Clash of the Eno-produced experimental albums: Passengers vs. Low

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Canadiens1160 said:
:lol:

I was waiting for someone else to go after that one....

And now we have to wait patiently for the response. :slant:

This is why arguing in real life is better, because you can see the look of the person's face when they've been owned and dump beer on their head. :drool:
 
U2_Guy said:


Bowie's career is a footnote in any musical encyclopedia if compared to U2's carrer.

This is a discography of David Bowie's studio albums. See David Bowie discography for details about singles and other albums.

1. David Bowie (1967)
2. Space Oddity (1969, UK #17, US #16)
3. The Man Who Sold the World (1970, UK #26)
4. Hunky Dory (1971, UK #3, US #93)
5. The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars (1972, UK #5, US #75)
6. Aladdin Sane (1973, UK #1, US #17)
7. Pin Ups (1973, UK #1, US #23)
8. Diamond Dogs (1974, UK #1, US #5)
9. Young Americans (1975, UK #2, US #9)
10. Station to Station (1976, UK #5, US #3)
11. Low (1977, UK #2, US #11)
12. "Heroes" (1977, UK #3, US #35)
13. Lodger (1979, UK #4, US #20)
14. Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) (1980, UK #1, US #12)
15. Christiane F. (1981, US #135)
16. Let's Dance (1983, UK #1, US #4)
17. Tonight (1984, UK #1, US #11)
18. Never Let Me Down (1987, UK #6, US #34)
19. Tin Machine (with Tin Machine) (1989, UK #3, US #28)
20. Tin Machine II (with Tin Machine) (1991, UK #23, US #126)
21. Black Tie White Noise (1993, UK #1, US #39)
22. The Buddha of Suburbia (1993, UK #87)
23. Outside (1995, UK #8, US #21)
24. Earthling (1997, UK #6, US #39)
25. 'hours...' (1999, UK #5, US #47)
26. Heathen (2002, UK #5, US #14)
27. Reality (2003, UK #3, US #29)

40 years in music and still going strong.

Without David Bowie, there would be no U2, Bono has even stated that listening to "Low" as a child changed his life.

I believe it was either in the Rolling Stone article or Bono in Conversation novel.

U2_Guy said:


I'm puzzled. What does it have to do with the discussion?

And no, Flea is technically better.

But Adam is just better. Like The Edge is better than the Satriani's and Steve Vai's of this world...

It has everything to do with the conversation.

How is Adam better than any other bassist, especially one more technically better?

As a whole, Bono, The Edge, Adam, and Larry cannot be topped. But you take them apart, and I believe Adam and Larry are average at best, The Edge is very good, but by no means original, and Bono has one of the better vocal ranges of any rock singer in the world today.

I know music is subjective and whatever, but to say Low is worse than Passengers is like saying a Coldplay album is better than a U2 album.

It's the influenced against the influencer.
 
Last edited:
LemonMacPhisto said:
I know music is subjective and whatever, but to say Low is worse than Passengers is like saying a Coldplay album is better than a U2 album.

It's the influenced against the influencer.

Not quite...unless Bono or Edge came into the studio and helped Coldplay record one of those albums, like Eno did with Passengers.
 
Wow. This is the most lopsided vs. thread I've ever seen. Low is an all-time masterpiece. I can't even begin to explain why Low is an infinitely better than Passengers. So just take my word for it for now. :wink:
 
Lancemc said:
Wow. This is the most lopsided vs. thread I've ever seen. Low is an all-time masterpiece. I can't even begin to explain why Low is an infinitely better than Passengers. So just take my word for it for now. :wink:

:up:
 
"Low" by a landslide. I could never really get into Passengers... maybe a couple of songs, at the most. LOL.
 
LemonMelon said:


And now we have to wait patiently for the response. :slant:

This is why arguing in real life is better, because you can see the look of the person's face when they've been owned and dump beer on their head. :drool:

The problem with real life are the real muscles...
:wink:
 
Zootlesque said:
But this thread is making me want to give Low another chance.

I'm really digging Low this morning...

Always Crashing In The Same Car :drool:

Can't get into What In The World much :|

Warzawa :love:
 
Low is one of the greatest records ever made. While I love OST1, Low wins by a whisker simply out of principle for me! :drool:
 
ps.

U2_Guy said:
Bowie's career is a footnote in any musical encyclopedia if compared to U2's carrer.
Aaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...




...hahahahahaha
 
Now seriously, it's obvious Bowie is not a footnote like i said (that was so obvious it didn't need a wink) but U2 is more relevant than Bowie, yes. U2 competes with The Beatles as the greatest band ever. Bowie is in a second category...

Sometimes he just jumps on the bandwagon and he has done many bad albums during his career. U2 never made a truly bad album.

Of course, U2 and many 80's acts were influenced by Bowie but some of them surpassed the master. Dave Gahan, for example, would not exist without Bowie, but Depeche Mode (in my opinion) is much greater than the Chameleon.

And i still think Heroes is miles better than Low.
 
Last edited:
xaviMF22 said:


HTDAAB....worst piece of music my "elite" ears have heard .....:yuck:

Not a big fan either. It's the worst U2 record. But i don't think it's a bad record. U2's like sex and pizza: even when it's bad, it's still good...
 
U2_Guy said:
Now seriously, it's obvious Bowie is not a footnote like i said (that was so obvious it didn't need a wink) but U2 is more relevant than Bowie, yes. U2 competes with The Beatles as the greatest band ever. Bowie is in a second category...

Sometimes he just jumps on the bandwagon and he has done many bad albums during his career. U2 never made a truly bad album.

Of course, U2 and many 80's acts were influenced by Bowie but some of them surpassed the master. Dave Gahan, for example, would not exist without Bowie, but Depeche Mode (in my opinion) is much greater than the Chameleon.

And i still think Heroes is miles better than Low.

There is no U2 - as we know it - without David Bowie.
Don't say that Bowie is less relevant than U2, that's not true. Today... yeah, he's less talked and visible, but not in the past and in general.
 
Aygo said:


There is no U2 - as we know it - without David Bowie.
Don't say that Bowie is less relevant than U2, that's not true. Today... yeah, he's less talked and visible, but not in the past and in general.

I disagree.

It's not about being talked and visible. It's about making quality music. Bowie's last great album was in the... the... early 80's... :huh:

U2 was/is relevant for 30 years now.

Bowie was relevant for 15 years...
 
U2_Guy said:


I disagree.

It's not about being talked and visible. It's about making quality music. Bowie's last great album was in the... the... early 80's... :huh:

U2 was/is relevant for 30 years now.

Bowie was relevant for 15 years...

WTF???
Have you been paying attention to music industry (mainly in the UK) and to Bowie's work? Surely not!!!

Okay, keep the wheels, I'll take the bicycle with me...
 
Aygo said:


WTF???
Have you been paying attention to music industry (mainly in the UK) and to Bowie's work? Surely not!!!

Okay, keep the wheels, I'll take the bicycle with me...

I could ask you the same.

It's common sense that Bowie doesn't make a great record since God knows when... maybe Scary Monsters... or Let's Dance (for some)...

Earthling?? Black Tie White Noise?? Hours?? Heathen?? Reality?? You must be kidding...

1.Outside was the only good (not great) Bowie record after Scary Monsters.
 
Back
Top Bottom