Bono vs. Lennon/McCartney

[angelordevil]

 

[Axver]

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.

Shortsighted? The poster I quoted stated no U2 song could touch Blackbird. I say Zooropa can more than just touch Blackbird, but slaughters it. In terms of song style, it's not a valid comparison, but the quote basically invited ANY U2 song to be compared to Blackbird.

 

[trayzee]

The Beatles kick U2s arse , if the beatles had the techonology U2 have , their stuff would have been even better.

I love u2 songs but some off thier stuff is realyy shitty too.

 

[LemonMelon]

Shortsighted? The poster I quoted stated no U2 song could touch Blackbird. I say Zooropa can more than just touch Blackbird, but slaughters it. In terms of song style, it's not a valid comparison, but the quote basically invited ANY U2 song to be compared to Blackbird.

Fair enough. But you could have made a much better comparison. How about...

Promenade vs Blackbird?

 

[Yahweh]

Beatles are a great band nobody disputes that here, however not every single song they wrote was a stroke of genious, id say maybe 1/4th of them were, they also had a lot of filler tracks, these tracks however were better quality then most bands filler tracks, and thats also true of U2.

 

[BVS]

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

This is very true...

I admit I like many of your posts, while other border on trolling, but that's just my take.

 

[thrillme]

Putting 2 people against one, really.

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!

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?

I thought this poll was based on the lyrical content, not the songwriting and the lyrical content. Edge does more of the songwriting, but lyricall, well Bono has more to say, than about girls.

I know I know, not all the Beatles songs were lovey dovey songs, but, a lot of them were.

"Like a Song," "Sunday Bloody Sunday" are much heavier than "Let it Be," lyrically. Without knowing anything about either band, put the lyrics of "Let it Be" to "Sunday Bloody Sunday."

Bono said that U2's songs have more "weight" than the Beatles, the Who had have it more as well. Lyrically, "Won't Get Fooled Again" beats out "Strawberry Fields." I heard the beginning of that song today, the lyrics, were, well, this was the Beatles "influenced" period right?

Where's the Beatles vs. Who thread, now that one is more fair.

 

[U2Man]

I saw a blackbird stain on Zooropa today.

I agree that the Bono/Edge attempt at Blackbird during the end of Beautiful Day is crap though. If you're basing your opinion on that, you need to hear the original

 

[Axver]

I agree that the Bono/Edge attempt at Blackbird during the end of Beautiful Day is crap though. If you're basing your opinion on that, you need to hear the original

Anyone basing their opinion of any song on a snippet by another band in another song is crazy and hopelessly misinformed.

I'd love to know, though, why you consider Blackbird superior to Zooropa. Zooropa is an immensely more creative and interesting song in my opinion. All that Blackbird makes me feel is a bit drowsy.

 

[ntalwar]

If I'm here it's because U2 is my favourite band.

 

[U2Man]

Anyone basing their opinion of any song on a snippet by another band in another song is crazy and hopelessly misinformed.

I'd love to know, though, why you consider Blackbird superior to Zooropa. Zooropa is an immensely more creative and interesting song in my opinion. All that Blackbird makes me feel is a bit drowsy.

Well, if you sat down and played Zooropa on an acoustic guitar, how would it sound? Pretty flat, I would think. Songs don't have to sound great on an acoustic guitar in order to be good, but if the song contains a great melody at it's core, it will shine through when you play it acoustically and remove all the icing. Blackbird just has that beauty, more than Zooropa, imo.

 

[LemonMelon]

Zooropa > Blackbird, however, it's still a crap comparison, since it's basically impossible to play some parts of Zooropa on an acoustic. Not even mentioning the different genres.

 

[AtomicBono]

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

well, there's our answer

seriously though, I prefer Bono but recognize Lennon/McCartney as technically better.

and comparing Zooropa to Blackbird is ridiculous. Zooropa is more comparable to a song like A Day in the Life...which I honestly couldn't choose between. A Day in the Life is the clear winner in terms of innovation, but I might like the song Zooropa better.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Anyone basing their opinion of any song on a snippet by another band in another song is crazy and hopelessly misinformed.

I'd love to know, though, why you consider Blackbird superior to Zooropa. Zooropa is an immensely more creative and interesting song in my opinion. All that Blackbird makes me feel is a bit drowsy.

When I actually heard Blackbird I wondered if this was the same song everyone else was talking about ...because it sucks.

What is the fuss???

 

[BVS]

Blackbird does suck...

 

[U2Man]

why?

 

[BVS]

why?

The same reason any song sucks.

Beatles aren't untouchable as some in this thread would want to think...

 

[ozeeko]

This is seriously a common sense issue: Bono vs. Lennon/McCartney. Look at it objectively, not subjectively. Bono may be a better frontman on stage. But then again that's not fair. The Beatles only played live for half their career. And it mostly consisted of a wall of noise overwhelming the music. That's why they decided to give it up and focus on the studio. As far as other frontman aspects go: Lennon is definitely the most interesting character out of the three. His private life,public life,interviews, protests, and personality is superior. I would say Bono comes in second, then McCartney.
Songwriting: It's not even an issue! The Beatles win! Musically and lyrically! Then you have to consider who's better, Lennon or McCartney...and for that I have no answer. But Bono without a doubt comes in third.

 

[U2Man]

The same reason any song sucks.

Beatles aren't untouchable as some in this thread would want to think...

Neither is Bono.

Still, I would like to know, what is it particularly about Blackbird that you don't like?

 

[BVS]

Neither is Bono.

Still, I would like to know, what is it particularly about Blackbird that you don't like?

You're correct.

I just find it very boring, almost without effort.

 

[Screwtape2]

Lyrically, Bono is by far better than Paul or John. George Harrison was the best songwriter of all the Beatles. The White Album and Let It Be are not very good lyrically. You look at thier must popular songs, they are crap.
Bono is also the better human being for obvious reasons.

The Beatles peaked with Sgt. Peppers, everything after is forgettable. I respect what they did for rock n' roll but they are way overrated when you compare them to later artists.

 

[amerrydeath]

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

I have to agree, mostly. Maybe not combined

U2 is great and all, perhaps the better "rock" band, but The Beatles are undefinable. Nothing has ever struck me so hard as many of the Beatles' songs. Some of the most incredible melodies of all time.

 

[Aygo]

Beatles aren't untouchable as some in this thread would want to think...

Of course The Beatles are not untouchable! As Shirley Mansons says "no one's untouchable".
Have you ever heard about Toyota having trepassing Ford by miles, becoming the 2nd biggest car manufacturer and getting and walking in General Motors' footprints to take its #1 place?
Have you ever heard about Adolf Hitler seeing his megalomaniac project burned, brought down to reality?
Well, this might seem weird but the comparisons mean that no one can stand comfrotably on his pedestal forever because the world spins and things change, thankfully.
In 2050 there will probably another (other) band(s) that will be seen as the biggest band ever and The Beatles will be seen as those who were the big landmark in popular music and still having records in the Guiness and whetever, but... nothing more than that. Were halfway from that, even though many people don't want to recognize it.

This is seriously a common sense issue: Bono vs. Lennon/McCartney. Look at it objectively, not subjectively. Bono may be a better frontman on stage. But then again that's not fair. The Beatles only played live for half their career. And it mostly consisted of a wall of noise overwhelming the music. That's why they decided to give it up and focus on the studio. As far as other frontman aspects go: Lennon is definitely the most interesting character out of the three. His private life,public life,interviews, protests, and personality is superior. I would say Bono comes in second, then McCartney.

I insist to ask if you think that McCartey or Lennon could have written "40" or Streets?
No, I'm not seeing Bono having the live and personality that belonged to Lennon but... have you ever imagined John Lennon dressing and acting in stage as a sexual rock'n'roll devil or shaking hands with George W. Bush or even offering sunglasses to the Pope? I definitely can't see that.

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

You hear it quite often? It's not a very good sign, you know... This answer was very easy too. Well, arguments over, yeah, I understand you...

God, The Beatles have had its time. It was 40 years ago! So many revolutions the popular music industry suffered, and so many stubborns can't see it just because somebody told them that it must be praised. Grow up!
Yes, probably if they wouldn't have existed all of this would've been different, but sooner or later, somebody would've made that job. It had to happen.
Do you think that if they existed (naturally, with the conditions of a contemporary band!) in our era they had survived? No, because they had their time. U2 has having its timing too, and sooner or later they'll be passing by and be put in a shelf too.

 

[ozeeko]

Lyrically, Bono is by far better than Paul or John. George Harrison was the best songwriter of all the Beatles. The White Album and Let It Be are not very good lyrically. You look at thier must popular songs, they are crap.
Bono is also the better human being for obvious reasons.

The Beatles peaked with Sgt. Peppers, everything after is forgettable. I respect what they did for rock n' roll but they are way overrated when you compare them to later artists.

Everything you have said is utter nonsense.

Bono a better human being? How in God's name do you know this? Seriously. For all you know, Bono's knee-deep in the kiddie porn. What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Aren't we discussing music? Better human being? I could give a fuck.

The Beatles peaked with Sgt. Peppers? That's the album that unfortunately has been dubbed their finest achievement. While it's an outstanding piece of work, a lot of it's praise stems from the immaculate production and conceptual flow, rather than the actual songs. And you say everything they released afterwards is forgettable? How old are you? Ever heard of Magical Mystery Tour,The White Album, Abbey Road? I don't even have to say anything. Just re-read the albums I listed above. They speak for themselves and do not need explanation.

The Beatles are over-rated compared to who? What later artists? The BeeGees? Dexy's Midnight Runners? Judas Priest? Who, dammit?

 

[namkcuR]

Blackbird is one of the most gorgeous, beautiful acoustic pop songs of all-time.

To those who say they don't like it: I'm genuinely asking, do you by any chance tend to dislike acousticly-driven pop/rock music in general?

 

[Screwtape2]

Bono a better human being? How in God's name do you know this? Seriously. For all you know, Bono's knee-deep in the kiddie porn. What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Aren't we discussing music? Better human being? I could give a fuck.

Maybe if you were read the post that started the thread you might know why. Bono is a better/more talented human being because of his work with Amnesty International and Africa. Paul McCartney does great work but doesn't have Bono vision and way of changing the world as a whole. It's not a knock on Paul who does great work with mines which are major problems in the world. In my opinion John Lennon inspired but did not act. Bono has done both.

 

[ozeeko]

I insist to ask if you think that McCartey or Lennon could have written "40" or Streets?
No, I'm not seeing Bono having the live and personality that belonged to Lennon but... have you ever imagined John Lennon dressing and acting in stage as a sexual rock'n'roll devil or shaking hands with George W. Bush or even offering sunglasses to the Pope? I definitely can't see that.

You hear it quite often? It's not a very good sign, you know... This answer was very easy too. Well, arguments over, yeah, I understand you...

God, The Beatles have had its time. It was 40 years ago! So many revolutions the popular music industry suffered, and so many stubborns can't see it just because somebody told them that it must be praised. Grow up!
Yes, probably if they wouldn't have existed all of this would've been different, but sooner or later, somebody would've made that job. It had to happen.
Do you think that if they existed (naturally, with the conditions of a contemporary band!) in our era they had survived? No, because they had their time. U2 has having its timing too, and sooner or later they'll be passing by and be put in a shelf too.

Um, 40 is a good song, but it's not the second coming of Christ, ok? Do I think the Beatles could have written a song like 40? Yeah, they could. It's a simplistic song. Do I think they could've written Beethoven's 9th symphony? Hmmmm...probably not. Let's reverse the question. Could U2 have written Happiness Is A Warm Gun? No. But they could cover it! And they have.

You then go on to knock the Canadian dude for poking fun at his favorite band. You say it's a bad thing. But you quoted Shirley Manson saying "no one's untouchable". So There. You deflated your argument. U2 isn't untouchable, and Canadian guy can poke fun at them all he wants. Doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't like them. I love U2, but they veer dangerously close sometimes to self-parody. And they're on such a pedestal that it's only natural people will take shots at them. Same with the Beatles!

I don't agree with your view that music from the past should be shelved. Great music is great music. That's why the Beatles will live on forever, and U2's greatest moments will live on forever. If your belief is that everything will come to an end and we'll have to close the book, then we're all just delaying the inevitable with U2. Might as well stop now, cuz one day they'll be gone like the Beatles. What I'm trying to say is, just cuz a band doesn't play together anymore doesn't mean that the music has stopped playing also. The music lives on.

 

[Screwtape2]

The Beatles peaked with Sgt. Peppers? That's the album that unfortunately has been dubbed their finest achievement. While it's an outstanding piece of work, a lot of it's praise stems from the immaculate production and conceptual flow, rather than the actual songs. And you say everything they released afterwards is forgettable? How old are you? Ever heard of Magical Mystery Tour,The White Album, Abbey Road? I don't even have to say anything. Just re-read the albums I listed above. They speak for themselves and do not need explanation.

The Beatles are over-rated compared to who? What later artists? The BeeGees? Dexy's Midnight Runners? Judas Priest? Who, dammit?

Magical Mystery Tour was a soundtrack and a good one at that but it was basically the Rattle & Hum to Sgt. Peppers. I think of the two of them as one entity. The White Album is a jumbled mess that is enjoyable to listen to but is a bad album when you look at it. Abbey Road wasn't a good album in my eyes. These albums don't convince me of anything.

The Beatles are overrated compared to the music styles that came afterwards. There are too many artists to list that make The Beatles sound like less than amazing.

 

[ozeeko]

Magical Mystery Tour was a soundtrack and a good one at that but it was basically the Rattle & Hum to Sgt. Peppers. I think of the two of them as one entity. The White Album is a jumbled mess that is enjoyable to listen to but is a bad album when you look at it. Abbey Road wasn't a good album in my eyes. These albums don't convince me of anything.

The Beatles are overrated compared to the music styles that came afterwards. There are too many artists to list that make The Beatles sound like less than amazing.

The Magical Mystery Tour soundtrack/album, whatever, had grade A material on it. You speak of The Beatles being overrated compared to the styles that came after them. Style shmyle! Look at all the different musical styles they explored on The White Album and Abbey Road. They touched them all!

 

[Screwtape2]

Look at all the different musical styles they explored on The White Album and Abbey Road. They touched them all!

Look at all the ways they failed to do those styles justice on The White Album. As for Abbey Road, it had some good songs but I wouldn't say that it had alot of different musical styles on it.