In the local paper today, they asked who you thought the best group was, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. The Beatles are clearly superior here, but what about the Rolling Stones vs. U2.
Who do you think is better? Why?
Mr. Cinema
11-21-05, 11:21 AM
I listen to Rolling Stones more. So I choose them.
Hollowgen
11-21-05, 11:23 AM
give u2 a decade of super suckdom and a comeback when they're all 60 years old, then it'll be a tough choice. i'd have to choose the stones right now.
cdollaz
11-21-05, 11:43 AM
I think U2 has a more respected catalogue from top to bottom. Many people think the Rolling Stones haven't put out a decent album since 1978 and have tainted their legacy with the 80's and 90's material.
atlantamoi
11-21-05, 11:58 AM
I think U2 has a more respected catalogue from top to bottom. Many people think the Rolling Stones haven't put out a decent album since 1978 and have tainted their legacy with the 80's and 90's material. Yeah, but I actually think U2 is already starting to taint their legacy with the recent discs (I'm in the minority on that ;) ) I saw them live Saturday night and a few of their new tunes sound like total filler compared to a song like "Where The Streets Have No Name".
Know what? I'm gonna call it a draw! I love both of them dearly and they've both had such a huge influence. I'd like to see where U2 is when they are in their 60's then I'll decide. That is if Bono still has a voice.
auto
11-21-05, 12:42 PM
Yeah, but I actually think U2 is already starting to taint their legacy with the recent discs (I'm in the minority on that ;) )
I agree. Their last LP was terrible.
I pulled out Boy and October recently and can't believe how good they sound.
Considering both bands in their prime, I vote Stones.
Filmmaker
11-21-05, 12:49 PM
First of all, this should be a poll; second of all, U2 is the winner here, since The Rolling Stones' (as much as I love them) quality profoundly and abruptly nose-dived after their quarter century mark, but U2 is still making the most emotional, powerful, meaningful music found in the industry today.
Talkin2Phil
11-21-05, 01:10 PM
Although, U2 has a solid creative 25+ years with excellent music with very few duds (thank you, Brian Eno), the pinnacle of the Rolling Stones from 1968-1972- Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street are some of best rock and roll albums ever- My choice - The Stones.
10 years ago I thought the Stones were a joke and should have hung it up. Now, I’m loving it. 60 and still rockin’ more power to them.
dick_grayson
11-21-05, 01:14 PM
the Rolling Stones are/were one of the best and worst bands. their 80s-present stuff has been god awful (not even sure about some of their late 70s). their old stuff was great (still I always have preferred The Beatles).
U2 never did it for me and, while I think they have made some great music, I don't think they deserving of a top spot. Aerosmith also gets too much praise (again in my opinion). A lot of bands that have maintained a top level of popularity end up being given too much credit.
paulringodaman
11-21-05, 01:29 PM
Rolling Stones!!! You could compare them to the Beatles, but you could NOT compare U2 to the Beatles.
dick_grayson
11-21-05, 01:31 PM
Rolling Stones!!! You could compare them to the Beatles, but you could NOT compare U2 to the Beatles.
:up: that's probably a much better way to put it than I did :)
Filmmaker
11-21-05, 01:55 PM
Rolling Stones!!! You could compare them to the Beatles, but you could NOT compare U2 to the Beatles.
Funny, I do it all the time; for one, there seems to be a much more obvious parallel between Lennon and Bono than any Beatle and Jagger.
Hollowgen
11-21-05, 04:36 PM
Fight Fight Fight Fight!!
auto
11-21-05, 05:24 PM
Bono Says His Music Will Last 100 Years
NEW YORK - Bono says he'd rather be remembered for his music than his activism.
A dedicated lobbyist for the world's poor and AIDS-stricken, the U2 frontman told CBS' "60 Minutes" that "I think my work — the activism — will be forgotten.
"And I hope it will. Because I hope those problems will have gone away," he said in an interview that aired Sunday.
Since 1999, Bono has helped persuade Republicans and Democrats, presidents and lawmakers, to provide millions to help end the scourge of AIDS, eliminate poverty in Africa and forgive Third World debt.
The Irish rocker also predicted that his music will still be around in 100 years, explaining that his songs occupy "an emotional terrain that didn't exist before our group did."
And Bono said he has no intention of slowing down. He noted that people in rock 'n roll burn out at age 40, and said he wanted to see if his band could continue making "extraordinary" music.
"You know I'm still hungry," said the 45-year-old winner of 14 Grammy awards. "I still want a lot out of music."
:lol:
Have the Stones ever invented an emotional terrain?
Filmmaker
11-21-05, 05:45 PM
They're not the only ones...with mixed e-mooooooooo-shuuuhs!
astrochimp
11-21-05, 08:27 PM
Is U2 anyones favorite band? Dont get me wrong i like them alot but i dunno its weird i never hear anyone say they are their #1 most liked band.
Hollowgen
11-21-05, 09:22 PM
they're darn close for me. probably #1 for my mother. or maybe it's just bono. not sure.
Dubya
11-21-05, 09:26 PM
Why exactly are the Beatles clearly superior to the Stones?
Tommy_Harn
11-21-05, 09:27 PM
Is U2 anyones favorite band?
Yes. So I vote U2. Though I like the Stones a great deal.
paulringodaman
11-21-05, 09:54 PM
Why exactly are the Beatles clearly superior to the Stones?
I guess the biggest reason is that the Beatles were active from 1962-1970...They quit while they were ahead, I guess (although Let it Be is atrocious, although an amazing album :) ). The Stones won't just stop, although I think they are one of the greatest bands ever.
wendersfan
11-21-05, 10:53 PM
I think U2 has a more respected catalogue from top to bottom. Many people think the Rolling Stones haven't put out a decent album since 1978 and have tainted their legacy with the 80's and 90's material.I think the Stones' last good album came out in 1981. I think the exact same thing about U2.
PopcornTreeCt
11-21-05, 11:04 PM
U2's best songs don't even touch the Stone's best songs. So, you're comparing mediocrity with one time greatness. And mediocrity was never great.
auto
11-21-05, 11:25 PM
I think the Stones' last good album came out in 1981. I think the exact same thing about U2.
I think this just about sums up my feelings as well.
Andalusia
11-22-05, 12:11 AM
U2's best songs don't even touch the Stone's best songs. So, you're comparing mediocrity with one time greatness. And mediocrity was never great.
What he said.
Filmmaker
11-22-05, 09:12 AM
Is U2 anyones favorite band? Dont get me wrong i like them alot but i dunno its weird i never hear anyone say they are their #1 most liked band.
I own well over 100 U2 CDs, so yeah, um-hmm, you can definitely put them down as my favorite band by a country mile.
Filmmaker
11-22-05, 09:17 AM
The Rolling Stones music is very misanthropic; U2's is very human-hearted. One is about riding in the front car on the train ride to hell, the other is about lifting up hearts and minds. It's the difference between death and transcendence. Both groups are masters of their craft, but U2's music means so much more; its sights are set so much higher.
dick_grayson
11-22-05, 10:08 AM
haven't we had this same, tired discussion before when someone said that The Edge was [one of] the best guitarists ever? it's a matter of preference. I don't think (nor does most of this thread) that U2 is all that. They certainly are for their fans (and useless Rolling Stone type lists) , but outside of that realm, they're nothing too special.
Filmmaker
11-22-05, 10:11 AM
but outside of that realm, they're nothing too special.
Said the white man about the black man.
Geofferson
11-22-05, 10:11 AM
the Rolling Stones are/were one of the best and worst bands. their 80s-present stuff has been god awful (not even sure about some of their late 70s). their old stuff was great (still I always have preferred The Beatles).
I agree that their mid-to-late 80s material was severely lacking substance. However Voodoo Lounge gives Tattoo You a run for its money, IMO.
Anyway, the Stones for me by a long-shot (hell, I prefer them to The Beatles as well).
dick_grayson
11-22-05, 10:16 AM
Said the white man about the black man.
:confused: are you saying I'm not the black man I say I am?
my point was that everyone has a favorite band (most often not The Beatles or The Stones) but they don't argue preference as fact.
Filmmaker
11-22-05, 11:24 AM
The idea that any band's alleged greatness can be asserted as fact--even The Beatles--is folly, since the very nature of art discussion is grounded in subjectivity, so why fight against people having a subjective dispute on the issue?
dick_grayson
11-22-05, 03:13 PM
I don't have time to get into it. I think the general consensus is that the Beatles were, without a doubt, great. And I was not stating that as a fact. That's still my belief and I'm entitled to it just as you are to yours (hence this discussion isn't going to go anywhere).
Regarding U2, there's a line from The Smith's song "Panic" that sums it up for me:
"Because the music that they constantly play
IT SAYS NOTHING TO ME ABOUT MY LIFE "
But again, that's just me. To each their own. It just seems that most people's "own" seems to be the Stones in this case.
grunter
11-22-05, 06:29 PM
Although I respect the Stones immensely (and have every one of their albums), I grew up with U2 and the emotional resonance is far, far greater with that little Irish band that could.
Josh H
11-22-05, 06:44 PM
I think U2 has a more respected catalogue from top to bottom. Many people think the Rolling Stones haven't put out a decent album since 1978 and have tainted their legacy with the 80's and 90's material.
That's exactly my view on it. So I'd go with U2 for now.
Get back to me in another 20 years and we can see if U2 does the same. So far so good for them, but you could say the same about the Rolling Stones at one point in time pretty far along in their career as well.
nazz
11-22-05, 11:06 PM
I don't know if my age is showing but I can't even begin to compare the two in my mind. U2 would not even make my top 20 while the Stones would be in the top 5.
I do think they stand up well against bands such as REM but they're just not in the same league as the Stones, Beatles, etc.
mndtrp
11-23-05, 01:40 AM
I've got many albums by each band, but I listen to U2 more.
This thread would be a lot better if there was a poll.
Amel
11-23-05, 07:32 PM
U2
And they're better than the Beatles also.
Andalusia
11-23-05, 07:46 PM
U2
And they're better than the Beatles also.
:lol: -ohbfrank-
Setzer
11-23-05, 07:49 PM
U2
And they're better than the Beatles also.
Quoted for truth.
Stones Suck. :p
Alien Redrum
11-23-05, 07:59 PM
U2
And they're better than the Beatles also.
:up:
Amen.
Amel
11-23-05, 08:07 PM
:lol: -ohbfrank-
Until the Beatles 6th album they were nothing but a boy-band doing bubble-gum pop and Motown cover tunes.
Filmmaker
11-23-05, 08:11 PM
U2
And they're better than the Beatles also.
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. :thumbsup:
auto
11-23-05, 08:45 PM
Until the Beatles 6th album they were nothing but a boy-band doing bubble-gum pop and Motown cover tunes.
That's a laughable statement.
Alien Redrum
11-24-05, 12:55 AM
That's actually a pretty fair statement.
Their early stuff was bubblegum.
I don't see how that can be denied.
paulringodaman
11-24-05, 12:57 AM
Ok true, they were a "boy-band"...but compare their talent to NSync or Backstreet Boys...
Andalusia
11-24-05, 08:46 AM
Boy band? Bubblegum? Silly me, I thought they started out as a rock 'n' roll group.
Filmmaker
11-24-05, 10:28 AM
Boy band? Bubblegum? Silly me, I thought they started out as a rock 'n' roll group.
No, "Revolver" wasn't their first album.
K&AJones
11-24-05, 10:57 AM
Beatles - for Best Music/Writing
Rolling Stones - for Best All-Around "Rock & Roll"
U2 - for Best Stage/Live
Kenny J.
FM
11-24-05, 11:03 AM
U2 is my favorite band by far. There's an energy and passion in their music that I just don't feel from other music. I love the Beatles and enjoy a lot of Rolling Stones music, but it doesn't hit me on the visceral level that U2 does. U2's music helps me feel the strain of my soul reaching for higher ground.
shaggy
11-25-05, 04:18 AM
U2, The Beatles, and The Rolling Stones are my three favorite bands. They are all incredible and to me are the 3 best bands in history. U2 are the best of the 3, no one can touch U2's run of greatness. 25 years and barely a bad song , little lone a bad album. The Beatles self destructed, and The Stones gave up on new music. I personally like some of the new Stones stuff, but they don't even play it live. U2 live is a religous experience and Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop is the best 3 album run ever.
Filmmaker
11-25-05, 12:16 PM
To each their own. It just seems that most people's "own" seems to be the Stones in this case.
...you were saying?
dick_grayson
11-27-05, 10:58 PM
...you were saying?
so what? a few people came out of the woodwork. :yawn:
say what you want, I don't think a few recent posts matter.
I don't consider this forum to be the be-all-end-all authority on music.
history and me disagree with the opinions of the recent posters.
"Donnie, you're out of your element!"
http://www.s-t.com/daily/03-98/03-07-98/goodman.gif
Nazgul
11-27-05, 11:36 PM
U2 by a mile for me.
Alien Redrum
11-28-05, 12:45 AM
history and me disagree with the opinions of the recent posters.
How does history prove that Rolling Stones are better?
I don't care either way, but both bands are still successful and both are still putting out CDs.
History hasn't agreed or disagreed with anything yet because history is still being written for both bands.
While I definitely prefer U2 over the Stones, I think at the end of the day, history will show they were both influential bands.
The Bus
11-28-05, 07:58 AM
Is U2 anyones favorite band? Dont get me wrong i like them alot but i dunno its weird i never hear anyone say they are their #1 most liked band.
A friend's g/f favorite band. I personally prefer U2, but the Stones are better.
dick_grayson
11-28-05, 10:15 AM
How does history prove that Rolling Stones are better?
I don't care either way, but both bands are still successful and both are still putting out CDs.
History hasn't agreed or disagreed with anything yet because history is still being written for both bands.
While I definitely prefer U2 over the Stones, I think at the end of the day, history will show they were both influential bands.
I agree. Both are great (although the stone's current stuff certainly isn't what it used to be). my point was that one band is past their prime and another is still in it (a very long prime, I'll add)--so it's tough to compare. That's more or less all I'm saying.
Filmmaker
11-28-05, 01:44 PM
Sure, why it seems so self-evident that you've been giving both bands a fair shake since the beginning... :rolleyes:
dick_grayson
11-28-05, 01:51 PM
Sure, why it seems so self-evident that you've been giving both bands a fair shake since the beginning... :rolleyes:
well, I realized I was stepping on toes so I toned it down a notch. that's gotta be an "otter" first.
:shrug:
Chew
11-28-05, 02:07 PM
U2 by a mile for me.
It's a lot longer of a distance for me, but U2 gets my vote as well.
Scorpio
12-20-05, 02:52 AM
Have the Stones ever invented an emotional terrain?
I'll take "Gimme Shelter" over the entire U2 catalogue. And this is someone who honestly has nothing against U2.
kms_md
12-20-05, 10:55 AM
U2 live is a religous experience
while maybe not religious, they do put on a great show. i just saw them last week and they were as great as they were on the 3rd show of the joshua tree tour in tucson in april, 87.
and Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop is the best 3 album run ever.
i would disagree with this. achtung baby is one of my favorite albums -- i was living in germany when it came out. i cannot stand zooropa (except for the title track) and would not even consider the purchase of pop. when it came out, i thought they were done as a band. ATYCLB was a surprising rebound.
edit -- but you can pick up pop for 6.99 for the entire album on itunes.
Lunatikk
12-20-05, 10:58 AM
Beatles
nodeerforamonth
12-20-05, 01:56 PM
Rolling Stones > The Beatles > U2
Gdrlv
12-21-05, 12:40 AM
The best of the Rolling Stones destroys the best of U2 (and I like U2). I also think U2 took a far bigger nosedive in terms of quality than the Stones ever did. Zooropa, Pop and How to Dismantle... are terrible (All That You Can't Leave Behind is a minor league rose against major league thorns) and far worse than anything the Stones have done.
For the record, Rattle & Hum is my favorite U2 album.
The Stones win easily.
Duder
12-21-05, 02:44 AM
Is U2 anyones favorite band? Dont get me wrong i like them alot but i dunno its weird i never hear anyone say they are their #1 most liked band.
They're my #1 band by far. I like them so much more than all my other favorite bands it's ridiculous.
Buy: