100 Album Covers: Self Portrait & Power, Corruption & Lies

A great cover, I'd say.

 

The U2 cover is so confident..the image, the large text. That said, crap band.

 

41.

Rolling Stone:

Wish You Were Here (1974) - Pink Floyd

[image=http://www.derekhess.com/images/upload/8/image2/pinkfloyd-album-wish_you_were_here.jpg]

Book:

Mermaid Avenue (1988) - Billy Bragg & Wilco

[image=http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/b5/99/76ee228348a0a18555793110.L.jpg]

My thoughts:

The Pink Floyd cover is iconic and likable; no studio trickery, they lit the guy on fire.

Mermaid Avenue, the album of Woody Guthrie lyrics put to music by Bragg and Wilco, has a nice cover; its simple and unassuming, but nice.

 

Yes, but why? I like "Mermaid Avenue", though.

 

#40.

Rolling Stone:

Elvis Presley (1956) - Elvis Presley

[image=http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j264/123Patch/Elvis2.jpg]

Book:

Modern Life is Rubbish (1992) - Blur

[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Blur_-_Modern_Life_is_Rubbish.jpg]

My thoughts:

We talked about the Elvis one earlier when we came up against London Calling by the Clash; we talked about it because London Calling, great cover that it is, rips off this one from Elvis. This is a great album, Elvis' debut and probably his best non-compilation album and this cover captures the raw energy and fire. I love this cover.

The Blur one on the other hand is, well, I was going to be cute and say rubbish, but I'll just say I don't care for it particularly.

 

I agree on both counts.

 

#39.

Rolling Stone:

London Calling (1979) - The Clash

[image=http://www.wongaman.demon.co.uk/music/clash-london%20calling.jpg]

Book:

Music for Pleasure (1977) - The Damned

[image=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TiGcteoUXNw/R7nJIC9UevI/AAAAAAAAAEI/h8VYlqzFVKE/s320/The%2BDamned%2B-%2BMusic%2BFor%2BPleasure.jpg]

My thoughts:

We've talked about The Clash one repeatedly in this thread; once again, brilliant.

The Damned cover is, well, it depends on your tolerance for Picasso, I suppose. Mine isn't much.

 

It's not Picasso, actually. Rather interesting.

The Clash one is great.

 

38.

Rolling Stone:

Peter Gabriel (1980) - Peter Gabriel

[image=http://www.perrific.com/cds/covers/gabriel.jpg]

Book:

Music of Quality and Distinction, Vol. 2 (1991) - B.E.F.

[image=http://home.casema.nl/ck_musicwebsite/ck_contr/bef/bef.jpg]

My thoughts:

B.E.F. was a group that specialized in putting out albums of famous artists covering famous songs by other famous artists. This cover goes on the second such album.

Actually, I must say I like both of these. The BEF one is colorful and interesting, without being gaudy or over the top. And the Gabriel one is perverse and witty. Both very nice.

 

I like the colourful one; the other, not so much.

 

#37.

Book:

Never a Dull Moment (1972) ? Rod Stewart

[image=http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61g4z8QOeUL._SL500_AA240_.jpg]

Rolling Stone:

The Slider (1972) ? T. Rex

[image=http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album-T-Rex-The-Slider.jpg]

My thoughts:

I must once again play the idiot and confess that I don?t get why either of these are any great shakes. The Stewart one, achieved by pasting Stewart?s head on a magazine advertisement for foot powder as memory serves, is probably supposed to be ironic, but isn?t really. The other one is not interesting at all.

 

Is that a women or a man on the second one?

 

A man. Mark Bolan -- aka T-Rex.

 

I like the first one, actually.

 

#36:

Rolling Stone:

Led Zeppelin (1969) ? Led Zeppelin

[image=http://jandemessemaeker.net/music/albumcovers/Led%20Zeppelin-Led%20Zeppelin.jpg]

Book:

Never Mind the Bollocks Here?s the Sex Pistols (1977) ? The Sex Pistols

[image=http://www.radiotimes.com/content/features/galleries/album-covers/19/mainImage.jpg]

My thoughts:

The Zeppelin album is clever and aptly descriptive of the cataclysmic music to be found within.

The Sex Pistols cover is even better; anti-marketing at its finest. The title essentially means, ?Let?s skip the crap; The Sex Pistols.? The cover conveys that brilliantly; it?s gaudy, offensive to the eyes, brutal and looks like a ransom note. Again, perfectly conveying, while pretending not to convey anything, exactly the contents of the album.

 

Two comments here. First is about the T. Rex SLIDER cover.

[image=http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album-T-Rex-The-Slider.jpg]

First, Ringo Starr took this picture! That makes it inherently awesome from the get-go. I'm only half-kidding. Second, the record's back cover features -- you guessed it -- the back of Bolan's head in the same style, with the record's name -- THE SLIDER -- rendered in the same blood-red block text. This increases the novelty and visual interest of the jacket. Third, you may not be able to discern this from a tiny jpeg, but the photos in question are beautiful examples of high contrast B&W photography. Bolan's defiant, saucy stare, his rampant androgyny, that bizarre hat, the dreamy quality of the imagery, plus the title in HUGE RED ALL-CAPS combine to make what was, then and now, an extraordinary and unusual jacket.

Next, Led Zeppelin I.

[image=http://jandemessemaeker.net/music/albumcovers/Led%20Zeppelin-Led%20Zeppelin.jpg]

Note the same extreme contrast, the same stark B&W, the same blood-red all-caps, as the T. Rex SLIDER jacket from 3 years later. (Of course, I called the SLIDER jacket "unusual" rather than "unique".) I mention this only in passing, as I find it interesting but have no further comment about their similarities.

There's a pretty funny/heartbreaking/intriguing story about this image and specifically this band's use of it. I don't know how accurate it is, so take it with a grain of salt.

The picture is of the Hindenburg, of course -- the 1937 airship catastrophe -- which is an ironic nod to Baron von Zeppelin, the inventor of the doomed dirigible.

Well, the story goes that at the premier Led Zeppelin show -- their first public performance -- Lady Eva von Zeppelin (close relative of the Baron) had been invited as a VIP, and by all reports she was delighted that this up and coming rock band had used her family name.

Then she saw the cover art.

According to some reports the exploding zeppelin -- infamous bane of her relative's life and career -- was emblazoned on a gigantic banner: unmistakable, bombastic, and legally actionable.

Who can blame her for flipping out? For demanding the band change their name and cover art? For making a huge scene at their premiere show, storming off in a tizzy, and later filing suit against the band, demanding apologies and compensation, compelling them to tour incognito under such names as "The Knobs"?

I cannot avow how much of the above is true, but it makes a great rock-n-roll story, don't ya think?

 

#35.

Rolling Stone:

Dark Side of the Moon (1973) ? Pink Floyd

<img src="http://idale.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pink-floyd-dark-side-of-the-moon-420x420.jpg">

Book:

Nevermind (1991) ? Nirvana

<img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/bzzagent-bzzscapes-prod/nevermind-cd-cover-lrg.png">

My thoughts:

Well, two very different icons. The Pink Floyd cover is stark and beautiful, an exercise in minimalism.

The Nirvana cover is high concept and instantly eye catching. If you?ve read About a Boy, you?ll recall Nick Hornby?s backhanded compliment if I?ve ever heard one about Nirvana: ?I didn?t say I liked the music, I just said at least the cover meant something.? Amen; it certainly does.

Both great covers.

 

The minimalism of the first one doesn't grab me...it's working a little too hard.

"Nevermind" OTOH, *does* work, except for the dated print style for the title.

 

The first one is iconic in the extreme.

I don't know if it's correct to refer to it as 'working too hard'. Tha tmay be how it seems and in that regard an observation cannot be 'incorrect' but from my recollection it doesn't square with reality: Hypgnosis came to Pink Floyd with a number of album cover designs and this was one of the simpler ones. They unanimously chose this one: the others were somewhat busier.

But I'm not sure the situation could be that the prism design was Hygnosis working too hard when it was one of several designs presented to a band that no one knew at the time were on the verge of creating one of the most greatest successes in rock and pop music history.

 

#34.

Rolling Stone

<img src="http://www.destroyrockandroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Destroy-Rock-And-Roll-Remix-Blog-Grace-Jones-Slave-To-The-Rhythm-Cover.jpg">

Slave to the Rhythm (1985) ? Grace Jones

Book

<img src="http://www.islandrecords.co.uk/upload/release/pictures/1224867387.jpg">

Nightclubbing (1981) ? Grace Jones

My thoughts:

Two astonishing, transfixing Grace Jones covers. There?s little doubt that Grace Jones was something like the Lady Gaga of her day, a subversive, confrontational design freak who, as something of a secondary habit, also made the occasional music.

These are both really astoundingly great album designs. In the first, she?s distorted her face into a horror show visage, like the screamers from Body Snatchers. In the second, she?s tinted her skin blue, taking her blackness to a new level of confrontational extremism.

Man, I wish they still did album covers like these.

 

They are both eye catchers, no question.

 

33.

Rolling Stone:

<img src="http://www.occams-razor.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Supertramp_-_Breakfast_in_America.jpg">

Breakfast in America (1979) ? Supertramp

Book:

<img src="http://www.jazz.com/assets/2008/12/19/albumcoverWayneShorter-NightDreamer.jpg">

Night Dreamer (1964) ? Wayne Shorter

My thoughts:

I?m a dedicated non fan of Supertramp, but this cover is witty and clever. I particularly like the city fashioned out of silverware and condiment accessories.

As to the Shorter album, it?s quite striking and abstracted. I like the way it looks without being able to really explain why. It?s not a bad album either; I finally got around to hearing it back in Feb. The authors of this book love Blue Note covers; and they have reason.

 

"Breakfast in America" is iconic. The other one is pretty interesting, too.

 

32.

Rolling Stone

Tommy (1969) ? The Who

<img src="http://www.ephemeron.net/wp-content/uploads/cover-the_who-tommy-1969.jpg">

Book

Nothing?s Shocking (1988) ? Jane?s Addiction

Nudity warning

My thoughts

Neither of these are any good, in my opinion. They both have a bit of that ?more avant-garde than thou? about them.

If you want a great Jane?s Addiction cover, here?s one of my personal top ten album covers:

Ritual de lo Habitual (1990) ? Jane?s Addiction

<img src="http://www.media.wmg-is.com/media/portal/media/cms/images/rhino/cvrs/075992622325.320.jpg">

Makes its point, no?

 

It does.