Pickled Priest Cover Story #12: Your Cover Should Know...Assessing the Album Covers of the Beatles
I did the Stones, so I feel compelled to snap off a post assessing the Beatles album covers, too, so as to not offend that sensitive group of superfans. So here we have the Beatles album covers list (US and UK both) ranked from worst to best. One Priest's view and nobody else's. Cue rampant bitching.
For sanity reasons, compilations, singles, EPs, reissues, and other non-LP releases not included below. Also, maybe I got a fact or two mixed up. Please forgive me.
PICKLED PRIEST ASSESSES
THE BEATLES ALBUM COVERS
(UK and US releases included)
19 Magical Mystery Tour (1967)
Grade: F
John Van Hammersveld (b. 1941)
Magical Mystery Tour, 1967
Drug-induced vomit on cardboard sleeve
Not a museum piece, thankfully, nor should it ever be, Beatles association be damned. The fact it was designed by John Van Hammersveld, the same guy who gave us the cover of Exile on Main St. (and Hotter Than Hell by Kiss), tells us that nobody is infallible. I'm sure this bad LSD trip during a kid's birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese was not entirely his doing, but not a thing works on this cover, from the red Art Deco song titles to the explosion of Lucky Charms stars to the rainbow lettering to the random light-teal cloud cover background. Hard to argue with the track list (particularly the add-ons), of course, but that's not what I'm here to judge. And a 24-page booklet to match? No thanks.
18 Introducing...The Beatles (1964)
Grade: D-
Ooh, I wonder what kind of music this new "vocal group" performs? A capella show tunes perhaps? We can only hope! By the looks of it, these groomsmen don't proffer anything a teenager would ever want to hear. What a great way to "introduce" the UK's newest pop sensations to America—by making them look like a high school glee club posing for their yearbook photo. Better yet, make the photo look like it was taken in a dank church basement. And be sure to drain any of the band's natural charisma in the process. You got all that?
Note: Vee Jay Records held the distribution of this album's contents until 1964, after which is was also issued on the Capitol LP, The Early Beatles, in March of 1965. It features the Beatles posing in front of a bunch of foliage and isn't really worth mentioning. If you must know, we'd slot it in tie for last with the Vee Jay release merely out of spite.
17 Beatles VI (1965)
Grade: D+
Ah, the revered and beloved Beatles VI! now completely unknown to anyone under 60. I can't begin to tell you how glad I am that I'm not writing this article about the song differences between the US and UK releases of early Beatles material. I don't have that kind of time. It's almost a waste to bother with the US versions at all because their main purpose was to pump product into a cash-rich marketplace and not to establish any visual artistic identity for the band. That would come later, of course, when the band was huge enough to go global with each release. This photo for the rightfully forgotten Beatles VI release (which still went to #1 in the US) gets slotted ahead of the one used for Introducing because here the Beatles at least look and feel like the early-period Beatles America fell in love with—young, happy, humorous, and still willing to play along during a photo shoot. Here, although you can't see it in frame, they are all holding a knife while ceremonially cutting a sheet cake. A couple years later, good luck getting John to play along with this kind of staged fuckery. That said, the cover itself couldn't be any more of a low effort project, so there's not much to analyze. It's a photo of the Beatles, which is hard to fuck up (see prior entry for one notable exception).
16 Yesterday and Today (1966)
Grade: C-
Wow, really? Did this cover cause any controversy when it came out? Just kidding, we all know it made just about everyone lose their shit, including record executives, retailers, radio stations, christians, and much of the remaining American public in general. The story behind it is long and complicated and has been written about, like anything Beatles-related, countless times before, so go elsewhere for the full, "fascinating" story. In short, the "butcher cover," as it came to be known, was claimed by McCartney to be the Beatles statement about the Vietnam War (if you can accept that atrocity, then you can accept this, being the logic). Which makes sense. We also love the sub-interpretation that it was the Beatles expressing disgust at how their highly-crafted and sequenced albums were being butchered and sold as random pieces and parts to the US market. Sometimes two things can be true, but if the latter take wasn't the impetus for the cover, it very much could've been. It goes without saying that the cover was quickly withdrawn and replaced and now you'll have to mortgage your house to buy a rare original copy in decent condition. But all this aside, what we want to discuss is whether this is a good album cover or not.
Answer: it's really not. The sheer audaciousness, the deep meaning (possibly multi-layered), and the demented humor all make me want to say yes. Yes, controversy is a good way to draw attention to a product, but the Beatles needed no additional help getting attention in the 1960s. Yes, a political statement from the biggest band in the world showed they were deeper and more complex than might be expected, but many Americans didn't want such messages mixed in with their entertainment at the time (and still don't—ask Taylor Swift or the Dixie Chicks). And yes, humor and the Beatles have always gone hand-in-hand, but that obvious intention was lost in the furor over a visual containing beheaded babies mixed in with Tomahawk steaks. And how can you possibly see that offending anyone? In short, nothing hit quite the way it was supposed to. Feel free to blame high-concept photographer Robert Whitaker if you want, who pushed for something bold and different from the band, but in the end it was the Beatles choice to go with this dubious concept and objectively poor photograph as the cover. Sometimes, the problem with having massive amounts of clout is that you could misuse it while trying to demonstrate how much say you have over your art (see Kanye West). I suppose one could argue the imperfection of the photo is part of the overall "ugliness" of the cover (it was originally intended to be a small photo on the back cover until the boys elevated it to the front), but it just doesn't work overall. Even the band admitted as much years later.
Addendum:
Yesterday and Today (1966 - replacement cover)
Grade: D+
Talk about an overcorrection! This is the cover Capitol used in response to the "butcher cover" controversy. The tameness of this "steamer trunk" cover is clearly too dramatic of a swing away from the original. I guess, since the label lost the equivalent of 2.5M dollars (in 2024 money) on the recall, this clarified that they weren't about to make that same mistake again. Perhaps other photos exist from the same photo shoot that could've tempered the outrage without completely selling out, but instead we get the most bland, lifeless, humorless, and downcast cover imaginable. At least, they could've had Paul sit on the trunk with a single baby arm hanging out the side. Even that would've been too risky I suppose, but it would've been funny.
15 The Beatles' Second Album (1964)
Grade: C-
Similar to The Rolling Stones, Now! with its photo collage approach and lazy title, this is minimal effort at its finest—the ultimate in low-budget scrapbooking with not a brain cell killed in the Capitol art department. The early 60s was known for its "album cover as advertisement" mentality and this is typical of that era. Which doesn't make it right.
14 Let It Be (1970)
Grade: C+
Stoned and unshowered is no way to go through life. Well, I guess you weren’t going to get them in one room at this time and even if you did, John Lennon’s goiter, aka Yoko, would’ve had to been airbrushed out anyway, so instead you get four incongruous, random photos of the boys. If they hadn’t included four similar photos as an insert in The White Album, maybe this could’ve worked, but their impending move to more individual concerns makes me sad more than anything, which is not a good feeling to get from an album cover.
13 Please Please Me (1963)
Grade: B-
This cover concept worked best when it was repurposed for the red and blue compilations issued by Capitol in 1973. On the 1962-1966 red comp, you got an original photo from the same shoot as Please Please Me, and on the 1967-1970 blue comp you got the shaggy, post-Maharishi Beatles recreating that original photo years later at EMI’s HQ in London (originally slated to be used for the Get Back album that never materialized). What a difference a few years make! The photo is the only selling point of this cover and I like it for the same reason I love the early Beatles singles. It retains that charming innocence that would soon be lost. The rest of the cover, including the font type and coloring, is forgettable. Why yellow for the band’s name of all colors? Not acceptable. I don’t normally consider a simple band photo to be a good cover, just a practical one, but here it’s perfectly fine. What makes it better is that is was taken by English photographer Angus McBean, who may have had the quintessential British name ever. Mr. McBean, we doff our cap to you, sir!
12 Yellow Submarine (1969)
Grade: B-
Not a big fan of cartoon covers, but this one is trippy enough to work, just like the movie itself. The yellow submarine has gone on to be a lasting visual trademark, so they got that right, and the rest is colorful, psychedelic, and amusing. Isn't that what you reall need from a 1960's-era cartoon? Something to entertain the kids while the adults get stoned. Also note Lennon's "Devil Horn" salute, once of the earliest uses of the gesture.
11 Rubber Soul (1965)
Grade: B
Rubber Soul's cover would've been much cooler if John was pointing a gun at the camera, then it would've had a "Straight Outta Liverpool" N.W.A. vibe to it (would they have still called their next record Revolver then?). Instead, we get a passable, overly dark, psychedelic image from the mid-60s that certainly fits the time period, almost too well. The title graphic works, but this is one of those covers that dates itself very quickly, not a great thing for such a timeless band. On a side note, the band looks like they're all in the queue to try out for the role of Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. John in particular. George's do looks like a football helmet, Ringo's like a little Dutch boy, and Paul's, well, Paul's always looks pretty cool. Only one out of four, though.
10 Something New (1964)
Grade: B
The main redeeming value of this hastily created cover is that it features an image from their world changing Ed Sullivan appearance just a few months earlier. A keepsake of sorts, then. Not a live album, however, but it did have Beatles songs on it, which is what's really important. (Did America really need the German version of "I Want to Hold Your Hand," though? Discuss.) Otherwise, it has a bit of a baseball card feel to it, with photo on the left and stats on the right. The only thing remotely creative is the execution of the dull title, which has a bit of Blue Note whimsy built in. I do love the combination of black and orange, however, which is a major bonus. I image if you were of TV watching age in 1964, this cover will have even more of an impact on you. Especially since those broadcasts weren't in living color.
09 Help! (1965)
Grade: B
If you're going to use semaphore signals you should at least get them right. Otherwise, you get the Fab 4 sending the out an emergency distress call using the nautical letters R - U - J and V instead of H - E - L and P. What are you trying to say? says a nearby ship. I find it interesting that nobody thought to actually spell out "HELP" on the cover instead of just using random arm positions. Four letter title, four band members. It was right there for the taking and nobody thought of it? Visually, the matching blue coats, work boots, and hats (Why didn't McCartney get one?) set against a white background isn't bad—I'm all for white space—but jamming the title under the label information seems like an easily solved compositional problem. If I was in charge of the EMI art department, I would've put one red HELP letter under each Beatle with the proper semaphore equivalent above. I bet the boys would've appreciated me being 'round, too.
08 The Beatles (1968)
Grade: B+
It's like, how much more white could this be? And the answer is 'None'...none more white. Another question: Would artist Richard Hamilton's cover concept of the Beatles' self-titled LP, aka "The White Album," have had the same impact and/or status if first used by another band? Of course not. If the Beatles put a rubber duckie on the cover it would likely be deemed iconic to this day, but for different reasons. That said, there is no denying there's something powerful in its stark whiteness, especially coming out of the colorful, late-60s psych era, and on the heels of Sgt. Pepper's, one of the busiest album covers ever created. With only an embossed The BEATLES (in Helvetica) present to identify the artist, the cover conveyed a lot through the absence of a conventional visual. That alone is pretty notable. It was also a cool idea to number the original copies of the record, too, resulting in a collector's feeding frenzy while searching for a "low number" copy on the aftermarket. (Ringo's 0000001 was sold at auction to Jack White several years ago for almost $800K.)
07 Revolver (1966)
Grade: B+
This mind-blowing album deserved a mind-blowing cover and that’s exactly what artist (and musician) Klaus Voormann delivered when he presented the Beatles with his artwork for Revolver. After the relative simplicity of the past Beatles album covers, this was quite the radical departure. It perfectly reflects the time from which it came, combining elements of the psychedelic era and the highly experimental nature of the recordings inside its sleeve. That alone is enough to rank this high on the list of Beatles album covers, but there’s much more to admire. The decision to make the cover black and white in an age of swirling, kaleidoscopic LSD trips and colorful “flower power” demonstrations was inspired. It stood out by not standing out. (Of course, if he opted to do this cover in living color, we’d love it just the same most likely.) Honestly, I’ve always been a little unnerved by Voormann's rendering of the band's faces and how their line-drawn features contrast with their intricately-detailed and textured hair. This is why I have unfairly downgraded the overall cover to a B+. I just can't quite get over the hump on the execution, no matter how much its genius is explained to me. This is especially true for George, whose image was so difficult for Klaus to nail, he just cut out George’s eyes and mouth from a photo and used those instead! Very creepy in a Clutch Cargo kind of way. The collage of photos cascading between the heads, nestled in and around their hair, I can live with. Nobody had done something quite like this before and Voormann, having the opportunity to hear the album before creating the art, clearly wanted his art to be as creative and adventurous as the music. That he did, but not before putting a picture of himself on the cover messing with Ringo's and George’s hair. A ballsy move for a commissioned artist, one the Beatles appreciated in a demented kind of way. How many album designers put their own photo on a cover, let alone for the most popular band in the world? Sheer design genius. In the end, it's an innovative album cover you can gaze at for a long time and that's exactly what we’re looking for from an album cover.
06 Beatles for Sale (1964)
Grade: A-
This cover has a Rolling Stones Between the Buttons feel to it. Hot band dragged out in the cold, perhaps a brisk autumn morning, likely running on fumes, just hoping to get a quick, usable shot for an album cover. The foreground and background are both blurry, but their faces are striking, focused on the task at hand, their fabulous mop tops on display in all their glory. The photo. for better or worse, effectively washes out the wisecracking Beatles persona and replaces it with dead stares down the camera lens. A gorgeous shot, perfectly executed, one that shows us another side to a familiar band. It's also notable, for a band so heavily marketed, that the title of the record, Beatles for Sale, is rendered in such small type you might actually miss it if you weren't looking too closely. For an album so blatantly titled, it's a genius way to contradict what surely was a sarcastic comment on the crass commercialism surrounding the band at the time.
05 Beatles '65 (1964)
Grade: A-
Even though this is one of the hastily put together American album covers, I quite like it. It's not perfect, though. First the reasons I like it. The color scheme, with red and light green is pleasing to the eye. I also like the way the songs are listed in the top information cluster. I also love, love, love the photograph of the boys with their umbrellas, George and Ringo on a bench, Paul on a stool, and John on a chair. Quirky yet dignified, defying bad luck by having four umbrellas open and at the ready, indoors no less. They could do no wrong in 1965, so why not tempt fate? The color of the umbrellas is also inspired, with just the right amount of color variation. Very appealing to the eye. Where they lose me is in the three additional shots from the photo shoot on the bottom. These should've been put on the back, if anywhere, to allow the main image more real estate. It would've had a greater impact if it had been simplified a bit. And the image with the brooms and basket should've been outright shitcanned. That was pushing it.
04 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
Grade: A
The most iconic of all the Beatles album covers, Sgt. Pepper’s remains a pretty spectacular milestone to this day and in its time unlike anything before it. Yet another Beatles breakthrough, ho hum. It certainly helps when you have an unlimited budget. Here’s proof. Positioned as a post-concert team photo with both the titular fictional band and a bizarre combination of notable attendees, this was the ultimate backstage meet-and-greet, if you will. It’s not everyday Hitler and Jesus are invited to the same party, even if EMI was too chickenshit to keep them on the cover. If you ranked album covers on the average time people have spent staring at them, Sgt. Pepper’s would crush the competition. Long before the internet published a complete guide to each person pictured, you had to figure out who’s who on your own or with your friends which made the gaze time that much longer. Circulate a rumor that one of the band members was dead and that there are hidden clues on the cover to support that claim and the intrigue quotient pushes it off the charts. All that aside, it’s an attractive visual, one that we are all familiar with, so it’s important when doing such a review to try and look at it like it’s your first time. Only then, is its real magnificence and ambition clear. This is a cover that rewards revisiting every once in a while. A cover befitting the most important band in history.
03 A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Grade: A
I like this cover quite a bit because who hasn't subjected themselves to a four-or-five-shots-for-a-dollar photo booth modeling session? If you have, you know there's not much time to alter your appearance before the next shot, but you can get some funny poses in if you time it just right. George even managed to swivel himself around for a back of the head shot. Very ambitious. Ringo, oddly, is the least goofy of the bunch, which is surprising. I guess George and Ringo were deferring to the dynamic duo here, for both John and Paul give this all they've got. This cover works because there's much to be amused by and because it recalls a magical moment in time.
02 Abbey Road (1969)
Grade: A+
The cover composition of Abbey Road is absolutely perfect. It makes no difference that all the band had to do was walk down the street from Abbey Road Studios to pose for a half-dozen or so photographs by Scottish photographer Iain MacMillan. The fact remains, they all nailed it. Nobody ever said you need a big production like Sgt. Pepper’s to make an iconic album cover. In this case, the photograph is perfectly framed, from the beautifully clear light blue sky to the rich leafy greenery to the long view down Abbey Road behind them. The main focus, accented by a crisply painted crosswalk, is the band in lockstep, precisely positioned so as not to intrude on each other’s space. They are operating in sync, at least for one more album that is. Even if we know their relationship wasn't perfect, there’s a certain unspoken kinship conveyed by the photo, one that relies on each to play their part, albeit with distinctly different styles. Maybe the smartest decision of all was to let the shot stand without any graphics in the way. That would’ve tainted it. There's not an album cover I know of that has been recreated by fans on the daily ever since the record was issued. If that isn't testament to the enduring power of a single image I don't know what is.
01 With the Beatles (1963)
Grade: A+
01 Meet the Beatles! (1964)
Grade: A+
Our favorite Beatles album covers from both their UK and US releases share the same captivating photo. The now familiar and visually stunning black and white photograph used on each is a work of art, plain and simple. Clad in black turtlenecks and set against a black background, it finds a group of young British lads unknowingly on the verge of changing the world. Could anyone, including the band, have predicted such an outcome in their wildest dreams in 1963? Surely not. It's hard to tell for sure what each member of the band was feeling at the moment this was taken, but John looks to be the most confident, George the most peaceful (of course), Paul the most wide-eyed, and Ringo the most Ringo (his resting face). In total, there is a youthful innocence present here that only magnifies the wonderment they must have felt at the time. The UK version, in stark black and white with a simple title, and not adorned by some form of gaudy advertising hype, is the most effective use of the image. The entire cover has a pleasing visual consistency and texture, introducing us to four soon to be iconic faces emerging from the darkness, perhaps the last time they could even partially hide in the shadows for the rest of their lives.
The US version is similarly gorgeous, but in a slightly different way. It takes on a blue tint, possibly influenced by the legendary Blue Note album covers from the same period. Adding a splash of subtle color to the UK version doesn't diminish its impact, all thanks to that soul-penetrating photograph. Meet the Beatles! is a pretty darn good title, too, albeit slightly less subtle than its UK cohort. Putting the “Meet the” in matching light blue was a nice design touch, allowing the cover to hold together cohesively. It’s just plain attractive. Yes, I could do without the ad hype, so notable in its absence on its British counterpart, but they were trying to break America, so I can understand the need to grab the attention of distracted US teenagers. The light-brown BEATLES is also quite tasteful, an unlikely but appreciated color choice. Thankfully, they didn’t choose a garish red instead. It could’ve ruined the whole continuity of the cover. Different take, but yet another entirely satisfying and successful visual. The power of a single photograph cannot be understated.
Before I leave, one aspect of the photo has always made me wonder, and that is the positioning of Ringo in the lower right hand corner. Would the photo have worked better with two in the top row and two on the bottom, allowing for a more symmetrical photograph? Or staggered? Or in a diamond shape? If you were Ringo, would you have felt a touch slighted by your spot off to the side? I know I'd be wondering about my status in the band if I was in such a diminished location. Ringo has always seemed untroubled by such things, so perhaps he didn't give it a second thought. The photographer, Robert Freeman, claims it was due to Ringo being the last to join the band coupled with the fact "he was shorter," but that rationale seems threadbare to me. I don't doubt the cover might not work if the photographer jammed all four Beatles side-by-side across the frame—that would make the faces too small—so this was one of a few plausible solutions.
Note: Australia wasn't allowed to use the original photo, so the above cover was used instead, much to the band's chagrin. It definitely doesn't capture the same feel of With the Beatles, but it does allow us to speculate on an alternate positioning of their faces. I'm not in love with this approach, however. What say you? I know you have an opinion.
______________________
So there you have it. The Beatles. Box checked.
Cheers,
The Priest