Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> > Of course cover art is just a contingent aspect of music, but it's beloved.
> > It has been a source of richness. Is it necessary? Of course not. Does its
> > belovedness matter? It ought to--
> >
> > And virtual imagery doesn't show the marks of time. Nothing like cardboard
> > scuffed around the edges and unevenly faded for beauty--
> >
> > Mortality is for me a key component of the beautiful.
>
> I agree with you 100%. It has it's place but it shouldn't be cause to
> adversely affect the appreciation of the music underlying it. That's just
> a side-effect of having grown up in a time where everybody else has does it
> something so frequently that for most it has become unthinkable to ever go
> against that norm. Music with no accompanying artwork. Hmmm...
> Didn't The Beatles attempt that once?
>
> Myke
Ah, but, the minimalism of the Beatles white album was far outdone by the Rutles'
"Tragical History Tour" (includes 24 page full color picture book!!!!), ergo;
"less is more?" Nope - "less is a bore."
http://www.pythonline.com/unoff/rutles/rpix/tht.gif
Achieving lofty states just gazing at this image,
your pard in art,
PatriciaKay
