Worst looking CD/LP artwork

[Peter Power Pop]

Yes, but I think a Judy Davis/Brian May thing might be more in order! 

This is the closest I could get to a Judy-with-a-perm scenario:



Or maybe:



However, I just thought of another Australian actress who rocked the perm in a major way:

Nicole!

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I didn't mean my comment to be uncomplimentary (or funny) in any way. It was just my first thought after seeing all that permed hair. I know of exactly two celebrities with hair like that (i.e., SW and BM).

Sigourney:


Brian:


Lorraine:

Um, that's Brian May's real (natural hair); he, apparently, used to straighten it when he was younger (according to one article:  it made him feel self-conscious).  I don't know about Sigourney and the violinist.  Everybody's different...and that's a good thing.    And hairstyles change too.  Also, a lot of people with curly hair, from what I understand, used to feel like they need to straighten it in order to fit a certain beauty ideal (changing now thankfully), so perhaps it's a bit hard to know (looking back) what someone's hair was like that they were born with?  But it really doesn't matter!  The only thing that matters is how comfortable do they feel in their own skin...and they should feel comfortable!

PD

[André]

Asin B000BR2PXC

I wonder if it's worth extra money because of the typo 

[Peter Power Pop]

Asin B000BR2PXC

I wonder if it's worth extra money because of the typo 

Well, I've looked and looked (and looked) at the cover, but I can't see a typo anywhere.

[Details at Amazon.com]

[André]

Well, I've looked and looked (and looked) at the cover, but I can't see a typo anywhere.

[Details at Amazon.com]

You didn't look, look, (look) enough. 

I admit, it's not really a typo. If you haven't noticed, the covers don't display the same information. It's tiny, but still quite glaring.

[Peter Power Pop]

You didn't look, look, (look) enough. 

I admit, it's not really a typo. If you haven't noticed, the covers don't display the same information. It's tiny, but still quite glaring.

I think I see it now. I went to the Wikipedia page for the Lyric Suite, thinking there may have been a German word for "Suite" that wasn't used, but then I went to the list of recordings on that page, and the Alban Berg Quartett was listed, along with the recording date.

Ah yes.

[Madiel]

I still don't see a typo.

[Peter Power Pop]

I still don't see a typo.

The Roman numerals on the cover spell out 1971, which I presume was the record company saying that's when the recording was made. The only trouble is that the recording was made in 1974.

[Madiel]

The Roman numerals on the cover spell out 1971, which I presume was the record company saying that's when the recording was made. The only trouble is that the recording was made in 1974.

Well there are 2 problems with that. One is that it assumes that the 1971 is indeed intending to reference the date of this particular recording (and not, say, an anniversary of something else to do with the ABQ). The second is the assumption that Wikipedia is correct to say 1974 - including a further assumption that Wikipedia is referring to the recording date rather than the release date.

Basically, we don't even know that the cover and Wikipedia are trying to refer to the same thing. Never mind, if they are, which one of them is right.

And even IF the cover is wrong, that does not, in my book, constitute a "typo". That would just be getting information wrong.

[Madiel]

In fact there are a whole series of ABQ recordings all with 1971 on them.

It's not a recording date. I bet you it's the year of their first EMI release or something like that. Or just their official start.

For the most glaring example: https://www.amazon.com/Alban-Berg-Quartett-25th-Anniversary/dp/B018WWSV12

But then there are 30th anniversary examples as well. It's basically a part of an ABQ logo, regularly appearing above the letters "ABQ". No different to a company that writes "est.1971" as part of its branding.

If that is the supposed typo that Andre is cryptically referring to, then Andre is mistaken.

[ritter]

It's more "spot the difference" between the two covers shown. One has a small but blatant error...

[Peter Power Pop]

Well there are 2 problems with that. One is that it assumes that the 1971 is indeed intending to reference the date of this particular recording (and not, say, an anniversary of something else to do with the ABQ). The second is the assumption that Wikipedia is correct to say 1974 - including a further assumption that Wikipedia is referring to the recording date rather than the release date.

Basically, we don't even know that the cover and Wikipedia are trying to refer to the same thing. Never mind, if they are, which one of them is right.

And even IF the cover is wrong, that does not, in my book, constitute a "typo". That would just be getting information wrong.

To all of the above I say: "Who knows?" (Hint: not me.)

[Madiel]

It's more "spot the difference" between the two covers shown. One has a small but blatant error...

You know what? It would be really great at this point if people actually stated the supposed problem with the cover instead of using winking emojis. Because we've just established that neither myself nor Peter Power Pop know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Scion7]

That recording by the ABQ was recorded:

" Recorded XII.1991 (Op.3) & IV.1992 (Lyrische Suite) at Evangelische Kirche, Seon, Switzerland.  "

The ensemble was formed in 1971 (despite some references stating 1970).

[Peter Power Pop]

You know what? It would be really great at this point if people actually stated the supposed problem with the cover instead of using winking emojis. Because we've just established that neither myself nor Peter Power Pop know what the fuck you're talking about.

Nope.

Maybe they're being coy.

[Peter Power Pop]

That recording by the ABQ was recorded:

" Recorded XII.1991 (Op.3) & IV.1992 (Lyrische Suite) at Evangelische Kirche, Seon, Switzerland.  "

The ensemble was formed in 1971 (despite some references stating 1970).

Well, that clears that up.

[ritter]

You know what? It would be really great at this point if people actually stated the supposed problem with the cover instead of using winking emojis. Because we've just established that neither myself nor Peter Power Pop know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Madiel]

The only possibility I can see is believing that it says "MEM" and not "MCM".

Which is nothing more than taking an exceptionally low resolution picture and misreading it because of the font of the "C". Having seen 2 copies of the same cover in higher resolution.

But hey, I'm just guessing. Because apparently this forum is populated by juveniles who think emojis are funny.

[ritter]

The only possibility I can see is believing that it says "MEM" and not "MCM".

Which is nothing more than taking an exceptionally low resolution picture and misreading it because of the font of the "C". Having seen 2 copies of the same cover in higher resolution.

But hey, I'm just guessing. Because apparently this forum is populated by juveniles who think emojis are funny.

What it seems to be populated with is biiter, humoruless people.

I'll let the member who posted the cover explain (if he wishes to do so) what the mistake on it is. I know what it is, and if you haven't found out, then try harder (as the issue seems to bother you that much).

[Madiel]

It's not the answer that bothers me. What bothers me is people not just spitting out the answer and playing stupid bloody games.

If you know the answer, prove it. Otherwise it's nothing more than you making a claim. Andre could say absolutely anything and then you could say "yes, that's what I knew" and it could be a total lie.