GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by pleasegone:[..]

    I don't know any American who would use the word "Shops" for going to buy a cd. It's always "Stores."

    You know Europe isn't a country where they speak the same language everywhere!? Like they are not homophobic christians everywhere in the USA!
    This discussion and the lack of knowledge really bugs me.
  3. The fact that the cover is a father and son is a beautiful thing to me - love between male family members doesn't have to dissipate just because the younger one is now an adult.

    If it weren't father and son, I guess it would take on a completely different meaning, which is just fine, but not really something U2 has really been about over the course their career.

    Does it work as an album cover? I'm not too sure at this point - maybe not as a stand alone. However, if it is part of a "series," then we might be getting somewhere.
  6. Originally posted by pleasegone:I understand having a man and his son shirtless can symbolize innocence, but do we really want our band's big album to have a cover that even remotely will provoke gay/incest jokes? I obviously am no advocate for incest, or jokes about it, but let's be serious... I have no problem with anybody being gay, but this cover is going to get too much attention...

    I'm obviously going to buy it, but I will turn the booklet inside out, as I simply don't want to see this picture.


    this and so many other comments about "feeling uncomfortable" are truly shocking to me. cannot believe this cover is regared with so much ignorance and close-mindedness get over yourselves.
  7. Originally posted by flowerchild:[..]


    this and so many other comments about "feeling uncomfortable" are truly shocking to me. cannot believe this cover is regared with so much ignorance and close-mindedness get over yourselves.

    I'm freaking out too. I somehow find amusing and shameful at the same time that U2 fans are this close-minded. Wow. Haven't you learnt anything from the time you've been a U2 fan? Tolerance, respect? Hmmm.
  8. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]

    I'm freaking out too. I somehow find amusing and shameful at the same time that U2 fans are this close-minded. Wow. Haven't you learnt anything from the time you've been a U2 fan? Tolerance, respect? Hmmm.

    this. exactly.
  9. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]

    I'm freaking out too. I somehow find amusing and shameful at the same time that U2 fans are this close-minded. Wow. Haven't you learnt anything from the time you've been a U2 fan? Tolerance, respect? Hmmm.

    So where is the "tolerance" and "respect" for people that don't like it? Hmmm...

  10. This. I always find it funny how people ask for tolerance because someone doesn't like a certain thing U2 is doing, but are not able to just accept and TOLERATE, that some fans just have a different opinion. Being a fan does not mean, you have to love everything they do.

    Even more interesting how people that first agreed when pointing out that this picture might be very questionable suddenly just love it, when they talk it in public.

    Plus: We do worry about what reaction this cover causes out there. That doesn't mean WE do have a problem with gay things. (an "incest thing" on the other hand is nothing anyone should tolerate, tho. I'm speaking in general on that topic, not tied to the picture or the band.)
    A picture creating such ideas, controversy and themes is probably just not sitting right with the INNOCENT topic.
    Some fans just probably don't like it, because it's very dark, too abstract or anything else. We don't have to love it just because the band puts it on their cover.

    At least, I do think about what the world might think and say and this affects the band and their fans as well (oh my god! u2? isn't that the band with that gay thingy cover??? how can you love THEM???). I don't have any problem with gay people or whatever. But there are many that do, and I'm aware of that.

    At the end of the day, most press reports will cover the "U2 raped my iPhone" story and the "gay/incest cover" and not care fo the songs. "Any publicity is good" they say but sometimes, it's simply not.
  11. Originally posted by sparko:[..]

    This. I always find it funny how people ask for tolerance because someone doesn't like a certain thing U2 is doing, but are not able to just accept and TOLERATE, that some fans just have a different opinion. Being a fan does not mean, you have to love everything they do.


    speaking for myself: concerning this particular cover I differ between fans that simply don't like the cover, because they don't like black and white pictures or whatever, and those who feel uncomfortable because they particularly look at a man hugging a boy / see shirtless men. I do think that is something to be concerned about and I, personally, find it close-minded and am actually disappointed by it (us being u2 fans especially). I'm tolerating it, I'm not forbidding anybody to express their opinion, but by posting it in a public place one has to expect that it collides with others.

    if everybody would just "accept" opinions by being silent then we don't need this forum as its purpose is to discuss these things, just my 2 cents.
  12. I don't mind their cover choice, but I personally really liked the "white LP" cover that they had with the itunes release. When the physical album comes around, I'll probably swap the album art on my itunes with the older cover.

    But I really don't see what the big deal is about the cover. For the U2 haters, they will hate anything that has U2 on the cover. Point is, who cares about the haters. I don't and U2 certainly doesn't.


    From the fans' standpoint, how is this any less provocative than anything from the Achtung Baby era? Have any of you even seen a ZooTV gig before? Propaganda flashing during The Fly, broadcasted confessionals, Bono's alternate egos, MACPHISTO? I don't know about you, but I personally think that's a bit more provocative than this cover.