CrashedCarDriver said:
well, rattle and hum was an extremely bad direction u2 took back in 1989-1990
they copped all kinds of criticism back then, not just for the film, but also the music
I'm going to take a slight issue with the above part of your post.
As a long-time fan, the criticism U2 received for R&H wasn't really the film (which is nothing more than a documentary) or the music, but rather that U2 felt that they were now "amongst the gods", if you will. Their collaborations with such respected artists as B.B. King and Bob Dylan made some critics question whether U2's ego got the best of them. Of course, now if U2 made such an album, they'd be probably praised for it. I guess the thinking was that U2 hadn't yet "paid their dues". The irony is that by 1988, U2 had been an official band for 9 years, had several multi-platinum albums and a Grammy for "Album of the Year" (which, despite the Grammy Awards debacles, is still one of the most respected music awards given). But back then, artists weren't expected to sell 10M copies of their first album.
The album did venture into more experimental territory and as a result, not all reviews were glowing. The problem with music reviews, though, is how ridiculously subjective they are. Even the comments about working with Dylan or King are subjective. If those famous artists didn't feel U2 were worthy, I can assure you the collaborations wouldn't have existed.
But going back to the original question - should U2 stop trying to compete? As I wrote earlier in this thread, I never felt U2 truly did compete. In each era, they stood out. In the era of Boy George, Michael Jackson and Wham, U2 released "War" and UF. In an era of hair bands and pop artists like Debbie Gibson, U2 release JT. When grunge bands dominated, U2 had AB and "Zooropa". When bubblegum pop dominated the charts, U2 had ATYCLB. When R&B/rap artists snag the hits, U2 had HTDAAB. In other words, U2 have always seemed to stand apart from the mainstream - and in doing so have in turn become mainstream! They were the exception to the rule and a welcome exception at that. The one time U2 did try to "blend in" is arguably with "Pop", which was one of their least successful albums.
Yes, Bono talked about how ATYCLB and, to a lesser extent, HTDAAB, were collections of songs rather than albums, even that was a change for U2 (as I feel they have the album concept down quite well).
In other words, if U2's idea of "competing" is to create strong songs and themes that have the unique ability to appeal to many while simultaneously standing out from the current marketplace, then I say all the more power to them! For every weakness one can find on recent U2, I can find on older U2. Nothing is perfect. But it's the successes that have made U2 the dominant artist they are for the past 25 years.
. 
