Where the album has a cover? [CONFIRMED]

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok. If you think 1 is a reason, then you have issues with TUF, JT, AB, Pop, and ATYCLB. Dont think having the band on the cover automatically makes it suck.

2 is legitimate, but points towards boring rather than crapness.
3 holds for JT and ATYCLB as well
4 emphasize to me the directness of the songs, the painting in "primary colors". So it suits the material IMO.
5,6,8. Agree, they look sort of weird, but there's a bit of mischief in everyone, which makes it a cut above ATYCLB
10. If you waited 4 years dreaming about the fucking album cover, I really haven't much to say
9,11-already dealt with
12 - So you'd have a picture of Little Man and Fat Boy on there?
 
Just "U2", without the title, like they did with Boy :drool:


nloth2.jpg
 
its an album cover.........but anyway.........there was one photo during the time of bomb of the guys standing in the desert somewhere that would have been a little bit better than that piece of crap that made the album. the new one is kinda cool........mysterious..........hopefully it will fit the music
 
That too. No Corbijn photo for the cover ?

Do they always have to have a Corbijn photo for the cover??
I'm sure U2 will have plenty of Corbijn shots in the 36 page whatever booklet that accompanies the CD.
Plus....you could say Corbijn inspired U2 to use that image....like I said before the beginning of the video for "Electrical Storm" which Corbijn directed looks a lot like that image that may/may not be the U2 cover.
 
If not used for the front cover, this could make a nice back cover picture. Pretty easy to imagine the tracklist, etc., printed over it.
 
I really doubt they would just take someone's pre-existing art and use it for a cover, instead of doing something themselves.

And while working with Corbjin may seem like a lame pattern (especially after The Bomb's cover, which was atrocious), if he's good enough to create a film to go along with the album, he's certainly still worthy of working on a cover.

Considering the long gestation period of this album, and the international background of the recording sessions and song subjects, that's a little too basic for me.

Count me among the people crying "bullshit" on this rumour.
 
its an album cover.........but anyway.........there was one photo during the time of bomb of the guys standing in the desert somewhere that would have been a little bit better than that piece of crap that made the album. the new one is kinda cool........mysterious..........hopefully it will fit the music

yeah I know the one you were talking about it looked like they were looking down at somehing(Bomb) that was in a hole in the ground.I'll never know why they went with that God awful cover for the last album..it really was horrid....Bono looked like an alien.
 
I was just wondering... if the DVD that comes together with the deluxe edition of NLOTH was made by Anton Corbijn, wouldn't he be the most likely choice for the cover art too?
 
Do they always have to have a Corbijn photo for the cover??
I'm sure U2 will have plenty of Corbijn shots in the 36 page whatever booklet that accompanies the CD.
Plus....you could say Corbijn inspired U2 to use that image....like I said before the beginning of the video for "Electrical Storm" which Corbijn directed looks a lot like that image that may/may not be the U2 cover.

They've been pretty consistent in using his photos since War.
 
I was just wondering... if the DVD that comes together with the deluxe edition of NLOTH was made by Anton Corbijn, wouldn't he be the most likely choice for the cover art too?



I can see it both ways. They might feel free to use someone else's work because they're giving Anton the dvd (that's huge....it's free directorial advertising for Anton). Still, they've done so much work with him throughout their career, it'd be a shame in a way if they didn't use him.
 
I really doubt they would just take someone's pre-existing art and use it for a cover, instead of doing something themselves.

And while working with Corbjin may seem like a lame pattern (especially after The Bomb's cover, which was atrocious), if he's good enough to create a film to go along with the album, he's certainly still worthy of working on a cover.

Considering the long gestation period of this album, and the international background of the recording sessions and song subjects, that's a little too basic for me.

Count me among the people crying "bullshit" on this rumour.

Look,it may or may not be the cover...but just because U2 have been doing things one way...doesn't mean they might not be open to the possiblity of changing things up a bit...I'm sure Corbijn wouldn't be that terribly offended and let's face it there is no line on that horizon:D
 
So my bet is...someone who knew the name of U2's new album saw that piece of artwork and started a rumor.
 
@buzzkill27: Thanks for the pic, but where did you pick up the rumour from? I mean, I'm not looking for anything concrete (especially if you can't say), but just to get an idea how you came up with this. Much appreciated!

I for one think we're on to something here. Makes sense.
 
They've been pretty consistent in using his photos since War.


Zooropa wasn't a photo..and the Pop cover wasn't what you would call a traditional photo..though they may have been his images....maybe they have thought about changing things up this time and after all it's not like Corbijn is doing nothing...the inside CD jacket photos will be his...he is directing that film for the album...I'm sure Corbijn's ego can take it.
 
It certainly resembles the Sea and Sky video that Larry made from before. But I still wonder what happened to those Dollymount Beach pictures, the area looks beautiful and quite colorful as well from what I can tell.
 
while it's certainly a lovely image, it doesn't strike me as being a U2 cover.

but neither did the cover for HTDAAB so what do I know.
 
i like the version someone mocked up to make it like Boy... just a plain U2 at the top, nothing else. that would be nifty.

and for the love of pete, could some of you just read a few posts before asking the same friggin queston??

where is the source for this?!?!?!?!

that question has been answered at least 4 times in this thread alone... just look a little and you'll find one of them.
 
Zooropa wasn't a photo..and the Pop cover wasn't what you would call a traditional photo..though they may have been his images....maybe they have thought about changing things up this time and after all it's not like Corbijn is doing nothing...the inside CD jacket photos will be his...he is directing that film for the album...I'm sure Corbijn's ego can take it.

Hence the "pretty consistent" part.
(Was Rattle and Hum cover also Corbijn or is that an image taken from the movie ?)

Corbijn's done their videos and inside jacket photos before too.
 
Also, POP's cover photos were taken by Corbjin and then digitized. And while Zooropa may not have featured his work, at least it was made up of video images from U2's own creative team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom