U2 vs all other bands... where will they rank in the end?

[Malone]

more accurately, axl rose is to U2 what carrot top is to comedy

 

[Hallucination]

I don't think U2 will be widely thought of as #1 down the road.

The main reason for this is because The Beattles had so many #1 hits on the charts. Many of U2 singles barely crack the top 25 with few ever getting down to single digits.

50 years from now, when society looks back, it will be The Beattles as #1 w/ The Stones, The Who, and probably Zeppelin (in any order).

What prevents many modern day bands from cracking the top 5 or 10 will be longevity. Bands tend to break up after a handful of records. There are a few modern bands who have remained in tact and still put out music, but haven't necessarily remained in the spot light such as REM and Pearl Jam. Yes, many of us are big fans of REM & PJ but universally speaking, aren't in the public's eye (or ear for that matter).

True but how would radio play a part in this? It may be a fact that U2 has never had the amount of number one singles that The Beatles did but on any given day U2 sees much more airtime on radio than The Beatles do. At least where I live. I WIll Follow, SBS, New Year's Day, Pride, Streets, WOWOY, ISHFWILF, Desire, Angel of Harlem, When Love Comes to Town, One, Mysterious Ways, Beautiful Day are all in heavy rotation still on the radio here in Alberta. Much more so than The Beatles are. The Beatles are even behind The Stones, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, etc. and yes even Guns N' Roses in terms of what I hear on a daily basis on radio. Keep in mind that I'm in a truck all day so I constantly flip stations from modern rock, to clasic rock, to pop, to eay listening to alternative/indie/new rock(yeah U2 gets played on there too, Sonic 102.9 in Edmonton), You name it U2's there. From my experience they're in the top 3 or 4 with Zeppelin, Stones, and AC/DC in terms of regular radio play. I know alot of the times radio doesn't mean much but if we're to put any emphasis on number one songs than we have to put emphais on an actual lasting impact on radio.

 

[STING2]

I don't think U2 will be widely thought of as #1 down the road.

The main reason for this is because The Beattles had so many #1 hits on the charts. Many of U2 singles barely crack the top 25 with few ever getting down to single digits.

50 years from now, when society looks back, it will be The Beattles as #1 w/ The Stones, The Who, and probably Zeppelin (in any order).

What prevents many modern day bands from cracking the top 5 or 10 will be longevity. Bands tend to break up after a handful of records. There are a few modern bands who have remained in tact and still put out music, but haven't necessarily remained in the spot light such as REM and Pearl Jam. Yes, many of us are big fans of REM & PJ but universally speaking, aren't in the public's eye (or ear for that matter).

The Beatles have a virtual lock on the #1 title because they have sold 400 million albums worldwide and their latest Greatest hits Album 1, is the biggest selling album of this decade worldwide.

The Stones have sold a decent amount of albums over their career although nowhere near what the Beatles have sold. The Stones are still together and putting out new material and they have been the top concert drawing band since 1975, although U2 may have taken that away from them finally with the Vertigo Tour which is now the highest grossing tour in history with 10 more shows still to play. Still, even if the Stones are not #1 in the concert drawing category anymore, they are a close second. Then their artistic influence on rock music is also a big factor.

Led Zep have sold more albums than the Rolling Stones and have taken on a legendary status in the way few bands ever have. Whether its true or not, Hard Rock and Heavy Metal look to Zep as the creator. Massive continued catalog sales, legendary status like no other band, and the influence they have on big genre are the reason they are likely impossible to unseat from the top 5.


The Who is a different matter though. They were definitely in the top 5 23 years ago when they came off their first farwell tour. But with the passage of time, their albums have not sold well over the years. The band were reunited and played huge stadiums again in 1989. But when the band got back together to tour in 1996, they were only able to play arena's. These days I'm not sure if the Who would make the top 10. The only way they can is from their influence and impact over the years and legendary status, because the sales are just not there anymore despite the fact that the band still tours.

While I would not put U2 ahead of the first three bands at this point, I would put U2 ahead of The Who.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Musical landscape and people's tastes are so fractured that I have doubts that U2 would ever have the prestige of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, or Led Zeppelin.

From experience and observation, STING2's assessment of the Who seems so right on which is sort of funny considering how influential and big the Who are/ were.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

It is sort of shallow to think about it this way BUT Bono's volunteerism and publicity from social causes help U2's ranking amongst the TOP bands IMO. Someone was telling me how U2 had no influence in a country such as South Korea (non-existent) but Bono's hobnobbing and Africa, AIDS, Debt relief- related topics have brought them some exposure where they would have had none and Koreans are somewhat aware of U2 now as opposed to what was in the past.

 

[t8thgr8]

I'll end this quick.

It's not about how many awards, how much influence, amount of barriers broken blah blah. It's about what goes on that tape when they record.

How many beatle die hards do you know? how many of them listen to them on a daily basis? Led Zepplin? Stones? Etc....

How many 'core U2 fans do you know of that listen to them on a regular basis? Face it, when it comes to this band, once they reel you in youre not leaving the boat. No matter how many listens, your favorite u2 album or albums never seem to get old. Theres always something new youve never noticed before. Theres always that challenging record that you eventually warm up to. And if they havent reeled you in they're looking for a way to.

U2 is a story and a very interesting one at that. It has one of the greatest poets and greatest personalities of our time in one lead singer(who can sing). with a genius at his side. add one of the most dynamic rythym sections ever. Oh, and they're from the same highschool. Not even close.

heres a few smilies to get your attention

 

[U2Man]

If you don't think this world contains and has contained beatle die hards since about the early sixties then, man, I don't really know what to say.

A singer who can sing and a genius at his side? The Beatles had 3 musical geniuses and 4 guys who could sing. That's part of what made some so interesting and still does, even to teenagers and young people. A surprisingly big part of the people that bought the 1's album and the Anthology albums were teenagers or people in their 20's. Will millions of teenagers buy U2 albums in 40 years?

I'm not saying that U2 shouldn't rank among the top bands of all time because I think they should, but there is at least one band that U2 will never top, some would say that there are a few more.

 

[hiphop]

U2 are the last big rock band of the 80s. You can´t compare anything to Freddie Mercury´s voice, but Queen is long gone. The 80s is U2.

 

[U2Man]

I forgot to say that I agree with Zoomerang, threads like these are crappy.

 

[GibsonGirl]

I forgot to say that I agree with Zoomerang, threads like these are crappy.

Yeah. Especially since asking this question in a U2 forum is like asking Laura Bush if she thinks George is doing a good job. It would be a fair question at a different forum, maybe, but not this one. There's just too much bias.

 

[Zoomerang96]

The Beatles have a virtual lock on the #1 title because they have sold 400 million albums worldwide and their latest Greatest hits Album 1, is the biggest selling album of this decade worldwide.

The Stones have sold a decent amount of albums over their career although nowhere near what the Beatles have sold. The Stones are still together and putting out new material and they have been the top concert drawing band since 1975, although U2 may have taken that away from them finally with the Vertigo Tour which is now the highest grossing tour in history with 10 more shows still to play. Still, even if the Stones are not #1 in the concert drawing category anymore, they are a close second. Then their artistic influence on rock music is also a big factor.

Led Zep have sold more albums than the Rolling Stones and have taken on a legendary status in the way few bands ever have. Whether its true or not, Hard Rock and Heavy Metal look to Zep as the creator. Massive continued catalog sales, legendary status like no other band, and the influence they have on big genre are the reason they are likely impossible to unseat from the top 5.


The Who is a different matter though. They were definitely in the top 5 23 years ago when they came off their first farwell tour. But with the passage of time, their albums have not sold well over the years. The band were reunited and played huge stadiums again in 1989. But when the band got back together to tour in 1996, they were only able to play arena's. These days I'm not sure if the Who would make the top 10. The only way they can is from their influence and impact over the years and legendary status, because the sales are just not there anymore despite the fact that the band still tours.

While I would not put U2 ahead of the first three bands at this point, I would put U2 ahead of The Who.

you really don't get it do you.

music is more than numbers. do you listen to music, or read charts?

 

[Layton]

I forgot to say that I agree with Zoomerang, threads like these are crappy.

Crappy? Why?

It gets people fighting. What's wrong with that? Fights are what make the world go 'round.

 

[Layton]

i'm way better than you at everything, both good and bad.

which makes me far more important, interesting and relevant.

Aww, fighting. It's beautiful.

Every thread should be a vs. thread to draw out the finer points in life.

 

[Zoomerang96]

how post-modern

 

[Malone]

I agree with the above sentiment (zoomerang 96)
there are musicians from the 60's and 70's who are as good or better than the stones but who sold significantly less albums.

T-Rex, Harry Nilsson, Leonard Cohen, Nick Drake, even the kinks classic Village Green Preservation Society sold poorly upon release. As a matter of personal preference, I would much rather listen to Electirc Warrior than Who's Next

 

[chiso]

Kind of unrelated, but interesting (found it 5 minutes ago):

[innnnte-res-ting! ]


[I LOVE Radiohead, by the way... LOVE!]

 

[Hallucination]

I forgot to say that I agree with Zoomerang, threads like these are crappy.

You and Zoomerang can cry me a river. What's so bad about a thread that sparks a bit of debate. Like it or not people here have been pretty open minded. I'd like to think the average U2 fan has the common sense and intelligence to look at this with some perspective. But it doesn't really matter because both you and Zoomerang felt commpelled to take a peak at this thread as well as contribute to it, so your crappy comment comes off a bit weak. I mean the title had crap written all over it right, so why bother? Seriously if you don't like it just let it be.

 

[xaviMF22]

Kind of unrelated, but interesting (found it 5 minutes ago):

[innnnte-res-ting! ]


[I LOVE Radiohead, by the way... LOVE!]

<------------- Thats the best magazine ever

and its around the time of OK computer

 

[STING2]

you really don't get it do you.

music is more than numbers. do you listen to music, or read charts?

I get it in that I understand what this thread is about. In discussing the biggest bands of all time, numbers are a huge factor as well as critical praise and influence.

I don't want to drag this thread off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[indra]

I mean the title had crap written all over it right, so why bother? Seriously if you don't like it just let it be.

True. If you can read, you can pretty much tell if you're going to want to read or post in this thread.


I think what will hold U2 back in the influence part of this equation is that although they have influenced many bands, they haven't influenced any really huge ones.

 

[Malone]

honestly, I think Radiohead will go down as the most influencial band of these past 15 years.
I'm hesitant to say this, cos I gather the subject of radiohead/coldplay is beaten to death here

Still, The sound of contemporary music has been dramatically altered by Radioheads penchant for lush minor arrangements. There is nary a band today that doesn't seek to capitalize on the success of this sound.

 

[Hallucination]

honestly, I think Radiohead will go down as the most influencial band of these past 15 years.
I'm hesitant to say this, cos I gather the subject of radiohead/coldplay is beaten to death here

Still, The sound of contemporary music has been dramatically altered by Radioheads penchant for lush minor arrangements. There is nary a band today that doesn't seek to capitalize on the success of this sound.

I might be wrong here but wouldn't it be safe to say that Radiohead likely took from Achtung Baby, Zooropa and even the Passengers album? Also could it be that these lush minor arrangements were a part of U2 long before Radiohead was even around?

 

[Malone]

yes, There have been since pink floyd

but to say that Street Spirit or Paranoid Android are anything like u2 or floyd would probably be a mistake
there is unquestionably a 'radiohead sound'

honestly, I think they may be reaching their peak. I get the feeling they may soon start self-parodying themselves. Which is no place a band wants to be in.
I just wish they'd drop the politics

 

[xaviMF22]

I don't feel like debating. yes U2 influenced radiohead, but those are albums are not the reason why OKC and KID A exist. Radiohead have even said they hate achtung baby.

 

[Malone]

Radiohead have even said they hate achtung baby.

sounds like an urban legend to me. have a link?

 

[Hallucination]

I don't feel like debating. yes U2 influenced radiohead, but those are albums are not the reason why OKC and KID A exist. Radiohead have even said they hate achtung baby.

Why would they hate Achtung Baby? I agree with Malone. That's gotta be an urban legend No doubt there is a distinct Radiohead sound the same way there is a disinct U2 sound. That's what makes great bands great in my opinion. It's the ability to have a distinct sound all their own without being a cliche of themselves. I also agree that Radiohead seems to be losing it a bit. I know I'll get blasted for this but I think they've gone downhill ever since O.k. Computer. To me they are becoming band who's living of the reputation they gained when they used to write songs. Or at least when they used to write songs that embraced melody. Radiohead and Peral Jam are similar in that aspect. Both bands seem to strive to not be popular anymore. Though Pear Jam in my opinion has managed to do that while still making great albums as compared to Radioheads good albums post O.k. Computer.

 

[xaviMF22]

I have a magazine I'll see if I can scan it. You may also find some quotes online by Jonny saying he hates achtung baby, and prefers U2's earlier work.

 

[Malone]

ah, yes. It seems as though he did say that in 1993. That was over 10 years ago, though. Radiohead were just starting out and a lot of people were throwing around "next U2" and such bullshit

probably typical backlash against that kind of hype

I doubt he would say the same now

 

[xaviMF22]

ah, yes. It seems as though he did say that in 1993. That was over 10 years ago, though. Radiohead were just starting out and a lot of people were throwing around "next U2" and such bullshit

probably typical backlash against that kind of hype

I doubt he would say the same now

achtung baby is a great fucking album
but I don't buy the idea that OK computer and kid A owe their livelihood to achtung baby and zooropa. OKC and kid A is radiohead being radiohead

 

[xaviMF22]

Why would they hate Achtung Baby? I agree with Malone. That's gotta be an urban legend No doubt there is a distinct Radiohead sound the same way there is a disinct U2 sound. That's what makes great bands great in my opinion. It's the ability to have a distinct sound all their own without being a cliche of themselves. I also agree that Radiohead seems to be losing it a bit. I know I'll get blasted for this but I think they've gone downhill ever since O.k. Computer. To me they are becoming band who's living of the reputation they gained when they used to write songs. Or at least when they used to write songs that embraced melody. Radiohead and Peral Jam are similar in that aspect. Both bands seem to strive to not be popular anymore. Though Pear Jam in my opinion has managed to do that while still making great albums as compared to Radioheads good albums post O.k. Computer.

thats your opinion and I respect It. I however think that Kid A> OKC. I find that their work post OKC is way better than their earlier work