The Bomb interests me.... not at all really. Personal tastes and all that, but I loved U2 for their small songs as much or more than their big songs. I loved U2 for Bono's lyrics, for putting in the CD for the first time and hearing something musically new and interesting with each track. I honestly feel numb all the way through The Bomb and I can't change that. It's cold. It's so calculatingly commercial. It's boring. It's predictable. It's lame in parts and just dull in others. Bono was saying in it's hype that it was like "their first album". I agree. It sounds almost, musically, immature. Not necessarily in a negative way, it just sounds so juniour to U2's previous efforts. Songs like Miracle Drug and Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own - U2's bread and butter territory - I can't believe that U2 make this nearly 20 years after songs like Bad? It's like Sometimes should have been written 20 years ago, and as they grow older and get better and better they come to Bad, but it's the reverse and everyone celebrates that. I look at U2 setlists and can't fathom why All Because of You is played there along with The Fly. Are they two different bands?
Believe it or not, I'm not caught up in these arguments about 80's vs 90's vs 00's. I don't believe in that, and you'll notice through any of my arguments I'm trying to defuse the certain idiots in here who keep narrowing arguments into "Well I'd expect that from a 90's fan". Fucking moronic. All I'm talking about is the quality. "Songs! Songs! Songs!" they shout. "It's all about great songs! Not experimentation!" Wait! When did I say it was about experimentation? Never! Songs are fine! Songs are great! I love songs! But these are so dry, so weak. Even the ones that have great tunes have been produced beyond any feeling, and more often then not have been almost fucked beyond repair by Bono's complete disinterest in writing decent lyrics anymore.
I'm sorry, I can't get past the fact that the quality has dropped so far. I hold U2 to a ridiculously high standard, simply because they've always reached that standard. To me, everything they touched was gold. I only love U2's experimentation because I thought it was remarkable that every corner they turned, turned to a winner. They are ridiculously talented. I would have no beef with this whole "back to the roots/4 guys in a room" whatever if (a) they actually had roots and (b) it was of a high standard. I think "U2" doesn't work when they try to calculate it too far, and I think some people would suggest that's an argument against Pop as well.
Sorry, The Bomb is a flat out dud. By any other band, a raging, storming success of a perfect pop album, but from U2, it's just a real shame that they'd stoop so low.
I just cannot see how people hold songs like Vertigo and City of Blinding Lights or Crumbs - as good as they are in relation to what they are - up against anything off any of the 80s or 90s albums. Anything. Can't believe that you could have your iTunes on random and have a song like Running to Stand Still play, then have it flick to Yahweh and think "Wow. Still got it."I think you've just dropped off about 400% quality right there.
