# U2 the modern Beatles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 29, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733 "2010-10-29T02:58:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![axaxas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/46a35a/32.png) [@axaxas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/axaxas)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/21 "2010-10-29T16:58:19Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > The proliferation of media outlets – cable and satellite TV and radio, the internet, etc. – has splintered popular attention in a manner that it is not possible for figures of the modern age to duplicate that degree of cultural penetration. 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. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/22 "2010-10-29T17:26:37Z")
> [@Lust4Life](#): > > Apart from being a supergroup the Beatles consciously changed world music several times, and set the course for future music. How were they a supergroup? Ringo was the only one who had previously been in a band, let alone a famous one. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/23 "2010-10-29T17:33:50Z")
> [@axaxas](#): > > 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. Exploited, that is, in their evil plot to replace Jesus and get everyone hooked on drugs. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/24 "2010-10-29T17:50:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That’s an interesting point, but the obvious problem with it is that a “like the Beatles” comparison implies, more than anything else, STAR POWER. More than anything else, the Beatles were stars. > > I guarantee most kids - most people of any age group - would not have the first idea who Larry Page, Sergei Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg are, and I’m pretty sure most kids don’t know who Steve Jobs is, even if they own one of his products. And they never will. Indeed, of those four, Steve Jobs is the only guy who I even know what he looks like. The only REALLY recognizable face in the IT industry is Bill Gates. Jobs, well, maybe. > > But every kid in the 60s knew who Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr and George Harrison were. Shit, I was born after the Beatles broke up and I’m sure I knew who they were by the time I was ten. 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… ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/25 "2010-10-29T18:17:52Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > 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 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](http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/15520.html) - not bad for someone with only a high school education, though he is highly self-educated. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/26 "2010-10-29T18:26:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/27 "2010-10-29T18:59:21Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > **The Beatles:** Each member a had successful solo career, including two (John & George) who were extremely influential and memorable. 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! ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/28 "2010-10-29T20:59:14Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > 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. Agreed. Between Wings and his work with other artists like Michael Jackson, Paul has definitely had the most commercially successful post-Beatles career. There are [images from the event on the TR Connection forum](http://forum.trconnection.com/viewthread.php?tid=7966). ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2010, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/29 "2010-10-30T13:02:24Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > How were they a supergroup? Ringo was the only one who had previously been in a band, let alone a famous one. 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. ---
**Author:** ![oliversarmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/eb8c5e/32.png) [@oliversarmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oliversarmy)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/30 "2010-10-31T01:14:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/31 "2010-10-31T15:38:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/32 "2010-11-01T02:26:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/33 "2010-11-01T03:03:47Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > 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 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. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/34 "2010-11-01T03:24:51Z")
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 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/35 "2010-11-01T03:37:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/36 "2010-11-01T03:38:33Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Staggerlee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/staggerlee/32/3134_2.png) [@Staggerlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staggerlee)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/37 "2010-11-03T14:02:50Z")
Well, the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, while Bono _is the Messiah_. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/38 "2010-11-03T14:12:53Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733/39 "2010-11-03T15:19:22Z")
Wyld Stallyns? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u2-the-modern-beatles/558733.md?page=1)