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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I voted for NLOTH as album of the decade, MOS as song of the decade, and U2 as artist of the decade, though I almost chose Arcade Fire instead. Before NLOTH came out, I would have chosen Arcade Fire for artist, Neon Bible for Album, and COBL for song.
 
I'd go with Kanye, Radiohead, and maybe Springsteen over U2 at this point. Kid A, love it or hate it, is sure going to be more relevant 20+ years from now than any of U2's output, save for the singles off of ATYCLB and maybe "Vertigo?" What a legacy.

I love Arcade Fire, but can't say they've defined the decade with only 2 albums, as good as they were. Even if Kanye's been a presence in the latter half of this decade, he's been pretty prolific and diverse within his genre, opinions on his actions aside.
 
There have been so many great bands this decade, but of course, none of them are listed. Can't believe I actually honestly found U2 to be the best option there.
 
U2, KOL, and Radiohead are all on my iPod. And they're the only good ones on the list! Sad. U2 is probably artist of the decade. Although KOL and Radiohead are not too far behind. I really enjoyed Atomic Bomb, and I'm gonna get killed for this, but I put it as album of the decade. Why do so many hate it? Different strokes for different folks. Magnificent as song of the decade, and of course U2 as artist of the decade. You can kill me now for the HTDAAB vote.:reject:
 
Questions like this are always tricky. I'm more inclined to go with a personal "Best of the Decade" list because that's what I know, you know?

When you really think about it though, shouldn't things like cultural relevance along with artistic success be equal factors?

Sure, U2 may be your favorite band, but do you really in your heart of hearts think that any of their albums from this decade stack up to other artist's critical and commercial high points? If so, awesome, but I'm not so sure I'd go that far.
 
I'd be inclined to vote for them as the artist of the decade for being a band that's 30 years old, put out three (arguably) great and (arguably) very successful albums, and having three darn big and (again, arguably) successful tours in the decade.

In this day and age, I'd say that's quite an accomplishment.

But I don't think any of the three 00s albums would be at the top of my list for best of the decade. I don't know what I'd pick, but if any of U2's come close, it would be NLOTH, although it's still too "new" for me to really make that call.
 
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.
 
anything i'd pick as best album will get maybe three votes, so i picked nloth just because it's the only popular album from this decade that i like and would like to see win. as for song, i picked fez, because why not.
 
I love Springsteen, but I can take or leave a lot of the Brendan O Brien stuff, The Rising notwithstanding. Kanye is pretty deserving of the title, releasing some great albums and all, but his influence/impact hasn't really been felt yet. Arcade Fire on the other hand, yeah, they've made a huge impact, and Radiohead released two of the best albums of the decade with Kid A and In Rainbows. Toss up between Arcade Fire and Radiohead for me.

Does U2 deserve it more than any of the above? Not really. Hell, Coldplay had a bigger decade, IMO, building their career to the point they stand at today in a matter of 10 years.
 
Again I'd put U2 at the top for staying on top of the game, staying together and continuing to write together, was it their meteoric rise of the 80s or odd experimental success of the 90s? No, but NLOTH is a step in a new direction, and they're the untouchable live success, some of these other artists might have sold more singles downloads, but those numbers don't stack up against U2's billion dollar decade of touring.

RH of the 90's I love, the RH everyone else now loves of this decade? Way too into their own heads for much enjoyable listening personally. Kanye's a hell of a mixer/producer, but he's not much of a rap lyricist. Springsteen's had some great SONGS this decade, one masterpiece of an album (The Rising) and another pretty great one (Magic), but he's not exactly winning new fans across generations this decade. Arcade Fire, no thanks, some fun songs here and there and a legion of pretentious fans, regardless of your love for them indie kids, they're not ubiquitous or influential enough to 'define the decade'.

That's another thing, influence, in the waning popularity of the alternative rock of the late 90's and hideous 'punk' of the early 00's, the majority of popular rock music is chime-y U2 knockoff music, and there they are still standing head and shoulders above those competitors compositionally.

Those are the reasons why I'd actually vote for them, along with what Coriander said.
 
How does Jack White make the short list and not Killers?

Ah well, c'mon U2 or Coldplay...Black Eyed Peas would be a worthy winner too.
 
For me it's Kid A vs NLOTH and U2 vs Radiohead. Don't know what to choose. :hmm:
Song of the decade is Idioteque.
 
As much as I love and respect U2, I would consider it pretty sad if readers of a popular mag like Rolling Stone (bear in mind this represents the American, corporate-rock perspective) voted U2 artist of the decade. Frankly, they're just too old. It'd be like a 1969 poll voting Benny Goodman artist of the decade. Indeed, it should be probably be Coldplay (not my critical opinion, but at least they're of this decade primarily). Kanye = too black and controversial for white mainstream (not to mention talentless). Arcade Fire = too arty. Radiohead = too 90s.
 
Sad to say it but I can't honestly say U2 were the best band of the decade, I guess Radiohead deserve it. Best artist of the 80's or 90's? Then i would vote for U2.
 
I don't think I could give U2 album of the decade for any. JT would lose to Thriller or maybe Purple Rain or Born In The USA.

AB would be a contender for the 90's, but there were so many good albums back then (and you know Nirvana would run away with it even if they shouldn't.) I don't know if you could give U2 artist of the decade for any of the three; 80's, 90's or 00's.

They weren't big enough long enough in the 80's to overtake Michael Jackson and they'd face stiff competition from GNR during their peak years.

They peaked too early in the 90's; again losing to Nirvana, or dark horses Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins or Pearl Jam

And in the 00's, I'd say they were still relevent, but that relevence was based largely on JT/AB rather than their current work. Love them or hate them, gotta give it to Coldplay. Album: Rush of Blood; song: Yellow; and Artist.

Looking back, it's really quite amazing that U2 has become the instituion they have. They haven't had a number one single since 1987. Their two most celebrated albums came out four years apart and basically twenty years ago. They haven't been in the top 10 of the US singles charts since 1997; and those singles are now viewed as a misstep. Their comeback album, ATYCLB peaked at #3, and yielded only one top 40 single and its follow up while selling quite well is viewed as among their weakest output by their most hardcore fans.

:lol: How did they manage this?!
 
As much as I love and respect U2, I would consider it pretty sad if readers of a popular mag like Rolling Stone (bear in mind this represents the American, corporate-rock perspective) voted U2 artist of the decade. Frankly, they're just too old. It'd be like a 1969 poll voting Benny Goodman artist of the decade. Indeed, it should be probably be Coldplay (not my critical opinion, but at least they're of this decade primarily). Kanye = too black and controversial for white mainstream (not to mention talentless). Arcade Fire = too arty. Radiohead = too 90s.

I think it just shows how poor a job the record industry is doing. None of the acts coming out of the '00s could even think about pulling off a stadium tour at this point. I'd say Coldplay is the only one who'd even have a shot right now. When the number one album of the year is Taylor Swift (who incidentally has the stage presence of a sponge and can't sing live anyway) and the number 2 album is there only because the artist died, well, that's just sad. There is good music out there, but the recording industry is totally missing the boat.

I also think it's a testament to U2 that they are even in the conversation. It just shows that they are still relevant going in their 3rd decade which is pretty fricking awesome.
 
Album of the decade: In Rainbows, Radiohead
Song of the decade: Intervention, Arcade Fire
Artist of the decade: U2
 
they shouldn't even let you vote for bands that old. I mean in eniemns case, he had one big album in the 1999, but really it was this decade he showed what he could do. Green day already had a big album much earlier , and then a somewhat big album and then already showed signs of tapering off. Bob Dylan can't win,lol. If it came to a hip/hop rap artist, then its jay z. For giving a shit enough to release 7 albums. And all #1 albums. u2 almost didn't give us 3 albums due to the delay. lol.
 
In Rainbows is easily album of the decade (and best Radiohead album imo)

but i obviously voted for NLOTH :wink:

artist of the decade.....i'd say it's a toss up between Radiohead & U2.

again, my vote went to U2!
 
I put In Rainbows for Album of the Decade
Trapped in the Closet for Song of the Decade
Radiohead for Arist.

Rolling Stone sucks and this "list" just further proves it. I like how they threw Conor Oberst on there. And Kings of Leon. The fucking Black Eyed Peas? Jesus H Christ <--- He probably wrote better music than 90% of those on the list, and as far as I know, Jesus didn't play an instrument. Fall Out Boy? My Chemical Romance?
 
i still chuckle when i hear people say that "In Rainbows" is Radiohead's best album.
 
As much as I love and respect U2, I would consider it pretty sad if readers of a popular mag like Rolling Stone (bear in mind this represents the American, corporate-rock perspective) voted U2 artist of the decade. Frankly, they're just too old. It'd be like a 1969 poll voting Benny Goodman artist of the decade. Indeed, it should be probably be Coldplay (not my critical opinion, but at least they're of this decade primarily). Kanye = too black and controversial for white mainstream (not to mention talentless). Arcade Fire = too arty. Radiohead = too 90s.

So because they're almost 50 they shouldn't win? I don't follow that logic, sorry
 
I think that their longevity and relevance should be considered when you consider the best rock groups of all-time, but as far as this decade goes, are they really that influential? As far as iconography goes, it's hard to top their Super Bowl halftime show. That still gets me 7 years later.

I'd say The Strokes and The White Stripes helped with that garage rock revival and The Killers were really the frontrunners of that return of '80s-esque electro-rock.

While they've produced solid material and still have a wide following, I don't think their '00s material, aside from a few contributions, has been "great" enough to put them at the best of the decade. Bands like Coldplay, Radiohead, Keane, and maybe The Killers are drawing from '80s and '90s U2 stylistic ideas, but you don't see people struggling to keep up with "Vertigo" or "Elevation," they're surpassing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom