Quote from: Subliminal on Mar 24, 2010, 12:04 AM
Their best album cover, HANDS down and their best album, HANDS down. Holy shit. I love this band so much..

I really dig the cover. As far as best cover ever, nofuckingwayinhell. White Pony is an iconographic image. That cover (wp) may be in the top ten all time.

AWESOME cover. And diamond eyes is becoming one of my alltime favorite deftones songs.

nevermind. fuck off

beautiful!

that was posted on another topic sby someone else than me BUT i think this is important

   http://www.glowimages.com/index.cfm?/imageDetails_EN&imgid=20922297&extIntCode=0

this means this is a stock photo, which means warner brother didn't actually paid a photographer and a designer, they bought an already made picture from a company who pays artists to get the right for their art. They don't actually have the right for it. All and all, this is a very cheap move from them.

Quote from: gui on Mar 24, 2010, 02:50 AM
that was posted on another topic sby someone else than me BUT i think this is important

   http://www.glowimages.com/index.cfm?/imageDetails_EN&imgid=20922297&extIntCode=0

this means this is a stock photo, which means warner brother didn't actually paid a photographer and a designer, they bought an already made picture from a company who pays artists to get the right for their art. They don't actually have the right for it. All and all, this is a very cheap move from them.

dude are you serious?!?! who cares whether the picture existed independently of the album?  Whether a totally new work was created or not, the album artwork is obviously meaningful to the band and represents the music and emotion in a different way.  Obviously the band feels the picture is symbolic and meaningful.  And of course they have the rights to the photo, or else they couldn't use it.  I imagine they paid a fee to the original rights-holder for either a limited, exclusive license and or an entire buy-out.

yeah, I don't really see the problem with it either. I can assure you it's not the first time a stock photo is used for album art. and before you say they lied about that guy working hard on the album art, you must remember there's more to it than just the front cover. something tells me the booklet won't be 6 pages consisting only of that owl picture.

Quote from: Jacob on Mar 24, 2010, 03:03 AM
and before you say they lied about that guy working hard on the album art, you must remember there's more to it than just the front cover. something tells me the booklet won't be 6 pages consisting only of that owl picture.

haha exactly.  maddox is mad talented and put a lot into this album.

I think its a great album cover!  I think people walking around in a record store will stop to check it out.  Cant wait to see the inside! 

Quote from: buddyboy101 on Mar 24, 2010, 03:00 AM

Quote from: gui on Mar 24, 2010, 02:50 AM
that was posted on another topic sby someone else than me BUT i think this is important

  http://www.glowimages.com/index.cfm?/imageDetails_EN&imgid=20922297&extIntCode=0

this means this is a stock photo, which means warner brother didn't actually paid a photographer and a designer, they bought an already made picture from a company who pays artists to get the right for their art. They don't actually have the right for it. All and all, this is a very cheap move from them.

dude are you serious?!?! who cares whether the picture existed independently of the album?  Whether a totally new work was created or not, the album artwork is obviously meaningful to the band and represents the music and emotion in a different way.  Obviously the band feels the picture is symbolic and meaningful.  And of course they have the rights to the photo, or else they couldn't use it.  I imagine they paid a fee to the original rights-holder for either a limited, exclusive license and or an entire buy-out.

Actually I agree that's pretty shitty. I mean look, he just showed us a link where this exact photo exists..I mean I can't think of any other album cover that I can say the same about. Kinda ehh.

thats cheap, but not shitty.

Quote from: m1nusblindfoLd on Mar 24, 2010, 03:38 AM

Quote from: buddyboy101 on Mar 24, 2010, 03:00 AM

Quote from: gui on Mar 24, 2010, 02:50 AM
that was posted on another topic sby someone else than me BUT i think this is important

   http://www.glowimages.com/index.cfm?/imageDetails_EN&imgid=20922297&extIntCode=0

this means this is a stock photo, which means warner brother didn't actually paid a photographer and a designer, they bought an already made picture from a company who pays artists to get the right for their art. They don't actually have the right for it. All and all, this is a very cheap move from them.

dude are you serious?!?! who cares whether the picture existed independently of the album?  Whether a totally new work was created or not, the album artwork is obviously meaningful to the band and represents the music and emotion in a different way.  Obviously the band feels the picture is symbolic and meaningful.  And of course they have the rights to the photo, or else they couldn't use it.  I imagine they paid a fee to the original rights-holder for either a limited, exclusive license and or an entire buy-out.

Actually I agree that's pretty shitty. I mean look, he just showed us a link where this exact photo exists..I mean I can't think of any other album cover that I can say the same about. Kinda ehh.

The Mars Volta uses Jeff Jordan paintings as covers

Quote from: mikau on Mar 24, 2010, 03:47 AM

Quote from: m1nusblindfoLd on Mar 24, 2010, 03:38 AM

Quote from: buddyboy101 on Mar 24, 2010, 03:00 AM

Quote from: gui on Mar 24, 2010, 02:50 AM
that was posted on another topic sby someone else than me BUT i think this is important

   http://www.glowimages.com/index.cfm?/imageDetails_EN&imgid=20922297&extIntCode=0

this means this is a stock photo, which means warner brother didn't actually paid a photographer and a designer, they bought an already made picture from a company who pays artists to get the right for their art. They don't actually have the right for it. All and all, this is a very cheap move from them.

dude are you serious?!?! who cares whether the picture existed independently of the album?  Whether a totally new work was created or not, the album artwork is obviously meaningful to the band and represents the music and emotion in a different way.  Obviously the band feels the picture is symbolic and meaningful.  And of course they have the rights to the photo, or else they couldn't use it.  I imagine they paid a fee to the original rights-holder for either a limited, exclusive license and or an entire buy-out.

Actually I agree that's pretty shitty. I mean look, he just showed us a link where this exact photo exists..I mean I can't think of any other album cover that I can say the same about. Kinda ehh.

The Mars Volta uses Jeff Jordan paintings as covers

I love Volta

Like I said in the other thread who cares? Is it affecting the music in some way. No because everyone already knows that this album fucking rocks. An even you minus, who was whining about how it didn't have the "classic" deftones guitar before you heard the entire thing.  

Quote from: MxKnife on Mar 24, 2010, 03:57 AM
Like I said in the other thread who cares? Is it affecting the music in some way. No because everyone already knows that this album fucking rocks. An even you minus, who was whining about how it didn't have the "classic" deftones guitar before you heard the entire thing.  

WTF? Why would you bring that up? Totally unrelated...

But seeing as you brought it up....nothing's changed since I said that, still not a single song on this album has that classic Deftones/Steph guitar lol. If you can't realize that, um get some new ears?

Quote from: m1nusblindfoLd on Mar 24, 2010, 03:38 AM

Quote from: buddyboy101 on Mar 24, 2010, 03:00 AM

Quote from: gui on Mar 24, 2010, 02:50 AM
that was posted on another topic sby someone else than me BUT i think this is important

  http://www.glowimages.com/index.cfm?/imageDetails_EN&imgid=20922297&extIntCode=0

this means this is a stock photo, which means warner brother didn't actually paid a photographer and a designer, they bought an already made picture from a company who pays artists to get the right for their art. They don't actually have the right for it. All and all, this is a very cheap move from them.

dude are you serious?!?! who cares whether the picture existed independently of the album?  Whether a totally new work was created or not, the album artwork is obviously meaningful to the band and represents the music and emotion in a different way.  Obviously the band feels the picture is symbolic and meaningful.  And of course they have the rights to the photo, or else they couldn't use it.  I imagine they paid a fee to the original rights-holder for either a limited, exclusive license and or an entire buy-out.

Actually I agree that's pretty shitty. I mean look, he just showed us a link where this exact photo exists..I mean I can't think of any other album cover that I can say the same about. Kinda ehh.

So I guess you really don't dig the cover of Led Zep 1? Seriously, maybe it is just cause you are into photography. How many peoe in the world today really know that the cover of led zep 1 is the Hindenburg? How many think it is the cover to led zep 1?

Point being, that shit was a historical tragedy, this, well, it is a fucking stock photo. See what I am saying...

It is no white pony but I am loving it.

Quote from: Dienekes on Mar 24, 2010, 04:37 AM

Quote from: m1nusblindfoLd on Mar 24, 2010, 03:38 AM

Quote from: buddyboy101 on Mar 24, 2010, 03:00 AM

Quote from: gui on Mar 24, 2010, 02:50 AM
that was posted on another topic sby someone else than me BUT i think this is important

   http://www.glowimages.com/index.cfm?/imageDetails_EN&imgid=20922297&extIntCode=0

this means this is a stock photo, which means warner brother didn't actually paid a photographer and a designer, they bought an already made picture from a company who pays artists to get the right for their art. They don't actually have the right for it. All and all, this is a very cheap move from them.

dude are you serious?!?! who cares whether the picture existed independently of the album?  Whether a totally new work was created or not, the album artwork is obviously meaningful to the band and represents the music and emotion in a different way.  Obviously the band feels the picture is symbolic and meaningful.  And of course they have the rights to the photo, or else they couldn't use it.  I imagine they paid a fee to the original rights-holder for either a limited, exclusive license and or an entire buy-out.

Actually I agree that's pretty shitty. I mean look, he just showed us a link where this exact photo exists..I mean I can't think of any other album cover that I can say the same about. Kinda ehh.

So I guess you really don't dig the cover of Led Zep 1? Seriously, maybe it is just cause you are into photography. How many peoe in the world today really know that the cover of led zep 1 is the Hindenburg? How many think it is the cover to led zep 1?

Point being, that shit was a historical tragedy, this, well, it is a fucking stock photo. See what I am saying...

It is no white pony but I am loving it.

No need to be rude. The Hindenburg has some significance and is widely known. This is not.

Because, why nitpick when the finished product is already great!!   

And yes I know what guitar sound your talkin about.

I do agree that it's great. Bed time! lol

deftones are simple, in a good way. thats enough.