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.
See posts with no answers
Headache in a Suitcase said:
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.
Click to expand...

:love: Headache in a Suitcase :love:
 
Snowlock said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm going to take it easy on you because you obviously haven't listened to the Beatles' at the height of their powers when they produced ROCK music. They were the first to be creative with sounds and moods, while U2 admitted that they were inspired by the sounds they've heard previously in the dance/trance/hip-hop/industrial/ambient scene.

Before the Beatles, everybody recorded the same kind of guitar music. The Beatles went in a totally different direction. U2, on the other hand, experimented with sounds that already existed outside the mainstream. So please PLEASE do not even say the Beatles do not hold any more importance than U2. Know your music history.

And if you think Bono's lyrics come even close to Lennon's, then I can't possibly believe that you've even examined Lennon's work before making that horribly ignorant statement. You better listen to something other than "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love", friend.

"I want to run, I want to hide, I want to tear down the walls that hold me inside"--Does that profound you?

"The heart is a bloom, shoots up from the stony ground"?

"Give me one more chance, you'll be satisfied/ Give me two more chances you won't be denied"?

Possibly U2's best work lyrically was Side 2 of Achtung Baby and some of POP. The post-acid Beatles wrote some of the most lyrically profound pieces of music ever.

Hell, even "Back in the USSR" had political undertones (compared to "New Year's Day"), and that song made not a single mention of war. U2 fans always had pride in the fact that Bono's lyrics left a lot to interpretation and imagination, but you cannot possibly deny that the Beatles' had a better sense of songwriting in this fashion. See 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds', 'Eleanor Rigby', 'Dr.Roberts', 'Come Together', 'Let It Be', 'Get Back', 'Glass Onion', 'Hey Jude', 'Happiness is a Warm Gun', and on and on and on and on.

I beg you, if you haven't done so, to get familiar with the Beatles' history and music before making such statements. You obviously have no idea where the Beatles' went on their 'musical journey'. It was a real 'trip'.

Oh yeah, and U2 ARE producing music that are in style right this moment. I wouldn't call HTDAAB and ATYCLB alternative music.
 
Snowlock said:
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.
Click to expand...

:coocoo:
 
GibsonExplorer said:


And if you think Bono's lyrics come even close to Lennon's, then I can't possibly believe that you've even examined Lennon's work before making that horribly ignorant statement. You better listen to something other than "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love", friend.
Click to expand...

DEAR LORD!!! :ohmy: could you be any more patronising?

Your presumption that the poster in question only listens to early Beatles is frankly ridiculous. Oh and by the way, "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love" are both McCartney songs. I thought you would've known that :scratch:
 
roy said:


DEAR LORD!!! :ohmy: could you be any more patronising?

Your presumption that the poster in question only listens to early Beatles is frankly ridiculous. Oh and by the way, "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love" are both McCartney songs. I thought you would've known that :scratch:
Click to expand...

Actually, both John and Paul wrote "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love" (although John acknowledged that the latter was mostly Paul).

I have a 1978 Hit Parader magazine with John's interview...they go through virtually every song...who wrote what part, etc., and afterwards Paul reviewed John's comments and made a couple corrections. And though i can't find that article online, this site references who wrote what: http://www.triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/lennon-mccartney.shtml

"John says 'Love Me Do' had the main structure written by Paul and he thinks he had something to do with the middle part of the song. ...The two collaborated on 'Can't Buy Me Love' although John says it was mainly Paul's number."

(And, yeah, this thread sucks in parts.)
 
Last edited:
Judah said:


Actually, both John and Paul wrote "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love" (although John acknowledged that the latter was mostly Paul).
Click to expand...

If you do your research you'll find that the lyrics for both songs were written by McCartney. However, I think it has been acknowledged that Lennon had a minor input to the actual music.
 
The Beatles did some good shit no doubt, but they didn't do ONE :)

Anyhow, no matter how much you want to debate it The Beatles will always have the advantage of being first and probably rightly no band will ever be as big again as time have changed. - of course they were innovative - they had the chance to be.

Imagine how hard it must be for a new band to try and create inventive music these days with the past 80years of music to follow - bloody hard I imagine.

To say music wouldn't have progressed by this day and age is just denying the truth my friend!

As pointed out, as this is a U2 forum it will go around in circles forever....
 
U2Man said:


Are you kidding? That's how you once thought you won a debate on the same subject, remember? :sexywink:
Click to expand...

I'm struggling here, but are you the guy who argued 'Hello Goodbye' and 'lady Madonna' were superiour to 'One', 'Streets', 'Bad' etc... :ohmy:
 
Last edited:
roy said:


I'm struggling here, but are you the guy two argued 'Hello Goodbye' and 'lady Madonna' were superiour to 'One', 'Streets', 'Bad' etc... :ohmy:
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
roy said:


DEAR LORD!!! :ohmy: could you be any more patronising?

Your presumption that the poster in question only listens to early Beatles is frankly ridiculous. Oh and by the way, "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love" are both McCartney songs. I thought you would've known that :scratch:
Click to expand...

You fail to see the point. I'm stating that if one listens to early Beatles (doesn't matter who wrote what, and of course I knew they were McCartney songs) and compare it to U2 songs now, U2 would beat them hands down. The poster in question could not have been comparing post-Rubber Soul material to U2's material of any era and make that ridiculous claim that U2 are more lyrically innovative.
 
GibsonExplorer said:

The poster in question could not have been comparing post-Rubber Soul material to U2's material of any era and make that ridiculous claim that U2 are more lyrically innovative.
Click to expand...

WHY....?

Perhaps you could explain what was so lyrically unique about John Lennon?
 
Intarweb wars. Yay!

U2>The Beatles

Why? Becuase It's my opinion. Therefore it can't be wrong or right. Just like everyone elses. So lets just all get along.
 
catlhere said:
Intarweb wars. Yay!

U2>The Beatles

Why? Becuase It's my opinion. Therefore it can't be wrong or right. Just like everyone elses. So lets just all get along.
Click to expand...

Opinions may not be wrong or right, but they can be boneheaded.

:)
 
roy said:


WHY....?

Perhaps you could explain what was so lyrically unique about John Lennon?
Click to expand...

I know this wasn't addressed to me but....


She said I know what it's like to be dead
I know what it is to be sad
And she's making me feel like I've never been born.

I said "Who put all those things in your hair
Things that ake me feel that I'm mad
And you're making me feel like I've never been born."

She said "you don't understand what I said"
I said "No, no, no, you're wrong"
When I was a boy everything was right
Everything was right

I said "Even though you know what you know
I know that I'm ready to leave
'Cause you're making me feel like I've never been born."

She said "you don't understand what I said"
I said "No, no, no, you're wrong"
When I was a boy everything was right
Everything was right

I said "Even though you know what you know
I know that I'm ready to leave
'Cause you're making me feel like I've never been born."

She said I know what it's like to be dead
I know what it is to be sad...
 
catlhere said:
So lets just all get along.
Click to expand...

Yeah. :heart:

dd60065a.jpg


:rockon:
 
GibsonExplorer said:


Opinions may not be wrong or right, but they can be boneheaded.

:)
Click to expand...

I've had this song in my head all week. Funny that you quote it!

Anyway, it is a question of taste and can't really be solved with debate.

I am content to say that very few would argue that the top two aren't U2 and The Beatles, whatever order you want to put them in.

(But in my opinion U2 is the greatest band ever and their next few albums will be BETTER than what has come before!)
 
Whoa, check that out, Bono's hairline is receding more than Sir Pauls.

Of course U2 wins the googlefight, Beatle fans are too old to know how to use the internet.
 
I think you should judge it by getting out all your Beatles music and your U2 music and deciding what you like more overall.

Whilst the Beatles have a lot of good tracks U2 blows them away for pure music IMO.

Up to you if you want to consider all the extra stuff that comes with it tho! I doubt they will in 50 years - because The Beatles will almost be 100 years old, and I doubt our children will be discussing how they pushed the boundaries forward, lol
 
U2Man said:


:eyebrow:
Click to expand...

Indeed, there are many other artists that have albums much better than anything The Beatles put out.

I remember when I first went to hear Sgt Peppers expecting it to be amazing (the first Beatles album I heard) - boy was I dissapointed..

But I got over it...with a little help from my friends..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DaveC
2024 NFL Playoff Pick 'Em
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
DaveC
DaveC
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
dan_smee
U2 - the lost album
Replies
4
Views
1K
gvox
gvox
DaveC
2023 NFL Playoff Pick Em - Demolish the Dual Dynasty
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
N
I’m new here and like the recent stuff
Replies
2
Views
761
Sicy
Sicy

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom