Wow this was interesting
Hello everyone,
Okay this was very interesting. I wonder how djlanda based their conclusions over “The 100 Worst Album Cover’s EVER.” When I saw this link I was expecting a more professional’s opinion on this. Rather I was met with a bloggers opinion on what they felt was the worst album covers ever.
One obviously this person does not understand art and how it evolves throughout the ages by means of politics, war, environmental changes, and ideals of the fashion industry. For Djlanda to write that
1983 is officially the Ugliest Year in Music
That depends on what genre and time period you are comparing it with. The other day I was watching “Working Girl” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096463/ with my father and it was crazy! I was surprised at the amount of make-up and HAIR SPRAY women used. Then there was a scene where the main actress was changing and you were able to see her profile which was in “today’s standards” would be overweight/unattractive. If that movie’s concept was made again the make-up would be less and the weight would be very pencil thin.
The point I wanted to get with this example is that times change, genres change, and what is seen as attractive to the eye changes.
Each album cover has a different set of audience it is trying to spark interest in. Yeah in my opinion a lot of these are very crazy and I would be weird-out by them but they maybe artistically correct for the audience they are shooting for.
So when looking at this webpage look who is the artists and who was the audience intended audience then tell yourself if that audience would have gave the same opinion as dijlanda.
When you had brought up the point about what the author based his conclusion on, I immediately thought that we were both on the same page. When I saw this link I thought this article was either going to be a anaylsis about the covers (with details to the graphic design) or a humorous trip down memory lane. I have watched many Vh1 specials on music and its past, and it is always funny, and I expected the same with this piece. Assumptions aside, I think this article was lackng information. I wanted to know why these cd covers were the worst ever...funny or not.
I applaud you for brining up the audience. I would like to have heard about the intended audience of each cover. From our standards, yes, they may be really bad. But the culture at that time could have liked the covers mentioned.
I'm sure
Submitted by Girl on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 19:11.I also feel that although the covers may seem obscure, they were probably artistically correct for the audience. You mentioned how art has changed through the ideals of the fashion industry through that ages. On the website, #3 on the list, The Rolling Stones, the blogger states, "Embracing their new look, the Stones take a joy ride on South Beach and kill several Cuban drug lords. Later that day, Mick Jagger's pants challenge Vanilla Ice's pants to a scream-off." The blogger makes fun of the the clothes the band is wearing on the cover. In all actuality, this style was popular for the times and anyone buying the album in 1986 probably wouldn't have though twice about bright neon outfits. It's only because this fashion would not be seen in today's society that the blogger feels the need to make fun of it.
Submitted by XxscxX on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 21:01.I do agree with the idea that these album covers had a specific purpose and audience in mind, but so did DJLanda. I found most of his/her comments very funny and was entertained the most by this reading (of the ones that we were given). I will agree that it was just a blogger's opinion of why 100 album covers were bad but that's what we were told to read and with that I realized that most likely wasn't going to have any real value (other than what it is, an opinion).
Submitted by glmaster on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 22:41.