Yes, and I think it's a very easy case to make when you look at how the band talk about it, how Eno talked about it and the general critical reaction to it. (Rolling Stone actually does matter for things like this, regardless of what some people may think of it)
Every U2 release is a classic when it comes out, according to the band and Eno...again, I think that's hardly conclusive.
Can we agree that for a song to be a classic, it should at least be acknowledged by the wider music community outside of the general hardcore fan group? That's not to say there aren't incredible songs that non-fans don't know, but I think for something to be a classic, it should have some sort of reach out there into the gen-pop that means the casual music listener is aware of it, can hum a couple of bars of it.
I doubt many non-U2 fans could tell you what their last album was called, let along hum you a line of Moment of Surrender.
I'm really not saying it's a bad song, it's not. It's a really decent song.
But there's no way known it's in the echelon of U2 "classics" like Streets, New Years Day, One, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride, Bad, I Still Haven't Found, With or Without You, Desire, Bullet the Blue Sky, Beautiful Day, Mysterious Ways, Even Better Than the Real Thing, Stay... need I go on?
I'm not saying these are the greatest U2 songs, but they are most definitely U2's "Classics" outside the U2 fan bubble in which we live. Every one of those songs has reached the ears of listeners and stuck with them for years.
In 15 years time, no one but the hardest of hardcore U2 fans (ie us here) will be able to recall Moment of Surrender.
Q and Rolling Stone have happily beat U2's drum for years, I doubt much credence is placed in what they write about U2 anymore.
See, to me, Pop is a favourite album of mine. But I'd concede it's not seen as a U2 classic outside the bubble.
