[78-L] politically incorrect record art

Wed Nov 30 07:44:35 PST 2011

That handcuffed gal on Vogue is quite in keeping with a lot of the men's
magazine and book covers of the post-war era.  It is tame compared to a
lot of them, but still is rather striking.  

Over the years I had no problems finding copies of Some Girls with all
of the faces.  I really don't remember what copies I have with some of
the faces missing -- there were several different variations.  I would
think that the ones with only a couple missing rather than 5 or 6 would
be harder to find.

In the 1980s there was an issue of Blind Faith with both of the covers,
and over the years it has been much easier for me to find original
copies of the girl than the photo of the group.  While you might be
right that it would be difficult for a company to put out a new album
with a new photo of this type, the CDs currently available have the
girl, and there has been no trouble selling it.  
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Faith/dp/B000001FDI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1322665619&sr=8-3

I got my copy of the original Two Virgins when it was being remaindered
at a chain of discount record stores in the Times Square area in NYC, so
yes, I did get my copy on 42nd Street.  They had hundreds of them,
probably $2.99 or so, and I should have bought a dozen -- but just got
one.  The "music" is HORRIBLE, and so are their "bodies".  Except for
the Obi-strip on the left, this is what the original outer paper cover
package looked like, and you can also see what the original front and
back of the inner cardboard cover looked like. 
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Virgins-John-Lennon/dp/B000JVS48U/ref=sr_1_6?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1322666213&sr=1-6
 Actually the photos here are more accurate of the original version,
except that the first photo is the counterfeit issue. 
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Virgins-John-Lennon/dp/B000HCD7UG/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1322666213&sr=1-2
 The first photo with the whole top part of the inner album visible is
the way the counterfeit looked.  The second and third photos are the
original back and front with the round white sticker which sealed the
outer cover.  The fourth picture shows all four images head-on but
smaller.  

As for the butcher cover, unlike what Tom seems to say, it never hit the
stores.  It had only gone to reviewers who supposedly objected.  Capitol
IMMEDIATELY went to all of the distributors and pulled the copies which
had just been shipped to distributors but were not yet to be sent to the
stores.  I started working for a rack-jobber distributor two weeks after
this happened so I got the story from the inside -- along with an
original poster.  It was one of the two that my boss had been able to
hide from the Capitol salesman.  

The 1950s was famous for risque album covers, and Joe Davis got in
trouble for some of the nude covers of the series of Faye Richmond
albums.  There is a detailed account of this in the bio of him "Never
Sell A Copyright".  I found an album on Mercury a couple of weeks ago
with a veiled painting of a standing nude which clearly shows her from
the rear.  RCA Victor and Capitol had a lot of albums with nudes in
gauze.  There is one version of Peter and the Wolf on an Oberstein label
showing a beach scene with a suited mother and her nude little boy, and
he is clearly seen full frontal.  On the other hand, I found a 78 store
sleeve in Denmark which has a drawing advertising a sunlamp the store
also sold, and the drawing shows both mother and son nude.  There are
several books which are devoted to risque record covers.

And I was the one who got Lennick's risque Tijuana Christmas record.   

Mike (dirty old man) Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [78-L] politically incorrect record art
From: Tom <nice_guy_with_an_mba at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 8:36 am
To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>

There's also the Rolling Stones cover for the "Some Girls" album (from
1978), featuring
the Stones in drag, which I noticed the other day was the subject of a
news story on Yahoo.

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/live/girls-33-years-later-jagger-richards-talk-punk-023756040.html

The revised cover shown in the article isn't nearly as interesting as
the original, which
as mentionedfeatured the likeness of Marilyn Monroe, Farrah Fawcett,
Lucille Ball
and others, though those images were subsequently removed due to the
threat of
litigation.

And I doubt the original cover for the Blind Faith album could ever be
done again today,
since the original featured a girl who appeared to be 14 or so (possibly
younger) who
was topless and who was shown on the album cover from about mid-abdomen
up.

Then there's the "Two Virgins" album cover featuring John and Yoko, both
in the buff,
with full frontal nudity on the front of the album cover, along with
their backsides on the
back of the album cover -- but then, what else would you expect from
John and Yoko?
All wrapped in brown kraft paper at the record store with little cutouts
for their faces,
and which even then I thought would one day be a collector's item,
though I didn't act
on the impulse, of course.

One more comes to mind right off, which is the Beatles now-infamous
original cover of
their album "Yesterday and Today" which featured the Beatles in butcher
smocks, smiling
broadly with dismembered dolls and slabs of meat.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dbeatles%2Bbutcher%2Balbum&w=159&h=160&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dbeatles%2Bbutcher%2Balbum%23focal%3D680d02ed4240f9760e6d4f1a9ffd6f16%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.beatlecollector.co.uk%252fbutcher.jpg&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dbeatles%2Bbutcher%2Balbum%23focal%3D680d02ed4240f9760e6d4f1a9ffd6f16%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.beatlecollector.co.uk%252fbutcher.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dbeatles%2Bbutcher%2Balbum%23focal%3D680d02ed4240f9760e6d4f1a9ffd6f16%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.beatlecollector.co.uk%252fbutcher.jpg&p=beatles+butcher+album&type=&no=1&tt=115&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fim
 ages%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D1357777082662%26id%3D9d366ce9cc26ff4d3d375c9c747b5461&tit=The+Beatles+Butcher+Album.+3rd.+State.&sigr=14qbc25ns&sigi=14jpagai3&sigb=11vtgae7m&fr=fptb-dyc-s

It might be easier just to Google "Beatles butcher cover" and take a
peek for yourself. The
uproar caused by this particular album cover was so universal and the
condemnation so
widespread that it was immediately withdrawn from record stores and
replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Beatles_-_Butcher_Cover.jpg

Tom

________________________________
From: Bertrand CHAUMELLE <chaumelle at orange.fr>
To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [78-L] politically incorrect record art

The handcuffs are just a metaphor because they're heart-shaped. Nothing 
controversial about that, imho !

BC
Le 29 nov. 11, à 21:42, DAVID BURNHAM a écrit :

> I think the most controversial art I've seen is on the Vogue Picture 
> Record, "You took Advantage of Me";  the picture shows a girl in 
> handcuffs with a guy swinging a key ring.  I tried to find a picture 
> of it on line but wasn't successful.
>
> db
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>

_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l