Deathmatch: U2 versus The Beatles

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

ponee

The Fly
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
68
Location
Australia
Around the time of the Joshua Tree tour their was a lot of press comparing U2 to the Beatles. It was probably made worse by inclusions of Help and Helter Skelter in a lot of set lists. But I think the consensus was that it was way to early for U2 to be compared to the legendary Beatles.

Seven albums later, I think the comparison is starting to look more appropriate. So I designed my own album deathmatch between the two to see how they would compare. I excluded greatest hits compilations and only looked at major album releases. I may have unfairly included The Passengers album which dragged down U2’s score.

Disclaimer: This is VERY subjective. I am sorry if you think Pop is a masterpiece and Sgt. Peppers is rubbish. Your are welcome to tweak the numbers and get your own result.

Here is the scale I used:

5 = Masterpiece
4 = Exceptional
3 = Very Good
2 = Good
1 = Not for everyone

Keep in mind this scale is harsh and only applies to U2 and the Beatles. A score of 1 still blows away most stuff. Britney Spears would rate a negative 14 on this scale.


The results:

Beatles Albums

Meet the Beatles --- 3
Second album --- 1
Hard days night --- 2
Something new --- 3
Beatles 65 --- 1
Early Beatles --- 2
Beatles VI --- 1
Help --- 4
Rubber Soul --- 2
Yesterday and Today --- 4
Revolver --- 3
Sgt. Peppers --- 5
Magical Mystery Tour --- 4
White album --- 4
Yellow Submarine --- 1
Abbey Road --- 5
Let it be --- 3

Total (17 albums) --- 48

Average --- 2.82


U2 Albums

Boy --- 3
October --- 2
War --- 3
Under Blood Red Sky --- 2
Unforgettable Fire --- 4
Wide awake in America --- 2
Joshua Tree --- 5
Rattle and Hum --- 2
Achtung Baby --- 5
Zooropa --- 2
The Passengers --- 1
Pop --- 2
ATYCLB --- 4
HTDAAB --- 3


Total (14 albums) --- 40

Average --- 2.86



So there you have it, U2 beats the Beatles 2.86 to 2.82. Not exactly a huge variance. And technically U2 has to maintain this average over three more albums to keep their place.


** Ponee puts on his flame-proof suit and locks himself in his bomb shelter and hollers “incoming” **
 
Well basically it all goes down to personal opinion. :D

I think the Beatles probably have a lock on the greatest band of all-time for a while more. BUT! If U2 can continue to make these great albums like HTDAAB, after maybe 2 more, I would definitely consider them to be the definitive best band ever. No doubts about it. Are they there yet? close, but not quite. Definitely in the top 3 bands of all time though. I have faith they will be #1 one day though. They've done too much musically/politically not to be considered #1
 
Well, I think this is a pretty dumb idea to begin with, but if you're going to do it, some suggestions:

You should go by the canonical UK Beatles albums and not the butchered US editions. I'd also leave out the Yellow Submarine soundtrack, which had more George Martin instrumentals than Beatles songs.

On the U2 side, I'd ditch Under A Blood Red Sky and Wide Awake In America. I'd probably also omit Original Soundtracks No. 1 just to be merciful.
 
the beatles never got the chance to be crappy... they broke up still in their prime. they left us with nothing but greatness.

and then to top it off john, paul, and even george harrison went on to have very succesful solo careers... heck, even ringo sold a few records.

the beatles are by themselves... everyone else is playing for second.
 
U2 tour, and that's the tipping point for me. I also like their music better, anyways.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
u2 wouldn't exist without the beatles.

just quit while you're behind

Indeed, I am sure music would have stopped in the 60's had the Beatles not formed.

Get Real.

Maybe music would be even better without the Beatles (ever considered that?)
 
and the wheel would have existed without ooga booga caveman, but we still give him credit.

yes, the fact that they were the first great rock band gives them an edge over all who came after... but the beatles material, and even the material done by mccartney, lennon, and even harrison after the beatles broke up... stands by it's self and doesn't need an argument.

gotten real. thanks.
 
Okay, new deathmatch:

The Beatles versus Kelly Clarkson.

I think it could go either way.
 
Yea I mean Kelly ISSSS American.

I would hate to be un-patriotic. I don't want the government thinking I'm a freedom hater. :uhoh:
 
The results:

Beatles Albums

Meet the Beatles --- 3
Please Please Me --- 3
Beatles For Sale --- 3
Hard days night --- 3
Something new --- 3
Early Beatles --- 4
Beatles VI --- 3
Help --- 4
Rubber Soul --- 5
Yesterday and Today --- 5
Revolver --- 5
Sgt. Peppers --- 5
Magical Mystery Tour --- 4
White album --- 5
Yellow Submarine --- 3
Abbey Road --- 5
Let it be --- 4




U2 Albums

Boy --- 3
October --- 2
War --- 3
Under Blood Red Sky --- 2
Unforgettable Fire --- 4
Wide awake in America --- 2
Joshua Tree --- 5
Rattle and Hum --- 4
Achtung Baby --- 5
Zooropa --- 2
Pop --- 3
ATYCLB --- 4
HTDAAB --- 4

Sorry to break it to you guys but nobody comes close to the Beatles as much as I love U2.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
u2 wouldn't exist without the beatles.

just quit while you're behind
QFT!

Beatles > U2

Perhaps not in terms of 'music fusion of awesomeness', but let's face it - Paul and John had more songcraft in the combined power of their left testicles than Bono's ever had.
 
mo786 said:


Indeed, I am sure music would have stopped in the 60's had the Beatles not formed.

Get Real.

Maybe music would be even better without the Beatles (ever considered that?)

NO! You obviously don't know the history of rock music and you don't know the Beatles. The Beatles were the first sonic innovators in rock. Without the Beatles' pioneering spirit, where would rock music be? Stuck in the 50s, that's where.

Listen to the Revolver+ and then listen to everybody else before that time. Noone came close.

And even now, their songwriting ability and lyricism hasn't been surpassed. If you think U2 even comes close, then you really haven't been paying any attention.
 
it's an age old argument on this board. And I believe it all comes down to your age, IMO. Like Headache said, it's BEATLES and everyone else fighting for #2

something my daughter found online many months ago...
Beatles_U2JoshuaTree.jpg
 
OH NO! Not another Beatles/U2 Comparison complete with a contrived numerical rating system to give a veneer of stastical objectivity!?!?!

This is a U2 forum, if your going to have a U2/Beatles deathmatch have the kind U2 can't possibly lose. Put em in the ring, Mano y Mano, no instruments, no weapons, not even gloves or protective headgear.

U2 would absolutely crush them because they're younger, two Beatles are dead and you'd never bet against an irishman in a brawl.
 
I don't think it's fair to say that everyone is just "playing for 2nd". Like Bono says, you glorify the past, the future dries up. I think if no one ever gives another band a chance to be as big as the Beatles were, then no band will ever BE as big as the beatles were. Honestly if you think of it logically, U2 has the most chance to become bigger than the Beatles. Just because they left on top, does not mean they would have stayed on top. They might have made poor quality music in 10 years, you never know. And the whole "music would never has existeded without beetles cuz they made music what it is" is B.S. I'm sorry. If it hadn't been the Beatles, it would be someone else. There are lots of ways history can unfold. It's like saying "omg wheel wouldnt ever exist if caveman #1 never inventered it!1" it's just not fair to say that, because we don't KNOW what would have happened if the beatles never came around. The beatles are the greatest band ever, i conceed that. But U2 is right up there, and after last night, and perhaps 2 more well recieved albums, I don't think the responses will still be Beatles>U2, i think U2 definitely has a lot of life left in them, and if they continue their incredible journey the way it's going, one has to respect them as the greatest band in the world. all my opinion of course.
 
Ok, here's the deal. Before anyone makes some silly ignorant comment on the Beatles' not being responsible for where rock music is today, listen to the White Album from beginning to end. Then comment.
 
I'm pretty close in age to the members of U2 themselves so remember the time when there was the Beatles but no U2.

Music critics were always suggesting some up and comming band would be the "next Beatles" but those bands could only at best capture one element of the Beatles formula. Duran Duran had a similar element of overnight phenomenon, Squeeze had a similar knack for pop songcraft and the Clash could sing passionately about heavy social and political issues but no one band could do it all or stick around long enough to try.

I loved the Beatles from my earliest memories, played with a ceramic yellow submarine (damn hatch broke that Ringo & George used to pop out of) and saw the movie five times, oblivious to the LSD inspiration behind it. What used to bug the hell out of me though was the attitude of alot of Beatles fans. You know the type, music was better then, love freer and weed cheaper, etc, etc.

I think it's cool as shit that my generations' band not only stuck around but people half my age could buy new albums by them, see them live and generally be more passionate and know more about them than I ever will. Comparisons are inevitable I suppose but a competition between #1, #2 or #3(Stones)? Nah, that's what we have sports for.

Now Zootv and Popmart, Those were some tours! Not like these lame-ass, overpriced arena deals they're doing these days. :wink:
 
Who were the Beatles compared to?

Did they say things like, "well the Beatles won't be as big as George Formby"
 
Look, no-one in their right mind would compare any band to the Beatles, at this moment.

both bands have a unique sound.

The Beatles tore up the 60's era with countless number one songs all over the world. U2 haven't done that.

I ask the question whether anyone on this forum has every been to a U2 concert where you couldn't here the band perform over the screaming female crowd.

Don't get me wrong i love U2. I have been a fan since 1981.

Maybe this is the debate we all should be having in another 20 years time.
 
Seems like a pointless debate to me. Times were much different. The music the Beatles produced at the time was pop music. They were the mainstream and their music while innovative and groundbreaking even, still fit in with the times. I think that's what made them so big.

U2 has always been just outside of the mainstream, even if they were at times embraced by it. They have always been "not quite" the mainstream. They were punk when new wave was in. They were melodic stripped down rock when Heavy Metal ruled. They were big business/big production when stipped down alternative was king. And then they were a throwback rock act in the days of r&b infused pop.

How could they ever be as big as the Beatles when they never produced music in the style that was in at the time?

Also, in comparing them musically, its apples & oranges again. The Beatles were pioneers; yes. But U2 were innovators. Neither is less important than the other. The Beatles may have created new ways of writing music. But Bono and Edge created new sounds for music. Paul and John may've created new ways to write music, but they certainly weren't as innovative lyrically as Bono or sonically as Edge.
 
Back
Top Bottom