nice job, joel dorn...

[Guest akanalog]

i was just looking at the packaging for my copy of eric kloss' "one two free" and read how joel dorn was noting it was the first 32 jazz album to use the original artwork. one must question that move anyway since they seemed to generally substitute the lamest lowest budget graphics for the original art. but so they used the original art for this one-except they had the idea of using a red X to X out the muse logo and write 32 jazz next to it. so it isn't really the original art since they drew a red X over it.

[AllenLowe]

boy, that does look bad -

[Dr. Rat]

And you bought it figuring the Red X over Muse was there in the first place?

I mean everybody's got to make choices. Dorn chooses not to spend a whole lot of time or money working up nice artwork. You can see that and you decide whether you want to spend your money on it or not. Nobody's fooling anybody here.

Personally I don't give a damn about the art, but I do want the discog info. That's my thing. If Dorn or some other producer omits that info, well then I've got a choice to make: Do I takle the risk that I can probably find said info on the internet or not?

Simple. No schmucks need apply.

--eric

[Guest akanalog]

i didnt buy it based on the artwork.

i am just saying if you are going to brag about using the original artwork-then dont ruin it with a red X (and weird angled cropping).

also-fine if he wants to be cheap-USE THE ORIGINAL ART. no one told him to make new crappy computery graphics.

this has no relavance on me spending or not spending money-though i would pay a lot more for a copy of "the moontrane" rather than the lame 32 jazz cover.

this is all moot now anyway since there is no 32 jazz.

[Jim Alfredson]

Since the Muse logo is on black, it wouldn't have been too hard to Photoshop it out and put the 32Jazz label on there instead. Pretty lame, I have to agree.

[Dr. Rat]

i didnt buy it based on the artwork.

i am just saying if you are going to brag about using the original artwork-then dont ruin it with a red X (and weird angled cropping).

also-fine if he wants to be cheap-USE THE ORIGINAL ART.  no one told him to make new crappy computery graphics. 

this has no relavance on me spending or not spending money-though i would pay a lot more for a copy of "the moontrane" rather than the lame 32 jazz cover.

this is all moot now anyway since there is no 32 jazz.

←

Well, there is still a Joel Dorn. He's got a funny sense of humor, of which that cover is an example.

A lot of times original covers translated badly to the smaller format of the cd.

I doubt very much Dorn gave or gives a good goddamn for the collectors market. Which, frankly, I find to be kind of refreshing. But that's me. I kind of like the guys from the generation who actually thought they could make money selling jazz records and acted that way.

--eric

[Dr. Rat]

Since the Muse logo is on black, it wouldn't have been too hard to Photoshop it out and put the 32Jazz label on there instead.  Pretty lame, I have to agree.

←

Not lame, done on purpose. Even I could have done the job the way you're talking about. A guy on the production line at the print shop could have done it--anybody could have done it. But Dorn didn't do it because for whatever reason he preferred the red x.

--eric

Edited July 21, 2005 by Dr. Rat

[Guest akanalog]

there is something to be said for not swathing music you respect or think is great, in low budget crappy art. it seems a bit disrespectful.

[Dr. Rat]

Coming from a communications/design background, I must say that indeed some of us do give a "good goddamn" about artwork.  Since the 78 album, there, and even before on label design, there has been a good deal of thought put into such matters, by people with an often unique vision whose reach has extended beyond the album sleeve into the aesthetic culture at large.

By your argument, Dr. Rat, I suppose it wouldn't matter if the music was on a cd-r with a hand-scribbled note detailing the sessions' players and dates.

If I am paying for a reissue, I want the entirety of it reissued.  If they can't get clearance to use the original, that is one thing, but most of the 32 Jazz titles I have come across feature the artwork in about postage-stamp size on the inside.

←

What I'm saying is that *I* don't care much about the art. And apparently Dorn doesn't either. And that there is no sin in that.

And in addition to records that have been put out with a lot of attention to design details, there have been plenty put out with little or no concern for that sort of thing. In fact, I'd say that there are very few records whose art is really worth much, putting nostalgia and commodity fetishism aside.

And, when it comes down to it, if it's a choice between not having the music and having a high quality legal mp3 of it, I'll take the file.

But that's me, that's my choice. Re-issue producers have their budgets and priorities, and I think they, too, should be able to choose how they're going to do things. Mosaic is going to spend all kinds of money and effort (and pass the cost of those things to their consumers) on stuff that doesn't much matter to me--handsome packaging, exhaustive completism. But I don't complain. They get to do things their way and I decide whether to buy or not.

--eric

[jazzbo]

Like Eric, I'm not really that concerned about artwork; I'd rather have the original, but then again there are some originals that I could have done a better job originally on. . . .

I actually think that the 32jazz cover philosophy may have been a good move. . . They are very disctinct, different from the other series, and they stood out. And the prices often made them then slip into a sales basket. . . .

[Jim R]

And in addition to records that have been put out with a lot of attention to design details, there have been plenty put out with little or no concern for that sort of thing. In fact, I'd say that there are very few records whose art is really worth much, putting nostalgia and commodity fetishism aside.

←

... I think I strongly disagree with that. Are you talking about all labels, or just Muse, or...?

Anyway, I'm with those who do desire original artwork (and hopefully good quality, respectful reproductions of same). Yes, part of it is nostalgia, but there's more to it than that. For me, cover graphics are an important part of the entire package. The music sets a mood, the artwork sets a mood (sometimes the two are more in harmony with one another, and sometimes less so, but there's still a visual stimulus there that I find important). In general, I think Muse's original cover art was less appealing than a lot of other labels, which makes me more relaxed about Dorn's choices than I otherwise might have been, but that red X thing is just plain odd, IMO. It would be interesting to hear the full story regarding that decision... maybe it would make more sense if explained.

[Rosco]

I doubt very much Dorn gave or gives a good goddamn for the collectors market. Which, frankly, I find to be kind of refreshing. But that's me. I kind of like the guys from the generation who actually thought they could make money selling jazz records and acted that way.

--eric

←

Surely Dorn must know better by now?!

[Rosco]

Anyway, I'm with those who do desire original artwork (and hopefully good quality, respectful reproductions of same).  Yes, part of it is nostalgia, but there's more to it than that.  For me, cover graphics are an important part of the entire package.  The music sets a mood, the artwork sets a mood (sometimes the two are more in harmony with one another, and sometimes less so, but there's still a visual stimulus there that I find important). 

←

I'd generally agree with that. If you gave me the choice between two issues of the same album, one with 'original' artwork and one with new I'd probably go for the original every time, just from the point of view of 'authenticity'. The artwork of an album can reflect its point in history every bit as much as the music within.

That said, some of the originals were just plain bad (it's not like Muse albums were design classics like Blue Note or Impulse). If the music's good, I ain't getting too anal about the wrapper.

[Dr. Rat]

I'm just saying all in all, across the board, most cover art is not of much artistic interest. Though I think some of it is cool, it isn't worth kicking too much of a fuss about.

Some labels had consistently fine cover art, well worth reproducing, even in cofee-table book format!

--eric

And in addition to records that have been put out with a lot of attention to design details, there have been plenty put out with little or no concern for that sort of thing. In fact, I'd say that there are very few records whose art is really worth much, putting nostalgia and commodity fetishism aside.

←

... I think I strongly disagree with that. Are you talking about all labels, or just Muse, or...?

Anyway, I'm with those who do desire original artwork (and hopefully good quality, respectful reproductions of same). Yes, part of it is nostalgia, but there's more to it than that. For me, cover graphics are an important part of the entire package. The music sets a mood, the artwork sets a mood (sometimes the two are more in harmony with one another, and sometimes less so, but there's still a visual stimulus there that I find important). In general, I think Muse's original cover art was less appealing than a lot of other labels, which makes me more relaxed about Dorn's choices than I otherwise might have been, but that red X thing is just plain odd, IMO. It would be interesting to hear the full story regarding that decision... maybe it would make more sense if explained.

←

[Jim R]

I'm just saying all in all, across the board, most cover art is not of much artistic interest.

←

Well, I think that's way different from saying "there are very few records whose art is really worth much"... and I still disagree, for reasons stated. I know we're all wired up differently, though, and I respect your opinion.