U2 Mirrors The Beatles..... - Page 4 - 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, 09:30 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Apples and oranges. Different times, different music...
__________________

__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 09:58 PM   #47
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 189
Local Time: 12:29 PM
I'm seeing a lot of arguments coming down to the questions of "The most influential band" or "Most important band" instead of "Better band."

Most influential. The Beatles. Go to hell anyone who says otherwise.

Best band: On what qualities? Personalities? Passion? Organic togetherness? Experimentalism? Hit singles? Sales? Endurance? Live shows?

If consensus is the answer, then the Beatles. If personal choice is, then U2.

I'd like to hear the qualities people do/don't like about the Beatles/U2 that makes them judge the other more favorably.
__________________

__________________
Dr. Lemonseed is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:21 PM   #48
Refugee
 
bathiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
Posts: 2,126
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rafiennes

But, respect should be shown for both for the waves they’ve made in the tide pool.
...but respect has nothing to do with the question here...
I respect The Beatles as much as I respect Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones or U2...
The question is: wich band is better (well, actualy if U2 mirrors the Beatles ).

And what arguments there are?
Beatles are more influential... U2 are as influential as the Beatles from some time now - a tie.
Beatles "survived" 40 years later, true, but I don't think they are still relevant (as zwervers2 was saying) and to use it as an argument we would have to know what happens with U2 40 years after their last album...
The rest arguments come to one point realy, they were the first... so what?

U2 became better than the Beatles in AB era... all those "revolutionary" changes in Beatles' music is nothing more than changes between October and War, between War, UF and JT...
__________________
bathiu is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 11:02 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
intedomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,947
Local Time: 10:29 PM
Thing is with this argument is that (although I adore the Beatles), has society got the guts to ever come out and say that a band is actually "greater" than the Beatles.

Everyone just about accepts the Beatles as the "greatest"(which could mean a whole range of things),

...but will anyone ever be considered as "greater" than the beatles.

I think not, call it popular stubborness or arrogance, but the world will NEVER allow for a band to be considered as GREATER than the Beatles, because the world doesn't wanna mess with history.
__________________
intedomine is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 11:31 PM   #50
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 103
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The OOTS
The Beatles accomplished what they did in 8 years.
8 YEARS!?!?!?!

If they had had the 25 year career U2 has had, who's to say how much more they would have accomplished.
Actually I'm in a music class @ my college and we had our "Beatles Week" recently. My prof made the point that at the end of their career, the Beatles' music was starting too veer so far off the mainstream course, that if they had stayed together, their music might have become too inaccessible - people didn't want to have to think about the music, they were ready for disco I don't know if this is an accurate prediction, I just thought it was an interesting point. But yes, they did go on to some great solo work, so who knows.

I was also raised on the Beatles, and probably by the time I was in first grade, I knew every word to tons and tons of Beatles songs - still do to this day. I rocked to Sgt Pepper all the time before afternoon kindergarten! Music will just always affect people in radically different ways.
__________________
EmilyBono is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 11:56 PM   #51
Refugee
 
thrillme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: <---over that'a way
Posts: 1,947
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by intedomine
Thing is with this argument is that (although I adore the Beatles), has society got the guts to ever come out and say that a band is actually "greater" than the Beatles.

Everyone just about accepts the Beatles as the "greatest"(which could mean a whole range of things),

...but will anyone ever be considered as "greater" than the beatles.

I think not, call it popular stubborness or arrogance, but the world will NEVER allow for a band to be considered as GREATER than the Beatles, because the world doesn't wanna mess with history.
If that is the case, which I think you're are probably right, makes you wonder, maybe some people took John Lennons "bigger than Jesus" comment much more seriously than he meant.

One person even wrote "before the Beatles, after the Beatles"



It's funny, people tell other U2 fans to lighten up about criticisms about U2, but look at this thread, or in fact, any thread about "X band" vs. The Beatles.

You can't criticise the Beatles without a bunch of people jumping on your back telling you your wrong, your ignorant, etc. Why aren't the Who better than the Beatles? Or the Rolling Stones. Same time frame right, peers. Okay, maybe U2 are still too young to be compared to the Beatles, but the Beatles are not the be all end all of rock. I've heard plenty of their early songs, more poppy than rock.

I dunno, I suppose if this were the 60's, I'd be more of a Rolling Stones fan, than a Beatles fan.

Quote:
Dr. Lemonseed : I'd like to hear the qualities people do/don't like about the Beatles/U2 that makes them judge the other more favorably.
U2 exemplify what the word "band" means. Look how long they stuck it out together, no line up changes, they do pace their album releases, but they've never broken up. They'll pack it in if they release 2 crap albums (obviously this is entirely their opinion), in a row.

Perhaps, the Beatles are more of a studio band, whereas U2 are more of live band. Is that safe to say? Not gonna burn the heretic are ye?

Oh and I was just browsing a bass forum the other night, apparently pick playing is not as highly regarded as finger playing. Paul McCartney, wasn't he more of a pick player, than a finger player.

Hehe, Adam does both, and that slap bass thing, then he does a mix of pick playing, and slap pop on Gloria. Though Beatles fans are quite safe, Adam's not going to upsurp McCartney. Though McCartney is no Jaco or Les Claypool, apparently.

I'm sure some have that Blender magazine with U2 on the cover, read the article that comes just a few pages before U2's story. About people getting sacked from bands, Pete Best almost killed himself. He was a founding member of the Beatles right? Why'd they go with Ringo?

(Obviously from my posts, I don't follow the Beatles history much)

People left the Hype and Feedback, Adam, Bono, Edge, and Larry are the ones that chose to stay. Some difference.

Huh, box isn't as lonely as I thought it would be.

Society doesn't have the guts, but a few individuals, heretics I suppose, might say it.
__________________
thrillme is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 01:30 AM   #52
War Child
 
LuvandPeace1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 727
Local Time: 08:29 PM
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love U2 the most they are the greatest! they are fucking brilliant for gods sake and they have pushed Rock music so far.
But I will say this "Don't you ever fucking slag off the beatles!!!!!!!" they are fucking brilliant too.
If it was not for the Beatles U2 wouldn't be around(IMO) at least not respected like they are. The Beatles could have exploited what they had but they used it to do good, unlike mr Presley. The Beatles sold 160 million records in 8 years, that's unbelievable. They were it! Lennon and McCartney are great minds and if you sit down and listen to some of their works, you will find some Bono in there.
Lennon is Bono's favourite song writer and one of mine. I place the Beatles on a pedistal above the rest with U2. I like U2 more, but I could not say U2 are bigger, maybe in different departments. But if you were around when the Beatles were around you would undersatnd what Beatlemania was. But that was a different world then, so no comparisons..
The Beatles rock!!!, U2 rocks !!!
__________________
LuvandPeace1980 is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 01:58 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 26,955
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bathiu
this list of bands: 2 or 3 hit songs, classic songs... call them what you want, 2 or 3 important albums...
Amen. I know a whole one song by The Doors, I know maybe three of Pink Floyd, and although I listen to Led Zeppelin, I could hardly say they have ANY hits except for Stairway To Heaven, and that, to me, is more like Bad, which is an amazing piece of music, but not really a hit.
__________________
the tourist is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 02:06 AM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 26,955
Local Time: 04:29 AM
I don't care if The Beatles were the influencers. U2 is better. They may not be more popular. But they are better. The may not be as original. But they are better. They may not have as many "hit" songs. But they are better. U2 has been around for over 3x the time of The Beatles.

They've defied every genre of music: rock (Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me), classic rock (Bullet The Blue Sky), punk rock (Fire, I Will Follow), ambient rock (The Unforgettable Fire), epic rock (Bad, Where The Streets Have No Name), blues rock (Desire), political rock (Like A Song, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Bullet The Blue Sky, Please), Christian rock (40), pop (Pride, New Year's Day, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For), ballad (With Or Without You, One, Stay), dance (Lemon, Mysterious Ways, Discotheque), classical (Ave Maria), jazz (Red Light, Two Hearts Beat As One), rap (numb), techno (Mofo), dark ambient (entire Passengers record), tribal (Theme From Let's Go Native), etc.

U2 is better. Hell, Radiohead is better.
__________________
the tourist is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 02:23 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
zwervers2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 4,158
Local Time: 02:29 PM
Interesting subject...

I do feel U2 is the better band overall (preformance, songquality, emotional attachment etc)...but the Beatles have had such a big influence..only time will tell if our boys will stand the test of time.

I think they will...

Somebody posted something like: when you ask someone on the street to name some Beatles songs and some u2 songs they problably know more beatles songs than u2 songs and that is nog a bad for a band who were only together for 8 years...

let's face it: which song is u2 most famous for..It will always be the song with the openinglyrics"I can't believe the news today"...
while the beatles have so many memorable songs it's unbelievable...again I believe the u2 cataloque is a better one..

At the end of the day it is not a competition WE ARE NOT MEMBERS OF ONE OF THOSE BANDS!!

It is just personal taste. conclusion TWO SUPERGROUPS and let's all be thankfull for everything they have given us...

Scrabble
__________________
zwervers2 is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 03:16 AM   #56
War Child
 
alexvilagosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 695
Local Time: 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LuvandPeace1980
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love U2 the most they are the greatest! they are fucking brilliant for gods sake and they have pushed Rock music so far.
U2 haven't pushed rock music that much.
__________________
alexvilagosh is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 03:17 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
zwervers2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 4,158
Local Time: 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by the tourist
[jazz (Red Light, Two Hearts Beat As One)
[/B]
Two hearts beat as one is JAZZ???


I've done the music academy so I'm curious
__________________
zwervers2 is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 04:59 AM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by the tourist


Amen. I know a whole one song by The Doors, I know maybe three of Pink Floyd, and although I listen to Led Zeppelin, I could hardly say they have ANY hits except for Stairway To Heaven, and that, to me, is more like Bad, which is an amazing piece of music, but not really a hit.
No offense, but the fact that you are only 20 years old or so may have something to do with that.

There are some older people here who grew up listening to artists such as Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Doors, and of course, The Beatles. And they most certainly could name a lot more of their songs than you.

U2 is a different generation, so why don't we just say they are the greatest band of their generation and leave it at that.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 06:38 AM   #59
Acrobat
 
TheRooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hiding out in the big city blinking
Posts: 391
Local Time: 07:29 AM
The sheer ignorance on this board is astounding.
__________________
TheRooster is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 07:26 AM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,288
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by the tourist
I don't care if The Beatles were the influencers. U2 is better. They may not be more popular. But they are better. The may not be as original. But they are better. They may not have as many "hit" songs. But they are better. U2 has been around for over 3x the time of The Beatles.

They've defied every genre of music: rock (Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me), classic rock (Bullet The Blue Sky), punk rock (Fire, I Will Follow), ambient rock (The Unforgettable Fire), epic rock (Bad, Where The Streets Have No Name), blues rock (Desire), political rock (Like A Song, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Bullet The Blue Sky, Please), Christian rock (40), pop (Pride, New Year's Day, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For), ballad (With Or Without You, One, Stay), dance (Lemon, Mysterious Ways, Discotheque), classical (Ave Maria), jazz (Red Light, Two Hearts Beat As One), rap (numb), techno (Mofo), dark ambient (entire Passengers record), tribal (Theme From Let's Go Native), etc.

U2 is better. Hell, Radiohead is better.
Two Hearts and Red Light are jazz? You ever heard real jazz? And Ava Maria is not a U2 song, it is a cover, you can't possibly credit the creation of it to them.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR 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 07:29 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