U2 vs all other bands... where will they rank in the end? - Page 6 - 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 03-15-2006, 03:34 PM   #76
Refugee
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,541
Local Time: 08:17 PM
1. beatles
2. u2
3. stones
4. queen
5. could be one of many acts
__________________

__________________
andyuk is offline  
Old 03-16-2006, 06:14 AM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
intedomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,952
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Beatles and U2 are the only certainties in the top 5 for me.....there are too many other bands fighting out for the other positions....

Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Queen, Pearl Jam, Led zeppelin, Stones, Who, Bowie, Elton and many others....

Beatles will always be number one because not only did they produce a once in a millenium phenomenon like beatlemania....they also wrote some of the most revolutionary music ever written......and the music (just about every song), is of a high quality.....
__________________

__________________
intedomine is offline  
Old 03-16-2006, 10:05 AM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
1stepcloser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 3,764
Local Time: 09:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by intedomine


Beatles will always be number one because not only did they produce a once in a millenium phenomenon like beatlemania....they also wrote some of the most revolutionary music ever written......and the music (just about every song), is of a high quality.....
not only did they write some revolutionary music, they also wrote perfect 3 minute pop songs.

an incredible band.
__________________
1stepcloser is offline  
Old 03-16-2006, 11:27 AM   #79
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: belgrade
Posts: 369
Local Time: 09:17 PM
1.Beatles
2.Stones
3.LedZep
4.Floyd
5.U2/Queen
Not my choice,but I think it is the most objektive order
__________________
roy keane is offline  
Old 03-16-2006, 01:26 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
GibsonGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,270
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by xaviMF22
what I found more interesting than anything, is that I always thought radiohead were directly influenced by Pink floyd. Turns out they don't even like pink floyd
I've always found that interesting as well. While Pink Floyd and Radiohead are very different in a musical sense (for the most part - there are some similarities in certain songs), they share(d) the same attitudes towards music and breaking down the traditional idea of what a song is supposed to be. Most Radiohead songs don't have discernable choruses or song structures typical of other popular bands, and the same can be said about the Floyd. Both bands fucked around with their sound so much just because they can. Never mind what the record buying public thinks they should sound like! So yeah, in that respect, I too would have thought that Radiohead would admire Pink Floyd. Maybe they haven't heard the entire back catalogue. I could see how Radiohead wouldn't respect the hits, but Pink Floyd hardly had any hit singles. You can't judge Pink Floyd by the few singles they have.
__________________
GibsonGirl is offline  
Old 03-16-2006, 01:37 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
xaviMF22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In haunted attics
Posts: 7,091
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonGirl


I've always found that interesting as well. While Pink Floyd and Radiohead are very different in a musical sense (for the most part - there are some similarities in certain songs), they share(d) the same attitudes towards music and breaking down the traditional idea of what a song is supposed to be. Most Radiohead songs don't have discernable choruses or song structures typical of other popular bands, and the same can be said about the Floyd. Both bands fucked around with their sound so much just because they can. Never mind what the record buying public thinks they should sound like! So yeah, in that respect, I too would have thought that Radiohead would admire Pink Floyd. Maybe they haven't heard the entire back catalogue. I could see how Radiohead wouldn't respect the hits, but Pink Floyd hardly had any hit singles. You can't judge Pink Floyd by the few singles they have.
My feeling exactly

___________________________
Jonny doesn't like pink floyd but he likes "echoes"
__________________
xaviMF22 is offline  
Old 03-16-2006, 02:15 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 09:17 PM
I'm actually surprised that you guys thought that Radiohead would admire Pink Floyd. I can see where you are coming from, GG, but Pink Floyd is prog rock and many people think that prog rock tend to get a bit tame and boring in the long run (not me, but many, and that's why punk rock emerged). Radiohead is ALL about not being tame and boring - they are doing everything to avoid getting that image.


I'm rambling.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 03-16-2006, 02:51 PM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
GibsonGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,270
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man
I'm actually surprised that you guys thought that Radiohead would admire Pink Floyd. I can see where you are coming from, GG, but Pink Floyd is prog rock and many people think that prog rock tend to get a bit tame and boring in the long run (not me, but many, and that's why punk rock emerged). Radiohead is ALL about not being tame and boring - they are doing everything to avoid getting that image.


I'm rambling.
Not all of Pink Floyd is prog rock, though, that's the thing. The really early stuff after Syd Barrett's psychedelia was much more avant garde, much more experimental. That's the kind of Floyd I could see Radiohead liking. Not the Floyd that made DSOTM, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall.
__________________
GibsonGirl is offline  
Old 03-17-2006, 12:45 AM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 03:17 PM
I just listened to Kid A for the first time today.

I'd have to say Radiohead has gone way farther in breaking down the idea of what a traditional song is than Pink Floyd ever did.

For the most part I enjoy listening to Pink Floyd more, though.
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 03-17-2006, 11:22 AM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
GibsonGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,270
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bono's shades


I'd have to say Radiohead has gone way farther in breaking down the idea of what a traditional song is than Pink Floyd ever did.
I don't know about that... the studio side of Ummagumma could give Kid A a run for its money when it comes to breaking down traditional song writing. Come now, Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict is far more untraditional and experimental than anything on Kid A or Amnesiac. It's a pity Ummagumma's crap though. And what about Atom Heart Mother? There are some traditional sort of songs on that one, but there are also some very out there songs. I don't think Radiohead could ever pull off something like Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast (mind you, PF didn't really pull it off either, heh.)
__________________
GibsonGirl is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 05:30 PM   #86
War Child
 
Nube Gris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lima Peru
Posts: 759
Local Time: 08:17 PM
to the original poster, GNR could never be at the level of U2 neither The Beatles..their influence could be huge, but they were never quite as good as U2
This irish band is the best ever
__________________
Nube Gris is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 05:34 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
xaviMF22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In haunted attics
Posts: 7,091
Local Time: 04:17 PM
the beatles>u2
__________________
xaviMF22 is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 05:48 PM   #88
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 01:17 PM
Time is a great deodorant. Even the Beatles aren't held in such high esteem now as they were just 10 to 15 years go.

When it's all said and done, probably 15 to 20 years from now, U2 will be considered the greatest band ever.
__________________
LPU2 is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 06:32 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
1stepcloser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 3,764
Local Time: 09:17 PM
I think the Beatles will always be held in high esteem no matter how many years pass.
__________________
1stepcloser is offline  
Old 04-04-2006, 07:48 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LPU2

When it's all said and done, probably 15 to 20 years from now, U2 will be considered the greatest band ever.
by who? will there be a royal commission similiar to that conducted by the provisional russian government (minus the "royal" part) in 1917-18?

or did you mean the nme?

the same rag who puts out more best ever lists than aerosmith puts out 'greatest hits' collections?

or, maybe, you meant that you yourself think that YOU will find u2 to be your favourite band in 15 years time?
__________________

__________________
Zoomerang96 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 03:17 PM.


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