U2 are not the Beatles-cut it out already

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
M

Mikeno7

Babyface
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
20
first off- U2 is a great band, a large enough band to create there own image,style,and more improtantly their own voice- please,please,please stop comparing yourselves or them to the Beatles, they are not the Beatles- and they have said on occassion that they're not even worthy of the BEatles- so why the Abbey Road picture? why the comparison?Why the rooptop gig? Why? The Beatles were a phenomenon that will never be attained in our lifetime again-
and as far as the new U2 song is concerned, it's not even close to a Beatles caliber song-(it's not even close to a U2 caliber song) it's not even as good as Only a Northern Song- or Maxwell Silver Hammer-and those songs in my personal estimation aren't that great- the song is remotely Beatles- because Edge probably uses the 12string Rick sound, and it was recording at EMI- Get it straight,U2 are not the Beatles- and this is the one gripe a few of us have about there public persona. U2 is a unique band that has produced incredible music over 25 years- The Beatles revolutioned music-in every aspect-and when I write Beatles- I mean the entire team from the members to the engineers- in a mere five year period.- Please stop with The Beatles comparisons
 
and the person who thought the new song sounds like an intricate version of Watching the Wheels- seriously now come on, what the hell does that mean?
I'am a huge U2 admirer,but come on,please:huh:
 
Mikeno7,

you might as well go to every fan forum for every band on this earth with this argument because everything is compared to the Beatles.
 
and I'm glad they are not The Beatles. Yes The Beatles are pioneers in rock music, but IMO I find them to be overrated.
 
Yes, everyone, your opinions are not allowed here any longer. If you feel WITS sounds like The Beatles, leave now. Or you will feel the wrath of Mikeno.

As he would have said, "C'mon, please, really."
 
For me The Beatles are the most overrated band ever (second is Nirvana). Sure, they were first, they revolutionised music, but it doesn't mean their work is the best and beyond every other artist.
 
no,nah
not every band- just the Beatles.
overated? Why does U2 try to Be like them then?- I think it's hard for any band to step out of the shadow from the Beatles- but we're talking popular music- so I understand the comparison parts- but parody is a whole other thing- I think people make general statements without understanding what their talking about. I'm not an expert,no one is for that matter, but it's interesting to see how people are biased-including myself- when it comes to U2- I think right now U2 is the best band in the music industry- as far as being a "band" is concerned, and they've earned that right- all I'm saying is that
those earning points should not have overt Beatles merit- like the Abbey Road picture- like they needed to do that? They're U2- take a picture in front of your own studio- and put that on the map- I could give a rats *ss about U2 walking across Abbey Rd.-that's just for starters.
 
you know- I have never been a great Nirvana fan- but this is exactly what I'm talking about- You have to keep Nirvana in perspective- they broke through when boy bands- and hair bands- and GUns n Roses were on top of the listening palette. So Nirvana created something that actually propelled the likes of Achtung Baby, and so forth- so they are musically competent- more musically competent then U2 in the last few years.
 
Yeah, that Abbey Road picture...
At least the band members were dressed.
Rhcp4.jpg


:D
 
Completely. Missing. The POINT.

When U2 did that they didn't do it to try to be like them but to pay their respects and tribute to possibly to a legendary band. I'm sure if you told Bono that the Beatles are better than they are he would agree with you 100% and praise the hell out of the Beatles. I don't think insecurity is part of ANY of U2's memebers so they wouldn't even flinch to say that The Beatles were great.

But U2 still has time and is still climbing... Think about it.
 
1) U2 are not The Beatles. In one hand, The Beatles are unique and uncomparable, but U2 is much better in several items.

2) U2 are "the new Beatles" in the actual music industry panorama.
 
it's 25years- Zooropa, Passengers, Achtung Baby- their time has already come- thanks to Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois
 
Nirvana brought back the hard edged, rock in the popular circle - so the listener can digest an Achtung Baby- has a more edgy - Janes Addiction like recording technique 2 it- It's a great Album- hands down
 
Booker- great album- That was a homage to Beatles music- and a great concept pictorially
 
I've managed to play devils advocate pretty well this morning- hope everyone has a Beautiful Day- you guys can listen to rehashed Beatlesque songs, I'm going to listen to Lanois and Brian Blade
 
Mikeno7 said:
you know- I have never been a great Nirvana fan- but this is exactly what I'm talking about- You have to keep Nirvana in perspective- they broke through when boy bands- and hair bands- and GUns n Roses were on top of the listening palette. So Nirvana created something that actually propelled the likes of Achtung Baby, and so forth- so they are musically competent- more musically competent then U2 in the last few years.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about?

Bono even called that grunge music "boring".

Achtung Baby was more inspired by the Madchester scene and David Bowie's Berlin albums.

...False claims... :drool:
 
Aygo- that's what I meant by the best band in the music industry today- I think we need to start moving away from Beatles sounds- and images to create a new music- start reinventing the wheel-but at the same time- I don't think we will see this happen in our lifetime- probably the seeds though- It's inevitable- we're human
 
Low,Lodger,Heroes- here we go again- it gets compared to those albums because it they too were recorded at Hansa studios- but they don't sound like those albums at all- Those albums are sonically flat- and are more experimental in nature.
 
Frankly, I completely disagree with you. U2 are in better than the Beatles in my opinion. The Beatles were revolutionary for their time in all that, but I see nothing about them that stands up to the top bands today.

They might have been great in the 60s, but in the all-time scheme of things I see the Beatles as being just average.
 
just a side note- I do appreciate the morning conversations- It makes for a dull rainy sunday. thanks everyone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
732
lazarus
lazarus
L
Play Do You Feel Loved, Babyface, Some Days Are Better Than Others, Playboy Petition
Replies
8
Views
733
rosephile
R
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom