I was just thinking the other day about why u2 is not critically rated as one of the top two or three groups of all time. You always hear the beatles (fair enough) and the stones (can't stand them), but never u2. Why is this?? I think that critics will always judge a group more on its records rather than its tours. This imho is very unfair but it's also the reality unfortunately. The fact that u2 have devoted half their careers to touring obviously has not enabled them to make as many records as they should have based on the time they have been around, and we shouldn't underestimate the sheer energy that is drained from each tour. I personally think that u2 could easily have put out at least a couple more masterpices if they had not toured as much as they have. The Beatles however hardly toured and therefore were allowed to make a lot more records. Most discussions on groups are usually dominated by which band has the better records, and live performances hardly ever come into the equation. I was just wondering what your opinions are on this and whether or not there is any truth to my theory.
Last edited: