Next Album Rumours Thread II - Songs of Ass Scent

[dan_smee]

The Rolling Stones are contemporaries with The Beatles and should be regarded as such.

I’m sorry, I can’t get on board with this.

Flashes of brilliance, some great albums, some stinkers, and lots where there are great songs but the album overall is inconsistent.

The Rolling Stones are to the Beatles as Bon Jovi is to U2.

 

[rennowba]

I listened to zooropa yesterday for the first time in ages. Great album . All I kept thinking was they recorded this during zoo tv

So they wrote and recorded an album during the greatest tour of all time . Wow .

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I’m sorry, I can’t get on board with this.

Flashes of brilliance, some great albums, some stinkers, and lots where there are great songs but the album overall is inconsistent.

The Rolling Stones are to the Beatles as Bon Jovi is to U2.

Except Bon Jovi and U2 barely crossed paths, if at all. Stones vs Beatles is an age old debate.

Obviously the Beatles have a bigger historical standing and impact, but obviously the Stones lived on and the Beatles lived on in memory only.

It’s silly to compare U2 to The Rolling Stones. The major difference between U2 and the Stones is that the Stones sat in the Beatles shadow while U2 was unobstructed during their respective peaks.

Beatles > Stones > U2 and while the Stones aren’t the GOAT-level that the Beatles are at, they’re closer to that than they are to U2 imo.

 

[the tourist]

Not 1993? Zooropa is almost universally praised, even if a percentage of obtuse listeners jumped ship when it came out.

I think we're looking at a 10-year run of studio recordings as good as any band in history.

I’ve never heard a non-superfan mention the album or any of the songs to me a single time when talking about the band. Never once. In the last 23 years. Anecdotal? Sure. But in my experience, it’s not an album they’re remembered for by anyone but the superfans and critics.

When I bring up U2 and they’re not sneered off with derision right away, mostly people talk about War, The Joshua Tree, and Achtung Baby when talking about albums, and Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride, With Or Without You, I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For, Desire, and Mysterious Ways. Generally these are music fans who are familiar with U2 from that era, and never Zooropa. If I bring up Zooropa (because I like it fairly substantially), I’m usually met with a completely blank stare, unless it’s a superfan - and I’d say I know maybe 10 superfans?

This isn’t to say it’s not a brilliant album. It’s just not one that I personally would get on board with saying they’re remembered for.

 

[dan_smee]

Except Bon Jovi and U2 barely crossed paths, if at all. Stones vs Beatles is an age old debate.

Obviously the Beatles have a bigger historical standing and impact, but obviously the Stones lived on and the Beatles lived on in memory only.

It’s silly to compare U2 to The Rolling Stones. The major difference between U2 and the Stones is that the Stones sat in the Beatles shadow while U2 was unobstructed during their respective peaks.

Beatles > Stones > U2 and while the Stones aren’t the GOAT-level that the Beatles are at, they’re closer to that than they are to U2 imo.

I can’t accept that point about stones being greater because they were in the Beatles shadow while u2 were unobstructed either.

For a start - for that argument to hold water, then you have to acknowledge the stones had already long past their own greatness - because if they were great, then surely U2 would have been in their shadow as an active band? That means that they had 40 years of decline which HAS to negatively impact your legacy.

Secondly, U2 unobstructed? Seriously? They had Queen through the early 80s, oasis through the 90s, Coldplay in the 2000s.

All the while there was also REM, Bruce Springsteen, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Bowie etc.

I think Rolling Stones fans really over play their greatness - I’m not saying they weren’t great, and shouldn’t be in a conversation, but to consider them peers or on a level with the Beatles is madness.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The Rolling Stones are to the Beatles as Bon Jovi is to U2.

No.

 

[Hewson]

I’m sorry, I can’t get on board with this.

Flashes of brilliance, some great albums, some stinkers, and lots where there are great songs but the album overall is inconsistent.

The Rolling Stones are to the Beatles as Bon Jovi is to U2.

Had the Stones broken up in 1973, or if the Beatles were still together and recorded numerous more albums over the past 45+ years, that argument might not be valid.

And the Bon Jovi/U2 comparison is trash.
Maybe an REM/U2 comparison would be valid.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I can’t accept that point about stones being greater because they were in the Beatles shadow while u2 were unobstructed either.

For a start - for that argument to hold water, then you have to acknowledge the stones had already long past their own greatness - because if they were great, then surely U2 would have been in their shadow as an active band? That means that they had 40 years of decline which HAS to negatively impact your legacy.

Secondly, U2 unobstructed? Seriously? They had Queen through the early 80s, oasis through the 90s, Coldplay in the 2000s.

All the while there was also REM, Bruce Springsteen, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Bowie etc.

I think Rolling Stones fans really over play their greatness - I’m not saying they weren’t great, and shouldn’t be in a conversation, but to consider them peers or on a level with the Beatles is madness.

You conveniently didn’t identify a serious obstruction for U2 approximately through their peak of 87-93. Yes there were great bands. To be the GOAT, you can squash anything directly. For bands like U2, they more directly have “spheres of influence” on the scenes they belonged to. Hence why I said they didn’t really cross paths with Bon Jovi - a band that was extremely popular at the same time, but stylistically they belonged to this post-hair metal whatever. REM is fair.

Anyways, I’m really not sure why you’re so combatively against the concept of elevating the Stones to a different level than bands like U2. Not that this really matters, but there’s a reason why bands like The Rolling Stones are always held in that top 5 or top 10 regard on whoever’s-list, often hovering behind the unanimously #1 Beatles, and U2 are not.

 

[Hollow Island]

i’m sorry, i can’t get on board with this.

Flashes of brilliance, some great albums, some stinkers, and lots where there are great songs but the album overall is inconsistent.

The rolling stones are to the beatles as bon jovi is to u2.

hahahahahahahaha

 

[Hollow Island]

I can’t accept that point about stones being greater because they were in the Beatles shadow while u2 were unobstructed either.

For a start - for that argument to hold water, then you have to acknowledge the stones had already long past their own greatness - because if they were great, then surely U2 would have been in their shadow as an active band? That means that they had 40 years of decline which HAS to negatively impact your legacy.

Secondly, U2 unobstructed? Seriously? They had Queen through the early 80s, oasis through the 90s, Coldplay in the 2000s.

All the while there was also REM, Bruce Springsteen, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Bowie etc.

I think Rolling Stones fans really over play their greatness - I’m not saying they weren’t great, and shouldn’t be in a conversation, but to consider them peers or on a level with the Beatles is madness.

The Stones WERE peers of the Beatles. Just go look at how they were spoken of in the 60s.

U2 have been in their shadow as an active band. Every band except the Beatles is in their shadow. The Stones' run of greatness ended before U2 existed so their albums weren't competing, but they were and are live rivals. During the Stones' 64-72 run (8 years!) they probably released as much as U2 have in 40 years, had more commercial success, a greater influence, and a cultural impact that...well, U2 aren't historically significant, and the Stones are. The Stones ARE on a level with the Bealtes.

The question isn't "Beatles or x," it's "Beatles or Stones."

 

[DaveC]

For a start - for that argument to hold water, then you have to acknowledge the stones had already long past their own greatness - because if they were great, then surely U2 would have been in their shadow as an active band? That means that they had 40 years of decline which HAS to negatively impact your legacy.

this is insane.

no sane person thinks less of the Beggar's Banquet to Exile on Main Street period just because they made Dirty Work 15 years later.

just like nobody sane should think less of Achtung Baby because the same band was releasing shit like Get on Your Boots 15 years later.

the living Beatles were mostly churning out junk in the 80s too but nobody sane thinks less of the Beatles because Paul made Pipes of Peace.

 

[Hollow Island]

i can't get over the Stones having "flashes of brilliance"

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Fewf, I was wondering where the cavalry was for that one. As Ive stated before, I’m not crazy in love with the Beatles. I’m historically well read and my musical biases on the debate leans Stones for sure, but I’d prefer someone else make the argument because most of my argument is a historical one and not from the perspective of being extremely well studied on either band’s discography (I just know the surfaces/what-you-should-know).

 

[Hollow Island]

Lucky, have you read Beatles vs Stones? It contrasts how they were viewed in relation to each other during the 60s through the lenses of various social and musical issues. It's fascinating and relies on contemporary sources including underground leftist newspapers. The author did a very thorough job.

 

[lazarus]

Flashes of brilliance, some great albums, some stinkers, and lots where there are great songs but the album overall is inconsistent.

The Rolling Stones are to the Beatles as Bon Jovi is to U2.

This is ridiculous.

During the Stones' 64-72 run (8 years!) they probably released as much as U2 have in 40 years, had more commercial success, a greater influence, and a cultural impact that...well, U2 aren't historically significant, and the Stones are.

This is also ridiculous.

Also, according to Wiki, the Stones have sold approx 200 million albums. U2 is at 150 million. But considering the Stones had a 16 year head start, and have 15 more studio albums (plus 10 live albums and numerous complications), I'd say that U2's commercial success is greater.

And to say that U2 aren't historically significant...what the hell are you doing on this forum, really?

 

[Irvine511]

To be cool you have to not give a shit.

U2 give a *massive* shit. That’s why they’ve been uncool for the majority of their existence.

If you give a shit about U2 being cool, massive or not, you should stop. No one gives a shit about how much of a shit you give about U2. Because giving a shit is uncool, about U2 or anything else.

But it’s actually cooler to be uncool. People secretly envy the massive shit you give, because they wish they could give a shit about anything. Because giving a shit means you are actually alive.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

U2 are too far gone to reverse their lack of coolness. I think they have to double/triple/quadruple down if they want to be cool... and not via music. I think the opportunity was missed, but if bono ended up learning to Twitter and not be such a putzy nice guy, I think absolutely shitting on Donald a Trump could’ve maybe put them in good graces.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I’m sorry, I can’t get on board with this.

Flashes of brilliance, some great albums, some stinkers, and lots where there are great songs but the album overall is inconsistent.

The Rolling Stones are to the Beatles as Bon Jovi is to U2.

I think in terms of great albums The Beatles beat The Rolling Stones, but when it comes to songs and in particular, great singles, The Stones run The Beatles pretty close.

 

[Hollow Island]

This is ridiculous.



This is also ridiculous.

Also, according to Wiki, the Stones have sold approx 200 million albums. U2 is at 150 million. But considering the Stones had a 16 year head start, and have 15 more studio albums (plus 10 live albums and numerous complications), I'd say that U2's commercial success is greater.

And to say that U2 aren't historically significant...what the hell are you doing on this forum, really?

You're ignoring that the Stones were primarily a singles band in the 60s and albums weren't the main medium for pop music. The Stones have more hits than U2, and they're bigger songs.

You can love U2's music without thinking that they have a historical significance. They're musically significant, but the Stones' significance transcends music. Just like the Beatles and very, very few others.

It's absurd to argue that U2 are on the same level of popularity or significance as the Stones. It doesn't take anything away from U2 to say that there are bigger or more important bands.

All of which is to say that Bon Jovi are in no way analogous to the Rolling Stones. Bon Jovi were the Herman's Hermits of the 60s.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If your argument is that U2 didn't do anything to change the cultural landscape in the way the Beatles and Stones did? Ok sure. But that's not really fair and reserved for only a handful of musical acts in history based mostly on good timing on their part.

 

[Hollow Island]

If your argument is that U2 didn't do anything to change the cultural landscape in the way the Beatles and Stones did? Ok sure. But that's not really fair and reserved for only a handful of musical acts in history based mostly on good timing on their part.

This was brought on by putting the Stones at Bon fucking Jovi's level.

I think it's an equal combination of timing and the right people doing the right things. That's why it was the Beatles and Stones and not two of their contemporaries, or Nirvana and not Soundgarden.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

This was brought on by putting the Stones at Bon fucking Jovi's level.



I think it's an equal combination of timing and the right people doing the right things. That's why it was the Beatles and Stones and not two of their contemporaries, or Nirvana and not Soundgarden.

Well comparing the Stones to Bon Jovi is just dumb and not really worth a second thought.

Alas...

I'd go into why Nirvana is not as historically significant as many hold them to be, but that's a different story for a different day.

 

[super fly guy]

i can't get over the Stones having "flashes of brilliance" [emoji38]

Jumping jack flashes of brilliance.

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

Coldplay are currently playing a live set on instagram - just the four members of the band in a small studio room. It sounds very stripped down, and rough around the edges, but still pretty fun, laughing off all the mistakes etc.

I could imagine u2 being reluctant to do that sort of show without all the bells and whistles of a proper arena/stadium gig, but the promo tours for the last two albums were all about how the songs could be played acoustically/in a stripped down way.

Sure would be nice to see them put on a little 'Socially distanced' lockdown show, even if it's just for fun, and lacking the usual theatrics...

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Coldplay on Instagram are awesome. U2 fancies that they break down the barrier of the stage, but Coldplay has done that to a new level in the digital era. They give a very honest and direct look into their creative lives.

 

[lazarus]

U2 stripped down just isn’t good enough to sustain a longer performance.

 

[DeVaul]

No way 20 songs would happen, but they could do 8-10 songs and it would work wonderfully.

 

[david]

U2 Stripped Setlist:

1. Ordinary Love
2. Angel of Harlem
3. Stuck
4. Desire

Encore
5. Ordinary Love (again)

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I have zero doubt that they could put together a pretty great acoustic / striped down set, provided they had a decent amount of rehearsal time to prepare.

I don't think they could do something more impromptu - it's not really their thing

 

[tommycharles]

Exactly. The reason Acrobat and Exit were so good on their respective recent tours was that they put in the hours first, and those don’t go down just because edge has an acoustic guitar.