GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by markp91:Best cover they ever had, love the contrast. The empty-ness in the top, the full-ness below. It's epic and I think it totally fits the songs, after hearing that 30s-snippet of NLOTH. Too bad there are two blocks in the middle, but I guess Bono had a certain thought of it...And No Line On The Horizon means of course: Sea=Sky, the moment where these two worlds come together.

    And it makes me think of Forth by The Verve:
    [image]


    That 30s snippet is a confirmed fake though, as expected. But let's stick to the cover.
  2. I thought Casper's cover was better. Great font too

    No seriously.

    The official one doesn't even show an invisible horizon, they lost an 'oh, wow!' moment there.

    And without an invisible horizon (like in the photo Casper used) the equal sign doesn't quite work, as it emphasies the horizon, which is there just like it normally is.

    If the background photo had an invisible horizon, then the lines hint that the horizon is missing, and so the "No Line On The Horizon" title is effectively translated into a graphic.

    The official cover looks like one for some minimalist Japanese ambient music CD.
    I would expect Original Soundtracks No.2. to have a cover like this.
  3. Originally posted by vanquish:I thought Casper's cover was better.
    [image]
    No seriously.

    The official one doesn't even show an invisible horizon, they lost an 'oh wow' moment there.
    And without an invisible horizon (like in the photo Casper used) they equal sign doesn't quite work, as it emphasies the horizon, which is there just like normal. If the background photo had an invisible horizon, then the lines hint that the horizon is missing, and so the "No Line On The Horizon" title is effectively translated into a graphic.




    I do like that as well. They've gone really simple with this one - it reminds me of so many covers.


  4. Oh okay, missed that for a second

    @ Lyndon: I must agree Casper's cover is better, but I'm sure there's a good explanation for this cover
    And stuff might get explained with the booklet, why the gray blocks?
    Maybe they wanted to cause confusion, as on AB.
    'huh? NLOTH, but I do see a horizon! '

    We'll see
  5. I have to admit, the first time I saw it I thought "oh... okay... that's it?! mmh " -- I felt a bit disappointed, and I can't even tell why. I immediately thought that I like Casper's work much better, truth be told.

    but now that I've let it sink in for a few hours and look at it again, I think it's not too bad. It will make people think about it, and discuss it (like we do ) in order to find out the meaning behind it. I think it's a good choice. Even though I still prefer Casper's one - but it's a good cover. It gets better the longer I stare at it LOL
  6. Originally posted by markp91:[..]

    Oh okay, missed that for a second

    @ Lyndon: I must agree Casper's cover is better, but I'm sure there's a good explanation for this cover
    And stuff might get explained with the booklet, why the gray blocks?
    Maybe they wanted to cause confusion, as on AB.
    'huh? NLOTH, but I do see a horizon! '

    We'll see


    The blocks (or equal sign) emphasise the horizon, as I explained above it doesn't really work as they're just empasising a regular horizon, not an invisible one, like the title would suggest.

    I thought Casper's was more elegant that the official cover as well, only two visual elements, as compared to 4.

    But again the cover doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, only if we are discussing it's merits on its own, like we are in this topic.

    And I think its a good cover, not the best, but not the worst either by a long shot.
  7. Originally posted by vanquish:
    If the background photo had an invisible horizon, then the lines hint that the horizon is missing, and so the "No Line On The Horizon" title is effectively translated into a graphic.


    I emailed the album art to a friend, telling her about the line being there, this is what she said, and I like it:

    that is the point! If you consider the sea and the sky as two different things there is a horizon between them but if you consider the sea equal (that is "=") to the sky then there is no horizon! It depends how you look at it! Or better say how you look at the differences in the world among people, traditions, religions, ....


    I like it this way, the truth is that there IS a line on the horizon, the sea and sky are seperate, but if you learn to look at things differently...
    (don't hit me for reading too much into it Lyndon )
  8. I don't like the "=" symbol at all (really I hope that the symbol is just a block covering the name of the band and the album, then it would be fantastic for me) , and I dislike the actual existance of horizon... I prefer the photograph by that Japanese guy, that IS no line on the horizon...
  9. Originally posted by Ali709:[..]

    I emailed the album art to a friend, telling her about the line being there, this is what she said, and I like it:

    [..]

    I like it this way, the truth is that there IS a line on the horizon, the sea and sky are seperate, but if you learn to look at things differently...
    (don't hit me for reading too much into it Lyndon )


    This sounds like a pretty logical and clear explanation
  10. Originally posted by Ali709:[..]

    I emailed the album art to a friend, telling her about the line being there, this is what she said, and I like it:

    [..]

    I like it this way, the truth is that there IS a line on the horizon, the sea and sky are seperate, but if you learn to look at things differently...
    (don't hit me for reading too much into it Lyndon )


    Ali, I really think your friend is reading a bit too much into it. Why would they want you to conceptualise that the equal sign suggests an equality between sea and sky.
    When instead they can simply show the same thing by having a shot of an invisible horizon?

    I also think that the equal sign sort of disrupts the poignance and beauty of the photo, rather than adding to it.
  11. Originally posted by LikeASong:I don't like the "=" symbol at all (really I hope that the symbol is just a block covering the name of the band and the album, then it would be fantastic for me) , and I dislike the actual existance of horizon... I prefer the photograph by that Japanese guy, that IS no line on the horizon...


    I was just thinking... maybe the actual existance of the horizon and the "=" symbol is supposed to imply that - I don't know how to say that in English - things are still in process somehow, that where we are right now is not the final stage of something, but maybe listening to the music, or the musical journey the album will take us on, will take us to the point where there will be... no line on the horizon, no difference between that light and dark anymore... that what you get with this album is not a fact, a given statement, but only a stop on the journey, the journey that will eventually lead to the moment where the horizon will not exist anymore and everything blends into one.

U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.