Rolling Stones-Blue & Lonesome: Laziest Album Cover Ever?

A few thoughts:
Album cover art in the 70s and into the early 90s was part of the presentation, or 'statement' if you will. Not for all bands and artists, of course. Certainly Pink Floyd's album graphics were integral to the package. Since shrinking from 12" to 5" to less than 1", cover art is a thing of the past for most artists and bands. Some still like to have some kind of eye catching graphic, but I don't think it's integral to the music anymore.

Stones covers were usually always pretty obnoxious since "Some Girls"! Not particularly striking, nor did the graphics do much to present the music.
"Steel Wheels" and "Bridges To Babylon" are particularly ugly to me! I don't think they've ever spent too much time and consideration on graphics since the 1968-1975 period.

I think the graphics for "Blue And Lonesome" reflect the music, the time it's released in, the emphasis on the performances, and the current 'cover art' aesthetic.

I've still to even hear this record, and I am looking forward to picking it up at Canterbury Record Shop in nearby Pasadena this evening!

 

If I based my purchasing decisions on album covers, I'd have a small collection

 

Plain and simple. I like it!!

 

As a friend of mine is fond of pointing out, it was the London School of Economics, not the London School of Music, that he dropped out of when he joined the Stones.

 

If the cover had something else on it people would be complaining that it really should have been blue with the logo only.

 

No matter what the Stones do they apparently are not gonna win with all fans.

50+ years on and we get an album that many of us had been hoping for for many years!! An album that takes their career full circle!

And yet we have a thread approaching 10 pages complaining about the cover.....

....is it possible we have way to much spare time on our hands???

Thanks for this excellent music and all the memories boys!

 

This forum wouldn't be as busy as it is if lots of people didn't have time on their hands, so that's kind of beside the point.

I still think it's trash, but the people who say it catches your eye when you walk into the store have the explanation, I think.

 

I love the particular shade of blue they're using here. Full-on blues and the more typical tongue logo is perhaps a slightly odd pairing but I don't mind it. Photos inside are cool and in the end it's about the music. We've got a poster on the shop window and it really looks nice and deeply colorful; something many big sellers this year surely didn't (Radiohead, Bowie, Nick Cave etc. - good stuff - very bleak artwork though).

 

It is a good shade of blue, I can't argue with that. If this was the first time they used the tongue on the cover I might even like it. It's the fact that they've used their corporate logo for 3 or 4 albums now that's kind of dismal.

 

You can't listen to an album cover. It's the songs that ultimately make the album not the cover.

 

I agree with those who have commented that's it's the music that's important. Do I like the cover? Sure..

Is it 'lazy?' I can't think of anything worthwhile to add to an already loaded question, but there's certainly a lot of talk and opinions about it so on that, alone, I reckon it's a rip roarin,' tongue-in-cheek success

 

Perhaps it could've been a little bit like Exile on Main Street. That is, using photos of the original performers together with photos of the band playing live in the early days in a collage. Or perhaps a photo of the four of them playing in a club, sitting at a bar, or all chatting, holding the original blues albums. I suppose it is lazy if you want to look at it that way, however if you like bold eye-catching designs then it is a great success. I'd really enjoy reading about why they chose each song.

 

I like that there isn't a band shot on it. It would remind me how old they are and that would ruin the album. Mick doesn't sound like he's in his 70s here, and if I was aware of the fact he's old, fat, and rich, I'd find this a much less convincing album, I think.

Music's good. Cover is pretty lame (the gradient + font is the deal breaker for me), but it's not the end of the world.

 

"fat" ?

 

One thing that Jagger is not is fat

 

The Rolling Stones "Blue & Logosome"...

 

Not ... literally fat ...

 

Actually, I like the 40 Licks cover better.

 

it doesn't bother me one bit

 

Yes, it's a compilation and the logo matches the title.

 

Really funny observation, but I really suspect Mick calling the shots on this kind of artwork.

 

I think On Air looks classy with it's radio waves. Simple, but it really hits the mark with me.

 

I think the last album with artwork of real interest was Still Life. Anything after that has a feel of 'this will do'. Rewind and Stripped are notable exceptions.

 

They tried to take a group photo for the record, but the camera broke.

 

It is as far as cover designs go,
but this, this video, is a far bigger low.





Is this video supposed to be "rebellion"?!?