mikal
Blue Crack Addict
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".
Yes!
I still chuckle when I find someone who doesn't like it
So do I.i still chuckle when i hear people say that "In Rainbows" is Radiohead's best album.
Consistently mediocre.So do I.
ATYCLB, HTDAAB (that one too) and NLOTH are pretty consistent albums.
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.
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.
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.
i still chuckle when i hear people say that "In Rainbows" is Radiohead's best album.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think In Rainbows is a terrible record especially when it comes to Radiohead.