Well yes they are, i get so much idiots coming and sayin without the beatles, u2 would never exhist, yes we all know that but it dont matter, a son can be a better person than his parents, just because he came from them doesnt mean they are exzactly the same, U2 have been great since the late 80's, they have made a lot of money our of tours and they have been together for 25 years, unlike the beatles, they have better music, they do more for charity, they are from a far better contry, the beatles are out, their music is for old grandads who fought in world war 2 and suprisingly are still alive, U2 #1 Band in the world! I can name you like 20 award winning songs by u2, and the only remotely good song by the beatles is "hey jude" a grandad classic.
2006-09-09 10:29:24 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Bono knows better, and you would too if you knew what you were talking about.
2006-09-09 10:47:12 · answer #1 · answered by Steve 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Hell no - - The Beatles actually started a revolution in music.
While U2 are good (and are one of my favorite bands) you need to look at their accomplishments in the context of the times....
Ok - - some will argue that if it wasn't The Beatles it would have been someone else (and I agree) but that's not the point, it WAS The Beatles. THEY made music that even today sounds fresh and exciting.
If you don't like The Beatles - ok for you (but IMHO - - too bad for you). You cannot change that 40 years from now, after U2's first album - - they didn't do anything that hadn't been done before (like THE BEATLES).
PLUS - - if you consider that they didn't HAVE all these "awards" that they offer now 30/40 years ago...how can you compare it? The Beatles would have more than ANYONE.
AND - - your lame comparison that 'they are from a far better country..." WTF does THAT mean...? How can you say a band is better just because they come from a particular country? If that's the case, Thin Lizzy were the best (since, if Phil Lynott were still alive - his band would be well over 30 years old, have a sh*t load of money, have some awsome songs....all because they came from Ireland FIRST...? Come on...).
You REALLY need some music appreciation classes
2006-09-09 11:59:41 · answer #2 · answered by Michael 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
i love both bands. i think u2 essentially picked up where the beatles left off. there are tons of really good songs by the beatles other than "hey jude"! my personal favorite at the moment is magical mystery tour, and of u2, my favorite is elevation. but of both bands, those are just my current favorites. there are too many good songs from both bands to just choose one, and there are not many bands i like as much as them. the beatles are NOT for grandads! the people who were in world war 2 were 20 years older than them! they can be, though. they are for anybody and everybody. so are u2.
2006-09-11 05:40:47 · answer #3 · answered by ☮♥♫ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh my God...you love U2 huh?? The Beatles started the Music Revolution of the 20th Century...compared to current values and estimates they would of blown away sales and records compared to U2..besides each generation has its music and its message....The Beatles opened up closed doors for all the other Rock bands to explore their limits and give musical freedom to countless others throughout the World!! U2 is certainly a Great Band & deserve the notice but to compare them to the Beatles is like comparing a Stream to the Ocean....The Beatles afterall had the Yellow-Submarine!!
2006-09-09 10:38:22 · answer #4 · answered by fxbeto 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Beg to differ - because I'm old enough to remember a time when there wasn't a Beatles, & what a change there was afterward.
The Beatles changed the entire course of their culture and their times - period.
I love U2, they are tied for the best show I've ever seen (Springsteen in 1985 was just unbelievable), and nobody could fault their music, their longevity or their work, but U2 didn't change the world in 25 years, and the Beatles did in 6.
2006-09-09 10:37:07 · answer #5 · answered by World Famous Neffer 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
U2 is cool, but the Beatles were a phenomenon. You really ought to study a little bit of their history. Tell me when U2 had five songs at the top 5 on the radio at the same time - they never did, but the Beatles did. U2 rocks, but compared to the Beatles? Get real. Even U2 would say so. Its kind of hard to do something for charity when you're dead, and two of its members are gone. John Lennon and George Harrison did plenty for charity - it was George Harrison that got the first ever rock concert for charity together - the "Concert for Bangladesh" because people were starving there. I suggest you do a lot more research into rock history, because you clearly don't know a lot of it.
2006-09-09 10:36:18 · answer #6 · answered by Paul H 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
My oh my!
The Beatles are OF COURSE the greatest ever and can never be beaten and so will always be t he greatest.
U2 is good in its own right but why! I just can't think of their being anywhere near the quality and standard of the Beatles.
And as for their good songs - there are at least 200 superb songs of theirs- maybe you haven't heard enough to make a judgement.
"Remotely" good -My goodness! Even their "bad" songs are brilliant in the standards of any other artiste of any other time.
THE BEATLES ARE SIMPLY UNIQUE AND FORM A CLASS OF THEIR OWN!!!!
I'm not old - only 16-but the Beatles are my sweetest dearest friends in the world because I have no real ones. I LOVE THE BEATLES and I could say that 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times without being ashamed of it, even though all my friends tease me because of my "weird" taste
THEY ARE GREAT, GREATER,THE GREATEST!!!!
Conclusion:The Beatles > Any other artiste
2006-09-11 00:24:54 · answer #7 · answered by teacher's pet 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Band U2 is good but The Beatles were Great.
2006-09-09 14:33:14 · answer #8 · answered by mr_nice_guy 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Hey guy u2 are great and might i suggest you listen to "the music" as well because for me they sound quite a bit like u2 and they're a good band so i hope you enjoy them.
2006-09-09 10:31:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, far better. They're more musiclly talented and their music has much more depth and range than the Beatles, I mean, "She said yeah, yeah, yeah"? gimme a break.
What's more, I'm certain that future generations will regard U2 as the the worlds greatest band while the Beatles will be reduced to an answer in Trivial Pursuit.
2006-09-09 10:39:08 · answer #10 · answered by Ne'rDoWell 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋
U2 better than the Beatles? Er no. Most of their stuff (U2) sounds the same. The 'Edge' is one of the most average guitarists I've ever heard. Bono thinks he's somethign special and who are the other two?
Come back and tell me they're better than the Beatles when they've been split up for over 36 years and people are still listening to their music. Not going to happen is it?
2006-09-10 01:24:18 · answer #11 · answered by july5_uk 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋