u
the rolling stones as a brand has long outlived their relevance as a maker of music. if anything U2's insistence on trying to remain culturally "relevant" has made them LESS culturally relevant. bono's brand work with (red) may be more culturally relevant than the actual band at this point.
meanwhile the stones just had an amazingly well received exhibition in manhattan that's on it's way to chicago next, and a well received album to boot. plus - you see younger generations wearing stones shirts. you see that logo everywhere. not the same with u2. it just isn't.
I believe U2 can climb through this "old guy at the club" cultural malaise and return to their iconic legend status (the JT tour is a good start), and I think the Stones went through a similar phase in the late 90s/early 00s to come out of it on top... but yea, U2 are not very culturally relevant right now at all. most under the age of 30 consider them quite lame. mostly 'cause of bono and songs of innocence.
the stones are touring artwork, costumes and instruments from their history to select cities around the world and smashing it at the box office with Exhibitionism.
So it would appear that yes, people still care about the stones.
so i've spent the entire post so far defending the stones, but now it's time to knock this little theory down a bit and defend U2.
U2 rode a huge wave of "BIGNESS" from 1987 through 2005. Yes, Popmart fizzled in the States, but was still huge elsewhere in the world. It could have been the start of the fall, but Sweetest Thing did very well in 99, and ATYCLB was a smash hit in 2000. Vertigo/Bomb was absolutely massive, and they rode that through the end of 360, which was an unbelievable success.
No Line faltering was the sign that things were changing, and the butchered 2014 release cycle closed the deal. they should have been able to see changing demographics and plan their release method accordingly. failing to do so resulted in the embarrassingly out of touch release method of Songs of Innocence.
the late histories of each band are actually very similar...Steel Wheels can be seen as an equivalent release to All That You Can't Leave Behind, Voodoo Lounge their Atomic Bomb (i'd argue Bomb was more popular, but alas).
Bridges to Babylon in 1997 was released 35 years in for the Stones, roughly equivalent to No Line On The Horizon for U2. The albums and tours are relatively similar - mildly successful on the charts, more so in Europe than the US (
Anybody Seen My Baby? hit the top 20 in Europe and top 5 of US Rock charts. #1 in canada, eh. Saint of Me cracked the Billboard Hot 100 (albeit a low 96), and reached #26 on the UK charts) - massively successful mega world tour to accompany that broke all records.
they released 40 licks for their 40th anniversary and toured backing that, and then a few years later released Bigger Bang to mild success in Europe (not much in the US), Tour was still utterly massive (the biggest ever until 360) and saw a show in Canada draw 500k and one in Rio draw over a million. This was at 43 years in... or where U2 will be in 2019.
so can somebody again tell me about how irrelevant the stones were/are in comparison to U2? 'cause that's some bullshit. if anything the two bands "late" history is remarkably similar. comparing the Stones of today to the U2 of today is incredibly unfair; the Stones are 55 years in while U2 is in the middle of their 40th year. you have to look at it from where they were at certain milestones - 20 years in - 30 years in - 40 years in - etc etc etc. when you do that the album success and tour success almost line up perfectly.