Sam O Sullivan: album in 2008

[jedi Larry]

but people will argue for Coldplay...I say they don't rock enough. They make U2, who are far from any sort of hard rock, look like System of a Down.

LOL!


I'm sure they would love to go down in history as the greatest band of all time and to do that they would need to release at least one more absolute masterpiece, at the moment they have two, but to be considered greater than The Beatles for example they would need another truly great album, they have it in them to do it.

U2 would have to have more than 3 albums considered classics to compare to The Beatles.

U2 would have to release a handful of further masterpieces, completely change the pop landscape with them(Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper,White Album), challenge the establishment(Bigger than Jesus, long hair, doodling in drugs, etc, and create new mediums to exhibit rock music( A Hard Day's Night) before they'll be considered as big and as significant as The Beatles.

Don't count on it.

 

[t8thgr8]

they are releasing music in a new medium, first movie concert in 3d. They challenged the establishment with zootv. and im sure theyd have their fair share of influence on our planet. If the next album is a new direction and a masterpiece, game over. especially if the tour concept to back it is groundbreaking.

 

[Aygo]

U2 would have to release a handful of further masterpieces, completely change the pop landscape with them(Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper,White Album), challenge the establishment(Bigger than Jesus, long hair, doodling in drugs, etc, and create new mediums to exhibit rock music( A Hard Day's Night) before they'll be considered as big and as significant as The Beatles.

Don't count on it. [/B]

U2 has already done it. Bono has the "Messiah complex" and he can be seen by some interpretation as a "God representator on Earth" (well, it sounds ridiculous, but metaphorically and exagerating in Bono's actions it's the possible comparison).
The Beatles claimed/wanted to be bigger than Jesus.
Well, through this perspective, Bono is God.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Bono is God.

I thought Bono was Jesus? Either way, you better go out and tithe at the local record shoppe if you want to go to heaven when you die. Besides, U218 could stand to move a few more units.

 

[rihannsu]

Bono is God.

I thought Bono was Jesus? Either way, you better go out and tithe at the local record shoppe if you want to go to heaven when you die. Besides, U218 could stand to move a few more units.

U218 is not doing that badly. It is still in the Global top 40 while Oasis dropped off after 9 weeks and The Beatles dropped off last week. U218 is at 26 in its 16th week.

Dana

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

U218 is not doing that badly. It is still in the Global top 40 while Oasis dropped off after 9 weeks and The Beatles dropped off last week. U218 is at 26 in its 16th week.

Dana

Whew! Thank God, or, well thank

 

[U2girl]

U2 will never reach the Beatles, except in that they were both the biggest bands of their time (Beatles were also the best, it's more debatable to do this for U2's era) and both of their singers turned activists.

One more great album would help, if they're serious about being put among the best someday.

 

[LemonMelon]

Yeah, there's no way U2 touch the Beatles in creativity or commercial success, but it's too late...U2 can already be compared with the best, due to their long career of success, even if they don't have as many "classic" albums as say, Pink Floyd or the Stones.

 

[jedi Larry]

And does it really matter if they aren't as big and influential as The Beatles?

Not to me. But I suppose to them it does matter. That's good because it will hopefully keep them searching and growing.

They need to ditch the last 7 years though and do something different.
It's time.

 

[super fly guy]

^^ And what do you suggest they do?

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

dream it all over again.

i will be with them every step of the way if they do.

 

[U2girl]

^^ And what do you suggest they do?

Surprise us.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

U2 may have not had as much of a transformative effective on the music scene as the Beatles, but you could argue that U2 has had a much larger effect on the actual world around them than the Beatles could ever have hoped for.

John Lennon was an activist, but the truth is that, in terms of making actual changes and progress within the system which has had a real effect on people's lives, U2 is light years ahead of the Beatles.

John Lennon talked a good game, but he was so anti-establishment that he couldn't actually get anything done (other than protests). Lennon was actually so lacking in tact (something which Bono has learned and mastered quite well) that he was in danger of getting kicked out of America at one point.

U2 is much smarter...they work within the system rather than burning their bridges and have had a far greater impact on the world as a result.

If we're judging this by just musical influence alone, the Beatles probably win this argument (so far, anyway).

But if we're judging the bands by not only their musical influence but also the transforming effect that they've had on the world both through their music and outside of it, then U2's impact on people's lives beyond just their stereo systems makes them by far the greatest band in history.

 

[Snowlock]

Not saying I disagree with you but:

I'm sure they would love to go down in history as the greatest band of all time and to do that they would need to release at least one more absolute masterpiece, at the moment they have two, but to be considered greater than The Beatles for example they would need another truly great album, they have it in them to do it.

U2 would have to have more than 3 albums considered classics to compare to The Beatles.

Many (non interferencers) consider ATYCLB to be the third masterpiece.

U2 would have to release a handful of further masterpieces completely change the pop landscape with them(Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper,White Album),

War, The Unforgettable Fire are two potentials... I think these albums are changing the current pop landscape more now than they did in their day.

challenge the establishment(Bigger than Jesus, long hair, doodling in drugs,

Drugs mean you're an idiot, whether you're pro or con establishment. I think U2've done far more than the Beatles to challenge the establishment - Conspiracy Of Hope, Live Aid, Live 8, Music Rising, (red), ONE, DATA, The MLK Day debate, Iran/Contra, Jubilee 2000 campaign... They even had multiple haircuts during these time periods.

Bigger Than Jesus didn't challenge the establishment, it was only a comment that McCartney (Lennon?) wished desperately he had back as it cost them a lot of money.

and create new mediums to exhibit rock music( A Hard Day's Night) before they'll be considered as big and as significant as The Beatles.

Don't count on it. [/B]

The Beatles hardly created the musical movie as new medium to exhibit rock music... A Hard Days night was preceded by Elvis's movies.

What the Beatles didn't have that U2 have was competition from other genres as well as the profligration of indie labels to further crowd the field. It's hard to say how popular they would've been if they had been competing for chart success against other sub genres of Rock and Roll. Had there been Punk, Rap, Pop (as we call it), Alternative, Heavy Metal, Techno, et etc for the Beatles to compete against, maybe they wouldn't have had #1 after #1.

U2 still are a few songs short of the type of hits catalog that the Beatles had, and maybe they'll never recover from the detour they took from 1992-2000 but I wouldn't ever say "don't count on it" when it comes to U2 eventually matching the Beatles. There's still time; not to mention historical persepectives that haven't even been viewed yet.

U2 right now could stack the following up against any of the same number of Beatles songs and hold there own at minimum with today's audience and will only gain ground as time goes on. Where the Beatles will beat U2 is quantity of hits; I don't think quality-wise U2 need feel much fear. To a lot of people the Beatles already sound exteremely dated and simple. There's songs here that have held up over 20 years and sound as fresh today as they did back then.

1. Sunday Bloody Sunday
2. New Years Day
3. Pride
4. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
5. With or Without You
6. Where The Streets Have No Name
7. Desire
8. The Fly
9. Mysterious Ways
10. One
11. Beautiful Day
12. Vertigo

 

[Copy]

What the Beatles didn't have that U2 have was competition from other genres as well as the profligration of indie labels to further crowd the field. It's hard to say how popular they would've been if they had been competing for chart success against other sub genres of Rock and Roll. Had there been Punk, Rap, Pop (as we call it), Alternative, Heavy Metal, Techno, et etc for the Beatles to compete against, maybe they wouldn't have had #1 after #1.

You don't think there was any competition in the sixties? IN THE SIXTIES, pal? That's hilarious. Apart from Rap, what exactly is U2 competing against today that wasn't around in the sixties? Not much, it's basically still the same thing.

 

[Irvine511]

great post, Snowlock.

i also think that U2's 80s work is growing in stature -- they're now universally recognized as probably the most important artist to come out of the 80s, aside from Prince, and collaborations with artistes like Eno (ahem, new Coldplay album) and the great big spaces and reverb 80-83 are very chic right now as the early 80s in general are en vogue as we speak.

i'm also struck by how contemporary their 80s stuff sounds -- even a late 80's smash like WOWY could be released today and i wouldn't bat an eyelash. it's as timeless as anything by the Beatles, or anyone else, and it manages to both capture that time period, the band in that time period, yet transcend both the age of the band and the constraints of the time period.

much of the 90s work will hold up as well, the only exception being the Pop album. and i like Pop. but for all the experimentation, it's an album that won't hold up to the test of time, as understood by the mainstream. U2 fans will love it's "bravery," and that's great and i'm not going to argue. but it's simply not as memorable as every other album from '83-04, and the techno beats do sound stuck in their time period (late 1990s). these are not the transcendent tunes you find on JT and AB, and even ATYCLB and Bomb. i'm also guessing that, of the two, Bomb is going to sound more dated in 15 years time.

and, so, anyway, i think a Beatles comparison is pointless. it's like comparing Nabokov to Shakespeare. Shakespeare came first. he defined Western literature. "Hamlet" is the most important text in the English language, arguably. no one is going to ever surpass "Hamlet." but what people can do is continue with what was started and define their own place and sound and time, and reflect the age and transcend the age, and inspire a legion of followers to etch out their own niche in the great cannon of literature/music.

and U2 have done that more than any other band in the past 30 years.

 

[Snowlock]

You don't think there was any competition in the sixties? IN THE SIXTIES, pal? That's hilarious. Apart from Rap, what exactly is U2 competing against today that wasn't around in the sixties? Not much, it's basically still the same thing.

Oh? How many alternative bands were there in the 60's? Emo? Punk? Metal? Alt. Country? The Beatles' biggest competor was probably Motown... How many major acts did that encompas? 20? 50 on the high end? I bet there's been 50 different R&B artists alone (not including rap) that have hit Number One on the Billboard 100 in the last five years.

I don't really know how one can argue that given all the different mediums music can come from now compared to 40 years ago that the sheer number of acts and genres hasn't increased exponentially since then.

After all, I didn't say there wasn't competition in the sixties, I said there wasn't AS MUCH competition in the sixties.

 

[U2Man]

U2 right now could stack the following up against any of the same number of Beatles songs and hold there own at minimum with today's audience and will only gain ground as time goes on. Where the Beatles will beat U2 is quantity of hits; I don't think quality-wise U2 need feel much fear. To a lot of people the Beatles already sound exteremely dated and simple. There's songs here that have held up over 20 years and sound as fresh today as they did back then.

1. Sunday Bloody Sunday
2. New Years Day
3. Pride
4. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
5. With or Without You
6. Where The Streets Have No Name
7. Desire
8. The Fly
9. Mysterious Ways
10. One
11. Beautiful Day
12. Vertigo

well, it's all about personal preference, of course. and you're entitled to your opinion, i guess. i do find it a bit weird that anyone would say that songs such as Vertigo and Mysterious Ways can be compared with any Beatles song. Because that does ring false in my ear, even from an objective point of view.

If you think Beatles is simple and U2 isnt, you need to learn some musical theory, maybe pick up an instrument...you'll change your mind, i guarantee you.

and about the 'extremely dated' thing - you're joking, right? have you heard the new U2 single recently, for instance?

 

[Snowlock]

well, it's all about personal preference, of course. and you're entitled to your opinion, i guess. i do find it a bit weird that anyone would say that songs such as Vertigo and Mysterious Ways can be compared with any Beatles song. Because that does ring false in my ear, even from an objective point of view.

If you think Beatles is simple and U2 isnt, you need to learn some musical theory, maybe pick up an instrument...you'll change your mind, i guarantee you.

and about the 'extremely dated' thing - you're joking, right? have you heard the new U2 single recently, for instance?

A person doesn't need to be a baker to know if a cake is good or not. Don't go there. Oh, and anyone with knowledge of musical theory should also know that Lennon and McCartney shamelessly ripped off Chuck Berry and other southern black blues/rock musicians early and often.

Yeah, I've heard the new U2 single with the overt beatles influence... But not on the radio.

The Beatles were a great band. But they're just a little to fadish for my taste right now. Now they're mentioned in the same breath as those other "innovators"; the darlings of all music snobs; Nirvana.

 

[U2Man]

A person doesn't need to be a baker to know if a cake is good or not.

no, but he might need to be a baker to know how the cake is composed.

 

[U2Man]

A person doesn't need to be a baker to know if a cake is good or not. Don't go there. Oh, and anyone with knowledge of musical theory should also know that Lennon and McCartney shamelessly ripped off Chuck Berry and other southern black blues/rock musicians early and often.

oh please. this is such a tiny fraction of their career, compared to what they did from and including revolver

 

[Snowlock]

no, but he might need to be a baker to know how the cake is composed.

Not really, no. There's all kinds of books out there with recipes in them.

Such a tiny fraction of their career? Just the stuff from '62 - 65... Their career lasted until when?

From 62-65:
Love Me Do
Help!
Please Please Me
She Loves You
I Want To Hold Your Hand
Can't Buy Me Love
A Hard Day's Night

 

[U2Man]

Not really. There's all kinds of books out there with recipes in them.

just like there are all kinds of books on musical theory.

 

[Snowlock]

just like there are all kinds of books on musical theory.

Yes there are; on that we are in agreement. I still don't need a musical theory book to tell me if a cake tastes good though.

 

[U2Man]

Yes there are; on that we are in agreement. I still don't need a musical theory book to tell me if a cake tastes good though.

you weren't talking about whether the music was good or not. you were talking about what was simple and what wasn't.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

You guys are making me hungry for some sort of book/cake...

 

[Snowlock]

you weren't talking about whether the music was good or not. you were talking about what was simple and what wasn't.

Actually I said "sounds dated and simple". I never said it was simple. Thus the cake reference. It's all about taste as you said initially; that why that whole "if you picked up an instrument" theory is such nonsense. It's all a matter of taste; not education.

Oh, and I've been playing guitar since I was 5.

 

[xaviMF22]

You guys are making me hungry for some sort of book/cake...

get out


we all want cakes

 

[U2Man]

Actually I said "sounds dated and simple". I never said it was simple. Thus the cake reference. It's all about taste as you said initially; that why that whole "if you picked up an instrument" theory is such nonsense. It's all a matter of taste; not education.

Oh, and I've been playing guitar since I was 5.

well, that makes your comments even harder to comprehend.

are you saying that people will listen to u2 hits such as streets, wowy and vertigo and feel that they sound more complicated/less simple than eleanor rigby, strawberry fields and a day in the life?

 

[LemonMelon]

My God, this thread has turned blasphemous REALLY fast.

Snowlock
Many (non interferencers) consider ATYCLB to be the third masterpiece.

Rolling Stone, and...?

War, The Unforgettable Fire are two potentials... I think these albums are changing the current pop landscape more now than they did in their day.

Care to explain this? I personally think both records sound really dated.

What the Beatles didn't have that U2 have was competition from other genres as well as the profligration of indie labels to further crowd the field. It's hard to say how popular they would've been if they had been competing for chart success against other sub genres of Rock and Roll. Had there been Punk, Rap, Pop (as we call it), Alternative, Heavy Metal, Techno, et etc for the Beatles to compete against, maybe they wouldn't have had #1 after #1.

In terms of variety, yes, the Beatles did not have as much competition, but in terms of quantity of great music, U2 has it pretty damn easy in comparison.

To a lot of people the Beatles already sound exteremely dated and simple.

Oh, and anyone with knowledge of musical theory should also know that Lennon and McCartney shamelessly ripped off Chuck Berry and other southern black blues/rock musicians early and often.

They covered him sometimes, yes, and they incorporated his sound into some of their songs (let me give you a hint: MOST BANDS DO THAT ) and it showed, but on many occasions they channeled the sound brilliantly into pop tunes that Berry could only dream of writing.

And then of course they recorded Rubber Soul and your statement became horribly "dated and simple".