Joss Stone has been using a provocative image to promote her fourth album, Colour Me Free. Read the full post.
Oct 23
2009
03:20 PM ET
Joss Stone: Did her label make her change her provocative album-cover art?
- Comments 31
- Add comment
Latest News
- 'Game of Thrones': Inside Blackwater dish
- Robert Pattinson douses 'Catching Fire' talk
- 'Men in Black 3' wins weekend: $55M
- Cannes: 'Amour' wins Palme d'Or
- 'Kardashians': Learning truth at 'Seventeen'
- TV Season Finale Awards: Vote!
- Emma Watson in 'Bling Ring': Pic!
- 15 best (and 10 worst) movie themes
Can’t be any worse than this:
Amazon.com: New Album: Joss Stone
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.
Honestly, If everyone heard the songs on the album, you would realize that the ORIGINAL album artwork is very deep. In my opinion, I think the first album cover is better because on her new song “Free Me” she sings “Free Me, Free Me, EMI” and EMI is her record label thats been screwing with her, so the 1st cover is probably that EMI has gotten her locked up, and wont let her go
that’s my opinion