U2 versus The Beatles

[Hector]

BTW, Beatles and U2 is like comparing apples and oranges...different tastes.

[ctc]

>Beatles and U2 is like comparing apples and oranges...

Hmmmm.... apples and oranges eh? Well, they're both fruits that grow on trees, have outer skins, internal seeds, are pulped for juice.... (That phrase has ALWAYS bothered me.)

One big thing the Beatles have going for them is that a lot of how music is done was changed because of them. Longer songs, higher concept albums, making mixed genres of music mainstream popular... (Although Elvis STARTED the last one.)

And I gotta admit; I HATE U2! Always did! When they first hit you couldn't avoid them to save your life! That "achingachingachinga" guitar thing they had ALWAYS puts my teeth on edge! I found them musically repetitive, lyricly simplistic (gee, "war is bad" thanks for pointing that out for me....) and personally sanctimonious. (Hey Bono! How is hawkin' i-pods gonna save the planet?)

*grrr*

Don C.

[thunderbolt]

Love them both for different reasons. The Beatles were some of the best songwriters, if not the best of all time. U2 is best at its live shows, taking stadium rock to a whole new level following in the footsteps of the Who and Queen. They aren't going to be the Beatles, and I don't think that is where thier influences lie. U2 is a garage band that hit it big. U2 does have the better guitar player, tho.

[andawaymego]

This has to be a joke...

[Blue Meanie]

This has to be a joke...

Yes it is a joke. This really can't be a serious question/statement. I guess the people that bring this up in polls/books or whatever just don't get the magnitude of what the Beatles were and still are. They've influenced 40+ years of music. The only people that would be on the same level are Elvis and the early pioneers of rock...people like Buddy Holly, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis. What The Beatles did in a 7 year period (Yep, that's how many years they were a together as a recording group) has never been matched nor will it ever be matched. They put out 13 albums and 20+ singles that were not on the albums that were released at the same time...that is unheard of in any time period. Not one Album was a dud. Got to the top 10 albums of all time and I can guaranteed you that 3 Beatles albums are in the top 10...Pepper, Abbey Road, and Revolver.

Here's the thing about the Beatles that people just can't grasp:

4 Individual Singers/Songwriters that brought something to the table when it came time to make music together. Each one fed off of the other. How many groups can say that...Stones can't. Mick can sing and Keith can sing a little...but none of the others can and none of the others are songwriters. The Who...Daltrey can sing and Pete can sing...but everyone knows that Pete was the songwriter for the group.

Here's U2:

Bono/Edge - Songwriters
Bono sings on almost everything they put out and it's a shame because Edge can sing (Seconds on War is a great example and Van Diemans Land off of Rattle and Hum).

That's it. End of Story. You want to compare member to member:

Ringo Vs. Larry Mullen...no competition. Ringo's drum fills alone will play circles around Mullen.

George and John Vs. Edge...If Edge didn't have the effects pedal/board he'd be an average guitar player at best. George was a good guitarist that had it's own style. John was a good Rock Guitarist.

Paul Vs. Adam Clayton...It's a little bit closer in this department...but not by much. Reason being that Adam has no life to his bass playing...it's more of plodding Bass line in every song. I know the Bass and Drums are supposed to keep time but not through every song. Throw a little bit of life into a song every once in a while. Go and listen to Tomorrow Never Knows or Penny Lane and listen to the Bass in those two songs...you'll be blown away.

Again, there really should be no discussion of U2 Vs. The Beatles...one is the Yankees of Rock and the other is the Florida Marlins of Rock (They won a couple but still have a long way to go)

[megoat]

A more serious VS argument would be Dylan vs The Beatles as far as who had a greater impact on the progression of all things "rock". I tend to see it as a symbiotic relationship with no clear answer, but it makes for interesting discussion.....

[Mikey]

Dylan vs The Beatles ?

Tough one......
I'd give that one to the Beatles purely on retail sales.

As true musical artists ?
Gotta be Dylan.....

Dylan vs The Beatles is too tough.....
It's like Superman vs Yoda

[MegoGeekJr]

Beatles!
(nuff said)

[megoat]

Dylan vs The Beatles ?

Tough one......
I'd give that one to the Beatles purely on retail sales.

As true musical artists ?
Gotta be Dylan.....

Dylan vs The Beatles is too tough.....
It's like Superman vs Yoda

Sales should hardly figure into one's evaluation of an artist's merit. I suppose it does say something about an artists mass appeal, but ultimately it does not really matter.....

[Hector]

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

He was extremely lucky riding that gravy train.

[Mikey]

Ringo is the MOST likable person in rock history (and he still remains cool as ever)

Besides everything else, that has to account for something

[megoat]

I agree wholeheartedly with Meanie's assessment of Ringo. His fills are so recognizable and unique that when other drummer employ them they are referred to as "Ringo Fills"......I can't imagine the Beatles without him.....

[Hector]

Ringo is the MOST likable person in rock history (and he still remains cool as ever)

Besides everything else, that has to account for something

Brian May is the most likeable rocker in history...the nicest guy on earth with ZERO pretentiousness...a very humble individual who's never done drugs (and hardly drinks)...oh yeah...and a college professor as well.

Smart talented dude indeed.

[toys2cool]

Yes it is a joke. This really can't be a serious question/statement. I guess the people that bring this up in polls/books or whatever just don't get the magnitude of what the Beatles were and still are. They've influenced 40+ years of music. The only people that would be on the same level are Elvis and the early pioneers of rock...people like Buddy Holly, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis. What The Beatles did in a 7 year period (Yep, that's how many years they were a together as a recording group) has never been matched nor will it ever be matched. They put out 13 albums and 20+ singles that were not on the albums that were released at the same time...that is unheard of in any time period. Not one Album was a dud. Got to the top 10 albums of all time and I can guaranteed you that 3 Beatles albums are in the top 10...Pepper, Abbey Road, and Revolver.

Here's the thing about the Beatles that people just can't grasp:

4 Individual Singers/Songwriters that brought something to the table when it came time to make music together. Each one fed off of the other. How many groups can say that...Stones can't. Mick can sing and Keith can sing a little...but none of the others can and none of the others are songwriters. The Who...Daltrey can sing and Pete can sing...but everyone knows that Pete was the songwriter for the group.

Here's U2:

Bono/Edge - Songwriters
Bono sings on almost everything they put out and it's a shame because Edge can sing (Seconds on War is a great example and Van Diemans Land off of Rattle and Hum).

That's it. End of Story. You want to compare member to member:

Ringo Vs. Larry Mullen...no competition. Ringo's drum fills alone will play circles around Mullen.

George and John Vs. Edge...If Edge didn't have the effects pedal/board he'd be an average guitar player at best. George was a good guitarist that had it's own style. John was a good Rock Guitarist.

Paul Vs. Adam Clayton...It's a little bit closer in this department...but not by much. Reason being that Adam has no life to his bass playing...it's more of plodding Bass line in every song. I know the Bass and Drums are supposed to keep time but not through every song. Throw a little bit of life into a song every once in a while. Go and listen to Tomorrow Never Knows or Penny Lane and listen to the Bass in those two songs...you'll be blown away.

Again, there really should be no discussion of U2 Vs. The Beatles...one is the Yankees of Rock and the other is the Florida Marlins of Rock (They won a couple but still have a long way to go)

LOL! my poor Marlins could'nt you go with something like the Bluejays or something

[MegoMonk]

I have a few U2 albums, but they do not compare to the Beatles. But, U2 is better than at least 90% of the other R&R groups who ever existed.
As far as some of the other groups others have mentioned; contrary to popular belief the original 4 members of the Who all sang. Entwistle was a good lead singer, a terrific back up singer and always chipped in a few song writing credits on each album. Believe it or not, the Who had hit singles in parts of Europe in the mid-60s with Keith Moon singing lead. He did his last lead vocal on the Quadrophenia album with "Bell Boy".
I love but Paul and Ringo on bass and drums, but Entwistle and Moon exploded the notion of what bass players and drummers could do. People are still imitating their playing today.
As far as the Stones go, they have been churning out good to great R&R songs for 45 years, but they have never done anything innovative.