Log In
Register
10.02am
16 December 2017
Offline
Dark Overlord said
I know this is a touchy subject but since it’s Beatles related I think it’s fine to talk about here. Do you guys think that the abortion theory is plausible, do you believe that The Beatles dressed up as abortionists with the butchered baby dolls and raw meat representing aborted fetuses. It’s a dark theory but then again it’s a dark album cover and it’s possible that The Beatles were trying to send out a pro life (or pro choice, depending on who you ask) message (after all, the album was released in 1966 and abortion was legalized in the UK in 1967) by using shock art.By the way, let’s not use this thread to have a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong, I’ll be very pissed off if that happens, I only want to discuss whether The Beatles were trying to send a message about abortion on their Yesterday And Today album cover or if they had something else in mind.
Overall, while it’s a cool theory and it makes more sense than the one that states it’s in opposition to the Vietnam War, I also really like the idea that it’s a jab at Capitol for butchering their albums. Sorry if this theory is too dark for the forums, I just really thought it was a cool theory and it has a more literal approach instead of the more innuendo approaches of the other 2 theories.
I don’t think they wanted to make a reference to abortion issue. I see it more as @FatherMcKenzie, like a way to be against their image and the whole obsession with the media to have their photos and making photoshoots constantly, which is something they ended up hating in that period..
The following people thank annyskod for this post:
Evangeline, Father McKenzie
1.21pm
11 November 2010
Offline I think that’s reading too much into it (the abortion and Vietnam War things, I mean.). The butcher cover was done while Brian Epstein was still alive and Brian Epstein strongly encouraged them not to make political statements.
I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
10.55pm
7 November 2022
Offline Mr. Kite said
Silly Girl said
Bongo said
I think Capitol finally got a Beatles LP right by taking all those 1967 singles and the MMT EP, and even kept the MMT album cover!!!!!
That’s not quite right, the original EP cover was like this:
The Capitol album added the orange outside part and the song titles.
They’re both equally tacky, though.
Yes indeed, but do we love them any less?
Would it be reasonable to suppose — another of Paul’s bright ideas?
Now today I find, you have changed your mind
11.38pm
7 November 2022
Offline Starr Shine? said
I find it strange how there is no image of the butcher cover in the thread about the butcher cover. I shall fix this.
and the changed cover
The Beatles look happier in the butcher cover.
I wish FF had a way to “like” a post such that when you do, it re-posts it also (like on Twitter). So in lieu of that, I’ll requote this and say I like it!
Now today I find, you have changed your mind
11.46pm
7 November 2022
Offline Ron Nasty said
@Zig said
I do recall that, mmm. However, I do not recall the source or who said it. Any ideas?
Once Whitaker explained what the hell it was he was trying to do, those theories created purely to plug the hole were quickly abandoned.
So Whitaker cleared it all up? What did he say?
Now today I find, you have changed your mind
6.11am
11 June 2015
Offline @Sea Belt Here is an interesting article about the cover from The Paul McCartney Project website.
The following people thank sigh butterfly for this post:
Richard, Sea Belt, RubeYou and I have memories
Longer than the road that stretches out ahead
8.38am
7 November 2022
Offline Thanks for the link @sigh butterfly. The article raised a question and thought.
“Whitaker intended that A Somnambulant Adventure would be a triptych design across two panels of a 12-inch LP cover. Among various comments he later made on the subject, he said the panels would be the inner gatefold spread or, alternatively, the front and back cover. The butcher photo was to appear in the central portion of the triptych or on the back cover. He planned to reduce the image to just “two-and-a-quarter inches square” and set it in the middle of the panel…”
I just realized — am I correct that in 1966, there did not yet exist the “double album” for LPs, such that you could open it up and have twice the size of both front and back covers side by side? If so, it’s like Whitaker was trying to compensate for the lack at the time of a double album layout.
On another note, it didn’t surprise me to learn as that article says, that Paul seemed to be the most enthusiastic about the photo — though I notice he never says exactly why he liked it. He also implies that they were all good with it, when Joe has supplied us with a quote from George saying he definitely did NOT like it. Another typical misremembering by Paul…
Also, the Vietnam War connection strikes me as some idea he had (possibly with John) only after the fact (possibly much later), since Whitaker says nothing about it.
Now today I find, you have changed your mind
4.06pm
1 December 2009
Offline 
Sea Belt said
I just realized — am I correct that in 1966, there did not yet exist the “double album” for LPs, such that you could open it up and have twice the size of both front and back covers side by side? If so, it’s like Whitaker was trying to compensate for the lack at the time of a double album layout.
Well, the first double-vinyl pop/rock albums were supposedly Dylan’s “Blonde on Blonde” and Zappa’s “Freak Out!”; and they were both released in ’66, in gatefold sleeves, but not until several months after Whitaker’s photo session. However, there had indeed already been double albums released before ’66, in non-rock fields.
Also, “Beatles For Sale ” was actually itself released in a gatefold sleeve, so the precedent was already set for even a single Beatles album to be enclosed in four 12″x12″ cardboard surfaces, instead of just two.
The following people thank vonbontee for this post:
Sea Belt, RichardGEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
9.32pm
14 June 2016
Offline Perhaps there isn’t any deep meaning as that digging for deeper insight became a habit for everything and anything The Beatles did. Maybe it was thought to be a darkly funny photo and the reaction afterwards didn’t go well as expected. It could be as simple as that.
The following people thank Timothy for this post:
Richard, Sea Belt, Rube1.The Beatles 2.Sgt. Pepper 3.Abbey Road 4.Magical Mystery Tour 5.Rubber Soul 6.Revolver 7.Help! 8.Let It Be
9.A Hard Day’s Night 10.Please Please Me 11.Beatles For Sale 12.With The Beatles 13.Yellow Submarine
Most Avid John Fan 2020 and 2021: 
6.01am
11 June 2015
Offline 
On the anniversary of the recall, this showed up in my FB feed. The explanation for the artwork is rather strained. I wonder if anyone actually returned the original cover to Capitol? 
The following people thank sigh butterfly for this post:
Richard, Rube, BeatlebugYou and I have memories
Longer than the road that stretches out ahead
10.03pm
1 December 2009
Offline 
In light of Whitaker’s photo session of early 1966, and his use of dismembered plastic baby-doll parts in his concrpt…I have to wonder: While participating, did the band devote any reminiscence at all to their Xmas-flexi recordings of several months previous, the unused bits, particularly this vignette about COOKING and EATING BABIES?
The following people thank vonbontee for this post:
Richard, BeatlebugGEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
12.52am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline …..well
I do enjoy listening to them make funny voices and trying to lost the Scouse accent and slightly failing
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Von Bontee([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
11.56pm
14 December 2009
Offline What I find funniest about it is the incongrous EMI sound-fx record in the background, with the sound babies crying very mundanely – like, just your average cry of a baby that’s hungry or bored, instead of the bloodcurdling screams more appropriate to the ludicrous notion of a live infant being sliced up bt electric blades. And the blasé, matter-of-fact commentary being equally bland and low-key adds to the effect. ,
The following people thank Von Bontee for this post:
BeatlebugPaul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
1 Guest(s)