GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by dylbagz:I guess the album cover for NLOTH isn't art then either. Not to mention the fact that the SOI art was actually taken from a private shoot for an entirely separate use

    Obviously, many U2 fans will "get" the album cover. Some will love it. Is there anybody who thinks the album cover will generate sales for the physical product? That was my point...At this point in their career, they should want to avoid doing things that would even possibly have a negative impact on sales. It certainly isn't going to cause a flood of people into the shops to buy them. (I tried to sound European by saying shops ...)
  2. Sound European?
    How?
  3. Originally posted by pleasegone:[..]

    Obviously, many U2 fans will "get" the album cover. Some will love it. Is there anybody who thinks the album cover will generate sales for the physical product? That was my point...At this point in their career, they should want to avoid doing things that would even possibly have a negative impact on sales. It certainly isn't going to cause a flood of people into the shops to buy them. (I tried to sound European by saying shops ...)

    I get your point, and I pointed it myself when the first draft of the Larry&son cover leaked.

    But I don't think it's SUCH a terrible cover. Seriously. U2 have nothing to prove anymore, they are (or at least have been for longer than 20 years) the biggest rock band in the world - why should they impress anyone at this point? If something, try and make people talk about you - that's always a good thing, whether it's praise or critizise.

    And regarding sales, I don't think any of this album covers push (or pushed back in the day) anyone to go and spend 20 of their bucks on them - unless they wanted the album anyway (exactly the same as with SOI).

  4. My point is: like it or hate it, at least this cover is something apart of the usual stuff, it's something to talk about. Exactly the same as the album it contains: like it or hate it, at least they've gone and done a bold album that deviated from what they were doing previously. That's why the cover is great in itself (besides the meaning, the art quality of the photo, etc etc) - because it goes along well with its album's qualities and feelings.
  5. No-one will be flooding into shops to buy the album if it has this cover or no cover. People will be flooding into shops to buy a U2 record (if there's any flooding at all). The cover is a complete non-issue, unless it happens to be the most desirable artwork ever produced and U2 are trying to attract art collectors. You're buying music not pictures.
  6. Originally posted by iTim:No-one will be flooding into shops to buy the album if it has this cover or no cover. People will be flooding into shops to buy a U2 record (if there's any flooding at all). The cover is a complete non-issue, unless it happens to be the most desirable artwork ever produced and U2 are trying to attract art collectors. You're buying music not pictures.

    Thanks
  7. I don't know why they can't just go with something like this!

    Invalid url 'http://[IMG]http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/a618/Fasttruck1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps683f1bf2.jpg[/IMG]'
  9. I love the Miracle cover art, something in that vein would have been ideal for me. love the grainy monochrome.



    Honestly the more I look at the actual cover, the creepier it looks. but I'm just gonna have to look past that and enjoy the album for what it is (a strong set of songs) regardless of the image they've chosen to forever attach to it.
  10. Not completely correct. There are many U2-hearing folks that are not fans or following the band the way we do (it's even been that way for me many years - saw a U2 record, bought it.). There's this picture and if you are not constantly staring at the guys, you don't recognize it's U2's drummer. There's NO hint on it, it's a U2 record, some probably do not know it's out there. If I would have come across this in my not following times, I would seriously have questioned this band. Right now I DO know the facts behind the picture, but otherwise I wouldn't have known. I would probably not have bought it and just simply sneaked into the music somewhere else.

    So people who usually stumble across "oh, a new U2 record! great! *buy*" just see a somewhat weird photo, maybe distracting them, maybe make them angry (pointing the gay/incest flavor on it, don't forget U2 are often referred to as a Christian rock band and we do know how strict some Christians can actually be on topics like that, plus the USA, their biggest market, is really known for their moral standards, and double moral standards. ) and they think: no way I would buy that, no matter what the songs sound like.

    At their age and point of career it's not so much about risking to loose sales, but risking to make yourself ridiculous or just the goal of real public hate.

    And you are NOT ONLY buying music. That way you could just go and download it, legal or illegal, you wouldn't go to the record store. Bono is all about the artwork and pictures experience like back in the day, with a huge LP gatefold etc.

    There's always two sides to every story. So you can't talk those down who worry, that this album cover is bad for the band. I don't like the cover for many other reasons as well, but mostly I think they made a mistake. I surely buy it anyway, but I know, people who think bad, harsh etc. about it, do exist and they will not keep their mouths shut. You know it only takes a handful people bitching to get others to follow their track, no matter how many thousands out there don't care about it or like it.
  11. You people and your insecurities about your own manhood.
  12. I'm not a fan of the image itself. It made me feel a little uncomfortable because I know who is in the picture. I also questioned why the band would willingly have an image like that as their cover when it could be controversial in a bad way.

    That being said, I know what the album is about and the image makes sense. I like it for that reason.

    Someone mentioned the Boy cover earlier. Of course they changed it back then because it was their first album. They definitely don't care as much now as they would have then, plus times have changed.

    On the other hand (sort of contradicting my last point) they really do care about the general public so I do question this cover decision as I'm sure it won't sit well with some.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.