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

[mikal]

Yes!


I still chuckle when I find someone who doesn't like it

don't get me wrong. i like "In Rainbows", but i don't think it even comes close to "OK Computer" or "Kid A".

 

[nielsgov]

i still chuckle when i hear people say that "In Rainbows" is Radiohead's best album.

So do I.

In the end I voted for Kid A as album of the decade.

U2 artist of the decade. Because really Coldplay? I like them but artist of the decade is a bit too much honor.

I also thought of Radiohead but their albums are pretty inconsistent (except for Kid A). Some brilliant songs but some really bad songs too (also on In Rainbows). ATYCLB, HTDAAB (that one too) and NLOTH are pretty consistent albums.

 

[MilotheMayor]

So do I.
ATYCLB, HTDAAB (that one too) and NLOTH are pretty consistent albums.

Consistently mediocre.

ZING

 

[Bono's shades]

It's reallly sad that I can't think of anyone I could happily pick as Artist of the Decade.

U2's work during this decade is mostly subpar compared to their '80s and '90s output. Sure, they sold huge numbers of albums during the '00s, but that shouldn't be enough to make someone Artist of the Decade.

Green Day released some of their best work during this decade, but even so I feel like Artist of the Decade should be someone who rose to prominence for the first time during that decade.

I loved Arcade Fire in 2004, but their appeal has worn thin for me. Besides, I don't think they ever got to the point where they were a household name, or are likely to.

I might be tempted to vote for Jack White, except that he's the one listed, not The White Stripes. I love the Racounteurs and the collaboration with Loretta Lynn, but if it weren't for the success of the White Stripes, none of that would have happened.

 

[Screwtape2]

I'm sure B&C will have something big at the end of the year with these questions so I won't give an answer to them now but I do want to talk about U2's place in this decade.

Personally, I think to be considered the band of the decade you either had to come to prominence as many have said or be in your creative peak. I don't think the 2000's have been the band's creative peak. I'm not sure how many people would say that either. The question becomes who is? Here are a couple bands I think are in the discussion and I'm aware that I'll be leaving out some.

Coldplay: No band has climbed to the top this decade like Coldplay. Like them or not, A Rush of Blood To The Head and Viva La Vida are important records that will be on most best album lists for this decade for years to come. That makes me think this decade is their creative peak.

Arcade Fire: Neon Bible and Funeral will also be albums that will be remembered for years. Though they haven't reached Coldplay's popularity level, they have built a strong following and with many songs that are among the best of the decade. It will be hard for them to that work.

The Killers: They did rise to prominence and will undoubtably be part of any discussion of this decade in the future.

Metric: The real dark horse. They've built a passionate following with consistently strong albums. They are there too when it comes to best live acts of the decade. They might reach even higher levels of popularity in the 2010's but I suspect this is the decade that will be viewed as their peak.

 

[LDM007]

Best Album: "Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix" - Phoenix
Best Song: "All My Friends" - LCD Soundsystem

Artist of the Decade: I've been having this conversation with so many of my friends within the past two years, and we still have yet to come to any conclusion on who the true "Artist of the Decade" would be... Acts like Coldplay, Eminem, Radiohead, U2, Springsteen, and KanYe (and even The Killers --- great studio albums, vastly overrated live in my opinion) have all been discussed, but with the way that the music industry is now, I believe it's now rather difficult to find one artist who has truly "defined" a decade.

What do you think?

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i also felt it should be about a artist who made his mark for the first time, or biggest mark ever fro them, in this decade. so bob dylan really has no place on here. and all the other old bands. cause thats really more like your giving a lifetime achievement award then.

 

[Rob33]

its sad if its really u2. not because they are not great. because a band that came out in 1980 shouldn't define 2000-2009. its proly coldplay and Eminem. Regardless of anyone's feelings on their music, they did dominate. Bob dylan, Bruce springsteen,, even Green day and u2 lol i mean, no offense but each decades need their own heroes. Green day is comeback story if anything.. Radiohead could get album of the decade with KID A, but not artist of the decade.

Coldplay? Dominating U2? No idea what you're thinking...it's not even close...

I think we should include everything these bands have done...like someone else said, their overall mark on the decade....with ATYCLB and its connection with 9/11...from the Elevation Tour to Vertigo to 360...revolutionizing stadium rock in a way....their longevity and maintained relevance...I vote U2.

 

[nielsgov]

Coldplay? Dominating U2? No idea what you're thinking...it's not even close...

I think we should include everything these bands have done...like someone else said, their overall mark on the decade....with ATYCLB and its connection with 9/11...from the Elevation Tour to Vertigo to 360...revolutionizing stadium rock in a way....their longevity and maintained relevance...I vote U2.

 

[LMP]

Coldplay? Dominating U2? No idea what you're thinking...it's not even close...

I think we should include everything these bands have done...like someone else said, their overall mark on the decade....with ATYCLB and its connection with 9/11...from the Elevation Tour to Vertigo to 360...revolutionizing stadium rock in a way....their longevity and maintained relevance...I vote U2.

Could Arcade Fire, Kanye, or even a band like Pearl Jam even compete on the longevity front? Yeah, that's a great trait to have, but how is it relevant to their musical output of this decade.

Their role after 9/11 as the first major band to tour again was huge, but was anybody openly challenging them based upon what they're releasing now? U2 is a strange case in that they don't really have any contemporaries to compare themselves to, and the acts that would fight for this Artist of the Decade spot are inspired by their earlier material.

There's no Beatles/Beach Boys rivalry at play, where one puts out Rubber Soul, then the other puts out Pet Sounds, then Sgt. Pepper as a response to that, you know? Who did that with ATYCLB, or The Bomb? With Radiohead, you'd have acts trying to top Kid A, or even with Wilco, people trying to top Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.

U2, as well-esteemed and successful as they've been this decade, to me, are almost removed from this sort of competition because they have nothing to win at this point. The best period in almost any artist's work comes when they're hungry for respect or a sense of legitimacy, and they've already achieved that and then some. I'd consider them The Band of the '80s in that sense, but now, they're simply a great band still putting out relatively solid material, and that's that.

 

[Rob33]

Could Arcade Fire, Kanye, or even a band like Pearl Jam even compete on the longevity front? Yeah, that's a great trait to have, but how is it relevant to their musical output of this decade.

Their role after 9/11 as the first major band to tour again was huge, but was anybody openly challenging them based upon what they're releasing now? U2 is a strange case in that they don't really have any contemporaries to compare themselves to, and the acts that would fight for this Artist of the Decade spot are inspired by their earlier material.

There's no Beatles/Beach Boys rivalry at play, where one puts out Rubber Soul, then the other puts out Pet Sounds, then Sgt. Pepper as a response to that, you know? Who did that with ATYCLB, or The Bomb? With Radiohead, you'd have acts trying to top Kid A, or even with Wilco, people trying to top Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.

U2, as well-esteemed and successful as they've been this decade, to me, are almost removed from this sort of competition because they have nothing to win at this point. The best period in almost any artist's work comes when they're hungry for respect or a sense of legitimacy, and they've already achieved that and then some. I'd consider them The Band of the '80s in that sense, but now, they're simply a great band still putting out relatively solid material, and that's that.

No competition? Are you kidding? U2 are generally acknowledged as the biggest band in the world....exactly why all other bands are trying to take over that spot, from the Killers to Coldplay to Oasis...even bands like Kings of Leon whose popularity exploded with the mainstream Only By the Night ...they're all after U2, and U2 is well aware of this.

Back in 2004, right before the Vertigo Tour kicked off, U2 was interviewed in France, and they directly responded to this...Bono said something like "how embarrassing will it be if we're still the best band in the world in five years? Bands like Coldplay and Franz Ferdinand should be confident, but we're not gonna make it easy for them. We're going to make their lives a living hell." Well guess what? They're still on top.

My point is that U2 have been fighting to remain on top for the entire decade ever since Pop/Popmart.

Also, you might not be able to find an album to album line of competition between U2 and another band like you mentioned between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, but I don't see how that really matters...it's about the big picture....the competition is still there.

And btw, a song like Moment of Surrender is not "relatively solid material"...that song is downright BRILLIANT.

 

[U2girl]

Coldplay.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

I see it as more about a newer artist type of thing.

 

[digitize]

No competition? Are you kidding? U2 are generally acknowledged as the biggest band in the world....exactly why all other bands are trying to take over that spot, from the Killers to Coldplay to Oasis...even bands like Kings of Leon whose popularity exploded with the mainstream Only By the Night ...they're all after U2, and U2 is well aware of this.

Back in 2004, right before the Vertigo Tour kicked off, U2 was interviewed in France, and they directly responded to this...Bono said something like "how embarrassing will it be if we're still the best band in the world in five years? Bands like Coldplay and Franz Ferdinand should be confident, but we're not gonna make it easy for them. We're going to make their lives a living hell." Well guess what? They're still on top.

My point is that U2 have been fighting to remain on top for the entire decade ever since Pop/Popmart.

Also, you might not be able to find an album to album line of competition between U2 and another band like you mentioned between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, but I don't see how that really matters...it's about the big picture....the competition is still there.

And btw, a song like Moment of Surrender is not "relatively solid material"...that song is downright BRILLIANT.

 

[digitize]

i still chuckle when i hear people say that "In Rainbows" is Radiohead's best album.

Yeah. I consider the album decent, but nothing more, and certainly nothing on the brilliance of Kid A and OK Computer. I mainly chuckle when people call it innovative just because its electronic, somewhat ambient, and computer-blip-y, when it's no different than what Radiohead have put out for years.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

No competition? Are you kidding? U2 are generally acknowledged as the biggest band in the world....exactly why all other bands are trying to take over that spot, from the Killers to Coldplay to Oasis...even bands like Kings of Leon whose popularity exploded with the mainstream Only By the Night ...they're all after U2, and U2 is well aware of this.

Back in 2004, right before the Vertigo Tour kicked off, U2 was interviewed in France, and they directly responded to this...Bono said something like "how embarrassing will it be if we're still the best band in the world in five years? Bands like Coldplay and Franz Ferdinand should be confident, but we're not gonna make it easy for them. We're going to make their lives a living hell." Well guess what? They're still on top.

My point is that U2 have been fighting to remain on top for the entire decade ever since Pop/Popmart.

Also, you might not be able to find an album to album line of competition between U2 and another band like you mentioned between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, but I don't see how that really matters...it's about the big picture....the competition is still there.

And btw, a song like Moment of Surrender is not "relatively solid material"...that song is downright BRILLIANT.

awesome post, and about Moment of Surrender... YES IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[monsieur fly]

I'll vote for NLOTH because it's superb but in no way have U2 been the artists of the decade for me. In my opinion, NLOTH can't outweigh two AOR albums and a couple of dodgy Rubin collaborations. Springsteen, by contrast, has been consistently outstanding. The Rising and Magic are up there with anything he produced before; he had a lively detour with the Seeger Sessions and Devils and Dust and Working On A Dream have great moments too. Moreover, he remains phonemonal live. At the moment he is playing whole albums in his shows along with album tracks, hits, unreleased songs and covers. I think that is marvellous so he gets my vote. As for the song of the decade, I've gone for Mississippi by Bob Dylan though Magnificent runs it close.

 

[Yahweh]

I think In Rainbows is a terrible record especially when it comes to Radiohead.

 

[Yahweh]

As for artist of the decade....well considering the average life span of an artist or band these years is a maximum of 5 years they dont have much choice but to put U2 on the list....music has changed and not for the better.

 

[Notabene]

No competition? Are you kidding? U2 are generally acknowledged as the biggest band in the world....exactly why all other bands are trying to take over that spot, from the Killers to Coldplay to Oasis...even bands like Kings of Leon whose popularity exploded with the mainstream Only By the Night ...they're all after U2, and U2 is well aware of this.

Back in 2004, right before the Vertigo Tour kicked off, U2 was interviewed in France, and they directly responded to this...Bono said something like "how embarrassing will it be if we're still the best band in the world in five years? Bands like Coldplay and Franz Ferdinand should be confident, but we're not gonna make it easy for them. We're going to make their lives a living hell." Well guess what? They're still on top.

My point is that U2 have been fighting to remain on top for the entire decade ever since Pop/Popmart.

Also, you might not be able to find an album to album line of competition between U2 and another band like you mentioned between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, but I don't see how that really matters...it's about the big picture....the competition is still there.

And btw, a song like Moment of Surrender is not "relatively solid material"...that song is downright BRILLIANT.

Well said! Loved what you said about Moment of Surrender too!!!

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i meant coldplay dominated the '00s. not u2.

 

[LMP]

No competition? Are you kidding? U2 are generally acknowledged as the biggest band in the world....exactly why all other bands are trying to take over that spot, from the Killers to Coldplay to Oasis...even bands like Kings of Leon whose popularity exploded with the mainstream Only By the Night ...they're all after U2, and U2 is well aware of this.

Back in 2004, right before the Vertigo Tour kicked off, U2 was interviewed in France, and they directly responded to this...Bono said something like "how embarrassing will it be if we're still the best band in the world in five years? Bands like Coldplay and Franz Ferdinand should be confident, but we're not gonna make it easy for them. We're going to make their lives a living hell." Well guess what? They're still on top.

My point is that U2 have been fighting to remain on top for the entire decade ever since Pop/Popmart.

Also, you might not be able to find an album to album line of competition between U2 and another band like you mentioned between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, but I don't see how that really matters...it's about the big picture....the competition is still there.

And btw, a song like Moment of Surrender is not "relatively solid material"...that song is downright BRILLIANT.

They're the biggest band of the world by having the distinction of being around the longest and staying relevant. Of course bands are gunning for that spot, since U2's set themselves as the gold standard, but you don't see the band moving with a sense of urgency to secure that spot, you know? They move at their own pace because they're at a point in their career where they can do whatever the hell they want.

I think that bottom-line, the biggest consideration should be "which artist has most defined their genre or era with their music and cultural impact." That's a little too wordy, but I don't know how else to phrase that, I think you get the gist anyway. Does "Beautiful Day" define the decade, or "No Line," or "City of Blinding Lights?" I'd say the closest thing they have is "Walk On," but even then, the most resonant song at their Super Bowl performance was "Streets," so what does that tell you?

And yes, they have released some amazing tracks this decade, I'm sure you could make one killer album out of it, but stretch it out over three and you've got 3 good ones with moments of brilliance. Not that I don't think at they're in the running, I just wouldn't put them as The singular artist of the decade.

 

[Rob33]

They're the biggest band of the world by having the distinction of being around the longest and staying relevant. Of course bands are gunning for that spot, since U2's set themselves as the gold standard, but you don't see the band moving with a sense of urgency to secure that spot, you know? They move at their own pace because they're at a point in their career where they can do whatever the hell they want.

I think that bottom-line, the biggest consideration should be "which artist has most defined their genre or era with their music and cultural impact." That's a little too wordy, but I don't know how else to phrase that, I think you get the gist anyway. Does "Beautiful Day" define the decade, or "No Line," or "City of Blinding Lights?" I'd say the closest thing they have is "Walk On," but even then, the most resonant song at their Super Bowl performance was "Streets," so what does that tell you?

And yes, they have released some amazing tracks this decade, I'm sure you could make one killer album out of it, but stretch it out over three and you've got 3 good ones with moments of brilliance. Not that I don't think at they're in the running, I just wouldn't put them as The singular artist of the decade.

I think you're over analyzing this poll and its criteria and coming to the conclusion that U2 don't really belong in the poll based off this "wordy" definition you're talking about...it simply states 'Artist of the Decade'...U2 are definitely fitting here. It seems a bit silly to say otherwise.


AYCLB, Bomb, NLOTH, and their respective tours, and everything they've done in between for the past 10 years has kept them on top...it's because of this 00's work why they're still on top. If the albums didn't sell well, and they weren't selling out football stadiums easily, and continually setting the standard for all these other bands, then yeah...you might have a point, but the reality is, they've been fighting for the entire decade, and their 00's output is the reason why they've had so much continued success. Yes, their maintained relevance is significant here in terms of being the biggest band...but relevance doesn't come easy. They've earned it. So it's not about them being an old 80's band that is running off past glories...it's about a band that has remained on top through good music and incredible performances...a band that has earned this spot on top...a band that everyone else looks up to.

 

[JCOSTER]

Voted for who else but U2. All around the other can't compare yet and haven't even been around long enough.

Kelly Clarkson vs. U2 r u kidding?

 

[LMP]

I think you're over analyzing this poll and its criteria and coming to the conclusion that U2 don't really belong in the poll based off this "wordy" definition you're talking about...it simply states 'Artist of the Decade'...U2 are definitely fitting here. It seems a bit silly to say otherwise.


AYCLB, Bomb, NLOTH, and their respective tours, and everything they've done in between for the past 10 years has kept them on top...it's because of this 00's work why they're still on top. If the albums didn't sell well, and they weren't selling out football stadiums easily, and continually setting the standard for all these other bands, then yeah...you might have a point, but the reality is, they've been fighting for the entire decade, and their 00's output is the reason why they've had so much continued success. Yes, their maintained relevance is significant here in terms of being the biggest band...but relevance doesn't come easy. They've earned it. So it's not about them being an old 80's band that is running off past glories...it's about a band that has remained on top through good music and incredible performances...a band that has earned this spot on top...a band that everyone else looks up to.

I see what you're saying and based around your criteria, they're definitely the best band of the decade. They earned the right to be one of the top bands by having a stellar career artistically and commercially, for the most part, for 30 years. It's not like I'm hating on the band or saying that they don't deserve to be in the discussion, but I want to be able to put every act on a level playing field when it comes to figuring this out.

I'm only arguing that based purely on what they've put out these past 10 years, I can't in good conscious say that they were the defining artist of the decade. Have The Bomb or ATYCLB left a lasting impact on the music of this era? They sold well, yeah, and the tours are successful, but so are The Rolling Stones' tours, yet they're not considered The Artist of the Decade.

The more I think about it, the artist of the decade isn't even on that list, and that's OutKast. Speakerboxxx/The Love Below is a groundbreaking and pretty adventurous album, bridging this gap between Rap, R&B, and pop music and making something fantastic. Artists have been trying to live up to that standard since '03. Stankonia is also a fucking fantastic record, too. If you want to play the longevity argument, they've been around since the early '90s and have consistently topped themselves with each album, in my opinion at least. Could you say the same with U2? Probably not, and that's okay.

Rap and R&B have dominated the pop charts throughout most of this decade, and it's even more incredible to me to see a band like OutKast set the standard and continually surpass it.

I understand this is just a lame poll from an equally lame magazine, but I'd like to see some cool discussion come out of it aside from the "so-and-so sucks, U2's better, the end" sort of thing, you know?

 

[U2girl]

Britney Spears ? Certainly the biggest of all the pop acts in this era, and the most talked about.

 

[Rob33]

I see what you're saying and based around your criteria, they're definitely the best band of the decade. They earned the right to be one of the top bands by having a stellar career artistically and commercially, for the most part, for 30 years. It's not like I'm hating on the band or saying that they don't deserve to be in the discussion, but I want to be able to put every act on a level playing field when it comes to figuring this out.

I'm only arguing that based purely on what they've put out these past 10 years, I can't in good conscious say that they were the defining artist of the decade. Have The Bomb or ATYCLB left a lasting impact on the music of this era? They sold well, yeah, and the tours are successful, but so are The Rolling Stones' tours, yet they're not considered The Artist of the Decade.

The more I think about it, the artist of the decade isn't even on that list, and that's OutKast. Speakerboxxx/The Love Below is a groundbreaking and pretty adventurous album, bridging this gap between Rap, R&B, and pop music and making something fantastic. Artists have been trying to live up to that standard since '03. Stankonia is also a fucking fantastic record, too. If you want to play the longevity argument, they've been around since the early '90s and have consistently topped themselves with each album, in my opinion at least. Could you say the same with U2? Probably not, and that's okay.

Rap and R&B have dominated the pop charts throughout most of this decade, and it's even more incredible to me to see a band like OutKast set the standard and continually surpass it.

I understand this is just a lame poll from an equally lame magazine, but I'd like to see some cool discussion come out of it aside from the "so-and-so sucks, U2's better, the end" sort of thing, you know?

Yeah, for sure.

In the end, this whole 'Best Artist of the Decade' leaves much room for interpretation, and I guess it all depends on how you interpret that title.

In any event, I hope U2 wins this poll!

 

[Niceman]

I also voted for NLOTH as album of the decade, MOS as song of the decade, and U2 as artist of the decade, and I did it before I saw that a couple of others of you had!

maybe we'll win? That would get the song some attention!

 

[Niceman]

I think In Rainbows is a terrible record especially when it comes to Radiohead.

I agree. Truly forgettable!

 

[popacrobat]

In Rainbows is pretty good, but not great. The songs are either really awesome (Jigsaw, 15 step) or somewhat boring and forgettable (Videotape, Faust Arp).

In any event, the Bends is my favorite Radiohead CD followed by OK Computer.

I also voted for U2 for artist, NLOTH for CD but Beautiful Day for song.