If you don't put any effort into your cover art then I won't

That cover is not bad tho

>>74887301
I'll admit it has grown on me

Some of the greatest albums have dumb and simple cover arts.

Don't worry. Once you get to be 17 or 18 you will grow out of this immature way of thinking.

Probably just stick to memerap and generic indie until then though.

>album art is a picture of the musician or band
Always a guarantee for being mundane. No imagination in the album art? No imagination in the music, either.

most of the criss cross labels are pretty lame, but having said that with jazz, even as a whole, the emphasis is on the music and really only the music.

File: mmmer.jpg (78KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x501px

get a load of this album cover, it's nothing special but it's a great album. having the mentality that album art is that significant is somewhat silly imo.

Jazz artists are happy to have the opportunity to record their music and often have little to no say on what goes on the cover.

If you're not even willing to give music a chance just based on cover art then jazz is definitely not the genre for you.

It's really a pathetic mindset to have though.

>>74887274
criss cross has their own aesthetic. Its substance over image.

File: kek.png (3MB, 1836x1142px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1836x1142px

still too ugly to fit here

>He hasn't taken the criss cross pill yet

A lot of their albums are 6 or 7s out of 10 but I've never heard one that's bad and there are some definite 9s and 10s that are some of the best modern jazz releases

>>74887359
>he hasn't listened to Help!

>>74887790
>6 or 7s out of 10

personal prefrence

>>74888465
What is your point?

>>74887274
well that would be your problem

The implications of this are very disturbing.

It's virtually impossible that OP has never listened to a good album that has a bland or boring cover, therefore we can assume that he has actually been convincing himself that these albums are bad, solely because they have bad cover art.