U2 Mirrors The Beatles..... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-28-2005, 07:26 AM   #16
Refugee
 
bsp77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,956
Local Time: 08:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bathiu


That's only because The Beatles didn't have any competition back then...
...just look with how many good, or even great bands U2 had to... and still have to "fight".
How many of them are gone, how many of them are no longer important, how many new bands apear and disapear between U2 albums... R.E.M. Oasis, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Guns&Roses, Rage Against TM, Red Hot CP, all bands that are playing as "opening acts" for U2 in Europe... and it's just the beggining of the list.
Who was there in the time of the Beatles? No one.
You are completely out of touch with what artists were huge in the 60's. I wasn't alive then either but seriously there were so many bands around then that will be remembered forever, much more so than can be said for the last 25 years. Zwervers2 only cracked the iceberg in his list of bands that the Beatles had to compete with, particularly around 1967-1970.
__________________

__________________
bsp77 is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 07:56 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
zwervers2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 4,158
Local Time: 04:51 PM
since when did bands REM, Guns & Roses and Nirvana open for U2
and especialy U2 in europe anyway..Can't recall any of this...

__________________

__________________
zwervers2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 09:03 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Rafiennes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,062
Local Time: 09:51 AM
(keep in mind, some of this is based on fact, some on theory, and the rest on personal opinion, so hold the flames – if something angers you, talk a walk, have a cream soda and calm the f*ck down)

As a band, a collective, as a group of musicians who play well together and write together, U2 wins, hands down.

But, in the history books, The Beatles will always be top of the game simply because they were the firsts in a lot of areas. They broke the ground, laid down the foundation, and other bands have been building on top of it. That’s not to say that some of the extensions of this structure we call Rock and Roll haven’t been amazing. The U2 wing, The Led Zeppelin wing, The Rolling Stones wing, The Pink Floyd (not one of my favorites, but an influential band nonetheless), these are all incredible places to visit, no doubt about that.

Hell, The Beatles may even be responsible for the early, microscopic genesis for a lot of today’s music.

• The Rock/Blues combo? I Wanna Be Your Man (The Stones wouldn’t have the success they had at that stage in their career had it not been for the help of Lennon and McCartney and the song “I Wanna Be Your Man”. They later, brilliantly carried that rock/blues combo on to great heights)

• The Rock/Pop combo? I Saw Her Standing There, A Hard Day’s Night

• Heavy Metal? Helter Skelter.

• Industrial? Everybody’s Got Something To Hide… (The ‘Come On, Come On’ part)

• The shifting of tempos and moods in a song (ala Radiohead) Happiness Is A Warm Gun.

• Extending the radio play time of a song- going from 2/3 minutes to whatever the hell they wanted? Hey Jude.

• The cut-open vein honesty in a rock/pop song? In My Life., Help, For No One.

They changed the way the studio was worked by musicians to make an album (although credit also has to go to Brian Wilson, whose mad genius was responsible for pushing McCartney for pushing The Beatles in to making Sgt. Pepper’s)

As far as competition for the Beatles goes? The Stones, well, we talked about that already. The Animals? Gerry and the Pacemakers? The Zombies? Good bands with some good tunes, but all coming out of that Beatles mold (hell, some of them even wore Beatles suits in the early days) The Beach Boys were going to be the biggest rivals if Brian Wilson had finished his Smile album instead of losing it and going underground for awhile.

I think the only bands to come along that really threw a gauntlet down in what the Beatles were doing were The Who and later (although the Beatles were going their own way by this point) Led Zeppelin. These two bands were louder and bolder than The Beatles, but they were the evolution of rock music (along with Black Sabbath)

Other bands of the time like The Doors (an over-rated band with rambling music and a drunk for a lyricist) kicked at the door and made some decent dents, but I don’t think they could be considered rock-altering (maybe mind-altering).

This could go on forever but needless to say, at the end of the proverbial rock day, The U2 Wing will be big, shiny, dark and honest, with a giant mirror ball Lemon in the parking lot. They will most likely have one of the biggest structures on that Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (not the one in Cleveland but the bigger one we can’t see). But they’ll have the Beatles to thank for paving the way.

Good night, God Bless…go get that cream soda.
__________________
Rafiennes is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 09:10 AM   #19
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 235
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Well said Raf.
__________________
RobH is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 09:11 AM   #20
Refugee
 
bathiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
Posts: 2,126
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Name bands that were longer together than 1 decade, then name bands that were still important after 1 decade...
All those bands... are they REALY great?.. or are they remembered only because there were so few of them... this list of bands: 2 or 3 hit songs, classic songs... call them what you want, 2 or 3 important albums...
By this standards Spice Girls could be considered a "legendary band"... please.
Are they realy great? or is it just that they were the FIRST and had and have many followers.
In the last point U2 are not diferent from them.

U2 are together 3rd decade now, still as important as ever, have unique sound and style, unlike any other band in history they have to compete with their own followers.

How U2 will be remembered in 30 years?
And how all those bands from 60's and 70's are rememberd now? A crap-covers from crap-artists from time to time? With almost no one (almost) younger than 30 knowing about them?
Go on the street and ask anyone to name a few songs from those bands... you'd be lucky to get at least one...
Please...

In 30 years people will have (probably) more than 30 years of music and history of U2 to discover/learn/know/listen...etc

Back to The Beatles: rock%roll band, a true "boysband", few hits (few not back then, but remembered today), a movie, a couple of "first time ever" things... clear and strong political views (mostly from Lenon, right?), huge "tabloid material" from John and Yoko... first page story of Lenon's death... and not all of this is even about The Beatles or about music...

I don't see one reason to name them better than U2. Sorry, that's my opinion and I wont change it. They simply do not deserve it.
__________________
bathiu is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:05 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
zwervers2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 4,158
Local Time: 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bathiu
Name bands that were longer together than 1 decade, then name bands that were still important after 1 decade...
All those bands... are they REALY great?.. or are they remembered only because there were so few of them... this list of bands: 2 or 3 hit songs, classic songs... call them what you want, 2 or 3 important albums...
By this standards Spice Girls could be considered a "legendary band"... please.
Are they realy great? or is it just that they were the FIRST and had and have many followers.
In the last point U2 are not diferent from them.

U2 are together 3rd decade now, still as important as ever, have unique sound and style, unlike any other band in history they have to compete with their own followers.

How U2 will be remembered in 30 years?
And how all those bands from 60's and 70's are rememberd now? A crap-covers from crap-artists from time to time? With almost no one (almost) younger than 30 knowing about them?
Go on the street and ask anyone to name a few songs from those bands... you'd be lucky to get at least one...
Please...

In 30 years people will have (probably) more than 30 years of music and history of U2 to discover/learn/know/listen...etc

Back to The Beatles: rock%roll band, a true "boysband", few hits (few not back then, but remembered today), a movie, a couple of "first time ever" things... clear and strong political views (mostly from Lenon, right?), huge "tabloid material" from John and Yoko... first page story of Lenon's death... and not all of this is even about The Beatles or about music...

I don't see one reason to name them better than U2. Sorry, that's my opinion and I wont change it. They simply do not deserve it.
I'm sorry to say this but you are off on so many levels it's not even funny...to recite a few lines: A few hits remembered today by the Beatles...

EHMMMMMMMMM What the fuck ever...that's one of the funniest lines I've read here the last couple of years

and to say that bands like led zeppelin or the doors have 2 or 3 hits or classic songs is hilarious...please do yourself a favour and I'm bloody serious and pcik up some of that classic stuff led zeppelin made or some other bands from that period..You'll be amazed how uch from that time you are hearing( in a crap matter but anyways) nowadays..

On the other hand, you could be fooling us all..I sincerely hope so..

Take care and respect to all
__________________
zwervers2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:14 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
God Part III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,335
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by typhoon
The Beatles didn't have any competition? In the sixties? I think Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones could give Oasis and the Red Hot Chili Peppers a run for their money, but that's just me.

Oh, and "product artists" aren't anything new. In fact, they were the norm for a good while, and the Beatles helped break that.

I know it's cool to bash the Beatles, and there are a ton of valid ways to go about that, but you all suck at it and totally miss the point.

For example, saying that U2 is a better live band as a bullet-point for why they're better is silly when the Beatles stopped touring entirely in 1966 and went on to revolutionize the way artists used the studio when recording albums.

Saying U2 is "deeper, darker, whateverer" than the Beatles is silly when you consider that all rock music has been "standing on the shoulders of giants" and that U2 is only able to go deeper because of the ground broken by their predecessors.

And you know what, the Beatles' music still stands up incredibly well in its own right, even when you don't take any of this crap into account. "A Day In the Life," "Hey, Jude," "Something," and so forth are still amazing songs.

I don't see the point of making everything a dick-measuring contest anyway. I don't see why U2 fans are obsessed with proving that U2 is the best band in the world, ever. Frankly, they've had a remarkably diverse career and they're at the top of their own game, but they haven't done everything and, believe it or not, other bands are better than them at certain things, in certain ways.

(P.S., McCartney is a better bass player than Adam, although I bet Adam has a bigger willy. I'll give the Larry a nod over Ringo on both drumming ability and conjectured willy size, but I think Edge versus Lennon, Harrison, and Mac on guitar is a wash.)
Agree 100%

Although I don't understand...
Are you saying that Edge is better or worse than Lennon and Harrison?

Revolver is no Achtung Baby, but All That You Can't Leave Behind sure as hell isn't a White Album either.
__________________
God Part III is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:19 AM   #23
Refugee
 
The OOTS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Everything in its right place.
Posts: 1,469
Local Time: 07:51 AM
One could argue that the Beatles did more musically (evolving styles) in 8 years than U2 has done in 25 years.
__________________
The OOTS is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:20 AM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 126
Local Time: 09:51 AM
VERY interesting thread! Great points being made.

I personally have always felt Bono mirrors John Lennon in many regards, consciously or not. Bono like John Lennon is one of the most visible frontmen in the world. Both are/were dedicated passionately to causes and viewed globally as political forces unto themselves. Both donned signature glasses as their bands progressed. Both compared themselves to Jesus. John Lennon wrote the song "God" while Bono wrote the song "God Part 2." Lastly, John Lennon had a secretary named Kennedy while Bono had a secretary named Lincoln (j/k).

Also, ever notice how the cover of Boy looks somewhat like a negative of Meet the Beatles? Ever notice how the covers of Let It Be and Pop are composed of four close-up head shots of the band members? On a side note and speaking of the Rolling Stones, I've always thought the cover of Achtung Baby is set almost exactly like the cover of Exile on Main Street. Furthermore, both are considered by many to be the bands' best albums respectively. There are numerous other comparisons if you want to look further.

In the end, I think U2 was definitely influenced by the Beatles. When all is said and done, both will be put on the same pedestal as two of the most influential bands in rock history.
__________________
X-it 7 is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:22 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
God Part III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,335
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bathiu
Name bands that were longer together than 1 decade, then name bands that were still important after 1 decade...
All those bands... are they REALY great?.. or are they remembered only because there were so few of them... this list of bands: 2 or 3 hit songs, classic songs... call them what you want, 2 or 3 important albums...
By this standards Spice Girls could be considered a "legendary band"... please.
Are they realy great? or is it just that they were the FIRST and had and have many followers.
In the last point U2 are not diferent from them.

U2 are together 3rd decade now, still as important as ever, have unique sound and style, unlike any other band in history they have to compete with their own followers.

How U2 will be remembered in 30 years?
And how all those bands from 60's and 70's are rememberd now? A crap-covers from crap-artists from time to time? With almost no one (almost) younger than 30 knowing about them?
Go on the street and ask anyone to name a few songs from those bands... you'd be lucky to get at least one...
Please...

In 30 years people will have (probably) more than 30 years of music and history of U2 to discover/learn/know/listen...etc

Back to The Beatles: rock%roll band, a true "boysband", few hits (few not back then, but remembered today), a movie, a couple of "first time ever" things... clear and strong political views (mostly from Lenon, right?), huge "tabloid material" from John and Yoko... first page story of Lenon's death... and not all of this is even about The Beatles or about music...

I don't see one reason to name them better than U2. Sorry, that's my opinion and I wont change it. They simply do not deserve it.

Beatles is the most important band ever. I'd be tempted to say that it's a fact. Beatles wasn't just a boys band. They started out as a boys band but ended up revolutionizing the entire industry. It's easy to say that U2 changed their sound from JT to AB but nothing changed they way Beatles did from Help! to Sgt. Peppers.
In 7 years they released 12 records.
U2 are many things but they're not The Beatles, even if I love U2 more Beatles are the greatest band ever. You've obviously only heard the "1" compilation and you can't spell "really".
__________________
God Part III is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:22 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
popacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: this house
Posts: 9,776
Local Time: 09:51 AM
i like u2 more

so u2 is better to me.
__________________
popacrobat is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:24 AM   #27
Refugee
 
bathiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
Posts: 2,126
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zwervers2


I'm sorry to say this but you are off on so many levels it's not even funny...to recite a few lines: A few hits remembered today by the Beatles...

EHMMMMMMMMM What the fuck ever...that's one of the funniest lines I've read here the last couple of years

and to say that bands like led zeppelin or the doors have 2 or 3 hits or classic songs is hilarious...please do yourself a favour and I'm bloody serious and pcik up some of that classic stuff led zeppelin made or some other bands from that period..You'll be amazed how uch from that time you are hearing( in a crap matter but anyways) nowadays..

On the other hand, you could be fooling us all..I sincerely hope so..

Take care and respect to all
...well, that sure was a post full of arguments and deep thoughts... I just don't know where to start...

First, if you know something, that doesn't mean everyone has to know it...
Those bands are "legends" today because they did something for the first time or had unique style, wich wasn't something special at the beggining of Rock music.

The Beatles deserve nothing more than the words that they DID start a few thing and they did a few things for the first time...
But that does NOT mean that they are better than U2,
Can't a student be better than a teacher?
__________________
bathiu is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:35 AM   #28
Refugee
 
bathiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
Posts: 2,126
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by God Part III

In 7 years they released 12 records.
What kind of argument is that?
So they were a song-writing machines... wow... can I stop being impresed now?...
That sure explains why while listening to them I feel like listening to one song over and over again... oh and don't forget this one change in music style... can I mention U2 did it from album to album?

Quote:
Originally posted by God Part III
You've obviously only heard the "1" compilation and you can't spell "really".
REALY? well no! It so happens I was raised on all of their 300 songs, every one of them sounding the same... with minor diferences (oh yeah, "revolutionary back then.... but somehow I'm still not impresed...)

and to the point:
U2 are better than The Beatles!
__________________
bathiu is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:48 AM   #29
Refugee
 
WinnieThePoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 2,232
Local Time: 10:51 AM
the beatles were more independent and universal
the world greatest band
u2 are way too political and religious for that
__________________
WinnieThePoo is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 11:31 AM   #30
The Fly
 
elevation622's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: www.emptywalletpro.com
Posts: 103
Local Time: 10:51 AM
wow! everybody's fired up! awesome
__________________

__________________
elevation622 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com