no, its not.

to say u2 and aerosmith are similar in that they both hav sucked over the past ten years as compared to earlier in their careers is wrong. u2 has never "sucked", while aerosmith has always "sucked".

and to say they are similar in that they both hav "some" good songs [implying few of the songs from their catalogue are "good"] is wrong. even if you can appreciate anything aerosmith has done, u2 has more than doubled them in hits in their careers and in hit albums as well. u2 has been one of, if not the, biggest band in the world since 1987 and aerosmith has never come close.

commercially, critically, artistically, relevantly, recognizably, etc. there is no comparrison to be had between u2 and aerosmith. the only thing you could say really is that they are both bands who have had carreers spanning roughly the same time period- but that is meaningless.

U2 hasn't put out a 'bad' album yet. Some consider Zooropa an 'average' album, but they have been surprisingly consistent and I was always amazed on how little filler you will find on any of their albums. Each song has it's merits. I don't think there's a U2 song that I would say is horrible. Some I don't care for, but that's about it.

I don't see Aerosmith as a valid comparison. They have been much more commercial and homogenuous musically, than U2. As well, Aerosmith has been playing the same style of music their entire career, without much deviation. U2, on the other hand, has definitely evolved their sound over the years.

Zooropa won the Grammy for Best Alternative Album. iknow people dont think much of The Grammys, but still....

this is what I said...

"I agree with this. I think they resemble Aerosmith, the early stuff was awesome and harder but they just went to shit especially in the last 10 years. Overall I would say they are decent with some great songs (like aerosmith). I see the appeal they have though."

that is my opinion. I said they resemble Aerosmith (to me) in that both of the bands I think were good at one point EARLY IN THEIR CAREERS (this was the comparison). Now IN MY OPINION I think that both bands have gone terribly downhill. I don't care for either of them anymore.

I never said they compared "commercially, critically, artistically, relevantly, recognizably, etc."

You cannot deny that both groups have become more pop oriented as their careers have progressed.

I still disagree, U2's last album was pretty damn good. There's no doubt that their early material is much more fresh, innovative, and better overall, BUT i've yet to see them 'go to shit', at least in the manner Aerosmith has.

I agree that U2 has never put out a bad album.

if theyve ever put out anything remotely close to a "bad" album, which they havnt, but if itd be October- their second album.

irealize that you are only stating your opinion, maiden [to takeit as anything more would be ridiculous]. im merely informing you that you opinion is wrong.

and ican deny that both bands hav become more pop oriented. yes, u2 delved into pop in their career, but aerosmith hasnt delved into anything but shite rock music. bet that wasnt the denial you were expecting, eh?

im a big fan of earlier U2...up to about Achtung Baby, and then i liekd their music less and less with each album that came out after that. thats just my POV, but to me, they are like 2 different bands. i LOVE early u2, ONE is probably my fav song of all time, but i cant stand alot of stuff off of all that you can't leave behind. it makes me ashamed to be a U2 fan.

Wow, what is it that people hate so much about All That You Can't Leave Behind? Is it just because they're no longer in their 20s and have something to say besides "sex sex drugs drugs etc. etc."? Robby, I'm fairly sure that's not your reason (since you were a fan of earlier U2), but I wonder if that's the reason for a lot of other people...

I don't know. You'd figure that a band around as long as they have been, to put out a pretty solid, and actually very enjoyable album as "All That You Can't" people would be happy.