QueenZone discussion #1169111
Queen versus U2
| peterkoz1 05.03.2009 14:41 |
now they have been around for 3 decades and still the original line up and possibly the only other Rock Band still around to seriously challenge Queen in Sales and Concert attendance's i was suprised that they only managed to single chart there new song at no 12 considering the no of units you have to shift these days and the unparrelled advertising and appearances all over the bbc (free !!). I have no doubt there album will chart at No 1 however Queen minus Fred and John with the addition of Paul managed to chart at 33 without serious advertisement and minus a promo video which is looking back a fantastic acheivment !! , i wondered how U2 would fair minus Bono and the bassist ? That in mind great respect must be paid to Brian and Roger to have the balls to continue under the banner Queen and not to embarrass there formidable back catologue. As at time of writing Queen (1st position) are around a couple of hundred weeks ahead of U2 (fourth) in the Guiness Records alltime top 10 , with The bealtes (2) and elvis (3) unable to release new material for obvious reasons the only Question is will U2 continue to release more studio albums and take Queens crown ? I am 40 so maybe i will be around in 20 yrs or so to find out or will Greatest Hits continue its residency on the UK album Chart. God Save the Queen !! |
| Winter Land Man 05.03.2009 14:59 |
Stupid question. Why even mention that band on a Queen forum? |
| April 05.03.2009 16:26 |
I like the ideas of the author of the thread. He compares the two bands, why not? And he compares them being without the frontmen and the bass guitarists, that's fair! And in the light of the release of the new U2 album, which is great indeed. |
| thequeen 05.03.2009 17:06 |
U2 with Bono sucks ....like Queen + Paul Rodgers does |
| dbruce 05.03.2009 17:15 |
Have to admit I used to be a huge U2 fan. Went off Bono a bit around 2004 and didn't bother going to see them on that tour, but I figure that if you can get around Bono's bizarre antics off-stage, they're actually a pretty good band on-stage. |
| jadedlady 05.03.2009 17:21 |
I like U2. |
| Marcelo_argentina 05.03.2009 19:05 |
This is Non-sense...U2 is not a Rock band....that's it! |
| john bodega 05.03.2009 22:48 |
What is the premise of this thread? Am I comparing their sales and attendance (which you can do without our help), or am I supposed to say which one I think is better? Here goes, I'll try and be objective about this - Take Terry Schiavo and Mohammed Ali (hypothetically, both of them are at the peak of their careers at the same time) and put them into a ring together. DING DING. Same thing would happen with Queen and U2. |
| The Real Wizard 06.03.2009 01:06 |
After sifting through the childish irrationality in some of the above posts.. U2 is the closest thing to an enduring band that has emerged in the last 30 years. They have consistently put out records that have sold well, and are still quite able to fill the stadiums pretty much anywhere around the world. But in these days of the instant superstar, there is little room for long-lasting artists, so perhaps U2, along with Radiohead and perhaps Muse, will be the last of their kind. Everything else aside from that comes down to taste, but that is actually not what this thread is about. The topic starter didn't ask if you like U2, or throw out a challenge for members to race to quickly display their musical intolerance for an artist they don't connect with. They asked to compare figures... indisputable numbers. Let's focus on the topic at hand, shall we? Some music scholar wrote: >This is Non-sense...U2 is not a Rock band....that's it! Then what precisely is a rock band, if it isn't a four-piece band with a guitarist, bassist, drummer, and vocalist who write rock songs? |
| Saif 06.03.2009 03:35 |
Sir GH wrote: After sifting through the childish irrationality in some of the above posts.. U2 is the closest thing to an enduring band that has emerged in the last 30 years. They have consistently put out records that have sold well, and are still quite able to fill the stadiums pretty much anywhere around the world. But in these days of the instant superstar, there is little room for long-lasting artists, so perhaps U2, along with Radiohead and perhaps Muse, will be the last of their kind.As much as I hate them, I think it's hard to argue that Coldplay isn't destined to be one of the biggest bands of all time. Radiohead and Muse are popular but they're not as well known as Coldplay is. |
| peterkoz1 06.03.2009 05:11 |
Its interesting to see the above comments , i am sorry if one or two of you feel that this is not a discussion but i thought that without much going on in Queen World at the moment and being a regular visitor to the forum WHY NOT DISCUSS SOMETHING THAT MAY BE OF INTEREST !! Many thanks for the kind words from those concerned Cheers Pete |
| mrbadguy86 06.03.2009 05:34 |
What about Rolling Stones? |
| Marcelo_argentina 06.03.2009 08:46 |
Sir GH...a drummer, a bassist, a guitarist, and a vocalist is not enough to become a Rock band...and that is very scholar music thought....you need something that U2 do not has..."a rock soul" to express your music...with a bass a drum a guitar and voices....What is a Rock band? The who, Led Zeppelin, Kiss, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Guns and Roses, The rollling Stones, Aerosmith, Black Sabath, those are examples of Rock bands...but U2 haha...go playing with madonna and Britney!!! But sure...you must be a very scholar music I guess.... |
| Yara 06.03.2009 08:55 |
mrbadguy86 wrote: What about Rolling Stones? Good cats. I still listen to them with interest. Same goes for Rush and many other bands which have been around for some good deal of time. About 140.000 people attended the Rush concerts in Brazil - Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo (SP) and Porto Alegre. (46.000, 65.000 and 35.000 respectively). It's massive because the tickets weren't cheap at all and the guys, although excited and stuff, didn't do much of publicity, their fan base was responsible for preparing their coming, it was beautiful. It's been wonderful these years. I got to attend Queen + PR in SP and finally met the guys, it was a great experience; the Rush gig in SP, the unbelievable Stones' gig in Copacana, Rio de Janeiro, which gathered more than 1.000.000 people, it was the most impressive music event I ever got to attend in my whole life. I mean, I had put down my expectations so much because, first, it was...colossal, and I thought I'd really be unable to listen to a thing. Second, I mean...what were those people doing there? It's going to have problems or something, I couldn't believe people had come to actually see the concert. When the thing started, I got almost hysterical because the sound was simply amazing, and they were playing out there, in the open, and you could listen to it beautifully, and then the crowd, the people knew each and every one of the songs, even from the new album - "Rough Justice", people got mad! Which is very telling, because Brazil has a large poor population which only began to have access to these things through illegal commerce, and even download! MP3 players got very cheap too. So there they were, people who are linked to the local music and so on, singing along - that is, trying to! - even the new stuff, let alone the anthems. Paul McCartney still holds the record here for the largest paying audience ever to attend a concert of a single band or artist in Brazil - the official state figures - I had to do some research on this for the school because the numbers varied according to each one's gut feeling, it seemed! - are 184 thousand people. It happened in 1990, in the Maracanã Stadium, in Rio de Janeiro. U2 gathered a lot of people too. Not being a fan of the band, I thought it'd be cool to go, however, as a close friend of mine is a fanatic. If he hadn't some contacts, we wouldn't be able to get the tickets. It was an immediate sell out - there had been huge marketeering, Bono is deeply involved in politics and got to meet the President, who's probably one of the most popular Brazilian Presidents ever. But then, with regard to U2, there were two disappointments: the number of people who actually attended the concert was far less than the number of tickets sold - there was a lot of people wanting to make a mint out of the show, some corruption, it was sad. The crowd was not that satisfied either, and it disappointed my friend: the sound was very poor. Very. Performance-wise, I think it's been one of the worst I ever attended to: Bono's voice is veeery hard to listen to, the band sounds horrible, they're out of tune for the whole concert and, eventually, get in tune with the help of the audience, I think, and it's horrendous. Really. At the same time, however, I was moved, because they have a huge fan base and the fans really get into it, despite all the frustrations, and they make it happen, they kind of helped the band to pull off the concert, it was beautiful to watch, and I caught myself singing along some tunes!!! I have been to many, many concerts of bands I didn't like or even couldn't stand - I can't stand R.E.M. I mean, it was really an academic exercise to go to their concert - I wanted to see things, interview people, try to write some paper, give the band a try, because I hadn't watched them live in Rock in Rio 3. I must say, they pulled off a better concert than U2, in terms of excitement and performance. The crowd was very excited throughout and they did their job, they sounded...fair. I mean, it was able to listen to the instruments, to the singer, some songs were played well, I have to be fair, it was a decent concert although I can't stand them. The crowd made it a fun, entertaining experience, they played a big role too. Now, when it comes to taste and fanaticism - obsessive, idiossincratic, poor and unexplainable taste, Rock in Rio III meant only one thing for me: Neil Young. Haha. It was thrilling - I shouldn't be there in the first place, so that's when the fun began, sweet talking the security. lol Then...I was shaking, I couldn't wait, my father listented to his recordings so I grew up listening to each and every album thousands of times, I was just mad. Problem was: his was the last performance of the night, and he got on stage about 1 A.M, most people had already gone away, I mean, it was bizarre. My friends got me closer to the stage and during good part of the concert I was on a friend's back. Hahaha. And I shouted, and shouted, and shouted. I lost my voice, reason, everything. People were scared at me, really, and the concert was crazy enough, so I was in the mood of the concert: it was like rock and roll with a vengence, it was wild from beginning to end, very raw and dirty throughout, except for some songs. Hehehe. It was really fun. Those were the days of my life! Those days are all gone now, but... : ))) Coming back to the thread after the huge digression: Judging from the Brazilian fan base, U2 is bound to sell a whole lot of their new album and probably are going to gather tens of thousands of people should they come here. They're are pretty much alive here, so to speak. Funny thing is: Queen is too. There has been a surge in the interest for Queen in the last years, though it's mainly for the albums with Freddie. Because Freddie isn't there anymore, and some years have passed since his death, which turned him into a kind of mythological figure, young people go for Paul Rodgers without a shadow of a doubt. It's their chance to see Queen Live and they're (we're) from an interesting generation: we don't belong in the mythological era, so the Freddie mania is not what it used to be, but the music still appeals to people. So they (we, I might say) respect Freddie, it was the Queen we got addicted to and opened the way for our interest in the new album with Paul Rodgers, but we do want Queen touring and making new albums be it with Paul Rodgers or anyone they find fit. They are such great musicians, why should they stop now? Unless they get tired of it or think they're too old for that and so on, but it'd be a pitty. So, who knows? Maybe Queen gets to release yet another new album, and a much better one, I hope. :)) The guys sure have the talent, so...it's been exciting. And it was great to see them, both U2 and Queen, but for different reasons. The U2 gig I found quite moving despite all the problems and flaws, the crowd is really passionate about the band, I never thought I'd end up humming along some songs, even if my friend was kind of, you know, "Come on, get some sound out of it", hahaha, but in a very amusing way, really like helping the band pull off the show, singing along, shouting, and so on. |
| Drastic_Stu 06.03.2009 09:19 |
Good point, but just because The Beatles can not do any new material it does not stop their compilations clocking up chart weeks and Queen are not that far ahead of them. For U2 (who have already released two greatest hits albums) to overtake Queen and clock up 200 more chart weeks you would have to see them do another 4 or 5 albums which would take what? best part of 10 years. While all that time Queen's Greatest Hits will clock up a few more weeks and hopefully we will see the boys do one more original album plus a couple of tours before they call it time. With Bono being 50 next year you would think that 10 years is nearly the most that U2 will carry on..... |
| maxpower 06.03.2009 10:34 |
IMO U2 are terrible these days in terms of rock dinosaurs you can't ignore ACDC & Aerosmith who imo are million times better acts than U2 |
| Sunshine__123456 06.03.2009 11:06 |
I think you all underestimate U2. What they did from the beginning is amazing. In fact on a parallel with Queen, it is one of the few bands that reinvent their sound but stay recognisable. If you are 30 yrs a top band with top albums and top singles, you do something right. The new album is a true gem. Miles away in my opinion from The Cosmos Rocks, which was quite predictable. If I listen to this new record, my heart starts to beat faster from excitement. Sorry Yara, but to review a concert with already a bad feeling in your stomach, not sold out and bad sound, doesnt make a whole band bad. Queen also did that a lot of times. Yes I am also annoyed sometimes about Bono with his politics and so on, but boy, they have some true gems that a true music lover can not overlook. Kite, Original of the Species, New Years Day, One, Zoo Station, Running To Stand Still, October, The Unforgettable fire and so on...really great gems. U2 is definately in the same category as Queen. Or Stones and Beatles.. |
| queenfanbg 06.03.2009 11:22 |
thequeen wrote: U2 with Bono sucks ....like Queen + Paul Rodgers does totaly agree with second one...[img=/images/smiley/msn/thumbs_up.gif][/img] |
| john bodega 06.03.2009 12:42 |
Sir GH wrote: After sifting through the childish irrationality in some of the above posts.. Come on, come on! Can't we have our fun? Ha-ha. |
| Saif 06.03.2009 13:01 |
Sunshine__123456 wrote: U2 is definately in the same category as Queen. Or Stones and Beatles..Good joke... |
| The Real Wizard 06.03.2009 13:06 |
Saif wrote: As much as I hate them, I think it's hard to argue that Coldplay isn't destined to be one of the biggest bands of all time. They'll definitely be known as one of the biggest bands from this time period, but of all time? I certainly hope not. However, keeping in mind how our overall cultural appreciation for quality music has definitely diminished as a whole over the last few decades, unfortunately you may be right. |
| The Real Wizard 06.03.2009 13:10 |
Marcelo_argentina wrote: you need something that U2 do not has..."a rock soul" to express your music... So, in other words... your person definition and interpretation of "soul" is now what contributes to the universal classification of what rock music can be? |
| The Real Wizard 06.03.2009 13:11 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Sir GH wrote: After sifting through the childish irrationality in some of the above posts..Come on, come on! Can't we have our fun? Ha-ha. Your childish irrationality is of a different ilk, though... an entertaining tongue in cheek kind. Other people are actually serious about it. May you never be serious, for everyone's sake. |
| mike hunt 06.03.2009 15:40 |
Can't stand U2, but admit they have longevity and are way more popular than Queen in america. Queen + paul don't stand a chance against them. Queen with freddie is another story. |
| Sunshine__123456 06.03.2009 15:56 |
Saif wrote:Sunshine__123456 wrote: U2 is definately in the same category as Queen. Or Stones and Beatles..Good joke... You are a joke if you can not find arguments why that is according to you. |
| Sunshine__123456 06.03.2009 16:05 |
Sir GH wrote:Saif wrote: As much as I hate them, I think it's hard to argue that Coldplay isn't destined to be one of the biggest bands of all time.They'll definitely be known as one of the biggest bands from this time period, but of all time? I certainly hope not. However, keeping in mind how our overall cultural appreciation for quality music has definitely diminished as a whole over the last few decades, unfortunately you may be right. I'll agree. But their music is not diverse enough to really become a big group. The new groups also dont bring something that hasnt been done before. I mean Coldplay and Snow Patrol sound like eachother for the average music listener. And I think they dont have a strong stage performance. But of course, they are all great musicians, nothing wrong. I think a lot of people here have to put their Queen glasses off and look a bit wider! |
| kosimodo 06.03.2009 16:16 |
Over the years rumours were going it was a gr8 live band... So i went... second worse live show ever... only beaten by Prince Comparing the 2 is ridiculous.... |
| Marcelo_argentina 06.03.2009 17:14 |
Sir GH: in other words... your person definition and interpretation of "soul" is now what contributes to the universal classification of what rock music can be? That's the problem, and a real one, "you" need to think, you need to classificate...there is where you destroy music, where you destroy rock...this is not college, this is not cultural analysis....if you describe and classificate rock you just destroy it....so imo you need to start feeling a little more, just feel....., move to the rythm dude..c'mon...you feel it now? |
| Killer Queenie 06.03.2009 17:15 |
I like both bands... I think they are both different in their own way... Never seen either of them live, on account that I am only 16 and wasn't around when Queen was originally around... But still... |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 06.03.2009 22:47 |
I don't think our opinions on this discussion matter...the band gets richer as we speak. Rolling Stone published fifth-annual list of music’s biggest moneymakers. It was conducted by taking interviews with record executives, managers, lawyers and agents. It also uses figures from Nielsen SoundScan, Pollstar, the Recording Industry Association of America, Amusement Business/Billboard and other sources. Obviously, U2 comes first with their numerous tours working to their fortune. These hard working guys deserve this fortune. Congratz U2! Here are the top 10 richest musicians : * U2, $154.2 million * The Rolling Stones, $92.5 million * Eagles, $63.2 million * Paul McCartney, $56 million * Elton John, $48.9 million * Neil Diamond, $44.7 million * Jimmy Buffett, $44 million * Rod Stewart, $40.3 million * Dave Matthews Band, $39.6 million * Celine Dion, $38.5 million |
| john bodega 07.03.2009 00:39 |
Sir GH wrote: Other people are actually serious about it. Indeed, it was the same in the Lynyrd Skynrd thread... I mean, it's fair to say I don't really like either band but the way in which some people have *serious*, fanatical dislike of something as insignifcant as a rock band??? Bizarre, is all I can say. |
| john bodega 07.03.2009 00:41 |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: * U2, $154.2 million * The Rolling Stones, $92.5 million * Eagles, $63.2 million * Paul McCartney, $56 million * Elton John, $48.9 million * Neil Diamond, $44.7 million * Jimmy Buffett, $44 million * Rod Stewart, $40.3 million * Dave Matthews Band, $39.6 million * Celine Dion, $38.5 million I don't see Rick Astley on that list. |
| Amazon 08.03.2009 11:14 |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: I don't think our opinions on this discussion matter...the band gets richer as we speak. Rolling Stone published fifth-annual list of music’s biggest moneymakers. It was conducted by taking interviews with record executives, managers, lawyers and agents. It also uses figures from Nielsen SoundScan, Pollstar, the Recording Industry Association of America, Amusement Business/Billboard and other sources. Obviously, U2 comes first with their numerous tours working to their fortune. These hard working guys deserve this fortune. Congratz U2! Here are the top 10 richest musicians : * U2, $154.2 million * The Rolling Stones, $92.5 million * Eagles, $63.2 million * Paul McCartney, $56 million * Elton John, $48.9 million * Neil Diamond, $44.7 million * Jimmy Buffett, $44 million * Rod Stewart, $40.3 million * Dave Matthews Band, $39.6 million * Celine Dion, $38.5 million Considering that U2, the Stones and the Eagles have to divide their wealth between multiple members, the wealthiest musician would have to be Paul McCartney.That's pretty impressive considering that, as great as he is, he hasn't had a massive selling album in years; although much of his wealth probably comes from touring. |
| P-Staker 08.03.2009 18:10 |
If U2 replaced Bono with someone like Paul Rodgers, they might actually improve. Now how that would work for sales, I've no idea. I don't understand why they're selling now... |
| Treasure Moment 09.03.2009 08:03 |
U2 is mine AND Queens urine. |
| john bodega 09.03.2009 12:31 |
Treasure Moment wrote: U2 is mine AND Queens urine. Oh cool. You finally have something in common with Freddie. |
| thequeen 09.03.2009 13:31 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: U2 is mine AND Queens urine.Oh cool. You finally have something in common with Freddie. You are very talented .... |
| The Real Wizard 09.03.2009 15:51 |
Marcelo_argentina wrote: if you describe and classificate rock you just destroy it.... I agree. So then stop classifying U2 as not being a rock band. |
| john bodega 09.03.2009 23:21 |
thequeen wrote: You are very talented .... I hope that was aimed at Treasure Moment. |