Worst looking CD/LP artwork

[NikF]

Fascinating! Thank you.  It is one thing to know a thing is bad, and quite another to knnow why.

You're welcome. And while I'm not  a fount/font of all knowledge or (shudders) an arbiter of good taste, it's cool that you found it interesting. Thanks.

[Peter Power Pop]

You're welcome. And while I'm not  a fount/font of all knowledge or (shudders) an arbiter of good taste, it's cool that you found it interesting. Thanks.

Me too.

[Peter Power Pop]

This is probably a post of little interest, but I've decided to go ahead with it just in case anyone might find it worthy of considering in any case.

I used to enjoy kind of 'reverse engineering' photos. I still do it from time to time, but mostly with cinematography. Here's what I know about this cover.

The black and white photo of this cover started life as a colour photo. I'm sure of that. And more exactly, there's been a lot of blue or green in the original - or at a stretch, purple. Also, they must have had him sitting on a black carpet or someone holding something that has sucked up reflections from the key light that's on camera axis and roughly overhead, but the catchlights (amongst other things) don't indicate that the light(s) are gridded...so where is all that light going? Hmmm...
And the clumsy effect of where he's been cut from the original image has left his comb over as smooth as a billiard ball, whereas in real life you're going to have many flyaway hairs there.

The biggest issue with the design of the cover is (IMO) that being a 'found' photo (one that they have probably already the rights for or have paid for)  whoever put it together has failed to take into account the focal length of the lens. It's fairly long (by contemporary standards) and so his character filled face has been rendered kind of flat. If there were objects or a background in the photo they too would all be pulled and pushed to a certain extent and as a whole all the elements together would be relatively coherent. But instead we have the 'Boulez' text placed behind him and the 'Bartok' in front - and its bad practice to do that with such a 'flat' depiction.

I'm no longer surprised to see this kind of work on the product of larger clients, because as time passes there are less and less people involved in the process who know what they're doing, and frankly, even less who give a sh*t.

edit:

This is the largest version of the original photo I can find. (Click on it to reveal the photo in all its 960 x 1397 glory.)



I must admit that I'm not keen on how the lighting made Pierre's hair the same colour as the background. I prefer the image in black-and-white.



That's better.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

This is probably a post of little interest...

[asin]B002DZX958[/asin]

Yours is a post of lotsa interest!! I'm one of those you complain about - someone with a tenth (on a good day!) of your photographic, layout, design and production skills working on the margins and paid accordingly.  Fortunately, I've other sources of income! 

Agreed, the DG Boulez-Bartók is not a great or particularly inspired cover; I'm not fond of it either.  But it's commercial art, where the bottom line is the bottom line.  How many units (a word both manufacturers and retailers are curiously fond of) does it sell?  Whatever its faults, it is, at least, an effective cover. Certainly not so ill-conceived that it turns listeners away from a purchase, like many seen in this thread.  On the contrary, it proclaims what it is simply, boldly, unequivocally.  Boulez fans might be drawn to it.  It was put together with some intelligence : using the same font for Boulez and Bartók declares a kinship or partnership that comes across on the disk.   The three-staged effect of Boulez-Portrait-Bartók puts the composer respectfully up-front in a way that registers unconsciously.  The parallel lines formed by Boulez's left hand and the acute accent of the Hungarian ó, whether happy accident or purposeful bit of flair, suggests - again - that the listener is in good hands with Boulez (btw, he usually conducts with his hands).  Poor as the photos is, DG may have have prized it for Boulez's grandfatherly smile - he's usually photographed as l'homme sérieux.  Who knows?- for the many who are afraid of Bartók - they are legion - that gentle smile may have reassured them into a purchase. 

[Pat B]

I have a dozen Crumb CDs from different labels. Let's face it, he ain't a pretty boy and never really looked that good in any photo.  Fortunately, he composed great music.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Don't blame the photographer/graphic designer. 

Crumb may not be very photogenic, but those are poor photos even by amateur standards. The graphic design is not much better.

[Peter Power Pop]

Crumb may not be very photogenic, but those are poor photos even by amateur standards. The graphic design is not much better.

I think the photos of George are fine. It's the design of the covers that make me wince.

As far as I'm aware, album covers are usually supposed to pique the interest of the potential listener, engendering a response along the lines of "That looks interesting – I'd like to hear what's on the album." But I reckon those covers would do a pretty good job of repelling anyone who went near them.

Saw this on the listening thread. It looks like Crumb decided to take a selfie while stepping outside to get the Sunday paper before breakfast.

The entire Crumb series is like that. I think he must have pissed off a graphic designer somewhere.

[Peter Power Pop]

I don't know if these covers qualify as "worst artwork", but they sure do annoy me.

The Martha Argerich and Friends Live From Lugano series all feature covers with Martha in black-and-white on a coloured background.

Why?

Why is Martha in black-and-white but the background is in colour?









I think all the covers before 2010 were fine...













...so I'm slightly mystify by the complete change in the look.

What happened?

My guess is some young, hotshot graphic designer was hired in 2010 and immediately decided, "Those old covers are stale. We need to freshen them up!"

[Jo498]

The Argerich/Lugano series went from tolerably ugly to really ugly...

[ritter]

The Argerich/Lugano series went from tolerably ugly to really ugly...

I ordered some of the albums (the new ones) last year and had them delivered to my office. They were lying there on my desk and a colleague (who's not into classical) couldn't help exclaiming "God, are these covers ugly!" when he saw them...

Well, I think the new one is a bit better, though:


Scheduled for relaese in mid-May.

[Peter Power Pop]

I ordered some of the albums (the new ones) last year and had them delivered to my office. They were lying there on my desk and a colleague (who's not into classical) couldn't help exclaiming "God, are these covers ugly!" when he saw them...

The thing that gets me about the new covers is that they're in colour, but Martha's in black-and-white. It hurts my brain trying to figure out why any graphic designer would do that.

Well, I think the new one is a bit better, though:



Scheduled for release in mid-May.

I suppose the new one is better (Warner have hired a new graphic designer perhaps?), but one thing that annoys me about that cover – and, now that I think about it, all the other covers as well – is that the series is supposed to be about Martha and her friends, but on every cover we only see Martha.

Where are Martha's friends?

[Peter Power Pop]

Hey, wait a minute... The photos of Martha for 2009 and 2011 are the same. Egad!*

(*Sorry about the swearing there.)

I don't know if these covers qualify as "worst artwork", but they sure do annoy me.

The Martha Argerich and Friends Live From Lugano series all feature covers with Martha in black-and-white on a coloured background.

Why?

Why is Martha in black-and-white but the background is in colour?









I think all the covers before 2010 were fine...













...so I'm slightly mystify by the complete change in the look.

What happened?

My guess is some young, hotshot graphic designer was hired in 2010 and immediately decided, "Those old covers are stale. We need to freshen them up!"

[North Star]

The black and white hides her age. And the color background spices thing up?

It most certainly doesn't hide her age, on the contrary, I'd say. And yes, the combination with the colour background is hideous.

[Peter Power Pop]

The black and white hides her age. And the color background spices thing up?

It most certainly doesn't hide her age, on the contrary, I'd say. And yes, the combination with the colour background is hideous.

It baffles me completely. I can't see it from any point of view – whether it be an aesthetic point of view (i.e., "It looks good"), an ageist point of view (i.e., "She's old"), a sexist point of view (i.e, "She's a girl"), or even a graphic-designer's point of view (i.e., "It's fresh! It's bold! It's now!").

I don't get it at all.

[The new erato]

It baffles me completely. I can't see it from any point of view – whether it be an aesthetic point of view (i.e., "It looks good"), an ageist point of view (i.e., "She's old"), a sexist point of view (i.e, "She's a girl"), or even a graphic-designer's point of view (i.e., "It's fresh! It's bold! It's now!").

I don't get it at all.

Try the honest view. "We get old, and this is how it looks". Classical music for me always have been about truth, however much agents and publicity agents tries to con us that it's about beauty and timelessness.

[North Star]

Try the honest view. "We get old, and this is how it looks". Classical music for me always have been about truth, however much agents and publicity agents tries to con us that it's about beauty and timelessness.

Shoddy lighting and monochrome against a colour background will make a four-year-old look ancient.

[The new erato]

Shoddy lighting and monochrome against a colour background will make a four-year-old look ancient.

That is true of course. I'm not saying these covers are good, just that the fat that Martha dares show that she's old and don't give a damn rates highly with me.

[North Star]

[T]he fa[c]t that Martha dares show that she's old and don't give a damn rates highly with me.

Agreed.

[Peter Power Pop]

The black and white hides her age. And the color background spices thing up?

Try the honest view. "We get old, and this is how it looks". Classical music for me always have been about truth, however much agents and publicity agents tries to con us that it's about beauty and timelessness.

Shoddy lighting and monochrome against a colour background will make a four-year-old look ancient.

That is true of course. I'm not saying these covers are good, just that the fact that Martha dares show that she's old and don't give a damn rates highly with me.

Agreed.

I don't see it from any of those perspectives at all. I simply can't understand why a black-and-white photo of a person would be placed on a coloured background. For me, it just doesn't compute. (It'd be like someone sitting a tomato on top of a banana and saying, "So, what do you think?")

Incidentally, it's the same with those Pierre Boulez covers elsewhere in this thread:



Black-and-white person, everything else colour.

Huh?

[Peter Power Pop]

Now* Sony are messin' about with Pierre Boulez album covers.

This is weird:



Didn't the graphic designer like the original background?

(*Although Amazon.com says the album was released on November 24, 2014, I only found out about it a few minutes ago on Twitter.)

[kishnevi]

Now* Sony are messin' about with Pierre Boulez album covers.

This is weird:



Didn't the graphic designer like the original background?

Never mind the background. Did the designer not like the top of Pierre's head?