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

[Sweet s]

Overall I'd say GN'R (original) I think they were fantastic at their peak before all the BS started,But now I'd say U2 because they consistenly put out great music and Plus I hate the new GN'R

[Mr. Dick Purple]

woooa this is gonna take a little long, first GNR is a great rock band with a lot of history in only a few albums yet they found to creat excellent records, as for U2 they are great too but nowadays it looks like they are making the same album  over and over again and sound the same. I like U2 but the early records, specially Gloria song wich is my fave also new years day, I hope they can get back to those rock base stuff.
As for grand scheme I think GNR will be more iconic than U2 specially for what Axl has done in the last 13 years...
Oh wait yes he has done nothing but still we are talking about him arent we?

[Walk]

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.

The Beatles managed to last? That's news to me. Most fans are 60's burnouts, hippies, and emo kids. The Beatles had a few excellent songs and a lot of garbage, just like any other pop band. U2 is the same as the Beatles. They're very popular, they have some excellent songs after a few decades (enough to fill a whole album!), and albums and albums of garbage.

Hardcore 60's music fans appreciate Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Cream, The Who, Led Zeppelin, and CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL. 

As for the 80's, tons of bands (including GnR) were better than U2, which became worthless in the 90's and after. REM immediately comes to mind as a better band.

[Eduardo]

U2 is BY FAR the most important band of the 80?s, there?s no arguing in that. And they have already proved that they will stand the test of time.

GNR was a huge success but a huge burnout too... If they had continued as a band I guess they would be in the same class as Led Zeppelin, The Stones or The Beatles as far as recognition goes... But unfortunately they didn?t go on, so U2 wins this

[Gunner80]

I don't like bands that are predictable, U2 are one of these bands. It's always the same thing - every two years release a boring album, go on tour, have Rolling Stone say their saving rock, yada... yada...yada. BORING!!

[journey]

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.

Useless people? You're mean Skeletor.

I like U2. They have a lot of inspirational songs. But the thing with GN'R is, they have what most bands (even the great ones) are missing and that's variety. It's not the same old thing all the time. Use Your Illusion is a prime example of their diversity.

[Bono]

The thing alot of you are totally missing is the fact that u2 does not put out the same style of album one after another. U2 seems to move in 3 album sets.

1980-1983: Boy, October, War

1984-1989: Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua tree , Rattle and Hum

1991 - 1997: Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Pop

2000 - 2004: All That You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb

None of those eras sound anything alike. If anything the new stuff(2000-2004) which alot of people say sounds like shit is closer to their early stuff(1980-1983) which many people claim to like.

It's the classic case of people following the cliches and saying stuff like "they were good but now they suck" It's not true.? The 90's have absolutely no connection music wise to any other era in their career. In fact if Bono wasn't singing you wouldn't even know it was the same band. U2 were the biggest band in the world after Joshua Tree and R & H and yet they came back with Achtung Baby. That album completely transformed the band into something new. It was a massive risk.? In comparison Radiohead's O.K. Computer which was praised to no end for it's originality and the willingness of the band to experiment falls short of the risk U2 took. Achtung Baby is much more of a departure from Joshua Tree than O.K. Computer was from The Bends. Which album you like more is irrelevant. The fact is U2 made a massive change. The people who bitch about U2 always making the same albums and then saying the stuff in the 90's? was crap and they wish they'd go back to the same old sound they had in the 80's are total hypocrits.

supaplex: Fair enough. I did go on a little rant about stuff that has no bearing on the music. As for your comment about Gn'R being bigger than anyone durring their prime that's seriously up for debate. In Gn'R's prime I was a huge Gn'R fan and was pretty much anti U2. I also thought Gn'R were bigger than anyone in the early 90's but I have been proven somewhat wrong by many U2 fans who actually have stats to support who was the bigger draw as far as touring goes back in the 90's. It could esily be a case of the two bands being equal at that time. I? don't know all the statistics off hand but I do know now that it's not as cut and dry as you think or even I thought who was the biggest band in the world from 1990-1993.
 No doubt AFD is the greatest debute album? let alone rock? debute of all time. It's my second favorite album of all time as well. I'll give Gn'R their due. I have no reason or desire to take anything away from them. Like I said before they are the reason I'm a fan of music. But since becoming a U2 fan in the late 90's I've learned alot about them and slowly but surely I've come to realies that they are the greater of the two bands. Admitedly alot of that has to do with the lack of Gn'R material. I did after all turn to U2 only after Guns N' Roses dissapeared. having said that U2's albums seem to grow more and more on me each day so I wonder if it was inevitable that i would become  U2 fan. In comparison Gn'R's music doesn't grow on me anymore. It's got it's place and that's about it. That place is pretty high up on the pedistal though

Journey: As for Diversity I bring you back to Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. Zooropa and War, How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and The Unforgettable Fire. U2 is diverse. Each individual album may not be as diverse as the Illusion albums but they are more cohesive. No doubt Gn'R did evolve but it's not that crazy an evolution as some people make it out to be. Plus the majority of people I think will take AFD over UYI 1 & 2 any day so I wouldn't say the evolution was a good one pre say. In my opinion U2 has evolved much more than Gn'R ever did.

Skeletor: Saying that U2 apeals to useless people is pretty stupid. You do know U2 appeals to Axl Rose right? You do know that Axl admires Bono right? You do know that Axl joined U2 on stage right?

Walk:

"Hardcore 60's music fans appreciate Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Cream, The Who, Led Zeppelin, and CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL. "

That's nice. Are you insinuateing that? fans of The Beatles don't appreciate these bands as well. Are you saying that a fan of The Beatles is not a true fan of 60's music? Gimmie a break. I love CCR, and I would consider The beatles on par with Zeppelin and the Doors in terms of how much I liked them.

Eduardo: No doubt I agree with you. Had Gn'R continued on and put out at least 2 or 3 albums since the Illusion albums they may very well be in that same category as those classic bands such as Zeppelin, The Stones, The Beatles and so on. the thing is though they didn't and over time wheather anyone likes it or not U2 is starting to be mentioned with those types of bands. I don't make this shit up, it's just a fact. Guns N' Roses unfortunately aren't named along side those bands. Maybe/hopefully someday if Axl can get it going again. Who knows.

Long post In know. If some of you don't feel like reading it I understand

[Mr. Dick Purple]

1980-1983: Boy, October, War

1984-1989: Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua tree , Rattle and Hum

1991 - 1997: Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Pop

2000 - 2004: All That You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb

Agree with your era point of view and I also have to ask, Discoteque is an U2 album, right? If not I think i am mistaken. Feel free to correct me cause Im not a U2 super dooper fan  , but I like the band. The thing is Achtung and Zooropa are not alike in any other way whasoever those albums are great and are very diferent to anything they have created.
I only have my doubts in what they did with the last 2 albums both of them sound quite continiusly with the same type of music they created. Thats it!

[Bono]

1980-1983: Boy, October, War

1984-1989: Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua tree , Rattle and Hum

1991 - 1997: Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Pop

2000 - 2004: All That You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb

Agree with your era point of view and I also have to ask, Discoteque is an U2 album, right? If not I think i am mistaken. Feel free to correct me cause Im not a U2 super dooper fan? , but I like the band. The thing is Achtung and Zooropa are not alike in any other way whasoever those albums are great and are very diferent to anything they have created.
I only have my doubts in what they did with the last 2 albums both of them sound quite continiusly with the same type of music they created. Thats it!

Mr. Dick Purple Discotheque was the lead single off the POP album. That album was criticized pretty unfairly in my opinion. I'm not saying it's my favorite U2 album or that it's one of their stronger efforts but it's pretty good. Definatlye not they'r worst album like alot of people seem to think.

As for the last two albums I don't really see the comparison. I love HTDAAB and I like ATYCLB but to me it's down the list of my favorite U2 albums. Atomic Bomb ranks second and ATYCLB probably down aroudn 8-11 or so. I guess the style is similar but I feel one came off much better than the other. To each their own.

[SOLGER]

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.

 

statistics...is that what your heart is all about? I bet Micheal Jackson has more concert attendance statistics to concerts..than both bands...you are a fuckin hanger on..thats what you are Annie...You dont feel the music. You are pathertic.

[Bono]

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.

 

statistics...is that what your heart is all about? I bet Micheal Jackson has more concert attendance statistics to concerts..than both bands...you are a fuckin hanger on..thats what you are Annie...You dont feel the music. You are pathertic.

Terrible comeback. My comment was based on who was the bigger band of the time. Give your head a shake and try and keep up here. I know it's hard but give it a shot. And I highly doubt Michael Jackson had higher concert attendace than U2. I don't know but I really doubt it. Oh and just for future refrence SOLGER try and quote the person you're directing the comment towards you fool.

[Axls Locomotive]

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.

i doubt you could really appreciate the impact that gnr or u2 did have in the 1980s since you werent around then ...and since there are probably many gnr fans here that are mothers and in their 30's your description of a typical u2 fan falls flat on its face...

as much as you think gnr will stand the test of time more than u2, please note that axls comeback tour was far from sold out or successful...u2's british gigs sold out in less than a couple of hours last year...u2 are more in the people's psyche than gnr will ever be...

sometimes you just have to be honest as to where gnr and other bands are placed in the big picture instead of trying to think who is the best band...

[mrlee]

early U2 doesnt even sound like rock, its rather weird.

[Skeletor]

OK, maybe "useless people" was a bit rough choice of words What I meant was, U2 seems to appeal a lot to people who aren't huge music fans, but buy one CD maybe once every two months and go pick up something "safe" like U2 or Coldplay. I just find the music (and the band as well) so incredibly bland and stale that comparing it to something quite the opposite, namely GNR, always gets a reaction of some sort.

[Bono]

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.

i doubt you could really appreciate the impact that gnr or u2 did have in the 1980s since you werent around then ...and since there are probably many gnr fans here that are mothers and in their 30's your description of a typical u2 fan falls flat on its face...

as much as you think gnr will stand the test of time more than u2, please note that axls comeback tour was far from sold out or successful...u2's british gigs sold out in less than a couple of hours last year...u2 are more in the people's psyche than gnr will ever be...

sometimes you just have to be honest as to where gnr and other bands are placed in the big picture instead of trying to think who is the best band...

That's exactly the point I'm getting at Q. It's not about who you like more because that's irrelevant to how a band will go down in history. It makes all the difference to the individual but I mean I could sit here and say the Gandharvas are the greatest band who ever lived. To me it could be true but in the grand scheme of things definately not. I love Guns N' Roses and I think they are one of the greatest bands of all time but I'm not so naive to sit here and think they will be remembered as being better than Led Zeppelin. I mean for anyone saying Guns N' Roses's music will stand the test of time that's great but really they have only 3 truely classic songs that are etched in history of rock. Jungle, PC ad SCOM. And stop right there before anyone says what about November Rain? Well what about it? Seriously it's not classic the way the songs off AFD are. ?U2 on the other hand has too many to list but I'll try quickly off the top of my head: New Year's Day, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride, Where the Streets Have no Name, With or Without You, ?Desire, One, Mysterious Ways, Beautiful Day. I know radio means jack alot of the time but there are alot of classic bands who have remained relevant on radio for a reason. It's becasue they are good. Bands that aren't good don't remain relevant as mainstays on radio. the Stones, Zeppelin, The Beatles, AC/DC these bands are classic and U2 is getting up there in that area. Guns unfortunately has only 3 true mainstays songs on radio. Like Q said just be honest with yourself where these two bands will rank in the big picture. It doesn't make you any less of a fan to admit that u2 will rank higher than guns N' Roses. It just makes you honest and shows you can look at things objectively.

[Bono]

OK, maybe "useless people" was a bit rough choice of words What I meant was, U2 seems to appeal a lot to people who aren't huge music fans, but buy one CD maybe once every two months and go pick up something "safe" like U2 or Coldplay. I just find the music (and the band as well) so incredibly bland and stale that comparing it to something quite the opposite, namely GNR, always gets a reaction of some sort.

Again c'mon. I'm a huge music fan. Rangeing from U2 - Gn'R - NIN - Soul Asylum - Neil Young - The Pixies - Snow Patrol - Oasis - Radiohead - The Cure - Pearl Jam - Moist - Motley Crue - the Killers - Massive Attack - Morcheeba etc. etc. I own over 600 personal cd's and also another 700 or so discs for djing. I collect vinyl as well. You sound like you judgeing U2 fans based on the amount of air time they get on the radio. Trust me U2 fans are just as knowledgeable about music as any other fan out there.  I'm sure alot of people who aren't true music fans do pick up U2 albums but that's because they have a track record of being pretty good. You could also say that the Guns N' Roses greatest Hits has sold so well beacause alot of non true music fans are still buying the album solely for the hits which they hear on radio.

[Axls Locomotive]

OK, maybe "useless people" was a bit rough choice of words What I meant was, U2 seems to appeal a lot to people who aren't huge music fans,

how do you define "huge music fan"?

its just a different taste in music...look at it this way...if you really are a huge fan of music, why be so negative about u2?

[Walk]

U2 is BY FAR the most important band of the 80?s, there?s no arguing in that. And they have already proved that they will stand the test of time.

Iron Maiden is the 80's most important band because they represented the peak of the NWOBHM and were instrumental in creating modern power metal. Helloween just watered down what Iron Maiden did in the 80's. They had 7 classic albums and some of the greatest live shows of all time. Iron Maiden's influence alone makes them the 80's most important band. Throw in musical prowess and they're obviously on top. 

Bathory would be the 80's second most important band for creating the modern black metal (and viking metal!) sound. Slayer still had NWOBHM and hardcore influences, and death metal wasn't really good until the early 90's, so one really has to hand it to Bathory for creating credible black metal so early in history. Hellhammer was Sabbath with screams and Venom was Motorhead with demons, but Bathory was a new beast.

U2 is Beatles derivative pop rock with a few minor aesthetics changes, which is what defines most pop music. Like most rock stars, they're full of their ego and they lack compositional skills. Pop is acceptable when its simple if the few notes stand strong together. U2 can't play complex music or compose good, simple music. They have a very accessible image, though, and that's what rock is all about now, hence the popularity. All it takes is some greasy hair, sunglasses, black clothes, and sympathy for 3rd world hell holes, and one becomes a rock star! 

how do you define "huge music fan"?

its just a different taste in music...look at it this way...if you really are a huge fan of music, why be so negative about u2?

I agree with him, so I'll fill in my opinion. Huge fans of music recognize the fact that there are too many centuries and genres of excellent music out there, and not enough time to listen to it all. Time spent listening to U2 could be spent listening to Bela Bartok, Bathory, or Brahms. Huge music fans also want to find new music instead of derivative music. U2 is too similar to other bands to warrant a listening.

Young, impressionable music fans are brainwashed by the hype of U2 and other medicre bands. Think of all the classical and black metal music we won't get because so many people have become slaves to bad, popular music.

as much as you think gnr will stand the test of time more than u2, please note that axls comeback tour was far from sold out or successful...u2's british gigs sold out in less than a couple of hours last year...u2 are more in the people's psyche than gnr will ever be...

They have media attention because they're white rich guys who want to help the 3rd world. That's it. Axl didn't sell out, but people still listen to songs like Paradise City and Rocket Queen because they're great songs. Let's see how much people care about U2 after they break up like GnR did. That's a more accurate test of popularity: how much will people remember when the media stops showing them after a while?

Plus, popularity means absolutely nothing.

Again c'mon. I'm a huge music fan.  Trust me U2 fans are just as knowledgeable about music as any other fan out there. 

Any other *what* fan out there? You probably mean pop fan. There is no way an average U2 fan knows as much about music as a classical, jazz, blues, old school country, black metal, prog rock, or electronic music fan. U2 fans are usually very shallow. U2 fans with a knowledge of good music are usually fans of the few decent U2 songs. Since you're into DJing, I recommend making a mix of all the good U2 songs on a single disc so you can get your fix. Trust me, it's very possible to get them all in 80 minutes. That way, you won't waste so much time going through the waste of time songs.

Finally, keep in mind that no matter how much the average U2 fan might know, the MEDIAN fan will be much worse. 

[WhosGilby?]

I didn;t read all of it because I have no attetion span but Im assuming you wanna who's better. I'll defintley say Guns N Roses, not anything against U2 I just never really liked them

[journey]

Journey: As for Diversity I bring you back to Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. Zooropa and War, How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and The Unforgettable Fire. U2 is diverse. Each individual album may not be as diverse as the Illusion albums but they are more cohesive. No doubt Gn'R did evolve but it's not that crazy an evolution as some people make it out to be. Plus the majority of people I think will take AFD over UYI 1 & 2 any day so I wouldn't say the evolution was a good one pre say. In my opinion U2 has evolved much more than Gn'R ever did.

Like I said, I do love U2 and respect their music a great deal. Angel Of Harlem and Pride (In the Name of Love) are two of my all-time favorite songs. It just seems like in the past few years their material is similar in style. That's not a bad thing, it's just refreshing to hear a balanced mixture of emotion and sound. But in the end it's subjective. Everybody hears it differently.