What do we know so far?

[LemonMelon]

There is no Rick Rubin. Rick Rubin is a myth.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

There is no Rick Rubin. Rick Rubin is a myth.

... a ghost story made up to scare children....

 

[LyricalDrug]

Bono will claim "it feels like it's our first album."

 

[pepokiss]

acording to atu2.com's New Album news:

LATEST NEWS

May 8, 2007: An Italian U2 fan has posted in the U2place.com forums about speaking with Bono outside the band's studiosThe fan writes that Bono says "Mercy" will be included on U2's next album, and that Bono doesn't understand how the song made its way to fans on the Web. The Italian also reported seeing Daniel Lanois at U2's studios

 

[last unicorn]

Yeah for MERCY!!!!

But ... I believe it when I actually hear it. On record.

 

[pepokiss]

damn.... just now I realize... BONO said it...

I fear...

 

[AtomicBono]

acording to atu2.com's New Album news:

LATEST NEWS

May 8, 2007: An Italian U2 fan has posted in the U2place.com forums about speaking with Bono outside the band's studiosThe fan writes that Bono says "Mercy" will be included on U2's next album, and that Bono doesn't understand how the song made its way to fans on the Web. The Italian also reported seeing Daniel Lanois at U2's studios

I guess Bono doesn't understand that he gave a fan a copy of the record with Mercy on it?

great news though, if it's true. I love me some Mercy.

 

[EdgeIsTooSexy]

he doesnt realize how it got onto the web
in Q there was a large article on U2 dealing with the joshua tree and at the end they talked about Rick Rubin.
i guess ill have to dig that up and read it over

 

[cobl04]

I guess Bono doesn't understand that he gave a fan a copy of the record with Mercy on it?

Do we even know if that is true?

Of course, the new Mercy may turn out to be 3:01s and so loud that your ears will burst...

Or maybe not. Maybe it will be left in all its 6:31s glory...

 

[PookaMacP]

At some point they did, obviously, discuss the pros and cons of putting the U2 name on it. They DID consider doing so. If it were so definitely outside of 'U2' it would never have been considered.
They chose not to for two reasons:
(A) they knew a % of the fan base would freak-the-fuck out due to the content.
(B) they acknowledged Eno's greater role and wanted 'U2' as a brand to represent the 4 of them. Add a 5th, and it's something other than U2.

I remember reading that either during or after the project there was discussion about releasing under the U2 name but it was not seriously considered because then they would be considering Eno a member of the band. It may even have been the record company that tried to instigate that, at least before they heard it. It amazes me how many people just totally ignore everything the band has said about this project.

In Eno's A Year With Swollen Appendices diary of 1995 (a superb book by the way - being re-released this month I think) he talks about the making of Passengers, and very definitely states that he wanted it put out as a U2 album, but that the record company and U2 themselves feared that this would confuse the average U2 fan. He does have a go at all concerned over this, since he appears to very definitely believe that it should have been put out as a U2 album. Then someone came up with the name Passengers and decided they put it out as such.

 

[U2girl]

The second grudge along with ATYCLB credits so far.
Grumpy much, Eno ?

 

[Utoo]

Grumpy much, Eno ?

Eno's a bastard. Read A Year With Swollen Appendicies for proof. Smart guy, but definitely consumed by his own journey in art. Not that he doesn't make great stuff with U2, though.

 

[rihannsu]

Well, it's starting to sound like all Eno really wants is to join the band, and who could blame him really. But that just confirms that it was not U2's idea to put the album out as a U2 album and supports previous statements that the band considered it a side project.

Dana

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Why does Eno wanting it under the U2 name make him grumpy?

If it were today, and U2 released the songs online or something first and gave this forum a vote to decide whether it should come out under U2 or under Passengers, how do you think that vote would go?

U2's reasoning for not putting it out under 'U2' is perfectly legit, but it doesn't mean the argument for doing so is simply borne of the ambitions of one of the members involved, or arty farty wankery.

Just think about what may or may not have happened had they released it under the U2 name.

 

[U2girl]

Grumpy because he couldn't get over that his idea didn't get the approval from the band. See above, he has "a go at all concerned" for it. Grumpy because years after ATYCLB, he still has to bring the songwriting credit issues up. (makes you think why Lanois never complains) Doing the dirty laundry in public, and all that.
I also think it shows a big ego on his side, since it should be up to the band whether or not the project would be given the U2 name or not. Good thing though is that this puts all the "U2 considered this a U2 album" talk to rest.

I can think easily what would happen, had it been called U2. It would tank, and the band would get flamed in a way that would make the Pop(mart) backlash look like a pat on the back. And it would make things very, very hard for Pop.

 

[jphelmet]

Just think about what may or may not have happened had they released it under the U2 name.

As Bono loves to say, two crap albums and your done. Put out Passengers as U2, then release Pop (which I really love, but I am talking sales numbers here) and that equals two commercial flops (or two crap albums). so... had u2 put out passengers as u2, there would be no more u2. thank God that they were smart enough to put it out as passengers.

 

[shart1780]

Hopefully the next album isn't crap, or we'll be in trouble.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I can think easily what would happen, had it been called U2. It would tank, and the band would get flamed in a way that would make the Pop(mart) backlash look like a pat on the back. And it would make things very, very hard for Pop.

Correct. It would have commercially tanked, relative to other U2 releases anyway, and the recovery back to MegaU2 may never have happened. That's my point. All the reasons are legit, but they're all only commercially related. If U2 were a band half their size, there's no good reason on earth for them not to put it out under the name U2. They wouldn't be trying to satisfy such a wide base, and wouldn't have to worry about the carry on from what is perceived as a commercial flop. It's not a bad album, or a crap album, it's a great album that just happens to be in a genre drastically different to traditional U2 - which is not something that flies with a large chunk of their fanbase. If their fanbase wasn't so wide, they would have been able to do it. If they didn't need to satisfy the casual 'With or Without You' fan that is the key component to selling out stadiums etc, as much as their hardcore musical appreciative base, they could have done it.

There's nothing bad about that at all, and I think they definitely made the right decision in putting it out as Passengers. I'm just trying to dispel any reasoning beyond the commercial as to why they did it that way. Plenty of bands and artists of even very large size have taken greater left field turns and survived perfectly. But they don't have the massive, diverse fanbase U2 have. They're protecting their brand by not including Eno in 'U2', and they're protecting their mass market reputation by not releasing a guaranteed niche album under 'U2'. Simple as that.

Personally, I just wish they had the time/ability/foresight/whatever to do another one, or something - some regular avenue for putting music out that sits outside the regular U2 MegaAlbum/MegaSingle cycle. Passengers II doesn't have to be quite as weird, it could have been an alternate avenue to explore that Ground Beneath/Stateless sound that seemed to naturally come at the same time as, but not fit with, the surface level pop of ATYCLB. Thankfully we had the Million Dollar project sitting there. I mean, if it's there, if there is something else ever happening there that sits musically too far away from this universal/eternal song/album drive they currently have, I wish there was also an avenue for them to release it, because otherwise, if they were mucking around now and came up with something like Slug, I don't think we'd ever hear it.

Also, isn't Eno saying "put it out as U2" him taking a backseat, not trying to take any of the spotlight away? If he really wanted his name up there in lights as well, he wouldn't push for it to be buried as just another U2 release feat. Brian Eno somewhere in the studio, which is what it would have come across as no matter how much the U2 members promoted otherwise later on. As for royalties - who knows. Certainly for Passengers he would or should be getting as much as the U2 members. If not, he has a legit complaint. And who knows with ATYCLB. No doubt the guy has an ego, but so do the members of U2. He might be in the wrong, but I wouldn't just assume it.

 

[Irvine511]

If they didn't need to satisfy the casual 'With or Without You' fan that is the key component to selling out stadiums etc, as much as their hardcore musical appreciative base, they could have done it.

i see what you are saying, but i think what makes a U2 album a U2 album has less to do with the form of the songs -- pop songcraft, or otherwise -- and more to do with the consistent themes that exist in every single U2 album, minus Passengers.

Passengers doesn't deal with death, life, God, salvation, sex, trash, and the overarching desire for transcendence over the mundane that characterizes every single U2 album. every U2 album yearns for something beyond "this." there's no hyperbolic Bono-quest. there's no astonishingly heroic personal narrative to live with Bono.

Passengers OS1 doesn't do this. because it's not an expression of U2 the band. it's an expression of Bono, Adam, Edge, Larry, and Eno. there are two U2 songs on the album -- YBR and MS -- but that's about it.

 

[jphelmet]

It's not a bad album, or a crap album, it's a great album that just happens to be in a genre drastically different to traditional U2 - which is not something that flies with a large chunk of their fanbase. If their fanbase wasn't so wide, they would have been able to do it. If they didn't need to satisfy the casual 'With or Without You' fan that is the key component to selling out stadiums etc, as much as their hardcore musical appreciative base, they could have done it.

I in no way fall in the casual U2 fan category, and really appreciate when artists take chances and experiment with new directions. I am a huge Mars Volta fan, and love that continue to take this type of approach. All that said Passengers is going is going to be considered a great album by almost no one. It is like an artist releasing their sketch book. There are some great bits and pieces there, but it is no way a great album. It is a good look at what happens when U2 messes around in the studio and quickly puts something out. I wish they would do more of this. Put out Ep's between albums with a lot less press and build up. Or better yet release all these songs as b-sides (which is what most of passengers should be anyway).

I agree with your wanting them to have an avenue to release this stuff, and I would like to hear it. The problem is U2 is very concerned with their legacy, and I don't think they will ever do it. Maybe someday they when they are done they will release all of this stuff and we will get to hear some real diamonds in the rough.

You can make a case for calling it U2, whether they should have or not- but the end of the argument (for me) is they didn't want to call it U2. They didn't think it was worthy to be called U2, so that's it. I would guess you could sample 100 fairly big u2 fans and 75%+ would rank Passengers (if we are including it with U2) the worst U2 album.

 

[U2girl]

there is no quest because there is very little lyrics on that album

i see what you are saying, but i think what makes a U2 album a U2 album has less to do with the form of the songs -- pop songcraft, or otherwise -- and more to do with the consistent themes that exist in every single U2 album, minus Passengers.

Passengers doesn't deal with death, life, God, salvation, sex, trash, and the overarching desire for transcendence over the mundane that characterizes every single U2 album. every U2 album yearns for something beyond "this." there's no hyperbolic Bono-quest. there's no astonishingly heroic personal narrative to live with Bono.

Passengers OS1 doesn't do this. because it's not an expression of U2 the band. it's an expression of Bono, Adam, Edge, Larry, and Eno. there are two U2 songs on the album -- YBR and MS -- but that's about it.

THANK YOU. That, and Eno was way too much in charge on it compared to usual U2 albums.

Earnie: U2 weren't touring between Zoo TV and Popmart so there was no need for any stadium selling safety net hits. (U2 had more than enough of those before that) The band could probably have toured any of the Best of's released, with no new material, and still sell out venues.

U2 has diverse enough fan base and are big enough to put out another Passengers OS part II and survive, whether or not it gets the U2 official stamp on it. I realise U2 has (and had) a certain ego about them regarding their album reception, I just think the commercial aspect of the Passengers "rejection" as a U2 effort is too emphasized. Was it a part of it ? Yes, very likely. Was it the main and exclusive reason ? No.


According to Edge, the Fez sessions are not "necessarily" an album. Lanois said on his website he has several projects he is working on. Maybe we're getting another "niche" album. And that's fine, as long as they provide some good music out of it.

 

[The_acrobat]

Are they just trying to mess with our heads by saying this isn't for an album? Or are they serious? I'd be interested to hear another Passengers album, I really would. But unfortunately, the cost is having the U2 album delayed until maybe 2009 if this happens. They might finish the album in December of 2008, but they won't be able to release it until Oct-Nov 2009. Damn Paul McG.

 

[The_acrobat]

Then again, about all these quotes about how "this isn't necessarily a U2 album". Does anybody else think Edge only said this once, and the media is just putting it in different contexts and we assume that he's been quoted as saying this several times?

 

[Utoo]

Then again, about all these quotes about how "this isn't necessarily a U2 album". Does anybody else think Edge only said this once, and the media is just putting it in different contexts and we assume that he's been quoted as saying this several times?

Yes. In fact, if you look at the quote of what Edge actually said (instead of what the articles' writers are saying), he only said that they aren't labeling the work right now. I think it has more to do with keeping the creative juices flowing than acknowledging or denying that the work is for an album.

 

[Irvine511]

i was at a launch part for the ONE Campaign in DC on Monday night. there seemed to be rumors amongst the staff that something U2-ish would happen in 2008. i can't see Bono investing all this time and money and effort into getting ONE up and off the ground and not give it a big push with the considerable force of U2 behind it.

just rumblings -- not even a rumor -- but i can't see them sitting still in 2008 while there's a big election going on.

 

[U2girl]

Bono said he's like to be on tour during the election, but I can't see them backing up any side clearly, due to his activism. It smacks of 1992 all over too much, and they're certainly very sneaky and top secret if we're getting a U2 album this year and tour the next.

 

[jphelmet]

there seemed to be rumors amongst the staff that something U2-ish would happen in 2008.

Yeah there was rumblings amongst my staff (which consists of just me and my 15 month old son) that U2 might possibly have an album out before 2010.

 

[Irvine511]

Yeah there was rumblings amongst my staff (which consists of just me and my 15 month old son) that U2 might possibly have an album out before 2010.

your staff probably has lots of conference calls with Bono as well.

 

[Irvine511]

Bono said he's like to be on tour during the election, but I can't see them backing up any side clearly, due to his activism. It smacks of 1992 all over too much, and they're certainly very sneaky and top secret if we're getting a U2 album this year and tour the next.

ONE is going to spend a good $30m to get their issues on the table and part of the debate. no partisanship.

i can't see U2 not doing something to back up that kind of investment.

 

[jphelmet]

your staff probably has lots of conference calls with Bono as well.

please tell me that one conference calls are not spent talking about what u2 are doing in the studio.

i'm sure bono is going to take that time to fill in the one staff on what u2's next move will be.