Printable View
By my account, the only Supremes [[60’s) album to NOT have an alternative front cover/title from the U.S. version[[even in the slightest way) somewhere in the world is MORE HITS BY… - the closest is a Taiwanese release of MORE HITS BY… but it’s unofficial so it doesn’t really count, IMO…
Attachment 19342
https://www.discogs.com/The-Supremes...elease/3998127
Feel free to post other alternate Supremes album covers!
PS: I’m counting official reissues in this…
I think this SINGS RODGERS & HART from Spain is fetching…
Attachment 19343
Here’s the one with the smallest difference - in the U.S. release, “Supremes” is in red, in Japan the red is missing:
Attachment 19344
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejluther
both attachments don’t work for me - is there a link?
Try this:
Rogers & Hart
https://www.discogs.com/The-Supremes...elease/8416304
SCW&P
https://www.discogs.com/The-Supremes...lease/11217381
Attachment 193456Attachment 19346 I think I like this cover more than the U.S. original. I put this on my waitlist at Discogs.
Waiting, I actually prefer that cover to the original R&H also, by a lot. However, I still don't like it because it has the same issue as the original cover. The Supremes were as much about image as they were music. Why in the world would someone decide that their album covers should ever be some type of artist rendering of a photo that already exists, or even a drawing or painting at all? The Sam Cooke album cover sucks because of this, and so does R&H. The exception is the Greatest Hits cover. That was excellently done. But the Supremes had done so many great photo shoots even in the months prior to the R&H release, so why not put one of those photos on the cover? Just doesn't make sense to me.
EJ here's one for We Remember Sam Cooke. I've never seen it before. I prefer this cover to the original.
Attachment 19347
Mexican Reflections [[sounds like a tourism commercial):
Attachment 19348
https://www.discogs.com/Diana-Ross-Y...lease/14012580
Ok you raise a point that has bothered me increasingly as I discover more and more of these amazing photo sessions Motown seemed to constantly commission. There are tons of amazing color studio shots that seemed to serve one purpose: to fill file cabinets. I mean, some could have made for some striking album covers. And this wasn't just on the Supremes. Everyone at Motown seemed to spend as much time in photo sessions as recording sessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
Actually, this could be an entire thread of its own.
Now this is really nice. Why did other countries produce better covers than in the U.S.? Not always, but a pretty hefty chunk of them were improvements on the U.S. versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
Keep in mind that the charges for the photo shoots were probably deducted from the artists' pay, plus interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance
Some of the photos did end up as picture sleeves and promotional items. But it seems like the best of them were never considered for album covers in the states.
Good question. There does seem to be more eye catching covers of the foreign releases than here at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance
The black-and-white photo of the trio on the back of We Remember Sam Cooke should have been used as the front cover shot. Not only do the three look great, but their outfits add texture, depth and a sense of life and movement to the image, with Diana and Florence in polka dots flanking Mary in stripes.
The Sing Country, Western & Pop cover shot was clearly a second-rate outtake from the Where Did Our Love Go photo session. Presumably Motown thought the similar image would cause shoppers to buy the "new" album, thinking it would include similar sounds. It would have been better to use another picture entirely.
The Rodgers & Hart hodgepodge cover was dreadful; the picture was old, Mary's upraised fist suggested she was about to begin a melee, and the blue wash made each of the young women look like a witch.
The More Hits extended issue CD showed that the alternate cover photos version was used at least on a 45-sleeve. Was it also used on a European [[?) vinyl album release? Mary's alternate photo was much more flattering than the one used on the U.S. album release.
The best early covers were those on the Where Did Our Love Go and [[revised) Meet The Supremes albums, and the A Bit Of Liverpool photo demonstrated thought and care; it's too bad that this album itself demonstrated less time and care, however.
Good covers or bad, though, I bought all the albums and was better for having done so.
Great post! But I have to respectfully disagree about the SR&H blue cover…I love that cover! It’s evocative and charming, IMO…Quote:
Originally Posted by benross
I also love the R&H cover. When it was released I thought it was different and exciting. I knew the image of the girls was old but the concept and artwork were superb and separated it from images of their other albums.
Likewise for the Sam Cooke cover. It's a great drawing and the fact that the album jacket was printed on textured art paper, rather than glossy paper, made it stand out from the several other Supremes albums in the record bins.
This artwork once appeared in a newspaper ad for their upcoming 1966 appearance at Blinstrub's in Boston. However Diana's 'bouffant' was clipped into a 'bob'. Not sure if this was done by the nightclub or by Motown in a press release or promo packet.
Many of Motown's covers are usually comprised of old pics. Even Cream Of The Crop cover is of the ladies in gowns that were also used on the TCB cover from the year before, despite many other appealing photos available from that period.
I've often wondered if the Everything Is Everything cover was a new pic or one taken while she was in costume for GIT, although in a different wig. Likewise, the Surrender cover. I once saw a pic that appeared to be very similar to the Surrender cover but showed gold buttons on her shoulder. It looked like the outfit from Rhythm of Life, also from GIT. It may be that they used stock photos rather than ordering a new photo shoot for a new album.
I’m also a fan of the SR&H album cover. As already mentioned, it was different enough to stand out and created a visual vibe of the content contained within.
I think the cover shot of Diana on “EIE” dates from 69. I much prefer the photo of her looking straight at the camera not smiling. She looks truly stunning and dare I say rather sexy.
hahahaaha - that is absolutely hysterical! i agree the R&H album was not great but this made me laugh out loudQuote:
Originally Posted by benross
i like the theater marquee look on R&H but agree that the photo of the girls is too dated. the big bouffants and flips were on their way out by 67. an even the two different versions of the back cover photo were old. both from 65 or at the latest, early 66.
Sam Cooke could have been a more exciting cover. i don't mind the idea of a drawing but it needed to be more compelling.
More hits is fine except Mary looks Japanese
Sing HDH - i think the pic was a bit old by this time too. it's certainly not a bad cover but could have been a bit more innovative.
sunshine - again i don't mind the idea of a drawing but they used such oddly muted colors for a very colorful album! they incorporated a lot of the popular psychedelic imagery but the colors needed to be much brighter
Cream - the giant mega head was NOT a good idea.
I also love the R&H album cover. When I used to see it featured on those old Motown inner sleeves, I used to think it was so cool, having the girls towering over the city. I had no idea the photo was two years old until many years later. I will admit that when I first saw the album in person, the cover wasn't quite as impressive to me as it was on the old inner sleeve but I still loved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjeb
Ditto for the Sam Cooke cover. Again, it was one I first saw on an old inner sleeve. When I finally bought a copy, I was impressed with the texture of the album cover.
I thing the CREAM OF THE CROP cover photo was taken in the summer of 1968. The girls are wearing the same wigs they wore during the Ed Sullivan "Funny Girl" medley as well as the medley with Bing Crosby on his 1968 "Making Movies" special.
Re EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING, I think that was a current photo but wearing the GIT "GYPSY" outfit. But I think the cover for LAST TIME I SAW HIM [[released in 1973) might very well have been taken during those 1970 Harry Langdon sessions that yielded her early solo album covers. The eyes and the hoop earrings look similar.
In J.Randy's first Diana book, he had a 70s concert of Diana wearing the GIT "Rhythm of Life" outfit. I think another poster mentioned it might be one of the only Supremes era outfits she retained.
While searching for that ad, I came across this from The Boston Globe Apr. 14, 1966 ...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjeb
Attachment 19353
I never did find the ad however.
Interesting. I always thought these incidences were covered up by Motown. I remember Flo recounting this event in the Lost Supreme and I think this is when she started to see they were being worked too hard. They seemed to have bad luck in Boston as a few months later they would cancel a couple shows again there when Flo had pneumonia.
I just found a copy of the ad in my memorabilia. I will try to post it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_raven
It was an ad for their November 9-20, 1966 appearance, not their early Spring appearance of that same year.
During their Spring 1966 appearance there was a 33-day [[March 6-April 8) Boston newspaper strike for all 3 dailies. The item you posted appeared following the strike and their appearance [[March 22-April 3).
Laurent's wonderful Diana Ross site has more info:
http://dianarosssupremes.free.fr/Timeline%201966.htm
Attachment 19357
This is from a Boston newspaper in 1966. I was amused to see that Diana got a new hairstyle for the ad!
Thanks for posting Johnjeb! That's a very interesting change!
My aunt saw the Supremes at Blinstrub's and kept the concert program on her coffee table for years.