Anyone wish U2 never changed course after POP?

[bram]

Having Beautiful Day directly after Pop is, to be frank, the only reason U2 is still making music. It's also one of their all-time great singles and live songs, and while the rest of the album doesn't live up to that song, it was still the right decision. BD is as important a moment in the band's history as Red Rocks or Achtung Baby.

Also, the 2000s have given us at least 6-8 songs that I prefer to pretty much anything on Pop unless I'm in a very specific mood (i.e. Gone is great, but I'm not frequently excited to listen to it). This is especially true in terms of live songs. And to put that in perspective, I consider HTDAAB U2's worst album. All the arguments in favor of Pop can basically be used to describe AB (lower vocals, dark lyrics, etc), except AB is just vastly superior. That vein was all used up by the end of the 90s.

It really wouldn't be all that surprising if a band as old as U2 was putting out absolutely nothing that could stand up next to their older material. Some fans feel that this is the case, but most adamantly do not. I actually feel that 90s vs. 00s U2 is pretty much a wash thanks in large part to NLOTH.

 

[Cactus Annie]

Nope. I'm into progress. ATYCLB was a return to roots necessacity. It was also important for the band to showcase their tangiable assets such as Edge's guitar. Look in the holy grail book of U2 By U2 for clues to what Paul McGuinness says. Ask PJ Harvy and Bjork on what they they said to Bono. That's why going back and trying to replicate anything what they done on AB, Pop or the Passangers album is not progress at all. It's going into retrograde. But luckily NLOTH sounds nothing like these albums. Plus they've also continued to showcase their tangiable assets. I remember someone saying to me once that Discotheque contained the Edge's best riffs but it was so swamped by over-production. Imagine how much better AB would sound without all that compression and distortion. Hopefully nowadays they can use their instruments to purvay meaning without the overt use of effects. 00's was the way forward.

 

[Cactus Annie]

I love Pop. It's my second or third favorite U2 album (after AB, probably tied with NLOTH). But I'm not sure U2 would have been around to give us NLOTH if they hadn't have made ATYCLB after Pop.

I think the right word for albums such as TUF, AB, Zooropa, Pop and NLOTH is "arty", not "experimental".

I agree with this post. There is nothing on these albums that nobody else hasn't done before. Most things that are branded about as being experimental are in fact arty. Digitize is spot on

 

[financeguy]

Sorry, but anyone who says "Wake Up Dead Man" is the biggest "disappointment" of the album...well, I just can't take seriously...besides "Gone" it's one of the albums shining moments.

Well, it's coming from someone whose opinion on Pop can really be summed up by the following, much as he hedges it around in other posts.

It's cutting edge to jump on the newest bandwagon

It's entirely possible to jump on bandwagons, as you put it, and be cutting edge.

For example, Prodigy were quite commercial by the mid 90's, but no-one accused them of failing to be cutting edge.

Pop to me is original and innovative, because it was one of the first serious (only?) attempts for a rock band to meld the dance music influence - sure it's derivative, but so are some of the greatest albums of all time. There's a quote by Bono where he says that at the time he first listened to them, the Beatles records seemed completely original to him, but now he realises that if you were able to go back in time and look at McCartney and Lennon's record collections, you would see the influences.

Unfortunately, no-one picked up the baton, and that's why today we have to listen to the likes of Coldplay, Kings of Leon and the nth line-up of Oasis trying to relive former glories.

 

[financeguy]

I agree with this post. There is nothing on these albums that nobody else hasn't done before. Most things that are branded about as being experimental are in fact arty. Digitize is spot on

I'd grant you that Pop or Zooropa (or even Passengers) can't be considered truly experimental, but for a mainstream rock band at the time, it was adventurous work. The likes of Oasis and the Verve, or even Blur or Suede, weren't attempting anything even close.

 

[financeguy]

i love pop, but i worry that pop was the last time the band was going to be able to be current and cutting edge with influences. It could tap into electronica because it developed somewhat concurrently with ZooTV and their own outgrowths. But every interview I've read with U2 lately, they're being apologists for The Killers, Kings of Leon, Snow Patrol, Black Eyed Peas (triple ugh) (because they're terrible, not because of the hip-hop influences... U2 used to have public enemy opening for them, now the Peas? gross.). They say it's about not "ghetto-izing" rock and roll, it's about the power of the single. But, sorry Killers fans, Killers singles are boring and samey. The absolute best thing to be said about them is that they can be catchy. There has to be more than that, because U2 is more than that. Achtung, Zooropa, Pop - hell, even war, TUF, JT - aren't just cookie cutter vertigo songs, not just all because of you.

If the most fascinating band U2 can think of to open for them on this massive stage is BEP, Snow Patrol, or Muse (man, I wish I could see Elbow open, because Elbow really fucking puts forth some effort, in addition to the big songs), then that says something about U2 as a band. The music industry has become even more divided in recent years between indie music and label music, and U2 continues to come down in support of the power structure, in support of big corporate music, in support of the single. That desperately concerns me. Because it makes me think that U2 is never going to be on the cutting edge ever again. We might be standing at the real dawn of Dad-Rock U2.

Excellent post, which I almost completely agree with, but I'd like to hope U2 are out of the dad-rock phase now. U2 don't even even do dad-rock very well. If I want to listen to the pub-rock/dad-rock style of music, I'll reach for a Paul Weller or Oasis CD before ATCYLB/HTDAAB.

 

[guill]

I wish U2 never changed course after Zooropa and avoided the ridiculous Hollywoodisation. Why so serious ?

 

[OrARoundabout]

Not the biggest Pop fan...but I wish U2 had maintained that "I don't give a fuck what you think" attitude

 

[BVS]

Well, it's coming from someone whose opinion on Pop can really be summed up by the following, much as he hedges it around in other posts.

Oh really?

It doesn't sum up shit. I like the album, my whole point is that it just gets too much credit of being "innovative" and "cutting edge" in here.

It's entirely possible to jump on bandwagons, as you put it, and be cutting edge.

For example, Prodigy were quite commercial by the mid 90's, but no-one accused them of failing to be cutting edge.

So Prodigy jumped on a bandwagon? I'm not exactly following, what kind of sound did Prodigy have before?

 

[U2girl]

Love the smell of nostalgia in the morning...

 

[Ellay]

I think what you can sum up from this thread is that many, if not most fans don't think pop was such a failure as it's made out to be.

The start of the tour was a fiasco and the album wasn't properly finished, but IMO there are songs on Pop that make U2 what they are.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Depends on what you mean by ‘changing course’.

They were due for their regular sonic-shakeup regardless of how well received Pop was or wasn’t. I love the album, adore it, but I do also think it was the logical end to that 90s run. Start off with the guitar heavy album that you can move your ass to, try to marry that ass-shake with the electronica sounds that influenced it, follow that into full-on electronica, then try and marry that full on electronica back around to the guitar heavy album again. There you have Achtung to Zooropa to Passengers to Pop.

So, sonically no, I think a change of course then was fine and necessary regardless of how Pop/Popmart were received in the US. I mean, imagine Pop as a blinding success. On all fronts. Critically acclaimed both in the US and elsewhere. Award winner. Mega-seller. Everywhere and by everyone. Popmart is likewise hailed. What were they to do then? Sonically they could either push Pop further, or revolutionise again. I bet they would have taken that revolution route regardless, and the push-Pop-further route would have been a massive mistake regardless. They couldn’t push that sound further. So it comes down to how far they swing, in what direction, and supported by what attitude.

ATYCLB to me hits the mark well in terms of light sounding easy, breezy pop-rock. It doesn’t sound forced, constructed, manufactured etc, which is the enemy of good pop. I like the album as a whole, although I think a lot of it is very weak. Beautiful Day and In A Little While are as good a pop song as has been written by anyone. Stuck is nice if a little overproduced – would love to hear the earlier more raw/gospely versions. Kite transcends live if a little dull on record. Walk On is a bit too calculated-U2-anthem but too good to have come from anyone else trying to mimic U2. I think the rest is pretty weak, but still doesn’t sound anywhere near as forced or constructed as what followed on HTDAAB. Even Elevation has an easy flow to it. I really don’t like that song, but for all it’s shallow silliness, that album version (the Tomb Raider version ought to be taken out the back and shot) doesn’t sound like it took a lot of forced hard work, again, unlike it’s closest cousins on the Bomb. In fact, pretty much any animosity I have toward ATYCLB comes in hindsight following the Bomb, e.g. I hate Elevation mostly because its like it gave birth to Vertigo and have almost completely forgotten how it felt to me pre-Bomb.

I don’t really know. I personally don’t think they needed to swing that far. I actually love the sound of Stateless/Ground Beneath Her Feet as a post-Pop sound. It sounds mature, a band that has learned a lot over the 20yrs of previous tinkering. They also sound remarkably comfortable and confident in those songs. Moreso than on anything off ATYCLB and HTDAAB. It’s where I hope they settle one day when the stadiums and anthems are too much. Smaller, delicate, mature songs that lack none of the confidence or creativity, or, I guess, majesty of their biggest and boldest of the past. I hope there’s some of that sort of thing on Songs of Ascent. If that’s real.

But still, I think they ended up seeing Pop (or the reaction to it) as further left than it was, further out on one extreme, and so in trying to correct that, also swung too far off to the right. I think they could have gone for something closer to the middle ground. Something that still supported the ‘classic’ pop hit that Beautiful Day was and needed to be, but could also give them room to continue to explore. I think the best way to describe it would be as a bridge album, i.e. it could have been the kind of bridge album we have now in NLOTH. Enough to reassure those who needed it (in the band and in the fanbase), but enough to indicate that they’re still moving forward as well. They could have eased those that fell away with Pop (or the 90s as a whole) back into the fold, while still presenting something new. The best part? There likely would have been no Atomic Bomb.

 

[65980]

Earnie, you make some good points, but at the end of the day I have to question the Shaver you're using. Atomic Bomb is a wonderful album that stands proudly with any of U2's finest moments. In almost all ways, it's better than NLOTH, in my opinion.

Other than that, I appreciate your points.

I dunno... to each his own, but I have a hard time understanding the U2 fan who loves most of the band's stuff and then completely despises one or two random LPs. I mean, it's all made by the same people.

Maybe grow a goatee dude.

 

[Cactus Annie]

I'd grant you that Pop or Zooropa (or even Passengers) can't be considered truly experimental, but for a mainstream rock band at the time, it was adventurous work. The likes of Oasis and the Verve, or even Blur or Suede, weren't attempting anything even close.

My definition of an experimental album is something that has never been done before by anyone. AB took a lot of influences from David Bowie, Velvet Underground, Virgin Prunes and Jesus An The Mary Chain. Dark Side Of The Moon wasn't experimental in reality because Pink Floyd because the first concept album came was Sgnt Pepper and Bowie inspired a lot of the prog rock movement. All the ways in which The Beatles were using production technique was done before by Buddy Holly and The Crickets. But you're right about these 90's rock band. Oasis have been repeatedly releasing the same type of music for years.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

My definition of an experimental album is something that has never been done before by anyone.

then this means no one has done an experimental album since the late 50s.

 

[Cactus Annie]

How can a completely different song taint your opinion on another song ?

 

[Cactus Annie]

then this means no one has done an experimental album since the late 50s.

You're forgetting 1981, grandmaster Flash and the birth of hip-hop

 

[The Sad Punk]

You're forgetting 1981, grandmaster Flash and the birth of hip-hop

Oh, Phil Harris invented rap in 1941.

 

[gvox]

You're forgetting 1981, grandmaster Flash and the birth of hip-hop

Grandmaster Flash influenced mixing/cutting/sampling, aka turntablism. The first rapper who could truly be said to be innovative to the point of starting a trend would be DJ Kool Herc in the late 70s, and even his style was derivative of the Jamaican reggae scene 'toasters'. Having said that, some more info below in my response to Sad Punk

Oh, Phil Harris invented rap in 1941.

That's a common misnomer...spoken word/poetry over music began 15-20 years earlier than Harris' stuff, with the blues and jazz music scene. But you're right, long before 1981

 

[U2DMfan]

My definition of an experimental album is something that has never been done before by anyone.

Might be splitting hairs here, but that's an illogical definition.

That sounds more like a standard for innovation, than being "experimental".

By your definition no music at all would be "experimental" after the first music ever put on magnetic tape, because it had already been done before.

You also give an inconsistent standard to 'Dark Side' by saying it's not experimental based only on the 'concept' of being a 'concept album' and not paying any mind to the sonics used on the album. Again, that might be playing with semantics or not, I just think you're standard is a bit tough to deal with.

Thank goodness it's your own standard and not the rest of us.
Or else no musician would ever try innovating their own sound for fear of being rigidly accused of never doing anything original.

When a painter goes to a canvass to "experiment" does he/she have to reinvent their own personal paint and canvass, to "experiment"?

Also, Buddy Holly died in 1959. Nearly a decade before Sgt Peppers and The White Album. If you want to stand by your claim, then so be it. But I could at least find one, simple, basic thing that Buddy Holly didn't use. He also wasn't able to bounce tracks around on a 4 track. Also, backmasking, which was available but I doubt he ever used it and put it on a record. (to my knowledge). I don't mean to split hairs here but I'm trying to make a distinction between innovations, innovations to one's own sound and experimenting.

POP was U2 experimenting with and thus, innovating their own sound.
We shouldn't get too caught up on the word itself "experimental". Almost none of these contemporary artists actually innovate or actually break fresh, unexplored ground. We're waiting on another technological breakthrough for that.

It's why the best music of today or even most of the 90's is rehashed.
Although the digital revolution (circa 1996) did push electronica in much different places. This and the Loops and Protools and all that. Nothing since has done much that I can think of.

 

[monsieur fly]

Anyone who reads my posts will know that I am firmly in the 90s camp when it comes to U2. That said, I accept there was a need for a partial retrenchment after Pop. I thought Beautiful Day was marvellous when it came out and I still do now. Its parent album ATYCLB wasn't bad but the retrenchment had already gone too far. With HTDAAB it went further- a safe, pop/ rock record with those much-promised rough edges smoothed over. The production was overdone, the songs were largely flat and cliched. It was hard to believe that the same band had come up with Acrobat and Please etc. Interestingly, NLOTH is exactly the sort of album U2 should have released in 2000 because it has the signatures while still being edgy at certain points. So yes, I do think a change of course was necessary but I wished it had been a gentle (and temporary) fork right rather than a complete u-turn.

 

[Cactus Annie]

Someone said that the moonwalk wasn't invented by Michael Jackson. It was originally done by another famous dancer in the 70's, but I forgotton who the guy was whom they mentioned. Michael said that he addapted it from kids on the street doing the running man to hip-hop.

 

[Cactus Annie]

So is Pop truly U2 incorporating loops and protools as their own sound

 

[BVS]

So is Pop truly U2 incorporating loops and protools as their own sound

Well they had used loops before, and ProTools is just the software that allows you to edit music, you wouldn't be able to hear ProTools.

Pop was just U2 embracing the current electronica sounds of the moment such as bands like Prodigy, Tricky, etc...

 

[Snowlock]

Looking for to fill that God-shaped hole.

Maybe someone can provide the quote. I think its in U2 by U2.. But didn't Bono say that this line was never meant as the fanbase took it? It was never deep. Bono meant his gigantic ego by saying God-shaped hole. It was supposed to be a self depreciating line at minimum. Maybe even humorous; an early predecessor to Napoleon in high heals.

Never had anything to do with lack of faith which is what I took you to mean imply. If not the case; nvm

 

[BVS]

Maybe someone can provide the quote. I think its in U2 by U2.. But didn't Bono say that this line was never meant as the fanbase took it? It was never deep. Bono meant his gigantic ego by saying God-shaped hole. It was supposed to be a self depreciating line at minimum. Maybe even humorous; an early predecessor to Napoleon in high heals.

Never had anything to do with lack of faith which is what I took you to mean imply. If not the case; nvm

I think it was a reference to a Saldom Rushdie line.

 

[Cactus Annie]

I like the music on Pop but after what BVS said in reply to this thread, as an album it is fairly disjointed. I can see how it doesn't work as an album compared to AB, Zooropa or the 00's albums.

I don't know and I really don't care about how arty, inventive the music is. As long as I like the songs. This is why you rarely see my posts in these type of threads. I hate over-analysing stuff. I think it takes all the fun and enjoyment out of my listening experience.

 

[doctorwho]

I'm jumping in this thread late, but I don't think U2 changed quite as much as everyone thinks.

When "Pop" was released, one couldn't help but hear the techno influence on the first three tracks. To this day, I feel "Mofo" is one of U2's most brave songs, both for the departure in sound and for the intimacy of the lyrics. But as the album progressed, one couldn't help but hear elements from U2's past. "Staring...", "If God...", "Please", etc., all sounded like songs from prior U2 albums. In fact, as I listened to it in 1997, I felt like I was listening a bit to a U2's greatest hits album!

At the same time, Billy Corgan - lead singer of the Smashing Pumpkins - writes a review of the album along with an interview of the band. And one of Corgan's first comments is how he felt U2 created a "greatest hits album" just with new songs! I felt wildly vindicated! Here was another fan - a famous one and a popular musician at that - who felt just the way I did.

In other words, while "Pop" did take a few bold steps, it was hardly this creative juggernaut of an album. It relied heavily on what U2 had done before.

It seems that U2 just pushed that aspect further. That is, they re-explored their past and modernized it. I feel this is still true on NLOTH.

Often times an artist will make music that sounds exactly like their past efforts. Even the late Michael Jackson had this issue. Music from his 2001 release sounded like it could have been from "Thriller" or "Bad" - nothing had progressed. And, in part, this is why that album sold relatively softly. Not only was there a lot of Jackson backlash still present, but the music sounded exactly what he had done before. The same was true of INXS. The late Michael Hutchence was brilliant. But his last effort with INXS was reminiscent of INXS at their peak - nothing new in sound or style.

U2 has found some magic. They are able to capture the sound that fans seem to love, yet find modern, fresh ways of displaying it. "Beautiful Day" would not have fit on UF, JT or R&H, yet the song is reminiscent of that era. It succeeded because it's fresh, modern, new, yet still has that essence of U2. Likewise, songs from NLOTH are very reminiscent of UF (to my ears). I've played both albums together (in a random mode) and the songs intertwine beautifully. Yet NLOTH doesn't sound like 1984. U2 have captured the essence of that album, then mondernize it. They created a fresh album, something suitable for 2009.

U2 have changed directions several times. In 1988, some may have wished U2 never changed from their "War" sound. In 1993, some may have wished U2 never deviated from their R&H sound. But these days, it seems U2 are incoporating all sounds. They have fresh, current themes and sounds, yet still incoporate the punk, rock and atmospheric sounds of their past.

So do I mind that U2 changed? No, because I felt "Pop" was written in the same vein.

Furthermore, while "Mofo" is great, I felt that U2's attempt at this techno sound was odd. U2 usually stand apart. While other artists mimic what is already out there, U2 stood separate. In an era of Boy George and Wham, U2 had "War" and UF. In an era of Jackson, Bon Jovi and Gibson, U2 had JT and R&H. In an era of grunge, U2 had AB and "Zooropa". But come "Pop", U2 started to have a bit of that Prodigy and Chemical Bros. influence. They blended in, instead of standing apart. I've been challenged on this before, but this is my view and I stand by it.

With the 00's, once again U2 stood apart. And I like that.

Now, if you miss the swagger Bono had back in '97, eh, that's still there. It's just different personas or characters he creates for each tour. The "Pop" character is there, just slightly altered. But that guy seemed to pull away from audiences, while Bono's current personas seem to pull the audience back in - and this, while reminiscent of the 80's era once again, is good. I'd rather Bono try to pull me into his musical world than mock me.

Bottom line - no, I don't mind the change as they were all natural progressions, IMO.

 

[donkeytimes]

Interesting topic...I often talk to my U2 liking friends about it. "POP" has some many areas to explore - the recording process, the producers, the era...etc.

1997 was also a time not really great for rock. Just look at the shit opening bands U2 had (save Oasis and Longpigs "Richard Hawley is still one of the best guitar players around") It was a time where pop/rock and pure boy/girl bands ruled the day. It was an odd time for U2. They just couldn't fit in. I think the world was tired of U2 for some reason. The website hosed, U2 didn't know what to do. It wasn't all there fault totally - it was partly.

I agree with you doctorwho that U2 started to be part of the scene in terms of music, rather than being the black sheep which usually the norm for them. I like the songs on the record. They could have been on the 2000 era U2 records for sure.

Pop could have been much more, but alas...U2 did what they had to do.

I even think it was Howie B. who told them be U2, don't try and be dance "U2."

Also, why didn't U2 release the single version of If God Will Send His Angels, the bass line at the end is much better of an ending.

 

[monsieur fly]

I'm jumping in this thread late, but I don't think U2 changed quite as much as everyone thinks.

When "Pop" was released, one couldn't help but hear the techno influence on the first three tracks. To this day, I feel "Mofo" is one of U2's most brave songs, both for the departure in sound and for the intimacy of the lyrics. But as the album progressed, one couldn't help but hear elements from U2's past. "Staring...", "If God...", "Please", etc., all sounded like songs from prior U2 albums. In fact, as I listened to it in 1997, I felt like I was listening a bit to a U2's greatest hits album!

At the same time, Billy Corgan - lead singer of the Smashing Pumpkins - writes a review of the album along with an interview of the band. And one of Corgan's first comments is how he felt U2 created a "greatest hits album" just with new songs! I felt wildly vindicated! Here was another fan - a famous one and a popular musician at that - who felt just the way I did.

In other words, while "Pop" did take a few bold steps, it was hardly this creative juggernaut of an album. It relied heavily on what U2 had done before.

It seems that U2 just pushed that aspect further. That is, they re-explored their past and modernized it. I feel this is still true on NLOTH.


U2 has found some magic. They are able to capture the sound that fans seem to love, yet find modern, fresh ways of displaying it. "Beautiful Day" would not have fit on UF, JT or R&H, yet the song is reminiscent of that era. It succeeded because it's fresh, modern, new, yet still has that essence of U2. Likewise, songs from NLOTH are very reminiscent of UF (to my ears). I've played both albums together (in a random mode) and the songs intertwine beautifully. Yet NLOTH doesn't sound like 1984. U2 have captured the essence of that album, then mondernize it. They created a fresh album, something suitable for 2009.

U2 have changed directions several times. In 1988, some may have wished U2 never changed from their "War" sound. In 1993, some may have wished U2 never deviated from their R&H sound. But these days, it seems U2 are incoporating all sounds. They have fresh, current themes and sounds, yet still incoporate the punk, rock and atmospheric sounds of their past.

So do I mind that U2 changed? No, because I felt "Pop" was written in the same vein.

Furthermore, while "Mofo" is great, I felt that U2's attempt at this techno sound was odd. U2 usually stand apart. While other artists mimic what is already out there, U2 stood separate. In an era of Boy George and Wham, U2 had "War" and UF. In an era of Jackson, Bon Jovi and Gibson, U2 had JT and R&H. In an era of grunge, U2 had AB and "Zooropa". But come "Pop", U2 started to have a bit of that Prodigy and Chemical Bros. influence. They blended in, instead of standing apart. I've been challenged on this before, but this is my view and I stand by it.

With the 00's, once again U2 stood apart. And I like that.



Bottom line - no, I don't mind the change as they were all natural progressions, IMO.

This is an interesting piece of revisionism- thank you for taking the time to write it because it is certainly thought-provoking. Like a lot of revisionism, however, the case is overstated. Billy Corgan may agree with you but I don't haha. Listening to Pop was not seriously like listening to a U2 greatest hits album. The ringing guitars on IGWSHA and Please may have (faintly) evoked their 80s work but not a lot else about those songs did- Bono (rightly) described IGWSHA "country trip-hop" and Please was a moody electronic shuffle, out-of place on any U2 album before AB. SATS was more The Kinks than U2. The rest of the songs, to which (interestingly) you do not refer further damage the argument. Discotheque doesn't sound like anything from a previous album with the possible exception of Zooropa; DYFL, likewise. LNOE may have been a rocker but it's a wholly different animal to something like Wire or even Exit; Miami is completely from left-field; Playboy Mansion is utter trip-hop and IYWTVD is jazzy- the only precedent there was Night And Day. To me it is endearingly batty to claim Pop was like listening to the best of U2; an intellectual opiate with which older fans could reassure themselves that U2 didn't really change. Well I'm sorry, but in my view they did change and they changed for the better too.

But it's not just about the songs, it's also about the tone. Yes, some of Bono's concerns are traditional but I hardly think the lines "If coke is a mystery.. Michael Jackson, History" would have been written by Bono had he not undergone some sort of change from his mid-80s self. There is a weariness about Pop, an almost complete absence of hope that is out of keeping with their 80s work and possibly even AB. There were no more walls to be torn down! Bono's voice was also very different- low down in the mix and hoarse with cynicism (and throat troubles). These details do count. I see Pop as a culmination of their 90s adventures with many elements unheard on AB or Zooropa.

Of course I have other objections to your post. BD would have fit on earlier albums- despite Bono's frequent protestations, that darn drum machine was hardly that fundamental to the song. Similarly did HTDAAB "capture the sound that fans seem to love, yet find modern, fresh ways of displaying it"? To me it captured the sound the band seemed to love and clung on ferociously. A fuzzy intro to LAPOE and a bit of programming on OSC doesn't really alter that impression.

I do agree with you on one point, though- that NLOTH combines old and new very well.

Anyhow, doctor who, thanks for posting those interesting thoughts