Friday, September 08, 2006

No Deep Thoughts, Just a Simple Choice

I wish I had some thoughts to share on this Friday. If you've read the blog for a while, you know that I post some of my theological musings on Fridays, but nothing's firing my cylinders today. Nothing's getting me fired up.

I could do some more thinking about the relational vs. judicial readings of Scripture, or Lee Camp's point from his Sunday morning class on the Sermon on the Mount about legalism being that thinking the rules are the point, or the Nashville Cohort from yesterday, which was a singularly frustrating experience for me. But nothing is hitting me today.

So, I post this and am interested in the responses. Which band do you like better? U2 or the Beatles, and why? I'll post my choice around 4 this afternoon.

12 comments:

Adam said...

I like U2. Never could get into the Beatles for some reason.
AE

TCS said...

hmmm. Like the Beatles. Listen to U2.

gavin richardson said...

tough one.. seen them both live, sorta.. saw paul mccartney on his last live tour through the states.. so it was like beatles/wings/ and stuff that no one cared to play on the radio.

i can play beatles stuff on guitar or piano.. can't with the u2.. or can i?

think i need to go home and look through my music room...

Jennifer Thompson said...

(Like you don't know my answer.) I like them both and respect the huge influence the Beatles were on...pretty much everybody. But in terms of listening? U2. No doubt. I get their music. They are the one band I can think of I would pay exorbitant (well, not THAT exorbitant, but still) amounts of money to see live again.

Phil said...

Easy for me. I respect the Beatles and what they did for music and rock and roll, but without a doubt I greatly prefer U2. Longevity is one thing (Joshua Tree came out when I was in 10th grade! Almost 20 years ago! Oh, God, I'm old!), plus their music still holds real power. Hearing Where the Streets Have No Name at the Super Bowl a few years back was amazing. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For on Rattle and Hum is flat out unbelievable. Granted, a stadium full of people singing Hey Jude would be pretty awesome as well.

I've never seen U2 in concert, though I'd love to at some point. So for me, it's U2.

Chris said...

Phil, I hate to see anyone take the Lord's name in vain, especially if they know better.

Phil said...

I accept your rebuke, Chris.

L.E.Meredith said...

The Beatles Why never heard of U-2

Suzie said...

My choice would be neither because I unapologetically prefer the Monkees.
I say unapologetically because last week a morning tv show asked the question "What artists do you like that you feel you have to apologzie for?", and several people said the Monkees. I realized I shouldn't be ashamed anymore. I am a Monkees fan and proud of it.

But I will apologize for digressing from your original question.

Tony Arnold said...

Beatles. Better variety and they were very innovative for their era.

I like U2 as well.

Tony

Tony Arnold said...

Phil, longevity? Give me a break. The Beatles music is still selling and still influential today and since they started earlier then...

While I type, I realize you may be refering to the group staying together. If so, then U2 of course. But if longevity of the music is being discussed, the Beatles will always be ahead.

My only knock on U2 is that they can get a bit repetitive in their sound. The Beatles were more diverse because each individual composed in a different style and they contributed with the bulk being Lennon and McCartney.

Tony

Thomas+ said...

"There's two kinds of people in this world, Elvis people and Beatles people. Now Beatles people can like Elvis. And Elvis people can like the Beatles. But nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice. And that choice tells me who you are."
--Mia Wallace
Pulp Fiction
(deleted from theatrical release)

Template Designed by Douglas Bowman - Updated to Beta by: Blogger Team
Modified for 3-Column Layout by Hoctro