Analyzing album covers: Tusk

[Villavic]

This the first album cover of this lineup where no member appears (I assuming is Ken's foot since it's his dog ).

I don't like the cover. I miss a member face there, but anyway I like Tango in the Night and even Behind the Mask (sorry for those who hate that cover) more than Tusk. I never got it.

Mick doesn't comment about the cover. Like in Mirage, he explains only about the album title in his book, though I don't see the relationship of what he said with the Tusk song:

The title refers to a jocular term of affection for the Male Member: old habits die hard in Fleetwood Mac. (When Stevie heard that we had decided to name the album Tusk, she threatened to quit the band in revulsion. But I chose to ignore her and nothing ever came of it.)

[Villavic]

This inner art picture is not nicer but more interesting. And the woman with the big elephant tusk has more to do with Mick's explanation than Ken's dog in the front cover.

[FierySequences]

hmm, I don't really like or dislike it. However, I love the inner sleeve pictures. Very mysterious and Stevie looks absolutely beautiful and bewitching.

[KarmaContestant]

I detest the Tusk cover. It feels like a copout; a lazy shortcut; an effortless afterthought.

But then - you open it, and inside are all of these glorious photos, collages, and bits of art. I feel like that that was part of the intention, part of the deception that Tusk was, following on the heels of Rumours. Not what people expected, just like the packaging inside is unexpected after a cursory glance at the unispired cover art.

[Artemis]

I love the Tusk cover for how weird it is. I just imagine it being revealed and everyone just going "...huh"

I'm more interested in what the band members think of it, I think Stevie hates it, didn't Ken write in his book that she hated the dog for "stealing" the album cover that should have been "hers"?

[vivfox]

This cover sucks.

First of all I've never been a dog lover. They annoy the heck out of me with the loud barking. Plus I think most dogs are dangerous as this dog shows. I wouldn't want one to put its jaws around my foot even if it was just playing.

I think the shadow under the dog pic represents a tusk. I know it is not thin like a tusk but it becomes that for me based on the album's title. This album came at a time when the whole world was waiting to see the band's newest creation. When you have that kind of attention a nice cover pic of the group would have been more appropriate IMHO.

[TheWILDheart]

I don't like or dislike the Tusk cover really - I don't get it. Love the rest of the artwork for the album though. I also really like the idea of somebody finding a discarded photo left on a sandy beach (which is kind of the impression I get from the cover), but I just don't get the dog thing - maybe it would've been better if it had a photo of the band instead of the dog? Almost like a kind of accidental re-discovering of the band after the Rumours hype had faded as though the listener were stumbling across the album by accident like somebody finding this old photograph in the sand? But the dog totally ruins that theory.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Artemis

I'm more interested in what the band members think of it, I think Stevie hates it, didn't Ken write in his book that she hated the dog for "stealing" the album cover that should have been "hers"?

Stevie said she wouldn't have put a dog who looked like he was trying to take your leg off on the cover.

And the dog may have seemed ferocious to her, because although he was friendly, he was always after Stevie and Christine's little female dogs and Stevie and Christine did not like him as much as the men did.

Michele

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

I don't like or dislike the Tusk cover really - I don't get it. Love the rest of the artwork for the album though. I also really like the idea of somebody finding a discarded photo left on a sandy beach (which is kind of the impression I get from the cover), but I just don't get the dog thing - maybe it would've been better if it had a photo of the band instead of the dog? Almost like a kind of accidental re-discovering of the band after the Rumours hype had faded as though the listener were stumbling across the album by accident like somebody finding this old photograph in the sand?

That would have been a good idea and it wouldn't even have to be a posed, illuminating shot either. It could have been a "candid" where parts of them are obscured, they're turned away from the camera. That would have added to the sense that you're catching this glimpse of them by accident.

Michele

[WildHearted]

Originally Posted by Villavic

This the first album cover of this lineup where no member appears (I assuming is Ken's foot since it's his dog ).

I don't like the cover. I miss a member face there, but anyway I like Tango in the Night and even Behind the Mask (sorry for those who hate that cover) more than Tusk. I never got it.

Mick doesn't comment about the cover. Like in Mirage, he explains only about the album title in his book, though I don't see the relationship of what he said with the Tusk song:

The title refers to a jocular term of affection for the Male Member: old habits die hard in Fleetwood Mac. (When Stevie heard that we had decided to name the album Tusk, she threatened to quit the band in revulsion. But I chose to ignore her and nothing ever came of it.)

I definitely see the relationship between Mick's explanation for the word 'tusk' and the song. What else would Tusk mean?

However, I'm not really a big fan of the cover. It just seems like a rather random afterthought, as someone else said above. I like the overall color scheme and everything but they could have chosen a different picture that tied more into the themes of some of the song or the band itself.

[redbird]

I like it for the fact that it's random and weird in a totally different way than the whimsical surrealness of the previous two covers. Tusk is much less a costume ball affair and much more a deconstruction. But as a visual it's just there for me, neither hate nor love. I like the pictures inside, I'm fine with the cover itself, and that's about it.

[bluecalmsea]

I do not like this cover. I don't *hate* it, but it doesn't give me good feelings haha. I think it being more silly and random compared to the other covers doesn't appeal to me.

But the Tusk-era photoshoot is my favorite set ever! So I will forgive the cover

[cantgoback]

Well it's definitely a strange one. Like the album it's odd and un-FMish I personally like the inner art on the sleeves more than the actually cover. Just out of curiosity, I ordered my copy on amazon and it came with a fold out poster of 4 men who are not in Fleetwood Mac (not in a sexual position, they were fully clothed) I have no idea what it is and why it's in there, if it's supposed to be apart of the album, please let me know.

[shackin'up]

Tusk has the most intriguing and interesting artwork of all Mac-albums. I love it, from cover to all innersleeves. I could write Two pages about it, but I don't think anyone over here would be interested. I'll leave it to the fact that a very good artteacher from my university, whom I bought a second hand vinylversion of Tusk. He was intrigued by the music, but totally psyched about the artwork. I love it.

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Tusk has the most intriguing and interesting artwork of all Mac-albums. I love it, from cover to all innersleeves. I could write Two pages about it, but I don't think anyone over here would be interested. .

Hey I would be!! Specially about the front cover cause it doesn't make me think anything. The inner artwork is other story. That is intriguing!