Beatles Vs. U2 THE GRUDGE MATCH

[burk48237]

I'm just kidding about a grudge match. But I think these two bands are very similar in a lot of ways. Both are four piece, both made fame while they were still learning to play. Both of them have excellent songwriting, ground breaking production values. Neither of them are known for exceptional "solo" instrumentation. You can argue that both the Edge and Paul were very influential on the sounds and styles of those that played their instruments. Both of them had good longevity that spanned several changes in pop music yet both remained at the top of the pop music game. Here's the poll question:

Which Band will go down in History as having a greater influence on Pop music?

[musicman5string]

This is for sure the wrong message board for a topic like this; I'm probably the only U2 fan even on here.
That being said, to answer your question: The Beatles, of course. Who else possibly would match their influence? Answer: Nobody. Ever.
I love both bands, but come on. U2 has their own thing which has influenced alot of bands, but The Beatles influenced every genre of music for the last 40 years, and invented a large chunk of it.
imo, this topic just isn't fair.

[SBassman]

I love U2, but this is really no contest.

[PinkTelephone]

the beatles. no contest.

[Peter Squire]

IMHO, the reason that the Beatles will win this one is that when the Beatles hit it big, there hadn't been much like it to go before them. Elvis, yeah, some of the other teen pop idols, sure.

The thing that made the Beatles so important and different was that they worked out how to keep their enormous audience after the hysteria of pop idolatry. They grew with their audience, challenged pop writing methods, developed new recording style and techniques and influenced mass-culture in a way that U2 really haven't.

U2 suffer from being in a mass media generation, where the sheer diversity of musical influence and taste cannot be attributed to one band or artist alone.

[Jazzin']

I'm a loyal U2 fan, so I must vote for them.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Peter Squire

IMHO, the reason that the Beatles will win this one is that when the Beatles hit it big, there hadn't been much like it to go before them. Elvis, yeah, some of the other teen pop idols, sure.

The thing that made the Beatles so important and different was that they worked out how to keep their enormous audience after the hysteria of pop idolatry. They grew with their audience, challenged pop writing methods, developed new recording style and techniques and influenced mass-culture in a way that U2 really haven't.

U2 suffer from being in a mass media generation, where the sheer diversity of musical influence and taste cannot be attributed to one band or artist alone.

In a way this is a good argument for U2. They have stayed on top for a longer period time in what can be argued was a more competative enviorment. How many other bands or for that matter solo artist are still forces in pop music? Perhaps Prince (although he's been sporadic lately) and Madonna. I voted for the Beatles too by the way. But it is an interesting comparison.

[Blackbird]

Folks, Joke threads go in OT.

[Peter Squire]

Originally Posted by burk48237

In a way this is a good argument for U2. They have stayed on top for a longer period time in what can be argued was a more competative enviorment. How many other bands or for that matter solo artist are still forces in pop music? Perhaps Prince (although he's been sporadic lately) and Madonna. I voted for the Beatles too by the way. But it is an interesting comparison.

You make excellent points, there, Burk. It could also be argued that it was the Beatles who created the avenues for that more competetive environment that you speak of, for better or worse.

It's really a moot point thread, though, isn't it?

[d8g3jdh]

Originally Posted by Blackbird

Folks, Joke threads go in OT.

And the game is over.

[Mole]

Oh, bah, I'm tired and didn't read the poll correctly. I thought it was who I liked more so I chose U2. But yeah, I think The Beatles for sure.

[JimK]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I'm just kidding about a grudge match. But I think these two bands are very similar in a lot of ways. Both are four piece, both made fame while they were still learning to play.

Hey, at least The Beatles could learn & play covers(which was a huge requirement since nobody was really writing their own stuff back then...there's another point for The Beatles).


U2, BTW, is a 3-piece with a singer.


FWIW, my vote would go-
1-The Beatles
2-The Monkees
3-U2

...I forget how many times Davey Jones placed "Top-5" in the annual Downbeat Critics' Poll for Misc. Percussion!

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by SBassman

I love U2, but this is really no contest.

My exact thoughts as I was scrolling down this thread!

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Blackbird

Folks, Joke threads go in OT.

Oh, wow!

Beatles seem to be just shading it at the moment, with 8 times the number of votes.

[john turner]

music related means misc.[bg]

[john turner]

Originally Posted by Blackbird

Folks, Joke threads go in OT.

looks like a serious music related issue to me.

[cheezewiz]

I don't see how there can be any sort of discussion on this. The only POSSIBLE way to vote for anyone other than the Beatles is if you are an avowed Beatles hater. One band revolutionized pop music and recording. One is a decent pop band.

[cb56]

Let me see...
Beatles: Great songwriting, Great singing ability, they could all play their instruments....
U2: Boring songwriting, whining vocals, admit they can't play their instruments....
Tough call....

[Mojo-Man]

Originally Posted by SBassman

I love U2, but this is really no contest.

+1

[dougjwray]

The Beatles.
They were the Big Bang, and U2 is one of the planets that has subsequently emerged.