For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
tomk
Was there a reason given as to why the other band members weren't mentioned, even Sonny Rollins, on the sleeve and inner sleeve? Not one word. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I think Bob Clearmountain and Chris Kimsey are mentioned but not the rest of the band. Makes me think that the cover was put together hastily, but...
Quote
Title5Take1
With Beatles vs. Stones talk I sometimes think how no Beatles album would ever just have had John on the front and Paul on the back with no George or Ringo.
Quote
Pecman
I read that the reason the album contains no liner notes is Jagger didn't want
the fans to know how old these tracks were and he didn't want to give an
invitation and confirmation for these musicians to come chasing him down for $.
Pecman
Quote
TeaAtThree
It always amazes me that people didn't immediately recognize Mick on the front. I remember some trying to convince me it wasn't him, but it seems so obvious.
What about the picture isn't "Mick-like?" beside the swept back hair?
T@3
Quote
Title5Take1
With Beatles vs. Stones talk I sometimes think how no Beatles album would ever just have had John on the front and Paul on the back with no George or Ringo.
Quote
tomk
My original post meant why no other members of the Stones weren't mentioned or pictured. No Bill, no Charlie, no Ron. I think it's their only major release where there's no mention or picture of the other members besides Mick and Keith.