Now you sound like the world's many U2-haters -- "Bono is SO egotistical!" Yes, the Beatles had egos, as George Harrison freely admits in the Beatles' Anthology video. So what? Every rock group we've ever heard of has egos. You don't make it to the top without it.
No, no, no. Not like the U2 haters. First, where are the numerous comments about Bono being an asshole like we had with John? The "Did Bono Really say This" thread is a prime example. No one has been able to come up with anything more than 2nd or 3rd hand rumor or innuendo regarding Bono being an egotistical prick in person. At some point, you have to get out of the subjective and get objective. What do the U2 haters "Bono is so egotistical" have to go on? Really, its a serious question. Unless the definition of egotistical has changed, then they are basing it on their personal dislike of Bono and his political activism. I have only ever heard Bono criticized by the far left who resent the fact that he is a capitalist and outspoken about it, or the American right who view him as a liberal Reagan detractor and "Africa lover who should just shut up and sing I Will Follow like we fuckin want, like my boy from the clubs back in 1980!" I know a guy just like this- hates the One, Walk On Burma shit and wants U2 to shut up and play Seconds. Of course, I have to remind him that U2 were much more political in 1983 when he loved them than they are now, but just a blank stare.
I go on the above diversion to illustrate how dumb most of the U2 haters these days are. All of their arguments break down after one follow up question. You ask the lefties what good any system other than capitalism has ever done, and you ask the righties(most of whom loved U2 before Bono started helping those black people and hanging with the Clintons) if they had the same problem with the overt politics of the 1983-87 time period.
They have nothing to go on. I do. The Beatles simply could not keep their individual egos in check to save the band. Nothing false about that.
Of course, U2 and the Beatles and every other famous rock group has egos. The big difference with U2 is, and it is spoken to very often, is that one person's ego is never allowed to overcome the goals they have as a band. With the Beatles, everyone's ego, especially John's, was more important than staying together as a band.
However, you still can't discount insecurity here. Bono and Larry especially had it tough growing up, had difficult things to deal with in life, Edge and Adam later in life. Bono has said something to the effect of "how insecure must I be to require 20,000 screaming fans every night in order to be satisfied." That drives a lot of bands, in addition to ego.
There is a lot more to base any egomaniacal claims against Beatles members on than there is claims against U2's members. Since when is staying away from drugs, being a good family person, doing countless good for others in the world and using your fame to shine light on the people who are never heard egotistical?
I usually quite respect your posts, but you're going off the deep-end here. Never in my life have I heard anyone (okay, maybe Justin Bieber fans) say that The Beatles invented rock'n'roll -- a plainly idiotic statement. And even if someone did say that, it's not The Beatles' fault, is it? The Beatles themselves have relentlessly praised their rock'n'roll forefathers of the 1950s -- indeed, Paul McCartney owns Buddy Holly's catalogue and has produced biographies of him.
I usually quite respect your posts here as well. I think the only issue I have ever had with you is a slight tendency to put words in peoples mouths. You've done it here.
I wasn't talking about the Beatles members themselves, and I never said its their fault. I have no doubt that McCartney and everyone else know and respect very much their predecessors. Never doubted that, never claimed to doubt that.
I was talking about a mentality- that the Beatles can do no wrong, that they were the original rock group, the group to which all must aspire, etc. If you have never seen this mindset outside of Justin Bieber fans, then frankly you haven't been looking for it.
Again, you come off like a "U2 sucks because they're popular!" type here.
In your opinion. However, this opinion is going to be swept aside by the eternal court of history.
We'll wait and see.
Neither of us know for sure.
History is a funny thing- perceptions change over time. Many of the "greats" are judged to be not so great, many of the "duds" are judged to be brilliant and many of the "goods" or "greats" are judged to be even greater. Just ask Harry Truman.
I would say that U2 and the Beatles have equal chances of being judged by history as the "greatest band ever" when all is said and done. Say in 20 or 30 years.
It is a fact that the Beatles stayed together putting out great out put for far, far less time than U2. Thats what I was talking about with sustainably great.
This is the 2nd time in your post that you've judged The Beatles for breaking up too early. Just because U2 have been together since the stone age doesn't necessarily mean that's ideal for every group. IMO, The Beatles broke up at the natural and exactly correct time. Had they stayed together longer, their legacy would certainly have been 'tainted' (if such things are important).
No argument at all here regarding the natural and correct time. No argument at all that being together forever does not work for every band.
I am just saying that a big influence in their break up was ego and disagreements and a desire for pushing personal priorities over the priorities of the band. Paul and John were at each other's throats big time. Not saying that was right or wrong or judging in any way. It just is.
Yes, he briefly became "St.John" -- esp.in the American media -- in the decade or so after his death. Time balances things out, however, and that excessive 80s' perspective is more in balance now. Lennon himself would have been horrified by his own deification.
Well, that's false. Lennon was the spiritual leader of the Beatles in the early years. Paul took over a bit more around 1966, and yes, in 1969 (Let It Be, Abbey Road), Paul was somewhat running the show, much to the disgust of George and Ringo. Once that power-balance of the chief Beatles was thrown off, the band was over. But to suggest that Paul carried them is ridiculous. It was Lennon's band to begin with, Lennon who sang lead on most of the early hits that broke them, and Lennon was was -- as the others all acknowledged in the early days -- the leader.
Maybe I went a bit far, but I still think Paul had the best songwriting abilities and the best vocals. He can scream like very few can even today.
I was just blown away by that show I saw last yr and again, you'll have to forgive me as I obviously was never able to see John.
I don't mean to have a personal war or discussion here, the respect you have for my posts is returned in my respect for your posts. Rest assured of that.
I gave a disclaimer that I will repeat again for good measure: I am not old enough to remember, nor do I know anywhere near as much about the Beatles as many, many others.
This is undoubtedly true.
Yes.
Those big PA stacks hanging up on the claw and the relay towers to blow out crystal clear sound and that big video screen to project the band to us delay free from anywhere in the venue are things we most certainly take for granted today! Same with IEM's and other timing equipment/technology with the performers themselves.
Not luxuries the Beatles or the Stones had when they started doing big venues in the 1960s.
