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

[theu2fly]

There are a lot of comparisons between U2 and the Beatles. U2 admires, and at the same time despises them. What Bono despises is what broke the Beatles up, and he has compared it to U2.

The Beatles were only around for 10 years, but stopped touring in 1966. But all together, the Beatles had 27 #1 hits. The Beatles caught their break in the United States, after coming from England.

U2 caught their break in England, then moved to the Americas. They were dubbed the next big thing.

What made the Beatles a classic was the changing era of the 60s, and the need for rock music. Elvis had started the way, and the Beatles picked up after him. I think if you were to ask what the Beatles most influential and classical albums are, I'd say;

Revolver
Sgt. Peppers
Abbey Road

And the songs that were classical:

Hey Jude
Yesterday
Let It Be
I Want To Hold Your Hand
Love Me Do
Eleanor Rigby

Now, let's say what U2's influential and classical albums are...

War
The Joshua Tree
Achtung Baby

And the songs...

One
With Or Without You
I Will Follow
Where The Streets Have No Name
Pride
New Year's Day
Sunday Bloody Sunday

I think U2 has made a good impact on the music scene, and I think Bono shares the spotlight now more than the band does. U2 has been around for 25 years, but it doesn't feel like they have changed the music industry or revolutionized music. They tried to change music, but albums such as Pop and Rattle and Hum were poorly received, and many considered U2 to be taking themselves too seriously.

I would think that if you were to ask people "Do you like the Beatles" or "What is your favorite Beatles songs?" they'd have a definite answer...

Now ask that about U2... how many would know the band, or know a song? It still feels like U2 is underrated... I think people will remember U2, but not as how they changed music. Time will tell...

 

[BVS]

What Bono despises is what broke the Beatles up, and he has compared it to U2.

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

U2 has been around for 25 years, but it doesn't feel like they have changed the music industry or revolutionized music. They tried to change music, but albums such as Pop and Rattle and Hum were poorly received, and many considered U2 to be taking themselves too seriously.

Haven't changed music? I think that's crazy. First of all those two albums not getting critical acclaim, means nothing.

I think there is a long list of bands including Pearl Jam, Green Day, Coldplay, Killers, Metallica, Radiohead just to name a few that owe much of their success to U2. Be it they directly influenced their sound or just the idea of being a big band that infused politics, spirituality, love, sex, etc in their music. How many guitarist do we see out their trying to sound like The Edge? How many singers do we see trying to be Bono?

Plus their humanitarian projects...

I think we have to look at context. If Beatles came out during a similar time that U2 did, would they be as big as they are?

In other words, if they weren't one of the very first big rock bands would they have the same strength they have today? I think they would still be big, but not nearly the household name they are now.

 

[STING2]

There are a lot of comparisons between U2 and the Beatles. U2 admires, and at the same time despises them. What Bono despises is what broke the Beatles up, and he has compared it to U2.

The Beatles were only around for 10 years, but stopped touring in 1966. But all together, the Beatles had 27 #1 hits. The Beatles caught their break in the United States, after coming from England.

U2 caught their break in England, then moved to the Americas. They were dubbed the next big thing.

What made the Beatles a classic was the changing era of the 60s, and the need for rock music. Elvis had started the way, and the Beatles picked up after him. I think if you were to ask what the Beatles most influential and classical albums are, I'd say;

Revolver
Sgt. Peppers
Abbey Road

And the songs that were classical:

Hey Jude
Yesterday
Let It Be
I Want To Hold Your Hand
Love Me Do
Eleanor Rigby

Now, let's say what U2's influential and classical albums are...

War
The Joshua Tree
Achtung Baby

And the songs...

One
With Or Without You
I Will Follow
Where The Streets Have No Name
Pride
New Year's Day
Sunday Bloody Sunday

I think U2 has made a good impact on the music scene, and I think Bono shares the spotlight now more than the band does. U2 has been around for 25 years, but it doesn't feel like they have changed the music industry or revolutionized music. They tried to change music, but albums such as Pop and Rattle and Hum were poorly received, and many considered U2 to be taking themselves too seriously.

I would think that if you were to ask people "Do you like the Beatles" or "What is your favorite Beatles songs?" they'd have a definite answer...

Now ask that about U2... how many would know the band, or know a song? It still feels like U2 is underrated... I think people will remember U2, but not as how they changed music. Time will tell...

U2 have done things that the Beatles never did. The biggest thing being the tours that U2 have done all over the world. U2 have played countries and been places that the Beatles never went to. This has a definite impact on global perceptions about things. How many people say "The Beatles were the greatest Live band of all time"? A recent study of the sell of bootleg concerts in the United Kingdom found that U2 sold more concert bootlegs than any other artist in the United Kingdom.

More importantly, one does not have to be remembered like the Beatles in order to have such an amazing status and position in the world. U2 may not be remembered like the Beatles, but NO other artist will ever be remembered like the Beatles either.

 

[catlhere]

I think alot of why maybe U2 hasn't had the huge effect on the music industry that The Beatles have is that once The Beatles made such a giant dent in pop-culture history, everything else that's come after it seems minimal in comparison.

U2 fits my life better than the Beatles ever will, so to me they are far superior just because of personal taste. I also think that in 5 years when the boys have had 2 new albums and tours (hopefully) and thus being together for 30+ years without any break-ups or flops, they HAVE to be recognized as one of the greatest if not THE greatest band of all time. Couple their musical success with Bono's humanitarian causes, and you have a powerhouse of a group that's shaping the world as we speak.

If no one gives any other band the chance to be bigger than The Beatles, no band ever will be. I think U2 has the best shot.

 

[Zoots]

U2 is probably the greatest live band of all time!

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I grew up with the Beatles and they were my favorite band for many years. I own their whole catalog, including the Beatles Anthology DVDs. However U2 is my generation and is the band have attached myself to. The Beatles were probably better musicians and songwriters, but U2's music has a passion that has never been topped.

Yes the Beatles made a huge impact on the music scene and pop culture, but it was a different time and different space. U2 contribution will always seem lesser in comparison, but U2's impact on music and pop culture has also been tremendous.

The Beatles were the first BIG BAND ever, but U2 has been a BIG BAND longer, and I think that'll mean something 50 years down the line.

 

[ntalwar]

There are a lot of comparisons between U2 and the Beatles. U2 admires, and at the same time despises them. What Bono despises is what broke the Beatles up, and he has compared it to U2.

Yeah - I think Bono had a quote last fall where he mentioned that U2 would not get content and break up prematurely like the Beatles did, or something like that.

 

[ntalwar]

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

U2 have done things that the Beatles never did. The biggest thing being the tours that U2 have done all over the world. U2 have played countries and been places that the Beatles never went to. This has a definite impact on global perceptions about things. How many people say "The Beatles were the greatest Live band of all time"? A recent study of the sell of bootleg concerts in the United Kingdom found that U2 sold more concert bootlegs than any other artist in the United Kingdom.

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.

 

[zepher25]

My view is that U2 have never made a song that has so obviously been conceved with the help of Drugs, the beatles Live in a yellow submarine with a sea of green, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds LSD!!!, I am the egg man i am the eggman i am the Walrus!.....WTF WTF WTF...see what i mean

 

[kingofsorrow]

the beatles are famous simply because they were in the right place at the right time. the musical, political and social landscape was changing and they happen to be in it. they're the poster boys for the "rock revolution".
U2 on the other hand....................................shit, i don't know where to start.

 

[ozeeko]

The Beatles basically invented complex pop music. And U2 brought back disco and goggles. So we can be thankful for both bands.

 

[BVS]

The Beatles basically invented complex pop music. And U2 brought back disco and goggles. So we can be thankful for both bands.

As much as I find this statement to be almost completely false, it was hilarious!

 

[Chizip]

the big difference is #1 hits

the beatles racked them up, u2 has struggled to do so

 

[BVS]

the big difference is #1 hits

the beatles racked them up, u2 has struggled to do so

You're still ignoring context...

 

[t8thgr8]

what was the beatles competition back in the 60's? shit, i hope they got a lot of #1s.

funny that they broke up in the 70's when their competition got too heavy.

U2 has seen em come and seem em go yet they still remain on top.

The beatles are cheesy.

I tried and tried to get into them but its boring. And mcartneys voice gets old. so does lennon. They lack the energy and emotion bono pours into u2s music.

 

[U2girl]

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.

 

[Sken]

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?

Queen, Guns N Roses, Metallica, Oasis, Nirvana, The Police, Radiohead, The Stones, Dire Straits, Bon Jovi, Duran Duran, Michael Jackson, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, INXS, REM, Van Halen, Iron Maiden, Green Day, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, as well as the whole rap revolution.

Beatles were in the midst of a rock revolution, it was much easier for them, they've wouldve been killed in todays rap scene.

 

[U2girl]

OK, Michael Jackson is the only one qualified, out of those names, as far as I'm concerned, to be close to a legend.

I still feel Beatles had a stronger competition.

 

[Sken]

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.

 

[Meghan]

Well said Sken! (and a hearty hello as well )

Though I don't mind a bit of Elvis.

 

[Sken]

Hi Meghan!

 

[1stepcloser]

The Stones are overrated anyway. The Beatles wipe the floor with them. And so do U2.

 

[Aygo]

The Beatles were what they had to be in their era... What happens with U2 is that their spotlight didn't last a decade only, but it's been ruling for 25 years. In 2040 U2 will still be remembered as biggest band of late 20th century/earlier 21st century, and Bono will still be a symbol of his actions. The Beatles may have had various successful albums and #1 singles... but let's face the truth: there are few of those songs that aren't remembered by some of the recent generations (despite the inverse happens too!). U2 may have had a few #1's and many top10 singles, but those songs are still alive... Everybody knows from which band is SBS, Elevation, Vertigo, BD, One, WOWY, Streets, ISHFWILF or NYD (...) when they listen to it. The same happens with the Beatles' most famous songs... So, IMO it's preety similar between the two bands.

 

[vivalapopedge]

I don't think U2 will be remembered by their hit singles (or lack thereof), I think the thing that caused the Beatles, and U2 for that matter, to be remembered was how much they meant to people. U2 has waaaaaaaay less hit singles but they're just as important to a lot of people because of the music they create and the meaningfulness of it. However, there are a lot of different genres of music and bands, more underground bands, whereas there was less in the Beatles days, so it remains to be seen if they'll be as remembered as the Beatles

 

[HelloAngel]

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.

 

[powerhour24]

This is a stupid discussion, no one will be remembered like the Beatles.

 

[SunBloc]

I don't think U2 will be remembered by their hit singles (or lack thereof), I think the thing that caused the Beatles, and U2 for that matter, to be remembered was how much they meant to people. U2 has waaaaaaaay less hit singles but they're just as important to a lot of people because of the music they create and the meaningfulness of it.....................

Totally agree with you viva! U2 have to be making a worldwide impact on people, as evidenced by consistent record-breaking sold-out concerts. U2's fan base is probably the most loyal in history...

 

[roy]

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.

But a lot of those bands that you've mentioned didn't really get into their stride until after The Beatles broke up.

 

[fly so high!]

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

I disagree, go up to anybody and they (whether or not they like them) would know who U2 are and would recognise their music, just the same as The Beatles.

 

[Rafiennes]

• There would be no U2 without the Beatles.
• The Beatles are a major foundation for the skyscraper known as rock/pop music.
• U2 are several floors in the skyscrapers that have gone under renovations every three years or so, and the upgrades have been unbelievable.
• The Beatles broke up when they did because they no longer functioned as a group, but as four individuals. It was the way it was meant to be.
• U2 will go on for a long time because they function at their greatest as a group, not as individuals.
• Both bands will be remembered, just in different ways.