BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
91 was a completely different time than 09 in almost every aspect so to pretend otherwise is silly. The material was not embraced by all, in fact it was pretty much the beginning of die hards vs casual fans, just that the "casual" fans were the AB fans at the time.--AB/Zoo TV was probably one the Top 10 biggest pop culture events of its time. Sure you can negative reactions to anything. AB will go down as one the best alt records of all time. NLOTH isn't even in the conversation. Some negative reactions--sure. Mixed...don't think so.
POP, my favorite album, suffered from something else all together. Bad marketing by way of Discotheque and its accompanying video. And an ambiguity as to what they were going for--people still refer to it as a "dance" record (b/c of Discotheque). It's not--it is also a challenging record that really explores new territory. NLOTH is a half baked more of the same.
Pop suffered from a lot of things but to pretend that it got better received or would have than NLOTH is just wrong. NLOTH is mixed, go by facts not your opinion.
Bold is not obvious--it is an approach. An approach that seems better suited to a stadium. Oh, and yes, I would consider not going because of Bad.
While 90's U2 is my wheelhouse, Bad is a religious experience live. I cannot understand why they have dumped it--On Vertigo they closed one show (forget which) at Staples with Bad/40. UNREAL. With this record, U2 just seems out of touch to me--especially thinking this record explores new territory and it does not. And even the positive elements of the record are half baked. I just fear they are turning into the Stones--when they should be Radiohead.
It's out of touch to you, fine, but it's not with many. Many of us can actually see where they went into new territory.
And, no they shouldn't be Radiohead was once exciting now they are self indulgent. U2 should be U2 and no one else. You're stuck.