Jump to content

U2 are Bigger than the Beatles.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

WOW! I thought I was alone! I'm not a big Beatles fan either, I just like some songs, but I don't think they are all that great. I bought the twovolumes of Past Masters and I intend to keep these 2 cds as the only Beatles CDs in my collection.

 

U2 is definetly bigger than the Beatles. But they are not bigger than the beetles. Over 360,000 described species and estimates of 800,000 to 1 million totalspecies (counting the ones that haven't been discovered yet). THE BEETLES WILL RULE THE EARTH!!!!

*geek*

Link to post
Share on other sites

AnaCarolina wrote:

WOW! I thought I was alone! I'm not a big Beatles fan either, I just like some songs, but I don't think they are all that great. I bought the two volumes of Past Masters and I intend to keep these 2 cds as the only Beatles CDs in my collection.

 

U2 is definetly bigger than the Beatles. But they are not bigger than the beetles. Over 360,000 described species and estimates of 800,000 to 1 million total species (counting the ones that haven't been discovered yet). THE BEETLES WILL RULE THE EARTH!!!!

*geek*

but the beetles haven't sold any record yet. lol

compared to the 145 million CD's U2 has sold lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

bigger than the beatles yes bigger than Jesus NO WAY! However, would definately rate u2 live as the best experience next to heaven. Never did rate thebeatles much anyway. Like some of their stuff, but don`t like McCartney, (bit too syrupy for me, always on about little blackbirds tweeting etc.) Do likeJohn Lennon stuff though. Still very overated band. I think they were just revolutionary at a time when music was a bit twee. Just can`t stand fifties musicat all so it must have been a welcome relief for the beatles to come along. Also they don`t have the integrity that U2 have. Sincerely hope I haven`t upsetany beatles fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Exactly. Musically, they were top notch, even if their music was pop-ish. They WERE a pop band. They're influential, very much, but not the best bandever or anything like that. That said, I don't think sales reflect awesomeness of any musical group/artist. I myself am more of a U2 fan than a beatlesfan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love U2, I think you're all crazy! The Beatles were the blueprint for modern pop/rock, without them there would be no U2. U2 makes amazingmusic, but the Beatles *changed* music. I can understand why some people might not like them, but you can't deny that in every possible way they are moreimportant than any other band.

 

And as for the people who don't like The Beatles, I noticed that most of you say you only have one album, or a best of compilation. That's just thething - in their later years (ie their most creative period) they were an album band, not a singles band. You need to hear albums start to finish to realizewhat they were all about. Imagine if all you knew of U2 was the 18 Singles comp, I doubt they'd be your favorite band.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...