That cover made me a fan 26 years ago. I needed some music for my holiday, went to the record store, saw that cover and was fascinated. I bought the album and listened to it the next weeks over and over again. Everything concerning Lovesexy is holy to me.

[Edited 6/20/14 20:10pm]

The nudity was not sexual, but a spiritual rebirth. Unfortunately, many people confused it with a sexual meaning.

Pretty much alll of Prince's 80's records have some type of nudity on the cover/sleeve/booklet. ATWIAD and Batman are probably the only exception. The biggest problem I think with the Lovesexy cover is that it looked cheap and beneath the expectation one would have for a major pop star. By that point there were already rumours swirling that Prince was bankrupt, the cover gave the impression that he was in a downward spiral. Add that to the fact that the music is very simple and sounds low budget in comparison to say Purple Rain. Then there is the outdated slang, the digs at hip hop and a decision to ignore New Jack Swing. I've never seen the comparison made before, but in a lot of ways the LoveSexy album looks and sounds like a more old and busted version of "1999". Meaning it's the same guy, with the same message, only now it sounds like he's just throwing shit against the wall in hopes that it sticks. He couldn't quite figure out how to connect, or more likely he refused to compromise with the trends of 1988, so he doesn't sound as slick and sophisticated as he did in 1982 when the "1999" album dropped. It's still a good record for me, because I played the heck out of it when I was a kid, but even back then I was frustrated by it in comparison to 1999 or PR.

Strange I thought it was a great cover. Like his version of a Michelangelo painting. Notice he has no theatrical eyeliner and his brows are natural.

"the music is very simple"

what in the world!?! couldnt disagree more..............

I'm not personally offended at the cover and I "get" what he was trying to do,but I wish he had chosen another picture for the cover.Lovesexy is a superb album and I didn't want anything to stop it from being successful.Unfortunately,the album cover kept many people (especially males) from exploring the music on the album.

Mondino was all the hype in 88. IDK anything about the cover being in the way of the album selling save some stupid retailers not wanting 2 sell it in the US.

Also IDK how old the OP is but back then in the 80's kitsch was all over the place and imagery was still pretty naive, it's only in the mid-90's that graphic design became what it is today, when computers changed the way designers worked.

If u want a pretty clear idea of how graphic design and the sens of ridicule evolved, take a look at the evolution of Iron Man's armor in the comics, it follows trends pretty accurately

friend2001 said:

"the music is very simple"

what in the world!?! couldnt disagree more..............

Funksterr, you might want to listen to LoveSexy on headphones - perhaps will give you a better appreciation of how layered and incredibly complex the music really is. It might sound deceptively simple if you're not listening closely, I suppose.

It read as a joke when it came out. Prince buck nekkid with a flower for the cover was like the ultimate self deprecating joke of what Prince's next cover would be. It was kind of like the Breakfast Can Wait promo graphic. Not to discount the theory about it being symbolic, but I can't see any artist saying "I'm going through a rebirth..." and yadda yadda.

[Edited 6/21/14 1:01am]

ufoclub said:

Strange I thought it was a great cover. Like his version of a Michelangelo painting. Notice he has no theatrical eyeliner and his brows are natural.

taken from facebook somewhere, thanks to whoever made it:


[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/ecnirp2004/Prince/LovesexyGuitar_zpsf977be22.jpg[/img:$uid]


And. Like ludwig wrote:

Everything about Lovesexy is holy. To me as well.

"Pretty much alll of Prince's 80's records have some type of nudity on the cover/sleeve/booklet. ATWIAD and Batman are probably the only exception."

Around the world in a day is not an exception. The multi-colored "mountains" in the background are actually a nude woman lying on her back.

pic:

[Edited 6/21/14 0:50am]

It's a great photo. It's art, and rather good art for that matter, so does that redeem that in your mind? Would it make a difference if his legs would be covered by pants? Because there are plenty of album covers out there where the male artists are shirtless at least. It's not like his penis is showing.

Considering what the music on the release is like I don't think he was even aiming at massive sales, more like the same type of figures as Parade and SOTT.

SoulAlive said:

Lets be honest - it was controversial and all things controversial get picked up by the press. I remember my mom going mad about it (I was 14 and LOVED it) but she then was a daily mail reader. I don't know about the rebirth stuff, I just think it was a cover that people either loved or hated, and that at least meant people were talking about it (as we still are now).

.

The tiny record shop that I used practically daily at the time knew I was mad for anything Prince and gave me all their promo material for Lovesexy. I guess they didn't want it on display. I had a Lovesexy bedroom for a while afterwards. Wish I'd took some photos

funksterr said:

Pretty much alll of Prince's 80's records have some type of nudity on the cover/sleeve/booklet. ATWIAD and Batman are probably the only exception. The biggest problem I think with the Lovesexy cover is that it looked cheap and beneath the expectation one would have for a major pop star. By that point there were already rumours swirling that Prince was bankrupt, the cover gave the impression that he was in a downward spiral. Add that to the fact that the music is very simple and sounds low budget in comparison to say Purple Rain. Then there is the outdated slang, the digs at hip hop and a decision to ignore New Jack Swing. I've never seen the comparison made before, but in a lot of ways the LoveSexy album looks and sounds like a more old and busted version of "1999". Meaning it's the same guy, with the same message, only now it sounds like he's just throwing shit against the wall in hopes that it sticks. He couldn't quite figure out how to connect, or more likely he refused to compromise with the trends of 1988, so he doesn't sound as slick and sophisticated as he did in 1982 when the "1999" album dropped. It's still a good record for me, because I played the heck out of it when I was a kid, but even back then I was frustrated by it in comparison to 1999 or PR.

Really??? Some of the more complex music he has written imo.

The nudity was a big deal in anglo-saxon countries where they'd put trousers on Michelangelo's David if they could.

It was both sexual and spiritual, the sexual being the spiritual and vice versa. If you're uncomfortable with the cover, you just don't get that water is wet and sugar is sweet.

MIRvmn said:

SoulAlive said:

I'm not personally offended at the cover and I "get" what he was trying to do,but I wish he had chosen another picture for the cover.Lovesexy is a superb album and I didn't want anything to stop it from being successful.Unfortunately,the album cover kept many people (especially males) from exploring the music on the album.

It's an embarrassing cover for a great album. I can imagine lots of ppl who refused to buy Lovesexy cuz of the cover

imo the Lovesexy cover pic is one of his best album covers,

Much better than the post-WB album covers 1996 - 2010,

Since Chaos & Disorder - the album covers have been rather awful.......


Lovesexy is a beauty, it's a "heavenly pic"...... and a classic imho.

I wonder why people (mostly americans) finds it offensive..

Aerogram said:

The nudity was a big deal in anglo-saxon countries where they'd put trousers on Michelangelo's David if they could.

It was both sexual and spiritual, the sexual being the spiritual and vice versa. If you're uncomfortable with the cover, you just don't get that water is wet and sugar is sweet.

Naturally i understand it was art and what he was going for.What i dont get is how a man like Prince would allow a cover that would last forever to portray him in such a ridiculous very emasculating and outright femminine like pose.Even when P was wearing frils and heels he was still an alpha male and primal in his movement on stage,Even with its Michaelangelo subtext it made him look very estrogen laden and almost semi insane.

elf9933 said:

Aerogram said:

The nudity was a big deal in anglo-saxon countries where they'd put trousers on Michelangelo's David if they could.

It was both sexual and spiritual, the sexual being the spiritual and vice versa. If you're uncomfortable with the cover, you just don't get that water is wet and sugar is sweet.

Naturally i understand it was art and what he was going for.What i dont get is how a man like Prince would allow a cover that would last forever to portray him in such a ridiculous very emasculating and outright femminine like pose.Even when P was wearing frils and heels he was still an alpha male and primal in his movement on stage,Even with its Michaelangelo subtext it made him look very estrogen laden and almost semi insane.

Could it be that Prince is more comfortable than you are with his sexuality?

elf9933 said:

Aerogram said:

The nudity was a big deal in anglo-saxon countries where they'd put trousers on Michelangelo's David if they could.

It was both sexual and spiritual, the sexual being the spiritual and vice versa. If you're uncomfortable with the cover, you just don't get that water is wet and sugar is sweet.

Naturally i understand it was art and what he was going for.What i dont get is how a man like Prince would allow a cover that would last forever to portray him in such a ridiculous very emasculating and outright femminine like pose.Even when P was wearing frils and heels he was still an alpha male and primal in his movement on stage,Even with its Michaelangelo subtext it made him look very estrogen laden and almost semi insane.

Prince was dancing in frilly bikinis in high heels years before Lovesexy was released and had always been described as an androginous artist, going as far as recording a whole album as Camille, penning If I Was Your Girlfriend, etc. there was nothing new to the alleged feminity of it. Not sure what a manly nude cover would have looked like -- maybe like the cover of a gay porn movie.

skywalker said:

elf9933 said:

Naturally i understand it was art and what he was going for.What i dont get is how a man like Prince would allow a cover that would last forever to portray him in such a ridiculous very emasculating and outright femminine like pose.Even when P was wearing frils and heels he was still an alpha male and primal in his movement on stage,Even with its Michaelangelo subtext it made him look very estrogen laden and almost semi insane.

Could it be that Prince is more comfortable than you are with his sexuality?

What a person sees in that cover tells you alot about thier perspective on the world. Built into the response you find a lot of folks uneasy with nudity, homosexuality, and sexuality period.

Alpha male pre Lovesexy Prince:

remember ATIWIAD was what Warner's took a BIGGER risk in letting him release. THAT album and its cover, post PR. again, i get if he was TRYING to alienate bandwagon fans and I like the album, but to me I could see why WB would've been pissed. By the time of Lovesexy though, I think they KNEW it was an uphill battle to fight with him over such things.

As for the cover itself, Prince is quite the skilled provocateur by then and his awareness about what certain pictures, poses conote and his own security in his manhood are quite different. The For You cover with a better Farah Fawcett do than many women! Naked on a horse on the back! The Dirty Mind era cover, and pics Lovesexy didn't do more damage than all THIS. Especially since HE knew it was a spiritual thing he was going after. By now though, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from the public after such previous intentional lewdness or "andogynous-ness"

skywalker said:

elf9933 said:

Naturally i understand it was art and what he was going for.What i dont get is how a man like Prince would allow a cover that would last forever to portray him in such a ridiculous very emasculating and outright femminine like pose.Even when P was wearing frils and heels he was still an alpha male and primal in his movement on stage,Even with its Michaelangelo subtext it made him look very estrogen laden and almost semi insane.

Could it be that Prince is more comfortable than you are with his sexuality?

My bad.Didnt mean to sound biggoted.Loved David Bowie andMick jagger and like Androgeny.But too much and i think its unflattering.But i agree Prince would be nowhere if he didnt embrace his sensitive feminine side.

Aerogram said:

Alpha male pre Lovesexy Prince:

Dont kid yourself thats an alpha wolf in revlon mascara and an Versace pattern.

thedance said:

MIRvmn said:

SoulAlive said: It's an embarrassing cover for a great album. I can imagine lots of ppl who refused to buy Lovesexy cuz of the cover

imo the Lovesexy cover pic is one of his best album covers,

Much better than the post-WB album covers 1996 - 2010,

Since Chaos & Disorder - the album covers have been rather awful.......


Lovesexy is a beauty, it's a "heavenly pic"...... and a classic imho.

I wonder why people (mostly americans) finds it offensive..

because americans are like a different breed of human. lol. i'm american and it's a lot that they do that i still don't understand. just like how a lot of musicians like being in europe. they're recieved a lot better. Prince is no different.

the cover is "different" but i wouldn't deter me from listening or buying it.

paulludvig said:

funksterr said:

Pretty much alll of Prince's 80's records have some type of nudity on the cover/sleeve/booklet. ATWIAD and Batman are probably the only exception. The biggest problem I think with the Lovesexy cover is that it looked cheap and beneath the expectation one would have for a major pop star. By that point there were already rumours swirling that Prince was bankrupt, the cover gave the impression that he was in a downward spiral. Add that to the fact that the music is very simple and sounds low budget in comparison to say Purple Rain. Then there is the outdated slang, the digs at hip hop and a decision to ignore New Jack Swing. I've never seen the comparison made before, but in a lot of ways the LoveSexy album looks and sounds like a more old and busted version of "1999". Meaning it's the same guy, with the same message, only now it sounds like he's just throwing shit against the wall in hopes that it sticks. He couldn't quite figure out how to connect, or more likely he refused to compromise with the trends of 1988, so he doesn't sound as slick and sophisticated as he did in 1982 when the "1999" album dropped. It's still a good record for me, because I played the heck out of it when I was a kid, but even back then I was frustrated by it in comparison to 1999 or PR.

Really??? Some of the more complex music he has written imo.

Dance On, Positivity, Ana Stesia, When 2 R In Love... very very basic 3 note chord structures. Nothing complex at all about them. Energeticly played for sure, but jarringly behind the times in terms of what was happening with most mainstream funk and r&b acts at the time. The entire record was too basic to be true, and that's why it flopped so bad in the US. Again as Prince enthusiasts, we listen and love it regardless really, but it was out of place in the commercial marketplace. One more thing, the way I recall it, there really wasn't any other image of Prince, besides the cover out there. There was the Alphabet St video, also done in an alarmingly low-budget haphazard fashion, but I remember feeling some frustration with the fact that you really didn't see Prince at the time. There was the cover, a few flashes in the Alphabet St video, and that was it. Then the CD dropped and it was all one massive track and I pretty much felt more negative energy toward the record than I did positive. The Sheila E album was out and Prince wasn't on any of the tracks, it was definitely not the best of times to be a Prince fan.

elf9933 said:

Aerogram said:

Alpha male pre Lovesexy Prince:

Dont kid yourself thats an alpha wolf in revlon mascara and an Versace pattern.

Yes and DAMN INCREDIBLY SEXY, too! Don't you kid yourself!