The Feel Of Passengers (A Non "vs. Thread")

[Screwtape2]

Welcome to my sanctuary from the vs. threads.

1. At the time when Pop came out which do you think would have been more successful: a dark, moody album in the vein of Passengers or the colorful album we got in Pop?
2. Do you think an album that feels like OS1 could be successful today?

 

[U2Man]

 

[U2DMfan]

1. A return to basic rock (sorta UF/JT sound)from U2 in 1997 would have been fucking HUGE

to answer your question, the colorful album, minus the irony that was already overdone, would have been even bigger.

Lets not forget this shit wasn't a failure for fucks sake.

2. It's a niche project, period. I dont think U2 could get away without it being called extremely contrived. In 1995, they had burned down their own image and were rewriting it. These days they have resurrected their image into the mold, seen remarkable success, downside is they are stuck with it one way or another.

Reinventions from here on out are going to be seen as suspect, because the band have said what they are all about, why would musical statements outweigh the business aspect in the critics eyes and ears? Fans? Well the fans U2 want don't give a fuck. Literally.

 

[U2Man]

actually passengers is more colourful than pop and pop is darker and bleaker than passengers.

 

[Rachel D.]

1. I think that Pop is misunderstood because it is kind of a combination of colorful and moody, which confused people. It makes a person unsure of the emotions presented by the album. If Pop were to lean one way or another and be less of an emotional sampler, then it would be easier to "figure out."

2. I would say that another Passengers would do well today, but only if non U2 fans were mostly unaware that it had anything to do with U2.