Talk:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

message: "By this time, the Stones had begun to respond to the increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles, to whom they had long been promoted by Oldham as a rougher alternative." 
The sources do support the later part of the sentence, but I'm not seeing where the sources are saying that in 1966 the Stones were responding to the " increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles".  AllMusic says: "they began experimenting musically, incorporating the British pop of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Kinks, and the Who into their sound." The other two sources talk about the contrasting images, but not the music.  SilkTork (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (p. 71 in British Invasion: The Crosscurrents of Musical Influence) isento (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of "sound" as referring to the Stones responding to the music of the Beatles is dubious, and certainly does not support "the increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles" - who is saying this? I'll have a go at working it closer to what the sources are saying. SilkTork (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   (Erlewine, AllMusic) isento (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! OK. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to the Beatles 

message: Just a general (and harmless) moan about using Harvard referencing instead of the more common full footnotes. It really makes it so much harder to check the sources, and for no benefit at all. I do notice that when people are working up an article for FA that they tend to use Harvard, presumably because they see that's the system that most FA articles use, so it seems needed. But it's not. The standard full footnotes can be used. With the usual citation style I can click on the cite and be taken to all the information I need: author, book, date, publisher and page number, including any helpful url links.  With the Harvard system I am first taken to an abbreviated note where I get: author, date and page number only. So I have to click again (thanks for linking it!) to get to the fuller details, which give me:  author, book, date, and publisher, but no page number, and if there is a link, it's to the ISBN number, so I have to then do a separate search for the book on Google in order to check the page! But also having to check back to the earlier cite to see what the page number is! Grrrr! Rant over. I needed to get that out of my system because I am becoming rather frustrated. I only have a limited amount of time to spend on this, and the cite system is taking up a disproportionate amount of my time. I could have done more by now. SilkTork (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: if you hover the mouse over the blue-linked footnote, then hover over the blue-linked name-year reference that opens up, the full citation pops up. isento (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been trying that, but no luck. Essentially what I want is somewhere where I can get all the information in one place, and if there is a possibility of linking to the page on GoogleBooks, to be able to click and go straight there. If there is no link to the page on GoogleBooks, then linking to the title page on GoogleBooks is not helpful, as that encourages me to look for the page, to discover that there is no link. Essentially, if there is a page link, I'd like to see it linked, but if not, then just the details of the book (author, title, date and publisher) and page number are fine. In many cases the information can be verified online elsewhere. Anyway, this is not an FA, GA or Wikipedia requirement, just something that some editors do that I find useful. And sadly, it is something that is too often lacking in articles that are being prepared for FA. Largely, I suspect, because the users who first created FA articles mostly used Harvard referencing, and others aiming for FA have since copied them on the misunderstanding that Harvard referencing is required. But enough of this. If anyone gets me on this topic I can rant for hours! SilkTork (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry you are having difficulty viewing it. But I assure you, generally speaking, under normal circumstances, it should work. See a screenshot here:  isento (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvard referencing

message: This sentence: ""Goin' Home" is among the first pop songs to pass the five-minute mark—followed in 1967 by "The End" on the Doors' self-titled debut album and "A Day in the Life" on the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band—and the first ever to pass the ten-minute mark." It is cited to two sources.  There are two tracks over 5 minutes on Five Live Yardbirds; "Lost Someone" on Live at the Apollo (1963 album) is over 10 minutes, but those are live albums. However, Bringing It All Back Home has four tracks at over 5 minutes, and Highway 61 Revisited and five tracks over 5 minutes plus "Desolation Row" at over 11 minutes. These are just albums that sprang to mind, they'll be others. Is it worth putting in a statement, albeit sourced, which is incorrect or dubious at best? SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. Early Dylan is more "folk" than "pop music", but I won't quibble. isento (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: First past the 10 minute mark

message: I can't access the source right now. This sentence escapes me: "Jones' new relationship with the German model Anita Pallenberg took on sadomasochistic aspects and helped renew his confidence and encourage him to experiment musically". How did a sadomasochistic relationship encourage Jones to experiment musically? And how do we know this helped his confidence? Do we have a quote from Jones himself, or what this speculation by the author? If it's authorial speculation, then that should be made clear. SilkTork (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I know little about Brian Jones, as my interest in the Stones mainly starts when he leaves, so I wasn't aware of the claims of sadism. But just doing a quick search and I can see a number of references to  him being a bit sadistic, and also that he beat up Pallenberg. But I'm not getting the sense from this admittedly quick search that the relationship was sadomasochistic. Abusive, yes, but sadomasochistic seems (to me at least) to imply consent from Pallenberg, which I'm not getting from the sources. What we do know is that Richards stopped Jones from beating her, and thereafter Richards and Pallenberg entered a long term relationship,  which does suggest that the Jones-Pallenberg relations was abusive - and the violence was not consensual. SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  : "beating eac other with whips in cross-dressing furies of love". isento (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, can you please raise your issues in a separate section at the nomination page? That way, we can have a dialogue first about what appears to be issues and what really are issues, before deciding what needs to be edited or changed. isento (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

text: No problem. I appreciate you are trying to be thorough. isento (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Anita Pallenberg

message: Shouldn't experimental rock be mentioned in the infobox? considering the amount of unconventional instruments that were used. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source that says the album's experimental rock? JG66 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's quite a few sources that mention them "experimenting", but does not specifically mention "experimental rock". Isaacsorry (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental rock 

message: : The other rankings from subsequent publications of the Rolling Stone 500 greatest albums list are ancillary details in the big picture that is the Rankings section. Introducing them directly in the text inhibits the read and flow of the paragraph. They are better off in a footnote.
Here is the guideline:  (Help:Explanatory notes). I believe mentioning rankings from 2012 and 2020, before discussing a ranking from 2008 in the next sentence, is awkward. I also believe it places a long and undue emphasis on the Rolling Stone 500 list, which distracts from the focus of the paragraph (WP:UNDUE, WP:OFFTOPIC). Which leads me to conclude that allocating those other rankings into a footnote is the best approach to handling this extra information. isento (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Stone 500 list rankings 

message: , firstly, always cite a reliable source for claims disputing verified claims in an article. Second, I don't know if Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely qualifies purely as a popular music LP -- professional reviews consider it performed in a jazz and classical vein, both of which are usually considered distinct from pop music, and a number of songs appear to be jazz covers. Lastly, how accurate are those song lengths at the Wikipedia article for the Sinatra album? Sources indicate the original LP had only 10 tracks, and I can't find a source to verify their original lengths. Are the lengths there taken from information on the reissue? isento (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest pop LP claim 

message: You're saying that a 39-word sentence is "too wordy" while a 36-word sentence is just fine, and that "wealth and fame" couldn't be taken as singular when such constructions are ten-a-penny? Please think again. Harfarhs (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It does nothing of the sort - the phrase merely distinguishes the wealth and the fame, which, as I say, is necessary. Harfarhs (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The dictionary source I linked above says it does just that. And it sounds like it does. I think you're in denial bro. isento (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

text: "Newfound" is merely an adjective. Please don't treat other editors as idiots. Harfarhs (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry if you feel like an idiot. I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that. isento (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise that comment looks very like trolling? Harfarhs (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. isento (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

text: You're seriously citing yourself as "an average reader"? Really? And you have the nerve to mention WP:BRD to other editors? Harfarhs (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dude, you literally defied protocol by reverting back to your preferred revision before even talking it out with me. isento (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Because "those" is necessarily plural, while the previous version could have been either singular or plural; hence, I was removing ambiguity. It isn't rocket science. Harfarhs (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "wealth and fame" 

message: It says in the article that Jack Nitzsche and Bill Wyman claimed that Brian Jones was entitled to a coauthorship credit for his marimba hook on "Under My Thumb", but as far as I know, there is no evidence to confirm that Brian did in fact "compose" the hook/riff and he himself never publicly mentioned or confirmed their claims. Mick Taylor has made lots of claims that he cowrote songs that were credited to Jagger/Richards, but has never provided any proof.
27.32.188.134 (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said, it's a claim and it's attributed, so there's no problem. Besides, what evidence could they or Mick Taylor provide, let alone proof? Jagger and Richards often did this, or have often been accused of not acknowledging others in the writing credits (by Wyman, Taylor, Ry Cooder, Billy Preston, Ron Wood ...) Years ago I read Richards saying that they were going to sort it out with Taylor, that he deserved to be recognised for his contributions – but I don't know if that ever happened. JG66 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing credits 

message: I recently added both the US and UK chronology to the infobox, though it was changed back by  (wonderful work on this page by the way, PJ). Following WP:BRD, I thought I'd bring it here. A previous discussion at WikiProject Albums came to the consensus to limit to a single chronology, but the talk there centered around modern artists, like Taylor Swift, where the split chronologies were distinguishing between studio releases and others (e.g. compilations, live albums, etc.). But that's somewhat different than the situation here, only mentioned once in that WikiProject discussion by , that releases by the Stones, the Beatles and other British invasion acts typically had different track listings, and even different albums, between the UK and US markets. See, for example, the chronology of Sgt. Pepper or Revolver. I think that having two separate chronologies will serve to better illustrate this difference. Tkbrett (✉) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely support having two chronologies (if we're not dropping the feature altogether, as a few of us proposed at that previous discussion). It's what all the other Stones and Beatles album articles have. As much as it feels like a luxury perhaps, this approach is infinitely more reader-friendly than trying to bundle both markets into one chronology, particularly as the reader finds plenty in this article about the different release schedules. The shorter US version, the inclusion of a non-album A-side, details on the subsequent releases of tracks omitted from Aftermath US – they're all reflective of UK vs US release chronologies, so I don't see the merit in misrepresenting the situation in the infobox. JG66 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cases like this need separate chronologies: based on what they know was released in their home country, readers in the US or UK may see an out-of-sequence Big Hits or Out of Our Heads or missing Flowers as wrong. Of course, chronologies would be better handled by a navbox at the bottom (the "UK and US releases 1964–1967" navbox almost does it), but there hasn't been much support for it. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  US and UK chronology 

message: I've found some more discrepancies in dating, this time between recording dates.
1965sessions    	1966sessions	Source                                 	Sourceyear
"three nights"  	6–9 February	Bill Wyman & Ray Coleman               	1990
"early December"	–           	Alan Clayson                           	2006
6–10 December   	3–? March   	David Dalton                           	1981
6–10 December   	3–12 March  	Massimo Bonanno                        	1990
3–8 December    	3–8 March   	Felix Aeppli                           	1985
"five days"     	"two weeks" 	Steve Appleford                        	1997
"five days"     	6–9 March   	Bill Janovitz                          	2013
8–10 December   	6–9 March   	Phillipe Margotin & Jean-Michel Guesdon	2016
8–10 December   	6–9 March   	Andy Babiuk & Greg Prevost             	2013
The current revision sources it per Bonanno. Given the above, I think it seems a little fuzzier. I'm not immediately sure on how to weigh things. Tkbrett (✉) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could treat it as around December 1965 and March 1966, and then a footnote summarizing these individual sources. In the Infobox, it would be appropriate to use the circa template followed by the months. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 16:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Which dates would we use for the circa? It may be simpler to simply write it as . Tkbrett (✉) 12:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording dates