Beatles Vs U2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Who are better?

  • U2

    Votes: 118 66.3%
  • The Beatles

    Votes: 60 33.7%

  • Total voters
    178
typhoon said:

From the White Album alone, you've got Paul singing about injustice on "Blackbird" (and somehow avoiding the phrase "cool down, mama" in doing so), John singing about his dead mom on "Julia," and George crying for God in "Long, Long, Long." That's Bono's lyrical troika right there.

(Oh, and since people are comparing guitarists, I want to point out that all three songs have beautiful acoustic figures, an area where Edge, uh, sucks. Of course, Edge is an awesome guitarist still, I'm just pointing out that it's hardly cut and dry.)

(Although, honestly, Paul McCartney alone is probably better at any instrument than any other Beatle or U2 member.)

Oh, and what's everyone's favorite U2 Beatles cover? Mine's "Rain."

Good points. Especially the one about Edge's acoustic deficiency. I've felt that for a long time and am so glad they dropped the acoustic halftime show from the tour this go around. It's been a real drag for me over the last 3 tours. Edge just doesn't have enough ability in that department to make it interesting. Maybe he's getter better, though. Because I think his most beautiful acoustic figure is at the tail end of "A Man and A Woman" when all the other instrumentation clears out and it's just guitar and some vocal.

As for U2 vs. Beatles, I agree that there's really no comparison based on all the obvious criteria like influence, consistent songwriting, etc. But I do think that U2 has one potent attribute in their favor: When U2 gets it right, they get it RIGHT. In other words, I believe their highs are higher than the Beatles highs. Now a high might only mean 20-30 seconds of a song, but I would put those 20-30 second U2 peaks up against anybody's 20-30 second peaks. An example for me would be say the last 45 seconds of "Pride" with Bono doing the 'Mmmm's' and the background vocalist doing their 'Uh, uh, oh's'. Now taken as a whole, there's at least 30 Beatles songs that exhibit more talent and ability than "Pride", but there's not many, if any 45 second or similiarly lengthed musical peaks in the Beatles catalog.

I know I'm splitting hairs in my attempt to justify why I LIKE U2 better than the Beatles, but I really think that U2's ability to reach these musical moments/highs of rock beauty, spiritual transcendance or whatever you want to call them are unparralled by anyone. U2 truly are great at bigger than life moments. The Beatles don't have enough of those to keep me interested in them for any length of time.
 
Layton said:


Good points. Especially the one about Edge's acoustic deficiency. I've felt that for a long time and am so glad they dropped the acoustic halftime show from the tour this go around. It's been a real drag for me over the last 3 tours. Edge just doesn't have enough ability in that department to make it interesting. Maybe he's getter better, though. Because I think his most beautiful acoustic figure is at the tail end of "A Man and A Woman" when all the other instrumentation clears out and it's just guitar and some vocal.

As for U2 vs. Beatles, I agree that there's really no comparison based on all the obvious criteria like influence, consistent songwriting, etc. But I do think that U2 has one potent attribute in their favor: When U2 gets it right, they get it RIGHT. In other words, I believe their highs are higher than the Beatles highs. Now a high might only mean 20-30 seconds of a song, but I would put those 20-30 second U2 peaks up against anybody's 20-30 second peaks. An example for me would be say the last 45 seconds of "Pride" with Bono doing the 'Mmmm's' and the background vocalist doing their 'Uh, uh, oh's'. Now taken as a whole, there's at least 30 Beatles songs that exhibit more talent and ability than "Pride", but there's not many, if any 45 second or similiarly lengthed musical peaks in the Beatles catalog.

I know I'm splitting hairs in my attempt to justify why I LIKE U2 better than the Beatles, but I really think that U2's ability to reach these musical moments/highs of rock beauty, spiritual transcendance or whatever you want to call them are unparralled by anyone. U2 truly are great at bigger than life moments. The Beatles don't have enough of those to keep me interested in them for any length of time.

I would say that this has more to do with musical expression and the theme of the song than musical skills. U2 often want that emotional, spiritual transcendance moment you are speaking of - but that is because they have alway been a religious group. Beatles wasn't. A whole Beatles song like, well anyone of them, A Day in the Life, for instance, is one big moment/high of rock beauty.

Concerning Edge's acoustic deficiency - I agree. This is exactly where one of U2's big weaknesses becomes clear! Edge is a very skilled guitar player - but there are things he's not good at...nobody can be equally good at everything. But U2 only has one real guitar player - The Beatles had 3 who could play that instrument, quite well. Bono can't compensate for Edge's deficiency....so U2 just can't do an acoustic song well!
 
Last edited:
U2Man said:


I would say that this has more to do with musical expression and the theme of the song than musical skills. U2 often want that emotional, spiritual transcendance moment you are speaking of - but that is because they have alway been a religious group. Beatles wasn't. A whole Beatles song like, well anyone of them, A Day in the Life, for instance, is one big moment/high of rock beauty.

I kind of agree with that, I guess. Except, I think most people gravitate toward what they do well. Meaning, that U2 does bigger than life moments because they excel at them. The Beatles didn't do them because they excelled at something other.

I suppose it all comes down to preference, as usual. I tend to think that U2's themes are the greatest themes anybody in rock has ever tackled. The fact that they pull them off even only part of the time is why I hold U2 in such high regard and consider U2 more interesting than the Beatles. Although, I acknowledge the Beatles more regularly pulled off their themes due to their greater level of skills.

Put in this way, one well executed U2 song about transcending all that we know as the human experience is worth more to me than 50 well executed Beatles songs about the meaning of yesterday, their kids, whatever drugs they were taking, their notions of romantic love or whatever else they were on about. To me, 1 is greater than 50 when comparing U2 and the Beatles.
 
U2Man said:


The Beatles had 3 who could play that instrument, quite well. Bono can't compensate for Edge's deficiency....so U2 just can't do an acoustic song well!


which is why I've always hated the "acoustic" segment of the show. Edge strumming barre chords is boring. sorry.
To me, u2 is the big noise; huge sounds, huge songs, etc.
 
JOFO said:



which is why I've always hated the "acoustic" segment of the show. Edge strumming barre chords is boring. sorry.
To me, u2 is the big noise; huge sounds, huge songs, etc.

I'm with you here. The acoustic segment was always a bore to me, as well. Even the great Zoo TV tour is tarnished by these segments. Getting rid of them is one reason why the Vertigo tour ranks highly with me, at the moment.
 
Layton said:


I'm with you here. The acoustic segment was always a bore to me, as well. Even the great Zoo TV tour is tarnished by these segments. Getting rid of them is one reason why the Vertigo tour ranks highly with me, at the moment.

I do think, though, that the Vertigo show could use a little air....so it would improve the show if they actually were able to play some really beautiful acoustic ballad......
 
U2Man said:


I do think, though, that the Vertigo show could use a little air....so it would improve the show if they actually were able to play some really beautiful acoustic ballad......

Possibly, the show would be better with a beautiful acoustic song or two. I think "A Man and A Woman" has a beautiful acoustic figure at its beginning and end. Maybe there's some possibility there.

I understand your point about air in the show, however. The Vertigo tour is kind of playing out like the War tour in the sense that you're getting slammed song after song. But, I'd rather have that than a 2 or 3 song segment of something U2 sucks at.
 
you prefer vertigo over achtung baby?
but then you say how much you would've liked them to take music somewhere when they had then chance?

umm......you've lost me.
Sorry JOFO but how did you get that I prefer 'vertigo to act baby? ACT baby is clearly better than 'vertigo..I'm just saying at the height of u2's history which i think could be stated was joshua tree/Act Baby period..,...it's just that vertigo is the first thing i've heard since act baby that has really pulled me in and i've grown to really like the album that's all..but it's an interesting observtion.....if you really love a band then your going to say who you think has done more for music..they both have made MAJOR contributions but my hand goes to the beatles for such a change when i think it might have been risky in their career..but that's a matter of opinion and also the 60's had much better pool of compitition of writers .
 
JOFO said:


of course.
hey, at this point u2 will probably be listed in the top 10 greatest bands of all time on whatever vh1, rolling stone, or whatever list, maybe something along the lines of:

1. The Beatles
2. The Rolling Stones
3. The Who
4. Pink Floyd
5. Led Zeppelin
6. Jimi Hendrix
7. Bob Dylan
8. Bruce Springsteen
9. U2
10. (probably the eagles):yuck:

Why people love the Eagles is one of those mysteries that will continue to baffle scientists for the remainder of the Earth's existance.
 
I saw the Eagles in 82 (Long Run Tour) when I was MUCH younger. I don't need to ever hear or see them again. :yuck: They are playing NUMEROUS nights in S. Calif. this fall, and I just don't understand how they can play for like 8 nites (and sell enough tickets to warrant it), and yet U2 are only playing 2 here in November :no: :no: :no:
 
I just don't care for live acoustic U2 songs because most of the time Adam and Larry sit those songs out.

If Edge wants to go acoustic, that's cool, doesn't mean the bass and drums have to go. I much prefer a full band version of "Stay."

"A Man & a Woman" would be so cool to hear live, so long as Adam and Larry get to play too.
 
Lemonfix said:


Why people love the Eagles is one of those mysteries that will continue to baffle scientists for the remainder of the Earth's existance.

I understand why many people like them (generic, safe, and predicatble) , but I guess that doesn't say much about the masses, does it?
 
Lemonfix said:


Why people love the Eagles is one of those mysteries that will continue to baffle scientists for the remainder of the Earth's existance.

Well I know why....they wrote that one song :wink:
 
Objectively speaking, the Beatles are better.

That is not to say that I listen to the Beatles more than U2, or that my top 20 favourite songs would even include many Beatles tracks.

It's just that they did everything, and they did it before anyone else.
 
But it's happy and catchy, so no one here will admit to liking it.
 
Back
Top Bottom