Jump to content

U2 are Bigger than the Beatles.


Recommended Posts

I was into the beatles when I was a kid- around when John Lennon was killed

(and right before U2 hit the states... and then U2 quickly took over!)

I think U2 is up there with the greats and certainly "in their league"

but the beatles were FIRST

so no one can take that away from them-but I think U2 is just as talented as the beatles...

I dunno if ya can say U2 is BIGGER than the beatles, but def on par with them...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

chris wrote:

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 amazing music, 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 more important 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 the thing - 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 realize what they were all about. Imagine if all you knew of U2 was the 18 Singles comp, I doubt they'd be your favorite band.

I was just poking fun with U2 Bigger than Beetles hehehe..

 

I have so much Respect with the Beatles. " The White Album" is one of my biggest influences. it marked the change of Direction for them. I agree ifyou want to experience the essence of the Beatles. you have to listen to their albums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Reciyrseraphim: Oooh, if you're comparing album numbers than yes, the beetles are bigger than U2. But the beetles win by number of species, individualsand time of existence lol

 

And about the Beatles, I only have the compilations album because I don't like most of what I heard from the later years which everybody seems to love.Maybe I'm not just brainy enough to understand their "newer" work (sorry, forgot a word to refer to the material I'm talking about properly),it's just too "experimental" for me. I like some songs, but I wouldn't listen to a full album. And I think it's kind of hard to make agood album without songs that don't sound good by themselves. A concept doesn't make bad songs good, only if they are amidst a bunch of great songs.The world might think that albums like Sgt Pepper's and Revolver are awesome, but I just don't see it. I gave the Beatles a chance. A couple of yearsago I would have never ever bought a Beatles album and would not want one even if Bono himself popped up in front of me and told me to listen to it. Now I likethem, but still not as much as I like other artists and, as I said before, I listen moslty to their older songs.

 

I do understand that the Beatles are incredibly important and that without them there wouldn't exist most bands we love, but this is a simple case of thestudent becoming superior to the master. I don't think it's just U2 that is bigger than the Beatles, there are several bands that are. Simply becausetime has passed since the Beatles appeared and every good artist that was influenced by them was influenced by others and also created their own stuff andended up influencing others. The Bealtes are important, but they are not better and definetly not bigger.

 

What turned me into a U2 fan was Best of 1990-2000. I discovered there were many more great U2 songs besides the ones that played on the radio and I decided tofind out more about them. Maybe I picked the wrong Beatles compilation because the one I got didn't have the same effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong here folks, I love U2. I don't just say that about any artist, they truly are my favorite around. That being said, they are noBeatles. Once again, they are no Beatles.

People like to say that they have been around longer and done more this and that, but The Beatles did that already, and in only about what, 6 years? TheBeatles did so much musically and transcended generations in such a short amount of time that for one to say that our Irish lads are better than the Liverpoolfellas, there is no comparison.

Sorry for the downer everyone, but it is simply my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Bono's own words at the recent MTV European Music Awards held in Liverpool, "If it wasn't for The Beatles I wouldn't be in thisjob..." Adding, "Driving around Liverpool with Paul McCartney today, was like being driven around Rome by the Pope in the Pope Mobile..."

 

You can hear The Beatles influences on U2's latest album...

 

The one thing The Beatles have in their legacy, is that they left people eternally yearning for more and not just because one of them died, as is the mysticsubstance with some other historic and iconic music figures, that unfortunately left us before their time. They quit while they were ahead and at the top. Notthat U2 may be aren't at the top or ahead, the latest album does qualify as a return to form. However, The Beatles and in particular John Lennon, longbefore he or George Harrison sadly passed away, told themselves in typical, frank but fair Scouse fashion, that "Kids don't wanna watch four auld mensinging in a band..."

 

There's obviously no fear of U2 being of a similar ilk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Bono's own words at the recent MTV European Music Awards held in Liverpool, "If it wasn't for The Beatles I wouldn't be in thisjob..." Adding, "Driving around Liverpool with Paul McCartney today, was like being driven around Rome by the Pope in the Pope Mobile..."

 

You can hear The Beatles influences on U2's latest album...

 

The one thing The Beatles have in their legacy, is that they left people eternally yearning for more and not just because one of them died, as is the mysticsubstance with some other historic and iconic music figures, that unfortunately left us before their time. They quit while they were ahead and at the top. Notthat U2 may be aren't at the top or ahead, the latest album does qualify as a return to form. However, The Beatles and in particular John Lennon, longbefore he or George Harrison sadly passed away, told themselves in typical, frank but fair Scouse fashion, that "Kids don't wanna watch four auld mensinging in a band..."

 

There's obviously no fear of U2 being of a similar ilk.

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...