The Dwarves
Blood Guts and ■■■■■
[URL=http://imgbox.com/dH9A0mfH]
[/URL]
IMHO the best album cover of all time, without any doubt is:Up till then, there really was no such thing as cover art - covers just had some photo of the band/singer.It was revolutionary.What other band could afford not to have their own name on the cover?Who else would have the chutzpah to feature on their album cover the only group who could claim to rival them?Having their own "Fab Four" images - with which they became world famous - in B&W looking on also emphasises the quantum leap that this album made. Before the Beatles, popular music was indeed monochrome. They gave that generation and those to come the license to be inventive.Quite simply, if not for the Beatles, the modern world would not be as it is.
One other thing: it also wasn't true.
1965:
No need to make **** up, they happily stand on their own 2 feet.
They certainly popularised that (bloody!) psychedelic aesthetic, which went on to be used on Stones, The Who, Jeff Beck (I want to say the Kinks?) etc, and of course the whole basis of Hendrix' aesthetic, along with Zappa and others. They could of course have popularised just about anything they put on their covers, could've been a tattered plastic bag and that would've gone big.
But they did not invent images on covers, or colour images, or even psychedelic colour images. See above.
Yeah, true, very much an expression of the times, (at the same time, Pepper's was its own unique embodiment of those times). I'd add Cream to that list. I like the Velvet Underground one a lot, even though I'm not a huge fan of the band. Same with the Joy Division one someone posted.
As I said above, that sometimes overdone garish psychedelic imagery was part of the reason the Beatles next album was the complete opposite. Plain white.
As I said above, that sometimes overdone garish psychedelic imagery was part of the reason the Beatles next album was the complete opposite. Plain white.
Yep.
It was very very big, and some did it better than others, but I don't think any of it's aged well at all.
By and large it looks like pasty white kids trying to capture a bunch of new-age woodstock spirituality.
I wonder if the Beatles' reaction (white) was more about 'that looks crap' or just a "let's do something else" ?
Soon after, Stones went back the other direction as well and went a bit grungey / raunchy. That was a thing in itself, had anyone else focussed on the pants area?
Great LP cover, wouldn't work with a CD.
I reckon metal bands doing "SKULLS AND BLOOD IN FLAMMMEESSS" is the equivalent of the psychedelia craze in the late 60s btw.
■■■■■.
The two most memorable for me:
3 Likes
Both great for different reasons.
Surely this deserves a mention in this thread:
Whatever, that album marked a watershed in popular culture.
unless one directions on there somewhere.
is that one of them under the fern
It was the idea that people were gathered to hear the fictional band Sgt. Peppers. All the faces are significant popular figures the Beatles found influential or fascinating. Lennon wanted to put Hitler in there, but it was vetoed by EMI, for obvious reasons.
There was originally a figure beside Edgar Allan Poe at the back that was removed because they threaded to sue.
Also, well before the days of photoshop, etc. this whole scene was actually set up with life sized cut outs, the Beatles posed in front of it. Have a book with photos of the process.
jesus got the ■■■■ too - lennon may have kyboshed that one.
*sigh* Well I thought it was funny.
3 Likes
1 Like
