h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

theres a place for u2. and that place is no where near a record collection of anyone under 21.

I'm with you UH. Especially the comment about David Gray!
They probably wrote a decent song or two once, trouble is they just keep writing the same one!
*Ducks to avoid inevitable flak*
There are far too many to have just one best band and I'm not sure you can rule out the bandsthatnolongerexist.
Anyway what about Radiohead???
*Ducks again*

too obvious a choice. anyway, a band with 2 good albums out of six cant be THAT much cop...

Can there be such a thing as "the best band in the world"? Don't think so - as it's been mentioned, it's too much a question of personal preferences...

Personally, U2's never meant anything to me. A few good songs on the radio, OK... But nothing that gave me a feeling of thunder, lightning and "wow this is the best band..." etc.

Now, Queen on the other hand...

(but no - as I don't think can be ONE best band)

In reply to the original question.

NO!!

Incog.

I wonder which is the worst?

I know my vote on that one - Papa Roach. Never have I heard such a group of men make such poorly assembled unoriginal music as they have... It mystifies me how people buy into that.

ooh. there are loads of worst bands. we have to confine ourselves to only thinking of ones which write their own music. blink 182? richard ashcroft? david gray? all are pretenders to the throne held by gravel voiced shortarsed ugly-drummer-possessing welsh dronemongers stereophonics.

Blink 182 are pretty good. If you like that genre. Especially if you've heard the side project of the drummer and one of the guitarist - Box Car racer.

Richard Ashcroft is overrated. I can never work out why people like him.

*raises hand*

Another die hard REM fan here (I think when you own more than 10 albums by one band it does start to become a bit of an obsession but I'm comfortable with it...did someone say new cd?).

I've lost touch quite a bit with the sort of music I used to love (mainly due to hubby labelling it all depressing and getting in a strop any time I play more than one track so I've drifted more into poppy singalong stuff). But I really do need to get back again...especially now I drive into work in a car with a CD player (me-time). Need to stock up on eels (everything since the first album) and weezer (everything since pinkerton) especially...and I do need to dig out the queen cds...under pressure came on on the way to work the other day...I was singing my heart out and got out the car with the biggest smile on my face

U2 kindof passed me by...I only really know the singles (sunday blood sunday and street have no name being the two I quite like) the lovey dovey songs are all right and the pop stuff is palatable but I'd never be fussed about buying an album or going to a concert...which is were I think they went wrong, they put more effort into tours than the music. REM very sensibly considering the events of the monster tour (which I got to see) didn't tour at all for automatic or out of time.

Dammit now you've got me.

*wonders off to dig through cd boxes*

Well, touring is just as important as the music. I feel quite disgusted when bands don't tour after an album. I've been waiting ages for Coal Chamber to return to the UK...

*owns the entire Smashing Pumpkins back catalogue, and is wetting her proverbial knickers in anticipation of February 10th*

touring is important...the monster concert I went to was fantasic and hubby will always be in my bad books for veto-ing glastonbury when they played, but Id rather a band hold off touring and stay together than break up due to the stresses of touring. I'm quite sure that REM would have broken up if they'd toured for automatic...and then monster would never have been made and then what would I play when I have to clean the house?

There's something just awful about ageing rockers. What happened to being revolutionary if they're still hanging around saying nothing much of any importance? Though, to be fair, this is more a criticism of Metallica et al. than U2 and REM who at least make some intelligent comments.

Metallica are great. It's Lars Ulrich that's the problem. And we all know that James just got out of rehab...

I have more of a problem with ageing rockstars like Rod Stewart and Mick Jagger...they are just an embarassment...

But then there is always david bowie

The thing is that I don't mind a musician ageing when it's honourable and they find some wisdom (eg. Frank Sinatra and now The Flaming Lips). But honestly, when U2 look back on their career, what can they say they achieved beyond a bit of popular, derivative, unrevolutionary music?

Now y'see, if David Bowie was King of England, I bet we wouldn't be having all these problems right now...

David Bowie...

"Do you think U2 is the best rock band in the world??"

No.

nor do I.

my vote goes to Nine Inch Nails.

They aren't rock. They are Indudtrial rock. Entirely different sound.