William Jenks wrote:

>I wouldn't buy an album just for the cover art, just as I wouldn't buy one
>for the liner notes, but both have a chance to add to the total package.

This is a reasonable and moderate viewpoint which I fully endorse.  One
aspect of covers we have not discussed is why they exist at all.  I'm
confident that record companies bother with them because they have the
potential of making a sale more likely.  It's this goal which confounds me
when I see covers that are unattractive.  The Philips covers for Brendel's
recent Beethoven piano sonata series show him in a unappealing room.
Contrast that picture with what Sony provides in the two recent Ax/Chopin
discs.  Neither artist is attractive, but the Sony covers are beautiful
compared to the Philips.  How much more money could it cost to photograph
Brendel in an appealing setting? Not a dime.  Arte Nova costs about the
same as Naxos, but its cover art is a huge improvement.  That's why I can't
agree with Wes that an upgrade of Naxos covers would cost us $2 more per
disc.

>...and I see nothing wrong with attractive musicians taking
>advantage of that attribute on their covers, either.

I second that opinion.  Personally, there is nothing and nobody more
visually attractive to me than individuals of the female gender.  I'm not
talking about "soft porn" or a physical self-examination, but a simple
photograph of an attractive female face.  But, the classical music industry
has always had a problem with giving us these types of covers; It does not
want to look as if it is pandering to some low-level testosterone prodding.
Yet, most recordings are bought by men, and most men are heterosexual.  It
makes no sense to me.

Before anyone gets riled up with my "visually attractive" theme, I just
wnat to point out that I find all aspects of women attractive.  Physical
features dim in importance the better you know a person, and in the final
analysis, it's what's inside that counts.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]