Album cover - Fanning - SoE

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
"When you stop seeing beauty
You start growing old
The lines on your face
Are a map to your soul

When you stop taking chances
You'll stay where you sit
You won't live any longer
But it'll feel like it

I lost myself in the summer rain
I lost myself
I lost myself in the summer rain
In the summer rain..."

U2 - Summer Rain
 
Look all the cover talk is good, let's people get different perspectives out there...and maybe, just maybe it'll help ease concerns and allow those, who find it either offense, or in poor taste, a different avenue to look at it.

Either way, it's going to be out there for EVERYONE to see...:yes:
 
Nick66 said:
Indeed...and your question just points out that the image isn't as clear cut in its meaning as some are making it out to be. There's more to this than "Either you get it or you're sick". People who think that don't understand what art is supposed to do, or why U2 chose this kind of image when there were a million other ways to display parental love.

And if the pic was simple, or just a clear cut photo of innocence, it would not be anywhere near so interesting and no one would be talking about it. U2 knows what they're doing, even if some of us don't.
Click to expand...

Yes, people seem to be either selective in their outrage in criticizing the photo, or selective in their "progressiveness" in defending it.
 
Reggie Thee Dog said:
Look all the cover talk is good, let's people get different perspectives out there...and maybe, just maybe it'll help ease concerns and allow those, who find it either offense, or in poor taste, a different avenue to look at it.
Click to expand...

Of course. That's part of what makes it great art. If everyone saw the same thing when the looked it at it, it wouldn't be meaningful as a work of art. That's why I said earlier that part of the reason the pic works so well is because make people think about what they're looking at.

It's also interesting that you can only see the work as an "innocent" if you know the people in the pic are father and son. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to just look at the image and not see the sexuality in it. No one can look at a pic of two shirtless guys, one on his knees hugging the other at waist level and not see sexuality. The pic is "innocent" only if you know the context. So then knowing who the people in the pic are and what the context of this pic is changes your appreciation of the image...again, art doing what it's supposed to do.

Again, U2 knows what they're doing. If all they wanted to convey was parental love, then why choose this particular image?

morgan1098 said:
Yes, people seem to be either selective in their outrage in criticizing the photo, or selective in their "progressiveness" in defending it.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't even think it's necessary to take "sides" in this discussion, that's besides the point. Different people will see the pic in different ways...that's that power of the picture.
 
morgan1098 said:
Remember the four Joshua Tree singles, each with a different band member on the front? Maybe we could get four different SOI covers, each with a band member in a compromising position with one of his kids.

KIDDING. I really wish this topic would die. I love what the photo represents but I also understand why it could be controversial to people who don't know the back story.
Click to expand...

This is the funniest thing I have read all day. Thanks for the belly laugh!
 
My only complaint and issue with the cover, again, is that they already had a release that has overshadowed the music, and they're following that up with a cover that clearly will do the same.

Just because it "shouldn't" be controversial doesn't mean it won't be, as this thread has shown... and I'd really like the discussion to remain focused on the music, as it's strong enough to not need anything else to bring attention to it.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Just because it "shouldn't" be controversial doesn't mean it won't be, as this thread has shown.
Click to expand...

:up:

Headache in a Suitcase said:
My only complaint and issue with the cover, again, is that they already had a release that has overshadowed the music, and they're following that up with a cover that clearly will do the same.

I'd really like the discussion to remain focused on the music, as it's strong enough to not need anything else to bring attention to it.
Click to expand...


I agree with this also. But don't you think that U2 has pretty much conceded that they can't get the attention they want with just the music anymore, and therefore they feel like they have to do stuff like this to get any (significant) attention at all?

In other words, if U2 had just dropped this record a couple weeks ago in the conventional way with a conventional cover....would anyone be talking about it? Is the music good enough? And even if the music great, say spectacular, all 5 star reviews, everyone is raving about it (and that's not the case), even under those circumstances can U2 get the kind of Beyonce level attention they want on just the music alone?

And in fairness to U2, they are releasing a physical disc 5 weeks after the music's already been out there, it's unlikely people would be talking about the music at that point no matter how good it was. They have to do something to get attention for what is essentially a month old record...which is why you haven't seen any videos or real promo for it yet.

It really is uncharted territory, trying to "sell" and promote record as new 5 weeks after you've given it away for free. That's why I say U2 knows what they're doing with this cover...and damn, these guys aren't boring.
 
Nick66 said:
:up:




I agree with this also. But don't you think that U2 has pretty much conceded that they can't get the attention they want with just the music anymore, and therefore they feel like they have to do stuff like this to get any (significant) attention at all?

In other words, if U2 had just dropped this record a couple weeks ago in the conventional way with a conventional cover....would anyone be talking about it? Is the music good enough? And even if the music great, say spectacular, all 5 star reviews, everyone is raving about it (and that's not the case), even under those circumstances can U2 get the kind of Beyonce level attention they want on just the music alone?

And in fairness to U2, they are releasing a physical disc 5 weeks after the music's already been out there, it's unlikely people would be talking about the music at that point no matter how good it was. They have to do something to get attention for what is essentially a month old record...which is why you haven't seen any videos or real promo for it yet.

It really is uncharted territory, trying to "sell" and promote record as new 5 weeks after you've given it away for free. That's why I say U2 knows what they're doing with this cover...and damn, these guys aren't boring.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I agree with all if this. Who'd have thought a band in their mud 50s would have the energy or motivation to go through all of this? It makes Bono's comments about 'why does the world need a new U2 album' a lot clearer.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
In retrospect, I'm not sure why so many of us insisted that the cover released with the Apple version was going to be the final one (and I include myself in that group).

It really makes no sense that they would release an album to stores worldwide in mid October with "September 9, 2014" written on the front.
 
lazarus said:
In retrospect, I'm not sure why so many of us insisted that the cover released with the Apple version was going to be the final one (and I include myself in that group).

It really makes no sense that they would release an album to stores worldwide in mid October with "September 9, 2014" written on the front.
Click to expand...


Yep, that and Tim Cook specifically called it a white label copy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I remember him saying something about "white label" at the Apple event, after the performance and during that awkward exchange before they hit the album release button.
 
Yeah - when the cover showed on the screen he asked Bono "is this a white label copy?"


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Target will issue a censored version:

songsfortarget.jpg
 
I also think the picture is photo shopped. In the original photo, Larry is wrestling Bono after Bono's comments about the SOE release schedule :sexywink:
 
The cat cover will be even more controversial since we all know Larry despises cats. It's clearly about him finally facing his inner demons. Brave Larry :up:
 
I always thought of LMJ as a cat(Siamese perhaps with a nasty but trustworthy disposition ..Bono as a Ferret ...Adam as a Fancy Goldfish...Edge as a Luna Moth. And the band as a whole as how do you all get along...well maybe they don't and thats why it takes 5 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Looking for the best storyteller of U2 - Garage to Stadius
Replies
0
Views
511
Dave A
D
Registered Dude
  • Locked
Songs of _________________; New album discussion #7
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
54K
U2387
U2387
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
437
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
dan_smee
New Album Discussion 1 - Songs of..... - Unreasonable guitar album
62 63 64
Replies
2K
Views
108K
wolbersu2
W
Headache in a Suitcase
New Album Discussion 9 - Larry needs new arms, ba rum pa pum pum
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
57K
clerks
clerks

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom