This is a topic I have noticed come up quite a bit within my personal circle of discussion topics, and I'm quite curious if there is a general consensus on the topic. I have personally noticed a trend that quality music will typically have (at least somewhat) quality artwork to accompany. Now, the most obvious reasoning for this would be that the musicians simply care about their music so they care about every aspect that goes into it. However, an issue arises with this that the implication is made that music with less than gorgeous artwork is the result of less motivated musicians. Obviously this is all highly subjective, but I'm still interested to hear what the public has to say about the observation.

I've heard awesome albums with shitty artwork and I've heard shitty albums with awesome artwork. Pretty sure there isn't a correlation.

Written by [user id=126528] on 15.01.2015 at 22:57

I've heard awesome albums with shitty artwork and I've heard shitty albums with awesome artwork. Pretty sure there isn't a correlation.

That's not exactly what he meant though I don't think =P I think he's suggesting that bands that put effort into representing their music with interesting / unusual / high quality art often have better or more original music to represent in the first place. Personally I've noticed a huge correlation, but that may just be because I happen to have taste that has both music I like and artwork I like. I find that generic, or stereotypical music tends to have artwork that is very of the genre it's from, quite often with low quality photoshopping, or typical pictures of forests / gritty lo-fi black and white photographs etc. It's impossible to verify either way though, as you're comparing two things that are taste oriented.

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.01.2015 at 23:24

That's not exactly what he meant though I don't think =P I think he's suggesting that bands that put effort into representing their music with interesting / unusual / high quality art often have better or more original music to represent in the first place. Personally I've noticed a huge correlation, but that may just be because I happen to have taste that has both music I like and artwork I like. I find that generic, or stereotypical music tends to have artwork that is very of the genre it's from, quite often with low quality photoshopping, or typical pictures of forests / gritty lo-fi black and white photographs etc. It's impossible to verify either way though, as you're comparing two things that are taste oriented.

This is precisely what I meant. I may not have worded it perfectly, but it's definitely something I have witnessed. Obviously anecdotes don't lead to proof, but I thought it would be neat for people to consider

Written by deadone on 16.01.2015 at 00:15

I don't think there's any correlation between the two as both are subjective.

New Sylosis is a great example - I loved the art but thought the music was very average.

I think that's more of an exception that proves the rule for me, as it's the sort of artwork I'm drawn to but usually the music has more to offer. I find that skimming through Bandcamp's Discover function is a really good indication that there's some truth to this. There's so much garbage, both musically and art-wise that are find usually end up belonging together, but often I'll pick out one that has a nice piece of art on the cover and frequently it turns out to be something good. I don't just mean from genre to genre, usually within a genre like black metal too. Then again I'm sure a lot of people don't even care about the art, whereas for me it has value, so there's that factor too.

Written by deadone on 16.01.2015 at 00:15

I don't think there's any correlation between the two as both are subjective.

New Sylosis is a great example - I loved the art but thought the music was very average.

Honestly I think most exceptions to the rule I can think of are examples of awesome artwork with average music. Nearly all of my favorite albums seem to have magnificent artwork, though maybe I'm not looking through an objective lens (as they're albums I love). I do find it curious to see some people adamantly disapprove of the idea, while others can seem to relate.

Written by deadone on 16.01.2015 at 00:50

I'm curious as to what our resident arts graduate Ilham has to say on this topic.

Unfortunately my view of this is more based on what I learned in marketing than art . I'm just rambling here, this is not directed at you deadone.

To me it's like any sort of packaging, it's designed to attract the eye of a certain target audience that's expectant of certain codes. If you don't listen to an album solely because you don't like the cover, it reinforces the chances of having the impression that good covers = good music. I love covers, I have a huge folder with every beautiful cd art I come across, but all the non artsy-genres I listen to have shit covers. It's really a question of what genre you listen to, really.

Written by deadone on 16.01.2015 at 00:50

I think art is often an afterthought by many bands as the main emphasis is music.

I agree, but then perhaps that's why I often seem to like albums with great cover artwork, because bands feel like the aesthetic is an important part of the overall package Particularly good or unique bands often opt for more unique styles of artwork, whereas generic bands that clearly want to be part of a style more often that not go for a standard artwork that befits the genre. I much prefer the former as often they have a more distinct sound or approach.

Written by deadone on 16.01.2015 at 01:11

It's so you see a CD and go "hey look it's Thrash/Power/Death/Black/blah. I like Thrash/Power/Death/Black/blah so I might like this too."

i have run out of good blah to listen to, can you recommend me any?

As people here said, there are good albums with bad artworks and so there are the opposite.
However I do believe there is kind of a correlation. At least in my travels among the depths of youtube when I was trying to find random stuff without actually knowing what I was looking for, searching by the cover of the album turned out to be a good way of browsing new good music. I can get it right with higher than 60% accuracy at least.

Of course, there are genres where having at least a decent album cover is somewhat default, like (serious) modern bm either has a minimal cover or a good one, about the same goes for sludge. On the other hand I fail to remember a good thrash cover, I think they're meant to be a purposely bad done drawing of something that could turn out to be good if drawn in a proper way or something... As deadone said, thrash covers are meant to shout thrash to the eyes and so on.

In my experience albums with great artwork have great music about... 60-70% of the time. There might be a correlation in the sense that musicians you like might have similar tastes, which also extends to cover art. But overall, I think if Esoteric's The Maniacal Vale had a picture of Greg Chandler's balls as cover art I wouldn't rate it any worse.

I do think however, that if you don't like a certain cover art at first but the album rocks, you might start appreciating the artwork more. I think that happened to me a few times at least.

BRB, photoshopping Greg Chandler's balls....

Be sure to send it to me

The way I see it... match your music with your album art. Each should complement the other. You make a good point though about not rushing to think that shit art = shit musicians, because unfortunately doing what I just mentioned isn't always that simple, and sometimes it can just be an issue of being unable to afford a highly sophisticated artist for the job.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 16.01.2015 at 14:24

The way I see it... match your music with your album art. Each should complement the other. You make a good point though about not rushing to think that shit art = shit musicians, because unfortunately doing what I just mentioned isn't always that simple, and sometimes it can just be an issue of being unable to afford a highly sophisticated artist for the job.

I dunno, personally I like it when a band throws you a curveball and presents artwork that is atypical of the style.

I also don't think you necessarily need to splash out on a good artist to have good art. A simple black and white photograph, or plain background with a line overlay, or simple geomtric object and so on can be just as effective and aesthetically pleasing as a painting.

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.01.2015 at 14:36

I dunno, personally I like it when a band throws you a curveball and presents artwork that is atypical of the style.

As do I, but I mean... a field of dandelions for a funeral doom album? Meh. Agree with you that variation is good, but I still think a sense of "art matches aesthetic of the music" is important. 9 times out of 10 when I see a piece of album artwork I can guess what style it's from correctly, whether that means that bands are nailing the "art matches music" approach, or need to be more original, though, I can't entirely say.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 16.01.2015 at 14:41

As do I, but I mean... a field of dandelions for a funeral doom album? Meh. Agree with you that variation is good, but I still think a sense of "art matches aesthetic of the music" is important. 9 times out of 10 when I see a piece of album artwork I can guess what style it's from correctly, whether that means that bands are nailing the "art matches music" approach, or need to be more original, though, I can't entirely say.

Personally I'd love an f-doom album with flowers on It's like I love raw black metal albums that have surprising covers, or odd colour choices like pink. I think it can work when it's dichotomous like that. Clearly some things wouldn't work. Cheesy power metal with hardcore-like covers, thrash metal with moody doom-like covers and so, but opposites can work on occasion.

I think a band can portray the style of the music with the art in both good ways and bad ways. I think then it usually comes down to technical quality or simple talent rather than being original or clever.

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.01.2015 at 14:52

It's like I love raw black metal albums that have surprising covers, or odd colour choices like pink.

I see what you did there

Written by Auntie Sahar on 16.01.2015 at 15:00

I see what you did there

I'm confused, have I hit on a pun or joke accidentally? =P

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.01.2015 at 15:02

I'm confused, have I hit on a pun or joke accidentally? =P

You mean that "black metal with pink in the album cover" totally wasn't a Deafheaven reference?

Written by Auntie Sahar on 16.01.2015 at 15:07

You mean that "black metal with pink in the album cover" totally wasn't a Deafheaven reference?

Oh yeah, that one is pink isn't it. I was actually thinking more about the Raspberry Bulbs albums, but I have to admit that Deafheaven have kind of ushered in a new era of unusual, if somewhat hipstery, album covers.

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.01.2015 at 15:09

Raspberry Bulbs

Heard of them, haven't yet scoped though. Good stuff, I'm guessing?

Written by Auntie Sahar on 16.01.2015 at 15:14

Heard of them, haven't yet scoped though. Good stuff, I'm guessing?

They're ok. I quite like them but their appeal is pretty limited unless you really like lo-fi, back-to-basics blackened punk. They have some nice riffs at least.

There is probably at least some degree of correlation if you replace "good" with "professional" for the fact that if someone is being more professional with the music, they are probably going to be more professional with the cover art as well, but I think that's it.

Written by Ganondox on 17.01.2015 at 08:20

There is probably at least some degree of correlation if you replace "good" with "professional" for the fact that if someone is being more professional with the music, they are probably going to be more professional with the cover art as well, but I think that's it.

What do you mean by professional though?

Could argue that in some cases ultra-cheesy and extremely banal power metal cover arts are "professional", but it is sure as hell I would not call them good.

Written by Uldreth on 17.01.2015 at 18:18


Could argue that in some cases ultra-cheesy and extremely banal power metal cover arts are "professional", but it is sure as hell I would not call them good.

But even amongst those cheesy covers there's often a degree of technical quality. Some just look like bad photoshop composites, whereas others are obviously hand drawn etc.

I think I can agree with you. I have a list of them : Albums that I like so much with great artworks. But there are also so many albums that I like but their artworks suck big time.

Written by angel. on 17.01.2015 at 18:23

I think I can agree with you. I have a list of them : Albums that I like so much with great artworks. But there are also so many albums that I like but their artworks suck big time.

I guess my observation may actually be that the album covers connect with the music rather than represent the quality. As deadone pointed out, thrash albums will typically maintain a very particular style for their covers, and though it's not exactly the best art style, it's quite fitting. It may be that the music I listen to is generally best depicted by more quality artwork, though I can definitely think of a few exceptions (as with most anecdotal observations). I'm taking a look at your list and it definitely seems like a good collection of albums with great/appropriate artwork.

Written by Uldreth on 17.01.2015 at 18:18

Written by Ganondox on 17.01.2015 at 08:20

There is probably at least some degree of correlation if you replace "good" with "professional" for the fact that if someone is being more professional with the music, they are probably going to be more professional with the cover art as well, but I think that's it.

What do you mean by professional though?

Could argue that in some cases ultra-cheesy and extremely banal power metal cover arts are "professional", but it is sure as hell I would not call them good.

Meaning it was made by a professional artist or someone who has otherwise proven themselves to produce professional quality artwork. No, professional doesn't necessarily mean good, but it does put a minimal technical quality standard. It means it's not going to be something that was shoddily assembled in photoshop at the last minute because the album needed artwork but they still didn't have anything. Mind you, some extremely amateur pieces of art do turn out very well, but many do not.

Even if there was a correlation, there isn't always the case of causation. In this instance, I think it's rather safe to say there's also no correlation either.

Noun

- mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.

- Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.