U2 or Beatles???

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Man, I cant STAND the Beatles. Just never got into there music.
U2 & INXS = Teh fvcking r0x0rs!!
 

Platypus

Lifer
Apr 26, 2001
31,046
321
136
Wow.. I cannot believe you put the horrible overhyped trash that is U2 up against the Beatles..
 

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Wow.. I cannot believe you put the horrible overhyped trash that is U2 up against the Beatles..

Without a doubt, and any day. The "new" U2 isnt shyte compared to the old U2. Even I dont find the new U2 much to my liking on most of there songs. But damn, get some Rattle and Hum or Joshua Tree. Or INXS X. THATS good music. Far, FAR better then the Beatles IMO. I definately respect the Beatles, they had a HUGE influence on music. But, for some reason i just cant get into it.
 

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Originally posted by: PipBoy
If you say that INXS is better than the Beatles one more time I will hit you with a stick.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS COMIN OUTTA MY KEYBOARD???

I said to me. I'm fully aware of both the contributions to music and the popularity of The Beatles. But (heres the magic words again) to me The Beatles....Well.....Suck.
 

Platypus

Lifer
Apr 26, 2001
31,046
321
136
The Beatles changed the way music is today. Sorry U2's 'the edge' and his lame and overused delay pedal (lack of writing skill for a decent lick) get really fvcking annoying and tired. I don't find their music revolutionary in any way. The Beatles on the other hand wrote so many good songs it's impossible to count.
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Originally posted by: PipBoy
If you say that INXS is better than the Beatles one more time I will hit you with a stick.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS COMIN OUTTA MY KEYBOARD???

I said to me. I'm fully aware of both the contributions to music and the popularity of The Beatles. But (heres the magic words again) to me The Beatles....Well.....Suck.

Oh I understand what you're saying, what I'm saying is that it's unacceptable for anyone to prefer INXS to the Beatles. *brandishes large tree limb*
 

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
To answer the original question, I believe the Beatles had more #1 hits. I know the Beatles had more album sales BY FAR. If what I'm lookin at is correct...
U2 - Joshua Tree was U2's best selling album with 10 million copies

The Beatles - The Beatles was the best selling album with 19 million copies.
The Beatles - The Beatles 1967-1970 sold 16 million
The Beatles - The Beatles 1962 - 1966 sold 15 million
The Beatles - Abbey Road sold 12 million
The Beatles - Sgt Peppers sold 11 million

Chances are, The Beatles top selling album has sold more albums then all the U2 CD's combined. I dont know if thats worldwide stats or just for a local region though.
Stats from here
 

pyonir

Lifer
Dec 18, 2001
40,856
321
126
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
The Beatles changed the way music is today. Sorry U2's 'the edge' and his lame and overused delay pedal (lack of writing skill for a decent lick) get really fvcking annoying and tired. I don't find their music revolutionary in any way. The Beatles on the other hand wrote so many good songs it's impossible to count.

because the beatles revolutionized music, doesn't mean I have to like them.
 

Platypus

Lifer
Apr 26, 2001
31,046
321
136
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
The Beatles changed the way music is today. Sorry U2's 'the edge' and his lame and overused delay pedal (lack of writing skill for a decent lick) get really fvcking annoying and tired. I don't find their music revolutionary in any way. The Beatles on the other hand wrote so many good songs it's impossible to count.

because the beatles revolutionized music, doesn't mean I have to like them.

I didn't say you had to at all, I just am explaining why U2 is no comparison to them.
 

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Some say ELO were WAY ahead of there time too. Agree as you see fit.
Most agree Elvis make a huge contribution as well. Sure as hell wont find any Elvis CD's in my collection, no matter WHAT he did for music.

And you guys are just mad cause U2 pwns j00!! :D
 

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Originally posted by: pyonir
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
The Beatles changed the way music is today. Sorry U2's 'the edge' and his lame and overused delay pedal (lack of writing skill for a decent lick) get really fvcking annoying and tired. I don't find their music revolutionary in any way. The Beatles on the other hand wrote so many good songs it's impossible to count.

because the beatles revolutionized music, doesn't mean I have to like them.

I didn't say you had to at all, I just am explaining why U2 is no comparison to them.

Original question
"which do u like better and why?"
Not
"Which was more revolutionary to music"

Obviously, I would say The Beatles if the latter was the original posters question.
 

pyonir

Lifer
Dec 18, 2001
40,856
321
126
I gotcha CR. I guess i didn't think of this thread as a comparison of the two bands...more of a 'who do you like better?'
 

Platypus

Lifer
Apr 26, 2001
31,046
321
136
Originally posted by: pyonir
I gotcha CR. I guess i didn't think of this thread as a comparison of the two bands...more of a 'who do you like better?'

Ah, yeah I kind of relate that if you are comparing two bands, I would look at the overall which is better and why. I used to be really into the Beatles, not so much anymore, but I just get tired of how much U2 gets so much attention for not that great of a band, at any rate music is totally subjective so it doesn't even matter because the point is null :)
 

Isla

Elite member
Sep 12, 2000
7,749
2
0
Apples to Oranges.

Beatles = the best pop ever made

U2 = '80's New Wave, then modern rock...


They are 2 of my favorite bands, but I enjoy them in completely different ways.