Worst looking CD/LP artwork

[Madiel]

To me, it's standard practice for the images on rock music album covers to have nothing to do with the music inside.

What?

I feel a serious false dichotomy being created.

[Peter Power Pop]

Well, you're still leaving me scratching my head.

Sorry, orfeo. I'm trying to be as clear as possible, but I'm not doing a very good job of it.

You say you want the image to tell you about the performers and the music, while simultaneously excluding some of the most obvious means of doing that.

I think that the standard classical music album covers have done the same thing over and over again (e.g., composer photos/portraits, conductor photos, landscape photography etc.), and that cover designers could get a bit more creative. (They do from time to time, but I'm speaking generally.)

To represent a composer, how about his or her clothing from the time he lived? (For Brahms and his Requiem, I'm picturing the clothes he might wear to a funeral, all laid out on his bed. Seeing that would give me an idea of the "what" and the "when" of the music.)

Saying you don't want a picture of "ein Deutches Requiem" while also saying you want a picture that tells you about the music is rather mind-bending.

How about a German gravestone from the time of the Requiem?

Or an old German graveyard?

Or Requiem-y things, like a wreath, church, candles, lily etc.?

For me, it all boils down to: I'd like to see classical music album covers featuring images that are not what you usually see, but are evocative or suggestive of what's inside.

Unfortunately, the image used for the Brahms Requiem / John Eliot Gardiner disc didn't give me any sense of what was on the album.

[Madiel]

Yeah, and the false dichotomy is growing.

Plenty of pop albums have a picture of the singer/band on them.

Plenty don't, of course, they just have something a bit, oh I don't know, evocative. And then some of them don't have any obvious connection with the music inside.

I think I liked this thread better when we just stuck to whether it was a good picture or not.

[North Star]

Sorry, orfeo. I'm trying to be as clear as possible, but I'm not doing a very good job of it.

I think that the standard classical music album covers have done the same thing over and over again (e.g., composer photos/portraits, conductor photos, landscape photography etc.), and that cover designers could get a bit more creative. (They do from time to time, but I'm speaking generally.)

To represent a composer, how about his or her clothing from the time he lived? (For Brahms and his Requiem, I'm picturing the clothes he might wear to a funeral, all laid out on his bed. Seeing that would give me an idea of the "what" and the "when" of the music.)

How about a German gravestone from the time of the Requiem?

Or an old German graveyard?

Or Requiem-y things, like a wreath, church, candles, lily etc.?

For me, it all boils down to: I'd like to see classical music album covers featuring images that are not what you usually see, but are evocative or suggestive of what's inside.

Unfortunately, the image used for the Brahms Requiem / John Eliot Gardiner disc didn't give me any sense of what was on the album.

And to me all your suggestions are terribly clichéd, and the JEG Brahms covers are evocative.

It should be pointed out that the Ein deutsches Requiem is only a part of the series:

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Hmm...sorry, I don't think those images are very attractive at all. As covers, even less so.

[NorthNYMark]

While I actually like those Gardiner/Brahms covers myself, it seems to me that people are being a bit tough on Peter.  He's admitted that he simply doesn't find them visually appealing, which is completely subjective (and he doesn't deny that).  As for them having nothing to do with the music inside, I think it is a fair point.  To give examples of covers that convey some sense of the musical or historical contexts in a tasteful manner, I would point to the classic Decca covers (of the sort found in the Decca Sound megaboxes, mostly from the 50s and 60s).  Unlike the generic "artist glamor shot against a monochromatic background" covers so ubiquitous today, or the oddly dated technophilia of the '80s, these classic covers often used paintings, prints, or photography from the appropriate musical era, combined with interesting fonts and designs. Composer portraits were usually more common than performer photographs.  Even DG did this quite nicely in the 60s, with some great designs on most of the Karajan albums of the era.  And while they occasionally used his portraits, they were usually pretty interesting (and, in the case of the Brahms symphonies, nearly iconic).  One could argue that as nice as the Gardiner/Brahms paintings are in terms of work that would look great on one's living room wall, I can see Peter's point that they are completely generic in the sense that they could be used on any album, featuring any composer, from any time period, performed by any artist.  To me, that doesn't qualify them for the "worst artwork" thread, but also doesn't qualify them for the "best."

[Jo498]

I think the paintings are probably impressive in their original format but just too small as CD covers to work well. But neither would I single them out for "worst covers". Of course this thread has had several asides about covers that are interesting or characteristic for a label or a period without always
necessarily being bad.

[Rinaldo]

It should be pointed out that the Ein deutsches Requiem is only a part of the series:

Love those. I can be easily swayed to check out a recording simply because I find the the cover art enticing and these are great! The sparse font goes very well with the original paintings.

Sure, you could probably sell a lot of different music with these (although I think the palettes suit Brahms very well) but they don't seem generic at all.

[Ken B]

Love those. I can be easily swayed to check out a recording simply because I find the the cover art enticing and these are great! The sparse font goes very well with the original paintings.

Sure, you could probably sell a lot of different music with these (although I think the palettes suit Brahms very well) but they don't seem generic at all.

I agree. They seem to fit, when I see them in context as covers,  not just Brahms but the idea of a revisionist approach to Brahms. The palette for Brahms an the texture for a revision. Just an impression, but they seem like excellent covers to me. Plus they are distinctive.

[Peter Power Pop]

Yeah, and the false dichotomy is growing.

Plenty of pop albums have a picture of the singer/band on them.

Plenty don't, of course, they just have something a bit, oh I don't know, evocative. And then some of them don't have any obvious connection with the music inside.

This is how I look at it:

Pop music has a lot of covers with the artists on them.
Rock music has a lot of covers that are abstract.
Classical music has a lot of covers that are descriptive.

There are exceptions to all of the above, but that's how I generally see it.

I think I liked this thread better when we just stuck to whether it was a good picture or not.

Me too.

I'm not very good at arguing. (Because of the way my brain is wired, I can't see the point of it.)

If I get into a discussion where there's a difference of opinion, I'm usually the first one to say, "I surrender!". I'm a complete pacifist. (Picture me as one of those cowardly cowboy sidekicks in Westerns who say, "I ain't lookin' for trouble, Mister!")

I'm sorry, orfeo, if I annoyed you at all. I try not to annoy anyone.

[Peter Power Pop]

And to me all your suggestions are terribly clichéd, and the JEG Brahms covers are evocative.

Fair enough.

It should be pointed out that the Ein deutsches Requiem is only a part of the series:

I'm afraid I don't like any of those pictures. The colours are nice, but all I see is someone having slapped a bit of paint on some door frames.

[Madiel]

While I actually like those Gardiner/Brahms covers myself, it seems to me that people are being a bit tough on Peter.  He's admitted that he simply doesn't find them visually appealing, which is completely subjective (and he doesn't deny that).  As for them having nothing to do with the music inside, I think it is a fair point.  To give examples of covers that convey some sense of the musical or historical contexts in a tasteful manner, I would point to the classic Decca covers (of the sort found in the Decca Sound megaboxes, mostly from the 50s and 60s).  Unlike the generic "artist glamor shot against a monochromatic background" covers so ubiquitous today, or the oddly dated technophilia of the '80s, these classic covers often used paintings, prints, or photography from the appropriate musical era, combined with interesting fonts and designs. Composer portraits were usually more common than performer photographs.  Even DG did this quite nicely in the 60s, with some great designs on most of the Karajan albums of the era.  And while they occasionally used his portraits, they were usually pretty interesting (and, in the case of the Brahms symphonies, nearly iconic).  One could argue that as nice as the Gardiner/Brahms paintings are in terms of work that would look great on one's living room wall, I can see Peter's point that they are completely generic in the sense that they could be used on any album, featuring any composer, from any time period, performed by any artist.  To me, that doesn't qualify them for the "worst artwork" thread, but also doesn't qualify them for the "best."

Look, I agree with all that. I just have a problem with it being turned into any kind of 'rule' about what covers need to look like.

To me a cover isn't crap because of what it's trying to do, but because of poor execution of what it's trying to do. We have, for instance, covers that ended up on this thread because it's a really awkward photograph of a conductor or performer, not just because it's a photo per se.

Funnily enough I stumbled across an explanation of the Brahms covers. The rich layers of colour are supposed to reflect the layers of Brahms' works. In PR speak:

The conductor himself chose the illustrations for the covers of this series, paintings by Sir Howard Hodgkin (who is Gardiner's first cousin), as the layers of intense colour in the acclaimed painter's work seem to Gardiner to perfectly match the marvellous different layers of sound in Brahms' orchestra.

I'll leave that to others to decide whether that explanation holds any meaning or whether they think it's just a random bunch of paintings. To me, though, I don't think that those covers would suit any music by any composer. They're not Brahms-specific, but they're not completely generic either.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

To me, the Gardiner Brahms covers are bold and colorful and painterly, evocative of Brahms' broad palette.  And they fulfill their commercial/artistic mission :  they attract attention to the product their purpose is to sell. 

[Artem]

I have that Brahms's Requiem CD, but personally I prefer this cover:

[asin]B00000413E[/asin]

[Artem]

I'm trying to think what music I would association with those covers, but to me it is definitely not Brahms.

[Peter Power Pop]

I have that Brahms's Requiem CD, but personally I prefer this cover:

[asin]B00000413E[/asin]

I like that.

[Peter Power Pop]

While I actually like those Gardiner/Brahms covers myself, it seems to me that people are being a bit tough on Peter.  He's admitted that he simply doesn't find them visually appealing, which is completely subjective (and he doesn't deny that).  As for them having nothing to do with the music inside, I think it is a fair point.

To give examples of covers that convey some sense of the musical or historical contexts in a tasteful manner, I would point to the classic Decca covers (of the sort found in the Decca Sound megaboxes, mostly from the 50s and 60s).  Unlike the generic "artist glamor shot against a monochromatic background" covers so ubiquitous today, or the oddly dated technophilia of the '80s, these classic covers often used paintings, prints, or photography from the appropriate musical era, combined with interesting fonts and designs. Composer portraits were usually more common than performer photographs.  Even DG did this quite nicely in the 60s, with some great designs on most of the Karajan albums of the era.  And while they occasionally used his portraits, they were usually pretty interesting (and, in the case of the Brahms symphonies, nearly iconic).

One could argue that as nice as the Gardiner/Brahms paintings are in terms of work that would look great on one's living room wall, I can see Peter's point that they are completely generic in the sense that they could be used on any album, featuring any composer, from any time period, performed by any artist.  To me, that doesn't qualify them for the "worst artwork" thread, but also doesn't qualify them for the "best."

Thanks, NorthNYMark. You put it better than I could have.

[kishnevi]

I have that Brahms's Requiem CD, but personally I prefer this cover:

[asin]B00000413E[/asin]

That is actually a different recording.  The SDG recording is Gardiner's second recording of the DR.


I have the entire SDG Brahms series.  I like the performances, I like the covers, but I see no real connection between the paintings and the music. 

[Mookalafalas]

 Regarding the idea that classical music covers tend to be descriptive, it seems to me that would imply that a very high percentage of classical music is about sex.  If a comparison were made, I suspect classical covers are much more likely to show naked women than any other genre (unless there is a field for porn soundtracks)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

No suicide at sea is complete without an approving polar "bear" essentials peek-a-booing (upper right).