US Vogue March 2016 : Adele by Annie Leibovitz

[Creative]

I think she meant Kim has been more influential in the way people approach fashion than Adele. Not that she wants her to be fronting the magazine's cover. For some girls she is sort of a fashion 'icon'. While Adele, as much as I like her, is boring as hell; and as far as her eyeliner goes, she gave nothing else to the fashion world.

I mean, I rather have Kandall or Gigi, who are not talented people at all, but at least have a fashion 'facet', than any other actress or singer...

 

[anlabe32]

But Vogue has been putting singers and actors on the cover for decades, whether they have a relation with fashion or not. So who still cares. It's not solely a fashion magazine anyway.

I'd rather have a talented person like Adele on the cover of this prestigious magazine than someone with no talent at all like Kim, Kendall or any Kardashian for that matter. Except Caitlyn, at least she has an Olympic medal thus a talent.

 

[Creative]

I do think this should be a fashion magazine. Anna transformed it into People, but 10-15 years ago models were still booking most of the covers of US Vogue. Of course there are some celebs that have been linked to fashion through history (BB, Cher, Deneuve), but they felt legit. While Anna puts them just to warrant sales. I see a huge difference.

And, actually, most of the models are not talented people, they don't even have the talent to model many of the times. Just beautiful girls with beautiful bodys. Fashion is a very unfair industry and that's part of the charm of it.

 

[ThickGlossies]

I didn't say I wanted to see Kim on the cover but I meant that even Kim has more "fashion impact" than Adele. I'm sure this has to do with the whole PC culture frenzy that's been developing in the last years in the US. They put Adele on the cover just to show the world that they don't discriminate against overweight women.

 

[honeycombchild]

Or they put her on the cover because she's an incredible talent and an absolute force to be reckoned with in the music industry. I prefer that logic personally, she's insanely talented, incredibly beautiful and 100% appropriate for the 'Power' issue. Her relevance to 'fashion' is, funnily enough, irrelevant. Vogue is a fashion magazine, it should apply the fashion context to whoever they feature. After all models are the carriers of fashion and if featured on the cover act as the way to display the fashion rather than appearing there because of their 'relevance' to fashion, surely?

 

[cestmagique]

^agreed. Adele isn't just put into an editorial and that's the extent of it, there's a feature written about her as well. She does have her own recognizable style even if it's not terribly adventurous. I would much rather read about someone like Adele than Kendall or Gigi; them being more centrally a part of the fashion world is, as you said, irrelevant. A cover subject has to actually be interesting. I mean, God forbid we deny the Kendalls and Gigis of the world their Vogue covers, apparently they deserve it just for existing, but there are a lot of popular pretty girls in fashion and so maybe the criteria should be a little stronger.

 

[Benn98]

Adele is a singer why put her on the cover of Vogue? It's not People magazine. She's not fashionable enough to hold a March issue. Even Kim Kardashian is more fit to cover it.

Part of me even dared to give your comment the benefit of the doubt, but, no. It just sounds terribly outdated. Why would they need to make a statement when this is her 2nd cover for them? The reason she's on Vogue is quite simple - she's talented, terribly powerful, and comes with an army of fans. I can guarantee she'll sell much more than Kim and her 'orchestrated 'fashion relevance'. And anyway, Kim's fashion relevance isn't even the type which should be celebrated because none of it is her own. It was all conceived by a egomaniacal pillock, driven by vulgar intent.

 

[Creative]

Or they put her on the cover because she's an incredible talent and an absolute force to be reckoned with in the music industry. I prefer that logic personally, she's insanely talented, incredibly beautiful and 100% appropriate for the 'Power' issue. Her relevance to 'fashion' is, funnily enough, irrelevant.

That's should be enough to get a Rolling Stone cover, not a Vogue one.

Vogue is a fashion magazine, it should apply the fashion context to whoever they feature. After all models are the carriers of fashion and if featured on the cover act as the way to display the fashion rather than appearing there because of their 'relevance' to fashion, surely?

Yup, but models are fashion creatures. It is fashion who creates them. It is their environment. A model is the face of the times, how people working in the industry believe the 'ideal' girl of a certain moment should look like.

You can see models from the the 50's, the 60's, the 70's, 80's, 90's... all the evolution of fashion faces in the cover of Vogue. Right now, you can't. You see the same established faces working in the film/music industry again and again. They are not trying to get a certain aesthetic. They are not going for a certain look/mood. They are not trying to show a certain outfit from the catwalks. What matters to them is the CELEBRITY to warrant sales. The rest is secondary. You get a person with a huge fanbase and that's it.

And it is sort of sad that they choose someone JUST when she has something to promote. They don't give a woman the cover for the sake of it. It is because she has a multimillion dollar project in her back. And most of the celebs use the covers as a platform to show what they are promoting. There isn't the will of creating. It is just about $$$$$$$.

To me, this is just shows how rotten fashion industry is.

 

[cestmagique]

^As much as I vaguely see your point, you're basically lamenting the passage of time. Yes, it's cool to be able to look back on decades of fashion magazines and see models on the covers who capture a certain mood in fashion. And I do wish that fashion magazines had models on their covers more often today. But the supermodel era changed things, and once those models faded out and there was a sort of 'celebrity model' void, celebrities became the more sellable cover subjects. Money is what counts, and that is a bit sad, because a number of magazines and fashion houses have seemed to upend art and quality lately in search of popularity and easy cash. Even when models are on covers now, the focus isn't on choosing the model who represents fashion the best, it's (if the magazine can afford it) the models who sell. You mentioned it in your earlier post-- it's Kendall or Gigi basically, if the mags can afford it. It's no less about money than when an actor or musician is on the cover. At least when it's Adele and not Kendall, the appeal of the cover subject goes beyond a limited demographic and there's the likelihood that the interview will actually be worth the paper it was printed on. Fashion has gotten faster, more gimmicky, and more money hungry, but the lack of models on covers is not the sign of a corrupted industry, nor is their presence on covers somehow indicative of sincerity and creativity.

 

[MeghanEve]

Not just that, she approved this cover, just like Beyonce did last year. This is what Wintour is allowing nowadays, in order to get certain celebs she lets them pick the cover, its shameful, but i don't think this cover is as bad.

Don't understand the bar below, so instead of usual banner, they are doing this now? It's even worse!

I can't believe it's gotten to the stage where celebrities can approve covers. Why bother getting Vogue to shoot her at all? Also, where did you hear about major player being able to approve copy Miss D?

 

[MeghanEve]

Geek Love
PH: Mario Testino
Style: Tonne Goodman
Models/Celebs: Karlie Kloss, Kendall Jenner and Gigi Hadid w/ Mike Krieger, Jess Lee, Evan Sharp, Andreas Pihlstrom, Bo Lu, Tiffani Jones, Joe Bernstein, Kayvon Beykpour

It seems AV thinks Gigi and Kendall will carry anything, even a lacklustre, non-sensical (where is the geek love?) layout. Complete over-saturation.

 

[Creative]

^As much as I vaguely see your point, you're basically lamenting the passage of time. Yes, it's cool to be able to look back on decades of fashion magazines and see models on the covers who capture a certain mood in fashion. And I do wish that fashion magazines had models on their covers more often today. But the supermodel era changed things, and once those models faded out and there was a sort of 'celebrity model' void, celebrities became the more sellable cover subjects. Money is what counts, and that is a bit sad, because a number of magazines and fashion houses have seemed to upend art and quality lately in search of popularity and easy cash. Even when models are on covers now, the focus isn't on choosing the model who represents fashion the best, it's (if the magazine can afford it) the models who sell. You mentioned it in your earlier post-- it's Kendall or Gigi basically, if the mags can afford it. It's no less about money than when an actor or musician is on the cover. At least when it's Adele and not Kendall, the appeal of the cover subject goes beyond a limited demographic and there's the likelihood that the interview will actually be worth the paper it was printed on. Fashion has gotten faster, more gimmicky, and more money hungry, but the lack of models on covers is not the sign of a corrupted industry, nor is their presence on covers somehow indicative of sincerity and creativity.

Well, that could apply to Vogue UK and maybe Vogue Paris (although I think Alt is true to her vision, as stale as it can be). If she likes Mica she puts Mica on the cover, if she likes Anna she puts Anna on the cover... The rest of Vogues are not like US Vogue. If that was the case, Aya wouldn't be in the cover of Vogue España, maybe the least diverse country of the top countries in Europe. Vogue Italia has been pushing the envelope till yesterday, when celeb culture was a reality. They try to say something, I've seen how some Harpers and Vogues studios work and they do try to create. The problem is that the creative forces behind those images have no talent and no vision.

Using a fashion magazine as a platform to promote film/music projects doesn't feel right to me. Of course it is their business and they run it as they want, but that's how I see it. And of course it would feel more true to the industry if the cover subjects of a fashion magazine were linked to fashion. And the same for fashion editorials. Me, as a fashion follower, couldn't care less about an ed with American TV series characters, children of actors and singers, TV hosts, singers...

I can't imagine any other type of magazine doing that. If you buy a football magazine you see football players and coachs, if you buy Rolling Stone they talk about music... If you buy Vogue US you read about everything but fashion. You see everything but models.

 

[Benn98]

I can't believe it's gotten to the stage where celebrities can approve covers. Why bother getting Vogue to shoot her at all? Also, where did you hear about major player being able to approve copy Miss D?

Hope you don't mind me chiming in, but Alexandra explains in the article below why she doesn't pander to celeb editorial demands. She'll bend over backards for the palace, I'm sure....

http:// http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2012/apr/01/vogue-alexandra-shulman-jennifer-aniston

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ I assure you, Shulman might have turned down Aniston's requests, but she HAS given full photo approval, two most famous ones: Adele & Victoria Beckham, both picked their cover shot.

I can't believe it's gotten to the stage where celebrities can approve covers. Why bother getting Vogue to shoot her at all? Also, where did you hear about major player being able to approve copy Miss D?

I heard it from someone that works at CN. Not every celeb of course, just really the A list, they get their way, the others would bend backwards for a cover!

 

[MON]

Just purchased this today, and I must retract what I first said. It looks different (gorgeous) in real life. My goodness, it stood out in the newsstand. I loved the icy feeling it had compared to the popping reds, pinks and oranges the other magazines used. I like it.

 

[vogue28]

Don't know if it has been mentioned earlier but Kendall Jenner has 5 photos right at the back of the magazine, in the Index section, shot by Inez van Lamsweerde & Vinoodh Matadin. A rather surprising placement for such a.. high-profile/costly shoot, but I assume it was rejected from a previous issue and was at hand.

The cover is just as beautiful and eye-catching as it is online, I agree MON!