Why is all modern jazz have such terrible cover art?

why is all modern jazz have such terrible cover art?

some are cool desu

Maybe they don't care about pandering to teens on Sup Forums and know that people who actually appreciate the music won't give a shit about the album cover.

>implying old jazz had good cover art

this

"aesthetic" is bullshit

Looks like bland indie rock from 2009 though

Nice grammar

not all

This is even worse than the OP. Looks like some Tumblr indie twink album cover.

it looks like someone went fuck it and searched "bald man doublebass" on getty images and threw some ugly font with it

WHY WOULD YOU GO THROUGH THE EFFORT OF COMPOSING AND PERFORMING PIECES YOU'RE PROUD TO ONLY SAY "WGAF" TO THE COVER ART

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

rude

Maybe because they're proud of the MUSIC itself and know that people who will appreciate it will listen to it even if the cover art isn't aesthetic enough for some 16 year old's 4x4 chart on Sup Forums

If you have to trick people into listening to your music with cool graphics then maybe you should be questioning just how good the music actually is

Cause most of what you see on here is on criss cross and all their covers look the same. Ecm has great covers.

I beg to differ.

It did tho

I see ECM albums posted on here way more than criss cross stuff. Also ECM is just as guilty of having covers that all look the same.

listen to it, it's very good

I like Enter and Exit! more

>tfw thread about jazz album covers gets way more replies than any thread trying to actually discuss jazz music

Proves his point t b h

Guilty doesn't seem like the correct word to use there, as if it's not an obvious conscious aesthetic choice. Most labels in this sort of music have cohesive artwork across different series.

how the fuck am I supposed to know whether the music is good or not if I haven't listened to it? The cover is repulsive, and there's a good chance music will be bad because most bad albums have bad/uninspired covers. Therefore, I will not even check this out. The music won't stand on its own, because no one will even hear it, apart from some diehard contemporary jazz aficionados

It's not even because of "all look same", there's a ton of good covers which are just the photograph of the musician and the album's name, but this one is bad and boring

fuck style
fuck presentation
fuck aesthetics

if your cover doesnt look like this i wont be listening to it

>Guilty doesn't seem like the correct word to use there, as if it's not an obvious conscious aesthetic choice. Most labels in this sort of music have cohesive artwork across different series.
then why wouldn't you assume that it's an obvious aesthetic choice in the case of criss cross too?

>The cover is repulsive, and there's a good chance music will be bad because most bad albums have bad/uninspired covers. Therefore, I will not even check this out.
lol what a sad life you must lead

Instantly recognizable, MEMORABLE, and very conducive to the music contained.

The Necks has great cover art.

because I'm not even the original guy you're talking to c'mon lad

I thought Jazz died with Miles Davis.

so you wont listen to the black saint and the sinner lady because migus face is on it?