Dave Grohl suggests new cover art for Nevermind is on the way
The proposed change follows the lawsuit involving the original cover art
Aux News Dave Grohl
One of the most iconic album covers for one of the bestselling albums of all time might be getting a makeover. Former Nirvana drummer and current Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl recently spoke to The Times about the 30th anniversary of their 1991 Nevermind album, and the lawsuit filed earlier this year from the child who was photographed for the cover, Spencer Elden. He also hinted that we might be getting some new cover art.
Elden has famously appeared on the cover Nevermind for thirty years now as the nude infant swimming in a pool with a dollar bill dangling in front of him. In August, the now-adult Elden filed a lawsuit against all the surviving members of Nirvana, Courtney Love, various record labels, and the executor and managers of Kurt Cobain’s estate, seeking damages for what he calls “child porn” and “child sexual exploitation.”
In addition to financial damages, Elden is also demanding his genitalia be censored in all future reissues, including the forthcoming 30th anniversary deluxe album.
Following the suit, it appears new cover art for Nevermind—which features hits such as “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Come As You Are”—might be on the way. And apparently, Grohl already has a hefty list of possible changes to the album artwork.
“I have many ideas of how we should alter that cover but we’ll see what happens,” Grohl told The Times. “We’ll let you know. I’m sure we’ll come up with something good.”
When it comes to Elden’s issues with the cover, Grohl would rather not get caught up in the drama, or the paperwork. “I think that there’s much more to look forward to and much more to life than getting bogged down in those kinds of things,” he continued. “And, fortunately, I don’t have to do the paperwork.”
The deluxe 30th anniversary reissue of Nevermind is set to be released on November 12.
135 Comments
Dave Grohl nude in a pool?
They should just use Weird Al’s “Off the Deep End” cover, only with Weird Al’s dong visible.
Recreate that old joke:
“Man, this water’s cold!”
“It’s deep too!”
I believe the one fella was from Alabama.
That with no peen and have it say “I was in the pool!” across the bottom.
shrinkage?
It really should be Kurt, in a dress, with a gigantic penis photoshopped on.
I don’t know about the dong, but I’m pretty sure I remember a couple pics of Kurt in a dress.
… tastefully, just the head dangling below the hem.
This is good news for us collectors. My original 4th pressing of the CD with the banned cover is going to be worth a fortune!
I can’t remember if I have a “Waif Me” In Utero.
Am I the only one who absolutely hates the internet’s tendency to overuse the word “banned?” You’ll see a video online for an ad that was created to be web-only, and it’ll be labeled “Banned from TV.” Some Dr Seuss books go out of print, and you can find them used online under the heading “banned Dr. Seuss books.” I once saw a video on Facebook that was described as being “banned by congress” and it turned out that what happened is the group that made it requested to show it in some congressional hearing, and they were turned down. It’s like if someone were to ask me, “Have you seen the new Venom movie yet?” and I answer, “No, I don’t think I’m going to ever see it,” and then the tell everyone, “Did you hear? The new Venom movie is banned at Rollo Tomassi’s house!”
It’s not just you.
“Banned” was the new “Too Hot For TV.”And now “Cancelled” is the new “Banned.”
You are “literally” the only one who absolutely hates the internet’s tendency to overuse the word “banned!”
It’s also one of the best selling albums of all time, so lack of scarcity will probably keep the price from getting driven up. What ‘90s teen DOESN’T have a copy of this sitting around. (I don’t, but I’m not cool.)
Oh, deep discomfort with the human body meets an overly litigious society? Perfect. God bless the USA!
Not sure this applies given the image’s widespread popularity and acceptance over decades in said USA.
I think its less about being uncomfortable with the human body and more about the now adult baby wanting to get more comfortable with Nirvana’s money. He was happy and proud of the picture for years and years. Signed autographs, sold merch, etc
Yeah how many times did that guy recreate the cover photo? I know he did it for several of Nevermind’s anniversaries.
He actually has done it every five years since he has been an adult. The last one was two years ago.
Okay, I can buy that the guy had to use “child porn” and “child sexual exploitation” as a means to secure the financial damages. Same with the demand to alter the cover photo. If he was going to (disingenuously) claim that it was child porn, then he had to follow through on getting the penis removed from the image.But the fact that it worked makes me think that we have a broken idea of what constitutes a perfectly fine photo of a baby and what constitutes child porn. And his comfort with the image for so long makes me think the court should have seen through his ridiculous ploy.
It’s only “worked” in the sense that Grohl and company are unwilling to use the picture in an anniversary reissue (I can’t believe anyone would pay for this but that’s another issue entirely). In fact, they’ll probably sell more with a new cover with the accompanying [yawn] controversy than they would have otherwise.In the end, the little prick (oops!) will lose his lawsuit or get a token settlement, Dave Grohl and the rest will get a huge payday, and fewer babies will be used as commercial models.Oh, and the rest of us get to enjoy a low-stakes controversy that reminds us of an old band that was good.There’s only one loser and he was entirely responsible for that status.
They should just give the kid a million bucks or so. Everybody’s happy.
If he hadn’t spent years trying to cash in on his claim to [barely] fame and was approaching this as a true matter of principle, I could get behind that. Instead, he’s a grifter, baselessly accusing everyone involved of trafficking in child pornography. That is not a person who should walk away with a huge payday. Going down for libel/slander would be best, but I’ll settle for his eventual humiliation.
I saw a story a couple of years ago that went around the internet, but that’s pretty much all I’ve heard about the guy until he filed his lawsuit.My opinion is that it’s a pretty iconic image that has made it onto t-shirts, posters and it’s even a stock image used my television, print and online news outlets. The pic is still instantly recognizable thirty years later and a million dollars divided four or five ways would be life-changing to him, while less than Dave Grohl and Courtney Love might spend remodeling a bathroom.
So? The picture isn’t famous because of him. There are those (myself included TBH) who would argue that he wasn’t even a sentient human being when his picture was taken. Also, and this may come as a shock, models don’t get paid based on how famous their pictures become. They get paid their contracted fee then go to the next job. Finally, the reason the cover is iconic is because of the album beneath. No one would have noticed if Nirvana and their music sucked.As for his minor fame and whatever pain he suffered because of it (seemingly the sense of entitlement that impeded his development), that’s on him. Nobody would give a single shit who that baby was if he didn’t try to capitalize on it. How many baby models are known by name to anybody but their parents and those taking pictures of them?He earned nothing.
Rules are changing. Whatever contract his parent signed 30 years ago may have been the norm at that time — hell, it could have been the norm last week —but that doesn’t mean it always has to be the case.People my age paid for college or they have paid off their student loans with much sacrifice. Many young people would like to be spared from that burden. A significant number of people have always wished education was free or that they didn’t need to pay their loans because that money would be useful elsewhere.With my support and the support of many people like me, all or part of everyone’s outstanding student loan debt may be forgiven sometime in the next couple of years. Everyone who has student loan debt signed a promissory note that they will pay back the principal with interest. Just like this guy’s parents, they have a contract which they entered into willingly, but times and rules can change.You keep hating on the dude if that keeps you warm at night. Hate everybody else your social media tells you. I’ll just keep spreading love. Nirvana.
I have a kid in college right now, paid for with money that I’ve been saving since the day he was born. Am I going to reimbursed for that?
No.
Follow through on getting his penis removed?!
I wouldn’t say that it worked; the lawsuit hasn’t gone to court yet and I doubt it was ever intended to to go to court to begin with. My understanding (not an expert on child porn) is there needs to be a sexual aspect to the image in order for it to be porn, and it’s very clearly not a sexual image.
I’ve heard rumours that he also got the American Jesus virus but I haven’t been able to confirm that.
He has a huge, highly visible Nevermind tattoo as well.
Yup.
The lawsuit comes off as frivolous but good for him for offering to make the change.
But why bend to that kind of stupidity at all?
You’ll have to ask David Grohl.
You said “good for him.” I was asking you because you said “good for him” and I wondered why you said “good for him.”
Say “good for him” one more time so I know you’re serious.
Say “good for him” again!
Good for him!
And I’m sure he’d be happy to expound for a lot longer than you were really looking for.
Dude isn’t going to kick his golden goose, but I assume he’s wanted an excuse to change that album cover since roughly 1991.
So that you can make it go away and move on with your life.
Grohl might be sick of looking at the cover himself and think this is a good time to change it. Or maybe he never liked it in the first place but it wasn’t his call back then.
Yeah, I bet Grohl has looked at the cover more than once in the last twenty years.
You think he spends a lot of time looking at it?
It reminds him of his own baby penis and he hates it..maybe. Note: I actually like Dave Grohl and Foo Fighters, just being silly here
It’s an extremely bad precedent, to let someone label a completely non-sexualized photograph of an infant “child pornography.” Particularly in a time of increasingly conservative judges.
Actually has anyone checked out the guys web presence lately. Is it possible he is Q pilled?
Not worth the legal headache to fight it. Sure the cover is iconic but changing it is not going to change the music inside it
No one involved, Grohl, Novoselic, Love, etc. has to think about this for one second. The label and its lawyers could handle in its entirety.
I think, as the article’s response from Grohl implies, he doesn’t care enough to even get involved. He pays lawyers to handle all that. If a lawyer comes to him and says “we may have to change any future pressings of this decades old record you did with your previous band” he probably just rubber stamps it and says keep mailing my checks to the same address please.
The law is vague enough that the court has some discretion here. It seems to me that it’s unlikely that a court will find that this is child porn given that it’s been featured on t-shirts and record shops for nearly three decades. The number of people that would then be guilty of possessing and distributing it would be upwards of 30 million, according to Google.
Still, it’s America, so who knows, and why put yourself through that?
Yeah, I mean ultimately if the person whose genitalia is on display has decided they aren’t cool with it, whether for legitimate or mercenary reasons, you gotta change the art. Why double down on “your penis will be displayed FOREVER even if you don’t want it!”
Eh. A lot of these deluxe editions have modified artwork anyway, so I guess they can throw something different on there for whoever actually needs another copy of this album.
I hope they contact Elden’s parents and just get a different picture of him in a pool – like just keep using these pics and getting sued until they find one of Elden where he’s like, “No, that one is pretty good actually.”
Naw. He only has an issue with it when he needs some money. He would just sue in ten years when his Ninja Turtles school picture falls out of favor or he blew through the baby penis money he settled for.
You can’t fight big baby penis.
TBH I can buy that he was trying to make the best of an uncomfortable situation and/or realized it’s kind of fucked up that his penis has been on the wall of anybody who’s ever been an edgy teenager once he was older
Lending the original cover art a massive dose of irony.
No, same picture, just add more money
What’s the over/under on them photoshopping lady parts on the baby?
3
I have some alternate cover ideas myself:
– Flip the baby vertically to imply it drowned, thus obscuring its penis.
– Add people to the bottom of the pool pointing and laughing at the baby’s penis.
– Give the baby an inner tube with a miniature version of his head on the plug a la Wade the Duck from the old Garfield cartoon.
– Replace the baby with William Shatner.
I can’t choose. Make them all covers and I’ll buy all four.
“- Add people to the bottom of the pool pointing and laughing at the baby’s penis.”Goddamn, I just snorted out loud, that shit hit me perfectly! lol!!
Maybe one of them holding up their index finger and thumb about 1/2 an inch apart, just to drive home the point.
Replace the baby with John Cena. Claim you don’t see a nude man on the cover if anyone complains.
Replace the baby with Denzel Washington and Ellen Pompeo (nude, of course) and have them wrestle for the dollar while screaming “Motherfucker!” at each other.
No, wait…this may not be an album cover, this is performance art.
Make the penis smaller but still visible
Replace the baby with a naked Jaye Davidson! The reveal will sell boatloads of tickets just like it did in 1992!
Underrated comment
Just leave the baby out altogether. F that prick. Remember this:
The members of Nirvana dressed in white coats, holding the baby, along with pieces of raw meat.
I like this one a lot.
Photoshop out the baby so it’s just a penis going after the dollar
And if Grohl says no, I’m gonna keep this one in my pocket in case King Missile needs to redo any of their album covers.
Omg that would be hilarious
Or…just use Weird Al’s parody of the Nevermind cover for his Off the Deep End album!Al Yankovic was a consenting adult when the picture was taken, after all….
Would have loved to have seen “little Al”Alternate names for Al’s penis: the accordion, my bologna, polka dot
+1for Wade the Duck reference, and specifically referencing the weird second head on the innertube. What the fuck was going in with that? It imitated his facial expressions. Was it a part of him, or attached to the innertube?
Don’t forget the new title for the set: “Nevermind the Old Album Cover”
“Nevermind The Old Album Cover, Here Come The Sex Pistols!”That should sufficiently confuse pretty much everyone.
conceal the offending penis with a cloud of baby poop.
They should just take a new picture with a different baby (babies all kind of look the same anyway), and that should buy them thirty more years.
Keep the same picture but now have large red arrow and a caption in Bold Comic Sans stating ‘Spencer Elden’s Winkle!’, with his phone number underneath. Might not solve the problems but would give a few people a laugh…
With a bit star sticker in the corner that says “It never got any bigger!!”
Spencer Elden’s Presence Lends Resplendence to the cover.
I’m sure some Creeps Lenden’ testimony to his suit help the case, but if Nirvana were less stingy Pence Lenders, Is Spencer Elden still Led [to] Censer Penis?
Maybe if he keeps his hands to himself he can get that Emily Rad…j… Emily with the boobs to be on the cover.
just 1,000 penises.
The fact that this guy thinks of this as porn points to bigger issues on HIS part. (And likely the part of the legal team advising him)
He doesn’t, though. It’s a cynical ploy for a payday that will either never arrive or will be so small that everyone in his life will laugh at him.
or will be so small that everyone in his life will laugh at him.Very well played.
Oh, I see what you did there.
The legal team advising him is lucky it’s the most chill man in entertainment he’s dealing with. Grohl et al. could financially ruin this guy for life with a series of neverending countersuits claiming defamation and who knows what else. Most bands would just ignore this and let their attorneys go to work. Think the Stones taking the Verve’s candy away for Bittersweet Symphony.
Wait till people see the cover to Blind Faith.
what about it?
That is the alternate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(Blind_Faith_album)
I know.
GOD DAMMIT!!! You can’t just go around showing people photos of Eric Clapton without warning! There could be children around!
Or Virgin Killer by the Scorpions. Weirdo Germans.
The important thing about this lawsuit is that if he’s successful, we can take down Anne Geddes once and for all.
It’s about fucking time someone did.
If someone comes at Geddes, they best come hard, cause she doesn’t mess around.
Seems appropriate to Photoshop out the kid’s penis, because as an adult he has turned out to be dickless.
They should replace it with a picture of a giant dildo.
Simple solution: Find the one baby on Earth who is actually the
reincarnation of Kurt Cobain (using the same techniques they use to find
the next Dalai Llama) and photograph him in a pool for the new cover.
Lawsuit is now impossible because everyone knows you can’t sue yourself.
Slap a dollar bill over the baby’s doodle. Now you have double-satire on your cover! You’re welcome, Nirvana.
I say go full Amorica but with male genitalia. OK, I guess they already did that with Sticky Fingers.Whatever, DO IT AGAIN.
I have that CD with the original art. It’s admittedly a bit much.
When Grohl can’t make up his mind about how to change the cover: “ah, nevermind”
Nevermind The Baby Dong, Here’s Nirvana!
I WAS IN THE POOL
“fix” the cover by photoshopping on a foreskin. Problem solved.
I could pose for the new cover. I don’t mind being naked in a pool, and my penis is too small for anything to show.
Change the baby’s gender. Problem solved.
from what?
His parents let them take the photograph. Why doesn’t he sue them?
It’ll probably be the same shot in the same pool with the same lighting, sans baby and dollar bill.
“Nooooo! I don’t want you to change it! I just wanted more money!”~The guy on the record, probablyNirvana should countersue any time the guy uses his “fame” to cash in from now on (e.g. Eldin is no longer to use this or any associations with the band to promote himself or other commercial ventures)
I like how you have to mention what songs are on the album as if the entire song list from the album isn’t already tattooed in our brains. Unless it’s done for the benefit of the youths on the site who don’t know that and only heard of them through Tik Tok in which case I feel really old
Maybe just replace it with any of the many recreations he did of the cover?
Photoshop the baby out of the image completely, but leave black, empty space where it once was. In that empty space include this text in white: Future Sell-Out Image Retracted.
If they change the cover do you think my original vinyl will be worth more than the 80 bucks I bought it for? That’s the only reason I’d be ok with this.
Perhaps a drawing of a baby in a pool with a $100 bill hanging partially out of his mouth which is attached to a fishing hook that has punctured the cheek of the infant, and which is forcing the child out of the water towards a low-rent lawyer with a fishing rod who specializes in high-publicity, long-shot lawsuits.
I vote for using one of Kurt’s weird paintings or collages. Or the Nevermind monkey.
I read in an interview with the grown-up “Nevermind” baby years back that he used his quasi-fame as a pick-up line.Guess he changed his mind about that……or is just a craven opportunist.
I mean, it’s not the worst Tinder profile pic I’ve ever seen.
Give me fifty bucks and as much as I can carry away from the buffet, and I’ll do it. I have no shame these days and no expectation of royalties. And also fuck materialism, that sort of thing.
So for 30 years everything was fine with the original & now all of a suddden it’s a problem? It’s simply a naked baby I see nothing pornographic or sexual in the photo at all….unless that’s the sorta thing you’re looking for 🤨
Buy Chapple’s current pic and float $150,000 in front of him.https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-37478523
This suit is ridiculous. They should put a hand drawn (POORLY) diaper on the whiner.