What matters to you when assessing album covers?

Having recently rated every single 2024 release cover over a couple of weeks, it got me thinking about whether others use similar criteria to me. I know not everyone here is interested in rating covers, but as a lifelong lover of art, I think I value it more than many other metal fans. Below is a list of things that I love / hate, with so many of the ratings I give to covers being influenced by these aspects. I thought I'd provide some examples of each as well, just for fun.

As always, it's fine if you disagree with my assessments or processes. There is no wrong answer when assessing art, despite our tendency as humans to feel otherwise. And yes, I generally overthink everything in life.

1. Genre appropriate art will always rate higher

It's true that a good album cover is a good album cover, but it can be off-putting when, as an example, a doom metal album has a cover that would be more appropriate on a thrash metal album. I think thrash metal is a pretty good genre to showcase this. Would the latest Evildead cover be good for a gothic metal release? No, it would be weird. But it screams thrash metal, with a mixture of fun silliness and the political / environmental themes so prevalent in the genre while still being an attractive piece of art. There are themes that pop up for all the clans and when a cover jumps out as "feeling" wrong for the genre, I can't help but rate it accordingly.

2. Logos should be present, appropriate and positioned well

No matter how good the artwork is, I will always lower scores when a logo is not present on a cover. It's an album cover! If it doesn't have a logo, it's just a piece of art. Logos should also be appropriate for the material. I don't want to see an ineligible jagged black metal logo on a heavy metal release, nor do I want to see a pink fluffy logo on a brutal death metal release. Finally, logos can have a massively positive impact on a cover when they are positioned well. Often that means centre top, but other times they're better placed elsewhere to allow the artwork to have more impact. It's not a science, with symmetry and "feel" coming into play. Below (Thron's Pilgrim) is a good example of a pretty cool logo (that itself has great symmetry) for which it's positioning improves the overall impact of the art. The only question I had was whether it was ever so slightly interfered by overlapping with the face, but then that somehow seems fitting given the torturous position of the subject. Yes, these are the things that I think about!

3. No degrading or real life images of trauma / death / excrement

In a way I'm almost grateful for bands that put horrific real-life images of crushed heads, the results of suicide, and people shitting in the mouths of others. It allows me to ignore those releases entirely. I have zero respect for any artist that thinks it's cool to adorn their art with disgustingly offensive or blatantly inappropriate real world imagery, no matter how good their music is. It's just another reason why outsiders look upon metal fans with such disdain. That said, while I'm still not always a big fan of it, I have less hostility towards non-photo representations of violence. Violence very obviously has a place in metal, and many of my favourite album covers have an element of destruction, evil and death. There's a big difference between a painted image of a serial killer surrounded by butchered cadavers and an actual photo of a raped, decapitated body.

4. Fantasy, Horror and Sci-Fi will always get my attention

I admit it! I'm a massive geek. When I'm not listening to metal, I'm reading comics, playing videogames and watching horror, science fiction or fantasy movies / tv series. I've been obsessed with all things genre since I was a little boy (yes, Daniel and I collected Masters of the Universe figures and had watched every Friday the 13th, Halloween, Evil Dead and Nightmare on Elm Street by our early teens). I'm always going to be more attracted to album covers that cover these themes, whether it be the horror of The North and The Horde, the science fiction of the The Infinite and The Sphere or the incredible fantasy artwork that adorns The Guardians. On the flipside, I have far less interest in militaristic or purely historical imagery that doesn't crossover into genre. All this probably explains why Iron Maiden's album covers grabbed me instantly and have never let go!

5. Cutesy has no place in metal

Call me a traditionalist, but I just can't associate cutesy, cartoony imagery with anything related to metal. I know Anime has a lot of fans, but I instantly dish out low ratings to any album cover adorned by cutesy, big-eyed young girls, no matter how disconcertingly large their breasts are. Each to their own, but it's an immediate nope for me.

6. What's with all the cassette insert covers!?

Are there really metal fans out there listening to all their metal releases through cassette players? I highly doubt it, so why are so many bands making album covers seemingly designed to print out and fold into cassette cases. They make for awful covers and make the band seem completely amateurish. Where is the demand for this coming from?

7. I'm a sucker for symmetry and a central character

I've already mentioned symmetry and I think that's probably one of the main draw factors for me. I don't think I consciously realised it, but when I look at all my higher rated images, so many of them have a central character that draws the eyes to it, with a background that sets the mood and gives a sense of place while often building on that symmetry. The below image (Silhouette's Les dires de l'âme) is a very good example of this. Not only are the central character and the logo dead centre, but all of the imagery around them is entirely symmetrical. I find this highly satisfying, which probably says a lot about my general OCD behaviour (without which this site would certainly not exist).

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I'd like to hear from others. Do you care about album covers at all? What works for you and what doesn't?

Sometimes I care about album covers as much as I care about music. I agree that the cover art should fit well with the music, like fantasy for The Guardians or sci-fi for The Infinite and The Sphere. Mechina's cover artworks from Progenitor onwards are as epic as the music itself. The presence of the band's logo and album title are definitely important so people who and what they're listening to. I also don't think obscene real-life images belong in album covers, such as an actual decapitated head (Brujeria's Matando Gueros), suicide (Mayhem's Dawn of the Black Hearts), or a nude underage girl (Scorpions' Virgin Killer). But real or fictional, I still struggle with graphic violence/nudity/blasphemy in album covers, which is why I don't listen to the more brutal death metal bands like Cannibal Corpse or the more satanic black metal bands out there, and why it's hard for me to take the first 3 Type O Negative albums seriously. And if one of those albums has a clean cover, I would use it when discussing the album in threads.

Another thing to point out is the rise of AI-produced cover arts. I understand the hate going on towards that aspect from listeners pointing out all the bad ethics of AI art and being like "If you put all your effort in creating your music, should you do the same for your art instead of relying on this sloppy inhuman potentially copyright-infringing sh*t?" or "Your artwork is AI, I bet your music is too!" In response to the latter statement, not always. If you listen to the music before seeing the artwork, at least you know the band is still human, playing their instruments naturally. Sadly, a lot of people seem to judge a book by its cover and connect art to artist in these less horiffic situations. Personally, if an album by a long-running band has an AI cover art, that's fine with me, just as long as it looks good and they don't do it too often. And I can still accept the ongoing evolution of technology.

For the record, cassettes have made a huge comeback in underground extreme metal circles which is why you're seeing those cassette insert covers from releases that are literally only made in that physical format. I've received a few cassettes from metal connections only recently actually & thought to myself "What the f**k am I supposed to do with this then?"

I honestly couldn't care less whether a band utilizes AI for their cover artwork. We were actually going to use AI for the Neuropath cover artwork before the platform our designer was using decided to ban all the gory stuff. The ideas we were coming up with were genuinely unnerving & intimidating & suited the themes beautifully. I was initially disappointed that we couldn't use it until I noticed the eventual artwork we went with on sale online.

I honestly couldn't care less whether a band utilizes AI for their cover artwork. We were actually going to use AI for the Neuropath cover artwork before the platform our designer was using decided to ban all the gory stuff. The ideas we were coming up with were genuinely unnerving & intimidating & suited the themes beautifully. I was initially disappointed that we couldn't use it until I noticed the eventual artwork we went with on sale online.

I honestly think this is a big deal from a human perspective, Daniel. Cover artwork, good or bad, is created by humans who often get paid for their endeavours and are able to pay their bills as a result. I know most bands don't make millions out of their music and AI-generated cover artwork may be a good way of reducing costs, but this reeks of corporatism and the requirements of capital over art and human endeavour which I will always rail against.

Apart from the ethics of the matter, do we really want to remove the human factor from art? If we do, what are we really left with? Soulless images bereft of human interpretation. Even photographic shots, such as many on atmospheric black metal covers, are framed by human eyes to speak to something deep inside us that no computer program could ever fathom.

I would rather AI be limiited to use as a tool to aid in objective and scientific fields like medical diagnosis or solving climate change than trying to get inside human beings heads and touch us emotionally.

Sorry for the rant, I'm sure I sound like a right preachy twat, but this is something I feel very strongly about. I am not completely against AI, but I feel it should be used appropriately and restrictively. No, I don't think AI will destroy the world, but unrestricted use will enable the corporate world even more control over what we think and do. Mobile phones are bad enough, but combined with AI the effect on human beings may well be catastrophic. I am into my 60s now, so I am sure most people will just say I am an old man who fears change, but change isn't always for the better and nowadays is seldom for the common good, but is rather for the benefit of the few.

Back to the point in question, I rate cover art like I rate music, the more it resonates with me then the higher I rate it. Ir really is as simple as that for me. I don't care if the band logo is on it or not and sometimes they just get in the way - if it's on the back cover instead then that's fine.

I love good cover art and the covers are one of the reasons I still love to collect vinyl albums, but I tend to judge them solely as art works when rating them here. This doesn't always necessarily sit right and I do occasionally question my methodology, but as long as I stay consistent then I don't intend to lose sleep over it (unlike the proliferation of AI). Oops, sorry. There I go again!😉

Having recently rated every single 2024 release cover over a couple of weeks, it got me thinking about whether others use similar criteria to me. I know not everyone here is interested in rating covers, but as a lifelong lover of art, I think I value it more than many other metal fans. Below is a list of things that I love / hate, with so many of the ratings I give to covers being influenced by these aspects. I thought I'd provide some examples of each as well, just for fun.

As always, it's fine if you disagree with my assessments or processes. There is no wrong answer when assessing art, despite our tendency as humans to feel otherwise. And yes, I generally overthink everything in life.

1. Genre appropriate art will always rate higher

It's true that a good album cover is a good album cover, but it can be off-putting when, as an example, a doom metal album has a cover that would be more appropriate on a thrash metal album. I think thrash metal is a pretty good genre to showcase this. Would the latest Evildead cover be good for a gothic metal release? No, it would be weird. But it screams thrash metal, with a mixture of fun silliness and the political / environmental themes so prevalent in the genre while still being an attractive piece of art. There are themes that pop up for all the clans and when a cover jumps out as "feeling" wrong for the genre, I can't help but rate it accordingly.

2. Logos should be present, appropriate and positioned well

No matter how good the artwork is, I will always lower scores when a logo is not present on a cover. It's an album cover! If it doesn't have a logo, it's just a piece of art. Logos should also be appropriate for the material. I don't want to see an ineligible jagged black metal logo on a heavy metal release, nor do I want to see a pink fluffy logo on a brutal death metal release. Finally, logos can have a massively positive impact on a cover when they are positioned well. Often that means centre top, but other times they're better placed elsewhere to allow the artwork to have more impact. It's not a science, with symmetry and "feel" coming into play. Below (Thron's Pilgrim) is a good example of a pretty cool logo (that itself has great symmetry) for which it's positioning improves the overall impact of the art. The only question I had was whether it was ever so slightly interfered by overlapping with the face, but then that somehow seems fitting given the torturous position of the subject. Yes, these are the things that I think about!

3. No degrading or real life images of trauma / death / excrement

In a way I'm almost grateful for bands that put horrific real-life images of crushed heads, the results of suicide, and people shitting in the mouths of others. It allows me to ignore those releases entirely. I have zero respect for any artist that thinks it's cool to adorn their art with disgustingly offensive or blatantly inappropriate real world imagery, no matter how good their music is. It's just another reason why outsiders look upon metal fans with such disdain. That said, while I'm still not always a big fan of it, I have less hostility towards non-photo representations of violence. Violence very obviously has a place in metal, and many of my favourite album covers have an element of destruction, evil and death. There's a big difference between a painted image of a serial killer surrounded by butchered cadavers and an actual photo of a raped, decapitated body.

4. Fantasy, Horror and Sci-Fi will always get my attention

I admit it! I'm a massive geek. When I'm not listening to metal, I'm reading comics, playing videogames and watching horror, science fiction or fantasy movies / tv series. I've been obsessed with all things genre since I was a little boy (yes, Daniel and I collected Masters of the Universe figures and had watched every Friday the 13th, Halloween, Evil Dead and Nightmare on Elm Street by our early teens). I'm always going to be more attracted to album covers that cover these themes, whether it be the horror of The North and The Horde, the science fiction of the The Infinite and The Sphere or the incredible fantasy artwork that adorns The Guardians. On the flipside, I have far less interest in militaristic or purely historical imagery that doesn't crossover into genre. All this probably explains why Iron Maiden's album covers grabbed me instantly and have never let go!

5. Cutesy has no place in metal

Call me a traditionalist, but I just can't associate cutesy, cartoony imagery with anything related to metal. I know Anime has a lot of fans, but I instantly dish out low ratings to any album cover adorned by cutesy, big-eyed young girls, no matter how disconcertingly large their breasts are. Each to their own, but it's an immediate nope for me.

6. What's with all the cassette insert covers!?

Are there really metal fans out there listening to all their metal releases through cassette players? I highly doubt it, so why are so many bands making album covers seemingly designed to print out and fold into cassette cases. They make for awful covers and make the band seem completely amateurish. Where is the demand for this coming from?

7. I'm a sucker for symmetry and a central character

I've already mentioned symmetry and I think that's probably one of the main draw factors for me. I don't think I consciously realised it, but when I look at all my higher rated images, so many of them have a central character that draws the eyes to it, with a background that sets the mood and gives a sense of place while often building on that symmetry. The below image (Silhouette's Les dires de l'âme) is a very good example of this. Not only are the central character and the logo dead centre, but all of the imagery around them is entirely symmetrical. I find this highly satisfying, which probably says a lot about my general OCD behaviour (without which this site would certainly not exist).

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I'd like to hear from others. Do you care about album covers at all? What works for you and what doesn't?

With the exception of his cassette cover comments, Ben has basically hit the nail on the head with his post here.  Item number 3 around degrading images of women is one particular sore point for me.  Album covers that just scream "TITS" are just telling me not to bother listening.  Similarily, the endless covers featuring sadistic, obese, bald and ugly as fuck males hacking bits off women hold very little interest for the same reason.

With regards to AI in art - it's not art, simple as for me.  Seeing AI in use in hospital settings (for example) makes me think it is literally the greatest change of my lifetime.  For me, there is a fine line between optimisation and AI as the latter should give you new data points, not just streamline existing processes and flows.  So in this example getting a computer to do the artwork for you is just a waste of the technology in my book, before we even get to it being a giant slap in the face for artists.  

P.S. if we can start a "Preachy Twat" clan then I am all over that.

I completely agree with the sentiments about sexualised violence. I get that in most cases it is probably just shock tactics, but I feel it contributes to the "normalisation" of violence against women and should really be unacceptable to any mature mind. I also avoid the real-life victim of violence photo- type covers if at all possible because, quite frankly, they make me feel a bit queasy.

Totally agree with the "cutesy" comment of Ben's too. Every time I see an anime-inspired cover to a metal record I die a bit inside. Another bugbear is real low effort covers - photos of the band, etc (except on live albums), or mundane photos of everyday shit like, say, a car.

As far as cassettes go, as Daniel says, a lot of underground bands release albums on cassette only. I have bought several myself from Bandcamp because I want to support the artist and they usually include the download too. It is quite common for the bands to put the download alone up for something like £666 or £999, but allow a legal download to be included with a £5 or £7 cassette. I even bought a cheap retro Walkman-type player so I could get the whole authentic tape hiss experience!

I am all in on the genre covers, though. Sci-fi, fantasy, Lovecraftian-type horror are all big faves and make up the majority of my 5s.

I have found that I am actually a tougher scorer on covers than I am on the music inside them. I have rated roughly twice as many covers as releases and I only have 27 five star covers and 125 five star releases.

While I can understand people's issues with AI art, I feel that it's worth sharing a few things from the perspective of a recording artist that has been in the position to navigate the options for their own album release. Firstly, it's probably worth clearing up that it's generally not the band that ends up paying for the cover art. It's the label. We didn't pay a cent for our cover art & we had the option to go with AI or otherwise. The creative control was completely sitting with me & the rest of the band too. The options presented to us were a) we could have the label purchase a pre-delivered piece of art of our choice from an online source or b) we could have the label's graphic designer create something that was tailored to my specific vision using AI. Contrary to popular opinion, there is actually not much cost difference between the two options as online art can be secured for virtually nothing given that the artists are all super-keen to have their work feature on album covers & there's a huge amount of competition for spots.

After reviewing some very impressive examples the label sent through (none of which I could tell were created using AI), I initially chose to go with the AI option which meant that the label were paying their experienced graphic designer to work with me on creating something that was previously only in my head. I gave him a whole bunch of ideas & he then delivered me various different concepts, some of which were very closely aligned to what I was imagining in my brain. The more detailed the information I gave him about what I wanted, the more accurately he was able to get the drafts to align with my vision. I'd ask him to change little details about the images & he would make the required adjustments so they were constantly evolving. In the end, we were very close to coming up with something that looked nothing like anything I'd ever seen before yet perfectly fit the vision I had as the creator of the music the release was presenting. Unfortunately for us, the owners of the AI software our designer was using decided to take a stand against any form of graphic violence at an inopportune moment & banned most (or all) of the many sources that the software were drawing from to create these images. I was told that we couldn't salvage the work we'd done up until that time too. At that point, we had the option to stick with the AI but go for a far less imposing outcome or to take a look at the market for pre-existing pieces. I opted to do the latter &, after spending a week searching, I came up with a selection of agreeable options, none of which would have cost the label more than $140 USD with many being well under $100 USD. There were some things that I didn't like about the eventual winner to begin with (i.e. it had firey devil horns at the top that looked a bit cheesy & the structure wasn't perfectly centrered) so we simply asked the creator to change those things, which they did in quick time, presumably digitally.

Now, let me be clear that Ben was across the whole process & he always preferred the non-AI options which is not surprising given that he's a long-time art fan. Me personally? I actually feel like we missed the opportunity to have the CD presented with a cover that better represented the vision I had in my head & looked like nothing I'd ever seen before using AI. The idea that AI art is simply a rehash of other people's ideas isn't entirely accurate from what I saw as the designer was able to create pretty much what I had in my head & could tailor the finer details to my specifications. While the eventual artwork we used is certainly attractive, it looks very much like it could have come from the early 90's Roadrunner releases & is not nearly as intimidating or dark as the ideas we were tossing around earlier on. It's also worth mentioning that someone was still being paid during this exercise & probably more than it would have cost to buy an image from an online artist too.

That's just my two cents & I'm acutely aware that I might get flamed for sharing these thoughts. I'm not a passionate supporter of AI but I thought it was worth sharing my experiences so that others can take what they wish from it. I think it's also worth remembering that a lot of the music we listen to is drawing upon things like chords, synthesizers & drum programming as tools. Those things were all created by someone else & are simply being presented in a different way. Perhaps this is different. Perhaps not.

I have got to say, Daniel, that doesn't sound much like AI, as it is understood to be, but rather a software tool for art creation, in essence a piece of graphic design software. Maybe the software designers are shooting themselves in the foot labelling every new piece of software as AI just to jump on that particular bandwagon when, in reality, it isn't AI at all. To the layman, i.e. me, AI means autonomous software that makes it's own decisions, such as you tell it "give me a vision of hell with three fiery demons in the foreground" and that is exactly what the software produces for you. If you are then just tweaking it by inputting something like "move the outer two demons back a little" then that isn't art, that's engineering.

If, however, we are genuinely talking about AI software, how would you feel if a new metal label was putting out all AI generated music, or movies were using AI to produce soundtracks? Are these not just slippery slopes for corporate types in the future to use computer programs to satisfy all their artistic dollar needs by getting us used to them now while human beings still have some input. It feels a bit like turkeys voting for xmas to me.

I think it is more than valid to be apprehensive about such things in the hands of corporate entities because the money men have consistently proven that they never have the consumer's or their employees' best interests at heart. The bottom line has always been and will always be the hill on which they stand.

I think comparing AI art software to synths and even drum machines is a false equivalence to be honest as they still require significant human input. That said, they too have been a part of the "slippery slope", being now so ubiquitous that when they are programmed by AI rather than a human then no one will care or even notice probably.

The tool being used was definitely AI as you know it Sonny. It's worth noting that there are different calibers of AI programs around though. Our bass player is a graphic designer too & we initially wanted him to do the cover artwork so that it would truly represent the band. After six weeks of him trying to come up a result using a free AI program, the label & I decided that we weren't able to get the result we were looking for & agreed to have the label's designer give it a crack with his expensive AI software package. The results were remarkably different & in very quick time too. As with anything, I would suggest that there's an art form to this process too so the human element was certainly a factor.

Essentially AI software is using a pool of material to morph together all of the ideas that are given to it so the more direct guidance you give it, the more unique & detailed your result becomes. This is not very different to the music creation process which generally starts with influences. Some bands will provide an exact replica of another band's sound while others will simply use it as inspiration to create something more unique. The whole Pestilence online shit-fight is an interesting one because I honestly don't think too many people would have said anything if they hadn't gone with such a cheap & dodgy AI image that's not a true representation of what these tools can do. It certainly didn't help that they then went & defended themselves in such an aggressive way & with such bullshit reasoning. Yes, it's true that most artists/labels can't afford to contract an elite artist to create something entirely tailored to their vision but they could easily have purchased something pre-existing online from a little-known yet still highly talented artist for virtually nothing. In fact, I'd be surprised if people wouldn't have paid Pestilence to take their art given the band's profile. Musicians definitely deserve to have their product released in a package that represents their vision though. I'm proud of the one we produced but it isn't what I visualized in my head & I even had to change the title I initially wanted for the CD because it didn't fit the image we eventually went with. Thankfully I think it looks great & people seem to agree.

Honestly, a lot of music out there already sounds like it was produced by AI. Just look at the glut of Japanese video game soundtracks on the market that seem to inevitably reach the upper echilons of the RYM charts. Plus, a large part of modern-day music is sample-based which almost entirely borrows from the huge pool of historical music (see hip hop & electronic dance music for example). I just see AI as another tool that can be used for as much good as it can for bad depending on who's using it. I obviously don't condone plagiarism but I have no issues with following this process to assist in achieving some fresh & original artwork which AI can certainly do.

I completely understand your reasoning, Daniel and as someone who has actually engaged with the process, I fully respect your position, but on this I think we will have to agree to disagree. Maybe I am just a cynical old bastard who doesn't embrace change as I should or properly understand this brave new world, so I think I'll leave it there.

1 feels like a weird point, because while an art might not fit the genre, which can be odd when you first listen to it, does that make the piece not good? For instance, Molly Hatchet has Frazetta paintings despite sounding completely different to how that should sound, and to use a metal example Richard Corben did art for Heaven's Gate, which is a bit out there for the genre.

I d also point out that 2 has some genuine backing to it, can't sell albums if you're, say a band called Nemesis with an album called Heathen or something, and the font doesn't make it clear which is which.

3 is probably something few disagree with. It's certainly disgusting, but it's no longer shocking. Shocking was when Carcass did that, then when Cannibal Corpse has the fancy paintings. (which isn't the same thing, I know, it at least has some artistic merit even if you don't like it) These days, images of something disgusting are just what people do in warfare now. ISIS with those beheading videos, and I'm pretty sure Russia is weaponizing gore in their invasion as a demoralizing tactic. It's also not shocking simply because a lot of that sort of stuff is basically on network TV, or at least was, I don't watch much new stuff. I'm also reminded of a band who released a demo with uh..."cheese pizza", as an image, which frankly wins the shocking argument and buries it in a shed. (if you don't know what I mean, think about the initials there)
That said, my heart goes out to you Ben, for having to spend a good chunk of time looking for the perfect image of a baby getting shat out of an anus and all that good stuff.

I also agree with Andi's points on AI. Sure, you probably aren't an AI band, but come on, it's your first impression. I know we like to mock the crappy covers that feel like they had no effort put into them in the past, but if it's obvious it's AI, why should I bother? There's more stuff in the world than anyone can ever enjoy, don't make things harder on yourself. Even actual bands I know who used AI seem to be phoning in their albums with AI cover art.