Talk:Let It Bleed

Explanation
I think there should be an explanation why there is a cake on the cover of the CD. User:Taylorr 18:07, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Let It Be
This probably has nothin' to do with nothin' but does the title of the album have anything to do with The Beatles' album/song, Let It Be?

I was going to ask the same question.

I think it does: The film canister on the front cover of Let It Bleed seems to suggest a paralell to the real film being produced from the Let It Be sessions. Also, there are other multiple examples of the Stones and the Beatles mildly mocking each other on album covers and in other ways.Rockford1963 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was a joke/jab at The Beatles. The Beatles were recording Let It Be around the same time The Rolling Stones were recording Let It Bleed, but Let It Be was released much later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.224.140.141 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * but recorded much earlier 204.101.140.50 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Trivia
I have removed the trivia section; Wikipedia generally discourages them. Since there was only one entry, it is not really relevant to the article. If there are others, we could create a section named "Cultural References," but having a trivia entry for one fact is not desirable. Metsfanmax (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Record Stack
The image consists of the Let It Bleed record being played by the tone-arm of an antique phonograph, and a record-changer spindle supporting several items stacked on a dinner plate in place of a stack of records: a tape canister labelled Stones - Let It Bleed, a clock face, a pizza, a tyre and a cake with elaborate icing topped by figurines representing the band

I think the dinner plate is actually a cake plate since it is flat and also contains a paper doily. I don't believe tapes are stored in cans - usually in square boxes - therefore I think it's meant to be a film can (especially if they are poking fun at long-delayed the Let It Be record/movie).

And can we spell it "tire" please?--Davmpls 03:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)


 * please see WP:ENGVAR re the use of UK spelling in a UK-related article. i've changed the dinner plate, but speculating about whether the can held audio tape or film tape is probably not fruitful. if you have a source clarifying it one way or another please post it. thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, why is it spelled "tyre"? It's confusing, just spell it "tire". 108.81.33.59 (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where's the confusion? Sssoul has given you the explanation for the spelling immediately above. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Genres
Adding Country to the album's genres. Love In Vain and Country Honk are both country songs, and the title track has strong country influences. That's a third of the album right there.

~Payt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B11C:6AA5:280A:D3E2:DCF6:AC8C (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs a reference before adding it.  freshacconci  talk to me  00:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Love in Vain" is a blues song, it has nothing to do whatsoever with so-called country music. The title track is not influenced by country music, either. It's pure blues-rock. 50.111.1.110 (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Let It Bleed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/rollingstones-letitbleedmft/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Let It Bleed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2F%23%2Fartist%2FRihanna%2Fchart-history%2F658897%3Ff%3D793%26g%3DSingles&date=2011-10-02 to http:///
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2F%23%2Fartist%2FRihanna%2Fchart-history%2F658897%3Ff%3D793%26g%3DSingles&date=2011-10-02 to http:///

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Mick Taylor - slide on "Love in Vain" - according to Richards interview
It was either in an issue of "Gig" or "Guitar Player." I have the mags, but would need to go thru them to find the quote. Anyway, the slide solo is Taylor, per Keith. Since Taylor always did the solo on this song in concert when he was in the group. . .  50.111.1.110 (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Let It Bleed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211180443/http://www.loog2stoned.com/aolstones/scotsman.html to http://www.loog2stoned.com/aolstones/scotsman.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006041903/http://www.designmuseum.org/__entry/5068?style=design_image_popup to http://www.designmuseum.org/__entry/5068?style=design_image_popup
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219004400/http://www.royalmail.com/portal/stamps/content1?catId=32300674&mediaId=112400790 to http://www.royalmail.com/portal/stamps/content1?catId=32300674&mediaId=112400790

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Internal linking of titles and names
Dear , Thank you for pointing me to WP:PERSONNEL in your recent edit; you were quite right: I didn't know of this guideline and have now included it in my page of edit summaries to rely on in future; thank you for helping me with your knowledge. As for the other point you make, about MOS:REPEATLINK allowing repeated links if helpful to readers ... and at the first occurrence after the lead; well, of course, but "You Can't Always Get What You Want" is repeated in the first line of the body of the article, only three lines away from its first occurrence near the end of the lead section. Also, is it really necessary to repeat the linking of the full names of the main band members? After all, it's a relatively short article, and it's not as if the readers are going to need reminding of their full names, displayed in full almost every time, which contravenes MOS:SURNAME anyway. Therefore, I would still prefer to remove the repeated linking of the obvious track titles already emphasized in the lead section, and also remove the repeated linking to, and first names from second occurrences of: Jones, Jagger, Richards, Wyman, Watts and Taylor, at a minimum, and possibly also for Stewart and Hopkins, since readers are likely to be familiar with these also. However, if you feel strongly that those should be retained, then we'll have to agree to disagree and move on; I simply thought this short article would look better if it adhered more closely to MOS:REPEATLINK and MOS:SURNAME, that's all. In any case, thank you for all your contributions to our encyclopedia, and Happy New Year to you and yours. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, happy new year to you also. I hear what you're saying but the approach I'm trying to follow a) was applied to this article already, and b) is very much in keeping with what's been used in no end of GAs and FAs for music articles, as far as I can see. Years ago, I tried to get some clarity on this issue (links in lead vs link in article body). From memory, what I got was a range of different opinions and advice; at one extreme, one editor made a case for allowing repeated links in each page view (ie, as one hits the Page Down key in Desktop mode) within an article. Given that, I've followed other article writers, it seems, or followed the approach decided on during the GA and FA review process, by just treating the main body as if starting anew. It's straightforward as there's no case-by-case decision making involved.
 * With regard to your concerns, I'd say this album article could and should be a fair bit longer. Most noticeably from my point of view, following the lead, we "arrive" with the tapes rolling and with almost nothing in the way of background. The guidelines for album articles, though not binding, do suggest including a section titled Background. The Rolling Stones were among the most famous musicians and the most famous young professionals in any field during the 1960s; there's no end of coverage in biographies and books on music and youth culture of the band's societal position and cultural influence, the muse aspect provided by Anita Pallenberg and Marianne Faithfull, the return to form established by Beggars Banquet and working with Jimmy Miller, the desire to return to live performance, the decline of Brian Jones and ascendancy of Keith Richards, the sidelining of the band's Rock and Roll Circus film project ... All these points should ideally be covered in the Background section, just as a few more things need to be included in the lead.
 * Put all that together and you've got a wider narrative, more terms and names to be linked, and/but more distance between each one's appearance in the lead and first mention in the article proper. I mean, even now, I don't see any great problem, no more than I do when an article's lead includes a statement which then happens to appear very early on in the main body (suggesting blatant repetition of information). Also – and I imagine I'm judging this on my own reading habits – I think many people come to an article, read the lead's opening paragraph, and then jump straight down to the first section in the article body. Again, the approach I'm following is straightforward and it's easy to impose in the face of those editors who link a term midway through an article because they've not read the early sections; what I mean is, it seems a happy middle ground whereby one can say the term's linked at the start but without assuming that every reader might, or would ever choose to, read a condensed version of the article followed by the full version. JG66 (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear ,
 * Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write such a long and detailed reply, which helps in clarifying your rationale. I certainly don't wish to challenge established consensus, if that's what our encyclopedia has arrived at in the context of articles of this nature. As for the present article, specifically:
 * you make a good point about readers sometimes skipping the lead section, and I therefore agree fully with you that it makes sense to let full names be repeated and linked to, once, in the body of the article even if already mentioned in the lead;
 * as for the rest, we're almost there anyway, as there are now only two repeated links for track titles:
 * "Midnight Rambler" is linked in the 1st para of the 'Recording' section, and linked again in the 1st para of the 'Musical Style' section, and I'll remove the latter's link since both occurrences fit within a single page on my 16ins square screen, per the "each page view" rule of thumb you mentioned above;
 * "Honky Tonk Women" is linked twice in the 'Recording' section, in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs, and I'll remove the link from the second occurrence also;
 * I might also remove the occasional first name(s) here and there from repeated occurrences of full names, like in the case of 'Mick Taylor', but there aren't many of these. [I'll make this a separate edit, so you can revert it if you end up disagreeing with what I've done.]
 * I trust you will agree with these final changes, and please know that I look forward to seeing any expansion you may choose to apply to this article, as you indicated above. By the way, you might be amused to know that I am of the band's post-war generation, and bought this album when it came out in December 1969.
 * Please keep well and thank you once more for all your contributions to our encyclopedia.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'm glad we were able to come to some sort of agreement. Although, with reference to "established consensus", I hasten to add that there is no formal consensus on this; I've merely joined the dots, informed by experience and (I hope) something resembling common sense.
 * I think the changes you've proposed and now made are spot on. I fear I most likely added to the problem with my recent (distracted) attempts to link song titles, by misidentifying the first mention each time. And may I say I'm extremely jealous of anyone who had the good fortune to be living and breathing the music of this era! JG66 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear ,
 * I apologize for delay in acknowledging your reply, above. I've had a bad cold & cough for a while now, and needed a break from the routine; thank you for understanding. Like you, I am very pleased we reached a good agreement, as I was happy to trust your greater experience with this type of article and, of course, to learn from you. I dare say the article has benefitted from the application of the guidelines we discussed, and is now ready for the expansion you suggested. In summary, I'd be happy to work with you again any time you think I might be of some assistance, as I enjoy collaborating with other editors; so, you'll only have to ask. Until then, please keep well and happy, and thanks once again for your helpful assistance here.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 20:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: I will be replying to your final sentence at your talk page in a minute!


 * Hi again. Thanks for your generous words. I'm stretched a bit thin currently with my work here, so I can't say that expanding Let It Bleed is a major priority quite yet. Beggars Banquet has long, long been in my sights, for its cultural significance as much as its music, so it's more likely I'd be heading there first. That is: sometime soon-ish – I really can't say when. Best, JG66 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Jones
-How can you write -Jones appeared on this album on only two songs, playing backing instruments. - And NOT say which songs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.147.194 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This information isn't missing/is mentioned? The lead might not mention them by name (it is supposed to be a high-level overview, after all) but the two songs are specifically named in the "Recording" subsection. The SandDoctor  Talk 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)