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?

I listen to Rolling Stones more. So I choose them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rolling Stones!!! You could compare them to the Beatles, but you could NOT compare U2 to the Beatles.

that's probably a much better way to put it than I did

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.

Fight Fight Fight Fight!!

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."






Have the Stones ever invented an emotional terrain?

They're not the only ones...with mixed e-mooooooooo-shuuuhs!

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 darn close for me. probably #1 for my mother. or maybe it's just bono. not sure.

Why exactly are the Beatles clearly superior to the Stones?

Yes. So I vote U2. Though I like the Stones a great deal.

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.

I think the Stones' last good album came out in 1981. I think the exact same thing about U2.

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.

I think this just about sums up my feelings as well.

What he said.

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.