In short I agree with you that U2 are more ambitious than the Stones. My disagreement is about the margin of difference.
[/FONT]
ding.
In short I agree with you that U2 are more ambitious than the Stones. My disagreement is about the margin of difference.
[/FONT]
14 of 24 songs on the 360 show were from this decade.
Is what looks like a glimmer of hope really being overshadowed by Rolling Stones/U2 debate?
Don't the Stones have their own board?
the glimmer of hope doesn't matter 'cause u2's not releasing an album this year.
there... glimmer squashed.
360 had close to 30,000 extra tickets per show, give or take.
They couldn't possibly set the tickets to be the same price with that many extra seats. They wouldn't sell.
I would venture to guess that 360, despite lower prices, made more money per show.
my contention with this stones vs. u2 debate is the misguided notions that
a) most people at a 360 show come for the new music
and
b) u2 isn't doing it for the money like the stones are.
secondly... i never said that what u2 does by making more tickets available is bad. actually quite the contrary... i think it's great. i'm only saying that it's still about making money, and if it didn't make money, they wouldn't do it. and the only reason i bring it up is because of all the bashing about other acts prices.
and if holding the best tickets in the house for fan club members, or making sure that GA tickets can only be picked up at Will Call to stop them from being gobbled up by scalpers, or any of the other things that many other big name artists have done and continue to do is "snobby elitism" to you, then i really don't know what to say.
Who is War Child?
I hate to interrupt this off-topic Stones discussion ( ), but I found this article via U2Log.com: The East African: �- Magazine�|Bono: Celebrity is a currency to be used to bring about change
Sorry if it has been posted about already; in case it hasn't, it says the following: “'We have recorded a new set of songs and we are going on tour in June and July. The mood in the band is good,' the singer said in a recent interview with The EastAfrican in Nairobi."
It's been a few weeks since Bono went to Africa, but it's still a pretty recent quote.
are the Rolling Stones on the new U2 album?
some would argue that this isn't neccesarily a good thing.
ya know what would have been ambitious for 360 as far as the setlist goes? if they had stuck with playing drowning man.
the tour staging it's self is highly ambitious. the setlist, not so much.
that was enough on topic stuff...
Was anyone here able to attend that secret U2 gig today? I am curious about the setlist.
the tour staging it's self is highly ambitious. the setlist, not so much.
I enjoyed reading your post, War Child. I agree with some parts but disagree at other times.
I don’t agree with your first point. You seem to be implying that the Stones do not want to make the best records they can, which I doubt. Every band wants to do their best but wanting to be good doesn’t really amount to ambition. And I do not think HTDAAB was an ambitious album. There was certainly no attempt to do something fresh with rock n roll. In fact Miracle Drug, COBL, and Yahweh sound dangerously close to self- parodies in my opinion. I accept your point that HTDAAB did objectively better than A Bigger Bang but there has been a backlash too- as you can tell from the reviews of NLOTH.
NLOTH might sound radical, but that doesn’t say much for ATYCLB or HTDAAB. I agree that they wanted to be more left-field after 2005 but were they REALLY committed to that route? Those three songs in the middle of the record (and I actually like Boots) suggest a certain hedging of bets. That said, I agree that it was brave to play 6 or 7 songs a night. That is why I still consider U2 more ambitious than the Stones. My argument is about extent.
You ask an interesting question about post-Exile Stones. I agree that the Stones have been more patchy than the U2 (drug abuse being the reason) but I think Some Girls and Tattoo You stand up well to Exile, the former especially.
I agree that the Stones play more of their older stuff than U2. Your statistics bear that out. But some things need bearing in mind. Firstly, the Stones have a bigger back catalogue than U2, which must have some effect. Secondly, you are equating ‘recent’ with ‘ambitious’ but is it more ambitious of U2 to play 5 songs from ATYCLB than 5 songs from Pop? ATYCLB may been more recent but I think U2 would have been more daring had they played the likes of Discotheque and Mofo instead.
In short I agree with you that U2 are more ambitious than the Stones. My disagreement is about the margin of difference.
(Big Line indicating change in subject)
FINGERS CROSSED on Bono's comments. Seemed to suggest that they will be playing officially unreleased material on the tour as opposed to putting out anything formally. I will take new material any way I can get it, and this could be interesting, as U2 has either done this never or very few times(October, UF, Axver, paging Axver!!).
there was that song "we love you"
YouTube - U2 - We Love You - [Unreleased Song] (Elevation Antwerp)
i don't think this turned into anything official but this was a rare occurence that U2 played something unreleased. I am not sure if they played any Zooropa before is was released...Ax?
i don't think this turned into anything official but this was a rare occurence that U2 played something unreleased. I am not sure if they played any Zooropa before is was released...Ax?
I believe they also started playing UF songs before the album came out.
Yes, they played TUF and Pride before TUF was released. NYD and SBS, if I remember correctly, were also both played on the pre-War Tour, before War was released. And it's rather common for U2 to play their lead single live before the album is released, but after the single was released.
Also, may we never forget when Trip made its debut.