> no of course, because the originality of the music was linked to the author,
> and not to the interpret, as the pop music did since. However, we only
> consider short periods of time, and nothing allows us to think that those
> fetish LP covers will always remain the same in the future...
I'm now thinking of how many Elvis compilations there are on the market.
They all have cover art on them, however, for them it really doesn't matter
of what that cover art consists so long as it's loosely descriptive of the
content contained within. However, Elvis' first album "Elvis Presley" still
has the same goofy cover art that it has had since the day it was released.
This can also be said of all Beatles albums, etc. I suppose the look of
the cover art has something to do with easy visual identification purposes
and for the most part something to do with the legitimacy of the product
itself (off-brand labels can't legally use the same graphics for their
products that the big labels can unless they receive authorization.)
Nevertheless, this all relates to the consumer and the marketing behind
the music rather than to the music itself. Again, this reiterates my
assertion that music without cover art is not lesser than music with
cover art - although it may suffer somewhat in the commercial sense
without it.
Myke
