Jump to content

Any other band come close?


Recommended Posts

^^^this! Yes that is how I feel about u2. They are like a part of my life. They are the soundtrack to my life. But I don't need the stats or stadium tours to convince me that they are my favorite band. Even if they split up tomorrow I will still listen to them and watch their DVDs and that.

 

But I think there are other bands that can stand up to u2. But it shouldn't really matter. Music should be made to suit tastes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If we are talking about who has a huge fan base then you could argue that Daniel O'Donnell is one of the biggest acts around!!  He has a loyal and devoted following but I wouldn't necessarily regard him as having any talent at all.  Anything but actually.  To get back to the original question - I have yet to be convinced by any comments on here.  I still don't regard any other act, band or solo artist, as being either on a par with or close to U2 at this point in time.  We're not talking about Radiohead years ago, or Muse at Wembley Stadium after only 4 albums or whatever.  What other act is playing to the audience sizes that U2 are on a global scale and generating that kind of popularity?  Just because you may prefer another band, or a band you saw headline something in 1997 doesn't really give a definitive answer to the question I raised.  I saw The Fun Boy Three in 1983 and they were brilliant, but I would hardly call them the biggest band of all time.  I've previously made reference to it on here, but show me an act that has been together for 35 years, is still recording new material, is still playing to sell-out audiences of the size U2 are, has a global following the size that U2 have.  Other acts will come and go, and other acts have come and gone.  Lots of people raved about Oasis, but did they really ever come close to anything that U2 have achieved?  Just think if you were putting a festival together and you were looking for a headline act.  Based on what U2 are capable of in terms of live performance could any other act really go on after them after the performance they would give?  I don't think so.  Don't get me wrong.  U2 aren't the only band I like.  I've seen many bands over the years and many of them have been brilliant.  But if I had to say which band has consistently stood out as having that something that other bands just don't have then it's U2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

If we are talking about who has a huge fan base then you could argue that Daniel O'Donnell is one of the biggest acts around!!  He has a loyal and devoted following but I wouldn't necessarily regard him as having any talent at all.  Anything but actually.  To get back to the original question - I have yet to be convinced by any comments on here.  I still don't regard any other act, band or solo artist, as being either on a par with or close to U2 at this point in time.  We're not talking about Radiohead years ago, or Muse at Wembley Stadium after only 4 albums or whatever.  What other act is playing to the audience sizes that U2 are on a global scale and generating that kind of popularity?  Just because you may prefer another band, or a band you saw headline something in 1997 doesn't really give a definitive answer to the question I raised.  I saw The Fun Boy Three in 1983 and they were brilliant, but I would hardly call them the biggest band of all time.  I've previously made reference to it on here, but show me an act that has been together for 35 years, is still recording new material, is still playing to sell-out audiences of the size U2 are, has a global following the size that U2 have.  Other acts will come and go, and other acts have come and gone.  Lots of people raved about Oasis, but did they really ever come close to anything that U2 have achieved?  Just think if you were putting a festival together and you were looking for a headline act.  Based on what U2 are capable of in terms of live performance could any other act really go on after them after the performance they would give?  I don't think so.  Don't get me wrong.  U2 aren't the only band I like.  I've seen many bands over the years and many of them have been brilliant.  But if I had to say which band has consistently stood out as having that something that other bands just don't have then it's U2.

Popularity, ticket sales and record/single sales do not equal quality music. Although the other bands whose names have been thrown up in this thread (IE Muse, Fightstar, Radiohead, Coldplay, etc.) aren't anything special in the music industry, NEITHER ARE U2. U2 are just a band at the end of the day. They may be the biggest band in the world (I'm actually starting to doubt whether they actually are anymore now) but at the same time, they're just musicians. If any band (including U2) believed themselves to be more than a band, they would be taking themselves too seriously and they would disappear completely up their own arses. Case in point Liam Gallagher and Axl Rose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

If we are talking about who has a huge fan base then you could argue that Daniel O'Donnell is one of the biggest acts around!!  He has a loyal and devoted following but I wouldn't necessarily regard him as having any talent at all.  Anything but actually.  To get back to the original question - I have yet to be convinced by any comments on here.  I still don't regard any other act, band or solo artist, as being either on a par with or close to U2 at this point in time.  We're not talking about Radiohead years ago, or Muse at Wembley Stadium after only 4 albums or whatever.  What other act is playing to the audience sizes that U2 are on a global scale and generating that kind of popularity?  Just because you may prefer another band, or a band you saw headline something in 1997 doesn't really give a definitive answer to the question I raised.  I saw The Fun Boy Three in 1983 and they were brilliant, but I would hardly call them the biggest band of all time.  I've previously made reference to it on here, but show me an act that has been together for 35 years, is still recording new material, is still playing to sell-out audiences of the size U2 are, has a global following the size that U2 have.  Other acts will come and go, and other acts have come and gone.  Lots of people raved about Oasis, but did they really ever come close to anything that U2 have achieved?  Just think if you were putting a festival together and you were looking for a headline act.  Based on what U2 are capable of in terms of live performance could any other act really go on after them after the performance they would give?  I don't think so.  Don't get me wrong.  U2 aren't the only band I like.  I've seen many bands over the years and many of them have been brilliant.  But if I had to say which band has consistently stood out as having that something that other bands just don't have then it's U2.
I said before my best and favourite band is U2 and no other comes near them .... for me, I don't think you can prove it in any objective way, and I also don't think there is any need to do it, but sorry, I don't think you're making sense in this last post, Daniel O'Donnell a huge fan base? where? do you even think he's known anywhere outside Ireland? The Fun Boy Three? I had to google it to have an idea of who they were, I can't think you're serious with those comparisons. Oasis was a great band, I prefer Oasis to the Beatles, their careers, both, were short but impressive, do you want a long time band making extraordinary music for a long time, selling millions of albums, getting sold out stadiums after their 60s? The Rolling Stones, it just happens that I prefer U2 to any of them, but that's not a reason to say they aren't on par with them from an objective point of view, all you can say is subjective if only because it is what you give wieght to despising other facts.
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mariacm wrote:


baldymanphil']If we are talking about who has a huge fan base then you could argue that Daniel O'Donnell is one of the biggest acts around!!  He has a loyal and devoted following but I wouldn't necessarily regard him as having any talent at all.  Anything but actually.  To get back to the original question - I have yet to be convinced by any comments on here.  I still don't regard any other act, band or solo artist, as being either on a par with or close to U2 at this point in time.  We're not talking about Radiohead years ago, or Muse at Wembley Stadium after only 4 albums or whatever.  What other act is playing to the audience sizes that U2 are on a global scale and generating that kind of popularity?  Just because you may prefer another band, or a band you saw headline something in 1997 doesn't really give a definitive answer to the question I raised.  I saw The Fun Boy Three in 1983 and they were brilliant, but I would hardly call them the biggest band of all time.  I've previously made reference to it on here, but show me an act that has been together for 35 years, is still recording new material, is still playing to sell-out audiences of the size U2 are, has a global following the size that U2 have.  Other acts will come and go, and other acts have come and gone.  Lots of people raved about Oasis, but did they really ever come close to anything that U2 have achieved?  Just think if you were putting a festival together and you were looking for a headline act.  Based on what U2 are capable of in terms of live performance could any other act really go on after them after the performance they would give?  I don't think so.  Don't get me wrong.  U2 aren't the only band I like.  I've seen many bands over the years and many of them have been brilliant.  But if I had to say which band has consistently stood out as having that something that other bands just don't have then it's U2.

I said before my best and favourite band is U2 and no other comes near them .... for me, I don't think you can prove it in any objective way, and I also don't think there is any need to do it, but sorry, I don't think you're making sense in this last post, Daniel O'Donnell a huge fan base? where? do you even think he's known anywhere outside Ireland? The Fun Boy Three? I had to google it to have an idea of who they were, I can't think you're serious with those comparisons. Oasis was a great band, I prefer Oasis to the Beatles, their careers, both, were short but impressive, do you want a long time band making extraordinary music for a long time, selling millions of albums, getting sold out stadiums after their 60s? The Rolling Stones, it just happens that I prefer U2 to any of them, but that's not a reason to say they aren't on par with them from an objective point of view, all you can say is subjective if only because it is what you give wieght to despising other facts.

 

The Fun Boy Three!!  You had to Google to have an idea who they were!!  Come on now.  Heard of The Specials?  Legendary 2 Tone band from Coventry?  Well, the lead singer and the two black members were the Fun Boy Three when The Specials split up in 1981.  Daniel O'Donnell does, amazingly, have a huge fan base.  I've seen documentaries when he invites his fans to his house.  Admittedly the average age of the fans is around 78, but they are all there in their knitted cardigans waiting to meet their hero.  Loads of them.  Saga probably do organised trips to his house.  Wouldn't go myself 'cause I can't stand him, but I guess someone has to.  And is he known anywhere outside Ireland?  Well, I ain't from the emerald isle and I've heard of him! 

 

From BBC News website:

 

Easy-listening superstar Daniel O'Donnell is following in the footsteps of David Bowie and Mick Jagger - by hosting a web chat with his fans.

The 37-year-old Irishman is holding the chat on Microsoft's Internet service MSN on Tuesday night - and the site is hoping that his army of fans will kick their children and grandchildren off their PCs for the night and settle down for an intimate cyberspace chat with their hero.

MSN's Gillian Kent is hoping the fans that make regular pilgrimages to see O'Donnell will be able to join him on the Internet.

"We are expecting to see a new kind of surfer. We've had George Michael on before, but we are quietly confident Daniel will outdo him given the loyalty of his fans around the world."

Lives with his mother

_292928_odonnell_text.gif
During the 1990s, O'Donnell has become one of the biggest names in popular music, but without attracting the same press attention as his younger counterparts like the Spice Girls and Take That.

He lives with his mother in the County Donegal village of Kincasslagh, and regularly hosts tea parties for 7,000 fans - many of whom are in their 60s and 70s.

A recent ad for the Irish national lottery featured a grandmother dreaming of him singing to her, while O'Donnell-mania inspired a stage show in London - Women On The Verge Of HRT.

The Irish Tourist Board estimates he is responsible for 60 per cent of all tourism in Donegal - and most of his fans stay in the Viking House Hotel, which the singer built in 1992.

'Genuinely loves his fans'

His spokeswoman Alison Griffin feels his concern for his fans is what has made him so popular.

"I think he genuinely loves what he does, and he loves his fans. He's concerned about them, and he's very accessible to them. His fans will tell you how he phones them when they are ill, or how he dedicates songs to them at his concerts."

But she admits his success may not translate easily onto the Internet, a medium often seen as being dominated by younger people.

"It will be interesting how many of his fans will log on to the chat. But a lot of them will have children who are well-versed in using the Internet, so if they do have a problem then I'm sure they'll be able to help," said Ms Griffin.

Won't be competing for Internet fame yet

O'Donnell will be conducting the chat from MSN's offices in London, which will also launch the revamp of his record company RMG's site.

But he isn't in a position to compete with David Bowie and Mick Jagger, who have become as big on the Net as they have in the rock charts.

Griffin said: "He wants to learn as much about the Internet as he can himself. I think he'll get more and more into it as he goes on."

He does have a web page of his own - featuring an apology to fans upset by his decision to stop accepting roses during his shows.

With most of his fans in an age group not renowned for its computer use, MSN may well be thinking that if Daniel O'Donnell can't tempt mature ladies onto the Web, nobody else can.

Huge fan base?  What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='peterferris8 wrote:


baldymanphil']If we are talking about who has a huge fan base then you could argue that Daniel O'Donnell is one of the biggest acts around!!  He has a loyal and devoted following but I wouldn't necessarily regard him as having any talent at all.  Anything but actually.  To get back to the original question - I have yet to be convinced by any comments on here.  I still don't regard any other act, band or solo artist, as being either on a par with or close to U2 at this point in time.  We're not talking about Radiohead years ago, or Muse at Wembley Stadium after only 4 albums or whatever.  What other act is playing to the audience sizes that U2 are on a global scale and generating that kind of popularity?  Just because you may prefer another band, or a band you saw headline something in 1997 doesn't really give a definitive answer to the question I raised.  I saw The Fun Boy Three in 1983 and they were brilliant, but I would hardly call them the biggest band of all time.  I've previously made reference to it on here, but show me an act that has been together for 35 years, is still recording new material, is still playing to sell-out audiences of the size U2 are, has a global following the size that U2 have.  Other acts will come and go, and other acts have come and gone.  Lots of people raved about Oasis, but did they really ever come close to anything that U2 have achieved?  Just think if you were putting a festival together and you were looking for a headline act.  Based on what U2 are capable of in terms of live performance could any other act really go on after them after the performance they would give?  I don't think so.  Don't get me wrong.  U2 aren't the only band I like.  I've seen many bands over the years and many of them have been brilliant.  But if I had to say which band has consistently stood out as having that something that other bands just don't have then it's U2.

Popularity, ticket sales and record/single sales do not equal quality music. Although the other bands whose names have been thrown up in this thread (IE Muse, Fightstar, Radiohead, Coldplay, etc.) aren't anything special in the music industry, NEITHER ARE U2. U2 are just a band at the end of the day. They may be the biggest band in the world (I'm actually starting to doubt whether they actually are anymore now) but at the same time, they're just musicians. If any band (including U2) believed themselves to be more than a band, they would be taking themselves too seriously and they would disappear completely up their own arses. Case in point Liam Gallagher and Axl Rose.

^^^this...............

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

baldymanphil

 

It's ok if you want to live in your own bubble, but don't ask me to follow you, I think my bubble is much wider than yours.

 

Yes, I had to google The Fun Boy Three, and I don't know anything about The Specials or your little loved band from Coventry, just because I'm not British, I didn't put a foot on the UK until I was in secondary school and by then The Fun Boy Three were done and gone for a long time, if I ever listened to them on the radio I didn't spot their name, but I didn't listen to oldies that much at the time, I'm sure I'm not the only one in this site who didn't hear about them before, we are from many different countries, all of our countries have local bands that are really good, but we don't think they are world wide famous, have you ever listened to Los Canarios, Loquillo y Los Trogloditas, Alaska y los Pegamoides, Mago de Oz, Platero y Yo, Celtas Cortos, Leño, Héroes del Silencio, Medina Azhahara, El Ultimo de la Fila, Siniestro Total, Revólver, Obús, Triana, Los Brincos, Ilegales, Los Pequeniques or El Canto del Loco, for example?

 

What I like about this situation is that I can check the bands and see if I like their music because not being famous around the world doesn't imply they weren't good, but comparing them to U2, it is only a bad joke.

 

I know who Daniel O'Donnell is just because I spend long periods of time in Ireland, he can have a "huge" base of 70-year-old fans in Ireland (and according to this article in Britain) some Irish communities can support him in other countries, I know how Irish people are in love with their folk music and I respect it very much, but nobody else knows him in other parts of the world, if you ask where I live who Daniel O'Donnell is they will probably tell you about a general and politician of Irish origin whose name was in fact Leopoldo O'Donnell and who happens to have a street dedicated in the city centre. It's not that I hate him or his music, but when it comes to Irish music I prefer The Chieftains, Christy Moore, Altan, Anuna, Kevin Burke, Lunasa or The Bothy Band among the Irish performers.

 

Daniel's world tour in 2011 had an impressive opening in the Royal Albert Hall in London, but then it also features places such as some civic centres, hotels an even a cruise from Holland to America. If you think that if he travels to Chile, Brazil, Russia or Turkey (just as examples) he'll get the same response as U2, then I have nothing to tell you, it is impossible that we can agree on anything, the best we can do is agreeing on disagreeing.

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...