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

[intedomine]

So, I suppose, if there can exist criteria for "artist of the decade", who was the artist of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

The Beatles have the 60s sewn up. But the rest is not so clear.

 

[LemonMelon]

60s - Beatles
70s - Led Zeppelin
80s - U2
90s - Radiohead
00s - Coldplay

Definitely a step down there in the 00s but that's to be expected.

 

[lazarus]

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...

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.

This is all fair.

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.

Yeah, it's hard to make a case for them dominating the 90's. The Bends seemed to grow in stature AFTER OK Computer came out, as it wasn't widely considered monumental at the time, and of course their work before 1995 consists essentially of one hit single.

I understand where Irvine is going with the "arriving" thing, but Shuttlecock is certainly an exception, no? They reinvented themselves in a major way, and the true impact of what they were doing isn't often attributed to them as it took a while to trickle down through the rest of the music world. There's no doubt in my mind that they're the Artist of the 90's.

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.

I'm still having a hard time imagining people looking back in 20-30 years and thinking of the 2000 as being the Decade of Cockplay. I don't see them thinking of it as the Decade of Shuttlecock, either. But people who care about music WILL be talking about Radiohead and what they accomplished. Those albums aren't going away, and are going to continue to dazzle and influence people.

In the end, I really think Kanye is the only other convincing suggestion, but despite his work behind the scenes in the first half of the decade, he's really only a major figure of its second half.

 

[lazarus]

60s - Beatles
70s - Led Zeppelin
80s - U2
90s - Radiohead
00s - Coldplay

Definitely a step down there in the 00s but that's to be expected.

In addition to what I just said above about Shuttlecock in the 90's, I think I'd be able to make a stronger case for Prince or Madonna in the 80's. Shuttlecock really didn't break big until 1987, for all practical purposes. People weren't talking about them so much early on in the 80's, unlike the two artists I mentioned, who were already superstars in 1981-82 and 1983, respectively.

 

[intedomine]

60s - Beatles
70s - Led Zeppelin
80s - U2
90s - Radiohead
00s - Coldplay

Definitely a step down there in the 00s but that's to be expected.

I reckon many would see fit to substitute Radiohead with Nirvana for the 90s, and maybe switch Led Zep with Pink Floyd for the 70s.

The 80s are an interesting one, U2's bigness is unquestionable but, due to their musical restlessness, they hardly typified a "sound" of the decade. I'd opt to switch U2 with Michael Jackson, Prince, Madonna or even a Duran Duran or someone like that.

It all depends on the vague criteria. Have RS announced artists of the decade for the previous decades, to at least give us something to go on?

 

[LemonMelon]

In addition to what I just said above about Shuttlecock in the 90's, I think I'd be able to make a stronger case for Prince or Madonna in the 80's. Shuttlecock really didn't break big until 1987, for all practical purposes. People weren't talking about them so much early on in the 80's, unlike the two artists I mentioned, who were already superstars in 1981-82 and 1983, respectively.

I'm strictly keeping to bands with that list. Counting in solo acts, I think Michael Jackson is undoubtedly the most commercially significant artist of the 1980s, and perhaps Mariah Carey in the 90s. The problem is that neither were terribly groundbreaking artistically.

I refuse to proclaim Nirvana the most significant band of the 1990s when they were only active for half the decade. Also, their influence was largely harmful. Post-grunge

 

[lazarus]

I'm strictly keeping to bands with that list. Counting in solo acts, I think Michael Jackson is undoubtedly the most commercially significant artist of the 1980s, and perhaps Mariah Carey in the 90s.

Well this isn't just strictly about commercially significant, is it? Michael Jackson had two huge albums (one of which admittedly dominated the airwaves for a couple years), five years apart. Was he a major figure of the 80's? No doubt about it. But consider everything that Prince put out, from 1999 and Little Red Corvette, to Purple Rain (the album AND movie), his Sign O' the Times album and concert film, to the Batman soundtrack. The guy put out NINE albums, all of which were big sellers, all of which had hit singles. His constantly-changing image, much like that of Madonna, kept him very much a constant pop culture topic of conversation as well. I'd also argue that the music itself perhaps symbolizes the SOUND of the decade more than anyone else's.

 

[intedomine]

I'd also argue that the music itself perhaps symbolizes the SOUND of the decade more than anyone else's.

I'm agreeing with you on too much here.

It's the criteria of SOUND which makes it especially difficult to identify an Artist of the Decade for the noughties. What is THE distincitve sound between 00-09? Tough one.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Would it be possible to take Kanye out of the 2000s discussion simply because he's a colossal asshole? I'm giving my vote to Radiohead because of the huge impact and mindfuck of both Kid A as an artistic statement and the In Rainbows "pay what you want" thing. The impact of Kid A and In Rainbows (both its marketing scheme and the brilliant content of the album itself) will be felt longer than Kanye's work, in my opinion.

60s is obviously The Beatles and, yeah, I would give the 70s to Zeppelin. Although you could make a case that the punk movement was the biggest thing that happened to music in the 70s so maybe one of those pioneering punk acts could be seen as the biggest artist of that decade? 80s would have to be either Michael Jackson, Madonna, or Prince. With U2 and R.E.M. being the runners up holding the "alternative" music flag for the 80s. The 90s is tricky. Just like this current decade. I'll say Pavement was the artist of the 90s. Or maybe Nirvana. Or maybe...somebody else. I don't know. I think Garth Brooks sold the most albums in the 90s worldwide. Ha!

 

[U2DMfan]

60s - Beatles
70s - Led Zeppelin
80s - U2
90s - Radiohead
00s - Coldplay

Definitely a step down there in the 00s but that's to be expected.

Entirely subjective but the worst offender on that list is Radiohead.
Clearly two great albums is not enough. Otherwise, it's Nirvana and it's not even close in terms of what they did to popular music (their success might have got Radiohead signed in late '91 in the first place) both critically and commercially. And their influence reached across genres,most definitely and has lasted for years.

As an aside, 90% of all post-grunge bands were PJ, Soundgarden and AIC etc. clones, not Nirvana. It permeated through hard rock and metal, not the more punkish stuff. Probably Nirvana was responsible for some of the pop-punk of the late 90's but passively, IMO.

But if the base is having to overcome only two great albums and an influence that would have (essentially) spanned only half the decade at best (more likely the 3 years following OK Comp) then I could make cases for a half dozen other groups in that slot, including Pearl Jam, for an easy example. Radiohead is not the choice for the 90's. They are the easy choice for this decade over Coldplay, for the same reasons I'd take Zeppelin over The Eagles (keeping with bands only).

The Eagles have the second biggest selling album of all time.
What is it? Their greatest hits from the 70's. Hugely influential (though I happen to agree with The Dude here) and huge commercial success, but this is where any objectivity takes it up the ass. I don't like em as much, so Zeppelin works better. Radiohead over Coldplay for the same reason.

I'm not sold on U2 in the 80's either. Although it's hard to think of a band off-hand that would have the same resume. Not sticking to bands, it's easily, easily, not U2. Madonna, Prince, MJ, Springsteen etc.

Too many varying criteria here and too much subjectivity. Yeah, I know, that's mostly what talking about music is.
So we are all never going to agree but let me just throw out one objective fact for the sensible among us to agree on.

The Beatles own them all.

 

[the tourist]

60s: The Beatles
70s: Led Zeppelin
80s: U2
90s: Pearl Jam
00s: Radiohead

 

[LyricalDrug]

Random... on that list, these are the artists that I've seen in concert, during this decade:

1) Arcade Fire
2) Black Eyed Peas
3) Coldplay
4) Green Day
5) Bob Dylan
6) Jack White
7) Kings of Leon
8) MIA
9) U2
10) Wilco

U2 was the best

Vote early and vote often... vote U2, baby

 

[lazarus]

Entirely subjective but the worst offender on that list is Radiohead.
Clearly two great albums is not enough. Otherwise, it's Nirvana and it's not even close in terms of what they did to popular music (their success might have got Radiohead signed in late '91 in the first place) both critically and commercially. And their influence reached across genres,most definitely and has lasted for years.

As an aside, 90% of all post-grunge bands were PJ, Soundgarden and AIC etc. clones, not Nirvana. It permeated through hard rock and metal, not the more punkish stuff. Probably Nirvana was responsible for some of the pop-punk of the late 90's but passively, IMO.

But if the base is having to overcome only two great albums and an influence that would have (essentially) spanned only half the decade at best (more likely the 3 years following OK Comp) then I could make cases for a half dozen other groups in that slot, including Pearl Jam, for an easy example. Radiohead is not the choice for the 90's. They are the easy choice for this decade over Coldplay, for the same reasons I'd take Zeppelin over The Eagles (keeping with bands only).

The Eagles have the second biggest selling album of all time.
What is it? Their greatest hits from the 70's. Hugely influential (though I happen to agree with The Dude here) and huge commercial success, but this is where any objectivity takes it up the ass. I don't like em as much, so Zeppelin works better. Radiohead over Coldplay for the same reason.

I'm not sold on U2 in the 80's either. Although it's hard to think of a band off-hand that would have the same resume. Not sticking to bands, it's easily, easily, not U2. Madonna, Prince, MJ, Springsteen etc.

Too many varying criteria here and too much subjectivity. Yeah, I know, that's mostly what talking about music is.
So we are all never going to agree but let me just throw out one objective fact for the sensible among us to agree on.

The Beatles own them all.

This entire post is just WIN.

One thing I will add is that Pink Floyd should be in the 70's discussion. While not as popular as Led Zeppelin, they're pretty close, and were just as influential, just in a different direction. Hard to discount the impact of Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, and The Wall, not to mention Meddle and Animals. They completely revolutionized the conceptual music film (something Zeppelin failed miserably with their release of The Song Remains The Same), and obviously set new standards for live stage shows.

 

[Saracene]

60s: The Beatles
70s: Led Zeppelin
80s: U2
90s: Pearl Jam
00s: Radiohead

I think that Radiohead are an odd one out here, because all the other bands (and most others mentioned in the discussion) have been hugely popular in their respective decades and produced songs that everyone and their dog knows. Radiohead can't really claim either, though they certainly had great sales for the kind of music they made this decade.

I guess it just highlights the fact that no band this decade has managed to combine massive popularity and massive critical adoration.

 

[lazarus]

You're dead-on about that last part. I feel like previous decades all had a decent roster of big name bands that were widely agreed-upon as being great. The artists mentioned for the 00's are for the most part too divisive or niche-oriented--Cockplay, The Killers, Green Day all have their critics or appeal to a smaller demographic.

I would probably say The White Stripes would lay claim to Best of the Decade over any of those (and they have a much higher critical standing), though they don't quite have the same level of popularity (similar to Wilco). But I think it's fair to say they definitely are emblematic of the decade in terms of sound, at least in the rise of American indie to the mainstream, and have certainly been a visible presence as far as pop culture is concerned.

 

[intedomine]

One thing I will add is that Pink Floyd should be in the 70's discussion.

We're agreeing on way too much.

I don't know about Pearl Jam as THE artist of the 90's. Certainly up there but Nirvana and Radiohead have a pretty exceptional regard, and when people think of grunge, they think of Nirvana. What about someone like Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys as well?

And crikey No Code is an amazing album, hope it gets some fair representation in the set when I experience Pearl Jam live in 3 days time.

 

[lazarus]

I don't agree with Pearl Jam either. Great band, great albums, but you're right, Nirvana's impact was much greater even with their smaller output. In terms of output and consistency I'd say R.E.M., who put out five good-to-great albums in the 90's, but do they symbolize the decade? Does Shuttlecock, really? By 1997 they were irrelevant to a LOT of people who thought they had lost the plot.

The pop groups you mention really don't have any critical or crossover standing, so it's hard to really consider them.

Part of me wants to sugest Beck, because he really took on a lot of different styles over the decade, integrated a lot of hip hop/rap elements into his collage approach, and had a pretty high level of popularity and critical acclaim. He also symbolizes the rise of "alternative" music into the mainstream that was so prevalent in the decade. Only problem is that he didn't appear until 1994.

 

[The Sad Punk]

Pearl Jam are a rotting bore. Nirvana were a lot more interesting.

 

[LyricalDrug]

This entire post is just WIN.

One thing I will add is that Pink Floyd should be in the 70's discussion. While not as popular as Led Zeppelin, they're pretty close, and were just as influential, just in a different direction. Hard to discount the impact of Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, and The Wall, not to mention Meddle and Animals. They completely revolutionized the conceptual music film (something Zeppelin failed miserably with their release of The Song Remains The Same), and obviously set new standards for live stage shows.

The rest of that 70's discussion goes like this, though: Led Zeppelin had the greatest guitar ever, the greatest vocalist ever, the greatest drummer ever, and possibly the greatest bassist ever, IN THE SAME BAND.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

One thing that throws me off about Zeppelin being artist of the 70s is that their first two (and two of their greatest and most iconic and influential) albums came out in the 60s. I don't know, I'd probably still give them the spot, though.

And, yeah, I'm as big a PJ fan as there is around here and there's no way they should be ahead of Nirvana for artist of the 90s. In my opinyun.

 

[The Sad Punk]

And, yeah, I'm as big a PJ fan as there is around here and there's no way they should be ahead of Nirvana for artist of the 90s. In my opinyun.

I was explaining to someone who shall remain anonymous* that my biggest gripe with Pearl Jam is that their fans are too likable. I don't actually have anything against their music or the guys themselves, which is probably what infuriates me the most.

*It was Axver.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

I don't actually know that many Pearl Jam fans in real life, just a couple of my buddies. And they are likable guys so you may be right. They also smoke more weed than Cheech, Chong, Snoop, Bill Clinton, and Willie Nelson combined. Perhaps that has something to do with the likability.


Also, what do you guys think about 2Pac as a candidate for artist of the 90s? He was incredibly prolific and was a huge part of the big gangsta rap scene that was so prevalent and influential in the first part of the decade. And he was awesome.

 

[Irvine511]

interesting discussion.

what's also something to consider is that, though we can think of a "decade" as having a sound, that sound usually becomes too attached to the decade and then becomes a signifier of a time that has passed, hence dated. that probably does apply to MJ, Madonnna, and Prince, rather than U2 or REM. and it might likewise apply to The Eagles.

it's also tough because so many artists have spanned decades.

can you argue with Springsteen '75-'85? or U2 '85-'95? or the Stones '65-'75?

 

[mikal]

interesting discussion. what's also a bummer is that, though we can think of a "decade" as having a sound, that sound usually becomes too attached to the decade and then becomes a signifier of a time that has passed, hence dated. that probably does apply to MJ, Madonnna, and Prince, rather than U2 or REM.

it's also tough because so many artists have spanned decades.

can you argue with Springsteen '75-'85? or U2 '85-'95? or the Stones '65-'75?

you bring up a good point. U2 really did dominate from '85-'95. i mean, they were still the biggest thing around during both the "hair band" and "grunge" eras.

 

[gvox]

Would it be possible to take Kanye out of the 2000s discussion simply because he's a colossal asshole? I'm giving my vote to Radiohead because of the huge impact and mindfuck of both Kid A as an artistic statement and the In Rainbows "pay what you want" thing. The impact of Kid A and In Rainbows (both its marketing scheme and the brilliant content of the album itself) will be felt longer than Kanye's work, in my opinion.

Is Kanye a colossal asshole or does he in fact suffer from a mental illness? Many brilliant artists have serious issues. He likely won't ever get the help he needs because he's surrounded by sycophants and idolizers, but I truly do think he is either bi-polar or borderline personality disorder.

But let's say we take Kanye out of the discussion? Suggest another artist then, and it has to be hip hop. Why does it have to be hip hop? Because as another poster pointed out, hip hop has ruled the 2000s. It was getting there mid-late 90s, but the 2000s are dominated by hip hop artists and hip hop influences, some more obvious and some rooted pretty deeply.

So who, then?

The discussion/choices so far have been limited to rock artists, but in reality, rock artists do not rule the music scene in this decade, and it could be argued that they haven't even really even produced the best music, from a creative standpoint.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

I think despite him taking time off emiemn still had a big impact. His albums, at least the the 3 in the first half were treated like events. Gorillaz are great but only 2 albums. You could make a case for alot of bands in the 70's. how about kraftwerk? parliament? black sabbath? these bands were unbelievably influential and important to their genres.

 

[U2girl]

Jacko can take the 80's.

The 90's Radiohead for breaking out with Creep, The Bends and OK Computer and influencing truckloads of British bands like Coldplay, Snow Patrol, Travis etc. though certainly a great PR move with the Rainbows release.

00s - Colplay for three popular and acclaimed albums and a praised debut ahead of that in a very fragmented scene, and conquering America.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Is Kanye a colossal asshole or does he in fact suffer from a mental illness? Many brilliant artists have serious issues. He likely won't ever get the help he needs because he's surrounded by sycophants and idolizers, but I truly do think he is either bi-polar or borderline personality disorder.

But let's say we take Kanye out of the discussion? Suggest another artist then, and it has to be hip hop. Why does it have to be hip hop? Because as another poster pointed out, hip hop has ruled the 2000s. It was getting there mid-late 90s, but the 2000s are dominated by hip hop artists and hip hop influences, some more obvious and some rooted pretty deeply.

It seems a bit silly and arbitrary to say that the artist of the decade has to be a hip hop artist. Kind of defeating the purpose of trying to determine artist of the decade if you're limiting the choices to just one of the numerous genres of music, no?

The discussion/choices so far have been limited to rock artists

Ummmm, no they haven't...hence our talking about Kanye right now. It actually seems that a good number of people feel Kanye is worthy of being in the discussion. I'll say that I'm one of those people, by the way. College Dropout was, to use a bit of a cliche, a breath of fresh air in the music industry and is one of my favorite albums of the decade.

Now I don't know if the man is bi-polar or has any other mental illness. I'll have to consult my DSM IV later. I called him a colossal asshole because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck.

 

[U2girl]

00s - Colplay for three popular and acclaimed albums and a praised debut ahead of that in a very fragmented scene, and conquering America.

Also, they were/are consistenly popular unlike Eminem/Britney who aren't what they used to be in the early 00's, or Green Day that broke out with American Idiot/21st Century after 2004.

 

[Lancemc]

The rest of that 70's discussion goes like this, though: Led Zeppelin had the greatest guitar ever, the greatest vocalist ever, the greatest drummer ever, and possibly the greatest bassist ever, IN THE SAME BAND.

Well, with an argument like that...