Many albums in music have more than one cover art. Usually this is because an album has "limited edition" prints, remastered versions of a CD, or usually (and more interesting) had art too vulgar and/or offensive that a new alternate cover had to be made.


So name or post some albums that have an interesting reason for their alternate cover art. This is not intended to be a list thread, but more of a discussion or reasoning for why alternate covers of an album was made.




I'll start with a well known changed album cover:

The Scorpion's "Virgin Killers"... this is the censored cover:


This is the original cover... I think it's obvious to why it was changed:


In all honesty, I still don't know what the Scorpions was thinking with this cover. I mean can you say "child pornography?" I understand the association of the album name with the art, but to market something like this in mainstream retail stores is a definite sign of getting controversy. Maybe if they were like a real obscure band they might've gotten away with this... anyway...


Another one, from the band Autopsy because the original "Severed Survival" album art was "too obscene":

Alternate cover:


Original cover:


I still don't see how both covers aren't "obscene" for the general mainstream. If I was not a music fan of gorey death metal, I'd still find the "alternate" version of the cover disturbing. I actually prefer the alternate cover to the original; it's more creative and disturbing.

Do slip covers count? Lots of bands have those, a recent case being Slayer's Christ Illusion.

As for alternate covers, Cattle Decapitations Humanure:



The shitting cow was edited out completely, I'm having a hard time finding the edited version, I'll post it when I do. According to some sites, the original is considered 'limited edition' now, which is strange, I see it everywhere and have it myself. I've never seen the edited version, actually. I guess Best Buy were the main people bitching about it.

EDIT:

There is Desecration's Gore and Perversion cover which along with the actual songs was banned. From what I hear no one is able to find it.

I always preferred the original Severed Survival cover. If Cannibal Corpse gets to make their covers, why the hell doesn't Autopsy get to make the much less offensive cover?

We can't forget one of the more famous alternate version covers:



I have this version on cd and had it on tape before that.

It was later released with the alternate generic red and black cover.



I guess the babies on the original cover were too awesome so they had to remove them.

In b4 Carcass.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h15/K___O___R___N/et.jpg

The original was quite gory, so they replaced it with this one:
http://www.truemetal.org/metalwallpaper/images/reekofputrefaction.jpg

EDIT: Click the URL for high res pictures.

You could have found smaller images. Also, the album after that, Symphonies Of Sickness, met the same fate.

Fixed.

Symphonies of Sickness

Napalm records rereleased the first two Týr albums with different covers, probably because the original ones are too amateurish.

Napalm Death released the album Scum with alternate colour variations. I'm not shure why, but other bands have done this too. Particularly early Punk bands from the U.K.

They shouldnt've touched them. How Far to Asgaard cover looks kinda old and kvlt.

Yes and no. I'd like to have the original Eric the Red CD, all those different shades of blue combined with yellow look lovely. The How Far to Asgaard one, on the other hand, is too blatantly low-budget for my liking, but the new cover is quite all right.

Yea, Amebix's Arise comes with three different colors, and so does Dead Kennedys' Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables, if I'm not mistaken.

Actually, neither of these is the original version. A graphic designer had made an earlier cover for "Bonded by Blood", which consisted of bloody decapitated body parts under the moonlight, and Exodus used it. It was censored for being too violent and gory. I strongly doubt it's available anywhere nowadays.

Then they used the babies version which was uncensored.

The third red and black cover isn't generic. If you have a higher res version you can notice that it's actually the picture of a cheering crowd.

Hope that clears up some things.

On that note, I think Terrorizer did that too on "World Downfall" (greenish and blue).

Senmuth re-released some of his older albums with his new logo and (sometimes) different cover art. A few other covers were changed to add things. The original "pressing" of "Nature" lacks the album title on the front, for example.



The version of "Vdol..." with the current logo.



I took it from Last.fm, but there's the old cover. Incidentally, I like it better than the new version.

Actually, since that version NEVER was released, the babies cover IS the original version. This is the reason for the delay of the release of the album...the artwork. The artwork you speak of never made it to the shelves.

I realize it is a picture of a crowd and I have the rerelease AND the original cover. It is still rather generic looking.

I can't even begin to understand what was wrong with those babies on the BbB cover. Who is that offensive to, conjoined twins? How many of those are there walking around record shopping? Fuck the twins if they get offended!

To a lesser extent I also don't see what was wrong with the Severed Survival cover, but I like the replacement better so fuck it.

I actually just picked up a copy of the Reek of PUtrefecation re-issue with the original artwork. It came in this "medical" plastic wrapping so you couldn't see the disturbing cover until you tear the shit apart. It was fairly satisfying. Still haven't watched that DVD, though.

Obvious reasons really.

I don't see what's so disturbing about that album cover. It kind of looses impact in being a giant collage, but that's me.

I guess Iron Maiden's The X Factor is kind of an obvious one, although that one seems horribly tame too.

There's Slayer's God Hates Us All.





Apparently, nails and Slayer's logo on a bible is offensive. It's a shame too, since the original cover art is the only good thing about that album.

That second cover is godawful. I could make it in MS Paint in two minutes.

Don't get that Exodus red-and-black crowd cover also. It's awful. Not that the original is that good but I don't imagine as someone can find it offensive.

Ei, is that Pantera cover for real? Never seen it, it's great

A pretty obvious example was Type O Negatives "the Origin of the Feces"... It came out originally as:



and then later was edited to simply this:

Original:



Alternate:



This alternate one has always confused me (the actual copy I bought of this album is the alternate cover). The original isn't offensive so I don't know why they even have an alternate one. Anyone else know?

I have the original of TSHF. I've never understood why it was re-covered either.

Right-wing groups probably complained.

Same with BBB, GHUA and TOOTF.

A non-metal example would be We're only in it for the money by Frank Zappa. Originally a parody of the Sgt. Pepper cover, Zappa's record label made him change it, even though he had gotten permission from Paul McCartney to parody it. I don't think it was released in the original cover until much later.

original:


Alternate:

Original:



Alternate:



It's really too bad that this one was changed because the alternate cover sucks. The original EA cover appears to be the true first appearance of the vampire dude.



Original:



Alternate:



This one is puzzling because they didn't redo the cover until the reissue, after 8 years of the original album circulated


Original:



Alternate:



I find this even more confusing. How could seeing Eddie strapped into an electric chair at a distance be more offensive than a close up of Eddie being ripped apart?



Original:



Alternate:



This is a redone cover that I like much more than the original. But when they released the album a few years ago the purple fiend-skull zombie was replaced with the original again.



Original:



Alternate:



This (along with Virgin Killer) is a perfect example of when to get another cover. I admit that the original is a bit humorous, but when you do more puking than laughing, it's not that good.



Original:



Alternate:



Another redone cover that was a good move. They must have decided that a photo of some bushes just doesn't look good next to the dark angel on Watching from a Distance.



Original:



Alternate:



You know your contract sucks if your record company gives you that piece of shit for a cover.

^I'm also confused with the X factor, as the alternate cover is definitely a bit more violent (for lack of a better word) than the original. The alternate sodom cover I think look better than the original though.

That IS gory... damn, too bad they change the album cover

Original Cover:


Alternate:


Should be pretty obvious why an alternate was created

Yes, I've seen a vinyl with that cover. It was really expensive if i remember correctly.

Pungent Stench - For God Your Soul, For Me Your Flesh

The original No Prayer For The Dying was MUCH BETTER

I don't even see why taking the fat balding man out of it made any difference.

The Iron Maiden cover change clearly illustrates how pussy whipped Metal is. I mean - you can show Eddie popping out of grave looking fierce and evil, but you can't show him grabbing a human being? WTF is this, Disneyland?

I remember hearing that the fat balding guy was one of the record executives, or someone involved with the band, that had made them angry in some way. I forget exactly what.

This sounds very plausible and that's just damn hilarious if that bald man was someone who actually exists in real life. Now that is an interesting reason for a band's cover art becoming changed.

Good old Maiden!