Based on Boo Boo's theory the Dead's live album should look like this

http://www.realtiredpeople.com/asleep3.jpg

You have to admit it really doesn't sound like this though:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2355/...35b1a1.jpg?v=0

Urban, are you making these up as you go? or do you have an actual list?

I believe this to be true, looks more like a bad Journey album.

:rofl:

I have 'some' of a list.

I know I said this wasn't in order but No 1 will be and I have big plans for that.

It's not making it up as I go along , it's more being reminded of things as I go along.

Gotcha... the last one just seemed like it came at the right time, was why I asked.

:p:

Great album btw, it's gonna be next up for my progstash thread.

Somone should remind you how bad Britpop sounded.

Well the last one i've mentioned before somewhere in some long lost post , Boo Boos post reminded me of it.

Is there any other kind of Journey album?

I don't think your arbitrary selections of what different genres "look like" counts as "basic knowledge." ;)

I think it's strange that you feel cover art is tightly constrained by the genre. What you called "indie pop" art (the Unicorns album) could definitely be called surreal, which you seem to feel is reserved for progressive rock. The Pink Moon cover art seems very reasonable for the soft, evocative music Nick Drake plays.

Rules never make sense for art. Cover art should reflect the musicians' visual image of their music, not be based on some sort of "genre template."

The difference is that Unicorns album cover looks like something that was scribbled on a napkin, and that's exactly what a lot of Indie covers look like.

I wasn't suggesting some strict rules or anything, and I think you're right. But I don't think someone like Asia actually felt Roger Dean art suited their music, and it dosen't, Steve Howe just picked him because already he did a lot of the Yes stuff and so he wanted to piss his fans off by suggesting something keen to Yes even though it was far from it.

I think it's hilarious whenever artists make absurd or completely inappropriate album covers. In fact, I can't stand the unimaginative singer/songwriter covers and I think it's mostly producers that control how it looks.

I'd tend to agree with Wayfarer and Minstrel. The album cover is just another part of the band and the albums story. Genre's are only important it you want to limit your music and your audience.

ha... I wouldn't know. "Don't stop believing" sends feelings of disappointment through my veins whenever I hear it now, thank you "Sopranos".

yes and no... I hear what you're saying and it makes sense but if the musicians vision of their own music is way off from how the general public perceives it, that can't be a good thing and lends itself to a ton of mockery. However, if the music is amazing... I'm sure it can be forgiven :)

Well sadly this is probably as close to a fair un-trollish rebuttal I'll ever get from you.

I really think cover art should reflect the music and not the lyrics, and At The Drive In sure as bloody hell don't SOUND like Dali. And no you're wrong, people shouldn't be careless about their cover art, presentation is very damn important and you don't want to make something that is misleading to your audience. That's my own personal philosophy, if you don't like it thats fine, but I'm not taking unwarranted insults for sh*t like that, so stop being unnecessarly aggressive or I'm giving you an infraction.

as opposed to what?

to a Grateful Dead album (read back a page or two).

Lol, it's a joke about how horrible Journey is.

ahh... I see there isn't a shortage for Journey jokes around these parts.

Well, it depends on the purpose. If the cover art is meant as self-expression, it should be entirely what the musicians think is appropriate. If the cover art is meant as another part of marketing to the public, then I agree that they should be attuned to what people expect, visually, from them.

Either goal is fine by me, self-expression or marketing.

Mockery can't really be controlled, unless you are quite self-consciously adjusting what you do to match trends. If you're "true to your vision" (I'm not a raving idealogue about how art is worthless if it's not "true to one's self," but I'm always supportive of artists making what they like and fits their vision), it's really a matter of luck as to how well your music fits the zeitgeist. A bad match leads to derision.

Fair enough... overall I agree and think the artist should do whatever the hell they want with their covers. However, if the band sounds like Slayer and the cover art looks like MIKA... that's just bad planning, unless you are going for that contradiction (be prepared to answer some questions though).

So if I'm in a nazi punk band it should be ok if I want to post a Claude Monet painting I really like? Even if it's a disgustingly inappropiate album cover? Talk about self indulgence.

I'm a big fan of album cover artists like Dean and Thurgison. I think album covers should be taken seriously as an extention of the music on the album, as well as being a presentation. It should not be misleading or some dumb joke, thats insulting to me as a musicgoer.

That was a scenario I described, didn't actually happen, being a Yes and Steve Howe fan I know damn well who Asia is and I sure as hell know better than to buy an Asia album.

lmao oh god mika

:rofl:

no you're absolutley right

Look, I'm not talking about taking an artists freedom away when it comes to their album covers, all I ask for is a little responsibility, album covers can and should be artistic, and I'm not saying all metal album covers should look like Kreator albums and all prog albums should be Roger Dean art, I just made a rather humorous example. I'm not talking about limits but rather just image, and anyone who thinks image is not important in the music industry is clearly an idiot, even more of an idiot if you think such things shouldn't be taken into consideration when making an album cover. Certain kinds of music have things that are associated with it, and artists have things that themselves and their music is associated with, and I think album art should reflect that and the music and not just be some f*cking painting the artist likes, that suggests a lack of creativity and care for the product and it's presentation which I think should be taken seriously. So if you're a metal band and make music about skull f*cking and cannibalism, and you have a Bob Ross painting as the album cover, that's obviously just an example of being an assh*le and making another lame attempt at "ironic" humor.

I like album art, I have my own opinion of what good album art is, and not reflecting the music and being incredibly inappropriate for the music does not a great cover make.

All I'm saying is it annoys me, I never said there should be a f*cking law about it and yet you feel compelled to make unwarranted insults just because you've made such a habit out of it, and because you misinterpreted what I said, and even then there was absolutely no reason for you to seem like my little opinion offends you so much, you reacted as if my opinion about album covers (f*cking album covers) was some remark about the holocaust. You do this all the time and you're obviously doing it on purpose, I really don't like you.

Hopefully obnoxious brats pulling out their cellphones and listening to music on the bus will make an appearance on your list.

Yes! Last year, I was in the middle of my math class, actually doing work, and since we had a substitute teacher who didn't care, some kid pulled out his cell phone and played the first 15 seconds or so of "Lollipop" over and over again for about 45 minutes straight.

I have an eery feeling that Urb's #1 gripe will be online music forums, with him then proceeding to blow up MusicBanter's web server and damning everyone here to the bowels of hell.

Just a thought.

I might put a fiver on it being the lack of bands that tour offshore UK islands.
Actually that's a bit boring. I'll go Muse.

People like that should be butt raped by an oar.

I would be disappointed if that was #1 since he already covered most people who post on music forums.

I agree with you boo boo. Even if people want to bring up exceptions to rules as if their a majority.

My only gripe was the metal cover was a little too late 1970's. Today its much more graphic and they only use deep reds and browns.

My No 1 is bigger than music forums , muse and anything else really.

Put on Earth by God so that Christian Rock isn't the worse ever genre of music out there. That's the only fathomable reason I can think of for it's existence.

Come to think of it Happy Hardcore does have one redeeming quality. As soon as I hear someone listening to it I can summarize from that that they are a vacuous cunt without having to go to the effort of actually talking to them.

Normally i won't generalize or judge someone by the music they listen to. Most of my friends have extremely dodgy taste in metal and hip hop and we get along fine. However i'll happily make an exception for Happy Hardcore which is only listened to by chavvy cunts.

And Molecules, where is that dude?

Irritating gobshite

And I LIKE Faith No More

I never got into any of his side projects, but FNM really turns me on.

I think I should try and combine No 1 with my 10,000th post.

I have no idea if Mike Patton is annoying on a personal level but he's certainly made a hell of lot of good music over the years.