U2 up to and including Pop is without a doubt my favourite band, of all time – on record, live, what they were representing and trying to achieve (and achieving) – I mean really, no other band comes close to U2 in terms of pushing themselves forward, chasing ‘new’ etc. You can’t name another band that shifts as dramatically as they do, from Boy to Pop and everything in between, and pulls it all off so spectacularly, in such an all encompassing package. You couldn’t take any other band and make, say, a fifteen track compilation, and have the ability to create one as wildly diverse as one you could make via U2’s catalogue over that period. At least not any act even 1/10th of U2’s size. That alone is where I would begin any argument defending U2, at least in saying that even if you don’t particularly like them, you absolutely have to respect them. Especially considering their size. Many bands make maybe one or two decent shifts in their lifetimes, but not one every 2-3 albums (or, in reality with U2, less - we tend to lump trios of albums together that are really all each wildly different). Most bands stick with one sound, one style. Even the amazingly talented, creatively imaginative, utterly brilliant Radiohead have not taken anywhere near the same level of massive twists and turns as U2. I would even include ATYCLB as a legit part of that – Bono’s argument for it at the time was bang on - it only retroactively slides due to what came later (and its general lack of overall comparative end-to-end quality). The cynic in me only turns its attention to ATYCLB because of what came later. Anyway...
In the 10-12 years since, no, I don’t really think that much of them. They’re not *that* band anymore. And as a generally touchy-defensive U2 fan, I wouldn’t even try and defend their past decade either. If U2 ever comes up in a conversation, and someone trashes them, if it’s along the lines of “Not what they used to be” then I can only agree, with the only caveat being that if you are a disillusioned ex-U2 fan, and are basing that purely on what they’ve released as singles, it is on two of those three albums worth digging deeper, because there is still quality there (HTDAAB is, IMO, their only end to end rubbish album – the only one where I’d say don’t even bother). But if someone says “U2 are and always have been complete rubbish” or I suspect they are basing their entire judgement of U2 simply on their output, positioning and image today, then they’ll still get an earful from me.
But no, I don’t think they can hold a candle to the best of the past decade. Not even close. I don’t have a singular favourite from this decade, but that mostly is because there is so much brilliant stuff around now. And despite everything, I do still hold out hope for them. I don’t think it’s because they’ve had the talent or creative imagination zapped from them – plenty of evidence to the contrary, even if it’s likely been tamed along the way. I think it’s just that the world they lived in shifted so significantly around and just after ATYCLB, and they either don’t quite understand how it has shifted so keep pushing at it in the only old-school way they know how, or they do and they have figured that bands/artists can’t have a foot in both camps anymore, and they’ve deliberately decided to throw their lot in entirely with one side of it. But I’m not sure. They do seem a bit naïve about it? Like what they – or Bono at least - sensed so correctly with ATYCLB, still informs their decision making now, and ever since? They don’t get it? So maybe there will be a point where they realise, and thus have jack of it, and decide to just deal with it, even if it means a loss of size. Or maybe they’re not naïve, and the cynical side of me is right, and size trumps all. Not sure. Until I get super drunk with Bono and he talks some honest shit with me, I suppose I’ll never know. So, I suppose I’ll never know.
U2 1978-1998 = Unbeatable All Time Favourite. Boy, October, War, Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum, Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Passengers, Pop. This is no ordinary catalogue. And there is no 'classic' U2 or 'experimental' U2. All is both.
U2 1998-2010 = In a decade that has been really brilliant for music, they have been safe and conservative in their output, old fashioned and traditional in their outlook. Isolated (ie imagine U2 debuting in 2000 with ATYCLB), they likely wouldn’t have even appeared on my radar. That would have been a shame, because there are of course gems in there, but what would have been presented to me as a casual listener I could confidently say would not been creative enough, original enough, simply brilliant enough to have attracted my attention or interest, let alone adoration. Beautiful Day is a song I probably would have liked, Stuck in a Moment - I am definitely not one of the haters - but on it's own, no. Elevation, hell no. There's no way I would have engaged with Vertigo/Sometimes/ABOY/COBL etc. No way I would have engaged with Boots/Crazy Tonight/Magnificent. If those were my windows to U2, I wouldn't think much of them. No sale.
Some would say that Damon Albarn has made a lot of good music since then, though it's not really to my taste. Pearl Jam are good, as far as 'rock' goes. 
