cover causing a bit of a stirr online...some not buying it because of the cover

Matt Berry - The Blue Elephant

heres some examples.....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s just trying to be controversial to sell records.

Joseph Merrick had an awful life and using his image to sell music is a bit desperate and frankly it’s disrespectful to a man who faced horrendous discrimination and ridicule.

Equally, I don’t agree with Led Zep’s first album cover, no matter how striking it is.
At the point that the photograph of the Hindenburg was taken some people were losing their life and that makes me feel uneasy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s one horrible designed album cover and distasteful to the memory of Joseph Merrick along with another album cover I can’t bare to look at is When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? By Billie Eilis, that image reminds me of a film made in the 70s and I won’t even utter it’s name. I guess it’s the music what really matters

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haven’t a clue about the music but the cover is a bit rude, considering a real human being suffered from the disfiguring disease

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That LP cover is crass.
Is it supposed to honour Joseph Merrick?
I don’t think so, it is truly awful

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuck em all. Whinging snowflake twats

I don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.

Posted By: ShootToThrill

Posted By: LondonOntarioI don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.

Yes, but that was before "cancel culture" started.

This is true.

There’s nothing wrong with it. In fact, if it sparks debate it’s done it’s job marvellously.

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK.

I think it's a cool album cover actually.

I think if we did the "weird album covers" thread again, this one wouldn't be mentioned.

Why is it disrespectful of Joseph Merrick? Maybe those that are so opinionated could explain that. It might as well be a gesture of recognition. Merrick is not alive and we don't know what he would have thought. If he wouldn't have been offended why should a guy on an Internet board take isssue with it? Fact is, he was disfigured. To depict him is dishonorable? Anyway, he is also made to look rather in vogue with that well tailored suit.

Posted By: RichraffDidn't his skeleton become a side-show in itself, with even Michael Jackson owning it at some point? Seems like a 2nd-tier comedian calling his album after the Elephant Man would be the thin end of the wedge for these people getting upset.

I hope none of those twats ever listen to Rejection ;-)

I've seen Merricks skeleton in the London Hospital museum. I presume it's still on display there, although it's not generally open to the public.

Posted By: BillyBollocksIs using a photo/drawing of a chronically disabled person on a record sleeve offensive?

I don’t know.

Personally, it doesn"t bother me. But politically correctors, cancel culturists, snowflakes and Karens/Kens would probably beg to differ.

Offensive or not offensive, maybe I have missed something but that album cover doesn't seem to be
debated at all when making a search on the Internet. On what website where those critical comments that have been cut and pasted here made?

It is just a lame cover, way too easy attention

Put some effort into It, like in this;

Hmm, maybe you're right. I don't pay attention to this kind of stuff.

Posted By: RichraffDidn't his skeleton become a side-show in itself, with even Michael Jackson owning it at some point? Seems like a 2nd-tier comedian calling his album after the Elephant Man would be the thin end of the wedge for these people getting upset.

I hope none of those twats ever listen to Rejection ;-)

I actually think the lyrics to Rejection are so hilariously cringe-worthy it's literally impossible for a 102-year-old nun to take offence.

Posted By: Alex LebanonGood points well made. Offence is very subjective, very personal. If you're a Christian you might be offended by the HTH cover/title, if you're not you probably won't be. Re the depiction of Merrick I feel a bit on the fence but it's interesting to make comparisons. Would the depiction of, say, a real life murder victim be seen as more or less tasteless? Or if that victim was a child? And Carlos raises an interesting point - if you used one of the photos of, say, Jack the Ripper's victims on an album cover it would probably draw some flack but less so than if you referenced a more recent murder. I think nothing is off limits per se, it's all about having something to say beyond just getting people's attention. As someone posted above, putting Merrick in a swanky suit is actually quite empowering and celebratory of Merrick's outsider status, so I'm prepared to give Matt Berry the benefit of the doubt.

I think the key distinction there is that portraying a murder victim without their family's blessing would be robbing their dignity because it's an image of their likeness having been defiled. Whereas Merrick is not defiled here, this is simply what he looked like. Still, I do think it would have been good manners to have asked Merrick's family for their blessing. But again, I know nothing about this story, maybe he actually did or maybe they're part of the group criticizing him. I don't want to assume anything.

no publicity is bad publicity. I had never heard of Matt Berry.

Posted By: Alex Lebanon

Posted By: ToiletWallPoet

Posted By: ShootToThrill

Posted By: LondonOntarioI don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.

Yes, but that was before "cancel culture" started.

Oh really? What do you think the satanic panic was? AC/DC got a show cancelled because of them in 1985. To the extent that "cancel culture" is a real thing and not just a politically manufactured culture war narrative, it has always existed.

Nobody criticizes RATM because their message is clearly in solidarity with that Monk.

I'd like to know what the artist has to say about the purpose of the imagery. I don't think simply depicting a disfigured person is disrespectful, and if that's the only reason some people are upset, I think they are misguided and inadvertently furthering the idea that there's something to be ashamed of if you're disfigured. But without knowing the full context, it would be stupid to assume anything about either the artist or the people who are supposedly offended. It's too bad that won't stop people from furthering their narratives though...

Good points well made. Offence is very subjective, very personal. If you're a Christian you might be offended by the HTH cover/title, if you're not you probably won't be. Re the depiction of Merrick I feel a bit on the fence but it's interesting to make comparisons. Would the depiction of, say, a real life murder victim be seen as more or less tasteless? Or if that victim was a child? And Carlos raises an interesting point - if you used one of the photos of, say, Jack the Ripper's victims on an album cover it would probably draw some flack but less so than if you referenced a more recent murder. I think nothing is off limits per se, it's all about having something to say beyond just getting people's attention. As someone posted above, putting Merrick in a swanky suit is actually quite empowering and celebratory of Merrick's outsider status, so I'm prepared to give Matt Berry the benefit of the doubt.

I think most Christian's of a certain age at that time were probably offended by the HTH album cover. I'm pretty sure anyone under the age of 20 no matter what their faith will not have given a shit.

I personally am not a huge fan of the the "True Crime" genre as in the vast majority of the cases that are examined in graphic detail, many relatives are still alive and have to live with the very real pain of their loss on a daily basis. I'm pretty certain having people pore over the minutiae of the the often horrendous way their son/daughter, mother/father, friend perished is not very helpful. Historical context is something that should be taken into consideration. Nowadays it seems that a lot of people take today's mores and sensibilities and place it on events that happened decades or even centuries ago. That is not to say that what happened wasn't horrendous or upsetting at the time for the individuals involved and for their friends and family but context needs to be taken into account about what society as a whole felt was acceptable at that point in history. Personally, as John Merrick has not been on this planet for over a 100 years and there isn't one person left on this planet who personally knew him I don't understand how anybody could be offended. On whose behalf are you offended by it would be my question.

Posted By: azel"On whose behalf are you offended by it would be my question".

Exactly this. Too many people in these times being offended on other people's behalf.

There are still plenty of people with physical disfigurement alive today. It's not really just about Merrick himself. If, for the sake of argument, the album cover was mocking disfigured people, would you not find that immoral?