Andrys Basten replies to me:
>tHis is not the same as suggestive poses, which to me cheapen the product
>and the artist.
If the cover showed Rembrandt's "Bathsheba" instead, would that cheapen as
well? If not, why not? No fair invoking the signature at the bottom of the
canvas.
>I ask again, what you might think of the people behind a cd if male
>artists struck suggestive poses. It's all so silly. Attractive people
>only need be attractive, not draw attention to their parts as in some
>covers some mentioned.
The problem is that I'm at a disadvantage. I'm not attracted sexually
to males, so I don't have a clue as to what's enticing. Cary Grant and
Randolph Scott are certainly handsome, but I can't say specifically why
these figures "entice" other males. I've also heard gays enthusing over
the US advertising figure, the Marlborough Man. Why, I can't tell you.
>Otherwise they tend to cater to, I presume, the opposite sex, since you
>mention "sexually enticing." You also say, "hot babe" so this seems
>reserved for the female musicians.
That's because females attract me. I don't rule it out for men. I just
don't know what would constitute a sexually enticing photograph. Bare
torso? Maxim Vengerov in tight jeans and no shirt?
>>What bothers me about this whole thread is that most of us automatically
>>assume that exceptionally attractive people can't have talent or genius or
>>brains.
>
>I don't know anyone who thinks this, especially when the marketing-
>oriented companies do tend to sign up the more attractive of the talented
>people unless the people are so gifted, they've brought in audiences in
>spite of unnotable looks.
Them's the breaks. I wish the world ran on pure merit (making an exception
in my own case), but it doesn't.
>>How dare a sexually enticing person look sexually enticing!
>
>You do seem to mean women here. I see no examples given of males looking
>sexually enticing. And if they were posed to meet this description, one
>would wonder how secure the marketers were about the talent.
Why? You keep saying that you don't know anyone who believes that
attractive people can't be talented and then apparently suspect those very
people of little talent.
>>I have no problems with a company using sexual attractiveness to sell a
>>recording,
>
>What would 'sexual attractiveness' in a male artist involve (as opposed to
>plain old attractiveness? And if you can imagine the 'sexual' side used,
>what would you think when you upon seeing this on a new CD in the bin.
Depends on the CD. One of Fritz Reiner's albums (IIRC, a collection of
Spanish music) featured a gorgeous woman in a very low-cut blouse shot
from above. It was a great album. Most of George Szell's Epic LPs had
really crappy covers, in my opinion. Every one of them was wonderful
music-making. In short, I've learned over the years never to judge a
recording by its cover.
>"Enticing." I'm all for good looks showing if the cover is of the artist
>-- but some, and it seems you also, have been talking about poses which
>suggest 'enticing' the buyer. Turn it around to the males artists doing
>this and how you might react to that. I think you might wonder a bit too.
Why wonder? I'd be very much surprised if it hasn't been done already.
"Out Classics?" "Dance Mix?" Dance Mix was one of my favorite classical
albums of the 90s. Zinman and the Baltimore, both terrific.
Steve Schwartz
|