Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 1

message: All images linked to the article were copyright, so links have been removed. Will  try to source at least one useable image under the GFDL. redcountess 23:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
:: I have reinserted several images in accordance with copyright provisions under law. After reading sections on Wikipedia fair use, and image tagging, the images have adequate information in their file- click on image to see. --Mikerussell 07:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: All image links removed

message: Is there any source for the Pirates of the Caribbean rumor? I checked IMDB and no dice. Someone should probably remove that misleading bit about him being in the film. Although it would be really awesome if he were in the movie, I doubt that he actually is. --71.110.4.241 05:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pirates of the Caribbean rumor (June 8 2005

message: Despite several attempts to read this sentence, I still have no idea what it's supposed to mean: 
"After the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Richards' original sentence- the somewhat unorthodox charity concert at an Oshawa hockey arena (a concert attendees remember as being thick with marijuana smoke) Keith emerged healthy and in love with a young New York model." Kurivaim 12:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what it's supposed to mean 

message: If Keith Richards was born in 1943, then the sentence "Keith Richards was a World War II baby born in the "crossfire hurricane" (mentioned in the lyrics of "Jumpin' Jack Flash") of German bombings in the Battle of Britain." is just plain incorrect. The Battle of Britain was over by May 1941. Similarly trying to tie this line in to the Blitz would fail as it was in essence over by 1941 as well.
:He often has recited the tale that his earliest memories were of the bombings in London during the War. If you want to check it out go to his web site  and search through the 'Ask Keith' section. He is on video telling how Hitler 'was on his tail from birth' and explains why he has always been interested in WWII artifacts and history. Strictly speaking you’re accurate, but I also think there is generally regarded, perhaps only in Canada, to talk about all events up to D-Day and even after as ‘The Battle of Britain” (meaning the period under siege of the occupied European continent by the Nazi regime), which I guess is historically inaccurate. It may be that his memories are of post D-Day battles, or just the rubble of the bombings that took years to rebuild. I guess people older then me, I was born in the late sixties, see this as a clear mistake.--Mikerussell 05:28, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
*correction* While the Battle of Britain was actually over by 1941, by 1944 German V1 "buzz bombs" were hitting England very often.  Richards' house was actually hit by a V1.  He is correct in saying he lived through bombing of London, albeit not during the famous Battle of Britain.
:Guys, you're all correct with your dates: 'the Battle of Britain', in terms of the daylight duels in the air between British fighters and German fighters and bombers, was over by the end of October 1940. The 'Blitz' of London, night bombing by the Germans, continued afterwards but ended in May 1941. The V-weapons did not begin striking until mid-1944. Therefore we can't say 'Richards was born as the Nazi Luftwaffe bombed England' in any way, shape or form. We can say he 'lived through bombing of (or attacks on) London' as my unnamed co-contributor (or is it Mikerussell?) above has said. It would be good to put the bit in about his house being hit by a V1 but something that specific really needs to be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Britain over by 1943 

message: I made recent deletions due to the misguided, although perhaps well intended, recent additions tracing the beginning of Richards and Jagger's songwriting. It is way too unbalanced to do justice to the article. It belongs in the Rolling Stones article IMHO. There was too much editorializing too. Some valid effort should be made to add context about Richards role in the Stones, but there simply was way too much. I personally think a reader will read the Stones article for Keith's contribution to that band. This article used to be a real nice little addition to all the info on Richards as a Stone. People should try to restarin their enthusiasm for cramming in too much detail, for it detracts from the overall tone and temper of the Keith Richards article's focus. --Mikerussell 06:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a Keith Ricards article or Rolling Stones one? 

message: I understand that a faction of rock enthusiasts tends to credit Dylan for influencing the rebellious, semi-socially conscious lyrics  of "Satisfaction," but I think this is a bit of a stretch for a lot of fans and critics. Dylan was influencing everyone and breaking down barriers, but I think if you asked Mick Jagger and Keith Richards if the song was specifically influenced by Dylan they would say "no." Songs like "Jigsaw Puzzle" and "Whos Been Sleeping Here" are much more obviously Dylan-influenced. For one thing, Dylan didn't invent social protest, his folk material from the early sixties wasn't really rock-oriented; his rock work starting in 1965 was largely poetic, sometimes abstract, and not always explicity political. "Satisfaction" is much more direct and much more aggressively rebellious than Dylan's rock work. I think if you read the imagery of "Get Off My Cloud," it reads more like a Dylan-influenced piece than "Satisfaction," but even that is speculation. So I'm taking that Dylan thing out and adding it to the list of general songwriting influences.
:For what it is worth, I totally agree with your comments and edit. I think it really is a post-historical fantasy to claimn otherwise.  --Mikerussell 19:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Satisfaction and Bob Dylan

message: First, a special thanks to Ian Rose and others who have made awkward prose much more readable.  
Richards decision to go solo was forced by matters, such as Ian Stewarts death, the poor health of the band - including Charlie Watts abuse of heroin and booze, and the general ill will within the band, and, of course, by Jagger's view that the band couldn't make it across the street let alone around the world. Better to have all of this in the Stones entry. The album "Dirty Works" has been rated highly by reviewers such as Robert Christgau, and opinions about it's quality are just that: opinions and generally not suitable for an encyclodpedia entry. Also whatever snotty names Richards called Jagger are  of minor concern.
Listing theatres the Winos played is tedious. An attempt was made to show what the affects of Richards solo career were, and why it happened so late in his career. Also, incomplete listing of his cameo appearances was moved to a new section and edited to have some semblance of NPOV. This new section could use more extensive listings and an attempt at giving it some kind of artistic context.
:Listing the theatres was useful for it showed the size of the audeinces he was playing for, sorry the information bored you, but you might want to think about how the article is read by the average reader and not just yourself, especially when you seem like such an expert. Since you seem to like to quote rock critics, I would imagine the stupidest rock critic would make notice of the venues an act plays in. I think Richards would too; accordingly, I restored the cuts.--Mikerussell 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on Solo Career 

message: The "Which Way To Go Section - I Don't Know" section was either centered on matters peripheral to this section, e.g. Charlie Watts throat cancer, or speculation that Richards MIGHT been in a movie expcept he just too busy. I just shit-canned the whole section. Information on bootleg material belongs in the Richards As Musican section.
:It was a useful section to have as it served as a conclusion to the article and a section where users could update information. The inclusion of bootlegs fits this section too, for it points towards the day when, god forbid, the old guy croaks and just like the Beatles or Hendrix etc.- any rock great- they may officially be released, maybe even remastered. 
:Your edit is lame- at least I think it is you, since so many editors on this page do not edit under any identity it is hard to tell who is responsible for what exactly. Let me just say that when I read it today, it seemed very flaccid. I just recycled it. It is also a line from one of his solo songs, Demon, and it seems like a fitting way to keep the article current without mucking about with the main text. --Mikerussell 04:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yep, Somebody's Been Busy

message: This section could use further additions and editing. An initial attempt to provide context and cohesion this section that amounts to more than a bare discography has been done.
:I tried to take out POV unsubstantiated opinion, and sloppy editing, but it could use a lot more detailed additions, or maybe it should be scraped. Is it really a good title too- He co-produced the John Phillips record, as well as the Wingless Angels- seems stupid to say it is 'cameo' appearances. On second thought, I did collapse the info into the end of Solo Recordings. --Mikerussell 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cameo Appearances

message: I took this out for the 2nd time. I think it is almost foolish to include this in general, but especially in the front section, where it came before his birth date! I don't know who is so attached to this nickname, but if they really think it is so important than why not put in a few sentences describing where it comes from and why it is significant to them (I am assuming if it means so much to them it might have similiar value to others). Otherwise it just gets to be almost comical, you know, like I see some sixty year old burnout wino in his flat editing it in because he has based his whole life around the career of "the human riff". I would like to know where it comes from because I hardly ever heard it. --Mikerussell 05:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknamed the Human Riff 

message: Took out a line about George Jones duet 'Say it ain't you'. The POV comment was that this soing was a 'homage' to Gram Parsons. I don't know what that exactly means. Did Parsons ever record the country classic Jones made famous? Did Richards say somewhere he did for Parsons? The comment needs be explained betterr or removed because it just reads as a POV opinion.--Mikerussell 06:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gram Parson comment regarding 'Say it ain't You' 

message: Keith didn't use the word "homage" but he described his motivation for recording "Say It Aint You" as such: he in fact did it as a debt to Parsons. I'll find the source then restore the homage statement then.  Tour schedules add little to an encylcopedia entry, they are in fact near  pointless.  The full title of the Winos live album has been deleted (this is just sloppy) , and what is the point of listing it as a Virgin release?  Terming a tour "memorable" has more to do with the editors' sentiment than anything else. This is still a Keith Richards entry and information regarding the Stones, such as Charlie Watts cancer belong on a Stones page, not here. Another edit was also sloppy: it was explained twice what may happen with the Winos reformation (careful with calling anything "lame", chickens do come home to roost). Being a frontman did change Richards as a performer - why is this not important - or less important than tour dates being listed?
:I don't think you dealt with the issue in your above comment, Richards's 1988 tour was very 'memorable' because of the uniqueness of it, he has done 2 in 40 years. Go to his official website and take a look how large that period 1988-1992 is represented. Whether or not my sentiment is behind my edits is irrelevant, the objective historical fact of the uniqueness of the events- his solo tours- suggests my sense and sentiment are valid. Only unsubstantiated, biased, or irrelevent edits need to be deleted; moreover, you really cannot- as far as general wikipedia policy states- delete material that is factually accurate and has existed within the article as content for many months. I have very little arguement with including additional material, the way the 'frontman' wording was made when I first read it was poorly constructed- some odd statement about Jagger and Gimme Shelter (the film). As, or if, we enter an 'edit war' I might request you identify yourself with some entity- whatever alias you chose beyond a IP address- so a reader can track you as an editor. I will reinclude valid, factual info. --Mikerussell 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits II

message: I reverted the deletion of the material I mentioned in the above headings because they were deleted and no explanation was offered? (In the History or in the Discussion page. No editor beyond an IP address did this too- making it an anonymous edit, unexplained.) Whoever edits should try to respond to the edits they make, otherwise you simply place a fellow-wikipedian in an impossible spot, where I keep re-entering the material because I have a valid reason and there is no discussion offered otherwise. What is an editor to do? It gets kind of time-consuming, but everybody should assume good faith in making the edits and try to offer reasons- reasons others can evaluate and ultimately a consensus kind of develops- for making their cuts. 
More specifically, I hardly think it is a grotesque injury to the article to include the halls he played at during his very unique solo tour. (Especially when they have wikipedian articles on them too!) If it was incorrect info, or subjective- "such as his greatest concert ever was at the Fox", that might be different. But the info is not uninteresting or redundant- and it shows that he was playing to a few thousand people. 
Any of my subjective statements about the writing is a general statement- so many editors contribute, it is almosty impossible to ascribe the authorship to anyone contributor. If you go back and read the article as it was just before my edit of a few days ago, you see spelling errors, grammar problems, syntax errors and simply poorly edited sections- thus it was 'lame'. Before or after deleting material, try to justify the cuts with reasons beyond personal statments like it was "tedious' or 'boring', especially when their is no premeium on space.--Mikerussell 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre names and Summary section 

message: Anonymous editing makes it difficult to get a consensus about what version should be kept. Please try to identify yourself and explain why your edits are valid beyond personal reasons. The article had a conclusion section and the material existed for a long time, an anonymous editor's opinion is just that and a resolution comes through a consensus of other users too. Bootlegs are valid to include in the conclsuion section, and the most famous one is valid to include (Apt #9) Who are you to say otherwise?. We are just wasting time until you chose an identity and make an effort to offer your reasons to the 'user community' of wikipedia who over time will help settle the issue. --Mikerussell 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit war]] 

message: This section is just a rewrite of the "Which way to go I don'r know." section. It seems to be poorly worded rewrite too. "Richards has termed" when and where? The opinion offered is a little condescending to the reader too- "Typically unreleased recordings appear as post-career or as posthumous releases". (Which seems to be countrary to the stated Rarities album release) The previous edit was better, more factual- gave example of the bootleg collection and did not raise unexplained commentary like "and the still problematic issues regarding ownership of their sixties output" Uh huh, that's rather self-explanatory. I think the article will be amended by others because it needs it and it is rather written to a single editors limited purview, so I don't really think there is much point to say anything beyond that. --Mikerussell 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreleased Recordings 

message: This-
"Ricahrds solo career lead to him being much more flamboyant live performer than the Richards seen in the documentary of the Stones' 1969 American tour, Gimme Shelter."
-is suppose to be good writing for wikipedia? The grammar isn't even correct. Does the average reader have any idea what Richards was like in the cult 1970s film Gimme Shelter? I'm not even going to fix it because it is so badly composed someone else will. --Mikerussell 03:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  69.237.115.101 edits need work 

message: After Jagger, who was in pursuit of a solo career and who, to Richards disappointment, had just nixed a Stones tour to suppport their newly-released album Dirty Work - Richards formed Keith Richards and the X-pensive Winos in 1988 (first named Organized Crime), a band that included drummer Steve Jordan who had recorded many tracks on Dirty Work and who was Richards' drummer for Hail! Hail! Rock and Roll!, a documentary of Chuck Berry's the 60th birthday concert that Richards hosted and for which he was musical director.
This is one loooong sentence. Some words have hyphens that don't need them, as in "newly-released" and the hyphen is used where a period should be placed. I think this is what happens when one person thinks it is their article, and tries to police it. The article is not readable in spots, and leaves me wondering what the heck it means- and I know a lot about about the guy to begin with. I would fix the errors, but when you have one anonymous editor constantly reverting anybody's edits but their own, it gets to be a waste of time. --Mikerussell 03:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 2 

message: The Oxford English Dictionary, dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com all include this definition:  "i·con :: An important and enduring symbol".--Dennywuh 19:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: The mentioned dictionaries include this definition:  "sym·bol :: something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible: 'The eagle is a symbol of the United States'".
Songs are the basic units of contemporary music, in the same way as books are the basic units of literature and buildings are the basic units of architecture.  In accordance with the above definition, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a symbol of modern architecture, The Odyssey a symbol of classic literature, and (I can get no) Satisfaction a symbol of rock music.  In turn, each of these examples is important and enduring enough in its own field to be considered an icon.
Hyperbole requires, by definition, exaggeration, distortion of reality, as in "mile-high ice-cream cones".  There is no exaltation or falsehood in the sentence "(I can get no) Satisfaction is an icon of rock music" in the same way as there is no hyperbole or exaggeration in these sentences:
    "Many consider (I can get no) Satisfaction the all-time greatest rock and roll song"
	- The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame
    "(I can get no) Satisfaction has become part of the Western collective consciousness"
	- Allmusic.com
I don't mind you finding fault with the word 'icon', you'll notice I haven't attempted to reinstate it, but I do object to you accusing me of not knowing its meaning.  This discussion has proved the opposite, that it was you who was ignorant of the word's significance, in the same way as you're unfamiliar with the definitions of 'symbol' and 'hyperbole'.  Next time, I hope you will refer to the dictionary before editing other people's texts.  --Dennywuh 20:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retort 

message: The tune hit the charts for the first time in early 1966, 40 years ago, and someone or other has recorded it every single year since, with only five exceptions: '69, '73, '77, '79 and '80.  This year, it has already been issued on three albums at least.  The number of artists who have covered it, added to the airplay that the Rolling Stones versions have had over these four decades make it a well-known song.  So popular, in fact, that in the developed world one would be hard-pressed to find someone who had never heard it before.  This is, I think, what the author of the quote, Richie Unterberger, meant by it.
I find the quote significant for various reasons:
	a) Mr Unterberger is the respected author of many excellent books on rock music.
	b) The source, Allmusic.com (aka AllMusicGuide), is an established and trusted repository of musical knowledge.
	c) The wording is factual and objective, as opposed to your "hard-wired in the DNA" bombast.
	d) An assertion such as this cannot be made about many songs, which lends credence to my point about the enduring importance of this particular one.
Finally, Mr Anonymous, I confess to having grown tired both of explaining simple concepts to you, and of helping you with your English vocabulary.  Personally, I shall end this discussion here.  --Dennywuh 11:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejoinder