something that's been really disappointing and tilting me in recent months is the massive uptick in AI album covers specifically from extreme metal bands.
to me, especially when it comes to making extreme music, your album cover is an essential part of fully communicating your artistic vision. even if it is just a solid black background with a white logo on it, this communicates something about your intent. your music is so extreme that the recording process can barely handle it; the album art gives a ground for people to see what you are cooking artistically.
as an example:
many "Cascadian" black metal bands tend to feature compositions that focus on lush, enveloping sound, something that gives off a natural feel, just washed out enough and just melodic enough that it inspires the feeling of being in the various forests and woods that litter the Pacific Northwest. many of these bands and project use the imagery of trees, forests, peaks covered in growth, and when you see the album art and listen to the music, i think that it engrosses you further in the experience and feeds into the imagery that the music is providing to you on your listen. sounds have images associated with them, and although those images can be diverse and vary heavily from person to person, there is still an image to be communicated to the listener sonically. the cover is a stepping stone to understanding the music and the artist.
when you use AI art as your album cover, all it communicates to me is that your ideas are likely so basic, so rudimentary, so generic, that you can just type it into a prompt, slap your logo on it, and call it a night. "a dark castle submerged in clouds" is fucking boring. why can't the castle look interesting? the accessories of the castle don't communicate anything significant or poignant about the imagery associated with your music. _you didn't even make the art, other people did! the computer just scanned their work and jumbled it all together, and you can't even give credit where credit is due to the people it steals from, because it steals from them facelessly, in a soup of stolen images, where the art and the artist are divorced from their creation and it is turned into slop for you to use for your, likely, boring ass music. but if you generate AI art in the year 2024, you probably already know this already.
album art, subconsciously or otherwise, IS something that draws a potential listener to your music. the music communicates something, and so does the album art. and i think that your album art should carry an idea with it, or at least if it's going to be generic, just draw it yourself. i don't care if it's shitty. at least YOU are communicating something. at least YOU are showing care and effort in the thing you are making and putting out there in the world. at least YOU are standing out in YOUR way. or your band's way. whatever.
metal bands, please stop with the AI album covers. i don't want to listen to your music if you can't even put forth a modicum of effort towards the art itself. i get that artists are expensive, i get art and being an artist is hard, i get not everyone likes to draw. but there are other ways to communicate your artistic intent than by just Midjourneying some shit out of a sea of 100 generated images, picking the one that looks the most "Walmart brand Suffocation" or "Rite-Aid Dark Castle", and throwing that shit up on Bandcamp/YouTube.
