It's an interesting idea, when bands have been around this long, why aren't they able to maintain a sense of quality? Just about every veteran act you like that has been in the game for 30 plus years has had their ups and downs, of course, it's how they go about it. Also, it's a matter of taste, plenty of U2 fans love their output up till now, many do not.
Of course, some bands are able to maintain a level of quality throughout their careers. I think Depeche Mode have done it (their latest album is very solid, also interesting how many of their releases align with U2's). Radiohead is another, their latest album from last year was excellent. Now, I'm biased as a fan of those bands, but the divisiveness isn't as apparent among their fans from what I gather. They seem to me to be bands doing what they want without compromise. Sure their releases may have long gaps like U2, but the music is of higher quality (at least to my ears).
Then of course solo artists have had plenty of late year successes, Bob Dylan and Neil Young have put out a number of quality albums in their late 50s, 60s and 70s.
The common perception is when artists are young, they're really creative hungry. There's the lack of financial means, which can likely be an incentive. It may also have to do with being young and still absorbing so much, but there are many reasons.
On the one hand, I am glad U2 are still making new music, because they don't have to, hell they could retire today. While I am glad they still tour, if they were go to full Fab Four, and just be a studio band and make music, I think I could live with that. I don't know what it is though, I wish someone close to them who perhaps can be more critical could question their ways of making music. I don't think Dave Fanning, Bill Flanagan, Neil McCormick or Gavin Friday is gonna do it, it doesn't even seem the people who produce their albums are doing it. Does Bono have some clause or something where no one can criticize his lyrics?
I remember when Nigel Goodrich produced Paul McCartney's Chaos and Creation in the Backyard he basically made him discard any sappy lyrics he had. That album is quite good actually...great even and that was 2005 (funnily enough, HTDAAB beat it at the Grammy's for Album of the Year). Maybe U2 haven't found that producer or maybe they have, but they just ignore it. Whatever Danger Mouse brought to them, it's there I'm sure, but when you have 3 other producers working on something, it loses his touch for sure, but it overwhelms the song. I can hear his influence on the songs he solely produced and those might be the strongest tunes, so there right these is a lesson. Working with one producer can enable great results, even two. The team of Eno and Lanois did them wonders and for whatever reason, really understood U2's strengths and weaknesses as a band, which is arguably why their most memorable music was made with them. Though I love Pop and the first trilogy of Lilywhite albums from the 80s. Hell, the b-sides from SOI, most especially The Crystal Ballroom are very good. So these 4 guys can clearly make quality music, just not consistently or maybe the best stuff is never getting released.
I don't know what it is, cause it seems like it isn't just one reason. If ATYCLB had been a huge failure, U2 might've broken up or the recovery would be especially hard. The sad part was it wasn't a one off, they then doubled down with HTDAAB, which unfortunately was also pretty successful.
They had the right idea with NLOTH, they just didn't stick with it. Maybe it's deeper than that, after all, they're a band who has had a tremendously lengthy high. For two decades, they were made some great music, which not many bands can do or have done. Maybe U2 just love that high, being on top and can't let it go (which is probably tough), but surely they must know it can't last. It didn't for the Stones, why would it for them? Granted, they're a different band. The Beatles are an interesting case, they made incredible music and did it all in one decade. It's impossible to imagine their career stretched out over four decades (they also started to hate each other). But that's what makes U2 special, it's still the same four guys, four decades later.
I'm not sure where I am going with this, but the last 17 years has been a mixed bag for me as a U2 fan. I became a fan with ATYCLB and still like it. Someone said this somewhere, it may have been this forum, but U2 suck at they think they're great at and are great at what they think they suck at. So, the desperate radio hit attempts are clearly that...awful. But the atmospheric, more experimental stuff is generally brilliant. Basically U2 is at their best when they don't sound like U2. Play The Troubles or SLABT for someone who isn't a fan or aware of much of their music and you might convert them or certainly catch their attention. Better yet play them Passengers and you will probably have their jaw drop, it's a great feeling haha.
I don't know. If there is some hope to be taken from this, their Live Nation tour deal wraps in 2020. Maybe they'll renew it, or maybe seeing as SOE will likely tank, they'll go back and actually dream it up again. And perhaps, they'll blow our minds with Songs of Ascent or something wild that we would never expect, but they won't bother concerning themselves with radio hits or relevancy. That said, I'll give SOE a listen of course and see what happens there.
One can hope when they do call it quits, they'll release the stuff in the vaults. I can't imagine what gems might be hiding from those Pop sessions. It still annoys me that they disavow that record, especially with this being the 20th anniversary (though it isn't surprising given their mindset). Hell, they recorded some 20 hours of music for Passengers, so there's stuff out there for sure.
Anyway long post, but yeah, it's tough to see a band you love go through this, but maybe they'll learn one day (but if they haven't even in 17 years, I'm skeptical),