Don Satz sensibly remarks:

>Physical attributes and the appeal of personality are treated with
>significance in most walks of life, like it or not.  For every individual
>who might be offended by a cd cover, there are probably dozens who are
>attracted to it with the result of increased sales.  I do admire those
>artists who hold to their principles, but I think that the majority of
>artists who look "good" and/or have some significant magnetism use it to
>their advantage.

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.  It's almost like a reaction against the "fairness" of one person
endowed by the gods with all these things.  How dare a sexually enticing
person look sexually enticing!  Mutter is "normally," in vulgar parlance,
one hot babe as well as a superb, smart musician.  I haven't seen the cover
in question, but just imagining possibilities raises my mercury a little
higher.  One odd-looking duck myself, I admire physical beauty for its
own sake, in a purely aesthetic way, just as I admire beautiful sounds
in a piece of music.  I make no assumptions about character or competence
because I see no necessary link.  This means that the pretty person must
go through the same necessary demonstration as the plain one.

The original poster has denied the implications of the phrase "the low
road," but many of us have endorsed those implications.  I have no problems
with a company using sexual attractiveness to sell a recording, as long as
the performance delivers.  I don't see a significant difference between
using an enticing photo and using artwork  or handsome graphics.  In fact,
I'd prefer that to a strictly utilitarian cover.  The cover adds to my
aesthetic pleasure.

Steve Schwartz