Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
12.55am
23 November 2011
Offline
Hello, I've searched for the answer to this question on the internet without any luck. When Klaus did the cover art for Revolver he said he had to take out one photo. Which Beatle did the photo show, and why did he have to remove it from the album cover?
4.11pm
31 March 2008
Offline
It was of Paul sitting on a toilet. IIRC Epstein didn't like the idea of it appearing on a Beatles album cover.
8.36pm
23 November 2011
Offline
Really?
The picture that comes to my mind is of Paul in France, sitting on a toilet fully clothed with newspaper in hand and bowler hat tipped to the side.
7.42pm
31 March 2008
Offline
From Robert Rodriguez's book Revolver (which I recommend):
Klaus brought the finished art over to George Martin's office at EMI in Manchester Square. Without ceremony, he set it up atop a file cabinet for the unveiling before Martin, Epstein, the four Beatles, and a secretary. There was momentary silence as they took it all in, a heavy void that only served to stir Klaus's nervousness with every passing second. It was finally broken by Paul. "Hey! That's me sitting on a toilet!" Everyone gathered closer to peer at what he'd spotted. He was right; there he was, in a photo taken in Hamburg. George Martin tsk-tsked and said, "Well, we can't have that." "No, it's great," Paul protested. (Suffice to say, the offending image was removed.)
Possibly it was this one (though he's fully clothed, so it's minimally offensive):
8.12pm
8 November 2012
Offline
^^ That's definitely Paris, not Hamburg. But possibly the same offending photo of the story (and thanks for the book rec).
*waves at jonesingjay*
parlance
9.11pm
1 December 2009
Offline
That's not offensive! (At least not as offensive as it could've been.)
But I know the Mamas And the Papas put a photo of a toilet on the cover of their 1966 debut album (with themselves all crammed into the bathtub opposite), and apparently a lot of retailers rejected the cover. And so it was altered. Toilets were obviously a no-no on album covers back then.
9.47pm
1 May 2011
Offline
Maybe it was a connected theme thing. What do you associate a toilet with? Do you want that attached to your album? A far cry indeed but there is a link. And Brian did want to present a clean image and with the whole Butcher cover in the US maybe he just didnt want any hassles for his boys.
9.57pm
17 December 2012
Offline
Should be noted that the "Butcher" shot had already been used in a British press campaign for a single. Can't remember which off the top of my head. Maybe "Day Tripper". Like so many Beatles things in '65/'66, reactions changed when they crossed the Atlantic.
10.39pm
1 December 2009
Offline
I wonder where exactly the toilet photo would've fit in on the Revolver collage?
Possibly it's place was taken by George in the cowboy outfit, and that's the reason that photo (originally from the back cover of Rubber Soul ) was recycled?
11.42pm
1 May 2011
Offline
The Butcher cover was used for promoting the Uk Paperback Writer single – the pics i could find arent the best quality but i presume its the right one. It went pretty much unnoticed when issued, same as Johns interview with Maureen Cleeve that led to the 'Bigger Than Jesus' mayhem in the US when taken out of context.
Maybe one day we will get the original outtake Revolver pic as its probably in the Apple archive somewhere or Klaus has a print in his collection – afterall i doubt many were expecting the uncropped unaltered Rubber Soul pic to hit the web.
Makes me wonder what Brian would have thought of a naked Paul on the White Album montage and whether or not the Beatles would have overruled him. But then you are entering the whole world of what ifs as everything would have been different.
12.07am
17 December 2012
Offline
That's the one I was referring to. Saw it in a discography book back in the '80s. The Long and Winding Road. Can't remember who it was by. Just knew it was '65 or '66. And your other reference was my other reference. The "Bigger Than Rod" controversy. A lot of fans burnt their albums. A lot more fans burnt their fingers trying to burn their albums.
12.15am
1 May 2011
Offline
Made the Beatles money those burning bonfires as fans/people would go out and buy copies of their LP's and singles to burn or replace those they had burned. I do like Ringo laughing at that in the Anthology. Seems like stupidity to me doing that – being so disgusted about what they said going to buy their records to burn them or realising after the fact that they couldnt now listen to the music so go and buy it again.
12.31am
17 December 2012
Offline
What I loved was that the radio station that started all that "Beatles bonfires" nonsense, because "The Beatles are against God", were hit by lightning a couple of days after their bonfire. Bit like the Pope resigning and the Vatican getting hit. Wait. Hang on a minute. I'm an atheist. It's just a coincidence. It's just a coincidence. It's just a coincidence…
12.52am
1 May 2011
Offline
I remember a sudden lose of power hit when Brian was giving a statement on the matter on a radio station, amazingly the power came back as soon as Brian was done. what were the odds?
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: unknown, Gerell
3 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3438
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1540
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1378
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1685
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2400
Posts: 73467
Newest Members: BrettB, Ralphrennick, fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
