CBC Radio49%

He collected hundreds of the worst album covers of all time. Now they're in a British museum 47%

By Marcus Medford-Kerr0%

6/11/2026, 2:45:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 34.7% saturation with 260 hits. Analysis detected 1,426 faulty-reasoning hits from 749 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.6% and a BS Rank of 47% (11,675 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.30% of the article peer group.

Steve Goldman claims to have more than 700 of the “worst of the worst” album covers ever designed. 
Some of his collection is on display at the Mansfield Museum in England in the Worst Record Covers in the World exhibit, which runs until Aug. 
29. 
They say you shouldn't judge a book  or perhaps, an album  by its cover. 
But Steve Goldman did exactly that, and it kickstarted a unique hobby. 
Nearly 40 years ago, he was in a second-hand record store when he stumbled across Peter Rabbitt’s 1979 album Roadstar. 
Goldman got the album, but not because he was a huge fan of the band. 
“I bought it because it was such an extraordinarily bad cover,” he told As It Happens host Nil Köksal. 
The cover features five rabbits surrounding an upside-down black magician-style top hat, with one bunny popping out of the opening. 
Then things get weird. 
“The band's faces [are] amateurishly and awkwardly superimposed on the rabbits,” said Goldman, who is based in Huddersfield, England. 
The band says they hated the cover but only saw it after they broke up. 
Lead singer John Thompson described it as “the invasion of the bunny body snatchers.” 
But the joy Goldman got from the image inspired him. 
“I said to my family, ‘You know what, I think I’m going to start collecting crap LP covers,’” he said. 
Goldman says he has 700 of the “worst of the worst” album covers ever designed. 
Some of his collection is on display at the Mansfield Museum in England in the Worst Record Covers in the World exhibit, which runs until Aug. 
29. 
The audio-visual connection 
Even though most people now stream music and often listen to playlists instead of albums, George Howard says album visuals still play an important role. 
Howard, a professor of music business at Berklee College of Music in Boston, says album art can draw people in. 
“Something that makes us pause, where you have to sort of scrutinize it," he said. 
"That's an important marketing gesture." 
Howard pointed out that passionate fans, like Taylor Swift's “Swifties,” often use their knowledge and enthusiasm to analyze the images Swift posts and search for “Easter eggs.” 
The conversations generated by fans can spread beyond the fandom into the public consciousness. 
Conversely, bad album art can turn people away from listening to an artist's work because they might assume the music is as poor as the visuals, Goldman says. 
He points to Thundercat’s 2017 album, Drunk, as an example of a good album in bad packaging. 
“[It] consists of his eyes staring out of a puddle and the rest of him submerged, and that's a really good album,” Goldman said. 
Howard has worked with artists and record labels on designing album covers. 
He says artists tend to think deeply about the visuals that accompany their music and the message they’re trying to send. 
“It's not an afterthought, but it doesn't mean that they get it right,” he said. 
An artist’s creative vision 
Howard says it wouldn’t make sense for an artist to deliberately create a “bad” album cover just to generate buzz. 
“I think it would be overly bold for some artist to go, ‘I'm going to intentionally make a bad album cover in the hopes that people will talk about it,’” he said. 
He cited Charli XCX’s album brat as an example of a risky choice, which ultimately paid off. 
Summer 2024 was affectionately dubbed “Brat Summer” after the album. 
The lowercase font and the shade of lime green that donned the cover were popular in ads and social media posts following its release. 
“That colour green almost became something that signified [the album],” Howard said. 
He notes that some AI tools or marketing firms would recommend avoiding that shade and the choice could’ve backfired, if the album hadn’t been a hit. 
Howard says he admires the creative impulse artists have to try something new or make a statement, even if he’s personally not a fan. 
“When someone does something that maybe doesn't work, that's kind of awesome, because they took a shot,” he said. 
Sometimes art needs more time or analysis to be fully understood or appreciated, he added. 
For Goldman, the best part of bad album covers is people’s joy. 
“I think my biggest thrill comes from seeing the people's reactions. 
Hanging low and just watching people laugh,” he said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 1.6%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.8%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 3.7%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 4.4%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 2.0%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 5.7%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.9%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias5.7%This article: 4.4%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 1.5%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 11.1%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 3.9%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.2%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.3%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.7%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.5%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 9.6%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias4.8%This article: 6.9%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 1.5%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 18.7%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 6.4%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias18.7%This article: 6.7%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.7%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.3%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.1%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 2.4%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.9%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.1%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.5%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 8.6%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority17.5%This article: 2.7%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 1.5%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma2.7%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.8%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.6%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 3.9%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization9.6%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.5%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.9%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 4.4%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion4.9%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.2%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.9%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 1.9%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.9%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.3%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.5%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.5%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 3.6%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal10.5%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.8%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.9%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.8%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground2.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.4%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading2.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 34.7%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 2.9%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote34.7%This article: 2.5%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.9%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 1.5%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.6%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice1.5%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 2.4%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Medford-Kerr: 1.6%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

749 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers67%attributed speech250writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Thompson • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 25 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 20 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 15 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 5 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 28 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 24 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 21 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 20 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 32 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 12 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 26 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 19 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Howard • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 11 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Goldman • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Steve Goldman

100%flagged-word coverage
180 attributed words36% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+44.5 ptsWriter: 11.6%Steve Goldman: 56.1%56.1%Quote-first Misdirection+10.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Steve Goldman: 10.6%10.6%Biased Writer Voice-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Steve Goldman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.