Have U2 got any good Acoustic Albums?

karaokeman

I've always believed that U2 are better than the Beatles and I still debate this with people.

Problem is back in the 60s, they didn't have the same kind of technical equipment and not as many electric guitars so other people I talk to find it hard to compare the Beatles for what they were with U2 in relation to their whole career.

If there's any good acoustic songs by U2 I will certainly have a listen cause I've heard much of the more advanced stuff.

wandatowell

Absolutely not, infact I would say they dont have any good album. No need to debate with me over it.

Android 666

karaokeman wrote: »

I've always believed that U2 are better than the Beatles and I still debate this with people.

Nah, The Beatles will always outstrip U2. I'm not a massive U2 basher but they have been swimming in a sea of dross for the last couple of albums and the Beatles by virtue of their relatively short existence have a wonderfully concise amount of recordings and never suffered the ignomy of sliding into mediocrity which was the fate of other bands from the era like the Stones. U2 had The Joshua Tree and maybe Acthung Baby as era defining albums but the Beatles had Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, The White Album and Abbey Road.

karaokeman wrote: »

Problem is back in the 60s, they didn't have the same kind of technical equipment and not as many electric guitars so other people I talk to find it hard to compare the Beatles for what they were with U2 in relation to their whole career.

But within the confines of the technology of the technology that they had the stuff the Beatles did is simply mindblowing. Access to technology does not equate to greatness.

karaokeman wrote: »

If there's any good acoustic songs by U2 I will certainly have a listen cause I've heard much of the more advanced stuff.

Well considering that most of the Edge's sound is based on a wall of guitar effects there's very little in the way of accoustic tunes by them. All I want is you is the only one that comes to mind.

sheesh

joshua tree would be the nearest U2 come to in terms of an acoustic album. I think its a great album. I think that u2 still produce a couple of good songs but nothing like the unforgettable fire , the joshua tree and achtung baby, thats three great albums and i Love them but none of them stand up to the likes of the beatles Sgt peppers.


U2 seem to be free wheeling since 'zooropa'.

omen80

For me U2's best period was from 1984-1991. "Pop" was actually a good album too. Since then though they have just been spewing out the same drivel. It's a pity they just don't write a good album instead of selling out.......it's not like they need the money.
The Beatles on the other hand started out as a boy band with instruments. I wouldn't even compare the two. The Rolling Stones would be a better comparison.

Android 666

omen80 wrote: »

The Beatles on the other hand started out as a boy band with instruments. I wouldn't even compare the two. The Rolling Stones would be a better comparison.

That's not true at all. Before the got their record deal, the Beatles honed their craft playing rock and roll covers in bars on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg. It was hardly the type of beginnings that would be typical of a boyband. The Stones on the other hand could be seen as a bunch good looking middle class fellahs playing at being a blues band in fashionable clubs in London. It was the savvy of Andrew Loog Oldham to market the Stones as the bad boys which stuck with the band while Brian Epstein persuaded the Beatles to ditch their leather look to gain more mass appeal. Early publicity shots of the Stones should a band just as willing to confirm to the same type of image as the Beatles.

omen80

Android 666 wrote: »

That's not true at all. Before the got their record deal, the Beatles honed their craft playing rock and roll covers in bars on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg. It was hardly the type of beginnings that would be typical of a boyband. The Stones on the other hand could be seen as a bunch good looking middle class fellahs playing at being a blues band in fashionable clubs in London. It was the savvy of Andrew Loog Oldham to market the Stones as the bad boys which stuck with the band while Brian Epstein persuaded the Beatles to ditch their leather look to gain more mass appeal. Early publicity shots of the Stones should a band just as willing to confirm to the same type of image as the Beatles.

Sure before Westlife got a record deal Cian Egan was playing in bars with an acoustic guitar. It's when they get the record deal that they turn into boybands. The Beatles totally turned into a boyband with their first few albums. They got a lot better though later on though.

RayCon

karaokeman wrote: »

Problem is back in the 60s, they didn't have the same kind of technical equipment and not as many electric guitars so other people I talk to find it hard to compare the Beatles for what they were with U2 in relation to their whole career.

Did you not contradict yourself with that statement ? .... so you're saying because The Beatles had less technalogical gimickery available to them, they're less of a band .... what utter f**kin nonsense ...

.... and Im not even a fan of the Beatles !!!!

discobeaker

They dont have an acoustic album really but there are some bootleg albums with acoustic stuff on them. Like at every show they would do some tracks acoustic like Angel of Harlem,Stay from Zoo TV Dvd, Desire from the Slane Dvd etc.

I have afew of the bootlegs and some of it is really cool. I also have some stuff from U2 playing on Grafton Street acoustic from 88 or so.

smokedeels

karaokeman wrote: »

I've always believed that U2 are better than the Beatles and I still debate this with people.

....How, on any level are they better than the Beatles?

Record Sales, if that matters - which it doesn't = Beatles win

Critical Acclaim = Beatles win

Innovation, bringing new ideas to mainstream music = Beatles win

Writing a good pop tune = Beatles win.

Please man, tell me how they are better, humour me at least, I can't figure out what your argument could be.

karaokeman

smokedeels wrote: »

....How, on any level are they better than the Beatles?

Record Sales, if that matters - which it doesn't = Beatles win

Critical Acclaim = Beatles win

Innovation, bringing new ideas to mainstream music = Beatles win

Writing a good pop tune = Beatles win.

Please man, tell me how they are better, humour me at least, I can't figure out what your argument could be.

Firstly I don't go with popular opinion usually. I define a band by my own critical examination of their music rather than surveys taken to see what the majority believe.

Record sales, no it doesn't matter. I stand by my personal belief that U2 have better musicians and write better songs than the Beatles. I cannot say The Beatles are better because they sold 1 billion records as some artists are overrated and global opinion can't change that.

Critical Acclaim, again its down to what I believe. And while the Beatles are a more respected band, I can always compare the two with U2 coming out with the upper hand.

Innovation, that is debatable because most modern bands are influenced by U2 (Eg Coldplay, The Killers, The Fray, Green Day etc.). The Beatles pretty much invented pop music and thats where Michael Jackson and all came from but otherwise U2's influence is still growing

Writing a good pop tune, I'm going to have to disagree. Beautiful Day is better than Yellow Submarine. You can disagree if you like but I think U2 have written better pop and rock songs. U2's songs are more meaningful to me (Eg With or Without You) and they have more lively tunes (Eg Magnificent).

Bonavox

smokedeels wrote: »

....How, on any level are they better than the Beatles?

Record Sales, if that matters - which it doesn't = Beatles win

Critical Acclaim = Beatles win

Innovation, bringing new ideas to mainstream music = Beatles win

Writing a good pop tune = Beatles win.

Please man, tell me how they are better, humour me at least, I can't figure out what your argument could be.

I like The Beatles myself, but I can't understand why they're so acclaimed. I mean, they wrote a song called Yellow Submarine and the lyrics resembled something you'd hear on a kids channel show. For clarification, I think U2 are a better band but I'm aware the majority of people will disagree and it all comes down to opinion.

Android 666

Bonavox wrote: »

I like The Beatles myself, but I can't understand why they're so acclaimed. I mean, they wrote a song called Yellow Submarine and the lyrics resembled something you'd hear on a kids channel show. For clarification, I think U2 are a better band but I'm aware the majority of people will disagree and it all comes down to opinion.

And songs like 'Elevation' are the height of lyrical sophistication?

Bonavox

Android 666 wrote: »

And songs like 'Elevation' are the height of lyrical sophistication?

I'm not saying every U2 song is lyrically genius, but Elevation is a hell of a lot better than Yellow Submarine. I will admit, Beatles have some amazing songs. Here Comes The Sun is better than any U2 song I've heard, but they are most definitely overrated.

Android 666

karaokeman wrote: »

Innovation, that is debatable because most modern bands are influenced by U2 (Eg Coldplay, The Killers, The Fray, Green Day etc.).

Christ, that's a list I'd be keeping secret, not celebrating!

karaokeman wrote: »

The Beatles pretty much invented pop music and thats where Michael Jackson and all came from but otherwise U2's influence is still growing

You don't really know anything about the history of popular music if your making a statement like that...

Android 666

Bonavox wrote: »

I'm not saying every U2 song is lyrically genius, but Elevation is a hell of a lot better than Yellow Submarine. I will admit, Beatles have some amazing songs. Here Comes The Sun is better than any U2 song I've heard, but they are most definitely overrated.

Not a bit of it. Yellow Submarine was always a piece of whimsy as were other songs that are in the Beatles catalogue (Octopus' Garden, All Together Now, Back in the USSR...) but they are completely outweighed by the other fantastic songs they have. On Revolver you have Yellow Submarine but you also have Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, Here, There and Everywhere, Got to get you into my life and Tomorrow Never Knows. All on one album! A year later they released Sgt. Peppers and a year after that they released the White Album! Before those albums there was Rubber Soul, Help and A Hard Day's Night. To understand the magnitude of what they done imagine Take That at the height of their fame unleashing Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane as a single. In my estimation there is nothing overrated about the Beatles.

I have nothing really against U2 except that their last few albums have been really mediocre in the same way REM's output has been. U2 have some absolute classics in One, All I Want is You and most of The Joshua Tree but I still believe they are on a lower level to the Beatles.

Bonavox

Android 666 wrote: »

Not a bit of it. Yellow Submarine was always a piece of whimsy as were other songs that are in the Beatles catalogue (Octopus' Garden, All Together Now, Back in the USSR...) but they are completely outweighed by the other fantastic songs they have. On Revolver you have Yellow Submarine but you also have Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, Here, There and Everywhere, Got to get you into my life and Tomorrow Never Knows. All on one album! A year later they released Sgt. Peppers and a year after that they released the White Album! Before those albums there was Rubber Soul, Help and A Hard Day's Night. To understand the magnitude of what they done imagine Take That at the height of their fame unleashing Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane as a single. In my estimation there is nothing overrated about the Beatles.

I have nothing really against U2 except that their last few albums have been really mediocre in the same way REM's output has been. U2 have some absolute classics in One, All I Want is You and most of The Joshua Tree but I still believe they are on a lower level to the Beatles.

Apart from HTDAAB, I think all of U2's recent releases were quite good, especially No Line on the Horizon, even if the lead single wasn't that great. The Beatles are most definitely an excellent band, but even forgetting U2 for a minute, the Stones were on par with them and they never seem to be as highly held as them.

Android 666

Bonavox wrote: »

Apart from HTDAAB, I think all of U2's recent releases were quite good, especially No Line on the Horizon, even if the lead single wasn't that great. The Beatles are most definitely an excellent band, but even forgetting U2 for a minute, the Stones were on par with them and they never seem to be as highly held as them.

The problem with the Stones is they keep on going - sad fact. If the Beatles had continued on they would have suffered the same fate and it is now the problem facing the likes of U2 and REM.

Bonavox

Android 666 wrote: »

The problem with the Stones is they keep on going - sad fact. If the Beatles had continued on they would have suffered the same fate and it is now the problem facing the likes of U2 and REM.

I think U2's sellout stadium tour and commercially/critically successful music begs to differ. Not saying it won't happen, but Larry Mullen Jr. did say he'd end it before it got to that stage, and as sad as it'd be to see U2 end, it's probably the better alternative to churning out bad albums and working off the U2 name. Anyways, off-topic!