 plays 22. The Eagles play a 3.5 hour show and up, while U2's shows are under 2 hours. Why is this? Why can't they play longer? Why do they need an opening act? To give smaller bands a chance? HaHa...I want to see U2, not some opening band. The Eagles haven't had an opening act for over 30 years. ACTUAL SETLIST: Eagles get the edge here too, mainly because they play more songs, but more importantly they play what the crowd wants to hear. They also play solo songs from Joe Walsh and Don Henley, and those are always crowd pleasers. For example, let's take each band's six biggest songs. It's debateable, but I am talking about popularity. For The Eagles, it's Hotel California, Life in the Fast Lane, Take it Easy, Desperado, Heartache Tonight, and New Kid In Town. For U2, it's Where The Streets Have No Name, Sunday Bloody Sunday, One, With or Without You, Bad, and New Year's Day. The Eagles have played their six biggest hits at every show for the past 25 plus years. U2 has excluded Bad and With or Without You at every show so far...(With or Without You was played once)....but still, the Eagles play what the people want to hear. From GH Volume 1 + 2, which contains a total of 20 songs, the band on average plays 15 songs from that catalogue. U2 plays....what, 4 songs from GH Volume 1? They play a lot of songs that people don't know, which hurts their tour. Tour Sales: U2 gets the advantage here, mainly because they are doing a full tour right now. And because they play venues over and over, whereas the Eagles usually jump all around, playing everywhere, including the smaller venues. Rockability: Advantage here for U2, because they are a rock band. The Eagles are a laid back band, and the band is aging. As I said, they originated in 71 and ended their studio album run in 79, whereas U2 didn't even start with their first studio album until the end of the Eagles Run.....OVERALL: You have to give the advantage to the Eagles, even though if you want a rock show, U2 is the place to go. If you want to sit down and watch the show, and rock every once in a while to songs like Life in the Fast Lane or Heartache Tonite, then go to the Eagles.

Hope this doesn't make anyone mad....but touring wise, the Eagles do a little better for a few small things, and because of the fact that they play what we want to hear. Who do I like better in the end? It's honestly a complete tie, it's just the Eagles cater to more fans.
 
Uh, interesting essay...

Apples vs. Oranges. Oranges win because they're orange! But they tie because they're both fruits!

:wink:
 
Shakenotstirred said:
let's compare the two biggest bands that are probably out there right now.....The Eagles and U2 in tour and other things.

Your whole premise is causing me pain. I can't read past it. :lol:
 
The comparison may be silly, but the Eagles show is great. I saw it last year and had a great time. THe highlights were the solo songs, especially Joe Walsh doing "Life's Been Good."
 
I am a huge Eagles fan but the lack of a studio album in 26 years plus the countless Greatest Hits/reunion tours they have done since 1994 have soured me a bit on them. I think Henley is the main reason a new studio album hasnt been put out yet - knowing what a perfectionist he is. And them kicking Don Felder out a few years ago, while probably necessary for the band's harmony, disapointed me. I saw the Eagles on their 1st reunion tour in 1994 and it is was an awesome show but I have no desire to see them again - I think it is all about the money for them now and I feel like their star is fading a bit. And at least U2 puts out fresh material every 4-5 years.
 
I'm going to see the Eagles tonight...
Eagles shows this year...1
U2 shows this year...14
guess who I like better
 
I did those to prove one thing....only a few of you even replied to what I have to say, because either a) you know I am right but tried to disprove it anyways, or b) you think U2 is perfect. The facts are there, but instead you ignore them and say...apples and oranges...bla bla bla.

The comparison may be silly, but the Eagles show is great. I saw it last year and had a great time. THe highlights were the solo songs, especially Joe Walsh doing "Life's Been Good."

The solo parts of the show are quite good.

I am a huge Eagles fan but the lack of a studio album in 26 years plus the countless Greatest Hits/reunion tours they have done since 1994 have soured me a bit on them. I think Henley is the main reason a new studio album hasnt been put out yet - knowing what a perfectionist he is. And them kicking Don Felder out a few years ago, while probably necessary for the band's harmony, disapointed me. I saw the Eagles on their 1st reunion tour in 1994 and it is was an awesome show but I have no desire to see them again - I think it is all about the money for them now and I feel like their star is fading a bit. And at least U2 puts out fresh material every 4-5 years.

Henley is a perfectionist...yes, but I would rather have good material than crap material. Look at the comparison of U2's 80's material to it's 90s....If you compare it, the 90's completely sucked. But the Eagles are on the verge of completing their seventh studio album, and it should be out this fall.

Hotel California is known to cause severe cranial swelling and massive bleeding from the ears. Aren't the Eagles dead yet? Biggest band my ass.

I didn't say they were the biggest band. I said their tour was better, because of the above reasons. And no, the Eagles aren't dead. I even stated that U2 was the most popular band out there right now. They are my favorite band, right along with The Eagles.

I am just trying to say that U2 is not perfect guys. A lot of you think they are, railing on anyone who puts them down. Let's face it....they need to play more songs on their tour, they need to drop the opening act, and they need to play more hits to cater to a bigger audience. Sure I love some of the songs they are playing that they never play, but I would love to see Bad, I Will Follow, and WOWY played on a regular basis. I mean really....why don't they play a longer set? Are they too old? The Eagles have ten years on each of the members and they play a huge set....

Don't take offense from this, but you guys need to lighten up when someone has something constructive to say about U2. U2 is not perfect, so treat them so.
 
As many have said, U2 and the Eagles are two different monsters.

U2 is way more relevant currently, due to recent chart success/new album.

The Eagles have an extensive catalogue (sic?), not just with them as a band but also their solo careers (which they play from on a regular basis).

That's the tip of the iceberg on the differences between bands...no use comparing (even if I like U2 better)...

I did see the Eagles last time around (2002-2003?)...paid 75-80 dollars a ticket to sit in the highest level, against the venue wall. However, being an Eagles fan I still dug the show. It was REALLY long...from what I remember, 3.5-4 hours...pretty cool, but I guess it's because they don't move around on stage much.
 
shakennotstirred.. i was actually thinking about this for comparisons sake as i just saw the Eagles in baltimore this past Tuesday.

I really like their music, and the price was cheap enough for me ($35, 55, then i think 80, and 120ish on the floor). I got 55 dollar seats.. which had an excellent view.

The show was right around the 3 hours mark, there was a good mix of group/solo works. Every song seemed popular with the crowd with the exception of Henley's sunset grill. I don't know nearly as much about the eagles, i did grow up on classic rock,(i'm only 26), but the eagles played their hits. They did make the casual fans very happy.

In any case they have a great show, and they are one of the few bands that sound like they do on the cd. They certainly aren't one of those bands that you hear live, and think... god how many effects to XXXX's voice did they have to add to make them sound halfway decent?

I do think it's tough to compare bands, as they appeal to different tastes and age groups. Only about 15% of the fans there were under 30.

It was great to see the eagles, because they are legends in their own right.

Getting down to your comparison, I would offer my own set of opinions..

POPULARITY : agree with U2 b/c of relevance

ALBUM SALES: Probably an overall edge to eagles with GH '71-75 reaching 28 million +, GH2 12 million+, hotel calif 15 million+. You could include solo material also, but i wont b/c u2 never really put out solo albums.. just a few collaborations

MUSIC TALENT:
There's no denying they are both very talented. I think if could go on for pages about how each is special...but i won't. I give a slight edge to the eagles. Also i would add that Timothy B Schmitt is a very underrated member, and a terrific singer.

BAND INTERACTION: There was little during the eagles concert, a few very short stories about the music, and a cheesy "helmet cam" effect. We all know about bono going into crowds, or bringing people on stage. Big edge U2

TOUR: to each his own.. it all depends on your tastes. U2 tours are big shows, the Eagles are more subdued, and more of an intimate acoustic concert experience. Obviously you will be out of your seat more for u2 than the eagles, but thats just based on the type of music they play. It really depends on what you are looking for. Myself I'd prefer a u2 concert, but am very very glad to have seen the eagles at least 1x in my life.

Overall.. both have their places among the greats of RNR. The eagles may be ranked higher by many people, but i'd give the slight edge to U2 because they have continually evolved musically - whereas the eagles remain sort of a california country rock and roll style band. U2 also has become very innovative as a touring band and in their videos and always seem "ahead of the curve". For this they can appeal to more people, and likely influence many more.
 
Bobo U2 said:
I'm going to see the Eagles tonight...
Eagles shows this year...1
U2 shows this year...14
guess who I like better

You'll have a great time.. it's a very good show, enjoy the show for what it is. Do not base the show on a u2 concert, it's not over the top, and there will be no bono-esque antics.

Although, I get a kick out of joe walsh up on stage.

They basically play their songs, but play them very well.
 
First of all, I respect the last two opinions. You at least gave thought to what I had to say without throwing it away. Now....

As many have said, U2 and the Eagles are two different monsters.

That's very true. Eagles are a laid back band, a band that is half country/half rock n roll, while U2 is basically rock n roll.

The show was right around the 3 hours mark, there was a good mix of group/solo works. Every song seemed popular with the crowd with the exception of Henley's sunset grill. I don't know nearly as much about the eagles, i did grow up on classic rock,(i'm only 26), but the eagles played their hits. They did make the casual fans very happy.

That's the thing. Every song is popular with the crowd, because they had 25+ radio singles on their first 6 studio albums, which is amazing. And yes, Sunset Grill should be taken out of the set....they should add Heart of the Matter back in.

In any case they have a great show, and they are one of the few bands that sound like they do on the cd. They certainly aren't one of those bands that you hear live, and think... god how many effects to XXXX's voice did they have to add to make them sound halfway decent?

This is definitely an Eagles trademark. The sound the same as their cd versions, which is a good thing most of the time, but not as good if you want to hear variation. But one thing Henley has that Bono doesn't have anymore is the same voice. Henley's is basically the same as it was 33 years ago. The recorded version of Desperado sounds the same as it does now. That's amazing. All their voices (the four singers that is, Frey, Henley, Walsh, and B. Schmidt) still have great voices.

There's no denying they are both very talented. I think if could go on for pages about how each is special...but i won't. I give a slight edge to the eagles. Also i would add that Timothy B Schmitt is a very underrated member, and a terrific singer.

Schmidt is a great singer, and he actually sang lead for a band called Poco....but anyways, they both have great musical talent, but the Eagles is almost a legend band. The original members are not together still, unlike U2 where it's all original, but the band is better that way. The Eagles have a supergroup, while U2 is a more close-knit band, because they have been together for so long. The four members of the Eagles are so popular and huge in their own rights (they have all led different bands and different solo careers) that it's hard to find their own role, as with U2, their roles are defined.

And as to band interaction...it used to be more with the Eagles, but the Eagles would prefer to play than talk. It's what I prefer too....but alas, overall, they are two different bands, but two great bands. Are they that hard to compare? Not really. They are so close....but both have their own pros and cons.
 
Henley is a perfectionist...yes, but I would rather have good material than crap material. Look at the comparison of U2's 80's material to it's 90s....If you compare it, the 90's completely sucked. But the Eagles are on the verge of completing their seventh studio album, and it should be out this fall.



C'mon - with the exception of the misstep with Pop, the 90's U2 was exciting and new - not JT or War part 2 over and over again.

As far as the Eagles go - the new songs they have put out since 1994 - Get Over It, The Girl from Yesterday, Learn to Be Still, Love Will Keep Us Alive (never heard a song filled with more cliches) and Hole in the World have been crap compared to their 70's classics. If this is any indication of their long overdue 7th studio album, they it will be more crap.
 
the eagles haven't been relevant in 30 years. the only album they've released since the 70s that has had any major success was an accoustic live disc in 1994.

u2 are still relevant after 25+ years.

argument over.

the eagles are a step above chicago for me. great band in their prime, haven't done anything worth discussing in a few decades.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
the eagles haven't been relevant in 30 years. the only album they've released since the 70s that has had any major success was an accoustic live disc in 1994.

u2 are still relevant after 25+ years.

argument over.

the eagles are a step above chicago for me. great band in their prime, haven't done anything worth discussing in a few decades.

To be fair, the eagles (as a group) haven't released a studio album since The Long Run in 1979. They weren't a group until they got back together for Hell Freezes Over in '94. This new album will be their first studio release. We'll see how "relevant" they are after that occurs.

Hopefully relevancy isnt your only category you use to compare two bands. This is your first post on the topic at hand, and so far thats your only comparison between the two.

With that logic, you could argue Green Day is a better band than the Eagles.. or worse... JLo or beyonce.
 
The post starts off with the concern of:

"Popularity: Right now, definitely U2, because the Eagles haven't put out a studio album in 26 years....the exact year U2's first single came out."

The Eagles have been talking of another studio release (per interviews for their shows in Australia) after recording of a some what new single "Hole in the World" dealing with 9/11 (which is much better live than on the album) for their 'Very Best of the Eagles" release in '03.

One thing to keep in mind, the indidividuals members of the Eagles for that 26 year period, included the later added Joe Walsh, have a lot of solo albums/material to draw on for shows so its really not like they just tour on "Hotel California"! U2 as a band has multi albums. Eagles as a band offer the group material and solo material as aforementioned.

I like both bands and will probably see them the same amount of times (already seen U2 6 times on //05 tour and sure more through out the year including closing nite for year in Portland).

Both bands ARE relevant and equally popular w/a very strong fan base. Both can easily sell out ANY venue they perform in. Including the Eagles selling out the Rose Bowl for the "Hell Freezes Over" tour!!

So really don't see the point of this thread...
 
I am reminded of the Big Lebowski with Jeff Bridges in the back of that cab "what he said", but I digress....

This is a band who has relatively no new material since U2 put out their first album.

Is this even a legitimate argument? The Eagles are big in the US, especailly the south, as they have influenced a bunch of country musicians and such.

I'll go with the apples/oranges thing I guess.

I'll admit I hate The Eagles, but I do have a tremendous amount of respect for them. Why not compare the Eagles to Fleetwood Mac, might make a little more sense. Are the Eagles big worldwide? I wouldn't think they are huge.

Don Henley made two good solo albums, otherwise he is a knob and an ass, as well as a "perfectionist".

That song "Get Over it" which was on the live disc back in '94 was a horrendous song.

Let U2 take 15 years off, then come back and tour to support greatest hits albums and then make the argument. Maybe U2 wouldn't be as popular as The Eagles are now (in the US defintely) but to make this comparison now, just silly.
 
Last edited:
C'mon - with the exception of the misstep with Pop, the 90's U2 was exciting and new - not JT or War part 2 over and over again.

You can't honestly say that U2 in the 90's is even close to the 80's....there's one song that even compares to U2 of the 80's, and that song came out in 91...One.

This is a band who has relatively no new material since U2 put out their first album.

First of all, they were seperated for 15 years, in which members had huge solo success. Henley put out 12 singles off of his three albums in that time, and we all know how popular Walsh was. And after 94? Well first of all the band toured until 97 on their Hell Freezes Over Tour, and then Henley already had a contractual agreement to make another solo album, which came out in 2000, and then the Eagles got back in the studio and started to write again, and they got "Hole in the World" released, plus 7 more songs....but they decided to hold it off after 9/11. They took time off for family stuff, and in early 2003 started their Farewell I Tour, which Frey said will eventually turn into Farewell II and so on....and now they finally have time to go with the album. Two more new songs are being sung at shows this leg of the tour, so expect an album.

That song "Get Over it" which was on the live disc back in '94 was a horrendous song.

The song "Get Over It" to me is like U2's "Elevation" or "Vertigo". Everybody claims to hate it, but everyone loves to sing it and dance to it.

Let U2 take 15 years off, then come back and tour to support greatest hits albums and then make the argument. Maybe U2 wouldn't be as popular as The Eagles are now (in the US defintely) but to make this comparison now, just silly.

You are telling me that if U2 took off fifteen years and came back, that they would be where they are now musically. Definitely not. Bono is losing his voice. Look at Henley and the rest of the singing Eagles. They can still sing as well....if not better....as Frey says they are....compared to the 70's. That's a feat there.
 
Shakenotstirred said:


You are telling me that if U2 took off fifteen years and came back, that they would be where they are now musically. Definitely not. Bono is losing his voice. Look at Henley and the rest of the singing Eagles. They can still sing as well....if not better....as Frey says they are....compared to the 70's. That's a feat there.

That's kinda the whole point though. U2 has never taken 15 years off, had rotating personel lineups, broken up, reunited, done solo careers, or the like. Nor does the name of the current U2 tour have the word "farewell" anywhere in it. They have held it together for 25 years, making consistently great albums and touring every four years or so. As fun as the Eagles are, you get the sense that it is largely a corporation now (with Henley as the C.E.O.), as opposed to an organic band.

With that said, if you've got a hundred and twenty bucks, go see the Eagles because they will not dissapoint. No opening act and three solid hours of all their hits (including most of the solo ones). Truely a solid show.
 
here's a website for you then - www.eaglesfans.com


oh, and in addition to seeing the Eagles in 1994, I have seen Henley 3 times since 1985 and Frey in 1992 and Joe Walsh in 1992 when he was touring with Ringo's All Star Band. I guess I am just not inspired by their current form anymore.
 
That's kinda the whole point though. U2 has never taken 15 years off, had rotating personel lineups, broken up, reunited, done solo careers, or the like. Nor does the name of the current U2 tour have the word "farewell" anywhere in it. They have held it together for 25 years, making consistently great albums and touring every four years or so. As fun as the Eagles are, you get the sense that it is largely a corporation now (with Henley as the C.E.O.), as opposed to an organic band.

Henley as the CEO....that's great. And I know the Eagles are on Farewell I, but they have literally said that it's a joke. They are making another album.....

With that said, if you've got a hundred and twenty bucks, go see the Eagles because they will not dissapoint. No opening act and three solid hours of all their hits (including most of the solo ones). Truely a solid show.

You make it sound like 120 is a lot, which it is...but that's just for the floor. U2 is charging 165 for LB...
 
quote by ihavefollowed:
"Nor does the name of the current U2 tour have the word "farewell" anywhere in it."

Hmmm...

Having that in your statement makes a reader kinda question all your entire post how since it points you may know very little on The Eagles. That was farewell deal was thought by HENLEY to POKE FUN at all the other long-running farewell tours (i.e. KISS; Cher) tours!

Word directly from the band they have no plans for a true "farewell" tour yet...

:huh:
 
The Eagles and U2 are not the biggest bands in the world. Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones are. The Eagles and U2 would be third and fourth however.

Anyways, The Eagles have sold more albums in the US (85 Million+) than U2 (50 Million+), but not worldwide:

U2 - 135 Million
The Eagles - 120 Million

The Eagles are also a larger concert draw than U2 all over the world, apart from a few markets in North America and all of Europe. The ticket prices in the first post in this thread are not accurate for their overall average price, as the highest priced ticket on The Eagles current tour is over $225+.

In terms of who's more popular, I'd give The Eagles the win. But it's really close...
 
Shakenotstirred said:

Actual Tour: Here's where it gets fun. Right away, I call it a slight Eagles advantage. Here's why though...Let's compare the tour.


OK, let's. One is U2, th eother is the Eagles. MASSIVE advantage U2. End of story.
 
NoControl said:
The Eagles and U2 are not the biggest bands in the world. Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones are. The Eagles and U2 would be third and fourth however.

Anyways, The Eagles have sold more albums in the US (85 Million+) than U2 (50 Million+), but not worldwide:

U2 - 135 Million
The Eagles - 120 Million

The Eagles are also a larger concert draw than U2 all over the world, apart from a few markets in North America and all of Europe. The ticket prices in the first post in this thread are not accurate for their overall average price, as the highest priced ticket on The Eagles current tour is over $225+.

In terms of who's more popular, I'd give The Eagles the win. But it's really close...

U2 is the most popular relevant band who are still issuing new and interesting product. The rest are a bunch of old dinosaurs who can't cut it without a huge number of backing musicians to help out. Mostly they retread old faves without any new material of note, unlike U2.
 
cardosino said:


U2 is the most popular relevant band who are still issuing new and interesting product. The rest are a bunch of old dinosaurs who can't cut it without a huge number of backing musicians to help out. Mostly they retread old faves without any new material of note, unlike U2.

That's your opinion. I'm talking about facts here.

And btw, I agree that The Eagles are the shits. But so is U2 nowadays and IMO they couldn't be less relevant if they tried.
 
NoControl said:


That's your opinion. I'm talking about facts here.

And btw, I agree that The Eagles are the shits. But so is U2 nowadays and IMO they couldn't be less relevant if they tried.

Look at the setlists of Stones/Eagles etc tours, hardly crammed with new material !

U2 is playing about 30% new material in their live shows, they have kept the same linup their whole career, they don't have a plethora of backing musicians, their fans WANT to hear their new stuff live, and by the time they have been around as long as the Eagles or Stones they will have siginificantly outsold them on a worldwide basis.

Whether or not you consider them relevant is subjective, I happen to think they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom