intedomine said:
Thing is with this argument is that (although I adore the Beatles), has society got the guts to ever come out and say that a band is actually "greater" than the Beatles.
Everyone just about accepts the Beatles as the "greatest"(which could mean a whole range of things),
...but will anyone ever be considered as "greater" than the beatles.
I think not, call it popular stubborness or arrogance, but the world will NEVER allow for a band to be considered as GREATER than the Beatles, because the world doesn't wanna mess with history.
If that is the case, which I think you're are probably right, makes you wonder, maybe some people took John Lennons "bigger than Jesus" comment much more seriously than he meant.
One person even wrote "before the Beatles, after the Beatles"
It's funny, people tell other U2 fans to lighten up about criticisms about U2, but look at this thread, or in fact, any thread about "X band" vs. The Beatles.
You can't criticise the Beatles without a bunch of people jumping on your back telling you your wrong, your ignorant, etc. Why aren't the Who better than the Beatles? Or the Rolling Stones. Same time frame right, peers. Okay, maybe U2 are still too young to be compared to the Beatles, but the Beatles are not the be all end all of rock. I've heard plenty of their early songs, more poppy than rock.
I dunno, I suppose if this were the 60's, I'd be more of a Rolling Stones fan, than a Beatles fan.
Dr. Lemonseed : I'd like to hear the qualities people do/don't like about the Beatles/U2 that makes them judge the other more favorably.
U2 exemplify what the word "band" means. Look how long they stuck it out together, no line up changes, they do pace their album releases, but they've never broken up. They'll pack it in if they release 2 crap albums (obviously this is entirely their opinion), in a row.
Perhaps, the Beatles are more of a studio band, whereas U2 are more of live band. Is that safe to say? Not gonna burn the heretic are ye?
Oh and I was just browsing a bass forum the other night, apparently pick playing is not as highly regarded as finger playing. Paul McCartney, wasn't he more of a pick player, than a finger player.
Hehe, Adam does both, and that slap bass thing, then he does a mix of pick playing, and slap pop on Gloria. Though Beatles fans are quite safe, Adam's not going to upsurp McCartney. Though McCartney is no Jaco or Les Claypool, apparently.
I'm sure some have that Blender magazine with U2 on the cover, read the article that comes just a few pages before U2's story. About people getting sacked from bands, Pete Best almost killed himself. He was a founding member of the Beatles right? Why'd they go with Ringo?
(Obviously from my posts, I don't follow the Beatles history much)
People left the Hype and Feedback, Adam, Bono, Edge, and Larry are the ones that chose to stay. Some difference.
Huh,
box isn't as lonely as I thought it would be.
Society doesn't have the guts, but a few individuals, heretics I suppose, might say it.