>his favorite album needs some fancy artwork or a beautiful-taken

>>70921298
What's he looking at

is that photo really from 1390

>>70921298
You say that but this guy took his double bass outside in the middle of the night to take a photo so he clearly cared enough and thought it was cool.

>>70921298
>>70921433
DALE

>>70921480
we finally found him

File: D A L E.jpg (218KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 600x600px

>>70921480
>>70921510
D A L E

File: fuck-u-pussy-ass-nigga.jpg (483KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1000x1000px

>>70921298
>he completely disregards visual part of the music

what a fucking pleb, i'm lmaoing at ur life

>>70921581
There's no "visual part" of the music.
Portraits are not music.

>>70921298
If the artist can't be bothered to make a proper album cover then there's a good chance he'll be lazy about the music as well. Sure there's exceptions to that rule but good luck searching for those diamonds in the rough.

>>70921414
Wrong. He intentionally chose the most mundane staging to completely nullify any artistic pretensions on his part - both a bare-faced and refreshingly real statement of intent on his part and a subtle warm-hearted homage to both The New Topographic and American Realist photographic movements.

The musician is not in centre frame, and does not even look into the camera, an initially disengaging but truly brilliant choice on his part. Brewer is here not the subject, but simply an individual happened to be captured by the photograph.

As the album title itself clearly reinforces, any message Mr. Brewer is sending us with his album cover need not be laid out, it can remain pure, undiluted, and "Unspoken".

>>70921662
So, you're telling me he clearly cared about it and thought it was cool, but in a pretentious way?

>no posing

he clearly poses

>>70921682
You've entirely missed the point. The drawback with what he has done is that it will inevitably go over the head of any given visual layman with an undeveloped photographic vocabulary, but this only serves to reinforce the fact that Brewer truly does not care for posturing or the way you perceive him.

File: 90.jpg (241KB, 640x663px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 640x663px

>>70921662
im woke

tell me more

>>70921708
damn... really makes u think...

He looks autistic

I'm sorry that I like it when an artist puts a little effort into their albums

where is the guys fedora?

>>70921630
pretty much the other way around to be honest, the most skilled musicians usually go with something simple or something that takes the piss out of the album cover medium because they realize it's a silly thing to be paying attention to, it's essentially an ad for the albums content and a true musical genius despises such superficiality

File: 1486659496507.png (3KB, 404x398px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 404x398px

>>70922407
does pic related get your dick going?

>>70922427
no that's too much of a statement

File: BluesAndRoots.jpg (73KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x500px

why doesn't anybody start threads with ironic shitposts about Mingus album covers?

>>70921298
i get that you're trying to bait or whatever, but it's 100% correct that covers don't matter all that much but this board cares more for aesthetics than actual music and most don't even go to concerts, which is why there's not much jazz discussion

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-10 at 9.52.42 AM.png (149KB, 702x505px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 702x505px

>>70922427
I know you think you're so ironic and hilarious but RogueArt is one of the best modern jazz labels and all their album covers actually do look like this

File: qw.jpg (37KB, 562x560px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 562x560px

I could literally take a stock image of some old man, put some text over it, put it in a chart of criss cross releases and no one would ever know

>>70922446
this

>>70921298
>tfw you accidentally prove the point you were trying to ironically parody

>>70922495
Those look nice

They're very organized and neat to look at. It leaves a lot to the imagination.

>>70922495
It's okay if the artist doesn't care about the album portrait but from the label point of view I think it's stupid.
Whether you like it or not a portrait that catches the eye can attract potential listeners, I can understand the artist not caring about gaining fans this way, but the record company is shooting itself in the foot.

>>70922611
hey idiot you think we care about money

who cares about attracting potential listeners or customers

its about the music

>>70922695
>a record label is not a business
get out of here kiddo

The best albums don't have album names or song titles. See: Untitled by Various Artists.

>>70922712
He is obviously being ironic but once again touching on the point he is trying to make fun of.

The fact is most of these smaller jazz labels with low-budget album covers are owned by old guys who are most likely spending their own money to keep the label going because they really do love the music. They care less than anybody about the "image" that the album cover projects because all the available money is spent trying to make sure the music sounds the best it can and the album cover is a necessary evil that is usually an afterthought. They know that people who follow the artists will find the music no matter what the cover looks like. I doubt they care too much about attracting new listeners.