U2 vs Linkin Park vs Rolling Stones

[Esperante]

Which one do I hate the least you mean.

Some of U2's earlier stuff is alright, most of their new stuff is dross, Linkin Park are a whiny bunch of brats, I just don't like the Rolling Stones.

AMEN.

Linkin Park is some of the most disgusting filth of an exception for music I've ever heard. Oh wait, there's always Green Day...Goddamn hippocrits...

U2 was great up until about 1987. Sunday Bloody Sunday, Where The Streets Have No Name....there modern stuff is...well.............

The Rolling Stones are the safe bets. I don't like the Rolling Stones, but just a few come to mind as being great. Jumping Jack Flash is my only favourite of theirs. But at least the Stones have been churning out good music consistantly for the past 30 years...

[GT F1]

1. Linkin Park- 2 songs I like.
2. U2- 1 Song I like.
3. Rolling-Stones- Never heard any songs of it.

[Esperante]

3. Rolling-Stones- Never heard any songs of it.

You must've been born and raised in a cave.

[CHEESE-TACULAR]

is this LP with or without Jay-Z?

[Esperante]

is this LP with or without Jay-Z?

What's the difference?

[zeppelin]

I'm guessing LP sans Jay-Z (which is when it hits an all new level of horrible). My opinion:

Linkin Park: Horrible
U2: Good in their early days, plain irritating now
Rolling Stones: Bland unoffensive music, not very partial to them... interesting story though, Keith Richards and the drummer were staying at the Lake Louise hotel when I was there. I was 2 feet from the drummer in a shop, and didn't even realize it was him till I was told afterwards, oh well...

[CHEESE-TACULAR]

What's the difference?

i think theyre better when he's in there too

[6'bore]

Out of the 3, I would say U2, although I'm not a big fan of any of them.

Linkin Park I used to like but now I don't.

Rolling Stones I have never liked.

U2 are always so neutral so they are just easy listening.

[matek]

thats an insult having linkin park in the same pole as these two legendry groups!!!


seen them both rolling stones at wembley bout 6 years ago was mentle the bridge folded out to a platfrom in the middle where i was standing blew me away seriously what an experience.

U2 in poland was also amazing mate the emotion the atmosphere they were amazing.

saw a video of when they were in canada or sumwhere bono takes a girls from the crowd and lyes down with her and sings with her mate it looked amazing

from what ive heard though lately rolling stones have lost it mates went a while ago and said it wernt as good , so at the mo it has to be U2

[Sackalack GT]

I like all three bands, so don't get me wrong here. U2 and the Stones are huge bands with long histories, but LP is also extremely popular (their first album was the best selling album of the year it was released, and the collaboration with Jay-Z is a work of brilliance) and it could be said that all the other groups have on them is age. U2 and the Stones definitely reached the pinnacles of their respective careers years ago, and LP has only been around for a few years.


And on a more opinionated note, as much as I love U2 the music gets old - much of it begins to sound the same. And come on, they've got some pretty large egos, Bono was quoted as saying, "I don't know why, but we always had this belief that there was something sacred about our music, that it was almost holy." Sure, the guy is a great humanitarian and a voice for the troubles of the world, but he sounds like an @$$hole when it comes to their music.

[Esperante]

LP is also extremely popular

That makes their music good?

(their first album was the best selling album of the year it was released, and the collaboration with Jay-Z is a work of brilliance)

You want brilliant? Try 'Animals' by Pink Floyd or 'Close to the Edge' by Yes. Linkin Park is just packaging popular guitar riffs over and over and calling it brilliant. Other bands concentrate on details like transitions and time signature.

and it could be said that all the other groups have on them is age.

And talent.

U2 and the Stones definitely reached the pinnacles of their respective careers years ago, and LP has only been around for a few years.

We aren't judging these bands by where they are now, and we aren't judging them by when the peak of their careers where. We're judging them by their writing, their performance, their musical talent, their on stage shows.

But you're entitled to your own complete opinion, however unjustified it is. I'm sorry, just everything you argued holds no water.

[Sackalack GT]

See, when a band is popular, that means that a lot of people like their music, and usually the best way to judge the quality of something is to see if people like it. So unfortunately, LP has been judged to be "good" by a large number of people. Sorry, but you alone don't get to decide that a band sucks. That's called...what? An opinion. And if mine is unjustified, then yours is as well.
I knew this was coming, you can't compare three bands like U2, the Stones, and LP. They're different types of music and they appeal to different groups of people.

[Esperante]

See, when a band is popular, that means that a lot of people like their music, and usually the best way to judge the quality of something is to see if people like it.

That is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. I bet you've never even heard of any of Genesis' contributions to music. Possibly Frank Zappa. Or even the Mars Volta. Today all one has to do to become popular is come up with a catchy guitar lick and package it with trendy band members and music videos. But it has to be less than 3 minutes long.

So unfortunately, LP has been judged to be "good" by a large number of people. Sorry, but you alone don't get to decide that a band sucks.

Actually, I know more people that dislike Linkin Park than prefer it. Then, by your logic, Linkin Park sucks.
Money hungry managers of executive record labels control what goes on the radio today. They realize that the target audience of people are teenagers that like a certain style of music. Then, they only sign bands that fit that category of music, leaving other bands to hope for indie labels.

That's called...what? An opinion. And if mine is unjustified, then yours is as well.

Your opinion of music is only built from what CEO's for big music labels like Sony or Virgin produce. Your opinion is that good music must be popular and that bad music must be unpopular. Which is utterly ridiculous. On top of that, from what you've said I think it's safe to say that you haven't been exposed to as many styles of music and bands as the average music enthusiast should.

I knew this was coming, you can't compare three bands like U2, the Stones, and LP. They're different types of music and they appeal to different groups of people.

I agree on that bit.

[The_Canuck]

some of LPs songs are good plus the do great remixs. Enjoy the Silence and Dust in The Wind are 2 they did that actually really surprised me. also heres a band Mike shinoda started( i think, still dont know all the info on the band) http://www.fortminor.com/base.html

[Esperante]

They did not write 'Dust In The Wind.'