The 2023 Talku2 Best Act Tournament - The Final

The Final

Probably a formality - as the whole competition was, but idea was to have a bit of fun, give us something to talk about and there was at least a bit of jeopardy around who would make final with U2 and the individual match ups made for some potentially interesting comparisons.

As it turns out it is the Stones who have progressed through with the favourites.

U2 v The Rolling Stones

Routes to the final.

U2:

1st Rd - The Smiths 2-28 U2
2nd Rd - Bob Dylan 3-25 U2
Q/F - David Bowie 3-24 U2
S/F - The Beatles 5-22 U2

The Rolling Stones:

2nd Rd - The Rolling Stones 21-6 Smashing Pumpkins
Q/F - Jimi Hendrix 8-18 The Rolling Stones
S/F - The Rolling Stones 17-10 Led Zeppelin

5 days to vote - same as rest of competition....

The Rolling Stones.

This one might end closer than the previous rounds for U2

Something like 19-10

I have over last couple of years grown to appreciate how good the Stones at their peak were....

And i feel that they are or were the better live act too in reality - regardless of the "u2 are the best live act in world" myth (well it is a myth in my book) - u2 were of course very good live at their best, and they produced in zooropa and popmart some of the best "shows" and i use the phrase shows deliberately - but the actual musicianship, the actual craft of playing a live show solely based on the music - they weren't ever IMO as good as the hype said.

The Stones were "show" heavy too - but looking back they had more actual musical integrity, from a pure playing perspective IMHO.

I'd have voted u2 in a heartbeat at one time - and let's face it neither band have made a record that is any real cop for decades - but both can point to a good 15-20 years where they put out pretty formidable cannons.

Ultimately it boils down for me to do those 3 90's records for u2 top what i feel about the Stones golden period - the answer is likely yes - but i find it hard to separate my love for those records and what that band were and what they meant to me then and what they have become and how i feel about that.

I have over last couple of years grown to appreciate how good the Stones at their peak were....

And i feel that they are or were the better live act too in reality - regardless of the "u2 are the best live act in world" myth (well it is a myth in my book) - u2 were of course very good live at their best, and they produced in zooropa and popmart some of the best "shows" and i use the phrase shows deliberately - but the actual musicianship, the actual craft of playing a live show solely based on the music - they weren't ever IMO as good as the hype said.

The Stones were "show" heavy too - but looking back they had more actual musical integrity, from a pure playing perspective IMHO.

I'd have voted u2 in a heartbeat at one time - and let's face it neither band have made a record that is any real cop for decades - but both can point to a good 15-20 years where they put out pretty formidable cannons.

Ultimately it boils down for me to do those 3 90's records for u2 top what i feel about the Stones golden period - the answer is likely yes - but i find it hard to separate my love for those records and what that band were and what they meant to me then and what they have become and how i feel about that.

The run of albums from WAR to Zooropa is unmatched by the Stones. That’s where they clinch it for me.

One half of my Mount Rushmore bands right here.  Came close to voting for The Stones almost to the same extent that I could have voted for The Beatles during the previous round.  Alas, "close"...

Quote from: an tha on March 26, 2023, 12:01:40 PM

I have over last couple of years grown to appreciate how good the Stones at their peak were....

And i feel that they are or were the better live act too in reality - regardless of the "u2 are the best live act in world" myth (well it is a myth in my book) - u2 were of course very good live at their best, and they produced in zooropa and popmart some of the best "shows" and i use the phrase shows deliberately - but the actual musicianship, the actual craft of playing a live show solely based on the music - they weren't ever IMO as good as the hype said.

The Stones were "show" heavy too - but looking back they had more actual musical integrity, from a pure playing perspective IMHO.

I'd have voted u2 in a heartbeat at one time - and let's face it neither band have made a record that is any real cop for decades - but both can point to a good 15-20 years where they put out pretty formidable cannons.

Ultimately it boils down for me to do those 3 90's records for u2 top what i feel about the Stones golden period - the answer is likely yes - but i find it hard to separate my love for those records and what that band were and what they meant to me then and what they have become and how i feel about that.

The run of albums from WAR to Zooropa is unmatched by the Stones. That’s where they clinch it for me.

Full kudos for cleverly shoehorning your love of war into the discourse, monsieur - admirable dedication to the cause and skillfully done.

Quote from: MPare1966 on March 26, 2023, 12:17:31 PM

Quote from: an tha on March 26, 2023, 12:01:40 PM

I have over last couple of years grown to appreciate how good the Stones at their peak were....

And i feel that they are or were the better live act too in reality - regardless of the "u2 are the best live act in world" myth (well it is a myth in my book) - u2 were of course very good live at their best, and they produced in zooropa and popmart some of the best "shows" and i use the phrase shows deliberately - but the actual musicianship, the actual craft of playing a live show solely based on the music - they weren't ever IMO as good as the hype said.

The Stones were "show" heavy too - but looking back they had more actual musical integrity, from a pure playing perspective IMHO.

I'd have voted u2 in a heartbeat at one time - and let's face it neither band have made a record that is any real cop for decades - but both can point to a good 15-20 years where they put out pretty formidable cannons.

Ultimately it boils down for me to do those 3 90's records for u2 top what i feel about the Stones golden period - the answer is likely yes - but i find it hard to separate my love for those records and what that band were and what they meant to me then and what they have become and how i feel about that.

The run of albums from WAR to Zooropa is unmatched by the Stones. That’s where they clinch it for me.

Full kudos for cleverly shoehorning your love of war into the discourse, monsieur - admirable dedication to the cause and skillfully done.

That obvious? 

Quote from: an tha on March 26, 2023, 12:48:59 PM

Quote from: MPare1966 on March 26, 2023, 12:17:31 PM

Quote from: an tha on March 26, 2023, 12:01:40 PM

I have over last couple of years grown to appreciate how good the Stones at their peak were....

And i feel that they are or were the better live act too in reality - regardless of the "u2 are the best live act in world" myth (well it is a myth in my book) - u2 were of course very good live at their best, and they produced in zooropa and popmart some of the best "shows" and i use the phrase shows deliberately - but the actual musicianship, the actual craft of playing a live show solely based on the music - they weren't ever IMO as good as the hype said.

The Stones were "show" heavy too - but looking back they had more actual musical integrity, from a pure playing perspective IMHO.

I'd have voted u2 in a heartbeat at one time - and let's face it neither band have made a record that is any real cop for decades - but both can point to a good 15-20 years where they put out pretty formidable cannons.

Ultimately it boils down for me to do those 3 90's records for u2 top what i feel about the Stones golden period - the answer is likely yes - but i find it hard to separate my love for those records and what that band were and what they meant to me then and what they have become and how i feel about that.

The run of albums from WAR to Zooropa is unmatched by the Stones. That’s where they clinch it for me.

Full kudos for cleverly shoehorning your love of war into the discourse, monsieur - admirable dedication to the cause and skillfully done.

That obvious? 

As obvious as Olly Obvious from Obvious Street, Obviousville....

But still beautifully crafted!

For me, there were better bands who could have competed with U2 in the final. I know this forum will be biased towards U2 - that's the nature of fansites of course. But I never loved the stones as I do Zeppelin, Queen or the back half of the Beatles catalogue. As mPare says, there's barely a band on the planet who can say they have a run of records like WAR-UABRS-UF-JT-R&H-AB-Zooropa all within a decade of each other. Sadly, that decade is worth as much as all their other music combined, but it was a great run, and ZooTV was the greatest live show in history.

Quote from: an tha on March 26, 2023, 12:01:40 PM

I have over last couple of years grown to appreciate how good the Stones at their peak were....

And i feel that they are or were the better live act too in reality - regardless of the "u2 are the best live act in world" myth (well it is a myth in my book) - u2 were of course very good live at their best, and they produced in zooropa and popmart some of the best "shows" and i use the phrase shows deliberately - but the actual musicianship, the actual craft of playing a live show solely based on the music - they weren't ever IMO as good as the hype said.

The Stones were "show" heavy too - but looking back they had more actual musical integrity, from a pure playing perspective IMHO.

I'd have voted u2 in a heartbeat at one time - and let's face it neither band have made a record that is any real cop for decades - but both can point to a good 15-20 years where they put out pretty formidable cannons.

Ultimately it boils down for me to do those 3 90's records for u2 top what i feel about the Stones golden period - the answer is likely yes - but i find it hard to separate my love for those records and what that band were and what they meant to me then and what they have become and how i feel about that.

The run of albums from WAR to Zooropa is unmatched by the Stones. That’s where they clinch it for me.

The run of albums from TUF to POP is unmatched by anyone,  with the exception of maybe Passengers.   

Quote from: MPare1966 on March 26, 2023, 12:17:31 PM

Quote from: an tha on March 26, 2023, 12:01:40 PM

I have over last couple of years grown to appreciate how good the Stones at their peak were....

And i feel that they are or were the better live act too in reality - regardless of the "u2 are the best live act in world" myth (well it is a myth in my book) - u2 were of course very good live at their best, and they produced in zooropa and popmart some of the best "shows" and i use the phrase shows deliberately - but the actual musicianship, the actual craft of playing a live show solely based on the music - they weren't ever IMO as good as the hype said.

The Stones were "show" heavy too - but looking back they had more actual musical integrity, from a pure playing perspective IMHO.

I'd have voted u2 in a heartbeat at one time - and let's face it neither band have made a record that is any real cop for decades - but both can point to a good 15-20 years where they put out pretty formidable cannons.

Ultimately it boils down for me to do those 3 90's records for u2 top what i feel about the Stones golden period - the answer is likely yes - but i find it hard to separate my love for those records and what that band were and what they meant to me then and what they have become and how i feel about that.

The run of albums from WAR to Zooropa is unmatched by the Stones. That’s where they clinch it for me.

The run of albums from TUF to POP is unmatched by anyone,  with the exception of maybe Passengers.   

Beggars Banquet through to Tattoo You.

Quote from: Phoenix Rising on March 26, 2023, 01:49:12 PM

Quote from: MPare1966 on March 26, 2023, 12:17:31 PM

Quote from: an tha on March 26, 2023, 12:01:40 PM

I have over last couple of years grown to appreciate how good the Stones at their peak were....

And i feel that they are or were the better live act too in reality - regardless of the "u2 are the best live act in world" myth (well it is a myth in my book) - u2 were of course very good live at their best, and they produced in zooropa and popmart some of the best "shows" and i use the phrase shows deliberately - but the actual musicianship, the actual craft of playing a live show solely based on the music - they weren't ever IMO as good as the hype said.

The Stones were "show" heavy too - but looking back they had more actual musical integrity, from a pure playing perspective IMHO.

I'd have voted u2 in a heartbeat at one time - and let's face it neither band have made a record that is any real cop for decades - but both can point to a good 15-20 years where they put out pretty formidable cannons.

Ultimately it boils down for me to do those 3 90's records for u2 top what i feel about the Stones golden period - the answer is likely yes - but i find it hard to separate my love for those records and what that band were and what they meant to me then and what they have become and how i feel about that.

The run of albums from WAR to Zooropa is unmatched by the Stones. That’s where they clinch it for me.

The run of albums from TUF to POP is unmatched by anyone,  with the exception of maybe Passengers.   

Beggars Banquet through to Tattoo You.

A better argument would be BB through to Some Girls.

I would take U2 from 2000 to the present over the entire Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who, Eagles, and Radiohead
catalogs combined.

I would take U2 from 2000 to the present over the entire Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who, Eagles, and Radiohead
catalogs combined.

Yeah but you're a one off, wons.