Covering Album Covers

[WestwayKid]

It's funny, in the golden age of paperbacks—1940s and 1950s—there was a general rule that publishers reserved their best covers for the lousiest books, figuring that reviews and word-of-mouth would sell the good books, but that the shitty ones needed that hook for the unaware.

But your point also speaks to how seriously we take this stuff. Well into the 60s, few thought much about album sleeves. It was disposable kid stuff—throw the singer's face on the cover so people know who it is, good enough. But by the mid- to late-60s, when rock n roll became rock, this stuff became serious, a package, to be considered actual art. We were expected to judge the book by its cover because it was all one thing. We can probably pinpoint all that to the Beatles with Revolver and Pepper, and more generally the psychedelic bands.

Dylan also comes to mind when I think about the evolution of the album cover from packaging to statement.

Which albums are you thinking about? Tho those 60s sleeves have achieved iconic status because of him (in the same way as early Beatles records), nothing immediately stands out to me as being more than a photo of him on the jacket.

The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan for sure - arm in arm with Suze Rotolo. The casualness of the image contrasted against the carefully staged photos that adorned the majority of album covers at the time. Bringing It All Back Home with it's carefully arranged props. It feels like Dylan (and/or the art department at Columbia) understood that a cover - even if it did feature the artist - could also be used to emphasize the music. He's a young troubadour on the cover of his first LP, a casual hipster on Freewheelin', the heir to Woody Guthrie on The Times They Are a-Changin', the hostile/jaded prophet on Highway 61 and the intellectual on Blonde on Blonde.

Marketed and received as a folk singer, I imagine the sleeve was taken more seriously—folkies were considered serious, intellectual consumers—but I'm not convinced that the sleeve are was considered an important part of the package in the way we've been talking. But I could well be wrong on this.

I think Dylan represented as the folk singer in his various guises and The Beach Boys with their "fun in the sun" look were steps towards covers being more than simply covers. There was an attempt to create or maybe bolster an image to go along with the music. I would agree that it was a few years further down the road, however, that we started seeing covers that could be considered art.

[Dr. Medulla]

Marketed and received as a folk singer, I imagine the sleeve was taken more seriously—folkies were considered serious, intellectual consumers—but I'm not convinced that the sleeve are was considered an important part of the package in the way we've been talking. But I could well be wrong on this.

Possibly not, but perhaps a step in that direction?

Maybe, tho if so in an indirect way. Rock music, as something to be taken seriously, was a merging of rock n roll and folk, but taking the album sleeves seriously seems less folk to me than towards formal, high culture art. Treated as something very deliberate, containing meaning and message, and to be admired for its technique. It's to appreciated for its individuality, not representative of something social, as folk would be. At least that's my initial inclination on the question.

[Wolter]

All this being said - there is no bigger musical turnoff for me than a really poorly conceived sleeve. Maybe it is because of my background - but when I see something that looks slapped together - I almost always assume something about the music contained within. Sure - there are plenty of good records in bad packages - but there is also something really special when it all comes together. Pet Sounds, as an example. The cover design is not obvious - especially coming from 1966 - but it works and has become almost as iconic as the music.

Speaking of The Beach Boys - but they had (at least in my opinion) a run of great looking album covers starting with Surfin' Safari. 15 Big Ones is the first one I actively despise.

15 Big Ones looks like a shitty cash in compilation. The fact that it was actually a new release with that cover is baffling.

Dean Torrence is responsible for that cover. Not to detail the thread - but that release is huge blot in their discography. Holland was a really great LP and then Capitol released Endless Summer and it all fell apart. The idea of dragging Brian back into the studio to try and recapture the glory days of the 60's was a really bad idea - so in the end - the crappy cover is very fitting for the crappy music. I mean, there are a few highlights - but for the most part it's just not good and did nothing to move the band forward artistically.

Yeah. If they hadn’t released the charmingly weird Love You after that, that would’ve marked the end of The Beach Boys as anything but nostalgia. And, let’s be real: it was only like a decade since their peak then, so that was a stunning retreat.

The decline was very stunning. Love You was indeed a charmingly brilliant diversion - but MIU Album, LA (Light Album), Keepin' the Summer Alive...the fall was fast and depressing.

It was such a rapid fall that even to this day most people I know assume there’s nothing of value post the Smile Sessions, despite the decade after Smile being a weird and wonderful roller coaster ride into what a band becomes when it no longer knows exactly what it is.

[WestwayKid]

15 Big Ones looks like a shitty cash in compilation. The fact that it was actually a new release with that cover is baffling.

Dean Torrence is responsible for that cover. Not to detail the thread - but that release is huge blot in their discography. Holland was a really great LP and then Capitol released Endless Summer and it all fell apart. The idea of dragging Brian back into the studio to try and recapture the glory days of the 60's was a really bad idea - so in the end - the crappy cover is very fitting for the crappy music. I mean, there are a few highlights - but for the most part it's just not good and did nothing to move the band forward artistically.

Yeah. If they hadn’t released the charmingly weird Love You after that, that would’ve marked the end of The Beach Boys as anything but nostalgia. And, let’s be real: it was only like a decade since their peak then, so that was a stunning retreat.

The decline was very stunning. Love You was indeed a charmingly brilliant diversion - but MIU Album, LA (Light Album), Keepin' the Summer Alive...the fall was fast and depressing.

It was such a rapid fall that even to this day most people I know assume there’s nothing of value post the Smile Sessions, despite the decade after Smile being a weird and wonderful roller coaster ride into what a band becomes when it no longer knows exactly what it is.

Their pursuit of trying to find themselves led to some really incredible albums. It is interesting/weird how most people do assume that the artistic progression of the band ground to a half when Brian couldn't finish Smile.

[Kory]

If the alpha and omega of punk (broadly conceived) is some kind of resistance to authority and the mainstream, it seems to me that its value is just therapeutic not political. Which has its value, don't get me wrong, but it's still depressing that it can't put forward a practical, positive alternative without collapsing.

It does speak to more regional scenes, though. If the idea spreads but the specific bands are only known locally, that can have some value in a sort of "states' rights" way (and probably did back in the cusp). For me, the idea is more important than any specific band, since I use it as a personal philosophy for life. Maybe that's all it can be, but that could potentially be effective if enough people picked it up from their region. I guess it would just be a matter of how much each scene drifted from the next, and it probably still would only have limited appeal even within its region just because people really seem to crave authority.

It certainly lays bare the commercial nature of music, then. The illusion of entertainment or personal connection that people had with radio or even MTV is stripped away.

Yeah, and I haven't heard the word "sellout" in at least a decade. I don't think anybody cares anymore.

[Dr. Medulla]

If the alpha and omega of punk (broadly conceived) is some kind of resistance to authority and the mainstream, it seems to me that its value is just therapeutic not political. Which has its value, don't get me wrong, but it's still depressing that it can't put forward a practical, positive alternative without collapsing.

It does speak to more regional scenes, though. If the idea spreads but the specific bands are only known locally, that can have some value in a sort of "states' rights" way (and probably did back in the cusp). For me, the idea is more important than any specific band, since I use it as a personal philosophy for life. Maybe that's all it can be, but that could potentially be effective if enough people picked it up from their region. I guess it would just be a matter of how much each scene drifted from the next, and it probably still would only have limited appeal even within its region just because people really seem to crave authority.

Or that punk values have very limited use when applied to commercial matters like music. Does it have more social significance if turned into, loosely speaking, a religion? This question of punk and capitalism is something I think about a lot in the context of my work, and what stands out is how poorly punk values function when exposed to the larger world. Band after band, label after label, either have to stay small/quit or get swallowed up by ambition and having to deal with the mainstream.

Yeah, and I haven't heard the word "sellout" in at least a decade. I don't think anybody cares anymore.

Which has been the warning of those hostile to postmodernism—it strips away all value and principle in favour of diversion and profit. Which is to say, Adorno et al were basically right, but were wrong in thinking culture would be massified, when it's actually endlessly fragmented.

[oliver]

Mentioning Rough Trade - I think an important part of the legend of The Smiths was that Morrissey was allowed so much freedom when it came to designing sleeves.

Have you read Peepholism by Jo Slee? It's a book all about the artwork of The Smiths and Morrissey (up to Vauxhall and I) by the person Morrissey collaborated with

This was a note from Morrissey regarding Hand in Glove

[Kory]

If the alpha and omega of punk (broadly conceived) is some kind of resistance to authority and the mainstream, it seems to me that its value is just therapeutic not political. Which has its value, don't get me wrong, but it's still depressing that it can't put forward a practical, positive alternative without collapsing.

It does speak to more regional scenes, though. If the idea spreads but the specific bands are only known locally, that can have some value in a sort of "states' rights" way (and probably did back in the cusp). For me, the idea is more important than any specific band, since I use it as a personal philosophy for life. Maybe that's all it can be, but that could potentially be effective if enough people picked it up from their region. I guess it would just be a matter of how much each scene drifted from the next, and it probably still would only have limited appeal even within its region just because people really seem to crave authority.

Or that punk values have very limited use when applied to commercial matters like music. Does it have more social significance if turned into, loosely speaking, a religion? This question of punk and capitalism is something I think about a lot in the context of my work, and what stands out is how poorly punk values function when exposed to the larger world. Band after band, label after label, either have to stay small/quit or get swallowed up by ambition and having to deal with the mainstream.

Yeah, I personally think it has more social significance as a "religion," if only because that's how I approach it and it seems to work ok. For me, it's an idea that transcended the music scene from whence it came, because, as you say, it doesn't work quite as well there when it has to function within a structure that is based on authority (from label heads, A&R guys, established producers, and the bottom line). Look at Fugazi, who stayed small, or OpIV, who decided to just break up when it got too big. I think by definition, it can't be mainstream, just because there's going to be too many concessions and compromises. At that point it's just a fake label. My band calls itself "discopunk," for example, and they are the most shameless sellouts I've ever met. Nothing punk about it (to my mind), but maybe the word doesn't actually mean anything anymore. Forgive my rambling, I wrote this during a boring meeting.

[Kory]

Mentioning Rough Trade - I think an important part of the legend of The Smiths was that Morrissey was allowed so much freedom when it came to designing sleeves.

Have you read Peepholism by Jo Slee? It's a book all about the artwork of The Smiths and Morrissey (up to Vauxhall and I) by the person Morrissey collaborated with

This was a note from Morrissey regarding Hand in Glove

I would like to read this.

edit: never mind, it's prohibitively rare and expensive.

[oliver]

I would like to read this.

https://mega.nz/#!s4UgGYQb!bxEXB9cNBSk2 ... BSGUa1EviY

133mb download

[Dr. Medulla]

Yeah, I personally think it has more social significance as a "religion," if only because that's how I approach it and it seems to work ok. For me, it's an idea that transcended the music scene from whence it came, because, as you say, it doesn't work quite as well there when it has to function within a structure that is based on authority (from label heads, A&R guys, established producers, and the bottom line). Look at Fugazi, who stayed small, or OpIV, who decided to just break up when it got too big. I think by definition, it can't be mainstream, just because there's going to be too many concessions and compromises. At that point it's just a fake label. My band calls itself "discopunk," for example, and they are the most shameless sellouts I've ever met. Nothing punk about it (to my mind), but maybe the word doesn't actually mean anything anymore. Forgive my rambling, I wrote this during a boring meeting.

Punk has mostly devolved in a superficial aesthetic, whether it's of music or look, rather than a set of values that inform that aesthetic. It makes me think of the Lena Dunham types who assert that feminism means being female and doing whatever you want. Can't criticize them because that makes you anti-feminist. What those punk values are, well, that's a whole lot of other stuff. My view involves concepts like humanism, anti-abstraction, and a hostility to hierarchies. In that respect, I'm closer to the MacKaye/Biafra folkish version rather than the Lydon libertarian kind, which now seems more like Dunham feminism to me.

[Dr. Medulla]

I would like to read this.

https://mega.nz/#!s4UgGYQb!bxEXB9cNBSk2 ... BSGUa1EviY

133mb download

Thanks for sharing! I've come across mention of it a few times, but understood it to be very OOP and very pricey.

[101Walterton]

Did sleeve art become less important with the move to cassette then CD then streaming?
When you used to have racks of LP sleeves it was important to stand out. Seems bizarre now but I remember working in a record shop when people would actually browse. They would often bring a sleeve to the counter and ask if it was any good or if they could listen based solely on the cover art.

[revbob]

Did sleeve art become less important with the move to cassette then CD then streaming?
When you used to have racks of LP sleeves it was important to stand out. Seems bizarre now but I remember working in a record shop when people would actually browse. They would often bring a sleeve to the counter and ask if it was any good or if they could listen based solely on the cover art.

LPs were still pretty strong before CDs. Cover art was done for the LP without regard to the cassette. But i think it started going downhill with CDs and obviously more so with streaming.

[Dr. Medulla]

Did sleeve art become less important with the move to cassette then CD then streaming?
When you used to have racks of LP sleeves it was important to stand out. Seems bizarre now but I remember working in a record shop when people would actually browse. They would often bring a sleeve to the counter and ask if it was any good or if they could listen based solely on the cover art.

Gut sense? Yes. Less real estate for the art and more competition in the racks based on the relative size of the cassette and cd to the lp. The cd booklet may have offered alternative means of visual expression, but as something to catch the eye on the racks? Uh uh.