Album Title: 'Tracker' : Release: Begin 2015

[dmg]

Surely MK was on the OES cover?

Well, his boots were! 

[vgonis]

The OES cover always reminded me of a Robert Frank photo from the Americans  (    see at 37 sec) although it is quite different!


And many expensive shows -  artists have stopped coming to Greece for a live date. Dylan came twice, but there were many unsold tickets, Leonard Cohen as well. Roger Waters played in an 3/4 empty stadium, in 2013.(To answer to an older question, that for some reason I missed!) The tickets are cheap for Europeans, but pretty expensive for the Greek salary that has plummeted to 460 Euros to an average of 680.

[vgonis]

Hey Nababo, how is your baby? And your new life as a father? Hope you are fine good buddy! 

[nababo]

Hey Nababo, how is your baby? And your new life as a father? Hope you are fine good buddy! 

Hey, greek man, you're so kind.  I''l answer in p.m, okie?

[vgonis]

OK! 

By the way, I think a cover art of an album used to be important when we had a physical release selling more than a digital one. And us discussing this, reveals that we are in fact from a different time!   

By the way, I used to buy (cheap) records, just because I liked their sleeve artwork. Some will probably never be released in CD form, since they are not very good, but their artwork (from fantastic to peculiar and kitsch) should remain in history. Alas the main product included (the music) could not save them.

Tracker cover is not bad, but I feel that we haven't seen the final artwork. 

[Camerado]

Surely MK was on the OES cover?

Well, his boots were! 

Not only his boots 

[dmg]

Forgot about that one.  That is a nice cover.

[ds1984]

Then you shoul add some 7"






















and video :

[vgonis]

Oh, the good old days of singles. MK, has not issued one for privateering and/or the Get lucky ones were only promos.
But in a sense, all singles from the 70ies on were in reality a promotional item (and cheap, barely covering the expenses) in order to convince you to buy the actual product which was the album.

And it is true that MK does NOT appear in any of the album (solo or DS)  front covers, except live at the BBC. 

But the singles were a taste for the newcomers and an extra gift for the fans. So the artwork control was not as strict as the albums'. You get to have several different covers, with all sorts of styles and aesthetics. And of course photos to thrill the fans, to make more intimate and to familiarize the newcomers.

[ds1984]

In the 70's, 80's and 90's the single market was a big one and made good incomes.

[vgonis]

In reality the singles were losing ground from the 70ies on. Yes, there were making money out of them , but they were cheaply made and cheaply looking. They were revived for the disco as 12'' to have bigger grooves and to contain more beats and bass, and remixes. But in reality the product was the LP. And money were made if you sold vast amounts. Musicians made their living (and still do) not from selling records, but from airplay, usage of their music, concerts and merchandise. Only the ones that sell like bread receive checks from their record companies.  The one hit wonders from the 60ies and 70ies solved their life problem, but it was not the same for the one hit wonders of the 80ies or 90ies. And it is not peculiar that singles started getting scarce as releases in the 00nds.

[JF]

And it is true that MK does NOT appear in any of the album (solo or DS)  front covers, except live at the BBC. 

and also except MFN, but ok it's not an album, it's a best of....

[JF]

in the early sixties it was the reverse : singles were the "main" product, while LPs were only a bunch of tunes put together mainly by the record company.
it changed in the mid sixties I guess, with Beatles (and other artists) who decided to make "albums"...

[ds1984]

in the early sixties it was the reverse : singles were the "main" product, while LPs were only a bunch of tunes put together mainly by the record company.
it changed in the mid sixties I guess, with Beatles (and other artists) who decided to make "albums"...

Albums became cheaper too buy for the youngster of the 60's than for those of the 50's. There is economy behind that, consumption society that gained  Europe. And the album market did not kill the market of single, they were two parallel market, each one with its customers. The dead format of the 60's, killed by album selling growth, was the EP.

In reality the singles were losing ground from the 70ies on. Yes, there were making money out of them , but they were cheaply made and cheaply looking. They were revived for the disco as 12'' to have bigger grooves and to contain more beats and bass, and remixes. But in reality the product was the LP. And money were made if you sold vast amounts. Musicians made their living (and still do) not from selling records, but from airplay, usage of their music, concerts and merchandise. Only the ones that sell like bread receive checks from their record companies.  The one hit wonders from the 60ies and 70ies solved their life problem, but it was not the same for the one hit wonders of the 80ies or 90ies. And it is not peculiar that singles started getting scarce as releases in the 00nds.

A lot more artist have lived from selling record than touring, as a whole record sales were much more profitable for artists (even if they perceived only a small part of the cake). Only the big names could heavily profit from touring but in those years a lot of tour could not have been settled if the record company had not put money in it to use them as commercial support for record sales. Now you are offered a record if you buy concert tix...

[JF]

DS1984 you are right that there was an economy factor, but the "artistic" aim changed also : trying to create whole pieces of art, "albums" composed by several pieces that fit together, while the 50ies and early 60ies were more based on "individual" songs so to say