Yeah, trying to measure greatness only through analyzing albums is folly. From the mid-'50s to at least the late-'60s, the stand-alone single was what most artists were focused on. Not taking singles into account shortchanges some truly great artists like Roy Orbison and Sam Cooke.

In terms of "critical respectability" the Rolling Stones trump Led Zeppelin.

I would argue that U2's 5 great album streak is…

Whoever wrote this article does not have a very good understanding of music history. The idea that Dylan doesn't pass some made up '5 album test' is laughable.

They're all infinitely greater musicians than you.

You leave me with the impression that you know absolutely nothing about music. Prove me wrong.

Why are you miserable?

So you've taught her absolutely nothing about music. You must be so proud.

…and 'Boy', and 'Rattle & Hum', and 'The Joshua Tree', and 'Zooropa', and 'All That You Can't Leave Behind', and 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb'…

Personally I think NLOTH is the weakest of the 3 they released in the 2000s. Not that I don't think it's a good album, it is, I just think ATYCLB and HTDAAB were better.

Still waiting for you to name a band post-1980 that is greater than U2. It's been 2 full years and you still can't come up with one, eh? lol

Of course U2 are the greatest band of the last 25 years. That's a no-brainer. Their only real competition is Nirvana.

Besides U2, can you name any artist or band who has put out better music 20+ years into their career? The answer is no, you can't, because there is no one.