u2 = the Rolling Stones

[Bono's shades]

I don't think U2 are nearly as pathetic as the present-day Rolling Stones, but they could become that if they aren't careful.

 

[J_NP]

I don't think U2 are nearly as pathetic as the present-day Rolling Stones, but they could become that if they aren't careful.

But let's not turn this into a really big stones bashin


Like someone said before , which is a big truth , their last album is very very enjoyable , much better than what I expected

 

[xaviMF22]

I don't think U2 are nearly as pathetic as the present-day Rolling Stones, but they could become that if they aren't careful.

give them time

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't think U2 are nearly as pathetic as the present-day Rolling Stones, but they could become that if they aren't careful.

Outside of a few romps with disco, the Stones haven't changed their sound in 40 years.

U2 changes their sound every three albums or so.

I don't see this happening to them.

 

[Joey788]

it just occoured to me, that u2 have now become the equivalent of the Rolling Stones like 10 years ago. Remember the bridges to babylon tour, where they put all of their money inot the production and stage setup and nothing into actual songwriting, songcraft, performance, etc? Well, okay, maybe that s a stretch., But U2 are getting old and they aint what they used to be. It used to be a u2 album was a grand event. Nowadays, its like okay a u2 album = 1 good song a nd a tour and then a bunch of crap.

kind of like the rolling stones, eh?

I completely disagree. I don't think U2's last two albums are as good as Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby, but they are still amazingly good albums. To think that the quality of music has gone down just makes no sense to me. Just look at the stats.

HTDAAB: Went to number 1 in 34 countries including the US. It's sold about 10 million copies worldwide in 2 years! Vertigo became U2's best-selling single in America, going double platinum due to the lasrge amount of digital downloads. The Vertigo tour got rave reviews everywhere, sold out every concert, and earned around $389 million. If that doesn't prove U2's continuing success, I don't know what does.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Who would u rather win the awards ? nickleback ?

Well.....yes....if it meant that U2 was putting out mindbending music once again which sadly they are not. The last two studio albums, which i rushed out to buy on the release date, were mediocre at best compared to the OLD U2 that created AB, JT, and yes POP.

And the last 2 compilations BO90-00 & u218 were a joke, save for the milan dvd and the dvd history mix on the 90-00.

They still put out decent records just nothing to write home about. As they age, and yes they are aging, they seem to wanna play it way too safe and try to be.........Nickleback. So yeah, if Nickleback wins a grammy over u2 then good. Grammys suck and are meaningless. Need proof, look how many times u2 puts out something good and gets passed over. Or, look how many other bands without the name recognition and glad-handing with the industry u2 has that never get to the grammys but their music is fresher and has more spiritual urgencey.

When was the last time the Rolling Stones had a hit song? Yet they still have very successful and well-attended tours. Ten years ago they kinda had some hit songs to go along with their tours, so thats what i mean when i say u2=rolling stones. Not really but given the 20 year age difference in the bands, and the declining interest in u2 commercially are they heading in that direction?

I guess my point was, in a round about way, do we want them to be the next Rolling Stones if they continue on this slide? Releasing a decent yet watered down album as an excuse to tour behind and gross $100 million and make the year end list of top grossing tours, etc. Or, would we rather they reclaim some of that good old fashioned "artistic integrity" they used to have and just make a record that actually matters. Surely it cant be about money for them anymore.

Three chords and the truth, you say?

 

[Yahweh]

Anybody that thinks that age has something to do with making great music is an idiot anyway. U2 have managed to stay relivant with a younger audience the Rolling Stones have not, even though they are a big tour draw. If you dont like what U2 is doing now move on simple as that. I see it as an accomplishment that U2 is able to still make it to #1 on the worldwide albums chart.

 

[LMP]

Huh?

Sorry, I meant that the Rolling Stones influenced U2.

Almost the same level as The Who, The Beatles, etc...

does that make my clusterfucked statement clearer?

 

[J_NP]

And the last 2 compilations BO90-00 & u218 were a joke, save for the milan dvd and the dvd history mix on the 90-00.

Best of a 90-00 a joke ? Are u bloody serious ...... So is 80-90 a joke also ? No better if a band wants to put in 1 disc all their most known singles for new fans and stuff , that's a joke Yeah Mate I even tried to take ur comments little bit serious , but I think I'm the definition of joke now

Now Seriously u can come out now Henry

It's okay we all know it's u

 

[LMP]

Best of a 90-00 a joke ? Are u bloody serious ...... So is 80-90 a joke also ? No better if a band wants to put in 1 disc all their most known singles for new fans and stuff , that's a joke Yeah Mate I even tried to take ur comments little bit serious , but I think I'm the definition of joke now

Now Seriously u can come out now Henry

It's okay we all know it's u

The Best of 1990-2000 is a joke.

Half of the material is either "redone"/new/or from All That You Can't Leave Behind.

There's no The Fly, Mofo, Lemon, Last Night on Earth, Zoo Station...

you know, the songs that U2 made in the '90s.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Anybody that thinks that age has something to do with making great music is an idiot anyway. U2 have managed to stay relivant with a younger audience the Rolling Stones have not, even though they are a big tour draw. If you dont like what U2 is doing now move on simple as that. I see it as an accomplishment that U2 is able to still make it to #1 on the worldwide albums chart.

Well making #1 is important i suppose, so is making millions of dollars. Making great music seems to be taking a back seat. Its all in the marketing, the buzz on the street, etc.

I dont see the particular need for me to "move on" as you suggest, ive been with this band for a long time and given them a lot of my money. I think im entitled to an opinion on the state of things.

U2 are a business, and a successful one at that. They are the Wal*Mart of the music industry. for now anyway. I guess the "real irony" of the whole PoPmart tour was they were simply just preparing us for the future. Even better than the real thing? I think not....buy some jewelry.

 

[J_NP]

The Best of 1990-2000 is a joke.

Half of the material is either "redone"/new/or from All That You Can't Leave Behind.

There's no The Fly, Mofo, Lemon, Last Night on Earth, Zoo Station...

you know, the songs that U2 made in the '90s.

Well Fly was in some discs

And all songs u listed , save from Zoo , were in the DVD , which is somethin I see as great , it got all the 90's singles

Besides u mentioned 'Half' , u talked bout number terms , but in the 90's only released 3 albums , And still to put out in a Compilation a non single song , which was rarely even played at that time : First Time , that made it cooler

 

[KUEFC09U2]

seriously why take your own opinion as if every thinks the same? making statements such as "there music isnt as good as it used to be" is a statement which can only go for each persons opinion, just because you think it, does not mean the person next to your feels the same? the fact that the last 2 albums went to number 1 in 30+ countries, selling over 10m a piece means some people must be enjoying them ALOT more than yourself

 

[U2Man]

the best of 1990-00 WAS a joke, and the bonus disc was even worse.

this compilation was just as shitty as the 1980-90 was awesome.

 

[vaz02]

^^ here here

 

[ozeeko]

grammys mean nothing

its sad when people use the grammy awards as a measure to prove whether a band is good or not..

Thank You. My exact thoughts. I mean...who were they up against? Gwen Stefani? Mariah Carey? If U2 didn't win for album of the year, most people on here would be saying the grammy's are meaningless. Same for when a negative review gets written about U2. Then it becomes, oh reviews are meaningless and critics don't know what they're talking about. It's always meaningless and irrelevant...that is, unless U2 does win that award and U2 does receive those great reviews, which in that case- the Grammy's determine the best and the reviews are the truth. Remember when "Achtung Baby" lost to Clapton's "Unplugged" album? Did you honestly think Clapton deserved the win?

 

[LMP]

Well Fly was in some discs

And all songs u listed , save from Zoo , were in the DVD , which is somethin I see as great , it got all the 90's singles

Besides u mentioned 'Half' , u talked bout number terms , but in the 90's only released 3 albums , And still to put out in a Compilation a non single song , which was rarely even played at that time : First Time , that made it cooler

There's enough material to fill a 17-track disc, trust me.

 

[J_NP]

the best of 1990-00 WAS a joke, and the bonus disc was even worse.

The bonus disc contains the best version so far of Electrical Storm doggy .....

Besides LWTSH , Summer Rain , Your Blue Room , North and South .....

The B disc is great , Puppy calm down , Besides it's also great that it's easily available to buy it

 

[LemonMelon]

this compilation was just as shitty as the 1980-90 was awesome.

The only good thing about the 1980-1990 collection was the bonus disc. On the main disc, the sequencing is so completely laughable that using it as a serious way to appreciate their 80's hits is impossible.

 

[roy]

I am one of the few who think HTDAAB sucks

You certainly don't get bored repeating yourself, do you.

 

[LMP]

The bonus disc contains the best version so far of Electrical Storm doggy .....

Besides LWTSH , Summer Rain , Your Blue Room , North and South .....

The B disc is great , Puppy calm down , Besides it's also great that it's easily available to buy it

if that's not condescending I don't know what is.

Back on topic, at least the Stones know how to make good compilations

Hot Rocks
Jump Back
40 Licks

 

[U2Man]

The only good thing about the 1980-1990 collection was the bonus disc. On the main disc, the sequencing is so completely laughable that using it as a serious way to appreciate their 80's hits is impossible.

well, the choice of songs was still better than on the 1990-00. and the b-side disc was the only reason why i bought these compilations.

 

[fna692002]

U2 have managed to stay relivant with a younger audience the Rolling Stones have not, even though they are a big tour draw

very true, but if were going to talk about bands over 20yrs still having a younger fanbase than the RHCP kick everyones ass in that department.

 

[roy]

But when it comes to popularity nowadays, they are not as nearly as popular as some of the younger bands.

ATYCLB 14m; HTDAAB 10m. Is there a young band that can compete with this popularity?

 

[LemonMelon]

ATYCLB 14m; HTDAAB 10m. Is there a young band that can compete with this popularity?

Coldplay.

 

[vaz02]

also u2 dont get hardly any play time on music channels any more unlike coldplay.

 

[J_NP]

There's enough material to fill a 17-track disc, trust me.

Well let's see

U2 in the 90's 3 albums

-There was 4 songs off AB , that's 1/3 of it , don't say u wanted more from it
-3 Songs from Zooropa , fair good number from 10 songs album
-Yeah 3 from Pop is a little low , and people complain bout the re-dones , but I for example prefer the new Staring , And Gone's chorus with Edge

Plus 2 relevant singles of the 90's , and u said bout ATYCLB , but there was only 2 from it .......

And 2 new songs which every compilation has new songs

What's the big complain about it ? Apart from the Pop Songs , Mofo , LNOE ? Sure I would love to have the 4 , but there was 3 from Pop , almost same number from Achtung . Whats so wrong bout it ?

 

[roy]

Coldplay.

My defintion of young band is obviously different to yours.

 

[LemonMelon]

My defintion of young band is obviously different to yours.

Hmm...do you mean a band that's been around for less than three years? If so, point taken. Most artists have to build a fanbase these days rather than get huge overnight from one hit...it's definitely a different market than it once was.

 

[J_NP]

Coldplay.

Didn't they start in 97 ?