Author Topic: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?  (Read 715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,782
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2017, 12:31:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I also catalog the album in with all of my other U2 items, but i do the same with the Turn Off the Dark soundtrack.  Is that a U2 album, no.

Sort of like my MDH Soundtrack.  It's funny how I never put the physical copies of those albums in the "U2" section, but was inclined to sort them that way in iTunes.

Offline WookieeWarrior10

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,737
  • Every Artist is a Cannibal, Every Poet is a Thief.
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2017, 01:34:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

Offline Blueyedboy

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 998
  • Embrace the challenge
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2017, 03:24:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

I'm sure Hawkmoon will answer this point but my own take on the comment is that U2 could've released an album of lullabies in the mid 90's and still sold millions of albums. Removing the U2 name also removed the safety net of guaranteed sales. Pretty much the band saying that this album is good enough to fend for itself.

Whatever the reason, it was the start of U2 finding freedom by not putting their name on the album being released.

Offline ShankAsu

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,698
  • Can't fight for s---, but sure can take a beating
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2017, 03:48:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

I'm sure Hawkmoon will answer this point but my own take on the comment is that U2 could've released an album of lullabies in the mid 90's and still sold millions of albums. Removing the U2 name also removed the safety net of guaranteed sales. Pretty much the band saying that this album is good enough to fend for itself.

Whatever the reason, it was the start of U2 finding freedom by not putting their name on the album being released.
i see what you're saying, i just don't buy it.  it goes against everything we've ever seen the band do.
and i'm not saying the album isn't good, but it isn't a u2 album and the band knew that.  it was always meant to be an experimental side project w Eno in charge.  and luckily one that has a few gems to offer.

Offline Blueyedboy

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 998
  • Embrace the challenge
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2017, 04:12:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

I'm sure Hawkmoon will answer this point but my own take on the comment is that U2 could've released an album of lullabies in the mid 90's and still sold millions of albums. Removing the U2 name also removed the safety net of guaranteed sales. Pretty much the band saying that this album is good enough to fend for itself.

Whatever the reason, it was the start of U2 finding freedom by not putting their name on the album being released.
i see what you're saying, i just don't buy it.  it goes against everything we've ever seen the band do.
and i'm not saying the album isn't good, but it isn't a u2 album and the band knew that.  it was always meant to be an experimental side project w Eno in charge.  and luckily one that has a few gems to offer.

I think your right, and I don't think Island records were gonna argue when they heard the leftfeild output.
The lines get blurred between a U2 or Passengers album when all the usual suspects, including the same producers and record company are involved.

Offline Hawkmoon2e

  • Administrator
  • Running to Stand Still
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,158
  • Deserve's got nothin' to do with it
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2017, 01:16:49 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

I'm sure Hawkmoon will answer this point but my own take on the comment is that U2 could've released an album of lullabies in the mid 90's and still sold millions of albums. Removing the U2 name also removed the safety net of guaranteed sales. Pretty much the band saying that this album is good enough to fend for itself.

Whatever the reason, it was the start of U2 finding freedom by not putting their name on the album being released.
i see what you're saying, i just don't buy it.  it goes against everything we've ever seen the band do.
and i'm not saying the album isn't good, but it isn't a u2 album and the band knew that.  it was always meant to be an experimental side project w Eno in charge.  and luckily one that has a few gems to offer.

I think your right, and I don't think Island records were gonna argue when they heard the leftfeild output.
The lines get blurred between a U2 or Passengers album when all the usual suspects, including the same producers and record company are involved.

I donít really look at it as an Ďeither/orí Ė itís either a U2 album or itís not. Itís like saying that True Romance is either a Quentin Tarantino movie or itís not. He didnít direct it, but he wrote the screenplay, and his fingerprints are all over it. Iím not really sure who the Tarantino is on OS1 (probably Eno), but to me, you have to look at the 90s as a whole with U2 albums.

Passengers is referred to as a side project by many, but a side project is usually an artist, or members of a band going off and doing something different from the band as a whole. When you look at Achtung Baby, we all know it was them dreaming it all up again. Zoo TV was the first time a lot of people saw Bono come out as a completely new and different character in the videos and on stage. I donít think it really was the first time he went into character, but for the sake of this argument, it was the first time he went fully into character. In the early days, the Lypton Village side of him would often show up on stage. (Even his name is a pseudonym.)
Then we get to Zooropa. It was recorded in about 6 weeks, and a lot of it while on the road nevertheless. My point is that everything they were doing was pushing it forward in an unorthodox way. So out of nowhere, this album drops under the moniker Passengers, and itís really to no one in particular. Yes, Eno is all over it, as you well know, but it fits right in with their 90s pattern. I donít think theyíd release anything under any name if it wasnít in the direction they wanted to go. (Even if Eno approached them.)

So my Ď they were arrogant enough to not put their name on ití line comes from what I just wrote, and also a quote by Larry from 2002:

ďThereís a thin line between interesting music and self-indulgence. We crossed it on the Passengers record.Ē

Maybe arrogant should be replaced with self-indulgent, but you get the picture. In the 90s, they really believed that they could do no wrong, and I think a lot of us appreciated that. U2 cared enough to not care, so we got OS1. To say that it isnít a U2 album because their name isnít on it doesnít hold up for me. Their name is all over it. Maybe zoom out and look at it from a 30,000 foot view, and you'll see it.

As an aside, a lot of people think that ATYCLB was U2 returning to U2. But I mostly see Pop as U2 returning to U2 Ė or at least a rock album. But thatís probably for another thread.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 01:22:53 AM by Hawkmoon2e »

Offline WookieeWarrior10

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,737
  • Every Artist is a Cannibal, Every Poet is a Thief.
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2017, 01:37:30 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

I'm sure Hawkmoon will answer this point but my own take on the comment is that U2 could've released an album of lullabies in the mid 90's and still sold millions of albums. Removing the U2 name also removed the safety net of guaranteed sales. Pretty much the band saying that this album is good enough to fend for itself.

Whatever the reason, it was the start of U2 finding freedom by not putting their name on the album being released.
i see what you're saying, i just don't buy it.  it goes against everything we've ever seen the band do.
and i'm not saying the album isn't good, but it isn't a u2 album and the band knew that.  it was always meant to be an experimental side project w Eno in charge.  and luckily one that has a few gems to offer.

I think your right, and I don't think Island records were gonna argue when they heard the leftfeild output.
The lines get blurred between a U2 or Passengers album when all the usual suspects, including the same producers and record company are involved.

I donít really look at it as an Ďeither/orí Ė itís either a U2 album or itís not. Itís like saying that True Romance is either a Quentin Tarantino movie or itís not. He didnít direct it, but he wrote the screenplay, and his fingerprints are all over it. Iím not really sure who the Tarantino is on OS1 (probably Eno), but to me, you have to look at the 90s as a whole with U2 albums.

Passengers is referred to as a side project by many, but a side project is usually an artist, or members of a band going off and doing something different from the band as a whole. When you look at Achtung Baby, we all know it was them dreaming it all up again. Zoo TV was the first time a lot of people saw Bono come out as a completely new and different character in the videos and on stage. I donít think it really was the first time he went into character, but for the sake of this argument, it was the first time he went fully into character. In the early days, the Lypton Village side of him would often show up on stage. (Even his name is a pseudonym.)
Then we get to Zooropa. It was recorded in about 6 weeks, and a lot of it while on the road nevertheless. My point is that everything they were doing was pushing it forward in an unorthodox way. So out of nowhere, this album drops under the moniker Passengers, and itís really to no one in particular. Yes, Eno is all over it, as you well know, but it fits right in with their 90s pattern. I donít think theyíd release anything under any name if it wasnít in the direction they wanted to go. (Even if Eno approached them.)

So my Ď they were arrogant enough to not put their name on ití line comes from what I just wrote, and also a quote by Larry from 2002:

ďThereís a thin line between interesting music and self-indulgence. We crossed it on the Passengers record.Ē

Maybe arrogant should be replaced with self-indulgent, but you get the picture. In the 90s, they really believed that they could do no wrong, and I think a lot of us appreciated that. U2 cared enough to not care, so we got OS1. To say that it isnít a U2 album because their name isnít on it doesnít hold up for me. Their name is all over it. Maybe zoom out and look at it from a 30,000 foot view, and you'll see it.

As an aside, a lot of people think that ATYCLB was U2 returning to U2. But I mostly see Pop as U2 returning to U2 Ė or at least a rock album. But thatís probably for another thread.
Thoughtful post... I very much agree with what you say here.

Offline Blueyedboy

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 998
  • Embrace the challenge
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2017, 06:13:54 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

I'm sure Hawkmoon will answer this point but my own take on the comment is that U2 could've released an album of lullabies in the mid 90's and still sold millions of albums. Removing the U2 name also removed the safety net of guaranteed sales. Pretty much the band saying that this album is good enough to fend for itself.

Whatever the reason, it was the start of U2 finding freedom by not putting their name on the album being released.
i see what you're saying, i just don't buy it.  it goes against everything we've ever seen the band do.
and i'm not saying the album isn't good, but it isn't a u2 album and the band knew that.  it was always meant to be an experimental side project w Eno in charge.  and luckily one that has a few gems to offer.

I think your right, and I don't think Island records were gonna argue when they heard the leftfeild output.
The lines get blurred between a U2 or Passengers album when all the usual suspects, including the same producers and record company are involved.

I donít really look at it as an Ďeither/orí Ė itís either a U2 album or itís not. Itís like saying that True Romance is either a Quentin Tarantino movie or itís not. He didnít direct it, but he wrote the screenplay, and his fingerprints are all over it. Iím not really sure who the Tarantino is on OS1 (probably Eno), but to me, you have to look at the 90s as a whole with U2 albums.

Passengers is referred to as a side project by many, but a side project is usually an artist, or members of a band going off and doing something different from the band as a whole. When you look at Achtung Baby, we all know it was them dreaming it all up again. Zoo TV was the first time a lot of people saw Bono come out as a completely new and different character in the videos and on stage. I donít think it really was the first time he went into character, but for the sake of this argument, it was the first time he went fully into character. In the early days, the Lypton Village side of him would often show up on stage. (Even his name is a pseudonym.)
Then we get to Zooropa. It was recorded in about 6 weeks, and a lot of it while on the road nevertheless. My point is that everything they were doing was pushing it forward in an unorthodox way. So out of nowhere, this album drops under the moniker Passengers, and itís really to no one in particular. Yes, Eno is all over it, as you well know, but it fits right in with their 90s pattern. I donít think theyíd release anything under any name if it wasnít in the direction they wanted to go. (Even if Eno approached them.)

So my Ď they were arrogant enough to not put their name on ití line comes from what I just wrote, and also a quote by Larry from 2002:

ďThereís a thin line between interesting music and self-indulgence. We crossed it on the Passengers record.Ē

Maybe arrogant should be replaced with self-indulgent, but you get the picture. In the 90s, they really believed that they could do no wrong, and I think a lot of us appreciated that. U2 cared enough to not care, so we got OS1. To say that it isnít a U2 album because their name isnít on it doesnít hold up for me. Their name is all over it. Maybe zoom out and look at it from a 30,000 foot view, and you'll see it.

As an aside, a lot of people think that ATYCLB was U2 returning to U2. But I mostly see Pop as U2 returning to U2 Ė or at least a rock album. But thatís probably for another thread.

Interesting thoughts. We need to discuss over a bottle of Jack. DM me when you're free.

Offline lucas.homem

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2017, 10:59:52 AM »
Surely, it's not canon, because it not purely U2. However, it's U2 enough to me. When an album has 5 major composers and 80% of them are from U2, we can say we're listening to their creative proccess.

Offline ShankAsu

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,698
  • Can't fight for s---, but sure can take a beating
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2017, 11:51:39 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

I'm sure Hawkmoon will answer this point but my own take on the comment is that U2 could've released an album of lullabies in the mid 90's and still sold millions of albums. Removing the U2 name also removed the safety net of guaranteed sales. Pretty much the band saying that this album is good enough to fend for itself.

Whatever the reason, it was the start of U2 finding freedom by not putting their name on the album being released.
i see what you're saying, i just don't buy it.  it goes against everything we've ever seen the band do.
and i'm not saying the album isn't good, but it isn't a u2 album and the band knew that.  it was always meant to be an experimental side project w Eno in charge.  and luckily one that has a few gems to offer.

I think your right, and I don't think Island records were gonna argue when they heard the leftfeild output.
The lines get blurred between a U2 or Passengers album when all the usual suspects, including the same producers and record company are involved.

I donít really look at it as an Ďeither/orí Ė itís either a U2 album or itís not. Itís like saying that True Romance is either a Quentin Tarantino movie or itís not. He didnít direct it, but he wrote the screenplay, and his fingerprints are all over it. Iím not really sure who the Tarantino is on OS1 (probably Eno), but to me, you have to look at the 90s as a whole with U2 albums.

Passengers is referred to as a side project by many, but a side project is usually an artist, or members of a band going off and doing something different from the band as a whole. When you look at Achtung Baby, we all know it was them dreaming it all up again. Zoo TV was the first time a lot of people saw Bono come out as a completely new and different character in the videos and on stage. I donít think it really was the first time he went into character, but for the sake of this argument, it was the first time he went fully into character. In the early days, the Lypton Village side of him would often show up on stage. (Even his name is a pseudonym.)
Then we get to Zooropa. It was recorded in about 6 weeks, and a lot of it while on the road nevertheless. My point is that everything they were doing was pushing it forward in an unorthodox way. So out of nowhere, this album drops under the moniker Passengers, and itís really to no one in particular. Yes, Eno is all over it, as you well know, but it fits right in with their 90s pattern. I donít think theyíd release anything under any name if it wasnít in the direction they wanted to go. (Even if Eno approached them.)

So my Ď they were arrogant enough to not put their name on ití line comes from what I just wrote, and also a quote by Larry from 2002:

ďThereís a thin line between interesting music and self-indulgence. We crossed it on the Passengers record.Ē

Maybe arrogant should be replaced with self-indulgent, but you get the picture. In the 90s, they really believed that they could do no wrong, and I think a lot of us appreciated that. U2 cared enough to not care, so we got OS1. To say that it isnít a U2 album because their name isnít on it doesnít hold up for me. Their name is all over it. Maybe zoom out and look at it from a 30,000 foot view, and you'll see it.

As an aside, a lot of people think that ATYCLB was U2 returning to U2. But I mostly see Pop as U2 returning to U2 Ė or at least a rock album. But thatís probably for another thread.
Here's a question for you then based on what yo say about side projects.  Is Lulu a Metallica album?  According to your logic it is, but i think you'd be hard pressed to win that argument.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,782
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2017, 02:07:20 PM »
Lulu, to my knowledge is billed as a "Lou Reed and Metallica" album.  Which at least puts the "Metallica" name on there, rather than saying Lou Reed, James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, etc.--which is what Passengers effectively does.  Passengers also presents an altogether new name for the project, rather than just saying Brian Eno and U2, or even Brian Eno, Bono, Edge, etc.  I think the waters are muddy enough to consider them all subjectively and individually however one sees fit.  If I had Lulu, I'd probably put it under "Metallica" just because it fills the timeline between their "proper" albums.  Likewise, I could also consider it a Lou Reed album if I had a bunch of Lou Reed and that one was left out.

Ultimately, there's no right or wrong answer to this, and not much point arguing either side.  From my perspective, I was interested in grouping as much "U2" material together under their name in iTunes, and moving Passengers by making U2 the album artist made sense.  It also sort of "legitimizes" the album--since I happen to like it, I like seeing it placed alongside their other albums.  (Someone who's not a fan can choose to leave it as "Passengers" to keep it from cluttering up their U2 collection.)  I made a few similar changes to other albums to have them fit where I wanted, too.

Offline Hawkmoon2e

  • Administrator
  • Running to Stand Still
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,158
  • Deserve's got nothin' to do with it
Re: Is Original Soundtracks I a U2 album?
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2017, 12:36:26 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Some people might say that the band was afraid to put their name on it. But to me, itís the oppositeÖ I think they were arrogant enough to not put their name on it.



that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I'm also curious to what this means...

I'm sure Hawkmoon will answer this point but my own take on the comment is that U2 could've released an album of lullabies in the mid 90's and still sold millions of albums. Removing the U2 name also removed the safety net of guaranteed sales. Pretty much the band saying that this album is good enough to fend for itself.

Whatever the reason, it was the start of U2 finding freedom by not putting their name on the album being released.
i see what you're saying, i just don't buy it.  it goes against everything we've ever seen the band do.
and i'm not saying the album isn't good, but it isn't a u2 album and the band knew that.  it was always meant to be an experimental side project w Eno in charge.  and luckily one that has a few gems to offer.

I think your right, and I don't think Island records were gonna argue when they heard the leftfeild output.
The lines get blurred between a U2 or Passengers album when all the usual suspects, including the same producers and record company are involved.

I donít really look at it as an Ďeither/orí Ė itís either a U2 album or itís not. Itís like saying that True Romance is either a Quentin Tarantino movie or itís not. He didnít direct it, but he wrote the screenplay, and his fingerprints are all over it. Iím not really sure who the Tarantino is on OS1 (probably Eno), but to me, you have to look at the 90s as a whole with U2 albums.

Passengers is referred to as a side project by many, but a side project is usually an artist, or members of a band going off and doing something different from the band as a whole. When you look at Achtung Baby, we all know it was them dreaming it all up again. Zoo TV was the first time a lot of people saw Bono come out as a completely new and different character in the videos and on stage. I donít think it really was the first time he went into character, but for the sake of this argument, it was the first time he went fully into character. In the early days, the Lypton Village side of him would often show up on stage. (Even his name is a pseudonym.)
Then we get to Zooropa. It was recorded in about 6 weeks, and a lot of it while on the road nevertheless. My point is that everything they were doing was pushing it forward in an unorthodox way. So out of nowhere, this album drops under the moniker Passengers, and itís really to no one in particular. Yes, Eno is all over it, as you well know, but it fits right in with their 90s pattern. I donít think theyíd release anything under any name if it wasnít in the direction they wanted to go. (Even if Eno approached them.)

So my Ď they were arrogant enough to not put their name on ití line comes from what I just wrote, and also a quote by Larry from 2002:

ďThereís a thin line between interesting music and self-indulgence. We crossed it on the Passengers record.Ē

Maybe arrogant should be replaced with self-indulgent, but you get the picture. In the 90s, they really believed that they could do no wrong, and I think a lot of us appreciated that. U2 cared enough to not care, so we got OS1. To say that it isnít a U2 album because their name isnít on it doesnít hold up for me. Their name is all over it. Maybe zoom out and look at it from a 30,000 foot view, and you'll see it.

As an aside, a lot of people think that ATYCLB was U2 returning to U2. But I mostly see Pop as U2 returning to U2 Ė or at least a rock album. But thatís probably for another thread.
Here's a question for you then based on what yo say about side projects.  Is Lulu a Metallica album?  According to your logic it is, but i think you'd be hard pressed to win that argument.

But Iím not talking about Metallica, or any other band for that matter. Iím talking about U2 in the 90s Ė the band that threw their own rulebook out. We could sit here all day and come up with other examples of bands and side projects, but none of it would fit into what U2 was doing back then. (XTC and The Dukes of Stratosphear anyone?)
I also said that I donít look at it as an ďisĒ or ďisnít,Ē because that would just be following that so called rulebook. Everything the band did in the 90s went against anything we ever saw them do. Itís just how I see it, and Iím good with it. So no, not hard pressed at all.