if critics already think less of an album because of the age of the artist then they're not going to evaluate it according to its merits. That's why ageism is a problem for a critic.
I think that it's not strictly ageism.
Headache is right. Young people like stuff made by other young people for the most part. Or, they like NEW stuff.
And with U2 its not just age. For any band that has been around for a long time, they create a double edge sword. You stay on the same path, and people get bored of your typical sound and they lose interest, and the artist will fade away commercially.
OR, they try new directions and sounds, and the fan base that made you popular to begin with abandons you, and they fade away commercially.
To quote Headache again - It's the nature of things.
But, to be fair here, this should not overly color the critics reviews like it seems to be doing with SOE. They don't seem to be taking the actually current songs on their own merit. Everything is compared to past work, and then run through the Bono-hate-O-meter, and spit out on the other end.
I think that for the band, it would be wise to shift over next time to an album that buys completely into one cohesive sound. SOE has cohesiveness thematically, but the sound is all over the place. Atmospheric, pop, rock, RAWK, by the numbers U2, ballads, dark AB-esque tune, jangly 60's number... the list goes on.
Would just love to hear Danger Mouse and Andy Barlow (or possibly those two helping Eno and Lanois) produce a beautiful atmospheric last album... That was just that. I think you would see greater critical praise.
they have my new one. I renewed my u2.com membership on there and had the email from that so haven't got a clue why it said it was sending it to my 13 year old no existing email 
