So, I'm trolling around Claw The Unconquered #9 (1976), when I come across this ad:
WTF??
Of course, this is just an artist's rendering of the cover of then then-new Rolling Stones album Black And Blue:
The question, then, is why a not too great drawing (sorry, unknown artist) for your none-too-attractive ad, instead of the actual album artwork?
Well, at the time, the ability to print color photos on the newsprint comics used was not too great. Either you went black and white, or got something like this:
So, for the interior of the book, I guess an artist's rendering of the album cover was the best alternative.
But why not run the ad on the glossier, photo-friendly paper of the interior covers, or back cover? Good question. You'd think that since Warner owned both DC and Atlantic Records, they could have/would have/should have insisted on a better ad, or better placement.
Then again, it wasn't that good an album, so maybe Warner just punted...
1 comment:
I'd like to thank you for the use of the correct construction: "it wasn't that good an album".
Many people nowadays, including Brian Bendis, might think it "wasn't that good OF an album".Obviously horrendous.
Post a Comment