Posted: February 2, 2004 6:15 pm
Remember that MCA’s cutting down on the packaging did not start with the CDCP CDs. When they bought ABC/Dunhill in 1979, they went back and reissued Jimmy’s ABC albums. That’s to be expected, as they have to change the brand name and logo on the packaging. But the fact that they eliminated the gatefold artwork and any custom art that appeared on the dust sleeves shows that are seriously cheap and don’t give two craps that work of the artist and art directors goes to waste. Not only that, many people who put their time into those albums went uncredited. 
MCA’s philosophy is something like “An album is nothing but the music, right? Why does it need packaging? Our own generic crap gives you a track listing, what more do you want?”
It seems to me that back in the vinyl days, back covers were just as big as a work of art as the front covers were. Now all they are is a place to put a track listing and an ugly barcode.
Maybe Bubba’s catalogue just needs to be brought to their attention.
The “Compact Disc/Compact Price/Compact Cheapness/Compact Laziness” series is all MCA’s mess, and they have to clean it up.
MCA’s philosophy is something like “An album is nothing but the music, right? Why does it need packaging? Our own generic crap gives you a track listing, what more do you want?”
It seems to me that back in the vinyl days, back covers were just as big as a work of art as the front covers were. Now all they are is a place to put a track listing and an ugly barcode.
Maybe Bubba’s catalogue just needs to be brought to their attention.
The “Compact Disc/Compact Price/Compact Cheapness/Compact Laziness” series is all MCA’s mess, and they have to clean it up.