Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:11 pm  

The Blind Faith album cover is one that raises a myriad issues and questions, though, isn't it?

Can you imagine, in 2104, an 11 year old girl with pubescent breasts being allowed to be on an album cover?

If not, why not? Exploitation? What if she were paid half a million pounds into a trust fund to set her up for life?

Is it just wrong? I very much doubt that that one flies; but it is intriguing to examine it. Let's say you have never seen the cover. Should you be banned from doing so? This is a central question. You're not, of course; quite apart from it being on thousands of websites you can still buy the album, which is a classic.

My take on child nudity is that we all see nude children at times throughout our lives both in life and in images, and the emotional reaction could be anything. Obviously in those who are sexually attracted to children the reaction may be to lech but that seems no reason why non-perverts people should not look.

Personally I have the same opinion now as I had then, and that was a general feeling of unease about the image, based on the issue of child exploitation. Yes I know her parents would have agreed to it, but should they have, and was that relevant? I would say not. It is either exploitative or it isn't, and parental consent can't change that. Yes i have read what the album designer said about his work but I would bet the record company didn't share his artistic enlightenment, more likely they realised how much more prominent the inevitable controversy would make the album and thus increase sales (it went to US no.1 on the back of the cover cover-up).

I think from memory (sadly) it is incorrect the cover didn't cause a fuss, on the contrary there was a huge fuss, including as I recall Mary Whitehouse, and it was covered up in the US. I also seem to remember some big retailers refusing to stock it.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:04 pm  

Just to clarify the story behind the cover, I read yesterday that the photographer was looking for a young girl to use as a subject and approached the girls 14 year old sister on a tube train to ask her first, later he changed his mind when he met the family and asked if the 11 year old would pose instead.

Its a remarkable story because you can imagine what a parent would say today if an adult photographer knocked on their door and asked if he could photograph their 14 year old daughter topless for an album cover that would be seen by, and sell millions of copies, only to then say "oh hang on, you didn't say you had a younger daughter..."

And yet it illustrates perfectly the naivety (was it naive, did they get paid a fee or a percentage, or did they get paid at all) of the times, no instant condemnation and report to the police on pedophile charges, but possibly a desire to be shown to be "progressive" parents and a kick in the teeth of the establishment who's attitudes were still stuck firmly in the 1950s.

And as for major retailers - I never used them Kennedys at the back of Leeds Markets were my record shop of choice and they had it in the front window

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:13 pm  

I could easily imagine a Lady Gaga rehash of the Blind Faith cover. All the media outcry would be worth tens of millions to her.

I think the Blind Faith cover is an absolutely terrible album cover. Don't have a clue what the photographer was trying to do with it, and I have no interest in whatever artistic BS he comes out with. It's a bad photograph, a terrible album cover and I can only think that it was used because of the controversy it would bring.

I don't think it's pornographic, but I do think the girls parents were either completely irresponsible or high on drugs when they gave permission. The cover doesn't offend me, but it does offend me if the cover was chosen just because of the controversy.

Anyone who bought the album because of the cover needs a very hard slap. I can imagine ever schoolkid going into record shops to look at it, but buying it? WTF?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:14 pm  

The photographer in 2014 would be very lucky to get to meet the 14 year old's parents. If he dared do the same thing today, ask a 14 yo stranger on the tube would she mind posing in the nude, (assuming he did) the chances are he'd be spending a night in the cells and end up on the SOR. He must have had some patter not to get a smack in the mouth from the lass's dad!

The consensus is the fee paid was £40 (maybe £600 at today's rates)

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:25 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

And yet it illustrates perfectly the naivety (was it naive, did they get paid a fee or a percentage, or did they get paid at all) of the times, no instant condemnation and report to the police on pedophile charges, but possibly a desire to be shown to be "progressive" parents and a kick in the teeth of the establishment who's attitudes were still stuck firmly in the 1950s.

She wanted a horse as payment, she got 40 quid.

Naivety of the parents??? I'm just not buying this crap at all. Unless you are so high on drugs that you don't even know you have a kid, a request to photograph your 11 year old daughter topless should always result in a punch in the face.

And the notion that the times were naive don't tally with the fact that the rumour about the girl was that she was a groupie kept by the band as a slave.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:31 pm  

No, I met the slave, it deffo wasn't her

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:06 pm  

Well theres another thing There was a whole culture of rock band groupies following bands like Blind Faith around the USA and a grapevine story that girls as young as 11 or 12 were often taken on tour buses from city to city by some bands, particularly in California, hence my question previously on the Operation Yewtree - where are all the pop groups ?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:10 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

She wanted a horse as payment, she got 40 quid.

If she'd have asked for a pony would she have been paid 15 quid less?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:19 pm  

Nirvana's 'Nevermind' album cover and this Blind Faith one both feature nakedness, yet one is considered more offensive, despite neither naked person posing particularly provocatively.

So the question has to be asked - At what age does nakedness become offensive to some people??

Personally, I reckon you normally find that those who are supposedly 'offended' by these types of images, are actually those who are most aroused and are hiding their shame by protesting the loudest?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:55 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Nirvana's 'Nevermind' album cover and this Blind Faith one both feature nakedness, yet one is considered more offensive, despite neither naked person posing particularly provocatively.

So the question has to be asked - At what age does nakedness become offensive to some people??

Personally, I reckon you normally find that those who are supposedly 'offended' by these types of images, are actually those who are most aroused and are hiding their shame by protesting the loudest?

Geffen prepared an alternate cover without the penis, as they were afraid that it would offend people, but relented when Cobain made it clear that the only compromise he would accept was a sticker covering the penis that would say, "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."

The Nevermind cover has reasoning and is trying to make a point. The reasoning behind Blind Faith was just a bunch of words that have pretty much no relation with the image.