egafd.com

Heard they were doing those massive Zoo tv type concerts again.

Hope they play Scotland:):)

I love em although this song is crap. And anyone who disses my beloved Stones needs to walk the plank !

Those two points:

Yes, U2 are bound to do large 'Zoo Tv' type shows on the forthcoming tour. They did on the last tour (2005), whereas the tour before (2001) was mainly arena's as they tried to make up all the ground they lost during the "Pop" period. And before that, when they were on the Popmart tour itself (1997-8) they did stadiums but couldn't sell them out. Because the "Pop" album was so rubbish, and the imagery and whole vibe of the band was so off the mark, they couldn't sell out either of their London shows (both at Wembley Stadium, where as they sold out four nights on the Zoo Tv tour previously). When the Popmart tour reached America things got even worse, they only sold 5,000 tickets in Miami at a huge outdoor stadium that would probably have held 60,000. The band had major crisis meetings and lost huge amounts of money on that tour.

As for the Rolling Stones, I meant it has got ridiculous now, was not earlier on. The band existed properly until the late-70's I would say, possibly the early-80's. After that the band basically broke-up after each tour and werent sure whether they would reform again, but always did. In the meantime it was solo projects, other bands, etc. The death of Ian Stewart (known as "the sixth Stone" in 1985 rocked them to their foundations and Mick and Keith had major problems for years after that. They were going to tour following the "Dirty Work" album in 1986 but didn't. They then reformed in 1989. People could draw a line from when they started in 1962 and say they've been together ever since, in a manor of speaking, they pop up every few years with a tour. They dont do albums anymore but did until about the late-1990's.

The Stones have been an AOR band since that late-70's/early-80's period. They were a proper band before that. Since, it has been really all about the money and they just go through the motions on stage. There is no integrity or passion about what they do. Keith Richards was in a band called "The X-Pensive Wino's" in the 1990's and he said it was such a priviledge to play with them because it "was just like the Stones in the early days". He said "no one respects anyone unless they play well". Unlike the Stones since the early 1980's where you do a show, leave the stage without talking to each other, and head back to the hotel with your lady.

max_tranmere wrote:

> They have also released sub-standard stuff aswell. I fear things could go tits up with this new phase of the band.

Depends how you see it. Their last two albums (All that you can't' & How to Dismantle') were both big sellers but stuck firmly to their own blueprint. A standard tactic for many big acts it maybe, but they were in danger of commidifying themselves musically - simply churning out U2 albums, if you like.

So a change of tack now is quite welcome. They've always done well out of either reinvention or upping their own ante, whereas complacency has seen them come badly unstuck (Pop & Rattle and Hum, say). But for many it's this screw up/comeback ability that keeps them interesting perhaps.

They do get all sorts of stick, but you always keep an eye out for what they're up to next, and in the big league there's very few you can say that about.

Last Word, I agree with what you say. It does keep the fans interested that they can reinvent themselves and get over errors that they make. After Rattle & Hum we of course had Achtung Baby. I remember Bono said on the eve of the release of Achtung Baby: "if people didn't like our last album they wont like what's coming". This was quite a daring, courageous, statement. It would likely have finished the band for good if the fan base didn't like two albums in a row. He was betting his life that people would like the next one. People really did like Achtung Baby. Over 17 years after it was released I still listen to it and it still sounds like nothing I've ever heard before or since.

As for the "Pop" period, that was a gutsy thing to do. The album was the first album NOT produced by Brian Eno/Daniel Lanois since 1983's "War" album. After 14 years they changed producers. Howie B produced Pop and it has such a techno-y/dance-y feel to it that you can hardly tell on some of the songs where the guitars are. The guitars sound like synthesisers on many of the songs on Pop. The album was a mess, but there are two or three ok tracks on there. Funnily enough Brian Eno praised U2's decision to go with Howie B for that album saying they showed real courage to change tact like that, and how it was something few big bands would have had the guts to do. I think Eno was right. U2 should be commended for that. The risk didn't work but they should be praised for having the guts to take the risk.

Mmm..the new single is weak but please don't diss U2.They are master musicians and nice guys.If they tour the venues will sell out the same day.Their back catalogue and playlists guarantee it.As for tax, good luck to'em.The Irish govt.have made millions out of them already!

I liked The Sweetest Thing.

One was a Imagine derivative.

Do I know her? Does she have a websitezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz? etc