Is this the worst comment ever......?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't mean to sound like an attention whore, but did anyone, per chance, see my post towards the top of the thread? I think it makes an essential point that certain people are missing.
 
namkcuR said:
I don't mean to sound like an attention whore, but did anyone, per chance, see my post towards the top of the thread? I think it makes an essential point that certain people are missing.

I read it Nam it was a good post and i agree...just i didn't post earlier because i tend to avoid very argumentative threads.

I would like to make the point fine the beatles may have more songs lodged in the publics memory and a catchy melody does not a great song make...Hit me Baby One More Time actually has a decent melody...it is also catchy...i am also pretty sure we all know it:wink:...most of us probably think it is pretty crap too...Travis did a cover of it and turned out pretty good...because it had a good melody:up;

Good melodies at times though do not always mean exciting and interesting songs...that is where i think sometimes the Beatles
fall down in their lesser efforts...i think Streets is a greater song that a good portion of the Beatles work because i think it is one of the greatest songs of all time...is it better than say She Loves You? hell yeah:shrug: all a matter of taste...

i am rambling aren't I?:huh:
 
roy said:


'In the end, it's taste. But they are very catchy tunes'

I tried to be good but that is so, sooo funny. :lol:

What I don't understand is that this guy/girl has over 3000 posts :shrug:

Did you use up nearly 400 posts just to be as bitchy as this? Sad.
 
I must say that I think both doctorwho and namkcuR made excellent posts and if everyone here could do the same, this thread would be a bit more intelligent than Bickering Central. This is almost like a Coldplay thread!

U2Man said:


In the end, it's taste. But they are very catchy tunes. Don't most people know both of them? Can they sing along to Hello Goodbye? Sure yes, they can. How many people in this world know Stay besides the U2 fans?

Elevation's a very catchy tune too. But isn't it one U2 song you totally despise? How does that work - a couple of Beatles songs are great because they're catchy, while Elevation sucks because ... it's a catchy rock song? I haven't really seen you rant about Elevation, but it seems a lot of people here despise it because it's catchy and not some obscure artistic song like Zooropa.
 
Axver said:
I must say that I think both doctorwho and namkcuR made excellent posts and if everyone here could do the same, this thread would be a bit more intelligent than Bickering Central. This is almost like a Coldplay thread!



Elevation's a very catchy tune too. But isn't it one U2 song you totally despise? How does that work - a couple of Beatles songs are great because they're catchy, while Elevation sucks because ... it's a catchy rock song? I haven't really seen you rant about Elevation, but it seems a lot of people here despise it because it's catchy and not some obscure artistic song like Zooropa.

No, I don't despise Elevation at all. In fact, I like it very much. It's definitely not innovative in any way in the year 2001, though. Hello Goodbye isn't either, although it definitely did sound a lot more fresh back in the sixties when it was done. What we were discussing initially here was the impact that The Beatles and U2 had had on music. I would dare say that Hello Goodbye was more innovative in the early sixties than Elevation is today.
 
namkcuR said:
I don't mean to sound like an attention whore, but did anyone, per chance, see my post towards the top of the thread? I think it makes an essential point that certain people are missing.

I agree with you all the way - especially with the apples and oranges bit as I mentioned before. This is almost as strange as the Pink Floyd vs. U2 thread a while back. How on earth can you compare the two?
 
You can compare U2 to any other band that my answer will always be partial. I can't compare U2 with any other band because U2... are my "special" band and I would never be fair.

It's odd, from my 10 favourite songs made by anyone, probably one Streets would made it. But the BAND... and their catalog... their are MY BAND, the only one real important, and they kick any band's ass in my head.

I guess I've answered to namkcur.

U2 vs Beatles/Coldplay/etc threads will always suck for me. Each band to their own.
 
roy said:


Maybe, but I always feel that with The Beatles V U2 debate it's like comparing a 100ms runner who is clean with one that is tanked up on steriods...

Well, rumour has it that, according to Bono, God usually walks into the room while they record. Someone might feel that is a bit unfair, too.
 
U2Man said:


No, I don't despise Elevation at all. In fact, I like it very much. It's definitely not innovative in any way in the year 2001, though. Hello Goodbye isn't either, although it definitely did sound a lot more fresh back in the sixties when it was done. What we were discussing initially here was the impact that The Beatles and U2 had had on music. I would dare say that Hello Goodbye was more innovative in the early sixties than Elevation is today.

Ah, sorry! Trying to keep up with who in the setlist party threads hates what songs is taxing even for my memory sometimes. :wink:

Ultimately, I think a lot of this comes down to the fact the Beatles were on the spot first, and everyone remembers who was first. Whether or not U2 would've been just as good or better had they been in that position is so beyond hypothetical that I think any kind of speculation is outlandish. People often forget who came second - be it music, sport, politics, etc. - even if they were better (*cough*NZrugbyWorldCup1995*cough*), and U2 weren't exactly early enough to be 'second' either.
 
Axver said:


Ah, sorry! Trying to keep up with who in the setlist party threads hates what songs is taxing even for my memory sometimes. :wink:

Impossible. You are the DATA BANK here, Axver. We rely on you for information like this. :wink:
 
my 2 cents:

1. both are excellent bands and have their places. they'll both be remembered in 30 years.

2. harrison was totally out of line with his comment; to put u2 in the same boat as the spice girls is downright stupid.

3. "something" is such a beutiful song......but we never would have heard it if it wasn't for the songwriting team of lennon/mccartney that put the beatles on the map.

4. yes, the beatles were probably the most productive/creative force in music when you think they were together for only 7 years.
they'll always be acknowledged as the greatest band ever.

5. I like U2 better.:wink:
 
U2Man said:


Your legacy starts as soon as you write something that is an eternal classical masterpiece. Yesterday, for instance, was from day 1 the world heard it.

And no, it simply isn't possible to be jealous at any other band on this planet today if you were a member of The Beatles. I highly doubt that George Harrison would have liked to switch positions.

You say U2's career have been longer than the Beatles'? Well, yes they have stuck together for a longer time. But may I remind you that even though The Beatles only recorded albums in 7 years, they managed to make more albums than U2 have done so far in 25+ years - and not a single real crap track on any album! You cannot quite say the same about U2's albums.

Wonders why you are even a U2 fan at all? since u2 has alot of "crap" songs on their albums
 
dabiggestu2fan said:


Wonders why you are even a U2 fan at all? since u2 has alot of "crap" songs on their albums

Even if I only liked 50% of their material, couldn't I be a fan of that part?
 
JOFO said:
my 2 cents:

1. both are excellent bands and have their places. they'll both be remembered in 30 years.

2. harrison was totally out of line with his comment; to put u2 in the same boat as the spice girls is downright stupid.

3. "something" is such a beutiful song......but we never would have heard it if it wasn't for the songwriting team of lennon/mccartney that put the beatles on the map.

4. yes, the beatles were probably the most productive/creative force in music when you think they were together for only 7 years.
they'll always be acknowledged as the greatest band ever.

5. I like U2 better.:wink:

I agree entirely.

Can't we just leave it at that?
 
U2Man said:
Wild Honey Pie, You Know My Name, Revolution nr. 9 were never really meant as songs. The difference is that when Beatles made songs that were below their normal standards it was at least funny and it still contained some fair melody, like Yellow Submarine. When U2 write a song below their normal standards, it's just plain boring, like Miami, Love Rescue me, or Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car.

But nevermind that. Perhaps I should have written that Beatles' albums only contain a vanishing amount of doubtful material.

Wild Honey Pie - never heard about
You know my name - i dont really remember
revolution # 9 is so so

now

Miami - is a very good song (not like any of their classics but i love it)
Love rescue me - little slow but its a nice melody
daddy's ganna pay for your crashed car is an amazing song!!!!

so what are you talking about they are boring songs???
 
Can we please stop this. Beatles have proven their longevity and so have U2.

I personally am not a fan of The Beatles, but I respect what they have achieved, and really George Harrison should have shown more respect to U2 than he did as they certainly have shown time and time again that they deserve it.
 
Hey, you know what Bono did when George Harrison died? He didn't say, "Hey, we wrote better songs than you did, let's see who remembers you in thirty years, bwahahah." He helped get "My Sweet Lord" re-released on single, and it went to number one.

It's called respect, and the band has it; dipshit U2 fans don't.

And like it or not, more people know and love "Hello, Goodbye" than "Mofo."
 
typhoon said:
"I Saw Her Standing There"
"Love Me Do"
"Please Please Me"
"From Me To You"
"She Loves You"
"I Want To Hold Your Hand"
"All My Loving"
"A Hard Day's Night"
"And I Love Her"
"Can't Buy Me Love"
"I Feel Fine"
"No Reply"
"Eight Days A Week"
"Help!"
"You've Got To Hide Your Love Away"
"Ticket To Ride"
"Yesterday"
"Norwegian Wood"
"Nowhere Man"
"In My Life"
"Day Tripper"
"We Can Work It Out"
"Rain"
"Eleanor Rigby"
"Here, There, and Everywhere"
"Across the Universe"
"Tomorrow Never Knows"
"Strawberry Fields Forever"
"Penny Lane"
"All You Need Is Love"
"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
"With A Little Help From My Friends"
"Within You, Without You"
"A Day In the Life"
"The Fool On the Hill"
"I Am the Walrus"
"Hello, Goodbye"
"Lady Madonna"
"Hey, Jude"
"Revolution"
"Back In the U.S.S.R."
"Blackbird"
"Happiness Is A Warm Gun"
"Birthday"
"Helter Skelter"
"Get Back"
"Don't Let Me Down"
"Let It Be"
"The Long and Winding Road"
"Come Together"
"Something"
"Here Comes the Sun"

U2's entire recorded output is only about twice the size of that list

...

i'm sorry, what?
 
Did you really need to quote that whole thing to add a three-word comment? Did you really?

U2's only written around 100-150 songs (no, covers and solo projects don't count, much as U2 fans love to bring them out when talking about "diversity"; I remember someone here talking about how impressive it was that Bono did "Ave Maria," a "classical" song, probably not knowing that Paul McCartney has done entire albums of original classical work).

So you'd have to think every one out of two or three songs they've done was a classic to come up with a comparable list, which is how you get ridiculous things like "Numb" and "Discotheque" on roy's list.

Which was, incidentally, only 37 items long to my 52 (which already disproves KUEFC09U2's claim that "u will find the same number of U2 songs"); U2's had an extra twenty years, and you'd still have to scrape the barrel to come up with a comparable list.

Oh, and I was only listing their better known songs. Roy's list had a lot of obscure songs like "One Tree Hill" and "Miss Sarajevo." If I were going for resonance or such, I would've included some favorites like "For No One" or "Julia" and had an even longer list. Face it, these guys aren't getting touched (especially with U2 rolling out albums once every four years now); the only band that can compare is the Rolling Stones.

All I'm saying is, it's fine to like U2 better, but it's stupid to say the Beatles have been surpassed and are irrelevant now. They haven't, and they aren't. It's not like people still listen to their music because "it's classic, it's important, it's whatever"; their music still survives because it's honestly that fucking good.

And someone earlier was going off on this completely off-topic rant about how a band has to break up to have classics (really, so "Sympathy for the Devil" isn't a classic yet?) or how people complain U2 is too poppy now (only the indie dorks who think their music needs to be "obscure" and "experimental" to be good; I think their latter work is as good as anything they've done). No one had brought up any of these points before in the discussion, so I don't know WTF he was going on about.
 
Last edited:
typhoon said:
George Harrison could say whatever the fuck he wanted, by virtue of being George Harrison.

So he has permission to go around having digs at any band he wants just because he was a member of the beatles?! For goodness sakes the guy's a normal human being, the same common rules of decency and respect should apply as much to George Harrison as it should to Joe Blow on the street.

Regardless of whether you like the beatles more than u2 or visa versa, you have to agknowledge that what he said about u2 was completely wrong! No two ways about it!
 
i'm seeing a lot of people getting way out of line here. i'm not even a beatles fan and i can admit that the arguments people like typhoon are making are true. everyone's going to have to learn how to present their side of things without saying things like people "need to get their head examined." i'm sick of all these types of threads becoming (whatever band) vs. U2 and then everyone just behaving like kindergartners.
 
roy said:


Seriously, if you think 'Hello Goodbye' is greater than 'Stay' then you need you head examined. U2man indeed..

Indeed. Hello Goodbye is pure garbage. Stay is quite possibly the greatest ballad of the 90's. :drool:

The Beatles are a better band than U2. I honestly believe that, but George's statement was garbage. :|

U2 is an INCREDIBLE band, and Even Better Than The Real Thing from Popmart Leeds rocks! :rockon:
 
I think Hello Goodbye is better than Stay. I like U2 more than the Beatles.

And for the record, I hardly think that the Stones can compare with that amount of hits, I'd actually say U2 are second only to the Beatles in terms of recognizable hits.
 
typhoon said:
Hey, you know what Bono did when George Harrison died? He didn't say, "Hey, we wrote better songs than you did, let's see who remembers you in thirty years, bwahahah." He helped get "My Sweet Lord" re-released on single, and it went to number one.

It's called respect, and the band has it; dipshit U2 fans don't.

And like it or not, more people know and love "Hello, Goodbye" than "Mofo."

Uh huh, but if people don't respect U2, to each their own, everyone has a right to their opinion.

++++

You say U2's career have been longer than the Beatles'? Well, yes they have stuck together for a longer time. But may I remind you that even though The Beatles only recorded albums in 7 years, they managed to make more albums than U2 have done so far in 25+ years - and not a single real crap track on any album! You cannot quite say the same about U2's albums.

U2 are a touring band though, as someone else pointed out, the Beatles stopped touring midway through their career.

U2 released 6 albums in 8 years (1980-1988), and toured throughout those 8 years, and still were touring for the Lovetown tour into the 1990's.

The ZooTV tour was over 2 years long, and they recorded an album in the middle of it.

That's not productive?

U2's legacy will be as an amazing live band. People may not be as familiar with U2's songs as Beatles songs, but when U2 go on tour, it's not a secret. People who aren't even big U2 fans try to get tickets.

Maybe if U2 really did write more safe pop songs, more people would be familiar with U2's work.

"Sunday Bloody Sunday", has the line about "broken bottles under children's feet, bodies strewn across the dead end street."

What's gonna appeal to people more, that, or "She loves you yeah yeah?"

"New Year's Day", not every bassist will get the response Adam has for that bass riff he came up with.

"With or Without You" sounds nothing like what was popular in 1987.

I've heard songs from around the same time as the Beatles, that were similar in theme to the Beatles. The difference is that the Beatles wrote those songs themselves, instead of having professionals write them for them?



Live is where you really have to prove yourself.

U2 performed Sgt. Pepper live, the Beatles never did.

U2 were inducted into the Rock and Roll hall of Fame, with a number 1 album in many countries, with their original lineup when they became U2, not to mention the sold out tour the following weeks.

Is that not a legacy to be remembered?

I'm sure people will be talking about U2 in 30 years time. Especially if U2 go the way of Rolling Stones and tour in their 60's.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
*Likes "Hello, Goodbye" and "Stay"*

*Likes the Beatles and U2* As I said before, I think they both have made excellent, memorable contributions to music.

*Does not agree with George's comment about U2* But meh, it's his opinion *Shrugs*.

That is all I have to say.

Angela

:up:

Oh, and I would include Dear Prudence on one of those lists... I even have U2's cover version of it. They do cover the Beatles songs alot, don't they.... :hmm:
 
typhoon said:

Oh, and I was only listing their better known songs. Roy's list had a lot of obscure songs like "One Tree Hill" and "Miss Sarajevo." If I were going for resonance or such, I would've included some favorites like "For No One" or "Julia" and had an even longer list. Face it, these guys aren't getting touched (especially with U2 rolling out albums once every four years now); the only band that can compare is the Rolling Stones.

All I'm saying is, it's fine to like U2 better, but it's stupid to say the Beatles have been surpassed and are irrelevant now. They haven't, and they aren't. It's not like people still listen to their music because "it's classic, it's important, it's whatever"; their music still survives because it's honestly that fucking good.

Amen to that :up: great post
 
Back
Top Bottom