Let me preface this thread by saying a few things, in order to quell the following points that will inevitably get raised in responses to come:
-- I'm totally aware that this forum overwhelmingly prefers the 90s, so we all know how this will work out statistically speaking (hence, no poll). But I think it's interesting to read people's thoughts and overall impresions.
-- I'm counting ALYCLB at the 2000s for several reasons, which I won't list here, but I think most of us agree on that anyway.
-- Thus, there are 3 proper studio LPs in the 90s
Achtung Baby
Zooropa
Pop
(along with the Hasta La Vista Baby limited release and some singles, like "Hold Me Thrill Me" and "Sweetest Thing", et al.)
and 3 proper studio LPs in the 00s:
All That You Can't Leave Behind
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
No Line On The Horizon
(along with some special things like the tracks on The Complete U2 and singles like "The Hands That Built America", "Electrical Storm", etc.)
-- I'm not counting the Passengers project because it's not under the name "U2" and the general public is pretty much unaware of it.
-- Feel free to discuss the albums, the tours, the non-LP tracks, the hairstyles, etc.
Initially, I kind of assumed the 90s were better, but thinking about it after the "Top Ten of the 00s thread", I realized that there are a lot of great songs in the 00s. I think one of the "problems" in the 2000s has simply been track-selection for the CDs. In the 80s and 90s (Rattle & Hum being an exception), they seemed to always get the best songs onto the albums and showcase them pretty well. But in the 2000s, there are a lot of quality tunes which never made it onto albums (my favorite being "Flower Child"), partly because, I think, the band are much more "professional" and more craftsmanlike now --- ie., it's easier for them to write songs now than it was in their 20s, but this of course has the downside of producing more generic music, which was the main criticism of their released stuff in the 2000s.
I guess, in the 2000s, I would say their work is not of a lesser quality track-by-track, but there is the whiff of musical conservatism and self-conscious craftsmanship about it all. I don't hold this against them, though, as I think it's completely inevitable after a group has been together than long and starts becoming (a) very professional and craftsmanlike, and (b) a bit protective about their status in the industry. Unlike many of you, I'm not convinced of the merits of NLOTH, which for me has a lot of self-conscious compromise (the middle portion) and some not very convincing "experiments", which are not really very experimental and also not very melodic, leaving the album far too calculated (and over-produced) for my tastes. That's why, in the 2000s, I preferred them loud and rocking, as this seemed to play to their strengths; by contrast, the 90s' "experiments" were more successful because, before Pop (which I also find overly calculated and studio-compromised), they seemed a natural and organic extension of what the group was about.
So... 90s vs. 00s --- discuss!
-- I'm totally aware that this forum overwhelmingly prefers the 90s, so we all know how this will work out statistically speaking (hence, no poll). But I think it's interesting to read people's thoughts and overall impresions.
-- I'm counting ALYCLB at the 2000s for several reasons, which I won't list here, but I think most of us agree on that anyway.
-- Thus, there are 3 proper studio LPs in the 90s
Achtung Baby
Zooropa
Pop
(along with the Hasta La Vista Baby limited release and some singles, like "Hold Me Thrill Me" and "Sweetest Thing", et al.)
and 3 proper studio LPs in the 00s:
All That You Can't Leave Behind
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
No Line On The Horizon
(along with some special things like the tracks on The Complete U2 and singles like "The Hands That Built America", "Electrical Storm", etc.)
-- I'm not counting the Passengers project because it's not under the name "U2" and the general public is pretty much unaware of it.
-- Feel free to discuss the albums, the tours, the non-LP tracks, the hairstyles, etc.
Initially, I kind of assumed the 90s were better, but thinking about it after the "Top Ten of the 00s thread", I realized that there are a lot of great songs in the 00s. I think one of the "problems" in the 2000s has simply been track-selection for the CDs. In the 80s and 90s (Rattle & Hum being an exception), they seemed to always get the best songs onto the albums and showcase them pretty well. But in the 2000s, there are a lot of quality tunes which never made it onto albums (my favorite being "Flower Child"), partly because, I think, the band are much more "professional" and more craftsmanlike now --- ie., it's easier for them to write songs now than it was in their 20s, but this of course has the downside of producing more generic music, which was the main criticism of their released stuff in the 2000s.
I guess, in the 2000s, I would say their work is not of a lesser quality track-by-track, but there is the whiff of musical conservatism and self-conscious craftsmanship about it all. I don't hold this against them, though, as I think it's completely inevitable after a group has been together than long and starts becoming (a) very professional and craftsmanlike, and (b) a bit protective about their status in the industry. Unlike many of you, I'm not convinced of the merits of NLOTH, which for me has a lot of self-conscious compromise (the middle portion) and some not very convincing "experiments", which are not really very experimental and also not very melodic, leaving the album far too calculated (and over-produced) for my tastes. That's why, in the 2000s, I preferred them loud and rocking, as this seemed to play to their strengths; by contrast, the 90s' "experiments" were more successful because, before Pop (which I also find overly calculated and studio-compromised), they seemed a natural and organic extension of what the group was about.
So... 90s vs. 00s --- discuss!
I crushed my own world, now 
while ATYCLB and HTDAAB are among the worst 
Total "genius"
