I don't normally single out covers that I find unappealing or poorly done; this is something that the bitchier music bloggers can cover if that's what they choose to do. I was scrolling through some music blogs and saw this and I had such an instant, visceral reaction to it that I had to post something about it.
The cover of an album has little or nothing to do with the value of the music inside. Let me say that up front. I know nothing of Something Happens and I am making no value judgment of the songs or the art that resides under the album cover. I'm writing about the cover itself, nothing more.
Someone should have stopped this or at least said, "let's put a pin in it and think about making this look a little differently." Perhaps, in those days, one did not put a pin in things.
The cartoon art in the margins strikes me as being done by someone in the band or someone affiliated with the band. I suppose I should go find out but why drag all of that up when it is much easier to speculate blindly and get it wrong? This cover is so bad, it had to be a girlfriend with half of an art or design degree, turned loose on a bender. Whoever thought it would work to slice up the band images and use poorly lit Glamour Shots probably should have used a different method.
But, then again, perhaps the whole thing was rushed. Perhaps the label screwed it up and let someone clearly on drugs or someone incompetent and confused design the thing. How would you have liked to have woken up one day and found that the songs and the work you had done had been covered with this image and this presentation?
The marketing people agreed to this? Someone high up at the record label said, "I love it--let's get it on a poster!" And there were no fights in the band over this? No one in the band's management stopped the meeting with an awkward slash of the arm and said, "this will not do."
I will say this--when you want to go amateurish and freaky, go big with it.