last unicorn said:
Great discussion, but I wouldn't compare Bono and Edge to Lennon and McCartney either. In the end, the Beatles became too involved with themselves and the individual members screwed up the band. This is something that will never happen to U2. Though it's clear that Bono and Edge can and will never have solo carreers, I still have more respect for them on a human basis.
The Beatles and U2 released a similar number of albums, the difference being the Beatles released theirs in a span of 7 years, U2 over 25 years. The quick maturation of their music (the intense creativity, the raising of the bar) and the amount of output under the phenomenal scrutiny the Beatles were under was already a recipe for burnout.
There is a difference already there between the Beatles and U2. The roles of the individual members of U2 are defined. There was no such definition in reality in the Beatles (other than Paul being the cute one). Bono and the Edge are complementary. Lennon and McCartney were contradictory--point, counterpoint. The lushness of McCartney against the edge of Lennon (A Day in the Life). Lennon pushed McCartney so McCartney began to have edge. McCartney pushed Lennon on the music. After they broke up, McCartney rarely had the same edge, Lennon rarely the pure musicianship of a McCartney.
What you also had in the Beatles were three creative equals (2 proclaimed and the third coming into his own)--all pushing each other and pushing away from each other (with no strong management in the end that protected them from everything but the music) Tremendous talents butting heads creatively, businesswise, personally. With no time to catch their breaths, to create some distance.
But like with U2, you had a situation where for all the talent, it was all a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
(And I do apologize, U2girl for further derailing the intent of your thread.)