| Queen& 11.02.2005 10:26 |
why do people think u2 are better than queen fair enough they have prob had more no 1s than queen but people only no bono and the other guitarist {i dont know his name} but everyone new the 4 members of queen |
| queen_forever_87 11.02.2005 10:39 |
<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote: I can guarentee that if I said 'John Deacon' or 'Roger Taylor' to most of the people I know, they'd reply: "Who the f***?" ..sadly..:(Same here... but we'll keep "the true Queen" alive!! |
| Sonia Doris 11.02.2005 11:09 |
anyone has a pillow? i'm getting really, really sleepy!... |
| Another Roger (re) 11.02.2005 11:50 |
Of course U2 aint bigger than Queen. At the moment you might think so because a lot is happening around U2. Queen has been in dead in 14 years for gods sake. Thats why they get more publicity. Get real. |
| Sebastian 11.02.2005 12:03 |
U2 is a band most people either love or hate. I like them but if they come here I won't see them. I wouldn't bear to attend U2 when I missed Sting, Eagles and Velvet Revolver. |
| Tero 11.02.2005 13:08 |
Another Roger (re) wrote: Of course U2 aint bigger than Queen. At the moment you might think so because a lot is happening around U2. Queen has been in dead in 14 years for gods sake. Thats why they get more publicity. Get real.And that's exactly why you can't compare those two bands in any realistic way. The were never equal in any other criteria than record sales. If anything, comparing them to each other only sounds like those childish "my dad is better than yours" arguments. :P |
| brENsKi 11.02.2005 13:09 |
u2 are a bigger band than queen - they might not be better, and they might not be our favourite...but here we go again on the banal arguments that don't have an answer...other than (generally) opinions but there is one indesputable fact - u2 are a bigger global band than queen ever were...and they've maintained that status far longer than queen ever did queen managed to hold onto the USA from the Game until the works (4 years) u2 have held america by the bollocks since Rattle and Hum and The Joshua Tree (86/87) that's FOUR times as long - and let's not venture into worldwide sales - because i would estimate that U2 pretty-much blitz queen on that one too and as i said let's not get stupidly defensive of our favourite band and for the less-infomred, U2 are:- bono- the edge - larry mullen - adam clayton |
| David Jones 11.02.2005 13:14 |
I agree with Sebastian and Another Rog. I would say the two are both up there as great bands, but in their own rights, their two completely different bands, which I happen to like... |
| Whisperer 11.02.2005 14:04 |
This is just as stupid as a topic named Freddie Mercury vs. William Hung |
| Mercuryking 11.02.2005 15:01 |
i think that it was only because Freddie was gay, that queen couldnt maintain their position in the USA. But there is NO comparision between the 2. Queen outrulez them in sooo many ways. They are like amatuares comparing to Queen. |
| Maz 11.02.2005 15:49 |
Comparing U2 and Queen is comparing apples to oranges. Nice to see some people understand this, while others are blinded.
<B><font color=#ff7f00>Brenski</b> wrote: but there is one indesputable fact - u2 are a bigger global band than queen ever were...and they've maintained that status far longer than queen ever didI agree that U2 maintained their status longer, but I think Queen's success around 1980/81/82 and the tours they launched were pretty big in their own right. I don't think you can say that U2 is a bigger glabal band than Queen ever was. More like equal sized in my opinion. |
| Queen& 11.02.2005 15:49 |
Whisperer wrote: This is just as stupid as a topic named Freddie Mercury vs. William Hungthink u2 are a bit bigger than william hung |
| stormtrooper in stilettos 11.02.2005 16:20 |
ok everyone loves queen their f***in brilliant! they cud really connect with the crowds on live perfomances and they cud write masterpieces, but you have to give credit to U2 they never took drugs, helped and saved alot of charities and........ their IRISH!!!! wat more cud u say about them. |
| Tero 11.02.2005 16:28 |
stormtrooper in stilettos wrote: wat more cud u say about them.I could say that they write good songs, and based on the DVDs they put on a decent show as well... I'm looking forward to seeing them live this summer. |
| PhoenixRising 11.02.2005 18:11 |
Queen was/is much bigger globally than U2, except for the U.S. Most Americans are unaware of the fact that Queen is arguably probably the second biggest band ever, after the Beatles of course. There are other examples. ABBA, too, was monstrous around the world except in the U.S., where they were quite average. The Sweet were never really big in the U.S.(except for Little Willy, Ballroom Blitz, and Fox on the Run) but enjoyed a huge global following. Most Americans' perceptions are skewed toward what they perceive to be popular in America as being what must be the same around the world. As an American Queen fan, I feel robbed of the glory that was Queen everywhere else on this planet. It seems like only recently has the talent of the band started receiving it's due here. In the U.S.,Queen is EVERYWHERE now... Queen music is featured in several TV commercials, "We Will Rock You" blasts in nearly every sports stadium, and Queen gets airplay about every three hours on classic rock radio stations... Seems like they are appreciated now more than ever before. And astonishingly, it's the younger generation that has grabbed the Queen ball and run with it. Right now hip hop rules the airwaves in the U.S. but I'm sure that much of the rest of the world could care less. Nor do I. |
| deleted user 11.02.2005 18:14 |
queen vs u2? Why ask that question on a QUEEN forum? It's obvious the type of answers you're going to get... There's no competition, darling! |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 11.02.2005 18:46 |
I love both bands, but U2 probably gets more attention because they've been consistently in the spotlight for years while Queen hasn't had nearly as much publicity in the past decade. |
| bryans permed poodle 15069 11.02.2005 19:00 |
I would have to disagree U2 have sold know where near as many records, albums as Queen. Although agreed U2 have always been big in America Queen were/are still massive in Japan and South America and have easily outsold U2 in these teratories. It is a well known fact Queen are now second only to the Beatles in popularity in the UK. U2 are a good band and are legends but their not in Queen's League nor will they ever will be |
| BakaTuljan 11.02.2005 19:06 |
I love U2, or at least used to (they are starting to annoy me, Bonno especially). they are among my top 5 groups, but... In variety, quality and complexity few bands can outmatch Queen (in instrumental, vocal, and any other part), and U2 is far away from being one of those bands. Queen is way out of their league. |
| The Fairy King 11.02.2005 19:25 |
- U2 are bigger Queen were big - U2 got big after the Joshua Tree album Queen were on a break at the time - U2 went on bigass tours with bigass lightshows n stuff(ZOO TV was amazing) Queen didn't tour after 86 - U2 are on throne as the biggest liveband on the planet since 92(ZOO TV TOUR Queen are legends and will be remembered as THE greatest (live)band ever. But this isn't a fair fight because Queen didn't tour after 86 and only had 1 huge record(not counting MiH and GHII), U2 are successfull since the Joshua Tree album especially in America and Queen weren't anymore since the Game tour...maybe 82. But they were in Europe, Japan and South America. U2's popularity went skyhigh since that brilliant record and they just went on where Queen left off. When it comes to performing and albums, U2 were very refreshing. Simplistic anthems and deep heartfelt bluesy songs...they weren't a partyband then, Queen were. U2 came out in a time when punk died and new wave got in, and they were a mixture. I think their early work woz horrible, but it was a statement i think. I hope so...hehehe I love their records, especially after War. But i don't think they are better than Queen, they had some huge hits n stuff but they just don't have that...well dunno...they don't have Freddie xD Where am i going with this, dunno...it's late..i'm going to bed xD |
| nino trovato 11.02.2005 20:55 |
The only thing that they have in common is that both bands have made it to 20 years without a line-up change and both played Live Aid. Though Queen kicked their asses that day. |
| chiflaco 12.02.2005 02:41 |
U2 is a great band, but nowhere near Queen, creatively. To me the only true Queen competition are the Beatles, Led Zep, The Who, and bands like that. |
| Mr.Jingles 12.02.2005 09:31 |
<< - U2 are on throne as the biggest liveband on the planet since 92(ZOO TV TOUR >> I don't think so. All through the 90's, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, and Aerosmith were bigger and more popular than U2. Compared to the U2 of the 80s, the band lost a lot of popularity when they started becoming a mock of themselves and they went too over the top. I think U2 was only able to claim a status as the world's biggest band after 'All That You Can't Leave Behind'. Now about U2 being more popular than Queen, they were only more popular amoung critics, but we all know what people liked more. |
| The Fairy King 12.02.2005 10:19 |
Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, and Aerosmith?? Please, they are nothing live compared to U2 my dear mr Jingles. |
| brENsKi 12.02.2005 10:20 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: << - U2 are on throne as the biggest liveband on the planet since 92(ZOO TV TOUR >> I don't think so. All through the 90's, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, and Aerosmith were bigger and more popular than U2. Compared to the U2 of the 80s, the band lost a lot of popularity when they started becoming a mock of themselves and they went too over the top. I think U2 was only able to claim a status as the world's biggest band after 'All That You Can't Leave Behind'. Now about U2 being more popular than Queen, they were only more popular amoung critics, but we all know what people liked more.from 76/87 rattle & hum / joshua tree right up to the current album they have always sold big globally that makes them a bigger global band all the previous talk of this notbeing a fair fight is utter shite - nobody on here thinks it unfair to compare queen's technology against the beatles do they? the fact that queen didn't tour after 86 is not unfair - bigger band in everything means everything - you don't omitt criteria to suit an argument |
| Mr.Jingles 12.02.2005 10:32 |
The Fairy King wrote: Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, and Aerosmith?? Please, they are nothing live compared to U2 my dear mr Jingles.I actually saw Metallica, Aerosmtih, and U2 live. I have to say that Metallica and Aerosmith put on a better show than U2. However, Aerosmith gave a kinda boring performance on their 'Just Push Play' tour, but when I first saw them in 1997 they were just absolutely superb. I also saw Guns N' Roses, but that doesn't count since it was the fake band that Axl put together 2 years ago. |
| runner70 12.02.2005 15:40 |
The difference between U2 and Queen? U2 are the only band where I really feel that all they want is my money. Their website membership costs 40 (in words: FORTY) Dollars a year - they put out lt. Edition albums with ridiculous prices and all inside is some kinda "art" (WEll...) by Bono , they declaration of Human Rights and NO LYRICS! Their ticket prices are ridiculous and Bono is a hypocrite being together with smart-assed politicians when in earlier years Rock meant "Rebellion". Couldn't imagine Freddie meeting John Major ?! And Brian hates G Bush :-) Though Brian and Co want my money also but with a lot of more style and class than those cash-ins from Dublin! |
| 7Innuendo7 12.02.2005 16:21 |
decent topic. there was once a similar thread, drawing comparisons from the *Pop* album cover to the Hot Space cover art. Easy to guess that Freddie Mercury inspired millions everywhere. like Brenski and PhoenixRising say, it's a difficult comparison. However, u2 are able to do some stuff 'cos Queen did it first. The Achtung Baby tour was indeed fab-- floating Trabants? Wild! I've heard other people say Queen were the best live band from 1973-1978. |
| Tero 12.02.2005 17:18 |
runner70 wrote: Their website membership costs 40 (in words: FORTY) Dollars a year - they put out lt.You would have sounded so much better without this part... Yes, the membership costs $40, because it's their official fanclub. It is a bit higher price than the unofficial Queen fanclub, but at least they have up to date news, exclusive web content, and priority ticketing for all their shows. The band members even actually seem to care about the fans, since they posted an apology to those who couldn't get tickets because of the touts, and promised to refund people who had signed up just for the pre-sale, and couldn't get tickets. If Queen would have had anything like that, I would have been happy to subscribe. :P |
| Jean Luc 2000 12.02.2005 20:20 |
matthew poulter wrote: why do people think u2 are better than queen fair enough they have prob had more no 1s than queen but people only no bono and the other guitarist {i dont know his name} but everyone new the 4 members of queen1) These days you only need to sell a handful of records to get to number 1, so having a number 1 these days doesn't mean as much as it use it to. 2) Freddie = exciting Bono = zzzzzzzz 3) Queen, Queen II, SHA, ADATR, ANATO = works of art especially Queen II. U2's only really good album is Joshua tree but to be fair it is a very successful album can't take that away from them. 4) Queen = non political U2 = Political 5) Queen have superior vocal harmonies and more complex vocal arrangements which has lead to massive amounts of praise from there piers. 6) Queen also has the one of best guitarists ever. 7) Bono could be replaced if he died, Freddie is next to imposable to replace. 8) If Bono tried to sing Queen numbers live on stage to a Queen audience he would be laughed of the stage and would probably retire through shame and embarrassment by not being able to get anywhere near Mercury’s range and vocal talent. 9) Both bands have big fan bases. U2 are very well liked in the US, something that Queen lost 25 years ago. But then I suspect Queen are bigger in Asia and Europe. |
| foxxy_moron 12.02.2005 20:39 |
<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote: I can guarentee that if I said 'John Deacon' or 'Roger Taylor' to most of the people I know, they'd reply: "Who the f***?" ..sadly..:(i vote john deacon!! lol |
| cintiamarcelad@hotmail.com 12.02.2005 22:21 |
I think that there are too many points to compare between this two bands. I believe that if Freddie Mercury was alive, he would be the best singer at the moment, and I think nobody could compare with his voice, he was also a great showman. Bono is a great singer, and one of the best at the moment, and i would give that credit to u2 also. They make excellent music folks!! like Queen has in its time. Both are great. And if we start thinking about actual bands i think that u2 and Queen old records save us from listening that horrible music. All the bands are called ... "the..something".Come on "Is this all worth it"....? |
| the-rock 4283 13.02.2005 06:44 |
i read somewhere that u2's latest album already sold 8.5 million copies! but you can't compare the 2 bands as u2 still is a "working band"! |
| on my way up 13.02.2005 07:42 |
all I want to say about this is:you have very very talented people and you have geniuses.queen are geniuses while U2 are just a great band.freddie was a much bigger star than bono will ever be becuase he had this thing called charisma.he made queen better than anyone else.queens music is also much more diverse and that's important aswell ,more than selling records |
| Mr.Jingles 13.02.2005 08:28 |
I think Queen can only be compared to bands of the level of Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and The Beatles. U2 while still great, stands at a lower level. |
| runner70 13.02.2005 11:37 |
Tero wrote:Well the priority ticketing went downhill - loads of fanms didn't get anything at all - so they had to pay back the 40 $ in fear of legal action as the "smallprint" said "guaranteed Tickets for members" - see at the U2 boards - u2.com is utterrunner70 wrote: Their website membership costs 40 (in words: FORTY) Dollars a year - they put out lt.You would have sounded so much better without this part... Yes, the membership costs $40, because it's their official fanclub. It is a bit higher price than the unofficial Queen fanclub, but at least they have up to date news, exclusive web content, and priority ticketing for all their shows. The band members even actually seem to care about the fans, since they posted an apology to those who couldn't get tickets because of the touts, and promised to refund people who had signed up just for the pre-sale, and couldn't get tickets. If Queen would have had anything like that, I would have been happy to subscribe. :P crap even fans say that |
| Cool Cat 13.02.2005 11:38 |
U2 is going to tour in the same year as Queen, that is bothering me! Of course U2 got a new album so it's obvious that they would tour this year, but still...It's Queen's comeback and I think that they deserve more publicity than U2, just because U2 has been there forever and Queen were "out" for 14 years! Anybody agree with me or am I talking complete B&%shit? :P |
| flash00. 13.02.2005 11:50 |
U2 bigger than Queen....thats hilarious.. queen are up there on a scale which cant be matched, it was said at the brits " queen the greatest rock band in the world" franz ferdinan said it back stage as well as shit face chris evans, no disrespect to u2 but bono is one boring front man,, if you asked someone who's not a fan of either queen or u2 i bet they could name more queen songs than u2, even u2 or sick of bono with his politics, as freddie stated he hates political messages in songs! long live the mighty queen!!!!!!!!!!!! who are the biggest. :) |
| Tero 13.02.2005 13:35 |
Well the priority ticketing went downhill - loads of fanms didn't get anything at all - so they had to pay back the 40 $ in fear of legal action as the "smallprint" said "guaranteed Tickets for members" - see at the U2 boards - u2.com is utter crap even fans say thatI suppose that's true, considering that most of those who didn't get to buy a ticket were from USA. :P It must come in handy for Queen that it doesn't collect money from anybody via the fan club... Nobody can make any claims after all their recent fuck-ups. :/ |
| Mr.Jingles 13.02.2005 15:00 |
Cool Cat wrote: U2 is going to tour in the same year as Queen, that is bothering me! Of course U2 got a new album so it's obvious that they would tour this year, but still...It's Queen's comeback and I think that they deserve more publicity than U2, just because U2 has been there forever and Queen were "out" for 14 years! Anybody agree with me or am I talking complete B&%shit? :PTrust me If Queen was touring, they would be receiving (at least outside the States) more publicity than U2. But since what we have here is 50% Queen and the guy from Free and Bad Company going on tour, then it doesn't grab that much media attention. I for once I'm more looking forward to see Green Day. |
| brENsKi 13.02.2005 17:12 |
flash00. wrote: U2 bigger than Queen....thats hilarious.. queen are up there on a scale which cant be matched, it was said at the brits " queen the greatest rock band in the world" franz ferdinan said it back stage as well as shit face chris evans,:)you cite FF and Chris Evans as the "argument for why they are the biggest?" how can anyone (let alone YOU)respect the opinion of someone YOU refer to as "shitface"? anyhow for the record (UK charts only - as it's all i have) Top 10 albums Queen - 21/25 (84%) U2 - 14/17 (88%) No1 Albums Queen - 9/23 (39%) U2 - 10/16 (62%) Top10 Singles Queen - 22/50 (44%) U2 - 23/36 (67%) No1 Singles Queen - 4/50 (8%) U2 - 5/36 (13%) on those figures alone - the irish boys are winning - shame we can't get hold of the worldwide slaes figures and then we'll see just how much of a lead the Dublin lads have right now - it'd be close - but don't get me wrong - they have been consistently outselling queen since 87's Joshua Tree |
| LiveAidQueen 13.02.2005 17:29 |
U2...*Get's the chills* I can only handle like 4 songs... |
| Queen& 13.02.2005 18:14 |
u2 are no 1 this week as well |
| The Fairy King 13.02.2005 18:23 |
told ya :P |
| Jean Luc 2000 13.02.2005 19:03 |
<B><font color=#ff7f00>Brenski</B> wrote:These days you only have to sell a handfull of records to reach number 1. Its not that hard. Back in Queens day it could take weeks to get to number 1. A new relaese getting to number one back then was a very rare thing.flash00. wrote: U2 bigger than Queen....thats hilarious.. queen are up there on a scale which cant be matched, it was said at the brits " queen the greatest rock band in the world" franz ferdinan said it back stage as well as shit face chris evans,:)you cite FF and Chris Evans as the "argument for why they are the biggest?" how can anyone (let alone YOU)respect the opinion of someone YOU refer to as "shitface"? anyhow for the record (UK charts only - as it's all i have) Top 10 albums Queen - 21/25 (84%) U2 - 14/17 (88%) No1 Albums Queen - 9/23 (39%) U2 - 10/16 (62%) Top10 Singles Queen - 22/50 (44%) U2 - 23/36 (67%) No1 Singles Queen - 4/50 (8%) U2 - 5/36 (13%) on those figures alone - the irish boys are winning - shame we can't get hold of the worldwide slaes figures and then we'll see just how much of a lead the Dublin lads have right now - it'd be close - but don't get me wrong - they have been consistently outselling queen since 87's Joshua Tree |
| The Fairy King 13.02.2005 20:02 |
no it wasn't...and besides "back in Queen's day" U2 were around too :P |
| BiggyRat 13.02.2005 21:06 |
<font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I don't agree that U2 are better than Queen.U2 suck. Sorry No comaprison to Queen at all that I can see. U2 USED to be OK, but they lost the plot years ago IMO. Vertigo is tha best song they'e released in years I reckon... |
| The Fairy King 13.02.2005 22:17 |
Are u mad?? All That You Can't Leave Behind woz 10 times better than Atomic Bomb!!!! Even some songs on Pop, like Please and Staring At The Sun are better than Vertigo! |
| LadyMoonshineDown 13.02.2005 22:40 |
matthew poulter wrote: why do people think u2 are better than queen fair enough they have prob had more no 1s than queen but people only no bono and the other guitarist {i dont know his name} but everyone new the 4 members of queenIt is all a matter of opinion. Some may wonder why people such as ourselves think Queen are better than U2, or other bands. In the long run................ It's all relative. Personally, I think Queen outshines U2 for miles on end, but that is because I love Queen, and I'm not particulary fond of U2 to say the kindest and least bit. Others will feel the same way vice versa. Let us not care, alrighty? Cheers |
| Lawyeris 14.02.2005 01:18 |
wrote: U2 No1 Singles Queen - 4/50 (8%) U2 - 5/36 (13%)Officially Queen had SIX No 1 hits in UK: 1) BoRha - 75/76 2) Under Pressure - 81 3) Innuendo - 91 4) BoRha/TATDOOL - 91/92 5) Five live EP - 93 6) WWRY (Queen/Five) - 00 |
| News Of The World 14.02.2005 07:14 |
Queen are better than U2, why? Freddie is a better singer than Bono, Brian May is a better guitarist than The Edge and a better singer than Bono, Roger is a better drummer than U2's drummer and a better singer than Bono, John Deacon is a better Bass player than U2's bassist, Queen are better composes than U2 Queen's songs are better. Queen are much better Live performers...so there |
| brENsKi 14.02.2005 12:44 |
Lawyeris wrote:see i just knew some smart-bollox would use two queen+ tracks to try an win the arguementwrote: U2 No1 Singles Queen - 4/50 (8%) U2 - 5/36 (13%)Officially Queen had SIX No 1 hits in UK: 1) BoRha - 75/76 2) Under Pressure - 81 3) Innuendo - 91 4) BoRha/TATDOOL - 91/92 5) Five live EP - 93 6) WWRY (Queen/Five) - 00 ...so (even if they count) that would only up Queen's no1s to 6/50 (12% which is STILL less than U2's 13% so win the arguement with good maths skills |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 13:32 |
Supossedely Bono writes most of the lyrics in U2, and they credit the music to the whole band. Does anyone really know how much input puts each member on the band? |
| brENsKi 14.02.2005 17:51 |
and (as someone else has started a "how many grammys have queen ever had" topic) - the answer is NONE - Zilch, NADA, zero, fuck-all and U2 - well - it's just another thing they beat queen on - even the industry thinks them better here's their scroll of honour (and before you lambast me - i prefer queen - but U2 are the bigger band of the last 15 years) read on.... the complete U2 grammy list GRAMMY Category Record Of The Year Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Walk On Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Elevation Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Rock Album Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work All That You Can't Leave Behind Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Record Of The Year Year 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Beautiful Day Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Song Of The Year Year 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Beautiful Day Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal Year 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Beautiful Day Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Music Video, Long Form Year 1994 - 37th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Zoo TV - Live From Sidney Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Alternative Music Album Year 1993 - 36th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Zooropa Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal Year 1992 - 35th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Achtung Baby Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal Year 1988 - 31st Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Desire Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Performance Music Video Year 1988 - 31st Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work Where The Streets Have No Name Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Album Of The Year Year 1987 - 30th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work The Joshua Tree Artist Performing Work U2 GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal Year 1987 - 30th Annual GRAMMY Awards Title of the Work The Joshua Tree Artist Performing Work U2 so that's U2 - 14 queen - 0 if it were a boxing match - then it would have been stopped long ago.... |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 18:22 |
As I mentioned on the another thread, Grammys mean nearly nothing. Even Britney Spears got her first Grammy last night. Queen, AC/DC, Jimmy Hendrix, The Who, Guns N' Roses, and until last night Led Zeppelin had none. So does that make Britney Spears better than the ones mentioned before because she has one? The recording industry critics who award the Grammys (along with most music critics) have a special personal fondness for anything that U2 makes, even if it sounds like crap. How else can you explain that U2 got a Grammy for a shit album like 'Zooropa' when they were competing against these albums: - Nirvana - In Utero - R.E.M. - Automatic For The People - Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream I think most people here will agree that any of these album are by far better than 'Zooropa'. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 18:45 |
Led Zeppelin never had a #1 single. So it's not about singles either. |
| Maz 14.02.2005 19:39 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: The recording industry critics who award the Grammys (along with most music critics) have a special personal fondness for anything that U2 makes, even if it sounds like crap. How else can you explain that U2 got a Grammy for a shit album like 'Zooropa' when they were competing against these albums: - Nirvana - In Utero - R.E.M. - Automatic For The People - Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream I think most people here will agree that any of these album are by far better than 'Zooropa'.This is turning into a crusade, Danny. We've already established that you don't like Zooropa or Pop, so let it go already. After all, that's what you told fans they should do in another thread. I do, however, have to take umbrage with one of your comments: Mr.Jingles79 wrote: All through the 90's, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, and Aerosmith were bigger and more popular than U2.You've made this comment before, and you have yet to offer any proof. GnR put out 2 great albums and were huge in 91/92/93. Then they followed it up with a dismal cover album, and quickly fell apart. How can you bigger than U2 "all through the 90's" if you stop touring, stop making albums, and become a joke? Nirvana put out some good albums and changed music, then their lead singer kills himself in 1994. Again, how can you be bigger than U2 "all through the 90's" if stop touring and stop making records because your lead singer is dead? Metallica put out a great album and were huge in the early 90s, no doubt about that. What fans debate, as I'm sure you know, is their impact with Load and Reload. I, myself, liked Reload, but many fans think they lost their way sometime around the haircuts and Napster lawsuits. A good, intelligent debate could be made on U2 vs. Metallica in terms of "greatness" but I certainly don't expect that here. Aerosmith, they, um, did stuff in the 90s. I don't care for them either way. They were big with Get A Grip, but I lost track of them after that. I'll claim ignorance on this one. What's tiresome, Danny, is you making these comments without any proof, when really you are just putting forth your opinion like everyone else. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 20:59 |
If it's so tiresome how come you're replying. We're in the same boat I guess. |
| Maz 14.02.2005 21:03 |
Forgive me for trying to interject some evidence into the debate, Danny. I was hoping you'd try it, too, but I guess not. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 21:07 |
I don't need say again that IMO what U2 did through most of the 90s was awful, and if you want to keep discussing it, that's fine with me. I'm not saying you shouldn't. |
| Maz 14.02.2005 21:17 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: I don't need say again that IMO what U2 did through most of the 90s was awful, and if you want to keep discussing it, that's fine with me. I'm not saying you shouldn't.I don't mind that, in your opinion, U2 sucked in the 90s. There's no problem with that. But when you make claims that all those bands were bigger, then offer up some proof. I mean no ill will, only a good honest debate. I've offered a few points as to why they weren't bigger, respond accordingly. I just grow tired of blanket statements with no regard for fact. Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Supossedely Bono writes most of the lyrics in U2, and they credit the music to the whole band. Does anyone really know how much input puts each member on the band?Bono does the lyrics, The Edge the music. That's not to say Adam and Larry are completely out of it; they remain the band's fiercest critics, from what I can tell. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 21:31 |
Well, let's debate then. Back in the 90s all those bands including U2 were selling out arenas and stadiums wherever they played. So you could say they pretty much they all equally shared the popularity of their live shows. Not to mention that the Stones and Pink Floyd were huge ticket sellers, even though their songs didn't receive much radio airplay. However in the case of 'Zooropa' and 'Pop' they hardly had any songs receiving constant radio air-play, except for 'Stay' and 'Staring At The Sun'. In the case of Guns N' Roses, Nirvana, Aerosmith, and Metallica, most of their 90s albums like 'Use Your Illusion' (I & II), Nevermind, In Utero, Pump, Get A Grip, The Black Album, and Load had at least 3 songs receiving a lot of radio airplay. Not to mention also that all those albums sold a lot more than 'Zooropa' or 'Pop'. By the time U2 hit the road on the 'Pop-Mart' tour they had some troubled selling-out arenas and stadiums. Their popularity was indeed slowly fading away, but there's no doubt that 'All That You Can't Leave Behind' gave them a huge boost. |
| Maz 14.02.2005 21:50 |
Regarding the tours: link # 1992: Zoo TV was the top grossing tour with 73 shows in 61 cities. # 1997: PopMart was the second highest grossing tour in the U.S. at $79.9 million with 46 shows in 37 cities. A total of 1.7 million tickets were sold in the U.S. Zooropa is difficult to classify because of how U2 folded much of it into Achtung Baby. The album got included into the Zoo TV tour, so any clear comments on that are hard to make. PopMart, though, did much better than people want to remember. They may not have sold out every stadium, but then, they were trying to play 50,000 seat stadiums and not 15,000 seat arenas like Aerosmith. If you compare tours and attendance among the 5 bands we've discussed, I'd bet U2 is in the top 2. I can only see Metallica, with their insane desire to tour and the stadium dates they did in the early 90s, beating U2. Aerosmith might be up there, but I think they played too many 2000 seat outdoor shows. I will concede your point on radio airplay. Again, Zooropa gets lumped in with Achtung Baby. As for Pop, I think it caught on somewhat with alternative stations, but have no clue about the Top 40. My only defense of Pop, besides the fact that I really like it, is that the band themselves consider it their weakest album. Still, as the record sales and tour profits show, it wasn't that big of a flop. Ah, you added this line: "Not to mention also that all those albums sold a lot more than 'Zooropa' or 'Pop'." Are you sure? Some, no doubt (Use Your Illusion, Nevermind, Black Album); but what about In Utero and Load? Show me the stats. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 22:54 |
I dunno about worldwide numbers, since they're not actually available sources aside from some not so reliable stats. At least for what is known in the U.S. 'In Utero' and 'Unplugged' went 5 times platinum, just like Metallica's 'Load'. 'Re-Load' was really weak and only went 3x platinum. 'Garage Inc.' went 5x platinum and S&M 4x. 'Zooropa' went 2x platinum, and Pop 1. |
| Maz 14.02.2005 23:28 |
I'd be interested in seeing how Zooropa and Pop compared in international sales with those other albums. Those albums remained bigger sellers overseas, then here. Still, US sales do put them toward the bottom if you are comparing these bands' performance in America. I will add one caveat: these figures count the number of actual discs sold and not individual sales. For most CDs, this means nothing. But in the case of Garage, Inc and S&M, these were double cd sets. While S&M went 4X Platinum, it actually only sold 2 million units, and not four. Its sales, then, were on par with Zooropa. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2005 23:32 |
Zeni wrote: Those albums remained bigger sellers overseas, then here.Any stats? And btw, double albums get awarded for individual sales and not for sales of each disc. If otherwise then Smashing Pumpkins would have sold about as many copies per disc of 'Siamese Dream' as they did with 'Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness'. No doubt that 'Mellon Collie' sold a lot better than 'Siamese Dream'. |
| Maz 14.02.2005 23:54 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote:I don't think so. This was something that came to light with Rod Stewart sometime during the 90s. He released a 4 disc box set that went platinum, then people realized that it only sold 250,000 copies. According to the RIAA, Mellon Collie was 8X Platinum, while Siamese Dream was 4X.Zeni wrote: Those albums remained bigger sellers overseas, then here.Any stats? And btw, double albums get awarded for individual sales and not for sales of each disc. If otherwise then Smashing Pumpkins would have sold about as many copies per disc of 'Siamese Dream' as they did with 'Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness'. No doubt that 'Mellon Collie' sold a lot better than 'Siamese Dream'. As for stats: link Both Zooropa and Pop went platinum in the UK, while Load, Reload, and In Utero only went gold. The Black Album did go platinum, as did Unplugged, but S&M and Garage, Inc aren't certified at all. Can't find anything on the rest of the world. |
| Maz 15.02.2005 00:01 |
How the RIAA certifies records: link Scroll down to Multi-Disc set "Package must include two or more CDs" "Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification" |
| Mustapha Ibrahim 15.02.2005 08:21 |
Its insulting to compare U2 with Queen I hate U2 and im Irish they just do my head in and Bono thinks he's a God. Queen blew them and everyone else away at Live Aid and would ten times out of ten. |