Bleak

I must say, ...F*CK..., that you are convincing.

Now, moving on to some curiosities about the CD: on the cover, you can catch a glimpse (though it's far from easy) of the names (not written in full, anyway) of three songs that do not appear on the album, namely: "Wake Up Dead Man" (from "Pop"), "Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me" (from the soundtrack of "Batman Forever"), and "If You Wear That Velvet Dress."

I want to clarify that I have carefully analyzed the lyrics of "Zooropa" and have understood at least their literal meanings (of course, there's always a metaphorical meaning that is much more difficult, if not impossible, to discover): the themes are more or less the usual ones (love, faith, uncertainty), although set within the hyper-technological and mass media reality of the '90s. That's why the title track starts with a cut-up of advertising slogans... I thought the review was already long enough, so I excluded these considerations.

No problem, born, the important thing is to clarify things. I also prefer some REM songs, even though I think some chapters of their discography are a bit overrated ("Document" doesn't appeal to me much, while "Murmur" and "Monster" drive me crazy). I listened to "Under A Blood Red Sky" only once; I remember borrowing it from a friend about a year ago and found it decent (live, I'll give U2 an appeal that is definitely uncommon), but the songs remain just that for me. In short, a group of good musicians, great pop melodicists, but nothing more, I repeat. This is my opinion. Then again, you know: there are millions of different opinions about "Zooropa," it's an album that's too controversial. In any case, if you get "heated," it's because you care about what you're discussing, and I realize that deep down you are truly passionate about music.

I really liked the Deftones in "White Pony"; I find them to be one of the few bands in the nu-metal genre that express something truly noteworthy. By now, Korn have faded away, and Limp Bizkit... well, they got lost somewhere after the second album.

To borntorun1976: accept the fact that everyone has their own opinion. U2 is a band that writes songs, perfectly honest and utterly normal pop songs, which do not excite me very much. For this reason, I believe that U2 has never created masterpieces; for me, they are simply honest craftsmen. It’s not about whether I appreciate them or not; we are not talking about "Blonde On Blonde" or "The Velvet Underground & Nico," albums that very few would consider "not masterpieces" and which have truly made music history. Opinions on U2 are much more divided; we are not dealing with something to adore unconditionally. And then, does someone who doesn't appreciate an album have to refrain from reviewing it? If you read the review, I made it clear that for me it’s one of the best U2 albums, which shows that I appreciated it. I simply stated that for me, U2 has not produced any masterpieces. I find hobbit's opinion much more reasonable, as at least he accepts my point of view.

I quite liked the review... not bad at all. The CD is fun, chameleonic, hallucinatory, eclectic, varied, at times psychotic and dark... a great album.

Great album, really enjoyable and convincing, but I like the self-titled one more.

My friend, the one who lent me the album, warned me: "be careful, it’s nothing special, actually..." and he wasn’t wrong. "Mascherina" is terrible, let’s lay seven pitiful veils over it... this album was definitely recorded in a hurry, without the desire to play and especially without the faintest idea of what to play.

For me, U2 have produced better albums than others, and I repeat, "Zooropa" is, in my opinion, one of the best, but I still believe that none of their albums is a masterpiece because I don't see that much class.