It seems they liked the concept behind the image mostly and didn't notice (or chose to ignore) the crap retouching job.
Print is a great publication and the fact that their editors still care about the artistry of album covers even when the music industry itself stopped caring ages ago, speaks volumes.
Fair enough, but I don't actually think the cover design,
as executed (and execution matters!), manages to accomplish the things the author is claiming it does. Beyond the clone-stamping issue, I really have a problem with the hand-drawn "stereo" icon and Harvest logo (either hand-draw it
or choose a vintage style, not both), the off-centered, washed-out lettering, the obviously silhouetted photo, the flatness of the whole thing…the problems with it are so distracting that I can't even see the concept that is supposedly there. (And don't get me started on that awful "typewriter" font used on the inside—and with a f***ing
drop shadow on the LP gatefold…ugh.)
Also, it wasn't actually done in-house at Harvest, was it? The sleeve credits 344 Design.
Put in context with Morrissey's long history of beautifully-designed, iconic sleeves, it really sticks out like a sore thumb to me. I really hope he decides to go back to hands-on involvement with his cover designs again in the future.