singemonkey wrote:
Clapton's big enough to veto a really kak cover. And bands without a pot to piss in can sort out a better cover than that - and I'm sure Clapton is pally with quite a few big photographers. My suspicion is that it's meant to be ironic. The album title is also unattractive, right? And maybe he's going for a kind of Caribbean local release circa 1980 kind of look. If so, I reckon it's a failure. Of course, it could be really sneaky, and they figured an awful looking cover and awful sounding title would get people talking about the record as we're doing now.
Clapton strikes me as never having been keen to flex his muscles. A few years ago there were comments from him that the record company won't let him do the records he wants to do but, as you say, you'd think he has enough clout to insist on what he wants. But it's a funny old business. I have heard Tom Jones making similar complaints, and you'd think he'd made a meaningful contribution to the label's bottom line over the years.
All that said, I think it's an attempt to go for a sort of homespun feel, and I don't think that many acts want to splash out big bucks for Hipgnosis covers these days.
I'd wager he's making a lot more money out of live shows than record sales anyway. This album (like the previous one) is nearly all covers, so it's not like he's going to be cashing in on the composer royalties.
