Album art
-
When I was younger, one of the joys of buying new records was the chance that they would have great cover art. I remember buying albums like Iron Maidens Killers and Number Of The Beast or Bat Out Of Hell and spending hours copying the artwork. Then came the CD and the large scale artwork was reduced in size - fair enough, I could live with that. But now, downloads? Come on - one of the great joys of album owning has been removed. Grrr.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
When I was younger...and spending hours copying the artwork,
Alas, you harken back to a day when kids actually would sit down and draw something with a medium that didn't require a mouse, a monitor, tens of millions of dollars of R&D, and a power source. Marc
-
Actually, you just have to find them in different places now. Yes there's eBay, but it includes a lot of garbage. But there are also flea markets and garage sales where you can pick up stuff like this. It does take a lot longer searching through by hand, though. :) A few months ago, I was in a flea market and the guy had a cardboard box of 35 records in it. It was priced $10. So I started to flip through the LP's, but suddenly stopped and said to him, "Uh, here's a reason to *not* buy this box. It's got a Barry Manilow album in it." He laughed and replied that Barry is still popular with the cougars. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Donate to help Conquer Cancer[^]
my first wife made me go to a Barry Manilow concert :(( (much to my chagrine) and I have to say he is one of the best entertainers I've ever seen :omg: and so was Neil Diamond(yeah I had to sit through that one too). Personally, I like Disturbed, Metallica, Warlock, stuff like that.:cool:
If you can read, you can learn
-
Are you saying that 1" x 1" pic on your iPod isn't good enough? :rolleyes:
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
1"x1" is why iPods are stupid. I have a creative Zen for flights and so on, it has a screen worth watching. For music I use a cheap, greyscale screen mp3 player that is far more portable than an iPod.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Actually, you just have to find them in different places now. Yes there's eBay, but it includes a lot of garbage. But there are also flea markets and garage sales where you can pick up stuff like this. It does take a lot longer searching through by hand, though. :) A few months ago, I was in a flea market and the guy had a cardboard box of 35 records in it. It was priced $10. So I started to flip through the LP's, but suddenly stopped and said to him, "Uh, here's a reason to *not* buy this box. It's got a Barry Manilow album in it." He laughed and replied that Barry is still popular with the cougars. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Donate to help Conquer Cancer[^]
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
When I was younger...and spending hours copying the artwork,
Alas, you harken back to a day when kids actually would sit down and draw something with a medium that didn't require a mouse, a monitor, tens of millions of dollars of R&D, and a power source. Marc
That's a good point. Back "in the day" you'd have to draw out graphics or logos if you wanted them. The result may have sucked but at least it was yours, done with your own hands and creativity. Now it's a simple as copy-cut-paste-print. Or you could've used a ditto machine. I bet most here don't know what a ditto machine was. :laugh:
-
Are you saying that 1" x 1" pic on your iPod isn't good enough? :rolleyes:
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
At its biggest, the artwork on my iPod is at least 1.25" x 1.25" - that quarter inch makes all the difference ;P
-
1"x1" is why iPods are stupid. I have a creative Zen for flights and so on, it has a screen worth watching. For music I use a cheap, greyscale screen mp3 player that is far more portable than an iPod.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Christian Graus wrote:
1"x1" is why iPods are stupid
And the UI and general usability is why they're not...I had a Creative player (Nomad Xen, I think) before I got my iPod - I think I gave it away to my brother-in-law - I wasn't going to be using it again after realising how much nicer to use the iPod was.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
When I was younger, one of the joys of buying new records was the chance that they would have great cover art.
Yep. Another one of the joys of buying new records was the chance that they would have great music. Alas... This is radio nowhere...:((
Depends what genre you listen to - there's still some excellent metal and rock being produced - over the past year or two, I've bought new albums by bands like Jesu, Om, Isis, Sunn 0))), Boris and Mastodon that have knocked my socks off.
-
just draw your own, or find a local artist that matches your taste and support him. :-D seriously. I find it most interesting that art seems to die, because people tend to make fun of artists in general. Artists themselves are a dying breed, which is part of the problem also. We either choose related careers, such as 3D graphics, or game-design, or change careers completely, or sell burgers for the rest of our lives. The idea of buying "artwork" is frowned upon and sneered at, even made fun of, and yet missed when it is not on an album? I find this incongruous, and yet it is the reality we live in, it is simply a fact of life that many of us have had to face. I guess having an insider's perspective I see things a bit differently, I see art dying from the inside, from the art side, and albums responding accordingly. It's a whole problem, not just a music industry problem. But it simply is, and the artists make due how ever they can, which is all any of us can do.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
just draw your own, or find a local artist that matches your taste and support him. seriously.
Actually - I do. Rather, I draw and paint to relax. I honed my eye and skills using album art - granted there was a tendency to drawing muscle bound heroes and ladies of eye-popping proportions, but this was my practice ground. Now - I do landscapes, but without that original training ground, I wouldn't be half the artist I am now. Certainly I wouldn't have the eye for colour that I have now.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
When I was younger...and spending hours copying the artwork,
Alas, you harken back to a day when kids actually would sit down and draw something with a medium that didn't require a mouse, a monitor, tens of millions of dollars of R&D, and a power source. Marc
What is the creative difference between creating art on canvas or art on a computer?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
-
It's not the older albums that bother me. It's the fact that album art seems to be dying out - and with the move towards download only albums there will be no more.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
LOL I'm more worried about the quality of the content. That seem to be dying out as well ;) But good point well made :)
The only thing unpredictable about me is just how predictable I'm going to be.
-
LOL I'm more worried about the quality of the content. That seem to be dying out as well ;) But good point well made :)
The only thing unpredictable about me is just how predictable I'm going to be.
SimonRigby wrote:
I'm more worried about the quality of the content. That seem to be dying out as well
Unfortunately true. The worrying thing is I'm turning into my father. "How can you stand this crap?"
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
What is the creative difference between creating art on canvas or art on a computer?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
Paul Watson wrote:
What is the creative difference between creating art on canvas or art on a computer?
Well, in the context of the original post, there's a considerable difference in making a reproduction with your own hand vs. sticking the artwork into a scanner and printing the digitized scan. In the context of your question, there is a creative difference is working with physical materials (the paper, canvas, the inks, paints, charcoals, whatever) vs. a computer screen. Taken to one exteme, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be a creative difference working on something like this[^] (On Nov. 21, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh will unveil the world's largest dinosaur mural), although I suspect that it was probably planned using a computer! Now, I'm not saying that creating art on a computer isn't creative--it certainly is! But all the graphic artists I've met (I'm sure there are exceptions of course) developed their talents first with physical materials. I imagine doing it the other way around is more difficult. And I could go on about creativity in terms of physical materials and their influence in brain development, coordination, aesthetics, etc., that I would argue using a computer doesn't result in the same depth of those experiences. Marc
-
Paul Watson wrote:
What is the creative difference between creating art on canvas or art on a computer?
Well, in the context of the original post, there's a considerable difference in making a reproduction with your own hand vs. sticking the artwork into a scanner and printing the digitized scan. In the context of your question, there is a creative difference is working with physical materials (the paper, canvas, the inks, paints, charcoals, whatever) vs. a computer screen. Taken to one exteme, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be a creative difference working on something like this[^] (On Nov. 21, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh will unveil the world's largest dinosaur mural), although I suspect that it was probably planned using a computer! Now, I'm not saying that creating art on a computer isn't creative--it certainly is! But all the graphic artists I've met (I'm sure there are exceptions of course) developed their talents first with physical materials. I imagine doing it the other way around is more difficult. And I could go on about creativity in terms of physical materials and their influence in brain development, coordination, aesthetics, etc., that I would argue using a computer doesn't result in the same depth of those experiences. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Well, in the context of the original post, there's a considerable difference in making a reproduction with your own hand vs. sticking the artwork into a scanner and printing the digitized scan.
Automated reproduction was possible long before digitisation. I agree that reproducing by hand is instructional but "by hand" also applies to computers too where artists use Wacom tablets to reproduce various artworks. I am surprised you are arguing that computerised art methods have less worth. Artists have always been improving their tools to get their concepts into reality more seamlessly and there have always been the old guard objecting to new methods. Very old and tired argument.
Marc Clifton wrote:
But all the graphic artists I've met (I'm sure there are exceptions of course) developed their talents first with physical materials. I imagine doing it the other way around is more difficult.
Because the computerised era is still young? Computers are still expensive, especially the ones that artists require. Of course you are going to first be introduced to art through a $1 paint-brush. (I don't think computers are "better" or "worse" they are just a different tool. They are no less worth and no more worth. It is what people do with their tools that counts.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Well, in the context of the original post, there's a considerable difference in making a reproduction with your own hand vs. sticking the artwork into a scanner and printing the digitized scan.
Automated reproduction was possible long before digitisation. I agree that reproducing by hand is instructional but "by hand" also applies to computers too where artists use Wacom tablets to reproduce various artworks. I am surprised you are arguing that computerised art methods have less worth. Artists have always been improving their tools to get their concepts into reality more seamlessly and there have always been the old guard objecting to new methods. Very old and tired argument.
Marc Clifton wrote:
But all the graphic artists I've met (I'm sure there are exceptions of course) developed their talents first with physical materials. I imagine doing it the other way around is more difficult.
Because the computerised era is still young? Computers are still expensive, especially the ones that artists require. Of course you are going to first be introduced to art through a $1 paint-brush. (I don't think computers are "better" or "worse" they are just a different tool. They are no less worth and no more worth. It is what people do with their tools that counts.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
Ok i just had to weigh in on this. Being a tech-savvy guy AND a musician AND a Metallica fan, i've always found this converstaion amazing. I was so mad at Metallica for bringing the lawsuit to Napster, considering they got famous, in no small part, by a bootleg tape that Lars himself released, and it got copied and copied and copied soooo much that they got noticed. As was their intent, no doubt, since no one would sign them. Stemming from that, i've always said that now, the music itself isn't enough to get people to buy the cd. They need some OTHER reason for someone to pay for the music that they can easily download or copy from a friend. Album art is a forgotton part of the equation, along with the other stuff inside (lyrics, other band pics, etc.) But now, even the covers are being packaged up with the songs too. What they need to do is make it collectible some how. Take Led Zepplin's In Throught The Out Door album. It was packaged in a brown paper package, hiding the cover art. Why? Because it was just a simple scene from inside a bar somewhere. Both the front and back. However, the front was from the view of, lets say, the bartender, and the back was from someone elses view. The reason for the brown paper packaging was, that there were a total of 8 people in the bar, with 2 views per album. You didnt know who's view you were getting until you bought the album and ripped off the paper. I'm sure they sold a ton of those albums from people trying to collect all 4!! Anyone remember Cheech and Chong's Still Smokin' album? Anyone remember what came with it? How about Alice Cooper's Muscle of Love album. Came in a cardboard box with a giant condem inside hahaha. Another one he did (In From the Outside) had popup characters in the inside cover (it opened up like it was a double album set). The Rolling Stones did an album (Goat's Head Soup, i believe-not a big Stones fan), in which the cover art was banned. Instead of reprinting new covers for all the existing albums not yet shipped, they just stuck a new one over the original. If you happen to have this album (original print) you might be able to peel off the newer cover to reveal the original cover, and would most likely be worth quite a bit of money. The band Tool sort of got this idea when they did the whole hologram thing with their cd cover and the sleeve. Without the actual store bought case, you'd never figure out whats going on in the sleeve art. If all anyone wants is the music, they wont ever care about the art, but if they want a piece of his
-
Ok i just had to weigh in on this. Being a tech-savvy guy AND a musician AND a Metallica fan, i've always found this converstaion amazing. I was so mad at Metallica for bringing the lawsuit to Napster, considering they got famous, in no small part, by a bootleg tape that Lars himself released, and it got copied and copied and copied soooo much that they got noticed. As was their intent, no doubt, since no one would sign them. Stemming from that, i've always said that now, the music itself isn't enough to get people to buy the cd. They need some OTHER reason for someone to pay for the music that they can easily download or copy from a friend. Album art is a forgotton part of the equation, along with the other stuff inside (lyrics, other band pics, etc.) But now, even the covers are being packaged up with the songs too. What they need to do is make it collectible some how. Take Led Zepplin's In Throught The Out Door album. It was packaged in a brown paper package, hiding the cover art. Why? Because it was just a simple scene from inside a bar somewhere. Both the front and back. However, the front was from the view of, lets say, the bartender, and the back was from someone elses view. The reason for the brown paper packaging was, that there were a total of 8 people in the bar, with 2 views per album. You didnt know who's view you were getting until you bought the album and ripped off the paper. I'm sure they sold a ton of those albums from people trying to collect all 4!! Anyone remember Cheech and Chong's Still Smokin' album? Anyone remember what came with it? How about Alice Cooper's Muscle of Love album. Came in a cardboard box with a giant condem inside hahaha. Another one he did (In From the Outside) had popup characters in the inside cover (it opened up like it was a double album set). The Rolling Stones did an album (Goat's Head Soup, i believe-not a big Stones fan), in which the cover art was banned. Instead of reprinting new covers for all the existing albums not yet shipped, they just stuck a new one over the original. If you happen to have this album (original print) you might be able to peel off the newer cover to reveal the original cover, and would most likely be worth quite a bit of money. The band Tool sort of got this idea when they did the whole hologram thing with their cd cover and the sleeve. Without the actual store bought case, you'd never figure out whats going on in the sleeve art. If all anyone wants is the music, they wont ever care about the art, but if they want a piece of his
I buy music for good MP3 Tag information. Seriously. All those piracy networks suck for MP3 Tags.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
-
That's a good point. Back "in the day" you'd have to draw out graphics or logos if you wanted them. The result may have sucked but at least it was yours, done with your own hands and creativity. Now it's a simple as copy-cut-paste-print. Or you could've used a ditto machine. I bet most here don't know what a ditto machine was. :laugh: