Swap Magnificent for COBL and you have my exact opinion. Not to mention that COBL is infinitely better live than Magnificent.
Agree in general (as I usually do), but I also think "City of Blinding Lights" is quite a bit the better song than "Magnificent", although I like both. I concede that "City..." is more a triumph of craft than of inspiration (wasn't it around since the ATYCLB sessions?), but it is very, very good craft. I love the lyrics... which is maybe my only issue with "Magnificent". I understand that Edge wrote some of the lyrics, but I just don't think they're good.
COBL is definitely more effective as a live song. There's no question it'll find a place in any future setlists, whereas Magnificent will probably only come out once in a blue moon. It's chances aren't helped by the fact that the band couldn't seem to settle on a version they liked either, although I quite enjoyed the 'gospel' influence on the latter 2011 renditions. But I've been out of step with U2 fandom quite a bit this decade.
There is something sexual about rock'n'roll. It's hard to play good, sexless rock (though The Smiths tried). When people get older, they generally get less sexy, and I would imagine it's harder to produce vital rock music past a certain age, particular when you're the world's biggest group and are guaranteed to be over-scrutinized for every little thing you do.
Fortunately, despite being in their Fifties now, the guys are still looking pretty good, if they were looking like Status Quo we'd be in all kinds of trouble. One of things that the band understood so well on the AB/ZOO TV campaign was how important sex appeal is in rock music. They kind of forgot this a bit during Popmart, but rediscovered it a little in time for Elevation.
What I really liked about the band during the nineties was their willingness to change their appearance with every album. The difference between ZOO TV and Popmart is night and day, but it showed that they were constantly evolving both musically and visually. This decade they've been far more consistent. I mean other than Bono's changing haircuts, the ATYCLB look is still evident now.
This could be a problem because people get bored of the old really quick. When you've had massive success, there's only so much time you have before you have to be seen to be re-inventing yourself. For Rattle and Hum, the audience kind of let the band get away with the fact that they hadn't really moved on much (either musically or visually) from The Joshua Tree, but there was definitely the sense that they'd better start coming up with a Plan B in time for the next album.
I think a similar thing happened with HTDAAB. They were still riding the wave of ATYCLB and the public went along with it, but once again, you can't escape the feeling that they'd stumbled down a blind alley and needed to come back with something totally fresh next time.
In 1991, they avoided an even bigger backlash by completely overhauling the whole operation, in 2009, they didn't. For the non-fan, all they saw was exactly the same band they'd seen at the start of the decade releasing a single that sounded not a million miles away from Vertigo, and then following it up with another single that sounded not a million miles away from COBL. For the public, the band hadn't really evolved at all.
They fell into the same kind of trap the likes of Oasis, and any other Britpop band you care to mention, fell into, essentially that they both look and sound exactly the same with every release. Pretty soon, people switch off and look for something different.
The question is, like Earnie pointed out, do they really have it in them to completely re-tool the whole thing from top to bottom again? It's a big ask at this stage in their career.