Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > queen vs u2

forum rss feed
Author

Queen& user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 562 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 10:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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


Paddy Can You Hear Me Now



Phoenix Nights Series 1
queen_forever_87 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 237 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 10:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote:

I can guarentee that if I said 'John Deacon' or 'Roger Taylor' to most of the people I know, they'd reply: "Who the f***?"

..sadly..:(


Same here... but we'll keep "the true Queen" alive!!




"Fuck them darling, if they just don't get it!"

Freddie Mercury

Sonia Doris user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 6254 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 11:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

anyone has a pillow? i'm getting really, really sleepy!...


2+2=5
Another Roger (re) user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 441 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 11:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Of course U2 aint bigger than Queen. At the moment you might think so because a lot is happening around U2. Queen has been in dead in 14 years for gods sake. Thats why they get more publicity. Get real.


Basically blind em and deaf em in the first 10 minutes, and while they are recovering from that put in the less good songs
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6326 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 12:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

U2 is a band most people either love or hate. I like them but if they come here I won`t see them. I wouldn`t bear to attend U2 when I missed Sting, Eagles and Velvet Revolver.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Tero user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1012 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 13:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Another Roger (re) wrote:

Of course U2 aint bigger than Queen. At the moment you might think so because a lot is happening around U2. Queen has been in dead in 14 years for gods sake. Thats why they get more publicity. Get real.


And that's exactly why you can't compare those two bands in any realistic way. The were never equal in any other criteria than record sales. If anything, comparing them to each other only sounds like those childish "my dad is better than yours" arguments. :P

brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 13:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

u2 are a bigger band than queen - they might not be better, and they might not be our favourite...but here we go again on the banal arguments that don't have an answer...other than (generally) opinions

but there is one indesputable fact - u2 are a bigger global band than queen ever were...and they've maintained that status far longer than queen ever did

queen managed to hold onto the USA from the Game until the works (4 years)
u2 have held america by the bollocks since Rattle and Hum and The Joshua Tree (86/87) that's FOUR times as long - and let's not venture into worldwide sales - because i would estimate that U2 pretty-much blitz queen on that one too

and as i said let's not get stupidly defensive of our favourite band

and for the less-infomred, U2 are:-
bono- the edge - larry mullen - adam clayton


go deo na h√Čireann
David Jones user not visiting Queenzone.com
David Jones
Deity: 2469 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 13:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I agree with Sebastian and Another Rog. I would say the two are both up there as great bands, but in their own rights, their two completely different bands, which I happen to like...


"Freddie would have loved it" - Brian May
Whisperer user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1312 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 14:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This is just as stupid as a topic named

Freddie Mercury vs. William Hung


Not those are losers who fall, but those who don't stand up.
Mercuryking user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 15:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i think that it was only because Freddie was gay, that queen couldnt maintain their position in the USA.

But there is NO comparision between the 2. Queen outrulez them in sooo many ways. They are like amatuares comparing to Queen.

Maz user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5799 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 15:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Comparing U2 and Queen is comparing apples to oranges. Nice to see some people understand this, while others are blinded.

<B><font color=#ff7f00>Brenski</b> wrote:


but there is one indesputable fact - u2 are a bigger global band than queen ever were...and they've maintained that status far longer than queen ever did


I agree that U2 maintained their status longer, but I think Queen's success around 1980/81/82 and the tours they launched were pretty big in their own right. I don't think you can say that U2 is a bigger glabal band than Queen ever was. More like equal sized in my opinion.


DJ's the man we love the most
Queen& user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 562 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 15:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Whisperer wrote:

This is just as stupid as a topic named

Freddie Mercury vs. William Hung



think u2 are a bit bigger than william hung


Paddy Can You Hear Me Now



Phoenix Nights Series 1
stormtrooper in stilettos user not visiting Queenzone.com


add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 16:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ok everyone loves queen their f***in brilliant! they cud really connect with the crowds on live perfomances and they cud write masterpieces, but you have to give credit to U2 they never took drugs, helped and saved alot of charities and........ their IRISH!!!! wat more cud u say about them.


Niamh Lonergan
Tero user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1012 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 16:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

stormtrooper in stilettos wrote:

wat more cud u say about them.


I could say that they write good songs, and based on the DVDs they put on a decent show as well... I'm looking forward to seeing them live this summer.

PhoenixRising user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 99 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 18:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen was/is much bigger globally than U2, except for the U.S.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that Queen is arguably probably the second biggest band ever, after the Beatles of course.

There are other examples. ABBA, too, was monstrous around the world except in the U.S., where they were quite average. The Sweet were never really big in the U.S.(except for Little Willy, Ballroom Blitz, and Fox on the Run) but enjoyed a huge global following.

Most Americans' perceptions are skewed toward what they perceive to be popular in America as being what must be the same around the world.

As an American Queen fan, I feel robbed of the glory that was Queen everywhere else on this planet. It seems like only recently has the talent of the band started receiving it's due here. In the U.S.,Queen is EVERYWHERE now... Queen music is featured in several TV commercials, "We Will Rock You" blasts in nearly every sports stadium, and Queen gets airplay about every three hours on classic rock radio stations... Seems like they are appreciated now more than ever before. And astonishingly, it's the younger generation that has grabbed the Queen ball and run with it.

Right now hip hop rules the airwaves in the U.S. but I'm sure that much of the rest of the world could care less. Nor do I.


"I'm not a heavily spiritual person, but when I'm in the studio, I can hear Fred saying, 'No, c'mon, you can do better than that,' and that lifts me and makes me work better." -Brian May
Gunpowder Gelatine user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2541 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 18:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


Resistance is futile. You are now an orb.

bryans permed poodle 15069 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 762 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 19:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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


Paul Rodgers - "Gimp Of The Year 2006"
BakaTuljan user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 19:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.



Only sick music makes money today.



Friedrich Nietzsche
The Fairy King user is on Queenzone.com
The Fairy King
Deity: 8686 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 19:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

- 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


Killed by drones.
nino trovato user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 59 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Feb 05, 20:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.