At Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:52:13 Ronald Sanchez wrote:

>The thing is for bands to make their albums worth the money. Good songs
>presented at "album" length. The 74 minute albums are just so hard to 
>listen
>to, and more than a little responsible for the lack of interest. On the 
>other
>hand historical releases and reissues should be as full as possible.
>Interesting covers are also part of the deal. How many cds do you buy that 
>have
>dull grafix or just loads of impossible to read lyrics? Remember those 
>early
>CBS cds that just had blank insides?

Totally agree!! And what gets my goat are album titles that are 
disassociated from the album graphics. You might have a band with an album 
called "Gibblet" or some such nonsense and the cover art features a picture 
of a donkey being paraded through the streets of Mexico. Huh?

I can appreciate the abstract (Nickelback's "Silver Side Up" with the 
mercury dripping from a bandaged eye comes to mind), but when acts are just 
being obtuse or an image is stuck on the cover because the bass player's 
girlfriend drew it I have a hard time equating these with the SOUND of the 
band.
If you've got nothing remotely interesting to use for album art put a 
picture of the band on the cover. It's worked since the 1960's...it still 
works today.

Personally, I'm a fan of the covers used on most Jam Records, Not Lame, and 
BongoBeat releases.

Jaimie Vernon,
President,
Bullseye Records of Canada, Inc.
http://www.bullseyecanada.com
"Not Suing Our Customers Since 1985!"

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail