[WARNING: This list contains disturbing, graphic, and/or sexual imagery. NSFW!] What is “art”? Over the years there have been many record albums or CDs released with what was deemed to be controversial or offensive cover artwork. Censorship and attempts to define the limits of free speech is a subject worthy of debating, and of course “offensive” imagery is in the eye of the beholder. As such, some of these might seem rather tame by today’s standards, but nonetheless they originally elicited enough controversy, public outcry, or heavy-handed pressure from major retailers, to cause censoring actions. It should be noted that none of these were banned by legal order; these decisions were made purely for commercial reasons.
Criteria for this list is that the cover in question must have been actually printed up and released, and due to an outcry, was either altered or outright banned for later releases. I’m omitting sleeves that were simply covered up with opaque wrapping so as to hide the “offending” artwork, but otherwise are unchanged. John & Yoko’s Two Virgins is an example of this approach, and so does not make my list. Some banned artwork has been resurrected for later re-issues, but as a record collector, it is the scarcity and hence collectable aspect of the original releases that intrigues me. Here are ten of some of the most infamous examples of banned album covers (some of which are highly prized today by collectors). There are however many, many others, so please mention your favorites in the comments.
What better way to kick off this list than with goth-metal band Type O Negative’s album, the title of which plays on Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. Upon first release, the album featured quite a cheeky cover photo. The derriere portrayed in this image is alleged to belong to the band’s lead vocalist Peter Steele. Apparently their label Roadrunner Records had second thoughts soon after release (what a surprise), and later issues of the album were given the more tame “green skeleton” cover, rendering the original an immediate collectable.
As long as we’re delving into the anal theme here (no pun intended), take a look at the cover of Pantera’s “Far Beyond Driven”. This album’s original cover artistically depicts a large drill-bit, um… far beyond driven into a place where the sun don’t shine. I can hear the record company execs now: “Well gee, apparently that crossed some sort of line, so let’s just replace that picture with an image of the drill-bit impaling a skull instead, shall we? Problem solved.”
I guess the horror of exposing a few strands of pubic hair was enough to cause an uproar about The Black Crowes’ original cover photo that was used on their album “Amorica”. Urban legend at the time had it that this was actually a photo of a male model with some strategic “tucking” involved, but in reality the image was first used on the cover of a 1976 issue of Hustler magazine, which makes that seem unlikely to be true. Right? Please say it aint so. The cover photo was later replaced in some markets (namely, the U.S.; ironic given the album title and Stars-n-Stripes theme) by a blacked-out version that just showed the flag triangle (sans hair) against a black background, as if to say: “move along people, nothing to see here”.
“Appetite for Destruction” is the title of a painting by popular “lowbrow” artist Robert Williams, and was the basis for the cover of G&R’s debut album of the same name. Unfortunately the geniuses in Geffen Records marketing department didn’t consider that a graphic depiction of rape might cause some problems with conservative retailers in the U.S., who refused to stock the album until a change was made to the more widely recognized “cross & skulls” cover. The Williams artwork was retained, though relegated to an inner sleeve insert. Prices for sealed first pressings of this record with the original artwork on the cover can run you upwards of $100 or more.
Full album title: Holy Wood In the Shadow of the Valley of Death
This album was Manson’s first release following the April 1999 Columbine High School massacre, for which he had been unfairly crucified in the press as being an inspiration to the killers (this was later determined to be totally unsubstantiated). Consequently, this album explores such themes as parental roles and America’s hypocrisy of conservative values and culture juxtaposed with its mainstream acceptance of violence and the fame attained by people whose publicly displayed deaths have been romanticized and martyred. Various major retail chains in the U.S. refused to stock the record at all, and some only would with an alternative cover. Manson’s response: “The irony is that my point of the photo on the album was to show people that the crucifixion of Christ is, indeed, a violent image. In fact, the picture itself is composed of a statue of Jesus taken from a place of worship. My jaw is missing as a symbol of this very kind of censorship. This doesn’t piss me off as much as it pleases me, because those offended by my album cover have successfully proven my point.”
You gotta love Alice. Original versions of this album cover are affectionately known as the “thumb cover” among fans and collectors, because that wacky Vincent Fernier (aka Alice Cooper) surreptitiously poked his thumb through an opening in the front of his cape during the photo shoot in such a way that it appears to be his penis on display. Released under the Straight label (owned by Frank Zappa), this clever sight gag was allowed to slide. But when Warner Brothers acquired the label, the cover on later re-issues of the album had a version of the photo that was altered so that the offending digit was airbrushed out. And so, the further moral corruption of humanity was thusly prevented.
Controversial Cover: Click here to view the controversial cover [NSFW]
This legendary supergroup’s only album, the self-titled “Blind Faith”, featured a topless 11 year-old girl provocatively holding an aircraft type of object that some interpreted as a phallic symbol. Nice, eh? Apparently not. Well-known San Francisco rock and roll photographer Bob Seidemann, who was a personal friend of band member Eric Clapton, produced this artwork, which according to him was supposed to depict human creative achievement in technology (represented by the aircraft), borne though innocence (represented by the young child). Whatever. In the U.S. the record was issued with an alternate cover. But I’m telling you – if this blatant use of what pretty much amounts to child pornography to sell records wasn’t appalling enough, you aint seen nuthin yet:
Controversial Cover: Click here to view the controversial cover [NSFW]
How anyone in their right mind thought this cover photo was a good idea is beyond me. The Scorps have several controversial covers in their discography, but this one of an erotically posed 10-year-old girl takes the cake (the shattered glass pattern obscuring her genitals is part of the image). The inspiration came solely from label RCA Records’ marketing personnel; the band members had nothing to do with it, but early on they did stand behind it and tried to defend its use as being an artistically symbolic representation of the title track’s lyrical theme: that time is the killer of virgin innocence. Not surprisingly, it was soon replaced by a more acceptable alternative cover depicting the band (in a rather ridiculous pose). More recently, some band members, in particular former lead guitarist Uli Roth, have expressed regret over the cover and their original support of it.
In May 2008, U.S. conservative media group WorldNetDaily reported Wikipedia’s hosting of this image to the FBI, which led to an investigation but no resultant actions. However on Dec 5, 2008 the URL for Wiki’s image page of this photo was added to the UK-based Internet Watch Foundation’s blacklist, which resulted in the content being blocked by most of the UK’s major internet service providers. This unfortunately caused some undesirable problems, as subscribers temporarily could not edit or contribute to any Wiki pages. The blacklisting was rescinded four days later by reasoning, in part, that the photo was already widely available in the public domain. Wiki has a detailed article on this topic here.
The sleeve of this album features a stylish painting by Belgian artist Guy Peelleart. This striking piece is a somewhat freakish representation of Bowie as a half-man half-dog creature. An anatomically correct creature by the way, to which RCA Records immediately took exception by withdrawing the records and ordering the artwork to be reproduced with the canine genitalia airbrushed out (amusing in comparison to the previous entry, which would be deemed acceptable by RCA just two years later). Inexplicably, a few unaltered versions survived and are quite valuable today, reportedly approaching close to $10,000. in value. But buyer beware: 1990 Rykodisc re-issues with the restored original image are somewhat easy to come by and though they can be worth a couple hundred dollars in their own right, they aren’t the real deal.
The Beatles’ infamous “Butcher Baby” cover is perhaps the most well known banned cover of all time, and is likely the most valuable as well. It has been featured on Listverse once before, on this list. The original version of this album wasn’t actually released for sale to the general public, but advance copies and promo material were sent to radio stations and a few retailers however, and the immediately ensuing outcry caused Capitol Record to quickly withdraw all inventory that was ready for distribution (about 750,000 copies). Rather than destroy all the sleeves, Capitol instead chose to slap a much more conservative photo of the lads posed around a steamer trunk over the original art and then re-issue the records to retailers. It didn’t take long for fans to figure out how to peel the trunk photo off to reveal the Butcher photo underneath, which eventually lead to a cottage industry of professional peelers. A collectors’ jargon evolved to distinguish “First State” (original uncovered version), “Second State” (paste-over version) and “Third State” (peeled) copies.
Over the years, so many paste-overs have been peeled (or damaged/lost) that these days Second State Butchers are becoming scarcer and are increasing in value. If in good condition, they can easily fetch a couple thousand dollars, and thus are more desirable than even professionally peeled Third State copies. Not surprisingly, First State originals are the most valuable; factory sealed copies in particular are extremely rare and worth in the tens of thousands of dollars or more depending on condition. By the mid 80′s, there were only two stereo and less than ten mono sealed First State Butcher copies known to exist. In 1987, a case of 24 sealed original Butchers (5 stereo and 19 mono) turned up at a Beatles convention in the hands of Peter Livingston, who’s father Alan was president of Capitol Records at the time of the recall. These are known as the “Livingston copies”, and are the most valuable of all, given their pedigree.
To determine if your record is a paste-over, look for a faint v-shaped bleed-through of Ringo’s black shirt in the white background area of the trunk photo midway down the right edge. If you are lucky enough to discover a previously unbeknownst one in your collection, my advice to you is: don’t even think about trying to peel it! In all my years of record collecting, my Second State Butcher in VG+ condition is the most prized item.
This is listed as a bonus entry because, quite frankly, I wanted it on the list but didn‘t want to take any of the others off. This album cover is the sole reason I became a Roxy Music fan. Story has it that Bryan Ferry met these two models, Constanze Karoli and Eveline Grunwald, in Portugal, and asked them to pose for the cover shoot. Naturally, the photo was a bit much for some markets (good ol’ conservative USA, among them), and was re-issued in those areas with a plain foliage photo. But as I said, this album cover made quite an impression on me when it was released and I was able to snag an import copy. All right, before any of you LV ladies castigate me for shamelessly objectifying women, I ask that you cut me some slack because after all, I was only 14 at the time. Today of course, I am older and wiser, and so I can offer a much more mature commentary on the artistry of this photo: Did you see the racks on those babes?!
Mayhem? Dawn of the Black Hearts?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg
the black crowes, classic band, great energy and sound.
Well put together list
Something just jumped the shark. I don’t know what, but something did.
haha you offended people are mindless children. It’s some *****ing snot nosed kids tits. who really gives a *****. grow the ***** up
number 8 impresses! there is no surprise it was banned!
yes, the picture for “virgin killer” is over the top. but i still love it. love it for exposing america’s *****ing hypocrisy with advertising themselves as a free country. pah!
You know, personally, I never in a million years would have looked at a picture of a naked child and thought anything but that it was a naked child. However, there are far too many *****ual predators out there who DO find them *****y.
Hell, I got a nastygram and a warning from MySpace for posting a “*****ually explicit” image. The horrifyingly offensive image? My 4 month old in the bathtub. … *****ually explicit …
Sadly, there are people who think that and it makes the bile come up in my throat.
I wonder if someone famous several hundred years ago had painted images roughly equivalent to the Blind Faith and Virgin Killer covers – would we now hang them on gallery walls and proclaim them as “art”? I’m sure at least some of the nudes painted by Great Masters were under-age.
130
thanks for posting, but i saw this allready
nevertheless, interesting stuff
I just listened to a Mayhem song called “Funeral fog”, no wonder why the guy committed suicide.
@Robert (87): The Dwarves on the other side sound great Robert, thanks for the great album covers and the introduction to the band!
@Dead Head (106): The one intelligent level headed comment on the subject. Thank you.
Led Zepplin caught a lot of heat for their Houses of the Holy cover. Those were really little kids.
USA: Violence good nudity bad. Although he was referring to movie ratings, I think that Jack Nicholson summed up the hypocracy of it all when he said, “If you suck a tit, it’s an X. If you cut it off with a sword, it’s a PG.”
Also, Brak is right, this whole age of consent thing is a very recent construct. Those of you who find nudity in children offensive, ask yourselves, “Am I offended because a child is being exploited? Or am I just projecting my own *****ual confusion?” because if the image is not intended to tittilate, then maybe it’s just you.
I find it funny that so many people are talking about how for centuries under-aged girls were wedded and bedded and it was no big deal. Well, several hundred years ago slavery was also the norm. And husbands “owned” their wive´s bodies and could claim them any time they wanted, disregarding the woman´s inclinations.
Times change people.
You might think it´s stupid that some people are offended because no one “really gives a *****” about “*****ing snot nosed kids tits.” Try telling that to a seven-year old who´s been *****ually abused. It´s not some minor thing let me tell you.
Pretty amazed that in some of the comments I’ve read that there are some folks who seemingly don’t have a problem with naked children being on album covers.
We’ve all got pictures in our baby book of us jumping out of the tub into a fuzzy towel in Mommy’s loving arms. The kind of picture that is passed around at Thanksgiving or Christmas when you’re relatives are over for the holidays and everybody grins. That kind of scenario is harmless and most people have gone through it. Some folks have had to endure the embarrassment of Mom pulling out those snaps when the prom date comes over. Thank you Mom, I wasn’t having enough issues with my teenage body to begin with.
But slapping a naked kid on an album entitled ‘Virgin Killer’ is particularly grotesque, twisted, sick, vile and just *****ing insane. Those record exec’s who thought that was a good idea should be lined up and shot. I wonder what the board meeting was like on that?
If this doesn’t make you sick to your stomach, if you don’t think this is vile and disgusting, if you’re ok with all of that, then you have some serious, serious problems.
Drillbit in Bobby’s bunghole? Sure, fine. A few dark strands spilling over the bikini? OK, whatever. David Bowie with dog nuts, ok, just as long as they don’t have a picture of him licking them which is normal dog behavior.
A naked young girl child on the cover of an album “Virgin Killer?’ You crossed the *****ing line about 300 miles ago. You go straight to hell in my book.
My first post here.
Butthole Surfers also released a “clean” version with profanities removed and with an alternate album cover of their album “Electriclarryland for the american market.
Original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Butthole_Surfers_Electriclarryland.jpg
Alternate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electriclarryland_Alternate_Cover_Art.jpg
@astraya (129):
Not so fast, astraya. As is known, I am a student of art history from way back, and therefore know a thing or two about it. And there is a big difference between “underage” (which requires definition) and “prepubescent.” I know of very few examples of prepubescent nudes in classical art, though of course they DID exist… but they were no more *generally* accepted then than they are today—at least in terms of what was considered artistically tasteful, never mind in “moral” terms.
Ew,number 10 was pretty gross and juvenile, obviously just done for shock factor. Number #3 and #4 were both very disturbing, but I think the Virgin Killers one was worse because it was *****ually suggestive, whereas the child was just naked (for no apparent reason) in the Blind Faith album. I don’t think any of these should of been banned except for number 4 and possibly number 3. The Marilyn Manson one was really cool in my opinion
i was gonna say Frankenchrist… what about 2 Live Crew? Led Zeppelin?…
So, is the Manson cover rare or expensive now? I have it and was utterly surprised to find it on this list. I bought it in Europe though, maybe they weren’t as hysteric as the Americans about it here?
@saber25 (34):
Wiki: The album cover image is a pixelated photo of the pubis of Isabelle Adjani
What about ***** Me Jesus?
look at the racks on them you say? they have big hairy bushes in their underwear and u point out their average breasts. LOL
Slayer should be on this list, for God hates us all, where the cover was a man carving slayer into his wrist and was just replace by a cover with blood on the bible
Well, I was just reading CNN a few minutes ago (yeah, yeah, I hate CNN too but I was bored at work) and they have a story about how Roman Polanski was refused bail in a Swiss court. Not knowing what he had done, and figuring it was probably something to do with taxes, I opened the page only to find out that this man fled from the US in 1977 after pleading guilty to having ***** with a 13-year-old girl. He was 43 at the time.
So to all the people who just dont understand how someone can be offended by these images… Get a clue. There are sickos out there and there is no need to expose these girls.
@Randall (116):
I just saw your post. And yes, I have been shamed into reason. I still get excited when I hear SWEET CHILD OF MINE on the radio sometimes but then I remember Axel´s paunch and I have to change the station.
And as to the rest, no, it´s not like I have belly/chest hair… but a six-pack and a 23 inch waist would be nice.
On the other hand, I´ve never heard my husband complain!
I was serious about owning the album for 30 years and not once having the idea of it being child *****ography .. Ive also had a copy of Houses of the Holy for roughly the same amount of time and again .. never considered either to be *****ual in any way ..
Virgin Killer .. another story .. that was definitely exploitation .. I’ve always known that it was *****ual and just this side of child *****ography .. But what can you do .. you know how the Germans are .. aside from the Japanese they are about as decadent as you get .. You buy the album .. make a mental note not to leave your children unattended anywhere near the Shenkar boys .. and move on with your life .. Go rent a copy of Christiane “F” .. If its even legal in America .. It may not be .. Those Germans love their little girls ..
anyways I was not serious about using my Blind Faith album as a masturbatory aid .. thats sick .. I have an advertisement for Coppertone for those purposes ..
@bucslim (136): Well said, buc.
As an aside, one comment you made reminded me of this situation:
We’ve all got pictures in our baby book of us jumping out of the tub into a fuzzy towel in Mommy’s loving arms.
Recently there was a story in the news where some parents are suing Wal-mart because an employee blew the whistle on some “bath-time” photos that were turned in for printing. It’s the classic scenario that people bring up:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32904451/
Apparently, Child Protective Services removed the three children from the home for about a month while an investigation took place. Obviously a number of things went wrong in this situation, namely, why did it take a month for CPS to determine that the photos were “innocent” pics? Although it does remain to be seen just how innocuous the pics really were; follow-up stories suggested that a few of them could’ve been construed as crossing the line (whatever that line is) by the way the kids were posed, regardless of the innocence of the parents’ intent.
But my point of this rant is – As much as I am NOT a fan of Wal-mart and their heavy-handed censoring ways and morality stances, in this case I don’t fault them or its employee for just doing their job. The reaction of most people I’ve come across has been to blame Wal-mart for over-reacting. But I blame the parents. What were they thinking when they let these photos out of their hands? What if that employee also happened to be some goon who posted them on the web or distributed copies amongst a ring of likeminded pervs? Even “innocent” pictures can be used nefariously if fallen into the wrong hands. Instead, those parents just want to blame everyone but themselves in effort to make a buck. Ridiculous. End of rant.
@GTT (147): And as to the rest, no, it´s not like I have belly/chest hair… but a six-pack and a 23 inch waist would be nice.
The old line “If I told you that you had a smokin hot body, would you hold it against me?” comes to mind…
I remember a disturbing cover from the band Brujeria, Matando Güeros.
Check it, it´s a real human head, quite shocking for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matando_G%C3%BCeros
I don’t understand why people hate censorship of nudity and violent images so much.
i once went into a record store and came across this album by The Dwarves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Dwarves_Blood_Guts_%26_Pussy.jpg
at the time i found it kind of disturbing.
Still looking for an original Origin of the Feces album. Most vinyl copies go for a lot more than I am willing to pay on e-bay.
153: Jason, I own a copy of that Dwarves CD. Great punk band. Listen to them sometime if you get the chance…if that is your style.
There are also some countries that have banned stuff from Cannibal Corpse, like their Butchered at Birth CD:
http://heavymetaluniverse.free.fr/HMUv3.1-data/downloads/wallpapers/CannibalCorpse-ButcheredAtBirth.jpg
and Tomb of the Mutilated (one of their best albums):
http://www.truemetal.org/metalwallpaper/images/tombofthemutilated.jpg
I thought that I read some place that Deicide’s album Once Upon the Cross was attacked and they had to change their album cover format:
http://zanda77.altervista.org/_altervista_ht/Deicide_Once_Upon_The_Cross.bmp
http://ngherockonline.net/music/uploads/imgalbums/630.jpg
@_-DAN-_ (152):
it’s because you are not smart if you can’t figure that one out. and you prob. shouldn’t vote/breed.
im guessing you voted obama?
ding ding ding!
how close was i?
You have to judge the image for literally what it is, not how it might be perceived. The albums with the young girls are arguably exploitative in that the girls might not be old enough to understand the implications of the image. But photos are taken of children all the time, and they’re in films and they’re on TV. The kids don’t understand the consequences or the implications there either. The only reason why people don’t react with similar horror to that is because manipulating children is not the real issue people have a problem with. It happens all the time everywhere, just as adults manipulate adults as well. *****uality is the real issue, and it inevitably boils down to our own discomfort with *****uality.
What is inherently wrong with the Blind Faith picture? Not the motivations behind it, whatever they may be. Not what people might think of it. Just the picture. There is nothing wrong with it. It’s a picture of an 11yr old girl. She’s not unhappy. She’s not being abused. She gave full consent. If you have a problem with it, then you either have a problem with the human body, or you are worrying about whether the photographer was aroused at the time, or whether someone somewhere might look at the picture and become aroused. That has nothing to do with the girl. Surely the issue should be about the girl not you or your disgust at a hypothetical future situation.
Perhaps these photos shouldn’t be taken because of the wider implications. But people have to calm down. It’s been said before time and again, but the problem is one of *****uality. When something is resisted it only strengthens, and America is notoriously uncomfortable with *****. In other countries, people just HAVE ***** and shut up about it. Because they’re not afraid, their *****uality doesn’t become perverted. When people stop running away from their own bodies, images like the ones above seem a lot less threatening.
@Randall (138): There’s a famous painting, the title or painter of which I can’t remember or track down. It features two sisters approx 17 and 15, from the waist up, topless. One has just been betrothed to a nobleman of some sort. The other is squeezing her sister’s nipple to symbolise that the first sister will bear the nobleman a son and heir. Do you know the painting I’m talking about? My question is: would anyone paint a picture like that now, or take an equivalent photo, and put it on the cover of an album?
@astraya (156):
That sounds vaguely familiar—my first thought was to say Velasquez, but in rummaging back through my mind, on second thought I think not. I’ll have to put some thought to this.
Your question is harder to answer; it again comes back to what I said before–there is a world of difference between what WE today might call “underage” and what has *always* been *prepubescent.* Girls who are 17 and 15 are NOT prepubescent (usually). OUR modern legal definition (which is not even standardized across the board) of 18 being “of age” is by no means the standard that has applied throughout all time.
“*****ography” is usually described as “titillation” and “exploitation”—or exploitation for the purpose of titillation. It’s generally recognized that the use of prepubescent children for purposes of “titillation” is, quite simply, kiddie *****. Now, of course, sometimes it isn’t always easy to say what is meant to be “titillating” and what isn’t.
Now, it might be easy to say that a painter in, say, the 16th or 17th century who painted nudes of teenage girls was simply a pervert–and those who wanted to look at such paintings were perverts. But do we really want to jump to that conclusion without examining the artistic merit of an individual painting? I’m not so comfortable with that.
ON THE OTHER hand, our standards of propriety and decency have changed today, where we place a greater value on protecting the notion of “childhood,” and so we place a strict demarcation between adulthood and what is NOT adult. And the two are not to mix, *****ually. I think we all feel that this is a good thing, of course.
But we have to be cautious about applying this standard to the past. Children were exploited horribly in the past, of course—but not all artistic depictions of children were exploitative. Now, as I say, I think any nude of a prepubescent child–except infants and toddlers, of course, which we would hope NO ONE finds in ANY way *****ual or titillating–is suggestive of what we, for lack of a better word, can call “*****ography.” Even this might vary from work to work, but as I said earlier, I can recall very few example of child-nudes from the history of art that I’m aware of, that are in any way titillating. Surely a few exist, but I think they’re in the minority. A couple come to mind, but these are depictions of the lot of children in societies that were alien to the painter, so one might say they represented a judgement call on the part of the artist—”look at how they view children in the East,” for instance—BUT… the depiction of post-pubescent individuals under the age of, say, 18—is slightly more common. Again, not a regular occurence—I can still only think of a few examples off the top of my head—and you came up with one. But are we going to judge those by the same standard?
The Blind Faith album cover I always found more than a little strange—but it’s curious how in the 70s we didn’t seem to react to it with the same level of revulsion as many do today. I don’t know why that is. I’ve always looked at that thing and thought it was simply a kind of poor piece of art. And I question the choice made by the photographer/artist. Why an under-formed girl? It’s not enough, in my view, to say THAT is kiddie *****! But it’s close. It’s odd. It always left a strange impression and still does. Of course we can say that it was probably *meant* to be disturbing. But then again—to what end? Is there any merit there, or is it just bad taste, pure and simple? I’d definitely be inclined to the latter judgement.
The Scorpions “Virgin Killer” photo is altogether different, or at least a degree different. It’s CLEARLY in bad taste–in frankly stupid “taste”–and offers nothing BUT a disturbing and exploitative image meant to both bother and titillate. The pose is frank and, of course, rather meant to be *****ual, we feel. It’s a pretty disgusting idea. And if anything, it’s reflective of a kind of sick, arrested-adolescent mindset that’s prevalant in the little “culture world” that bands like the Scorpions–and those who listen to them–represent. Quite simply, people who listen to heavy metal aren’t “grown-ups” in the real sense–however chronologically old they are–and mature ideas of life, *****uality, propriety, etc., are always skirted around in such a subculture. I regularly mock people who listen to such music quite simply because *I* grew out of it when I was about 12 years old. As anyone who is in any way truly mature *ought* to. But many people don’t, and go through life stuck in some kind of mindset that remains glued there.
Now, I’m not saying that all metal fans are kiddie-*****-loving perverts. What I mean to say is that they loosely identify with the same overall mindset which is *adolescent* in nature. The “Virgin Killer” photo is representative of the kind of low-brow, sickish “humor” you get, sometimes, with such a mindset. Women are objectified, as teenage boys objectify them. It’s not an “adult” way of looking at the world, or life.
@Tenebrae (128): Same thing here-I had a picture of my daughter, nieces and nephews in a tub on facebook. I’ve seen so many pics like this of me and my sibs when I was little so I didn’t think anything of it. I had a few people suggest I take them down even though my facebook is private. I should reconsider my ‘friends’ list if anyone is looking at that picture as more than cute, right??!! Sheesh!
@GTT (146): Even more appalling is the support he’s currently receiving from his peers…
@Shazbut (155):
“It’s a picture of an 11yr old girl. She’s not unhappy. She’s not being abused. She gave full consent.”
A few questions come to mind here, most notably, at what point does a person recognize the consequences of their actions? I’m sure it’s different for every person, but I’m reasonably certain that it isn’t 11 years old. In other words, Shazbut, how on earth can this girl give her consent and have any understanding of what she is actually doing? As decent human beings it is our duty to protect children from ever having to make these decisions. As parents, at least the good ones, we make important decisions for our children because we should want the best for them. So when some lout with a tripod and a Pentax asks if it’s ok for him to take a few snaps of Buffy in the buff, we beat the ***** out of him. Why? It should be obvious, but there really isn’t any good reason to take a photo of a topless 11 year old girl, much less publish it for the world to see.
Secondly, you state she’s not unhappy. Well how in God’s name do you know that? You state she’s not being abused, I would differ with you in the most strongest terms. Because if it was my daughter being asked to take her shirt off for some douchebag photog, I’d rip off his head and ***** down his neck. Abuse doesn’t just have to physical. But after I was done with him, he would most certainly understand every facet of the word.
On another level, do we really even need to have this kind of material to ‘promote’ a rock band? I understand that some groups or even an entire genre of music has a purpose to shock it’s audience. Why anyone would think it’s a good idea to place this on a cover shows a complete lack of decency. I know that’s what some people are aiming at and I’m not opposed to nudity – I friggen love the Ohio Players and their covers were swimming in *****uality and suggestiveness. Those chicks weren’t 11 or 12.
Innocence and decency are words that seem to be lost now days, as if I’m some sort of fuddy-duddy or prude just because those words actually mean something to me. Art and *****ography have a difficult time being defined into neat and digestible terms. Art becomes meaningless the minute you try to define it. And *****ography has been argued for a very long time by smarter people than I am. I just don’t understand the nonchalant and passe attitude that would find these album covers as being ok. All I ask is to put your daughter in this situation, what would you do, what would you think, how would you react to some of the statements being made here.
For me, I think we have a responsibility to keep children out of harm’s way. We have a responsibility to protect their innocence. Let Blind Faith or The Scorpions and the ***** head record companies find some other image to promote their music.
I know this is not at all music related, but what about the movie “Pretty Baby” It was with Brooke Shields and had a very *****ual nature to it. And speaking of movies (as long as I opened the door)in “The Exorcist” Regan *****s herself with a crucifix. Id never let my kid do anything of that nature.
@bucslim (161): Your comments go back to the Roman Polanski story. He initially wanted to meet with this young girl to take her picture. He, eventually, asked her to take her top off. And we all know (by her own testimony) what happened from there.
@astraya (156):
I think what you’re referring to is the E Gabrielle d’Estees and one of her sisters . Remember the context? It was privately commissioned by the king of France and was found even less acceptable during the Renaissance than it is today.
Been trying to read up on it but I still can’t find information that the girls were fifteen and seventeen and I can’t recall hearing that before. All I’ve found is Wiki saying she was twenty but let’s not forget it’s wiki. And remember, it was unsigned so the artist is unknown and the year is only a guess at best. Regardless, seventeen and twenty is vastly different than eleven.
The actual painting can be misconstrued. As you said, some believe it is for her husband, some believe it was commissioned by and for the king. Some believe the breast touching symbolized fertility, while others believed it was *****ual portraiture…kind of like a precursor to opening your briefcase and finding a “special photo” of your girlfriend inside (the king was by no means monogamous towards Mistress Gabrielle. One professor told me that he’s had fun with both sisters. She also speculated if it was at the same time). With the Virgin Killer’s album, there’s no mistaking its very message was to exploit the image of a eleven year old child. It’d be hard to give it any less-perverted meaning. With all the child labor and child exploitation laws in effect now, it’s hard to imagine that she’d be allowed to make the decision to do this by herself. Her legal guardian would have had to sign the consent forms and essentially forced the decision on her. Perhaps she was ok with the project but she was eleven years old. Can we really say she could make a rational decision and consider all the ramifications of said decision? That’s one huge difference between this 11 year old and the 17-20 year old in the painting.
@ames801 (163):
Well you know, not only that, but he essentially imprisoned her in the hotel room, not letting her leave… and drugged her.
@gabi319 (164):
Thanks for identifying that painting… now that I see it I remember it—it’s not the one I was thinking of, but obviously the one astraya meant.
@Randall (165): Wasn’t her mom there as well?? I thought I read somewhere (which means it’s true) that her mom was just so star-struck she didn’t really see what was going on. AND Angelica Houston (?) walked in on them and turned around and left? Ug…these people, the lot of ‘em, are a waste of flesh!
@Randall (165): It was actually at Jack Nicholson’s house, right?
@ames801 (167):
I hadn’t heard any of that. And I *thought* it took place in a hotel room, but perhaps not. Probably the story is on Wikipedia, though of course that’s not always to be believed either.
@Randall (158): Well Randall, I must say I take issue with your comment. Now, everything pertaining to the distinction between art and child *****ography is very valid, and I agree with what you say. I also commend you on how well written and thought out it was, very impressive. Now, I do take issue with the comments on metal fans. I am not offended per se, but hopefully you will see my side.
“Quite simply, people who listen to heavy metal aren’t “grown-ups””
This comment bothered me. Now, I completely understand this mindset, and am by no means claiming you ignorant, but I think the statement was a rather general stereotype. Many rock bands, particularly more mainstream ones (oddly enough), promote *****uality and a boozing, smoking, “immature” lifestyle. However, some slightly more underground bands (like I listen to) are more literate with their lyrics, they do not promote a shifty lifestyle, and despite a generally angry sound, promote individuality and encouragement.
The band Hinder has recently seen quite a bit of airplay on the mainstream radio stations. This band is played because of their more mainstream sound, the hooks in their songs, and because their message is what society is currently promoting. SOme lyrics:
“Get Stoned”
Let’s go home and get stoned
We could end up making love instead of misery
Go home and get stoned
‘Cause the ***** is so much better when you’re mad at me
You wear me out
(We can end up making love instead of misery)
But it’s alright now
Without a doubt
Yeah, the breakup’s worth the makeup ***** you’re giving me
Let’s hash it out
Cause you’re *****ing and your yelling don’t mean anything
Don’t count me out
I can handle all the baggage that you’re carrying
“The Best is Yet to Come”
My first make-out session
I learned my first lesson
While trying to get to the next base
When I slipped passed her waist
She smacked my hand away
Then I got a slap in the face
If I could go back in time
Wouldn’t change a damn thing in my life
Love the dumb things we do when we’re young
But the best is yet to come
Compare this band to a much less mainstream band, Disturbed. Disturbed is widely regarded as dark, negative, and God forbid, Satanic. They are by no means Satanic. Their lyrics can and lately have been very empowering and positive. Their sound, compared to most metal bands, isn’t even terribly dark. Lyrics:
“Liberate”
Liberate your mind
You mother*****er, you’re so narrow minded
So narrow minded
Liberate your mind
Now mother*****er, will you liberate your mind this time?
Bold mother*****er
Don’t you limit your mind
Can’t you see that the pace
Has just fallen behind?
All the hate in your heart
Will be leaving you blind
So bold mother*****er
Don’t you limit your mind this time
“I’m Alive”
Never again will I be desolate
And never again will I be reminded
We’re living within the world of the jaded
They doom inspiration
It’s my obligation
To never again, allow this to happen
Where do I begin?
The choices are endless
Denying the sin
My art, my redemption
I carry the torch of my fathers before me
The thing I treasure the most in life cannot be taken away
There will never be a reason why I will surrender to your remorse
To change myself, I’d rather die
Lonely, we’ll not understand
I will make the greatest sacrifice
You can’t predict where the outcome lies
You’ll never take me alive
I’m alive
I’m alive
I’m alive
“The Curse”
Devastation, obliteration
Are all in a part of exacerbation
There’s no explaining my situation,
Now why does this ***** keep happening to me?
I’ve held on too long just to let it go now,
Will my inner strength get me through it some how ?
Defying the curse that has taken hold
Never surrender,
I’ll never be overcome!
As long as profanity is no indicator, I would personally say that those lyrics were positive lyrics. They are embedded in a heavier sound to reach out to people who believe that society is shunning them, the stereotypical emo, goth, or skateboard punk.
Also, many heavy bands are very intelligent. Have you ever heard of a band called System of a Down? The band members are all of Armenian decent, and are very active in peaceful protests against genocide and war. The former lead singer Serj Tankian works with Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello with an organization called Axis of Justice, which is a front for the aforementioned protests. Many of System’s songs, with just a quick listen, are non-sensical and silly. However, with a little digging, every song has turned out to be a commentary. Such an odd gem is “Violent *****ography”, which seems like an obscene joke. This goofy song is in fact encouragement for their fans to “turn off your TV” and get out and be an active member of society, instead of being brainwashed by mindless violence and profanity. And you may argue that this is a hypocrisy (4 of the band’s 5 studio albums have Parental Advisory stickers), but the band does things their own way, and encourages their fans to express themselves as artists rather than violent troublemakers. System of a Down is truly a thinking man’s (extremely ADHD) rock band.
“Now, I’m not saying that all metal fans are kiddie-*****-loving perverts. What I mean to say is that they loosely identify with the same overall mindset which is *adolescent* in nature.”
A good statement, and has a lot of truth to it. However, most of the bands I listen to are intelligent, original, and mature. I tend to stray away from what I can only describe as crappy metal. System of a Down, Disturbed, Mushroomhead, and even the ever-angry Slipknot have very positive themes (despite the *****ed off music) that encourage their fans to not conform to society’s negative guidelines, and to be artists. The fans of these bands will mosh and throw themselves about violently, but this is all that gets through. People see concert footage of shirtless miscreants bashing each other stupid. However, this outlet generally is what keeps some of these kids (many of whom feel shunned or deemed “sub-human” by society) from acting out violently or illegally outside of concerts. The lyrics of some of these bands, if I may be so audacious to say, are poetry. These poems are just accompanied by a heavy guitar and double bass peddle.
I hope you understand the point I was making, agree or disagree. I am clean cut, I don’t own any more than 3 black shirts, no black shoes or pants, only one band shirt, and have only been to one rock concert. I do not drink, I do not smoke, I have never indulged in *****s, I have a beautiful girlfriend of 14 months, and am attending college for a Spanish major to be an interpreter. My favorite bands are Mushroomhead, Korn, Hollywood Undead, Slipknot, Linkin Park, Disturbed, and System of a Down. I recommend the following songs from the above bands (respectively): Never Let It Go, Twisted Transistor, Paradise Lost, Psychosocial, Little Things Give You Away, Indestructible, and Aerials. If not a listen, a quick perusal of the lyrics is recommended. Thanks, I hope you agree with at least a bit! God only knows I spent forever typing this!
@saber25 (34): It’s a vagina.
@ianz09 (170):
I appreciate that you’re trying to defend your preferred musical tastes. To make it easier, let’s say that while I do dislike heavy metal, I’d say that we can characterize some varieties of it, as a form, as being more akin to the kind of thing I was talking about than others. But then this hardly dismisses the problem. There’s still an adolescent theme that runs through almost ALL heavy metal that I think it behooves anyone who gets past age… 25, say… to grow out of. No offense.
Now, yes, I was generalizing. However, let’s be honest and admit that if you were shown the album cover “Virgin Killer” and were told the title of it, and then asked “what genre of music do you suppose that is?” most people, we all know, would almost assuredly assume it to be heavy metal.
Now, in regards to “intelligent” lyrics or even positive messages–this argument fails to impress me. Yes, lots of heavy metal IS stupid. Lots of adolescents are stupid. But many aren’t, and not all heavy metal bands or lyrics are stupid. Intelligence, however, is NOT a sign of maturity. I’ve known lots of very smart people who were nevertheless still arrested adolescents.
Now, sure—we’d hope that intelligent folk wouldn’t make the mistake that the Scorpions made… but what I was referring to is an OVERALL mindset within Metal, that promotes this kind of adolescent objectification of the world. Metal comes out of the adolescent male point of view, pure and simple. To deny this is to tell a lie. That doesn’t mean some girls don’t listen to metal–some do. But that isn’t what I’m talking about, either. Metal is informed by, and reflects, that male adolescent view that is self-centered, takes an objectifying view of the world–and particularly women–and is often associated with rage and/or a faux, fantasy-oriented “dark” view of reality. Oftentimes, as with emo music, this drifts over into self-parody without the “artists” or their listeners even being aware of it.
That it’s not all negativity and violence and ruin and horror is great, sure. But I already knew that. I’m not some religious nut poo-pooing the Satanic pretensions of our decadent youth. I’m only commenting on the overall meaning of metal and what it’s attuned to. And that, pure and simple, is adolescence, and mainly a male adolescence.
And yes, I’ve heard of System of a Down, and many other bands you could mention.
I don’t deny that there are “sub genres” within metal. No, I’d never expect System of a Down or Rage Against the Machine to have ever had a cover like the Scorpions’ “Virgin Killer.” They’re smarter and more politically-oriented acts. (Rage is no longer with us, correct?) As I said, I don’t say that all Metal artists or listeners are freakin’ perverts. I was talking about a self-dramatizing “angry adolescent” paradigm, that, however, is more or less true for ALL metal—and from WITHIN that, you sometimes get the bull***** that produced that Scorpions record cover.
The fact is Ianz—and this IS a fact—that if you are truly smart and self-aware and continue to mature, that you WILL grow out of metal sooner or later. It just doesn’t inform the adult situation in any way, nor is it informed BY adult questions, views, or realities. Period. It’s teenage music, in a way much more than even Punk or some other forms are.
You wrote a good, impassioned defense, and I agree with some of it. But I think at bottom you were just missing my point. I applaud you for listening to better ***** than “crap metal.” But it was really more or less crap metal I was talking about specifically—though I do still say that METAL OVERALL is informed strictly by adolescent views and needs.
@ianz09 (171): Yes, now get off this website before your mom sees you Saber25. If my mom caught me on here when I was 9, she’d kill me.
i find the cover of the album Virgin Killer to be far more offensive with The Scorpions on it.
“Origin of the Feces” is the name of a scientific article in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. The concept being that feces evolved humans to move parts of itself around.
@Randall (172): Oh no, I agree with the majority of what you had to say. I am by no means defending the Scorpions cover, it was disgusting and definitely not art. And unfortunately, much of metal is adolescent and immature. Emo-screamo (which I don’t personally qualify as metal, but know many do) is the most pure example of this whiny adolescence of which you speak. And yes, too many bands of all sub-genres stick with problems that are adolescent in nature. When you say metal is overall informed by “adolescent views and needs”, you are (unfortunately) correct. I pride myself, however, in listening to bands that can prominently stand above this stereotype. But, all of my favorite bands are also prone to immaturity. MY point was simply that not every metal band or song is adolescent, and many speak a good message, and (plenty of die-hard studs-n-chains moshers would crucify me for saying this) most bands I listen to are big softies and plead with their fans to make the world a better place. Some of it is purely talentless and a waste, but there is enough true art mixed in for me to seek it out and grasp it.
“However, let’s be honest and admit that if you were shown the album cover “Virgin Killer” and were told the title of it, and then asked “what genre of music do you suppose that is?” most people, we all know, would almost assuredly assume it to be heavy metal.”
Oh yes, many would assume so, and assume correctly. Metal has a (bull*****) image and (crappy) reputation to uphold, and with these comes the culture. I don’t fit into this culture at all, I am proud to say.
“I don’t deny that there are “sub genres” within metal. No, I’d never expect System of a Down or Rage Against the Machine to have ever had a cover like the Scorpions’ “Virgin Killer.” They’re smarter and more politically-oriented acts. (Rage is no longer with us, correct?)”
System would not degrade themselves or their image by using and promoting filth, so you are correct, they definitely wouldn’t have a cover even close to Virgin Killer. A quick correction though, not as much SOAD is political as you might think. Much of it is more of a social commentary (Toxicity, I-E-A-I-A-I-O, Vicinity of Obscenity, Chic ‘N Stu), but much is political (Boom!, Prison Song, B.Y.O.B., Deer Dance). They even stretch to religious and spiritual themes (Forest, Innervision, Science, Question!). Rage, however, is nothing but politics. And no, Rage is no longer together, not consistently, and neither is System. SOAD is on hiatus, but they may not make it back together, which truly saddens me. Look up a few interviews with Serj Tankian on his political stand points, he may impress you, despite you not liking his music
“The fact is Ianz—and this IS a fact—that if you are truly smart and self-aware and continue to mature, that you WILL grow out of metal sooner or later. It just doesn’t inform the adult situation in any way, nor is it informed BY adult questions, views, or realities. Period. It’s teenage music, in a way much more than even Punk or some other forms are.”
I agree and disagree. I believe that eventually, the sound will become less and less appealing to me, yes. But I also believe that many of the impressions and meanings and commentary will stay with me, and maybe I’ll pop back for a listen sparingly. However, I pray I never lose my taste for System of a Down. I know I sound like I am worshipping them or something, but honestly, I have pondered life and it’s mysteries more after having listened to them. The quirky music isn’t appealing to all, but they have a lot of good things to say.
And now, last but not least, I’ll provide starting points for those who seek to agree with me and disagree. Following are the best and worst examples of my favorite bands’ music for supporting my opinion. Look up the lyrics, the best will support my opinion that they aren’t adolescent and juvenile, the worst are to show that they still have a juvenile streak like any other band. I’m doing this so I don’t sound like propoganda (hopefully though the intelligence and poetry of the best will outdo the nonsense and adolescence of the worst, as I have seen). At the risk of being undermined:
Mushroomhead
Best: Solitaire/Unraveling, Sun Doesn’t Rise
Worst: Chancre Sore, Simple Survival
Korn
Best: Coming Undone, Freak on a Leash
Worst: ADIDAS
Slipknot
Best: Psychosocial, Before I Forget
Worst: People=*****
Hollywood Undead
Best: Paradise Lost, City
Worst: No. 5, Everywhere I Go
Linkin Park
Best: The Little Things Give You Away, Crawling, Hands Held High
Worst: Runaway, Given Up
Disturbed
Best: Down With the Sickness, Liberate, Believe
Worst: Overburdened
System of a Down
Best: The vast majority, but ATWA, Aerials, Spiders, and Dreaming stand out.
Worst: Not much to go with. I suppose Bounce and ***** the System could be cited, but even they have a point to make.
@ames801 (168):
@Randall (169):
I was reading the article on CNN (can it really be called a reliable news source???) that is was in Jack Nicholson´s house. And yes, he drugged her.
How any rational adult can leave their child alone with some unknown adult male is beyond me. And any parent who signs a form consenting to the wide publication and distribution of naked pictures of their child deserves to be arrested.
And I´m more than a little shocked that so many people see nothing wrong with this. No, it´s not about ADULT *****UALITY (or this crap argument about how “maybe you´re confused about your own *****uality”). It´s about CHILD *****UALITY. Pre-pubescent children should not be *****ual because they are in no way prepared to deal with the consequences of *****. They are too young to make an informed decision about what they want to do with their bodies. And no, these kids cannot give “full consent” as they have no idea what that means. Children give “consent” for a wide variety of reasons, including shame and wanting to please authority figures. A lot of kids think that adults are right and must be obeyed. How in the hell is that “fully informed consent”?
OK, I need to get off this list because I am getting way too upset.
@ianz09 (176):
Leave it. It’s Randall.
His idea of growing up is going to church every Sunday.
@JayBe (178): Give me a break… If that isnt the retort of a 14-year-old, I dont know what is.
@JayBe (178): Oh, I apologize sir. You must be mistaken, we weren’t arguing, we were calmly and civilly discussing our opposing viewpoints.