Songs of Innocence downloaded 26 million times, 81 million 'experienced' songs

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
"Overrated" is the most meaningless insult there is.

"I acknowledge that this band has millions of fans and a significant spot in music history but I don't care for them so OH WHAT NOW??"
 
Without the beatles there wouldnt be a u2 or any other bands for that matter. Without Elvis you wouldnt have the beatles either.

I never get how people can knock the bands that inspired our favourite bands,eg u2. Its like a coldplay fan knocking u2. It just dosent make sense to me. You have to respect what came before hand. Yeah i understand that people may not like them but they have to be respected for paving the way.

I love the beatles and there will never be another group like the beatles. There will never be a band that has an impact on the world like the beatles did.

There still relevent today and their music just keeps getting reintroduced to generation after generations. I went to see the bootleg beatles the other week and the age spam was from toddlers to old people.

I am english so maybe ive taken them to heart abit more

Anybody who hasnt listened to the beatles albums from 66 onwards. Give them a spin.
 
Some posters have taken to shitting on The Beatles for some reason? Yea. Not cool and not clever. Elevating your <insert favorite band here> by devaluing the contribution made by another great band is 100% juvenile.
 
Do The Beatles benefit from their place in history? Of course. Did only being around for 10 years prevent them from doing any shitty records? Probably, yea. We'll never know, bit it would seem likely.

Does that do anything to belittle their sheer importance on rock and roll? Of course not. To say so would be just plain ignorant.

To say they weren't a great band? I mean come on.
 
VintagePunk said:
If one more person posts about how the Beatles were inconsequential, I'll seriously explode. Doing so shows a complete ignorance of music/music history, and if you know so little about it, best to keep your trap shut and leave it to the people who do know something about it. Arg. Seriously. You sound like ignorant idiots.
Click to expand...

I kinda love you.
 
I think there are two conversations going on.

1) Are the Beatles worthy of their greatness as a bad? For me, the answer is yes...yes....yes. We have to remember that it's difficult to compare apples to apples across decades. What I mean is, N'sync have the record for the most albums sold in opening week with 2.3 million. That's insane!!! However, put the Beatles in the year 2000 with the same "hype" they had when they came out in the 60's and they would have sold 10 million opening week. They were the Babe Ruth of rock bands. They were huge....bigger than anything since(I would argue). This discussion is more fact base than opinion because it can be measured.

2) Did the Beatles write and sing the best songs and therefore are they the best band? For me, the answer is no. But this question is all opinion. They have several songs I like but don't necessarily love but that's me. It would be a bit silly for me to say they are a shit band given so many people LOVE this band that if they were shit, we would never have heard of them and more to the point, we wouldn't be on a U2 forum talking about them 40 years after they broke up!




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
CosmoKramer said:
I think there are two conversations going on.

1) Are the Beatles worthy of their greatness as a bad? For me, the answer is yes...yes....yes. We have to remember that it's difficult to compare apples to apples across decades. What I mean is, N'sync have the record for the most albums sold in opening week with 2.3 million. That's insane!!! However, put the Beatles in the year 2000 with the same "hype" they had when they came out in the 60's and they would have sold 10 million opening week. They were the Babe Ruth of rock bands. They were huge....bigger than anything since(I would argue). This discussion is more fact base than opinion because it can be measured.

2) Did the Beatles write and sing the best songs and therefore are they the best band? For me, the answer is no. But this question is all opinion. They have several songs I like but don't necessarily love but that's me. It would be a bit silly for me to say they are a shit band given so many people LOVE this band that if they were shit, we would never have heard of them and more to the point, we wouldn't be on a U2 forum talking about them 40 years after they broke up!




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
Click to expand...


Well said....hate N'Sync! (and any other boy band for that matter):angry:
 
VintagePunk said:
Who would be in your greatest? Not disagreeing with you, just wondering.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't matter what I think. I believe U2 is one of the greatest bands of all time.

But the comment I was responding to said that U2 would eventually be seen as the greatest band of all time, as if eventually there would be some kind of critical/pop culture consensus on this issue, and I don't believe that will ever be the case. I do think that U2 is regarded as one of the greatest, and will be in the future (though that could go up or down as times and tastes change, artists legacies are always being re-evaluated).

In fact, it's very likely that no other band will supplant The Beatles in this regard. If nothing else, The Beatles had the good fortune of being first (or among the first) to do what they do. No other band, including the Stones and other Beatles contemporaries, has come close to the pop culture blueprint The Beatles have.

This is not a statement on my opinion on how much I like The Beatles (I'm not a big fan, though I respect them) or U2 but rather simply an acknowledgement of reality.

And frankly, anyone who dismisses The Beatles, whether it's musically, culturally, etc, or implies that they don't deserve the place in history they've been given frankly doesn't know WTF they're talking about. That doesn't mean you have to like them, but dismissing them is silly.
 
Nick66 said:
And frankly, anyone who dismisses The Beatles, whether it's musically, culturally, etc, or implies that they don't deserve the place in history they've been given frankly doesn't know WTF they're talking about. That doesn't mean you have to like them, but dismissing them is silly.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They (The Beatles) captured the cultural zeitgeist in the '60s through innovative songwriting and also innovative studio techniques. I mentioned the 1966 song Tomorrow Never Knows (from Revolver) earlier because it's the perfect example of how they advanced in their own genre of "rock and roll". To put things in perspective Elvis Presley released his first album in 1956.. so in 10 years we went from Blue Suede Shoes to Tomorrow Never Knows. That is pretty amazing.
 
Everything the Beatles did was amazing. If listen to every song they put out you'll see they did everything (pop, rock, psychedelic, blues, etc.) They were innovators and inspired but also set the blue print for every band after. There isn't any band out there today that wasn't either directly or indirectly influenced by the Beatles. They were, are, and always be the best whether you like it or not or agree with it or not.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
This place gets dumber all the time. All this talk of "10 years" w/r/t The Beatles as if it wasn't enough. They made a minimum of 13 studio albums and you could go higher if you counted others. And all of that music was recorded over a period of seven years.

It took U2 thirty-four years to get to 13 studio albums.

They weren't just great and completely revolutionary, they were insanely prolific. They had songs leaking out their pores. U2, at their most experienced and professional, needs 5 years to come up with a dozen simple pop songs. I'm not here to badmouth U2. I'm here in the thread to badmouth idiots. Nick said it best. I'm just piling on.
 
Nick66 said:
Well this, of course, is patently untrue.
Click to expand...

Come on Nick. They've evolved so much, they've evolved back to sounding more like they used to than ever before.

That's a special evolution involving spacetime. If you could ask Bono about the BSG influence, he'd tell you about it. It has something to do with cylons and metaphorical religious nonsense. Basically "God did it", walking through the room.
 
LemonMelon said:
"Overrated" is the most meaningless insult there is.

"I acknowledge that this band has millions of fans and a significant spot in music history but I don't care for them so OH WHAT NOW??"
Click to expand...

Even worse are the sports fans that chant it.

"Over-rated" clap-clap -clapclapclapclap

It's basically saying "you couldn't possibly be any good if our shit team is beating you". It's basically another way of saying "we suck". Good job, fans.
 
U2DMfan said:
Come on Nick. They've evolved so much, they've evolved back to sounding more like they used to than ever before.

That's a special evolution involving spacetime. If you could ask Bono about the BSG influence, he'd tell you about it. It has something to do with cylons and metaphorical religious nonsense. Basically "God did it", walking through the room.
Click to expand...

All true. :)

Though I was actually responding to the "No other band has done this" bit.

Nonetheless, all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.
 
CosmoKramer said:
I think there are two conversations going on.

1) Are the Beatles worthy of their greatness as a bad? For me, the answer is yes...yes....yes. We have to remember that it's difficult to compare apples to apples across decades. What I mean is, N'sync have the record for the most albums sold in opening week with 2.3 million. That's insane!!! However, put the Beatles in the year 2000 with the same "hype" they had when they came out in the 60's and they would have sold 10 million opening week. They were the Babe Ruth of rock bands. They were huge....bigger than anything since(I would argue). This discussion is more fact base than opinion because it can be measured.

2) Did the Beatles write and sing the best songs and therefore are they the best band? For me, the answer is no. But this question is all opinion. They have several songs I like but don't necessarily love but that's me. It would be a bit silly for me to say they are a shit band given so many people LOVE this band that if they were shit, we would never have heard of them and more to the point, we wouldn't be on a U2 forum talking about them 40 years after they broke up!




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

Exactly like my own opinion.
 
Arcadion said:
Why? Name another band still making quality in their 35th year.
Click to expand...

Well, you're moving the goal posts a bit. First you said...

Arcadion said:
U2 just keep going, keep evolving... across 4 decades and have stuck together. No other band has done this.
Click to expand...

...now you're saying something about "making quality". "Quality" is a pretty subjective term, and you'd quite likely disagree with any band I might come up with.

Rush for example has been around with their lineup as long or longer than U2, have "stuck together" and "evolved"....something you said "no other band has done"...so that's demonstrably untrue.

Rush continues to put out new music which is has evolved and changed markedly over the decades, has a loyal fan base and continues to tour. You may not think what they're doing is "quality", but I promise you a lot of non-U2 fans (and perhaps more than a few fans) don't think what U2 is doing is quality.

So yeah, you're argument fails. Had you made a more specific and accurate statement about U2's unique position in the music world, e.g. "Few bands have been around as long as they have and continued to strive for relevancy", I would agreed with you.
 
Nick66 said:
Well, you're moving the goal posts a bit. First you said...



...now you're saying something about "making quality". "Quality" is a pretty subjective term, and you'd quite likely disagree with any band I might come up with.

Rush for example has been around with their lineup as long or longer than U2, have "stuck together" and "evolved"....something you said "no other band has done"...so that's demonstrably untrue.

Rush continues to put out new music which is has evolved and changed markedly over the decades, has a loyal fan base and continues to tour. You may not think what they're doing is "quality", but I promise you a lot of non-U2 fans (and perhaps more than a few fans) don't think what U2 is doing is quality.

So yeah, you're argument fails. Had you made a more specific and accurate statement about U2's unique position in the music world, e.g. "Few bands have been around as long as they have and continued to strive for relevancy", I would agreed with you.
Click to expand...

I forgot about rush but big deal they still not in U2s league. And wire.. Seriously? Geez why the fuck am I defending u2 on a u2 forum?

They have been the most consistent band over the longest period of time.
 
Nick66 said:
Well, you're moving the goal posts a bit. First you said...



...now you're saying something about "making quality". "Quality" is a pretty subjective term, and you'd quite likely disagree with any band I might come up with.

Rush for example has been around with their lineup as long or longer than U2, have "stuck together" and "evolved"....something you said "no other band has done"...so that's demonstrably untrue.

Rush continues to put out new music which is has evolved and changed markedly over the decades, has a loyal fan base and continues to tour. You may not think what they're doing is "quality", but I promise you a lot of non-U2 fans (and perhaps more than a few fans) don't think what U2 is doing is quality.

So yeah, you're argument fails. Had you made a more specific and accurate statement about U2's unique position in the music world, e.g. "Few bands have been around as long as they have and continued to strive for relevancy", I would agreed with you.
Click to expand...


Sorry......uh.....I don't see Rush generating the biggest tour of all time 30+ years in and then having the biggest album release of all time when they're nearly 40 years in.
Your argument is flawed. You're not considering the fact that U2 is continuing to have incredible influence and set musical trends (whether people admit or not) nearly 40 years in the business. Don't convince yourself that Rush has made even a remotely as close influence on music as U2 has. And as stated before, they've been doing this for 40 years.
It's not even necessarily about putting quality music (which they have), it's about impact. When Rush makes albums as influential as Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree and has tours as massive as 360 and album releases as massive as SOI, then they can talk. No one can hold a candle to U2 in those departments.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Are we talking about who makes money or who makes good music? This discussion is totally muddled.
 
LemonMelon said:
Let's be honest, U2 could release a blank disc and still support a small nation with the album's tour gross.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Because they've built a reputation and continue to stay relevant. Rush could have the biggest album of their career and U2 could release an album only consisting of different versions of Volcano, Breathe, Unknown Caller and Wild Honey and still have a more successful tour.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
How did we get back onto rush again? Rush are similar to u2 but on a much smaller scale. Infact a very smaller scale

Who the hell cares about a new rush album other then rush fans???
 
bobsaget77 said:
You're not considering the fact that U2 is continuing to have incredible influence and set musical trends (whether people admit or not) nearly 40 years in the business.

nt from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how U2 are "continuing to have incredible influence and set musical trends". I'm not hearing many new bands clamouring to sound like them, or lead singers being preachy and "socially aware" like Bono. U2 seem to have been continuing almost by sheer force of will when nobody outside their fanbase (and RS magazine) really gives two shits about them anymore.
 
bobsaget77 said:
Sorry......uh.....I don't see Rush generating the biggest tour of all time 30+ years in and then having the biggest album release of all time when they're nearly 40 years in.
Your argument is flawed. You're not considering the fact that U2 is continuing to have incredible influence and set musical trends (whether people admit or not) nearly 40 years in the business. Don't convince yourself that Rush has made even a remotely as close influence on music as U2 has. And as stated before, they've been doing this for 40 years.
It's not even necessarily about putting quality music (which they have), it's about impact. When Rush makes albums as influential as Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree and has tours as massive as 360 and album releases as massive as SOI, then they can talk. No one can hold a candle to U2 in those departments.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...


:up::up::up:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
Songs of Songs, Books & Fat Puns - New Album Discussion #8
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
54K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
M
Have U2 Pissed It All Up Against The Wall?
Replies
1
Views
1K
pacemaker
pacemaker
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Master List and Discussion Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
Axver
Axver
MrsSpringsteen
Bono Wants One Campaign To Be NRA For The World's Poor
Replies
2
Views
630
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom