OUCH! Worst Elvis CD/ LP Cover "ART"...

Can we all agree this is among the most unflattering? It looks like a candidate for one of those funny-caption contests.

It's funny, but I have always liked this cover...

Elvis looks pretty damn mean in the picture though Not one of his best poses...

Against popular opinion I like this one too.

This is another valid candidate.



Pew!

Regards

Great picture of Elvis

Horrible colors in the background ... makers must have been in a purple mood

... Spotted on ElvisNews. com : Patch It Up, new boot on a new label.

... Whatever the sound quality, the art [ coff- coff...] is already a

classic cheapo! Stick to pizzas and pasta, guys!...

the album cover for Separate Ways isn't too hot either.....

I've always liked that album cover...

Here's the cover for the new album "Elvis Grass" thats being sold at Wal Mart.



Can you say BAD !!!!

Here's the cover for the new album "Elvis Grass" thats being sold at Wal Mart.



Can you say BAD !!!!

I agree that's a 'bad' CD cover makes out Elvis was a Country Bumpkin...and as you Know Elvis said in the recording studio in March 1975"I aint no country bumkin!"

One cover that's bad in another way is the one for vol.1. of the '56 Sessions from the late seventies in the UK. The drawing of Elvis is good enough. They've got Scotty in the background behind him but instead of Bill Black there's a picture of the guitarist from Bill Haley's Comets. Whoops!

Last edited by The Purple Gang on Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I know we're talking about albums & cds, but what about some of the

cover art for some of the singles? some of those from around the world

are a bit iffy to say the least, for example the cover for

Rubberneckin'/Don't Cry Daddy from Turkey from 1969, the picture of

Elvis is barely like him & who's the fella with the goatie?

Looks like one of Bin Ladins hench men.

... Spotted on ElvisNews. com :

Patch It Up, new boot on a new label.

... Whatever the sound quality, the art [ coff- coff...] is already a

classic cheapo! Stick to pizzas and pasta, guys!...

Hillarious! I've seen that. What was the rush? It seems like a mock-up version meant to be worked on...

**********
I kind of like the "Separate Ways" Camden cover (slighly different highway in US/UK versions) but, yup, it's bad!

*******************************

Love that 45 rpm Turkish cover of RUBBERNECKIN'....Was my avatar briefly before protests ensued...

******************

Here's the cover for the new album "Elvis Grass" thats being sold at Wal Mart.



Can you say BAD !!!!

No...


No...NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brad, tell me you invented that yourself!

Worst ever? Close!

Another good reason to stay out of evil Wal-Mart...

Nope, i can't take the blame for that horrible excuse for a cover..

One cover that's bad in another way is the one for vol.1. of the '56 Sessions from the late seventies in the UK. The drawing of Elvis is good enough. They've got Scotty in the background behind him but instead of Bill Black there's a picture of the guitarist from Bill Haley's Comets. Whoops!

The covers of this two-volume UK collection were quite eye-catching.

But, my gosh, I never paid much attention to the "other" guy on the cover of Volume 1 -- not to mentioned Elvis' oddly gargantuan left hand:





I always assumed it was Chet Atkins ... but I believe you're correct, it's Franny Beecher, the lead guitarist from the Comets. OUCH!

FWIW, I saw Beecher play in a club with the rest of the Comets -- and quite well -- about four years ago. Yes, in 2002. They were great!

Last edited by drjohncarpenter on Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

****

Last edited by The Purple Gang on Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Can we all agree this is among the most unflattering? It looks like a candidate for one of those funny-caption contests.

It's funny, but I have always liked this cover...

Elvis looks pretty damn mean in the picture though Not one of his best poses...

Against popular opinion I like this one too.

I like it too.

The wonder of you/Mama liked the roses single could have benefitted from a better photo choice. First: It looked like Elvis hadn´t washed his hair for a week or so. Second: It´s a bit ironic that RCA used live shots for most of the singles/albums in the 70´s, but not on this cover where the first side was a live recording .


But there´s a rose on the picture, that perhaps explains the choice of cover.

//Björn

i think, in fact the bootleg covers were often superior to rca´s.
by the 1970s the the pictures from his own record company became worse and worse.
here are my candidates:


on stage: so we are in 1970 here. why then a b/w foto for a live-cut oft his colourfull vegas season? the picture itself does not do him justice: he looks complaining and wears a strange decoration around his neck.
did our man look like this at his artistic peak in the 1970s? surely not!


that´s the way it is: content: not a real or complete soundtrack of the movie (as one may assume). cover: again in b&w (like the movie or what??) and elvis looks uninspired, bored and old to me and gives a complete different impression, compared to the motion picture.
rca gave away the chance to deliver a real (movie-promoting) soundtrack.


love letters: nice idea to decorate the backcover with letters and hearts. the frontcover is illustrated with three shots of this strange timeframe (last month of 1970) where elvis didn´t look healthy (much too slim) and simply not like himself to me. the worst of the three photos (the one that is blurred) was chosen as the biggest on the cover. does this make sense? not to me.


c´mon everybody: the camden release.
again in b/w (was colorphotography not invented yet by 1971?) with a corpulent looking elvis.
does the content match the cover? of course not.
is it inventive? no. good advertising? again no. seems that rca/the colonel thought it would sell anyway.


i got lucky: another camden release.
i could repeat almost everything of the forementioned, when it comes to this one. ok, ok, it´s a colorfoto this time, but (like love letters) from the timeframe where he look suspect to me (i think elvis looks like a junkie here). at least, it is a current (but not a pretty) one.


as recorded at madison square garden: never liked this one either.
there were not too many foto-books on the market by 1972 (not like today). does a 1972 elvis look like this? to me he looks simply disadvantageous and old, standing alone in front of a dark background. where is the band, where is the orchestra, where are the choirs? it is a live album, isn´t it?
rca did better with "an afternoon at the garden".


separate ways: camden again.
a clever idea with the highway style (the other version shows an actual foto of a highway) and the supermanlike letters. but why taking a sloppy foto of an elvis who looks not only like "neil diamond" (as someone else said), but wasted and almost stoned?
if it wasn´t this pic the cover could have it´s charme.


aloha from hawaii: the worst of the 70s.
i never understood it. why oh why did they choose the absolutely worst foto of our man, that someone could find?
elvis does not look corpulent (like on "c´mon everybody") but nothing but fat! like a mentally handicapped person in a jumpsuit (i´m sorry, nothing against disabled persons!).
it was only for the tv-special that the content, that this album rocked the charts.
i asked myself, if rca/the colonel wanted to harm him on purpose with this one.
and i´m still wondering, what elvis must have thought about it.
the bootleggers (with the alternate aloha and rca itself with the same in the 80s) did a much better job and we all know how brilliant he looked in hawaii!


raised on rock: a live album again (as one may suppose because of the cover)? not at all!
but the picture is not only unfitting to the content, it´s also an ugly one, like the first on they could find. so many great fotos exist from ´73, simply because he was in great shape during aloha and after, but no one seemed to bother (inluding the star himself).
the whole artwork looks cheap and sloppy.

the same can be said about the next three.


promised land.


today: the pic itself is a cut out and elvis looks totally untypical and like his own worst wax work.


from elvis presley boulevard, memphis, tennessee: original release: "recorded live", aah, another live album, i see ...
i know, it´s one of the most popular pictures, but to me, he looks a bit drunken ... there are so many better, but ... psst! ... don´t tell rca/the colonel!!!


forever: i know, i know, it is one of the most prominent mainstream albums and one of the (if not the) most sold.
boring artwork, every apprentice could have done better.
and let´s be honest, (like on "today") if madame tussaud had had this doll on display, everyone had protested and she would have been forced to replace it!

Last edited by Christopher on Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:09 am, edited 4 times in total.

i think, in fact the bootleg covers were often superior to rca´s.
by the 1970s the the pictures from his own record company became worse and worse.
here are my candidates:


on stage: so we are in 1970 here. why than a b/w foto for a live-cut oft his colourfull vegas season? the picture itself does not do him justice: he looks complaining and wears a strange decoration around his neck.
did our man look like this at his artistic peak in the 1970s? surely not!


that´s the way it is: content: not a real or complete soundtrack of the movie (as one may assume). cover: again in b&w (like the movie or what??) and elvis looks uninspired, bored and old to me and gives a complete different impression, compared to the motion picture.
rca gave away the chance to deliver a real (movie-promoting) soundtrack.


love letters: nice idea to decorate the backcover with letters and hearts. the frontcover is illustrated with three shots of this strange timeframe (last month of 1970) where elvis didn´t look healthy (much too slim) and simply not like himself to me. the worst of the three photos (the one that is blurred) was choosen as the biggest on the cover. does this make sense? not to me.


c´mon everybody: the camden release.
again in b/w (was colorphotography not invented yet by 1971?) with a corpulent looking elvis.
does the content match the cover? of course not.
is it inventive? no. good advertising? again no. seems that rca/the colonel thought it would sell anyway.


i got lucky: another camden release.
i could repeat almost everything of the forementioned, when it comes to this one. ok, ok, it´s a colorfoto this time, but (like love letters) from the timeframe where he look suspect to me (i think he elvis looks like a junkie here). at least, it is a current (but not a pretty) one.


as recorded at madison square garden: never liked this one either.
there were not too many foto-books on the market by 1972 (not like today). does a 1972 elvis look like this? to me he looks simply disadvantageous and old, standing alone in front of a dark background. where is the band, where is the orchestra, where are the choirs? it is a live album, isn´t it?
rca did better with "an afternoon at the garden".


separate ways: camden again.
a clever idea with the highway style (the other version shows an actual foto of a highway) and the supermanlike letters. but why taking a sloppy foto of an elvis that looks not only like "neil diamond" (as someone else said), but wasted and almost stoned?
if it wasn´t this pic the cover could have it´s charme.


aloha from hawaii: the worst of the 70s.
i never understood it. why oh why did they choose the absolutely worst foto of our man, that someone could find?
elvis does not look corpulent (like on "c´mon everybody") but nothing but fat! like a mentally handicapped person in a jumpsuit (i´m sorry, nothing against disabled persons!).
it was only for the tv-special that the content, that this album rocked the charts.
i asked myself, if rca/the colonel wanted to harm him on purpose with this one.
and i´m still wondering, what elvis must have thought about it.
the bootleggers (with the alternate aloha and rca itself with the same in the 80s) did a much better job and we all know how brilliant he looked in hawaii!


raised on rock: a live album again (as one may suppose because of the cover)? not at all!
but the picture is not only unfitting to the content, it´s also an ugly one, like the first on they could find. so many great fotos exist from ´73, simply because he was in great shape during aloha and after, but no one seemed to bother (inluding the star himself).
the whole artwork looks cheap and sloppy.

the same can be said about the next three.


promised land.


today: the pic itself is a cut out and elvis looks totally untypical and like his own worst wax work.


from elvis presley boulevard, memphis, tennessee: original release: "recorded live", aah, another live album, i see ...
i know, it´s one of the most popular pictures, but to me, he looks a bit drunken ... there are so many better, but ... psst! ... don´t tell rca/the colonel!!!


forever: i know, i know, it is one of the most prominent mainstream albums and one of the (if not the) most sold.
boring artwork, every apprentice could have done better.
and let´s be honest, (like on "today") if madame tussaud had had this doll on display, everyone had protested and she would have been forced to replace it!

Oh c'mon Christopher - TTWII is a wonderful understated cover and On Stage is my favourite cover of the 70s!! Apart from that,gotta say there were a lot of lazy 70s covers.

christopher just doesn't like the '70s. lol. that's all he said in that post.

imo, some of those pictures are some of my favorites, where i think he looks absolutely awesome and cool. stoned my ass. who are you? albert goldman? because only he can look at every single picture of elvis and just see a big stoned stamp on his forehead.

what i think you don't like is that he had very distinct facial expressions on stage. and a lot of those pictures are captures of him in motion, singing big notes into the microphone or smirking, etc...

you're one of the first people i've seen to put down on '70 more than any year. whereas i think '69-'72 is his absolute physical peak. perhaps '67 to '74.

imo, i agree...on stage was one of the best covers of the '70s if not the best one.

christopher just doesn't like the '70s. lol. that's all he said in that post.

wrong. christopher loves 70s elvis. that´s why he wishes elvis´ company had put a little more effort in choosing the cover motivs.

i think, we like many of the bad ones, because we´re so used to them through the years. we´ve learned to like ´em, but that doesn´t mean they could not be better designed.

carolynlm, i´m not quite sure, if i understood your question.
which would be or which is my favourite cover?

since i am no designer, i cannot answer the question for the ideal cover, but some bootleggers have come close; i like many of the classic vinyl albums, like "rockin´ with elvis new years eve" (if this is no action type-cover, i don´t know what else is).

if you want to see some of the covers that are my favourites, you just have to look up your record collection.
i think his debut album is great (and innovative) and "moody blue" is an artistic one i also like.
most of the sixties soundtracks are playful designed and fun to look at, in my eyes the same applys for "from elvis in memphis", "elvis country" and the "legendary performer"s, just to name a few more.

Have to say though that the main photo on the Love Letters cover was shocking. Seemingly out of focus and an unflattering angle - smacks of a very lazy, quicky put together album cover

Elvis Grass - what is that album?
That cover gets my vote for the worst. I just hope the contents are better than the packaging
rick

Yeah, it will be painful to know, but would someone please post (gulp )
the tracklisting of "Elvis Grass"

And what a relief: that's no "Elvis" CD but a bluegrass tribute to Elvis, which is part of a series (Thank god!)

http://www.synergyent.com/grass_roots.php


"ELVIS GRASS"

1. That's All Right
2. (Let Me Be Your) Teddy Bear
3. Blue Suede Shoes
4. Can't Help Falling In Love With You
5. All Shook Up
6. Don't Be Cruel
7. Heartbreak Hotel
8. Jailhouse Rock
9. Love Me Tender
10. Hound Dog
11. Mystery Train
12. Treat Me Nice

[SYN-043]
Somewhere along the line that led from driving a truck to cultural iconhood, Elvis Presley acquired the title "King of Rock 'n' Roll." But when he was first cutting records at Memphis' Sun Studios in the mid-1950s, the music he made was called "hillbilly." Even a cursory listen to, say, "Blue Moon of Kentucky" or "I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone" reveals Elvis' deep country roots. And so it seems pretty likely that the King himself would have gotten a big kick out of these bluegrass-style renderings of some of his greatest hits. He'd have been doubly tickled that legendary vocal group the Jordanaires are here too, reprising the role they played on the original takes of Presley classics like "Teddy Bear" and "Don't Be Cruel." — Mac Randall

http://www.synergyent.com/grass/elvis_grass.php


*************************
Chris, I found your "glass-half-empty" observations entertaining (some of them I share in part) but mostly I disagree about all of them.

But thanks for the contribution to the discussion!

Here's another turkey I just stumbled upon:

Elvis Presley- "Hayrides and Gambling Halls"


Released: 2001/03/05 by Sonotec

Is that a Jay Leno tribute album?