DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Albums => Topic started by: aspinall_lover on June 21, 2008, 09:01:30 PM
-
Any of you out there own a "Butcher Cover" album of the Beatles' 1966 US release, "Yesterday and Today"???? Either original or the "peeled" version????
The guy at the local used record store has a "peeled" one that is in awesome condition. I think it's worth a couple grand. Back in the late 1980's, I went one weekend to Austin, Texas to the huge record show they hold down there twice a year. I saw an original, "still SEALED" butcher cover and the dealer was wanting 25 THOUSAND dollars for it. Amazing...............let's hear your thoughts..........
-
25 big ones! ??)
-
There's one available on ebay right now with a starting bid of of $15,000. Let me know how it goes. ;D
http://cgi.ebay.com/Beatles-Yesterday-and-Today_W0QQitemZ140242059523QQihZ004QQcategoryZ306QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
-
You think I'm gonna BID on that???? I'll keep an eye on it on ebay. I have more better things to do with my money..............I've spent a small fortune on the Beatles Monthlys magazines to have the complete set........
-
Yes as much as I love The Beatles, I just do not have that kind of money for something like that!
-
As for that person selling that on ebay....If I had it, I would never sell it! It said that her or his father had bought it from Sears in the 60's. I would keep it!!!
-
You got that right, Heather. I would NEVER,EVER,EVER sell that album if I had it. Even if I had an aunt back in "the day" who bought a couple of copies of it........NO FRICKIN' WAY I would sell it!!!!
-
Seriously. No matter how much I needed money either (unless someone's life depended on it). Money isn't everything. Something like that you keep and pass on.
-
Somehow it is sad that Beatles memorabilia has become the subject of large investments and big businessrather than being the subject of collecting fans.
-
maybe the person selling it isn't a beatles fan?
btw, i'd sell it.
-
I've always been more interested in the music itself rather than memorabilia; it's when a bootleg of new material comes out that I show up. As for Yesterday...and Today, I make do with a Millenium Remasters transfer and a "butcher cover" insert.
-
As for Yesterday...and Today, I make do with a Millenium Remasters transfer and a "butcher cover" insert.
I agree. Though that being said, I've always secretly hoped that I'd go to a flea market/garage sale/used record store and get a butcher cover for five dollars! Never hurts to dream!
-
As for that person selling that on ebay....If I had it, I would never sell it! It said that her or his father had bought it from Sears in the 60's. I would keep it!!!
I'm not into the collecting thing either. If you had an album worth $15,000 you'd have to keep it locked away, secure, and under the right temperature conditions. So what's the point? As an investment, yes. For any other reason it's a waste of time.
-
You know, on another thought, I don't think I'd want something like that in my collection. Too valuable and what would you do with it???? You couldn't display it for fear it would get stolen. I'll just stick to my collection of Beatle Book Monthlys.
-
I've always secretly hoped that I'd go to a flea market/garage sale/used record store and get a butcher cover for five dollars! Never hurts to dream!
Absolutely; and in fact I found copies of things like Get Back, Sweet Apple Trax, and The Decca Tapes by rooting through the used LP sections of Toronto record stores. Of course I had to rummage past copy after copy of the red and blue albums and Abbey Road to find them, though. I got a copy of The Decca Tapes for a dollar or so from a shop on Queen Street because the guy who ran it didn't know what it was and thought that his dozen or so used copies of the red and blue albums were all worth more!
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/deccatapes.jpg)
-
Okay, here's an ethics question for you guys: If you went to a garage sale and an old granny was selling The Butcher Cover for a pittance, would you buy it knowing that it's worth thousands of dollars and thereby cheat the old lady out of what is rightfully hers or would you tell her what she had in her possession so she could better decide what to do with it? Keep in mind that the old granny could be having this garage sale because she needs the money. Hmm, what to do?
:X
-
Lucky you Geoff. There's only two used record stores here in town and the one I always go to..........the dude collects Beatles stuff too. He's the one I mentioned earlier that has a near mint "peeled" cover of the Butcher cover.
-
Okay, here's an ethics question for you guys: If you went to a garage sale and an old granny was selling The Butcher Cover for a pittance, would you buy it knowing that it's worth thousands of dollars and thereby cheat the old lady out of what is rightfully hers or would you tell her what she had in her possession so she could better decide what to do with it? Keep in mind that the old granny could be having this garage sale because she needs the money. Hmm, what to do?
:X
^^^^^^Tuff one Sandra............I got to think on this one.............
-
Okay, here's an ethics question for you guys: If you went to a garage sale and an old granny was selling The Butcher Cover for a pittance, would you buy it knowing that it's worth thousands of dollars and thereby cheat the old lady out of what is rightfully hers or would you tell her what she had in her possession so she could better decide what to do with it? Keep in mind that the old granny could be having this garage sale because she needs the money. Hmm, what to do?
:X
Give her $100 and she'll be happy!
-
Okay, here's an ethics question for you guys
I wouldn't be thinking about ethics, I'd be thinking about retiring. My conscience just might kick in after I'd been living on my private island for six months or so.
(wave1)
-
Poor old lady! I'm gonna go for the obvious Lennon lyric quote now:
Instant karmas gonna get you
Gonna knock you off your feet
Better recognize your brothers
Everyone you meet!
BTW, I'd probably do the same. Only I wouldn't want to sell it so really, she'd be getting a bargain. But then if I wasn't planning on selling it for profit, would I then be justified in my purchase? Again, hmmm...
-
You could always give her $1 for it, then befriend her for the rest of her life. You know, fetch the groceries, clean the house, bed baths etc. :-/
-
Poor old lady!
I'd buy her a house. Not on my island, though.
-
I would have to tell her... There is no way I could sleep at night knowing I cheated an old lady out of money like that. HOWEVER, if I saw it at a store and the people selling it didn't know what it was worth (I would have to assume that would be the case), i am sad to say but I think I would just not say anything :o Yes I know I am a horrible person!!!!
-
I would have to tell her... There is no way I could sleep at night knowing I cheated an old lady out of money like that. HOWEVER, if I saw it at a store and the people selling it didn't know what it was worth (I would have to assume that would be the case), i am sad to say but I think I would just not say anything :o Yes I know I am a horrible person!!!!
^^^^^^^^No, Heather. You are not horrible. If the little old lady was really in need, and I do check around at places and garage sales just to see "what's up"............if she was selling her stuff to pay bills and expensive meds, which I know alot of the "seniors" have, I would call her aside, and tell her what this album is and it's possible worth. Then I would have it appraised for her and if it's worth "thousands and thousands", I would ask her if she would like me to sell it for her on ebay. And I would do that..............even if the album brought over 25 grand. I have a soul and feelings for the elderly, especially the ones in need. I am a good "Samaritan". All I'd ask is a couple of hundred bucks from the sale.....kind of a "finder's fee", and that's it. Now................on the other hand..............if an "idiot" had it at "bargain basement" near to nothing price in a collector's store/record store, whatever....and he/she didn't know WHAT they had, I'd pay the buck or two for it and laugh all the way out the door!!!!! I did JUST THAT in Dallas, TX, back in the late 80's when I bought an ultra rare Pink Floyd set for a small "fraction" of the price.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^On a footnote..............the Pink Floyd set was a 12 multi-colored vinyl set of "boots and outtakes" and was selling in Goldmine for $350+.............I got it for only $50!!!! I think they marked it wrong, because my girlfriend with me was just about "dragging" me out the door so they wouldn't catch on................
-
^^^^ Thanks! I don't feel as bad! I do have a soft spot for the elderly also. In this day and age, people just don't have the same amount of respect for elders anymore. And the economy the way it is, it is very hard for many of them to make it and still live comfortable.
But as for businesses, for some reason, I just don't feel as bad for them. I don't know why. Maybe because half the time most of them are ripping you off anyways (this goes more towards the bigger corporations, not the mom & pop shops).
-
my girlfriend with me was just about "dragging" me out the door so they wouldn't catch on................
Exactly: I remember driving up Yonge Street with that copy of The Decca Tapes I mentioned above, still cackling about it when I got to my turnoff at St. Clair Avenue.
-
Exactly Heather. You and me are on the same "wave length". I hate to see seniors get ripped off by all the drug companies and charge just too incredibly outragous prices on drugs. My dad is ex-military and has the best insurance on the face of the earth for him and my mom. 100% hospital stays and surgeries paid for and the majority of his meds are free. But some are not as lucky as they are. Dad had open-heart surgery in November, '06, stayed in the hospital for 5 weeks. His insurance paid for it all.
Now...............back to the original subject.......................
Store owners want to rip you off. So I don't mind "ripping" them off..............
-
I've always been more interested in the music itself rather than memorabilia; it's when a bootleg of new material comes out that I show up.
yep, that sounds like me! i do own memorabillia, but it has always been given to me by people.
i'm just really hooked on Beatles Bootlegs and rare films. it is the music after all that started me
off off. :)
-
I adore the music, too. But the only memorabilla I collect is the Beatle Book Monthlys, the official fan mag of the Boys. And I've got all of them, so I'm pretty darn happy. But I like my rare Beatles videoes, too.
-
yep, that sounds like me! i do own memorabillia, but it has always been given to me by people.
i'm just really hooked on Beatles Bootlegs and rare films. it is the music after all that started me
off off. :)
I should probably admit that I'm even more obsessive about bootlegs than other collectors are about memorabilia; when you find yourself thinking that there's some merit in replacing your 76 disc Day By Day set with the 83 disc A / B Road series because it's got an extra seven discs of Get Back material, it's probably time to fit yourself out with a straitjacket and throw yourself over the fence of the nearest asylum. ;D
-
I should probably admit that I'm even more obsessive about bootlegs than other collectors are about memorabilia; when you find yourself thinking that there's some merit in replacing your 76 disc Day By Day set with the 83 disc A / B Road series because it's got an extra seven discs of Get Back material, it's probably time to fit yourself out with a straitjacket and throw yourself over the fence of the nearest asylum. ;D
I've done the same thing (I don't have the 76 disc Day By Day set, but I do have the A/B Road set). You'll get a one way ticket to the asylum only if you listen to all 83 discs at once! :)
-
I should probably admit that I'm even more obsessive about bootlegs than other collectors are about memorabilia; when you find yourself thinking that there's some merit in replacing your 76 disc Day By Day set with the 83 disc A / B Road series because it's got an extra seven discs of Get Back material, it's probably time to fit yourself out with a straitjacket and throw yourself over the fence of the nearest asylum. ;D
Don't do that, I'll just open the gates for you from the inside! They put me away after I spent months searching for Rory Storm & The Hurricanes recordings!
-
Oh man............you two have got it bad!!!!
-
I've got a sticker on my guitar case with the butcher cover photo on, doesn't really count does it? But it's about as close as I'm gonna get! (crosseyed3)
-
They put me away after I spent months searching for Rory Storm & The Hurricanes recordings!
That one blew me away: I had no idea such a thing existed. :)
-
That one blew me away: I had no idea such a thing existed. :)
Check the bootleg forum:
http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/v-post/b-bootlegs_related/m-/post-1/
-
They put me away after I spent months searching for Rory Storm & The Hurricanes recordings!
All you had to do was ask.
-
All you had to do was ask.
Actually I was joking. It was you that originally provided it it. :)
-
I thought I remembered that!
-
Check the bootleg forum:
[url]http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/v-post/b-bootlegs_related/m-/post-1/[/url]
Sorry; bad wording on my part: I meant that I was surprised when it turned up on your blog. But thanks again to both of you for making that available. :)
-
it's probably time to fit yourself out with a straitjacket and throw yourself over the fence of the nearest asylum. ;D
;D i guess we're just obssesed!
-
;D i guess we're just obssesed!
I once had a dream about falling over dead from a heart attack and waking up in the EMI tape vault instead of heaven. ;D
-
^^^^^^^^That is SO BAD Geoff!!!!! The EMI tape vault is more "heaven" than heaven???
-
^^^^^^^^That is SO BAD Geoff!!!!! The EMI tape vault is more "heaven" than heaven???
Well... I made that up actually; my real dreams usually make even less sense than that.
(bigeyes1)
-
Off the subject..............I always dream of my parents yelling and screaming at me and I wake up in a cold sweat....................
-
I once had a dream about falling over dead from a heart attack and waking up in the EMI tape vault instead of heaven. ;D
proves my point then ;D
-
FYI..........I think I've beat all of you...........I've already seen a "shrink" years ago about my "obsessive/compulsive" behavour I have...............ummmmmm..........Greg Lake????
-
I think it's funny!
-
Any of you out there own a "Butcher Cover" album of the Beatles' 1966 US release, "Yesterday and Today"???? Either original or the "peeled" version????
The guy at the local used record store has a "peeled" one that is in awesome condition. I think it's worth a couple grand. Back in the late 1980's, I went one weekend to Austin, Texas to the huge record show they hold down there twice a year. I saw an original, "still SEALED" butcher cover and the dealer was wanting 25 THOUSAND dollars for it. Amazing...............let's hear your thoughts..........
I realize this is an old thread, but I had to comment. The last time I checked (May, 2012) peeled copies were going for between $300 - $1,200. I can imagine an original still in shrink wrap would be worth far more. But then I read that some Capitol Record "suit" flooded the market with originals found in a warehouse somewhere and that brought the asking price down.
-
Excuse me if I am reposting a previously threaded topic, but I haven't found it elsewhere.
I once got into a bit of a heated exchange on the alt.beatles board years ago. Can anybody back me up or set me straight on this:
I know the photo session where the Beatles posed for the butcher photos had nothing to do with the "Yesterday and Today" cover. I am familiar with it being a part of "A Somnambulant Adventure" conceptual art piece by photographer Robert Whitaker. No argument there.
But when the time came for "Yesterday and Today" to be prepared for release, someone needed to send Capitol Records a picture for the cover. But who? I do not believe the Beatles were in a power position to select the photo themselves without the approval of others. But I DO believe it was their choice originally. Someone in EMI had to go along with it. But why?
John said the photo was as "relevant as the Vietnam War" and Alan Livingston, then President of Capitol Records, said that Paul told him it was their comment on the war itself.
I find it hard to believe that EMI would want to involve itself in a political protest by the Beatles against an American war, in the year 1966, when the war was still supported by a majority of U.S. citizens.
Even though EMI was the parent company of Capitol Records, Capitol still had autonomy when it came to the U.S. market.
My opinion is that it was mainly a comment by EMI about Capitol's continued "butchering" of Beatle albums in the U.S., regardless of what the Beatles' intention happened to be.
My speculation: Did EMI think that Capitol Records would REALLY use that picture? Is it possible that EMI thought Capitol Records would say, "You've got to be kidding?" and insist on another picture?
In any case, that WAS the last time Capitol butchered a new release by the Fabs. So maybe the point was well taken.
So what's the most recent "official" account of the butcher cover story?
-
there is nothing to say. it does appear to be a strong anti-war statement from the beatles.
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8899/beatles5a.jpg)
-
Yeah, if they wanted to make a comment on "butchering" albums, then why use the dolls babies heads?
They could have used the butcher coats and the meat and that would be that.
It would still have been an odd photo for an album cover, but I don't think it would have caused the same level of fuss.
But I think it's the dolls heads that takes the picture beyond what would be acceptable for a record company to use as a sleeve. I'm always very surprised that the picture even made it out of Whitaker's studio, never mind into an EMI UK magazine advert and also onto a Capitol album sleeve.
-
I had always heard that they considered the albums their "babies" and disliked Capitol chopping them up. If so they probably didn't figure on it being printed but used it to make their point. IMO
-
I had always heard that they considered the albums their "babies" and disliked Capitol chopping them up. If so they probably didn't figure on it being printed but used it to make their point. IMO
I agree.
A few other thoughts:
John has been quoted as saying the the cover was as relevant as the Vietnam War. I believe he said it, but when did he say it? Was that his opinion at the time or did he say that in hindsight? Anybody know the source of that quote? John's memory was often suspect. In one interview, he said that "Eight Days A Week" was an attempt to write a song for the new movie, "Help". Was he thinking of "Eight Arms To Hold You", the original title of the film? Paul says that "Eight Days A Week" was inspired by his limo driver.
The Beatles had nothing to do with the photo shoot by Robert Whitaker, other than being photographed. It was his concept and, according to him, had nothing to do with Vietnam. The meat and baby doll parts were his idea, not theirs. The Beatles, especially John, agreed to go along with it because it was a welcomed break from the usual photo shoots they suffered through, plus the conceptual aspect (which appealed to John).
George has been quoted as saying, in retrospect, that he thought the whole thing was "gross".
Ringo Starr: "It was a commentary on how Capitol Records “butchered” our original albums." This quote appears here and there on the Internet. What's the original source? Was it in the "Anthology" transcript (not included in the documentary)?
I don't believe the Beatles had any message in mind when they sat for the photo. Whitaker had his own message/concept. Someone at EMI gave their approval before shipping the image off to Capitol, with or without the Beatles' consent, but even if they had chosen that shot, who at EMI would have approved it? I think it must have been someone in a position of authority who was frustrated with the way Capitol Records had treated the Beatles since 1963. I can't help believe that as conservative as EMI was at that time, it was an "extreme" measure to take, with an ulterior motive that had nothing to do with Vietnam.
We can rule out George Martin, who in 1965, become an independent producer, contracted by the Beatles and no longer employed by EMI. Did he give tacit approval? Quite likely, especially since he was among those who had done battle with Capitol from the beginning.
And again, please note that "Yesterday and Today" was the last "butchered" album Capitol released. Why? Did Capitol finally see the light and decide to stop the butchering practice? Or did they get the "message"?
-
And again, please note that "Yesterday and Today" was the last "butchered" album Capitol released. Why? Did Capitol finally see the light and decide to stop the butchering practice? Or did they get the "message"?
Revolver came out later and the US version was "butchered" (but there was obviously no choice as by then Revolver tracks had already been "stolen" to include on Y&T).
It would have been very difficult for Capitol to "butcher" the album after Revolver - Sgt Pepper - because it was put together as something of a concept piece, and the track listing and running order were crucial to its overall feel.
But remember that Capitol went on to disregard the UK output once again after that by rehashing a few old singles to include on MMT rather than releasing it in the same format as the UK (in this case they actually improved on the UK release, but that's not the point - they still tinkered with the UK version and attempted to get more cash out of fans by re-selling product that had already been released on singles rather than releasing the double-EP set at a slightly lower price).
And let's not forget the Hey Jude compilation, which was another US-only release to fill a gap between Abbey Road and Let It Be.
So the "butchering" did continue after Yesterday and Today.
Actually one area where the US did fall in line with the UK output after mid-1966 was with the singles - after the February 1966 release of Nowhere Man/What Goes On (which didn't appear as a single in the UK), all the US singles matched the UK ones until after the break-up when Capitol put out Long And Winding Road.
But, away from whether or not Capitol actually got the message and stopped the "butchering" or not, you do ask a very good question on who actually made the decision to choose the photo as the cover for the Y&T album? Would Epstein have been involved? I assume he would have been since he was still in a strong enough position to dictate about Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane being put out as a single rather than being held back for the Sgt Pepper LP. Something important like an LP cover design would surely have had to have gone through Epstein first - even if it was for "butchered" product in the US.
Or maybe the decision wasn't even made in the UK - maybe the UK people just sent over all the latest promo photos and someone in the US chose that particular image.
With regard to the actual butcher cover picture, I assume Whitaker himself couldn't give a hoot about Capitol's "butchered" product, so he must have had another reason for setting up that shoot the way he did. In fact, when the shoot was done it wasn't specifically for the US album cover - it was first used in a UK print advert for the Paperback Writer single. So perhaps Whitaker was indeed making a comment on Vietnam, or perhaps it was just an attempt to shock, with no political overtones at all. Has Whitaker ever explained it since then?
-
Here's a cool page with a few alternate shots taken from the same photo shoot ...
http://www.feelnumb.com/2012/03/23/the-beatles-infamous-butcher-cover-photo-session-and-alternate-shots/ (http://www.feelnumb.com/2012/03/23/the-beatles-infamous-butcher-cover-photo-session-and-alternate-shots/)
Interesting to see the ones without the butcher's white coats, where they are just playing with broken doll parts, and also the butcher ones with no doll parts in them. Perhaps these were two separate ideas and they were combined on a whim, just using the stuff Whitaker had in the studio that day.
And the "A Somnambulant Adventure" name for the whole shoot - is it meant to represent The Beatles in a sleep-walking, dream-like state?
-
Just found this page ... https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/robert-whitaker-1939-2011/ (https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/robert-whitaker-1939-2011/)
which includes the following text as part of an obituary of Robert Whitaker ....
"In three short years he covered the band, from 1964 to 1966, he complied a remarkable dossier, shooting the band at home, in recording studio, during private moments and in formal photo-sessions, often involving unusual props. In one session, he had the group holding a car spring, a sun parasol, a broom, and an umbrella to represent spring, summer, autumn and winter. And the Fab Four enjoyed his company and his creative mind, mainly because they were fed up with taking market-friendly publicity pictures.
But the most notorious use of props came in March 1966. Inspired by the German surrealist Hans Bellmer, Whitaker created the infamous butcher cover, which featured the group with slabs of raw meat and the dismembered body parts of children’s dolls. He called it “Somnambulant Adventure” and conceived it as a triptych in which he would present The Beatles as religious icons, adding halos to the picture and referencing the story of Moses and the Israelites worshipping a golden calf. He wanted it to be a cynical commentary on adulation and stardom:
All over the world, I’d watched people worshipping them like idols, like gods. I was trying to show that The Beatles were flesh and blood”.
The photos were used in Britain without controversy, but when they were sent to America to be used at Capitol Records, the distributors refused to handle the record. While it was not the case, the fans viewed the cover as a commentary on Capitol Records’ periodic “butchering” and rearranging of The Beatles records. The retailers denounced the cover as “sick”. The band also was divided; Lennon and McCartney defended the cover, while vegetarian Harrison thought the whole idea was gross and stupid. Still concerned by the commercial backlash following John Lennon’s “bigger than Jesus” comment, Capitol Records withdrew the cover and apologized. The rare original covers went on to become one of the most sought-after Beatles memorabilia.
Whitaker’s association with The Beatles ended soon afterwards. He never had the chance to finish his triptych, but he went on to become a key figure in London’s emerging counterculture, to create Cream’s seminal 1967 album Disraeli Gears, and to take a series of famous pictures of Salvador Dali, his lifelong idol."
So Whitaker was trying to show the Beatles as "flesh and blood" by covering them in ... flesh and blood - interesting. Looks like there was no Vietnam comment underneath the shoot - that was presumably added later by Lennon, or at least picked up by him after it was suggested by someone else.
-
Revolver came out later and the US version was "butchered" (but there was obviously no choice as by then Revolver tracks had already been "stolen" to include on Y&T).
Yes, you are correct. Revolver WAS butchered for the reason you've given. Other Capitol releases (Love Songs, Rock and Roll, Hey Jude, etc.) were compilations, so I didn't count them as part of the usual "butchering". MMT didn't bother me (and probably not the Lads, either) because the U.S. was not a good market for EP's, and there was a demand for the songs from Side B to be released on an album, in stereo, etc.
I agree that Sgt. Pepper would be difficult for Capitol to butcher for "artistic" reasons, but wasn't that the first British album release by the Beatles that did not include more than 12 tracks? For that reason alone, maybe Capitol didn't see the need to butcher it. I seem to remember Capitol claiming that 13-14 tracks on vinyl reduced the sound quality, which I believe is nonsense.
I think Brian Epstein was told on several occasions that he had NO input on the Beatles' recordings, including the packaging. Remember, if it had been up to him, Sgt. Pepper would have been in a plain brown wrapper.
I can see the Beatles providing the photo to EMI for "Yesterday and Today", but someone in EMI must have made an "official" decision, and I don't see EMI sending it to Capitol without some "non-artistic" motive. The crazy thing, to me, is that Capitol actually printed that cover.
-
The crazy thing, to me, is that Capitol actually printed that cover.
;D Totally agree.
Why on earth would they have used such a photo?!?
There must have been other stills to use for an album cover - the Paperback Writer/Rain promo video stills, for example, one of which was used for the UK EP Nowhere Man in July 1966.
-
Has anyone noticed anything odd about the photograph used on the Yesterday...And Today album?
(http://glensvinyl.webs.com/photos/The-Beatles/LP%20472.jpg)
-
Has anyone noticed anything odd about the photograph used on the Yesterday...And Today album?
Er .... Paul is dead? ;D
-
Has anyone noticed anything odd about the photograph used on the Yesterday...And Today album?
Seems to me that they reversed the negative before printing the photo. Unless John parted his hair differently that day.
-
(http://www.rarebeatles.com/album2/picts2/ytpropix.jpg)
-
According to this site ...
http://www.friktech.com/btls/covers.htm (http://www.friktech.com/btls/covers.htm)
... the trunk cover was actually meant to be the original cover and several proof designs were made up.
But then the Beatles saw the butcher photos and chose one of those for the cover instead.
Later, when the butcher covers were recalled, a new trunk cover was hastily assembled.
Interestingly, all known cover designs have the trunk cover reversed. Perhaps it was because the original background of that photo has a light area in the top right (when reversed) which was ideal for placement of the Capitol logo at the top right of the sleeve. Had it not been reversed the photo would have had a darker area up at the top right corner which could have masked the Capitol logo. That's just my speculation, of course. I doubt we'll ever know for sure.
-
Here's a picture of Brian Epstein with another alternate cover for Yesterday and Today - note the different font for the title and the lack of a song listing.
This was presumably taken on 19/20 May 1966 when the band were filming the Paperback Writer/Rain promo videos.
Yesterday and Today wasn't released until 20 June 1966, which proves that the original trunk cover pre-dated the butcher cover.
(http://beatlesblogger.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/brian-epstein-with-yesterday-and-today.jpg?w=500)
-
Er .... Paul is dead? ;D
;)
Nice research on the cover, Peter. Thank you for posting it.
I looked at that cover for the longest time after I bought the LP it when it was released. All their faces looked odd. I finally noticed the buttons on their shirts. They were on the left side, conventional for women's blouses. Then I noticed Paul and John's hair parted differently, as TomMo mentioned. I figured the picture was a mirror image.
It's funny seeing Brian Epstein examining that cover with the reversed picture. I wonder if he noticed.
-
Yes, Peter. Good work. And now we have another indication that "someone" made a hasty decision to send Capitol the butcher photo.
When I first saw the trunk picture, I thought they were wax dummies. Maybe they were stoned, judging the look in their eyes.
-
When I first saw the trunk picture, I thought they were wax dummies.
No, only Paul was a wax dummy as he was dead. ;D
-
No, only Paul was a wax dummy as he was dead. ;D
Yep - and they even put him a "coffin" just to prove it ...
(http://beatle.net/wp-content/uploads/coffin.jpg)
-
Yep - and they even put him a "coffin" just to prove it ...
([url]http://beatle.net/wp-content/uploads/coffin.jpg[/url])
He looks so peaceful.
-
He looks so peaceful.
And only 24 - what a tragic waste .... ;)
-
Does anyone know how many Butcher covers there are in existence today?
-
Does anyone know how many Butcher covers there are in existence today?
I can't seem to find any answer to that question. But I did see this earlier today
Beatles Butcher Covers @ Princeton Record Exchange
http://youtu.be/tbsoqKFiGmA (http://youtu.be/tbsoqKFiGmA)