Utoo said:One other possibility is that with the age range of many members on the board, I'd say a lot of folks either "discovered" U2 in the 90s or were at their prime music-loving age at that time. Just a guess, though.
Clawgrabber said:spin magazine, for one, who gave it their highest possible rating and had U2 the cover at the start of the tour with a rave review...
now tears the whole thing apart as a misstep...
U2Man said:50 % of POP was good
50 % of POP was weak
MrBrau1 said:Because Pop was a poor record and people here think talking it up will actually make it a good record.
Axver said:I think the main reason people talk about the nineties is because of Alex Descends Into Hell, and maybe Viva Davidoff too.
U2DMfan said:Even if POP was half brilliant and half average, it's better half is so much better than anything they've done since it's not even funny.
Earnie Shavers said:Miami > HTDAAB
Zootlesque said:Haha... it's amazing how fast a thread about 90s U2 turns into an argument about Pop! Fans of the album continue defending it and the people who just don't see the brilliance continue starting shit! Basically same shit... different day!
U2DMfan said:Even if POP was half brilliant and half average, it's better half is so much better than anything they've done since it's not even funny.