Welcome Guest | Friday, October 31, 2014 01:15 AM Printer Friendly Page Printer Friendly Page | Register | Log in  
Main Menu

Record Tips

Guild Products
Guild Products
Click on the tee-shirt to view the marvelous products from the Record Collectors Guild

Online
There are 165 unlogged users and 2 registered users online.

You can log-in or register for a user account here.

 


Historic and Controversial Album Covers

Page: 2/3
(2529 total words in this text)
(117695 Reads)  Printer-friendly page
part two

In part one of our article series (one of three) about famous album cover art, we discussed a couple of iconic Beatle album covers and some controversial album covers by other artists. Let’s continue our discussion with part two of our series.

The Rolling Stones make our list for their 1968 album called “Beggars Banquet.” It was the first cover not to feature a band photograph; instead the Stones’ decided to use a picture of an unsightly, filthy bathroom with graffiti-laced walls. Rolling Stones Beggars Banquet The record label in the U.K. (Decca) and the U.S. label, London Records, both balked at the cover (it was considered to be in poor taste) and a bitter three-month legal battle began. The Rolling Stones lost the battle and the album was replaced with an elegant formal party invitation (but the cover was restored for CD pressings in the mid 80's).

Naughty “bathroom behavior” album cover first surfaced in 1966, when the “Mama’s & the Papa’s” released their LP called “If You Can Believe Your Eyes And Ears.” The cover, a picture of the “flower power” quartet squeezed into an old bathtub next to a toilet, apparently received so many complaints that the record company (Dunhill) was compelled to rush out a replacement cover, with graphics that promoted the group’s hit singles blocking the offending toilet. They even went so far as to issue yet another cover, this time removing the toilet completely.

Middle fingers have always been taboo on album covers and the outrage began in 1957 when Capitol Records released an album by the doo wop group the “Five Keys.” An innocent cover, it pictured the vocal group posing together in snazzy suits. But it seems that lead singer Rudy West’s forefinger was imagined by some to be a specific part of the male anatomy. So a decision was made for subsequent issues to have the finger in question airbrushed out.

“Moby Grape’s” self-titled release in 1967, also had a finger of prominence displayed incorrectly, but the album cover was quickly airbrushed by Columbia Records.

A misplaced(?) finger/thumb caused another uproar in 1971 when Warner Brothers released “Alice Cooper’s” new album called “Love It To Death.” His “gesture” was not taken too well and was censored, the middle finger being airbrushed away. In fact, four different versions of the front cover exist, apparently in the picture his thumb could possibly be mistaken for a specific part of the male anatomy.

David Bowie Diamond Dogs

“David Bowie’s” cover art featuring a half-dog, half-Bowie figure (painted by Guy Peellaert) for his 1974 album called “Diamond Dogs,” caused quite a stir. Apparently, the record company (RCA) did not like the fact that the “Bowie-dog” was anatomically correct and had the offending appendage airbrushed out on subsequent releases.

Apparently, pulling bubble gum off of a woman’s exposed breast is a major crime, or at the very least, a reason to reissue an album cover. Or so, that is what the German heavy metal band the “Scorpions” found out in 1979 with their album release called “Loverdrive.” Scorpions Love DriveThe album cover features a man and a woman sitting in the backseat of a car, with the man removing the scandalous bubble gum from her breast. It was subsequently reissued with a black cover with a blue scorpion on it (thankfully the scorpion was fully-clothed). The band had another album (“Virgin Killer”) cover nixed because of a nude cover of a young girl.

In 1994, scandal found the rock group called the “Black Crowes,” because their album cover “Amorica” showed pubic hair from a Hustler magazine photograph. The close-up of a woman’s “mid-section” in a bikini, apparently exhibits too much hair and made the public uncomfortable. Pressured by powerful conservative retail chains, the record company (Universal) had to reissue an alternative cover, just a bikini over a black background (sans the offending hair).

In our third part of our series about controversial album cover art, we will again turn our focus to offensive album covers.

 


©1998-present the Record Collectors Guild - Original material may be copied
with permission or credit and link back applied (the Terms and Conditions must be adhered to).