I'm trying to remember the feeling when the music stopped.

"When U2's songs weren't on-the-nose political anthems, they were vague but heroically uplifting -- filled with signifiers but signifying nothing. Whereas R.E.M. songs, drenched in Southern detail, allusive and elusive, sounded like fables or folk wisdom, U2's majestic uplift often felt like the outtakes of a melodically gifted youth-group minister." Ted of The Late Adopter sends along this side-by-side comparison of R.E.M. and U2 from Slate. I like them both, but, if forced to choose, definitely come down on the R.E.M. side of things. And I'd disagree with this guy's periodization -- I much prefer the most recent R.E.M. album to U2's last few discs of self-referential "instant-classic-rock," and thought U2 were actually at their best during their Achtung Baby/Zooropa/Pop experimentation phase. Still, worth a read.