U2 vs Beatles: A Comparison

[starvinmarvin]

U2 really has to stop this habit of releasing albums every 3 or 4 years. Since 2000, U2 has released 2 albums, and a greatest hits collection with only 2 new songs on it. As a comparison, this is what The Beatles - the biggest band of the 60's - accomplished in their last 5 years together (spring 1965- spring 1970):

1) Help (album and movie)
2) Rubber Soul
3) Revolver
4) Sgt Pepper
5) Magical Mystery Tour (movie and album)
6) The White Album (double album)
7) Yellow Submarine (movie and soundtrack with 4 new songs)
8) Abbey Road
9) Let It Be
10) Numerous hit singles not inluded on albums (i.e. We Can Work It Out, Paperback Writer, Day Tripper, Rain, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Lady Madonna, Hey Jude, and more....)

Plus:

11) Founded Apple Records Company
12) George Harrison solo soundtrack for "Wonderwall"
13) Paul McCartney solo soundtrack for "The Family Way"
14) John Lennon stars in 'How I Won The War" movie
15) McCartney writes and produces Mary Hopkins and Badfinger albums
16) Harrison produces Jackie lomax album
17) Lennon and Ono release 3 "avante garde" albums
18) Lennon releases 'Give Peace a Chance' and 'Cold Turkey' singles
19) McCartney releases first solo album
20) Harrison relases experimental solo album

All of this was accomplished in spite of marriages, divorces, miscarriages, death of manager, financial problems, group squabbles, drug busts, The Maharishi, drug addictions, and Yoko Ono.

All I'm trying to say is that if U2 wants to be the "biggest band" in the world, they need to act like it. An album every 4 years just doesn't cut it. The band won't be a round forever - they need to deliver the goods while they still have them. I realize Bono is busy "saving the world," but he would be more productive in that regard if he would stick to the music, which is a far more effective medium for his political messages. Everyone just tunes him out when he preaches, and gets his photo taken with politicians - including his bandmates.

 

[yimou]

Excellent post

 

[corianderstem]

Yes, but they also weren't touring after 1966. The couldn't have maintained that productivity if they were touring.

 

[starvinmarvin]

Yes, but they also weren't touring after 1966. The couldn't have maintained that productivity if they were touring.

U2 hasn't toured constantly during the last 5 years. They toured for most of 2001, and for 2 months so far this year. That's only just over a year - the Beatles produced Abbey Road, Let It Be, and The White Album during roughly the same amount of time (plus solo projects, etc)

 

[corianderstem]

Good point. I think it's too hard to compare The Beatles to U2 in terms of their output, however.

The Beatles did an awful lot, most of it excellent material, but their sheer output during that time was extraordinary. No one will likely ever be able to match that. And if they do, the odds of it being anywhere near The Beatles in terms of quality is slim to none.

 

[starvinmarvin]

Good point. I think it's too hard to compare The Beatles to U2 in terms of their output, however.

The Beatles did an awful lot, most of it excellent material, but their sheer output during that time was extraordinary. No one will likely ever be able to match that. And if they do, the odds of it being anywhere near The Beatles in terms of quality is slim to none.

True, it's probbaly unreasonable to expect U2 to match The Beatles in terms of song output, but I wish they'd try.

 

[corianderstem]

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see U2 albums more frequently. I'm not sure I understand the need to compare bands to the Beatles. Not only was their sheer volume of output extraordinary, but the band itself was extraordinary.

You could arguably put any band up against the Beatles and come up short - they were something really special, really different, the likes of which we probably won't ever see again.

(And I only say arguably because I know there are a lot of people who think the Beatles are horribly overrated.)

I dunno. I don't like comparing bands, whether it's Coldplay and U2, or The Beatles and U2, or U2 and anyone. A band/artist should stand on its own merits... and if they can't, then they're probably a crap band/artist.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I wasn't trying to compare U2 and The Beatles per say. I was just pointing out what can be accomplished in only 5 years. Honestly, I don't expect U2 to match the Beatles by releasing 3 more albums within the next year and a half, but I just wish that they'd release more music.

Had the Beatles decided to keep on touring after 1966 we wouldn't have some of their best albums to enjoy for the rest of time. Sure a mammoth U2 tour is cool in the short-term, but they could add even more to their legacy by being a bit more prolific

 

[corianderstem]

I'll buy that!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

At the same time, though, each band works at a different pace. Some bands are able to rush out album after album. Some bands like to take more time. Everyone works differently. Besides that, U2'd be damned if they do and damned if they don't-if they take their time, people complain about the wait being so long, they wonder if they're losing their touch or if there's something wrong with the album, and so on and so forth. If they rush, then there'll be people complaining and saying they should've taken more time to perfect this or that, this album didn't have its full potential realized, it seemed hastily put together, and so on and so forth. Either way, they couldn't win.

Personally, I just think each band, regardless of who they are, should work at the pace that works best for them. If a band I like is able to be like the Beatles and put out stuff constantly and have it all be excellent, great, many opportunities available for me to get stuff that I enjoy. If they take their time, yeah, waiting's a pain, but it'll be worth it. And hey, that gives me a chance to save more money to afford the album, as well as for tickets to see 'em.

Angela

 

[Layton]

This really is apples and oranges. Industry standards have changed so much from the '60's. Nobody would be allowed to release so much material in that short period of time because marketing is at least 50 times more sophisticated nowadays. In today's market, the Beatles would suffer from serious overexposure problems with that kind of output irregardless of the quality of the music. I'll even go so far as to say that the Beatles wouldn't even have lasted 7-8 years in todays world. Given the chemistry issues they had and the pressure they would've been under from the marketplace, I think they would've folded in under 5 years with probably only 2-3 albums under their belt.

 

[riteshbhatt1]

Only Jay-Z can be compared to The Beatles in terms of output in this era.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The above post is spot on, as most are in here. The Beatles first and foremost were of a different time and place, plus they were a very different band.

Having said that, U2 have halved or quartered their output since Pop.

Look at the 10 years from Joshua Tree to Pop...

1987 Joshua Tree
(major tour)
1989 Rattle & Hum
(major tour)
1991 Achtung Baby
(mammoth tour)
1993 Zooropa
(mammoth tour)
1995 Passengers
1997 Pop
(mammoth tour)

That's a major album every 2 years, not only that, but they are all pretty distinctively different. In between a lot of those albums are the biggest tours U2 have done, certainly from a creative and logistics point of view. Also in between are many, many other side projects and whatnot.

Then picking up again at Pop you have...

1997 Pop
(mammoth tour)
2001 All That You Can't Leave Behind
(major tour - although significantly 'easier' than Zoo/Popmart to stage and only touring US, Europe).
2004 How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
(Elevation Tour Part II, but will see more of the world).

4 years till ATYCLB, then another 3 to HTDAAB, neither album being much of a creative stretch for the band. A significant nod to the Million Dollar Hotel soundtrack pre ATYCLB, but other than that, not much in the way of side projects (Gangs of NY being really the only other one I think). Other than that, they've released two Greatest Hits complilations, most likely as part of their knee jerk reaction to the US Pop debacle, which judging by the track lists and overall packaging and promotion took about 15 minutes to put together, not including the effort spent on re-working Zooropa and Pop songs to make them more palatable for the % of their fanbase that they have only recently discovered are idiots.

In other words, U2 have certainly slowed down post-Pop.
Age/family etc?
Bono running around, to be found virtually everywhere in the globe except the studio?
The 'new' U2 post 1998 needs all the time in the world to fine tune their perfect pop product, as opposed to getting in there, getting it done, getting it out there and crossing their fingers?

It's probably a combo of all of the above.
They are at a different stage in life now, where you'd expect a slow down. Bono's extra curricular activities certainly take a toll on U2 (and I think he needs to downsize it for a bunch of reasons - but thats another thread), and U2 certainly are all about playing it very, very, very safe now. I think they've found a formula now that they'll stick to, both in the timetable of their releases/tours etc and the content of releases/tours. I'd expect this pattern to continue for pretty much the rest of their careers.

 

[AtomicBono]

Yeah...and then The Beatles broke up. Still, I get the point you're trying to make, and I basically agree... of course as people have said the industry has changed so much since then. Plus, though U2 have always been perfectionists, Pop seemed to really hit them hard... they're terrified of having what could be considered another "unfinished" album.

Still, I don't think U2 can afford to keep spending four years on every album, and I think they may surprise you all and have something out by fall 2006 (spring 2006 may be asking a bit too much). Then again, maybe I'm just being too hopeful

 

[Yahweh]

Why do we keep comparing U2 to a band that hasnt been making music for over 30 years?

Its like comparing apples to oranges....and for arguements sake I would also conclude that for all the good songs that the Beatles made in that time period they also made a hell of a lot of duds too.

 

[starvinmarvin]

This really is apples and oranges. Industry standards have changed so much from the '60's. Nobody would be allowed to release so much material in that short period of time because marketing is at least 50 times more sophisticated nowadays. In today's market, the Beatles would suffer from serious overexposure problems with that kind of output irregardless of the quality of the music. I'll even go so far as to say that the Beatles wouldn't even have lasted 7-8 years in todays world. Given the chemistry issues they had and the pressure they would've been under from the marketplace, I think they would've folded in under 5 years with probably only 2-3 albums under their belt.

You're right - it's isn't the 60's anymore, and marketing in music has certainly evolved, but I think that if U2 released an album every 2 years - not 4, which seems to be the new pattern - they wouldn't be in any danger of over-exposing themselves in the marketplace. I think the only over-exposure that is a threat to the band would be Bono's tiresome photo-ops with politicians.

Besides, I would disagree with today's marketing strategies for music as far as U2 is concerned. If there is a demand in the marketplace for new U2 music, why wait? Why milk a U2 album for 2 or more years and try to sqeeze out maximum sales when you could sell just as many copies (or more) of a new CD? I think it is a mistake to market U2 like other new artists. If you're talking about a new boy band, or pop idol crap, then sure, go ahead and milk an album for all it's worth - you're never sure if the band will ever have another succesul album, so go for it. But if you're U2, and your fans are dying for new material, give them what they want.

 

[xtal]

I'd have to agree with Layton, had The Beatles AND/OR U2 made their debut in this generation, they both would not have made it.
Bottom line: Market and Music is different these days and we seriously need to buckle down and change it.
I also do have to agree with StarvinMarvin, he really is starving for a new U2 album every 2 years.
Enough with the 4 year wait between album bullshit. I hate the long wait as well. It's bullshit, if you are a highly talented band as U2 have proven themselves to be, then music should be pumping from their veins and not have to sit and squabble for months on end to get one tune out.
I'd really like to see U2 put more albums out. More more more!

 

[boystupidboy]

Yep 4 years is a bloody long time to wait for a new album .I lay most of the blame at Bono's door with his ego boosting campaigns,but thats a thread for another time another place.
Give us more music u2.......please

 

[gman]

The beatles had some right gash on a lot of their albums! And I own all their albums, so feel justified to pass comment on that.

 

[boystupidboy]

The beatles had some right gash on a lot of their albums! And I own all their albums, so feel justified to pass comment on that.

"gash"

 

[Aardvark747]

"gash"

 

[gman]

Not that kinda gash!!!!

 

[Aardvark747]

Not that kinda gash!!!!

 

[gman]

Filthy minds....but i like it!

 

[Aardvark747]

Filthy minds....but i like it!

Me too.....

 

[intedomine]

Not that kinda gash!!!!

Just curious. What would you classify as Beatle "gash"?

 

[Aardvark747]

Just curious. What would you classify as Beatle "gash"?

Yoko Ono?

 

[intedomine]

It would be nice if U2 did churn out albums as frequent as the Beatles, but I think we need to accept that making music isn't as important to the boys as it was 10 years ago.

There's nothing really wrong with that, it's just the way they feel. Maybe it's just a phase.

Still, a mere 11 albums in 25 years is a kind of shame, particularly when it was at one stage, 8 albums from 13 years.

Mind you HTDAAB was a quality album.

 

[Aardvark747]

Mind you HTDAAB was a quality album.

 

[boystupidboy]

what do you mean 'was'?It IS a quality album