You might call it hyperbole; I prefer to call it undeniable fact.
And yet here it is, being denied with vigor.
It's also been an abject failure, as their sales figures clearly demonstrate.
You keep mentioning this, but it's built on a logical fallacy. The fact is that sales across the
entire music industry are declining year over year, for almost every artist. Only country music and some hip hop seem immune to the trend these days, and rock music has been taking the hit worse than any other popular music category. The fact that U2's last album sold markedly less units than prior albums (all of which were released prior to this paradigm shift in the public's music-buying habits) fails to acknowledge that it still debuted at #1 in dozens of countries and went on to sell a final tally that 99.5% of any artist or band releasing music in 2014 would slit their wrists to match. Now how can a band whose material would have been in, to your words, steep qualitative decline for
21 years at that point claim such a thing?
On one hand, you have admitted that their recent material does not stand up against the classics from their heyday, yet somewhat bizarrely, you can't acknowledge the obvious and steep decline in the quality of their music. You seem a little confused to me.
I never said any such thing. I did state that the '80s material was, ultimately, my favorite, but that's only true to an incremental degree, like the difference between "would you prefer to stumble across a $100 bill, or nine $10 bills, lying on the ground?"--if forced to choose, I'm going with $100, but either outcome would be a joy. I also said that the first decade of material from any long-term band is almost always considered the best, but I also specifically said, "I vehemently assert that the band's '90s and '00s work certainly holds its own alongside the '80s material, and claims, hand over fist, some of the finest songs in the history of popular music." Nothing I've said in any way, shape or form in this debate has equated to stating the '90s and '00s material "doesn't stand up"--quite the opposite, in fact.
But, hey, if you would prefer U2 to follow the Rolling Stones/ZZ Top/Kiss mold and remain artistically stagnant, remaining in an AC/DC "we only know one gear to drive in" creative rut, or churning out one "greatest hits" tour after another, that's your prerogative. I'll prefer the band's members to keep pushing, prodding and challenging themselves with new ways to approach their craft on their endless journey to find what they're looking for. Show me any band in rock history that still wants to create a new sound, that wants to see itself through a new frame, when its members are in their 50s and I'll show you...well, I guess just U2. In any case, I'm going to step away from this debate at this point for three reasons: 1) I feel like we're highjacking the thread (shame on me for being the greatest offender there), 2) I feel like your points are so utterly prejudicial, poorly supported, reductive, hyperbolic, petulant and circular that it ultimately feels like I'm trying to debate with someone who's trying to assert that the sky is under our feet or that wind is air standing still; I certainly grant that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but yours are so radically off the mark from my beliefs and perspectives that they leave me stuporous and 3) I've only been on this forum for about a week, and I'd prefer the initial impression I bring to the community at large to not be one as a rabble rouser. Thanks for the debate up to this point, Flat Matt, but this gunslinger already knows what happens at the end if he keeps pursuing the Tower to the exclusion of all else.
