U2 or Sex Pistols

Which is the band you like more?

For me it's ......The Pistols. One defining moment they made an album that I will always go back to, because it is always relevant.
It is a piece of art that transcends words and just makes you angry ..... and happy.

Now that's a totally random question/comparison. Why do you ask?

Anyway, for me... Sex Pistols, please, though I like both bands.

Now that's a totally random question/comparison. Why do you ask?

Anyway, for me... Sex Pistols, please, though I like both bands.

Have to agree that the Pistols are way better, now The Clash vs The Pistols is a better debate.

Now that's a totally random question/comparison. Why do you ask?

Anyway, for me... Sex Pistols, please, though I like both bands.

Actually to me its the same as the Pearl Jam / Nirvana debate. Same era , political etc but the contribution to the form of one is transcendent and the other makes some very listenable albums which wane with time. However U2 concerts are always packed out and Bono is omnipresent and I wonder what they have done to deserve such a place .... it's not like they wrote 'Never Mind The Bollocks'.

Sex Pistols by light years.
Innovative and raw as opposed to predictable and commercial. Did like U2 initially but it did seem like more of the same after a while.
The Pistols burnt themselves out like a supercharged illuminate while U2 melted into the pop culture.

Never really got the sex pistols.

Never really got the sex pistols.

Didn't worry about all that stuff, they were F***ing outrageous and you had no idea what was coming next with them.
Maybe there was nothing to get, they were anti everything and took the piss out of the establishment and authority.
Rather watch them even now than some of the sh*te foisted on us by the music industry.

One of the most bizare questions I've ever read. Both on opposite sides of the music scale. Not a fan of U2 really. Like a few if their songs but I am out off bands sometimes by their character. Find Bono very hypocritical. He asks everyone to dig into their pocket but will happily not pay tax in the south of Ireland because he earns a certain wage.

Sex Pistols, for me, are brilliant. Haven't listened to them enough of late but I will now.

For me, neither. Could just never get into either band. Few songs here and there of course, but as a whole, not for me.

Actually to me its the same as the Pearl Jam / Nirvana debate. Same era , political etc but the contribution to the form of one is transcendent and the other makes some very listenable albums which wane with time. However U2 concerts are always packed out and Bono is omnipresent and I wonder what they have done to deserve such a place .... it's not like they wrote 'Never Mind The Bollocks'.

Nah, sorry, but Pearl Jam vs Nirvana is an obvious comparison - they're both from the same grunge scene, as well as from the same city and time. It's natural to compare them.

Sex Pistols and U2 have totally different backgrounds, completely separate styles, one band has lasted for decades while the other only released a single album, and so on... it's a very weird comparison to be honest.

I think I lost my respect for the Sex Pistols when John Lydon started whoring himself about. Examples being going on I'm a Celebrity and doing an advert for butter.

Not a huge fan of U2 either. Bonno is a c**t.

U2
but I'm not sure why we're asking people whether they prefer one of the greatest pop rock bands
or an Iconic punk band.

No real comparisons between the two bands.

Have to agree that the Pistols are way better, now The Clash vs The Pistols is a better debate.

Would be The Clash for me everytime and let's face it don't come across as cu*ts as much as the Sex Pistols did.

Plus the work Mick Jones did for The Justice Band needs to be applauded.

Would be The Clash for me everytime and let's face it don't come across as cu*ts as much as the Sex Pistols did.

Plus the work Mick Jones did for The Justice Band needs to be applauded.

The Clash vs Sex Pistols would make a lot more sense as a comparison, but then it's a ridiculously easy choice: The Clash are heads and shoulders above the Pistols (and nearly every band in rock history, for that matter )

U2
but I'm not sure why we're asking people whether they prefer one of the greatest pop rock bands
or an Iconic punk band.

No real comparisons between the two bands.

Indeed. Strange comparison to make but it would be U2 for me if I had to choose.

One of the most bizare questions I've ever read.

Yep.

Next up Chalk or Cheese?

The Clash vs Sex Pistols would make a lot more sense as a comparison, but then it's a ridiculously easy choice: The Clash are heads and shoulders above the Pistols (and nearly every band in rock history, for that matter )

The Clash, by a F***ing mile.

Punk was never my thing so would have to be U2 for me.

Nah, sorry, but Pearl Jam vs Nirvana is an obvious comparison - they're both from the same grunge scene, as well as from the same city and time. It's natural to compare them.

Sex Pistols and U2 have totally different backgrounds, completely separate styles, one band has lasted for decades while the other only released a single album, and so on... it's a very weird comparison to be honest.

I suppose the underlying reason is this:

I love music, I mean really get drawn into it. A band like Nirvana or The Sex Pistols  or Bob Dylan can really draw a profound physio-chemical response in me to be exact. However I don't think this is the same for everyone. I think there is a lot of people probably a majority who don't really get into music in the same way. They therefore have very little preferences and buy whatever is 'popular' at the time. This explains 'Nickelback'. How do these bands get popular in the first place is the question. I can see how they take advantage of this popularity to grow. They put themselves everywhere , 'play the game'.

Back to U2 and The Pistols. Would you rather Bono in the UN or John Lydon, and remember 'Johhny' doesn't lie. Would you rather our bands influenced by a Mega band like U2 who give all the right answers or an evolutionary step like The Sex Pistols.  The question really is about this.

I suppose the underlying reason is this:

I love music, I mean really get drawn into it. A band like Nirvana or The Sex Pistols  or Bob Dylan can really draw a profound physio-chemical response in me to be exact. However I don't think this is the same for everyone. I think there is a lot of people probably a majority who don't really get into music in the same way. They therefore have very little preferences and buy whatever is 'popular' at the time. This explains 'Nickelback'. How do these bands get popular in the first place is the question. I can see how they take advantage of this popularity to grow. They put themselves everywhere , 'play the game'.

Back to U2 and The Pistols. Would you rather Bono in the UN or John Lydon, and remember 'Johhny' doesn't lie. Would you rather our bands influenced by a Mega band like U2 who give all the right answers or an evolutionary step like The Sex Pistols.  The question really is about this.

Never really pondered the chasms that split musical taste, when you consider the unqualified sh*te that occupies the hit lists for the most part, there are definitely profound inequalities in taste and the perception of quality.
Recognised and established genius is totally ignored by the majority and the only assumption must be an inability to appreciate and differentiate the genre from the commercial fodder churned out by a "popular music industry," who insist that it does what it says on the label.
   

Never been a fan of either but being 34, I wasn't around when Sex Pistols were in their prime. If I'd have been a teenager at the time, I'm sure I would have appreciated their antics far more.

If choosing between the two, I'd have to go with Sex Pistols anyway for the following reasons:

They were bold and looked to do something new.
They have massively influenced bands that I like now.
Although it seems cliched now, they dared to be anti-establishment and brought it to the mainstream.

U2 made nothing but "safe", commercially viable rock music.
Bono is the second most self-righteous, arrogant pr**k in music, behind Paul McCartney.

It all started with the Sex Pistols. I saw them twice in 1976 — two gigs weeks apart at the Lesser Free Trade Hall in Manchester — Bernard Sumner (our guitarist) and I went together with a couple of friends to the first gig, and at the second gig I bumped into Ian Curtis, who would become our lead singer. They were only on for half an hour, but when they finished, we filed out quietly with our minds blown, absolutely utterly speechless, and it just sort of dawned on me then — that was it. On the way home that night we decided to form a band — Joy Division.   from Peter Hook

So without Sex PIstols no Joy Division and without these two bands probably nothing decent would have come out of music in my living memory

Isnt the comparison a bit strange? Be like asking Oasis or wet wet wet