Last week, a friend mentioned that I should do U2 vs. REM, and now I see Brooklen saying the same. So, by the whoisbigger "Rule of 2" I must do a U2 vs. REM poll.
Me, I don't think there is any question that U2 is bigger. Cause Bono is the biggest star in pop/rock -- on par with Madonna in the late 80s, bigger than Madonna in the late 90s, and pretty much the biggest today. No active stadium rocker commands as much attention as Bono.
But the people have spoken (or at least two of them have) and the people want REM vs. U2. So what do you say? Is there anyone who can or wants to make a case that REM is actually bigger than U2?
3 comments:
Can't even imagine this to be a real issue. U2 all the way. They are still pumping out hits and they are seen as mainstream, as well as rock and alternative. REM has long been past their prime (although they were "it" during their heyday).
And Michael Stipe is no Bono. Even if Bono has become overexposed.
U2. I don't REM was ever bigger than U2. At least not in Europe.
Sadly, both those bands died to me in the late 90's. I'm not sure if they left me, or I left them.
Their early stuff is amazing, "Out of Time", "Achtung Baby", "Rattle & Hum", "Joshua Tree" are no doubt on my "Top 20 albums of all time".
Gotta go with U2 here.
Post a Comment