Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive 1

message: I've made an attempt to translate the paragraph starting "One critic has described the band at this period as being a "cross between Robert Johnson and Friedrich Nietzsche"." Feel free to revert if it makes even less sense in English. I'm assuming much of the vocabulary used ("realpolitik" for example) was a reference to the Nietzsche comparison, but it all looked very out of place in this article. I contemplate deleting the quote, or even the whole paragraph, but I won't try to judge the value of the points made. Monkeynutter 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shibboleths" etc. 

message: Is someone enought masochistic to write something about the 25 years between 1971 and today ?
: Yes, I am.  I've got up to about 1981 on my laptop, and will integrate it shortly. -- User:GWO
::Haven't there been, er, 35 years since 1971?? john k 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on the 21 years between 1971 and now

message: I hate to be a quibbler (oh, no I don't).  Altamont is indeed about 51 miles from SF by road, but measuring it off my east-bay Rand McNally it would seem to be 37.5 miles from the Ferry Building to Altamont.  I changed 50 to 40 in the article, and clarified that it's roughly east of SF. -- John Fader 19:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Distance quibbling

message: Recently added image may not be fair use, where album cover presumably is. Longstanding image was replaced in guise of "minor edit" without notice or discussion. Monicasdude 05:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image reinstatement 

message: :Photo caption of lips and tongue was changed to not 'argued to have been designed by Andy Warhol' - why 'argued?'
::In 1970, the Stones formed their own record label - Rolling Stones Records and released "Sticky Fingers," which reached # 1 in 1971. The album also introduced fans to the Andy Warhol designed "lips and lolling tongue logo." That same year Jagger married Nicaraguan fashion model Bianca Perez Morena de Macias. 
http://www.therollingstones.net/history.htm
Some strange edits taking place here...Barrettmagic 15:30 15 August 2005
"Rolling stones today" isnt really a fair statement as it wont be true in fifty years.  I would put a date but I don't know enough about the image to do such. Olleicua 02:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Argued'?

message: The band is so old that their early pictures are probably in the public domain. Jobe6  12:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This is kind of a small quibble, I know, but unless you mean the Stones are the longest surviving rock 'n' roll band in history UNDER THE SAME NAME, then the band Styx have, as far as I am aware been around for longer (1961 cf 1962), though they have changed names a couple of times. Now, don't get me wrong, Styx ain't no Stones, but credit due an' all that.
It doesn't matter anyway, as Golden Earring has existed under the same name since 1961.  I removed the line as it is false. BocoROTH 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age

message: ::I just reverted the top picture back to the previous posting, stronger image, better formatted for leading image, took new image and placed it under early history (three images now there from same period, ca. 1964) 
::Overall article has enough images now - runs the risk of taking up too much space. Should contributors wish to add more content, look to Beatles article for guidance. Additional detail pages may be appropriate and useful. -- Barrettmagic 14:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I see with the images featured is that they don't properly capture the band over forty-plus years. Stan weller 05:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures on Rolling Stones Article

message: This article is a bit long, and I mean too long. I either needs to be split into one or more separate articles, or have a summary sections as load times a excessive and people often do not have time to read though the wealth of information.
*It loads fine for me. Comprehensiveness is not a crime. Deltabeignet 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Long 

message: from 2nd para:
"Reggae, punk, and dance, country music and even Arab music have leaked into their recordings."  Ugh!
Sentence structure - ugh. "Leaked" - ugh. "Dance [a type of movement] leaked into their recordings"!! I'd fix it if I knew what the dance reference meant. I hope it's not dance music because the definition of that is so broad as to be meaningless in this context. Nurg 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dance ... leaked into their recordings" 

message: I was hoping someone can reveal to me who's the amazing female Afro-American backing singer who sang during the 2003 Tour and can be seen at the Live At The Twickenham Stadium, London DVD from the Four Flick box set. Mick pronounced her name and it sounded like Lee Safisha, however I couldn't find any info on a singer of that name.
*I'm not a fan of the band but some common sense led me to the conclusion that it was probably Lisa Fisher he was failing to enunciate . --bodnotbod 11:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Amazing Female Singer on Four Flicks 

message: The article has a BIG error: Charlie joined AFTER Bill Wyman...Wyman joined in December 62,and Charlie joined in January 1963. The drummer at the 'first' Stones gig at the Marquee in April 1962, is usually credited as Mick Avory (later of the Kinks),but MIGHT have been Tony Chapman,who was also in the same band (The Cliftons) as Wyman (then Bill Perks) at the time.The Stones really had no 'regular' drummer at the time,and sometimes played the few gigs they got without a drummer. Someone PLEASE correct this!
Also some more emphasis should be made in the early history of the fact that the Stones at this time was BRIAN JONES' group,not Mick and Keith's-a point that Wyman tries to make in both of his books-even Keith has said over and over that the Stones was 'Brian's baby',and him and Mick were just members of it in the 1962-late 63 time period.
:Hmmm, but I thought Charlie (re)joined the band in January 1963, after a period of dithering, but he had played with the nascent Stones in 1961. So... he was their drummer, then he was on-again, off-again during much of 1962, but finally committed to the band for good at the beginning of 1963. In which case, his association with the band began in 1961, and he should probably be listed under that date (as he currently is). ProhibitOnions 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlie Watts joining and other early history 

message: In the first paragraph it states that the Stones' original recordings included covers of Hank Williams' songs. I have all their 60s albums as well as plently of bootleg studio sessions from the early years, and I don't remember them ever covering a single Hank Williams song.
Can anyone back this up?
:this web site is as close as I can find, unless you want to consider "Honky Tonk Women" as some sort of Hank tribute [or something] but it is not early Stones. 
http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/influenc.htm
Carptrash 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hank Williams? 

message: Can someone peer review Tumbling Dice? No Parking 04:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: # WTF? I know i'm clueless abt rock, but i know for a fact that the Altamont killing was supposed (& i thot widely supposed) to have taken place during "Sympathy for the Devil", and to have led to its not being publicly performed (for years or ever?) after then. Is this legend so obscure as to rate no mention?
#:Aha, Talk:Sympathy for the Devil has more detail, tho it cites a dead site.  It seems clear that the violence started during 'Sympathy..", and that the legend is not just mine; needs mention.
# Text says
:: a young black fan who had unwisely brought a pistol (and a white girlfriend) to the show, was stabbed and beaten to death by the Angels during the band's performance of "Under My Thumb".
: The gratuitous "unwisely", especially in the context of the parenthetical "white girlfriend", is pretty damn offensive, whether or not the word is accurate. But the real problem is giving this much detail without recounting what anyone said the sequence of events was, and results of the criminal investigation if not trial that surely followed. If there is no verifiable information about what else anyone claimed happened, i doubt what is there is useful enough to justify its retention.  If the subject is so involved as to overpower the article, say less than at present in this Rolling Stones article, and a lot more in an Altamont concert article lk'd from what's left.
: Further, "the Angels" clearly does not refer in this context to the entire membership of that organization. But as written (w/ no estimated number) the most reasonable interpretation is that all the members recruited for security roles that day (hundreds? over a thousand?) converged on the scene, each either stabbing or beating the victim, or intending to facilitate that.
: There's more, relevant to my comments, at the talk page i cite above. And IMO, it's clear there's enough (including the "Sympathy..." confusion) to justify Altamont concert.  Specifically re my preceding 'graph, it strongly suggests what is denied by the tone of the existing text, i.e. that there was some reason to believe the victim provoked the incident by exposing the gun in the middle of a crowd (i.e., appeared to be threatening action almost guaranteed to cause serious collateral damage) and that there is no reason to rule out his death having occured in the course of a wise effort to protect public safety by minimizing the violence.
: I haven't tried to ameliorate these,  since a passage outrageous enough to be dismissed out of hand is better than one (which i would have to leave still inadequate) that might be given a little more credence and do more damage than the existing horrible one. Step up to the plate, Stones fans; don't neglect this and provoke this rock ignoramus into fixing this neglect my way.--Jerzy•t 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altmont song & death 

message: Shouldn't the first line be "The Rolling Stones is a British rock group..." The name of the band, while having a plural noun within it, is, on the whole, a collective noun which should use singular verbs . mtz206 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is/Are?

message: In Britain, verbs that would be used in describing the actions of plural nouns are used for collective nouns, also. When you think about it, either way it makes sense. Therefore, saying "the Rolling Stones are an overrated rock band" is just as accurate as saying "the Rolling Stones is an overrated rock band."
Swatson1978 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Re. to Is/Are?

message: Surely the claim that "Angie" is about Anita Pallenberg should be qualified? We don't know for sure who it's about.  In the same way, we don't know what happened to Keith Richards's blood.  Have a look at Snopes on the subject:
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/richards.htm and http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/bowie.htm and http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/marsbar.htm
Vhata 16:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Angie, Richards's blood, etc

message: "The audio on his microphone was lowered twice for the two requested omissions, but Jagger did sing those lyrics. [3]. Contrary to many media reports, he was not censored."
:Sounds like censoring to me. -newkai | talk | contribs 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makes no sense to me... 

message: The American/British distinction is bogus. Collective nouns on both sides of the Atlantic sometimes take plural verbs, and sometimes take singular verbs. (Sometimes there is flexibility, and choice should then be based upon whether one wishes to emphasize or to deëmphasize the underlying plurality.)
Now, who here would write, of the American baseball team, “The Yankees is in town.”?
—Gamahucheur 14:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bah!

message: English language is based on usage. We would never say, "The Beatles was at number one in the charts." It would always be "The Beatles were...". Same for any group name using the plural. I assume this is because John, George, Paul and Ringo are each classified as one Beatle and four of them as Beatles. Usage, whenever we talk about their activities, is to use a plural agreement in the verb. An exception would be if we were talking not about the term Beatles as referring to the individuals collectively, but merely to the label "The Beatles". See in the following example how the verb can change from one sentence to the next: "Some band names are puns. 'The Beatles' is one such band name. The Beatles were at number one..." Now try reversing it: "Some bands names are puns. 'The Beatles' were one such band name. The Beatles was at number one..." Tyrenius 04:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from RfC request

message: Recently, the 1st para phrase "The Stones affected a rebellious, bad-boy image" was changed to "The Stones effected a rebellious, bad-boy image". If the image was an affectation, then affected should remain. If their nature really was rebellious etc rather than affected, then the sentence should be rewritten, replacing both affected and image with other words. I'm reverting the change for now. Nurg 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An image is affected, not effected

message: they don't seem to have a bassist right now, do they? Joeyramoney 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bassist 

message: The last paragraph of the "Early History" section starts off "With Richards and Jagger out on bail and shortly to be acquitted on appeal..." but there is no preceding discussion of what they were arrested for or charged with.  A hasty edit?  Either all references to improsonment should be excised, or details on the prison episode should precede this paragraph. 128.220.142.247 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out on bail from what? 

message: What in God's name does this mean? (at the bottom of the tours section)
::What would become Tour begat Gimme Shelter (ditto, second)
That makes absolutely no sense. Can anyone interpret/re-write it? --Stellis 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the passage, as it really makes no sense. I reverted to  --Snakemike 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement 

message: Reading through the article, I picked up a few things which I think should be included in the article that currently aren't. I thought I'd post them here first instead of going ahead and changing the article myself because I think a consensus is needed, especially on such an important article as this.
-Documentation of Mick and Keith's chance meeting on a train platform when they were teenagers which inspired them to join a band together.
-A mention Bill Wyman originally being chosen to join the group over a rival bassist because he owned two amplifiers.
-The information on the LSD swoop at Keith's ranch is in conflict with the story I have previsouly been led to believe, eg the police did indeed find a large quantity of drugs at the house.
These are just some ways in which I believe the article could be improved, there are also several grammar and punctuation mistakes, overall I think it is pretty obvious the article does not do such a great band like the Rolling Stones justice and needs a concerted effort by many people to be improved. Wwwhhh 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: It reads like it took seven different people to write every single sentence. This really needs some ironing out. I'm surprised by how much information is repeated throughout the article. I'm gonna work out the last section which currently reads like a fact sheet.Stan weller 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Work

message: "the waning year of the century they helped to score" is not going to fly. Read Wiki criticism regarding fannish copy. - Mr Anonymous
:well then fix your middle paragraph. it's hardly an introduction to the band. you're mentioning tracks that a person might not even know about. specific tracks aren't mentioned in the beatles', led zeppelin's, or the who's opening paragraphs. Stan weller 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 40+ years the band have existed." Stan weller 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Comment 

message: How come no mention of Dick Taylor? I don't see any mention anywhere and he's certainly not in the list of members, the list of line ups, or the the template. There's a lot of difference between all of these things when it comes to members. It needs to be better organized and complete. The Secretary of Funk 02:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dick Taylor?

message: I have rewritten and expanded the text concerning the Redlands Drugs Bust as I think it was a critical event in the Stones' story - a change in how the band came to be percieved by the wider public.  --twitter 12:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlands Weekend

message: The chart information was culled from http://www.beatzenith.com/the_rolling_stones/rsalbumslist.htm which cited as their sources  the following 
" Based on US Billboard and UK Record Retailer/Music Week/NME/BPI positions. Compiler: AC Palacio.
Chart listings found here are based on positions from the two largest and most accurately maintained calculations of sale only, though early UK charts lend much to the imagination. Chart sizes between 1964 and 2004 are as follows:"
If someone wants to hit the primaries on this, go ahead. I'll just accept this as a good secondary source that corrects what I had mistakenly and too vaguely stated before. No mention was made of the single charts but it would difuse the point that the band is still a top seller of recordings. 
There could be a little added about the Stones being at the forefront of the R & B movement in England tha (BTW - they thought of themselves at the time as being a R & B band primarily and not as a "Blues Band".)  But the whole style things gets messy fast. Something for later, y'all. - Mr Anonymous
It still isn't long enough. Conciseness may read well, but it needs to sum up the article - not just the band. Stan weller 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph Correction 

message: Pretty darn good. The only thing I would suggest changing is the opinion about their creative peak. Mainly because it is an opinion. It amounts to commentary. Again, pretty good job there, twitter. - 
Further comment: When it comes to styles it would be good to include Reggae, Country, Rythm and Blues, Phychelida, Rock n' Roll. I think "heavy rock" is problematic because it's too vague and rarely used while Rock n' Roll encompasses much more without referrring to sub Genres. 
Mr Anonymous
I'm not keen on adding Reggae and Psychedelia - surely it isn't necessary to list every genre the Stones recorded otherwise you could add Disco, Rap, Folk Rock etc.  It ends up as a list rather than a sentence. I've removed the 'creative peak' reference, so howabout:
The Rolling Stones are an English rock band that rose to prominence in the early 1960s.  Although originally an R&B outfit, their music encompasses a range of styles from Rock and Roll, Blues and Country through to Hard Rock.  They have continued to record and perform and are one of the longest running and most successful acts in show business.  They have sold 240 million albums worldwide and consistently reach the top 5 in the  U.S. album charts. </br>
They also continue to be a huge live attraction and their current (2005/2006) tour has broken the record for gross earnings in the US, beating the previous record (which was also held by the Rolling Stones).  </br>
Although the line up has changed over the 40+ years of the band's recording career, three key personnel i.e. Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts have been ever present during that time.''
Reggae and Pychedelia are important to the Stones - hard rock is an odd term while Rock n' Roll has been around much longer and again is much more inclusive. Keith might even object - if he were to care. He has said he is more about the roll than the rock. - Mr Anonymous
Well I disagree that Reggae and Psychedia are important.  The Stones have made some great country tracks but great reggae tracks?  Psychedelia was just a band wagon they jumped on at the time and a mere blip i.e. one album in 35+ (I've seen the other tracks mentioned as being pyschedelic but a bit of phase shift doesn't make it pyschedelic for me). I included Rock and Roll.  Hard Rock is, I agree, an odd term but the Stones are referenced on Hard Rock and I wanted to describe something on the 'heavy riff' end of the scale.  I guess its difficult to please everybody - and this is only the Intro! twitter 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragrah comment 

message: The intro as it was gave little indication of why the Stones were famous or influential.  I've dug out the old intro from a year ago and worked it in.   Wasted Time R 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro redux

message: I've completed the Tours section, using the Roy Carr An Illustrated Record book as a valuable reference for what tours took place before 1969, and for official tour names (usually discerned from a tour poster, many of which are reproduced therein) of tours after 1969.  I've also found all (or almost all) of the references to these tours in other WP articles, and red-linked them to these names.  All that remains is for people to gradually write the tour articles!  I did so for The Rolling Stones American Tour 1972, and discovered an orphaned article that's at least a start for Licks Tour.  Have at it....    Wasted Time R 11:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done The Rolling Stones American Tour 1969 and Rolling Stones Tour of the Americas '75 since, but that's it.  I don't even like the Stones ...    Wasted Time R 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tours

message: There was waaay too much 2005-2006 tour information in this article, the vast majority of which I've moved to A Bigger Bang Tour, where it belongs.   Wasted Time R 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bang in the wrong place

message: Some peopple just have to pains in the ass. Since when has that the Stones have often been referred to as "The Greates Rock n' Roll Band in the World" been in dispute? I'm taking out citation needed for anything that is the same realm as pasting citationt needed for obviou facts similar to the assertion that the sun rise in the east. If it is in dispute, dispute it - not gainsay it - then ask for a citation. Mr Anonymous.
BTW if anyone want to humor Mr./Ms. Citations needed, add them as footnotes. Here the wiki link for that. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes
OK I give you Greatest saying.  
But you are wrong - Rolling Stones no sell 240 millions albums. Where is proof of that?
Rolling Stones not top gross tour of 2005. Vertigo Tour U2 is. See that article. 
They got the Billboard tours awards, not Stones!
Who says Jaggers-Richards best one of songwriting partnerships ever? By what measure? How many peoples covers their songs? This needs proof, not just you saying its "obvious"!!205.188.116.9 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: This article: http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1519628/20060103/rolling_stones.jhtml
sheds some light on the U2 vs. Stones 2005 tour issue.  U2 sold more tickets, but the Stones had greater revenues due to higher ticket prices.  I guess the Billboard awards decided to go on how many people saw shows, not how many well-off people saw shows....    Wasted Time R 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tour sales 

message: As for number of albums sold, this RIAA table:
http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp
gives a fresh U.S.-only figure of 65.5 million, tied for 11th place overall.
That's about the only reliable figure I've seen.  Unless there's some strong sourcing that can be brought forward, the 240 million worldwide figure in the intro is very dubious and should be yanked.  Wasted Time R 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Album sales

message: Let's be honest here. We could probably chop the whole article down to "Keith Richards sold his soul for an everlasting cigarette" and people would be perfectly happy. Just an idea.
Good one. Wwwhhh 08:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a suggestion 

message: Substituted at 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment