I'm not even gonna ask if this has been brought up before cause I'd be shocked if it hasn't:

Whats the deal with the Beggars Banquet album cover? Why was the CD version different from the record? Was the brown wall/toilet one ever a cover somewhere else in the world and they just decided to use it for the CD? Or was it totally new?

If memory serves me well, the American distributors/record company considered the toilet cover inappropriate, so an alternative cover had to be developed for the U.S. market. Censorship in the arts was still a factor to be dealt with even back in the Swingin' 60s.

Interesting, and was what I assumed. Just never seemed that bad to me (although I guess you couldn't show a toilet on Mamas And Papas Greatest Hits album so this makes sense). Also what was always more interesting to me is I LOVE the white cover and never knew it for years since I'm young and just know the CD. But I love the white invitation nature of it, with it being a banquet and all. For an alternate cover, they certainly did a great job. I'd argue its better and funnier than the original.

I think it was Decca and not just London. If Decca wasn't gonna put it out, the London wasn't getting it, either.

Actually, it's the first Mamas & Papas album that has the toilet, and those now are a pretty rare find nowadays. A friend of mine just bought a mono copy at a garage sale or something.

As for me, I always preferred the white cover. That's how I bought it, and that's how I remember it. It seems to fit the music better. I actually don't really care for the toilet cover/photo.

BTW, was the gatefold photo always that? That. too, seems to fit the white cover better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-18 06:46 by tomk.

A few of the original London slicks survived. They were cropped just a bit and stuffed inside the RSVP jackets. I had one but it did not survive the years.

Another, but less interesting cover survived as well. The original Pipes of Pan vinyl sleeve was titled "Brian Jones Plays with the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka", although the disc was printed "presents". The first run of the jackets were taped over with "presents"and sold in stores. Still have that one.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-18 07:13 by josepi.

I'm also relatively young and the original issue of the Beggars Banquet cd is the first one I bought. It had the toilet on the front and the white on the back of the booklet, and the "beggars banquet" photo inside. I love that toilet cover. Much more interesting than the white one, full of little references to this and that. For me it's forever associated with the moment when I first heard the ten songs on the album (thinking they were a little weird and too much acoustic, but it soon grew to be my favourite Stones record, now sharing the first place with Exile).

Quote
tomk
I think it was Decca and not just London. If Decca wasn't gonna put it out, the London wasn't getting it, either.

Actually, it's the first Mamas & Papas album that has the toilet, and those now are a pretty rare find nowadays. A friend of mine just bought a mono copy at a garage sale or something.

As for me, I always preferred the white cover. That's how I bought it, and that's how I remember it. It seems to fit the music better. I actually don't really care for the toilet cover/photo.

BTW, was the gatefold photo always that? That. too, seems to fit the white cover better.

Yes, it was not an american issue. The white cover was the cover everywhere after Decca and the others refused to release the toilet cover, which was not officially released until many years later, although it was printed in books at the time (the Roy Carr book if I recall correctly). The inner sleeve photo in the original gatefold Lp cover was the banquet photo

chris tells the story of an early 60's photoshoot for beggars banquet in derbyshire

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
tomk
I think it was Decca and not just London. If Decca wasn't gonna put it out, the London wasn't getting it, either.

Actually, it's the first Mamas & Papas album that has the toilet, and those now are a pretty rare find nowadays. A friend of mine just bought a mono copy at a garage sale or something.

As for me, I always preferred the white cover. That's how I bought it, and that's how I remember it. It seems to fit the music better. I actually don't really care for the toilet cover/photo.

BTW, was the gatefold photo always that? That. too, seems to fit the white cover better.

Yes, it was not an american issue. The white cover was the cover everywhere after Decca and the others refused to release the toilet cover, which was not officially released until many years later, although it was printed in books at the time (the Roy Carr book if I recall correctly). The inner sleeve photo in the original gatefold Lp cover was the banquet photo

Spot on, Rokyfan. I've still got my old white cover Decca LP and first saw the toilet cover in a book (although earlier than the Roy Carr one, I believe; anyone remember the big book that had lyrics / melody lines from some of their songs at the back - mine fell to bits years ago?)

Discussed before here.
I prefer the plain white cover.




A combination of the invitation and the inner gatefold picture would have been cool ...

Quote
schillid
Discussed before here.
I prefer the plain white cover.




A combination of the invitation and the inner gatefold picture would have been cool ...

You know I was also thinking about that photo and had they used that as the cover instead...I like that schillid.

And while I also like the bathroom photo, I wonder what we'd all have thought if we'd have had perhaps the white cover on the front, the actual 'banquet' photo on the back, and inside the gatefold the bathroom shot.

You get the invitation to "Beggar's Banquet" and when you open the gatefold it's a picture of a toilet. I think that would have worked and maybe kept DECCA at bay.

Quote
teleblaster

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
tomk
I think it was Decca and not just London. If Decca wasn't gonna put it out, the London wasn't getting it, either.

Actually, it's the first Mamas & Papas album that has the toilet, and those now are a pretty rare find nowadays. A friend of mine just bought a mono copy at a garage sale or something.

As for me, I always preferred the white cover. That's how I bought it, and that's how I remember it. It seems to fit the music better. I actually don't really care for the toilet cover/photo.

BTW, was the gatefold photo always that? That. too, seems to fit the white cover better.

Yes, it was not an american issue. The white cover was the cover everywhere after Decca and the others refused to release the toilet cover, which was not officially released until many years later, although it was printed in books at the time (the Roy Carr book if I recall correctly). The inner sleeve photo in the original gatefold Lp cover was the banquet photo

Spot on, Rokyfan. I've still got my old white cover Decca LP and first saw the toilet cover in a book (although earlier than the Roy Carr one, I believe; anyone remember the big book that had lyrics / melody lines from some of their songs at the back - mine fell to bits years ago?)

My copy from the early 70's is loooong gone!

My desktop picture...

Wow. I have an intact copy of the unauthorized biography pictured above packed away with a bunch of other Stones books, t-shirts and memorabilia from over the years. I guess they're all now collector items. The unauthorized biography is cool in that the sheet music, for want of a better term, at the back of it allows you to play Stones songs without knowing anything about open chords, certain tunings and such.

The white scripted Beggars Banquet cover was always one of my favorites. The discreet album cover was the perfect foil to the fantastic dark album it hid.

I hate the toilet cover. I wish it would have stayed buried. It is Juvenile at best.

I know am close to alone on this opinion but have always wanted to say how much I hate the toilet cover.

By complete coincidence, I drove through the Derbyshire village where the cricket shots were done, having visited Caulke Abbey, close by.I had forgotten the connection.
I remember the cover saga. It came as a bit of a surprise that record companies had such a hold on a mega act like the Stones, especially as the hype had been over this wonderful record deal which Oldham and Klein had secured for them some 3 years previous.
The record should have been released on Micks 25th birthday in July + of course was delayed 4 months, but in time for Christmas sales.
So even though the record company did not own the masters they could, as manufacturers and distributors, hold back the release.

So basically Mick had to cave in. Clearly Klein did not have the influence or power to get the"old farts at Decca" to change their minds.
The die was cast + within 2 years the Stones both Klein and Decca were on their bikes.

Having seen all those 'outtake' pics from BB's inner cover - the banquet - I'd say the original inner-coverphoto was the ultimate shot!

And yeah, as fans we saw the toilet cover first in some mid 70 books.It was some of those Stones myths like R'n'R Circus.
Jagger fought for the cover for more than half a year.For a time a brown paper bag should be the compromise.In the end the Stones had to give in and we got the White cover. Still remember playing the album on my first record player.Still one of my most loved if not the best.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-18 20:31 by CousinC.

Quote
CousinC
Having seen all those 'outtake' pics from BB's inner cover - the banquet - I'd say the original inner-coverphoto was the ultimate shot!

And yeah, as fans we saw the toilet cover first in some mid 70 books.It was some of those Stones myths like R'n'R Circus.
Jagger fought for the cover for more than half a year.For a time a brown paper bag should be the compromise.In the end the Stones had to give in and we got the White cover. Still remember playing the album on my first record player.Still one of my most loved if not the best.

I guess Lennon borrowed those paper bags for his release with yoko a couple of years later.

The John and Yoko effort Two Virgins was actually released earlier, the same year. 1968. There was no way a major label such as EMI would release it with THAT cover.

Unfortunatley for the Stones the new almost white cover for BB drew strong similar comparison to the Fab 4s Beatles White Album cover. Mick must have been aware of this.
So yet again it appeard the Stones were copying the Beatles lead...as in Pepper and TSM.
Only it was almost simultaneous release this time, not 6 or so months later.

The toilet wall cover always looked crass to me and the RSVP cover always seemed clever and looked great to me. When I used to have my albums out on display as a kid/teen Beggars (white cover) always say st the front on display. It just looked good.
Didn't hurt that it was a masterpiece to boot so regularly got spun and many friends of mine turned from Adam Ant to the Stones.

Mick said he found this far more offensive than a picture of a toilet.




"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"