Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

LWTL is sh*t...i like mind games

[strawb3rryfi3ldsfor3ver]

They had the best excuse for being naked. I totally forget the quote, but John and Yoko looked over the photos and picked one of the worst, least flattering ... I don't know what they said, but it's pretty cool that they did that. ^^;

x.x Not fun seeing Yoko nekkid, but I have to admit that I don't mind John's nudity. >.>

Its a toss up between 'Life With the Lions' and 'Sometime In NYC'. The post-miscarriage picture vs. a woman getting sliced in half for the 'Woman is the...' graphic, though I have to say, Nixon and Chairman Mao do a mean nude Watusi.

[raxo]

Imagine... not very imaginative

[wingsman]

The worst? Menlove Ave.

[Pasta Cheif]

Two Virgins. haha

[Andy Smith]

Unfinished Music Vol 2: Life With The Lions

[wingsman]

Yeah. That picture is from when Yoko lost her baby right?

[Andy Smith]

Yeah. That picture is from when Yoko lost her baby right?

I think so, & it's where John slept on the floor as they didn't have a bed!

[JimmyMcCullochFan]

Two Virgins.

[BlueMeanie]

The thread title should have been - What is the only decent album cover of John's? For someone of his standing more effort could have been put into his sleeves. Walls And Bridges is a nice cover. Take your pick from the rest as worst.

[sewi]

I don't like Double Fantasy's.

[BlueMeanie]

I don't like Double Fantasy's.

And therefore Milk and Honey also? Contrast them with McCartney's covers of the time; Ram, Red Rose Speedway, and Band On The Run which has become one of the most famous covers of all time. Georges weren't up to much either, apart from the first two.

[Kevin]

I think most album art is quite appalling. Check out the standard next time you're trawling through the charity shops. Good album art seems to be the exception, not the rule. I would call John's at worst okay - these nothing that leaps out as bad, but nothing that stands out as extra good.  

[BlueMeanie]

I think most album art is quite appalling. Check out the standard next time you're trawling through the charity shops. Good album art seems to be the exception, not the rule. I would call John's at worst okay - these nothing that leaps out as bad, but nothing that stands out as extra good.  

Making something that is timeless is accidental. Some album covers have become that, and not necessarily famous one's. But generally graphic design goes in trends. 80's album sleeves look awful today, but at the time they were thought quite innovative. I suppose Lennon's aren't bad, just a bit dull.

[Kevin]

The NZ cover for Beatles For Sale. Someone in marketting thought it best to stick with the  Beatlemania image. Appalling.

[BlueMeanie]

It beggars belief sometimes, what some people will do. You would have thought that The Beatles would have more control over things like that. Is this something Epstein should have been doing? But then, maybe the marketing men in NZ new that that cover would sell better than the original? Trends in cover desing in one country don't necessarily translate to another.

[Kevin]

I've just read that the cover originated in Australia. They probably found a cover of 4 depressed tired looking lads a bit bemusing. Irony was probably beyond us colonials in those days, and why screw with a winning formula.
It gives us a nice little look at how Beatle history might have been if they had been in less secure hands in the UK. That album has  a band heading for a Gerry and The Pacemakers future stamped all over it.
Again, attracting Robert Freeman is as a big a stroke of luck as getting Martin. But then its not luck, because Freeman sought them out. Good on Eppy for accepting him - he was the one who saw the potential. A less "arty" manager might not have worried about such (in those days) trivial things like album covers.
Or is it the art college background of the band?

[BlueMeanie]

But could Epstein have insisted on them using the original? And come to think of it, could he have wielded any power with Capitol over their covers, and titing about with the track listings?

[Kevin]

But could Epstein have insisted on them using the original? And come to think of it, could he have wielded any power with Capitol over their covers, and titing about with the track listings?

These been another thread about this. Aparently they had zero control over foreign products. They could be messed with as the locals liked. You must have heard the Hey Jude album (great cover by the way.)
From Wiki: "Cover of the original 1964 Australian LP, released during the 1964 Australian tour. John Lennon complained to EMI Australia at a meeting about the changes, but the cover remained the same until the albums released on compact disc in 1988." That's wrong? They toured Oz in June and BFS came out in December??