ramblin rose said:Personally, I think your theory deserves its own thread.
i like your theory regarding my theory
ramblin rose said:Personally, I think your theory deserves its own thread.
Headache in a Suitcase said:to get away from the idiotic bickering over how much u2 could charge for tickets for a second...
i was wondering the other day about the title of the rolling stones' new album... "a bigger bang"
with bono running his wee ass all over the world talking about how u2 is the greatest band in the world, with baisicly every music magazine and tv show saying the same things, with u2 baisicly completely ripping off the stones' flatbed through new york thing and making it their own... even though the two bands are quite friendly with each other... esp. mick & bono... do ya think there's a chance that the stones took a subtle shot at u2's "...atomic bomb" by naming the album "a bigger bang" ?
discuss...
disclaimer- yes i know... my theory is stupdendously moronic... but then again, we're talking about a forum that has had 500 post threads over the hidden meaning behind "uno, dos, tres catorce"... and this theory, while incredibly stupid, is by no means any more moronic than those threads
brilliant ideaouizy said:The only solution is a battle of the bands in Giants Stadium at the end of September.
Outdoor Vertigo stage set up at one endzone and the Bigger Bang stage set up in the other.
The rest of the field will be GA - no B-stages, no ego ramps.
Mix station on the 50 yard line and Willie Williams has to work for fucking U2 at teh show, not the stones.
They will alternate songs.
U2 will blow the Stones out of the stadium.
Of course placing U2 3rd in rock history behind The Beatles and Stones may be a bit of a stretch.Headache in a Suitcase said:
being third behind the beatles and the stones ain't exactly an insult.
No, its been well documented that the Stones came up with "A Bigger Bang" while discussing the relative merits of Mick's Viagra vs. Keef's CialisHeadache in a Suitcase said:to get away from the idiotic bickering over how much u2 could charge for tickets for a second...
i was wondering the other day about the title of the rolling stones' new album... "a bigger bang"
with bono running his wee ass all over the world talking about how u2 is the greatest band in the world, with baisicly every music magazine and tv show saying the same things, with u2 baisicly completely ripping off the stones' flatbed through new york thing and making it their own... even though the two bands are quite friendly with each other... esp. mick & bono... do ya think there's a chance that the stones took a subtle shot at u2's "...atomic bomb" by naming the album "a bigger bang" ?
discuss...
Hewson said:Of course placing U2 3rd in rock history behind The Beatles and Stones may be a bit of a stretch.
L
e
d
Z
e
p
p
e
l
i
n
ouizy said:The only solution is a battle of the bands in Giants Stadium at the end of September.
Outdoor Vertigo stage set up at one endzone and the Bigger Bang stage set up in the other.
The rest of the field will be GA - no B-stages, no ego ramps.
Mix station on the 50 yard line and Willie Williams has to work for fucking U2 at teh show, not the stones.
They will alternate songs.
U2 will blow the Stones out of the stadium.
martha said:
Nope.
T
H
E
W
H
O
blows Zep away every time.
U2Man said:
Nah, U2 comes in at least third. I'm not even sure that I would say that Rolling Stones comes in second anymore. That could very well be U2 soon. I guess the gross and attendance on their current tours might give us a clue. If U2 continue selling the amount of records they do, they will surpass Rolling Stones sooner or later.
Led Zeppelin and The Who - nah, just mere nostalgia from some of you. In a little while, someone is gonna mention Pink Floyd, I can already feel it. Nostalgia.
Axver said:Since when was the title of best band dependent on sales? The best band in history could turn out to be some overlooked group from Pauatahanui, New Zealand that sold only 1,000 albums in the Greater Wellington area, for all we know.
U2Man said:
Or me and my buddies.
I do think there is some sort of coherence between sales and quality. Not that crap music cannot sell well but in the great scheme of things, the music that most people find great (I guess that is what we mean by "best"?) will also sell most.
Axver said:
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Some absolute dross has sold exceptionally well over time (I don't mean crap like Hilary Duff selling a lot now but vanishing into oblivion, I mean consistent sales year after year) - Elvis and Michael Jackson are two very good examples.
And how do we define 'best'? If we mean best in terms of technical talent, Steve Wilson of Porcupine Tree flogs people who have sold 50+ million albums, but most of the time, I feel like I'm the only person who's even heard of Porcupine Tree on this forum! Often incredibly talented musicians compose music that simply does not get radio airplay and fails to crack the mainstream. So if we're talking 'great' and 'best' in technical ability, I'd argue that often, sales and 'best' have no correlation.
martha said:Album sales do not equal talent.
What about the case of Slim Whitman...who sold "more albums than the Beatles and Elvis combined"?martha said:Album sales do not equal talent.
Hewson said:No, its been well documented that the Stones came up with "A Bigger Bang" while discussing the relative merits of Mick's Viagra vs. Keef's Cialis
(What do you expect from a band who has a member nicknamed "Woody")
ouizy said:The only solution is a battle of the bands in Giants Stadium at the end of September.
Outdoor Vertigo stage set up at one endzone and the Bigger Bang stage set up in the other.
The rest of the field will be GA - no B-stages, no ego ramps.
Mix station on the 50 yard line and Willie Williams has to work for fucking U2 at teh show, not the stones.
They will alternate songs.
U2 will blow the Stones out of the stadium.
Axver said:
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Some absolute dross has sold exceptionally well over time (I don't mean crap like Hilary Duff selling a lot now but vanishing into oblivion, I mean consistent sales year after year) - Elvis and Michael Jackson are two very good examples.
Axver said:
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. Some absolute dross has sold exceptionally well over time (I don't mean crap like Hilary Duff selling a lot now but vanishing into oblivion, I mean consistent sales year after year) - Elvis and Michael Jackson are two very good examples.
And how do we define 'best'? If we mean best in terms of technical talent, Steve Wilson of Porcupine Tree flogs people who have sold 50+ million albums, but most of the time, I feel like I'm the only person who's even heard of Porcupine Tree on this forum! Often incredibly talented musicians compose music that simply does not get radio airplay and fails to crack the mainstream. So if we're talking 'great' and 'best' in technical ability, I'd argue that often, sales and 'best' have no correlation.
U2Man said:Album sales
The Who ~40,000,000 UK 60s-00s Rock *(20mil.US)
U2 *~150,000,000 Ireland 80s-00s Rock/Pop 50m.US
Come on. I know there are plenty of artists that have sold more than U2. But a band that has only sold 40 million albums, nearly only a quarter of what U2 has sold, isn't the third best band of all time.
And martha, , , , The Who have NEVER been more talented than the Beatles.