Here Today... Gone To Hell!

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.

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


that says it all..... :smoking:

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

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.

Guns N' Roses. (I'm biased)

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. ?:beer:

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

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? :crying: 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 .

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.   ;D

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

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.

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. :rant:

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.  ???

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).

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 :peace:

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.

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.

@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.

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 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!  :P

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 >:( >:(

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?

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.  : ok:

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.

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

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!!

Useless people? You're mean Skeletor. :hihi:

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.

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 ;D

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: 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 :hihi:

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  ;D , 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. : ok:

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

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. : ok:

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.

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...

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

OK, maybe "useless people" was a bit rough choice of words :P 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.  : ok:

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!  :rofl:


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.


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.


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.  ;)

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

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.

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.

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...




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?

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

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

maybe :P

 :hihi: fair enough

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

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 :P

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

Good one  : ok:   :hihi:

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  : ok:
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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. :P

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 :hihi: ...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  ;D

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...

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.

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...

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....

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 :D

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

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 : ok:

i dont think you are old enough to understand

so you blame U2 for the way their fans act?

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. :rofl: 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 :hihi:

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  :rofl:) 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.

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?

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.

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

thanks for your insight!  : ok:


Now go away

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.

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.


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!  :o


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

no worries... crossed wires

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

u2 has no talent..  case closed.   ::)

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

More people, historically, have cared about metaphysics than anything else. Current issues are always more popular at any given moment, but these issues change and the music behind them becomes worthless to a new audience. Music about universal topics and emotions has staying power, even if it's not immediately as popular as the simpler music. It's all about staying power.


You need more instrumentals, then. Vocals aren't necessary at all for good music. Pop music has always been less interesting than the alternative. Grunge rock was cool for a while, in the mid 90's there was industrial, melodeath in the late 90's, metalcore in the 00's, and so on. The smaller genre, whatever it is, is almost always better than the pop genre.


Bullshit. Judas Priest sold more Killing Machine than Stained Class, Metallica sold more Metallica than Kill 'Em All, and Megadeth sold more Countdown To Extinction than Rust In Peace. Plenty of other bands have degraded the quality of their music and achieved higher sales. The better an album is, the fewer sales it tends to get. It's true.


I have hundreds of albums. I won't tolerate listening to mediocre garbage because I have so many alternatives.


Black metal has been responsible for dozens of church burnings, murders, and egofascist movements. They aren't pleasant themes, but at least one can't criticize the genre for encouraging inactivity! Given its ratio of popularity:activity, it's probably the most active genre of music. Black metal isn't about helping the needy or contributing to society.


No one in the 80's could have predicted that Maiden would make songs like Paschendale or Journeyman. How about the complete change of sound they did with The X Factor? Their next album will be a concept album, and I expect the best. They're definitely an innovative band, and they still make excellent new music. I can forgive the Brave New World staleness because it was Bruce's comeback.

Then you go to Africa and help the starving children! that's meaningless what he does with his money or the money he gain with his band, he's doing something good and at least he is doing something not sitting in front of a computer writting in forum  :P --> (me included  :hihi: )


Well yes no one could've predicted that maiden could be such a influencial band. But wait you found better Virtual IX than BNW? I gotta disagree with you  :-\

metaphysics...what pish

the music of the decade defines the decade itself and is associated with events and trends that make the decade unique, you think of dylan, you think of civil and black rights, you think of the beatles, the summer of love, you think of elvis you think about the breakthru of black artists, etc...no lets not do that, lets make every decade full of metaphysical crap and classical and death metal music and thats the way it will stay, everything would be DULL!!!...i think ill pass...

music is subjective, there is no such thing as one song better than another, if it means the same to both persons then there is no difference

as for Judas Priest, well it also proves my point

black metal is mediocre garbage, i have plenty of alternatives

so black metal has had little positive effect on the world, youve just proved my point

iron maiden..to me there isnt much of a difference...i dont really think they are innovative or relevant in this decade

Perhaps not in this decade but in the 80's they were very innovative

guns n roses made a big impact and SCOM will probably keep playing on the radio for the next 20 years at least. but im sad to say that there are prolly a lot of young people today that havent heard of guns n roses

I don't say this to be rude Walk, but it's hard to take anythig you're saying overly serious becasue it's obvious your completely biased towards your own taste in music. I'm not saying everything you're saying is wrong but most of it is, because you seem unable  to aknowledge that any type of music outside your own personal taste could possibly have any social relevance or impact.  Q has pointed out pretty much everything that needs to be said in terms of counter points so I'll just let you guys carry on but it's very onesided. And to be honest I'd be saying this even if the band in question here wasn't U2.

Spacebrain 5000 your opinions on U2 as far as thier music goes are fair enough. That's what you get out of it and that's cool but your opinions on Bono and is humanitarian efforts are flat out wrong. Bono does this kind of work all the time. Wheather the band is on tour, promoteing a new album, writing/recording a new album,  takeing time off or simply doing nothing at all. This has almost become Bono's  second full time job. Bono has been doing this type of stuff since Live Aid in 1985. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that he's doing it for publicity? If he is, it's a pretty long publicity campaigne. And to be honest it's not a very smart one. There are much more effective ways to gain publicity than by becoming an activist for third world poverty. Not to mention ways that don't leave yourself so open to criticizm. Bono has also put himself in a  position now where he can't walk away from this. It's put a huge responsibility on his shoulders to see it through. Bono doesn't do this for publicity. he talks the talk but he's one of the very few celebrities who actually seem to walk the walk on a consitent basis. Also the reason you hear about his work more when a new U2 album comes out is because there's a new U2 album coming out. The band is again in the spotlight so of course there will be more light shed on what Bono's doing outside the band durring those times. Obviously he's going to be asked about it durring the interviewing process of the new album promotion. Oh and I think Bono's sunglasses are actually kinda cool.  ;D

Virtual XI has The Clansman, while Brave New World was mostly recycling old ideas. Neither album is good, but Virtual XI is a bit better than Brave New World. Dance Of Death blows them all away, obviously.


If you really think about things, the liberal conflict theory that permeates much of rock music is as old as the metaphysics extolled in neoclassical paradigms. It's just less intelligent.


Unoriginal songs lose points because they're copying ideas instead of doing new things. Repetitive song structures lose points for being uncreative. Poor use of dissonance takes away points because the context can't break through the misused aesthetics. St. Anger trash cans are an example of this. Objectively speaking, they sound out of place and annoying. Sounds have meaning.


You're a functionalist, then. You look for music to effect change instead of reveal truth and you don't even understand musical contexts. You're immature philosophically and musically.


They're still making good albums, so they're relevant. Hell, they're doing a better job this decade than in the 90's!

you cant compare U2 n' fuckin' GNR  ::) 

why dont you ask us .......snoop dogg vs. the village people

or fuckin' Cradle of Filth vs. Jeffeson Airplane.

You got that right : ok:

you think far too much...the bigger the words, the longer the phrases, the bigger the bullshit

lets face it, whoever invented musical structure should have taken out copyright on his work, everyone has used it...everything is built upon a foundation, einstein needed newton, newton needed galileo etc, just like music needs its predecessors...to think that any musical work is completely new is folly, and your favourite genre black metal wouldnt exist if it wasnt for a dozen other genres of music...in the end the ear is the judge, the emotional content is the judge, the relevance is the judge...to look upon musical structure as superior is admirable but ultimately pointless

yes i look for music to affect change and insight and more...but truth is subjective, truth comes from all angles and there are no absolutes, but insight encourages the truth to be uncovered...truth can be abused ie which truth do you want to use to prove your point?...insight is far more redeeming

musical contexts? as in black metal? no thanks...i'd rather have a positive outlook, not a negative one...

iron maiden are still not relevant in this decade, neither are bands like acdc,nirvana or even guns n roses (until they return, hurry up you bastard :hihi:)...U2 are relevant as they have affected change

Actually, I can. Jefferson Airplace was once a kvlt band that sold out and changed their name to Starship. Cradle of Filth was a kvlt band (not like Darkthrone, but still kvlt) that sold out and changed their music to mallgothcore. Cradle of Filth is more successful commercially than one would think. Starship completely went against the hippie ideals to make a buck. These bands are very similar.


Actually, most great classical music is in the public domain now. ;) Originality matters a lot, since heavy metal was about 70% new when Sabbath created it. It had obvious blues influence, but it was still metal. Black metal could have sprung from just about any genre. Lots of black metal bands claim punk as their influence for the simple production. Lots of them say Classical music inspired them. Some like folk music. The point is, black metal didn't come out of a linear progression of sound, the way science uses a linear progression of ideas.

Overall, black metal, and any form of music, can spontaneously arise just as easily as it can borrow ideas, and this is shown by the diverse background of the musicians who play it. Obviously, some earlier influences are going to be shown, since everyone listens to music and that influence will come out. Still, what Bathory, Black Sabbath, Overkill, and other bands were doing was almost entirely original.


You're allowing your worldview to affect your view of music. It's no coincidence that great music tends to be either nihilistic or extremely emotional, with little in between.


Not all black metal is negative and kvlt. You have too many preconceptions. Graveland's song Blood Of Christians On My Sword is positive by his worldview because he's a pagan. He's encouraging activity instead of defeat. Or, how about Nargaroth's infamous song, Black Metal Ist Krieg?  :hihi: That's not depressing at all; it's awesome. Finally, there's viking metal and other types of folk metal that could be called black metal, but this title is disputed because their sound isn't kvlt enough. Think Finntroll.


Does a band have to change anything to be relevant? I believe a band is relevant if it has released good music. That's all. You're closing yourself to too many good bands because you value politics more than music.

black metal springing from any genre? youre delusional...say something enough times and people will start to believe it

yep worldview affected by music...im overjoyed that you dont think the same

i dont close myself to good bands, i always give new bands a listen...if i dont like what i hear, ill listen to something else...i prefer to stay open minded

anyway this topic has diverged from U2 / GNR...

get a clue. heres' a concept for ya, it's called reading and comprehension!? I'm not comparing the two bands in terms of the style of music they make. I'm asking who will be regarded as the better band when both careers are done. I know as well as anyone that music is subjective to the listener. What's great to someone might be shit to another but we all know that as long as there are bands making music and fans listening to it there will always be the debate as to who's the greatest. It's not a question that can be answered outright because there are to many intangibles to consider but it's definately a? topic that can be debated. If you can't wrap your head around that than that's your problem.? Also when you roll your eyes in an attempt to show what a stupid topic it is you might want to make sure you understand the topic first. otherwise everyone reading your post simply rolls their eyes at you.

Oh and Walk I have to agree with Q. You think too much. You're trying to make this it somthing it's not. We all know that the most technical musicians are more often than not, not the most popular or even most influencial. The thing is though a musician that most people have never heard of cannot possibly be considerd in such a? deate discussing where a band ranks amoung the greats in music history. My neighbour could be the greatest guitar player who ever lived, he could be the most creative musician ever as well but unless he's able to make an impact on people he's not going to be considerd as one of musics greats. He might be great but not one of "the greats"? Your whole speil on Black metal is really pointless because no matter how good any of these bands are as musicians their impact on the overall music world is extremely limited. That's not to take anything away form them it's simply a fact. You also seen to be completely oblivious to the fact that alot of the times less is more. the simpler the song the better it is. Not all music needs to be a technical marvel.? Music comes from a? feeling not from an ability to shred the fastest. Sure a killer guitar solo sometimes packs a punch but honestly more often than not it has absolutely nothing to do with the song.  The comment Q made about bands like Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Guns N' Roses and even Nirvana not being relevant right now is bang on. The only way these bands, especially Iron Maiden and AC/DC are relvant is in terms of retro cool. That's not saying they aren't great bands, they just aren't relevant today. they sell T-shirts not albums.


And Walk? the second part of? your quote right there speaking of universal topics screams U2.? Notice how U2 didn't go out and write an aniti Bush album the way Greenday did. U2 is the epitome of staying power. No band has ever had a career spanning this long who held such staying power and that's a fact. If not name one.

The irony is incredible here. ;) Black metal is usually very simplistic and relies on its minimalism to evoke an emotional response. It was a step away from aesthetics and in favor of emotional context. A good way to describe it is Romantic. There is a lot of highly technical black metal, but technical skill tends to be celebrated in death metal much more than in black metal. Black metal is a lot like the blues. It's an emotional style of music that doesn't require too much skill, and it doesn't focus on "changing the world". Both styles are practiced by neglected groups; blues was the music of poor blacks, and black metal is the music of neopagan cryptofascists. You guys don't like it because it doesn't promote "activism" (read: TV exposure) or that it's unpopular. It's certainly influential (1000's of n00b bands start from playing simple, kvlt black metal, much how rock stars often start with blues), so the popularity argument is all you have left. Heh.


Easy. Manilla Road. They were formed in 1976 as one of America's first true metal bands. I think Riot were formed a bit earlier that same year, but I'm not completely sure. Anyway, Manilla Road have released 13 studio albums from 1980-2005 and one live album. Notable classic albums include Crystal Logic and The Deluge. Their style has been emulated by bands like Slough Feg, Brocas Helm, Killingsworth, and so on. Their latest album, Gates Of Fire, was released in 2005 and is regarded as one of their best. They weren't as popular as most other bands, but they're getting some recognition now in the underground scene. Artistic and musical originality are ultimately more important than popularity.

Enjoy your Britney.  ;D

Unbelievable. I guess you're right. In the end a band that nobody has heard of will be regarded as the best ever. I mean let's face it any band who ever acheived any amount of popularity is simply that. A popular band void of artistic and musical originatlity. ::)

Also I would appreciate it if you'd stop telling me and others why we like music. I don't dislike music because of it's lack of popularity and I don't listen to music based on it's popularity either.  You seem to have the attitude  that you are the only one with any inegrity when it comes to musical taste and to be honest it's getting tired. As for the Britney comment at the end of your post well that just proves how much you refuse to aknowledge what Q and myself are talking about. You can't get past the fact that ceratin artists are popular because they are good not because they were pushed. Yes alot of bands nowadays and in the past were pushed and that's what they owe their fame to but bands like U2 were not made to be popular. They're popular because they're damn good, as are Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Queen, Guns N' Roses and so on. For you to sit there and smuggly say have fun with listening to Britney shows exactly how little respect you have for people with different tastes in music. 

 How about The Cure?  How do you view them? I'm just curious cause I love them and I'd like to see your thoughts on a band that is able to combine a very dark side with a very blissful happy side on the same album. With songs that at times sound like  a theme song for suicide yet on the very next song sound as though all that maters in the world is butterflies and cotton candy.They're in fact masisvely popular and have written some of the best pop songs of all time so I'm just curious to see what your take is on them because as far as I'm concerend all you proven to us is how close minded you are towards music out side your gnere of prefrence.

 
I'm curious to know how old you are Walk and if you honestly think you'll be listening to black metal 15 years down the road and if you'll have the same arrogant attitude towards music and others who deviate from what you think is good music. Let me ask you this: What songs would you liked played at your wedding? What songs would you liked played at your funeral? Your parents funeral or say your children's weddings?? What songs would you like played if we were to make a video montage documenting your life?? Let me guess... a bunch of black metal songs which nobody can identify with.? How'd I do? :P

you know whats worthless...even more worthless than u2..? your mothers blowjobs... :smoking:

Way to prove my point...

bono, fascism preaches superiority over others...it shouldnt be any surprise that walk looks down on anything or anyone he doesnt agree with..youll never convince him...he is the perfect advert for being liberal :hihi:

oh you`ve had them too..? thats nasty.... :hihi:

hey bono, seems that your thread went down really bad. you're the only one defending u2 and the others bash them saying they make crap music. so much for an intelligent discussion :no:

No ones bashing. You just generalize because you like U2 and you aren't "winning."

Who is more remembered in the grand scheme of things isn't important at all. It's cool sure, but who cares? Doesn't mean one band is better than the other.

Im not bashing the idea of the thread, cause I get it... but at the same time.. why? Its like.. U2 vs. The Beatles.. whos gonna be remembered more?! I just don't see the point.

i never said i like u2. and it's not about winning.
i just think that it could've been a nice discussion. but if u look one post above mine u'll see what i mean. u2 sucks and u2 have no talent, u2 are worthless. so much for intelligent arguments.
oh and i think the fact that they're still together after so many years and people still come to their shows means they make crap music.
don't get me wrong. i like gnr a lot more than u2 and if you go to the first or second page u'll see that.  : ok:

I've been a GNR fan since I was 6 years old, and I've been a U2 fan since I was 17.  haha... I never used to like U2.  When you look at it in the grand scheme of things, Bono is such a humanist.  What a great guy!  He does all these things for starving kids in Africa.  Meanwhile, Axl hasn't done a hell of a lot of good for the world, drawing no attention to social and world issues, especially over the past 10 years.  The similarity is, I guess that we all know where Axl and Bono are, whenever they go anywhere.  Also, U2 is tight; The Edge and Bono will never split.  GNR on the other hand?  psssh... U2 has had hit after hit after hit since they've been around.  GNR?  A few in the late 80s early 90s.  I'll probably always like GNR's music more, but I think that U2 may be the better band, especially on a global level.  Of course, things may change when GNR releases more material and Axl starts touring again.

OMG I cant believe I?m reading this! So, if they?re going to die anyway, there?s no point in helping them right?

It's nice and everything, but come on, let's be realistic (notice i put the cry smiley next to that)

Peter Griffin: "Man this is almost as bad as the time I got stranded on that island with Bono!"

"Eye, Peter its for the starvin' kids"  :hihi:

Wow dude... they are, but they wouldn't if everyone was like Bono!  :peace:

I feel U2 peaked with Joshua Tree/Achtung baby - yes they are still popular, still sell out shows, but musically they aren't doing anything amazing - its kinda paint by numbers at this point.

Guns will ALWAYS be big b/c they had that element of danger, a bad boy front man, a dirt bag looking but extremely talented guitarist and were the last big band to personify sex drugs and rock n' roll.

I think they'll both be rememberd equally, but just in different conversations.  You can't compare the two...one is thinking man/emotional rock the other one is the most dangerous band in the world.

I don't really think of U2 as a kick ass rock band - but they do create some beautiful songs.  I think if todays rock was actually good, U2 wouldn't be nearly as popular, the sad thing is there is just nothing else to listen too besides the big bands from the 80s/early 90s who are still recording/touring.

Bono aknowledges the fact that he's a publicity whore. He makes no bones about it because he knows he has a platform to draw attention to this. It's funny how so many people seem to think that helping behind closed doors is better than helping in the public eye. Sure maybe Axl does help out but what impact has he had? on you or me in terms of influenceing or inspireing us to help out? Absoluetly ZERO. Bono on the other hand has in fact inspired millions of people to join his cause and help fight the injustice of thousands of African kids dying every day because of dirty water or mosquito bites or AIDS or what have you. You do realies that the death toll equivalent to 9/11 is happening every day in Africa.

And saying that those kids are gonna die anyways is such a terrible attitude. Yes they're gonna die if we don't help them but if we do they won't. Or at least future children won't.? Here's a quote from Bono:

"I know I can't save the world, but we can alright."?

Something to think about. ;)

Of course, being helped by everyone else in the world, isn't good luck....  ::)

It's funny though, I eat a lot of foods that aren't grown locally... does that mean that me, and everyone else around me are going to die because we don't produce our own food... no, it's because of global cooperation that I get my oranges, bananas, chickens, and Vanilla Coke.  I don't have to survive solely on fish and potatoes....

I think U2 have got their own thing going on.... Completely different to GnR, Anyone who has seen them live here will agree that they can really connect with a crowd better than most other bands. That concert was almost life changing... When i left, something just made me want to be a better person, I dont know.... its so hard to explain... Thats U2 i guess.

Backslash, you PURCHASE those foods.  And Megaguns, good for you that U2 made you want to be a better person. :beer:

Garry, Africans will keep dying young as long as they are living in poverty, but with charity work INDIVIDUALS survive.  You're talking about the people there as if they don't matter.

Of course they matter Danny.  I'm just saying that unless it rains there, the MASSES will keep on dying.  They've had droughts for years now.  Sure, it's nice that maybe a few people survive in a village, but what about all their unlucky friends and family members whose bodies are lying there with flies and maggots buzzing around?  Besides, the point was that Axl perhaps helps out anonymously, we can't just assume that cuz he starts riots he's not generous.  What about the regular folks who chip in, I'm sure they don't gloat and glee about it.

Yeah and I guess spendig 40 grand a week in a spa in France is a great way to help....he?s a fuckin oportunist and a F A  K  E  :yes:

Axl or Bono?

tree feeding bono..


Axl rules :peace:

Ooohh, how do you like them green apples now! :hihi:

Sorry Garry but you're sooooo wrong. The problems in Africa aren't based soley on a lack of water or rain.  Water is an issue yes but it's only one of many. Plus with charity and help from other nations we can help them produce their own clean water. They can produce their own water through wells but they need the money and the education on how to do it. You act as if we'd have to ship them bottles of water. You attitude sucks on this issue if I'm being honest. You come off as if you think turning a blind eye is the answer.  Garry do a little bit of research on this and you'll see. I don't think you're saying this stuff to be an ass but I do think you're seriously misinformed. I can send you some links to some websites if you're interested in reading up on some of it. Let me know. ;)

SOLGER you on the other hand are a lowlife with nothing to add but juvenile insults which are based on nothing more than you're complete and utter iggnorance.

That's a great point Megaguns. You're right about U2 haveing their own thing going on. Guns N' Roses live are amazing and when you leave the show you just feel like rocking, it kicks ass.  U2 on the other hand  is purely uplifting and inspireing. I don't disagree with anyone who says you can't really compare the bands as far as musical styleings go. It just doesn't work. It is like apples and oranges but the comparison is almost inevitable because they are the two biggest bands of the last 20 years. Both rock but in completely different ways.

Im a lowlife..?? hahaha...you wish you had done half the things Ive done...poor bastard bet you never left your own country.

Have nothing to say about bono spending 40 grand a week in a spa? huh? thought so!

No I don't have anything to say because it's irrelevant and pretty much a  stupid comment. And don't get me started on the things I've done. I dont' wish to be anything like you. And by the way I've been more places than you know. So stop with your lame ass assumptions because all you've accomplished is you've furtherd my point that you've got nothing other than childish banter intended to draw attention to yourself. I know your deepest desire is for me to respond to everything you say but this will be the last response or aknowledgement you'll ever get from me because all you're trying to do is spam the thread with your bullshit. Piss off now,  you're not worth the effort.

case closed....u2 fan is a  puss....

OWNED!

And you guys, SOLGER and Bono need to simmer down, you've been going at it in different threads now.  We can discuss things in an intelligent matter without belittling one another.

Luck is bullshit.  If were to take the attitude that them's the breaks for those living in Africa than we all suck as people. "Where you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die" We put a man on the moon so I'm pretty sure we can help poverty stricken nations.  It's not a matter of luck or resources it's simply a matter of doing it which sadly the develped nations of the world have not done yet. That's all.

Dude I know you're not trying to be an ass I just don't think you know what you're talking about. If you don't think any of the work Bono has done has made a difference than you're more in the dark than you think. Do you not think that Live Aid made a huge difference? It did but it's only the begining.  Your attitdude is "why bother?"  You're quitting before you're even starting.

And yes I realies that Live Aid was not a Bono only project. far from it.

Canada didnt put a man on the moon...and neither dide Ireland... ::)

Again, I can't get through to you. ?Dude, I'm not pulling things out of my ass and I'm certainly not in the dark about anything. ?Nixon and Jack we're right, just crucify this guy already.

Alright, we'll agree to disagree.  : ok:

I'll drink to that!  :beer:

Haven't read the whole thread, but I have to lean towards Garry on this one.  Throwing money at a problem isn't going to solve it, its just a band aid.  So while raising awareness is great and raising money is wonderful its not going to fix anything in the long run.  Plus you never know who gets that money, what they do with it, how much of it is actually used for the actual purpose it was raised etc......look at the red cross relief for Somalia back in the early 90s.
Until the political environment in most african nations becomes up to speed with the rest of the world all those problems are never going to stop. 

On a side note, I don't think rockstars should be the ones getting involved in politics - sometimes Bono's rants supercede the music.  I guess some U2 fans really dig that, but to me who is a casual fan its just kinda annoying. 

All that money goes to his 40 grand a week spa in France, that little old man bono goes to..what a thief :no:

Keep it up and you'll find yourself BANNED.



/jarmo

That?s exactly what happens on a Springsteen concert, you just can?t explain

Know what jarmo....? do it. Its your home anyways, but I?ll let my self out, you being another u2 lover just makes this site not interesting anymore.



 ;)

SEE YA PUSSSSSIES!!!!

Wow... anyone pee in his Corn Flakes this morning?