Heres one for ya

[gman]

At the end of the day, when all is said and done and u2 cease to be a band, Where do you think they will rank in popular musical history? Obviously no one can touch The beatles and Elvis so lets assume they are number one and two. Allow for album sales, concert sales, and general musical standing etc etc, but dont allow favouritism to creep in coz they will never overtake the two i mentioned earlier. I would personally say they would be in the top 10 all time acts.

 

[ntalwar]

I think it will be roughly:
1. The Beatles
2. Pink Floyd
3. Led Zeppelin
4. U2
5. The Rolling Stones

 

[t8thgr8]

pink floyd goes under u2

 

[xaviMF22]

The Beatles
Pink Floyd
Led Zeppelin
U2
Queen

 

[ntalwar]

^Ok, so what's your top 5 t8?

 

[BANZAI]

Personally I really would like to put U2 in the top 10 all time acts, but I rather think they're a top 20 band.

I'll name some bands that will be in a top 20.

Beatles
Stones
Bob Dylan
Pink Floyd
Neil Young

Beach Boys
Bob Marley
Bruce Springsteen
David Bowie
The Doors

Elvis Presley
Led Zeppelin
Lou Reed/Velvet Underground
Van Morrison
Marvin Gaye

Michael Jackson
Otis Redding
Stevie Wonder
Prince

...and of course U2

 

[Lancemc]

Trying to limit as much fandom as I possibly can (which probably is still very little) I'd have to place them at #2 a good ways behind The Beatles. I believe every U2 album so far is at least a four-star affair, with several 5-star albums under their belt, some of which are among the very best of all time (Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby being the big two) but their legacy as one of the great live acts of all time secures them the number 2 spot for me. Give them another 10 years and I'd bet on it.

However, as good as Achtung Baby is, it 's still not worthy to kiss the feet of Rubber Soul.

 

[Harry Vest]

The Beatles
Elvis Presley
The Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan
Pink Floyd
The Who
Led Zepplin
Neil Young
U2
etc. etc.

 

[david]

30 years from now all the die hard beatles and stones fans will be dead and the old guard will have fallen and U2 will be worshipped by the generation who grew up with them and who also will be in control.

 

[xaviMF22]

30 years from now all the die hard beatles and stones fans will be dead and the old guard will have fallen and U2 will be worshipped by the generation who grew up with them and who also will be in control.

I think newer generations will discover their brilliance, and they will still be number 1

 

[U2DMfan]

In terms of where they will be written in history, with age, U2 will grow in stature because their generation (roughly, ages 30-40) are just now becoming the ones who write the historical accounts. And they just keep adding onto it.

That said, as they are willing to add to their legacy, they take the risk of Aerosmith/Stones saturation, which often times has less to do with quality versus how they fit into the culture of music at the very moment. So it will depend on the moment in which you are judging.

U2 is probably, easily, a top 5 rock band of all time. They'll never pass the Beatles or the Stones, but they can occupy that 3rd slot but they'll need to win back the critical masses and disappear with dignity. That or keep doing exactly what they are doing, pop culture is so silly. Either die gracefully or have so much longevity it's undeniable. It usually depends on the subjectivity of those who are judging.

And there is my drunken psuedo-philosophical post of the evening.

 

[sue4u2]

In terms of where they will be written in history, with age, U2 will grow in stature because their generation (roughly, ages 30-40) are just now becoming the ones who write the historical accounts. And they just keep adding onto it.

U2 is probably, easily, a top 5 rock band of all time. They'll never pass the Beatles or the Stones, but they can occupy that 3rd slot but they'll need to win back the critical masses and disappear with dignity.

Either die gracefully or have so much longevity it's undeniable.

And there is my drunken psuedo-philosophical post of the evening.

and yet it makes perfect sense.

(but I've been drinking too)

 

[U2girl]

Assuming they can't/will not surpass legends like Beatles, Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd...I think U2 will be the "second tier" legends, maybe top 20.

 

[gman]

In my question, I did say to take like of touring etc in to account. Obviuosly coz of progression in technology etc with the exception of the stones I would hazard a guess that U2 have played to more people than the likes of PInk FLoyd, Led Zep.(also, am sure I read u2 hav shifted more records than the stones as suprising as that may seem so consider that)
Also, of the acts listed above, how many of them physically stayed at the top of the tree for 20 odd years. U2 have been widely regarded, if not reffered to as the biggest band on the planet since 1987. Again I can honestly say I dont think that would apply to many of the acts listed in above posts.

 

[Sken]

The way I see it, if we are talking bands, Beatles will be No 1 strictly for their impact on music. (and in my opinion no1 for greatly overated bands too)

No 2 position goes to the following bands:

U2, Stones, Pink Floyd, Zep, and Queen.

All those acts have had a huge impact on music and touring, you really can't separate them as they have all done phenomenal things, it really comes down to personal preference at the end.

Your second tier groups would be groups like ABBA, The Who, The Police etc.

 

[Kildare]

I think they will definetly be regarded as in the top 10. The top 5 will be hard to crack.

 

[#1bonofan]

I am sorry if this is unamerican... but The beatles and The Rolling Stones suck in my book. The only bands that I think will hold a candle to u2 in history is Queen, Led Zepplin, and Pink Floyd.

 

[Salome]

I do believe years from now the top 5 will be regarded (in no particular order) to be Dylan, Beatles, Stones, U2 and Elvis

mass popular appeal over serveral decades set these apart from the likes of Led Zep, Pink Floyd, The Who etc

 

[ntalwar]

I do believe years from now the top 5 will be regarded (in no particular order) to be Dylan, Beatles, Stones, U2 and Elvis

mass popular appeal over serveral decades set these apart from the likes of Led Zep, Pink Floyd, The Who etc

Pink Floyd is currently outselling The Stones and Dylan by a mile on amazon.com, as was also the case before Waters and Gilmour started their latest tours. In fact they are outselling all of the acts you mentioned, except The Beatles today.

 

[Salome]

I guess when I say "mass popular appeal" I don't just mean music sales

though Pink Floyd are enormously highly regarded, I just don't think it can be compared with the accolades that Dylan, Beatles, Stones, U2 and Elvis have received adn will continue to receive
that is just my impression though

 

[Lancemc]

I don't believe The Stones deserve to be anywhere near the top ten let alone the top five.

 

[vaz02]

The top 10 artists wont be rated on sales , they be rated on infulence , no one would say pink floyd are ahead of bob dylan taking this into account.

 

[thrillme]

At the end of the day, when all is said and done and u2 cease to be a band, Where do you think they will rank in popular musical history? Obviously no one can touch The beatles and Elvis so lets assume they are number one and two. Allow for album sales, concert sales, and general musical standing etc etc, but dont allow favouritism to creep in coz they will never overtake the two i mentioned earlier. I would personally say they would be in the top 10 all time acts.

With U2's live/touring history, they'd easily be a top 5 band.

If live/touring counted for a lot more in these things, U2 would be 2nd to the the Stones. Speaking strictly based on touring reputations, Stones #1, U2 #2.

The Beatles put out a lot albums in their comparitively short career, but they weren't touring 1-2 years after each album.

Boy, tour followed.
October, tour followed.
War, ditto
UF ditto
Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum sorta combined tours for the albums.

Achtung Baby had a tour follow, 2 and 1/2 years, and an album in the middle of it.

Pop tour for the Pop album.

Elevation touring behind ATYCLB.

Vertigo tour for the Atomic Bomb album.

All that, with the same 4 original members who made their debut album.

U2 managed to do what very very few bands have.

I think U2's live reputation is untouched even by the Beatles. I don't even think of the Beatles as a live band rather a studio band.

*runs before being stoned*

 

[ntalwar]

Re: Re: Heres one for ya

With U2's live/touring history, they'd easily be a top 5 band.

If live/touring counted for a lot more in these things, U2 would be 2nd to the the Stones. Speaking strictly based on touring reputations, Stones #1, U2 #2.

The Stones had a higher tour gross, but they also had a 35% higher ticket price and did not sell as many tickets as U2 in 2005.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I know I'm biased but U2 are a top 5 band of all time for sure.
The Stones(pre-75) and The Beatles are untouchable.
personally I think U2's music is thousands of times better than Pink floyd, The Who and Queen.