After reviewing their careers I have seen some parallels between these two great bands, and some major differences. With opinion AND object observation, which band is better?
Currently ranked as Rolling Stones: 7 & U2: 11
My thoughts:
They both have had a very long career of being relevant. For Rolling Stones I would say 64-81 the Rolling Stones remained relevant in MAKING music. They still are one of the biggest touring bands, and are still relevant that way, but I see it a bit more like Elvis in Vegas. U2's career picked up where RS left off- 1980 to present (although almost fading out). U2 however just surpassed the Rolling Stones in having the greatest attendance ever for a tour, out of any other act as well. So... needless to say, they are both big touring/live bands.
The Rolling Stones have survived a line up change that is similar to RHCP. The two key players, Jagger and Richards have kept the stones the stones. U2 however has kept the same line-up since 1976 when they formed in high school.
The controversial topic: Albums... Exile on Main St. is often in the top 10 and is a very consistent album, BUT, many agree that the Rolling Stones just aren't an album based band. Many agree that they do better with singles/40 licks, etc. U2 on the other hand has made solid albums their whole career, although depending on the fan, it was only in the 80s, oh wait no, only in the 90s, oh wait no, only in the 00s. So, I guess objectively they both have issues with consistent solid albums throughout their career, depending on the fans. This contrasts of course with the other two big ones - Beatles and Radiohead, who in most people's opinions made solid albums their whole career.
These are just a few examples... What do you think?
Interesting analysis. There doesn't seem to be many U2 fans on these forums unfortunately. I'm not one either but considering how strong their following is both on these charts and in general they are certainly under-represented around here. They have instead become something of a figurehead for the bands you have to hate because Bono is Oh such a douche.
I voted for the Stones and, although I can see where the comment is coming from when compared to The Beatles and Radiohead, I believe they have released several magnificent albums. Exile is their finest effort, but Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers and Aftermath are worthy as albums rather than just a collection of songs.
Interesting analysis. There doesn't seem to be many U2 fans on these forums unfortunately. I'm not one either but considering how strong their following is both on these charts and in general they are certainly under-represented around here. They have instead become something of a figurehead for the bands you have to hate because Bono is Oh such a douche.
I voted for the Stones and, although I can see where the comment is coming from when compared to The Beatles and Radiohead, I believe they have released several magnificent albums. Exile is their finest effort, but Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers and Aftermath are worthy as albums rather than just a collection of songs.
But they're old, so I don't like em
. _________________ .
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
RoundTheBend
GARY
Bork
Facetious
alelsupreme
RFNAPLES
