Posts: 9
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2002
Reputation:
0
Hey all,
Just something I was thinking recently.
U2 being the greatest band in the world apperently...I personally think the hip is a better band.
what do you all think, just comparing bands that have been around for the 20 yr mark.
Also chili peppers...I know these are totally different music styles...but why are they so big???
Posts: 875
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation:
0
For one thing, U2 is so big because they write songs that are about events and issues from countries all over the world. Bono has rallied for people all over the world for the longest time. He has gotten press over the last two years, but he has been doing it all along. It just never got press before. In the mid 80s he went to Africa and South American for extended periods of time to give his assistance to people worse off. What is more, albums such as "the unforgettable fire" are about Japan and the nuclear bomb." That gives them a presense in those countries where they wrote songs about that particular country. Same with Rattle and Hum, Bullet the blue sky is about US bombers in Central America. The Hip on the other hand really do not go beyond their roots and culture of Canada. I am not saying one is better than the other, but it is difficult to compare these two bands. Furthermore, U2 had produced albums long before the Hip had their first. In fact, I think U2 had released four albums before the Hip's first. ("Boy," "October," "War", "The Unforgettable Fire", plus two lives albums - "live at Red Rocks" and "Wide Awake In America")
Posts: 622
Threads: 53
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
0
I've thought about this one alot. In my mind, they are like apples and oranges. Both have a very...VERY unique style of their own - U2 lyrics are just as deep as those of the Hip, and the Hip should be (although somehow aren't - as big as U2.)
hehe, Bono and Gord are two people you just can't hate.
So yeah, tie in my books, they both rock. They're my 1st and 2nd favorite bands. Who's first? Who's Second? depends on my mood when you ask me.
Posts: 1,414
Threads: 73
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
I just have to say...That is an amazing picture of Gord !!!
Posts: 799
Threads: 54
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation:
0
To me, they're both two totally different bands, and they don't really sound the same in any way.
To me, The Hip and REM would be alot more fairly compared.
Posts: 3,175
Threads: 692
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation:
0
Rye Wrote:To me, The Hip and REM would be alot more fairly compared.
I agree 100% on that
I need 2 Kingston Tickets, please help.
Posts: 49
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation:
0
U2 have been more inventive musically, especially in their 90s output which is their greatest.
The Hip seem much less bothered about concepts and styles. From PP onwards, they've just written songs and put them out, with little concern about remaining popular.
The Hip are a fantastic live band, but anyone who loves music should get the opportunity to see U2 live (preferably not in a stadium) before they die.
Bono is a great frontman in a direct, emotional, involving way, Gord is a great frontman in an esoteric, entertaining way. Bono addresses the crowd directly all the time, the only time Gord breaks from his stream of conciousnes is to tell the crowd to stop crowd surfing, thank the support band, or say hello/good night.
Day For Night is probably the most similar album to U2 musically.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
The Hip and REM are a good comparison.
To put it simply...I think the Hip is the greatest Living band I have ever seen.
