Jump to content

U2 are Bigger than the Beatles.


Recommended Posts

It's not a "stupid thread" - it has provoked an interesting discussion!

 

As it happens I think the Beatles are vastly overrated - their success had a lot do with the times they lived in.

 

I'm sure if U2 were around then and had similarly stupid hairstyles they too would have been immortalised.

 

The Beatles are obviously bigger, though given that they are 75% dead it hardly matters anymore.

 

To decide who's best - Take U2's 10 best songs and compare with the Beatles. There's only ONE winner - U2

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

Top Posters In This Topic

One cannot compare Apples and I-pods.

 

Name another band that started out writing teenybopper music and evolved to become the most ipopular influencal and proggressive band in the world. ILooooooooove U2 (read my pro and you'll see that). But to compare U2 and the Beatles is stupid. Do you actually think Bono would consider this a validquestion? You may think the Beatles are vastly over-rated but your in a tiny minority. Bono was even quoted as saying "Achtung Baby is ourSGT.Pepper." Do you honestly think he would agree that Achtung is better than Pepper? Like i said in my post. "U2 is the greatest thing since".Bono dose'nt think they're over rated. He credits them as his biggest musical influence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To not like the Beatles as a matter of personal taste is one thing.

 

To not recognize that they had a more profound effect on modern music than any other band is just..........ignorant.

Think of the countless musicans of enormous stature that credit the Beatles as thier biggest influence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

ummm, i can agree with it. in terms of visibility, they are bigger than the beatles. but keep in mind that the beatles broke up, then unfortunately two passedso that has an effect on their "bigness." artistically better is another story, pretty hard to answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

resu2cue wrote:

ummm, i can agree with it. in terms of visibility, they are bigger than the beatles. but keep in mind that the beatles broke up, then unfortunately two passed so that has an effect on their "bigness." artistically better is another story, pretty hard to answer.

If your saying U2 is more visible than the Beatles I gotta disagree on that.

 

The Beatles were and still are popular amongst every age group. From 4 years to 94 years. Tons of retirees have know idea who U2 are. They ALL know who theBeatles are. The Beatles enetered every genre. TV,Movies,Music They have hundreds of musical releases in thier catoluoge. Later thier music was used asthemes and for countless commercial jingles.Countless products had the Beatles faces plastered on them. They have pervaded every level of pop culture at everyage group. The only person in the world more popular than The Beatles WAS Jesus! One might make a valid argument that they were easily more popular thanElvis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I think it. U2 is better and bigger than Beatles.

 

Bono or each one of the Beatles. Bono. He is a better singer and better composer than anyone of them.

Edge or George. WOW. Edge. Light years ahead.

Adam (Happy Birthday!!!) or Paul. WOW. Adam is much better than Paul.

Larry or Ringo. Larry. Without comparison.

 

The Beatles was a seed. U2 is a forest with a complete ecosystem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my last comment. I have had enough trying to educate people about musical historical FACTS.

 

The Beatles were an EXPLOSION of creativity and modern musical progression. Much like U2 are today. They cannot be compared,measured wieghed or quantifiedagainst each other.

 

How many times have U2 Recorded and sold Beatles songs? I can think of 3 off the top of my head. Happiness is a warm gun,Help,Helter Skelter. The latter ofwhich was the 1st track on Rattle and Hum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

zootrabant wrote:

Yes. I think it. U2 is better and bigger than Beatles.

 

Bono or each one of the Beatles. Bono. He is a better singer and better composer than anyone of them.

Edge or George. WOW. Edge. Light years ahead.

Adam (Happy Birthday!!!) or Paul. WOW. Adam is much better than Paul.

Larry or Ringo. Larry. Without comparison.

 

The Beatles was a seed. U2 is a forest with a complete ecosystem.

I have to completely 100% disagree with everything in this post, sorry dude. For starters, the question is bigger, which has nothing to do with talent levels,so you're kinda missing the point of saying U2 is bigger because you think they are more talented.

 

And as for the rest... There's just no way they were better composers than the Beatles. The Beatles started out in an era when "pop" was juststupid silly love songs, and they (along with Bob Dylan and a few others) opened the door to deeper themes, more complex structures, an overall sense ofmaturity in what was then a very teenage musical climate. Like I said before, they literally changed music. U2 came along well after that change had takenplace, so it's natural that they never really had that teeny bopper pop phase... but the music world was different, and you can't really hold itagainst the Beatles that they started out simple and silly when that was really the only option at that time.

 

As far as each individual musician is concerned, no offense but I have to wonder how much you know about music theory and composition. George Harrisonwasn't a flashy guitarist, but he was a tremendous musician and composer. I think the Edge beats him as far as originality is concerned, because Georgeworked with what was available and the Edge said screw that and created his own sound... but in terms of actual technical ability and playing, George wasbetter in my opinion. And bass is really no comparison. Paul McCartney is, quite simply, one of the best bassists to ever walk the face of the earth. Sure Adamis great, but Paul is a bass demigod. Listen closely to some of the lines he plays, he was insanely creative and had the tightest groove around, he could flatout play with the best of them. Drumming is a tossup in my mind. Both are quite good, but both are good at their particular style. Both are a bit underrated asfar as drummers go, because neither play flashy and both kinda get lost in the shuffle because they play in a band with superstars who take up a lot more ofthe spotlight.

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...