I've only seen PRINCE (1979) so far, but what horrible artwork reproduction - everything is swathed under very visible offset printing texture - even the title "Prince" - not sharply defined, but as if reproduced from a low quality photo of an album copy. For the last run of Prince reprints by Warner (Bros), the original artwork files were clearly not available either, but Sony's handling is a travesty, with no original artwork to draw from, no attempt seems to have been made to use any sort of upscaling the images.

christobole said:

RODSERLING said:

christobole said:

I've only seen PRINCE (1979) so far, but what horrible artwork reproduction - everything is swathed under very visible offset printing texture - even the title "Prince" - not sharply defined, but as if reproduced from a low quality photo of an album copy. For the last run of Prince reprints by Warner (Bros), the original artwork files were clearly not available either, but Sony's handling is a travesty, with no original artwork to draw from, no attempt seems to have been made to use any sort of upscaling the images.

That was the same thing for the MJ reeditions on vinyle. Officially they said they couldn't find the original negatives of the artwork from Bad(!). Now, you know there is zero cooperarion between WB and Sony, and that's maybe some part of the explanation about why there's still no news for D&P SDE, etc.

Yes, that occurred to me as well - no cooperation. Regardless, despite Warner not having (or caring to) use the original negatives, they somehow managed a much more authentic reproduction. Sony on the other hand, hideous. An insult to anyone who care to hold and look at the artwork.

The WB/NPG reprints of "Prince" (around 2015-2016? maybe) also were not great quality.

Everything had a muddy, grayish look to it.

christobole said:

christobole said:

I've only seen PRINCE (1979) so far, but what horrible artwork reproduction - everything is swathed under very visible offset printing texture - even the title "Prince" - not sharply defined, but as if reproduced from a low quality photo of an album copy. For the last run of Prince reprints by Warner (Bros), the original artwork files were clearly not available either, but Sony's handling is a travesty, with no original artwork to draw from, no attempt seems to have been made to use any sort of upscaling the images.

Interesting. The CD you mention is the only one I have yet to see in person. I am loving the new CD reissues. Controvery is amazing with the fold out shower poster. ATWAID has lovely artwork underneath the clear CD tray (as does LOVESEXY). So far, the ones I have look great. Aside from the typos, which I find appauling that someone allowed that to happen, it makes them fun to collect. The CDs sound great too. I haven't seen them advertised as remastered but they at least seem to be louder than the original CDs. I needed fresh copies of several of them anyway as some of my old discs have started getting laser rot (ATWIAD is particularly bad).

RODSERLING said:

LoveGalore said:

RODSERLING said:

Frankly I m wondering : I m not am expert, but why is it so hard to get a clear picture on the cover art? I mean it's all on the internet, is it so hard to just scan it? I never understood why it was that hard, even without the negatives. It makes no sense to me. Apparently the Come cover has a huge mistake on its cover art : "1953-1993" Instead of "1958-1993". Could someone post some pics of these new reissues please?

I find it hard to believe there is a typo on the cover since the artwork isn't being remade. They're literally just drag/dropping any old JPEG.

It's not going to be hard to believe when you see that they did, in fact, make the typo. It's a new bit of artwork going up the left/front side of the cd (under the clear tray) with the dates.

Also, the Controversy booklet lists the credits for Jack U Off as Get U Off

partyup77 said:

The Cover art for COME is fine. The issue is on the new tray artowork since they are using clear Jewel Cases, and on the Spine. The reason that the Spines are altered from originals is there are new catalog numbers and to remove WB logos.

The booklet for Controversy is recreated so that it folds out to the poster that was originally available in the Controvery LP. So, they retyped some of the contents for the new CD booklet and screwed up Jack U Off as Get U Off.

partyup77 said:

christobole said:

I've only seen PRINCE (1979) so far, but what horrible artwork reproduction - everything is swathed under very visible offset printing texture - even the title "Prince" - not sharply defined, but as if reproduced from a low quality photo of an album copy. For the last run of Prince reprints by Warner (Bros), the original artwork files were clearly not available either, but Sony's handling is a travesty, with no original artwork to draw from, no attempt seems to have been made to use any sort of upscaling the images.

Interesting. The CD you mention is the only one I have yet to see in person. I am loving the new CD reissues. Controvery is amazing with the fold out shower poster. ATWAID has lovely artwork underneath the clear CD tray (as does LOVESEXY). So far, the ones I have look great. Aside from the typos, which I find appauling that someone allowed that to happen, it makes them fun to collect. The CDs sound great too. I haven't seen them advertised as remastered but they at least seem to be louder than the original CDs. I needed fresh copies of several of them anyway as some of my old discs have started getting laser rot (ATWIAD is particularly bad).

Pardon, I failed to meantion, that I'm speaking about the vinyl reissue. I wasn't even aware that CD were re-released as well.

I did not see the re-issues yet - but seriously, how come that typos are not detected - what did they do, just put an unsupervised intern on this??? No quality control? How embarrassing...

RODSERLING said:

RODSERLING said:

As I said before, the future is a CD sold in an LP package. Hence, you ll have sound quality, low price, and a big cover art. And don't be naiVe, the nice artwork is half of the pleasure of buying a vinyl.

This I can get behind!
I 've said this since the 90s when CD's became the norm and I longed for LP size cover art.
In the early 90s i both bought the CD's (also the singles) and the vinyl (and 12" singles) just to have the bigger cover art.

The reissue of 1979's Prince is VERY obvious. I don't think their treatment makes it look anymore modern either.

RODSERLING said:

As I said before, the future is a CD sold in an LP package. Hence, you ll have sound quality, low price, and a big cover art. And don't be naiVe, the nice artwork is half of the pleasure of buying a vinyl.

For me personally, I like CDs however the potential for sound quality on a nice slab of vinyl that is analog sourced, is unbeatable IMO

[Edited 2/25/22 16:42pm]

RODSERLING said:

As I said before, the future is a CD sold in an LP package. Hence, you ll have sound quality, low price, and a big cover art. And don't be naiVe, the nice artwork is half of the pleasure of buying a vinyl.

This is one of the most horrible - and most wasteful - ideas I've heard in a while.

And it will absolutely never, ever, ever, ever happen. In a million years this won't happen.

Rimshottbob said:

RODSERLING said:

As I said before, the future is a CD sold in an LP package. Hence, you ll have sound quality, low price, and a big cover art. And don't be naiVe, the nice artwork is half of the pleasure of buying a vinyl.

This is one of the most horrible - and most wasteful - ideas I've heard in a while.

And it will absolutely never, ever, ever, ever happen. In a million years this won't happen.

It already happened. But it didn't catch on. I have one of those from 2003 or so.

Kanye West sold his 2008 album as a triple gatefold with double vinyl and a CD pocket.

Rimshottbob said: