Vote for U2 on RS' 'Artist of the Decade' Poll

[gvox]

Laz...good points I suppose, however in the end I just find Radiohead dull, uninspiring and positively boring. I even try to go back on occasion to make sure I just wasn't being an anti-Radiohead prick when I first listened and tossed it, and still find myself struggling after 2 or 3 songs. I just don't like them, so I'm biased. I like Idiotechque, however.

Kanye, on the other hand, has kept my interest, in spite of his public bullshit (although I don't count railing against George Bush as bullshit). But it's just my one vote, after all.

 

[lazarus]

great post, as usual doctorwho.

i think a lot of the Radiohead nuts fail to look at the big picture. with that said, i can personally say that Radiohead was probably my "band of the decade" because i feel that their experimentation has opened the door for a lot of the bands i listen to now. plus, they've had 4 great albums this decade. but if i'm looking at the big picture, including all genres and, gulp, pop music, there's no way that Radiohead owned this decade.

I don't read Artist of the Decade as "biggest". It's something a little more abstract than album sales or concert attendance, no? And you don't have to own every genre. No artist can really do that at this point. Doctorwho's post has some good points, but Shuttlecock isn't respected by all these people for what they're doing now, it's for their longevity and the fact that they haven't (quite) become a parody of themselves yet. The notion that they're relevant in the club scene is a stretch, to say the least.

On the other hand, a band that's consistently thinking outside the box, and still finding financial and critical success? And changing the way we look at the value of music and how we pay for it? Radiohead doesn't have the crazy chart numbers, but what they accomplished (all four albums this decade hit #3 or higher on the Billboard Charts) CONSIDERING what they've released is beyond impressive. Kid A getting nominated for an Album of the Year Grammy may not seem like a big deal now, but when it happened it was fucking INSANE. They have been the standard-bearers for what used to be called "alternative" (I wouldn't exactly call them "indie") for over a decade now, and will continue to be until the consensus finds someone more relevant. But it hasn't happened yet, and all the above credentials to me are enough for an Artist of the Decade label.

 

[LyricalDrug]

Borderline criminal that the Killers, with four stellar albums (I'm including the B-side + extras compilation, Sawdust, since it's a fantastic record) and arguably the best live act in rock today, is left off the ballot.

I voted for U2, ATYCLB, and Beautiful Day.

 

[mikal]

I don't read Artist of the Decade as "biggest". It's something a little more abstract than album sales or concert attendance, no? And you don't have to own every genre. No artist can really do that at this point. Doctorwho's post has some good points, but Shuttlecock isn't respected by all these people for what they're doing now, it's for their longevity and the fact that they haven't (quite) become a parody of themselves yet. The notion that they're relevant in the club scene is a stretch, to say the least.

On the other hand, a band that's consistently thinking outside the box, and still finding financial and critical success? And changing the way we look at the value of music and how we pay for it? Radiohead doesn't have the crazy chart numbers, but what they accomplished (all four albums this decade hit #3 or higher on the Billboard Charts) CONSIDERING what they've released is beyond impressive. Kid A getting nominated for an Album of the Year Grammy may not seem like a big deal now, but when it happened it was fucking INSANE. They have been the standard-bearers for what used to be called "alternative" (I wouldn't exactly call them "indie") for over a decade now, and will continue to be until the consensus finds someone more relevant. But it hasn't happened yet, and all the above credentials to me are enough for an Artist of the Decade label.

i think it comes down to your own personal meaning of "band of the decade".

i find myself about halfway between your argument and doctorwho's. i completely disagree with your comment that U2 has become a parody of themselves. maybe they don't do it for you anymore, but they have provided high quality music this decade, especially with their last offering.

 

[Saracene]

And on top of this, I will mention AGAIN their experiment with having people pay what they want for In Rainbows.

Just out of curiosity (and I will happily acknowledge my ignorance on the matter since I don't know the workings of music industry), has there been an indication that this pay-what-you-want experiment has had major consequences and caused an actual shift, other than getting tons of publicity for the band at the time?

As for the Artist of the Decade thing, I think it's a silly title to start with and trying to tack it on someone in this uber-fragmented music scene nowadays is even sillier.

 

[torn vinyl]

The only bands on that list who could be considered among the best of the decade are Wilco and Radiohead. The rest are manufactured shit who'd be nowhere without millions in promotion or they're only there because they used to be great (Dylan, U2). Radiohead and Wilco are so far above everyone else on that list it's retarded...Green Day?! Holy fuck, they are a joke now. It's a shame.

 

[BVS]

Exactly what genre is that? I don't hear other music that sounds like it, and on an album like Hail to the Thief, it's so stylistically all over the place, the notion that it could all be under some kind of blanket genre is ridiculous. Kid A and Amnesiac may both come from the same well, but the two follow-ups sound completely different, and different from each other.

I don't buy into this. I love Radiohead just as much as the next guy but they get too much credit. Kid A was amazing, In Rainbows had great moments, the other two sound like Kid A b-side albums. They've made their sound and now that's what they do, I was expecting another departure with Rainbows and it didn't come, they pretty much lose the "experiment" badge with me.

And on top of this, I will mention AGAIN their experiment with having people pay what they want for In Rainbows. This must be acknowledged as an important event in music, not just for the decade but for the entire history of the industry.

If this somehow changed how the industry dealt with things then I would agree, but it was nothing but a publicity stunt. They won't do it again and no one else has adopted this as real distribution model.

 

[lazarus]

] i completely disagree with your comment that U2 has become a parody of themselves. maybe they don't do it for you anymore, but they have provided high quality music this decade, especially with their last offering.

Did you actually read my posts? I said the main reason they have so much peer respect is because they HAVEN'T become parodies of themselves (though I'm sure many would argue Boner is pretty damned close). And I very much enjoy all three albums from this decade to varying degrees. But not the most impressive discography of any band this decade, that's for sure.

I don't buy into this. I love Radiohead just as much as the next guy but they get too much credit. Kid A was amazing, In Rainbows had great moments, the other two sound like Kid A b-side albums. They've made their sound and now that's what they do, I was expecting another departure with Rainbows and it didn't come, they pretty much lose the "experiment" badge with me.

Well, Hail to the Thief sounds NOTHING like Kid A and Amnesiac, and was recorded in a more raw, live band fashion. If you don't like the stuff, you don't like it, but your blanket statement regarding their output sounds completely ill-informed.

The songs for Amnesiac came from the same sessions. Many feel it's an inferior collection of tracks, and I understand that. But they were separated so as to not release a double album, and aren't just "leftovers". Yorke specifically talked about the difference between the two sets:

"Something traumatic is happening in Kid A, and this is looking back at it, trying to piece together what has happened." "I think the artwork is the best way of explaining it. The artwork to Kid A was all in the distance. The fires were all going on the other side of the hill. With Amnesiac, you're actually in the forest while the fire's happening."

Maybe you think he's full of shit, but I have enough respect for them as artists to take this seriously.

If this somehow changed how the industry dealt with things then I would agree, but it was nothing but a publicity stunt. They won't do it again and no one else has adopted this as real distribution model.

And this is just flat-out factually wrong. I've seen several artists adopt this same model with albums in the last two years. It hasn't completely changed the system, but it opened up a dialogue, and it's something that is only going to grow in the future.

Also, to call it a publicity stunt and question the band's integrity, when they've done nothing else to support that implication, is disingenuous, to say the least. It also makes me question your own statement about "loving Radiohead as much as the next guy". With friends like you...

 

[torn vinyl]

I don't buy into this. I love Radiohead just as much as the next guy but they get too much credit. Kid A was amazing, In Rainbows had great moments, the other two sound like Kid A b-side albums. They've made their sound and now that's what they do, I was expecting another departure with Rainbows and it didn't come, they pretty much lose the "experiment" badge with me.



If this somehow changed how the industry dealt with things then I would agree, but it was nothing but a publicity stunt. They won't do it again and no one else has adopted this as real distribution model.

All they did was make money off the inevitable leak. They are the ONLY smart band around. Every album leaks, and they knew In Rainbows would so they took control of it, put it out when it was done and gave people the option to pay for it, which many people did. And a lot of people bought it too. You;d think every band would do this, but nooo...they and the labels are content to whine about leaks and try to stop them instead of acknowledging the fact that this situation will never change (it's been, what 9, 10 years now?) and take control of it and try to capitalize on it like good capitalists. But no, they are stuck in the fucking past.

 

[mikal]

Did you actually read my posts? I said the main reason they have so much peer respect is because they HAVEN'T become parodies of themselves (though I'm sure many would argue Boner is pretty damned close). And I very much enjoy all three albums from this decade to varying degrees. But not the most impressive discography of any band this decade, that's for sure.

my apologies. i misread your post.

 

[BVS]

Well, Hail to the Thief sounds NOTHING like Kid A and Amnesiac, and was recorded in a more raw, live band fashion. If you don't like the stuff, you don't like it, but your blanket statement regarding their output sounds completely ill-informed.

I think Hail was the band trying to do the KidA/Amnesiac sound but were thinking a little more of how they were going to play it live. In fact Thom pretty much said so himself...

Maybe you think he's full of shit, but I have enough respect for them as artists to take this seriously.

It doesn't really matter if you believe the artist or not... Statements like that are a dime a dozen. The songs came out all at the same time, they found a theme to seperate them with, maybe it was conscious during the fact, maybe it made sense after the fact. It doesn't really matter, to me it sound rather inferior, and for the most part that's how it was received.

And this is just flat-out factually wrong. I've seen several artists adopt this same model with albums in the last two years. It hasn't completely changed the system, but it opened up a dialogue, and it's something that is only going to grow in the future.

Who? It's not like they invented this model, it's just that they were the only well established band to do it, indie bands have been doing this for years.

Also, to call it a publicity stunt and question the band's integrity, when they've done nothing else to support that implication, is disingenuous, to say the least. It also makes me question your own statement about "loving Radiohead as much as the next guy". With friends like you...

Please! No one is questioning their "integrity", hasn't Thom said himself they won't do it again? Didn't they sell it through a regular distributer a month later? It was a really brilliant publicity stunt, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[BVS]

All they did was make money off the inevitable leak. They are the ONLY smart band around. Every album leaks, and they knew In Rainbows would so they took control of it, put it out when it was done and gave people the option to pay for it, which many people did. And a lot of people bought it too. You;d think every band would do this, but nooo...they and the labels are content to whine about leaks and try to stop them instead of acknowledging the fact that this situation will never change (it's been, what 9, 10 years now?) and take control of it and try to capitalize on it like good capitalists. But no, they are stuck in the fucking past.

If they continue to use this model in the future then I'll take back what I said, but if not, it was just a stunt.

 

[lazarus]

I think Hail was the band trying to do the KidA/Amnesiac sound but were thinking a little more of how they were going to play it live. In fact Thom pretty much said so himself...

Source please?

"Recorded relatively quickly in Los Angeles, the album was described by band members as an attempt to find a more "swaggering" sound and a relaxed recording process, in contrast to their tense sessions for Kid A and Amnesiac several years earlier."

"Most of the tracks were recorded in two weeks in a Los Angeles studio, the shortest studio sessions for Radiohead since Pablo Honey."

Considering many of these songs are much more guitar-based (or organic) compared to the last two albums, I don't know how you'd classify them as having "the Kid A/Amnesiac sound". Every review seemed to comment how the band was stepping back from the extremes of their experimentation.

It doesn't really matter if you believe the artist or not... Statements like that are a dime a dozen. The songs came out all at the same time, they found a theme to seperate them with, maybe it was conscious during the fact, maybe it made sense after the fact. It doesn't really matter, to me it sound rather inferior, and for the most part that's how it was received.

It matters to me, especially when we're talking about this in an Artist of the Decade thread. I certainly don't view Amnesiac as an attempt to milk more money out of the sessions by releasing a bunch of crap that wasn't good enough for the other album. Of course one album is going to be viewed as better than the other. And of course the shock value of the albums being so out of left field is going to wear off when the second one is released. Who knows what the reception would have been had Amnesiac been released first?


Who? It's not like they invented this model, it's just that they were the only well established band to do it, indie bands have been doing this for years.

Nine Inch Nails and Girl Talk, to name a couple. There have been more. If I'm not mistaken Billy Corgan is planning something for his next release. Of course, most major artists are in contracts with labels that prevent them from doing something like this. Again, the future will tell whether or not it's going to be

Please! No one is questioning their "integrity", hasn't Thom said himself they won't do it again? Didn't they sell it through a regular distributer a month later? It was a really brilliant publicity stunt, nothing more, nothing less.

The band SELF-RELEASED a physical CD several months later. Yorke has said they NEVER intended to keep In Rainbows a digital-only release.

Publicity stunt implies that something was only done to generate attention. Since Radiohead doesn't have a history of this kind of thing, and has given the specific reasons for releasing it online, you are VERY MUCH questioning their integrity. What the fuck do you think it means when you make a baiting, unfounded statement like that?

 

[intedomine]

I agree with Laz for the most part here. Radiohead are beyond being of any specific genre (HTTT and In Rainbows being a prime example of this), and while Radiohead's musical influence is profound, many of these influenced bands themselves are without genre (alternative is not really a genre of sound).

Also, the digital release of In Rainbows wasn't a mere publicity stunt. It is critical that it was Radiohead who took this risk. There was a lot for them to lose but potentially a lot to both gain and change in the industry. Yes, they reaped publicity from it, but it should be recognised more as innovative marketing as opposed to just being a "stunt". Big bands such as Bloc Party's digital release of Intimacy was obviously inspired by the In Rainbows release, and even Coldplay exhibited were unprecedentedly willing to release stuff free online (Violet Hill, LeftRightLeftRightLeft). It takes someone whom both these bands look up to, Radiohead, for them to go down this path.

That said, I don't think Radiohead's musical output from this decade can be considered the biggest or the best. We'd probably be looking at someone like Jay Z in terms of both influence and mainstream appeal), and it is critical that despite releasing songs (Jigsaw, 2+2=5, ReckoneR) that have much more commercial appeal than some of Radiohead's previous single releases, they were still unable to secure any significant mainstream penetration at all.

The Killers were probably well-positioned to be the biggest and most influential band of the decade until the lukewarm reception of Day & Age.

Ultimately, I'd say the music industry has fragmented too much over the past decade for any band to be considered the biggest and the best. Indeed, the story of the music in the 00's is not about music or an artist at all, but is instead about how the industry has been turned upside down.

 

[Irvine511]

i think an intellectual case can absolutely be made for Radiohead, but much like their music, it has trouble transcending the intellectual and translating into emotional attachment that most people have with their favorite artists. loved Kid A, but after that they've lost it for me -- i get why people find them so inspiring, but they're now cold as fish for me.

i think a "band of the decade" has to "arrive" -- so to speak -- during that decade. i don't think it's something you could win twice. i think its crystal clear that U2 was the band of the 80s, just as Radiohead was in the 90s (not that RH's output was necessarily better than U2, i'd put it at AB > TB > OK > Z > P > PH), but the 90s was when RH became a band for the ages, like U2 in the 80s.

so, therefore, i have to say that it was Kanye's decade, he's the only one who hits all the marks required of great popular music. and his currency is hip-hop, the dominant genre of the decade. enormous cross-over appeal, enormous critical respect, enormous sales, enormous (yes) talent. it's too bad he often trips over being a giant douchebag.

(note: had Eminem kept it up and not crashed and burned, he would have been in the running -- find me more bracing songs than "Stan" and "Lose Yourself" and "Till I Collapse")

(and if Coldplay weren't as universally hated as much as they are loved, they'd be in the Top 3)

 

[BVS]

It matters to me, especially when we're talking about this in an Artist of the Decade thread. I certainly don't view Amnesiac as an attempt to milk more money out of the sessions by releasing a bunch of crap that wasn't good enough for the other album. Of course one album is going to be viewed as better than the other. And of course the shock value of the albums being so out of left field is going to wear off when the second one is released. Who knows what the reception would have been had Amnesiac been released first?

Ok, it matters to you, all I'm saying is that you don't have to be conscious about it during the fact to make it any more valuable as art. I would say the majority of art is created and then explained and sorted after the fact. You're right, who knows how it would be received it was released before, I just know how I would have recieved it...

Publicity stunt implies that something was only done to generate attention. Since Radiohead doesn't have a history of this kind of thing, and has given the specific reasons for releasing it online, you are VERY MUCH questioning their integrity. What the fuck do you think it means when you make a baiting, unfounded statement like that?

I think it was done to generate attention, nothing wrong with that... I wouldn't say it's unfounded, many have said the same thing including fellow musicians. They never released the numbers and like I asked before haven't they come out and said they won't do it again? Or am I dreaming this?

Like I said if they stick with this model, I'll think differently.

 

[gvox]

so, therefore, i have to say that it was Kanye's decade, he's the only one who hits all the marks required of great popular music. and his currency is hip-hop, the dominant genre of the decade. enormous cross-over appeal, enormous critical respect, enormous sales, enormous (yes) talent. it's too bad he often trips over being a giant douchebag.

Agree with pretty much all that you wrote.

 

[LyricalDrug]

i think a "band of the decade" has to "arrive" -- so to speak -- during that decade. i don't think it's something you could win twice. i think its crystal clear that U2 was the band of the 80s, just as Radiohead was in the 90s (not that RH's output was necessarily better than U2, i'd put it at AB > TB > OK > Z > P > PH), but the 90s was when RH became a band for the ages, like U2 in the 80s.

so, therefore, i have to say that it was Kanye's decade, he's the only one who hits all the marks required of great popular music. and his currency is hip-hop, the dominant genre of the decade. enormous cross-over appeal, enormous critical respect, enormous sales, enormous (yes) talent. it's too bad he often trips over being a giant douchebag.

(and if Coldplay weren't as universally hated as much as they are loved, they'd be in the Top 3)

I'd probably go with Kanye for "artist of the decade," agreed. Although if I wanted to defend U2 and be snarky, I'd point out that Kanye West was a support act for U2... they're still the biggest act in the land

 

[LMP]

A friend of mine suggested Gorillaz because they stretched through such a wide array of genres and collaborators both within the band and from the outside. Plus, their set-up challenges the idea of what constitutes a band in the first place. It's comparable to a stage-act, but you don't see the puppeteers pulling the strings, even in the live shows.

I'd add them to my personal shortlist besides OutKast (no one else agrees or disagrees with their inclusion into the discussion?), Kanye, and Radiohead.

 

[gvox]

There's no denying Outkast is mega talented and they have platinum certification, however their output (and impact?) post 2004 is ?

 

[LMP]

I think they've only put out the Idlewild soundtrack, but the reverberations of Stankonia and Speakerboxxx/The Love Below have definitely been felt since.

 

[LemonMelon]

so, therefore, i have to say that it was Kanye's decade, he's the only one who hits all the marks required of great popular music. and his currency is hip-hop, the dominant genre of the decade. enormous cross-over appeal, enormous critical respect, enormous sales, enormous (yes) talent. it's too bad he often trips over being a giant douchebag.

I consider Kanye a weak candidate for similar reasons to Outkast; his commercial dominance as a solo act didn't begin until 2004, allowing for several years of relative obscurity. His influence pre-solo years was undeniable though. Where would the hip-hop world have been without The Blueprint?

Though I consider their work artistically inferior to that of Radiohead, Kanye, or Outkast, Coldplay fits your definition as well as mine; they released three good, hugely successful records (and one giant piece of shit that was inexplicably popular as well) spanning the entirety of 2000-2009, dominating every available second of the decade. I voted Radiohead in the poll simply because I consider their best 00s records essential, but Coldplay is the strongest candidate here IMO.

 

[LMP]

If they didn't release the undeniably mediocre-at-best, X&Y, I'd put Coldplay into that conversation, too. Even if I'm not their biggest fan, their three other albums have some quality material on them and their commercial appeal can't be understated.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Obama is clearly the artist of the decade.

 

[Irvine511]

I consider Kanye a weak candidate for similar reasons to Outkast; his commercial dominance as a solo act didn't begin until 2004, allowing for several years of relative obscurity. His influence pre-solo years was undeniable though. Where would the hip-hop world have been without The Blueprint?

agreed about Outkast, though i'd still put them high up there. is "Hey Ya" the song of the decade? were they on the original RS list?

Though I consider their work artistically inferior to that of Radiohead, Kanye, or Outkast, Coldplay fits your definition as well as mine; they released three good, hugely successful records (and one giant piece of shit that was inexplicably popular as well) spanning the entirety of 2000-2009, dominating every available second of the decade. I voted Radiohead in the poll simply because I consider their best 00s records essential, but Coldplay is the strongest candidate here IMO.

yes, i do think Coldplay is up there. the issue is that they inspire out-and-out hatred that's on part with the (equally unfair) hatred of Bono.

which was the piece of shit album? i assume X&Y? because i'd agree.

still, on many fronts, U2 is as good a selection as any. three generally very well received albums, three extremely well received tours, Bono's ascendence to a level of galactic importance almost on par with his own perception of himself ... it's been quite a decade for them, and what's shocking is that they remained good into their 40s. perhaps the should get bonus points for that?

 

[Saracene]

so, therefore, i have to say that it was Kanye's decade, he's the only one who hits all the marks required of great popular music. and his currency is hip-hop, the dominant genre of the decade. enormous cross-over appeal, enormous critical respect, enormous sales, enormous (yes) talent.

I don't think though that West's enormous commercial success in USA quite matched his sales outside of it, certainly not for the last album. Not that he hasn't done well, but he can't really compare to, say, Coldplay who have a genuinely huge worldwide success. They're probably the only new band from this decade who have managed it.

 

[Lancemc]

I have trouble swallowing Radiohead as the "Band of the 90s" over the Band of this decade, if we have to bestow one title or the other upon them.

 

[Irvine511]

for me, i think that "arrival" is important. U2 will always be remembered for arriving in the 1980s, despite the fact that AB and some of the work this decade is on par (if not better) than their 80s output, that's why i put Radiohead in the 1990s.

but i really, really am not mentally or emotionally equipped for an in-depth Radiohead discussion.

i think the point about Coldplay's global success is well taken.

 

[LemonMelon]

agreed about Outkast, though i'd still put them high up there. is "Hey Ya" the song of the decade? were they on the original RS list?

Hey Ya is undoubtedly one of the finest, most naturally fun and catchy pop songs this decade has seen, and I think it's a shame that Outkast's output dwindled down to nothing after Speakerboxxx/Love Below. I don't think they had another Aquemini in them, but it was clear that they were still capable of crafting the best hip-hop albums out there. I'm very excited for the supposed 2010 release of Big Boi's first proper solo album, Sir Luscious Left Foot. The few tracks I've heard from it have been on par with his Speakerboxxx material.

which was the piece of shit album? i assume X&Y? because i'd agree.

Certainly. "X&Y" and "piece of shit" are synonymous with one another.

still, on many fronts, U2 is as good a selection as any. three generally very well received albums, three extremely well received tours, Bono's ascendence to a level of galactic importance almost on par with his own perception of himself ... it's been quite a decade for them, and what's shocking is that they remained good into their 40s. perhaps the should get bonus points for that?

Setting aside the opinion that a Band of the Decade should have originated more or less within that decade, as well as my own personal biases, I agree. From a commercial standpoint, it's easy to argue U2's case, especially if you magnify the tour revenue. Factoring in my personal biases, I don't believe that the release of three largely complacent albums with generally positive critical consenses places them above Coldplay. Rather, it places them beside Coldplay, and perhaps below, as Coldplay had to build their own career in the span of 10 years, while U2 was already there, previously well past it. One could argue that U2 had to rebuild their career somewhat after Pop, but it's just not the same to me. Coldplay, for all their flaws, tapped into the mainstream early on, staying true to their own wussy, laughably uncool selves throughout, and made it work. That's to be applauded.

 

[agentorange]

There's only one band on the list that has inspired me with consistently strong albums, artistry and vision, showmanship, etc.: Wilco. They absolutely flourished this decade, although it could be claimed that they have stagnated a bit over the last two albums. And those albums are still very good, even if not groundbreaking.
From the others (at least the rock bands) on the list, I see a varied output quality, if not a complete lack thereof.