Terrence writes;
One has to onsider the "innercover" art of annotated music CDs
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> > 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
