>> "Let it Bleed" was a play on "Let it Be" <<
it seems pretty plain, yeah. as has often been noted, the Beatles album came out a few months later,
but the song Let It Be had been around for a while, and it does seem like a form of humour
that plays on the title, the two groups' images and the "who copies who" issue all at once.
here's some hedging on the subject from Keith in 71:
"[It didn't have] a thing [to do with the Beatles' Let It Be]. Just a coincidence because
you're working along the same lines at the same time at the same age as a lot of other cats.
All trying to do the same thing basically, turn themselves and other people on. Let It Bleed
was just one line in that song Mick wrote. It became the title... we just kicked a line out ...
We dug that song so ... maybe there was some influence because Let It Be had been kicked around
for years for their movie, for that album. Let it be something. Let it out. Let it loose."
- Keith Richards, 1971 quoted on [
www.timeisonourside.com]
Altamont happening right on the heels of the album's release was pretty unfortunate -
i mean of course murder during a concert is thoroughly unfortunate anyway, but the album title didn't help much
in defending the band against the claim that they were into human sacrifice as a marketing ploy or something ...
ahem: sorry, i digress!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-12 09:35 by with sssoul.