it's ironic because of how much of a focal point the money going into this album has been, i think. it was made clear to me that amanda wanted the resources of a label-backed artist, and as we've been told, she was successful in procuring them. but then the songs released have a decidedly lo-fi sound and the album art appears "poorly photoshopped."
I agree with the criticism on the album cover, but where's the lo-fi sound of the songs? I mean there are some filters on her voice.. but the rest sounds fine to me.
Not to mention that the art and photographs are 90% gorgeous.
(And I think the filters also have a lot to do with how the record sounds, and I think they work very well, but that's just me. Though they are probably not the best for every song—the Bed Song should
be clean, for instance.)
oh, but if they'd made it look retro, it would have been amazing. But it doesn't look like a retro collage, it simply looks like a bad photoshop cut-out. It doesn't make me thing of 80s popstars, but of 2000s fangirls behind their computers making fanart but lacking actual photoshop skills.
To me it does
seem like the perfect combination between the quality that modern pictures can have and retro aesthetics. And I just can't imagine any fangirl with bad Photoshop skills cutting the picture out like that
. I actually think it's been done in a careful, specific way, or that's the impression it causes on me.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that the “amateurishness” (things like the fact that there is background intertwined with the hair) is a conscious
artistic decision. You may question the validity of that decision, of course. It might not satisfy you as it satisfies me. But it is
Also, the ear isn't there because it isn't visible to begin with, except for the top bit. It makes perfect sense that we see as much of the ear as we do.
Though I don't have to point this out because in the original B/W picture it looks just the same and you can see why.