Best Ever Albums

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

TracyJacks — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:29:39 GMT

Author: TracyJacks

Posted: 03/27/2012 13:29

Sorry guys, I voted for U2. I never really liked the Stones...
But I like the 80s and 90s stuff from U2.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:31:11 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 03/27/2012 07:31

Hermes_requite wrote:

I can't decide. I think U2 have several very solid albums with no "bad" songs on them. But as for songs there are very few bands that can match the Stones output of good songs. And U2 is not one of them.

Well Put.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

Hermes_requite — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:29:48 GMT

Author: Hermes_requite

Posted: 03/27/2012 07:29

I can't decide. I think U2 have several very solid albums with no "bad" songs on them. But as for songs there are very few bands that can match the Stones output of good songs. And U2 is not one of them.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

WillWill1989 — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:12:41 GMT

Author: WillWill1989

Posted: 03/27/2012 07:12

rolling stones tyvm

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

Facetious — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:52:49 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 03/24/2012 13:52

sethmadsen wrote:

Fair enough. Only... "over 3,500" members and a bunch of critics lists would disagree.

Yup, it's fair to me. It's my opinion. I don't really care if they disagree. I know there are many people who love U2 very much, even more than the Stones maybe. It's just their opinion.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

AwesomeDavid107 — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:20:12 GMT

Author: AwesomeDavid107

Posted: 03/24/2012 02:20

The Rolling Stones definately win this one. U2 is good, but not one of my favourites.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

VADERBREWING — Sat, 3 Mar 2012 02:15:38 GMT

Author: VADERBREWING

Posted: 03/03/2012 07:15

I enjoy a good Stones song over a good U2 song, I enjoy a good Stones Almun over a good U@ album.
Driving in a car...Stones
At home .... Stones
At work .... Stones
Occasionaly hearing a song on the radio... Stones
VH1 ... Stones
Putting a poster up ... Stones
Wearing sunglasses ... U2
Changing name to one word ...Bono, The Edge.
Could we really like the stones as much if its members included The Jag and The Line. How about The Gay and The Suck Balls and as always this music is dedicated 2U.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

TrekkiELO — Sat, 3 Mar 2012 00:55:31 GMT

Author: TrekkiELO

Posted: 03/03/2012 05:55

The Rolling Stones

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:25:37 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/20/2012 14:25

[quote="itsit"][quote="sethmadsen"] Current news:
Mick Jagger just did a song with Will.I.Am, which wasn't horrible. /

Quote:

you kidding? that song was horrendous.

I like Will.I.Am... but mick's contribution was terrible, but at the same time the overall song wasn't the worst ever written, hence wasn't horrible. But it wasn't close to being good.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:23:58 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/20/2012 14:23

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

From the top 1000 on this site - U2 has 10, Stones 7. Keep in mind U2 only has 12 albums
Band Albums %

The Beatles 13 1%
Bob Dylan 11 1%
Led Zeppelin 10 1%
David Bowie 10 1%
Pink Floyd 10 1%
U2 10 1%
Bruce Springsteen 9 1%
Radiohead 8 1%
Queen 8 1%
R.E.M. 7 1%
The Rolling Stones 7 1%

Some of my fave RS albums are not in the top 1000. And one or two of those U2 albums might not make my top 1000. So, for me, it's equal.

Fair enough. Only... "over 3,500" members and a bunch of critics lists would disagree.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

alelsupreme — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:37:06 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 02/19/2012 20:37

[quote="sethmadsen"] Current news:
Mick Jagger just did a song with Will.I.Am, which wasn't horrible. /[quote]

you kidding? that song was horrendous.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

Facetious — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 05:36:30 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 02/19/2012 10:36

sethmadsen wrote:

Some of my fave RS albums are not in the top 1000. And one or two of those U2 albums might not make my top 1000. So, for me, it's equal.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

lastnamescooke — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:05:02 GMT

Author: lastnamescooke

Posted: 02/19/2012 00:05

TBH I could never get into the stones s it's u2 by a little bit.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

Error Finn — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:06:35 GMT

Author: Error Finn

Posted: 02/18/2012 21:06

sethmadsen wrote:

From the top 1000 on this site - U2 has 10, Stones 7. [b]Keep in mind U2 only has 12 albums[/b] 🤣
Band Albums %

The Beatles 13 1%
Bob Dylan 11 1%
Led Zeppelin 10 1%
David Bowie 10 1%
Pink Floyd 10 1%
U2 10 1%
Bruce Springsteen 9 1%
Radiohead 8 1%
Queen 8 1%
R.E.M. 7 1%
The Rolling Stones 7 1%

If now would be year 1983, this web site to discuss how "street credible" band are U2 (War), and how moving museum are band called The Rolling Stones (Undercover) ...

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

RoundTheBend — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:37:12 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/18/2012 18:37

From the top 1000 on this site - U2 has 10, Stones 7. Keep in mind U2 only has 12 albums
Band Albums %

The Beatles 13 1%
Bob Dylan 11 1%
Led Zeppelin 10 1%
David Bowie 10 1%
Pink Floyd 10 1%
U2 10 1%
Bruce Springsteen 9 1%
Radiohead 8 1%
Queen 8 1%
R.E.M. 7 1%
The Rolling Stones 7 1%

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:06:22 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/14/2012 02:06

an_outlaw wrote:

U2's last album wasn't too bad. Actually had some very surprising moments on it. 'Maginificent' and the title track were highlights.

It actually wasn't a bad album- Rolling Stone put it at 5 stars when it first came out (now rated a 4), but we all know what we think about Rolling Stone -wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more.

Me favs are title track and moment of surrender.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:01:30 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 02/14/2012 02:01

I think U2's relevance to music is going to last longer than the Stones. in 2008 they signed a 12 year contract. Correct me if I am wrong, as a Stones fan, I think they were great from Aftermath (1966) to Tattoo You (1981) (some would argue Some Girls[1978]). As a U2 on the other hand, U2 have been great from Boy (1981) to No Line on the Horizon (2009).

U2: Boy to NLOTH- 28 Years - Or some would argue that from Achtung Baby to All That You Can't Fart On they lost it. That would make it 19 years.

Rolling Stones: 15 Years give or take- plus a re-occurrence or two that would put them at 18-20 years of relevancy.

Current news:
Mick Jagger just did a song with Will.I.Am, which wasn't horrible.

Bono I think was the social spaz he is and wanted to do albums with the regular Daniel Lanois/Brian Eno team, but then also one with Will.I.Am and another with Danger Mouse. They also did almost a whole albums worth of music that got shelved when they thought of having Rick Rubin as a producer, but their recording styles didn't work together.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:20:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/13/2012 16:20

U2's last album wasn't too bad. Actually had some very surprising moments on it. 'Maginificent' and the title track were highlights.

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

GARY — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:32:18 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 02/13/2012 05:32

.
Bono is great live O.K. no doubt about that one.

But there is just something about the atmosphere of a Stones concert.

And Mick, even at the age 1,000, has more stage presence and charisma than Bono could only dream of.

The Rolling Stones : Sympathy For The Devil

Link

Re: The Rolling Stones or U2?

GARY — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:35:47 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 02/13/2012 04:35

This is the last time the ORIGINAL Rolling Stone ((BRAIN JONES)) ever played live with the Stones. 🙁 RIP BRIAN

But he lives on in this video and it also shows Keith Richards almost looking human 😁

Jumpin' Jack Flash (The Rolling Stones - Introduced by John Lennon in sign language

Link

.