Worst looking CD/LP artwork

[EigenUser]

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.

[amw]

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.

[Moonfish]

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.

Hmm, the neighborhood in the background looks very familiar. Denmark?

[Moonfish]

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

Personally, I thought that the DG Boulez compilations were just as bad. Or do you like them?

etc etc

Surely these are approved by the composer or conductor before they are released? IMHO these are awful covers and give me a feeling of that a high degree of narcissism is involved.....  I prefer art rather than people on the covers for some reason. A good example would be the Bantock releases!!! 
What do you think?

[North Star]

Personally, I thought that the DG Boulez compilations were just as bad. Or do you like them?

Surely these are approved by the composer or conductor before they are released? IMHO these are awful covers and give me a feeling of that a high degree of narcissism is involved.....  I prefer art rather than people on the covers for some reason. A good example would be the Bantock releases!!! 
What do you think?

The Boulez covers are much, much better than those Crumb covers. And yes, they're still rather bad - the Complete Works is the best of them, thanks to the dark background. The Bartók one is the best presentation of the legendary comb-over. . .

Hyperion in general is very good, but I don't mind covers that aren't landscape paintings. ECM's covers for Pärt Tabula Rasa, Silvestrov Silent Songs, etc are really nice too, for example.

[Moonfish]

The Boulez covers are much, much better than those Crumb covers. And yes, they're still rather bad - the Complete Works is the best of them, thanks to the dark background. The Bartók one is the best presentation of the legendary comb-over. . .

You are right, Karlo! They are better. I suspect that this mostly is due to the skill of the photographer taking the portraits. However, I still think they are a bit too bland and involve way too much narcissism.

[Ken B]

[the Boulez covers evince] way too much narcissism.

*spews mouthful of coffee*

Then they belong in the excellent cover art thread.

[Moonfish]

*spews mouthful of coffee*

Then they belong in the excellent cover art thread.

Perhaps in a parallel universe.... 

[Abuelo Igor]

This one is especially awful. The black-and-white Crumb was obviously cut-and-pasted from a different picture!

[Artem]

etc etc

I imagine Boulez making this face when reading topics about himself on this message board.

[Moonfish]

I imagine Boulez making this face when reading topics about himself on this message board.

Nah!
More like this...

[Ken B]

This one is especially awful. The black-and-white Crumb was obviously cut-and-pasted from a different picture!

I'm not convinced. I think maybe it's the sepia-like color which has been processed here.

[Artem]

Nah!
More like this...

[ibanezmonster]

Hmm, the neighborhood in the background looks very familiar. Denmark?

So weird to even imagine that could be a neighborhood.

[Mookalafalas]

I'm not convinced. I think maybe it's the sepia-like color which has been processed here.

  I agree.  That's a very easy effect.  Also, why cut and paste together two such unimpressive photos? 

    The horrible font, as well as its color and layout also doom this cover. 

[EigenUser]

I personally find this one to be the worst. It reminds me of that awful Milton Babbitt cover.

[Peter Power Pop]

The "What were they thinking???" approach to George Crumb covers also extends to DVDs:

[springrite]

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. 

[NikF]

Personally, I thought that the DG Boulez compilations were just as bad. Or do you like them?

etc etc

Surely these are approved by the composer or conductor before they are released? IMHO these are awful covers and give me a feeling of that a high degree of narcissism is involved.....  I prefer art rather than people on the covers for some reason. A good example would be the Bantock releases!!! 
What do you think?

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:

[kishnevi]

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:

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