I read on Wikipedia years ago that American music execs didn't want a cover with a man in a dress. But I thought the U.S. alternative cover was a Photo of Bowie in spiky hair kicking the air.
Personally I think it should be the original cover on BEA. In the dress.
Also loads of AC/DC covers are the wrong ones.
I'm sure others have noticed
The rule on BEA is that the original covers are used. Unlike some other sites, we only have one version of each album...and that version is the original. I know that it sometimes appears wrong, but a lot is done to make sure that the covers are original. Sometimes those originals are far from the popular covers...but if it's original, then on BEA, it's correct.
If you see covers that you believe are wrong, you can question it...you can use the suggestions forum, or you can add a note to the album moderation for someone to look at it.
In the case of this album, it was released in 1970 in the US with the cover shown above. That's the original. The dress cover (the more known one) came out in 1971. The one above is the correct cover because it's the original.
Well well
I just read something slightly different to your interpretation Romanelli.
You are right that the 1970 release with the the cowboy in front of the asylum was the first version to be released and in the U.S. No quibbles there.
Bowie approved of the album cover at the time. His friend designed it. At first he was keen on it.
However what you fail to mention is that Bowie soon changed his mind about the cover and shot the one wearing his man's 'Fish' dress named after British designer Michael Fish. Bowie changed his mind.
In the U.S. Mercury rejected the man dress photo, and released the cowboy cover. But this was against Bowie's wishes at the time. In 1972 he described Weller's cowboy photo as 'horrible'. Although later in 1999 he re-appraised his opinion about it, saying he thought it was 'really cool' which it kinda is, imo.
But Bowie wore the Fish dress to promote the album in the U.S. in 1972, even though Americans didn't know why.
I can see your point when the cowboy cover is the cover you know. But here in the UK the dress cover has always been the one we know. And it was the one Bowie preferred himself. He is the artist after all.
You can certainly bring that point up to albummaster, but it's one of those consistency things...keeping that as a rule means that there isn't chaos in trying to get more popular covers in place over originals...and not everyone is going to agree on those. The butcher cover may have been shocking in the sixties... but I'd be surprised if anyone was offended by it today. And covers can be marked as NSFW. And there are a LOT of covers that can be seen as offensive that don't have any kind of alternates. There are covers here that I wouldn't show to my kids...
There are a lot of offensive covers here on BEA. I had to block a user, block seeing their posts cos of offensive album covers they posted on this forum. It was years ago but I was shocked. One album was by Scorpions and it looked to me like paedophilia. And another showed a picture of a cartoon Pope being led to his execution which I found offensive. Like you say there are some shocking album covers.
So why don't you ban them and find alternative ones?
I am sure the two albums mentioned aren't sold in shops.
And I'm pretty sure BEA doesn't have the original cover of The Jimi Hendrix Experience's Electric Ladyland. They only use the alternative cover now, not the photo of naked women, which I remember being in music shops as a kid.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
NoisyBeast
pedro1976
neilgee
imacgill
CharlieBarley
