Does anyone else hate this album cover as much as I do? I really don't get the joke, and I think it's a disgusting image. Similarity to the White Album cover notwithstanding, I think the "Beggar's Banquet, RSVP" cover is classy and clean, like the music inside, the antithesis of the graffiti wall. Of course, the gatefold photo is fantastic and could have been used for the cover as well.

The only thing I've read about the Stones' argument with Decca for the cover was that it wasn't offensive as the mushroom cloud on Atomic Tom Jones, tacitly acknowledging the toilet cover WAS offensive to some degree. Why would they want to wrap such beautiful music in something so nasty?

The roots of my music collecting lie in going through my older sister's album collection as a young boy, and the RSVP cover and gatefold were among my favorites (along with American Beauty, Quadrophenia and History of Eric Clapton). Now that memory is sullied by a dirty bog.

Zack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>. Why would they want
> to wrap such beautiful music in something so
> nasty?



while I agree the music is Beautiful, it also has a nasty side to it a seedy side... SFTD, Stray Cat Blues, Parachute Woman...


and I dont think its a crappy cover at all, infact i think its one of their best, if not the best.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-12 10:43 by ryanpow.

I never thought it was crappy cover. Its meant in some ways to piss people off. Don't have such a shitty attitude.....you'll get all flushed and bogged down. Then your whole day goes down the toilet.

Where else you going to go after a Beggers Banquet? To the JOHN!

----------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-12 10:41 by ryanpow.

yapyap#3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never thought it was crappy cover. Its meant in
> some ways to piss people off. Don't have such a
> shitty attitude.....you'll get all flushed and
> bogged down. Then your whole day goes down the
> toilet.
>
> Where else you going to go after a Beggers
> Banquet? To the JOHN!


Yeah, anyone who faeces fact here, would understand that it is not such a crappy cover after all!!

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ----------


I agree!

I love that cover

The toilet cover for Beggars Banquet far better than the Flowers cover from the year before, with its snide poke at Brian.

It's as good as the cover for Their Satantic Majesties Request, which was as elaborate and controlled as the Beggars Banquet cover was down and dirty.

The toilet cover for Beggars Banquet is better than the covers for Goats Head Soup, Emotional Rescue, Undercover, Dirty Work, Steel Wheels, Flashpoint, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, No Security, Live Licks and A Bigger Bang.

It's not as classy as the covers for most of the other 60s covers, Get Yer Ya-Yas Out!, Sticky Fingers, Exile, It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, Black and Blue, Love You Live, Some Girls, Tattoo You.

It's not as good as the best covers for the Stones' hits collections, which are Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass), Through the Past Darkly, Hot Rocks and More Hot Rocks but much better than the covers for Forty Licks, Sucking in the Seventies, Jump Back! and Rewind.

And it's far superior to the invitation cover, in my opinion, which was wrongly perceived as a rip-off of cover of The Beatles, a.k.a. The White Album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-12 16:15 by Monkeylad.

They should have put a photo of a clean bathroom on the front cover and the photo of the dirty bathroom on the back cover.

I think if you're under the impression that the cover does not suit the music, then you don't understand the music.

There's a reason that album is called "Beggars Banquet." And there is a reason the songs are titled in the way they are. I think the cover suits the album incredibly well. One of their best covers.

the cover suits the album incredibly well...

YEAH dirty cover......Filthy music...



ROCKMAN

ive always liked that cover.

and its the best studio album the stones ever made.

Well said, my Monkeylad!

I always liked the toilet cover, but I like the invitation-Design as well. Maybe the toilet-tag has lost some impact, simply because times have changed. It's not "anti-establishment" anymore...

Yep, nice to have an original one....well the slick anyway...

JR

I'd second that. The invitation card has got class. Pity, I just got the cheapo-non-gatefold-edition, when I first bought it. No beggars banquet inside ;-)

Funny story about the Flowers album cover.

I knew this guy in LA who was working in a used record store. One day, this guy comes in, holding this record in a paper bag that we wanted to sell. He quietly walked up to the counter and pulled that whole bit they show on tv (looks around, "hey kid, wanna buy a bike, cheap"). "Hey, I've got something to sell, it's REALLY rare and valuable. I've got this old record with Mick Jagger and Keith Richards BEFORE they were in the Rolling Stones. They were in this band called "The Flowers". How much do you think it's worth".

The guys just laughs at him and says, yeah buddy, I have 4 more in the fifty cents pile.

Greenblues Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always liked the toilet cover, but I like the invitation-Design as well. Maybe the toilet-tag
> has lost some impact, simply because times have changed. It's not "anti-establishment" anymore...

Now come on, that Beggars Banquet shithose is still one of the most appalling covers of all time, even after nearly 40 years that toilet still looks like it needs some serious cleansing, especially when thinking it was released by some multi-billionaire greatest r&r band in the world who was establishment enough to release an album showing a male lion on the front cover - just without no balls when they in fact should have been hairy.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greenblues Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I always liked the toilet cover, but I like the
> invitation-Design as well. Maybe the toilet-tag
> > has lost some impact, simply because times have
> changed. It's not "anti-establishment" anymore...
>
> Now come on, that Beggars Banquet shithose is
> still one of the most appalling covers of all
> time, even after nearly 40 years that toilet still
> looks like it needs some serious cleansing,
> especially when thinking it was released by some
> multi-billionaire greatest r&r band in the world
> who was establishment enough to release an album
> showing a male lion on the front cover - just
> without no balls when they in fact should have
> been hairy.


Hm... I never took the toilet-thing THAT serious. And I don't think that I'd consider hairy balls a serious statement either. But I see your point. As I said, times have changed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-16 18:25 by Greenblues.

even though times have changed I think the toilet cover still has an impact because stuff that comes out today that tries to be shocking just doesnt have the style or substance the stones had in 68.

when i was younger, I always skipped buying that album as i was adding to my Stones collection BECAUSE hated the white cover (too boring) and was always bummed out the real cover was not avaialble, a few years later when i saw it was reissued with the REAL cover, i snatched it up.

It is not disgusting, it is just a fun cover

A pretty shocking Stones album cover was the mock artwork featured in the magazine National Lampoon in the middle 70s. It was a spoof of the Stones, centered around a fictitious album called "Rim Shot," I believe. I need to seek out a copy of that issue of National Lampoon. But I doubt that I would post the cover here. Children may read this board.

"Rim Shout" - that's just a bootleg. Strange that it would get so much attention.
"More Fast Numbers" - oh that one have a nice backside, in the same style as Rim Shout
Here's Rim Shout [i96.photobucket.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-18 01:15 by Erik_Snow.

No, no, no . . . Rim Shot, not Rim Shout. I remember the cover very clearly. It was the classic Stones tongue with a salacious twist.

National Lampoon was a humor magazine for young adults, full of the type of humor that the world needs more of. They produced the magazine cover that shows a gun pressed against a dog's head with a headline something like "Buy This Magazine, Or We'll Shoot This Dog." Hilarious, huh?

There's no accounting for taste but the cover is discusting and, like The Beatle's butcher cover makes a strong case for censership.

keithfan64 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no accounting for taste but the cover is
> discusting and, like The Beatle's butcher cover
> makes a strong case for censership.

Huh? Censorship of a picture of a loo? Am I missing something here?

Mathijs

I just ment that sometimes a record company should have the say over musicians as to what is appropiate taste for a cover. It's a tricky thing but I,for one am glad the origanal invatation cover was used instead of the gross toilet cover.

I loved that cover, it was back then a reflection of the band "dirty and nasty"
sex/drugs and rock roll.

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Monkeylad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> National Lampoon was a humor magazine for young
> adults, full of the type of humor that the world
> needs more of. They produced the magazine cover
> that shows a gun pressed against a dog's head with
> a headline something like "Buy This Magazine, Or
> We'll Shoot This Dog." Hilarious, huh?

Great magazine, Monkeylad. I still have some in a box somewhere, along with my collection of Furry Freak Brothers comics.

From the book Rolling Stones 40x20: Barry Feinstein was the photographer.

Mick called and said,"We have something called Beggars Banquet," and he asked us to do the photos. Tom Brooks and I agreed to do it. I went over to my Porsche mechanic on Cahuenga Boulevard because I remembered that he had a funky f_cking bathroom. I said, "Let's put the Rolling Stones on the wall." Mick and Keith came over and we put all kinds of sh_t on the walls, right in Hollywood.
Tom wrote on there; my name's on there. I also wrote a poem to my wife. If you look carefully, you'll see a cock with two balls.
That created controversy. One of the directors wouldn't put the album out when they saw it and held it up for six months. It was published in Time and was supposed to be the cover for the whole thing, but they did the white Lp instead. Years later when they put the CD out, they used our shots for the front and back covers. I know we were having fun, hwo could we not? That's just how it works. Allen Klein was managing them. I don't think I ever got paid for those shots.