Recently I bought the remastered version of Let It Bleed. The back cover has a different running order of the tracks than the CD. Which one is the correct/original running order? And: why was is changed?
''When ABKCO first issued the album on CD in 1986, the CD track listing followed that of the LP sleeve, not the actual track order of the original album. This was corrected on the 2002 re-issues''
The earlier LIB CD I had had the same track order as has always been, ie not the back sleeves running order.
The cake was made by Robert Brownjohn, and the sleeve design was by Victor Kahn.
On the back cover, the track titles are printed in a different order to the record, but Kahn says this is for aesthetic rewsons. "I did it that way to get the right- and left-hand margins perfectly even. Just (to show) the songs on there, not necessarily the order, because I put the correct order on the inner sleeve."
Taken from the book Rolling Stones And The Making Of Let It Bleed by Sean Egan.
Egan also says Keith´s preferred (working) title for the LP was Hard Knox And Durty Sox.
The covers of both Through The Past Darklies also have different track listings than the actual records. Burn a cd with that order and you get a fresh new impression!
I have the 1970 "Let It Bleed" EP, released on the Mexican 'Peerless' label. It has a great miniature version of the LP sleeve, in thick card. cat.no. EPP-1233
Worth mentioning here because it has an edited title track for 'Let It Bleed' that you can't find anywhere else.
Maybe he or his people are just trying to take the 'Andy Warhol made the tongue for Sticky Fingers' route!
And I know Andy never said he did. It's similar to 'the Stones were playing "Sympathy For The Devil" when Meredith Hunter was murdered'. Just not true. And the people involved never said it to begin with.
Would I be right in saying that Let It Bleed had no 'banding' between tracks, i.e. no 1 or 2 second gap between tracks - the remastered cd version plays one track right after the other with no pause between.