what do you (right now) expect the new album to be like?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


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.
:up:
 
I don't think it's just Bono who wants the band to reach as many people as possible
I think Larry would fancy Passengers II a lot less than Bono even

I also think every member of the band would like to release an album they're able to take on tour
I think that's the real main reason it's not a U2 album

besides that: Passengers isn't the holy grail
it doesn't contain more inspired moments than any U2 album
 
Salome said:
I don't think it's just Bono who wants the band to reach as many people as possible


It's not just him, despite posts claiming that.

And I really don't think selling (or not) had anything to do with Passengers being called that. You can't call it a U2 album when Briano Eno had such a big role.
 
Last edited:
No, I certainly don't think it's only Bono, in fact, there seems to be more evidence to suggest that Bono is virtually the only adventurous one left. I guess he's the mouthpiece though, so U2's goals always just seem to come across as Bono's.
 
gherman said:
I hope U2 never claims that Passengers is a U2 album because it would devalue thier album collection more than Zooropa:(

Hey, you never know, one day they may release a "U2 ROCKS!!!" collection and it will drift from I Will Follow into Sunday Bloody Sunday into Bullet into The Fly into Gone and eventually into All Because of You, at which point you'll understand what devaluing a collection truly means. The strength of U2's catalogue is in two things: Diversity and quality. Passengers is high quality. If you don't like it, that's fine, but it is very good as what it is, which isn't the Joshua Tree, but is something very good for many all the same. While it isn't and shouldn't be considered a full blown U2 album for the reasons I listed above, I think of it as part of their catalogue, and I think it only increases the value of their catalogue. U2 would have been dead and buried a long, long time ago if they'd only released 5 Wars and 5 Joshua Trees. Just alternated between the rock album and the anthem album. It gives nothing.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
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!!!!!!!!!".


Curious, where did you read this? If its an interview with Bono dont believe the hype. But I'm still curious when and where the band said this.

From what I remember at the time the project was purely a side project because they wanted to work with Eno in a different role and do something different that wouldnt have the U2 tag on it. But that seems to fly right in the face of what you said here.
 
Here's a question:

If Passengers is really not a U2 album, then what happens when U2 plays Miss Sarajevo live? Are they playing a cover, or have they momentarily become the Passengers, their more creative alter-egos? :hmm:
 
I don't have the encyclopedic mind some U2 fans have, so can't remember specific articles/interviews etc, but from what I remember from the time it all started off in a similar way to Zooropa. What begins as Edge mucking around turns into the band mucking around and the whole thing organicaly grew in that direction, Eno's expanded role included. At some point, again similar to Zooropa, they had to stop and say "What are we making here?" and that's when decisions were made.

Nothing I have read suggests that they sat down from the get go with the goal of making a side project with Eno drafted in as a fully fledged band member. Everything I've read suggests they just ran with whatever and didn't work out what it was until they were right in the thick of it. Using the films and everything was certainly a new way of going about it, but even that wasn't a part of the process from the very beginning.

Disclaimer is that I haven't read U2 by U2, which seems to be pretty thorough in detailing these things. Although, if you don't believe the Bono hype, you shouldn't believe the U2 Revisionist History hype either. I might hunt around the internets for Passengers era articles.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I don't have the encyclopedic mind some U2 fans have, so can't remember specific articles/interviews etc, but from what I remember from the time it all started off in a similar way to Zooropa. What begins as Edge mucking around turns into the band mucking around and the whole thing organicaly grew in that direction, Eno's expanded role included. At some point, again similar to Zooropa, they had to stop and say "What are we making here?" and that's when decisions were made.

Nothing I have read suggests that they sat down from the get go with the goal of making a side project with Eno drafted in as a fully fledged band member. Everything I've read suggests they just ran with whatever and didn't work out what it was until they were right in the thick of it. Using the films and everything was certainly a new way of going about it, but even that wasn't a part of the process from the very beginning.

Disclaimer is that I haven't read U2 by U2, which seems to be pretty thorough in detailing these things. Although, if you don't believe the Bono hype, you shouldn't believe the U2 Revisionist History hype either. I might hunt around the internets for Passengers era articles.

I'm not trying to challenge you here. You said the band indicated this and I had never heard that before anywhere. Thats why I asked. Even your other response suggests the band does not consider it a U2 album. If they indeed considered putting the U2 tag on it but because of Eno's greater involvement they didnt want to do that. Doesnt that pretty sum up what I said previously? I said its not a U2 album because Eno wrote and co wrote some of the songs which he does not do when its a U2 album. :shrug:

Anyway, I said I wouldnt argue about it and here I'am arguing. If you want to think of it as a U2 album, go for it. I dont think it is for he reasons I outlined.

I will say I think that album is a piece of shit, so maybe that is what is driving me on this. If it was a U2 album it would be the only one I completely dislike.
 
Blue Room said:

I will say I think that album is a piece of shit, so maybe that is what is driving me on this. If it was a U2 album it would be the only one I completely dislike.

I think that's what drives most people who think Passengers should sit under 'P' in their collections, and not under 'U' in between Zooropa and Pop. Which, whether it's a U2 album or not, is where I think it should rightfully sit. I don't think it's a U2 album, but I do think it was U2's next album after Zooropa, and U2's last album before Pop. It fits in there perfectly in every way. The members in the band that made it just weren't totally U2, so it's not a U2 album.

In summary: It's not a U2 album, but it is U2's album. Ya dig?
 
LemonMelon said:
Here's a question:

If Passengers is really not a U2 album, then what happens when U2 plays Miss Sarajevo live? Are they playing a cover, or have they momentarily become the Passengers, their more creative alter-egos? :hmm:

I remember an Edge quote when he said he and Bono felt they needed a couple of U2 songs on Passengers - Miss Sarajevo and Your blue room came out of that. (at the time, Miss Sarajevo single wasn't released under the U2 banner was it?)

I know, I know, the songs made it onto 90's Best of etc etc. But that doesn't change that they weren't ready to call it a U2 album in 1995 or at any time later.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I don't have the encyclopedic mind some U2 fans have, so can't remember specific articles/interviews etc, but from what I remember from the time it all started off in a similar way to Zooropa. What begins as Edge mucking around turns into the band mucking around and the whole thing organicaly grew in that direction, Eno's expanded role included. At some point, again similar to Zooropa, they had to stop and say "What are we making here?" and that's when decisions were made.

Nothing I have read suggests that they sat down from the get go with the goal of making a side project with Eno drafted in as a fully fledged band member. Everything I've read suggests they just ran with whatever and didn't work out what it was until they were right in the thick of it. Using the films and everything was certainly a new way of going about it, but even that wasn't a part of the process from the very beginning.

Disclaimer is that I haven't read U2 by U2, which seems to be pretty thorough in detailing these things. Although, if you don't believe the Bono hype, you shouldn't believe the U2 Revisionist History hype either. I might hunt around the internets for Passengers era articles.

I agree with you. I have been a U2 fan for over 20 years and have read absolutely everything about them throughout most of that time. I remember reading the same thing you did, it came from the band direct, can't remember where but it was a long time ago afterall. Passengers is much better than any of their albums from this century, although I do like ATYCLB and HTDAAB, just I preferred it when my favourite band of all time were interesting./
 
An Cat Gav said:

Passengers is much better than any of their albums from this century, although I do like ATYCLB and HTDAAB, just I preferred it when my favourite band of all time were interesting./

:up::up:
 
if 'interesting' means that brian eno has to provide 80% of the creative stuff, then i doubt that you guys are true u2 fans.
 
U2Man said:
if 'interesting' means that brian eno has to provide 80% of the creative stuff

When did I ever say that? Calling Passengers interesting doesn't automatically make U2's albums uninteresting.
 
I agree with Bono that the "rock has to go."

They seem to feel obligated to create these riffy guitar rock songs, but I don't think it's their true strength or beauty. If they had this mindset twenty years ago, a lot of JT would have ended up in the trash. Think of the majesty of "Streets" - not really a "rock" song, but it kills live - way more powerful than these rock singles they are cobbling together lately.

I would love for them to record a record without worrying about how to play it live.
 
Zootlesque said:


When did I ever say that? Calling Passengers interesting doesn't automatically make U2's albums uninteresting.

hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm...


An Cat Gav said:

Passengers is much better than any of their albums from this century, although I do like ATYCLB and HTDAAB, just I preferred it when my favourite band of all time were interesting./

Zootlesque said:
 
U2Man said:


hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm...

:banghead:

But I find Achtung Baby, Joshua Tree, Pop, UF, Zooropa, War etc. interesting and in those albums Eno hasn't provided 80% of the creative stuff! Do you get what I'm saying now? U2 doesn't need Eno to be interesting.
 
well, what is being said here is still, that you find an album where brian eno has provided 80% of the creative stuff to be more interesting than two albums where every single song is clearly a pure u2 composition.

that sounds a little odd to me, considering it is supposed to come from a true u2 fan.
 
U2Man said:
well, what is being said here is still, that you find an album where brian eno has provided 80% of the creative stuff to be more interesting than two albums where every single song is clearly a pure u2 composition.

that sounds a little odd to me, considering it is supposed to come from a true u2 fan.

What is difficult to understand? I'd agree with that statement as well and I don't see how there's anything wrong with that coming from a 'true' U2 album.
 
Back
Top Bottom