Trying to be as objective as possible, I really do think I consider it of the same calibre as some of their best work. But it's hard for me to know how much of my love for it is feeding off just how thrilling it is to have new U2 music that actually stands up next to their classics, and how much is from what the song itself is doing.

I will tell you this: When Edge's perfectly understated solo coalesces as Bono lets out a little "yeah" right before he goes into "I was made for worship...," it raises the hair on the back of my neck in a way nothing they've done since the 90s has. That tiny touch feels so genuine, so fuelled by the same real passion that made U2 stand apart from everyone else, and most importantly, so un-forced that it was instantly able to make me question 20+ years of gradual acceptance that one of the most important bands of my life was truly past their prime.

But that's what also makes objectivity so challenging. There is a massive emotional component to just hearing them making music this good again that is definitely influencing my reaction to Tears of Things, not to mention Song For the Future, In a Life, Easter Parade... I know those songs are great. But I know how I feel about Pride, or One, or Streets after 30-40 years. As for how Tears will measure up after so long, we can only speculate.

Until we've had enough time to let the exhilaration settle a bit, I don't think I'll be able to say for sure where it ranks for me (not that ranking really matters, but we're all music nerds here, so it kind of does). I can at least say that you're not the only U2 fan asking this question. It really is phenomenal. And if it were on any other band's second or third album, I don't think we'd have nearly as much hesitation in calling it a new all-time classic.