U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

Who in your opinion, is/was the biggest, most popular Rock band ever in the business and in the world? In their prime, would you say that The Beatles were bigger than U2 are today? Would you say that KISS are more popular than U2? I dunno man, I'd have to say U2 are the most consistenly popular rock band I can think of, and even out rank The Beatles in their prime. They just keep going and going and going like the freakin energy bunny and the fans can't get enough of them. What other rock band has gone on as long as U2? I mean, isn't the 20th anniversary of their first album Boy, either this year or next?

What are your thoughts?

Yes. No band has ever come close to the Beatles at the height of its popularity. They had 4 or 5 singles in the top ten at the same time, and more than half of all TVs in the US were tuned in to their first performance on the Ed Sullivan show. Over the next couple of years, they had tons of hit singles, two hit movies, and they were selling out stadiums where the screaming fans were so loud, the crowd couldn't even hear them playing. And all that doesn't even touch on their huge influence on music since then.
No
The 20th anniversary of Boy was two years ago. I'd agree that U2 may end up being the most consistent band over the longest period of time. Other bands may have been together as long as or longer than U2, but not without personel changes or serious dips in the sales of their music. U2 have a fantastic live show and have built a rock solid fan base who will follow the band's changing musical styles, so they'll likely remain near the top for a long time.

Personally, I wouldn't rank anyone higher than the Beatles (as sick of them as I am). When I grab a CD to play it would most likely be U2 over the Beatles. One thing to consider is that U2 has been around a lot longer than the Beatles. The Beatles went through so many changes in sound so quickly.

i love love love U2...but i want to make this perfectly clear:

BONO IS NO JOHN LENNON...HELL, HE'S NOT EVEN A PAUL McCARTNEY.

i'd also throw the stones, pink floyd, R.E.M., and in about 5 more years pearl jam in there...though maybe not in terms of popularity.

I think the fact that the Beatles had a Number 1 selling album in 27 countrys with no new songs, 30 years after breaking up seals the argument.

:whofart:

The Beatles are the biggest, most popular, most influential, most important, most [insert adjective] band ever. Period.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

By far, it's The Beatles.
Make no mistake, U2 is maybe the paradigm of what a rock band and the music business are meant to be, they know very well how to change in every musical tide, the Beatles, instead, were the tide, the "freaking energizer bunny" going on and on, and nobody could reach them, until they decided to stop.
The Beatles covered more musical terrain in just seven years than U2 did in the same lapse, they were influential, experimental, and successful, most of the musical sounds delved in pop and rock were invented and modified since the Beatles seed.
12 studio LPs in 7 year vs the same 12 in more than 30 years for U2 must say something.
"Destroy all the rock an pop, just give me The Beatles, the Stones and The Who, and I'll re-build all over again"

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

Excellent first post. Welcome.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

I'll never get used to seeing posts I wrote 8 years ago and had no clue I said that.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

An old thread with 33% bannage. Epic.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

Oh my. 10 responses in 8+ years? Has to be some sort of DVDtalk/bump record.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

You ever find Banned people from days of yore and click their posts to find out what they got banned for, and then get bummed when the offending posts are deleted? God I need a life...

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

I hate this. Their last post is always something like "I kinda agree with you but maybe you're wrong". They really should leave the offending posts in just for educational purposes.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

I laughed when I saw the title.

U2 is a touring machine but their music is crap. They haven't put out a thoroughly good album in decades.

And as far as laying all accolades of experimentalism on the Beatles, I'd suggest checking out Freak Out by The Mothers of Invention and of course Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys. Sgt Pepper didn't come out of a vacuum where no ideas existed beforehand.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

I think that often they are moved to the mod archive but the content is such that we don't want them remaining on public display generating further adverse comment.;)Two words: Book Talk...It is amazing how antsy some people get about their music. Things have been far better over the past few years compared to the old says of Rap & Prog, er, "jousting". That said, it may be that they were BANNED for activities outside of Music talk.Accidentally, while searching for something else I did this twice this morning and found two personal "anecdotes" that I had no recollection either of making or, before then, of experiencing!

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

The Beatles are pretty clearly the biggest rock band ever. The only artists who come close are Elvis and Sinatra. U2 -- pfft!

But are the Beatles the best band? Enh. They were a bit too poppy for my taste, until they went experimental and became too pretentious. I'll take Elvis.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

Elvis and Sinatra are singers; not bands, not songwriters, not musicians (well, Elvis played a little guitar at one time, I think). Big difference, IMO.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

The way I usually put it is that The Beatles are the biggest, most important band in rock history because, beyond their popularity, they made it possible for any style of music to be considered 'rock'. They expanded the boundaries of the genre in an almost limitless way. before The Beatles there was "rock and roll". After The Beatles there was prog-rock, art-rock, country rock, folk rock, singer songwriter rock...

I probably didn't put that eloquently but I hope everyone understands.

BTW, the corollary for lyrics is Dylan. before Dylan the only subjects for rock lyrics were teenage discontent and romance. Dylan made it possible to write about anything and still be rock and roll.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

Another thing to consider is that the Beatles have positively earned every accolade they'll ever receive, not only because those genres you mentioned got worldwide acceptance/exposure via the Beatles, but the Beatles did each and every genre that they attempted very, very well. Truly incomparable to any musical act ever, bar none.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

So, back to the comparison to U2.... rotfl

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

Well, compared to the Beatles, U2 are a buncha pikers. ;)

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

:thumbsup:

I'm not sure this quote is accurate, but I seem to remember reading that when Dylan first met the Beatles, he said to them "Man, everybody's listenin' to you, and you got nothin' to say."

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

The U2 of Boy, October, War and Unforgettable Fire is just about my favorite band ever. After that, IMO, they just sort of became a less-interesting mainstream rock band, with the normal ups and downs.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

I love No Line On the Horizon, and I think Pop has quite a few good tunes on it. But to each his own.

Re: U2 vs The Beatles vs...?
 

This.

I've been a fan of theirs since the first time I heard them (late 1980, I believe), but I enjoy very little of their later works.....some, but mostly just the hits. And, honestly, I probably wouldn't care about those tracks, either, had they not been shoved down my throat by radio play.