The butcher cover | Page 2 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

The Hippie Chick said
Not to mention the decapitated dolly on Paul’s shoulder, and he’s covering up his teeth with his lips as he smiles…

Off track. Sorry. LOL!!!

Back on the actual subject, I think my mom has a second state butcher. I have been afraid to check it though because I don’t want to wreck it. Is there a definitive way of telling if this is indeed a second state (“trunk” cover pasted on) ?

A former co-worker had a copy of both. On his copy of the pasted on trunk cover, you could actually see the butcher cover underneath. It was very faint, but you could see it. Probably due to age?

LoveUlikeGuitars said

I hope this is on topic, but was the butcher cover a larger signal in saying they didn’t really want to be seen as these cute little cuddly mop-tops anymore, given that Dylan said that he looked at the cover and said, “I get it. You don’t want to be seen as cute anymore.” ??

LoveUlikeGuitars said
http://www.neatorama.com/2012/…..bum-Cover/

I agree it’s mainly speculation, but I don’t think it’s way off. One could argue that they were trying to shake off the cute image with the Playboy interview.

That could be part of it, but my understanding is the cover was meant to be a protest over Capitol’s butchering of The Beatles’ UK albums to this point. The article was correct in regard to their 6 UK albums being hacked up and reassembled into 9 Capitol albums. I do not doubt that Brian was told by the band to tell Capitol that the cover was a protest of sorts over the war. They would have been fools to tell Capitol that the cover was a protest against them. That would have meant the cover would never be released at all.

Just as you cautioned, my thoughts contain speculation as well. It is fun to talk about.

Necko said

About eleven or twelve years ago, my aunt gave me what was left of her record collection. I pulled out her copy of Yesterday And Today. She said to me “don’t bother checking whether it’s a butcher cover. Trust me. I’ve already done it.” Sure enough, there was a part on the top left corner of the record where someone had clearly tried to take the cover off using their fingernails. 

If you still have it, that cover would be priceless in regard to remembering a beloved family member. Too cool. According to the last paragraph of Joe’s article on the album’s release, your aunt wasn’t the only one with a heightened sense of curiosity.
 

I do recall that, mmm. However, I do not recall the source or who said it. Any ideas?

@Zig said
I do recall that, mmm. However, I do not recall the source or who said it. Any ideas?

No idea who it was first put up the theory, @Zig. It would have been sometime in the ’70s, and probably a journalist. By the time I started reading books in the ’80s, the myth was common currency. There was no explanation (oops! Forgot I was writing this! Been off doing all sorts of other things. Even been down the shop before they shut at nine thirty. Sorry!) given for the picture at the time (sorry, had to pause again. Just back from the shop and feel like a puff, so had to roll one, filthy habit. Don’t do as I do, just say no.) and so ’70s writers came up with theories, and among which it being a comment on what Capitol were doing to their albums or a statement about the Vietnam war were two of the most popular.

These two myths spread as lore through multiple ’80s books and documentaries, with occasional help from Paul on the Vietnam version, until Bob Whitaker finally described his vision for a tri… (again, apologies. Just had to pop to @Joe’s page on the photo session, because I can see the word, but I just can’t spell it! I knew Joe was bound to have it.) triptych that didn’t come off.

Once Whitaker explained what the hell it was he was trying to do, those theories created purely to plug the hole were quickly abandoned.

Thanks, RN!