Having just held a best artwork round in the PJ olympics, this seems a convenient time to start this thread.

To me, the artwork of an album is essential in completing the creative act of a musical album between the artist and listener (this could be general, but i'm applying it here solely to Pearl Jam albums). Whenever i think of a Pearl jam song, i automatically think of the album it's from, which (perhaps subconsciously) makes me think of the cover of the album.

Because of this, i always think of Vitalogy and Binaural as really dark albums...Yield as a really open, free soudning album, and Ten as being quite...umm 'powerful' (cheeeesy! yum). You might argue that these are examples of the band selecting great artworks that reflect the mood of the songs - and this is partly the case - but...to me, i think that a lot of the albums could have a variety of album covers (there's very rarely ONE definitive mood/theme/concept created on an album...except Vitalogy maybe..), and therefore these covers could really help influence how we hear and think of the album.

This I guess is getting to my main point (about fecking time, i know )...I think the Artwork of Yield, for instance, if applied to Riot Act, would completely change the way i heard the album. I'd appreciate Save You, LBC, I am mine, All or none and Thumbing my way on a different level. The ideas and notions of optimism and hope would shine through a lot brighter. I understand that this is asking a lot on how you listen to music - someone who has a context-free approach to hearing music will disagree with me, arguing the songs hold up well and fill their mood/potential on their own...and i can understand and appreciate this.

For me though, the artwork does have some influence on how i think of and hear an album (bear in mind this is a process that does not occur consciously to me).
How's about you? Would different covers change how you hear an album for instance?

Take this anywhere you want and please discuss

i agree .

i also believe that is what is missing from Avacado. some good songs and a few great songs, with little or no "theme" direction or "feel" as a whole.

I think the artwork often mirrors the mood of the album, but I don't think it has ever affected how I heard the album--probably because 90% of the time I'm not looking at the artwork as I listen

Oh absolutely the artwork has an affect. Can you imagine, for example, if Vitalogy came in a plastic cd case and no booklet? It wouldn't be the same listening experience at all.

I think Riot Act is a dark album anyway, but the artwork has always really, really reinforced that to me. It's part of why I can't imagine songs like Down or Undone actually being on that album.

Meanwhile, ignoring the interior stuff, the cover of Avocado seems almost hypercolor. It's the most color intensive album they've had sine Ten and, appropriately, it echoes that same kind of ... feeling.

But I agree with Stip that I think it's more a matter of the album artwork reflecting the album rather than the artwork affecting how I see the album. (lost code is right, though, I think Vitalogy is an exception to this rule). For one, thing, tracks that get singles don't take on any new feeling based on the single artwork. In fact, I've always found the artwork for the "Save You" single kind of awkward. Not because it doesn't fit the song, it sort of does, but because it's a bit out of step with the album artwork theme as a whole.

Its something to take the music of a Pearl Jam record and give it a totally different album sleeve of your own design. Riot Act was a hard sleeve for me to digest so I gave it a proper nature photo cover (at dusk). Most of thier albums are perfect covers though like Binaural or Yield so I don't bother.

The save you and lbc single c.d.s themselves were really cool.

Not for me, because I rarely pay attention to the artwork.

the cover of yield is just the icing on the cake that makes that my favorite pearl jam album. and the pics inside- i love the harmony sign pic and the pic of ed's head in the middle of the ocean. those used to be on my cork board at my old job. ( i had two yields cuz one got so scratched up from over usage)

Its hard to beat the Vitalogy/No Code/Yield/Binaural/Riot Act combo when comes to the artwork representing the mood of the album.

true dat.

Nice post man.

i like pearl jam

An album's artwork has no effect on how I hear the music. I'll always give mad props to an album that contains awesome artwork, but it won't make the songs mean any more to me; it may just give me a cool stock image in my mind when I hear any given song from that album.

And I don't know if it should be moved, because the header post talks only about Pearl Jam's artwork, but I'd love to see this thread in Other Bands to get some other people's reaction to the question, maybe even with a poll.

Great thread idea.

I'll go make a thread about it

Yeah, I see what you mean. When people say 'it wouldn't fit the mood of the album' in regards to some b-sides (especially the Riot Act ones), i think a large part of that mood is created through the artwork. Albums like No Code, Vs and Avocado to me are very open in terms of their design, so they allow all genres of song to go on there.
Covers like Vitalogy/Binaural/Riot Act seem a little more restricting in what material would fit with the overall theme.
Maybe this is better though...it does allow a more focussed finished album. I think there needs to just be a balance somewhere along the line. I do feel that the artwork does play some part in it all though.

it is the artwork important?for example:vitalogy.would have been the same album?so good.so conceptual?so relevant?
for example,i cant inmagine yield,apart from the artwork.give in a second the feeling of the music.the colours and shapes,everything on it,makes have and idea of the music.
but without artwork,dont know if its to much,but a lot of yield get lost.
discuss

Maybe this is why Binaural and Riot Act bore me.

Riot Act never lived up to that awesome cover

S/T had the worst artwork.

along with Ten