Latest on MJJC

Wishes for the next album cover

Euan

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
194
Points
0
Location
Scotland
I've been reading and I see everyone has different ideas for a good album cover.

I would like to know what you guys would like to see, if there is another album. A re used older photo? A photoshop? Perhaps some artwork?

Incase you've forgotten here is the other two artworks.

Michael

michael_jackson_michael.jpg


Explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNwVO1wy2AI

Xscape

MJ_Xscape_STANDARD_Digital_Packshot.jpg


michael_jacksons_xscape_jpg_w_600.jpg


Explained: http://bit.ly/1X1FX1v
 
Last edited:
I think I would like the idea of having a recreated/reimagined picture of Michael like the past albums (Michael and Xscape) but the MJ art on Dangerous and the following albums is something I've always admired ;) MJ ART all the way!
61zOoSj5REL.jpg

I guess reimagining MJ may appear 'fake' to some...
BTW I've read that Sony have around 20 unreleased songs of MJ
 
Last edited:
Spaceship said:
I would like something different for the next album cover if we get one.
Click to expand...

As would I. I'd be interested to see if Sony play it safe and use an old picture of Michael this time. I'm sure reception to the Xscape album will have affected their decision.
 
In terms of what era MJ they should use do you think we should have a standard era which defines MJ and use that image for everything or use the lastest era of MJ 2000 - '09 or just have random era's which doesn't matter as its all MJ anyway!!?

I think if we had one era which defines MJ's looks it surely has to be the Bad era!!!!!
 
Last edited:
SkyWalk said:
I think if we had one era which defines MJ's looks it surely has to be the Bad era!!!!!
Click to expand...

That is your opinion :p . Because Dangerous is what defined him for me.

As for the cover... I'd really like an edgy cover! With a lot of symbolism or maybe of one of MJ's most "dangerous" photoshoots - forgive the pun. Kinda like the BotDF album cover (that was his best cover imo).
 
I'd like they used a more realistic Michael picture which makes him look human. In the Xscape cover, whoever came up with that concept made Michael look like a Martian with a dog's cone of shame. Mr. Brainwash's artwork would have been a better album cover IMO.
 
Last edited:
SkyWalk said:
In terms of what era MJ they should use do you think we should have a standard era which defines MJ and use that image for everything or use the lastest era of MJ 2000 - '09 or just have random era's which doesn't matter as its all MJ anyway!!?

I think if we had one era which defines MJ's looks it surely has to be the Bad era!!!!!
Click to expand...
I think BAD era is definitely his hottest, sexiest era, but I think most people (older ones and young ones) think of Michael as looking as he did during Dangerous-which is why I figured they used that look for the hologram. I agree that the Mr. Brainwash poster would have been a MUCH BETTER cover than what they came up with-that cone is horrible.
 
Vogue 2007, maybe an outtake or an untouched photo from Ebony... tracklisting should be song's recorded from 1999-2009, mostly from Neff-U & Rodney Jerkins sessions.. include Red One/Michael D. Prince/Will.I.Am/Brad Buxer and Bahrain etc. if accessible
 
How about we actually show his face?

This Is It was a silhouette. Michael was a painting. Bad25 was mostly reused photos. And Xscape was a Photoshop comp.

It's as if they're embarrassed of his appearance. Find a photo and put together a simple cover photo.
 
AlwaysThere said:
How about we actually show his face?

This Is It was a silhouette. Michael was a painting. Bad25 was mostly reused photos. And Xscape was a Photoshop comp.

It's as if they're embarrassed of his appearance. Find a photo and put together a simple cover photo.
Click to expand...

Lol which explains why they have a giant close up of his face for his two posthumous albums, and using that logic Michael had been embarrassed of his appearance since the 1980s.

I mean, yeah, they're paintings but it's keeping in line with what Michael did when he was alive. He hasn't used a simple photo of himself as an album cover since the 1980s. Every single album cover since has been a painting (Dangerous/BOTDF), a mixture of physical/digital (HIStory) or a straight up digital composition (Invincible). HIStory had a sculpture that was later digitalised to a 3D model. CGI was then used to create the both the platform it stood on, as well as the building/bridge around the statue... so that too was largely a digital composition.

Personally I'd prefer paintings/digital compositions for future albums.
 
HIStoric said:
I mean, yeah, they're paintings but it's keeping in line with what Michael did when he was alive. He hasn't used a simple photo of himself as an album cover since the 1980s. ...
Personally I'd prefer paintings/digital compositions for future albums.
Click to expand...

Same. I like that they are manipulated, and not a specific portrait from a specific time. IMO it'd be weird if they had Bad outtakes but used some random Ebony 2007 photo or something. It's just too much connection with whatever the shoot would have been from.

I know I'm probably the only one here, but I actually really liked the Xscape cover, specifically the gold one. I just loved the colors and the depth in the manip...and I also liked the sonic cone thing. It was a really good way to brand it IMO - because it's very identifiable and everyone associates it with the album (now if we could only condition them to get that it means to run away from it...lol)
 
His career spanned over 40 years, so the field is wide open of what concepts they could come up with, not just focusing on Thriller and beyond eras. I don't think trying to create a Dangerous cover part 2 is a good idea (that Michael cover was a hot mess).

Another idea is to use some of Mike's own artwork. He was always drawing, painting, what-have you since he was a child. Wasn't most of it stored in a warehouse or something? I remember reading about it.
 
HIStoric said:
Lol which explains why they have a giant close up of his face for his two posthumous albums, and using that logic Michael had been embarrassed of his appearance since the 1980s.
Click to expand...

Michael still showed his face in his album covers in the 1980s. Thriller and Bad's covers both showed his face. He only started not show it starting with Dangerous's cover, which came out in 1991.

I mean, yeah, they're paintings but it's keeping in line with what Michael did when he was alive. He hasn't used a simple photo of himself as an album cover since the 1980s. Every single album cover since has been a painting (Dangerous/BOTDF), a mixture of physical/digital (HIStory) or a straight up digital composition (Invincible). HIStory had a sculpture that was later digitalised to a 3D model. CGI was then used to create the both the platform it stood on, as well as the building/bridge around the statue... so that too was largely a digital composition.
Click to expand...

Actually, Invincible's cover was a photograph of Michael shot by Albert Watson, not a "straight up digital composition". It was touched up by Sony, but it was a photograph nonetheless.
 
^^You're correct about the Invincible cover. According to Karen Faye, this picture also taken by Albert Watson was the original inspiration for the album cover:

350x337xAlbertWatsonInspiredInvincible_Small.jpg.pagespeed.ic.hOuZe7mGzm.jpg


Just imagine this less touched up and in gold. Actually Karen put gold painting on Michael just like the picture above but Sony cropped it and ruined it. The day the original picture is released, I'll be so happy because it'd have been more interesting of what Sony did.

AlbertWatsonInvincibleCoverBW.jpg.pagespeed.ce.4_AXMq9TNC.jpg
 
I actually think Sony changing the original photograph was for the best. As interesting as the original photograph might have been, I really like how simple Invincible's cover looks. But yes, I would also like to see how the original photograph looked.
 
SheilaMJFan4Ever said:
I don't think trying to create a Dangerous cover part 2 is a good idea (that Michael cover was a hot mess).
Click to expand...

I never really interpreted it as trying to be a Dangerous 2.0. Moreso just trying to show Michael's career through time in one picture, and I think it works best when you view the whole image, not a cropped album artwork. I like it and it have up as a poster on my wall :)

Spaceship said:
Actually, Invincible's cover was a photograph of Michael shot by Albert Watson, not a "straight up digital composition". It was touched up by Sony, but it was a photograph nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Oh my bad. Looking at a high quality version I have, it was touched up a decent amount (i.e. can't see his nose, minus the nostrils) but it'd be cool to see the original, gold and black photo of Michael it originated from!

I can see why they opted to have it cropped since it's not the right aspect ratio for a CD (though idk why it wasn't used for the tape. The tape looks pretty crap but given it was a dying format then I'm not surprised they didn't care much for it). Having a portrait that tall can come off rather small on a CD cover, and leave quite a lot of blank space... hmm idk I like it either way, black/gold or white. It's a cool, simple look at Michael :)
 
Last edited:
I think the Michael album was trying to riff off Dangerous also.

Thinking about Michael's own art work, that self portrait he did with the fedora and glove (in Moonwalk) would be pretty cool.
 
i Would like to see a different jackson cover and no the same with different clothes in it hahahaha
 
Michael has not had his face on an album (without alterations) since BAD.. and even then it was super heavy lighting, color contacts so we could not into his eyes "window to the soul"..

Michael did not like his face on albums (well without it altered) so in that retrospect having an art piece would be more so traditional MJ more so than anything.. Dangerous was art of his eyes, History was a statue, Blood On the Dance Floor was art, and Invincible was a very altered picture..
 
HIStoric said:
I never really interpreted it as trying to be a Dangerous 2.0. Moreso just trying to show Michael's career through time in one picture, and I think it works best when you view the whole image, not a cropped album artwork. I like it and it have up as a poster on my wall :)
:)
Click to expand...

Maybe that should have been an ad-on bonus with the CD instead of using it as the cover? I don't know if it did or not. I didn't buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top