179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
vilexile
Cc:
Date:
Sun, 7 May 1995 04:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: Best IDM cover
Msg-Id:
<Pine.3.89.9505070423.A3948-0100000@netcom5>
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.3.89.9505061822.B26618-0100000@eat.organic.com>
Mbox:
idm.9505.gz
On Sat, 6 May 1995, Kevin Farnham wrote (at Che):
quoted 4 lines My pick? - any white label. Album "art" is just a cheap commercial ploy> > My pick? - any white label. Album "art" is just a cheap commercial ploy > > to entice the same kind of people who buy "Soap Opera Digest" on impulse > > in the checkout aisle to buy something w/ which it usually has absolutely > > nothing to do with.
[etc]
quoted 4 lines Go screw yourself.> Go screw yourself. > > Sorry to cater to the lowest common denominator here people - but as a > graphic designer - THIS pissed me off.
Why? It's completely self-indulgent, wankering vendetta fodder. Obviously this person cared way too much about album art at one time and is having his Big Turnaround. Ah, to dream of a world populated by idm'ers who are not in a constant state of backlash against something they once bought hook, line and sinker. Oh well. The point is: if album art is unimportant, why be upset about it? It's entertainment; any piece of it which a person enjoys, is somehow good. Che appears not to enjoy any of it; only to view it on different levels of importance. einexile, the lowest common denimonator i guess :)