Talk:(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

message: This article is about the song, not solely about the Rolling Stones version of the song, and some of the material deleted by SilkTork recently should be restored. Covers issued as singles may warrant an infobox, for example. Collapsing the cover material to a single paragraph is an extreme position on this content and says that none of the 200 covers was worth more than a word or two. That does a disservice to readers who want to know about the song. By all means, the Rolling Stones version should be dominant as it was far and away the most notable. Still, there's plenty of room on the WP servers for other notable information about the song. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: that kind of change definitely needs to be discussed here on the talk page, to see whether there's consensus for it.  i've restored the material and trust we can proceed with the D phase of WP:BRD now. thanks Sssoul (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Covers and esp. singles

message: I have added a few citations. Three of these are regarding all the 'Top so-many lists', where I found the list published on the web, but on a source that might not be considered fully reliable. Here I somewhat make-do cited both the link with the full list for those interested, and the magazine or issue that the list originally appeared in. This may not be according to the standards, so maybe someone who has some more experience should have a look and change (or approve) the references to fit the standards.
Currently there are still some 'Citation needed' tags, but I am doubting the relevance of some of these requests.
* The ones regarding notable cover versions - Why does it need a citation when there is a link to a wikipedia article including the tracklist of the album mentioned. E.g. Paul Revere & the Raiders covered it on their 1966 album Just Like Us!.
In my, very humble, opinion these citations are not necessary as it is a fact the track is on the album and a citation could simply be the album itself. This feels as if one would have to cite a text, that proves that another text actually can be used as a citation...
* Similarly: "Satisfaction" was released as a 7-inch single by The Residents in 1976.  It is a complete reworking of The Rolling Stones's version.   The Residents' version features extreme guitar noise (courtesy of friend and guest guitarist Snakefinger), distorted, screamed vocals, and altered lyrics.
If one would put on the record, one would hear screaming, distorted guitars, and lyrics that do not match up to the original, so what further citing is needed? HoundDog (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and Citations Needed 

message: While driving home one day I heard "Satisfaction" being song by Otis Redding on the radio. I immediately presumed it was a remake of the Rolling Stones classic, however after further investigation, I learned Otis Redding performed the long before the Rolling Stones. Why isn't this fact mentioned in the contents and history of the song?68.52.254.38 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is the Otis Redding song, but I doubt whether he recorded it 'long before' the Rolling Stones. If you have a source, please tell us, but as far as I know the first recording of Satisfaction by Redding stems from 'Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul' from 1966, recorded in 1965. This was after the first performance of the song by the Rolling Stones, albeit only two months. Funny thing is, I don't have a source for that either... HoundDog (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't Otis Redding perform this song before the Rolling Stones 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6596661/500songs?rnd=1121840899755&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212?OpenDocument
** In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-20 21:20:02, 404 Not Found
** In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-31 04:21:52, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6598060/74_otis_blue
** In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-20 21:20:02, 404 Not Found
** In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-31 04:22:04, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=852
** In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-20 21:20:14, 404 Not Found
** In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-31 04:22:15, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: I was on the article about "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time", and there it says that it is a Hard Rock song. Tell me, it is or not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.9.114.251 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith's opinion means nothing? Now I've heard everything, but what else to expect from an editor who never edits a black artist's page. Anyhow, I can accept the compromise, even though "Hard Rock" is a non-existent style/genre. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't Hard Rock?

message: I have removed rock and roll because its such a universal term, its overly used and predominantly most of the time it doesn't define a particular song; especially one during the mid sixties. If anything, stand alone rock would make more sense than rock and roll.
Rvd4life (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A better informed editor would know how much Keith disdains the term "rock", let alone "hard rock". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Mr Richards personal view is meaningless in defining a genre for a particular song. To compromise and stop this trivial dispute, I'll happily settle with just with "Rock and roll, hard rock". Rvd4life (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, he wouldn't know and is no kind of authority on music or its history, never mind that few know more than him. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: I think this article should reveal the secret behind the magic of the main riff.
While the lead guitar is going, B, B, B - C# - D, the bass guitar (in a notably different rhythm) is playing E, E, F#, G#, A. With the addition of the acoustic guitar strumming (more audible in the stereo version), what we're getting is an E5 (E power chord) leading to a Dsus2/A (or possibly an Asus4, I'm not sure).
Surely there are musicians out there who know this song note-for-note, that can back up these assertions?!? I have the sheet music book and could do it myself, but I'd rather a true Stones fan did it.
--Ben Culture (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The secret of the main riff 

message: How come there is a track called "Satisfaction" on "Chicago Blues Festival 1964" if it was written in 1965?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001FS6P50/ref=dm_ws_tlw_trk5_B001FS6P50
--Polly Math (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago Blues Festival 1964 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. 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/20150518082914/http://www.mrpopculture.com/thereport/rolling-stones-satisfaction-1965-history/ to http://www.mrpopculture.com/thereport/rolling-stones-satisfaction-1965-history/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013131920/http://blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=852 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=852
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) 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified