U2 is legendary, but won't be remembered like The Beatles...

[Bonochick]

The way I look at it is this... think of the actors people still consider to be the BEST of all time.. Bogart, Grant, Bacall, etc. Why are they considered so?

Because they were the first ones of their kind. They were the first mega superstars in their line of work. So it was with the Beatles as a rock band. They were the first stratospheric rock band in a time when you didn't see that, and in a time when music wasn't nearly as diverse as it is now. Of course U2 hasn't racked up scads of #1 hits - they have too much competition now that the Beatles never did. There weren't thousands of artists and entire football stadiums full of umbrellas of genres back then like there is now.

The Beatles broke through in such an explosive way. They galvanized people. They were the big First. U2 galvanized people in a different way 20 odd years later, but still at a massive level. U2 will absolutely have the same staying power, but there will always be more ink and more reverance for those Big Firsts that we now call The Standards.

I think comparing the Beatles' remebrance level among music lovers -- who came along at a very different time in history and in music -- to U2 is possibly a mistake, and a ponderance out of context. I dunno. I mean, that's how I've always looked at it.

Well-said.

 

[susanp6]

Bon Jovi? They don't even come close to selling out concerts as fast as U2&are nowhere near as good in my opinion! U2 could have sold tickets for 2 nights at Hampden park in Glasgow instantly and yet i don't think that Bon Jovi have even sold out of their 1 night there yet!

INXS while pretty good were hardly massive either.

I agree also about the Stones being overated and the Beatles are far superior

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

You could go into just about any rock bands forum(including this one) and state in a thread that the Beatles are THE Best/Biggest band ever and chances are you’d get a good number of people agreeing with you My guess is that if you went into just about any forum, other than a U2 one, and said that U2 were THE best/Greatest/Biggest Band ever you probably wouldn’t find a whole lot of support.

I'm a huge fan and think that U2 will be remembered with the greats, top 10 for sure, maybe even top 5, but Noone except big U2 fans think that U2 are the greatest band ever. Sorry.

 

[susanp6]

^Sadly, i think you're rigt about that

 

[RademR]

i dont know, beatles have done things u2 never have, and vice versa. like the live shows, the beatles used to do like 30 min sets., come on stage for like 3 songs. what is that??

their both legends to me. i of course like u2 more but if someone told me the beatles are better than u2, who am i to argue?

 

[J_NP]

One thing I can say for sure , 1st as people already said , it's pretty hard to find a better live band than u2 , and is not Beatles ........

2nd Edge is way too much superior to George Harrison , if justice is made , at least he will be much more remembered than harrison.

 

[ntalwar]

The rock bands of the 1970s had by far more competition than either The Beatles or U2. Look at the list of top-selling albums of all time - all of these bands had to compete against one another, yet still managed to pull off huge album sales.

Led Zeppelin IV, Pink Floyd's The Wall, AC/DC's Back In Black (1980), Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, and The Eagles' Hotel California have all attained album sales that U2 has not matched. And these artists did it during the most cutthroat decade in rock history.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Man I've read some hilarious posts in this thread.
I love the U2 zealots on this board sometimes.
The Beatles did it all. The had the charts, the experimenting, the self-mocking, and the timeless songs - before anyone had a blueprint to go by. They are the fucking blueprint.

U2 will be remembered as a great rock band by the 50% of people who don't hate them. The Beatles are legends.

Next someone's going to post that U2 are waiiii more influential than the Velvet Underground, right?
Please.

 

[annie_vox]

What is the point in comparing bands anyway? To me U2 is the best band ever but I'm realistic enough to know that this is not true. So what?

 

[U2girl]

I think if you swapped decades, put U2, Queen, Guns N Roses, Nirvana, Dire Straits, REM, Radiohead in the 60's, and all those bands you listed in todays decade, the conversation would be reversed. Everyone would be touting how great U2 etc was and that the Beatles or Stones etc can't quite live up to their standards.

They were at the beginning and thats that, they will always have that advantage, doesnt matter how many stadiums U2 sell out, or how many records they sell, or how much radioplay they have, they have unfortuantely already lost that battle.

Its like me stating that Robbie Williams is better than Elvis, I think he is, he has better songs, is a better stage performer, but Elvis was first, so its a no win situation.

While I understand the "they were there first" argument, I don't think being first = being the best.

I think they owe their fame to their music and influence just as the fact they've come earlier.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Man I've read some hilarious posts in this thread.
I love the U2 zealots on this board sometimes.
The Beatles did it all. The had the charts, the experimenting, the self-mocking, and the timeless songs - before anyone had a blueprint to go by. They are the fucking blueprint.

u2 has done a lot to influence pop culture over their time... the beatles didn't influence pop culture... they made pop culture. they changed the course of music history forever. if someone else had done it first would they be held in the same esteem? you could argue that... but someone else didn't. the beatles did. like canadiens said... they are the blueprint. u2 at the height of their popularity did not touch the mass hysteria created by beatlemania.

did they benefit from breaking up early and not ever getting the chance to suck it up? yea... they haven't gotten the chance to become the novelty act that the stones have become (all be it one hell of a novelty act).

as for who's actually better musicly? doesn't matter... personal preference.

 

[Yahweh]

Who cares will anybody really be remembered like The Beatles, no...im tired of this discussion to. The Beatles got a lot more airtime then any modern musician will ever get or will ever hope to get not because they were great which isnt being disputed but because they were there at the time when it was happening, the birth of TV and Rock at the same time will make the Beatles the most remembered group ever.

 

[Rafiennes]

But the big question should be...what about the Monkees?

 

[vaz02]

Dont care for the beatles much, right time right place thats all i say....

 

[ntalwar]

the birth of TV and Rock at the same time will make the Beatles the most remembered group ever.

TV had a lot to do with it, but MTV has also benefited artists greatly. I am most impressed with the 70s bands that had enormous album sales in the pre-MTV era.

 

[Pero]

Ok, i think what the inventor of this thread meant, is that u2 is much underrated. Beatles were, i'll repeat, were popular. Now who really listen to them, bunch of old guys who want to feel young and tell their grandchildren: "My son, how good was then."
U2 now listens many more people than beatles.
Ok, i respect beatles music, but they will never be my favourite,just because they were popular in the 60's, u2 were popular in 80's,90's,00's(probably 10's).

 

[ElectricalVoice]

Let's see: Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Brian Wilson, Elvis - who in U2's competition comes close to those names?
Oh and internal fights/ego broke them up, not fear of competition.

I think what U2 lacks to be legendary is one more masterpiece album and (not their fault for being younger) relative lack of influentiality. Also I wouldn't consider their songs - apart from One, WOWY and maybe I still haven't found... - as all-time classics in the eternal catalogue of music.

Agree on the bands you mention. But I disagree that U2 lacks to be legendary. During the 80s, U2 did something completely different than all the others. They weren't a part of the 80s, in a way, and they did their completely own thing, and they will be remembered for that. What they did those days, does not sound like anything else that decade. The 80s may not be my favourite U2 era, but I really see how important it has been on music in general. And the 90s, U2 also did their own thing, although not as in the 80s. And the fact that they still are on top (they will be remembered for these days also - no doubt), make them legendary.

 

[ntalwar]

Ok, i think what the inventor of this thread meant, is that u2 is much underrated.

The "underrated" should probably be clarified up front. They did just win a boatload of Grammies after all.

The Beatles songs he lists are largely love or lighthearted songs, which people perhaps respond to better. The U2 songs listed are more serious and bittersweet. So if U2 are to be "fairly rated" perhaps the lesson is that U2 should have written more romantic love songs over the years? But then they would not have been U2.

 

[Sken]

This argument seems to be going around in circles. Prior to Beatles there was no big act. Prior to Elvis there was no big act. These two in particular being the first big acts ever are the reason they were/are so big. Sure their music might be good but they have put out a heap of crap as well.

One poster mentioned album sales. You cannot compare album sales in a time when copying/downloading etc is at an all time high. A group selling 200million albums in the 70's is like someone selling 80 million these days.

I'd also like to point out I'm not knocking what the Beatles etc have achieved, they definately deserve to be remembered as a legendary band, but I do believe that they are overrated, they are nowhere near as good as some would try and lead you to believe.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

The day U2 is able to match the Beatles in popularity and importance is the day that Britney Spears gets indie cred from college rock fans. Never gonna happen but its not like anybody can.

 

[angelordevil]

I agree with what HelloAngel and Rafiennes said earlier. The Beatles were the original template for most of the bands we've seen reach the level of super-stardom. In any kind of historical reflection, however, the originals will always have a special kind of bragging right, along with a "legend" status all newcomers will never really measure up to.

This said, U2 are from a different era, and are really an entirely different kind of band. Unlike the Beatles, U2 will be remembered for much more than just the music. It'll be the the political activism, a fostering of awareness for global issues, etc, that will truly define U2 historically.

Interestingly, I think U2 are just the kind of band John Lennon wished the Beatles had become.

 

[ntalwar]

One poster mentioned album sales. You cannot compare album sales in a time when copying/downloading etc is at an all time high. A group selling 200million albums in the 70's is like someone selling 80 million these days.

So album sales are only 40% of what they were in 70s? The stats don't bear that out. Those might be numbers the RIAA is trying to push, but only a fraction of those downloading/copying would actually pay money for the album. From 2000 to 2005, album sales declined by 15%, from a combination of downloading and less quality music coming out.

 

[rjhbonovox]

The problem with this comparison is that The Beatles knew when to quit and so preserved their reputation, albeit I'm no big fan of theres. Where as U2 are just fuc#ing theirs up bigtime with crass and attention seeking cabaret performances with some bloody awful squealing woman singer, and putting out 2 inferior albums also!

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: U2 is legendary, but won't be remembered like The Beatles...

Could this have been because of economics and/or logistics? I assume the profit margin of 1960s concerts was a lot less than it is now.

ETA: Intersestingly, the Beatles played Hong Kong and The Philippines.

Those things could have impacted both. Also, going to see a music concert in a football stadium was a new thing back then. It took the Beatles Two Weeks to sellout 55,000 tickets at Shea Stadium at $4 dollars a pop. U2 can sell the same amount of tickets in the New York area in under 20 minutes at a $100 dollars a pop. Of course, you have to count in inflation, technology, other cost, as well the market and culture for much of the difference.

So yes, its rough to make a comparison, but its still something that U2 has done in a way that the Beatles never did.

 

[STING2]

The rock bands of the 1970s had by far more competition than either The Beatles or U2. Look at the list of top-selling albums of all time - all of these bands had to compete against one another, yet still managed to pull off huge album sales.

Led Zeppelin IV, Pink Floyd's The Wall, AC/DC's Back In Black (1980), Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, and The Eagles' Hotel California have all attained album sales that U2 has not matched. And these artists did it during the most cutthroat decade in rock history.

Those are total sales up to 2006. They include all the albums that were sold in the 1980s, 1990s, and this new decade. All of those albums were released prior to U2's first album release. They have had more time to sell which is a big reason many of those albums are ahead. If we measured album sales within the first year of release, the Joshua Tree would beat all the albums you listed.

 

[BVS]

The problem with this comparison is that The Beatles knew when to quit and so preserved their reputation

You're lack of knowledge is hilarious...

 

[STING2]

Man I've read some hilarious posts in this thread.
I love the U2 zealots on this board sometimes.
The Beatles did it all. The had the charts, the experimenting, the self-mocking, and the timeless songs - before anyone had a blueprint to go by. They are the fucking blueprint.

U2 will be remembered as a great rock band by the 50% of people who don't hate them. The Beatles are legends.

Next someone's going to post that U2 are waiiii more influential than the Velvet Underground, right?
Please.

VH1 did a Legends program on U2 back in 1998. Obviously U2 were already consider legends 10 years ago. Thing is, their still going and adding to that status, while the Beatles have been done since 1970.

One thing the Beatles never came close to doing on the level that U2 had done are the Live Shows. Both in terms of attendance and Gross, U2's figures crush anything the Beatles did. As far as performance, the fact that U2 outsells the Beatles on the live bootleg market says it all.

 

[ntalwar]

Those are total sales up to 2006. They include all the albums that were sold in the 1980s, 1990s, and this new decade. All of those albums were released prior to U2's first album release. They have had more time to sell which is a big reason many of those albums are ahead. If we measured album sales within the first year of release, the Joshua Tree would beat all the albums you listed.

True, but isn't that an indicator of the strength of the material- the fact that it sold so well 10, 20, 30 years later? The Dark Side of the Moon spent something like 15 years on the Billboard 200. It would interesting to see how the Joshua Tree is selling this year.

ETA:
I did an unscientific check on amazon for The Joshua Tree and Dark Side of the Moon.

The Joshua Tree: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #420 in Music
Dark Side of the Moon: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #159 in Music

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

VH1 did a Legends program on U2 back in 1998. Obviously U2 were already consider legends 10 years ago. Thing is, their still going and adding to that status, while the Beatles have been done since 1970.

One thing the Beatles never came close to doing on the level that U2 had done are the Live Shows. Both in terms of attendance and Gross, U2's figures crush anything the Beatles did. As far as performance, the fact that U2 outsells the Beatles on the live bootleg market says it all.

I definitely agree that U2 may be the best and most groundbreaking live act ever. Their tours have taken on near
legendary status, and that's something the Beatles tours never did.

To be fair though, the Beatles sound system consisted of 30 watt amps when they first toured america. They were the first rock band to play in a stadium, playing Shea stadium in 1965. For that concert they were using state of the art(!) 100 watt amps which were miced straight through to the stadiums PA system, so obviously the sound was brutal. The main reason why they retired from live performances was that no-one could hear them(including themselves) and their recordings could no longer be performed live with the technology available at the time. Their last tour contained no songs from the album they were promoting, as it's songs couldn't be reproduced live.

Music is subjective, so it doesn't mean that you have to think Beatles music is better than U2s, or you don't even have to like their music, but you have to admit that their influence on music is
unparalleled. As for the argument that the Beatles importance is due to the time that they existed, there were thousands of acts that were around during the 7 years that the Beatles were a band and none came close to achieving what they did, or have the reputation that they have.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

One poster mentioned album sales. You cannot compare album sales in a time when copying/downloading etc is at an all time high. A group selling 200million albums in the 70's is like someone selling 80 million these days.

Illegal downloading had had a definite effect on CD sales, but to put things in perspective The Joshua tree has sold close to 30 million copies in the last 20 years(Sting2 can probably give a more accurate number) but when the Beatles 1 was released in 2000 it sold 13.5 million copies in ONE month, and there wasn't anything that was previously unavailable on it to help push sales.