album cover (official)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
mikal said:
maybe i've overlooked, but it would be nice for anyone who actually hates the cover to actually give a reason.

It looks too bland. U2 have done simple covers before (JT, ATYCLB, etc.) but this one is too simple. It looks like it was just slapped together at the last moment, as though no one gave it any thought whatsoever. When I first saw it, I even thought it was a fraud!

And I've still got my fingers crossed that it is. :huh:
 
GibsonGirl said:


It looks too bland. U2 have done simple covers before (JT, ATYCLB, etc.) but this one is too simple. It looks like it was just slapped together at the last moment, as though no one gave it any thought whatsoever. When I first saw it, I even thought it was a fraud!

And I've still got my fingers crossed that it is. :huh:

thanks for your honesty.

i personally think though, since we haven't heard the music, it's hard to really judge the cover. after you hear the album, you may feel that the cover fits the album perfectly.
 
Last edited:
mikal said:


i personally think though, since we haven't heard the music, it's hard to really judge the cover. after you hear the album, you may feel that the cover fits the album perfectly.

That's true. I didn't think much of the UF album cover before I heard it, but it all made sense after I popped the CD into my stereo.

At the moment though, I think it's pretty damn ugly. :wink:
 
mikal said:




i personally think though, since we haven't heard the music, it's hard to really judge the cover. after you hear the album, you may feel that the cover fits the album perfectly.

kind of like winter, then
 
I am glad they did not opt for an Anton picture of them standing far away from each other in the middle of an empty field or something... because that is SO U2 and has been done before.
 
I agree with David. They are trying something different. They've done that before...with great success. I'm not going to judge the book by it's cover, so to speak. You could claim that the Rattle and Hum, Boy, and ATYCLB covers are too simple, but in the context of the music, somehow they worked.



Or maybe this isn't the cover:huh:
 
The cover is fricken sweet, and the title is fricken sweet. Why do you have to be so detailed about everyhting, why does everything have to be so complicated. The cover is perfect in its simplicity, it has the greatest band on the cover. And you cant go wrong with that.
 
its alright i guess, not great, just alright
i'd prefer if it wasnt the cover as i think its a bit bland and doesnt sit well (if that makes any sense at all)
but if it is the cover then so be it, i'm sure the world will keep turning somehow
 
By the way on this picture it says that Bono and The Edge wrote the lyrics. I didn't know that. Cool. :up:

2004vertigopromo02.jpg
 
Blame the Unholy CD. Something the size of an old '45 hardly leaves you room for great, sweeping "widescreen" epic shots (a la JT.)

It just occurred to me the other day that the "DVD" (so I call it) style cover of JT--widescreen, black bars on top and bottom--evoked the best of clasic cinema, and that JT was meant to be seen as cinematic. Grand in theme and tone and scope.

While HTDAAB is no doubt grand and epic as well, on one sense, it is going to be just as intimate as AB too, I feel. ("Sometimes.."?)

I can think of only one reason why the band might choose such a blah cover. They feel that with their older fans safely back in the bag, (for the most part), and the ship back on track, they are looking to win over some new younger fans. They must feel that confident about this disc. The kind who don't know the band and will stare at a CD cover and obsses. It's a very touching and niave hope, and it's possible. Maybe.

I don't aplaud them for the cover, but if this is the case, I applaud the reasoning.
 
macphisto23 said:
The cover is fricken sweet, and the title is fricken sweet. Why do you have to be so detailed about everyhting, why does everything have to be so complicated. The cover is perfect in its simplicity, it has the greatest band on the cover. And you cant go wrong with that.

See, you've got a band that for over the last 15 to 20 years (not all 28) has been style conscious. Every stage show has been elaborate since zoo tv and they always go to the enth degree for perfection. I bet this tour will be every bit as meticulous and complicated as elevation and popmart. So why now the 20-second copy and paste cover??? when you take into consideration that they spent more time creating this album than any other album yet, its completely contradicting and doesnt feel true.

I do agree with someone else's comment, i think mikal said it, that this can all change after listening to the album- maybe it will gel with the songs, but they seriously could have built and dismantled a real atomic bomb in the time they spent recording it, so don't slight the album cover. the title alone opens so many doors to explore visuals and it could still be punk. Hell, those vintage concert posters you see all over the place are just as punk as this version and those have more layout than this thing.

p.s. another reason i think this isnt the final cut- in the upper right hand corner of the pic (sorta covered by the red stripes) the photo has a black area. was probably a part of the background in the photo, but i cant see something like that getting past experienced graphic artists like the ones that have worked with u2 for their entire existence.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes things are made to look simple and unflashy on purpose. I like album covers like this.
 
I love this cover. After all that's been said about the new album and what it is about, I was expecting this cover would be confirmed, because I think it matches.
 
Last edited:
I fail to see how anyone could like that piece of crap. I could make a better cover on PAINT. The photo is bad, Edge looks awful, and if I was not really a fan and saw that, it would put me off buying the album.

It actually already has. I'll download it and go out and buy the album a few days after its release if that's the cover. I can't stand even looking at that piece of shit. I'll hide it at the bottom of my CD pile, or I'll print out one of the quality covers that has been made on here. Urgh. That's revolting. It's even worse than the Achtung Baby cover.

I don't see why people dislike the October cover, though.
 
Axver said:
I fail to see how anyone could like that piece of crap. I could make a better cover on PAINT. The photo is bad, Edge looks awful, and if I was not really a fan and saw that, it would put me off buying the album.

It actually already has. I'll download it and go out and buy the album a few days after its release if that's the cover. I can't stand even looking at that piece of shit. I'll hide it at the bottom of my CD pile, or I'll print out one of the quality covers that has been made on here. Urgh. That's revolting. It's even worse than the Achtung Baby cover.

I don't see why people dislike the October cover, though.

Probably an over-reaction I think!?
 
Yes, indeed it was. I still hate the cover and wouldn't want to buy anything with that on the front if it weren't going to contain such good music, though.

I hate it so very much.
 
Axver said:
Yes, indeed it was. I still hate the cover and wouldn't want to buy anything with that on the front if it weren't going to contain such good music, though.

I hate it so very much.

Get over it.
 
mikal said:
maybe i've overlooked, but it would be nice for anyone who actually hates the cover to actually give a reason.

I don't like it because I find the idea of U2 sitting down on the cover - of a guitar driven album - weak. The black and white color and simplicity of the show reminds me too much of ATYCLB style.

The guys themselves look okay, except Edge has that "trying too hard to look cool" thing going.
 
Back
Top Bottom