The Rolling Stones vs. U2. Mick vs. Bono. Keef vs. the Edge.
Who is the world's greatest rock 'n' roll band? Baby boomers might argue the Stones. Gen Xers might advocate for U2.
Last week, this baby boomer had the rare opportunity to see these iconic bands on back-to-back nights: the Stones on Tuesday in Milwaukee, U2 on Wednesday in Chicago.
How were the shows? Outstanding. Was one better? Yes. Which band was the greatest? I'll answer that later. First, impressions and experiences.
Just given their ages, the four Stones, 68 to 74, have to be in the autumn of their 53-year career. U2, a quartet ages 53 to 55, are in midcareer — year 39, to be exact — sort of like the Stones in the mid-1980s. U2 is coming off two slow-selling, hits-devoid albums, the latter of which, "Songs of Innocence," resulted in bad karma because it was sent for free last year to hundreds of millions of iTunes users, some of whom saw it as unwanted spam.
Songs from the new album, which was produced by trendy hitmakers including Danger Mouse and Ryan Tedder, are the focus of U2's current Innocence and Experience Tour. The Stones, by contrast, haven't released a studio album of new material since 2005 and their ZIP Code Tour is a corny euphemism for Just Another Greatest Hits Tour.
Although both bands are onstage for about 2 hours and 10 minutes, the shows are as different as Mick Jagger, the athletic businessman extraordinaire, and Bono, the stocky, soul-searching activist. The Stones were inspired by American blues, U2 by American idealism.
Sir Mick and the Stones just want to have fun — like a bunch of carefree but handsomely paid guys gigging in a rock club. Seeing them at the Marcus Amphitheater (the smallest venue on their stadium tour) was almost like seeing them in a large club. The stage was smaller than at Minneapolis' TCF Bank Stadium, the runway shorter. From the 13th row, I had little sense of the 25,000 people behind me.