2007-01-28 15:29:27 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
u2..their songs have more substance.
2007-01-28 15:41:33 · answer #1 · answered by ♥Mizz Al-Abbady♥ 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You really can't compare the two for one simple reason: U2 would never exist if it weren't for The Beatles.
The Beatles redefined rock music. They popularized the entire concept that music could in fact be a message of peace and unity. They redefined themselves as musicians with albums like "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." They opened more doors creatively than any other band before them. Any one after them is really just swimming in their wake.
That being said, U2 is a tremendously talented band with enormous intentions. They've held it together for nearly 30 years without becoming boring or irrelevant. They have sold over 50 million albums, inspired an entire generation of musicians and kept alive the flame once ignited by The Fab Four by keeping alive the notion that music can indeed change the world.
There is no point comparing these two bands. The Beatles were The Beatles and a tough act to follow. It's more important to realize that The Beatles inspired many bands... including U2... to pursue bigger dreams than the Top 40 dance hit. There will be bands 20 years from now who will take what U2 did and go even further with it. But such a band will in no way take away anything that U2 contributed any more than they have taken away any of The Beatles contributions.
In other words, they're both great bands and we should leave it at that.
2007-01-29 03:55:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think is a question of who is better. The Beatles are and always will be the group every band looks up to.They set the standard for the generations of musicians that have followed.Having said that, there are many bands that have stepped up and continued what The Beatles started while having a personality of their very own. U2 is one of them, others are the Rolling Stones, the Who, Abba, Cream.
2007-01-28 15:51:53 · answer #3 · answered by Georgewasmyfavorite 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like U2, but seriously - the Beatles completely changed the face and landscape of popular music forever.
Without the Beatles, there never would have been a U2. Good as they are, U2 has yet to make this kind of impact upon the entire world of music.
Best to you.
2007-01-28 15:34:00 · answer #4 · answered by Timothy W 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Beatles. People will still be talking about The Beatles in 50 years. But not U2. And from a personal standpoint, I find The Beatles to be FAR more talented and way nicer to listen to.
2007-01-28 15:33:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Beatles
2007-01-28 15:32:57 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Beatles all the way.
2007-01-28 15:33:02 · answer #7 · answered by claudia V 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Both bands were a product of the age that spawned them. Then they both evolved over their career.
U2 changed themselves, but the Beatles changed everything.
The Beatles are second to none in their influence.
The Beatles. Definitely.
Darth Serious
2007-01-28 15:55:47 · answer #8 · answered by the professional iconoclast 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
U2
2007-01-28 15:33:24 · answer #9 · answered by kyle.keyes 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
beatles
2007-01-28 15:33:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ask yourself this overly complex question:
"Which band left behind a near flawless legacy of masterfully crafted albums that started off adhering to the musical norms adherent in the time and eventually influenced and helped to evolve music to the status of art, the album to the importance of the single, and the production to the vitality of the composition."
Then ask yourself which band has Bono in it.
Two different answers.
2007-01-28 15:43:12 · answer #11 · answered by Trapdoor 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋