Guns N' Roses vs U2 in the grand scheme of things.

[Bono]

O.k. I'll start out by saying I love Guns N' Roses. they are the reason I got into music in the first place. They were my? favorite band at one point but obviously that has changed.? Now I realies that this is a stupid debate to have here on a Guns N' Roses freindly site but I was challegned to do it by a goof named SOLGER who feels U2 and their fans are straight up pussys. He also feels that U2 will be forgotten in a few years and that their type of music(pussy/pop rock) doesn't last.?I guess he figured I was too affraid to ask the question so in an attempt to prove my manhood ... here's what I want to know. In all honesty which band will go down in history as the better band? Not who you like better but who will be remembered for more.? A band that shone extremely brightly for 5 or so years and then burnt right out, or a band who has a legacy lasting over 25 years. A band who had numerous lineup changes over the years or a band that has kept the same lineup with no changes for over 25 yeasr. A band who when trying to evolve disintegrated and has taken 10 years to evolve or a band who has been able to remain relevant while at the same time reinvent them selves not once, not twice, but three times. A band who bitches and fights in and out of court with each other whining about who gets how much money and who owns the rights to this or a band who are truely best freinds and instead of fighting over royalties actually makes a difference in the humanitarian aspect of the world. A band who had a singer insite riots by not showing up or walking off stage in a temper tantrum or a band who 26 years into their career are as good live now as ever and possibly the best live band in the world. Guns N' Roses are deadly and I love them but there is no way if I'm being honest that when all is said and done they will be looked upon in music history in the same league as U2. Sure it's relative to the listener but to really gage this we gotta look at the masses. It's like The Beatles. Widely regarded as the best band of all time. Are they to me? No. Would I argue with the notion that they are? Probably not. It's a valid arguement. I don't belive there sia? vaid arguement to be made that gusn N' Roses will be regarded as better than U2 when peple look back at it. Anyways long rant but what I'm getting at is in my opinion outside the walls of these Guns N' Roses forums the popular opinion of music fans would be that U2 is and will be considered the better band of the two now and in the long haul. Your thoughts.

Also because I am such a? pussy according to SOLGER I have to add this tidbit. He called U2 pussy/pop rock and that type of music doesn't last.? I responded by saying "Funny how the Beatles managed to last"? I made that comment beacause in my opinion the music genre not style of the Beatles and U2 are compareable. Not heavy rock but more melodic/pop rock.

[SOLGER]

Our asses occupies an emotional terrain that didn't exist before our band"
-Bono-


that says it all.....

[Bono]

Our asses occupies an emotional terrain that didn't exist before our band"
-Bono-


that says it all.....

Just as I thought. You got nothing intelligent to add. Now shut the fuck up because you're boring the hell out of me.

[Timothy]

I love both band .But right now there is no comparision .

Guns N'Roses aren't in the same league as U2.The only band that is would be The Rolling stones.


While AXL has been working one one album that still hasn't even came out and went on a failed tour .U2 have put out several stong fucking albums .And toured like a motherfucker with huge succes.

[Genesis]

Guns N' Roses. (I'm biased)

[Bono]

I love both band .But right now there is no comparision .

Guns N'Roses aren't in the same league as U2.The only band that is would be The Rolling stones.


While AXL has been working one one album that still hasn't even came out and went on a failed tour .U2 have put out several stong fucking albums .And toured like a motherfucker with huge succes.

I'd agree with you to a point with the Stones comparison Timothy. The Stones are nearly as big a draw as U2 are as a touring act and possibley a bigger draw. It'd be interesting to see if U2 fans would shell out the same amount of cash for tickets as Stones fans do. U2 is though the biggest requested ticket accoring to ticketmaster, just ahead of The Rolling Stones and The New England Patriots(weird I know). the thing where U2 seperates themselves form the Stones right now is albums. Yes ?A Bigger Bang was a great album but the Stones can't move albums the way U2 still can. ?

Guns N' Roses. (I'm biased)

-Genesis-
  That's alright. I expect most people here to be biased so it's all good.

[Bono]

Just to let everyone know how much of a man SOLGER is. When he laughed that U2 has postponed the remainder of their tour I told him it's because The Edge's daughter has luekemia. he rsponded with a mock? Classy guy. I see he still has nothing to add to this debate.?

[Timothy]

Just to let everyone know how much of a man SOLGER is. When he laughed that U2 has postponed the remainder of their tour I told him it's because The Edge's daughter has luekemia. he rsponded with a mock  Classy guy. I see he still has nothing to add to this debate. 

Now that is fucked up


Bono I agree Album sales wise U2 on the stones .

[WeHeldTogether]

U2 are totally full of themselves.

i read in the newspaper that they said "we're pretty much the best band out there" in their grammy acceptance speech.

okay music, though.   

[SOLGER]

"U2 is not a rock band..it is a folk band" - BONO- 2006 GRAMMYS 

[Bono]

Did anyone else hear that? It almost sounded like somone was trying to form an opinion of their own but instead they just took a quote out of context and tried to pass it off as their opinion. I'm trying to figure out the relevance of the quote to this topic. Am I to assume that a band other than a rock band(not to say U2 isn't a rock band) could? not possibley be good. Interesting stuff. I wonder where that puts bands like Radiohead, Bob Dylan, Sigur Ros, The Cure..are they rock? I'm confused now as to what equates to good music.? You post SOLGER has no point. Feel free to try again though.

[RichardNixon]

Why don't we just nail Bono to the cross now and be done with it?

GN'R all the way. I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing about U2.

[Bono]

Why don't we just nail Bono to the cross now and be done with it?

GN'R all the way. I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing about U2.

that's your honest opinion as to who music historians and music fans will look back at and see as the better of the two bands or it's just who you like better? Fair enough either way. But keep this in mind, why are you so sick of hearing about U2? Is it because they get alot of attention and press and have alot of fans and continue to sell crap loads of albums and are consistently the top touring draw? Probably. And why is that?.........Exactly because love'em or hate'em THEY ARE fucking good.  And it was never Bono who put this jesus complex upon himself. It was people like you who for some reason hate on someone for truely making a positive impact. 

[BLS-Pride]

Eh. I feel U2 is just to soft for me. Not just music wise, but lyric wise. I dislike politics being pushed in songs and shit like that. I'd take the Stones over U2 anyday and the same goes for GnR. Comparing the two bands is rough.. GnR is a hard rock act and US is a rock pop like act. Not to mention U2 has a shit load of more material out there and has been going strong for a long time(props to them for that).

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

In rock history, GNR most definitely, but in the grand scheme of things, if Axl doesn't get off his ass, U2.  JUST my 2 cents

[D]

Ive never understood the U2 obsession people have.

I find them to be overrated and fucking BORING AS HELL!!!!!!!!!


Id rather listen to Britney Spears to be honest.

[Skeletor]

He called U2 pussy/pop rock and that type of music doesn't last.

He was right with the first comment, but wrong with the latter one. Of course that type of music lasts, it appeals to so many useless people. Not that it neccessarily means the music is worthy of merit, but still. It's popular shit.

Anyway, U2 has been more constant over the years, but Guns N' Roses did manage to become an icon during their heyday. So I really can't decide which one I'd pick.

[supaplex]

@bono: when u went on your little rant u made refference to the things gnr and the members of gnr do offstage. we should not forget that the millions of people that loved gnr loved them for the music. it didn't matter that axl incited riots, it didn't matter that they fight in a lawsuit that nobody besides the gnr fan base cares about. when they went big they went really really big. let's not forget that appetite is still the best rock debut of all times. i don't hink that we should forget about that. yes they were here for a short period but when they were here they were above all. we should at least give them that.
on the other hand they play different kinds of rock. u2 is leaning twords brit-rock, melodic stuff and gnr starded as a rock n' roll band. the hard rock and party attitude in their afd songs got them big. i know that sweet child, which is a ballad, opend up a lot of doors, but even scom is not a ballad per-say. and as far as the songs go i think gnr have had in 3 albums a lot of songs that i will remember over time, as for u2 i can't say that. of course i will remember one, sunday bloody sunday, where the streets have no name and a few more. but i cannot compare them to scom paradise city, welcome to the jungle, don't cry, november rain etc etc. which is probably why i am on a gnr message board and not on a u2 one.
i'm not saying that u2 is not one of the greatest bands the world will ever see, they did and still do wonderful things music related or not (bono and his activities), but i will consider that gnr were bigger and will be bigger than them. this is just my oppinion and probably there are a lot of people that don't think so but that's what i think.

[estranged88]

U2 have never made a song that i felt like listening to more that 3 times

Maybe when, in another life, i become a 34 year old mother of three, i will want to listen to U2 at the grocery store.   But in my opinon, Guns n' Roses always have made better music, and therefore will stand the test of time better than U2.

[axl_rose_700]

I don't like U2, they do nothing for me, obviously I prefer Guns n Roses but in terms of how big they around about now I've gotta say U2, not for long tho!