Confirmed Album Cover - Grey Boxes Are? / U2 Album Cover Rip-Off?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

What are those grey boxes?

  • Boxes = Text Placeholder

    Votes: 88 27.5%
  • Boxes = Something Else Open Interpretation

    Votes: 164 51.3%
  • Boxes = Nothing

    Votes: 68 21.3%

  • Total voters
    320
  • Poll closed .
:up: Interesting and thoughtful interpretation, I like that.

I'm thinking alot about the light/darkness concept and the = symbol. There are many ways of interpretation here, equality, balance between light and dark, between sea (=water) and sky (=air), I think it's a very zen-like image. I like the tranquility it has, but also the mystery. Will be interesting to see it when it actually comes out and see how it will look like in reality.
 
***Apologies if this has been mentioned. Feel free to disregard***

I'm liking this album artwork. It's nice to have a U2 album where there is meaning to be found in the artwork. I think their choice to not include themselves on the cover was a good move. Be known for how great the album (hopefully) is. Since this is one of the more artistic approaches to a U2 album cover, I wanted to open this up for deeper discussion. What is the album artwork telling us about the album? Until we all hear it of course, there will be no way to know for sure...

I believe there is a lot more visually happening here than I have heard mentioned yet. Here are some questions I asked myself while examining the artwork. My own conclusions are written afterwards.

1. The cover is black & white, and mostly divided by their prospective colors. With all of the imagery being used to describe the album, why such a mundane palette of colors?

2. A pool of light is at the water's center in the blacker bottom half, suggesting what exactly?

3. The = sign. The great mystery. Kind of reminds me of the box in 2001 (the movie). I see something else completely. More on that is just a sec.

4. The title is No Line on the Horizon, yet on the cover the Horizon is very clearly defined. An obvious contradiction? What could be implied here?

What does all of this mean about the theme of the record?

The horizon line is a particularly interesting choice here. Being as though a good majority of the world is ocean and sky, I'm going with this particular horizon line symbolizing the world as a whole. This particular image depicts the world as a place of light and darkness.

The ray of light on the ocean water is telling me that there is hope for the darkness in our world, but the ripples on the water indicate that it is not easy to overcome, unlike the smooth sky.

The equal sign is the great riddle here isn't it? It's the only element that isn't present in the world that exists in the photograph. Two straight lines, one on the light, one on the dark. But let's remove the background for a second. The obvious choice here is to see an = sign. But let me offer a different take. Two lines that don't touch. There's a term for that. Oh yeah, parallel. Two lines, side by side, and having the same distance between them. Very interesting. But let's look at the musical definition of parallel: containing or denoting successful intervals of the same size in otherwise independent voices.

Notice on the "box set" artwork, there is a graphic displayed U=2, but aligned vertically. It's interesting here that they tie this symbol to their name. Could this be a symbolic representation of the band as they know themselves now in 2009? Independent, yet parallel people?

Let's bring this all together now.

It is wrong to percieve the world as black and white, divided into two halves, light and dark. We as a society of earth-beings need to get past this. We need to evolve to a higher standard of respecting each other. The = symbol (as I am calling it) divides these two falsehoods of the world. The band have accepted that they all contain both light and dark tendencies in life, but always keep faith and optimism regarding their own dark rippled ocean. They are parallel musically and personally in that they all have different voices, but can exist together in the same time and space. And by doing so, they have gotten to do what they love for a very long time now, which has been both challenging and rewarding.

Maybe with this album and the melodies that now lie within it, we all can learn to accept each other's light and dark natures and coexist on both sides of the horizon, forever blurring it's lines and allowing everyone to live their own lives without disrupting the lines of others, for everyone has the right to life.

I like your comment very much, very insightful. It can or can't be the photographer and U2's idea, I think it doesn't matter, art is not only made by the artist view, the audience is as important as them. Thank you!:up:
 
Moiner06,

Some good points and questions, though I think you may be overthinking it just a little bit. Like I said before on a couple other threads....for me the album is about balance. An equals sign brings balance. Something equals something...therefore they are the same, equal, in balance. Therefore contradictory or opposing forces find a common symbiotic ground. But more simply put, the album is simply another way of representing the eastern philosophy of "Yin and Yang"

If you start taking the whole thing literally then it doesn't work. There's a reason why the title of the album is NOT on the cover, because the cover is not representing the literal translation of NO LINE ON THE HORIZON, but the esoteric idea or metaphor of it. It doesn't need the words. Plus, the = , like Math is universal. Anyone can understand what is being said.

Its about Balance....Tranquility.....Peace....

when two opposing forces are equal, there is harmony.

Thats what the cover is trying to convey, and thats what I'm guessing this album is about.
 
What's really strange about this whole thing is that if you search for "No Line On the Horizon" at the U.S. itunes store the album comes up as available for pre-order (although the link doesn't work)--and the album cover pictured does not have the equal sign!
 
You know what?

This cover is growing, crawling over me, deluding me into loving what I hated...

And dare the urge for a more bizzarre and lively subject cross my mind...


I'm done for.

I love it so much now, but I really would have loved loved loved it had it been as wacky as Achtung or Zooropa-My two favourite covers.

soooo

:drool::love:

:|:ohmy:

meh. I'll settle with :applaud:
 
Umm it's an = sign, duh. And it's not really "open to interpretation," which is the only applicable poll choice, unless people are missing the obvious play on equality/duality of sky/sea, dark/light, good/evil, and the gray areas in between. All is equal, but they are still different. We're one, but we're not the same.

I started the vote and I think we can officially end this poll and conversation based on the artwork on iTunes and elsewhwere. CAPS =not yelling; LyricalDrug -- just included your quote at random, others had a similara vibe going - nothing personal

Grey Boxes = Text Placeholder i.e. U2 – NOPE
Grey Boxes Mean Something Else Open to Interpretation i.e. land, sea, heaven, hell, ying, yang, what, ever NOPE – SEEMS TO ME THEY SIMPLY SEPARATE THE U AND THE 2
Grey Boxes Mean Absolutely Nothing i.e. a cool image gets blemished for no reason OF THE THREE CHOICES OFFERED IN MY POLL, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE MOST CORRECT ANSWER.

The grey boxes are not pictured on either of the "full album" thumbnail options - hard to believe these same grey boxes will come back on this album cover thumbnail image on iTunes or elsewhere IMO.

I’ve included a pretty cruddy screen shot from iTunes USA taken this morning.
 

Attachments

  • U2Itunescovers.GIF
    U2Itunescovers.GIF
    66.7 KB · Views: 1
is the New U2 album cover a Rip-off?

Is the New U2 Album Cover a Rip-Off? | Pitchfork

:hmm:

LINE027CD.jpg
 
All Pitchfork had to say was:

If anything, the idea that the same photograph that inspired Chartier and Deupree's ambient musings could also inspire the biggest rock band on earth makes U2 look pretty cool.

The new U2 album, No Line on the Horizon, is out March 3 (March 2 in the UK) on Interscope; listen to first single "Get On Your Boots" now.
UPDATE: Whoa, the cover of Brothomstates' 2001 Warp album Caro looks just like this cover, too.
 
"U2 caught in cover non-controversy"

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, and I apologize if it has. I just came across this article this morning. I had to laugh a little; it seems like the two lesser-known artists are only crying foul to get exposure. I don't even think they used the same photograph, for one. And for two, it wasn't their photograph to begin with.

Anyway, here's the article and link to the page.

U2 caught in cover non-controversy
January 19, 2009 11:18 a.m. by Andrew Winistorfer

There's been some rumblings on the net in the last 12 hours about how the cover for the new U2 album, No Line on the Horizon, looks like it was cribbed from a 2006 album by sound artists Richard Chartier and Taylor Deupree. Deupree is pretty pissed--he wrote this blog post trying to make sure everyone knows he used the cover first (both covers use a photograph from Hiroshi Sugimoto).

All of this is reeking of a non-starting controversy, with the lesser known artist drumming up page hits by getting angry at use of a picture that doesn't belong to them in the first place. It's not like Deupree himself did the picture--he just had the idea to use it on a cover first. And it's not like U2 took the same picture that appeared on a Nickelback album--they took the same picture that appeared on an obscure noise-act's album.

This whole thing is lamer than the "Did Ola Podria steal a cover from Interpol, or did Interpol steal a cover from Ola Podria?" fight that happened in 2007.
Posted in: U2


U2 caught in cover non-controversy

200x150_148550u2rip2-123238185513.jpg
 
Whatever. There are clear differences. I'm getting really sick of artists with little notoriety trying to gain more by picking scraps with artists with significantly more notoriety by stretching small instances of similarities. For fucks sake.
 
If there was any real "controversy" wouldn't it be with the photographer who is whoring himself out to album covers?

You have to wonder when approached if he just flat out lied, "no, that's a great idea, no one's ever used one of my photos for an album cover".
 
If there was any real "controversy" wouldn't it be with the photographer who is whoring himself out to album covers?

You have to wonder when approached if he just flat out lied, "no, that's a great idea, no one's ever used one of my photos for an album cover".

that is my thinking also.
 
Worth a look. I won't bother offering my opinion, but it's pretty clear, reading the discussion going on, here, which "side" in this debate is making better points (although the initial postings paint an embarrassing picture of a desperate, silly, and totally inappropriate sort of attention-grabbing, on Deupree's part).

U2 ALBUM COVER…HAVE I SEEN THIS BEFORE?? ? 12k

At the same time, of course, it really is a legal non-matter...although I also think that it's worth bringing up Negativland, here. Would it be a non-matter if U2 had used the cover, first? We can't say for sure, and I'd like to say/assume that it wouldn't be, but I'm not so sure, given hindsight's whole 20/20 nature...
 
All of this is reeking of a non-starting controversy, with the lesser known artist drumming up page hits by getting angry at use of a picture that doesn't belong to them in the first place. It's not like Deupree himself did the picture--he just had the idea to use it on a cover first. And it's not like U2 took the same picture that appeared on a Nickelback album--they took the same picture that appeared on an obscure noise-act's album.

If there was any real "controversy" wouldn't it be with the photographer who is whoring himself out to album covers?

You have to wonder when approached if he just flat out lied, "no, that's a great idea, no one's ever used one of my photos for an album cover".

:up: to both of these comments
 
And why wouldn't they just put the text in??? They know the name of their band. They know the name of their album.

I really can't picture them sitting around saying "Hmmm...SHIT! Times New Roman or Courier Bold??? We can't decide yet just post the cover on the website...with gray boxes where the font will go!"

Makes no sense at all.

It's an awesome album cover :up:

This.
 
The whole non-controversy is crap. If you take an already existent work of art and make an album cover out of it, the chances that it appeared somewhere else before are pretty high. There's someone seeking attention.
 
The whole non-controversy is crap. If you take an already existent work of art and make an album cover out of it, the chances that it appeared somewhere else before are pretty high. There's someone seeking attention.

:up:

Lots of fake clips have come up as well to get some free advertising. Wherever there is success there are the leechers that want to cash in.
 
Worth a look. I won't bother offering my opinion, but it's pretty clear, reading the discussion going on, here, which "side" in this debate is making better points (although the initial postings paint an embarrassing picture of a desperate, silly, and totally inappropriate sort of attention-grabbing, on Deupree's part).

U2 ALBUM COVER…HAVE I SEEN THIS BEFORE?? � 12k

At the same time, of course, it really is a legal non-matter...although I also think that it's worth bringing up Negativland, here. Would it be a non-matter if U2 had used the cover, first? We can't say for sure, and I'd like to say/assume that it wouldn't be, but I'm not so sure, given hindsight's whole 20/20 nature...

They looked bad in their own blog.

It's just a matter of two musical entities being inspired by a photograph and both using it as their album cover. They looked bad when they tried to make it seem like the = on U2's cover is the same height as the boxes they used on theirs.

What petty fools.
 
Back
Top Bottom