queen vs u2

The Fairy King 13 February 2005 20:02 · Member since July 2001

no it wasn't...and besides "back in Queen's day" U2 were around too :P

BiggyRat 13 February 2005 21:06 · Member since March 2003

<font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:
I don't agree that U2 are better than Queen.

U2 suck. Sorry No comaprison to Queen at all that I can see. U2 USED to be OK, but they lost the plot years ago IMO. Vertigo is tha best song they'e released in years I reckon...

T

The Fairy King 13 February 2005 22:17 · Member since July 2001

Are u mad?? All That You Can't Leave Behind woz 10 times better than Atomic Bomb!!!! Even some songs on Pop, like Please and Staring At The Sun are better than Vertigo!

L

LadyMoonshineDown 13 February 2005 22:40 · Member since October 2004

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

It is all a matter of opinion.
Some may wonder why people such as ourselves think Queen are better than U2, or other bands. In the long run................

It's all relative.

Personally, I think Queen outshines U2 for miles on end, but that is because I love Queen, and I'm not particulary fond of U2 to say the kindest and least bit.
Others will feel the same way vice versa.
Let us not care, alrighty?
Cheers

L

Lawyeris 14 February 2005 01:18 · Member since May 2002

wrote:
U2

No1 Singles
Queen - 4/50 (8%)
U2 - 5/36 (13%)

Officially Queen had SIX No 1 hits in UK:
1) BoRha - 75/76
2) Under Pressure - 81
3) Innuendo - 91
4) BoRha/TATDOOL - 91/92
5) Five live EP - 93
6) WWRY (Queen/Five) - 00

N

News Of The World 14 February 2005 07:14 · Member since February 2005

Queen are better than U2, why?
Freddie is a better singer than Bono,
Brian May is a better guitarist than The Edge and a better singer than Bono,
Roger is a better drummer than U2's drummer and a better singer than Bono,
John Deacon is a better Bass player than U2's bassist,
Queen are better composes than U2
Queen's songs are better.
Queen are much better Live performers...so there

B

brENsKi 14 February 2005 12:44 · Member since June 2003

Lawyeris wrote:
wrote:
U2

No1 Singles
Queen - 4/50 (8%)
U2 - 5/36 (13%)

Officially Queen had SIX No 1 hits in UK:
1) BoRha - 75/76
2) Under Pressure - 81
3) Innuendo - 91
4) BoRha/TATDOOL - 91/92
5) Five live EP - 93
6) WWRY (Queen/Five) - 00

see i just knew some smart-bollox would use two queen+ tracks to try an win the arguement
...so (even if they count) that would only up Queen's no1s to 6/50 (12% which is STILL less than U2's 13%
so win the arguement with good maths skills

M

Mr.Jingles 14 February 2005 13:32 · Member since January 2002

Supossedely Bono writes most of the lyrics in U2, and they credit the music to the whole band.

Does anyone really know how much input puts each member on the band?

B

brENsKi 14 February 2005 17:51 · Member since June 2003

and (as someone else has started a "how many grammys have queen ever had" topic) - the answer is NONE - Zilch, NADA, zero, fuck-all

and U2 - well - it's just another thing they beat queen on - even the industry thinks them better

here's their scroll of honour (and before you lambast me - i prefer queen - but U2 are the bigger band of the last 15 years) read on.... the complete U2 grammy list

GRAMMY Category Record Of The Year
Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Walk On
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal
Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal
Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Elevation
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Rock Album
Year 2001 - 44th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work All That You Can't Leave Behind
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Record Of The Year
Year 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Beautiful Day
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Song Of The Year
Year 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Beautiful Day
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal
Year 2000 - 43rd Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Beautiful Day
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Music Video, Long Form
Year 1994 - 37th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Zoo TV - Live From Sidney
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Alternative Music Album
Year 1993 - 36th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Zooropa
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal
Year 1992 - 35th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Achtung Baby
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal
Year 1988 - 31st Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Desire
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Performance Music Video
Year 1988 - 31st Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work Where The Streets Have No Name
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Album Of The Year
Year 1987 - 30th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work The Joshua Tree
Artist Performing Work U2

GRAMMY Category Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal
Year 1987 - 30th Annual GRAMMY Awards
Title of the Work The Joshua Tree
Artist Performing Work U2

so that's
U2 - 14
queen - 0

if it were a boxing match - then it would have been stopped long ago....

M

Mr.Jingles 14 February 2005 18:22 · Member since January 2002

As I mentioned on the another thread, Grammys mean nearly nothing. Even Britney Spears got her first Grammy last night.

Queen, AC/DC, Jimmy Hendrix, The Who, Guns N' Roses, and until last night Led Zeppelin had none.
So does that make Britney Spears better than the ones mentioned before because she has one?

The recording industry critics who award the Grammys (along with most music critics) have a special personal fondness for anything that U2 makes, even if it sounds like crap. How else can you explain that U2 got a Grammy for a shit album like 'Zooropa' when they were competing against these albums:

- Nirvana - In Utero
- R.E.M. - Automatic For The People
- Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream

I think most people here will agree that any of these album are by far better than 'Zooropa'.

M

Mr.Jingles 14 February 2005 18:45 · Member since January 2002

Led Zeppelin never had a #1 single.

So it's not about singles either.

M

Maz 14 February 2005 19:39 · Member since July 2001

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

The recording industry critics who award the Grammys (along with most music critics) have a special personal fondness for anything that U2 makes, even if it sounds like crap. How else can you explain that U2 got a Grammy for a shit album like 'Zooropa' when they were competing against these albums:

- Nirvana - In Utero
- R.E.M. - Automatic For The People
- Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream

I think most people here will agree that any of these album are by far better than 'Zooropa'.

This is turning into a crusade, Danny. We've already established that you don't like Zooropa or Pop, so let it go already. After all, that's what you told fans they should do in another thread.

I do, however, have to take umbrage with one of your comments:

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

All through the 90's, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, and Aerosmith were bigger and more popular than U2.

You've made this comment before, and you have yet to offer any proof.

GnR put out 2 great albums and were huge in 91/92/93. Then they followed it up with a dismal cover album, and quickly fell apart. How can you bigger than U2 "all through the 90's" if you stop touring, stop making albums, and become a joke?

Nirvana put out some good albums and changed music, then their lead singer kills himself in 1994. Again, how can you be bigger than U2 "all through the 90's" if stop touring and stop making records because your lead singer is dead?

Metallica put out a great album and were huge in the early 90s, no doubt about that. What fans debate, as I'm sure you know, is their impact with Load and Reload. I, myself, liked Reload, but many fans think they lost their way sometime around the haircuts and Napster lawsuits. A good, intelligent debate could be made on U2 vs. Metallica in terms of "greatness" but I certainly don't expect that here.

Aerosmith, they, um, did stuff in the 90s. I don't care for them either way. They were big with Get A Grip, but I lost track of them after that. I'll claim ignorance on this one.

What's tiresome, Danny, is you making these comments without any proof, when really you are just putting forth your opinion like everyone else.

M

Mr.Jingles 14 February 2005 20:59 · Member since January 2002

If it's so tiresome how come you're replying.
We're in the same boat I guess.

M

Maz 14 February 2005 21:03 · Member since July 2001

Forgive me for trying to interject some evidence into the debate, Danny. I was hoping you'd try it, too, but I guess not.

M

Mr.Jingles 14 February 2005 21:07 · Member since January 2002

I don't need say again that IMO what U2 did through most of the 90s was awful, and if you want to keep discussing it, that's fine with me. I'm not saying you shouldn't.

Posts in chronological order