i agree that it’s hard to try to picture glam without Queen. it would still have existed, but what a different beast it would have been. likewise, U2 didn’t invent alternative — indeed, they quickly came to engender the mainstream from which Gen-X needed an alternative — but it would have been a different phenomenon without them.

when i look at the sum of the parts, i have to give the edge to Queen. Freddie Mercury might have been one of the few frontmen more charismatic than Bono. He was a better musician, too. He was also more political just in his very existence, whether he flaunted his sexuality or not. i’ll take Brian May straight up against the Edge. I’d go with Deacon and Taylor over Clayton & Mullen Jr, too. Mullen is a solid drummer, but stalls once he’s forced out of his little drummer boy routine. as a bass player, Clayton makes Ringo Starr look like Neil Peart.

Both had producers who played to their strengths. Roy Thomas Baker’s shtick was in layering vocals — perfect for a strong vocal band like Queen. Eno & Lanois’ ambient synth production played well with the lone wolf quality of the Edge’s guitar and Bono’s early vocal work.

Both only had about 10 years of active work. Queen did their damage in the ’70s. U2 embarked on their Vegas years after completing Achtung Baby in ‘91.

If you acknowledge that both have spread their influence far and wide, i guess it really comes down to the meat of their tenure. Was Queen bigger in the ’70s than U2 was in the ’80s? I start to think not. Queen represented the androgyny and arena rock of their time. I don’t know that they made many statements in their time beyond that they would indeed rock you.

In looking back on U2 in the ’80s, perhaps i give them too much credit, but i see them as one of the few political and social counterpoints to the Reagan/Thatcher greedhead movement of the time. It was not popular to stand against it, but U2 picked their battles well. The Unforgettable Fire was a compelling choice of subject matter in a time of cold war.

I think my biggest complaint with them is how disposable they’ve become since the ’80s. From what I gather, Bono’s political moves caused strife in the band, causing him to turn it down. It’s a shame. Of course, being a political artist is something of a taboo, but it’s a taboo better broken. If the people lead, the leaders will follow. It’s a shame that Bono has broken from that and has instead spent recent years trying to broker deals that advance his politics behind the scenes. Oh well, it’s a tough nut to crack.

Still, I think i have to give U2 the edge based on importance.

I hated to vote against Queen, but I’ve known all along that U2 would be my vote when they came up.

I can’t believe some of the conversation here. Some people are incredibly small-minded when it comes to what U2 has done. No one wants to sound like U2? What? Replace U2 and REM? What? Yes, alternative music owes debts to lots of musicians, but U2 and REM are who brought the sounds out of the small time.

BTW, are the Pixies in the ToR? Did I miss them?

Obama was born on Mars?

I also second Mike. I lived with musician who worshiped Dio and Dio era Sabbath.

“U2 is one of the most-imitated bands I know of, I hear that Edge jangle and that Bono breathiness and wailing in everything from Top 40 slop to commercials to movie soundtracks.”

If anyone’s voice is imitated to death it’s Eddie Veder’s. I’m not denying that there’s not an influence, I’m simply saying that more people aspire to be musicians like Queen, but would gratefully take the fame of U2.

I don’t pretend to be informed on this matter. I’m not a music critic, nor do i consult music critics before making musical choices. In short, i’m one of the reasons that democracy sucks.

But i spent enough time riding around in primer-grey Camaro’s to know that the Sabbath/Ozzy tape case was where the pinners got stashed; there is no higher burnout honor than that.

I heartily agree, the Beatles kicked it off with “HS” (and kicked it even further with that MONSTER riff in “I Want You”). But Sabbath made it their raison d’etre. Sigh, if only Lennon and Macca had gone metal instead of melancholy in the 70’s.

Zing!

“No one is picking up an instrument to be like U2″

I’ll have to disagree on that. U2 is one of the most-imitated bands I know of, I hear that Edge jangle and that Bono breathiness and wailing in everything from Top 40 slop to commercials to movie soundtracks. There was a band here in Denver a while ago (Mere) who made their way out to L.A. to seek their fortune that was basically a U2 tribute act. But few try to copy Queen since it’s just so damned difficult (only the criminally underappreciated Jellyfish really comes to mind). Best to just listen to the original stuff, be inspired, and rock on in your own way.

“with Ozzy – we’re not really counting what happened after he left, I assume – unless you want to start marking them down for eroding their legacy, anyway)”

You assume wrongly. There are probably as many Dio-era Sabbath fans as there are Ozzy-era fans, and most metalheads like them both anyway. While everyone digs Ozzy, most serious metal musicians/singers lean to Dio. And I’ve mentioned before that Dio-era Sabbath’s “The Mob Rules” is in my humble opinion the greatest metal track ever. (Fuck off, G’n'R.) Any serious rocker who plays that in their car and is not tempted to drive 180MPH and flatten everything in their path is probably dead, or dead boring. I will agree that post-*Dio* Sabbath languished artistically.

“Why “replace”? This ain’t an either/or question.”

Well, that’d be the only way most of those I listed would ever get into this damned tourney to begin with.

They’re unbelievable. I’ve seen them three times, and the ZooTV show was the best concert I’ve ever attended.

Normally, I’d give U2 a ton of credit for having a lot of influence, but personally, I think their imitators by and large suck.

I’m guessing you don’t know VAST. Can’t judge them all by Coldplay, Tom.

In the end, though, I went with Queen. While U2 puts together a better presentation, I think Queen are the superior musicians, which, at the end of the day is what really matters.

Odd. I must have missed the part where you voted for Phish.

As great and influential as they were, I knocked out Black Sabbath rather quickly. While they largely defined heavy metal (though I’d quibble the Beatles introduced it with Helter Skelter), they end up being something of a one-trick pony when compared to Queen and U2 to a lesser extent.

With it narrowed down to U2 and Queen, well, it was a tough one. I’ll admit here that I’m not a fan of U2, but they’ve contributed greatly to the culture of rock and roll. It pisses me off to the highest degree that world leaders take time to meet with fucking Bono, but he’s put himself in that echelon, for better or (much more likely) worse. And while I’ve never been, they’re concerts are supposed to be something else.

Normally, I’d give U2 a ton of credit for having a lot of influence, but personally, I think their imitators by and large suck. I’m not detracting points here (it’s not they’re fault that they’re a tough act to follow), but they’re not getting as many points as others have.

In the end, though, I went with Queen. While U2 puts together a better presentation, I think Queen are the superior musicians, which, at the end of the day is what really matters. Plain and simple, Freddy Mercury is a god of the musical pantheon.

We all know (at least in passing) the “Beethoven/Mozart” personality determiner – you were either a Mozart person or you were a Beethoven person. And people made assumptions about you based on that.

Well, rock is full of these dichotomous determiners for me. Here they are by decade:

60’s – Beatles or Stones?

70’s – Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd?

80’s – U2 or REM?

90’s – Nirvana or Britney? (I kid because I love…but who would you put against Nirvana – Oasis?)

2000’s – Radiohead or Coldplay?

Interestingly, if one chose to look at genres, an important early dichotomy for what we now call “metal” (there you go, Brian) would be this one:

Black Sabbath or Deep Purple?

Notice I’ve covered two of the bands in this pod in this little exercise. But there’s another category:

The bands that everyone agrees on.

That brings us to the third band in this pod – Queen. A band that everyone – metal heads, alternatives, classic rockers, all of us – claim as an influence and an inspiration. A band that everyone respects and admires.

That is powerful stuff.

But there’s a higher level of importance than even having universal admiration and respect.

It’s when you inspire people and make them want to pick up instruments and play and write songs just so they can do what you do. Because they know they can’t be what you are – THE ONES.

For me there are only three bands in this tournament who have been THE ONES – The Beatles, U2, and Nirvana.

Makes voting clear for me – I admire and respect and like Black Sabbath – and like everyone I love Queen. They are all time greats.

But we’re trying to determine the greatest here – and for me that would have to be U2.

Hey, if you only wanted informed people to vote, then you shouldn’t have made it a voting tournament in the first place.

Frankly, I have no idea.

Why “replace”? This ain’t an either/or question.

“Bob Mould…”

Majorly important.

“REM with The Pixies.”

Again, why replace. Both were very important.

“Or the Minutemen and the (heh) Replacements.”

Mats yes, but while The Minutemen didn’t invent suck, they sure as hell perfected it.

Still, the importance of these bands doesn’t diminish U2 and REM. In fact, U2 and REM came before them, by and large, so it was them that opened the door for that second wave.

Hm. I agree with you but if we’re gonna talk about “alternative” influencers that don’t get the respect they earned and deserve, I’d replace U2 with Bob Mould and REM with The Pixies. Or the Minutemen and the (heh) Replacements. Or the Beat Farmers and Throwing Muses. Or NRBQ and Big Star. Or countless other bands no one cares about today except other musicians and enlightened music lovers.