Bono: John Lennon's heir ?

[last unicorn]

Great discussion, but I wouldn't compare Bono and Edge to Lennon and McCartney either. In the end, the Beatles became too involved with themselves and the individual members screwed up the band. This is something that will never happen to U2. Though it's clear that Bono and Edge can and will never have solo carreers, I still have more respect for them on a human basis.

 

[U2girl]

Re: Re: Bono: John Lennon's heir ?

That's awesome- never heard that before. ;-)

(I think John Lennon could have more than two sons, (Julian and Sean), right?)

Yes, two sons. The older Julian Lennon - son of his first wife Cynthia - and the younger Sean Lennon, Yoko's son. Both are musicians and Julian looks and sounds eerily a lot like his father.

MrsPurrl: true, but I meant "heir" in the sense Bono is continuing the legacy of John Lennon with his activism.

BonoSaint: maybe...one wonders what John would have thought of Bono.


Musically, there is no comparison. Yes both had very personal topics but I think very, very few U2 songs can compare to Beatles's classics. And it would be a massive stretch to say Bono and Edge = Lennon and McCartney. I think out of U2, I could see Bono and Edge do solo careers, but I don't think they're interested in doing that so far.

As for loathing: there were probably a lot of people loathing John just like there are those that loathe Bono. I'd argue maybe more since Bono never said something like the infamous "bigger than Jesus" comment (I don't remember any massive burning U2 albums in the US). And whatever one may think of his activism, it didn't have the effect that Yoko did.

 

[Reptile347]

Another similar thing that no one mentioned is the shades

My mother always calls those round sunglasses "John Lennon Glasses" and when I wear rimless glasses people say "You got Bono shades on".

So they both have a famous style of shades.

 

[U2girl]

"Lennon" glasses are more famous than anything Bono wears.

 

[last unicorn]

^That's right. But just wait and see: Bono glasses will become legendary one day.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

the difference is that Bono is making a difference in cold, hard, concrete terms.

still, he'll never have the cultural impact that Lennon had. no one ever will.

the difference now is we are also the ones making the difference and back then it wasn't popular to think like that

yes it appears bono is doing more he is definately involved more politically than lennon but thats just the times we live. If Lennon tried doing that back then fuck knows what would have happened. And as much as I love what Bono is doing, it would not be possible in heinseight without what Lennon really did. Every artist everwhere owes Lennon credit for being the first to turn his megastar image into a force to be reckoned with.

Without that it would not have inspired so many artists after him to follow his steps and to me that is why the man is immortal besides anyone who can write a song like Working Class Hero in 1970 is a god in my books.

 

[david]

"Lennon" glasses are more famous than anything Bono wears.

Bono's glasses are legendary in the sense that everytime I hear someone say anything bad about Bono they always say "Why does he always wear those stupid glasses." or "Yeah, he's trying to save Africa while wearing expensive sunglasses" etc.

 

[U2girl]

Yes, the "I'm tired of the rich and the famous talk about poverty" line.

 

[BonosSaint]

the difference now is we are also the ones making the difference and back then it wasn't popular to think like that

yes it appears bono is doing more he is definately involved more politically than lennon but thats just the times we live. If Lennon tried doing that back then fuck knows what would have happened. And as much as I love what Bono is doing, it would not be possible in heinseight without what Lennon really did. Every artist everwhere owes Lennon credit for being the first to turn his megastar image into a force to be reckoned with.

Without that it would not have inspired so many artists after him to follow his steps and to me that is why the man is immortal besides anyone who can write a song like Working Class Hero in 1970 is a god in my books.

 

[susanp6]

I've always thought this!

 

[guill]

So what do you think: is Bono the legitimate heir to Lennon ?

Bono is definitely the last member of the Lennon/Marley/Gaye family, he is becoming the most diplomatic and efficient one.
And he may be the biggest of them, the connection with Sarajevo during the ZooTv in Italy is really one of the most political thing in Art that happened in the last 50 years.

 

[Bono's Betty]

he'll never have the cultural impact that Lennon had. no one ever will.

 

[waynetravis]

Bono's glasses are legendary in the sense that everytime I hear someone say anything bad about Bono they always say "Why does he always wear those stupid glasses." or "Yeah, he's trying to save Africa while wearing expensive sunglasses" etc.

Those glasses he wears are a very effective marketing scheme for Product (RED).

I went to Harrods in London on Wednesday, and I decided to check out the sunglsses area. There was an Armani section, but the glasses Bono wears were not on display.
When I asked the sales rep if they had any in stock, she said they did have some a few weeks ago but they always sell out fast.

So even though he wears the exspensive glasses, he is supporting his own cause, and is helping to save Africa.

 

[love2bmama]

Great discussion, but I wouldn't compare Bono and Edge to Lennon and McCartney either. In the end, the Beatles became too involved with themselves and the individual members screwed up the band. This is something that will never happen to U2. Though it's clear that Bono and Edge can and will never have solo carreers, I still have more respect for them on a human basis.

I think another difference is the relationship between the 2. Bono and Edge are close and have remained so, amazingly, for over 30 years.

It didn't take long for Lennon/McCartney to have conflict with each other and that wore away at the fabric of the band maybe as much as Yoko's presence did.

 

[Bono's shades]

I watched the documentary "The U.S. Vs. John Lennon" the other night. At one point Lennon was saying that since the media was obssessed with him and following him around anyway he might as well make good use of the situation and talk about the things he believed in, such as ending the war in Vietnam. It reminded me a lot of what Bono is always saying - that celebrity is ridiculous, but since he is one he might as well use it for good.

I do think there are some significant differences between the two of them, however. For one thing, although there are plenty of people who think Bono is arrogant and needs to shut up, he has never been as reviled as John Lennon was at several points in his career (such as the comment about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus). And although Bono can come across as quite angry )or at least he used to) I don't think he was ever as pissed off and anti-establishment as Lennon.

 

[struckpx]

Great discussion, but I wouldn't compare Bono and Edge to Lennon and McCartney either. In the end, the Beatles became too involved with themselves and the individual members screwed up the band. This is something that will never happen to U2. Though it's clear that Bono and Edge can and will never have solo carreers, I still have more respect for them on a human basis.

as the saying goes, never say never. although i agree, mccartney and lennon were destined to go there separate paths anyways. they were too talented to stay in a group their whole lives.

 

[BonosSaint]

Great discussion, but I wouldn't compare Bono and Edge to Lennon and McCartney either. In the end, the Beatles became too involved with themselves and the individual members screwed up the band. This is something that will never happen to U2. Though it's clear that Bono and Edge can and will never have solo carreers, I still have more respect for them on a human basis.

The Beatles and U2 released a similar number of albums, the difference being the Beatles released theirs in a span of 7 years, U2 over 25 years. The quick maturation of their music (the intense creativity, the raising of the bar) and the amount of output under the phenomenal scrutiny the Beatles were under was already a recipe for burnout.

There is a difference already there between the Beatles and U2. The roles of the individual members of U2 are defined. There was no such definition in reality in the Beatles (other than Paul being the cute one). Bono and the Edge are complementary. Lennon and McCartney were contradictory--point, counterpoint. The lushness of McCartney against the edge of Lennon (A Day in the Life). Lennon pushed McCartney so McCartney began to have edge. McCartney pushed Lennon on the music. After they broke up, McCartney rarely had the same edge, Lennon rarely the pure musicianship of a McCartney.

What you also had in the Beatles were three creative equals (2 proclaimed and the third coming into his own)--all pushing each other and pushing away from each other (with no strong management in the end that protected them from everything but the music) Tremendous talents butting heads creatively, businesswise, personally. With no time to catch their breaths, to create some distance.

But like with U2, you had a situation where for all the talent, it was all a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

(And I do apologize, U2girl for further derailing the intent of your thread.)