I recently read the article about The Beatles Butcher cover (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/980109/.html). I found a link to a website all about his subject,so naturally I checked out the website…lots of gross photos I might add. The website has a photo album of all the “Butcher” photos…If you look at the very first photo in the album,it shows the beatles sitting around in all black clothes,playing with dismembered dolls. But the caption at the bottom of the photo reads something like " If you look very closely you can see that why,if this photo was used as the original for the album cover,it would have been even more controversial" So I looked closely and I don’t see crap! Just the beatles playing with dolls. I can’t get a really close up look at it,but maybe I’m just missing it (in which case I’ll feel like a big dumbass:)
So what is it in the picture that would’ve made it so controversial?
Thanks,
Rhiannon
Rhiannon1031, the link you gave above was missing something.
Cecil’s column:
What’s the truth about weird stuff on Beatles’ album covers? (Week of: 09-Jan-98)
(which has a truly scary illustration by Slug Signorino showing someone throwing up on a presumedly shocking Beatles album cover)
But your question relates in particular to a photograph at this website referred to by Cecil Adams:
The Butcher Cover Photo Album - Page 1 (see photo on right)
I could only guess that the web page author is referring to what John and Paul are doing with the one doll. In particular, it seems to me that Paul’s hands are firmly placed in the genital area of the plastic doll.
Actually, Paul’s hands are on the knee and the neck - he’s holding the doll upside down, with John holding the head above it.
A bigger pic (like the size of an album jacket) would really help with the problem of seeing what he’s referring to.
It looks like John could possibly be holding something up to the baby-head’s mouth, perhaps a cigarette or a joint? This is a complete WAG, because the resolution of the picture isn’t good enough to see if there’s any truth to what I’m saying or not.
Check out the doll in the bottom middle of the picture, lying on it’s back. It’s hard to tell on such a small picture, but it appears to be sporting an erection (or something resembling an erection).
Zu
I agree. It appears to be the arm of another doll stuck in between one of the dolls legs, pointing upwards. It does look like an erection, until you look at it closely. Pretty amusing, IMO.
OK I looked at the photo and came up with a couplae of things. Remember that, when these albums were being released, there were rumours about misfortune befalling the various Beatles, especially Paul, and fans were trying to look for “clues” including things in album covers, and lyrics too like “Here’s a little clue for you all, the walrus was Paul.”
So with that in mind, here’s what I came up with:
-
The “Paul is dead”/play the record backward crowd will appreciate that Paul is the only one wearing a watch, suggesting that his “time is running out”. Also notice that his watch is on his right wrist, most folks wear the watch on the left wrist, except maybe I guess in Britain, where they drive on the wrong side of the road too…
-
Ringo has jammed one of the dismembered legs up next to his boot, suggesting that he might need a prosthesis or something, after say a terrible accident…(I know it’s gross, but you need to remember how everybody was acting back then, like what is the mystery what happened to who…)
3)My favorite, Paul and John are attempting to shove the baby’s head up its ass. Now that could be considered controversial, no?
Paul is left-handed, so he would wear his wristwatch
on the right hand.
Not necessarily. My wife is right-handed, but wears her watch on her right wrist. Drives me nuts.