, ,

From The Stacks: Appetite For Destruction

Okay, here’s the deal:  There’s nothing I can tell you about the content of this album that you don’t already know.  Guns N’ Roses’ major label debut has sold 35 million copies, which is roughly half as many as the number of fits Axl Rose has thrown.  If you don’t know the songs by heart…

Appetite 1

Okay, here’s the deal:  There’s nothing I can tell you about the content of this album that you don’t already know.  Guns N’ Roses’ major label debut has sold 35 million copies, which is roughly half as many as the number of fits Axl Rose has thrown.  If you don’t know the songs by heart then I can’t help you.

So if you’re looking for an in-depth analysis of “Paradise City” you’re going to need to move on.  No, I’m here to talk about that legendary controversial cover.

Appetite 2

Appetite’s initial release featured a painting by lowbrow/pop surrealism master Robert Williams.   I’m not using the word “master” lightly here — Williams is to those genres as Picasso is to Cubism, an analogy that is antithetical to everything that those movements and Williams stand for.

Williams came of age in the middle of the last century, at a time when drawing things that looked like things was sorely out of fashion.  The rub there was that he liked to draw things, and he had the drafting skills to do it.  This led to a break with the “real” art world and a career in underground comics, t-shirt designs, etc., thus the term “lowbrow.” Only in the last few years has he been represented by a highbrow New York gallery, creating the odd juxtaposition of a highbrow lowbrow painter.  That in itself is somewhat ironic:  Williams was a co-creator of the lowbrow magazine, Juxtapoz.

Anyway, the painting in question is titled “Appetite For Destruction,” and it was the cover of a paperback collection of Williams’s work that was big in Los Angeles in the mid to late eighties.  He was all the buzz in L.A. back then, and The Lowbrow Art Of Robt. Williams popped up seemingly everywhere. The painting itself dates to 1978.

Axl claims that his original design for the Appetite cover was a photo of the space shuttle Challenger explosion which, hey, who am I to argue?  But it seems a little odd that the Gunners’ first album coincidentally shares a title with the Williams painting that eventually landed on its cover, yet it wasn’t the original cover design.

Axl also has claimed that he intentionally selected Williams’s painting knowing that it would cause controversy and drive sales.  Now that I have no problem believing.  The original was pulled quickly and replaced by the “cross tattoo” cover that most of us think of when we think of Appetite For Destruction.

Perhaps the best collection of Robert Williams’s work is Malicious Appetite 3Resplendence, a coffee table book stuffed full of photos and text.  You’ll find in this book a photo of the underpainting for “Appetite,” which is catnip for anyone who loves the process as much as the finished product.

This one is going to cost you.  On average original copies of Appetite For Destruction go for around 75 bucks American, but they can go up to  two or three hundred dollars for a mint, still sealed copy.  Happy hunting.

P.S.  Before I go, here’s a little something from my other library, the one of the book variety.  I know it’s a little braggy to show off this inscription from my edition of Malicious Resplendence, but this little feature is all about the things in my stacks, right?  Right?

Appetite 4

Responses to “From The Stacks: Appetite For Destruction”

  1. How To Rack Up A Million Blog Views (But Why Would You Want To?) – Why It Matters

    […] that generates most of my traffic. For example, my all-time most viewed post is a history of Guns N’ Roses’ Appetite For Destruction album cover. My most popular non-music piece is a rant about Apple stores, and its all-time views […]

    Like

  2. From The Stacks: The Who, ‘Who’s Next’ – Why It Matters

    […] are probably my favorite subgenre of album collecting. The story behind the original sleeve for Appetite For Destruction, for example, makes tracking down the original Rob’t Williams sleeve worth my time, or at […]

    Like

  3. From The Stacks: Guns N’ Roses — ‘Live From the Jungle’ – Why It Matters

    […] and though it bears no title it’s often referred to as Live From the Jungle. The EP sports the original Appetite cover art, and also the studio version of “Sweet Child O’ Mine.” The version of “Move […]

    Like

  4. ramblingbog

    Reblogged this on ramblingbog.

    Like

  5. Do you still collect DVDs and BluRays…?

    […] I mean not with the cross on the front, but rather with the painting on the front. Like this: https://wimwords.com/2013/01/31/from-the-stacks-appetite-for-destruction/ No, it isn't for sale. Nor will it ever be as long as I am alive. 0 Replies   […]

    Like

  6. From The Stacks: Roxy Music – Country Life « Why It Matters

    […] Mona Lisa of controversial album covers. Oh, there are more famous banned sleeves, more explicit, more surreal, but sexier? Not to my […]

    Like

  7. From the Stacks: Guns N’ Roses — Appetite For Destruction Alternative Album « Why It Matters

    […] the album cover reproduces the original withdrawn Appetite cover by Rob’t Williams, so it has that going for it, […]

    Like

  8. From the Stacks: Nazareth – No Mean City « Why It Matters

    […] poster of an album cover.  Artist Rodney Matthews really captured a sort of Ralph Bakshi meets Rob’t Williams vibe with this […]

    Like

  9. From the Stacks: Nazareth – The Fool Circle « Why It Matters

    […] lowbrow and pop surrealism started to take hold during the nineties, those of us who leaned toward Dali and Magritte had to […]

    Like

  10. James Stafford

    No, it doesn’t. I was a bit stunned by that myself.

    Like

  11. James Stafford

    It does seem like a stretch, doesn’t it?

    Like

  12. laura b.

    I think Axl talks a LOT of shit. Does it seem like you’ve had that book 10 years? Because I am freaked out that 2003 was 10 years ago….

    Like

  13. Phil – Vybley

    I’ve always liked that cover. Didn’t realise that the title came from the artwork. Of course, I assumed the art was done specially for the album. Duh – the Challenger explosion cover would have been rubbish (I don’t believe it either).

    Like

  14. James Stafford

    Ha! Would you look at that.

    Like

  15. Robbo

    Speaking of space shuttles, have you ever noticed what day he signed that book to you?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.