brownsugar said:

sallysassalot said:

They did a rousing version of "Kids"!

This debate is so mid-90s. (U2)

Moonbeam said:

i don't know that song.

CinisterCee said:

so is your mama!

sallysassalot said:

i hope you can sleep on airplanes. that flight to hawaii can be murder.

but i guess if you're already in California, it won't be as bad. it's usually 14 hours to/from where i'm at.

U2, even though I don't even like them anymore.

And R.E.M. usually makes me I like about 3 songs of theirs and that's it.

And no wonder I think "Everybody Hurts" is their best. John Paul Jones of Zeppelin did the string arrangement on that. In fact, I think he did arrangements on more than one song off that album. Not sure what songs though.
[Edited 11/13/06 10:15am]

sallysassalot said:

Yo mama so old, she saw Marie Antoinette LIVE!

CinisterCee said:

KidOmega said:

its 5 1/2 hours from me. i have a travel bar and some ambien, though, so it'll be a welcomed, relaxing journey.

iconsweat said:

I love this part because it's so true - it wouldn't surprise me to hear Bono say something like that on stage.

Though I am a huge fan of both bands, I would have to say U2 rules hands down. Yet while they both came out around the same time, played to much of the same audience, lyrically had the same themes in their music from time to time, and both influenced a whole generation of rock bands, this comparison isn't quite fair. Even when Bono, Edge, Adam and Larry were young punk teens in Dublin, they always dreamed of becoming as big as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin, and their sound sort of reflected that, as they kept reaching for anthemic songs with loud guitars and thumping drum beats. R.E.M., on the other hand, was always more subdued, and their sound didn't quite fit in with mainstream rock, yet it was far too mellow to be either punk or new wave. People who were into the band knew that they were awesome, but it took years for anyone in the mainstream to notice. In fact, they became huge superstars in spite of themselves, and it wasn't so much of a case that they finally burst onto the mainstream music scene in the late 1980s and early 1990s as the mainstream finally discovered them.

I dont have the time to read the whole article right now, but it looks interesting from the bits I have read.

There IS no contest. U2 are head and shoulders abover REM, (and I am familiar with both acts music).

Plus, REM are disappointing live to say the least.

Dad music. You may as well compare Genesis and Dire Straits.

Oooh.

Cloudbuster said:

Cloudbuster said:

i ain't nobody's daddy.

Cloudbuster said:

Genesis are great!

Dire Straits are not.

sallysassalot said:

Agreed. it wouldn't have been so bad if the author of that article didn't have such an obvious REM bias.

Still, I can't talk being a U2 fan, so my opinion obviously counts for jackshit too.

BananaCologne said:

well U2 won the battle in his own article, so i'm not sure you can say he had an REM bias.

Moonbeam said:

Unfortunately not: Kylie pulls out of U2 show Hope she doesn't push herself too hard. All the glitter and feathers in the world just ain't worth risking that.

KidOmega said:

I know, I meant to put across that personally, I thought some of his choices were kinda off, but hey - it's all subjective.

I was around when they both hit the air. I never pursued U2 so I only know their main hits. I liked them but for some reason it wasn't really my thing.

REM on the other hand...

Oh, and REM win for me. By several hundred thousand miles.

I much prefer U2!

...and I hate "Everybody Hurts"!

That song just makes me angry!

Cloudbuster said:

That is quite a long way. You must be right!

This does seem like an unfair comparison. U2 is so global, they win hands down.

That being said, I could easily go without hearing another U2 song for as long as I live, while you'll have to pry 'Life's Rich Pageant' from my cold dead hands...

bc

PeteZarustica said:

POOK said: