queen vs u2

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!

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.

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

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.

- 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

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.

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.

<< - 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.

Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, and Aerosmith??

Please, they are nothing live compared to U2 my dear mr Jingles.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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 queen

1) 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.