U2 vs AC/DC

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
How many times have you heard the whole "I dont mind u2, but i prefer their older songs" statement?
I hear it all the time. And to further back this up...i have yet to meet ANYONE who has become a u2 fan based on their last 3 albums!
As much as i love the NLOTH material, i got to thinking the other day, will u2 ever record another anthem like One....Sunday Bloody Sunday, Streets etc? You know, a song that transcends musical taste/barriers?

I actually prefer the stuff from Achtung Baby and on.....And, I know several people who started listening to U2 based on ATYCLB, HTDAAB and NLOTH- that's bound to happen whenever ANY band releases a new album; some people like it, some don't...Regarding "timeless anthems" or whatever, I think we should wait to see what new songs are played- there are tons of great songs there that could become the new "40" or "Streets..." U2's time is not over yet, and they are not touring just for the sake of touring unlike some OTHER bands that stopped being creative 20 years ago...IMHO
 
I told before, I don't expect every fan to agree with my opinion as I don't agree with yours, I love NLOTH, but what do I know? I even love Pop and I don't think The Joshua Tree is their best album, you can imagine... I'm a lost case, but I like listening to other people's opinions and see the contrasts, thanks :up:

No one is saying that NLOTH isnt a very good record, I just feel POP is brilliant but not blessed with a radiofriendly single just like NLOTH and the joshua tree is not their best record, thanks :up:
 
No one is saying that NLOTH isnt a very good record, I just feel POP is brilliant but not blessed with a radiofriendly single just like NLOTH and the joshua tree is not their best record, thanks :up:

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't understand you when you said:
"Overall NLOTH is the just no so great brother of Pop" (I don't know how to make multiple quotes, so I've written it)
what I understood is that you don't like it, and that NLOTH and Pop aren't very good, with these afirmations I can't agree, with respect to your appreciation about both albums lacking a radiofriendly single, I couldn't tell you because it's a long time since I have stopped listening to music on the radio, but surely you're right as so many people are saying the same in different threads, but to tell you the truth, I can't care less about it.
 
It just won't happen. The songs dont have that extra something that will work live and elevate it to absolute cultstatus. Same with the POP-material

I think you'll be proven wrong here.

I'm not into any of the NLOTH songs at all right now, but I was the same way with the last two albums before hearing the songs played live. I thought COBL and OOTS were terrible tunes the first few times I heard them on the album, it wasn't until I heard them live that I learned to appreciate them for the great songs that they truly are, imho.

Wait until the tour gets going in a couple of weeks... album sales will pick up, those $250 tickets will start selling, and U2 will be the talk of the music world once again this summer.

Meanwhile, I can't wait to see AC/DC again in September
 
AC/DC is a great rock band, they put on a good rock show, not more not less, people like that and buy their records and go to their show. I'm not really into their music but I respect they have a large fan base. However, I don't think they can be compared to U2 in what they are doing. In fact I think we shouldn't have all these "vs" threads. U2 are who they are and that's why we love them, because they are unique. I don't go around comparing bands and artists to each other. In fact, I like to go to different shows by different artists and enjoy them all for different reasons, same with buying albums.

And as for NLOTH live: I am really very curious about the songs live because I really feel that some of them will be difficult to transform into a live setting. NLOTH is one of the few albums where I really love the album versions of the songs - Bomb was different - and at the moment I'm having a hard time believing that U2 will actually manage to top the album versions live .. at least for me. But I trust them to put on the best possible show and I'm really curious and excited about how the songs will work out.
 
It just won't happen. The songs dont have that extra something that will work live and elevate it to absolute cultstatus. Same with the POP-material

I understand what you're saying...I just don't think we can accurately judge the live potential of NLOTH without hearing the album on the 360 Tour, especially considering how drastic the change from studio to a live setting can be for U2. Personally, I think MOS could be unbelievable live...we'll see. It doesn't have the climax that Bad has, but it has a similar epicness vibe going on....maybe it's just me, I don't know. :shrug:

U2 should never EVER have to rely on holidaysales. they are not a "christmas"band. Maybe for a greatest hits album but not in regards to new material after 4 LONG years.

That's absurd. I'm not saying they need to rely on holiday sales...I'm simply saying that if NLOTH was released during the holiday season, it would have sold a lot more copies...and that's true!
 
This thread is a good showcase of the biased and delusional thoughts of u2 fans that occupy this forum. Many of you would instantly fail a debating class. Both groups have a comparable amount of worldwide dominence.

-neither is much more musically sophisticated than the other. Although Edge has more guitar pedals
-I don't see ACDC doing the "nostalgia circuit" more than U2.
-they take upwards of 5 years between albums. ACDC took 8 years because of a legal injunction prohibiting them from recording from their old record label.
-Both groups sell shitloads of albums, both in the 80's and present day.
-Judging by ticket broker demand and prices it's hard to pick a winner for the current tours.
-ACDC has used highly complex production in their concerts. Check out the train intro from the last tour.
-Are Bono's lyrics really significantly deeper than ACDC's?
-Which band has 3 greatest hit cds and which group has never released 1?

The only real thing u2 has over the other group is setlist variation, and that's only a modest bragging right.
 
You're exactly right - that's why in my original thread I said "greedy" in parenthesis. It's a business - the point of business is to profit as much as you can. Let's not forget that U2 barely made a profit off of the Zoo TV tour. And I don't think they made a dime until The Joshua Tree went off in '87. It's not like they are these annoying little pop starts being pampered for putting out one crap single. They should enjoy the rewards for their hard work over the years.

They loaned their struggling record label $5 mil before JT came out.

They had a private jet and a travelling stylist in 1985.

They each made over $10mil on Zootv. No show broke even or lost money.
 
Can't say I disagree with you on most of that. The arguing in this thread is ridiculously stupid. Not that this is surprising.

But ...

-Are Bono's lyrics really significantly deeper than ACDC's?

I will gladly let an AC/DC fan try and prove me wrong on this one, but I don't think it's a huge leap to say: Yes. Yes, they are by a long shot.
 
Can't say I disagree with you on most of that. The arguing in this thread is ridiculously stupid. Not that this is surprising.

But ...



I will gladly let an AC/DC fan try and prove me wrong on this one, but I don't think it's a huge leap to say: Yes. Yes, they are by a long shot.

I agree 100%
 
i'd just like to state that i got into the rolling stones when i was a teenager 'cause of the Bridges to Babylon album, and i'm sure there are those who are 13/14 who first got into AC/DC because of their song on Rock Band... just like there are teenageers who's first experience with U2 was the Vertigo iPod advert.

relevance, it seems, is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

on this message board for example, relevance seems to be define by the old reliable "do i think they're cool" line.

thus then... AC/DC? not relevant. Radiohead? OMGZ SOOO relevant... they shit relevance. they're so relevant they don't know how relevant they are.

reality? more 12/13 year old kids know who AC/DC is than Radiohead.
 
after the 80s U2 has written 2 songs that can be considered classics
One and Beautiful Day
so if the only thing that keeps a band from being a nostalgia act is releasing classic songs then they are in trouble
of course no one without their own agenda regarding a band would claim that relevance = classic singles
otherwise hardly a relevant rock band would exist anymore
 
12/13 year old kids think ACDC are in competition with Nike.

don't kid yourself...

acdctracklist.jpg
 
First off, the recent success of Black Ice is due in no small part to ROCK BAND (or haven't you heard of it?). Otherwise, AC/DC has gone the way of the Rolling Geezers and any number of washed-up bands - they haven't released anything worth listening to in 25 years and the only reason to go see them is to hear them play their classics from the prehistoric era. They'll erect a pile of scaffolding and purchase the same off-the-shelf stuff every other metal band does, their fans will show up drunk, high or both and everyone will have a good time.

There is simply no comparison between U2's music and AC/DC's. AC/DC's music is depthless, mindless and in-your-face.. which is exactly the only thing that band could ever produce. U2's music is intelligent, multi-layered and invites and challenges the listener to actually THINK while listening to it... Not just slamming a Milwaukee's Best Ice in your trailer while you crank out Back in Black for the 1000th time.

As far as album sales figures go, they are one of the worst ways to measure musical relevance or compare bands. Just ask fans of Radiohead. Hell, today, you don't even need to buy a physical copy of music at all to enjoy it, you can just download it for free and it will never be counted as an "album sale". Besides, there is little doubt that ROCK BAND has more to do with Black Ice's success than any other factor.

And one more thing about "album sales". I first bought Fleetwood Mac Rumors in the late 70's on vinyl. Why? Because I was a teenager and that's what our family had - a "record player". Then in the 80's I got my first in-dash cassette deck and I bought my second copy of Rumors on cassette so I could play it in my car stereo. My third copy of Rumors I received as a gift in the 90's. It was a purchased CD. That's 3 copies of the same album, THREE ( :wink: )! My point? AC/DC's two best albums were Back in Black and Highway to Hell. They both came out when most people were still buying vinyl albums, which most people then replaced with a cassette copy, which then were likely replaced with a CD copy.

In contrast, U2's two best albums were Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree. I purchased Joshua Tree shortly after it was released on CD.. and guess what, I still have that very same CD today. It sounds just as good today as it did 20 years ago. Same thing with Achtung Baby. I have no reason to replace them and maybe never will. If I want to put those songs on my Ipod I can just rip them off the cd's.

So let's do the math. That's ONE album sale per fan for the two best U2 albums to a very probable THREE album sales per fan for the best two AC/DC albums. Think about that the next time you start spouting off about all-time album sales for any band that's been around longer than the CD age, including U2. Those numbers can be very misleading unless taken into the correct context.
 
They loaned their struggling record label $5 mil before JT came out.

They had a private jet and a travelling stylist in 1985.

They each made over $10mil on Zootv. No show broke even or lost money.

I'm sorry, I was off by one tour/album - The Unforgettable Fire. Please forgive my U2 ignorance! :huh:

$10 mill/each for Zoo TV? "U2 by U2" actually mentions they didn't make much of a profit off the tour - in fact if they had raised the ticket price by $5 it would have been greatly successful according to Paul McGuinness. Just curious where you got that info - thanks!
 
after the 80s U2 has written 2 songs that can be considered classics
One and Beautiful Day
so if the only thing that keeps a band from being a nostalgia act is releasing classic songs then they are in trouble
of course no one without their own agenda regarding a band would claim that relevance = classic singles
otherwise hardly a relevant rock band would exist anymore

But regardless, they still would not be in trouble as you say....simply because One was released in 1991, and Beautiful Day in 2000...if U2 doesn't write another "classic" in the next decade, then you could say they're in trouble haha...but like you said, this talk about classics is pretty meaningless anyway
 
But regardless, they still would not be in trouble as you say....simply because One was released in 1991, and Beautiful Day in 2000...if U2 doesn't write another "classic" in the next decade, then you could say they're in trouble haha...but like you said, this talk about classics is pretty meaningless anyway


Actually they have written a third. it was the leadsingle of Bomb
:reject:

Everyone knows this song. If a coverband plays it everyone starts to jump.
God knows how I freaked out about them playing this song 2 times a night during their last tour but the reality is that this song will be remembered by fans and non-fans.

And THERE is the problem with NLOTH and POP. No HUGE single

on topic. AC/DC are a great nostalgia act but can not be compared to U2 in regards to the greatness of the songs they have written.
 
Magnificent or Moment of Surrender are closer to "classic" status than BD or Vertigo (though they were of course, bigger hits/singles). Give them time.

If the promo tour is anything to go by, NLOTH live should be very good.
 
Magnificent or Moment of Surrender are closer to "classic" status than BD or Vertigo (though they were of course, bigger hits/singles). Give them time.

If the promo tour is anything to go by, NLOTH live should be very good.

I realy hope so. Well I realy hope the tour will be FANTASTIC, that is more important
 
I'm going to see AC/DC next week at Wembley Stadium - GA ticket £55
I'm going to see U2 in August at Millenium Stadium Cardiff - GA ticket £55

I know now which is going to be the better value for money (I'll give you a clue: it ain't AC/DC)
 
I'm sorry, I was off by one tour/album - The Unforgettable Fire. Please forgive my U2 ignorance! :huh:

$10 mill/each for Zoo TV? "U2 by U2" actually mentions they didn't make much of a profit off the tour - in fact if they had raised the ticket price by $5 it would have been greatly successful according to Paul McGuinness. Just curious where you got that info - thanks!

Key word is "much profit". McG is doing his salesman shtick for those that wonder why tickets have gone up.

The arena legs had to sell 75% of tickets to break even. Not including lucrative merch sales. The Stadium legs would have been gravy. You don't tour 2 years solid out of charity.

Arena shows usually aim to break even around 4,000 tix depending on production budget, ticket prices expected crowd size.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom