That’s it, very well explained. If they had all that media outlets in the 60’s, they hardly have had that impact. Anyhow, thumbs up for The Beatles, they exploited the circumstances very well.
How were they a supergroup? Ringo was the only one who had previously been in a band, let alone a famous one.
Exploited, that is, in their evil plot to replace Jesus and get everyone hooked on drugs. :eek:
No real argument. I think it is an interesting exercise to re-frame your point and ask: what is the star in today’s internet-driven age? Kids certainly know Google, Apple and Facebook…
I agree with the other posters that there is no equivalent, and really cannot be one because of the evolution of popular culture.
On the other hand, I really envy you being in that room. I’m in Chicago and don’t drive and can’t make it down to Bloomington. I was in Akron and Muskegon for the “Todd/Healing” shows though.
You forgot to mention that he is in IU for two weeks as the Wells Scholars Professor - not bad for someone with only a high school education, though he is highly self-educated.
Part of what made the Beatles so compelling was the internal creative conflict between John and Paul (as well as some continuing resentment from George), and the unpredictability that this contributed to their music. I’m not aware of U2 having that same sort of internal pressure.
Er, it may still be uncool in some circles to admit liking his work, but Paul has had a subsequent career that has been way more successful in commercial terms than either John’s or George’s, and I will warrant, way more influential than George’s at least. You could argue that the Wings period should not count as part of his solo career (although it was, to all intents, Paul and his backing group), but then you don’t get to count the Traveling Wilburys or The Plastic Ono Band either (and, arguably, not John with Elephant’s Memory). Indeed, I would not be very surprised if Paul’s solo work even apart from Wings has outsold John’s, and I would be quite surprised if it has not outsold George’s.
As for U2, quite apart from the fact that their influence will never come anywhere near to that of The Beatles, in what sense (apart from the fact that they are still working) are they a modern band? They have been around for almost 35 years, and 40 years ago, The Beatles themselves were still around.
Admittedly, if one is forced to answer this question, U2 may well be the least worst answer, but Tod really ought to have said “Nobody.”
Actually, on the criteria that let U2 in, you could even make a case for The Rolling Stones! They are still around, do not go back quite as far as The Beatles, and have been massively influential, way beyond U2 or any other current band. - Hey, I just proved that The Rolling Stones are the new Beatles. I bet someone actually said that back in '64!
Agreed. Between Wings and his work with other artists like Michael Jackson, Paul has definitely had the most commercially successful post-Beatles career.
I get your point, but I wasn’t referring to the supergroup category where it is composed of the former members of leading bands,
(First one that I can recall was I believe called Balls),
but the Beatles complete domination of the music scene in much the same way that Elvis was a super, er vocal act.
One other thing, the Beatles were very much a part of a time. Look at their U.S. discography. “Please, Please Me” came out in 1963. “Let It Be” came out in 1970. Seven years. And the world changed enormously during those seven years. They were a constant in probably the most culturally turbulent time of the Western world and their music changed tremendously.
And I say that by also saying I like U2 a lot, but they’re not the Beatles. There will not be another Beatles until everyone who was alive when they were “it” – for lack of a better word – is dead.
The new Beatles cannot be found in the realm of rock music, or pop; that vein’s been played out.
I submit N.W.A.
I agree that NWA might be as good an answer as U2, if not better. Two of the principals - Dr. Dre and Ice Cube - became genre-defining superstars after the band ended. Eazy-E was a producer of considerable note, and helped other influential rap artists get started. Even Yella did some porn. 
I certainly agree that no band could touch The Beatles by a mile, simply because of the time. They were the most popular band in the world during a period when the world changed in such massive ways, and the media outlets, distribution paths for music, etc. will never be the same. The Beatles couldn’t be The Beatles if they started out in '77.
There are some pretty good U2-Beatles parallels. Bands that were arguably comprised of friends before they were capable musicians. Attending school together, or at least in the same area. Principal songwriters who lost their mothers at an early age. Incredible management (if Epstein had lived, who’s to say The Beatles might have lasted another decade?).
For different reasons, not all of them in total agreement with the question, I might nominate Led Zeppelin or The Smiths for the mantle, but again, it would be Beatles-like in their influence, popularity, impact… none of the bands could come close to the Fab Four.
Rundgren produced XTC’s Skylarking, which many suggest sound like what The Beatles might have sounded like if they came into vogue in the late 70s.
I don’t understand the responses to this thread. People aren’t listening to what Rundgren said. He’s not saying they are as big as the Beatles. He’s pointing out that U2 mirror’s the Beatles wide repertoire of songs. and is this respect he is right about U2. The ability to create new and diverse music is the hallmark of a good band.
NO U2 never came close to the popularity of the Beatles. They never crossed formats and the Beatles even produces a few songs (“Yesterday” and “The Long And Winding Road”) that are “starndards.”
Since the death of Tin Pan Alley how many rock songs are standards? I can name you a lot of people who never heard of U2 or a U2 song. But how many people have never heard of a Beatles’s song?
The Beatles CHANGE the direction of music. The other big artists, Elvis and Madonna, didn’t change music, they exploited it. By this I mean they saw the trends and were able to adjust their styles to capitalize on the trends and achive mass popularity.
I don’t know who said, it but it’s true. Anytime someone compares you to someone or says, “they are the next…” They are NEVER as good as who they are being compared with
When I asked the question (and I even asked a second followup question after it making my intention more clear) what I meant was, who is as influential as the Beatles - who is the band now or in the past decades who is inspiring lots of new musicians and sparking trends in rock music? Maybe a better question would have been is there a musical movement today that is as influential as the Beatles were as a band.
I don’t think U2 has been influential, although they are undoubtedly a very talented band. I don’t hear U2’s influence in any of the new music being created today.
I think alternative rock bands like Jane’s Addiction, Stone Temple Pilots and the Smashing Pumpkins have been hugely influential to the indie rock movement. I think bands like Sublime and the Red Hot Chili Peppers who incorporate funk and quasi-rap have been hugely influential to rock music, and I also think there’s a direct line from Elvis Costello and Joe Jackson to groups like Weezer. (Weezer itself has been a big influence on new rock bands in the past 15 years.)
I think all of the above have had more of an impact on music than U2.
Do these people live in bomb shelters, cut off from all mass media? I could not name a Lady Gaga song, but there’s no way I can claim not to have heard of her, and she’s only been around an instant compared to U2. Obviously nobody thinks they’re comparable to The Beatles, but let’s not underplay their level of fame.
Well, the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, while Bono is the Messiah.
U2 has ranged from Love Me Do to Tomorrow Never Knows? From When I’m Sixty-Four to Helter Skelter? They have a Yellow Submarine? A back half of Abbey Road? An I am the Walrus? An A Day in the Life?
No, they don’t.
Upper echelon band, but as wide-ranging as the Beatles? No.
Wyld Stallyns?