david
ONE love, blood, life
U2 will be remembered like the Beatles because the generations of U2 fans will be older and the generation of Beatles fans will be dead.
U2 is legendary, but won't be remembered like The Beatles...
- Thread starter theu2fly
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
GibsonGirl
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Messages
- 13,270
ntalwar said:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
CPTLCTYGOOFBALL said:
But let's look at this in context. The Beatles have gone through how many media changes? Vinyl, 8 Track, Cassette, CD, how many of us have bands that we owned a few cassettes or records of but never felt like rebuying all the CDs, but a greatest hits CD we would?
How many of us know people who claim they like the Beatles, but don't really own anything except that CD?
When you have decades to accumulate fans and then release an album with all your #1's of course it's going sell huge. You can't compare it to one album, no matter how old it is.
catlhere
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
You glorify the past, the future dries up.
If everyone cements The Beatles as being the greatest band ever, no other band will even be allowed to challenge that position. As long as everyone claims the "fact" that The Beatles are the best ever, it will never change. Kinda like the whole Earth is flat deal. The Earth being flat was never "proven" so to speak. It was just understood and taken as a common belief because most people just said it's true, so why go against it. Until someone proved the opposite. And of course, they were met with resistance at first. Since music cannot be proven as anything (it's all in the ear of the beholder) there will never be a concrete #1. This leaves only one other option. Until there comes a time when the general public believes The Beatles could possibly be the 2nd greatest band of all time and are willing to accept it, their position as 1st will never change.
How do we know there will never be a greater band if we don't give them the benifit of the doubt. Times are different, so the standards at the time which set The Beatles as the best band ever cannot be used to define the placement of every other band. It also comes down to musical taste and respect. Take N'Sync; Legions of screaming girls? Check. Huge record-breaking album sales and tours? Check. Helped Define a genre? Check. Members went off to solo careers? Check. Massive success at a young age? Check. Awards and accolades? Check. But would anyone even put them in the top 100 bands ever? Most people on here wouldn't. Why? (cuz deyr crap?) Because different time periods of music set different standards for what is considered "good music" Do you think a majority of parents and older people of the 50's and 60's thought The Beatles were good? Hell no. But we would roll our eyes at them now. Music evolves and what we may deem as challenging or innovative music, may totally be obliterated for something different in the future. And most likely, today's music lovers will hate tomorrows music. It's how it's always been. "Disco SUCKS!" "New Wave SUCKS!" "Grunge SUCKS!" "Rap SUCKS!"
It's kinda unfair to every other band after The Beatles that may be better musically, critically, or better people, or better blah blah blah. But that's life. The Beatles got their name in the history books first, and they have the upper hand now. They lucked out. Now we gotta wait for minds to open up to a round Earth.
[The preceding post was entirely the opinion of catlhere and in no way represents the beliefs of Interference and it's posters
]
If everyone cements The Beatles as being the greatest band ever, no other band will even be allowed to challenge that position. As long as everyone claims the "fact" that The Beatles are the best ever, it will never change. Kinda like the whole Earth is flat deal. The Earth being flat was never "proven" so to speak. It was just understood and taken as a common belief because most people just said it's true, so why go against it. Until someone proved the opposite. And of course, they were met with resistance at first. Since music cannot be proven as anything (it's all in the ear of the beholder) there will never be a concrete #1. This leaves only one other option. Until there comes a time when the general public believes The Beatles could possibly be the 2nd greatest band of all time and are willing to accept it, their position as 1st will never change.
How do we know there will never be a greater band if we don't give them the benifit of the doubt. Times are different, so the standards at the time which set The Beatles as the best band ever cannot be used to define the placement of every other band. It also comes down to musical taste and respect. Take N'Sync; Legions of screaming girls? Check. Huge record-breaking album sales and tours? Check. Helped Define a genre? Check. Members went off to solo careers? Check. Massive success at a young age? Check. Awards and accolades? Check. But would anyone even put them in the top 100 bands ever? Most people on here wouldn't. Why? (cuz deyr crap?) Because different time periods of music set different standards for what is considered "good music" Do you think a majority of parents and older people of the 50's and 60's thought The Beatles were good? Hell no. But we would roll our eyes at them now. Music evolves and what we may deem as challenging or innovative music, may totally be obliterated for something different in the future. And most likely, today's music lovers will hate tomorrows music. It's how it's always been. "Disco SUCKS!" "New Wave SUCKS!" "Grunge SUCKS!" "Rap SUCKS!"
It's kinda unfair to every other band after The Beatles that may be better musically, critically, or better people, or better blah blah blah. But that's life. The Beatles got their name in the history books first, and they have the upper hand now. They lucked out. Now we gotta wait for minds to open up to a round Earth.
[The preceding post was entirely the opinion of catlhere and in no way represents the beliefs of Interference and it's posters
]
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
STING2 said:
Aha but that's the same type of argument that people are using against the Fab Four in this thread. You can't compare the two eras.
FFS, in the era in which the Beatles played live, the entire concept of a live show to thousands of people was barely evolved. Only at the very end of the 60s did live shows get around to even hanging the PA system above the stage. I can completely understand the Beatles not touching U2 live, mostly because the concept of a live show was so radically different in the 1960s. For most of the decade, it was a band, a wooden stage, and a shitty sound system.
You can't compare touring in the late 60s to touring in the 90s, in the same way that you can't compare the Beatles' success in every market with the much more over-saturated music store shelves that are around in U2's day.
blueeyedgirl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
If you were to go into Botswana, you could ask anyone to hum "She Loves You" and it wouldn't be a problem.
Get them to hum along to "Sunday Bloody Sunday".....
Get them to hum along to "Sunday Bloody Sunday".....
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Live shows 60's vs 90's, million copies sold, discographic market vs illegal downloads? 
That's not what the thing is about...
The Beatles will still be remembered because they had a spotlight in an era where none of what we know existed. Yeah, they were "original of the species" kind of. That's why everybody takes them as a reference. I think they're overated, but it's natural and acceptable if they're remembered for what (when) they existed.
The U2 case is different. They appeared in a stage where the music industry was totally different. Them actions and completly different compared to bands like the Beatles or Rolling Stones... It's going through decades. They'll be remembered for the hits (depite not being #1's, they're so popular or even more then some Beatles songs that topped the charts...), for the band's activism and Bono's politic subjects. No other band in the present made such actions or behaviours in the history as U2 did in a relevant way.
And then, as The Beatles there are many people that hates U2 too... As many loves and praises them.
It's not something you can compare Magical Mystery to ZooTv or Popmart or even the sales of Sgt. Peppers' against JT, that's ridiculous. Different eras, different generations.
U2 has known (as some other artists that exploded earlier) how to drive the machine and to be as popular or bigger as some of the 50's, 60's and 70's big acts. That's a truth.
Do you know why probably (or eventually) Madonna will still be a major act in 2030 and Britney Spears not? That's what I'm saying...
That's not what the thing is about...The Beatles will still be remembered because they had a spotlight in an era where none of what we know existed. Yeah, they were "original of the species" kind of. That's why everybody takes them as a reference. I think they're overated, but it's natural and acceptable if they're remembered for what (when) they existed.
The U2 case is different. They appeared in a stage where the music industry was totally different. Them actions and completly different compared to bands like the Beatles or Rolling Stones... It's going through decades. They'll be remembered for the hits (depite not being #1's, they're so popular or even more then some Beatles songs that topped the charts...), for the band's activism and Bono's politic subjects. No other band in the present made such actions or behaviours in the history as U2 did in a relevant way.
And then, as The Beatles there are many people that hates U2 too... As many loves and praises them.
It's not something you can compare Magical Mystery to ZooTv or Popmart or even the sales of Sgt. Peppers' against JT, that's ridiculous. Different eras, different generations.
U2 has known (as some other artists that exploded earlier) how to drive the machine and to be as popular or bigger as some of the 50's, 60's and 70's big acts. That's a truth.
Do you know why probably (or eventually) Madonna will still be a major act in 2030 and Britney Spears not? That's what I'm saying...
Roland Deschain
The Fly
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37
Yes the Beatles will always be more remembered than U2, or any other band for that matter.
That doesn't mean that I don't like U2 10x more than the overrated band that is the Beatles. Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.
That doesn't mean that I don't like U2 10x more than the overrated band that is the Beatles. Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I mentioned Amazon.com sales in an earlier post. It may not be the most scientific, so if anyone has more official rankings it would be nice to see them. The media replacement argument does not hold for these because most have been on CD for 15 years.
Just relaying the amazon.com sales facts here- for The Beatles and U2:
Beatles:
=======
Abbey Road : #111 in Music
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: #138 in Music
The White Album: #169 in Music
U2:
===
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb: #235 in Music
The Best of 1980-1990: #376 in Music
The Joshua Tree: #420 in Music
Achtung Baby: #856 in Music
The Unforgettable Fire: #1,398 in Music
War: #2,716 in Music
Just relaying the amazon.com sales facts here- for The Beatles and U2:
Beatles:
=======
Abbey Road : #111 in Music
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: #138 in Music
The White Album: #169 in Music
U2:
===
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb: #235 in Music
The Best of 1980-1990: #376 in Music
The Joshua Tree: #420 in Music
Achtung Baby: #856 in Music
The Unforgettable Fire: #1,398 in Music
War: #2,716 in Music
hcbiggs2002
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Rafiennes said:
Best post on this thread to date! Made laugh out loud!!
OKay I'll say this much, I live in Finland, out in the sticks, the back of beyond if you please and if you were to ask any of the elderly locals who either The Beatles or U2 are, there'd most likely give you a blank stare and say "Mikä?!?" translation "What?!?" But if you were to ask anyone of my generation and younger about The Beatles and U2 most of them would probably know more about U2! I blame MTV!!
Last edited:
Party Boy
Refugee
ntalwar said:
I think those figures can be a little misleading. Most U2 fans now have all the U2 albums. In say 20 years, the next generation will be buying the same U2 albums - similarly we - our generation - are buying Beatles albums for the first time.
In my opinion, a lot of other things helped add to the Beatles armoury - first boyband, the advent of TV - they were the first real band to get massive exposure through this medium, the 1960s free love etc, being a huge influence on most of the big artists over the last 20/30 years who in turn have continued to promote the beatles to the masses.
I guess the main question for me is - will the beatles have as much influence on the next generation of musicians? I don't think so. I think the likes of Radiohead, U2, REM and lots of other artists will have a greater impact. Ask someone in 30/40 years time and I think a lot of other bands will be measured the same way the beatles are now. The main difference is the beatles were the first to do it. I don't think that is going to matter to future generations.
Personally, I think a lot of Beatles - esp. the early years - has aged badly - great for twisting and shouting while dancing with your aunt at your sisters wedding, but other than that, I would never listen to it.
However, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Abbey road etc are timeless - if you appreciate really good music. I just don't think that music has as much influence today or on future generations. There are so many other music genres out there - hip hop, dance etc which are going to have as much, if not more influence than the standard 4-piece rock band.
ntalwar said:
For albums released before 1991 when Soundscan started tracking over the counter retail sales, here is how some U2 albums and of course most Beatles albums fair in that catagory. Realize Soundscan coverage was spotty(only 40% coverage starting in 1991) in the early 90s, and did not cover 90% of all albums sold in the USA until the late 1990s.
Anyways, here are the Beatles top 3 albums released prior to 1990, and U2's top 3 albums released before 1990:
All 6 albums are considered catalog sellers, meaning they are at least 2 years old, and are no longer being actively promoted by the record company.
These are sales recorded by Soundscan from January 1991 to the date listed below after each album.
The Beatles “Abbey road” 3,554,000 jan06
The Beatles “Sgt. Pepper” 3,440,000 dec05
U2 “The Joshua tree” 3,036,000 dec05
The Beatles “The White album” 2,945,000 jan06
U2 "War" 1,406,000 dec05
U2 “Rattle & Hum” 1,182,000 dec05
The Beatles are clearly way ahead in album sales, but its interesting to see how well Joshua Tree has done against the top selling Beatles albums over the past 15 years. From a sales standpoint, the Joshua Tree is considered to be almost on par or ahead of most Beatles albums.
Pero
Refugee
Who is better? Pele, Maradona or Ronaldinho
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Where I live (a small city in the Midwest), I never see anyone wearing U2 T-shirts. However, I see people wearing Beatles T-shirts sometimes - and not just aging Baby Boomers. A lot of them are teens.
totally agree, the beatles were one of a kind, no-one will ever reach that apex again, as with comparisons to rivals in the sixties with U2s now what a stupid quote [and RW better than Elvis] dont get me started on that subject cos RW has inspired so many musicians.powerhour24 said:
Pero said:
U see myself I see some players that were better than Maradona , like another brazilian himself : Garrinha , or even Platini or Cruyff .
And yes nowadays Ronaldinho is getting nowadays better and better but he's still has to do a lot to be compared with Pele , to win a lot of things , including win a cup for his country . I would say that if his career was like U2 , I would say he's in Unforgettable Fire , to get where Pele did , he would have to at least catch popmart.
Similar threads
