Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
They did seriously consider putting the U2 name on it, and decided not to because of (a) Respecting Eno's expanded role, and (b) they didn't think many U2 fans could handle it as the "!!!!!!!!!!NEW U2 RECORD!!!!!!!!!".
I don't consider it a U2 album, and I don't consider it an Eno album, but I do think it sits firmly in between Zooropa and Pop in the U2 catalogue. I understand the band respecting "U2" as those 4 men, and the inclusion of Eno means it's not those 4 anymore and therefore not U2. And I understand why the band worried about releasing it under the U2 name. They were right - a large % of their fans would have freaked out, never to return.
I disagree with how strongly some people want to shaft it as not a U2 album, as more of an Eno album etc. It started off the same way Zooropa started - the band mucking around, unsure of what they were doing or where it would go. It veered further off into the left field, and did so with a greater role from a non-member of the band. After debating it, they decided the combination of the two was too much for 'U2'. The people who say that if the band had more balls blah blah are kinda right, there's no real good reason why musically they couldn't have released it with the U2 name on it. It was entirely to do with perception and protecting the U2 name, which in itself is completely fair enough IMO. However, the U2 - dare I say it - musical journey doesn't jump from Zooropa to Pop. Passengers is firmly in between there.
My only wish is that U2 realised they do have a second name and mask they can slip into. I'd love to see them spit out Passengers II. "U2" today is not a fertile ground for any seeds of creativity that do not spring a hook driven, catchy, traditional single. If Edge had a sprawling song like Zooropa running through his head today, it would be dissected quickly for the best 10 second section, and that hook harvested into a repetitive hit single. And I do like to imagine U2 as still being a highly creative band, and not one that will just strip everything for it's best bit and turn that best bit into it's basic bit only to dump a basic bit from somewhere else over the top and claim that as its best bit. They do have an avenue there to be both things, !!!!THE BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD!!!! striving for Bono's big wet dream where he writes the catchy song that the whole world is singing in their cars at traffic lights, but also this great, wild musical force, who with 25+ years of experience and influences, are happy and able to create great, interesting, 'quiet' little albums that you can swim in alone in your room, over and over and over again.
I don't consider it a U2 album, and I don't consider it an Eno album, but I do think it sits firmly in between Zooropa and Pop in the U2 catalogue. I understand the band respecting "U2" as those 4 men, and the inclusion of Eno means it's not those 4 anymore and therefore not U2. And I understand why the band worried about releasing it under the U2 name. They were right - a large % of their fans would have freaked out, never to return.
I disagree with how strongly some people want to shaft it as not a U2 album, as more of an Eno album etc. It started off the same way Zooropa started - the band mucking around, unsure of what they were doing or where it would go. It veered further off into the left field, and did so with a greater role from a non-member of the band. After debating it, they decided the combination of the two was too much for 'U2'. The people who say that if the band had more balls blah blah are kinda right, there's no real good reason why musically they couldn't have released it with the U2 name on it. It was entirely to do with perception and protecting the U2 name, which in itself is completely fair enough IMO. However, the U2 - dare I say it - musical journey doesn't jump from Zooropa to Pop. Passengers is firmly in between there.
My only wish is that U2 realised they do have a second name and mask they can slip into. I'd love to see them spit out Passengers II. "U2" today is not a fertile ground for any seeds of creativity that do not spring a hook driven, catchy, traditional single. If Edge had a sprawling song like Zooropa running through his head today, it would be dissected quickly for the best 10 second section, and that hook harvested into a repetitive hit single. And I do like to imagine U2 as still being a highly creative band, and not one that will just strip everything for it's best bit and turn that best bit into it's basic bit only to dump a basic bit from somewhere else over the top and claim that as its best bit. They do have an avenue there to be both things, !!!!THE BIGGEST BAND IN THE WORLD!!!! striving for Bono's big wet dream where he writes the catchy song that the whole world is singing in their cars at traffic lights, but also this great, wild musical force, who with 25+ years of experience and influences, are happy and able to create great, interesting, 'quiet' little albums that you can swim in alone in your room, over and over and over again.