Bono vs. Lennon/McCartney

[Stefan]

I like the Beatles but not nearly as much as I like U2

 

[goincommando]

I hate the beatles with a passion, most overrated band of all time. Bono by miles and miles.

 

[IanIinTheSky]

I don't even think McCartney could write "Is That all"

 

[U2Man]

but he could write "Can't Buy Me Love", "Yesterday", "Penny Lane", "Hey Jude", "Blackbird" and "Let It Be".

 

[Canadiens1131]

I think Let It Be, as a complete song (lyrics/melody/arrangement) outranks U2's entire musical catalogue - combined.

 

[U2Man]

Yesterday, Penny Lane, I'll Follow the Sun, Blackbird... (pure McCartney songs) not a single U2 song can reach these.



imo.

 

[vaz02]

personally i believe bono has a wider range of singing than lenon and mc, however i think lenon and mc are betetr songwriters but give me bono anyday.

 

[Aygo]

I think Let It Be, as a complete song (lyrics/melody/arrangement) outranks U2's entire musical catalogue - combined.

You know... you're funny!!

 

[Canadiens1131]

Hmm, vocal range is something interesting to compare.

If you look at Bono and Paul, I can't recall the lowest voice Paul has done for a song. He can't hit stuff as low as Velvet Dress, but his chest voice is so full and sweet-sounding it may not make a difference.

Lennon and Paul both had the high, raspy stuff nailed though.

Heltaaaa Skeltaaaaaaaa!

You know... you're funny!!

I'm not sure if I was making such a far-fetched claim. Can you name any U2 song (vocals and lyrics and chord progression) that is as immediately wonderful as Let It Be after one verse?

 

[roy]

I think Let It Be, as a complete song (lyrics/melody/arrangement) outranks U2's entire musical catalogue - combined.

The next time you're so desperate for a reaction, try to adopt a pinch of sublety..

 

[U2Man]

I actually agree that McCartney couldn't write Is That All. You don't sit down the one minute and write songs such as Penny Lane and Blackbird and the next minute something like this:


Singing this song makes me angry
I'm not angry with you
Is that all
Is that all
Is that all
Singing song that makes me happy
I'm not happy with you
Singing this song makes me pale
Is that all
Is that all

Is that all
Is that all
Is that all
Is that all you want from me

Is that all
Is that all
Is that all


You just don't.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I actually agree that McCartney couldn't write Is That All. You don't sit down the one minute and write songs such as Penny Lane and Blackbird and the next minute something like this:


You just don't.

And even if he did, he'd throw in so many great vocal melody quips that it would carry the song anyway.

 

[Aygo]

I'm not sure if I was making such a far-fetched claim. Can you name any U2 song (vocals and lyrics and chord progression) that is as immediately wonderful as Let It Be after one verse?

That's subjective, mate. You may find Let It Be the most beautiful song vocally and lyrically... I find it too, it's one of my favourite Beatles song... but hey... say that it's better than U2's entire catalogue, please make me laugh...

 

[BVS]

I think Let It Be, as a complete song (lyrics/melody/arrangement) outranks U2's entire musical catalogue - combined.

I think if you wanted to be taken seriously you could have at least chosen a better song. Let it Be is a pretty repetitive and mediocre Beatles song.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Since when have I wanted to be taken seriously? If I begin to be taken seriously, I think I've lost my credability.

 

[Axver]

Yesterday, Penny Lane, I'll Follow the Sun, Blackbird... (pure McCartney songs) not a single U2 song can reach these.



imo.

Blackbird? That song is boring and dull. Songs such as Zooropa slaughter it.

 

[Zoots]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Bono&word2=Lennon/McCartney

 

[Yahweh]

If it wasnt for John Lennon the Beatles would have been just another decent rock band from the 60s, and to be totally honest I think he wrote better material lyrics wise in his solo career then he ever did with the Beatles.

Beatles will always be a great band but also always the most over rated band in rock history.

I will say Bono is the better front man as their hasnt been another act in rock history that knows how to play a stadium and energize the fans more then U2 has in rock history, and Bono can write excellent lyrics when he puts his mind to it.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Whoever says the Beatles is (are?) overrated is obviously 12 years old and has no idea of how the Beatles changed the face of modern music. We would not HAVE U2 if the Beatles didn't fundamentally change the way music was made. Before the Beatles, it wasn't considered usual for bands to sing their own material, they relied on outside songwriters.

As for there not being any other act that knows how to play a stadium, I put forward the Stones, the Who, Springsteen, who all learnt their craft while Bono was still some sad arsed unknown in a North Dublin school.

 

[Aygo]

Whoever says the Beatles is (are?) overrated is obviously 12 years old and has no idea of how the Beatles changed the face of modern music. We would not HAVE U2 if the Beatles didn't fundamentally change the way music was made. Before the Beatles, it wasn't considered usual for bands to sing their own material, they relied on outside songwriters.

As for there not being any other act that knows how to play a stadium, I put forward the Stones, the Who, Springsteen, who all learnt their craft while Bono was still some sad arsed unknown in a North Dublin school.

No need for this answer.
The Beatles may have been the first pop/rock band to reach international stardom and they may have been the first band to try such types of music, make crossovers between genres. Yes, they changed the face of contemporary music.
But The Beatles are just a piece of the history and many people insist to make them "the history" and the only existing truth about music. That's not true. That would be the same as "Ford invented cars".
Since The Beatles, many other artists changed the history of popular music in the same way they did, even though nobody wants to admit it. More recently we had U2, Michael Jackson or Madonna, not to name others. These ones, liking them or not were so relevant to the popular music (sometimes even more) than them through other ways, not just because they were first. That becomes irrelevant here.
It's the same thing about insisting in the argument that U2 only were a great band in the 80's. Obviously wrong!

 

[Yahweh]

Yeah im 12 years old alright, and just because something came first doesnt mean its better.

The Beatles came around at a time where it was very easy for a moderately talented band to get publicity, they just happened to be more talented at putting hooks in the songs that people remembered then the majority back then. There were much better lyricists then John Lennon or Paul Mcartney ever were even back then. However the Beatles knew how to write a melody that people remember which is also something U2 is quite good at.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Since The Beatles, many other artists changed the history of popular music in the same way they did, even though nobody wants to admit it. More recently we had U2, Michael Jackson or Madonna, not to name others.

I have to say I think of U2 as exactly the opposite. They barely touched or changed anything in popular music - and that's why their 80s material is so revered by U2 fans.

They existed in a musical bubble, an alternative to the synth pop, the dance music factory turning out similar-sounding hit after another. They were the alternative to the crap. Sure, they took their initial sound from Television and Echo & the Bunnymen, but no one who liked pop music knew who those bands were anyway. U2 took that specific, spidery sound and made it their own. Even co-awesome band The Poilce's 80s stuff sounds dated today. But listen to The Unforgettable Fire. That wasn't music made in the 80s, it's not music from this world. And you'd be very hard pressed to find anything seemingly similar today thanks to that album's existance.

With a few notable exceptions, U2 haven't changed the face of much of anything, except for what 4 honest guys and some delay can do.



Honestly when you talk about U2 influencing any kind of chunk of music, it's probably car commercials with chimey guitar and delay.

 

[LMP]

I personally don't like early Beatles material until about Rubber Soul, because that is just a landmark album

Everything after that album is just the perfect synthesis of songwriting, innovation, creativity, and beauty. The Beatles have no one to compare them to, at all, they made "Beatles" music.

Bands that try and match that quality fail, even Oasis, and I'm a huge fan of theirs.

U2's catalogue is amazing in its own right, but like Canadiens said, it's not entirely original. Can a band get away with copying U2's style and still be successful?

The answer is yes, look at the bulk of Coldplay's work and a slew of newer bands.

I'm not trying to belittle any band here, but do you see the point I'm trying to make?

 

[Aygo]

I have to say I think of U2 as exactly the opposite. They barely touched or changed anything in popular music - and that's why their 80s material is so revered by U2 fans.

They existed in a musical bubble, an alternative to the synth pop, the dance music factory turning out similar-sounding hit after another. They were the alternative to the crap. Sure, they took their initial sound from Television and Echo & the Bunnymen, but no one who liked pop music knew who those bands were anyway. U2 took that specific, spidery sound and made it their own. Even co-awesome band The Poilce's 80s stuff sounds dated today. But listen to The Unforgettable Fire. That wasn't music made in the 80s, it's not music from this world. And you'd be very hard pressed to find anything seemingly similar today thanks to that album's existance.

With a few notable exceptions, U2 haven't changed the face of much of anything, except for what 4 honest guys and some delay can do.



Honestly when you talk about U2 influencing any kind of chunk of music, it's probably car commercials with chimey guitar and delay.

Wrong. The 80's (and until the late 90's) proved that the popular music was not only made and created by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones or Elvis Presley... And then, the 80's were not just marked and affected by synths and electronic music. The 70's started the great diversity of genres that coexisted sucessfully.

Don't you think that Madonna or Michael Jackson were landmarks so big as The Beatles in popular music? Don't forget that popular music (and that means since The Beatles era) is not only the music. It means everything related and evolving it, from the music, to the image, from the studio to the iconic images.
In the 60's no artist managed its career in the way to manipulate the media and the public sphere. Madonna is keeping on making it sucessfully. No other artist till then was capable to metamorphise its image in the way those two make. How many "Madonna's" (imagetic and musically) have you seen since 1983? And Jackson? Is that really the same kid that used to sing in a brothers band? Hummm... I guess not.

Take U2's example. They're not loved by the entire world. But they're probably the only "big band in the world" that experimented and crossed lots of musical genres sucessfully and could bring it to the masses without turn off's.
There's a reason why these more recent generation of artists are still active after 25 years and still puting singles and album at the top charts.
That's why they changed the popular music's history in the same granditude than The Beatles.
Then, The Unforgettable Fire was sightly different than what U2 had make till then, and different too than the 1984 music, but it's easy to identify that as music made in the 1980's. Just listen to Indian Summer Sky, Pride, Wire, 3 Sunrises, TUF or even Boomerang II.

In the late 80's, U2 was seen as the only great surviving band in the world. And by the late 90's no other band had created the kind of structures U2 did.

And well, if you think that "U2 haven't changed the face of much of anything, except for what 4 honest guys and some delay can do"... what's the point of spending time posting here?

 

[vaz02]

led zeppelin and the rolling stones are huge bands and they were hardly infulenced by the beatles, if the beatles hadnt of happened u2 would still have happened and so would of popular culture.



the beatles , right place right time.

 

[LMP]

For the longest time I agreed The Beatles were great and just a "first there" type of thing.

But when you sit and actually listen to all of their music, it just proves you wrong and they truly are one of the greatest bands of all-time.

 

[LemonMelon]

Blackbird? That song is boring and dull. Songs such as Zooropa slaughter it.

True, yet incredibly shortsighted.

Comapring Zooropa to Blackbird is like comparing a monster truck to a toy model of a monster truck.

The Beatles are true geniuses. End of story.

 

[Canadiens1131]

And well, if you think that "U2 haven't changed the face of much of anything, except for what 4 honest guys and some delay can do"... what's the point of spending time posting here?

I hear this quite often and it amuses me.

If I'm here it's because U2 is my favourite band. That's mostly a given for the majority of Interference members. Heaven forbid I poke fun at them or think that they're not the be all and end all of music, rock and roll, and God and Earth.

 

[dano]

led zeppelin and the rolling stones are huge bands and they were hardly infulenced by the beatles, if the beatles hadnt of happened u2 would still have happened and so would of popular culture.



the beatles , right place right time.

The Rolling Stones weren't influenced by the Beatles? Everything they did until at least 1967 was a direct response to the Beatles in some manner.

Go read The Beatles: The Biography by Spitz. It was just released within the last year. It will help you to realize exactly how HUGE this band was for its time and how much more talented Paul McCartney is than he is credited for. Seriously people, comparing these two is like taking teams or individuals from different eras and debating who would win in a contest. You just can't do it. Besides, the world is a richer place for having both of these bands in it.

I will say this though. From about 1964/65-1967, almost all of the major rock music releases were responses and reactions from artists to what the Beatles were doing. I don't know of any other band that has made that impact in the history of this musical genre.

 

[LMP]

The Rolling Stones weren't influenced by the Beatles? Everything they did until at least 1967 was a direct response to the Beatles in some manner.

Go read The Beatles: The Biography by Spitz. It was just released within the last year. It will help you to realize exactly how HUGE this band was for its time and how much more talented Paul McCartney is than he is credited for. Seriously people, comparing these two is like taking teams or individuals from different eras and debating who would win in a contest. You just can't do it. Besides, the world is a richer place for having both of these bands in it.

I will say this though. From about 1964/65-1967, almost all of the major rock music releases were responses and reactions from artists to what the Beatles were doing. I don't know of any other band that has made that impact in the history of this musical genre.

The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds was a reaction to Rubber Soul

and The Stones' Her Satanic Majesty's Request was a response to Sgt. Pepper.