LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
The other day, I was reading the Passengers section of U2 By U2 while listening to, of all things, David Bowie's Low. The combination was fascinating, and I could hear the influence the album had on Passengers. Which one is better? Ask any critic and they'll say Low. However, none of you are critics, and this is a U2 fan forum, so it should be interesting. Remember, no shots below the belt. 
vs.
My take:
Of the two, the stronger album song-wise would have to be Low. One thing that Passengers does that Low does not is coalesce. Low is a scattershot album filled with fascinating ideas that could have been focused and made into a masterpiece, and Passengers is a more tossed-off affair that sounded even more awkward for U2 than it did for Bowie, but the atmosphere of the record is more consistent and appealing. Though Eno was definitely trying something different with Passengers than he did with Low, there are similarities between the albums:
1. A song-based first half and an instrumental-heavy second.
2. Heavy use of electronic instruments, to a level that neither artist had previously tried.
3. Jarring, cold production.
Or maybe those are just Eno trademarks. Regardless, I think I will give the edge here to Low. Both records are strong, but I'd rather have Low fused into my CD player permanently over Passengers.
PS: Eno didn't actually "produce" Low, but had almost as much to do with the album's creation as Bowie did; writing some of the music himself and playing on the album...which is very similar to what he did with Passengers.
My take:
Of the two, the stronger album song-wise would have to be Low. One thing that Passengers does that Low does not is coalesce. Low is a scattershot album filled with fascinating ideas that could have been focused and made into a masterpiece, and Passengers is a more tossed-off affair that sounded even more awkward for U2 than it did for Bowie, but the atmosphere of the record is more consistent and appealing. Though Eno was definitely trying something different with Passengers than he did with Low, there are similarities between the albums:
1. A song-based first half and an instrumental-heavy second.
2. Heavy use of electronic instruments, to a level that neither artist had previously tried.
3. Jarring, cold production.
Or maybe those are just Eno trademarks. Regardless, I think I will give the edge here to Low. Both records are strong, but I'd rather have Low fused into my CD player permanently over Passengers.
PS: Eno didn't actually "produce" Low, but had almost as much to do with the album's creation as Bowie did; writing some of the music himself and playing on the album...which is very similar to what he did with Passengers.
Last edited:
I haven't really been able to get into Low or Bowie in general all that much. 
I do like a handful of songs but it hasn't made me return to his material. But this thread is making me want to give Low another chance.
Actually, I've never heard Low, so I can't really say much on this thread.
)
