Why are modern jazz album covers so bad? Are there any still with good artwork?

Why are modern jazz album covers so bad? Are there any still with good artwork?

because it's supposed to be about the music and not the aesthetic

Trying to create an "unpretentious" album cover (which is pretentious in itself) shows an absolute disrespect towards your art and seemingly only occurs in music. Cormac McCarthy didn't pick a picture of him smiling for Blood Meridian. Bela Tarr didn't have a picture of himself leaning against a wall with his hands in his pockets for Werckmeister Harmonies. It's only in music, specifically Classical and Jazz albums. The musicians either have decided to destroy a large area of enjoyment in the only visual interpretation provided (have fun seeing this guys blank stare on your listens) for the sake of pretentiousness, or have zero artistic sense beyond their talent in music.

Either way, it's a crime against the medium.

>implying authors decide what their book covers are
>implying jazz and classical artists decide what their album covers are

Almost always, yes.

...

>it's a "Sup Forums cares more about the picture on the front of an album than the recorded music on that album" episode

also this

...or maybe you just have bad taste in music and literature because of your immature need for some visual stimulation to accompany non-visual media

trickster by miles okazaki is NICE

this
And not this. This post perfectly exemplifies Sup Forums's superficial obsession with image.

This

I actually like the look of those covers a bit. And plus, it really shouldn't matter

Something about that cover makes me so angry and infuriates me to no end

You should consider seeking professional help

Most of us should desu

mostly just Steeplechase and Criss Cross

there are many jazz albums with cool covers

Kamasi rox

But why not just slap a writing with a pretty font as the cover instead? Why make it an ugly photo of yourself?

That cover is still aesthetically pleasing.

Would you like it if it was all pink and purple and was written in comic sans?

Who cares? I'm going to listen to it, not hang it in my dining room.

You're 100% right but fuck you anyway

This is absolutely true. Music is not just audio.

>non-visual media
>posts an image of a fucking book, which is literally the most visual you can get
Are you actually retarded?

because they are based in reality unlike ur everyday shit

Literature is not a visual medium

Remind me again which sense you use to process the information laid out on a page?

There's nothing bad, let alone deliberately bad about that cover. It does have a very minimal and "unpretentious" style though. Maybe the "pretentiousness" in suggesting the focus is on the music in classical and jazz music is actually, you know, accurate compared to music that isn't associated with academia

The information is the art, and the information can be transmitted in a variety of ways- aurally, visually, or even through touch.

the sense of reading comprehension

by your logic a work of literature is both and neither a visual or audio work, since any book could be in either form. how can you think of the medium as visual, if this means the art has no actual medium?

Is this background smooth jazz? I think I saw this on a shelf in starbucks

You're right. No art is a visual medium. Not even the Mona Lisa - if I'm blind, I can have an aide read to me the color of each individual pixel of that JPG, leaving me to create the image in my head pixel-by-pixel. If I'm deaf and blind, I can have that aide print out each pixel's color in Braille instead of verbally relating it to me. Why sully myself with stuff like visuals in a non-visual art form?
Why stop there? Music isn't an audial art form either. If I'm deaf, I can read the sheet music to Einstein on the Beach and put the notes together in my head. If I'm deaf and blind, then I can set up a system that electrifies me in Morse code, or I can stick a toothpick in my mouth like Beethoven. Why sully myself with stuff like audio in a non-audial art form?

Visualizing or thinking of a piece is fine, sure. What medium do you suppose they're imagining it as when they are properly?

Literature is not a visual medium

They're imagining reading the page. Either that or they're imagining seeing the events unfold. Either way, that is VISUAL. Literature is a visual medium. There's a reason you judge a book by its cover.
Not an argument.

>They're imagining reading the page
This is just BS though, I never see words when I hear them and I imagine this is the case for most people. Words themselves are the medium.

So you're saying you can read a book in a language that you don't speak and you should appreciate it in the same way as a native speaker right? After all, you're both seeing the exact same visual.

I understand that you're trying to be pedantic but you're just being silly at this point.

Regardless, when you read a book, you are seeing the events unfold in your mind. That is visual perception.
In any case, this is completely off from the original topic, which was that a book is supposedly not a visual medium. It obviously is.

You might be actually retarded.

Still not an argument.

Everything Vijay Iyer.

>every book has events that can be "pictured"
Have you only read Harry Potter?

I wasnt trying to argue anything. I just think you probably have an actual learning disability.

Not nearly as much as the one who cannot think critically, even when it is spelled out for him, and refuses to acknowledge other viewpoints.

...

Not an argument

I wasn't trying to argue anything. I just think you probably have an actual learning disability.

I wish you could see what I'm visualizing as I read your posts. Excellent visual work my man.

>bluepill: "Im not listening to that album because of the cover"
>"redpill": "It is stupid to judge a piece of music simply because of the cover art"
>Redpill: "jazz is garbage lmao"

Adult: categorizing everything into colored pills on an anime image board is asinine.

Good to see that you're using my words, a visual medium, to good use.

>bald white cuck plays jazz

why do i care?

except this is correct

You were mistaken as someone who cared more about the music

>words are a visual medium

Comedy gold

>complain about how there aren't "enough" white musicians
>complain about the ones you see anyway

Remind me again, how are you parsing these words right now without eyes?

I really love Fire! Orchestra's first two covers, but i agree, lots of them are really bad

>I love all the greats... Frank Sinatra to Miles Davis haha

My wife is reading them to me

Still never refuted this btw

By your logic listening to an audio book or reading the same book makes a difference in the meaning of the text, which in my opinion isn't true.

Lets go one step farther: you look at a paragraph of text in a language you don't speak, while somebody could read me a translation of that text in my native language and according to his logic he would understand the text because he absorbed it visually, while I would be lost because I had no visual!

Literature is a linguistic medium that can be transmitted via several different senses.

Sup Forums everyone!

well lee konitz is underrated