To me, the cover of EOMS is just married to the music. Great album and great art!
Sticky: great cover in any case, whatever the music would be.
Some Girls: Great cover, I'm happy to have the original LP! Somehow works so well with the music also.
Jamming with Edward (almost Stones): the cover's so off it's already on again.
Love You Live: never liked the cover, but saw Warhol's original piece of art in a museum once, looks so much better than the album cover!

Otherwise: I somehow like the DW cover.
UC: interesting cover (though not necessarily Stones-y)) but I don't really like the album.
ER: the cover is, well, kinda ... you know, but I find the poster great. Compared to other posters in (more or less) 70s albums, something completely different.
IORR: naw...!
GHS: almost naw ...! Interesting cover, somehow, but I can't really relate it to the album. The soup pic used to work nicely for shocking the gals back in the day ... (hehe)
B&B: somehow OK
BB: great cover, although again independent of the music
B&L: the only cover of the later albums that I really like, so cool and simple
SW, VL, B2B, ABB: dispensable
No Security: another one that is so off it's on again

otherwise: indifferent

It's difficult with these artworks, because one connect the artwork with music, even if one try to seperate them from another.
But here's my favourite-list, trying to be as obcective as possible:

Netween The Buttons
Goats Head Soup
Made in the Shade
Black & Blue
Love You Live

My favourites:

Voodoo Lounge
Stripped
Jump Back
Love You Live
Exile On Main St.
Steel Wheels
Flashpoint
Still Life
Some Girls
Tattoo You
Goats Head Soup
It's Only Rock 'n' Roll
Sticky Fingers
Get Yer Ya Ya's Out
Black An Blue
Undercover
Dirty Work
Let It Bleed

Quote
Rockman
Stickin up for Blue Lonesome cover ….

Displayed in record store or racks it stands out …..
Simple..... highly distinctive from the rest of the crowd … and advertises itself … Stones Tongue...job done

From a marketing perspective I agree...it's perfect actually. Most iconic logo in the rock world coloured blue. Stones do the blues. Perfect.

That said, a little boring but it achieves what it sets out to do...market the product.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
peoplewitheyes
I also think Grrrr is pretty good, at least it is bold and interesting, which is a lot more than can be said for the extremely dull Blue n Lonesome.

A gorilla? It's pathetic! Just as bad as the album title!

it was quite disappointing when that was what they came up with to honour 50 years as a band.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
peoplewitheyes
I also think Grrrr is pretty good, at least it is bold and interesting, which is a lot more than can be said for the extremely dull Blue n Lonesome.

A gorilla? It's pathetic! Just as bad as the album title!

it was quite disappointing when that was what they came up with to honour 50 years as a band.

It boggles the mind. You know that at that level there would have been business meetings with suits. Either they all agreed on this insane notion; or someone came in, very excited about this idea, and made a play, and actually convinced them all. What on earth was the motivation? What was it that someone said that proved to all involved the Greatest Rock band in the world's career would be well represented in such a display?

About the gorilla: Tongue and cheek. Jagger has a sense of humor. Distance. The band have never been dead serious about themselves. Important album? It was "Best of #50". Plus two new songs.

Sorry, wrong thread...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-11-18 19:16 by Stoneage.

1960s
Nothing remarkable pre-TSMR
TSMR - hilariously awful
BB - I like the original but the RSVP one is nice
TTPD - Hilarous
LIB - Brilliant in that it was for a different title and they said the hell with it anyway, iconic

1970s
GYYYO! - awesome
SF - awesome, iconic as hell
EOMS - awesome
GHS - cool
IORR - cool
MITS - awesome
BAB - remarkable, actually
LYL - cool
SG - awesome, iconic as hell
TWFNO - love it

1980s
ER - OK... but a bit lame
SITS - bizarrely brilliant
TY - awesome, iconic as hell
SL - it's good enough
U - awesome
R - funny
DW - horrendous, their worst ever
SW - horrible, just awful bad

1990s
F - dumb
JB - what?
VL - memorable but very bad
S - whatever
BTB - I like it but it's chooky
NS - uh...

2002-2016
FL - interesting
ABB - yawn
R - airbrushed Wyman out because...? Stupid
SAL - it's OK
G - not their worst ever but their dumbest ever
SSS - it's nice
HM - lame
BAL - too clean... but easy to remember

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
peoplewitheyes
I also think Grrrr is pretty good, at least it is bold and interesting, which is a lot more than can be said for the extremely dull Blue n Lonesome.

A gorilla? It's pathetic! Just as bad as the album title!

it was quite disappointing when that was what they came up with to honour 50 years as a band.

It boggles the mind. You know that at that level there would have been business meetings with suits. Either they all agreed on this insane notion; or someone came in, very excited about this idea, and made a play, and actually convinced them all. What on earth was the motivation? What was it that someone said that proved to all involved the Greatest Rock band in the world's career would be well represented in such a display?

I think people start losing their minds when they get older...my parents are being like George Costanza's.

Maybe Mick and Keith are becoming a bit like that? Charlie's been crotchety for years!

What was it that someone said that proved to all involved the Greatest Rock band in the world's career would be well represented in such a display?






King Kong knows a lotta people in high places ………..



ROCKMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-11-26 08:18 by Rockman.

Quote
GasLightStreet
...

Ok, I follow GasLightStreet's example, but with some improvements.

1960s
The best album covers: pre-Between the Buttons
Between the Buttons: not so good anymore as the previous (which is even more true for the pointless musical content)
TSMR - cringeworthy & embarrassing like 50% of the album
BB - Toilet seat version is cool, the white version: too similar to another white album cover of another band
LIB - Rather ugly really. I don't get it. Why doing this?

1970s
GYYYO! - good
SF - I see how this was "cool" but I am not very fond of it
EOMS - great, one of their best
GHS - oh well, okay, I guess
IORR - terrible bad taste.
BAB - one of their best
SG - comparable to SF, nice for drawing attention, but a bit childish

1980s
ER - OK... but a bit lame
TY - awesome, iconic as hell
U - ugly but it sort of works
DW - so ugly that it almost gets interesting. Which one could say for the musical content too
SW - horrible, just awful bad

1990s
VL - rubbish
S - whereas I normally like their "simple" covers, this is an exception
BTB - awful

2002-2016
ABB - absolutely ridiculous, who came up with this, a 4-year old?

I won't cease to defende Voodoo Lounge. I like the music in it very much, and the album art matches perfectly, so I love that art.
The cover is great, the inner sleves are great, everything is Voodoo Lounge is great, IMO.

Same goes for Blue and Lonesome: the album cover is plain, simple, yet catchy and (most important) unpretentious. I even prefer the blue tongue over the red one.
I bought a motorbyke a few weeks ago and I'm willing to get some reflective red and silver paint, to copy that blue tongue on a jean vest.

Those designs I don't like are the ones that don't look "stone". BtB, for instance... I like the cover, but the inner pic looks so anti-stone it's embarrasing.
Stripped makes me feel the same way: Mick pretending he's a bad boy, Keith pretending he's... Keith and poor Charlie looks like wandering why he should be posing for a stupid picture. Only Ron looks normal.

Quote
matxil

Quote
GasLightStreet
...

Ok, I follow GasLightStreet's example, but with some improvements.

1960s
The best album covers: pre-Between the Buttons
Between the Buttons: not so good anymore as the previous (which is even more true for the pointless musical content)
TSMR - cringeworthy & embarrassing like 50% of the album
BB - Toilet seat version is cool, the white version: too similar to another white album cover of another band
LIB - Rather ugly really. I don't get it. Why doing this?

1970s
GYYYO! - good
SF - I see how this was "cool" but I am not very fond of it
EOMS - great, one of their best
GHS - oh well, okay, I guess
IORR - terrible bad taste.
BAB - one of their best
SG - comparable to SF, nice for drawing attention, but a bit childish

1980s
ER - OK... but a bit lame
TY - awesome, iconic as hell
U - ugly but it sort of works
DW - so ugly that it almost gets interesting. Which one could say for the musical content too
SW - horrible, just awful bad

1990s
VL - rubbish
S - whereas I normally like their "simple" covers, this is an exception
BTB - awful

2002-2016
ABB - absolutely ridiculous, who came up with this, a 4-year old?

Ugly but it sort of works.

HA HA!

If there isn't anything else to sum it all up...

I get the blue... thing, but, it's way too clean. It's too bad they didn't go with the original logo surrounded in all kinds of blue hues for BLUE AND LONESOME. I'm not able to make my own LP cover up at the moment but this logo, the best one ever...

Quote
Stoneage
About the gorilla: Tongue and cheek. Jagger has a sense of humor. Distance. The band have never been dead serious about themselves. Important album? It was "Best of #50". Plus two new songs.

Very bad tongue in cheek then. If that idiotic gorilla is a sense of humor, someone needs a new sense of humor.