One of the funniest rock star quotes.

Ok, U2's new album isn't as good as what the expectation was and they haven't put out anything great in almost two decades.

Artist Rank = 15. Too high or too low?

Too high. But Achtung, Baby's still pretty awesome.

U2 is a great band, imo the best of the 80s. I love War and the Joshua Tree. None the less, artist rank = 15 is very high, and I'm not sure I would have them there. Maybe 20th.

Yeah... I'm sick of Bono also. I never get sick of The Edge though.

15 is a little too high. I had them 24 in the survivor game... probably making them about 30 over all for me.

Of those above them in the AM list, I would have Led Zeppelin, Presley, Hendrix (barely), Beach Boys, and R.E.M., below them.

BTW, the first artist that needs to be moved up is James Brown. 32 is way too low for him. He's a top-5 artist IMO. He gets unduly hurt by the stronger emphasis on albums in the formula.

"they haven't put out anything great in almost two decades."

Neither has R.E.M. but no one seems to question their placing...

Schwah, I completely agree with you about James Brown being much higher and U2 not as high (I have them at about 20). But do you really think that Jimi Hendrix belongs in the 20s as opposed to T10? Maybe we're hearing different things, but Jimi's recordings are so powerful. The noise he was able to create not just as a guitarist are to me, awe inspiring. They sound like they could be from this decade, let alone the late 60s.

Anyway to address the "U2 hasn't made anything good in decades" quote: The Beatles haven't make anything good in almost 40 years. The Stones 30. Not everyone is Bob Dylan, making a good album 40 years after their prime.

I actually really like their new one. I'm leaning more towards the Rolling Stones/Blender/Q camp than the Pitchfork/TIME/SF Chronicle camp on this one.

I also think U2 deserves to be in the top 20, on the strength of their 1980s work, and in fact NOT because of Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby. Those are both great, of course, but other lesser artists have released two classics. But U2's Unforgettable Fire, Boy, War, and Zooropa are all very, very excellent. So that's 6 great albums. And then some good ones, like their last 4 (Pop is underrated). Not many artists have replicated those numbers to these ears.

I meant Rolling Stone (the mag), not Stones.

All that you can't leave behind, while maybe not great, is a very good album. Certainly not groundbreaking but an enjoyable listen.

The last time I made a top artists list, U2 came in at number 19.
So maybe they are a tiny bit too high, but I'm not complaining.
Though I do strongly think that The Clash and The Smiths deserve to be much higher than U2.

The Beatles haven't put out anything good in 40 years, but the difference is, award shows haven't made any claim to the contrary.

15's too high. I like War and I think Achtung Baby has some fantastic singles (As well as a few other great singles smattered throughout their catalog), but in general I think they sound too 'contrived to greatness'. You can tell especially on the later albums every note was designed to be considered great.

And I'm no fan of the 'big' arena sound in general.

SR --

Last time I checked, the Beatles weren't together any more. And I never said I liked the Stones either.

It would be interesting to apply a "right-minus-wrong" formula to the top 100 artists. See where they rank after considering their not-so-great work.

Doing that would unfairly penalize bands/artists that had short careers though.

OK; now I'm convinced that Rolling Stone is selling 5 star reviews to record companies. I've not heard the album, but no one else seems to think its five stars.

The two I mentioned, Blender and Q, as well as USA Today and the Daily Telegraph gave it perfect scores, among other critics. It isn't just Rolling Stone. EW was close with an A-.

SR -

I have much respect for Hendrix. But I suppose that I would have liked a little more output from him. Alas, we all would have. But I can't ignore the ability to continue to put out good music over a longer period of time, even if the output is spotty. That's a good part of the respect I have for U2. They are definitely hit or miss, but that's a function, at least in part, of their desparate, and commendable, attempts to stay relevant and fresh.

It's a shame that we don't have that from Hendrix. And I'm certainly not saying that the Edge is in Hendrix's leage as a guitarist. However, I really credit the largest portion of U2's success (at least critically, if not commercially) to his sound.

Q is a magazine that praises all that is commercial and anything that comes from Great Britain, and bashes anything progressive or experimental. Entertainment Weekly is basically a billboard predictor.

It looks like all the publications that are giving superlative ratings to the new U2 albums are the ones that slant to middle of the road bands of previously established greatness.

But, all the 'hip' publications are giving it unfairly low ratings, so they're balancing each other out to a nice mid-70's average.

The consensus review seems to be 'Represents sort of a step forward but sounds a lot like their old stuff with a few too many U2-isms thrown in.' Usually with a reference to their self consciousness and the divisiveness of the first track.

“The Beatles haven't put out anything good in 40 years, but the difference is, award shows haven't made any claim to the contrary.”

Au contraire, mon BillAdama. Both “Free As a Bird” and Love won Grammys. As soon as there was an excuse to reward the Beatles for inferior/derivative work, they jumped on it. This is yet another good reason to ignore the Grammys.

This is why I will continue to insist that artists should be evaluated on what they have done well, not on their work which is mediocre or poor. We’ve had a similar thread running recently about the Stones, and I honestly do not understand why the Stones (or U2, or whomever) should be penalized for failing to replicate their very great achievements as they get older. Does Steel Wheels cancel out Beggars Banquet? Does No Line on the Horizon cancel out War? (Does Around the Sun cancel out Murmur?) (Does Tin Machine cancel out Hunky Dory?) (Hell, does the execrable “Free As a Bird” cancel out “A Day in the Life”?)

Rock & roll is a young person’s game in 99% of cases. I know we feel frustrated when bands that we grew up admiring are clearly no longer at the height of their abilities—makes us feel old, and somehow cheated. But, to use an analogy I used on the other thread, being irritated with U2 because their last five albums have only ranged from good to mediocre is very much like being irritated with Willie Mays because he can’t hit 40 home runs per season anymore.

In the case of U2, there’s been an unusually strong backlash among music geeks like us, because from the beginning of their career, they have been nakedly ambitious, which strikes many of us as shallow and unworthy. Worse, they had the temerity to achieve most of their ambitions. My position on this is that they really need to be evaluated the way other bands are evaluated: on the basis of musical achievement, not on their mission statement. I’m not impressed by planting a flag; I’m impressed by writing “Pride (In the Name of Love).”

U2 is not among my favorite bands. They established a musical template for success in 1983 and never really successfully deviated from it. I’ve seen them live twice, and they were highly entertaining . . . and about as spontaneous as the launching of an aircraft carrier. But they released three great albums, and they matter to millions of people. That looks to me like a credible #15.

I definitely agree that the publications praising this album are ones that prefer more straight-up rock and pop-ier stuff. Basically, the mainstream, aka older, established artists ala U2 and Springsteen. Still, they're really praising No Line On The Horizon, and they have as much say as the hipsters. I'm an indie fan myself, but for what U2 is, and the kind of music they try to make, it's great stuff.

Except Unknown Caller has some pretty clunky lyrics, even for Bono.

Which song did they perform on Letterman. I saw it, but I don't know which one it was.

After watching them on Letteman this week, I'm convinced the world is a better place because U2 is in it.

Ent. Weekly does have decent reviews from time to time- but it no longer has David Browne, who was a pretty good critic. I haven't read Q lately, but at a time, it wasn't that it raved over anything commercial- I've seen lots of the year-end lists, and the mainstream acts included usually warranted the praise. There are some instances of an act being able to merge art and commerce and garner acclaim.

There'll a little too high in my estimation, but I do enjoy them. Something holds me back from all-out loving them, though I can appreciate their role and their greatness.

“we feel frustrated when bands that we grew up admiring are clearly no longer at the height of their abilities—makes us feel old, and somehow cheated”
“I honestly do not understand why the Stones (or U2, or whomever) should be penalized for failing to replicate their very great achievements as they get older”
Agree 100%, schleuse. It’s impossible to say it better.

I’ll just add that it’s very difficult for a successful artist to develop artistically when the spot light is blinding you, “growing up in public” like Lou Reed said. The audience and the critics are partially guilty too. When an acclaimed artist try to stay relevant by adapting to the sound of current times we usually accuse him to betray his own roots, to sell out and blah blah (notable exceptions could be “Kid A” or, talking about U2, “Achtung, Baby” . Just think about some pathetic works of established artists during the 80s. Usually these failed works are used to explain how terrible were the 80s (while the same sound gave excellent results in other hands!!).
And, on the other hand, every artist tends to be formulaic with the years, tends to repeat a formula that proved successful, in fact he tends to do what he already does well. What the hell, everyone in our daily work is quite happy doing it the best we can, even if it’s repetitive (in my work I need to introduce new techniques quite often and this is usually quite terrifying until you learn it properly). So who am I to blame some artist for being true to his own sound, the sound that in some cases was created by himself.
So we are demanding the artist to continue releasing relevant works while simultaneously being true to themselves. And this task can only be done by real geniuses. Bob Dylan? Tom Waits? Nick Cave? Any other?