My argument - U2 are still making hits, selling out stadiums, and garnering awards everywhere they go. No rock act has had this level of success and attention for so long, over 25 years now, and with the same line-up. I'm not discounting The Beatles (of whom I am a huge fan too). They influenced everything that came afterward, but they were around for just 8 years. The Stones can't match past successes either and haven't had a memorable song since Start Me Up. I'd love to hear everyone's opinion.
2006-11-14 05:56:28 · 10 answers · asked by synge_street_alum 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Oh okaaaaaaaaaay...... U2 is one of the only bands of the 80's left ( Van Hagar does not count) Their ability to convey ideas through song cannot be denied and Bono is one of the most social consious men on the planet. I agree that they should be as revered as the Fab Four and dont understand why they are not. In the name of love, lets give these guys the respect they so rightfully deserve.
2006-11-14 06:03:12 · answer #1 · answered by snoop_dougie_doug04 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not really. I take all your points, and you make some good ones, but here's why it just doesn't work: the Beatles did it first. The First of anything is always the icon, period. It doesn't work so well the second or third time.
Other famous examples: Charles Dickens. His heavy reliance on incredible coincidences was original in its day. If someone did the same thing now, it would be considered trite and cheesy... but 150 years ago, it worked for the first guy who had the idea.
Also, the Monkees. A formulated band put together to do nothing but sell records and merchandise. And they were really very good. Look at the formula bands we have now. I can't name even one.
So, back to my answer, I would have to disagree. Yes, U2 rocks. Yes, their accomplishments far outstrip those of other bands. No, they're not the Beatles.
Keep in mind, though, that a couple hundred years from now, the Beatles and U2 will be considered contemporaries.
2006-11-14 06:04:14 · answer #2 · answered by Bitsie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with the comment about U2's music is only about political statements. Sorry, when I listen to a U2 song, it's about the music for me. Bono does what he does, some like him, some hate him, but the music is why I am a U2 fan. Others criticize them for being too religious also. I'm not religous at all, and U2 is still my favorite band. Yes, I would agree with your statement. Longetivity, reverence, awesome music... The Beatles were pioneers, but isn't there something to said about longetivity also?
2006-11-14 13:55:49 · answer #3 · answered by stuckinamoment 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't care for The Beatles, or U2, but I would say no. The Beatles were about the music, and U2 seems to be about making a political statement. Politics should be left out of music. Music is to entertain, not to campaign.
2006-11-14 06:10:06 · answer #4 · answered by esugrad97 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To the original question, I have to say "hell no!" It isn't about longevity necessarily. You know, it's the old quality vs. quantity thing in my opinion. U2 has its own merits, of course, but I just think the Beatles are in a class of their own.
As for the Stones.... I'm guessing you didn't like their last album? For me, it was the best album they're put out in years, and even WITHOUT considering their ages (which is nothing to be sneezed at), when I saw them twice on the Big Bang tour I was completely blown away by their performances.
OK, you asked for my opinion, you got it! :-) LOL
2006-11-14 06:04:17 · answer #5 · answered by Helaine D 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with Helaine D. The Beatles will always be in a class of their own. Believe it or not, they even inspired the likes of Jimi Hendrix, Prince, and Earth Wind & Fire. You can hear it in their music, as well as....the list can go on and on.
2006-11-14 20:17:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure , I figure Bono has his head up his ___ about the same as Lennon did. I don't think U2 have been too proud of the last 2 or 3 Cd's .They know they haven't been doing it.
2006-11-14 06:01:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would definetly think so. You have seriously got to put them up there along side the Beatles.
2006-11-14 05:59:10 · answer #8 · answered by stackman71 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, NEVER!!!! Not in the same league at all. The Beatles were true pioneers.
2006-11-14 05:59:10 · answer #9 · answered by island3girl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so, not yet. The best measure will be how they are thought of once they are no longer actively recording.
2006-11-14 05:58:00 · answer #10 · answered by Catlady 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋