why is it that so many records from dance and electronic labels such as R&S, Hotflush, Hyperdub, Warp etc. have LPs with no cover artwork, just a simple plain sleeve with the labels logo on it?
I'm into all sorts of genres but I only know of electronic, dub, techno, etc labels that do this sort of thing.
>>55625969 this >>55625738 tbh
although i'd say it has less to do with short shelf life and more with the music being very minimal and reliant on its' own roots just for it to be effective in the club
minimal in the sense that it doesn't bring in any unnecessary influences and doesn't needlessly try to be anything more than just dance music.
you can clearly see the most acclaimed records on most labels have a very noticeable and immediate artwork, that's more or less intended for a wider audience and can function outside of a very strict and limited culture and musical structure
tldr: bad druggie music doesn't deserve well thought-out covers
I feel it, so they keep the artwork off of the single and EP releases as to divert the pretension that cover artwork can have - letting the music speak for what it is being that it is just dance music?
Some do, but its not super common? Most people use CDJs or controllers. Vinyl is a cool medium but its expensive, awful to carry around, and vinyl only people can be fucking assholes.
its extremely common.
there are far more releases that are for DJs only that are put out solely on vinyl. if you ever go to a big big record store ask to see the DJ club promo section. its almost the biggest section they have oddly enough and its usually tucked away under the record displays. youl find stacks on stacks of promotional club use only records with releases youve never known about.
im not a vinyl specific person, but to be fair the comment about them being assholes can be said about every medium.
CD collectors are just as bad, and the people who just download music can be even worse.
It's a good idea. Album art was a marketing necessity once upon a time but it's time to drop the whole concept. It just forces an image onto an art form that's supposed to be interpretive.
i dont know if that is wholly true.
when the idea of a physical release was actually starting to come off the ground there wasnt a need for marketing and imagery in terms of the product over the artists themselves. music sold itself in part because it was seen as a leisure activity when there really wasnt too much else to do, and pirating was unheard of and not yet even imagined in terms of music.
when art slowly began to take the cover of a physical release, depending on whos putting out the work, if the artist chose it, it was because the image reflects what to expect from the music itself. on the other side of that, what you are saying can be seen a bit where a popular artists release is left to the label, at which point the label would make it look as appealing as they could solely to get people to buy the album though this can really only be said for popular music.
>it was because the image reflects what to expect from the music itself
Correction. It's what the artist thinks reflects the content. The fact is once an album is recorded and out there that's not their call anymore.
And even if it was time and time again artists have proven to be terrible judges of their own work.
its their work. who else to determine what to put with it than them?
whether a good or bad decision, its part of the work as a whole and with it, becomes finished in their eyes.
true once the albums recorded its out there, but if they intend to put art to it, its not complete without it.
its their call from the beginning to the end. that is, if they are solely the one(s) working on the project.
>if they are solely the one(s) working on the project
Is there even a single widely acclaimed musician like that alive today?
I'm seriously wondering btw, someone who writes, performes, produces and masters all their own work and refuses to let other people near their projects?
>its part of the work as a whole and with it
>its not complete without it.
I don't agree with either of those statements. Music is music, it's sound art. Once you add visual art to it and insist that it's "incomplete" you kind of take away from the concept.
>who else to determine what to put with it than them?
Nobody! That's the point. Album art is crap.
what im basically saying is what makes a project complete isnt up to you. its not a problem if you disagree, I agree with you in saying that music shouldnt even have a face to begin with. but if were talking serious here about music with album art, you cant deny that the artist who decides they want to put art to their music then makes that art part of the project itself. its not our right to say whether its true or not or if its valid or the right thing to do, its only left up to the artist. and its them in the first place who decided to put an image to their work.
i never insisted that music without art is incomplete. Im merely saying that from the perspective of an artist (not that i am one) who wants to put art to their music, the art itself is then part of the project as a whole.
>Are you going to delve into how lyrics are not part of music either?
>And how composition isn't part of 'sound art'?
music = sound x time
composition is an inherent part of music
lyrics are references to linguistic constructs and representationalist ideas, not music
>and its them in the first place who decided to put an image to their work.
Not necessarily. Labels frequently insist upon album art. And it's become such a sadly ingrained aspect of the culture that artists don't have the option to opt out of album art.
And yes it is our right. All art deserves scrutiny and criticism.
>lyrics are references to linguistic constructs and representationalist ideas
That doesn't contradict my premise.
idk all of those aspects do change the way i perceive the music, because music doesn't just affect your listening sense.
i don't hear a word either. i hear letters and syllables and piece them together into comprehensible sentences in my mind (actively translating it into my own language)
also yes its our right to be as subjective as we want about any art and offer our opinions, criticism and scrutiny on everything.
but its not our right to make that decision for the artist themselves. that is up to them. and as such they can do whatever they want with their own work.
lyrics are words, not music. if you attempt to comprehend lyrics then you are no longer listening to music. for example, see >>55628562
>i hear letters and syllables and piece them together into comprehensible sentences in my mind (actively translating it into my own language)
this anon's enjoyment of music depends on his ability to understand a language wholly unrelated to sound.
>music doesn't just affect your listening sense
>and as such they can do whatever they want with their own work.
Sure. But just like including a slide whistle in their music is a fucking terrible idea, album art is a fucking terrible idea. Artists can do what they want, but people can't be persuaded away from bad ideas it seems.
I don't have one. I'm not a child
what one considers a bad idea differs from person to person. as i would say to anyone, an opinion is yours and I have one two. but the fact that we understand eachother makes this a worthwhile conversation.
Okay, I'd agree with that in a weird pedantic sort of way. But it's kind of like saying dialogue is secondary to a film because film's a visual medium.
I mean, it's true. I can't exactly argue with your premise, I just think it's too beholden to a strict definition of "music" and is not how we naturally perceive the art. I hear lyrics, so it's music, right? I don't hear a painting or a photo of some shithead band. That's the distinction.
>masters their own
nope. i mean completely hands-off for everyone else, maybe excluding distribution of the records
i'm just saying there are multiple senses constantly active when i listen to music. same way lyrics provide context, a repeating element, a loop, a musical chord provides context as well. analyzing would probably be too big of a word but everything is processed through my mind when i listen to music, be it purely instrumental or not.
cant really word myself for shit sorry
Yet you seem to claim you are able to discern things wholly out of context without it affecting you in the slightest, I can't Imagine seeing this feat without a child's innocence (or ignorance of how the human mind works)!
though when it comes down to it, does it really matter?
i mean are those of you who hate album art sitting at home ordering records and cds and throwing away the sleeves and inserts when they arrive?
>Yet you seem to claim you are able to discern things wholly out of context without it affecting you in the slightest
Not at all. That's is in fact the opposite of what I claim.
My problem is I've never been given the OPPORTUNITY to find that out for myself.
>i mean are those of you who hate album art sitting at home ordering records and cds and throwing away the sleeves and inserts when they arrive?
No. I may not enjoy the practice but it's part of the experience. Besides, throwing away album art in my own home is not a public protest. No one would know but me. Makes more sense to explain on a public forum why I think it's wank.
Let me find out that for myself.
Let me strive for as little context as possible at the very least. There's a difference between accepting an inevitability and becoming a party to it.
>it's kind of like saying dialogue is secondary to a film because film's a visual medium.
it is in a sense, but that's a tricky point because most film is inherently representational and dialogue & language are just another set of references to ideas that exist within the world we know around us. then you have stuff like cinéma pur that tries to abstract out the idea of film into its core components of vision, image, and movement in the same way that music consists only of hearing, sound, and time.
there's something about music that makes this sort of purity a lot more palatable than watching triangles silently bounce around the screen for half an hour, but that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.
>I just think it's too beholden to a strict definition of "music" and is not how we naturally perceive the art.
speak for yourself tbh
as a simple thought experiment listen to a piece of music in a language you don't know- your interpretation is different because you don't involve the parts of your brain responsible for decoding language into the ideas it communicates. you'll find that your reading of the music's content is a lot more formalist than that of someone capable of conversing and understanding that language.
the aesthetics are the content
>the only way to ascend to the next level is to stop listening to music.
lmao but true tho
>as a simple thought experiment listen to a piece of music in a language you don't know- your interpretation is different because you don't involve the parts of your brain responsible for decoding language into the ideas it communicates. you'll find that your reading of the music's content is a lot more formalist than that of someone capable of conversing and understanding that language.
I agree with that, too. But I'm still aware it's an incomplete understanding of the music.
though as music is always evolving, and art has now become part of the context, youl have to solely listen to music from artists who dont use cover art or music from before it existed.
otherwise alot of the artists you probably listen to have probably intended in someway that you take the art (the first impression you get before you listen in most cases) into at least a little consideration.
>But I'm still aware it's an incomplete understanding of the music.
well that's the issue in the first place- requiring some extra-musical reference for a "full appreciation" dilutes a music's universality- including allusions one must to know and understand beforehand, outside just the ability of being able to comprehend and appreciate sound, spoils musical purity
We're getting away from the point.
My point was it's only extra-musical by the insanely pedantic definition you have, something you'd have to be actively aware of while listening to possibly make that distinction, effort you should be spending listening to the album I might add.
>something you'd have to be actively aware of while listening to possibly make that distinction
lemme simplify: if you understand any words while listening to what you think might qualify as music- you're just listening to poetry set to a beat
>effort you should be spending listening to the album I might add.
listening to impure music? kek no thank u
I find it difficult to believe you're the same guy. I disagreed with the other guy, but he at least reasoned and articulated like a human being.
You're talking in weird half-memes that I'm not sure you understand.
the band portion of the song is discernible regardless of the language the singing is in. if it is enjoyable then you will like it, the only reason it feels so different is because youre missing part of the song that gives the full experience. so yes you can love the song, but youre still missing something
i would have to say that i disagree about lyrics not being part of the music. I would say that they are part of the music, and can even can be (and historically have been) in some cases the sole aspect of the music. if you disagree youd then have to say that singing isnt music.
Most labels in dance music are fairly small and independent, so they want to make it cheaper because most releases are limited runs. Also its just really about the tunes for the people that buy this sort of music. No one is hanging cover artworks on there wall or anything like that, they just want the raw materials
ok so i'm here mainly addressing this post >>55628431 with the claim that lyrics ARE NOT part of music
and i'm partly going off this bit regarding cover being an indispensable portion of the artistic experience >>55628385
>Once you add visual art to it and insist that it's "incomplete" you kind of take away from the concept.
it's the same with adding a literary narrative conveyed via lyrics- if you choose to not include it in your experience, you arguably do not get 'the whole thing.'
you can of course "just listen to the sounds of the singing as if it were another instrument" as many claim to or even suggest to do (including this anon here >>55629790), but the fact remains that there is more than likely some fuller picture the artist meant to imbue via the lyricism. requiring understanding the language and the set of words being used, as well as literary allusions and understanding subtle variation in intonation on meaning closes one off to fully understanding the artists intended message.
>if you disagree youd then have to say that singing isnt music
it's musical, it just isn't 'pure music'