U2 versus The Beatles

[apes3978]

>The Beatles were the voice of who's generation: The Manson Family!

That was actually "The Beach Boys." .

Nah, that was just one Beach Boy that met up with Charlie and company... Those people weren't fans of the Beach Boys, it was just that by connecting with someone like that they thought Manson might be able to get his music out there... It was The Beatles that Manson really dug though. (I just seen a documentary on those people and one of them said that the only music allowed out there was The Beatles, The Moody Blues, and some other band...)
It was The Beatles and their White Album that really got Charlie going and it tripped off his "Helter Skelter" ideology

> Sounds like the Beatles touch off the same nerve for someone that U2 does for me!.

Actually, I do like a lot of The Beatles stuff, all I am getting at is that they were imitators in the beginning, not innovators. And, as I said, when they got all drugged out and into meditation, etc. their music drastically changed and they did become more than what had been... But, as far as The Beatles go, I prefer the "HELP!" Beatles compared to the "LET IT BE" Beatles. Not to say there wasn't good stuff in between all of that (there was), but I like the early stuff better.

And, as far as U2, all I can say is I think their music sucks! The Beatles are far above them, I'm with you as far as them hitting a bad nerve with me too...

[ctc]

>that was just one Beach Boy that met up with Charlie and company... Those people weren't fans of the Beach Boys, it was just that by connecting with someone like that they thought Manson might be able to get his music out there...

As I recall weren't Manson and Wilson actually friends for a while? Not that I'm implying there's anything sinister about the Beach Boys or anything. I've heard Charlie's music, and yeah he wasn't a bad musician but his stuff was kinda typical.

>(I just seen a documentary on those people and one of them said that the only music allowed out there was The Beatles, The Moody Blues, and some other band...)

Wasn't "Arthur Brown" was it? (That'd kinda make sense.)

>It was The Beatles and their White Album that really got Charlie going and it tripped off his "Helter Skelter" ideology

Maybe. I think it's safe to say that when you're as wacky as ol' Charles was almost ANYTHING would eventualy set you off. The Beatles happened to be one of the most popular acts of the day, so the odds sorta fell to them.

>all I am getting at is that they were imitators in the beginning, not innovators. And, as I said, when they got all drugged out and into meditation, etc. their music drastically changed and they did become more than what had been...

Which I'd agree with; although I'd add that their phenomenal success wasn't just based on their ability ot output. A lot of it is accidental. That's kinda how fame works. I've heard tons of brilliant bands that will never make it. Read tonsd of brilliant comics that nobody will ever see. Watched tons of brilliant movies that will no doubt disappear into obscurity one day.... not because of the skill and insight of the creators; but because certain accidents of timing or presentation preclude the public at large from getting in on them. I've also seen the exact OPPOSITE happen: where something takes off due strictly to coming out at the "right time" even though it really wasn't that good. (Thus the conversation loops back to U2 once again....)

>And, as far as U2, all I can say is I think their music sucks! The Beatles are far above them,

My problem with U2 isn't that they outright suck, but that they were shoved down my throat. They're not a bad band; but their stuff seems really uninspired to me. But everywhere I looked folks were TELLING me how brilliant and thoughtful they were. I never saw it. Nothing new musically OR ideologically, their lyrics always played it safe... at least when the Beatles went all trippy they stuck to their guns in the face of dissention from major segemnts of society.

Don C.

[apes3978]

And, actually be it The Beatles or U2, Creedence Clearwater Revival has got them both beat, at least in the sense their music was great and while professionally recorded, it was not "polished"... CCR retained it's grittiness... Their "Swamp Rock" as it's often called is often overlooked...

[brannon86]

I espect the Beatles, and I know they have influenced every musician on the planet, but I cant say I have never been a fan, I like alot of their music, but I will go for U2 and the STONES, YEAH.....

[huedell]

THE BEATLES are great pop writers above anything else...

I love a good hook--and a captivating song in the most simplest regards

That's why I think that the BEATLES aren't only better than U2, but
also one of the best bands of all-time---if not "the" best

U2 never "did it" for me....probably a little too sludgy and moody sounding for
me overall----nothing really stood out and hit me over the head with those guys.

[MIB41]

The Beatles paved the way for all artists to express themselves as they desire. No band has ever made a greater impact on the musical or social landscape than the Beatles. They tore down so many social barriers and influenced generations of people to develop tolerance for things they may not fully understand from their own experience. U2 is a fine band, but they don't hold a candle to the Beatles on any level. I'll tell you something else, Bono would be the first to tell you that too. That is one of the reasons why I like Bono and U2. They shoot straight. An influence they opening attribute to the Beatles...

[huedell]

Come on Roberto...Ringo wasn't all that.

He was extremely lucky riding that gravy train.

What shocks me is seeing a mega-BEATLES fan like Roberto
playing UP Ringo in the competition and playing DOWN McCartney

Doesn't make much sense to me as RINGO goes rudiment in style MUCH
more than McCartney ever does.

Nothing wrong with that...and nothing against Ringo---but McCartney was
a MONSTER on the bass regarding melody while STILL holding the
tunes together quite nicely

RINGO, on the other hand, while contributing a LOT to the "drum
culture" doesn't come close to the contributions that PAUL
made on the bass---and, quite frankly, many would argue
that PAUL himself was a better DRUMMER than Ringo

Altho' I do agre with Mike that RINGO was/is ultra-cool
"icon"-wise/"rockstar"-wise---and his singing voice is real unique---
so he's got that going for him