>That cover is horrible. At the time, we all lived in an apartment complex and were partying every night. We were at the hot tub [one time[ and this was just a random shot [that] somehow we picked as the cover. On the back cover, there’s a picture of the girl from the waist down. In the original, Frank‘s in the hot tub next to her, so we Photoshopped him out of it. We were all married at the time, so how do we explain to our wives we’re in a hot tub with these chicks?
Do you agree?
That cover is horrible. At the time, we all lived in an apartment complex and were partying every night...
they were doing a LOT of cocaine at that time, and for like the next 8 years as well
The songs make up for any random cover they used. What a great album.
No, I think it's an iconic cover at this point. But that's the case for a lot of the best and most recognizable album covers. A lot of great covers come about by accident, without much thought put into them.
Gonna have to disagree. It's a very dynamic shot at a harsh angle that conveys a sense of tension. The long shadows in the background add to this. If anything it's a subversion of the stereotypical "album cover with a hot girl on it".
I never realized it was a hot tub, I assumed she was like being kidnapped and was like all wet in her underwear like that but in a parking lot or something, and her arms looked bound behind her back almost. I guess I never bothered looking too closely because the album itself is shit
> subversion
wtf are you talking about? the angle and lighting creates a predatory tension and objectifies her so much more than a typical "hot girl album cover". It's not a critique of objectification, it ramps up the objectification to a rapey degree
Oh shut the fuck up you pussy cunt. It's an album cover, not your fucking sociology thesis.
Yeah she doesn't seem very empowered, this chick seems like she's gonna kick your ass though
kek
>the album itself is shit
knew it was a matter of time before you people came into the thread
hey whiners!
art is not bound by the conventions of morality, especially not your watered-down bourgeois variety.
the power of the cover is its ability to evoke unsettling feelings. which is exactly what rock music deals with!
and what's funny is the "rapey feeling" is not really happning! wow what a novel concept
>We were all married at the time, so how do we explain to our wives we’re in a hot tub with these chicks?
maybe don't sit in hot tubs with sluts?
gotta have fun man
How the hell did you get to 4channel?
The Cars first album they said they hated the cover on it, even though that's by far their most popular record
I like Candy-O's cover even though I don't feel like it's representative of the record, looks better than the first one at least
I love that cover.
>wtf are you talking about? the angle and lighting creates a predatory tension and objectifies her so much more than a typical "hot girl album cover". It's not a critique of objectification, it ramps up the objectification to a rapey degree
That is exactly what makes it so impactful. Also, subversion does not necessarily have to be critiquing anything. Why are you viewing this from a moral standpoint? It's an album cover. The woman wasn't harmed in it's creation. I see no problem here.
Bands for normies trying to be pseuds 101
>Deftones
>Tool
>RATM
>Radiohead
classic spics
AREEEEBA AREEEEEEEEEEEBAAAAAA
this is the woman from the cover now
>objectify
Okay help me, how do I subjectify her instead?
impressive
also, still would
harder than in the original pic
NO MAMES WEY
aite i've been listening to Camel all night but i guess it's time to run this classic now, good thing i have more vodka
All good bands, much more listenable than your autistic taste I'm sure. Fuck you and Death Grips
Deftones are actually good though
this. i listen to some heavy shit but death grips are unlistenable. emperor's new clothes
these are all shit
so are death grips and they should also be added to that list