Album cover - Fanning - SoE

[BGD75]

I'm just saying...this could really backfire. I get what they're trying to do, but this would be a better image for the inside of the booklet...

Definitely could. Controversy written all over it. But surely they are aware of it.... Personally, I love the cover. Works so well with the theme/title of the album. However, plenty of people who are not interested in the band will not care to link that image and the album theme. They will just see: pedophilia!
Very daring U2, very daring.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It's interesting because if there is any 'controversy' around it, it certainly will not come from the same places as the outrage over the release. If anything, it might all reverse. A lot of the people/outlets crying foul over the release will be very quick to shout back at any Fox News-ish bullshit about the cover.

 

[david]

I just listened to Jeff Tweedy's album he made with his son*. MAN. That is "dad rock" if I ever heard it.

Grr.

 

[U2girl]

Definitely could. Controversy written all over it. But surely they are aware of it.... Personally, I love the cover. Works so well with the theme/title of the album. However, plenty of people who are not interested in the band will not care to link that image and the album theme. They will just see: pedophilia!
Very daring U2, very daring.

I'll just borrow these two posts from atu2.com

A 50 year old man hugging his 17 year old son at the waist...
I'm not uptight, but I've never thought about hugging my 22 year old son in the same way...
My only point being, this picture is meant to be provocative, which is fine. But because someone calls it risque, creepy, etc. is not because of fear, etc., but because this pose between a man and his adult son is not ordinary, it's out of the norm.

A 50 year old man hugging his 17 year old son at the waist...without any clothing on; yeah there's nothing strange going on there...

They've shot down NLOTH with a stupid lead single. Now they've just shot down SOI with the lamest cover of their lives. There's NO way the music's getting a real discussion with that cover.

 

[owl]

They've shot down NLOTH with a stupid lead single. Now they've just shot down SOI with the lamest cover of their lives. There's NO way the music's getting a real discussion with that cover.

I take it you don't like the cover then?

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

They've shot down NLOTH with a stupid lead single. Now they've just shot down SOI with the lamest cover of their lives. There's NO way the music's getting a real discussion with that cover.

I don't think they have shot down the album with the cover, there is plenty of time between Sept 9th and Oct 14th to discover those songs, as 77 million and counting have.

 

[2233]

I like this new approach where they're not over playing safety first.

 

[mama cass]

art is like a mirror, you see what you want to see

 

[CosmoKramer]

art is like a mirror, you see what you want to see

If it were a mirror...wouldn't you see what is really there? Now if it were like a television, then you could see what you want to see.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Older person holding onto the 'innocent' former self > Ok, lets use a man/boy > Ok, a personal connection would be good > Ok, lets use a band member > Ok, but of course Bono would look so fucking ridiculous doing this that it doesn't bare mentioning > More impact the more tough the man looks too > Ok, that certainly rules out Adam and Edge then too > Ok, lets use Larry > So we need a boy > ... how about his son, it (a) is a better connection to his youth, (b) adds a secondary dimension to the photo, (c) takes the wind out of the sails of any right-winger nuts who want to give it another meaning because sex is all they can think about because they're all so sadly repressed themselves > Ok, but no way Larry says ye... oh...

 

[mama cass]

If it were a mirror...wouldn't you see what is really there? Now if it were like a television, then you could see what you want to see.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

you'd see yourself

what i mean is, you perceive it how you perceive it, you can choose to see beauty or ugliness in something, it's up to you

 

[LadySpinHead]

you'd see yourself

what i mean is, you perceive it how you perceive it, you can choose to see beauty or ugliness in something, it's up to you

well said mama cass

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

art is like a mirror, you see what you want to see

you'd see yourself

what i mean is, you perceive it how you perceive it, you can choose to see beauty or ugliness in something, it's up to you

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I get what they were going for with the old man clinging to his youth thing... but, ya know, they've invented Photoshop. They could have actually used a picture from Larry's youth

 

[Hewson]

Sometimes people aren't ready for certain things, new ideas. You have to grease them up a little first.

 

[corianderstem]

I get what they were going for with the old man clinging to his youth thing... but, ya know, they've invented Photoshop. They could have actually used a picture from Larry's youth

That would be even more confusing to the public at large, since we all know Larry looks exactly the same now as he did in 1980.

As for the album cover and the pearl-clutching, I'm already over it. It's striking and a thematically appropriate cover.

 

[TimeToGo]

I really like that Larry's son is wearing a cross on his bare chest, as if to symbolize the band's connection to Christianity and religious innocence in the eighties. I think it's a much better cover photo than another full band shot.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

but, ya know, they've invented Photoshop.

Anyone bored at the moment? Get that photo of a young Bono in his underpants in the gym and get to work.

 

[Nick66]

Bono once said that he wants U2 to "f*ck up the mainstream". They've already done it once with the release - do it again with this cover.

Yes, because nothing "f*ck's up the mainstream" like releasing a collection of mainstream pop/rock songs with one of the biggest companies in the world at the same time as that company announces their new...cell phone.

What's next? Official U2 concert gear by The Gap? Now THAT would really f*ck everyone's sh*t up!

 

[Aygo]

I this cover could be to 2014's U2 what the Boy cover was for 1980's U2.
I've read in a brazilian fan page sooo many comments like "this is so gay, I don't like it" (not being able to think beyond that. It annoyed me.
It reminded me of the pedophilia think with the Boy cover.

 

[mobonofo]

An accident waiting to happen...

You can claim to be open-minded, innocent, and artistically inclined, but the fact of the matter is the cover is obviously polarizing and that is not in U2's interest, the bulk of their fans' interest, nor what the band claims it is about. I believe it to be a mistake and I hope it does not rob the music or the band of the right kind of attention this campaign deserves.

Many of us took a sigh of relief when we got a good album, then again when the Apple distribution hate died down (still on-going)...and NOW THIS???

Those of us being critical are not being naïve when they call out the cover's faults. They have one foot in reality and are simply protective of the band, it's music, and (a lot of us) have had enough U2 bashing.

This cover welcomes more of that, it welcomes misinterpretation, and that's a shame...

 

[doctorwho]

Yes, because nothing "f*ck's up the mainstream" like releasing a collection of mainstream pop/rock songs with one of the biggest companies in the world at the same time as that company announces their new...cell phone.

What's next? Official U2 concert gear by The Gap? Now THAT would really f*ck everyone's sh*t up!

Yes, because the Gap would get everyone complaining endlessly like this release did.

This release (free!) and the cover are not normal. Sure, it's partnering with Apple, but that's also not normal. Everything about this release is against the typical mainstream release style.

Besides, who wears Gap?

 

[Aygo]

An accident waiting to happen...

You can claim to be open-minded, innocent, and artistically inclined, but the fact of the matter is the cover is obviously polarizing and that is not in U2's interest, the bulk of their fans' interest, nor what the band claims it is about. I believe it to be a mistake and I hope it does not rob the music or the band of the right kind of attention this campaign deserves.

Many of us took a sigh of relief when we got a good album, then again when the Apple distribution hate died down (still on-going)...and NOW THIS???

Those of us being critical are not being naïve when they call out the cover's faults. They have one foot in reality and are simply protective of the band, it's music, and (a lot of us) have had enough U2 bashing.

This cover welcomes more of that, it welcomes misinterpretation, and that's a shame...

That's what bothers me in U2, in "today's" U2: trying to get everywhere (and sometimes getting nowhere), trying to please everyone (and sometimes only pleasing diehards, fans and casual listeners that will always like whatever they put out), not learning that pleasing everyone and reaching 100% of an audience is an utopia, that there'll always be someone not satisfied, that the more they try to do it, the more their artistic integrity is compromised/the more the artistic part is gone.

 

[Montrose]

Yes, because nothing "f*ck's up the mainstream" like releasing a collection of mainstream pop/rock songs with one of the biggest companies in the world at the same time as that company announces their new...cell phone.

What's next? Official U2 concert gear by The Gap? Now THAT would really f*ck everyone's sh*t up!

TBH, U2 were pretty out of the mainstream's consciousness for a long while. Hard to fuck it up when you're not inside it. I looked at the band's Apple deal as them using a corporation with the world's largest music-listening base in the world to get themselves inserted back into the middle of things. It worked. From there, let's see what they do with it.

Reminds me a little about Bono dealing with Bush, and getting shit on for it. But he didn't care.. He needed to get the leader of America to get great gobs of money allocated to a good cause, so he did. People's opinions and interpretations of seeing him in pictures with "the devil", as the troll in the other thread called him, didn't matter towards why he was doing what he was doing, or what it accomplished. He used his fame and the goodwill towards to band to get in with powerful people and get them to give up their money. The only thing that was lost was some public perception of the band.. But do we really care about perception so much that we ignore the substance underneath it?

(Apparently, with this album, the Apple deal, the artwork, many do)


Sent from my fingertips.

 

[Nick66]

This release (free!) and the cover are not normal. Sure, it's partnering with Apple, but that's also not normal. Everything about this release is against the typical mainstream release style.

I know! It's TOTAL punk rock!

You could easily see the Clash or the Ramones standing up there with Cook.

 

[rennowba]

Look how its got us diehards talking,just think how the media and general public are going to react if were reacting like this.

Its connecting the band to subjects they dont need to be brought up in.

Its a stupid move

 

[doctorwho]

I know! It's TOTAL punk rock!

You could easily see the Clash or the Ramones standing up there with Cook.

I didn't say that.

I just said it's not normal.

And besides, another picture of the band on the cover?

I'd rather SOI just keep that album sleeve cover over another band photo.

 

[Montrose]

I know! It's TOTAL punk rock!



You could easily see the Clash or the Ramones standing up there with Cook.

Yet, because of this album and marketing effort, legions of people may start to know who these two bands are who might never have before.


Sent from my fingertips.

 

[trevgreg]

That's what bothers me in U2, in "today's" U2: trying to get everywhere (and sometimes getting nowhere), trying to please everyone (and sometimes only pleasing diehards, fans and casual listeners that will always like whatever they put out), not learning that pleasing everyone and reaching 100% of an audience is an utopia, that there'll always be someone not satisfied, that the more they try to do it, the more their artistic integrity is compromised/the more the artistic part is gone.

They're never going to please 100% of the fans, even if they just released 'experimental' or ambient music spontaneously on the internet without any publicity.

 

[mobonofo]

I know! It's total punk rock!

I guess if Bono repeats the punk rock line enough it will get picked up eventually by some. Maybe it's just me but I've never bought into the idea of U2 as a punk rock band.

In response to the person earlier that mentioned they are tired of U2 playing it safe. A lot of that "playing it safe" criticism is directed squarely at the music. I don't recall many in the fan community crying for more controversial cover art.

I love this album of songs, but you could honestly say this album is sonically safe (just listen to the Dave Fanning interview) and traditional rock in sound. This disappoints some fans. My favorite era would include Achtung Baby and Zooropa, but I feel the strength and nature of the new songs lessens the need for sonic textures and these songs are already among my favorite.

I am talking about this supposed cover. This is more in line of Madonna's old routine of taking mainstream music (in U2's case good music, but still mainstream music) and wrapping it up in controversy. I am more reminded of "Smell the Glove" (from Spinal Tap) than punk rock in the spirit of The Clash. Behind this "cutting edge" controversial image, we still have a basic rock album. If that leads you to accept this campaign as punk rock, so be it.

Why would you try to reach 500 Million people only to slap a cover that could be misinterpreted, as this image will certainly be???

I think a prior post is correct. If U2 fans can't fully accept this image, we're in trouble when it goes public; and I also think the act contradicts the desire U2 had to get this album and U2 to connect with as many people as possible through Apple.

These actions are polar opposites.