Pauls cigarette removed from Abbey Road cover

This blog is an open discussion of The Beatles

Moderator: Mike

Pauls cigarette removed from Abbey Road cover

Postby Thomas » Wed Jan 22, 2003 2:59 pm

Thanks to the Anti Smoking Lobbysits in , what some people think, the greatest country on earth, the USA, the famous Abbey Road cover in the USA (capitol records?) will never be the same. On the new cover Pauls cigarette is removed.
I´m not a smoker myself but I think this is really far overexageratted.
I can´t find pictures of the `new` cover on the internet but it was on british news (I heard from a friend of mine from London) and in dutch newspapers.
User avatar
Thomas
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 8:10 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby megs » Wed Jan 22, 2003 5:30 pm

IMHO thats just plain stupid to remove the ciggy from the cover and like you said this is really getting overaxaterated[:)]
User avatar
megs
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 9:28 am
Location: USA...near Boston

Postby Aujouret » Wed Jan 22, 2003 7:30 pm

I was reading at Abbeyrd that it MAY be deleted from future releases of Abbey Road. It is not official yet. It has only been released from posters so far. I personally think it's a bit phony. What can be done- edit out scenes from the films, edit all photos of the Beatles, edit edit forever.... I am an exsmoker, by the way; quit 11 years ago. Why not let everything stand, as a reminder, it is the truth; George died of lung cancer.
Aujouret
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 2:09 am
Location: USA

Postby mr. kite » Wed Jan 22, 2003 11:41 pm

totally absurd![:(!]
mr. kite
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:10 am
Location: Philippines

Postby Buster_Bronco » Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:03 am

Is it just me or does it seem stupid to change a 30 year old album cover?

New smokers are usually teenagers....how many teenagers are out buying Abbey Road? Quite a few I'm sure but a teen listening to a 30+ year old album is likely to be independent enough of the crowd to make an informed decision about smoking......now if Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys were holding cigarettes on the cover I'd say that may influence some that it's cool to smoke.

Should they drop Helter Skelter from the White Album because Charles Manson was inspired to kill?
Buster_Bronco
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 10:48 am

Postby Brains » Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:10 am

It's good to help people realise smoking is a bad thing. Editing Paul's cig off the cover of that epic album form 30 years back is not the right way to do that.

At that time smoking was not as controversial as it is now. Paul holding a cigarette is something very much of that time, you can't change that now.

True, if Britney or NSync (or Paul!) would make a cover holding a cigarette these days something could be said about that.
Brains
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 4:46 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby maccastheman » Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:17 am

I agree that it would be stupid to remove the cigarette from Paul's hand. The cover of the Simon and Garfunkel box set "Old Friends" has a picture of Paul Simon holding his hand up in the air, but it looks rather silly. The original picture had him holding a cigarette. At Simon's request, the cigarette was removed from the picture for the cover.

I can't imagine looking at the cover of "Young Americans" by David Bowie without him holding the cigarette.

The same can be said for Paul and "Abbey Road."

Leave things alone. I don't like revisionist history. [:(!] (I'm working on a master's in history) [8D]
User avatar
maccastheman
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:38 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Postby Liam OSM » Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:00 pm

This is really like Paul flipping the names around - it's a little thing and it shouldn't matter either way.
Liam OSM
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 4657
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 10:39 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby maccastheman » Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:24 pm

quote:Originally posted by Liam OSM
This is really like Paul flipping the names around - it's a little thing and it shouldn't matter either way.


Good call Liam. I didn't think about that. Hmmm. Still, editing a photo seems a bit different to me than flipping names around that have been flipped around from the very beginning.

Back in the days of "Abbey Road," album covers were considered art just like the music was considered art. Names aren't really art. Oh well. I guess anybody can find any way to justify where they stand on this issue.

Bottom line: I like the cigarette! (Even though I don't smoke) [8D]
User avatar
maccastheman
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:38 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Postby Steve-o » Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:09 pm

I don't think they should ever tamper with any album covers from the past. It has nothing to do with song writing credits. As MTM says, this stuff is pop art and part of our rich musical heritage. Every last inch of album cover should be enjoyed (unless it's TWO VIRGINS!!). CD's have ruined that for me. I like the size of the album.
User avatar
Steve-o
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 11:18 pm
Location: USA

Next

Return to The Beatles: General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron