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

[Skeletor]

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 realize what I said was a bit of a double-edged sword, being a U2 fan most definitely doesn't outright signify you couldn't be passionate about music. With so many records sold, you're bound to have a wide fanbase. But generally speaking, generalizing, that's kind of what I've personally observed about U2 fans. I could be wrong, though. I guess what it all comes down to is that I can't see or hear the greatness of U2, so my point of view naturally tends to slide down to the negative side.

[Axls Locomotive]

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.

ok, so how does brahms or any other centuries old classical composer fit in with todays society?...that kind of music does fit at all with my or anyone else's emotions...it has no relevance and no connections...how can that appeal to anyone?....and besides it has been superceded over and over again by todays composers that appeal to emotional states

i could give you a dozen instances of why u2 appeals to me and has affected my life...and the same could be said of gnr...if you want to listen to brahms because its mathematically perfect or whatever then thats up to you...

im sorry but not all popular music is bad...up until the 80's pop music was great overall before the repetitive commercial music loving generation took hold in the 90's...i can understand why people dont like pop music as much as they did...pop music is fun...to me this is the equivalent of watching documentaries and frowning upon dramas and comedies...

btw gnr have sold how many albums? 90 million worldwide? so they are also a popular band arent they? you are here on a gnr forum arent you? pot kettle black

if the unpopular bands you listen to were more relevant in todays world then they would be more popular, wouldnt they?...popularity works hand in hand with relevancy...

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.

no you have that wrong, anonymity means nothing...bands are popular for a reason and its not just commercial

U2 made it with a lot of hard work in the early years, they didnt become popular because they were created to be popular...not with songs like sunday bloody sunday, success never came immediately

whats wrong with trying to help the third world?...if selling out means helping others then let me have some more of it...debts have been cancelled by many countries...thats more meaningful than listening to a dead end band with 100 other people thinking that they are superior...that means nothing to me

you underestimate U2's popularity...and you give a pro-popularity argument for gnr...quite amusing for someone who doesnt care about popularity


their last few albums have certainly shown a decrease in quality...but if you love listening to the music , who cares what anyone else says?

[Mr. Dick Purple]

So to sum up you'd say in gran scheme U2 have done more to the world than GNR?

[Axls Locomotive]

So to sum up you'd say in gran scheme U2 have done more to the world than GNR?

ok ask yourself this question...what has axl done in the last 12 years?

hell im not even that big a fan of U2, for personal reasons i have more cause that most people to not like them than to like them ...its just how i see it

you can compare them til you are blue in the face...you can dissect the band to the smallest component... threads like these are more about ego and arrogance than anything else

[Mr. Dick Purple]

I know that, but you havent answerd my question, is a simple yes or no answer 

[Axls Locomotive]

I know that, but you havent answerd my question, is a simple yes or no answer 

maybe

[Mr. Dick Purple]

I know that, but you havent answerd my question, is a simple yes or no answer 

maybe

  fair enough

[Eduardo]

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!!

yeah, you?re right... The excitment is in waiting for an album for more than a decade, having riots in shows, having the tour cancelled

[Eduardo]

 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.

So you?re saying good music is complex music? What are you doing in a GNR board anyway? GNR music is preety simple as far as I?m concerned, and so is 90% of Rock music. Go to a Classical Music board instead, or a Dream Theater one

[Eduardo]

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.

Don?t generalize, I?m a HUGE U2 fan and I do know and like other types of music

[Mr. Dick Purple]

So you?re saying good music is complex music? What are you doing in a GNR board anyway? GNR music is preety simple as far as I?m concerned, and so is 90% of Rock music. Go to a Classical Music board instead, or a Dream Theater one

Good one     

You are right rock is not that complx but what I think Walk is trying to say is that U2 is too standard and easy to follow than a GNR type of music, cause as you know it needs time to try to understand the music, meaning and follow its trend 
Hey that's how I got it 

[Eduardo]

Good one     

You are right rock is not that complx but what I think Walk is trying to say is that U2 is too standard and easy to follow than a GNR type of music, cause as you know it needs time to try to understand the music, meaning and follow its trend 
Hey that's how I got it 

hehehe I don?t like Dream Theater at all, but respect them.. They are AWESOME players

And I understand his argument, usually the best music is the one that takes a few listens to enjoy. And I?m saying U2 IS that kind of band, if you listen to their back catalogue you?ll find out that they?re not a "easy to listen to" band as Walk?s saying.

[Bono]

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.?

Unbelievable. This almost doesn't even warrent a response. You're basically saying your opinion on music is the be all end all when it comes to quality. Iron Maiden is most definately not the most important band of the 80's. It'd even be up for debate wheather or not they were the most important metal band of the 80's. Basically what I'm getting from you is that you like a certain genre of music and that's about it. Anything outside that genre is contrived bullshit to you. And the comments you made about classical music I find very hard to take serious. Are we to believe that you have a passion for classical music. I don't think so. Q responded to that pretty effectively so I'll just leave it at that. Oh and as for fitting all U2's good songs onto one 80 minute disc, sorry bud but that's impossible. Give me 4 80 minute discs and I might be able to put something together. Hell you can't even put the songs U2 might play on any given night? onto two 80 minute discs.? You obvioulsy know nothing about U2 as like Q already mentioned they worked hard to gain their popularity. There was no agenda from the media or the music buisiness to push these guys. These guys were a live phenomenon well before they even had a number one album in the States. They were selling out arenas in the United States well before The Joshua Tree(their break out album) even came out. And the comparison you made between helping the 3rd world countries and selling out is disgusting. And as for Axl not selling out well NEWS FLASH? Axl hasn't done anything at all. If anything he sold out his bandmates years ago. And I'm sorry to say this but you're a fool for suggesting that U2 fans don't know as much about music as a jazz fan, a black metal fan, a prog rock fan or whatever. It's laughable.  All you're saying is that U2 fans are a slave to modern media hype and they know jack shit about music. WRONG.  Get off your highhosre man and give you head a shake. 

[Bono]

Oh and Walk U2 will be long remebered if they were to ever break up. Problem is that will NEVER happen. You seem to forget that U2's fan base is cross gender, defies the generation gaps, and has no racial boundaries. I'm serious. You go to a U2 show and you'll see every single type of person from every walk of life.  The same cannot be said for a Guns N' Roses show because I've been there done that.  Like Q said I think you terribly underestimate the popularity of U2 and you obviously mistake it for  some flash in the pan type popularity like a Spice Girls thing.

[-Jack-]

Well I can see this is an heated aurgument.

I'll put my money on GNR. They at their prime, were much much better than U2 in their prime. Musically and preformance wise.

And thats all that really matters to me.

Who cares what the general public remembers better? People will remember Nirvana more so than GNR...

BTW Bono, why create this thread? Theres nothing we can say to convince you otherwise. Cause you know "U2's fan base is cross gender, defies the generation gaps, and has no racial boundaries. I'm serious. You go to a U2 show and you'll see every single type of person from every walk of life."

RichardNixon was right, hang Bono up on a damn cross already. No point in this kinda thread.

    -jack

[Bono]

Well I can see this is an heated aurgument.

I'll put my money on GNR. They at their prime, were much much better than U2 in their prime. Musically and preformance wise.

And thats all that really matters to me.

Who cares what the general public remembers better? People will remember Nirvana more so than GNR...

BTW Bono, why create this thread? Theres nothing we can say to convince you otherwise. Cause you know "U2's fan base is cross gender, defies the generation gaps, and has no racial boundaries. I'm serious. You go to a U2 show and you'll see every single type of person from every walk of life."

RichardNixon was right, hang Bono up on a damn cross already. No point in this kinda thread.

? ? -jack

Read the original post. It was requested that I make this thread. I had no desire to make this thread. I've been through all this before on mygnr. Alot of you pepole should really go and check U2 out live. I've seen both so I have a pretty good opinion on who's the better live act. It's U2 now and probably in their prime as well.  And no people don't remember Nirvana more than Guns N' Roses. Maybe in magazines and critical praise but not on radio and requests I get when djing and songs you hear coming out of  a jukebox in a bar/pub or at parties. Nirvana in my opinion won't hold up the way Guns N' Roses will. In fact I don't think they've even held up this long as well as Guns has. As much as Nevermind was prasied it's no AFD. Critics can say otherwise all they want but Jungle, PC, SCOM etc outweighs anything off Nevermind and definately has more staying power. Sure Nirvana are the poster boys of alternative grunge that "killed" 80's metal  but Nirvana never killed Guns, Guns killed thmeselves.

[Hammy]

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.

If you realise it was a stupid debate to start then why start it?

You receive a backlash off many because this is a GN'R board, and these 'vs' are quite stupid anyway.

You would of been better off ignoring the guy, i man he challenged you to do it, so despite it's stupidity you did it anyway.

If he'd of challenged you to jump off a cliff would you?

Simple answer for me is GN'R, i totally dislike U2 never liked 'em i find them bland and boring, GN'R have released a lot less, true but as far as i am concerned they've delivered a lot more least for me they have.  Arguing that U2 are better on a GN'R board is nearly as dumb as me arguing GN'R are better at a U2 one.

U2 regularly release records and tour and keep their fans happy good for them.  Does that make them better? No.  It simply makes them a more active band, whenever GN'R have been active they've provided me with great music, U2 haven't.

And really if you've been through this all at MyGnr why start it up again here because one poster challenged you, you've said you did not want to start it, 'tis laughable really, insult a U2 and one of their fans will do stuff they don't really want to....

[Bono]

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.

If you realise it was a stupid debate to start then why start it?

You receive a backlash off many because this is a GN'R board, and these 'vs' are quite stupid anyway.

You would of been better off ignoring the guy, i man he challenged you to do it, so despite it's stupidity you did it anyway.

If he'd of challenged you to jump off a cliff would you?

Simple answer for me is GN'R, i totally dislike U2 never liked 'em i find them bland and boring, GN'R have released a lot less, true but as far as i am concerned they've delivered a lot more least for me they have.? Arguing that U2 are better on a GN'R board is nearly as dumb as me arguing GN'R are better at a U2 one.

U2 regularly release records and tour and keep their fans happy good for them.? Does that make them better? No.? It simply makes them a more active band, whenever GN'R have been active they've provided me with great music, U2 haven't.

And really if you've been through this all at MyGnr why start it up again here because one poster challenged you, you've said you did not want to start it, 'tis laughable really, insult a U2 and one of their fans will do stuff they don't really want to....

You cannot be serious! Gimmie a break. I explained it all in the original post. If peple can't comprehend that than so be it. The debate isn't about who you prefer. It's about who will be regarded as the better of the two. WIDELY REGARDED. I know you all fucking love Guns N' Roses as do I but if I were to ask the same question only with The Beatles instead of U2 would these same people chooseing Guns over U2 also have the mentality to choose Guns over The Beatles? It's a seneable debate if people could get rid of their biased opinions for two seconds and look at it objectively. Q can do it.  I was asked to ask the question I posted,  not who people like better. Who the people of this board like better is flat out obvious. Pull your head out of your asses people and use some comprehension here. It's not rocket science to figure out the what the question is asking.  You all make yourself look silly by not aknowledgeing what I'm actually asking. Pardon me for thinking people could show some common sense rather than the tired old blind fanatisism.

[Hammy]

It's about who will be regarded as the better of the two. WIDELY REGARDED.

Depends, if both bands careers ended tomorrow. U2 they are relevant, extemely popular, active and do-gooders that are loved by the world over.

GN'R were a successful band that has now become a public joke that many people don't care about me and many fans have turned their backs on, i'm guessing not many U2 fans have turned their backs on the band, well actually i re word that, for all the ones that have, because they dislike the fact that they've slowly turned into a pop act a whole bunch of different people have jumped on the bandwagon.

Both have legendary names and both will be remembered, but GN'R will be remembered for a great band that turned into a joke, U2 will be remembered for being a great band.

But if Chinese Democracy is released and is a success and tour after tour, album after album makes them a relevant band again hugely popular things might change, i can't predict the future.

Question still seems reletively stupid as at this point in time the answer is quite obvious and despite what some people say you can't predict the future and you definately can't predict GN'R.

[Axls Locomotive]

bono, i am inherently logical person, if i dont see a logical order to everything and be analytical and critical then i will go mad ...to me U2 are a better band and have better qualities overall but GNR is my favourite band because of the heightened emotions i get listening to their songs

i dont think its blind fanaticism, people here are aware of GNR's faults...but people are just defending their favourite band because you are cutting your arguments too near the bone...or too near the bono