Oh dear was Sarah too hungover to do photo shoots then? It's better than WWTNS? at least I guess, and remember Britney has NEVER had a good album cover.
My theory about GA is that nobody's ever really known how to package or brand them - they r hott babez and that's about it. So there's no consistency or coherence in their presentation at all, there's never any sense that anyone cares managerially about their collective image or image as a pop group, or at least not since the first album really. I also think this lack of care is what's allowed Xenomania to give them such a wealth of non-traditional pop tracks and has kept obvious clunking interference with the music to a minimum - but the downside is they've never hit on the visuals that would match their most modern-sounding output.
TBH I'd rather this than the awful Sugababes 'presentation' which currently seems to consist of STICKING THEIR BUMS OUT and awkwardly posing. Perhaps they've all developed arthritis and can't move about much?
Man there's a million different comedy outfit themes they could have gone for:
SECHSY NURSES SECHSY ALIENS CIRCUS/ACROBATS (spangly tights innit) CAVEGIRLS (think Raquel Welsh in 100000 BC oh my god you know they're REMAKING THIS??) BOUNTY HUNTERS
I think any cover with the girls actually on the CD is automatically better than this. I can almost appreciate the decision to not put them on but if you're going to do that it needs to be moer interesting than this i think. obviously making the words Girls Aloud massive helps punters confused by absence of girls on the cover itself but still.
The only sleeve that featured the girls that was any good (that I can recall) is the "Love Machine" single - where each Aloud was a magazine cover-star.
I do wonder actually that album covers are getting blander on purpose as the designers know the CDs are going to get covered in promotional stickers/price tags anyway.
You know what they really ought to have used? That 'Anarchy' picture from NME, only without the 'Anarchy' and with the logo and title there. That would have been great and only cost about 2p more than this. However, as freakytigger mentions, the purple is quite nice and at least it isn't the greatest hits so we all have to be grateful for small mercies.
Five minute paint job:
Bad font but otherwise I'm not even sure that's all that much worse than the real one. Still, 'tangled up' is an ace album name!
can we do a 'fictional girls aloud record' collective post on pmists some time? where people nominate/ysi not-so-well-known pop songs that they think could be girls aloud songs in an alternate universe, and we make up an album from them? The idea occurred to me... uh, before chemistry came out, and then I forgot about doing it, but it could be quite fun, I thought, if it works.
And i think it would work rather better as its own post rather than in the comments here! If only there were some kind of tradition on poptimists of people organising something fun for others to take part in.
Hmmm. It's not brilliant, but I like it more than the Greatest Hits or Chemistry (non-Xmas edition) covers. I do like how it seems very deliberately minimalist, though - like someone said upthread, it's very unusual for a pop group to do something like this. Kind of reminds me of Take That putting their dolls on an album cover back in the day.
My biggest problem with it is that it looks like a temporary promo cover while they're still working on the actual one. Except the promo cover for WWTNS? was ace.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:10 pm (UTC)I don't get why so much great pop has to have terrible art.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:07 pm (UTC)SECHSY NURSES
SECHSY ALIENS
CIRCUS/ACROBATS (spangly tights innit)
CAVEGIRLS (think Raquel Welsh in 100000 BC oh my god you know they're REMAKING THIS??)
BOUNTY HUNTERS
etc
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:08 pm (UTC)The Chemistry cover was awful (altho' the cover of the Wobs edition is grebt)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:08 pm (UTC)It is a great deal better than The Sound Of Girls Aloud tho.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:22 pm (UTC)i guess i just don't see GA as a band you can leave off the cover - unlike Radiohead ;)
it's actually quite a bold, radical move - how many girl pop albums are there without the girl(s) on the cover?
so that's good but the image itself is dull so backfires imo.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:37 pm (UTC)Also this:
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 03:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 04:35 pm (UTC)also, are you coming out to play on saturday, or are you being a good girl and staying in the back of beyond? :)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 01:20 pm (UTC)i promise not to roll my eyes at ppl who don't know what ftb and fsvo mean for the next 6 months :)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 04:29 pm (UTC)fsvo: for some values of.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 12:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 01:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 01:41 pm (UTC)it made me think of this what i watched last night:
Date: 2007-10-31 01:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 01:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 02:01 pm (UTC)Five minute paint job:
Bad font but otherwise I'm not even sure that's all that much worse than the real one. Still, 'tangled up' is an ace album name!
uh semi-relatedly
Date: 2007-10-31 02:16 pm (UTC)Re: uh semi-relatedly
Date: 2007-10-31 02:19 pm (UTC)Re: uh semi-relatedly
Date: 2007-10-31 06:30 pm (UTC)Re: uh semi-relatedly
Date: 2007-10-31 02:20 pm (UTC)Re: uh semi-relatedly
Date: 2007-10-31 02:33 pm (UTC)Re: uh semi-relatedly
Date: 2007-10-31 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 01:14 pm (UTC)My biggest problem with it is that it looks like a temporary promo cover while they're still working on the actual one. Except the promo cover for WWTNS? was ace.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 04:46 pm (UTC)