Quote History Quoted:
The problem with this thread is that for any worthwhile rock band, the first album or two will of course be the strongest. The real prize should go to whichever band quits on the strongest album....For all the hatred they get here, the Beatles at least had the decency to break up while they were still relevant, and not keeping putting out trash for 20 years with 30 lineups. See the Stones, Metallica or U2 for an example of how not to do it.
View Quote
I understand the hate for U2 here (it's easy to look down upon people when you're 6'4" and 230lbs of solid muscle, date supermodels, and drive a 350Z when you're not riding around in your surplus half-track), but they don't quite fit the mould you've put them in. Sure, they have been on the wane for about ten years now, but they had a good 25 year run. Their debut album
Boy in 1980 wasn't groundbreaking, but it was a fresh mix of punk, folk, and rock. Seven years and four successful albums later, they became "Rock's Hottest Ticket" when they released
The Joshua Tree in 1987. Four years and two albums after that, they again hit the stratosphere with a completely re-invented sound on
Achtung Baby in 1991.
Three albums and nine years after
Achtung, they were back near the top and very relevant again with the throwback rock/pop/folk album
All That You Can't Leave Behind in 2000. Their last decent offering was 2004's
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, which was also a throwback rock album with elements of folk and pop.
Fact is, U2 had a number of peaks and valleys spread out over a very long stretch of time and were quite relevant for more than two decades. Not to mention, they had perhaps the greatest Super Bowl half-time show in history in January 2002, 22 years after their debut.