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

[-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.

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. 

You be the judge. I tried to choose from different eras..

U2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sHnXOSxka1Q&search=U2%20live (Live at band aid 1985)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W3foU2dTKyE&search=U2%20live (Live in Dublin... 200X)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=za_kB6S-H8Y&search=U2%20live (1997 MTV European Music Awards)

GNR
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_3LsF3UQfug&search=Guns%20N%27%20Roses%201988 (Ritz '88)
http://www.youtube.com/w/Guns-N-Roses-My-Michelle?v=yAYdu3WLL_o&search=guns%20n%20roses (Ritz '91)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=h8aU0aQlA5c&search=Rock%20In%20Rio (RIR3)

Maybe U2 is better now (RIR3.. lol).. but not back in the day...

[Bono]

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.

Thank you! that's all I'm getting at and all I wanted. An objective opinion on the matter. I believe that had Guns N' Roses continued to put out albums they seriously could be where U2 is now and maybe even more popular and who knows maybe still my favorite band. I don't think world wide Guns N' Roses ever had the popularity that U2 did BUT Guns N' Roses exploded in a way that no band since The Beatles had so it could've quite possibly been only a matter of time. You're right Stoned the question is rather stupid in the sense that RIGHT NOW the answer is obvious and that's what makes alot of the responses frustrating. They're aren't objective opinions. They're biased wishes. ?Guns N' Roses will no doubt be rememberd for "saveing" hard rock in the late 80's. Everything had become fluffy and soft and Guns knocked the piss outta those bands. They reached a level where it wasn't a change in the ?music scene that killed them in the 90's it was their own in fighting that did it. ?U2 in the 80's was completely different to what was mainstreme popular. They sounded nothing like what was the norm on radio. Even in the 90's everyone complains that U2 went all pop to stay with the times. Well the fact is the thing going in the 90's was "Grunge" and U2 most definately did not follow that trend the way bands like Blur tried to do. Achtung Baby was so far out in left feild again to what was popular. ?Guns N' Roses and U2 are the two biggest and possibly two most important bands of my generation(Nirvana I suppose goes there as well) though due to longevity and continued quality and relevance U2 gets the nod over Gn'R when it comes to their place in muisc history. But like you said we can't predict the future so who knows what Axl has in store, though he'd better hurry up cause he's not getting any younger.

[Axls Locomotive]

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.

turned into a pop act? maybe U2 have just gotten older? maybe bonos voice has changed?

who is jumping on the bandwagon?

judging by the state of axls voice i dont think he will last more than 5 years, i hope that im wrong though...

[Hammy]

turned into a pop act? maybe U2 have just gotten older? maybe bonos voice has changed?

To me in many ways they're more of a pop band these days, not a bad thing but i would say it's a change that's occured....

who is jumping on the bandwagon?

My point is, i know of many people who dislike them now but liked them, believing the bands gone sotf, pop, commerical etc.

And for every fan that thinks like that and has lost faith interest, then there are plenty of young fans who follow the music in the charts etc. that have become fans.? Maybe 'cos the music on radio sucks so much they see U2 as saviours of music

[Axls Locomotive]

You be the judge. I tried to choose from different eras..

U2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sHnXOSxka1Q&search=U2%20live (Live at band aid 1985)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W3foU2dTKyE&search=U2%20live (Live in Dublin... 200X)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=za_kB6S-H8Y&search=U2%20live (1997 MTV European Music Awards)

GNR
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_3LsF3UQfug&search=Guns%20N%27%20Roses%201988 (Ritz '88)
http://www.youtube.com/w/Guns-N-Roses-My-Michelle?v=yAYdu3WLL_o&search=guns%20n%20roses (Ritz '91)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=h8aU0aQlA5c&search=Rock%20In%20Rio (RIR3)

Maybe U2 is better now (RIR3.. lol).. but not back in the day...

of course when you choose a video from 1985 before their peak (1987 to 1995) and 2 after their peak its not a fair comparison to arguably 2 of gnr's best gigs

[Bono]

You be the judge. I tried to choose from different eras..

U2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sHnXOSxka1Q&search=U2%20live (Live at band aid 1985)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W3foU2dTKyE&search=U2%20live (Live in Dublin... 200X)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=za_kB6S-H8Y&search=U2%20live (1997 MTV European Music Awards)

GNR
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_3LsF3UQfug&search=Guns%20N%27%20Roses%201988 (Ritz '88)
http://www.youtube.com/w/Guns-N-Roses-My-Michelle?v=yAYdu3WLL_o&search=guns%20n%20roses (Ritz '91)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=h8aU0aQlA5c&search=Rock%20In%20Rio (RIR3)

Maybe U2 is better now (RIR3.. lol).. but not back in the day...

No doubt back in the day Guns ruled in the clubs. That's what I said. I also dig the Rio performance but U2 at Live Aid in 1985 was the highlight of that show. They stole the show with that performance and with Sunday Bloody Sunday. Clips are hard to judge by. Just watch Zoo TV and then watch the Illusion shows from Tokyo. There's no comparison. See it's hard cause I think Guns are better in smaller venues where as U2 excells in outdoor stadium shows. Also if you want to compare Guns at RIR3 playing Jugnle than do it with U2 live at Slane Castle playng Where the Streets Have No Name. I'm not saying that Guns isn't a great live act, hell that's what they're known for right. It's just that the U2 live experience is on another level and I thought that even back in 1997 when they weren't my favorite band and Guns N' roses were. Thanks for the links to the videos though

[Axls Locomotive]

turned into a pop act? maybe U2 have just gotten older? maybe bonos voice has changed?

To me in many ways they're more of a pop band these days, not a bad thing but i would say it's a change that's occured....

who is jumping on the bandwagon?

My point is, i know of many people who dislike them now but liked them, believing the bands gone sotf, pop, commerical etc.

And for every fan that thinks like that and has lost faith interest, then there are plenty of young fans who follow the music in the charts etc. that have become fans.  Maybe 'cos the music on radio sucks so much they see U2 as saviours of music

i dont think you are old enough to understand

so you blame U2 for the way their fans act?

[Bono]

turned into a pop act? maybe U2 have just gotten older? maybe bonos voice has changed?

To me in many ways they're more of a pop band these days, not a bad thing but i would say it's a change that's occured....

who is jumping on the bandwagon?

My point is, i know of many people who dislike them now but liked them, believing the bands gone sotf, pop, commerical etc.

And for every fan that thinks like that and has lost faith interest, then there are plenty of young fans who follow the music in the charts etc. that have become fans.? Maybe 'cos the music on radio sucks so much they see U2 as saviours of music

U2 going soft and going comercial is such a cliche. the same people that say that are the ones that love The Joshua Tree(their biggest commercial album) and the two singles off WAR(Sunday Bloody Sunday and New Year's Day). It's hypocritical. U2 did not go soft or commercial in the 90's If they did we'd have U2 grunge albums. ?Songs like The Fly and Untill The End of The World and Gone and Last Night on Earth and Discotheque(great song in my opinion)and All Because of you are as rock as anything U2 has done. U2 has always been a pop/rock band, ALWAYS! Why people forget that is beyond me. Also here's somthng that baffels me:

So many people claim to love the older U2 material and they complain that U2 sucked in the 90's and that the new stuff is the same boring crap. The kicker is that U2 did experiment in the 90's and the new stuff now sounds more like the 80's than the 90's stuff but  certain fans want somthing new but at the same time want the old 80's U2 back but when U2 gives them somthing new like the 90's material they hate it. So U2 goes back to sounding liek traditional u2 and they get blasted for it. People don't know what they want anymore from U2. U2 has in essence become a victim of their own success. The people who rag on them now are ragging on them for sounding too much like U2 but if they change then the are sell outs. Confusing? A little bit because most people just don't know what the hell they're talking about. really they're just resenting the band for being popular. that's my opinion.

[Axls Locomotive]

The people who rag on them now are ragging on them for sounding too much like U2 but if they change then the are sell outs. Confusing? A little bit because most people just don't know what the hell they're talking about. really they're just resenting the band for being popular. that's my opinion.

if theres anything in life thats certain, people will drag up the same old excuses

the phrase sell out makes me laugh...people work for money everyday so therefore just about everyone is a sellout

[Bono]

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?

I know what you mean Q. For example I really like Pearl Jam. They became popular around the same time Nirvana maybe a bit sooner  but I would rank Peral Jam in my personal top ten bands of all time but have never really cared for Nirvana. Even though I like Pearl Jam much more than Nirvana I'm not gonna sit here and say they'll be remembered as the better or more improtant band. To me as an individual yes but to the history of musical pop culture no way. Cutting it too close to the bone(or Bono  ) might be the thing here. It's almost as if people feel their loyalty to Gn'R is on the line when really it has nothing to do with that. It just has to do with looking at things from a  logical point of view. The way Stoned and yourself and a few others have. But like Stoned said neither band is done yet and hopefully far from it so who knows how things can change in the future.

[Hammy]

i dont think you are old enough to understand

so you blame U2 for the way their fans act?

Care to ellaborate dude, you've slightly lost me, maybe you misunderstood what i meant.

My point of losing/gaining fans was to highlight their continued popularity despite the fact that many people claim to have been fans but dislike them now......(I hear many people say that but the fanbase to me seems to remain strong..)

My Pop opinion was merely from an outsider non-fan point of view it is just the impression i have gained from what i've seen and heard.  I'm happy to admit i have not delved into every single album to gain a solid opinion so to speak, my dislike for most of their stuff new & old has held me back from doing that.

I do have a friend at University who is a big fan he's probably my only friend who likes them and likes all the stuff.

Slightly off topic but just as a mere query i'm sure he said Vertigo (I think it was that one anyway....) sampled a Feeder song/ripped off the riff did they?

[Bono]

Slightly off topic but just as a mere query i'm sure he said Vertigo (I think it was that one anyway....) sampled a Feeder song/ripped off the riff did they?

NO! The Edge didn't rip anyone off with that riff. People just say that because it's a simple little power chord riff that tends to sound like alot of bands today. I've heard it's a rip off from Offspring, the Vines, the Hives, now Feeder. For anyone who actually claims(not sayig you Stoned) that the riff from Vertigo is a rip off than own up to it and post some eveidence.

[SOLGER]

I take a shit on all of u2?s music...what a boring load of poop.

[Eduardo]

I take a shit on all of u2?s music...what a boring load of poop.

thanks for your insight! 


Now go away

[spacebrain5000]

I'm fucking tired of? Bono..
You ever noticed how the only times he ever goes on missionaries to Africa to help starving children and stop aids, it's because he has an album coming out? I'm tired of his bullshit escapades for publicity. I just want him to go the fuck away..... him and his stupid 'rock star' sunglasses.

I really don't like U2. Their music is entirely unremarkable. They have a few good tunes, but none of it memorable. None of it impactful. It's just fucking there. Watered down bullshit pop music mechanized for the masses.

The thing that I like about Gn'R, is that it's raw. Dirty, loud, real, fucking in your face, intense. Axl screamed and screeched about whatever damn well was on his mind, and sugar coated it for no one. Listening to U2 for me is like being lobotomized. I just get nothing out of it. Every bit of it sounds the same, and just.... flat. Dull. There is just nothing remarkable about this band.

[Walk]

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

Classical music deals with metaphysics and pop music (99.9% of the time) deals with current issues that no one will care for in a few years. Classical music has staying power. Very few composers and metal bands are as great as Brahms, Wagner, or Vivaldi, and no one ever comes close to Beethoven or Mozart. Grow up.

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...

It's emotionally and esoterically excellent, but not perfect. I listen to it because its good music. Its more diverse and unique than U2. There are always a few dud (or at least sub-par) string quartet compositions, but Brahm's perfectionism really keeps those down to a minimum. He actually burned a lot of his work because he thought it wasn't good enough! 

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...

Are you on drugs? Pop music has always been generally bad, even in the 80's. Very little ultimately changed in the 80's-90's transition. Pop music is fun when its good. When its not good, its not fun. Your generalization of the music is misplaced.

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

A lot of great bands are popular, but not all popular bands are great. GnR are both popular and great. U2 are popular and mediocre. Get it?

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...

My bands aren't relevant because they don't make love songs, political songs, or other such filth? You probably don't like instrumentals. Music always has meaning, and good music has meaning that is timeless. Don't forget that even U2 were once unpopular. So, you think their early stuff is bad, then? Hell, it's almost listenable, unlike their later, more popular albums! You're being hypocritical.

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

Bands become popular because people like them, and sometimes people like crap. It's that simple. By the way, all bands work hard because music is a tough business. Hard work didn't make U2, or else everyone else would be popular. U2 made it because they made songs that people liked. Notice the past tense. Most people don't remember old U2 songs, but they still go see U2 because they're living off of their past.

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

Black metal is political, too. It's very right wing, anti-mainstream, Romantic, and naturalist. It has much more meaning than "feed the hungry", which is the same liberalism we've been hearing for hundreds of years. It's too diverse for most people. Simple, liberal messages sell records, but they aren't going to help save Africa. Africa needs a long term solution, and intellectual music like black metal and classical are a good start.

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

I don't underestimate U2's popularity. I understand how many drones enjoy them. I'm just saying that there wouldn't be many if U2 wasn't in the media all the time. Good bands tend to keep a constant level of popularity (either high or low, doesn't matter), while bad bands tend to fluctuate, like most fads.

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?

I don't care. I simply won't listen to bad albums. Iron Maiden and Judas Priest aren't making new Powerslaves or Painkillers, but they're still making enough interesting songs to keep my interest. I really don't mind paying $10 for an album if at least half the songs are good. 5-6 good 6-8 minute songs is enough for me. U2 has many albums with only 1-2 good songs, and some albums are entirely worthless.

[Axls Locomotive]

Care to ellaborate dude, you've slightly lost me, maybe you misunderstood what i meant.

no worries... crossed wires

[Axls Locomotive]

I'm fucking tired of  Bono..
You ever noticed how the only times he ever goes on missionaries to Africa to help starving children and stop aids, it's because he has an album coming out? I'm tired of his bullshit escapades for publicity. I just want him to go the fuck away..... him and his stupid 'rock star' sunglasses.

actually if you paid more attention you would find that isnt true, their last album was released in 2004 not 2005 and he is always in the news doing something for charity ie in the last week

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001052.html
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=174569796&p=y7457x5xz



and walk
who cares about metaphysics? .0001% of the population...
diverse as in no lyrics? what does it say? it makes good background music, thats what i think
no, pop music hasnt always been bad...you need a good few chill pills

U2 and GNR appeal to different people, its not bad...its just different...both bands have proven themselves...if an album is not as good as a previous albums or if a band becomes irrelevant or stops being trendy sales will fall...sales have been consistent throughout U2s career, they are far from mediocre...

the problem is that people now are just hyper critical and condescending in just about everything imo..what a wonderful world

if you think metaphysics will make your life better then good on you...

no i dont think U2's early work was bad...bands dont become successes overnight, unless of course its a bubblegum pop band

my boss, a big fan of punk music, clash, pistols etc cant stand guns n roses, he thinks axl whines and is excruciating to listen to...highly amusing....opinions mean nothing to other people...because in the end you wont stop hating U2 and i wont stop liking them

black metal has achieved nothing...all talk no action....bono has achieved a trebling of aid to africa...you choose which has made a larger contribution to society...what has black metal done to help people in need?

Iron Maiden? you gotta be joking, as much as i like the band they are churning out the same sound and themes...of course when fans are very close to the music they will ultimately think this way anyway

[SOLGER]

u2 has no talent..  case closed.   

[Skeletor]

u2 has no talent..? case closed.? ?

I'm no U2 fan either, but your posts are just fucking worthless.