Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
I agree and disagree with this idea. On the one hand yes if I was to pick 12 songs between the two albums I could come up with something I love even more than SOI however I could say that with any combination of albums. If stay was on Achtung baby instead of so cruel I’d like it more, if Heartland was on TJT instead of Trip I’d like it more. (I still really like Trip and So cruel). U2 released 29 songs in the last 5 years between the album and bonus tracks and I would only say 2 of them weren’t really good enough to be on a u2 album (the showman and American soul, and I wish they had put an acoustic version of best thing on the album similar to the E&I version). I’m not saying every other song was exceptional but I would say they ranged from good - great and there was a good few in that great category imo.
I think they (U2) released a "double album" the right way - not as one watered down package but as two separate pieces that go together...sort of like Radiohead's Kid A/Amnesiac or Tarantino's Kill Bill films...much easier to digest as too courses. The past two albums are nowhere near my favourite U2 albums but they did indeed give us many solid tunes that I will continue to go back to as years pass by.
Also, if we only got half the songs (i.e., one album), we'd all be complaining about the lack of music (much like Pearl Jam fans - like me - these days) and be groaning for more. You can't change history and I'm glad for it as many of you would have omitted "California" from I&E, which would have been a damn shame!
