Having reached the heady heights of Groupie in this forum Its about time I posted my first thread. And speaking of Groupies......I bought the Greasy Truckers Live at Dingwalls album last week which has a very erotic cover.

It started me thinking of other such covers in my prog collection. Those that came to mind are:

Yes :: Time and a Word

and Yesterdays

Pink Floyd:: the inner sleeve from WYWH

I know Roxy Music have some sexy album art but not sure where they fit in the prog collection.

Any other such album covers you can think of?

not really that erotic.. but you'll get the point!

Don't forget Roger Waters' solo album - The Pros and Cons of Hitch-Hiking. It has a naked girl on the cover.

I think you're all forgetting one album cover:

This was considered pornographic in some USA States (I reserve my opinion though):

But my favourites come from outside the prog world:

And this is a real classic:

The cover of Jane's Addiction's 1st album, Nothing's Shocking (cuz what's exier than naked flaming siamese twins?

Gentle Ronnie wrote: Don't forget Roger Waters' solo album - The Pros and Cons of Hitch-Hiking. It has a naked girl on the cover.

Apparently the girl in question is Linzi Drew, top bongo mag model in the early 1980s (so I'm told, never actually seen such smut myself you understand). She's now married to w*nk channel favourite Ben Dover, or so I'm told.

Incidentally, if you ever come across a copy of Greasy Truckers live at Dingwalls with the initials CG on the label of disc 1 it was mine, nicked along with 450 other mostly irreplaceable albums about 15 years ago.

James Lee wrote:

James is there something you'd like to reveal to the group?

Oh,now I see!

Childish post of the week and It's only Sunday!

yep. generating a lot of support thanks.

anyone have a link to the WYWH inner sleeve photograph?

Some more:

I found a gold mine with this band. Anyway, let's not forget that for some members of the forum the real turn on comes with this:

Whilst others (few) will really appreciate this one:

OMG, what have I done? Did I start another one of those??? NO, PLEASE!!!

unsurprisingly, one of my favorite "cover artists":

A lot of the time what is called erotic is simply a picture of a naked woman. Pictures of naked women are seldom erotic,they are just pictures of naked women. The naked human body is not in itself erotic,it needs to be put into an erotic context to become erotic. I remember my friends drooling over the cover for "Pros And Cons...",I think that was the first time it started to dawn on me that most men are idiots. I was ashamed to be associated with such primitive lifeforms that has all their intellectual faculties put on hold simply by the photographic rendering of a naked woman's back. She doesn't do anything even remotely interesting,and certainly nothing erotic,she's just standing there for god's sake! I realised that if that was all it took to titilate the male of the species,then they were a sorry lot indeed. The most erotic photos are the ones where the woman doesn't show any flesh at all,or only a tiny amount. The more clothes she sheds,the more boring and less erotic it becomes. A pair of covered breasts will always be more erotic than a pair of completely exposed ones,the former is eroticism,the latter pornography. I'm perfectly aware that we are talking about a genetic imperative here,but we have had,for want of a better word,civilization for 5000 years and that should also carry some weight.

And the cover for the Scorpions album "Animal Magnetism" is disgusting and an insult to women everywhere. 

Pixel Pirate:

I agree with you in some of your statements, specially those differentiating nakedness and erotism. I however can't see why you have to fight your genetic-driven interest for female naked bodies. Of course you don't jump on the first exposed skin you find around, as our hominid ancestors would. And just a couple of things:

Pixel Pirate wrote: A pair of covered breasts will always be more erotic than a pair of completely exposed ones,the former is eroticism,the latter pornography.

Are you sure you are Norwegian? Do you really consider a pair of exposed breasts as pornography? C'mon! They are only breasts! So you think you can see lots of pornography in beaches these days?

Pixel Pirate wrote: And the cover for the Scorpions album "Animal Magnetism" is disgusting and an insult to women everywhere.

I beg to differ. I guess then you consider, for identical reasons, disgusting and an insult to men everywhere the cover for "Bad for Good, The Best of Scorpions". Anyway, if any of the women in the forum consider that they are offended by that, please state it here and I'll gladly edit my post, remove that cover and present my sincere apologies...

Pixel Pirate wrote: A lot of the time what is called erotic is simply a picture of a naked woman. Pictures of naked women are seldom erotic,they are just pictures of naked women. The naked human body is not in itself erotic,it needs to be put into an erotic context to become erotic. I remember my friends drooling over the cover for "Pros And Cons...",I think that was the first time it started to dawn on me that most men are idiots. I was ashamed to be associated with such primitive lifeforms that has all their intellectual faculties put on hold simply by the photographic rendering of a naked woman's back. She doesn't do anything even remotely interesting,and certainly nothing erotic,she's just standing there for god's sake! I realised that if that was all it took to titilate the male of the species,then they were a sorry lot indeed. The most erotic photos are the ones where the woman doesn't show any flesh at all,or only a tiny amount. The more clothes she sheds,the more boring and less erotic it becomes. A pair of covered breasts will always be more erotic than a pair of completely exposed ones,the former is eroticism,the latter pornography. I'm perfectly aware that we are talking about a genetic imperative here,but we have had,for want of a better word,civilization for 5000 years and that should also carry some weight. And the cover for the Scorpions album "Animal Magnetism" is disgusting and an insult to women everywhere.

I agree with you. The more subtle, the more erotic. I dislike the "Animal Magnetism" cover but I find the "Lovedrive" cover even more distasteful.

nacho wrote: Pixel Pirate: I agree with you in some of your statements, specially those differentiating nakedness and erotism. I however can't see why you have to fight your genetic-driven interest for female naked bodies. Of course you don't jump on the first exposed skin you find around, as our hominid ancestors would. And just a couple of things: Pixel Pirate wrote: A pair of covered breasts will always be more erotic than a pair of completely exposed ones,the former is eroticism,the latter pornography. Are you sure you are Norwegian? Do you really consider a pair of exposed breasts as pornography? C'mon! They are only breasts! So you think you can see lots of pornography in beaches these days? Pixel Pirate wrote: And the cover for the Scorpions album "Animal Magnetism" is disgusting and an insult to women everywhere.  I beg to differ. I guess then you consider, for identical reasons, disgusting and an insult to men everywhere the cover for "Bad for Good, The Best of Scorpions". Anyway, if any of the women in the forum consider that they are offended by that, please state it here and I'll gladly edit my post, remove that cover and present my sincere apologies...

No,I'm not actually Norwegian,I'm from the planet Zippotron. I'm not really,it only feels that way. No,of course I don't mean that naked breasts are porn in real life (but it is rather vulgar,though!),I meant in photographs.

And I'm not a prude (just to clear that up!),I just have a problem with all the vulgarity in the world,plenty of examples of which are to be found in this thread.

threefates wrote:

shoot me..

Pixel Pirate wrote: And I'm not a prude (just to clear that up!),I just have a problem with all the vulgarity in the world,plenty of examples of which are to be found in this thread.

So I thought because of your signature. But please note that:

Odi profanum vulgus: that's what you've said, sorry about your hate

Et arceo: that's what you are not doing...

But you know, vulgarity has always been among us:

OK, I'll better stop it here. Good luck with your batlle against vulgarity...

nacho wrote: Pixel Pirate wrote: And I'm not a prude (just to clear that up!),I just have a problem with all the vulgarity in the world,plenty of examples of which are to be found in this thread.   So I thought because of your signature. But please note that: Odi profanum vulgus: that's what you've said, sorry about your hate Et arceo: that's what you are not doing... But you know, vulgarity has always been among us: OK, I'll better stop it here. Good luck with your batlle against vulgarity...

The emperor Tiberius was very fond of porn so vulgarity has certainly been with us for some time,that's true enough. And I'm aware of the contradiction between my signature/motto and internet activity, but I have not been able to resolve it yet. Some day maybe...

Just as erotic art is very seldom arousing, porn is seldom artistic.

We really are animals, you know...removing the baser instincts from the artistic realm contributes to the rarefied and artificial separation of "high art" from normal human existence. If there wasn't so much hypocrisy and shame attached to our social attitude towards sexuality, art itself might not be the segregated province of pretentious posers and upper-class dilettantes that it is today.

By the way:

I don't see what's erotic about this, but I felt that it should be mentioned:

The Original...

Radioactive Toy wrote: threefates wrote: shoot me..

Consider yourself shot!!

That is ELP... and so is this:

why, that reminds me of:

I love the record John Greaves: The Caretaker, not realy a good reproduction, it is a face drawn or tattoed.

BTW Pixel in most societies primary and secondary sex markers are Taboo and therefore erotically charged.A representation of a naked body is never just a "body". Now if it does not correspond to your esthetic values  that is another question.I hope you like this one nevertheless.

Offensive Last Supper Ad Banned by Churches in France

Posted: Saturday, March 12 , 2005, 13:41 (GMT)

"The Last Supper" of Leonardo Da Vinci. (http://www.artchive.com/)

Photo made available Friday March 11, 2005, by French fashion designer Marithe Francois Girbaud, shows the advertising poster inspired by 'the Last Supper' of Leonardo Da Vinci which was banned by the Paris court, Thursday March 10, 2005. (AP Photo/Brigitte Neidermair)