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 .
the members of this forum are starting to get a little merge/close crazy. This is legit, the video sea/sky would have been an awesome cover, as would the OP's picture.

ohhhhhh well.
 
the_unforgettable_fire.jpg


OH MY GOD There's no unforgettable fire on the cover!

U2-How-To-Dismantle-307954.jpg


That doesn't look like instruction to dismantle an atomic bomb, U2 phail :sad:


I think Gisbon was taking the title literally in its relation to the cover image. Let's say the real title of UF was "No Castle on the Cover" and for Bomb it was "No 4 guys trying to look cool but failing on the cover" - I know what he means, it's like the images are contradictions to the title. But this all depends, once again, on what is actually meant by "No Line On The Horizon" - is there a visible horizon? Yes, but is there a line on it? No, there's no line that lies directly on top of the visible horizon line. So...in closing...the title is deliberately misleading. I find it hilarious.
 
My friend who doesnt like U2 said this after i told him the album name "Exactly, no line..because no one is going to buy the fucking thing":applaud:
 
A while back I ridiculed U2 for choosing such a nonsensical album title, No Line on the Horizon. Amazingly, many people here didn't quite understand that a horizon IS, in fact, a LINE. The album title is basically the equivalent of saying "no line on the line." Complete idiotic. The album should be called No Horizon, because if you can't see where the earth (or sea) ends and the sky begins for whatever reason, the horizon does not exist. The horizon is not a concrete thing, but rather what we perceive as a boundary of sorts.

But since then, I've given U2 some artistic leeway on the title. Why the heck not? Songwriters make these inane proclamations all the time. Not like U2 will realize their mistake and change the title now. Regardless, you would think the album cover would visually represent as closely as possible what "no line on the horizon" would look like. WRONG. This horizon (or the "line on the horizon", for the semantically-challenged) is as visible as the zits on a 14-year-old. Which makes the album title even more laughable. If you're gonna NAME it "no line", there should BE "no line", even one that is blurry in an attempt to mimic the intended meaning.

To show you what an album cover with no horizon SHOULD look like, here are some photos I found on the internet with horizons clearly missing. (Consequently, all of the following photos were titled or captioned 'No Horizon' on the webpages on which they were found.)

00sunrise27jan2008.jpg


No+Horizon+1.jpg


00nohorizon.jpg

this is ridiculous . . . art is about finding meaning in pictures, words, notes, lyrics, or otherwise. Why not call the album "12th full length LP by U2"? Because there is no additional meaning in that. "No Line on the Horizon", while it may be nonsensical in the purest sense of the words, at least gives us the opportunity for further interpretation . . . that's what makes it an interesting title. Giving the album the title "Horizon with a line on it" would likewise be ridiculous even though it makes perfect sense. My 2 cents.
 
the topic of this trhread falls over in the definition. You cant baldly state something liek the horison IS a line.

A horizon is a perceived line. Key word is PERCEIVED. The line doesn't physically exist, it is just something we see as a barrier between to distinct phenomina. its not like on our view of the spectrum, someone grabbed a Sharpie and separated the earth and sky.

Anyway, that PERCEIVED LINE is the searation of the earth and sky. We can extend this to assume that every horizon, every perception of our extended field of view has this separation, because there will always be a perceiveable difference between the earth and sky.

The title refers to not being able to see a line that is there. The imagery is that the colours of the sea and sky melt into one, and that the line we take as given that exists is blurred into obscurity.

In no way does that not make sense.

The sky and earth never really meet. What we see as sky where it 'meets' the earth is actually a long way off behind the earth, so the meeting point can't exist. It is given that it is only perceived, and not real.

This is totally what i was thinking.
 
the members of this forum are starting to get a little merge/close crazy. This is legit, the video sea/sky would have been an awesome cover, as would the OP's picture.

ohhhhhh well.

It get extremely tiresome when you have general threads about the single, or the release date, or the album cover and then someone comes around and thinks they have something worthy of its own thread. Then the same discussion continues in two seperate threads...
 
Why are you able to take one as a metaphor, but not the other?

Because even metaphors have to make sense when taken literally. For example, there are ways to literally dismantle atomic bombs. Literally, you can do such a thing with the technical know-how. Metaphorically, with love and understanding.

However, no line on the horizon makes no literal sense whatsoever. But I do have a clue what Bono is TRYING to say, except that the specific words he used are just poorly chosen. AND to top it all off, the image that the band used to illustrate the nonexistence of a horizon ACTUALLY has a horizon.
 
Because even metaphors have to make sense when taken literally. For example, there are ways to literally dismantle atomic bombs. Literally, you can do such a thing with the technical know-how. Metaphorically, with love and understanding.

However, no line on the horizon makes no literal sense whatsoever. But I do have a clue what Bono is TRYING to say, except that the specific words he used are just poorly chosen. AND to top it all off, the image that the band used to illustrate the nonexistence of a horizon ACTUALLY has a horizon.

Whatever you do... don't ever try to make music/art/literature.
 
the_unforgettable_fire.jpg


OH MY GOD There's no unforgettable fire on the cover!

U2-How-To-Dismantle-307954.jpg


That doesn't look like instruction to dismantle an atomic bomb, U2 phail :sad:

Here's what you don't get. The picture on the "No Line..." album cover is actually trying to depict the title of the album. The album covers you posted are not. Which means your attempt to ridicule me falls short. Way short.
 
Because even metaphors have to make sense when taken literally. For example, there are ways to literally dismantle atomic bombs. Literally, you can do such a thing with the technical know-how. Metaphorically, with love and understanding.

However, no line on the horizon makes no literal sense whatsoever. But I do have a clue what Bono is TRYING to say, except that the specific words he used are just poorly chosen. AND to top it all off, the image that the band used to illustrate the nonexistence of a horizon ACTUALLY has a horizon.

This is the problem with speculation. You see this kind of speculation in media all the time. People need to wait and see what happens (or in this case listen to the album and read the lyrics) and then make up their minds. Until then it's just torture.
 
Pop is such a terrible album title. I mean... the songs aren't even poppy!

Worst. album. evar.
 
Whatever you do... don't ever try to make music/art/literature.

Take any metaphor you find in literature and you'll find they can have a literal meaning that makes sense on its own. In fact, the word METAPHOR is defined as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting an object/idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness between them.
 
Oh, they should've named the album Wild Wild West :cute:






















That would make an awesome cover.....
:wink:
 
Take any metaphor you find in literature and you'll find they can have a literal meaning that makes sense on its own. In fact, the word METAPHOR is defined as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting an object/idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness between them.

oh you're so sophisticated.
 
Again, nothing is more nonsensical than Achtung Baby. Try explaining the merits of that. It doesn't even have a German baby on the cover.

Look, just because an album title mentions a baby doesn't mean it's necessary to have a baby on the cover. This doesn't have anything to do with my argument. NLOTH's cover does in fact have a picture that is trying to represent the meaning of the title, except the picture actually fails to do this AND the title is semantically incorrect.
 
It get extremely tiresome when you have general threads about the single, or the release date, or the album cover and then someone comes around and thinks they have something worthy of its own thread. Then the same discussion continues in two seperate threads...

It also gets tiresome to read a thousand posts to find out if this topic has been discussed already. I usually quit by the 20th post and go straight to the last page of a long thread. Some people have to manage their time. Admittedly, I haven't been doing a good job of that since the single came out.
 
There is hope on the horizon.

There is a new mortgage disaster on the horizon.

None of these fit with your metaphor test...

Using this common phrase and placing "no line" in it easily works.

It's pretty simple.
 
I think it's a mathematical thing, not metaphorical. The mathematical thing comes with the addition of the equal sign, and wouldn't work without this symbol. Technically, it's not an equal sign: It's two separate lines, one above the putative horizon, one below. If just the one above the horizon were present, you would have a line on the horizon (technically, above it), and the current title would be stupid. If just the one below the horizon were present, the album should be called 'A Line Under The Horizon' (affectionately known as ALUTH). But the two lines cancel each other out, leaving...ta-da...'No Line On The Horizon.' Or maybe it is metaphorical...the reflection of the sky on the surface of the water...life sandwiched in between these two dimensions, continuing to go on and on and on.
 
There is hope on the horizon.

There is a new mortgage disaster on the horizon.

None of these fit with your metaphor test...

Actually, these phrases do fit the metaphor test. The horizon is the metaphor for the future. The horizon is a literal object. It's a line off in the distance that you can see ahead of you. The future is also ahead of you. That's why a horizon is very commonly used to depict the future.

My beef with "No Line on the Horizon" is that it literally makes no sense. When a phrase is literally meaningless, it can't be used as a metaphor for something else.
 
I think it's a mathematical thing, not metaphorical. The mathematical thing comes with the addition of the equal sign, and wouldn't work without this symbol. Technically, it's not an equal sign: It's two separate lines, one above the putative horizon, one below. If just the one above the horizon were present, you would have a line on the horizon (technically, above it), and the current title would be stupid. If just the one below the horizon were present, the album should be called 'A Line Under The Horizon' (affectionately known as ALUTH). But the two lines cancel each other out, leaving...ta-da...'No Line On The Horizon.' It's not metaphorical at all...it's the reflection of the sky on the surface of the water...life sandwiched in between these two dimensions, continuing to go on and on and on.

This is actually a very interesting interpretation. Thank you.
 
Actually, these phrases do fit the metaphor test. The horizon is the metaphor for the future. The horizon is a literal object. It's a line off in the distance that you can see ahead of you. The future is also ahead of you. That's why a horizon is very commonly used to depict the future.

My beef with "No Line on the Horizon" is that it literally makes no sense. When a phrase is literally meaningless, it can't be used as a metaphor for something else.


i agree with the horizon as metaphor for the future. so would "no line in the future" be a metaphor for something else? i'm just saying...
 
Actually, these phrases do fit the metaphor test. The horizon is the metaphor for the future. The horizon is a literal object. It's a line off in the distance that you can see ahead of you. The future is also ahead of you. That's why a horizon is very commonly used to depict the future.

My beef with "No Line on the Horizon" is that it literally makes no sense. When a phrase is literally meaningless, it can't be used as a metaphor for something else.


So in your head you can have "hope", "disaster", etc... but not "no line"?

You aren't making any sense.

You can still use it as the future metaphor, you're just changing the subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom