Joss Stone has been using a provocative image to promote her fourth album, Colour Me Free. The black-and-white shot of the British singer contorted behind prison bars, midway through being penciled in color-by-numbers style (top left), appears on her MySpace page and her official website, and it’s the one that was provided to EW to accompany our review of the album. Yet pick up the CD at exclusive physical retailer Target or download a copy from iTunes and you’ll see very different cover art (top right): just Stone’s name in a large font above the album title on an otherwise blank purple background. What gives?
A rep for Stone says her label, EMI, insisted on switching the album art. Indeed, the singer still prefers the original behind-bars illustration: “As far as Joss is concerned, that’s her album cover.”
An EMI spokesperson, however, begs to differ, telling EW, “Joss agreed to the album cover selection” — i.e., to the purple text-only image that accompanies the actual CD.
This would appear to be the latest skirmish in Stone’s ongoing dispute with EMI. Last month, she told EW that the label was responsible for delaying Colour Me Free’s release until Oct. 20. “It’s all record company stuff,” she said then. “I just want to make music and put it out. They have a different mind set. So, we had a little tiff and now we’re putting it out.” Sounds as if the tiff goes on.
So whose side are you on? After comparing and contrasting the two cover images, which one do you like better?
(Follow the Music Mix on Twitter: @EWMusicMix.)
More from EW’s Music Mix:
Joss Stone’s new single, “Free Me”: Hear it now
Kris Allen: We exclusively reveal the track listing for his self-titled debut!
Paloma Faith: Don’t cry “Amy Winehouse rip-off!” just because she’s awesome
Janet Jackson recording “up-tempo dance album”: Can she recapture a rhythm nation?
Comments (1-30) of 30 Add your comment
What was wrong with the original that it needed to be changed? I prefer the original
I wouldn’t mind “her” cover if there weren’t a giant foot in the forefront. Really. She couldn’t have been holding onto one of the prison bars or just have her face there? Other than that, I don’t really see anything wrong with it. EMI’s version isn’t horrible, either, although they could have taken the title literally and infused a bit of colour. It’s kind of boring.
both are hideous, and look like they cost about $10
Agreed. And frankly there’s never been anything remotely ‘provocative’ about Joss Stone. I see from this ‘article’ that that continues to be the case.
An EMI spokesperson, however, begs to differ, telling EW, “Joss agreed to the album cover selection”
Well since she was just on Chelsea Lately a few weeks ago saying she didn’t know why it was changed…I guess we can call BS on this statement.
it’s almost offensive as a designer that EMI would put something like that out. both are awful and look like they were made in MS paint. come on!
Both covers look bad.Who cares who agreed on what?
I prefer the new one, because it isn’t completely hideous.
This is why so many good graphic designers can’t get work: the crappy designers have all the jobs.
Both are proof positive what a hack Stone is. The girl needs to find her own voice and stop mimicking our soul legends. Also, Nikka Costa called and wants her image back.
Looking at the original cover, I can’t help but ask – was the original title “colour me free!” or “colour my feet!”?
The first one looks like some 14-year-old who just got photoshop did it, and the second one looks like absolutely no thought was put into it whatsoever…both are terrible.
Does it really matter what the cover looks like? No one’s going to buy this album either way. EMI did not promote the record!
the foot is a major turn-off
Both covers are horrible. Her version looks like a broken mannequin in a cage. The other is just too much purple. Either way, I wouldn’t buy her CD for 20 cents, never mind 20 dollars.
I don’t understand why they couldn’t have gotten someone to do a better job. This looks like it was done on Word Document in 5 minutes.
i think her original album cover is weird and awkward. i prefer the boring purple cover
Can’t be any worse than this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000MQ51D8/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=5174&s=music
I hate to say it but I agree with the label. Joss has become really boring with the ‘free me’ schtick – plus, her preferred cover is ugly and tacky.
Enough already, Joss – you are coming off like a 13 year-old girl desperately searching for something to rebel against. As for the covers, both are awful.
That cover is the worst. Who would want that on their CD?
Is there really anything “provocative” about the first cover? It just looks ugly and sloppy, and the font on the title is just horrible. I could have made that in MS Paint.
Stone made a record quickly without telling EMI she was going to do it. She, young and excitedly, presented it to them and they took a hissy fit.”How DARE you make an album without our say so and without us telling you what to record”, is basically what was said, most likely. They, obviously, reluctantly let it come out and then got their revenge with a blank sleeve. Boy, am I naive. I thought recording artists were encouraged to make something exciting and fresh. No, obviously not, they are only to do what the marketing department and the MBAs tell them to. Pathetic. Though I am amazed EMI let her release it. And then not that they released it with a horrid cover.
Do the haters hate their own jobs, but can’t leave them? Is that why they’re being nasty towards Joss, who has the courage to show she can’t take it anymore?
they are both garbage…I think she is kind of over hyped anyway
I could care less which album cover they went with. It’s the music that counts and in the sense, it’s a good album. Definitely worth purchasing.
I saw the album cover at a Raleigh, NC Target store. I was very disappointed. It looks like something right off an old Jimi Hendrix or Grateful Dead album cover from 1969! I like the nixed cover better, it just shows the raw side of Joss Stone with the jail bars and her being in a twisted state.
I see Leona Lewis isn’t the only “easy” target for cranky haters … don’t like it, go get something from an AI grad or whatever.
I prefer the first one because it’s different from other covers-art… do you want to have always a pretty and almost naked girl to say it is good?
And the most important is the music, I think she is great and also her voice. I’ve seen her perform and she is amazing!
Shame on EMI if they don’t support her!!!
This has to be a joke. Both covers look like they were done by a 5th grader with Adobe Illustrator.
Tell me the recording industry is not resorting to a half-assed “cover controversy” to sell otherwise forgettable and mediocre product.
An album cover’s objective is to illustrate the music that is being played. The original cover does it’s job. One can criticize it as looking unproffessional, but just look at the London Olympic logo.