That’s what Todd Rundgren thinks, apparently. I attended his lecture on the Beatles at IU and I asked him, during the Q&A section: “Is there a band today that you think is equivalent to the Beatles?” He said he thought it was U2, and said that what made them similar to the Beatles was that they have made an effort to change their music over the course of their career and that their popularity and success is the closest thing in a contemporary band to what the Beatles achieved.
I didn’t buy it. “If you ask young musicians and bands who are just starting out today who their influences are, you really think a lot of them are going to say U2?” I asked him. He claimed that they might not be as influential as the Beatles were, but that their fame and success make up for it as well as their evolving musical styles, and also Bono’s political activism (Africa, specifically.)
I didn’t continue the questioning after that, as many other people had questions as well. But if I were to ask him further, I guess I would have asked him who specifically in terms of musical influence has been equivalent to the Beatles. I don’t know what he would have said to that.
But I just don’t get the comparison of U2 with the Beatles. I don’t know anyone who really, actively likes U2. I spent four years deep inside the college rock scene, where America’s new rock music is being invented, and didn’t know anyone who liked U2 or cared about them enough to talk about them. Anyone under the age of thirty, anyway. That, to me, indicates that U2 has not been anywhere near as important to the ongoing creation of music as the Beatles have. I don’t dislike U2, but they do not seem musically relevant to me.
What do you think about Todd Rundgren’s answer? I really would have expected someone who was as deeply involved with music, and who had his finger on the “pulse” of rock music and creativity, to have a better answer.