Passengers & Million Dollar Hotel

[Salome]

I've always wondered why people reckon Passengers counts as a U2 album while Million Dollar Hotel hardly gets any mention
while in my mind the band's input is about the same for both albums
though Million Dollar Hotel is more clear in who was involved in what

anyway
I enjoy Million Dollar Hotel a lot more than Passengers
this mostly has to do with me finding very little interesting on Passengers as soon as Miss Sarajevo is over

what the 2 albums definitely have in common is that the hightlights appear as soon as U2 becomes recognisable
Slug, Your Blue Room, Miss Sarajevo, Ground Beneath Her Feet, Stateless, (I'd count Falling at Your Feet even) and of course The First Time

anyway
not quite sure what point I wanted to make
but there you go

 

[Chill Mike D]

I enjoy everything on Passengers except for Elvis Ate America. The first track is ok but could stand to be much shorter.

 

[Popmartijn]

I've always wondered why people reckon Passengers counts as a U2 album while Million Dollar Hotel hardly gets any mention
while in my mind the band's input is about the same for both albums
though Million Dollar Hotel is more clear in who was involved in what

Nah, I think that the band's input in the Million Dollar Hotel soundtrack is a lot less than on Passengers. Bono has a lot of input, but not the others. So that's my reason not to count it as a U2 album. BTW, I also consider Original Soundtracks 1 not a U2 album, but as an at times interesting side project.

 

[Utoo]

I argue that Passengers is part of the catalog, whereas MDH isn't mainly because U2 as a band worked on most of Passengers, whereas MDH was primarily a Bono project with glimpses of U2 (rarely as a full band, mind you). MDH per U2wanderer.org:

Bono was the executive producer for the entire soundtrack and performs on "Never Let Me Go", "Satellite of Love" and the Danny Saber Remix, "Falling at Your Feet", and "Dancin' Shoes". U2 as a band contribute "The Ground Beneath Her Feet", "Stateless", and "The First Time". Larry performs on "Never Let Me Go", "Satellite of Love", "Anarchy in the UK" and "Falling at Your Feet". Adam performs on "Anarchy in the UK".

Basically, there's enough of U2 performing and participating on Passengers to say that, even though it was largely guided by Eno, it at least shows somewhat of where U2 were at the time---the "experimental," "different" period between Zooropa and Pop. In a way, it's musically a bridge between the two albums. You might be able to say the same about MDH and ATYCLB, but to me, there just wasn't enough participation of U2 as whole there to make that argument.

 

[kennerado]

Both these albums are pretty damn good in their own way.

 

[lazarus]

Two songs plus one old song with full band does not equal a U2 album. Plus you have a few instrumentals and covers that weren't even written by the band at all.

As far as we know, the whole band did play on every (or nearly every) track on Passengers, so there's really no reason to say it's not U2. Brian Eno was more involved from a conceptual standpoint, but probably didn't do much more playing than he normally does. As far as "writing" goes, I imagine a lot of these came out of studio jams, which again is part of their normal process.

The fact that there was even a debate whether or not to release it under U2's name, and that it was the band who decided against it, is all I need to hear.

 

[LemonMelon]

I've always wondered why people reckon Passengers counts as a U2 album while Million Dollar Hotel hardly gets any mention
while in my mind the band's input is about the same for both albums

Incorrect. U2 was involved with recording nearly every track on Passengers, and decided the tracklisting. U2 as a whole was only involved on a couple of tracks on MDH, with Bono himself on a few others.

 

[U2girl]

It's true that the band was involved more with Passengers (and there are too many jams/instrumentals to call it a regular U2 album). But more importantly, so was Eno (in comparison to U2 albums).

"He's the captain of this ship" as Bono said.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Two songs plus one old song with full band does not equal a U2 album. Plus you have a few instrumentals and covers that weren't even written by the band at all.

As far as we know, the whole band did play on every (or nearly every) track on Passengers, so there's really no reason to say it's not U2. Brian Eno was more involved from a conceptual standpoint, but probably didn't do much more playing than he normally does. As far as "writing" goes, I imagine a lot of these came out of studio jams, which again is part of their normal process.

The fact that there was even a debate whether or not to release it under U2's name, and that it was the band who decided against it, is all I need to hear.

Correct.

 

[DrTeeth]

I think Passenger is an extremely interesting album, while I hardly ever listen to MDH. Having said that, I've always thought that U2 should make a record in TGBHF/Stateless style.

 

[Tizer]

I like the way Bono describes these two albums as the 'prize' for being a U2 fan (paraphrasing obviously). Listen to MDH a lot more than Passengers. Both have really strong 'side one's and 'Never let me go' on MDH is an all time favourite. Superb vocal from Bono.

 

[Bonochick]

I don't consider either of them to be a U2 album...although having "Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" credited elsewhere as being U2 songs kind of ruins the whole keeping U2 and Passengers separate thing.

 

[morgan1098]

Wasn't "Passengers" originally going to be released as a U2 album until Island Records got worried that an album of eerie instrumentals wouldn't go over well? In other words, I think U2 and Eno themselves considered it to be a U2 album until the record company convinced them to release it under a different name.

 

[Ellay]

I have to admit, I find it an effort to listen to either of these two albums..

I'm definitely in the Larry camp.

 

[PookaMacP]

Wasn't "Passengers" originally going to be released as a U2 album until Island Records got worried that an album of eerie instrumentals wouldn't go over well? In other words, I think U2 and Eno themselves considered it to be a U2 album until the record company convinced them to release it under a different name.

In his diary of 1995, A Year With Swollen Appendices (great title by the way and great book), Eno says the following:

[10 August]
'....Working with Cally at Bron. He talked me out of the Always Forever Now bull's-eye cover and explained that Island were nervous about the record confusing U2's public profile. I resisted to the last, for a whole ten minutes, and said I thought everyone was being bloody cowards: "Isn't this the sort of liberty that that kind of success is meant to earn you?" But I see the point: one doesn't want to sell things "under false pretences" - especially to an audience that might not be in a position to just write off an unwelcome record to "experience". Instead we came up with the "Passengers" idea...'

[11 August]
'...Expounded "Passengers" concept to the band - which went down well, Bono getting straight behind it. We all think that a U2/Eno record couldn't be discreetly released - would be hyped by stores as "the next U2 record"... Also the new "Wanderer" (an old edit I'd found among my tapes) was an immediate success - Bono wanted it as a song on their next record...'

Original Soundtracks 1 remains a really good record, if one that might have done with a bit of editing. I don't agree that it dies after 'Miss Sarajevo' - 'Ito Okashi', the brilliant 'One Minute Warning', 'Theme from the Swan', and the soundcheck-looped-into-song-by-Eno 'Theme from Let's Go Native' are all great additions. But it's the transition from 'A Different Kind of Blue' to 'Beach Sequence' to 'Miss Sarajevo' that's just perfect.

Re Million Dollar Hotel. I certainly wouldn't put it down as a U2 album nor even a U2 with a bit of Bono album - there's simply too much of a further group of musicians on there for that. But what I would agree on is that we'd all like to see those ideas in 'Never Let Me Go', 'Stateless' and 'Dancing Shoes' taken to another level. Which is what makes me so hopeful for the next album, by the way, since Eno and Lanois were both heavily involved in 'Never Let Me Go'.

Edit: How about that old edit of 'Wanderer' that Eno 'found' on his tapes - any chance we'll ever see that on the re-masters?

 

[morgan1098]

Thanks for the Eno quotes. Good stuff! Based on this I'd say Passengers definitely qualifies as a U2 album while MDH is a compilation with some U2 tracks on it.

 

[lazarus]

That Wanderer thing confused me. I don't think they would put a new version of an just-released song as a track on a new album. Is it possible he's talking about something along the same lines as the original? Wake Up Dead Man is also kind of a sci-fi country song, so that's what first came to mind. It might be why the word Wanderer is in quotes.

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

I enjoy everything on Passengers except for Elvis Ate America.

Is there anyone else who actually doesn't hate Elvis Ate America? I've always loved it and it's a side of Bono I really miss.

 

[U2girl]

Is there anyone else who actually doesn't hate Elvis Ate America? I've always loved it and it's a side of Bono I really miss.

Yes, I never hated it either.

 

[U2girl]

I don't consider either of them to be a U2 album...although having "Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" credited elsewhere as being U2 songs kind of ruins the whole keeping U2 and Passengers separate thing.

Well, I saw a quote from Edge that he and Bono actually sat down to write a couple of more U2-like songs - and that was the result.

 

[popacrobat]

Is there anyone else who actually doesn't hate Elvis Ate America? I've always loved it and it's a side of Bono I really miss.

I don't hate it either

 

[morgan1098]

I don't hate it either but it doesn't really seem to fit on the same album with a bunch of ambient instrumentals and elegant, gorgeous songs like Your Blue Room and Miss Sarajevo. Actually Elvis Ate America might fit better on the Pop album.

 

[Chill Mike D]

I don't hate it but I just find it boring. I don't think it fits with the rest of the album at all. It's in the same vein as a sub-B-side like "Happiness is a Warm Gun."

 

[dan_smee]

I think Passengers is awful. Save for Miss Sarajevo and Your Blue Room, it's almost painful to listen to. I love MDH on the other hand. While it may not be a U2 release (I consider neither a U2 release), it is worthy. Never Let Me Go is amazing, and if solely recorded by U2 would be a cult classic, one for the fans.

 

[bram]

Given the heated arguments about whether Passengers counts as a "U2 album" and that the consensus (on these boards anyway) seems generally to tilt towards NOT a U2 album...how does everyone feel about the next LP then? I'm especially asking those who don't consider Passengers to be a U2 album...because I think with the way Eno and Lanois seem to have become full band members on the next LP, a lot of the arguments for why Passengers is not a U2 LP seem to lose some weight. Well, at least they do if you're going to consider the next album a "U2 album".

 

[Utoo]

^Meh, I'm of the camp that does consider it a U2 album, so I have no issue (I know that your question isn't directed at me ). I think one is fooling oneself if one believes that Eno/Lanois don't write and perform on U2 albums. You can hear Danny's voice all over UF and JT, and there are videos of them playing with them as they record, as well as mapping out and coming up with plans for songs. Passengers may have tilted the scale a bit in that it may have been Eno coming up with most of the music and the band chiming in. But in general, I really do think that the band owe a lot of their post-1983 creativity and success to the dynamic duo, the new album being no different.

 

[Chill Mike D]

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "sticking feathers in your butt does not make you a chicken." The converse of that is "plucking feathers from your butt does not make you not a chicken."

Or, to add another cliche, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

To me Passengers is a U2 album, regardless of what it's called.

 

[morgan1098]

Passengers is SO a U2 album. It features all four members of the band playing on every track, but there's just more input from Eno and various guests. It's more experimental than other U2 albums, sure. It's U2 being experimental and creative and collaborative rather than simply trying to be the "biggest rock and roll band in the world."

It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it IS a U2 album (and as such, it easily beats both Pop and October as the "least popular U2 album"). As mentioned earlier in this thread, U2 and Eno were planning to release it as a U2 album until Island Records convinced them to try the "Passengers" approach. If U2 and Eno considered it a U2 album, it's a U2 album.

 

[bram]

I agree with you both, but there are definitely those who will vehemently argue that Passengers is not a U2 album (as an aside, I think it would be interesting to see the degree to which liking/disliking the album is associated with believing it to be or not to be a U2 album).

I also agree that Eno/Lanois are the George Martin of U2 and ultimately deserve a lot more credit than they are given (at least by non-hardcore U2 fans). Eno and Lanois are the "fifth Beatle" if you will.

 

[Bonochick]

Is there anyone else who actually doesn't hate Elvis Ate America? I've always loved it and it's a side of Bono I really miss.

I like it.