Now that everyone has had their say on the new song what does everyone think about the album cover?
When I think of classic album covers this one is about as far way from them as it can get.
Born To Run. Sgt. Pepper. Joshua Tree. Zeppelin 1. You can picture these right now can't you??
A flying baby? Really? I'm afraid the metaphor is lost on me. Do you really want this image on your wall?
I hate it, whatever the meaning behind it. Plus the similarities to Nevermind kind of give it that "its been done before" vibe.
Lizard King Wrote:I hate it, whatever the meaning behind it. Plus the similarities to Nevermind kind of give it that "its been done before" vibe.
Totally agree on the Nevermind comparison. Van Halen's 1984 also comes to mind. The baby motif has been done to death, and done much better by other bands. This is arguably their worst album cover in my opinion. And it would have worked a little better if they had kept the outstretched hands from the original photo.
the new album cover is down right embarrassing. I thought the last one was bad but wow. Someone really shit the bed on this one.
Who cares...I want what is inside!
And I thought NFPA was bad.
The mulletted baby is clearly Dougie Stardust.
ceebuler Wrote:The mulletted baby is clearly Dougie Stardust.
:lol: :thumb: :lol: :thumb:
I'm naming my next child/pet/plant/car/phone Dougie Stardust!!!
Personally I find NFPA a worse cover.
The baby thing HAS been done but who cares. I don't get the impression the hip give that kind of thing a thought. And really, why should they?
You know, I LOVE the new album cover. It's different and it makes an impact. Very memorable. Their worst covers in my mind are Now For Plan A and In Violet Light.
For me it reflects a general disappointment with the Hips art director over the past 2 albums. Seriously, who will wear a tshirt with that stupid baby on it? Teenagers making out on a kids game? Dude. It's as if they have surrendered their balls and become Hockey moms sharing cat videos. Might as well. It baffles me because they have some of the coolest tshirt in the merch game yet they go and punk out on the album covers. Perhaps the low album sales have something to do with the shit album covers.
NegPhil Wrote:For me it reflects a general disappointment with the Hips art director over the past 2 albums. Seriously, who will wear a tshirt with that stupid baby on it? Teenagers making out on a kids game? Dude. It's as if they have surrendered their balls and become Hockey moms sharing cat videos. Might as well. It baffles me because they have some of the coolest tshirt in the merch game yet they go and punk out on the album covers.
Isn't Rob Baker the art director for the band? I wouldn't go as far as saying they've gone soft or become "hockey moms". Art, much like music, movies, or comedy, is all subjective. I don't like the new album cover personally, and you don't like it. But I'm guessing it means something significant for Baker and the Hip. I actually liked the NFPA cover. It was quirky and very different from what they've done in the past in terms of artwork, and I liked the shift in tone from previous album covers. For me it had kind of a Death Cab for Cutie vibe to it, which I thought was cool.
My last post was a bit harsh however I am still really disappointed in the new album art. If it is Robbie making these decisions I'm truly baffled. He just designed a killer tshirt of the band with animal heads. Cool stuff. Totally rock and roll. The new album cover is about as far away from rock and roll as one can get. Sorry Rob, ya shit the bed on this one.
NFPA was just tacky. I much preferred the image on the back - the clothes hanging off the railing, with people clearly going skinny-dipping. That was a wittier and more open-ended way of making the same basic point. That should have been the cover.
The current album cover clearly references "Nevermind," and that was undoubtedly its appeal. The idea that it's "copying" or derivative of Nevermind is missing the point. This kid is going in the opposite direction - it's an exact inversion of that cover. (If we wanted to really be sardonic, we could read it as a commentary on the Hip's declining commercial standing; the image turns upside down the iconic image that signaled Nirvana's rise to superstardom, reflecting the fact that the Hip are on a long downward slide from their status an CanRock superstars). Anyway, I think it's OK, nothing more. And I'd add that bad covers surely have no connection to record sales, since nobody buys CDs anymore.
Killer Whale Tank Wrote:I much preferred the image on the back - the clothes hanging off the railing, with people clearly going skinny-dipping. That was a wittier and more open-ended way of making the same basic point. That should have been the cover.
I agree with this 100%, even though I kinda like the official cover.
Quote:And I'd add that bad covers surely have no connection to record sales, since nobody buys CDs anymore.
I still buy CDs sometimes. I still own a massive collection going back decades now, and I just can't seem to part with them. I guess it's more of a hobby these days though, as I also buy a lot of stuff digitally through iTunes, etc.. just like everyone else. I buy vinyl sometimes as well, but vinyl is really expensive and I can't always afford it, so I settle for the CD. Generally it depends on the band and the packaging. If I'm a huge fan of the artist, I still like to own a physical version because I like having a hard copy of the liner notes and lyrics. Also some bands really put an effort into their packaging (Drive-By Truckers, Pearl Jam), and that makes it worthwhile.