Beatles Vs U2

[thrillme]

Its just a wonder, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder right? art is a subjective thing on which we all have differing opinions on.......yet there seems to be certain things everyone agrees on ie The Last Supper by Da Vinci is a great work of art, Mozarts symphonies are brilliant (even if we are not classical music lovers, we recognise the talent and artistry involved and that its a brilliant piece of work etc)...if i showed a picture of Paris at night or a picture of the Himalayas or a tranquil lake at dawn we would probably all agree they are a beautiful sight, we would all agree that the Acropolis is a beautiful building.....these are all forms of art (the pictures of the Himalayas, lake, paris etc i count photography as a form of art though some people would wish tpo debate that)

My question is, why is it not so for modern music...not even the Beatles are safe from the doubting of their greatness, i have read many people saying they were not that great on other forums etc...and of course we all know how many people dislike U2...yet we all hear something in their songs that make them great and find beauty in their art..why can not other people hear that, but see the same things in The Last Supper or the photographs without debate etc.......?

Maybe perception soundwise is much more individualistic than perception sight wise?

Here's my pet peeve, U2, virtually every band, can be criticised left and right, and anyone has the right to do so, I've seen people called "blind followers," of U2/etc, but the Beatles, they can't be criticised in the same way.

Criticise the Beatles and your "immature", "ignorant of music"-- criticise U2, "everyone's entitled to their own opinion", "don't all have to like the same thing", "don't be such a blind follower". Why the hypocrisy?

I don't know why people can't doubt the Beatles greatness, they're not the untouchable gods some make them out to be.

Music is subjective, art is subjective, but time plays a big part too IMO.

Vincent Van Gogh, he actually didn't get much credit or adoration/praise for his work in his lifetime, that came post-humously.

There may very well have been people in Da Vinci's day who didn't think he was that great.

Mozart, hmm, wasn't there some other guy who competed against him.

The Beatles quit while they were on top. Sure they put out a lot of material in their short career, but they quit, they may have become like the Rolling Stones, as someone else pointed out.

I know, the Beatles are great, can do no wrong, but I think U2 blow them out of the water when it comes to playing live. Live is the one area I think U2 do surpass the Beatles. If nothing else, U2 beat them as a live band. I can only base this on the video of Beatles footage, and my own personal experience of seeing U2.

However, U2 are a better band, purely by definition, how many bands still have their original lineup, even when they were the Hype and Feedback, it seems people left rather than be sacked. When they changed their name to U2, Adam, Bono, Edge, and Larry. U2 have stuck it out, through thick and thin, from greatest moments, to their hardest moments, and they're still together.

That's a band. Band of friends, band of brothers, band of musicians.

U2 now, same 4 guys, 25 years after their first album, AND their latest album released 25 years after their first, went to number 1 in many countries.

You can't say that about a lot of "bands" past or present.

Also U2 have by far, much more competition than the Beatles. There was no rap, hip hop, country (there was, but probably not nearly as popular as it has been in past years), no heavy metal, no New Wave, no punk, no grundge, no NU-metal, no rap-rock.

ATYCLB was nominated for a Grammy for album of the year, was is it not up against every album released within that time frame?

In my area, U2 gets played on classic rock, modern rock, adult contemporary, indie (newer station, but they play more obscure U2 songs like "One Tree Hill," etc.), I've even heard a remix of U2 on a station that plays Top 40, pop music like Kelly Clarkson, along with a mix of hip hop, rap, and R&B.

The Beatles, I only hear them on oldies and classic rock, that's about it.

U2 aren't the Beatles of my generation, they're the U2 of my generation.

U2 are in a class of their own especially for their longevity of keeping their original line-up.

George Harrison once said people wouldn't remember U2 in 30 years (this was around Popmart I think), but U2's career, if you count Hype/Feedback years, is pushing 30 years.

U2's in the R&R Hall of Fame, with a number 1 album the same year.

But as they say, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Axver]

to thrillme.

 

[thrillme]

to thrillme.

Hmm, I'm just wondering will I be hanged, tarred and feathered, beheaded or burnt at the stake.

All 4?

*awaits my punishment*

 

[Axver]

Hmm, I'm just wondering will I be hanged, tarred and feathered, beheaded or burnt at the stake.

All 4?

*awaits my punishment*

Don't worry, there's much worse you can do on this forum - like making a thread saying Achtung Baby should've been an EP as I did earlier today!

 

[thrillme]

Don't worry, there's much worse you can do on this forum - like making a thread saying Achtung Baby should've been an EP as I did earlier today!

Yeah I saw that. I don't get why people have a problem with mixing up a setlist to an album. Not like U2 play their songs in album order live. They claimed to have dozens of running orders for Atomic Bomb. I'd imagine the same if not more for Achtung Baby.

I'm sure some use the "shuffle" feature on their MP3 players too.

It's not the U2 fans that worry me, Beatles fans, they scare me.

*still awaits punishment*

 

[Lila64]

YOU LOSE AT LIFE.

THANKS FOR PLAYING.

And thrillme - You make some valid points, can't argue with you there. According to your profile though, you don't give your age and you say you've only been a fan of U2 since 2000, so I'm guessing you are of a younger generation than I. It's all perspective. I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm hoping you are not saying the reverse either.

And if I recall correctly, the Beatles didn't "quit", did they? They broke up and went their separate ways, as they were growing in different directions and needed creatively to be on their own (or apart) ... Or maybe I didn't say that all too well (I'm tired)...

 

[thrillme]

And thrillme - You make some valid points, can't argue with you there. According to your profile though, you don't give your age and you say you've only been a fan of U2 since 2000, so I'm guessing you are of a younger generation than I. It's all perspective. I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm hoping you are not saying the reverse either.

And if I recall correctly, the Beatles didn't "quit", did they? They broke up and went their separate ways, as they were growing in different directions and needed creatively to be on their own (or apart) ... Or maybe I didn't say that all too well (I'm tired)...

OOOOOOOh my profile, I forget about that, *don't even remember what's on it*

Hmm, giving my age will no doubt effect how my post is viewed.

Officially a U2 fan since 2000, but I've liked a number of their songs longer than that, now I just know who made the songs.

Perspective, yes that's it exactly. It just doesn't seem you can have perspective towards the Beatles is all. All good or nothing else.

 

[typhoon]

How about making intelligent Beatles criticisms instead of "THEIR SONGS ARE TOO HAPPY" or "I NEVER HEAR THEM ON THE RADIO"? They let Yoko sing a line on a song, let's start with that.

 

[Joshua_Tree_Hugger]

I don't know how to go about responding to this.

Of course the Beatles wrote their own songs. Also, why compare some of the Beatles' least complex lyrics to some of that appear in "One", one of U2's best songs, lyrically (though the particular part you quoted is pretty average.)

Okay then, what are some good lyrics from the Beatles?

My point is that it was easier to be heroes when audiences were much less fickle. Most modern bands have to work much harder. I'm not denying the fact that they were hugely influencial, but what I'm saying is that they happened to come up with a good formula for a pop music that appealed to the masses. And to their credit they did it well. But "Love Me Do" etc certainly wouldn't survive today.

As for the "deeper" Beatles songs that people talk about, could you please give me some examples? If there are songs that are strong lyrically and/or are good musically then I will be willing to give them a listen.

 

[U2girl]

Here's my pet peeve, U2, virtually every band, can be criticised left and right, and anyone has the right to do so, I've seen people called "blind followers," of U2/etc, but the Beatles, they can't be criticised in the same way.

Criticise the Beatles and your "immature", "ignorant of music"-- criticise U2, "everyone's entitled to their own opinion", "don't all have to like the same thing", "don't be such a blind follower". Why the hypocrisy?

I don't know why people can't doubt the Beatles greatness, they're not the untouchable gods some make them out to be.

Music is subjective, art is subjective, but time plays a big part too IMO.

Vincent Van Gogh, he actually didn't get much credit or adoration/praise for his work in his lifetime, that came post-humously.

There may very well have been people in Da Vinci's day who didn't think he was that great.

Mozart, hmm, wasn't there some other guy who competed against him.

The Beatles quit while they were on top. Sure they put out a lot of material in their short career, but they quit, they may have become like the Rolling Stones, as someone else pointed out.

I know, the Beatles are great, can do no wrong, but I think U2 blow them out of the water when it comes to playing live. Live is the one area I think U2 do surpass the Beatles. If nothing else, U2 beat them as a live band. I can only base this on the video of Beatles footage, and my own personal experience of seeing U2.

However, U2 are a better band, purely by definition, how many bands still have their original lineup, even when they were the Hype and Feedback, it seems people left rather than be sacked. When they changed their name to U2, Adam, Bono, Edge, and Larry. U2 have stuck it out, through thick and thin, from greatest moments, to their hardest moments, and they're still together.

That's a band. Band of friends, band of brothers, band of musicians.

U2 now, same 4 guys, 25 years after their first album, AND their latest album released 25 years after their first, went to number 1 in many countries.

You can't say that about a lot of "bands" past or present.

Also U2 have by far, much more competition than the Beatles. There was no rap, hip hop, country (there was, but probably not nearly as popular as it has been in past years), no heavy metal, no New Wave, no punk, no grundge, no NU-metal, no rap-rock.

ATYCLB was nominated for a Grammy for album of the year, was is it not up against every album released within that time frame?

In my area, U2 gets played on classic rock, modern rock, adult contemporary, indie (newer station, but they play more obscure U2 songs like "One Tree Hill," etc.), I've even heard a remix of U2 on a station that plays Top 40, pop music like Kelly Clarkson, along with a mix of hip hop, rap, and R&B.

The Beatles, I only hear them on oldies and classic rock, that's about it.

U2 aren't the Beatles of my generation, they're the U2 of my generation.

U2 are in a class of their own especially for their longevity of keeping their original line-up.

George Harrison once said people wouldn't remember U2 in 30 years (this was around Popmart I think), but U2's career, if you count Hype/Feedback years, is pushing 30 years.

U2's in the R&R Hall of Fame, with a number 1 album the same year.

But as they say, that's just my 2 cents.

There's a difference between saying "I don't like the Beatles" and saying "they're overrated." Anyone who seriously says they only wrote pop music needs to listen more of their music.

I don't think Beatles would have turned into Stones, Lennon/McCartney were geniuses. The "right time at the right place" excuse could be said for any band. Consider Beatles did not have the technology for live shows that exists today so it's unfair to compare them to bands that do have this technology.

Beatles also had the same line-up through their career; though it could be argued they would have lasted longer had it not been for two egos that started the rivarly. (U2 is lucky no other member is trying to compete with Bono in that area) After that there were 3 succesful solo careers.

How many bands can say they sold millions of a compilation album, 30 years after their break up? How many bands can have that kind of influence on music?

Beatles had far bigger competition IMO. Stones, The Who, Doors, Dylan, Elvis.

 

[ZeroDude]

I'm quite enamoured with both bands, one day I hope I'll be able to write a song with such supreme catchiness as Hey Jude or infact bust out a solo as agressive as the best of the ZooTV Bullets, musically The Beatles and U2 are worlds apart imo Larry and Ringo both do what drummers are supposed to i.e. keep the beat, Adam and Paul are possibly skillwise similair on the bass if it came to overall chops but both have unique sounds, Edge may kill George and John on the old guitar but more importantly they all do their own thing, so to summerise lets make love










The Jimi Hendrix Experience get my vote

 

[OnFire]

I absolulty think U2 is one of the most innovative sounds in Rock history period.I mean the first time I heard "Boy" i thought "this is twenty years ahead of it's time"!but U2 lost me after Act.baby for a couple years.i remember most of my freinds who were really hard core fans just dropping off during this time but still going to see them. we sat thru POP just waitng for the good ol' stuff.They did not capitalize on taking a real chance on defining music when they had it in their hands.maybe they really did try and that was the effort they put forth but i thought it was really sub-par from the quality they had worked so hard for on the previous releases. Look at the Beatles in 1966&67..Revolver,Sgt.pepper,MagicalMystery tour..in one year they took rock music and changed it forever. If U2 would have or could have done the same maybe we wouldn't be listening to all this angst drech overplayed with such crappy lyrics all over the airwaves? oh well..BUT I love vertigo..they pulled me back and they still are one of my favorites. One of the best live bands you will ever see.I'm the crazy guy who jumps up and down when they play Elec.Co and Into the Heart. age? 40 so there you go.

Hey, another old timer, welcome 88sundays, I'm 42. I took a different route than what you describe above, U2 started to loose me in the late '80's (still can't bring myself to watch R&H) and got me back with AB/Zootv. Nowadays, I want to hear the 80's stuff live more than anything from the 90's to the present.

Yeah, the kids will never get the Beatles based on exposure from their parents or grandparents radio station.

 

[thrillme]

I'm quite enamoured with both bands, one day I hope I'll be able to write a song with such supreme catchiness as Hey Jude or infact bust out a solo as agressive as the best of the ZooTV Bullets, musically The Beatles and U2 are worlds apart imo Larry and Ringo both do what drummers are supposed to i.e. keep the beat, Adam and Paul are possibly skillwise similair on the bass if it came to overall chops but both have unique sounds, Edge may kill George and John on the old guitar but more importantly they all do their own thing, so to summerise lets make love


The Jimi Hendrix Experience get my vote

Jimi kills most guitarists, .

I think Adam is more well-rounded bassist, in that over his career, he's incorporated a number of bass playing styles, with a pick, without a pic, "I Will Follow" with no pick, from the Irving Plaza gig, , plus the "slap and pop" method. Not something I've seen Paul do. Flea's more famous for it, but it's not a style I would think Paul used.

Gloria starts off with a pick, slap and pop solo, then no pick for the rest.

Adam also went back and took proper bass lessons for a year. His teacher said he pushed him, that Adam was an excellent student, but no one in U2 really "shows off."

Though Paul McCartney isn't nearly a good a bassist as others, so I've read. Guy named Jaco, and Les Claypool, they're the 2 I see coming up as top shelf bassists.

 

[JOFO]

Though Paul McCartney isn't nearly a good a bassist as others, so I've read. Guy named Jaco, and Les Claypool, they're the 2 I see coming up as top shelf bassists.

Jaco Pastorius was a jazz musician and the greatest electric bass player that ever lived.
His name should not even be mentioned in the discussion at hand.
Les Claypool is the sloppiest, most overrated, out of tune moron to own a bass ever.

 

[U2Man]

@thrill me.....

You miss a few very important facts...

The Beatles didn't have the technology U2 have today. There's no way you can compare their live performances. We could only try to imagine what a Beatles show would be like today.

U2 get nominated for a grammy for an album 25 years after they started out. Yes. But Beatles are still outselling U2 albumwise 40 years after THEY started (check Amazon sale chart).

Beatles gave out more than one album in one year. U2 are only capable of giving out an album every 4 years...

Honestly....Everyone knows Beatles' tunes here 40-50 years after they were written. How much of U2's material do you think will be remembered 40 years after they split?

Compare U2 to the Beatles when it comes down to raw song writing/melody composing.....U2 don't have the faintest chance of competing with Lennon/McCartney/Harrison....

And Axver....I like the Finn's too....but....without the Beatles they wouldn't have known where to find the recipe to 99% of their songs....try listening to 4 Seasons in One Day, for instance, it is so clearly a Beatles rip-off that I actually couldn't help giggling when I heard it the first time, even though I love the song.

I'm a huge U2 fan....and sure, there are things that U2 seem to be better to than Beatles were. I doubt if Beatles could have written Streets, for instance. But when it comes down to sophisticated, beautiful, memorable song writing...well, there is a reason why Beatles are respected the way they are....

 

[Lila64]

yeah, what U2Man, typhoon and U2girl said!

Joshua_Tree_Hugger said "Jimi kills most guitarists" - um... HE KILLS ALL GUITARISTS. They all at his feet...

and by the way, I hope someone can help list some Beatles songs that the people here should check out. Later period for sure, I'm just not an expert. I know one of my favorites is 'In My Life'.

By the way, when the band 'broke up' (not quit), they were quite successful on their own. One of my favorite all-time songs is by John Lennon. Maybe you've heard of it... "IMAGINE". So simple, so poignant, so beautiful. What a talent...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yes, "In My Life" would be a good one to share. "Eleanor Rigby" is another one I've always liked, and "The Long And Winding Road" as well, just to name a few to start off with.

Course, too, while some of the Beatles' earlier songs were pretty simple lyrically, at the same time, is there really anything wrong with that? Sometimes the best songs can have the simplest message.

Also, age doesn't always mean anything...I like the Beatles, and I'm 20 . My sister likes them, too, and she's 17.

And regarding Finn songs..."Not The Girl You Think You Are" is about the most Beatle-esque one, I'd say.

Angela

 

[U2Man]

It's funny that arguably the 3 best bands of all time (Stones, U2, Beatles) have just average drummers.

I wouldn't call Larry an average drummer His skills at playing drums is in no way worse than Edge's skills at the guitar or Adam's at the bass or Bono's singing. He is not the weak part of the group in any way.

 

[JOFO]

@thrill me.....

You miss a few very important facts...

The Beatles didn't have the technology U2 have today. There's no way you can compare their live performances. We could only try to imagine what a Beatles show would be like today.

U2 get nominated for a grammy for an album 25 years after they started out. Yes. But Beatles are still outselling U2 albumwise 40 years after THEY started (check Amazon sale chart).

Beatles gave out more than one album in one year. U2 are only capable of giving out an album every 4 years...

Honestly....Everyone knows Beatles' tunes here 40-50 years after they were written. How much of U2's material do you think will be remembered 40 years after they split?

Compare U2 to the Beatles when it comes down to raw song writing/melody composing.....U2 don't have the faintest chance of competing with Lennon/McCartney/Harrison....

And Axver....I like the Finn's too....but....without the Beatles they wouldn't have known where to find the recipe to 99% of their songs....try listening to 4 Seasons in One Day, for instance, it is so clearly a Beatles rip-off that I actually couldn't help giggling when I heard it the first time, even though I love the song.

I'm a huge U2 fan....and sure, there are things that U2 seem to be better to than Beatles were. I doubt if Beatles could have written Streets, for instance. But when it comes down to sophisticated, beautiful, memorable song writing...well, there is a reason why Beatles are respected the way they are....

 

[namkcuR]

I think part of the problem with regards to younger kids saying that the Beatles weren't good lyrically or that their music was too 'poppy', is rooted in a decision the Beatles' made at the midpoint of their career, starting with Sgt. Pepper, to not tour anymore and to not release as many singles. Sgt. Pepper and the White Album had pretty much zero singles. As a result, pretty much everybody who doesn't live under a rock, including younger kids, know the Beatles' earlier work, because a lot of these tracks appear on Beatles 1 or are used in television shows or Entertainment Tonight shows clips of the Beatles in their earlier days playing this stuff. Look at the discreptency.

Earlier Stuff:

I Wanna Hold Your Hand
She Loves You
Love Me Do
Please Please Me
Twist And Shout(cover)
All My Loving
Hard Day's Night
Happy Just To Dance With You
Can't Buy Me Love
I'll Follow The Sun
Eight Days A Week
Help
You've Got To Hide Your Love Away
Ticket To Ride
Yesterday
Drive My Car
In My Life
Norwegian Wood
Michelle
Taxman
Eleanor Rigby
Here There And Everywhere
Yellow Submarine
From Me To You
I Feel Fine
Day Tripper
Paperback Writer

And then, imo, the REALLY great stuff, the Beatles later period...this stuff is probably not QUITE as known to younger kids. There are a few tracks here that are DEFINITELY known, i.e. Let It Be, Hey Jude, Blackbird, etc., but for the most part, I think this is the stuff a lot of these younger people don't know about when they say some of the stuff they say.

With A Little Help From My Friends
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
Getting Better
Fixing A Hole
She Is Leaving Home
A Day In The Life
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Dear Prudence
Blackbird
Julia
Revolution
Honey Pie
Hello Goodbye
Penny Lane
I Am The Walrus
Strawberry Fields Forever
All You Need Is Love
Something
I Want You(She's So Heavy)
Here Comes The Sun
The entire Side B Abbey Road Medley
Let It Be
The Long And Winding Road
Across The Universe
Hey Jude

 

[Axver]

And regarding Finn songs..."Not The Girl You Think You Are" is about the most Beatle-esque one, I'd say.

And that, incidentally, is the one Crowdies song I absolutely cannot stand. I'm going to burn my own copy of the Best Of so that I don't have to put up with that song.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Heh, and I personally do like that song . But meh, to each their own *Shrugs*.

Angela

 

[JOFO]

I think part of the problem with regards to younger kids saying that the Beatles weren't good lyrically or that their music was too 'poppy', is rooted in a decision the Beatles' made at the midpoint of their career, starting with Sgt. Pepper, to not tour anymore and to not release as many singles. Sgt. Pepper and the White Album had pretty much zero singles. As a result, pretty much everybody who doesn't live under a rock, including younger kids, know the Beatles' earlier work, because a lot of these tracks appear on Beatles 1 or are used in television shows or Entertainment Tonight shows clips of the Beatles in their earlier days playing this stuff. Look at the discreptency.

Earlier Stuff:

I Wanna Hold Your Hand
She Loves You
Love Me Do
Please Please Me
Twist And Shout(cover)
All My Loving
Hard Day's Night
Happy Just To Dance With You
Can't Buy Me Love
I'll Follow The Sun
Eight Days A Week
Help
You've Got To Hide Your Love Away
Ticket To Ride
Yesterday
Drive My Car
In My Life
Norwegian Wood
Michelle
Taxman
Eleanor Rigby
Here There And Everywhere
Yellow Submarine
From Me To You
I Feel Fine
Day Tripper
Paperback Writer

And then, imo, the REALLY great stuff, the Beatles later period...this stuff is probably not QUITE as known to younger kids. There are a few tracks here that are DEFINITELY known, i.e. Let It Be, Hey Jude, Blackbird, etc., but for the most part, I think this is the stuff a lot of these younger people don't know about when they say some of the stuff they say.

With A Little Help From My Friends
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
Getting Better
Fixing A Hole
She Is Leaving Home
A Day In The Life
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Dear Prudence
Blackbird
Julia
Revolution
Honey Pie
Hello Goodbye
Penny Lane
I Am The Walrus
Strawberry Fields Forever
All You Need Is Love
Something
I Want You(She's So Heavy)
Here Comes The Sun
The entire Side B Abbey Road Medley
Let It Be
The Long And Winding Road
Across The Universe
Hey Jude

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Okay then, what are some good lyrics from the Beatles?

My point is that it was easier to be heroes when audiences were much less fickle. Most modern bands have to work much harder. I'm not denying the fact that they were hugely influencial, but what I'm saying is that they happened to come up with a good formula for a pop music that appealed to the masses. And to their credit they did it well. But "Love Me Do" etc certainly wouldn't survive today.

As for the "deeper" Beatles songs that people talk about, could you please give me some examples? If there are songs that are strong lyrically and/or are good musically then I will be willing to give them a listen.

I'm not sure how you know people were less fickle back in the 60s, almost 20 years before you were born. Anyway, "Love me do" was their first single and they had to fight tooth and nail to even record their own songs when they started out. That wasn't even done back then. Bands were "given" songs that were written by "professional songwriters" to record, so the fact that they even wrote their own songs was a big step.

I'll send you a few tunes but it won't do much-By the sounds of it you know the Beatles only from whats played on the "oldie stations"-if you're a music fan you have to at least give the beatles a chance and actually look into them a bit. If you don't you really are depriving yourself of alot of enjoyment.

I just picked songs that I like. 1/3 of the people on a U2 message board picked the Beatles over U2 and they could easily choose 3 different songs of the same quality

Tomorrow Never knows
http://s37.ysi.com/d.aspx?id=3OWYQXWJSRMOJ31VCAVBU49O0S

Golden Slumbers/Carry that Weight/The End
http://s37.ysi.com/d.aspx?id=19E6HUD0008R70TGJVNF5D7BU6

Helter Skelter
http://s37.ysi.com/d.aspx?id=27RRIE740955I26U96X4YN688J

 

[typhoon]

As for the "deeper" Beatles songs that people talk about, could you please give me some examples? If there are songs that are strong lyrically and/or are good musically then I will be willing to give them a listen.

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."

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I had to read all 10 pages to see if this thread was just a piss-take.

If there had been no Beatles in the 60s and how they changed the way music was made, there would be no music, including U2, the way we know it now.

(BTW, for those musos out there, Paul has recorded at least 2 albums where he's played ALL the instruments)

 

[U2Man]

I had to read all 10 pages to see if this thread was just a piss-take.

If there had been no Beatles in the 60s and how they changed the way music was made, there would be no music, including U2, the way we know it now.

(BTW, for those musos out there, Paul has recorded at least 2 albums where he's played ALL the instruments)

Exactly With a shake of the head I read through alot of the oafish remarks about how the Beatles sucked and how Edge is a lot better guitar player than any member of the Beatles.

John & Paul were geniuses out of this world! Not being comparable to these two guys is not a shame. Not a single musician/song writer in the last 100 years or more can be compared to the magic and creativity of the two at their peak. You have to go back hundreds of years to, for instance, Mozart to find a similar musical wonder kid. They, sadly, appear very rarely. Frankly, claiming that U2 are better song writers than Lennon/McCartney is like saying Jean-Michel Jarre is a better composer than Mozart. He has made some great stuff, but obviously even the pop kids know this can't be true.

Right now the poll in here says 65%-35 % in U2's favour. How do you think it would look like if you asked the general public and not a group of wild U2-fans? I'd say The Beatles would be ahead with around 95%-5%.

 

[JOFO]

Right now the poll in here says 65%-35 % in U2's favour. How do you think it would look like if you asked the general public and not a group of wild U2-fans? I'd say The Beatles would be ahead with around 95%-5%.

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)

now mind you, this IS NOT MY LIST. this is simply an educated guess on what the general public would pick for the top ten bands of all time.

 

[bathiu]

8. Bruce Springsteen

Shouldn't the "greatest of all time" be popular/known/important internationaly?
I have nothing against Springsteen, but he's really just american "star"...

 

[JOFO]

Shouldn't the "greatest of all time" be popular/known/important internationaly?
I have nothing against Springsteen, but he's really just american "star"...

well, I don't know about that. I'm not a huge fan of his but I'm pretty sure he's got a huge international following.