BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
NKOTB ftw
thread
Just like the hill before him; this argument is won. Do your research.
thread
Just like the hill before him; this argument is won. Do your research.
Is Hollow even a U2 "fan"?
Only redhill can answer that, well now that BMP has relinquished his throne.
Honestly, some days HI I find to be very sincere, others not so much, he'll just semantic or dodge an argument to death just for the sake of it.
Well, if I weren't a fan, I sure as Hell wouldn't go to message board that's inspired by them and rail against them. Certainly there are more positive things to do in life and more productive ways to channel creativity.
People here, including me, criticise U2 all the time. That's part of being a fan, and there's nothing wrong with it. But the criticism should come from a rational place (and frankly as a fan a place of love), and that place doesn't include "Smashing Pumpkins is bigger than U2" or whatever the hell redhill was arguing (I honestly can't even remember now).
As laz said, there is a reasonable debate to be had here regarding U2's popularity vs. their contemporaries, and U2's place in history. But this ain't it. Overstating U2's "bigness" is fanboyish, but grossly understating it is just obtuse.
The entire argument about the "biggest" band is rooted in semantics. Unless someone wants to offer an objective definition of what that entails, everyone involved in the conversation was arguing semantics.
And honestly why is it so important that U2 be acknowledged as the biggest or most tenured band on the planet? Does that recognition really contribute to or detract from anyone's enjoyment of the music?
That list is embarrassing, and you should be embarrassed for even posting it. I'm embarrassed for you.
None of those bands are as big as U2...and none of them, at their height, were ever bigger than U2 post 1987. REM, at the height of their popularity (Green or Automatic) weren't as big as U2 at their Pop low point. Same goes for Coldplay. Radiohead? LOL.
And yes, there's more to defining how big a band is than record sales.
NKOTB ftw
thread
Just like the hill before him; this argument is won. Do your research.
A band that sold 17 million copies can't be considered among the biggest bands? Interesting...
How about 30 million? (Appetite for Destruction)
Or 14 million (combined US sales for Use You Illusion)
It's absurd that saying that U2 haven't been unquestionably the biggest band is construed as shutting in tbem or held as evidence against being a fan. There's a world beyond U2, folks.
Not what I was saying, but nice try
NKOTB is not a fucking band. Period.
And saying that is not a diss, because neither is New Edition or Boys II Men, who I love and are a gazillion times better.
They are a GROUP...a quintet, if you will. Big difference.
Carry on.
Smashmouth "All Star 20th Anniversary Tour" should be hot.
Smashmouth! Forgot about them! They had a much bigger footprint in the late 90s than U2! Same with Sugar Ray. They were pretty good!
But in all seriousness, talking about any living band being bigger than the Rolling Stones is foolishness. They're among the most important people of the 20th century. They transcend "being a band."
NKOTB is not a fucking band. Period.
And saying that is not a diss, because neither is New Edition or Boys II Men, who I love and are a gazillion times better.
They are a GROUP...a quintet, if you will. Big difference.
Carry on.
it seemed as though you were dismissing the notion that NKOTB's popularity was comparable to U2's during the late 80s. The demographics were surely different (among kids, my cohort, there was no competition!).
Hell, the Strokes were more culturally important than U2 in the early 00s. They didn't sell the records or play the gigs but they changed music (for the worse, but still...).
But in all seriousness, talking about any living band being bigger than the Rolling Stones is foolishness. They're among the most important people of the 20th century. They transcend "being a band."
I would still argue that the Stones are more relevant than U2. No one hates the Stones. A lot of people hate U2. Definitely think U2 are (by a fair way) the better band, and they've put out extremely good music for a much longer period of time than the Stones - and that's really admirable, but outside of us and maybe one or two critics, no one gives a shit.
The Stones may have long ago gone the dinosaur route but it's paid off for them handsomely
Wow, this sounds like Bono, or the band's manager. "look gents, there's no such thing as bad press. sure most people hate me because yeah I am the most annoying man alive, but that just proves we're relevant. hey you - Ryan Tedder - get back to work!!!"The only argument I'd have there is that relevance could technically include bad press too. If U2 sparks more opinions (positive or negative) one could argue that U2 is more relevant.
Personally I'd put them around the same.