Bono: John Lennon's heir ?

[U2girl]

Both were fronting the biggest band at the time, both had an "extracurricular activity" (Yoko and Africa), both outspoken and both advocating peace. For both of them the said "outside activity" meant friction in the band. Both became one of the most famous and recognizable figures worlwide, icons outside of their band's music and after 20+ years of music, both are legends of music.
U2 has named Beatles as an influence and the band covered their songs, Bono in particular is said to admire Lennon's music.


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

edit: interesting -

Speaking to the Rolling Stone Bono said: “Yoko came up to me when I was in my twenties, and she put her hand on me and she said, 'You are John's son.' What an amazing compliment!”

 

[dr. zooeuss]

I was just thinking about this the other day- I've seen it since first reading the lyrics to "God Part II" and realizing it was a response to a John Lennon song... now that Bono is one of the most recognizable people in the world media, I think even someone who is not really into rock//pop music could see this connection as well.

I keep wondering whether Bono will ever say "we're bigger than the Beatles" as a jab at Lennon who once said the Beatles were "Bigger than Jesus"- but I think perhaps Bono has too much respect for the Fab Four to say that... then again, catch him in a joking mood... ;-)

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[U2girl]

I forgot to add both lost their mother at an early age which may have influenced both of them getting into music.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

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.

Good points. I agree with the first one.

The second one, I used to think that as well, but consider than Lennon (tragically) was killed in the midst of his life's work, and a lot of his influence has been post-humous.

Bono on the other hand will likely live a long life, and his career has already been longer than Lennon's. The impact Bono will have post-humously still remains to be seen (and will hopefully not be seen for a long time).

Pop musicians still seem to have even more impact post-humously than during their life- imho, this has contributed to the legend of Lennon, similar to the legend of Kennedy, etc.

Bono's impact will be felt for a long long time, and as he is still alive and creating music, we can consider that it has truly just begun... ;-)

 

[MsPurrl]

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

Since "legitimate" means legal or lawful, then I'd have to say no.
Artistically or spiritually, maybe.

 

[david]

Speaking to the Rolling Stone Bono said: “Yoko came up to me when I was in my twenties, and she put her hand on me and she said, 'You are John's son.' What an amazing compliment!”

Poor Julian Lennon.

 

[silvrlvr]

I think Bono and The Edge are the Lennon and McCartney of our time, from a musical standpoint.

There are a bunch of differences between Bono and Lennon, though.

Bono's politics have evolved into working with the establishment as much as challenging them, while no one could ever say that Lennon embraced the establishment.

I also think Lennon's early death has encapsulated him in a way that Bono will not be. He still has a good third of his body of work ahead of him, assuming his voice holds out, and even if it doesn't, he can focus on activism and writing without having to sing.

Will they make tribute albums for causes with U2 music sometime down the road, i.e. Mika sings The Fly? Not sure about that.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

There are already quite a few U2 tribute albums out there- I've seen them in the following genres (no joke) - alt-rock, reggae, bluegrass, classical, instrumental children's lullabies, not to mention covers that already exist of Streets, One, Stay, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride (just off the top of my head)

 

[dr. zooeuss]

Speaking to the Rolling Stone Bono said: “Yoko came up to me when I was in my twenties, and she put her hand on me and she said, 'You are John's son.' What an amazing compliment!”

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

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

 

[MsPurrl]

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

Poor Julian Lennon.

And Sean Lennon, too--at least she just said "you are John's son", not John's heir!

 

[Canadiens1131]

Although not alive at the time, I think a slight majority of the world's music-listening population didn't loathe John the way they do Bono.

 

[silvrlvr]

Richard Nixon wasn't too fond of Lennon.

 

[AtomicBono]

Will they make tribute albums for causes with U2 music sometime down the road, i.e. Mika sings The Fly? Not sure about that.

http://www.inthenameoflovecd.com/ I'm thinking so...

Yeah I suppose you could say Bono is a modern day Lennon. And as Irvine said, Bono has gotten more of a difference in concrete terms, but he (or probably anyone) will never match the cultural impact of Lennon - in fact, I doubt Bono would have become such an activist if Lennon was not one of his heroes. Still, I think/hope Bono has inspired a lot of people to become active

 

[cstar]

I
I keep wondering whether Bono will ever say "we're bigger than the Beatles" as a jab at Lennon who once said the Beatles were "Bigger than Jesus"- but I think perhaps Bono has too much respect for the Fab Four to say that... then again, catch him in a joking mood... ;-)

On the HBO special w/Dave Stewart Bono said that he believes that U2 is giving the Beatles a run or something to that effect that they are equals or U2 even surpasses the Beatles. (I forget the exact quote at the moment.) Gasps from the audience... the audacity. I think he was serious, and I would agree with him.

So I do think that Bono and Lennon are at least equals: in talent, charisma, activism, and cultural impact.

 

[silvrlvr]

http://www.inthenameoflovecd.com/ I'm thinking so...

I hadn't seen this album, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Screwtape2]

I think Bono and The Edge are the Lennon and McCartney of our time, from a musical standpoint.

Wait. Lennon and McCartney were both great individual songwriters who were talented enough to have solo careers. Bono and The Edge are not great individual songwriters. Neither could be have solo careers. To suggest that they are the modern day Lennon and McCartney is simply absurd from that perspective.

 

[rihannsu]

On the HBO special w/Dave Stewart Bono said that he believes that U2 is giving the Beatles a run or something to that effect that they are equals or U2 even surpasses the Beatles. (I forget the exact quote at the moment.) Gasps from the audience... the audacity. I think he was serious, and I would agree with him.

So I do think that Bono and Lennon are at least equals: in talent, charisma, activism, and cultural impact.

He said, very cheekily, "But I think we have them on the run." After the audience reaction he grinned. I think he was either testing the waters or just stirring shit up as usual.

Dana

 

[dr. zooeuss]

Wait. Lennon and McCartney were both great individual songwriters who were talented enough to have solo careers. Bono and The Edge are not great individual songwriters. Neither could be have solo careers. To suggest that they are the modern day Lennon and McCartney is simply absurd from that perspective.

Yep. Good point. On the flipside though, this has allowed them to stay intact for 30+ years, and to do things the Beatles couldn't do as a result.

There will always be differences, but in terms of speaking for a generation, and creating//reflecting the cultural changes of their time, U2 do seem the Beatles' heir.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say U2 is the heir of the Beatles than to say Bono is the heir of Lennon. But Lennon and Bono both have that starpower-charisma that there only seems to be enough room for once each generation. ;-)

As much as I love Edge, it's hard to justify comparing him to McCartney.

In other ways, U2 could be considered heirs' to the Stones: the Bono-Edge relationship is closer to Jagger-Richards than it is to Lennon-McCartney. And I think U2 beat out the Stones though for relevance and integrity.

But the Stones still have them on longevity, despite having pretty much dissolved at one point, which U2 have never done... only time will tell if U2 can span more years than the Stones have done...

 

[dr. zooeuss]

He said, very cheekily, "But I think we have them on the run." After the audience reaction he grinned. I think he was either testing the waters or just stirring shit up as usual.

Dana

As much as I will probably always prefer U2 to the Beatles, having grown up with U2, and the Beatles being before my time- sometimes I feel there is something the Beatles have//had that U2 still haven't really put their finger on...

it's hard to put into words, but there's a sense of carefree joy to some of the Beatles' music that I don't see that often in U2's catalog.

The Beatles' also seemed to push more envelopes, and incorporate a wider array of instruments and arrangements- the sitar, strings, horns, orchestras, etc... Yes, U2 have done a few isolated horn and string arrangements and experimented with techno// electronica, but it seemed more of an "add-on" than the band members really taking it on and making it part of their sound in the way that the Beatles seemed to... does that make sense?

...part of me feels like a "traitor U2 fan" for saying that, but I've always kind of thought/ felt it- is there anyone out there that agrees with this? Just wondering...

 

[Screwtape2]

As much as I will probably always prefer U2 to the Beatles, having grown up with U2, and the Beatles being before my time- sometimes I feel there is something the Beatles have//had that U2 still haven't really put their finger on...

it's hard to put into words, but there's a sense of carefree joy to some of the Beatles' music that I don't see that often in U2's catalog.

I think the difference is that when you listen to U2's music you almost feel like you're invading something because the music is so personal and has such location. With The Beatles it is like you're invited in. I think the "carefree joy" you talk about is the warmth of The Beatles compared to the moody nature of U2's music.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

I think the difference is that when you listen to U2's music you almost feel like you're invading something because the music is so personal and has such location. With The Beatles it is like you're invited in. I think the "carefree joy" you talk about is the warmth of The Beatles compared to the moody nature of U2's music.

Interesting way to put it. You must at least partially see this as well to have described it so aptly (?)

 

[Canadiens1131]

Wait. Lennon and McCartney were both great individual songwriters who were talented enough to have solo careers. Bono and The Edge are not great individual songwriters. Neither could be have solo careers. To suggest that they are the modern day Lennon and McCartney is simply absurd from that perspective.

THANK YOU for articulating what I was thinking

 

[rihannsu]

I think the difference is that when you listen to U2's music you almost feel like you're invading something because the music is so personal and has such location. With The Beatles it is like you're invited in. I think the "carefree joy" you talk about is the warmth of The Beatles compared to the moody nature of U2's music.

Well, Bono feels that singing their songs is like doing it with the lights on. Very intimate. U2's music is wrestling with life, the universe, and everything and just as in life there is both joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, love and hate, etc. For me, their music takes me places and works me over. It is cathartic and cleansing. I like the Beatles too and there music can take me places too, but it is usually about taking me out of myself and when it's over I'm back to the same me I was before it started. But U2 changes me, lifts me, moves me in different directions and when it's over I don't feel the same. I can honestly say that listening to their music has helped me tremendously over the past year and a half. No other artist's music has ever had that much of an effect on me. Now, when I need something extra to get me through the day, U2 gets cranked up and leaves me energized and ready for what's next.

Dana

 

[sue4u2]

One huge difference is U2 has complete and ultimate control of their own music and lyrics as opposed to the Beatles .. No one has heard (nor will anyone else) U2s catalogue in repeat commercials and one only hears a U2 song, rarely, in movies. I've heard Beatles music everywhere..all my life...but never have they've had the impact on my life as U2 has. U2 isn't letting just anyone use/twist their lyrics and or music in anyway someone sees fit.
This is probably the most profound difference between the Beatles and U2's popularity is the commercial factor.
One can hear the Beatles in the best of movies & TV or the worst.
With that said, there's is noting more satisfying to me than to hear a stragecially placed U2 song in a good movie.
Even though I would love to hear some U2 music in commercials, I can actually understand why they don't do them.

 

[BonosSaint]

Speaking to the Rolling Stone Bono said: “Yoko came up to me when I was in my twenties, and she put her hand on me and she said, 'You are John's son.' What an amazing compliment!” [/B]

I think John would have smiled at that and come up with a wonderfully witty putdown that would have sent Bono temporarily scurrying away with his tail between his legs.

 

[doctorwho]

Although not alive at the time, I think a slight majority of the world's music-listening population didn't loathe John the way they do Bono.

This is a very dangerous and most likely wildly incorrect statement to make.

I say dangerous because it appears heavily biased and based on your personal experiences and/or memory.

I've talked to many people about Bono - often out of the blue - and ALL have said that they respect his work. Granted, my world is small, but when I have interacted people across the U.S. and bring Bono into the conversation, all say the same. Most also admit to liking U2 as well.

Lennon, now, of course, is highly revered, as are the Beatles. History is often kind to those who were liked at least at one point in time. In fact, time has even allowed some to think differently about the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler! With that in mind, I'm sure U2 and Bono will be loved one day by all as well. But during the height of Lennon's popularity, he was challenged - and challenged hard - by members of the media, and watched closely by the FBI. The famous "the Beatles are bigger than Jesus" comment - something that was taken horribly out of context (by the same media that pushed the Beatles to the forefront) - caused a massive rebellion against them. Many found Lennon to be nothing more than a wealthy pop star rebelling simply because he could. Ask older people about Lennon (i.e., those who would be about 60-65 now) and you may not receive the loving praise of Lennon as you do of the 40-somethings commenting about Bono.

My point is both are the same in many ways. Bono in his 20's was very much like Lennon - preaching and complaining. He may not have had "sit in's" or "bed in's", but he did preach in concert (very famously too). And U2's lyrics were often anti-war back then.

But the Bono of his 30's and 40's has been far more interactive - his efforts have really made a difference. He truly is changing the world in a tangible manner. This is a lot more than Lennon did in his 30's, after the Beatles disbanded.

One could argue that Bono couldn't be doing all that he's done without people like Lennon opening the door for him - and I accept that. But I still feel that Lennon could have done more than just protest (same is true with Dylan and N. Young and others of that generation). Perhaps it took until the 80's before musicians finally did more than just protest. Perhaps it took until the 00's before people would even listen to a musician as being a real political force. But it also took OCEANS of hard work on Bono's part to get to where he is. If he was just like Lennon, he'd still be preaching. Instead, he's preaching AND accomplishing. And that, to me, is the biggest difference.

Could Lennon have done more had his life not been taken from him by a crazed man? Possibly. But I'm hesitant to say how much - because, as I wrote above, he didn't really seem to do as much as he could. His music was powerful and he did make contributions to society, but not nearly at the worldwide level Bono has.

So is Bono as hated as you say? I say "no". The ramblings of those on a blue board are not reflective of society. Did Lennon open doors? And how! But could he have done even more with his fame? Yes. Fortunately, Yoko Ono survives and she has, even if she's been more quiet about it.

 

[doctorwho]

I think the difference is that when you listen to U2's music you almost feel like you're invading something because the music is so personal and has such location. With The Beatles it is like you're invited in. I think the "carefree joy" you talk about is the warmth of The Beatles compared to the moody nature of U2's music.

I think this depends on the era of the Beatles. While both U2 and the Beatles started out with more "simple" tunes, U2 immediately dove for deeper topics, like Bono's mother, electro-therapy, anti-war, etc. Early Beatles, in contrast, had fun, happy songs like "And I Love Her", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "She Loves Me", etc. Granted, U2 could never have written the way they did had the Beatles not opened that door for fast-paced rock songs by a British group in the early 60's. But the result is that those songs tend to pull one into the fun, while U2's early songs tend to make one more reflective.

As time passed, though, I feel the Beatles' music is what heavily influenced U2. Sound exploration, deep topics, drug-induced lyrics - these more abstract ideas were a sharp contrast to their early ditties. And these more thought-provoking works, still in the context of popular rock music, is what I feel have influenced U2 the most.

By the end of the Beatles' career, beautiful love songs like "Let It Be" (about Paul's mother) or "Something" are very analogous to more recent U2 work, like "Beautiful Day" or "City of Blinding Lights". The songs are uplifting, almost spiritual.

So really, the only difference to me is that early Beatles wrote fun pop songs, whereas early U2 hit some heavy topics hard. But by the middle of their respective careers and now, later in their careers, the two bands were/are on the same path.

With that in mind, it will be interesting to see where U2 goes from here. Are they thinking of another ATYCLB? Or are they hoping to zoom in on those unique bits seen on HTDAAB, like "Fast Cars", "Love & Peace or Else" and even "Vertigo"? Because, in a way, U2 have reached the point of the Beatle's "Abbey Road"/"Let It Be". So where U2 goes from here is "uncharted".

 

[BVS]

Although not alive at the time, I think a slight majority of the world's music-listening population didn't loathe John the way they do Bono.

This is very revisionist...

John was loathed by many, dying does wonders for your persona...

 

[BonosSaint]

I never got the sense that Lennon embraced social activism as Bono did. I think he knew his name recognition and felt an obligation. I think to do what Bono does one has to be a great people person and a great politician. I doubt that Lennon was either.