Happy Tenth Birthday 'Passengers: Original Soundtracks Vol 1'

[Axver]

No. Those songs don't sound anywhere near as Enosque as the ones I mentioned.


I cannot really believe we are discussing whether an album that wasn't even labelled as a U2 album, was a U2 album?

But Zooropa, Numb, and Lemon sound nothing like material 1987 U2 would have written.

Do I have to bring up my Shihad/Pacifier example again?

Really, the Zooropa album pointed clearly to Passengers; Passengers is the progression of the ideas that were coming through earlier. Why not consider it a U2 album?

 

[Lancemc]

You entire last post is totally irrelevant Axver.

A work with a producers influence is 100% a different case than a band collaborating with another artist/producer. Why is The Unforgettable Fire a U2 album? Because U2 created, wrote, developed and recorded their own original material to make a U2 album. Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois simply served as producers (offering musical "guidance" advice, and physically recording and mastering the album for them).

Passengers on the other hand was U2 coming up with an idea and possible direction, meeting up with Eno who proposed the soundtrack idea and a collaborative effort between himself, the band, and other "Passengers" Howie B, Holi, and Pavoratti. they even considered Eno their "captain" during the recording process. He was obviously the primary force in directing where the project would go thematically, what songs are developed furthur/placed on the record, and really writing over half of the compositions on the album and personally contributing to all of them.

Big difference.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

But it's worked well: "It's not a U2 record, it's a U2-Brian Eno record, so it's much better," says the singer."

Which most of us would agree with. That doesn't mean track A is U2 and track B is Brian Eno. It means, as the band have said, it's Brian Eno playing the 5th band member, ie, a collaboration.

Look, the way I see it is this: Whenever U2 have needed that synthy/atmospheric/electronic touch to the songs, it's been either Eno led or Eno created. He's always collaborated with them, or even driven them/'captained' them, but it's always been just minimal enough to not count in the same way. However, by Zooropa you can clearly hear the 'further down that path' is U2's creative direction. Passengers musicaly in every way is the logical next step for them, yet it's something none of them do (exclusively), and who do they call? Surprise, Eno. It's a U2 creation. It comes from U2. It's a shot off into left field that reflects U2's own creativity heading straight into Eno's natural turf. His collaboration - something that had been a big part of the soul of several other U2 albums - was always naturally going to expand the further down that path they went. In this case it was large enough to warrant more than a producer status, but a band member status, and in which case to them, warranted a new band name as the U2 line up doesn't change. If you can't hear or understand that that was where U2 was headed, and where they naturally went all on their own, then I can't help you. If you can't understand Eno's role in that, why it happened and how it happened, then I can't help you. It's a U2 album with an expanded Eno role. It's that simple. I think they could have easily named it a U2 album and just hyped Eno as a formal band member on it. It certainly would have put off a lot of fans, so I understand them not doing it, but it makes as much sense to me.

 

[U2Man]

New Zealand rock group Shihad have released material under the name Pacifier and it is still considered part of the Shihad canon. By the same logic, U2 released an album under the name Passengers and it can still be considered part of the U2 canon.

Progressive rock group Dream Theater brought James LaBrie into their band to be their vocalist. Dream Theater itself is essentially Petrucci/Myung/Portnoy, but no-one considers their vocal songs to be some other band, some Dream Theater + LaBrie hybrid group. By the same logic, U2 can invite in Brian Eno to make music with them and it can still be considered to be a U2 project. Other bands have invited in additional musicians and they haven't been considered to be a different group just because they have an extra member(s).

So if Dream Theater is legitimately Dream Theater with or without James LaBrie and if Shihad's Pacifier material is part of the Shihad canon - both of which are true statements - then Passengers can be comfortably assimilated into the U2 canon even though it's not under the U2 name and involves Brian Eno as a fully fledged band member.

So what are we actually discussing here? Whether Brian Eno invited U2, Luciano Pavarotti, Howie B and Holi to appear on his project, or U2 were the ones who invited the others? Well, listening to the music, I'd say again that this is principally Brian Eno's work, so it should be assimilated into the Brian Eno cannon, if it should be assimilated into anything.

 

[Axver]

A work with a producers influence is 100% a different case than a band collaborating with another artist/producer. Why is The Unforgettable Fire a U2 album? Because U2 created, wrote, developed and recorded their own original material to make a U2 album. Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois simply served as producers (offering musical "guidance" advice, and physically recording and mastering the album for them).

They offered 'guidance'? Elvis Presley And America was totally Brian Eno's doing. 4th Of July was never meant to be a U2 track, Eno recorded that, Eno chose it for the album. And where U2 progressed to from War was so clearly guided by Eno. U2 wanted to do something new and Eno gave them the focus.

As someone earlier posted, after Zooropa, U2 again had ideas but needed to be focused. Eno again did that. So again I ask, what's the difference?

But you're obviously never going to accept that such a 'different' album is actually part of the U2 canon so I'm really not seeing the point in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[financeguy]

Well, listening to the music, I'd say again that this is principally Brian Eno's work, so it should be assimilated into the Brian Eno cannon, if it should be assimilated into anything.

I agree entirely. Frankly the only reason we're having this debate is either because Axver refuses to admit when he's wrong, or because Axver refuses to look at the evidence.

I'm done with this thread.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think what I'm trying to say is this: I'm not saying you are wrong to categorise it as 'not a U2 album' in the sense that, well, it IS a Passengers album. What I'm saying is, if you disregard half the tracks on there simply because they sound more Eno than U2 as not being a part of U2's progression or part of U2's music... then seriously, you're flat out wrong. As that musical and creative influence grew within U2, so to did Eno's role. It's natural. It's fine with me. I have zero problem with U2 expanding outside of the 4 original members to satisfy a creative need. They didn't either, except they felt that it shouldn't fall under that name.

 

[Lancemc]

I don't think I'll ever convince you of what I'm saying, since you just assume I'm ignorant to the truth behind the Passengers project or whatever it is you feel the need to keep saying "I can't help you" for. If anything, I think you missunderstand Eno's role in the Passangers project.

You are right in that U2 was definitely heading in this direction by the end of Zooropa. They did act as the catalyst for the whole project, but by the time they were deep into recording, it's clear that Brian Eno was LEADING the entire Passengers team to the eventual outcome of the project. Brian Eno is not just a fifth member contributing his musical talents to the band's next album.

Wherever U2's creative energy was going durign this time in their career, that doesn't change the fact that Original Soundtracks 1 ended up more as an Eno-driven project.

 

[Axver]

I agree entirely. Frankly the only reason we're having this debate is either because Axver refuses to admit when he's wrong, or because Axver refuses to look at the evidence.

I'm done with this thread.

If you can't hear that Passengers is the obvious culmination of ideas that were clearly there on Zooropa, then I'm not quite sure what you're listening to. As Earnie pointed out, the ultimate creative idea behind the entire thing was U2's; this was their direction.

And do I have to bring up UF again? I mean, do you guys want to consider 4th Of July, EPAA, and MLK to be U2 tracks? If so, why not United Colours, One Minute Warning, and Corpse?

 

[U2Man]

I actually think U2 were struggling creatively in this period, which is why Brian Eno overshadowed this project entirely.

 

[Lancemc]

I think what I'm trying to say is this: I'm not saying you are wrong to categorise it as 'not a U2 album' in the sense that, well, it IS a Passengers album. What I'm saying is, if you disregard half the tracks on there simply because they sound more Eno than U2 as not being a part of U2's progression or part of U2's music... then seriously, you're flat out wrong. As that musical and creative influence grew within U2, so to did Eno's role. It's natural. It's fine with me. I have zero problem with U2 expanding outside of the 4 original members to satisfy a creative need. They didn't either, except they felt that it shouldn't fall under that name.

Ok, that's fair enough, but I was never trying to imply that Passengers was never part of U2's creative growth. It clearly is just that.

And from how you explained things in the secod half of that post, I'd agree. While you feel it "in essence" (for lack of a better phrase) is a U2 album, I feel it's not. So, it seems we both understand and agree on where this ablum came from, just have difference viewpoints on what that really MEANS. And that's pretty cool.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Wherever U2's creative energy was going durign this time in their career, that doesn't change the fact that Original Soundtracks 1 ended up more as an Eno-driven project.

Eno as a member of U2. We are probably agreeing on most of our points, I think the only difference is that when I see U2 heading towards it, leap into it and create it, I think "U2". When I see U2 expand the role of their most used and most influential collaborator, as they've headed into his turf, I still think "U2". Just as the Edge's guitar/sonics experiments are what define Achtung in one sense, it's Eno that defines Passengers... to me. He was brought in as a band member, even the most influential, and the name reflects that, but I consider it as a U2 album because it's their path the album is on and it's their inspiration it is satisfying.

 

[Axver]

I actually think U2 were struggling creatively in this period, which is why Brian Eno overshadowed this project entirely.

Well, U2 were on a creative high when they made Zooropa. So what happened?

Seems to me that they were still on their creative high, heading into new territories, but weren't quite sure just where exactly to place their feet, so they brought in Eno.

 

[U2Man]

Well, U2 were on a creative high when they made Zooropa. So what happened?

Seems to me that they were still on their creative high, heading into new territories, but weren't quite sure just where exactly to place their feet, so they brought in Eno.

Yep, and since U2 were struggling, he took control. The end product had Brian Eno listed as the first artist on the cover.

Now I'm done with this thread too.

 

[Nube Gris]

were on a creative high or 'experimental' high?
in this period 00-05 they are pretty much on a creative high

 

[Calluna]

Do I have to bring up my Shihad/Pacifier example again?

I think that is a bad example because if I remember correctly, Shihad changed their name after 911 because it sounded too much like Jihad and then changed it back to Shihad again later on. Same band, different name. The reasons for U2 choosing to call themselves Passengers on this project are very different.

 

[financeguy]

Ok. I would also say that the example of Dream Theatre Axver used is not relevant either. My understanding is that Dream Theatre simply took on additional members over time - big deal, this happens with a lot of bands.

 

[Niceman]

The only track that I skip on this album is Miss Sarajevo. Another u2 track that I couldn't appreciate until I heard it live......

 

[Axver]

Ok. I would also say that the example of Dream Theatre Axver used is not relevant either. My understanding is that Dream Theatre simply took on additional members over time - big deal, this happens with a lot of bands.

And on the same token, U2 took on Brian Eno.

 

[Axver]

I think that is a bad example because if I remember correctly, Shihad changed their name after 911 because it sounded too much like Jihad and then changed it back to Shihad again later on. Same band, different name. The reasons for U2 choosing to call themselves Passengers on this project are very different.

My point was simply that just because 'U2' doesn't appear on the cover doesn't mean it can't be considered as part of the U2 canon.

 

[financeguy]

And on the same token, U2 took on Brian Eno.

Er, no.

Brian Eno collaborated with U2 for the Passengers album, would be closer to the truth.

 

[ZeroDude]

It's a U2/ Brian Eno with guests album.

Really it's as simple as that.

 

[Axver]

Er, no.

Brian Eno collaborated with U2 for the Passengers album, would be closer to the truth.

OK, I agree with that.

 

[Zoots]

Who cares who's album it is?! It's exciting to listen to! That's all that matters.

 

[Hoodlem]

Interesting debate.

I would have to side with the Ax and Earnie on this one. These were recording sessions for a U2 album that was participated by all 4 members of U2. They were working on the next U2 Album! If it had only been Bono and Edge then I would not consider it U2, but it is all four of them. In the end, because it turned out so different or because it involved other people, they decided to not release it as U2. But this is absolutely a part of the U2 canon, and a very vital part. If this is not U2 then, U2 did nothing between '93 and '97. But U2 did not do nothing in that time period, they did this. This fills in that gap nicely. Heck, two of the best U2 songs of the 90's are on this album!

If I went to a record store to by an album by this group "Passengers", where would I find it? Not in the "P" section. No sir, there it is tucked away at the back of the "U2" section. How odd.

 

[chocky]

Axver, do you consider ALT, Crowded House, The Finn Brothers, Tim Finn & Neil Finn as "Split Enz" ?

After all, they have mostly the same musicians and exactly the same vocalists......

Passengers is Passengers, U2 is U2 and the MDH Band is the MDB band. They are not interchangable IMHO.

 

[Clawgrabber]

it is included in "the complete u2" as is the "miss sarajevo" single...

while the MDH band is not, and the Mission Impossible track and the Captive soundtrack and the In The Name Of The Father Songs are not...

so there you go

 

[U2Man]

If I went to a record store to by an album by this group "Passengers", where would I find it? Not in the "P" section. No sir, there it is tucked away at the back of the "U2" section. How odd.

Yes, some record stores put it there. That's true. But why do you think they do that?