Q Magazine named U2 "greatest act of the past quarter of a century"

[mikal]

Q Magazine named U2 the "greatest act of the past quarter of a century"?

Hey, that's awesome!

Cori, let's totally argue about it!

 

[LemonMelon]

Fuck Aaron Rodgers and yo mama.

 

[mikal]

do you have evidence LM?

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

there's that wacky subjectivity thing popping up again! must be something to it!

But there is a larger consensus regarding Radiohead's greatness than U2.And that consensus isn't base in term of records sale or top 40 radio airplay,because RH is below U2 in that regard even in the 15 years or so.But in term of relevancy and creativity and musicianship? it's not even close as to who's the greater act in the last,let say,15 years.

 

[LemonMelon]

do you have evidence LM?

No, but I can type in all caps and talk in circles.

 

[gvox]

But there is a larger consensus regarding Radiohead greatness than U2.

Really? Where?

 

[mikal]

But there is a larger consensus regarding Radiohead greatness than U2.And that consensus isn't base in term of records sale or top 40 radio airplay,because RH is below U2 in that regard even in the 15 years or so.But in term of relevancy and creativity and musicianship? it's not even close as to who's the greater actand the last,let say,15 year.

how are you measuring your claim? what kind of metrics are you using?

 

[rennowba]

BTW,i'm sure NME has a different view than Q about who's the greater act in the last 25 years...specialy their dislike toward U2.

U2 wouldnt get in the nme's top 25 nevermind number 1.

The nme hates u2.they seem to hate anyone who gets big they hate coldplay aswell

 

[gvox]

No, but I can type in all caps and talk in circles.

You'd still be wrong.

And here's why:

 

[hand0lotion]

Bono: "This is very humbling... if the Clash were up here, we'd be carrying their gear."

Twitter

Yes, about 25 years ago was when U2 stopped having to think about carrying their own gear. Full circle.

Love you boys! Hope more interviews and acceptance speeches from the Q thing turn up soon!

 

[CosmoKramer]

This is a pretty ridiculous statement.

I know of a lot of bands that have listed War,UF, Zooropa, and even ATYCLB as influences.

Rage Against the Machine guitarist was influenced by UF as he has stated in past interviews.

 

[lazarus]

I think the Sex Pistols are a shitty boy band concocted to capitalize on a trend and little more, and this opinion isn't as uncommon as you may think, but that hasn't stopped them from being one of the most important bands of their era.

If people hear your music and like it, you have influence. If a lot of people hear your music and like it, you have a lot of influence. If you're unique, a trend-setter like U2 or Radiohead that has few traceable contemporaries, you're going to stand out even more. They may not have invented a "scene," and it may take an extra 5 seconds to determine the bands they influenced, but it's ludicrous to say they held no influence because of that.

I'm still waiting for Nick to respond to this post, which probably makes the most sense so far in this thread in terms of why we're not seeing eye to eye.

Also, I'm not sure how Nick can credit both The Pixies AND Nirvana with changing the musical landscape/defining a genre when the bands significantly overlap, and when one is so clearly indebted to the other, as Cobain has stated himself.

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

Really? Where?

Well if you believe that Q is right about their claim,then it's not going to be on a blindfold message board that your are gonna find that consensus,obviously.But you read more from music critics that U2 reached the Rolling Stones syndrome..(a big jukebox)...look at 360 setlist in 2011.You'll never read that about Radiohead from any music critics.

 

[gvox]

Well if you believe that that Q is right about their claim,then it's not going to be on a blindfold message board that your are gonna find that consensus,obviously.But you read more from music critics that U2 reached the Rolling Stones syndrome..(a big jukebox)...look at 360 setlist in 2011.You'll never read that about Radiohead from any music critics.

Well good grief does Radiohead have 25+ singles spanning 25+ years that are instantly recognizable by a general concertgoing audience? Of course U2 will sound like a jukebox, they actually have to fight to not sound like one!

Radiohead can't possibly sound like that, yet anyways. So no critics will write that, clearly. This doesn't make them "better" or "greater" than U2. I guess you probably have other qualifiers but I'm not clear on what they'd be. I should be honest and say I'm not really a big Radiohead guy. I like maybe 5 or so of their songs.

 

[Galeongirl]

Well if you believe that that Q is right about their claim,then it's not going to be on a blindfold message board that your are gonna find that consensus,obviously.But you read more from music critics that U2 reached the Rolling Stones syndrome..(a big jukebox)...look at 360 setlist in 2011.You'll never read that about Radiohead from any music critics.

What about that 360 setlist in 2011? I'd love to hear more about that, that's certainly a topic that has never been touched here!

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

Well good grief does Radiohead have 25+ singles spanning 25+ years that are instantly recognizable by a general concertgoing audience? Of course U2 will sound like a jukebox, they actually have to fight to not sound like one!

Radiohead can't possibly sound like that, yet anyways. So no critics will write that, clearly.

Thats because Radiohead are not aiming to be on the radio.But Bono does if you read what he have stated in the last month or so.

 

[gvox]

Thats because Radiohead are not aiming to be on the radio.

lolwattt

 

[nielsgov]

Radiohead fanboy...

 

[trojanchick99]

Whoever brought up Radiohead in this thread...

 

[CosmoKramer]

For the record, U2's period of greatness, in terms of hits, critical acclaim and amazing live shows, is AT MINIMUM 1983-1993. If you start focusing more on live shows, their greatness has not yet even ended. They still to this day put on one of, if not *the, best live shows in music.

I would say 1983-current and here is why:

1983-War. Some might argue 1984 with UF or 1985 with Rolling Stone naming them band of the 80's or 1986 with Live Aid but none of that would have really materialized with out War and UABRS.

2000/2001-ATYCLB was a critical smash winning I believe 8 Grammys. It went 4x platinum in the US and sold well over 10 million WW. Beautiful Day is also among the most popular U2 songs ever.

2004/2005-HTDAAB wins 6 or 7 Grammys including Album of the year. Now if you think the Grammys are "crap", that's not the point because it is a critical gauge. Not to mention the album was almost universally loved by critics. It went 3x platinum in the US and sold roughly 10 million WW. The tour was the top grossing tour in history for a brief period with a gross of $389 million.

2009-2011-NLOTH- Sales may have seemed disappointing but the reality was that it was in the top 5 selling albums WW in 2009. In the US it sold 1.4 million, which while not "amazing" it still was in the top 25 selling albums in the US. Then there was the 360 tour which is the highest grossing tour in history with $736 million.

While the 2009 album was not a critical smash, the two previous were. So:

1983-2004 critical success
1985-2011 live success
1983-2004 commercial success (you could argue it goes to 2009)

In the end, I see their "greatness" period being at worst from 1985-2004, which is 19 years (longer then the Beatles were a band). In my opinion, the period is 1983-2004 but I think they can extend it with another great album in 2012.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

360º 2011 setlist?
The one with scarlet and zooropa? Those huge and recognizable by anyone u2 hits?

 

[Galeongirl]

It's like the months after the Vertigo tour all over again. We got radiohead, U2 relevancy, setlist bitching.


Oh Interf, nevar change.

 

[gvox]

And I don't disagree with you at all Cosmo, very salient points. I was trying to be as conservative as I felt someone else might argue it, assuming they hated everything from Pop onward. U2 has a very strong 20 year period of greatness going on (in my mind)!

 

[hand0lotion]

It's like the months after the Vertigo tour all over again. We got radiohead, U2 relevancy, setlist bitching.


Oh Interf, nevar change.

Did Bono himself question their own relevance after Vertigo and pretend things are rocky? Cos he's starting to worry me here

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

I would say 1983-current and here is why:

1983-War. Some might argue 1984 with UF or 1985 with Rolling Stone naming them band of the 80's or 1986 with Live Aid but none of that would have really materialized with out War and UABRS.

2000/2001-ATYCLB was a critical smash winning I believe 8 Grammys. It went 4x platinum in the US and sold well over 10 million WW. Beautiful Day is also among the most popular U2 songs ever.

2004/2005-HTDAAB wins 6 or 7 Grammys including Album of the year. Now if you think the Grammys are "crap", that's not the point because it is a critical gauge. Not to mention the album was almost universally loved by critics. It went 3x platinum in the US and sold roughly 10 million WW. The tour was the top grossing tour in history for a brief period with a gross of $389 million.

2009-2011-NLOTH- Sales may have seemed disappointing but the reality was that it was in the top 5 selling albums WW in 2009. In the US it sold 1.4 million, which while not "amazing" it still was in the top 25 selling albums in the US. Then there was the 360 tour which is the highest grossing tour in history with $736 million.

While the 2009 album was not a critical smash, the two previous were. So:

1983-2004 critical success
1985-2011 live success
1983-2004 commercial success (you could argue it goes to 2009)

In the end, I see their "greatness" period being at worst from 1985-2004, which is 19 years (longer then the Beatles were a band). In my opinion, the period is 1983-2004 but I think they can extend it with another great album in 2012.

There again, someone equaling greatness with numbers.The viscious circle continues........

 

[lazarus]

Guys, stop feeding the Radiohead troll. The other discussion is much more interesting with some legit comments on both sides.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

nevermind. Thank you lazarus

 

[BVS]

LUNED, not one thing you have posted has backed up your claim that no one has been influenced by u2 outside of those two albums, or that every Radiohead album but Pablo has been influential. You honestly come off more blindfolded than anyone else in here.

 

[CosmoKramer]

But there is a larger consensus regarding Radiohead's greatness than U2.And that consensus isn't base in term of records sale or top 40 radio airplay,because RH is below U2 in that regard even in the 15 years or so.But in term of relevancy and creativity and musicianship? it's not even close as to who's the greater act in the last,let say,15 years.

Relevancy? How does one measure relevancy? Hit songs...U2 wins. Record sales....U2 wins. Concert sales....U2 wins. I can't speak for Radiohead but in a global recession, U2 grossed $736 million from 7.2 million people. So, how are they not relevant? Is Radiohead relevant enough to peoples lives for them to be able to fill stadiums in say Australia, South Africa, Greece, Spain, Moscow, Turkey, NY, LA, Brazil or Mexico? If you do not want to use record sales, ticket sales or hit songs as a way to measure relevancy, then please provide another way to definitively measure relevancy and we can discuss.


As far as "creativity" & " musicianship".....those are both completely subjective and therefore it is irrelevant to say who is better.

 

[gvox]

Apparently, *not wanting to be on the radio requires a higher level of creativity and results in greater relevancy than wanting to be on the radio.

Thus, RADIOhead.

I get it!