2007-02-21 23:15:04 · 25 answers · asked by bluenose 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Neither both of them are rubbish.
2007-02-21 23:17:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋
A very good question. Please note that U2 and Dire Straits play totally different music. When it comes to volume of music produced and popularity, U2 would stand tall. Dire Straits on the other hand, revolves around Mark Knopfler's guitar playing, and the subltle emotions conveyed through their music. Many won't like their kind of music, as it's not as radio-friendly as U2 or other rock bands of the 80s, even though they had catchy songs like "Romeo and Juliet".
One other thing about U2 is that they've carefully retained their sound to suit the tastes of the mordern-day audience and never lost their popularity. In fact, they are getting better with each album. The emphasis has always been on the songs than the music whereas Dire Straits are known mainly for the music(the guitar riffs and the basslines which support the riffs).
A guy who's starting to play guitar would prefer Mark Knopfler's technique than the "songs" of U2.
Well, if you put all these things together a screaming rock fan would prefer U2, a small circuit country-rock instrumentalist or a soft rock purist would prefer Dire Straits, and a metal-head would prefer neither of these bands. In the end, it all rests in the ears of the listener. If you like the kind of music a band plays, listen to it, even if the others around you don't like it.
2007-02-22 00:12:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
U2:
I love so many of U2's songs, and their albums are usually excellent, and they are still coming out with great sounding stuff. About 20 of their songs are absolute classics. Plus the guitar sound is fantastic and Bono has that very emotional, spine chilling voice.
Dire Straits had their moment though - Sultans of Swing. Then they sounded the same for about 3 albums and had to reinvent themselves a few times (Private Investigations... then Money for Nothing.) I think they went more "Pop" than U2 ever did and the stadium thing affected them in a worse way than it did U2, who were still able to produce quite edgy stuff (Achtung Baby, Zooropa) long after being stadium rock gods. Compare that output to dross like "Calling Elvis" and "Heavy Fuel" put out by Dire Straits at the same time.
2007-02-22 01:47:19 · answer #3 · answered by Alyosha 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dire Straits
2007-02-21 23:21:21 · answer #4 · answered by sedona 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
U2 never floated my boat. Dire Straits, cruise the seven seas and all channels in between.
2007-02-22 00:43:07 · answer #5 · answered by Col. Forbin 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both are great, but I'd have to say that U2 has produced a much higher volume of good music than Dire Straits has.
2007-02-21 23:18:41 · answer #6 · answered by yanbarumuku 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Dire straits
2007-02-22 01:32:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't like either but Bono is in U2 so I'd have to pick Dire Straits.
2007-02-21 23:24:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's like asking who's better: God (U2) or, well, Dire Straits?
The band, U2, is a freakin' legend. Bono, Larry, Adam and the Edge are rock gods, living legends. Their music is amazing and they will be remembered for many, many years to come.
2007-02-22 00:15:37 · answer #9 · answered by Laci R 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
U2. Best band in the world. I do love Dire Straits too though. "Sultans of Swing" and "Money for Nothin'" are great tunes.
2007-02-21 23:55:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
U2 are fantastic. Dire Straits - pants!
2007-02-21 23:18:28 · answer #11 · answered by joby 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋