What the hell was Passengers all about anyway?

[JOFO]

I hadn't really listened to it in a long time; but I checked it out tonight.
I remember when it came out, I was really excited about it but at the same time disappointed it wasn't an official U2 release, and not the follow up to Zooropa. But it reminds me of that time and I have sentimental feelings for it.

However:
What was really the deal? I mean, it is a u2 album for all intensive purposes, no? Ok, they say Brian Eno was the 5th member at that point and alot of the direction was his doing, but really, was this a real u2 record in the making and then they said "We can't release it as u2; people will freak out"? I mean, there are U2 songsw on there: Your Blue Room, Always Forever Now, Miss Sarejevo, etc...
What if they took those songs, plus HMTMKMKM, and took some of the leftovers from the Zooropa session that eventually made it onto POP (LNOE, IGWSHA, WUDM) and released it as the new u2 record 1995?
I think it would've been huge.
But instead, we got an experimental electronic melange with 3 good songs on it. From the biggest rock band in the world, coming off 2 years of the most incredible tour ever, and two amazing albums....
Did they drop the ball there? Could they have prevented the POP bashing by releasing the album as stated above? Were they too lazy to finish a proper release at the time? Or were they really just following their muse?

 

[Dr. Lemonseed]

I'd say following the muse. You take the experimentation to the max, and write songs around it...then get off the drugs and realize that it won't sell and people will freak out, so you name it Passengers instead of U2.

 

[JOFO]

Oh, so they were taking drugs during this period?

 

[Zoots]

What if they took those songs, plus HMTMKMKM, and took some of the leftovers from the Zooropa session that eventually made it onto POP (LNOE, IGWSHA, WUDM) and released it as the new u2 record 1995?
I think it would've been huge.

I don't think "being huge" was their objective at the time. I could be wrong but I seriously doubt they set out working on Passengers with the goal of making it sellable. So they probably couldn't care less if the songs were east to digest or not.

 

[david]

It was just self indulgent but at the same time really awesome. I don't know if there there really wasn't a huge buzz around it at the time. I don't remember hearing much about it on MTV or the radio at the time. I didn't have the net so I don't know if people talked about it with a lot of anticipation.

 

[65980]

I got the feeling (from my gut and from evidence such as how it's described in U2 By U2) that the Passengers thing was sort of a gift to Brian Eno. There seemed to always be certain directions, musically, that Eno would push the guys into and sometimes they didn't really want to go there. With Passengers, they made Eno happy (he was a temporary band member) and satisfied their own creative need to do some things they wouldn't normally do under the "U2" name. So, I guess it worked to everyone's advantage (except maybe Larry, who didn't like it).

As for whether they could have morphed it into a big U2 record... I suppose they could have made it a decent U2 album, but only -- as the original poster suggests -- by bringing in "real" U2 tracks and thereby changing the whole nature of the project, away from what it was intended to be.

Nevertheless, I am not sure that they didn't approach it more-or-less like a "U2" record at the start of the sessions... It's entirely possible that they did. Again, in 1999 or so, they worked together with Eno, who had convinced them to just let their hair down and make up music on the spot, thinking this would stimulate them to greater things. According to Edge, this approach was basically a disaster, and he had to go away and do a bunch of work on the music for what became ATYCLB. So, I suspect the same process started back in 1994-1995, but the guys decided back then to just let Eno have his way, and when it was done they knew it wasn't really a "U2" record; whereas, in 1999 they knew what they wanted (a commercial-sounding pop-friendly album) and rejected the Eno-ized approach to songwriting in favor of a more traditional sound.

 

[Chill Mike D]

I think they were burned out at the end of ZooTV. So they did this.

 

[intedomine]

Your Blue Room is incredible. Is it a U2 song? It was released as a U2 b-side during the PoP era. Either way, it is one of the best moments in U2's career I reckon.

What was Passengers all about? Experimentation, trying some new things. It might have coagulated into a U2 album proper had Brian Eno's involvement been less than what it was, but there are too many songs on there that could never be considered U2 songs (Ito Okashi, Theme From The Swan, A Different Kind Of Blue [Eno vocal]), so ultimately, it could never be a U2 album.

In the end, it's a side project. U2 collaborating with other artists to write songs for the joy of writing songs. The album was never about U2. I do wish it was a U2 album proper, but it could never really be.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think, like Zooropa, they completely went into it without any plan. They just went with it, and it evolved into something that for a couple of reasons just wasn’t U2.

Another point that I’ve never seen raised here when talking about Passengers is that in taking U2 off it and putting Passengers on, they are instantly completely and totally relieved of any responsibility or pressure to promote and perform. Post-Zoo, that was probably very, very tempting. I’d say though that this was well down the list behind (a) U2 FANS WILL FREAK OUT!!!!, and (b) Eno’s role is too large on this.

I don’t really care whether others think of it as a U2 album, or if you’re one of those who would quite like to totally disown it (why are some people so militant about this?), but I think there’s no denying that musically it is what was next for them, and it’s totally part of that journey there. Passengers absolutely sits between Zooropa and Pop on my shelf.

 

[The John Tree]

I think it really works for what it is meant to be: original soundtracks.

Everything sounds incredibly cinematic. If you're waiting for a huge chorus, you're going to be disappointed. But picture a film when you're listening to this record. You can visualize scenes from movies you've never even seen when listening to this record.

At least I can.

 

[kingofsorrow]

stateless

 

[cobl04]

I don't think "being huge" was their objective at the time. I could be wrong but I seriously doubt they set out working on Passengers with the goal of making it sellable. So they probably couldn't care less if the songs were east to digest or not.

But instead, we got an experimental electronic melange with 3 good songs on it. From the biggest rock band in the world, coming off 2 years of the most incredible tour ever, and two amazing albums....
Did they drop the ball there? Could they have prevented the POP bashing by releasing the album as stated above? Were they too lazy to finish a proper release at the time? Or were they really just following their muse?

Give it another listen, there's more than 3 good songs. Slug, United Colors, YBR, Always Forever.., Beach Sequence

 

[Dusty Bottoms]

stateless

wrong side project

 

[kingofsorrow]

oh crap...................

 

[cybersyd]

wrong side project

yesss! however the emoticons are right!!!!stateless

 

[U2girl]

Self indulgence.

 

[An Cat Gav]

One of my favourite albums by anybody of all time. Great album. More please.

 

[MikeyJB]

I really love Passengers, admittedly it was a grower but it has some beautiful music on it, and its great driving music late at night! I think that they were allowing themselves a little free-reign to do what they wanted to do after such a mammoth few years before, and whats wrong with that?

I think as well though, it was probably a way of exploring new ground but without the pressure of it being a U2 album; remember at that time in the mid-90s Britpop had exploded and I think it would have been very hard for U2 to push their way up through that and make much of an impact.

 

[last unicorn]

I love some of the songs on Passengers, but for me it's not coherent enough. I don't remember the last time I really listened to it from beginning to end. Same with MDH. I'd love to have a CD with the best tracks from both projects.

As a concept, I liked Passengers. But I don't see the real point in it either. For me it is half a U2 album, half an Eno album, not really a whole non-U2 project as they originally had intended.

 

[Ellay]

To me, it sounds like an album of out-takes

Except the salome out-takes are better.

 

[JOFO]

Just listened to it again.

My review, 13 years later:

Viva Davidoff, United Colours, A Different Kind of Blue, Plot 180, Ito Okashi: utter shite, imo. "Hey, I just got a new sythesizer! Looky what I can do!" Too many minutes of eletronic B.S.

Slug: could've been an epic U2 song. Not too bad as is, but I imagine what it could've been.

Your Blue Room: great tune, Bono's vocals here are amazing. Probably the most U2-like song on the album.

Always Forever Now: again, could've been an epic u2 song. It takes way too long to get going, and doesn't have any verse/chorus. But a great groove and mood that could've gone somewhere.

Beach Sequence: a meandering piece, not bad, but just a mood piece, similar to 4th of July, Bass Trap, etc. that U2 did in the past. Not much to speak of.

One Minute Warning: a cool drum groove, but that's it.

Corpse: If later day Radiohead was ever influenced by U2, this would be the track. Personally I think it sucks.

Theme from The Swan: hey, a cello patch on the keyboard! Could've been a nice pice of music, but as it, is nothing special.

Theme from Let's Go Native: umm...the groove from the Fly, anyone? Nothing else going on otherwise.

Bottoms: I liked it better when they called it Zoo Station. Enough said.

Miss Sarejevo: the album's obvious masterpiece, and a highlight in U2's song catalog. Beautiful.

Elvis Ate America: would've been an interesting B side. Nice poem by Bono.


I guess this album was necessary in order to get to POP. A diversion, a bridge, whatever.

 

[Nate Dogg]

The live version of Miss Sarajevo from the Vertigo Tour has made the studio version almost obsolete....

 

[lazarus]

As mentioned above, the title says it all: Original SOUNDTRACKS. These are songs for different films, so I don't believe it's meant to sound particularly coherent. Also, it's not verse-chorus-verse (for the most part), it's not formulaic U2, so you can't look for that.

I think it's rather pointless to listen to this album without the liner notes. If this is something you downloaded or ripped from someone you really don't have the right vantage point to experience this properly. Some may say music should stand on its own merit, but this is conceptual art. You have to at least know where they're coming from.

My suggested listen is to read the description of each movie before you listen to its respective track. You can probably find this online somewhere if you don't actually have the CD insert. And you will see that this album is far from being a failure--they accomplished exactly what they set out to do, which is conjure up an atmosphere befitting the stories and their themes.

 

[JOFO]

I originally had it on tape with the liner notes back in 95 and I did read them.

Since I have it now through the u2 ipod/itunes thing I don't have the liner notes any more.

Yes, you're right; it is a soundtracks thing not a song record.

 

[Zoots]

As mentioned above, the title says it all: Original SOUNDTRACKS. These are songs for different films, so I don't believe it's meant to sound particularly coherent. Also, it's not verse-chorus-verse (for the most part), it's not formulaic U2, so you can't look for that.

I think it's rather pointless to listen to this album without the liner notes. If this is something you downloaded or ripped from someone you really don't have the right vantage point to experience this properly. Some may say music should stand on its own merit, but this is conceptual art. You have to at least know where they're coming from.

My suggested listen is to read the description of each movie before you listen to its respective track. You can probably find this online somewhere if you don't actually have the CD insert. And you will see that this album is far from being a failure--they accomplished exactly what they set out to do, which is conjure up an atmosphere befitting the stories and their themes.

What a great post!

 

[Zoots]

The live version of Miss Sarajevo from the Vertigo Tour has made the studio version almost obsolete....

No. I cannot agree with this. The atmosphere in the album version combined with Pavarotti's amazing voice puts that version miles above and beyond the Vertigo one. Even Bono's singing on the album version is great!

 

[guill]

What the hell was Passengers all about anyway? Brian Eno explained it in the book A Year with Swollen Appendices.

I thought that Slug, Miss Sarajevo and Blue Room were going to be U2's future : albums with very classy and elegant songs, Miss Sarajevo is so powerful even if there's not a big guitar solo, big drums or Bono screaming.
Then.... I heard "Let's gooooo, discotheque" on the radio a few months later and watched Bono disguised as a young clubber

 

[JOFO]

Hmmm....that's a really interesting point.

I have to agree, that I like the best moments on Passengers more than the worst moments on POP.
And for me, Discotech was one of the worst moments.

 

[Zoots]

I don't know. I thought Discotheque was fun. I didn't even mind the video one bit!

 

[JOFO]

Yeah, I mean at the time is was fun, especially since it was the first new U2 record in 4 years.
For me, it hasn't stood the test of time.
Same with the video for HMTMKMKM; great tune, awful video.