Are you seriously comparing the Beatles to U2? Give me a break, how have Bono and his mates changed or even influenced music As to Irish Beatles, I think you'll find that both Paul McCartney and John Lenon are of Irish decent
That's hilarious, I've just fallen off my stool..I'll bet you think Morrissey is better than the Rolling Stones too eh?
Me too Malc, never really a Beatles fan, more a Stones person. What is Morrisey ??????? did'nt they make a pretty poor type of family car???
I'm a total Stones fan, I think Mick and the boys are the greatest band the world has known, I've never been a big fan of the Beatles But that doesn't blind me to the fact that Bono and his boys are nothing in comparison to the Beatles
The Beatles OVERRATED!? I can't believe I am hearing this...on the UK section of this forum none the less! The Beatles are one of the VERY few things that 100% deserves to be #1. I dont think any band ever in the history -or- future of music can compare.
It might be an age thing. If you're not over 60 you won't have experienced and will therefore be unlikely to understand the impact the Beatles had and how they were at the forefront of massive change, something that has not happened again since. Their music is still played regularly 40 years on, which I'd bet against happening in the case of U2 and most, if not all, musicians of the last 20 - 30 years.
I concur, but I assure you there are younger fans of The Beatles. Hell, I am 23 and have them on vinyl! My friends- all big fans too.
its really funny- I saw the thread and the first thing that popped in my mind was-than they would be U2. It seems that someone has beaten me to the punch. As I write this though-I recently saw U2 in DC and......they actually (U2) rank as one of the worst acts I have ever seen! Don't know if it was the cold but.....BONO sounded awful. Having seen Sir Paul in concert-he was fantastic and on key during the entire concert.
I have to agree-His new disk is a bit on the ......I'm Morrissey listen to me , but... the stones-they go out on tour and simply perpetuate a caricature of themselves.
used to always listened to the beatles when i'm in my dad's car, that's when i was 7...loved them ever since...now i'm 27 co'mon guys...they have fans that screams so loud that they can't even hear their own voice when they perform...
It's not in my case, I'm 38. Huge fan of most things from the '60ies, Ferraris included. Maybe I'm an old soul... The Beatles, the Stones and U2 are all mammoths on the popular music scene. But the Beatles are by far the ones that have shown the most growth during their short career. They went from pop ditties and sometimes even plain stupid songs (Obladioblada anyone?) to complex albums with orchestration, ground breaking sound effects and multi-track recording, and original ideas that no-one had even tried before. The Stones have never ventured far out of their comfort zone. U2 is somewhere in between. All three have produced icons of albums (Joshua Tree, Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street and many more). I like all three bands but even if you don't, as far as originality is concerned you have to give the Beatles fair due, particularly if you look at the 1967 - 1970 era which to me is far more interesting than the songs before. Onno
Yeah +1, the Beatles are overrated. With a catalogue as large as theirs there will always be something to like, I think they did make some great music, but not all of it, the majority of there stuff is just tiresome. But for really, truly overrated it has to be Lennon. I know he was a product of his time and all that but christ he was such a knob, always dripping on about some ****e or other! I'd take Mcartney any day.
Absolutely, I just cannot figure the Lennon thing out. Jazzo's comments make some sense, but I would argue that the Stones had a "style" and follow that style, live they are amazing, even now they manage to raise massive audiences to their gigs, that alone must say something.
Whether or not you like the Beatles' music is a matter of taste but the impact they had on popular music is a matter of record (pun unintended!). As someone else has posted they were innovative and original and a lot of what followed was inspired by them. I recently came across a Rolling Stone Magazine list of the 500 best songs ever; nearly a quarter of the top 30 were Beatles (or Lennon) songs, U2 didn't have a single song in the top 30. As I said, a matter of taste - but interesting.