>his favorite album needs some fancy artwork or a beautiful-taken photo to capture the listener's attention
Take notes, idiots. Clean,straight-to-the-point, photo of the artist. No posing for the photo or any of that extra hipster crap but just him and his bass. Look at that face he knows he doesn't need to do anything else because he know the music can stand on its own.
What's he looking at
is that photo really from 1390
You say that but this guy took his double bass outside in the middle of the night to take a photo so he clearly cared enough and thought it was cool.
...
DALE
we finally found him
D A L E
>he completely disregards visual part of the music
what a fucking pleb, i'm lmaoing at ur life
There's no "visual part" of the music.
Portraits are not music.
If the artist can't be bothered to make a proper album cover then there's a good chance he'll be lazy about the music as well. Sure there's exceptions to that rule but good luck searching for those diamonds in the rough.
Wrong. He intentionally chose the most mundane staging to completely nullify any artistic pretensions on his part - both a bare-faced and refreshingly real statement of intent on his part and a subtle warm-hearted homage to both The New Topographic and American Realist photographic movements.
The musician is not in centre frame, and does not even look into the camera, an initially disengaging but truly brilliant choice on his part. Brewer is here not the subject, but simply an individual happened to be captured by the photograph.
As the album title itself clearly reinforces, any message Mr. Brewer is sending us with his album cover need not be laid out, it can remain pure, undiluted, and "Unspoken".
So, you're telling me he clearly cared about it and thought it was cool, but in a pretentious way?
>no posing
he clearly poses
You've entirely missed the point. The drawback with what he has done is that it will inevitably go over the head of any given visual layman with an undeveloped photographic vocabulary, but this only serves to reinforce the fact that Brewer truly does not care for posturing or the way you perceive him.
im woke
tell me more
damn... really makes u think...
He looks autistic
I'm sorry that I like it when an artist puts a little effort into their albums
where is the guys fedora?
pretty much the other way around to be honest, the most skilled musicians usually go with something simple or something that takes the piss out of the album cover medium because they realize it's a silly thing to be paying attention to, it's essentially an ad for the albums content and a true musical genius despises such superficiality
does pic related get your dick going?
no that's too much of a statement
why doesn't anybody start threads with ironic shitposts about Mingus album covers?
i get that you're trying to bait or whatever, but it's 100% correct that covers don't matter all that much but this board cares more for aesthetics than actual music and most don't even go to concerts, which is why there's not much jazz discussion
I know you think you're so ironic and hilarious but RogueArt is one of the best modern jazz labels and all their album covers actually do look like this
I could literally take a stock image of some old man, put some text over it, put it in a chart of criss cross releases and no one would ever know
this
>tfw you accidentally prove the point you were trying to ironically parody
Those look nice
They're very organized and neat to look at. It leaves a lot to the imagination.
It's okay if the artist doesn't care about the album portrait but from the label point of view I think it's stupid.
Whether you like it or not a portrait that catches the eye can attract potential listeners, I can understand the artist not caring about gaining fans this way, but the record company is shooting itself in the foot.
hey idiot you think we care about money
who cares about attracting potential listeners or customers
its about the music
>a record label is not a business
get out of here kiddo
The best albums don't have album names or song titles. See: Untitled by Various Artists.
He is obviously being ironic but once again touching on the point he is trying to make fun of.
The fact is most of these smaller jazz labels with low-budget album covers are owned by old guys who are most likely spending their own money to keep the label going because they really do love the music. They care less than anybody about the "image" that the album cover projects because all the available money is spent trying to make sure the music sounds the best it can and the album cover is a necessary evil that is usually an afterthought. They know that people who follow the artists will find the music no matter what the cover looks like. I doubt they care too much about attracting new listeners.