Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
Your comparison never occurred to me, but you`re right; the way the two bands presented themselves were worlds apart.
I don`t think the differences are particularly about drug use, though. I think they arise more from personality and circumstance. The Beatles had spent years at the top of the entertainment business, and under the guidance of avuncular figures like Brian Epstein and George Martin they were still, at the time of Sgt. Pepper, committed to the idea of giving the fans something exciting. Hence all the "Welcome to the Show" album art.
The Doors, lean and hungry newcomers, were exploring an altogether more sombre vein and, largely due to Jim Morrison`s personality, were much more rebellious towards the old-fashioned notions of showbiz that The Beatles still embraced. Lucky for the Doors if, as a result, they look cooler on their album sleeves today."
|
Well, I didn't think anyone would ever agree with me on this post-- partly because I think my original post didn't convey my point very well, and Lisnaholic really just conveyed my point much more eloquently than I originally did and with better facts
; however, I do think their image during this period was based around their idea of a druggy image. The image only lasted one year, and then we get The Beatles looking normal again on the inside gate-fold of the "White Album" and the front cover of "Abbey Road."
And for the the record, my original post was just a question... I wasn't presenting it as fact. This topic would have probably have been better off as a simple poll:
Yes or No, Did the Beatles look ridiculous on the cover of their 1967 releases compared to the other band images of that year, and was their image on those record covers used to convey an image of drug use?