# Offensive or Not?



## Polednice

This was supposed to be the album cover for a Steve Reich CD being released in a few months:









However, despite the very contents of the disc being music in response to the terrorist attack, an uproar of complaints about the image have led to the album cover changing (to what, I don't think has been decided yet).

What do you think?

[You can read more about out in this article]


----------



## kv466

I don't know...this one is particularly difficult for me as I turned 25 the very day it happened and basically didn't celebrate a birthday for at least five years after that and even then took myself to Peru to have that gathering because it still just didn't feel right here...still, I dislike the notion of people being offended by things so easily...I don't know, I think I'm gonna have to read that article but no matter what it'll always be a tough subject for me to embrace; not to mention that I had plans to be in NY that very day to have breakfast at the Windows of the World (no joke) and the only reason I didn't go is because I fly stand-by and the flights were getting too full so I just stayed put...I don't even know if I would be here...so, yeah.


----------



## Kopachris

I was in third grade when it happened, and I still remember that I was sitting on the floor of our apartment tying my shoes when we got the news. Personally, though, I don't see any reason to be offended by the image, considering the CD is supposed to be a response to the attack (like a memorial, right?). If the CD was meant to make fun of the attacks, then I might be offended.


----------



## Polednice

One of the things I struggle with - given that the music is meant to be like a memorial, as Kopachris said - is working out exactly why people would be offended.

Is it because people don't want to be reminded of the event? Because people feel sad if they see an image of it? I can't think of more reasons because I just don't get it - the image of the attack, no matter what it's use, seems to have taken on the equivalent of a swear word, i.e. something to be censored in polite society. And yet, as the article I linked to said, news channels were inundated with reportage with those images played repeatedly, so why is it a bad thing to use them now?


----------



## kv466

Exactly...you're right...while it's always hard to see those images, it shouldn't be offensive to anyone...then again, there are people out there just dying to take offense at something to provide a reason to complain about something.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The record company is trying to sell a product, albeit in bad taste (the cover, not the music). Unless public reaction is obviously against the cover and sales aren't what it is expected to be, I doubt the record company will change it.


----------



## starthrower

From a marketing standpoint it's probably a good move to go with a different cover. That image is obviously a very painful reminder of the violent fate suffered by those poor souls in the towers and in the airplanes. If a Steve Reich fan also happens to be a close friend or relative of one of the 9/11 victims, purchasing a CD with that image would probably be too painful to bear.


----------



## Timotheus

Polednice said:


> One of the things I struggle with - given that the music is meant to be like a memorial, as Kopachris said - is working out exactly why people would be offended.
> 
> Is it because people don't want to be reminded of the event? Because people feel sad if they see an image of it? I can't think of more reasons because I just don't get it - the image of the attack, no matter what it's use, seems to have taken on the equivalent of a swear word, i.e. something to be censored in polite society. And yet, as the article I linked to said, news channels were inundated with reportage with those images played repeatedly, so why is it a bad thing to use them now?


Because they are powerful images and belong in the right context. Someone plastering them all over their car and t-shirt is obviously tasteless right? And CD covers function as an advertisement. No one would have complained about the picture being on the little book that came with the cd.

It's strange that the cd is supposed to be about how people dealt with the tragedy and the guy doesn't even get why the cover is disliked...


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> One of the things I struggle with - given that the music is meant to be like a memorial, as Kopachris said - is working out exactly why people would be offended.
> 
> Is it because people don't want to be reminded of the event? Because people feel sad if they see an image of it? I can't think of more reasons because I just don't get it - the image of the attack, no matter what it's use, seems to have taken on the equivalent of a swear word, i.e. something to be censored in polite society. And yet, as the article I linked to said, news channels were inundated with reportage with those images played repeatedly, so why is it a bad thing to use them now?


Hmmm... I've met and can conceive of a lot of Americans without the proper attention span required to realize that the image wasn't at the expense of the people who were victimized.


----------



## samurai

@ Polednice, To your point about whether its use is *offensive *or not, speaking and reacting as an individual New Yorker in whose memory that day will always be seared, I would characterize it as being more *painful* and gut wrenching than offensive.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I think it's cloying and patriotic crap.

If you want offensive, this might be more up your alley.


----------



## Kopachris

regressivetransphobe said:


> I think it's cloying and patriotic crap.
> 
> If you want offensive, this might be more up your alley.


Yeah, that'd be offensive, even to me, and I try not to get offended very easily. Is that a real album cover?

(Of course, I don't doubt it'd be quite offensive to my ears, as well!)


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Yeah, the 9/11 parallel was actually a coincidence, though (the attacks were later), so this album art was changed on later copies. If there's a god he has a sense of humor.


----------



## Sid James

Well, as some have stated above, 9/11 is very recent history, it's too close to the bone for many, esp. those who were witnesses to it. So it will be contentious and almost "taboo," much like the Holocaust was for the generations that lived through that. It brings up the issues of what happened in places like Germany & Japan after WW2, whose armies had done a lot of atrocities during that time. A lot of people there just developed a "head in the sand" attitude about things that had happened, swept them under the carpet until relatively recently. So we have to strike a balance with these things, be sensitive to these issues (& yes, the "Coup" cover above is just going way too far, imo, in comparison Reich's cover was quite simple & not "sexing" things up).

Here are two covers below from recent classical composers dealing with the Holocaust, the images from around that time. Obviously, they ruffle few feathers, because it was all so long ago (& sadly, a forgotten history to many of our younger generations, it's almost as if it couldn't or didn't happen) -

1. David Axelrod - _Requiem: The Holocaust_
2. Stale Kleiberg - _Requiem for the Victims of Nazi Persecution_


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Ignoring your point and speaking aesthetically, the cover on the left actually looks great. The Steve Reich cover is a photoshopped piece of cow doodoo.


----------



## Sid James

Yes, the Kleiberg disc is well-designed, striking & "to the point." (I got it recently, but haven't listened to it yet, too "dark" vibe for me at this time). So too is the Axelrod one. I agree the Reich cover is not that "slick," but maybe they were going for the feel of watching the events on television, with that kind of stripey effect?

Anyway, I was in a cd shop this week & remember looking at a Naxos disc (in the American Classics series) which was devoted to the chamber works of a contemporary composer & one of them was dedicated to the victims/memory of 9/11. But I can't remember anything specifically about the cover relating to the tragedy. So in the end, as some have said, the emphasis should be on the music not the cover & maybe the (now former) Reich cover was too kind of "in your face," maybe they should have gone for something more subtle (like the Kleiberg cover, they didn't put a picture of a mass grave from Dachau on that, did they?)...


----------



## Rasa

Offense is very cheap nowadays.


----------



## Delicious Manager

This word 'offensive' is bandied around like a tennis ball nowadays. Someone is always getting 'offended' at something or other. I believe some people have actually made a career out of being 'offended'. My response is usually "No-one ever died of being 'offended'; get over it!"

That little rant was a reflection of my view that the word 'offensive' does not ever get close here. It would be akin to a CD of Jewish composers' responses to the Holocaust bearing a cover of Hitler or even one of the horrific pictures of piles of dead bodies from Belsen (isn't Reich Jewish?). The words/phrases that come to mind in relation to the design and decision to run with this cover would include 'ill-advised', 'unwise', 'insensitive', 'gratuitously sensationalist', 'in very poor taste' and 'cheap'.

I think Steve Reich and his record company have made a HUGE gaff here. Shame on them all.


----------



## Lenfer

Polednice said:


> One of the things I struggle with - given that the music is meant to be like a memorial, as Kopachris said - is working out exactly why people would be offended.
> 
> Is it because people don't want to be reminded of the event? Because people feel sad if they see an image of it? I can't think of more reasons because I just don't get it - the image of the attack, no matter what it's use, seems to have taken on the equivalent of a swear word, i.e. something to be censored in polite society. And yet, as the article I linked to said, news channels were inundated with reportage with those images played repeatedly, so why is it a bad thing to use them now?


I am not an *American * so although what took place that day was horrific I don't have the same attachment that American's may have. If anything I think people would object to the possibility of using that image for financial gain. I have no problem with it I am not offended by it in any way.

However when trying to think of another image with the same level of magnitude in *America's* recent history I could only think of the picture of JFK when he was shot. Yes it's more graphic but it still has the same effect I think, I know that I'd be curious and pick the album off the shelf if it had either picture on the front cover.

Sadly the way the world works now with event's such as the 11th of *September* 2001, it will ever be both a taboo subject and I fear it wil be a scab that the media relentlessly pick thus destroying any chance of closure for the *American* public and anyone else caught up in some way with what took place. The same thing happend in the UK with the 7th of July attacks in *London*.


----------



## Tapkaara

This is a tough one. What the ******* terrorists did was, to say the least, "offensive" and this cover is an accurate and historical photographic image of their acts. We all know what happened on 9/11, and if this music is sort of a requiem piece to commemorate it the event, I do not see how a photo of the actual event to accompany the music is necessarily in bad taste.

I am not easily offended and I personally do not find this album cover inappropriate. HOWEVER, in this PC society where people look for the tiniest minutia to be up-in-arms over so they can bitch, complain and sue people, I think the producers of the album could have been more prudent. Basically, this photo shows a planeful of people about to die. And it is on a cover for a musical album. Yes, we have all seen this (and worse images), but it could be construed as a sort of insensitive cheap trick to stir up controversy and thus push sales up.

Also, this is is still a rather recent event and the reverberation from it (wars, additional terrorism) continue to this day, so the nerves are still very raw, I'd say. Many, I am sure, would get upset seeing this picture if it were just about anywhere.

While I do not personally find this to be an offensive or bad-taste selection for an album cover, it could not hurt to use an image that is more neutral but still drives home the theme of the music. Perhaps the towers before the attack, or something like this.


----------



## Argus

I heard the premiere of that piece on the radio a few months back. I like Reich but I wasn't overly impressed with it. I know the recorded phone conversations were key to the piece but they didn't aid in my enjoyment of the music, which I found lacking in itself.

As for the album cover, I don't find it offensive at all. It's relevant to the subject matter of the composition. It's not gratuitous or explicit. What's the problem? Were people offended when Led Zeppelin used the Hindenburg disaster on the cover of their debut album?

Apparently Nonesuch has changed the album art now anway. What else would be as relevant as the inspiration for the musical material?


----------



## kv466

Argus said:


> What's the problem? Were people offended when Led Zeppelin used the Hindenburg disaster on the cover of their debut album?


I'm afraid they can't compare as when Zeppelin released their first album that disaster had occured far before the release of the album and it wasn't fresh on people's minds...also, the blimp didn't go down because of an act of terrorism...so, no comparison.

I'm all for not catering to the people who are easily offended and I don't find this offensive as much as i find it in weak taste.


----------



## Aramis

> Were people offended when Led Zeppelin used the Hindenburg disaster on the cover of their debut album?


He deerd to kill king's dare! Where have you been? The descendant of unlucky zeppelin's constructor was mad at them after she learned that they used this photo as the album cover. If you don't know about it I wonder how more shameful gaps can you have... are you able to name all major lovers of the zeppelin crew? Bands they all played in before getting together? Give dates of major tours? READ MORE BOOKS ABOUT LED ZEPPELIN


----------



## kv466

Aramis said:


> He deerd to kill king's dare! Where have you been? The descendant of unlucky zeppelin's constructor was mad at them after she learned that they used this photo as the album cover. If you don't know about it I wonder how more shameful gaps can you have... are you able to name all major lovers of the zeppelin crew? Bands they all played in before getting together? Give dates of major tours? READ MORE BOOKS ABOUT LED ZEPPELIN


That too!! lol didn't wanna get so deep into it but I can always count on my Polish buddy to do it...I, for one, can name all of them and they're former bands not to mention each album in sequence and the respective tracks within them in sequencial order...so could anyone who ran a Led Zep marathon for ten years at a laserdome!! Just come with the territory...now let's see if our good buddy Argus can....I know you can, man! I know you can!


----------



## Theophrastus

I suspect it's the perception that 9/11 is being used for purposes of entertainment. I think that comparison with music commemorating the Holocaust is instructive. Without in the least being flippant, 9/11 was a media event. The perpetrators obviously planned it as such. I remember walking past a shop window full of tv's in London on 9/11. I didn't have any idea what was happening, so as I casually noticed the skyscrapers on fire I assumed it was a movie, maybe a rerun of Towering Inferno. I remember how gobsmacked I was when I went into a shop and heard what was happening. The shopkeeper and I stood there utterly silent, listening to the radio.

I agree with kv that it's in 'weak taste'. I also think a moment's reflection ought to make it clear this is not intended as exploitation.


----------



## Sid James

Delicious Manager said:


> ...
> I think Steve Reich and his record company have made a HUGE gaff here. Shame on them all.


Well, I for one wouldn't have known about this album at all, save for this thread done by member Polednice. Maybe it's a case of "any publicity is good publicity?" (kind of tasteless to even say this, but that's what it comes across to me, in a way).

The other extreme is kind of "minimalist" album cover, like the ones on the Naive label below, which would be appropriate for Mr Reich's music, but doesn't say a thing about the piece.

Xenakis - Le legende d'Eer

Xenakis - chamber music

Kagel - Sankt-Bach-Passion


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

In my opinion people should butt out. It's called artistic expression. Even if he were to be a scumbag and write a piece glorifying the atrocities which occured on that day, it's his right to do so. However he wasn't, he obviously was/is trying to stir emotions by displaying an image that has already begun to fade from people's memories and therefore give perspective into what inspired his work. Leave it alone.


----------

