Covering Album Covers

[Dr. Medulla]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

I don't know if I have a good answer for this. I'm a proponent of complete control by the artist (which may be why I've never tried to find a label that would have me) but plenty of people think they're designers and are most assuredly not. Maybe a balance can be struck where the label suggests the artists contract one of their friends to do the work rather than the label forcing somebody.

It is a tough question and it speaks, I think, to the problem of making punk principles work. Or the idea of indie labels being collaborators with bands. Whatever sympathies and intentions, the two are separate interests, and the higher the ambitions, the higher the likelihood of a clash. Wherever there is ambition to go out and reach people, as opposed to just putting something out there and see who stumbles upon it, the conflict potential grows.

Yeah, I think something like Spiral Scratch was as far as you could take punk principles at the time (which made Devoto the punkest motherfucker of the lot for recognizing that), which I find particularly appealing.

And that's a sobering realization—sorry, folks, punk's humanism is neat and all, but it only works in small doses and small groups. It's rather self-defeating to admit that it only works in, basically, laboratory conditions.

Now with the internet, there's less reliance on labels and distribution, so it's kind of up to you how much you want to promote yourself, and you can do whatever you want, basically. A label, indie or otherwise, is typically going to have its self-preservation and probably some profit as priority #1, so it's almost never going to be a perfect symbiosis.

I'm pretty much a dope in terms of what a record company does now. The thing that traditionally held back indies was the manufacture/distribution end of things. How do you get enough albums/cd's into the most shops? But how important is physical product or record stores now? On the other hand, if the primary distribution is downloads, whether Apple, Amazon, or Bandcamp, how do you stand out? How do indie labels promote bands now?

[Kory]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

I don't know if I have a good answer for this. I'm a proponent of complete control by the artist (which may be why I've never tried to find a label that would have me) but plenty of people think they're designers and are most assuredly not. Maybe a balance can be struck where the label suggests the artists contract one of their friends to do the work rather than the label forcing somebody.

It is a tough question and it speaks, I think, to the problem of making punk principles work. Or the idea of indie labels being collaborators with bands. Whatever sympathies and intentions, the two are separate interests, and the higher the ambitions, the higher the likelihood of a clash. Wherever there is ambition to go out and reach people, as opposed to just putting something out there and see who stumbles upon it, the conflict potential grows.

Yeah, I think something like Spiral Scratch was as far as you could take punk principles at the time (which made Devoto the punkest motherfucker of the lot for recognizing that), which I find particularly appealing.

And that's a sobering realization—sorry, folks, punk's humanism is neat and all, but it only works in small doses and small groups. It's rather self-defeating to admit that it only works in, basically, laboratory conditions.

If you consider DIY-ness to be the defining characteristic of punk, its limit is for sure built right in unless your band is somehow wealthy. If you think an anti-authority attitude is the main gist, you won't get far in this society. In that sense, the cards are stacked against punk, but I suppose that's kind of the impetus for the movement. How many concessions can you make to authority in order to spread the word about being anti-authority before people don't take you seriously anymore?

Now with the internet, there's less reliance on labels and distribution, so it's kind of up to you how much you want to promote yourself, and you can do whatever you want, basically. A label, indie or otherwise, is typically going to have its self-preservation and probably some profit as priority #1, so it's almost never going to be a perfect symbiosis.

I'm pretty much a dope in terms of what a record company does now. The thing that traditionally held back indies was the manufacture/distribution end of things. How do you get enough albums/cd's into the most shops? But how important is physical product or record stores now? On the other hand, if the primary distribution is downloads, whether Apple, Amazon, or Bandcamp, how do you stand out? How do indie labels promote bands now?

I don't read up on it much, but I'd imagine a lot of it revolves around song placement in commercials/movies/tv shows, and then buying ad space/time on music websites, including YouTube.

[Dr. Medulla]

If you consider DIY-ness to be the defining characteristic of punk, its limit is for sure built right in unless your band is somehow wealthy. If you think an anti-authority attitude is the main gist, you won't get far in this society. In that sense, the cards are stacked against punk, but I suppose that's kind of the impetus for the movement. How many concessions can you make to authority in order to spread the word about being anti-authority before people don't take you seriously anymore?

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.

I don't read up on it much, but I'd imagine a lot of it revolves around song placement in commercials/movies/tv shows, and then buying ad space/time on music websites, including YouTube.

My niece is a prof at the University of Leeds and wrote a book on how the music industry has shifted its attention, post-Napster, to licensing in commercials and the like: https://www.amazon.ca/Popular-Music-Pro ... way&sr=8-1

(Note: It's dry as toast.)

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.

[Marky Dread]

A good example of branding your own records with designs and labels would be The Smiths. Using two colours and a celebrity character on each sleeve became a great marketing idea.

[WestwayKid]

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.

[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.

[WestwayKid]

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.

[Dr. Medulla]

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.

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.

[WestwayKid]

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.

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.

[Dr. Medulla]

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.

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.

[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.

[WestwayKid]

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.

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.

[WestwayKid]

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.

[Dr. Medulla]

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.

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.

[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.

Possibly not, but perhaps a step in that direction?