Reinhard
I will talk about the shitty album cover all day long, but I am still not heading to Musica 8)
joealien22
Maybe he just doesn't give sh*t about the album cover? Maybe the music is all that matters? Maybe after all his albums he has released, album cover art work means nothing to him. Or maybe he's trying to prove a point that its not what you or your artwork look like but it's about the quality of music? And those who are willing to see past the arbitrary cover will find reward in the music? Just throwing it out there.
I have many albums with crappy artwork but great music.
Look at people like Carly Rae Jepson, or Nikki Minaj. They have looks that appeal to the current trends, but music that leaves a sour taste on your ear tongue!
Reinhard
Just because he doesn't give a shit, doesn't mean he shouldn't give a shit.
Unoriginal, conservative and done in 5 minutes with Windows Paint, but it still looks like it took longer than the actual album cover.
Tokai-SA
Perhaps he doesn't want an unoriginal cover posing with a guitar looking like his 40 years old.
He could have got Annie Leibovitz to do a photo session, plastered his face with makeup to cover the wrinkles, gone the photoshop route and had an album cover that looked exactly the opposite to what he feels and looks like these days.
I think the cover sends us the message he wants to send, that he's an 'old sock' that likes hanging around on a Caribbean beach being lazy.
I buy Clapton albums without previewing any of the tracks, it's Clapton, I know it's great stuff.
If he puts his hands on a guitar I know whatever he plays will be magical.
Reinhard
Tokai SA wrote:
Perhaps he doesn't want an unoriginal cover posing with a guitar looking like his 40 years old.
He could have got Annie Leibovitz to do a photo session, plastered his face with makeup to cover the wrinkles, gone the photoshop route and had an album cover that looked exactly the opposite to what he feels and looks like these days.
I think the cover sends us the message he wants to send, that he's an 'old sock' that likes hanging around on a Caribbean beach being lazy.
I buy Clapton albums without previewing any of the tracks, it's Clapton, I know it's great stuff.
If he puts his hands on a guitar I know whatever he plays will be magical.
I only had google image to work with ? An his recent pics didn't give me much to work with and I couldn't find any vacation/tropic/old dude chillin' pics either. Point is he could have gotten Annie to do a shoot, no makeup required etc. Nobody is debating his musical talent, but why serve a 5 star meal in a takeaway box?
joealien22
Whats does a books cover matter? Its all about the content.
Reinhard
Luc wrote:
Whats does a books cover matter? Its all about the content.
You are right, we should just be glad it comes in a CD box. Don't complain if the next one comes in a brown paper bag with "Clapton" written on it in ballpoint pen. ?
Tokai-SA
Reinhard wrote:
Tokai SA wrote:
Perhaps he doesn't want an unoriginal cover posing with a guitar looking like his 40 years old.
He could have got Annie Leibovitz to do a photo session, plastered his face with makeup to cover the wrinkles, gone the photoshop route and had an album cover that looked exactly the opposite to what he feels and looks like these days.
I think the cover sends us the message he wants to send, that he's an 'old sock' that likes hanging around on a Caribbean beach being lazy.
I buy Clapton albums without previewing any of the tracks, it's Clapton, I know it's great stuff.
If he puts his hands on a guitar I know whatever he plays will be magical.
I only had google image to work with ? An his recent pics didn't give me much to work with and I couldn't find any vacation/tropic/old dude chillin' pics either.
You did a great job, it looks very cool indeed. 8)
AlanRatcliffe
Tokai SA wrote:
I think the cover sends us the message he wants to send, that he's an 'old sock' that likes hanging around on a Caribbean beach being lazy.
+1. I'm not a fan, but that seems obvious to me.
Old socks are scruffy, often unfashionable, but comfortable.
Bob-Dubery
Luc wrote:
Whats does a books cover matter? Its all about the content.
Yes. A bum cover does not mean a bum album any more than impressive packaging guarantees great music.
Reinhard
It is still about presentation. The old sock, been around the block idea could just have been visualized better. It's like slapping a Datsun body on a Porsche chassis and saying "What are you complaining about, it still performs like sports car". And yes, before anyone says it, I know the visual aspect is more important in cars than album covers.
I'll admit it, I am a sucker for good/nice packaging.
singemonkey
It's not about whether he looks old and comfortable. It's the fact that the cover does not look professionally done. It's taken on a point and shoot or a phone camera in all likihood, in the harshest of light, and then they've used the most absurd font and surrounds. If it was done on purpose, the purpose was to make it look crappy. It's not a question of how Clapton feels. Either the graphic design was farmed out to a high-school kid, or they were intentionally trying to make it look ultra cheap-'n-cheerful for some reason.
Bob-Dubery
I think packaging can send a message, but I think Clapton doesn't have to worry about that particularly. He's not, at this stage of his career, needing or, I'd wager, particularly expecting to gain new fans. He's probably got a core of fans who will buy whatever he puts out anyway. His last few albums have not sold bus loads, and I doubt that new album sales are his greatest source of income anyway.
A bit like the Stones, I guess. They can charge massive sums for tickets to their live shows, but people, and especially young people with disposable income, are not going to queue around the block for the new Stones album.
I think the artwork looks shoddy (though I don't mind the actual photo that much) but I can't see it causing him much damage.
domhatch
well i, for one, couldn't give a damn what the cover looks like, i'm headed straight for the store to buy the album. certainly sounds intriguing - ten covers and two originals, or so. i hate missing out on something new from clapton, whether it be interpretations or original material. he's always been a big influence on me - he and knopfler are the biggest reasons i picked up a guitar in the first place, barring paul simon.
i'll let you know what it's like in about an hour.
dh
domhatch
dang. pre-order only on itunes. i thought the release date was 7 march.
guess that hour will have to stretch out a bit. the previews sound promising though.
dh
Bob-Dubery
domhatch wrote:
dang. pre-order only on itunes. i thought the release date was 7 march.
Might be different release dates in different territories.
singemonkey
I think some people seem to be missing the point. No one's saying, "The artwork is crappy indicating that album is not worth having?" We're asking, "Why is the artwork so very, very, crappy for such a prominent artist?"
domhatch
the argument is then moot - there's no-one around to answer. we must just accept that crappy it is, and has no bearing on the music.
that said, packaging has been shown to have huge influence on purchase decisions. so it is a peculiar choice. then again, despite their peculiar packaging, millions put up and gaze upon posters of gaga, keef, bieber, gahan, manson (marilyn), etc.
it's a weird old world
dh
singemonkey
Mysteries are there to be solved, domhatch ? Even if you don't solve them entirely, they often take you on weird and wonderful journeys - far more exciting than the original mystery. ?
