Well, as the new U2 is about to be released, I guess I'll get this out now.
I haven't yet heard the album (I'm purposefully avoiding the online leak), but the single reminds me of something that would be on Zooropa. That reminded me how much I love that album. And I never understood why it doesn't get the same praise as U2's "classics." It has always been one of my favorites. Any other fans? Or anyone want to say what exactly is so bad about it?
I think it's revealing that, although it's only ranked 1770th on this site, it IS the only U2 album to have gotten at least a 9 from both Spin's Book Of Alternative Albums and Martin C. Strong. That should say something right there. Namely, that it deserves better recognition.
If the single is any indication, it seems like the new album harkens back to Zooropa, so I figure this topic has a reason to exist right now.
The arrangements and textures make the album. It's by far the most fascinating sounding U2 work, while still remaining a U2 work. It's much more inventive than Achtung Baby. They really expand the experiments, but much like The Beatles did with Revolver, unlike what they did with their own Pop later on. The latter also experimented far with different textures, but it lost the band's identity. The melodies and songs are also strong on this one, by any measure, unlike Pop.
Hey Zooropa is one of my favorites, at about 15 or 16 in my favorite albums of all time. I definitely agree that it is extremely underrated. While Achtung Baby sort of blew up with a new hard-edged sound for U2, Zooropa is definitely more focused while still staying experimental. There's great pop melody breaks (Stay - Faraway So Close) between the catchy but bizarre (aka Numb). I might add more about this later when I'm in a writing mood. I'm glad you like it.
