Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? Not even funny….

You know you were a U2 kid if:

You have worn/have dated someone who wore a righteous mullet. You still don’t see any problem with that.
You were once moved to pick a random old lady out of a crowded bus stop and spontaneously slow danced with her while everyone watched.

how much do you love the maco…. beautiful beast.

How odd that Stylus.com has a U2 vs. REM feature on their site this week as well.

Are you hiring 3rd graders to write for you now?

That “headline story” is the most lazy, juvenile, and just plain boring and unfunny thing I’ve ever had the displeasure to waste my time reading on your site. I puked a little in my mouth while reading that.

Mojo magazine, folks.

Mojo.

Hey, I wonder where Rolling Stone found the idea for U2 vs. R.E.M.? Maybe from the Weekly Article on Stylus Magazine, which was posted on Monday this week?

http://www.stylusmagazi ne.com/articles/weekly_article /u2-vs-rem.htm

Try being original next time. Thanks.

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/ articles/weekly_article/u2-vs- rem.htm

BOTH BANDS WROTE WATERED DOWN, PUSSY ROCK
BONO IS FAKE

Perhaps the Stylus magazine saw the same thing on Slate as RollingStone. MSN had something about U2 vs REM as well. It’s just a common thing in the news. Nobody blatantly ripped off another magazine.

This debate might have had more relavance, had it been posed, say, about 14-15 years ago, when R.E.M. were still at top of their game.

Since releasing ‘Monster’ in 1994, R.E.M. had had a dramatic drop in quality, and popularity.

U2, beyond a little dip with ‘Pop’ in 1997, never really strayed far from the top. (Hey, that kinda rhymed.)

As much as i am a hardcore fan of everything R.E.M. did up from the very beginning, up until around ‘New Adventures In HiFi’ in 1996, after drummer Bill Berry left, they became pretty pointless (much like this debate.)

So, even though i’m a fan of both bands, I’m going to have to say U2 won.

R.E.M who?

Thing is, U2 has proven decade after decade that they still have it. Stipes and his bunch have disapated, disolved, faded into society.

U2 wins

can we find a faulty helicopter to give Bono a lift?

i hate them all

I prefer Rem, they are still doing something cool, like Outsiders on the last album. You say: one song in an entire record?
But, listen: where is this damned song in POP, ALL THAT YOU CAN’T LEAVE BEHIND e HOW TO DISMANTLE AN ATOMIC BOMB?

During the 80’s and early 90’s- R.E.M.

Since 1994- U2

I think both bands have made good songs. In my opinion REM just edge it (I thought UP was a good record) U2 fall down because, apart from Adam Clayton, their not very cool. Bono is a sanctimonious tw*t and I genuinely hope something bad happens to him to teach him some humility. Idiot.

My suggestion is the only rational one. We let them duke it out, Stipe v. Bono.

U2 wins with guitar nasty and shred but also wins in the ‘cheese’ category. R.E.M. win with indie credibility but also in the ‘what the fuck is with that melody’ category. I just don’t know.

U2 has been smart with staying curent, collaborating with Green day

(R.E.M. is like a oldie classic bnd)

U2 WINS

R.e.m. at their best vs. U2 at their best would definitely go to R.e.m. (1986-1996 – they were almost untouchable for a mainstream rock band) But, for cumulative careers at this point, you have to give U2 the trophy at this point. As much as I dig U2, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate U2 the band from U2 the Ride these days.

Both of these bands have made their mark on pop culture, and we shouldn’t compare them. Just like whatever music you want. It’s a free country.

u2 all the way. period. no questions asked. end of story. done.

Where is R.E.M.?
U2 Hands down. It’s not even worth debating.

Pearl Jam wins ….

R.E.M. no doubt!
The fact that U2 are still selling million of copies doesn’t mean they are better.
I know that most of you think that listening to R.E.M. isn’t cool anymore but if you go to their gigs they’re still alive and great!

Blur wins.

Dave has some good points…I think SATAN is ON DRUGS

Both of them stopped being good around the same time…early to mid 90s. Before that they were both great. Apples and oranges. No point comparing. You don’t have to only like one.

back in high school in the ’80s, the REM and U2 debate was not as heated as the U2 vs Metallica.

Toss – up –

Both have sodo-political front-men who take themselves way to seriously

Both had drummers that just laid down a beat and stayed out of the spotlight.

Both have lead guitarist that are at their best completely plugged and ready to rock – put all mandalions aside

Both have bass players with bad teeth and sing falsetto.

I hate to say it but I would pick U2 because of their staying power….REM just really does not matter anymore – U2 can still make a record that contains 2 or 3 good anthems – Bono is annoying – but Micheal Stipe is even more -

REM by a miracle mile!!

REM’s next album will be a big rock record filled with songs that match anythin U2 have produced in the last 5 years. REM could put out Automatic 2 if they wanted, they just want a new sound every time? Whats wrong with that? Watch for the new album in late 2007.

I loved both of these bands equally…U2 meant more to me on a personal level…’MURMUR’ is still one of my top 10 all-time fave lp’s, as is U2′S ‘WAR’-i give U2 the edge (NO PUN INTENDED!) for keeping their original lineup intact.

U2 at it’s best (War, Joshua Tree, and Achtung Baby) was far better than REM at it’s best (Automatic for the People, Murmer). Although these albums all get my patented 5 star reviews…

U2 changed styles far more than REM. U2 sold far more records (I know not always the best indicator of talent, but in a few instances it does have merit).

U2 was able to continually and successfully reinvent itself many times…from post punk startup (Boy), to new wave/college rock (War, Unforgettable Fire), to mainstream arena rock/bluesy american roots music (Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum), to dance-rock (Achtung Baby, Zooropa), to techno (bits of Zooropa and Pop), and then they flipped back to the mainstream arena rock with their last two records.

R.E.M. were college jangly rock (first period up through maybe Green) to alternative arena rock (period up through New Adventures in Hi-Fi), to a band that completely lost all of it’s ideas and should have retired when the drummer left (Up-beyond). Of course the latter period they’ve had a good song here or there, but the albums have been a snooze.

I’m not a huge fan of the current U2, mostly because I think they are making inferior versions of a style they perfected 20 years ago, but I still know the albums are decent enought to warrant a 3-3.5 star rating and have enough merit to stay in your collection over time. If U2 hadn’t released what they did in the 80’s, I might like the new 2000’s retro-U2 more. If REM released what they have been doing lately, they probably would be a forgotten 1 (minor) hit wonder (At My most Beautiful).

I hated them both in high school. (Replacements and Guns & Roses were my bag)about 1988 I realized that I was wrong about both bands and joined the party late…thanks to the Rattle & Hum movie)

REM post Automatic For The People does little for me, while U2 get better with every CD ( Achtung, Zooropa and All That You Can’t Leave Behind are my three faves over the 80’s stuff)

Being from Georgia, it’s tough, but I think I choose U2

Def Leppard!
I went through a really heavy phase with both bands, listened to nothing by Monster for a year. Then the optimism of U2 helped get me through a break-up.
Maybe my point is that both make music that can ease the endless grind.

Some of the greatest music of rock and roll was made by these two bands. I was in college during the early 90’s and U2 and REM were the two most popular bands period. Rock on! You could make the argument that Actung Baby and Automatic For the People are the two greatest albums of the decade. Those two records created such an amazing buzz when they came out. We drank a lot of beer listening to both! Rock on!

Both bands are great. You can like both bands, like you can like The Jam, The Clash and The Pretenders AND The Who, The Beatles, Cream, Faces, Free and Deep Purple.

I always thought The Who camp vs. The Rolling Stones camp was, over time, more of a rivalry.

Pop was U2’s last truly interesting, reaching record. Up was REM’s last truly interesting, reaching record. For both of those bands, that was two albums ago.

I can honestly say I love both bands equally. Sure, U2 has been a little more consistent and is currently more popular, but both bands have had immeasurable impact and influence. I bet they each listen to the other

i like REM better, they introduced alternative music =)

if you gave me a chance i could catch the biggest bass you ever seen.

Murgha Dan – you need a blow fish

i prefered W.A.SP.

i would like to fish with you Mr. Cousteau.

WOWZERS

R.E.M. By far. Integrity alone wins this one.. You young’uns forget that U2 had one single purpose as a band – to sell records and become the biggest. R.E.M. never had such goals, they let the success come to them, and ultimately leave them equally easily. And I think their list of bad songs is about 1/5 the size of U2’s bad songs..Plus, Bono is a hypocritical pump..loopholing all his taxes while bitching about rich Americans not paying more into poverty relief..please.

U2 Hands down! U2 has kept up with the times and is able to change with the decades… All of their songs are very inspirational and have a meaning to them. From Bono’s incredible opratic voice, to Edge’s incredible riffs, to Adam’s compicated yet easily understood rhythms, to Larry’s awesome drum beat…(although not as good as Ringo and Keith)! U2 wins over all!
(plus, check the screen name^)

I liked REM through “Document.” I liked U2 through “The Joshua Tree.” Both seemed to catch fire after that and lost their core.

REM’s slipped back into obscurity a bit, which is not necessarily a bad thing if they decide to strip it down to “Mumur” profundity. An album with so much grandeur wrapped in such simplicity. Doesn’t get much better than that.

These are my two fave bands, but R.E.M. will always be in a league of their own as far as I am concerned. Their last three albums have been mellow and I would like their new one to rock out a little more, but I still love their new music, even if it doesn’t sell as much.

This is what I would call a battle of the “Importance Of Being Earnest” bands. I’m debating on whether to go with the crypt-keeper lookin’ guy with his heart stapled to his sleeve or the reactionary conservative huggin’ Celt dude who wears his black wrap-around shades to confession.

“Think with the Liberals, but eat with the Tories.”–O. Wilde

rem kids…walked to school, cold day, head down, wind blowing, snow, walkman, reckoning cassette, humming ‘please find my harbourcoat, can’t go outside without it’, with berry, buck, mills, stipe written on their hand…wondering if anyone knew how the music was changing their life. Most people didn’t know.

u2.REM has ‘lost their religion’. period.

Yeah, that writeup/intro was painfully bad…I’d say, judging from my own personal experiences as an enormous fan of both bands:

You’re a U2 fan if:

-50% of your photos you took during the Grade 11 field trip to France were of the airport where U2 shot the Beautiful Day music video
-You’ve ever had buffalo, lemons, or Joshua trees as an MSN or Yahoo Messenger ID picture
-You thought you were Bono while being hypnotized at an Xmas party

Whereas you’re likely an REM fan if:

-you’ve named a litter of cats ‘Berry’ ‘Buck’ ‘Mills’ and ‘Stipe’
-have rem_fan17 as your email address
-travelled 4500 miles to Athens,GA in your early 20’s in a spiritual oddyssey to find yourself (don’t ask!)

i like u2, but r.e.m. is better. sure, r.e.m.’s last two albums have painful to listen to, but from chronic town until up, they were one of the greatest bands ever. actually, i guess they still are.

As for which is better in my opinion…hmmmmm. Honestly….U2 probably consistently has produced better, more powerful, more emotional music…musically I prefer U2, but in terms of legend/image/celebrity/mytholo gy I prefer REM.

both bands had an enormous impact on me while in my ‘formative years’, but r.e.m. have always stuck to their guns. i remember being so awe-inspired at points during rattle and hum that i remember thinking if i had the chance to see u2 live during that period, my heart would have exploded. but then came the zoo tv business…
i r.e.m.ember being in a crowded car in the backseat and hearing murmur for the first time. i put my head on the speaker to shut everyone out and swiped the cassette on leaving the car. pure fucking magic. so what if they’re experimenting now? every band that has been around for awhile has made some albums that weren’t exactly thunderous (including u2).
i just know that u2 sold out to ipod and the georgia boys turned down $20 million from steve gates for 30 seconds of it’s the end of the world. who wants to have a song that means alot to you turn into something that you think of a product when you hear it? i can’t think of any bands offhand who consistently keep the memory of their music sacred and pass up the paycheck besides r.e.m.
both bands are great, and both respect the other. kurt cobain, radiohead, and countless others have acknowledged their debt to stipe and co. for opening their minds. they will live on.

To Ken Vail Jr: Maybe if Bono or The Edge had a brain aneurysm and almost died, you would have thought differently. It was Bill Berry’s choice to leave REM because he almost died and didn’t want to play drums anymore. Give them a break! They’re still producing great music.

They both bore me to tears. I’m on the side of staying awake while I listen to music.

U2 seem to me really more of a rock ‘n’ roll art band. R.E.M. has written some great rock ‘n’ roll songs, but since ‘Document’ (excepting concious efforts to make rock records in the 90’s)they have really been more of an art band with acoustic leanings.

I’ve loved both of these bands for a long time – was not so impressed with R.E.M.’s latest, but prior to that, and for me, starting with ‘Life’s Rich Pageant’ they got better and better. ‘Up’, which probably sealed the end for them as a candidate for ‘World’s Biggest Band, is fantastic; all great bands have evolved. I don’t buy the notion that since these two bands have been highly succesful, that they have ’sold out’, or that since, at times (sadly, as is the case now with R.E.M.)when they have not sold enough millions of records, this is considered to reflect the quality of what they are creating.

I do think U2 in particular has had a big influence on older bands/artists (including R.E.M )to step up their game by vocalizing that great bands do not have do lose their integrity/relevance/originalit y/
vitality,etc., as they leave their thirties – AND they (U2) continue to walk the talk.

Other artists get better as they age, why not a rock band?

By the way, ‘Pop’ is U2’s most underrated album, and despite digging the last two ‘re-trenching’ records, I’d like to see that sense of risk re-enter their music.

Pardon the length of this post. Now, what was the question?

Overall U2. In the eighties REM were the greatest recording artists on the planet. Now I consider U2 the best band of the eighties. Whahapennd?!
At points The Jam (80-82)and Jane’s Addiction (87-89)were better but between 1980 and now U2 tops REM!

I’m off to see U2 tonight in Sydney. Liked a few REM albums but from Monster on they have done nothing for me. U2 are OK but oasis do it for me.

Let me sumerize it….r.e.m. was great till bill berry left the band. as for u2,they WERE great up until the achtung record. with each recording after achtung u2 lost me as a fan. you know which band is rightious? RADIOHEAD!

REM is from American. Nuff said.

REM is from America. Nuff said.

I liked both bands and I still like both bands. I do get tired of the poor reviews of the newer R.E.M. music, their last album was excellent.

U2 and R.E.M. are among the most overrated bands ever, not saying that’s a good or bad thing. But there is no comparison, these bands are too different from each other to be compared or saying that one’s better than the other. For the most part they tend to attract the same audience for some reason, but they are two completely different bands.

this is excellent!
keep it rockin. . .

The E Street Band hands down but seriously Springsteen influenced both of these bands tremendously and there wouldn’t be an R.E.M or a U2 without him…but if I had to pick…U2.

666

1992: ADAM AND LARRY FROM U2 AND STIPE AND MILLS FROM REM FORM “AUTOMATIC BABY” AND PLAY “ONE” AT CLINTON’S INAUGURAL BALL.

2006: U2 BLOWS THE DOORS OFF OF EVERYONE IN ROCK MUSIC. STILL. NO ONE MORE CONSISTENT. NO ONE MORE EXCITING LIVE. NO ONE MORE DURABLE. NO ONE. TAKE ALL THESE PRETENDERS, ROLL THEM UP AND SMOKE THEM. NEW SONG ROX.

I’ll throw another vote in for Springsteen.

I must not have been a teen in the late 80s because both bands kick ass. But U2 is just a lot more kick ass than REM. Sorry Mike, I loved your blue face at Live8 though.

This one is simple for me. I’ve never listened to a U2 album in my life. I own every R.E.M. CD.

I usually find U2 songs too over-polished and strained.

hello internet

This should be no comparison – New Years Day, Sunday Bloody Sunday, where the streets have no name, with or without you, Pride (in the name of love), angel of harlem, desire,still havent found what I’m looking for – compared to….Um,I’ve forgoten what R.E.M has. U2 sells ALL their albums &
U2 is still rocking on with the saints are coming (goahead ask me about the 90’s -Its U2 BABY!)

every U2 album is full of great songs & ARE more well-known then rem by far. Also, for all the good deeds U2 does. the band is rewarded with the greatest FANS OF ALL TIME. U2 is the greatest band of the 80’s, 90’s & the 00’s as far as I’m concerned (can you name ONE any closer(Bon Jovi, ha!)

U2 has MANY great & meaning full songs, rem has a FEW also. I grew up listening to both. But I’ve only bought U2’s albums, I’ve just recently bought REM’s greatest hits (they wont have any more-sorry but it’s true-I wish I was wrong – they just gotten too soft)U2 on the otherhand keep changing their music like a major moodswing. Keeping it fresh & real -theve got grammy’s coming out of their ass’s

I’ll sum it up for you. I like REM. I LOVE U2.

I think they both suck.

I think I can break this down pretty easily. U2 are and always have been a bigger band but R.E.M have always been better, excluding there last effort. U2 would sell out any venue but R.E.M would’nt which is not a true reflection of how much better they are. And by the way ‘Reveal’ was a marvellous album, as even Bono said so!

U2 WENT POP REM OVERATED

U2 are my favorite of the 2. R.E.M. is a good band, but nothing about them stands out for me. People who wish to diss both bands obviously need to brush up on their music appreciation skills, because both these bands are for real.

Radiohead. These bands wish they were RADIOHEAD!!

R.E.M. – Country Feedback is the greatest alt-rock song ever. But Props to U2 for the first three songs on Joshua Tree – probably the best start to an album ever.

U2 is very good, but R.E.M. is much superior.

BOth create music that both sounds the same and is boring

well, i have to side with the guy a couple of comments down and say radiohead trumps them both, but considering the only u2 release i listen to anymore (or ever) is under a blood red sky, and they grandstand way too much, and REM is friends with radiohead, ill have to go with REM

Beavis and Butthead called Bono “Boner”.

U2 wins.

have seen them both live =>both were kind of borring (and expensive, specially u2) but if i have to pick one it would be u2

PS: radiohead was borring too

R.E.M. without doubt – last album aside, they keep changing and changing well, unlike U2 who seem to have lost their bottle since Pop was (wrongly) lampooned by the critics.
Granted, Around the Sun was something of a dissapointment but I really struggle to name another bad R.E.M. album. They are alternative, they are responsible for Radiohead and the likes, and they will keep changing for the better. This is all in contrast to the corporate whores that are U2 – overpriced gigs and underwhelming quality of music – just a band in their retirement period churning out uber-bland rock.

I LOVE BOTH BANDS!

to pick between r.e.m and u2 is to pick between your feet. its impossible and each decision will hurt the other.

lets just love them both

I LOVE THEM BOTH!!!!!!! and don’t go dissing on Bono about the mullet! he didn’t have it that long(in time, not length)!

i like them both but u2 takes the cake they rock and edge rips!!!

To my mind, there is no question that U2 is, in the long haul, the superior band. REM has really lost its way. And it’s not just because Bill Berry left. Michael Stipe has gotten way too self-important in a strange way and his music has suffered as a result. REM hasn’t really produced anything of substance since “New Adventures in Hi-Fi”. “Up” was ok, sonically interesting, but ultimately disappointing.

I understand it’s ironic to call Stipe self-important when compared to Bono’s ego, but Bono has never made any bones about that. He has always worn his ego on his sleeve. He’s cocky and he knows it. Stipe has always maintained this “I wish I was in the back row of the arena” thing that just rings false to me.

Besides all that, can you think of any other band that has maintained true relevancy after 20 years besides U2? Not the Stones for sure (and they’re probably the only other contender for this one). U2 has had their misteps, sure, but they always return with a sense of purpose. “Rattle & Hum” begat “Achtung Baby”. “Pop” begat “All That You Can’t Leave Behind.” The power of those two latter records can’t be denied. “Actung Baby” is arguably one of the best albums ever, and REM hasn’t produced anything to match it. (”Automatic” and “Out of Time” come close, but…)

In addition, U2 is the best live act in the world. Maybe ever (except for the Who in their heyday). I’ve seen them both, many times, and the raw energy and emotion that comes from U2 is almost overwhelming.

REM is a great band, maybe the best American band of the last 20 years (maybe) but U2 will end up ranking among the Stones and the Beatles.

Michael Stipe is fit as fuck

REM hands down

hard decision,both great bands..but i have to say R.E.M. =)

REM. Check out Peter Buck touring with Robyn Hitchcock. The guy’s an incredible guitarist who’s sole focus is the music!

I love REM. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE U2.

Hello my name is Borat.

U2: In fact this isn’t even a debate. U2 or The Beatles is a much better question. And who the hell is Radiohead

R.E.M. I’ve seen them live and they certainly weren’t boring or expensive. When you have ‘Losing My Religion’, ‘Country Feedback’,'Man on the Moon’ and ‘Everybody Hurts’ how can you go wrong?

I like ‘Up,’ ‘Reveal and ‘Around the Sun’, as well as ‘Green’, ‘Out Of Time’ and ‘Automatic For The People’. U2 have done some great albums (’The Joshua Tree’ the best one of all) but ‘Pop’ and ‘How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb’ aren’t all that wonderful. I’m British so it’s got nothing to do with R.E.M. being American.

la verdad es que ambos grupos son realmente importantes dentro del rock, pero U2 se ha destacado por las obras sociales que ha realizado, ademas R.E.M ES UN POQUITO acustico, y creo que el retiro de berry en la bateria afecto en gran parte a R.E.M

I have no hate toward U2. I even love The Joshua Tree, viewing it as one of my favorite albums to listen to over and over.

R.E.M. just fundamentally beats them in every way. I also think it’s important to note that R.E.M. only started a few years after U2, making them not so “new” in comparison.

I urge all R.E.M. haters to look to their IRS releases. Contained in those albums are some of the best songs of the 1980s; a definate accomplishment considering the other great releases in the decade.

R.E.M. is a fantastic band that never fails to impress (except on their latest album). U2 is a good band, but never achieves the sense of amazing innovation that R.E.M. carries.

REM by a mile. U2 suck

“Loosing My Religion” is a brilliant song and R.E.M are great, but overall U2 are more sucessfull and well-known. Both bands have developed extremely distictive sounds that most other bands can’t accomplish.

I’ll never forget the first time I listened to a REM song, its sucked really badly. I respect them, but U2 is far better and have had a much more successful career. Plus, REM is American, so that’s already a bad thing for me.

go listen to U2 best of CD
listen to the first 5 songs …they all have the same bassline and they continue to milk it over and over again.
R.E.M. had much better material
and their Lyrics are more creative than U2…
this is Really no contest
R.E.M all the way!

Actually LeavingNew York was a f***ing good single from REM. I think Automatic for the people is a masterpeice, but to truely say that or Monster or Document etc etc is in a better light than the Joshua Tree material some of the most heart felt touching thought provoking material ever created by any man is rediculous. When they experimented with Pop Actubg baby excuse the spelling it is German I think, even How to dismantel and still come out with same popularity and following and the beautiful tone on edges guitar mixed in with Bonos melodic tone and the rest of the band is quite well remarkable. U2 is the best band in the world and continues to be With or without you Desire Beautiful day mix in the years and songs still relevant all the times zones 80’s, 90’s and now REM is one of the greatest bands of rock. But U2 touches somewhere deep and God works through this band.

R.E.M. All the way! I have no hate against u2, but rem is awesome. I own most of their albums including Accelerate, in which Stipe still sounds great. I would also have to agree that the best REM is the IRS releases. R.E.M. Rocks!

U2 by very far, R.E.M is no where near
It should be:
Beatles vs U2 or:
Stones vs U2

I find U2 to be the most highly overrated band in the world. I will never figure out what they have written that people consider to be so extrardinarily great. I like some of their songs fine but for some reason they just never hooked me.
The comment Bono made about R.E.M.’s AFTP album was pretty nasty imo and R.E.M. are just not the type of guys to criticise other musicians publicly. That’s a big plus in my book.

I love U2 (hate Bono) but love U2. And I love the single song they managed to string out into 5. They are the ACDC of the activist world. The same song gets old but it was good in its time… Im going to do this instead… Bono Vs. Michael Stipe… Both activists. Both fight for good causes, but in two very different ways… Bono is a dirtbag protentious prick. He thinks of himself as a God (hence the one name, he has no need for two) He felt he needed a image and a persona. Has to be int he public eye. Is a class A hypocrit. Will only help at a project if he can be on the front cover (live Enter stage left, Michael Stipe. Such a great guy he takes the time to set aside, during a world tour mind you, to answer a bunch of questions from fans, personally. he type it out (you can tell lol) He lives by his words… he drives hybrids, he lives a very simplistic life… he is modest. More so then anything else, Michael has given us a gift. He has given all these songs to us. He hates telling people what songs are about because its our songs to think about… we can say they are about anything and he will not correct you… He is a loving, generous, caring, passionate, talented and most of all… REAL man. Where as Bono is a douche. Case closed.

Here is another point I would like to make… it seems that U2 fans are bandwagon fans (name 10 songs that doesnt include anything on their greatest hits) REM fans that are true REM fans have to really love them. Because Ill admit, some of their music just plain sucked, but we love it anyways. Why? We are true fans. So what if REM is at the top of the 100 list? If you did this poll amonst this generation of listeners, myself included (Im 20 and top 2 fav bands are REM and Queen (and between Queen and U2, Bono can blow Freddie because Queen blows them the fuck out of the water… see Live Aid)) neither band would make the top 100. Its sad. We got nothing left but OUR music. I love U2 and REM… at the end of the day it doesnt matter. No matter what we say, the music will be there. And I commend REM for not giving in with all the obstacles they have faced. They are nowhere near as popular as they were in say 1996 but they did something U2 could have never done… they made 90s music possible… they unintentionally created a genre of music (third eye blind, radiohead etc. wouldnt be here with REM) and are still modest as the day they held their first practice in Athens Georgia… So think about that and account it into the debate.

My friend and I were discussing this the other day. His reasons for preferring R.E.M. were these: R.E.M. has sold more albums that any other rock band in the alternative era (over 70 million since 1991), they are often called the most influential band of their generation (even by people who aren’t the band’s biggest supporters, like Jim Derogatis), and because no band of the past three decades has recieved as much critical acclaim. While these things may be true, the real reason R.E.M. is better is because they have more good music. Though U2 has been a band longer, R.E.M. is simply more prolific: they have released 14 recordings (16, if you count Chronic Town and Dead Letter Office) to U2’s 11. U2 has a number of excellent albums, including The Joshua Tree, War, and Achtung Baby. But R.E.M. not only has a lot of great and near-great works (Chronic Town, Murmur, Reckoning, Lifes Rich Pageant, Document, Automatic for the People, New Adventures in Hi-Fi), but also a number of good albums (Fables of the Reconstruction, Green, Out of Time, and Accelerate). In short, R.E.M. has as many good and great recordings (11) as U2 has albums (though that will change when U2 releases their album next year). With all of this said, U2 remains a great band and is, in my opinion, R.E.M.’s closest rival for best band of the last 30 years.

U2 by a mile. REM have been insignificant for a while now, U2 is more creative, a better live band, better music, better albums.

Enough said.

R.E.M. has not been insignificant for a while, as the previous poster said. Accelerate has received great reviews (it was on numerous year-end best album lists–and won praise from Bono and the Edge [I read somewhere that Bono begged Stipe and the boys to put "Man-Sized Wreath" on the album], though Bono tends to praise anything R.E.M. does). Anyway, I love U2, but I prefer R.E.M. They certainly seem like the more creative band to me: they altered their sound more: Chronic Town, Murmur, Fables of the Reconstruction, Lifes Rich Pageant, Green, Automatic for the People, Monster, and Up all sound different (U2 changed their sound in the ’90s, I’ll give them that, before going back their traditional sound this decade). I love five or six albums from both of these groups. After that, R.E.M. still has more really good ones. I’m not as big of a fan though of the remaining U2 albums, like October, Rattle and Hum, … Atomic Bomb. So, it’s R.E.M. for me.

In reading the comments most of the REM fans have a way to disect and discuss the importance of both bands on merit and songs. Most of the U2 comments seem as though they are just fans, those that listen to something because it is popular or has a good beat (as they used to say on American Bandstand). REM made great inspired songs on many of their albums, ones you can listen to and find something of yourself in them. U2 made great albums that made you want to listen and enjoy. You might not find something to relate to but something that just made you want to listen. REM seems to create what they feel at the time, where as U2 creates what they feel will sell. Both have sold millions of albums and have loyal fans. The story alone shows the importance and influence of both bands.

REM wins by far…even if REM isn’t the most popular band of the world,they are surely one of the most creative of all-time..U2 are just bad musicians(exept mabe the edge) who are solding millions of bad album

yes i did grow up in the 80’s but i didn’t listen to these bands cause they sucked.
i listen to good band like aerosmith, van halen, and gnr
screw alternaive

i think REM is better,really better than U2..not one of the most famous band,but one of the greatest for sure

bono can go die.

bono can go die.

bono can go die.

If you strip the ‘uhh U2 hands down. no debate.’ chaff from this hread, you will see that there are a number of people who can deabte the issue. Personally im amazed at anybody that has litened to all of the songs of both artists could possibly suggest that U2 could compare with REM so far as quality of output is concerned. U2 are a bigger seller and that is their thing….