This isn't exactly relevant time wise, it's just I was listening to the album on Youtube and remembered this.
For the 50th anniversary of the album, Pink Floyd or whoever owns the rights, came out with that right image as their general look/promotional.
Many people including myself said it looks like they're catering to the "lgbtqi96sksdfj+++x^tothe3rdpower" crowd (tried to make sure I didn't miss any identities.
Twitter responses were like "You snowflake right wing morons, the rainbow was literally the album cover for Dark Side of the Moon"
I know...we all know. I've been into Pink Floyd since I was in like 6th grade. I had a dark side of the moon arm bracelet thingy I'd wear to middle school when I went through my "only wearing black + rocker accessories" cringy phase.
If the arm bracelet thing looked like the image on the right, I'd never wear it because it'd be gay looking.
It's a pure gaslight thing.
I don't know what makes the right image look so much like the gay flag whereas the original image doesn't conjur that even today.
I think it's the hue of colors chosen.
That left image, I picked the one with the brightest primaries on google I could find. There were other examples of less bright primaries, more faded. And even with the brightest I could find, it's not as bright as the right image. That right image looks like every June when every company looks like gay parade, where it's intentionally ugly.
The original album cover depicted visual impact over scientific accuracy. Snell’s law is more like Schnell's law with how the light bends into its visible spectrum for us to perceive.
The new one is gay, and not in the cool homosexual cutting wit humour kind of way, and is further removed from reality than anything the original could ever have imagined.
But hey, it's money and good times. Don't fret over it.
This isn't exactly relevant time wise, it's just I was listening to the album on Youtube and remembered this.
For the 50th anniversary of the album, Pink Floyd or whoever owns the rights, came out with that right image as their general look/promotional.
Many people including myself said it looks like they're catering to the "lgbtqi96sksdfj+++x^tothe3rdpower" crowd (tried to make sure I didn't miss any identities.
Twitter responses were like "You snowflake right wing morons, the rainbow was literally the album cover for Dark Side of the Moon"
I know...we all know. I've been into Pink Floyd since I was in like 6th grade. I had a dark side of the moon arm bracelet thingy I'd wear to middle school when I went through my "only wearing black + rocker accessories" cringy phase.
If the arm bracelet thing looked like the image on the right, I'd never wear it because it'd be gay looking.
It's a pure gaslight thing.
I don't know what makes the right image look so much like the gay flag whereas the original image doesn't conjur that even today.
I think it's the hue of colors chosen.
That left image, I picked the one with the brightest primaries on google I could find. There were other examples of less bright primaries, more faded. And even with the brightest I could find, it's not as bright as the right image. That right image looks like every June when every company looks like gay parade, where it's intentionally ugly.
The original album cover depicted visual impact over scientific accuracy. Snell’s law is more like Schnell's law with how the light bends into its visible spectrum for us to perceive.
The new one is gay, and not in the cool homosexual cutting wit humour kind of way, and is further removed from reality than anything the original could ever have imagined.
But hey, it's money and good times. Don't fret over it.
Exactly, the original album was clearly going for an easthetic, it looked good.
The right image is just, color 1, color 2, color 3,
Zero design. It looks like what a college student would whip up in photoshop in less than 5 minutes.