Dave Lampson in response to John Deacon wrote:

>As I have no direct experience with this, having to rely on interviews and
>articles I've read, John is certainly more qualified to comment here.  I do
>wonder how this varies with label (I doubt any Naxos artists have any say,
>for example), and with the stature of the artist.  I can well believe that
>a handful of superstars and divas (I've gotten to the point that if I never
>see that word again, it will be too soon) have that kind of control, but
>how about the majority of artists and ensembles? I've read so many accounts
>of artists who were surprised by the artwork when their CDs were released.
>
>Any thoughts on this John?

May the Jon without the "h" respond as well? [As long as you agree to add
an "h" later for consistency.  -Dave]

When I first moved to Holland I was employed by Philips in their "packaging
department," which had the responsibility of producing the sleeves (both
front and back) of LPs and the inlay cards of musicassettes (OK - so I'm
talking ancient history here).  Later I spent several years in the PR
department of Phonogram.

I think it is true to say that no photograph of any artist appeared without
the consent of that artist - whether category A, B, or C (superstars,
stars, and musicians - or something like that).  Photographs were always
taken from one of two sources:  from photographs submitted by the artist's
agent (and one would therefore assume with the artist's approval) or from
a photo session specially arranged for that artist.  It was common practice
to send the sheets of contact prints to the artist via their agent, and to
receive them back with the approved photographs circled; these would then
be used on sleeves, posters, and other promotional material.

I find it almost unbelievable that anybody could think that a photograph
- taken in a professional setting by a highly paid photographer - could
somehow be clandestine.  Did the artist not know it was being taken? Had
he or she put on her high heels, top hat, and tons of make-up and wandered
into a studio to stand in front of a camera without being aware of what
they were doing? And is it feasible that having gone to all that trouble,
the company would not submit the photographs to the artist? Or that the
artist (not renowned, surely, for being shy) would not ask to see them?

I remember a wave of shock passing through the department when the design
for the cover of a Neil Diamond LP was shown.  The photograph was taken
at a live concert and showed Diamond in a stance which, if he had not been
wearing clothes, would have been rated XXX.  "You can't do that," said the
cover executive.  "I know," said the A&R manager.  "That's what I told Neil
Diamond.  But he was adamant.  This is the picture he wanted." "But does he
realize what people will think he is doing?" "Of course.  But he wants to
get away from the guy-next-door image."

Photographs are used on CD covers to sell CDs.  Many artists believe (are
totally convinced) that people will recognize them and rush out to buy the
CD because of its cover.  Let's not kid ourselves into believing that they
have no say in the matter.  They have more say that is sometimes good for
them.

Jonathan