Does Album Artwork Offend You?

For the last couple of days I was having a discussion with someone on this board about Type O Negatives album Bloody Kisses. It has a couple of different covers but mainly the one thats found more often in stores is the one with 2 girls kissing on the front cover. Now he likes the band but because of the girls kissing on the front cover he will not buy it unless he finds one of the alternate covers for a cheaper price. Which is understandable because he doesnt want to betray his beiefs and wants to save a little cash.

What I just dont understand is if you like a band does it really matter what the artwork is? You know what their songs are about so why should artwork be the deciding factor to not get something? Im not trying to put anyone down or anything, because everyone has their own beliefs and I respect that. I would just like to know how many other people feel that way.

The only time I could say maybe I felt that way was when I started getting into metal. A lot of covers at the time scared me but only because I was young and wasnt too sure what to believe. If I listened to this band then your gonna go to Hell sort of thing. Then after a while I was just like thats rediculous its just music and everyone interprets music in their own way. For me I listen to a lot of bands where I dont believe in their way of thinking or writing but the music is good and thats all I care about. I just dont take things too seriously because you never know what you could be missing out on. After all its just entertainment.

So discuss....How do you feel?

I just think its personal preference. Artwork and lyrics don't influence my decision to buy something in a negative way ever. But if the new Enslaved or new Alice Cooper, which are CDs I would buy regardless, were to have the Goatse guy's fisted ass on the cover, then I would wait to see if they would make a censored cover.

Always hated the artwork to Celtic Frost's To Megatherion. Not sure I'd say "it offends me". I just don't like the way it portrays Christ. I own the CD, I've just turned the cover art to the inside.

I don't believe there is an "alternate cover" to Type O's BLOODY KISSES... just the one of the two girls kissing ... in which case, your friend is outta luck if that artwork is keeping him from buying that album. (Although I suppose in this day and age, he could always download the album -- legally, of course -- from I-Tunes or whatever and make a CD-R with whatever cover art he wants...)

Your friend may be thinking of the ORIGIN OF THE FECES album, which has been released with two different covers (one is a close up of a spread-open butt, while the other is a drawing of dancing skeletons)... I have the "butt" cover of that CD, by the way, but like Ult said about the Celtic Frost CD he mentioned, I keep the booklet flipped around so I don't have to look directly at it.

I'm pretty hard to offend so generally, CD covers don't bother me. I have seen a few REALLY nasty death metal/gore grind album covers that have made me go "Haha, wow, that's disgusting," but I end up laughing at them rather than getting offended. I wouldn't buy those CDs because I don't care for those genres anyway.

There have been a couple of things that have bothered me. Deicide's Once Upon The Cross usually is the first thing that comes to mind (I'm not a big fan of the band either). But I do think that even the cover art for most bands is still part of their vision and think they have that right to express themselves even if I don't like and/or agree with it.

Album art that offends me is usually by bands that also have lyrics and/or attitudes that offend me so there's never a conflict for me. I've never not bought an album because of its artwork.

Fat Freddy wrote:

I don't believe there is an "alternate cover" to Type O's BLOODY KISSES... genres

Yeah there is.




I've never seen the uncensored one before. It was news to me as well, Fred.

Quote :

I'm pretty hard to offend so generally, CD covers don't bother me. I have seen a few REALLY nasty death metal/gore grind album covers that have made me go "Haha, wow, that's disgusting," but I end up laughing at them rather than getting offended. I wouldn't buy those CDs because I don't care for those genres anyway.

Put me in that category as well.

The Type O cover could be their take on the old Pungent Stench album cover of Been Caught Buttering which shows two old men's decapitated heads kissing.

spectrefate wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

I don't believe there is an "alternate cover" to Type O's BLOODY KISSES... genres

Yeah there is.




I've never seen the uncensored one before. It was news to me as well, Fred.

Hmmm...same two gals, slightly different poses. OK, consider me schooled. Never saw that one on the left before.

Either way, I don't believe there is a version of that album without lesbians on the front.

I never saw the one on the left before either.

Now that I think about it, a year or so after BLOODY KISSES got released, Roadrunner repackaged it in a digi-pak with an extra track ("Suspended In Dusk") to promote their tour with Queensryche... that pic on the left is likely the cover of the digipak version. I already had the original version so I guess I never looked all that closely at the other one. After all it's virtually the same color scheme, with the same girls.

tohostudios wrote:

I never saw the one on the left before either.

Now that I look at 'em, I don't think I've seen that one on the left either.

No there isnt a version without the girls just the two above. The one on the left is the digi

no, artwork doesn't offend me.

For the most part, I don't care that much, but if a cover (or song) was
heavily blasphemous, I would want to avoid it. There's plenty of stuff
out there that does not bother my conscience, so I can't see any one
album being so amazing I have to have it at the expense of my
convictions.

While I am not a Type-O Negative fan, I would probably own Bloody
Kisses if I were. I would just turn the artwork in backwards, so my
kids did not accidentally see it, but it wouldn't bother me to have it.
I have a few cds with questionable covers that I do that with.

Artwork doesnt offend me unless its totally blasphemous to God.Otherwise I dont pay much attention to that kind of stuff

The only think that offends me is when dogs are turned to sausage right before my eyes. What.

I actually have a bootleg Type O Negative CD called WE SUCK... which has a similar cover to BLOODY KISSES but it's more explicit than the "real" thing.

I keep my CDs in a locked cabinet anyway so I'm not worried about my kids seeing it, though the last time we moved and I had to pack up all my CDs, I remember my wife having a few choice comments about that one and the aforementioned ORIGIN OF THE FECES. ("Ewwww! What kind of CD is this? What the hell is WRONG with this band?" Haha)

It's so hard to explain to wives how a man's open butt cheeks on a CD cover is an OK thing.

spectrefate wrote:

It's so hard to explain to wives how a man's open butt cheeks on a CD cover is an OK thing.

I told her "if you think that's bad, you should see some of my brother's death metal CD covers"

artwork doesn't offend me whatsoever. i never cared for the original cover of Virgin Killer, but i didn't really find it offensive either. just distasteful.

No I've never been offended either by artork, some art I just find stupid

I donot find artwork offensive, well maybe " Virgin Killers' that came close, stuff like Deicide's Once Upon the Cross, trying to be shocking, is too me almost laughable because it is so over the top.

What I find offensive is American Idol, because they gave us Clay Aiken, Ruben, and god knows how many other talentless twits they have made into household names.

Rarley, theres some I don't like, but not really offend. I hate that Orgin of Feces one, and would never buy it because of that, but thats the only one i can think of.