Worst Cover Art (Christian Metal)

Pethead wrote:Also, Ted had nothing to do with the Flood album.

Pro-Zak wrote:

CrimsonWarrior wrote:
Onward to Freedom is not a Tourniquet album. But Tourniquet is an Onward to Freedom album, of course.

Details...

ChristianDeathMetal wrote:1) I own the album.  It's even signed by Ted.
2) I have nothing against pigs.  Love me some bacon, ham, pork roast, pork ribs, pulled pork -  the list goes on and on...
3) He's done lots of animal rights and Vegi/vegan songs over the years.  He even threw a tear jerker about a dying dog on the nearly otherwise perfect FLOOD album.

Look, I'm sure Ted was a great guy and I love his music.  I just don't like the one album cover and I like meat.  That is all.

God bless,

TZ75 wrote:Speaking about Ted and pigs… 

Anyone remember when Tourniquet was endorsing Chipotle because they had pork meat that was from pigs that were treated humanely?

CrimsonWarrior wrote:

Pro-Zak wrote:

CrimsonWarrior wrote:
Onward to Freedom is not a Tourniquet album. But Tourniquet is an Onward to Freedom album, of course.

Details...

I forget who started it, but this became an inside joke on this forum whenever someone would refer to Onward to Freedom as a Tourniquet album.

MagnusPrime wrote:

CrimsonWarrior wrote:

Pro-Zak wrote:

CrimsonWarrior wrote:
Onward to Freedom is not a Tourniquet album. But Tourniquet is an Onward to Freedom album, of course.

Details...

I forget who started it, but this became an inside joke on this forum whenever someone would refer to Onward to Freedom as a Tourniquet album.

It was me. I thought everyone had forgotten about that. 

You like me! You really really like me!

Pro-Zak wrote:Chipotle sucks!

Dustofyears wrote:

Samson wrote:

No... This has to be be the laziest, sloppiest, cheesiest and cheapest album cover I have ever seen (probably). Oh wait- Black album.

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:^^
I’ll never be ok with that cover, even though I enjoy the album.

When I was younger I didn't like it for different reasons (I was very squeamish and so the cow's fleshy ribs bothered me lol).

I'm not sure the intention was to compare the animals suffering with Jesus's and more to draw parallels (both are ignored by people who profit from them), but the cover doesn't portray that well.

Yeah it wasn't to compare the sacrifice, but to point at our reactions to suffering.

I recall the bones of Christ came fully from Travis Smith who did the cover and Ted let it stay that way for artistic freedom. I don't think it comes from wanting to blaspheme but there is some logic to it that is probably easier to come up with from thinking outside of the religious box. I believe he thought to show how both the animal and Jesus were flesh and bones, similar to us. I know Ted's idea was to show that the image of Christ suffering on the cross isn't supposed to be clean and shiny and we should understand that his death was very painful, and he was criticizing the way we ignore the suffering he endured and want to look away from it. Jesus in flesh was built like us. Bones, nerves, flesh, blood, with the same experience of pain we have. Animals have bones, nerves, flesh and blood too, and they experience pain like we do. To show that I think Travis wanted to go beyond the skin of both the animal and Jesus, and he decided to show the blood and the bones of the animal, and the blood and the bones of Jesus to illustrate the point.

The point isn't to show that they both are a similar sacrifice to us, but the point is to show that we look away when the reality kicks in. We want these deaths to be sanitized for us so that we wouldn't have to encounter the brutal truth of suffering.

I don't think the intention was to show that Christ is rotting on the cross, just as the intention wasn't to show that even though the animal has his gut completely ripped of it can still be alive and standing. The point was just to bring suffering closer to us by showing both the animal and Christ were flesh and bones and capable of feeling incredible pain, which we don't want to think about when it comes to both the death of Jesus and the death of beef cattle.

But yeah, maybe it wasn't shown clear enough and went a bit too far with the shock factor.

JcHiker76 wrote:

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:^^
I’ll never be ok with that cover, even though I enjoy the album.

When I was younger I didn't like it for different reasons (I was very squeamish and so the cow's fleshy ribs bothered me lol).

I'm not sure the intention was to compare the animals suffering with Jesus's and more to draw parallels (both are ignored by people who profit from them), but the cover doesn't portray that well.

Yeah it wasn't to compare the sacrifice, but to point at our reactions to suffering.

I recall the bones of Christ came fully from Travis Smith who did the cover and Ted let it stay that way for artistic freedom. I don't think it comes from wanting to blaspheme but there is some logic to it that is probably easier to come up with from thinking outside of the religious box. I believe he thought to show how both the animal and Jesus were flesh and bones, similar to us. I know Ted's idea was to show that the image of Christ suffering on the cross isn't supposed to be clean and shiny and we should understand that his death was very painful, and he was criticizing the way we ignore the suffering he endured and want to look away from it. Jesus in flesh was built like us. Bones, nerves, flesh, blood, with the same experience of pain we have. Animals have bones, nerves, flesh and blood too, and they experience pain like we do. To show that I think Travis wanted to go beyond the skin of both the animal and Jesus, and he decided to show the blood and the bones of the animal, and the blood and the bones of Jesus to illustrate the point.

The point isn't to show that they both are a similar sacrifice to us, but the point is to show that we look away when the reality kicks in. We want these deaths to be sanitized for us so that we wouldn't have to encounter the brutal truth of suffering.

I don't think the intention was to show that Christ is rotting on the cross, just as the intention wasn't to show that even though the animal has his gut completely ripped of it can still be alive and standing. The point was just to bring suffering closer to us by showing both the animal and Christ were flesh and bones and capable of feeling incredible pain, which we don't want to think about when it comes to both the death of Jesus and the death of beef cattle.

But yeah, maybe it wasn't shown clear enough and went a bit too far with the shock factor.

The Bible says in: Isaiah 52:14
Isa 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: .

The Cat of Nine Tails, being embedded with metal, bone, and things made to grab onto the flesh and rip and tear it; and Jesus took all 40 lashes. Each 1 harder hit than the last, could easily have exposed His ribs. So, is it possible, that this artist portrayed the most accurate picture of Christ on the cross?

Lex Metalis wrote:

What is stranger? the music or the cover art?

Lex Metalis wrote:

Pethead wrote:That cover fits the music on C2C better than the remaster, though.