Amen.
Album cover - Fanning - SoE
- Thread starter Maassie
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Amen.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I didn't say they do, I sais they're always trying too which leads many times to the opposite of what was intended.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Of course. There's nothing punk rock about the record. The music is mainstream, Apple is mainstream, iTunes is mainstream, the commercial is mainstream. And giving it away for free is hardly revolutionary. There's nothing punk rock about U2. At best they were post-punk for about 5 minutes in the early 80's. This cover, if they go with it, would definitely be bold however. I don't have an issue with it but I wouldn't mock or dismiss the people that would either. And I would still be really surprised if they didn't at least put a slip cover on the outside of it.
It is a great record...I like it more and more all the time and there's not a single song that I skip. It's nowhere near as adventurous as their best work, but I guess it doesn't have to be. It's a solid collection of songs that's easy to listen to. That cover with Larry, if it's used, would actually be a little deceptive for what's essentially a very mainstream collection of pop and rock tunes.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Oh, I didn't realize the general public and media spent hours nitpicking and arguing about every move the band makes and the intent behind it, like we do.
Oh, I didn't realize the general public and media spent hours nitpicking and arguing about every move the band makes and the intent behind it, like we do.
You dont have to spend hours nitpicking about the album cover,all they will have to do is look at it and the stories will be written
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Yeah, it will get talked about, but it will just be another pop-culture story about some bullshit that will get breathlessly talked about on social media and the "24 hours news cycle" until some other bullshit pop-culture story like Justin Bieber getting arrested pushes it aside.
Rinse, lather, repeat. People will wring their hands, we'll discuss it ad nauseum here, then people will forget about it, and we'll be arguing about setlists in no time.
I think it's really a stretch to think that this will do U2 any actual "damage," to record sales, ticket sales or their general reputation.
Rinse, lather, repeat. People will wring their hands, we'll discuss it ad nauseum here, then people will forget about it, and we'll be arguing about setlists in no time.
I think it's really a stretch to think that this will do U2 any actual "damage," to record sales, ticket sales or their general reputation.
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
at the risk of sounding like a U2 fan, they could put 11 penises on the cover of the album and im still going to buy it. Not because i like 11 penises, rather because the album is really good, in fact, its Solid all the way through. Nothing limp about it. Even at it's weakest point it's not shooting blanks.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
And any knuckle-draggers who are going to be all "LOL GROSS OMG THAT'S GAY" about it weren't going to buy the record anyway.
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
yeah most likely, if anything its just more shit to get people talking about it and them, which generates more interest i suppose
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
And, umm, everyone has the album already.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Except for those people who bitched about it and deleted it, and then will realize later that they really actually want it. 
It's more the idea that U2 felt the need to do things aside from the music to gain attention with this entire release when it wasn't necessary that bothers me.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I really think we should distinguish between someone having a homophobic reaction to this shot, and others who may feel (rightly or wrongly) that the shot may be suggestive in an inappropriate way involving what appears to be a child.
I don't find it offensive in the least, but some will for the latter reason (especially if initial reactions here are any indication...and these are U2 fans).
In any event, I don't think we should be lumping people who might find the image offensive in one way (sexualisation of a child) with those who are merely bigoted homophobes, because to do so is to conflate homosexuality with pedophelia, however unintentionally (not suggesting you're doing this). One is a legitimate concern about the cover that at least is worthy of discussion; the other is not.
Needle_Chill
War Child
I for one am just happy that the cover is not another picture of their four ugly mugs, acting like they're hanging out together... ala HTDAAB, ATYCLB.
I feel like I've probably even thought this to myself at some point in the last few years: "For the love of God, I'll take Larry touching another man over another group pic..."
I feel like I've probably even thought this to myself at some point in the last few years: "For the love of God, I'll take Larry touching another man over another group pic..."
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
I am not lumping in the "knuckle-draggers" with those who might have a general reaction of discomfort to the shot. I'm more talking about the kinds of reactions that Aygo referenced on the previous page.
And I don't want to take the conversation back to where it's already been (let's save it for when it actually is released and we can see what the actual general world reaction will be), but just because some people will see it as sexualization of a child, does not mean they are right.
And before anyone wants to accuse me of not being sensitive to that issue in general (be it child abuse to pedophilia to imagery potentially portraying the sexualization of a child), please believe me when I say that is most certainly NOT the case.
Like I said before, they're not dumb - they're not going to be all wide-eyed innocent like "gosh, we had no idea people would have an issue with this!", but neither are they "hey, let's put something shocking on the cover and that will get everyone talking!"
I mean, do you really believe that they chose this cover with the sole intent of stirring shit up, to get their name back in the press?
Of course they know some people will have a problem with it, but isn't it more likely that they just shrugged and said "well, it's the theme we want to convey with the music, and we love the shot, so why shouldn't this be the cover?"
U2 already got everyone's attention with the Apple thing. They don't need to do anything further to get people talking about them - so it seems very strange to me to suggest that they are doing this just to create some controversy.
And finally (ha, yeah right), I wouldn't be at all surprised that after all our hand-wringing and "oh no, what's going to happen" that there is little to no reaction to this when the physical release comes out from the media or public at large.
And I don't want to take the conversation back to where it's already been (let's save it for when it actually is released and we can see what the actual general world reaction will be), but just because some people will see it as sexualization of a child, does not mean they are right.
And before anyone wants to accuse me of not being sensitive to that issue in general (be it child abuse to pedophilia to imagery potentially portraying the sexualization of a child), please believe me when I say that is most certainly NOT the case.
Like I said before, they're not dumb - they're not going to be all wide-eyed innocent like "gosh, we had no idea people would have an issue with this!", but neither are they "hey, let's put something shocking on the cover and that will get everyone talking!"
I mean, do you really believe that they chose this cover with the sole intent of stirring shit up, to get their name back in the press?
Of course they know some people will have a problem with it, but isn't it more likely that they just shrugged and said "well, it's the theme we want to convey with the music, and we love the shot, so why shouldn't this be the cover?"
U2 already got everyone's attention with the Apple thing. They don't need to do anything further to get people talking about them - so it seems very strange to me to suggest that they are doing this just to create some controversy.
And finally (ha, yeah right), I wouldn't be at all surprised that after all our hand-wringing and "oh no, what's going to happen" that there is little to no reaction to this when the physical release comes out from the media or public at large.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
(edited to combine my posts)
(I think I will actually laugh if this comes to pass and there's absolutely no reaction to it. That would be pretty funny.)
Obv, this is all just my opinion. Whatever the reaction, I honestly don't believe it is going to have much of an impact (if any) on the band.
(I think I will actually laugh if this comes to pass and there's absolutely no reaction to it. That would be pretty funny.)
Obv, this is all just my opinion. Whatever the reaction, I honestly don't believe it is going to have much of an impact (if any) on the band.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Not necessarily. As I posted above, I've been reading this from fans, in a fans page.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Honestly, what bothers me more is not the acephalia of the homophobic comments, but instead the inability to look at a picture (and a strong strong) and analyze it critically, beyond the "that's gay".
And that says a lot of the target that sometimes U2 aim at.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Ugh, really? I sometimes forget that U2 has so many fans, the odds are that some of them are bound to be boneheads and knuckle-draggers.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Although not satisfied with "today"'s U2 I still consider myself a fan. But, as time goes by, and the more I read about many other fans I get to think that, by trying to get to "as many people as possible" and trying to please everyone, even if the wuality standard has to decrease, it leads to raising socially/culturally conservative, poorly educated, narrow minded fans/appreciators (this community has, however, many exceptions, thankfully, even if I disagree and "fight" with many of you sometimes), and it reflects, intentionally or not, in the band's posture and work.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I don't object to the picture at all, so I certainly have no problem with others who have no problem with it. And I also have no problem with those who are uncomfortable with it because they feel it inappropriately sexualises what appears to be a child (not because it's two males, which IS unreasonable). It's a sensitive topic for a lot of people and I respect that.
What I don't like are some of the comments dismissing those with concerns as some how troglodytes, or unsophisticated, or even worse the ever popular denouncements such as "If you see this image as sexual then YOU have a problem". Especially when the vast majority of people on this website, U2 fans who are inclined to like anything they do, saw the image as sexual, perhaps inappropriately, as an initial reaction.
It's unfortunate we live in societies where images like this, which should be innocent, can be seen as inappropriate. For those of us who know what U2's theme is, their history with this imagery, and who appreciate modern photography, good on us. But I just don't think we should be so judgmental of those who (reasonably) see things differently.
As Cori said, it may all be much ado about nothing, and I hope it is. It may not be the cover, or it may be the cover and there's a slip case, or it may just be the cover and no one will notice or care. But no matter what, I do think this band that used to call themselves The Hype knows exactly what they're doing, and why they're doing it.
What I don't like are some of the comments dismissing those with concerns as some how troglodytes, or unsophisticated, or even worse the ever popular denouncements such as "If you see this image as sexual then YOU have a problem". Especially when the vast majority of people on this website, U2 fans who are inclined to like anything they do, saw the image as sexual, perhaps inappropriately, as an initial reaction.
It's unfortunate we live in societies where images like this, which should be innocent, can be seen as inappropriate. For those of us who know what U2's theme is, their history with this imagery, and who appreciate modern photography, good on us. But I just don't think we should be so judgmental of those who (reasonably) see things differently.
As Cori said, it may all be much ado about nothing, and I hope it is. It may not be the cover, or it may be the cover and there's a slip case, or it may just be the cover and no one will notice or care. But no matter what, I do think this band that used to call themselves The Hype knows exactly what they're doing, and why they're doing it.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
To clarify, the only people I am calling knuckle-draggers or trogoldytes, or, if it comes to it, I will happily call them assholes, are those who would react with the "LOL gay" immature bullshit.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Oh, again, my comments weren't directed at you at all...I know where you're coming from. And I agree with you completely.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Cool. I wasn't sure what I was trying to say came across well - I know I was rambling.
I keep saying I'm over it and mean to stop talking about it, but ... uh .... well, yeah. Behold.
I keep saying I'm over it and mean to stop talking about it, but ... uh .... well, yeah. Behold.
Reggie Thee Dog
Blue Crack Addict
This whole 'cover' thing is a blown out of proportion as is the Social Media backlash.
Whatever with the cover, if it's Larry hugging his son, well you're just going to have to live with it. No different than you're going have to deal with the fact that U2 gave away (pushed) their new album to every iTunes customer, and some of them were very vocal about not wanting it...in the end if the music is good who gives a flying fuck?
Whatever with the cover, if it's Larry hugging his son, well you're just going to have to live with it. No different than you're going have to deal with the fact that U2 gave away (pushed) their new album to every iTunes customer, and some of them were very vocal about not wanting it...in the end if the music is good who gives a flying fuck?
iota
War Child
I mean, I get the image...it's very statuesque and it can be interpreted as the band clinging to its youth. It is a beautiful photo and would love it to be somewhere in the artwork. But as an album cover, I hope U2 can harness the controversy to their favor. I want to see them really ride this album to new heights. I'm worried this cover will stunt album sales (because this could be an unnecessary hurdle to get casual fans to buy it) and then U2 will get skiddish about releasing SOE based on meager sales. If they want to use a polarizing image, they will lose a lot of sales they would have had otherwise, and then we're in purgatory for another 5 years while they agonize over their next move. I don't want that to happen again based on another easily recognizable marketing blunder. It's not that the image bothers me; having it effect sales and then spending another eternal cycle bothers me.
And Ned Stark is going to need to brace himself for endless ignorant comments and bad photo-shop pornography based on the image. That will be annoying and the music will be buried underneath the knee-jerk stupidity. That's why the cover seems like bad move to me. I really hope I'm wrong.
And Ned Stark is going to need to brace himself for endless ignorant comments and bad photo-shop pornography based on the image. That will be annoying and the music will be buried underneath the knee-jerk stupidity. That's why the cover seems like bad move to me. I really hope I'm wrong.
Similar threads
- Locked
