3 ms·
Which means that there's a huge irony here. That cover is notorious for being the worst-of-all-time example of what it turns out Jagger was explicitly trying to
by gruseom 17y ago
Which means that there's a huge irony here. That cover is notorious for being the worst-of-all-time example of what it turns out Jagger was explicitly trying to avoid:
In my short sweet experience, the more complicated the format of the album, e.g. more complex than just pages or fold-out, the more fucked-up the reproduction and agonising the delays. But, having said that, I leave it in your capable hands to do what ever you want...
It's quite the detail that Warhol went ahead and did exactly the opposite. Of course, the fact that people are writing about it 30 years later just confirms what a genius at promotion he was. I heard an interview with a great album cover designer who mentioned that the zipper in the Sticky Fingers cover had the interesting property of shredding the albums that were sitting next to it. Scissors beats paper.
With that completely off-topic excursion (what, no "how is this HN" rants?) I hereby unplug the entire internet to get some goddamn work done. I wish PG had implemented that "I promise not to be on here for X hours and if I come back before then my user name will be red for all to see" feature. If you see me on here again today kindly tell me to GTFO...
- foldr 17y agoI doubt it was sticky fingers because sticky fingers was not a hits album. More likely to be Hot Rocks?