Bono vs. Lennon/McCartney

[Aygo]

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.

Ohhh, get a life, dude! Garbage is that bad? I'm not saying that I like them, but the sentence made sense in the context of what I was trying to reply. Don't come with stupid and senseless arguments off me just to try to get the castle down. That's your bad if your arguments are invalid, mate, not mine!

And do you really believe that Lennon could've written "40" (this is just an example)? No, Bono probably wasn't able to write many songs in The Beatles catalogue, but neither McCartney/Lennon are with few songs in U2's catalogue. You know why? Because they are people that lived in different eras, different times, different experiences, different points of view, different songwritting styles. What's good in the 1960's gets bad a few decades later. The same will happen now.
It's the same about taking from the closet a cloth from your father, and that he used to wear when he had your age. Yeah, the piece is beautiful, it matches with your style but... how can that piece fit in all the the thing that are around it?

Who will remember "Revolver" in the next 100 years? Probably the most passionate by this subject, but not the common listener...

 

[Aygo]

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!

"Grade A" material... for you, naturally. I like that album too, it's great, but don't forget that it all becomes subjective.
Don't try to put you personal opinion as a official statement and as if it were the only truth.

 

[BVS]

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?

Not at all, I love it.

 

[Tiger Edge]

Anyone who thinks The Beatles are overrated must have never picked up one of their post-Rubber Soul albums.
Half of you talk shit out of your ass when it comes to comparing bands like this. If you haven't heard their material (besides their greatest hits) then you really have no business voting in a poll like this.
As far as Blackbird being boring?
I just hope you realize that Blackbird is not just about blackbirds singing in the dead of night.
It's a lyrical metaphor, one of the many great talents of John and Paul.

 

[BVS]

As far as Blackbird being boring?
I just hope you realize that Blackbird is not just about blackbirds singing in the dead of night.
It's a lyrical metaphor, one of the many great talents of John and Paul.

Thank you oh great one for the poetry lesson.

 

[Tiger Edge]

Thank you oh great one for the poetry lesson.

Thanks for thinking I'm great, I truly appreciate it.

 

[BVS]

Thanks for thinking I'm great, I truly appreciate it.

So you understand analogies but you don't understand sarcasm.

 

[Tiger Edge]

So you understand analogies but you don't understand sarcasm.

Funny, the same thing can be said about you.

Enough.

 

[xaviMF22]

this thread is

 

[Liesje]

Without considering the bands as a whole....

I don't think any of the three are the most talented song writer, but I prefer Bono as a frontman in general so he gets my vote.

 

[BVS]

Funny, the same thing can be said about you.

Enough.

You didn't notice the wink?

 

[Screwtape2]

Anyone who thinks The Beatles are overrated must have never picked up one of their post-Rubber Soul albums.

Why do you assume that those people haven't heard post-Rubber Soul albums? Revolver and Sgt. Pepper are amazing but the other albums after Rubber Soul would support the overrated stand some people take.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Thanks for thinking I'm great, I truly appreciate it.

 

[Axver]

As far as Blackbird being boring?
I just hope you realize that Blackbird is not just about blackbirds singing in the dead of night.
It's a lyrical metaphor, one of the many great talents of John and Paul.

Lyrics can't save a song from being musically boring and a dull experience to listen to. Just look at So Cruel: better lyrics than Blackbird but an even more dull song musically.

 

[namkcuR]

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.

You understand that the concept of an 'album' being a complete piece of work rather than just a collection of songs was in its absolute infancy at the time, right? That's one of the huge things the Beatles did, they pioneered the art of an album as a complete piece of work. In the 50s and 60s, the single wasn't just a means to promote an album like it is now, it was the primary format that anyone released music on. That's why some of the Beatles' biggest hits ever - I Want To Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, From Me To You, Day Tripper, Paperback Writer, We Can Work It Out, Hey Jude, etc - were only ever released as singles(the US discography doesn't count).

One of the reasons Revolver and Sgt Pepper were so 'revolutionary' is that they are among the first truly great 'complete' pop/rock albums. They pioneered something that is still evolving today. Now, Magical Mystery Tour is essentially just a collection of songs that didn't make it onto Sgt Pepper, so yeah, there's not much flow to it, and I really don't think there was meant to be. And the whole point of the White Album was to get back to 'songs' after focusing so much on 'albums' with Revolver and Sgt Pepper. If you're looking for flow and cohesiveness and themes on the White Album, of course you're going to think it's crap. You HAVE to take the White Album and Magical Mystery Tour song-by-song.

I Am The Walrus is mind-blowing, Strawberry Fields Forever kicks ass, and Hello Goodbye, Penny Lane, and All You Need Is Love are catchy as hell(all IMO), but since it's a mix of tracks that didn't make Sgt Pepper and a few soundtrack tracks, there is no flow whatsoever. Nor was their meant to be. Song by song.

While My Guitar Gently Weeps is an incredible song, Happiness Is A Warm Gun is great, Back In The USSR is great, Dear Prudence and Julia are beautiful, Blackbird is gorgeous, Helter Skelter kicks ass, Martha My Dear is good, Revolution(though inferior to its single counterpart) kicks ass, etc(this is all IN MY OPINION of course), but the White Album was an album made by a band that was A)purposely making a 'collection of songs' album and B)starting to split, with John, Paul, and George very much into doing their own thing and collaborating only at the end when the songs were already written.

Now, on Abbey Road, they got back to making a complete album. The legendary 'Abbey Road Medley' is the exact oppisite of a 'collection of songs'. 'Sun King', 'Mean Mr. Mustard', 'Polythene Pam', 'She Came In Through The Bathroom Window', 'Golden Slumbers', 'Carry That Weight', and 'The End' are all short and relatively insubstantial on their own, but when listened to together(along with 'You Never Give Me Your Money), they create a whole piece of art, greater than the sum of its parts.

Anyway, my point is, it was a different time, and the idea of an album as a whole was only in its infancy, and being pioneered by the Beatles.

 

[Zoots]

Why compare when you can enjoy the music of both bands?

 

[Aygo]

Why compare when you can enjoy the music of both bands?

Now, that was the most sensible post in this thread in these last pages!

 

[Yahweh]

Can't say anything bad about The Beatles or you will burn in hell.

They are the most important thing to ever happen to music and if you dont think so again you will burn in hell.

If youve heard the entire catalog and still dont think they are the best thing in music you will burn in hell.

U2 or any other band cant touch The Beatles and if you dont think so....

It just cant happen.....or maybe it can.....good for the people that stand up to the "Gods", or after awhile you will just start to believe it because everybody says its true so it must be true.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Can't say anything bad about The Beatles or you will burn in hell.

They are the most important thing to ever happen to music and if you dont think so again you will burn in hell.

If youve heard the entire catalog and still dont think they are the best thing in music you will burn in hell.

U2 or any other band cant touch The Beatles and if you dont think so....

It just cant happen.....or maybe it can.....good for the people that stand up to the "Gods", or after awhile you will just start to believe it because everybody says its true so it must be true.

Pretty much
The interesting thing is that the 'most overrated band of all time' line that has come up so much in this thread is usually applied to U2 when you have a musical discussion with a non-U2 fan

 

[Yahweh]

Yeah so that one must be true too. Boner is a fag.

 

[Aygo]

U2 or any other band cant touch The Beatles and if you dont think so....

...you will burn in hell!

 

[vaz02]

the beatles are a good group but not the best band of all time.

They ddint have the best drummer , best guitarist , best bassist or ott frontman.

However they did write some good music and ok melodies.

Good group , ok band.

my 2 cents.

 

[CTU2fan]

Led Zeppelin were a better rock band than the Beatles, and I'm not even a particular LZ fan...

 

[ozeeko]

Ohhh, get a life, dude! Garbage is that bad? I'm not saying that I like them, but the sentence made sense in the context of what I was trying to reply. Don't come with stupid and senseless arguments off me just to try to get the castle down. That's your bad if your arguments are invalid, mate, not mine!

And do you really believe that Lennon could've written "40" (this is just an example)? No, Bono probably wasn't able to write many songs in The Beatles catalogue, but neither McCartney/Lennon are with few songs in U2's catalogue. You know why? Because they are people that lived in different eras, different times, different experiences, different points of view, different songwritting styles. What's good in the 1960's gets bad a few decades later. The same will happen now.
It's the same about taking from the closet a cloth from your father, and that he used to wear when he had your age. Yeah, the piece is beautiful, it matches with your style but... how can that piece fit in all the the thing that are around it?

Who will remember "Revolver" in the next 100 years? Probably the most passionate by this subject, but not the common listener...

LOL. You crack me up, mate. You're telling me to get a life? Fair enough. But I'll be the first to say that you should get a fucking CLUE! Now I have seen some idiotic posts on here, and I'm sure I've probably contributed to some, but yours up there takes the cake!

First of all, I wasn't knocking Garbage! I don't know where you got that from. All I did was use your Shirly Manson quote as part of my argument. Nowhere in there did I say Garbage sucks. Hell I even like some of their stuff. There was nothing in my post that alluded to Garbage bashing! Or maybe you just assumed that I dislike them. Remember, to assume makes an ass out of u...and u alone.

Second of all, nothing in my counter-argument was stupid and senseless, and I have no intentions of "getting the castle down", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. I argued you point for point, MATE, and instead of retaliating with something useful you opted to throw a hissy fit, all while ignoring everything I said while shooting down my fine points without giving example.

You just keep making these sweeping moronic statements, like "what's good in the 1960's gets bad a couple decades later". What gets bad about it? I don't understand. I don't even think you do.

And let me take your half-baked theory to expose your contradictory nature yet again.

40 was made in in the early 80's. A couple decades have gone by now. Do you still like it? Is 40 still a gread song, or has it been "made bad" now by your standards?

You said one senseable thing in your whole response. And that is that artists can't or won't write songs that another artist has because they are different people and have lived different lives during different periods of time. Obviously this makes sense, but it's really an unneeded observation, because it doens't take a genius to realize that Bono is not John Lennon, and John Lennon was never Bono. But you did pose the question, could The Beatles have written something like 40. And I guess I just made the mistake of taking your question seriously. I really regret it now, but of course you did provide me with the biggest laugh I've had all weekend.

And the laughter came from this crock of a comment:

"Who will remember "Revolver" in the next 100 years? Probably the most passionate by this subject, but not the common listener... "

And you know this, how? Did you jump in your DeLorean and travel forward in time? Not for nothing, but Revolver has been repeatedly cited as one of the top 10 most influential albums of all time, sometimes even taking the top spot. And this is 40 years after it's been released, almost half a century. I'll put money on Revolver still being talked about in the distant future.

 

[Yahweh]

The biggest laugh I have had was when George Harrison of your God like band said that nobody would be listening to U2 in 20 years...well since he said that 10 years ago, hes got another 10 to wait.

 

[LMP]

They ddint have the best drummer , best guitarist , best bassist or ott frontman.

neither does U2.

 

[ozeeko]

Actually George Harrison is dead so he's not waiting at all.

 

[Yahweh]

Yeah he can wait from the heavens and ponder his egotistical remark.

 

[ozeeko]

Or he can wait from Hell, where he's living out his punishment for commiting blasphemy against God's music, U2.

 

[Yahweh]

Where did I ever state that U2s music is Gods music? I will say this and you can challenge it if you wish go right ahead, in my opinion U2s best material is better then The Beatles best material...and I will also say I wouldnt rate The Beatles as far as lyricists even in the top 10 in rock history.

Neil Young, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Tom Petty, Tom Waits, Bruce Springsteen, Lou Reed, Cole Porter, Leonard Cohen, Paul Simon, Brian Wilson, Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles and many others would give The Beatles a run for their money and win if you were talking based purely on lyric writing.