U2 vs Beatles: A Comparison
- Thread starter starvinmarvin
- 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.
starvinmarvin said:
From a marketing point of view, U2 has released an album every 2 yrs. The argument can be made that their marketplace output has not dropped off at all. Since 1990, U2 has max'ed out the amount of output a band of their stature is allotted by the marketplace. I'll start with the '90's since someone else covered the '80's earlier.
1991: AB
1993: Zooropa
1995: Passengers
1997: Pop
1998: Best Of
2000: ATYCLB
2002: Best Of
2004: HTDAAB
That's 8 albums released in 14 yrs and I'm not even counting the Million Dollar Hotel thing. I know people will want to dismiss the Passengers release, but it is essentially a U2 release albeit not heavily promoted. So even if you choose to ignore that release, we're still talking 7/14 or 1 release every 2 yrs on average.
So that brings us to the gist of the problem: The 2 Best Of's. Marketing wise, these count big time as there's alot of promotion put into them by the record company. They also count from a band point of view because they demand alot of time from the band to put them together. Especially considering that U2 has this tendency to want to rework/remix old songs. Now from a hard core fan longing for new material, they aren't going to count as much. In conclusion, the problem is not that their output has dropped off or is below average in today's world it's that they chose to release 2 Best Of's in place of potentially releasing new material. Personnally, I wish they would've saved the Best Of's for later in their career, but I suspect the record company might've thought otherwise.
intedomine
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
mickeza said:
Don't knock it. Quality stuff.
Martha my Dear
Honey Pie
Good Night
Mother Nature's Son
All underrated.
gherman
New Yorker
You can't even compare them. Eventhough U2 is by far my favorite band and I would put them in the top 4 or 5 bands of all time, they come nowhere near the Beatles. I love the Beatles to no end and what they did in 8 years time will never be done again. Talk about an evolution of sound. Even when U2 was at there "best" 80-87 or 80-91, whatever... U2 really didn't change that much, until Achtung of course. But christ the Beatles you went from the boy band of 'Please Please Me' of 1963 to the grown men on LSD with 'Sgt Pepper' of 1967 is just mind blowing. Songs like 'I saw her standing there' to 'A Day In The Life' which I think is one of the greatest songs ever, just amazing You had 3 of todays and yesterdays great musical geniuses all on one band and fuck even Ringo had a number 1 hit.
You just can't compare these bands. Anyway U2 is better known for what they do live than what they put out on record
You just can't compare these bands. Anyway U2 is better known for what they do live than what they put out on record
beatlesboy
War Child
U2 does need to crank out new material more often. I'd like them to anyway! 
Who are these 'Beatles' you speak of?
Who are these 'Beatles' you speak of?
Some really good points in these posts. Some things to consider for U2 versus Beatles out-put: Unlike the Beatles, who had three good song writers and one helper (Ringo), U2 really has mostly Bono -- but, as we all know, they (U2) pretty much need each other to complete the song. I have observed that U2 really labors over their songs, it doesn’t come easy for them. On the other hand The Beatles really could crank out songs. But, then again, U2's songs can be very complex, not crankable.
They are older now too, and demands are much greater than the simpler days of the Beatles.
If you throw in the Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Ringo solo albums and hits, it's amazingly huge as well.
U2 measures up well, and I definitely would rate them as the second best (real band) of all time.
U2 do have a huge bulk of material now, which puts them pretty damn close, but the speed and quality issue (5 years versus 25 years) can't be matched.
Just one final thought to consider: John Lennon died at 40 and Bono is now 45. One-on-one they might be about equal. But this is really a hard and obtuse comparison.
There should be a thread on "What if John Lennon lived and Bono and him became friends?"
They are older now too, and demands are much greater than the simpler days of the Beatles.
If you throw in the Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Ringo solo albums and hits, it's amazingly huge as well.
U2 measures up well, and I definitely would rate them as the second best (real band) of all time.
U2 do have a huge bulk of material now, which puts them pretty damn close, but the speed and quality issue (5 years versus 25 years) can't be matched.
Just one final thought to consider: John Lennon died at 40 and Bono is now 45. One-on-one they might be about equal. But this is really a hard and obtuse comparison.
There should be a thread on "What if John Lennon lived and Bono and him became friends?"
thrillme
Refugee
That is a good point Lewis12.
U2, Bono writes 95% of the lyrics. Edge the other 5% plus says he acts as an editor at times.
Adam and Larry compose their respective lines, musical input, but I'm not sure how much of the lyrical content Adam and Larry have a say in, if any.
Beatles, John and Paul a large majority, and George Harrison as well, not sure how much Ringo wrote, I'm not particularly a fan of the Beatles so I don't know that much. I know, hard to believe but dissenters do exist, not many, but they do exist.
If U2 had Bono, Edge, and Adam writing lyrics, Larry here and there, you'd probably get a few more albums than just, 1 every 4 years as of late.
I'm just not sure how that would flow.
U2, Bono writes 95% of the lyrics. Edge the other 5% plus says he acts as an editor at times.
Adam and Larry compose their respective lines, musical input, but I'm not sure how much of the lyrical content Adam and Larry have a say in, if any.
Beatles, John and Paul a large majority, and George Harrison as well, not sure how much Ringo wrote, I'm not particularly a fan of the Beatles so I don't know that much. I know, hard to believe but dissenters do exist, not many, but they do exist.
If U2 had Bono, Edge, and Adam writing lyrics, Larry here and there, you'd probably get a few more albums than just, 1 every 4 years as of late.
I'm just not sure how that would flow.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Both suck. The Zootles are way better.
Eliv8
Refugee
Layton said:
If the Beatles arrived in today's world they would have no-one to compete with because without them back in the day most of today's bands would not exist.
CPTLCTYGOOFBALL
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 537
Layton said:
That's the thing, they barely lasted 7 years, and accomplished what they did in that time.
But yeah it is a different time
CPTLCTYGOOFBALL
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 537
Eliv8 said:
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Songwriting is more than lyric writing. Actually that's probably the far easier part as compared to the music.
And who essentially writes close to 100% of the music?
Mr. The Edge.
Bono writes a lot of his lyrics in the last weeks of the recording sessions, the key ingredient to U2's creative process is melody and hooks, which can be lyric ideas or music ideas or both.
I am just saying, gotta give Edge more credit than what he's been given on this thread. Edge is the first to begin a project with musical ideas, Bono sings Bono-ese to help establish the songs, and later adds lyric ideas with help from Edge. But it goes nowhere without the music Edge makes.
I think Edge is the main songwriter in this band, certainly musically. As Bono says himself "I am only one member of this band and Edge is three"
And who essentially writes close to 100% of the music?
Mr. The Edge.
Bono writes a lot of his lyrics in the last weeks of the recording sessions, the key ingredient to U2's creative process is melody and hooks, which can be lyric ideas or music ideas or both.
I am just saying, gotta give Edge more credit than what he's been given on this thread. Edge is the first to begin a project with musical ideas, Bono sings Bono-ese to help establish the songs, and later adds lyric ideas with help from Edge. But it goes nowhere without the music Edge makes.
I think Edge is the main songwriter in this band, certainly musically. As Bono says himself "I am only one member of this band and Edge is three"
Eliv8 said:
If the Beatles came along today, they would be marketed as a boy band. The market would never let them evolve out of that phase. So no Revolver or Sgt Pepper because of market pressures preventing them from going that direction. Plus, the heavy media scrutiny that pop group phenomonons come under these days would destroy them. The tension between the members would've manifested itselt much sooner in their career.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
starvinmarvin said:
Once U2 start releasing two albums a year, then we can talk.
Eliv8
Refugee
I found this picture ages ago and have never found an appropriate thread to put it in. I am not saying this is the right one but here goes -
Bono Ono
Bono Ono
angelordevil
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Lewis12 said:
Did they ever meet? I see so many similarities. 'Imagine' a duet.
starvinmarvin
Refugee
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,178
Many people seem to be saying that the 60's were a different time, and you can't compare what the Beatles did then to what U2 is doing now. I think that's a big cop out. U2 are the biggest band in the world, and if anyone could make a move to change the way the music world operates - i.e. release more music - it would be U2.
I think the fact remains that U2 are perfectionists to a fault, and they spend far more time recording than they really need to. When all is said and done, all that really matters is the songwriting. The production is secondary. If the songs are strong, then they will shine through no matter how many times tracks are recorded and re-recorded, and mixed and re-mixed. I mean, how long do you think it took the band to record Boy back in 1979? Probably a month or two at the most, I would wager. Compare that to HTDAAB, which took over 2 years to record. Is HTDAAB that much better than Boy to warrant the time spent on it? I don't think so.
I think the real problem behind U2's lack of productiivity is the fact that Bono is off getting his photo taken with famous people, instead of dragging his ass to the studio and committing himself to the music.
I think the fact remains that U2 are perfectionists to a fault, and they spend far more time recording than they really need to. When all is said and done, all that really matters is the songwriting. The production is secondary. If the songs are strong, then they will shine through no matter how many times tracks are recorded and re-recorded, and mixed and re-mixed. I mean, how long do you think it took the band to record Boy back in 1979? Probably a month or two at the most, I would wager. Compare that to HTDAAB, which took over 2 years to record. Is HTDAAB that much better than Boy to warrant the time spent on it? I don't think so.
I think the real problem behind U2's lack of productiivity is the fact that Bono is off getting his photo taken with famous people, instead of dragging his ass to the studio and committing himself to the music.
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
angelordevil said:
No. I'm sure Bono wouldn't be able to shut up about it if he had actually met John Lennon.
I have no idea if Lennon would have been a fan who wanted to work with them or if he would have been all "hmmph, they're just a fad." It's one of those intriguing "what if' kinds of scenarios. I always thought it was kind of strange how U2 were just coming to the U.S. and starting to play shows there right about the time Lennon was killed. It's almost like a torch got passed.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I think there are a few things at work there.
It's not as if U2 takes an extraordinary amount of time off.
They actually have began the last two albums relatively quickly after the end of the tour. The problem becomes in the studio as they spin their wheels trying to (first) create the music (second) appease all members of the band, McGuiness and the producers.
U2's creative process as it was and how it has become even more complicated lends itself to a long studio session. U2 have creative disconnects within the band that would break 90% of all other bands up, but U2 refuses to bow down to that. They have proven they are willing to re-record an entire fucking album for the sake of one member of the band, possibly two and the manager.
By the time U2 releases an album, tours for a year or 15 months, takes 3 months off for relaxation, it is already a year and a half before their long laborous studio work begins.
The problem with U2's lack of actual studio releases is because, I believe, as a band it takes them forever to finally agree on what they want to do collectively. And this seems to be only accomplished by 2 years in the studio re-recording and retracking the same ideas over and over again until they are the most polished things U2 have ever released.
it may not even be what they intend in the first place, it could be the nature of the U2 beast, as it is now.
Waiting for Bono to come up with lyrics that he will finally have confidence in, in between politciking for Africa.
Waiting for Edge to give-in to his musical ideas not being "good enough" for certain members of the band.
I am pretty sure Adam is agreeable, and his bass on the last two albums, while quality is really simple.
Larry however seems to be the hardest guy to please. I don't think Larry wants to leave his family for another "project" that basically ignored him in the first place. I think his vote has become the hardest to get, and yet the most coveted, they won't do it without him.
I think it's a simple idea, that really is not discussed much.
The fact that they spend so much time in the studio with such little result (quantity), leads me to think they are indeed spinning those wheels in the same place for a long time until someone finally gives in.
Most bands would have broken up by now, like the Beatles.
Blame Yoko all you want, at the end there was defintely a creative disconnect forming the band into "camps".
It's not as if U2 takes an extraordinary amount of time off.
They actually have began the last two albums relatively quickly after the end of the tour. The problem becomes in the studio as they spin their wheels trying to (first) create the music (second) appease all members of the band, McGuiness and the producers.
U2's creative process as it was and how it has become even more complicated lends itself to a long studio session. U2 have creative disconnects within the band that would break 90% of all other bands up, but U2 refuses to bow down to that. They have proven they are willing to re-record an entire fucking album for the sake of one member of the band, possibly two and the manager.
By the time U2 releases an album, tours for a year or 15 months, takes 3 months off for relaxation, it is already a year and a half before their long laborous studio work begins.
The problem with U2's lack of actual studio releases is because, I believe, as a band it takes them forever to finally agree on what they want to do collectively. And this seems to be only accomplished by 2 years in the studio re-recording and retracking the same ideas over and over again until they are the most polished things U2 have ever released.
it may not even be what they intend in the first place, it could be the nature of the U2 beast, as it is now.
Waiting for Bono to come up with lyrics that he will finally have confidence in, in between politciking for Africa.
Waiting for Edge to give-in to his musical ideas not being "good enough" for certain members of the band.
I am pretty sure Adam is agreeable, and his bass on the last two albums, while quality is really simple.
Larry however seems to be the hardest guy to please. I don't think Larry wants to leave his family for another "project" that basically ignored him in the first place. I think his vote has become the hardest to get, and yet the most coveted, they won't do it without him.
I think it's a simple idea, that really is not discussed much.
The fact that they spend so much time in the studio with such little result (quantity), leads me to think they are indeed spinning those wheels in the same place for a long time until someone finally gives in.
Most bands would have broken up by now, like the Beatles.
Blame Yoko all you want, at the end there was defintely a creative disconnect forming the band into "camps".
angelordevil
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
ScottsJen said:
But it's way too much fun!
No comparison. U2 is without a doubt and by far the best band of the past 25 years but they will never approach the Beatles in pop culture. More people born after 1980 know John, Paul, George and Ringo are the Beatles versus the names of U2's members. I can name at least 50 Beatles songs that get regular radio play on our local radio rock and classic rock stations versus maybe 10 from U2. This is no knock on U2. If you exclude the Beatles, I can make a very strong case that U2 is better than every other band in history. Additionally if you exclude Springsteen, U2 is also probably the greatest rock band in history. If you include live and recorded music then U2 has no peer.
thrillme
Refugee
To record an album is one thing, to go out and perform those songs in a live setting. . . If you mess up a take on an album, just go back and re-record something. You mess up on a live gig, people in the audience will notice, and you can't go back, erase that, and do it again. The screw up is in those people minds. Especially now with the internet, if U2 flub something on a song, people who weren't there, know, even seconds after, if it happens.
That's another thing some people overlook, live, touring.
U2 toured heavily throughout the 80's.
U2 have toured behind nearly all their albums.
Boy, October, War, Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, Achtung Baby (with Zooropa recording in the middle of tour, and some songs off that album were added to the ZooTV tour. )
ZooTV was a massive tour, almost 3 years.
Pop was another major tour.
ATYCLB, not as big, but still a tour for the album.
Vertigo tour, this is U2's 12th tour?
U2 are more of live playing band, than a studio band, they admit that, "live is where we live."
How many tours did the Beatles have in their career?
Going by U2tours.com U2, 1980--1990. 6 tours, (including lovetown) in 10 years, not including early Irish and British tours, Amnesty International gigs, pre-album concerts.
I don't know much about the Beatles touring history, but from reading the first post, I see, 1 tour. Someone else said they stopped touring after 1966.
Of course U2 doesn't have the album output of the Beatles, they're too busy performing live.
U2 built their career mostly on their live show, than their albums.
Compare "Sunday Bloody Sunday" off the album to a live version of the song.
U2's a better live band the Beatles, is that a fair point, or will I be tarred and feathered?
That's another thing some people overlook, live, touring.
U2 toured heavily throughout the 80's.
U2 have toured behind nearly all their albums.
Boy, October, War, Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, Achtung Baby (with Zooropa recording in the middle of tour, and some songs off that album were added to the ZooTV tour. )
ZooTV was a massive tour, almost 3 years.
Pop was another major tour.
ATYCLB, not as big, but still a tour for the album.
Vertigo tour, this is U2's 12th tour?
U2 are more of live playing band, than a studio band, they admit that, "live is where we live."
How many tours did the Beatles have in their career?
Going by U2tours.com U2, 1980--1990. 6 tours, (including lovetown) in 10 years, not including early Irish and British tours, Amnesty International gigs, pre-album concerts.
I don't know much about the Beatles touring history, but from reading the first post, I see, 1 tour. Someone else said they stopped touring after 1966.
Of course U2 doesn't have the album output of the Beatles, they're too busy performing live.
U2 built their career mostly on their live show, than their albums.
Compare "Sunday Bloody Sunday" off the album to a live version of the song.
U2's a better live band the Beatles, is that a fair point, or will I be tarred and feathered?
Last edited:
Eliv8
Refugee
US Billboard Top 100 Positions
Singles
Debut Date, Title, Highest Position, Total Weeks on Charts, Total Weeks at #1
January 18, 1964 I Want To Hold Your Hand 1 15 7
January 25, 1964 She Loves You 1 15 2
February 1, 1964 Please Please Me 3 13
February 1, 1964 I Saw Her Standing There 14 11
February 8, 1964 My Bonnie 26 6
February 22, 1964 From Me To You 41 6
March 14, 1964 Twist And Shout 2 11
March 14, 1964 Roll Over Beethoven 68 4
March 28, 1964 Can't Buy Me Love 1 10 5
March 28, 1964 All My Loving 45 6
March 28, 1964 Do You Want To Know A Secret 2 11
March 28, 1964 You Can't Do That 48 4
April 4, 1964 Thank You Girl 35 7
April 11, 1964 There's A Place 74 1
April 11, 1964 Love Me Do 67 14
April 11, 1964 Why 88 1
May 9, 1964 P.S. I Love You 10 8
May 30, 1964 Sie Liebt Dich 97 1
July 18, 1964 A Hard Day's Night 1 13 2
July 18, 1964 Ain't She Sweet 19 9
July 18, 1964 I Should Have Known Better 53 4
July 25, 1964 And I Love Her 12 9
July 25, 1964 I'm Happy Just To Dance With You 95 1
July 25, 1964 I'll Cry Instead 25 7
August 1, 1964 If I Fell 53 9
September 5, 1964 Matchbox 17 8
September 5, 1964 Slow Down 25 7
December 5, 1964 I Feel Fine 1 11 3
December 5, 1964 She's A Woman 4 9
February 20, 1965 Eight Days A Week 1 10 2
February 20, 1965 I Don't Want To Spoil The Party 39 6
February 27, 1965 4 - By The Beatles 68 5
April 24, 1965 Ticket To Ride 1 11 1
April 24, 1965 Yes It Is 46 4
July 31, 1965 Help! 1 13 3
September 18, 1965 Yesterday 1 11 4
September 18, 1965 Act Naturally 47 7
December 11, 1965 We Can Work It Out 1 12 3
December 11, 1965 Day Tripper 5 10
March 5, 1966 Nowhere Man 3 9
March 5, 1966 What Goes On 81 2
June 11, 1966 Paperback Writer 1 10 2
June 11, 1966 Rain 23 7
August 20, 1966 Yellow Submarine 2 9
August 20, 1966 Eleanor Rigby 11 8
February 18, 1967 Penny Lane 1 10 1
February 18, 1967 Strawberry Fields Forever 8 9
July 22, 1967 All You Need Is Love 1 11 1
July 22, 1967 Baby You're A Rich Man 34 5
December 2, 1967 Hello Goodbye 1 11 3
December 2, 1967 I Am The Walrus 56 4
March 23, 1968 Lady Madonna 4 11
March 23, 1968 The Inner Light 96 1
September 14, 1968 Hey Jude 1 19 9
September 14, 1968 Revolution 12 11
May 10, 1969 Get Back 1 12 5
May 10, 1969 Don't Let Me Down 35 12
June 14, 1969 The Ballad Of John And Yoko 8 9
October 18, 1969 Something* / Come Together* 1 16 1
March 21, 1970 Let It Be 1 14 2
May 23, 1970 The Long And Winding Road / For You Blue 1 10 2
June 12, 1976 Got To Get You Into My Life 7 16
November 20, 1976 Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da 49 6
September 16, 1978 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 71
March 27, 1982 The Beatles Movie Medley 12
August 9, 1986 Twist And Shout 23
April 22, 1995 Baby It's You 67
December 30, 1995 Free As A Bird 6
March 23, 1996 Real Love 11
Albums
Debut Date, Title, Highest Position, Total Weeks on Charts, Total Weeks at #1
July 22, 1963 Introducing The Beatles 2 49
January 20, 1964 Meet The Beatles 1 71 11
April 10, 1964 The Beatles' Second Album 1 55 5
June 26, 1964 A Hard Day's Night 1 51 14
July 20, 1964 Something New 2 41
November 23, 1964 The Beatles' Story 7 17
December 15, 1964 Beatles '65 1 70 9
March 22, 1965 The Early Beatles 43 33
June 14, 1965 Beatles VI 1 41 6
August 13, 1965 Help! 1 44 9
December 6, 1965 Rubber Soul 1 49 6
June 20, 1966 "Yesterday"...And Today 1 31 5
August 8, 1966 Revolver 1 77 6
June 2, 1967 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 1 121 15
November 27, 1967 Magical Mystery Tour 1 82 8
November 25, 1968 The Beatles 1 101 9
January 13, 1969 Yellow Submarine 2 24
October 1, 1969 Abbey Road 1 87 11
February 26, 1970 Hey Jude 2 33
May 18, 1970 Let It Be 1 55 4
April 2, 1973 The Beatles 1962-1966 3 105
April 2, 1973 The Beatles 1967-1970 1 109 1
June 7, 1976 Rock And Roll Music 2 29
May 4, 1977 The Beatles At The Hollywood Bowl 2 NA
June 13, 1977 The Beatles Live! At The Star-Club In Hamburg, Germany; 1962 111 NA
October 21, 1977 Love Songs 24 NA
March 24, 1980 Rarities 21 NA
March 22, 1982 Reel Music 19 NA
September 27, 1982 The Complete Silver Beatles NA NA
10/11/1982 20 Greatest Hits 50 NA
03/07/1988 Past Masters Volume 1 149 NA
03/07/1988 Past Masters Volume 2 121 NA
12/06/1994 The Beatles Live At The BBC 3 NA
11/21/1995 Anthology 1 1 NA NA
03/19/1996 Anthology 2 1 NA NA
10/29/1996 Anthology 3 1 NA NA
09/14/1999 Yellow Submarine Soundtrack 15 NA
11/14/2000 The Beatles 1 1 NA 8
11/18/2003 Let It Be...Naked
Tour dates here:
http://www.beatles-discography.com/...s-discography.com/appendicies/tour-dates.html
Singles
Debut Date, Title, Highest Position, Total Weeks on Charts, Total Weeks at #1
January 18, 1964 I Want To Hold Your Hand 1 15 7
January 25, 1964 She Loves You 1 15 2
February 1, 1964 Please Please Me 3 13
February 1, 1964 I Saw Her Standing There 14 11
February 8, 1964 My Bonnie 26 6
February 22, 1964 From Me To You 41 6
March 14, 1964 Twist And Shout 2 11
March 14, 1964 Roll Over Beethoven 68 4
March 28, 1964 Can't Buy Me Love 1 10 5
March 28, 1964 All My Loving 45 6
March 28, 1964 Do You Want To Know A Secret 2 11
March 28, 1964 You Can't Do That 48 4
April 4, 1964 Thank You Girl 35 7
April 11, 1964 There's A Place 74 1
April 11, 1964 Love Me Do 67 14
April 11, 1964 Why 88 1
May 9, 1964 P.S. I Love You 10 8
May 30, 1964 Sie Liebt Dich 97 1
July 18, 1964 A Hard Day's Night 1 13 2
July 18, 1964 Ain't She Sweet 19 9
July 18, 1964 I Should Have Known Better 53 4
July 25, 1964 And I Love Her 12 9
July 25, 1964 I'm Happy Just To Dance With You 95 1
July 25, 1964 I'll Cry Instead 25 7
August 1, 1964 If I Fell 53 9
September 5, 1964 Matchbox 17 8
September 5, 1964 Slow Down 25 7
December 5, 1964 I Feel Fine 1 11 3
December 5, 1964 She's A Woman 4 9
February 20, 1965 Eight Days A Week 1 10 2
February 20, 1965 I Don't Want To Spoil The Party 39 6
February 27, 1965 4 - By The Beatles 68 5
April 24, 1965 Ticket To Ride 1 11 1
April 24, 1965 Yes It Is 46 4
July 31, 1965 Help! 1 13 3
September 18, 1965 Yesterday 1 11 4
September 18, 1965 Act Naturally 47 7
December 11, 1965 We Can Work It Out 1 12 3
December 11, 1965 Day Tripper 5 10
March 5, 1966 Nowhere Man 3 9
March 5, 1966 What Goes On 81 2
June 11, 1966 Paperback Writer 1 10 2
June 11, 1966 Rain 23 7
August 20, 1966 Yellow Submarine 2 9
August 20, 1966 Eleanor Rigby 11 8
February 18, 1967 Penny Lane 1 10 1
February 18, 1967 Strawberry Fields Forever 8 9
July 22, 1967 All You Need Is Love 1 11 1
July 22, 1967 Baby You're A Rich Man 34 5
December 2, 1967 Hello Goodbye 1 11 3
December 2, 1967 I Am The Walrus 56 4
March 23, 1968 Lady Madonna 4 11
March 23, 1968 The Inner Light 96 1
September 14, 1968 Hey Jude 1 19 9
September 14, 1968 Revolution 12 11
May 10, 1969 Get Back 1 12 5
May 10, 1969 Don't Let Me Down 35 12
June 14, 1969 The Ballad Of John And Yoko 8 9
October 18, 1969 Something* / Come Together* 1 16 1
March 21, 1970 Let It Be 1 14 2
May 23, 1970 The Long And Winding Road / For You Blue 1 10 2
June 12, 1976 Got To Get You Into My Life 7 16
November 20, 1976 Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da 49 6
September 16, 1978 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 71
March 27, 1982 The Beatles Movie Medley 12
August 9, 1986 Twist And Shout 23
April 22, 1995 Baby It's You 67
December 30, 1995 Free As A Bird 6
March 23, 1996 Real Love 11
Albums
Debut Date, Title, Highest Position, Total Weeks on Charts, Total Weeks at #1
July 22, 1963 Introducing The Beatles 2 49
January 20, 1964 Meet The Beatles 1 71 11
April 10, 1964 The Beatles' Second Album 1 55 5
June 26, 1964 A Hard Day's Night 1 51 14
July 20, 1964 Something New 2 41
November 23, 1964 The Beatles' Story 7 17
December 15, 1964 Beatles '65 1 70 9
March 22, 1965 The Early Beatles 43 33
June 14, 1965 Beatles VI 1 41 6
August 13, 1965 Help! 1 44 9
December 6, 1965 Rubber Soul 1 49 6
June 20, 1966 "Yesterday"...And Today 1 31 5
August 8, 1966 Revolver 1 77 6
June 2, 1967 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 1 121 15
November 27, 1967 Magical Mystery Tour 1 82 8
November 25, 1968 The Beatles 1 101 9
January 13, 1969 Yellow Submarine 2 24
October 1, 1969 Abbey Road 1 87 11
February 26, 1970 Hey Jude 2 33
May 18, 1970 Let It Be 1 55 4
April 2, 1973 The Beatles 1962-1966 3 105
April 2, 1973 The Beatles 1967-1970 1 109 1
June 7, 1976 Rock And Roll Music 2 29
May 4, 1977 The Beatles At The Hollywood Bowl 2 NA
June 13, 1977 The Beatles Live! At The Star-Club In Hamburg, Germany; 1962 111 NA
October 21, 1977 Love Songs 24 NA
March 24, 1980 Rarities 21 NA
March 22, 1982 Reel Music 19 NA
September 27, 1982 The Complete Silver Beatles NA NA
10/11/1982 20 Greatest Hits 50 NA
03/07/1988 Past Masters Volume 1 149 NA
03/07/1988 Past Masters Volume 2 121 NA
12/06/1994 The Beatles Live At The BBC 3 NA
11/21/1995 Anthology 1 1 NA NA
03/19/1996 Anthology 2 1 NA NA
10/29/1996 Anthology 3 1 NA NA
09/14/1999 Yellow Submarine Soundtrack 15 NA
11/14/2000 The Beatles 1 1 NA 8
11/18/2003 Let It Be...Naked
Tour dates here:
http://www.beatles-discography.com/...s-discography.com/appendicies/tour-dates.html
Last edited:
starvinmarvin said:
Well, I hear where you are coming from, but there is no "cop out", the Beatles are an archetype of a certain time. They are actually the birth of modern rock/pop as bands go. They composed and recorded their own music, used guitars in what now is a classic format of bass, lead and rhythm with a drummer. All bands since have modeled themselves on that basic format with some variation. Elvis did not compose or do guitar solos, and yes, some smaller bands did exist before the Beatles, which used electrics etc., but the definition of a modern band sits with them. Guitar solo's etc. are all part of that archetype.
Yes, yes, one can find all of these elements before the Beatles in some form or another, but the Beatles were a catalyst for a formula that clicked and what rock bands have all structured themselves after. They also did many other firsts (first guitar feedback on a record, first rock album by design, etc.) Archetypes are had to surpass.
Now, as to whom I think is the greatest band in the world? Pretty subjective at times, but U2 is my favorite band, I listen to them far more that the Beatles. But I cannot deny John Lennon and the Beatles as the most important.
Lastly, I mentioned in an earlier post that what if John and Bono could have met and become friends? As others have noted here, they are very similar. But consider this: Bono is Irish, but so was John Lennon! His name origin was O'Lennon and he acknowledge this on his walls and Bridges album in 1975, saying he was proud to be of Irish decent.
So, perhaps, the greatest rock stars archetypes of all time are Irish! The Irish have changed our lives. It’s a fascinating cultural coincidence.
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Lewis12 said:
That's pretty much how I feel. U2 may be the Beatles of the generation that grew up with MTV (not a bad title at all) but the Beatles are THE BEATLES. 'Nuff said.
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Lewis12 said:
I didn't know that! I always thought Paul McCartney might be of Irish descent because of his last name, but I had no idea John was too.menelaos
War Child
barrett said:
Totally agreed...
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
U2DMfan said:
Maybe a middle ground for both those who want more out of the band, and for the bands obvious internal creative differences would be releasing a couple of EP's every now and then. Stuff that's just put out there on the side. So, say they go into the studio and have 20 songs at some embryonic stage - let Larry or whoever fuck up 11 of them for the Big Brand U2 Mega Tribute Album that must be ultra slick and commercial now (or else!), and let 5 or 6 of the leftovers be an outlet for Edge/Bono's creative urges.
If Larry or whoever still protests, just stick it out there under the Passengers name or something, but then I'd really wish that the U2 name gets some credibility back. I'm sure there are plenty of 14 yr old girls listening to the radio and hearing 'Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own' and comparing it only to whatever Dashboard Confessional ballad or something and thinking "Oooh this is great!", but talk to anyone who isn't a hardcore U2 fan who has at least some musical knowledge beyond the pop charts and that comparison is "This is by the same band that wrote One? They've fucking lost it completely." <----- that feeling is what I see as the general vibe out there over U2. What little respect and credibility they had left post ATYCLB went with "Hello, hello". And I'm not talking about TRL/Oprah respect.
Anyway, my point is that I think there are several great reasons why there should be a secondary outlet for U2 - and soon. They're another one of these albums away from being the Rolling Stones.
Similar threads
- Locked
