Fair enough.I guess it's all come's down to which adjectif has priority in the definition of the word greatness:Bigger or better.There is no denial that U2 have been the biggest act in the last 25 years.And this is where numbers are important (records sale,tickets sale and radio hits) when you want to define that category.But other bands have been "Better" act and i took the Radiohead exemple because they represent the perfect package that define that category or adjectif.And there, you just can't measure it up with numbers,there, you have to put credibility, creativity musicianship ahead to records sale,tickets sale,ect...
And like i have stated,U2,in 2011, are a different animal than Radiohead, so it doesn't provent me to be a huge fan of U2,witnessing them live since the unforgettable fire tour.I even took a Red zone ticket(325$,thankyouverymuch) for a 360 show....and a great show it was.
I just wish the band would be aiming for credibility like they did from 1987 to 1993 instead being obsessed with being on the radio like they are since "All that you...."maybe those days are over,maybe i'm nostalgic.But i think U2 should aim higher than just be Bon Jovi or the Stones,because they proved it in that 87'-93' windown that they can.
I don't believe it makes me a Radiohead or Arcade fire troll to say or wish that.I like Beautiful day or vertigo as much as the next average u2 fan there is,but Zooropa(as an exemple) gives me more pleasure to my ears.
I want U2 to be the better act,not the biggest.Credibility over radio airplay,
**BTW,thank you for not making personal attacks on my opinion compared to the others who have done in here.**It's appreciate.