First Album Cover Photo Mistake??

T. · April 26th, 2003, 10:33 PM

To reply to Gus and his question as far as what Kim Fowley was looking for...

I honestly can not answer that. I was the only photographer working daily with the band and the cover photo was shot just prior to the band going into the studio to record the first album.

I took it at night, then the very next morning, I met Kim... I think we met at some dump in Santa Monica for some reason... and I showed him the photos from the night before... Instantly, when he came across THAT photo, he said..."ALBUM COVER", the first thing that came into my mind, was OH MY GOD!!! NO!!! I immediately thought, first album... it is a band, Kim, we need to talk. I tried, Cherie tried, Rodney Bingheinheimer tired... but Kim sold the photo to Mercury's A and R guy, Denny Rosenkranz (sp) and the deal was done.

I could have chosen to NOT sell the photo to Mercury, but that would have been suicide for me.
In hindsight, maybe Cherie and I could have been a little more firm, but we were kids... And, despite the fact that we had a very valid point, there was no turning back once Kim saw the photo that morning.

T.

**gus danger** · April 27th, 2003, 01:50 PM

Hi Tom and thanks for answering my 1st question as well as you could.
I've always sort of assumed he'd planned to have Cherie on the cover from the get-go but what do I know?
More now thanks to your topic and Cherie's post!!
Have a great day. I'll catch ya later!!!
[img]graemlins/coffee.gif[/img] [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
Gus

**knightjewel** · April 27th, 2003, 02:26 PM

no one has really taken aboard Junkcultureboy's
point.
the Japanese re-issued the first album and what did they put on the cover (to sell more)?
is that a credible band shot? or a Cherie shot?
there is also a Japanese album of collected punk
the name of which escapes me although I have it somewhere (We Are Punk Generation or something) which also has solely a solo picture of Cherie on its cover...
she's carrying the whole punk movement on her shoulders there!
(ironically, since she never was punk!)
and on the other foot...
much later a compilation cd of the Runaways was issued with a photo of the band without Cherie on it -even though she was on half the tracks.(Neon Angels)
And I do believe the Playing with fire compilation album also issued later , has versions
by Cherie Currie & the Runaways and Joan Jett & the Runaways.
Marketing is always opportunistic.
It used her and abandoned her like so much else in her life...

**knightjewel** · April 27th, 2003, 02:49 PM

Also...
Tom's photo was used on the picture sleeve with Cherry Bomb the single in either France or Spain I can't quite remember which.
And we seem to be overlooking the obvious...
'Cherry Bomb' was the band's debut key song and image associated with Cherie and no one else...
(One could say it is still the prime image of any retained in the public memory...)
The group was launched that way...
It went beyond an album cover...

**gus danger** · April 27th, 2003, 04:55 PM

Thanks for the informative post knightjewel.
Were you quoting Kim Fowley when you said, "Marketing is always opportunistic"
because I have no doubt his strategy was in that vein.
That's what is so remarkable. In spite of all HIS faults the band was great!
I wish Cherie and Tom could have had it their way for the sake of all concerned but you are right
about the way The Runaways were being promoted.
I hope I was right when I said, the other girls certainly understood this in their heart of hearts too.
By now if not then!
[img]graemlins/music.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
Gus

T. · April 27th, 2003, 05:10 PM

Thank you Knight.

Your knowledge of the band is impressive. Your point about 'Cherry Bomb' being associated with Cherie is quite valid, It was her song. I bet I heard her sing that song a thousand times and she wailed each and every time. But the first album was a group effort. All 5 members contributed to each and every song on that album. I spent many hours in the studio with them in North Hollywood. And no one felt as if their level of participation was any different than anyone else. Then for one member to be singled out on the cover, despite the fact that she was the glam of the band... just seemed unfair to the other members of the band.

Perhaps Kim Fowley was right, perhaps he was wrong, but especially considering that this was a first album from a band which (based upon the hype) was to get national recognition. I personally feel that Kim made a mistake.

I guess I have to revert back to my Rolling Stones analogy. There have been Stones albums with just Mi?k on the cover, Mi?k clearly being the focal point of the band for most fans, but that was after the band was established and everyone knew that Keith and Charlie were right there next to Mi?k. Forgive my ?'s but for some reason the board's software seems to think that Mr. Jagger's first name is not suitable for the younger generation. [img]eek.gif[/img]

I brought up this topic in an attempt to get this board moving again. It certainly was not my intent to bring up any old wounds. This was probably the most controversial insider Runaway's topic from the first few years the band existed. Most fans, could care less who or what was on the album cover... they just loved the music. I truly hope that I have not upset anyone by bringing this issue to light here, where the true Runaway's fans have a place to show their feelings for the band.

OMG I am rambling.. shut me up. [img]confused.gif[/img]

T.

**Jett Ford** · April 27th, 2003, 06:43 PM

Tom:
How cool, you got the board moving! There is nothing i love more than chatting about than THE RUNAWAYS. As for the topic, I remember as a little kid when my cousin turned me on to the album thinking to myself "I wonder if the other members are upset?" The pic is SUCH a great shot, and it's of one of the coolest women in America (whom i just saw on a repeat of Murder She Wrote a few weeks ago----i just wanted to see her MORE MORE MORE!!!). But i do wish everyone could've gotten their moment if you know what i mean. But i see the other side, too. The front-person always gets the most attention (The Bangles "Behind the Music"---that group can complain all it wants to about Susanna Hoffs getting all the attention, but she was on all the top 10 hits singing lead) and Cherie has style, beauty, rock and roll flash....I dunno....I guess I don't have a particular point of view. At this place in time, I guess i wouldn't want that first album any other way...

**knightjewel** · April 27th, 2003, 11:07 PM

Taking up Gus' point about the other members...
Would I be correct in thinking that the putative cover of the Sacred Dogs 'documentary' has a shot of someone (Cherie?) in a corset in negative?
Seems at least one ex-member has learnt the name of the game when it suits...
(I also believe this was first done on a French CD of 'Born to be Bad' -which has tapes of Joan, Sandy & Mickey Steele -no Cherie at all!)

**bystandyr** · April 28th, 2003, 01:34 AM

Knightjewel I had to run that picture through a photo editor to change it to a positive image. Is nothing "sacred" anymore????

Kim Fowley should have explained his motives better. It seems obvious in hindsight but maybe it wasn't at the time.
Sorry to see it was ever such a controversy and actually put Cherie in such an impossible position.