Madonna’s image for the MDNA Rose Mist era

[Ladyplus]

3 minutes ago, Kim said:

For fucks sake. 

The first US pressing was the same as everywhere else. The subsequent US pressings turned Madonna upside down (even though the photograph itself is the correct way up) The picture on the wall is not a picture of the first pressing (and not the version you and me or anyone else bought in 94) therefore not the original version.

Again, if you don't know  what you're talking about, say nothing and avoid yourself the confusion.

What are your sources ?

[Ladyplus]

23 minutes ago, Kim said:

Look, if you don't know what you're talking about, then don't comment at all. I don't need some dolt posting a wikipedia (lol) page to me when I LIVED THROUGH something. The original pressing of Bedtime Stories EVERYWHERE had the cover I posted. For the second (and subsequent) US pressing someone decided to turn the image around (yes that resulted in the photo itself being the 'right way up' but that was obviously not the original artistic intent)

That itunes etc picked up on the "new" cover does not negate the fact that it's not the original cover. Everywhere else in the world has maintained the original cover in subsequent pressings.

You should correct (and insult) the wikipedia page instead maybe ... But you need sources and references for that ...

[Kim]

1 minute ago, Ladyplus said:

What are your sources ?

What are my sources for living through the Bedtime Stories era while you, apparently, were (and still are?) on the crack pipe?

What I've stated is common knowledge.

 

[neutrocks]

Not to step on any toes here, but I just took a picture of my original BEDTIMES STORIES CD which I bought in 1994 in the U.S. on the day of it's release:  

 

Shortly after the album's release,  I recall MTV reported, the original pressing printed the covers wrong.  Madonna submitted the image of her to be intentionally upside down, but Warners assumed it was a mistake and flipped it.  Future pressings were of the way Madonna intended which was her upside down! @Ladyplus 

Edited June 21, 2018 by neutrocks
EDITED for clarification

[Ladyplus]

4 minutes ago, Kim said:

What are my sources for living through the Bedtime Stories era while you, apparently, were (and still are?) on the crack pipe?

What I've stated is common knowledge.

 

kim jong un ? deux ? trois ?

[Kim]

6 minutes ago, Ladyplus said:

kim jong un ? deux ? trois ?

Embarrassing when you make a complete cunt of yourself isn't it?

 

[Kim]

57 minutes ago, XXBrendonXX said:

Not to step on any toes here, but I just took a picture of my original BEDTIMES STORIES CD which I bought in 1994 in the U.S. on the day of it's release:  

 

It was sometime after the album's release,  I recall MTV reported, the original pressing printed the covers wrong.  Madonna submitted the image of her to be intentionally upside down, but Warners assumed it was a mistake and flipped it.  Future pressings were of the way Madonna intended which was her upside down! @Ladyplus 

Correct, although the edit you made is just ridiculous. We have no concrete evidence as to why the US PRESSING ONLY was flipped on it's subsequent pressings, although everyone has their theories.

The very idea that Madonna "submitted a photograph" and did not oversee the many design stages and mock ups of her own album, not to mention the host of advertising, magazine covers and promo that utilized the same imagery is ludicrous, or indeed that a "mistake" would not have been fixed elsewhere in subsequent pressings. Yes the photograph is 'upside down' (depending on what perspective you choose) but it does not indicate a mistake, especially as it's actually much more aesthetically pleasing in its original incarnation anyway, wrong way round or not.

 

[neutrocks]

13 minutes ago, Kim said:

Correct, although the subsequent edit you made is just ridiculous. We have no concrete evidence as to why the US PRESSING ONLY was flipped on it's subsequent pressings, although everyone has their theories.

The very idea that Madonna "submitted a photograph" and did not oversee the many design stages and mock ups of her own album, not to mention the host of advertising, magazine covers and promo that utilized the same imagery is ludicrous, or indeed that a "mistake" would not have been fixed elsewhere in subsequent pressings. Yes the photograph is 'upside down' (depending on what perspective you choose) but it does not indicate a mistake, especially as it's actually much more aesthetically pleasing in its original incarnation anyway, wrong way round or not.

 

What's with the backhanded compliment?  I was simply adding my two cents.  If I incorrectly recalled what MTV NEWS reported back then, then I apologize.  Though, I specifically recall Kurt Loder of MTV NEWS stating that Madonna intended the image of her to be upside down, and when it went to press,  they thought it was a mistake and flipped it right side up.  I'm a little baffled why you chose to respond to me in this way when I was offering something I recalled from back in the day? I wasn't offering some outrageous theory!   As you stated to "Ladyplus",  "I lived it!"  Whether what Kurt reported was true or not, I guess it's anyone's guess, but that's what was reported at the time in 1994. 

[Kim]

14 minutes ago, XXBrendonXX said:

What's with the backhanded compliment?  I was simply adding my two cents.  If I incorrectly recalled what MTV NEWS reported back then, then I apologize.  Though, I specifically recall Kurt Loder of MTV NEWS stating that Madonna intended the image of her to be upside down, and when it went to press,  they thought it was a mistake and flipped it right side up.  I'm a little baffled why you chose to respond to me in this way when I was offering something I recalled from back in the day? I wasn't offering some outrageous theory!   As you stated to "Ladyplus",  "I lived it!"  Whether what Kurt reported was true or not, I guess it's anyone's guess, but that's what was reported at the time in 1994. 

Your original contribution (posting the correct photograph of the first US pressing) was fine. The possible misinformation that followed (a report from MTV that doesn't seem to have been replicated anywhere else) got a follow up from me. Again, we do not know why they flipped it and changed the MADONNA font to make it thicker and darker and obvious that it was a Madonna album for US consumers only...or maybe we do.

 

[neutrocks]

7 minutes ago, Kim said:

Your original contribution (posting the correct photograph of the first US pressing) was fine. The possible misinformation that followed (a report from MTV that doesn't seem to have been replicated anywhere else) got a follow up from me. Again, we do not know why they flipped it and changed the MADONNA font to make it thicker and darker and obvious that it was a Madonna album for US consumers only...or maybe we do.

 

 To me, it doesn't sound too far fetched, nor did I feel as if I was misinforming anyone since it was reported on MTV NEWS back in the day.  I don't see why Kurt Loder/MTV would just make that up.  But who knows?  I was just sharing what I knew and maybe someone else can corroborate it. 

[humanracin]

 

I don't care which came first.

I prefer the upside down version, it's how the original photo was taken.

By reversing it, it kind of makes the whole photo seem weird to me.

I was a bit annoyed that the new vinyl version went back to reversing the photo again..

 

[Kim]

37 minutes ago, XXBrendonXX said:

 To me, it doesn't sound too far fetched, nor did I feel as if I was misinforming anyone since it was reported on MTV NEWS back in the day.  I don't see why Kurt Loder/MTV would just make that up.  But who knows?  I was just sharing what I knew and maybe someone else can corroborate it. 

Well it sounds more than far fetched to me. If you want to believe that Madonna either didn't sign off on the final design of her album  or that some employee took it upon themselves to flip an image on finalized and approved artwork without asking anyone, and apparently did the same on indoor displays, standees, print media etc, then that's up to you. A "mistake" of course that hasn't been fixed anywhere else in the world apart from the USA 

If you ever come across this mtv news item that seemed to think an upside down madonna photo on a reissue of an album was so important (in 1995 no less) that they reported on it, feel free to post. 

17 minutes ago, humanracin said:

 

I don't care which came first.

I prefer the upside down version, it's how the original photo was taken.

By reversing it, it kind of makes the whole photo seem weird to me.

I was a bit annoyed that the new vinyl version went back to reversing the photo again..

 

To me the upside down one looks weird, simply because that's not the album cover. The re-issue quite rightly featured the original artwork.

And as those pics above show, the persepective they went with for the US repressing is ALSO off, rotating her head completely upside down. It's shockingly bad. Any product that makes you rotate your head around to try and see it properly is a design fail. The MADONNA font is more prominent though, which (for me) is the whole reasoning behind the change. The rest of the world didn't really need that spelling out for them though.

[neutrocks]

2 minutes ago, Kim said:

Well it sounds more than far fetched to me. If you want to believe that Madonna either didn't sign off on the final design of her album  or that some employee took it upon themselves to flip an image on finalized and approved artwork without asking anyone, and apparently did the same on indoor displays, standees, print media etc, then that's up to you. A "mistake" of course that hasn't been fixed anywhere else in the world apart from the USA 

If you ever come across this mtv news item that seemed to think an upside down madonna photo on a reissue of an album was so important (in 1995 no less) that they reported on it, feel free to post.

Hmm? I think there's some miscommunication going on here? I didn't say Madonna "didn't sign off on the final design of her album, or that some employee took it upon themselves to flip the image".  I simply stated, the report I recall hearing from MTV NEWS is when it went to press, it was assumed that it was upside down, and that's when someone took it upon themselves and turned her right side up.  That to me isn't far fetched.  And I'm sorry you don't believe me and are trying to condescend me.  But in the U.S., MTV used to have a news break every hour or so within their broadcasting.  It was during one of the News breaks,  I recall there was a mention of the mistake.  Whether it was something that important or not, isn't the point since up until the late 90's, MTV reported pretty much every fart or sneeze she made. 

Anyway, it's a ridiculous argument to have here, so I'm moving on unless someone can chime in with a respectful reply without trying to undermine another.

[Kim]

3 minutes ago, XXBrendonXX said:

Hmm? I think there's some miscommunication going on here? I didn't say Madonna "didn't sign off on the final design of her album, or that some employee took it upon themselves to flip the image".  I simply stated, the report I recall hearing from MTV NEWS is when it went to press, it was assumed that it was upside down, and that's when someone took it upon themselves and turned her right side up.  That to me isn't far fetched.  And I'm sorry you don't believe me and are trying to condescend me.  But in the U.S., MTV used to have a news break every hour or so within their broadcasting.  It was during one of the News breaks,  I recall there was a mention of the mistake.  Whether it was something that important or not, isn't the point since up until the late 90's, MTV reported pretty much every fart or sneeze she made. 

Anyway, it's a ridiculous argument to have here, so I'm moving on unless someone can chime in with a respectful reply without trying to undermine another.

Again, there is no official confirmation anywhere as to why the US only repressing of this album got a redesign. End of. Your recollection of an MTV news report means nothing without it being backed up by something concrete, the fact that there is no trace, mention or reporting of this news anywhere (not just mtv news but any news) is quite telling. All that does exist are some random fans across the net telling (bedtime) stories, or rather, urban myths, of an incensed Madonna flipping her lid because her picture was turned upside down.  Just as any theory that I come up with means nothing without facts either.

Therefore, I'll only deal in what sounds plausible and what doesn't. It is not plausible (to me) that finalised artwork for an album was changed by someone who thought a picture was upside down. It's not plausible that such a mistake was not picked up across the promo/media chain. It's not plausible that a mistake of such magnitude was not fixed everywhere. It's not plausible that if I go to HMV tomorrow and buy a copy of BS, I'm buying a copy with a messed up cover that hasn't been fixed in 25 years despite it being repressed a number of times. I'll therefore conclude that the US pressing alone was changed for a specific reason, that reason having nothing to do with a "mistake" being made.

As is usual in this place, you make a simple joke about something, then hours later you end up playing verbal ping pong with people who can't just take something as it's originally intended.

[peter]

@Mattress has written intelligently and convincingly about the Bedtime Stories album’s storied cover artwork. I regret that I can’t recall clearly what the version of events was. But I will say it’s not simply a matter of flipping the artwork, or else the type would be upside down, too. No, someone flipped only the photo, and that wouldn’t be just a pressman’s judgment call. Designer would have been involved — but what is odd about that is the *color* of the type — and this is where Mattress was so persuasive. The blue/teal type isn’t as legible on the bed. It’s more legible on the white of her negligee. And the pink type would then be more legible with the bed (and her hair) in the background. When it’s the other way, part of the album title is completely illegible. So that makes a strong case that the album art was always meant for Madonna’s face *not* to be upside-down, which, yes, means the image was flipped (because she was essentially upside-down — i.e., chin pointing up — when Demarchelier took the photo).

Edited June 22, 2018 by peter
alas, an apostrophe went astray!

[Showdown]

[Guest Katypatra]

This thread  

[Rock]

[Showdown]

31 minutes ago, Rock said:

Put down your crack pipe! You're wrong! I was there! You're a newbie troll!!!  

[dubtronic]

[Geiger83]

3 hours ago, dubtronic said:

These pics are really really good

[eu4ria]

[Kim]

9 hours ago, peter said:

@Mattress has written intelligently and convincingly about the Bedtime Stories album’s storied cover artwork. I regret that I can’t recall clearly what the version of events was. But I will say it’s not simply a matter of flipping the artwork, or else the type would be upside down, too. No, someone flipped only the photo, and that wouldn’t be just a pressman’s judgment call. Designer would have been involved — but what is odd about that is the *color* of the type — and this is where Mattress was so persuasive. The blue/teal type isn’t as legible on the bed. It’s more legible on the white of her negligee. And the pink type would then be more legible with the bed (and her hair) in the background. When it’s the other way, part of the album title is completely illegible. So that makes a strong case that the album art was always meant for Madonna’s face *not* to be upside-down, which, yes, means the image was flipped (because she was essentially upside-down — i.e., chin pointing up — when Demarchelier took the photo).

Yes Peter, I recall that thread. Mattress always writes intelligently and convincingly, a trait I don't have when dealing with idiocy like that seen in this thread.

 I don't think there was any concrete consensus then, but we all had our theories. This propagated falsehood that some employee decided to flip a photograph before the printing presses started does indeed have to stop though.. 

[Guest material_boy]

6 hours ago, dubtronic said:

Her Fallon "Borderline" look is still by far my absolute favorite post-"RH" era look of her, but I will very excited if she sports a look along these lines for the album artwork. Very simple and beautiful -- LOVE the idea of her sporting a scarf over her hair (and maybe using scarves in other ways) and bringing back layers upon layers of jewelry.

Also, just a straight portrait shot with no special effects obscuring her face is an excellent F you to the ageists in the media as she turns 60.

[Guest Katypatra]

7 hours ago, material_boy said:

Her Fallon "Borderline" look is still by far my absolute favorite post-"RH" era look of her, but I will very excited if she sports a look along these lines for the album artwork. Very simple and beautiful -- LOVE the idea of her sporting a scarf over her hair (and maybe using scarves in other ways) and bringing back layers upon layers of jewelry.

Also, just a straight portrait shot with no special effects obscuring her face is an excellent F you to the ageists in the media as she turns 60.

That would be an interesting concept. I would love to see more color on the album cover, red lips, striking blue eyes, a scarf, jewelry, whatever., as long as there’s more deeper and brighter colors, like red, purple, green, yellow... but also if she could put a slight, ironic smile on her face.

[Lolo]

8 hours ago, Kim said:

Yes Peter, I recall that thread. Mattress always writes intelligently and convincingly, a trait I don't have when dealing with idiocy like that seen in this thread.

 I don't think there was any concrete consensus then, but we all had our theories. This propagated falsehood that some employee decided to flip a photograph before the printing presses started does indeed have to stop though.. 

Maybe this story was cooked up later to explain the changes of the repressing. They probably just wanted to spread a rumor in order to hide the fact there might have been a need to make her name appear more prominent on the artwork. Just guessing, because yes, I remember this MTV news story as well and back then I thought it was rather cute. Anyway, I prefer the pressing cover, it’s the one I bought and got used to. 

[Kim]

12 minutes ago, Lolo said:

Maybe this story was cooked up later to explain the changes of the repressing. They probably just wanted to spread a rumor in order to hide the fact there might have been a need to make her name appear more prominent on the artwork. Just guessing, because yes, I remember this MTV news story as well and back then I thought it was rather cute. Anyway, I prefer the pressing cover, it’s the one I bought and got used to. 

Who knows. Thankfully the rest of the world didn't get caught up in that mess, not that it's a really great cover in either incarnation, but I'll take what the original intention was over some dumb revisionist version made to sell a few more copies in the US.

[peter]

12 hours ago, Kim said:

Yes Peter, I recall that thread. Mattress always writes intelligently and convincingly, a trait I don't have when dealing with idiocy like that seen in this thread.

 I don't think there was any concrete consensus then, but we all had our theories. This propagated falsehood that some employee decided to flip a photograph before the printing presses started does indeed have to stop though.. 

Oh, @Kim, I am so sorry! I meant no disrespect at all whatsoever! I just meant to add a hint of the insight from Mattress (although my lite redux pales in comparison, of course). I just wanted to give “proper credit” to him, since it wasn’t really my own ideas. I certainly didn’t mean that to sound like I was contrasting his comments with yours! You always write clearly and with incisive wit and insightful perspective. Always appreciate that! xo  Please forgive me for any unintended rudeness!

[Kim]

11 hours ago, peter said:

Oh, @Kim, I am so sorry! I meant no disrespect at all whatsoever! I just meant to add a hint of the insight from Mattress (although my lite redux pales in comparison, of course). I just wanted to give “proper credit” to him, since it wasn’t really my own ideas. I certainly didn’t mean that to sound like I was contrasting his comments with yours! You always write clearly and with incisive wit and insightful perspective. Always appreciate that! xo  Please forgive me for any unintended rudeness!

Peter! I didn't take it that way at all!  I was already aware that my responses weren't exactly scholarly and your post was a useful reminder of that, but I didn't think you were being rude or reproachful. In fact that old thread had already entered my thoughts previously, although I couldn't remember what conclusions (if any) we'd reached. I was glad that you recalled it also!

Anyway, you're one of the nicest, most level-headed people here and I don't want you to think I was being snappy towards you. I try and save that for those who are clearly two sandwiches short of a picnic, such as the previous respondents! 

[Showdown]

2 hours ago, Kim said:

Peter! I didn't take it that way at all!  I was already aware that my responses weren't exactly scholarly and your post was a useful reminder of that, but I didn't think you were being rude or reproachful. In fact that old thread had already entered my thoughts previously, although I couldn't remember what conclusions (if any) we'd reached. I was glad that you recalled it also!

Anyway, you're one of the nicest, most level-headed people here and I don't want you to think I was being snappy towards you. I try and save that for those who are clearly two sandwiches short of a picnic, such as the previous respondents! 

Two sandwiches short of a picnic? Well that's an interesting saying. I think I'll start using that...