Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive 2

message: sure hope i'm doing this right: i'd like to suggest adding a link to the article on Rolling Stones Records.  i know there is such an article, because i recently edited it, and i came here in search of it.   Sssoul 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Listen to the UNDERCOVER album, a few of their songs on that album is clearly as hard rock as it gets. -Thebird
So is Jailhouse Rock. And your point would be? -  Mr Anonymous
My point is that they are hard rock and I added it you idiot. -TheBird
Now Now. What would be the difference between hard rock and rock n' roll? Before you formulate an answer, remember that preachers in the 50s obsessed on what the hard driving beat of rock and roll was doing to the youth. You want to be careful about hurling insults, especially when your response is little more than "because I say so". - Mr Anonymous
First off, Rock N Roll covers ALL genres, alright? Each Genre like Heavy Metal or whatever is a sub-genre of Rock N roll, so let's be a little bit more speficic and say it's Hard Rock shall we? Also I did not just say "because I say so" I gave you a clear example, listen to UNDERCOVER by the Stones and you will know what I'm talking about. -TheBird
Well, Keith says he more about the roll than the rock. Sub Genres are better left out. Hard rock is not even a decent sub genre. Read Scadutos Dylan biography. Elvis was called hard rock. - Mr. Anonymous
Okay look here gramps, Elvis was called Rock N Roll, VAN HALEN was *^%$#@! called hard rock alright? Like it or not, The Rolling Stones DID aproach hard rock for their album undercover to compete with other genres at the time. So hard rock is GOING to be left in, IS that understood?
You seem to have trouble reading and have completely missed the point: Elvis was called hard rock. Do you have any references to Van Halen being called hard rock early in their carreer? I seem to rememeber that they were tought of as a heavy metal act along the lines of Led Zep and Alice Cooper. You're going to have to do more to establish hard rock as a legitimate genre and not just a haphazard classification of recent redefintion due to historical anomalies and accidents. I'm not even sure the term hard rock was much at all used during the mid 80s. Histoical arguments need support, not "IS that understood" beligerance. Why not just jump to corporate Americas' "classic rock" tag?  Again, read before you jump. - Mr Anoymous
Okay so what you are basically saying is that yes they WERE hardrock but they are not considered hardrock anymore right? Well that's the thing see their hardrock album was released in the 1980s. I mean it does not sound DATED AT ALL. Seriously, compare a Van Halen album to the album UNDERCOVER an you will know what I mean. So yes, the HARDROCK GENRE will stay. -TheBird
wow, neither of you know how to sign your posts. Joeyramoney 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Hardrock to their music genre 

message: Why doesn't the sidebar show the Rolling Stones as belonging to the "classic rock" genre?  If you go to the classic rock article, you'll see that the Stones are specifically listed as one of the top classic rock artists.  I'd add that genre myself, but this omission seems so bizarre that I want to discuss it.  -- Skyfaller 02:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the Stones not categorized as classic rock? 

message: Originally an R&B outfit that recorded rock n' roll as well as ballads on their first album, they later took up country blues, country music, psychedelia, and reggae. Starting in 1965 lead singer and harpist
It makes it sound as if R&B and R&R do not include ballads.  Both abound in ballads.  Tell Me, presumably the song in question, could be considered either genre.  Also, "harp" should go.  Half the folks reading this article [and it is for them and NOT for us (opinion) that it is written]], will not know that a harp is what most folks call a harmonica.  However I am very reluctant to make this change myself due to the nature of the waters around here.  Filled with sharks and piranas and who knows what. Carptrash 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now let's look at this bit . . 

message: for getting that ticket sales pitch outta here.  Though, the Stones seem to be having some trouble selling tickets as the boyfriend of someone i know is a minor league hockey player and the whole team was given tickets to see them a tour or so ago.  It's one way to get a large goup of very rowdy guys in. Carptrash 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, no problem. That edit was in violation of WP:SPAM anyhow. - Mike | Trick or Treat 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thanks, Mike 

message: added disco as a genre for the Stones - but it does not seem to have lasted long.  Actually, it's not as silly as it sounds.  When you read Max Weinberg's interview with Charlie Watts in Weinberg's book The Big Beat, Watts clearly says . . . . . ... but on second thought, let's not even go there.  Carptrash 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I notice that some wit  

message: I'm thinking of starting a Rolling Stones WikiProject. Any thoughts or comments? Wwwhhh 12:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck.  you might want to read all the talk and see what you'd be getting into.  Carptrash 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject: The Rolling Stones 

message: Mike, to change the Genres section with the redundant genres of Rock n Roll, Rock and Blues Rock, and then to insert a command to editors that orders editors to "Do not change the genres without first discussing on the talk page." - and then to not comment on your changes is hypocritical. It is also hypocritical call the replacements "BS genres" after earlier scolding this editor on Wiki requirements of civility. Moreover, it is more than hypocritical or evasive to make changes without referring to the on going discussion on genres held on this page - it is cowardly. 
You are playing cop while breaking the law. Mr Anoymous
:I'm pretty close to just giving up at this point. Not once have I heard the sontes referred to as a reggae band anywhere on a respected music site. Why should we label them as such on Wikipedia? You seem unwilling to waver one bit on your position, despite the fact that the vast majority of people would disagree with you assessment of the Stones' genres. I guess that I should either request this page be protected so that instead of edit warring we are forced to actually discuss the changes, or I can just give up out of disgust. - Mike (Talk) 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I suggest that you read WP:OWN. - Mike (Talk) 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back To Genres 

message: Because that is what it says in the Former Members section and I for one, believe that there is life after the Rolling Stones.  However, I can't figure out the codes, so . . ..  Carptrash 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So . . .. is [[Bill Wyman]] really '''DEAD'''? 

message: I redone a lot of the first section. Much of what was removed was fannish and very uninformative, while crucial facts such as what kind of show the band performed in London clubs and as a touring band and what studios the Stones recorded in were added. No doubt this will need editing and some points may be argued. - Mr Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.109.9 (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information you are removing seems to be rather critical to the article.  Arbitrarily shortening the article to meet your idea of what it should look like seems rather unproductive.  All of the content you are removing is verifiable and not trivial.  Please stop POST HASTE.  If you have a problem with the content, take it up HERE and discuss it EXTENSIVELY with others that are editing this article.  Do not take it upon yourself to remove, wholesale, entire sections without just cause. --Jayron32 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Extensive Edits 

message: OK.  Officially I am declaring a truce with Mr. Anonymous.  The fact is, this article is an unreferenced mess, its too long, and he has done well to try to clean it up and draw attention to this article.  A band as important as the Stones deserves an article that is up to Good Article or even Featured Article status.  Below I will paste the Good Article Criteria so we can have a set of goals to focus on in editing this article:
I have rewritten part of the lead, added appropriate references, and reformatted some of the other references to meet WP:CITE guidelines.  I have also added a new history section (1960-1962) that I think is much tighter in its language and avoids the wandering and triviality of many of the other sections.  It might be a bit short, but the way the article is now, we should err on the side of short rather than too long.  At last check, this article is 63 kb.  The MOS asks that articles are less than 32 kb if possible.  I would like to see this article get closer to that if possible.  
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is well written.
#:a (prose):  b (structure):  c (MoS):  d (jargon): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (inline citations):  c (reliable):  d (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
By the GA criteria above, this article falls short on the following aspects:
:Criteria 1) It may be well organized, but the prose is a mess.  It's too long and wandering in places, and hard to follow.  We need to hit the important stuff and leave out the trivia.  Individual albums and songs should probably be extensively reviewed in their own articles as appropriate; we don't need to go into exhaustive detail for every stones song ever written here.  A survey of the highlights is probably what we want.
:Criteria 2) The article is NOT well referenced.  All assertions of fact should be referenced to reliable sources.  I have added a few more refs, the AMG reference is especially extensive.  It is a good model for length and depth; we could do no better than emulate its author in fixing this article.
:Criteria 3) Broad is not wandering.  This article does NOT stay focused, and we need to fix that.
:Criteria 4) NPOV does not seem a problem, but we need to avoid being too overly glowing about the Stones, all criticism (whether positive or negative) should be cited to reputable critical sources.
:Criteria 5) If everyone collaborates nicely we should be able to avoid edit wars.  The main way to do this is to write from sources.  Find the reference FIRST then add the information FROM IT and provide a proper ref tag to cite it.
:Criteria 6) I haven't even LOOKED at the images, but we should check each one to insure it is GFDL compatable.
There it is.  Any comments?  --Jayron32 06:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up push for this article 

message: I hope he GA criteria will govern edits. I made a minor edit when I removed reference to Oldham in the image line that follows. It's more complex than that. He tried to clean up the Stones when he signed them by having them wear matching suits. He later bought in the the Little Richard model of alienating the parents, but this was an organic fit for the Stones. It's hard to see any manager capable of having the Stones toning it down, especially when they were so successful with their image. 
Also, the Steve Van Zandt quote is literally fannish, and exactly the kind of thing that has bloated the entry. Also the fact that the Stones have consistently placed their albums in the US top five and are usually the top grossing act the years that they tour should be restored. These are significant facts and should be in the intro. I'll edit with that in mind later.
One way to trim the article is to really trim to pot bust paragraphs. One short paragraph briefly describing the bust and it's effect on the band, particularly Brian and the social context would do. The rest ought to be shipped off to a new article. Later Mr Anonymous." 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.178.164 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of New Intro Paragraph 

message: I object to the current state of the lineups section. As it stands, each member is listed as playing numerous instruments. While they do all occasionally contribute on others, I think it is misleading, unnecessary and cumbersome to state, for instance, that Mick Jagger plays bass and keyboards. I suggest scrapping the occasional contributions and leave just their main instruments (ie lead vocals, bass, R/L guitar and drums) or to at least put the other instruments in brackets, like Mick Jagger - lead vocals, (and occasional guitar, harmonica, keyboards).Wwwhhh 11:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lineups" 

message: The name "Bradford" appears twice as an early member of the band.  He is not accorded a first name, nor any other biographical details, not even a link.  Who is this mystery man? --King Hildebrand 13:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bradford 

message: I hope nobody minds my removal of the flag as part of my copyedit. I was influenced by WP:FLAG and by my conviction that the icon adds nothing, aesthetically or informationally to the article. --Guinnog 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes obviously people DO mind or they wouldn't keep putting it back.  Until there is an agreed ruling, please stop removing flags, just because you don't like them.  ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire, I love flags. Please give your justification in terms of encyclopedic utility for why the flag is desirable. --John 22:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't need to justify.  There is no policy or guideline in WP:FLAG that flags are not allowed in infoboxes, if there is please point it out.  IMO unless a nationality is in dispute there is no reason to delete.  ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have it wrong. This is an on-line encyclopedia; anything for which there is not a consensus to keep can be freely removed by any editor. If there is an encyclopedic reason to keep it, now would be a good time to bring it up. On a common sense basis, why should an article on the Rolling Stones carry a little England flag? Why not a Union Jack? Have the band, separately or jointly said that they consider themselves to be English, rather than British or European? For all these downsides, I am not seeing a single benefit. Their country of origin is England, as the article makes clear. Adding the flag adds nothing at all to that. --John 23:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you are basically saying you are right and anyone who disagrees with your opinion is wrong?  I think that's a very narrow-minded view.  I prefer flags, BUT I don't add them to articles that don't have them, yet you feel you can delete flags from articles where you have had minimal imput, and dispite the fact that there is no agreed guideline?  BTW you must be being very "selective" about which flags you are taking out because otherwise you would have many edit wars on your hand.  How many American flags have you deleted (just out of curiosty?)  You asked if anyone objected to the flag's removal, I made clear my objection.  I did not add the flag someone else did so I'm obviously not the only one who wants it to stay.  As far as why it should be an England flag instead of a Union Jack?  The England flag is simply more accurate.  Same as people put Scottish flags eg Deacon Blue or the Welsh flag eg Super Furry Animals eg Manic Street Preachers. Personally I like seeing different countries flags and it is educational. ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never make multiple edits solely to remove flagcruft; but I always remove them when removing vandalism or copy-editing articles in the normal course of my work here. As there is no policy or guideline that suggests having these flags there, and as all discussion I have seen at the talk page of WP:FLAGCRUFT seems to agree with my view that these flags do more harm than good, I am happy that I am doing the right thing. Far from saying that I am 'right and anyone who disagrees with [my] opinion is wrong', I am explaining why consensus has determined this not to be a good use of the flags. If you are able to give an encyclopedic reason why you think the flags add value to the article (why, for example,  carries more information than England), feel free to share it and I may be able to reconsider my opinion. Until then, --John 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So all the discussions on WP:FLAGCRUFT agree with you... Really? In that case why is there a discussion at all?  Why hasn't your view been implemented and made official then?  I am now taking this discussion to WP:FLAGCRUFT.  BTW, I noticed you never replied to how many US flags you had deleted, or do you only select English flags? ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that is a good idea to take it to a more centralised discussion. I suggest you focus on providing an encyclopedic reason for your preference; my contributions are of course available to you should you wish to analyse how many different flags I have removed of different nations. I have never made such an analysis; I tend to focus on making improvements to articles, and I'm certainly not selectively removing England flags, that is not the point. The point is whether having such a flag provides any added value to the article, and if so what does this added value consist of. In the absence of a coherent reason, I believe we should remove it. I would feel just the same whatever flag it was. --John 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: User robertjohnsonrj has made a proposal for a Rolling Stones WikiProject. Please sign your name in support. (I added this here instead of at the old WPRS talk section above so it would be noticed more easily). Wwwhhh 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Rolling Stones II 

message: This has been mentioned by me before.
1) Not every Stones album needs to be mentioned and the mindless listings of songs without attaching signiface to them is pointless and bloating. It's also one of the main reasons this entry is too long, way beyond Wiki standards .
2) If you want way too much info on the 1967 Drug Busts and Trials in Wiki, start an entry on the drug bust. This isn't an abridged Stones bio. 
Mr Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.20.5.146 (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought that the 32 KB guideline was no longer operative, being based, as it was, on a more or less obsolete software limitation on editing on old versions of Internet Explorer, but apparently it still is favored.  My apologies.  It's a stupid guideline, though.  Britannica articles on big subjects can go on and on, and we have even less reason to make articles short.  The whole "no sub-articles" + "32 KB articles maximum" business creates, I think, a tendency towards articles that aren't as comprehensive as they should be. But whatever. john k 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't closely looked at the article recently.  What in particular do you regard as "indulgent fannish writing"?  In terms of the size of the articles, having looked over Wikipedia:Article size, it seems clear that a size of up to 50 KB is acceptable nowadays.  If the specific content is bad, then by all means change or remove it, but I don't see that mentioning each album they release qualifies as too much detail.  An album is a major event in the life of a pop music act, and regular studio albums, at least, ought to be mentioned, as should tours, as otherwise there's no place to get an overview of this stuff. john k 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasonable and Needed Reductive Edits: This Aint No Abridged Bio 

message: Within the band, however, the two principal writers were continuing their wresting of power (and in Richards' case, the stealing of girlfriend Anita Pallenberg) from their former leader Jones, whose mental stability was steadily deteriorating.
Despite the tension, and aided by an excellent sound from up-and-coming producer Jimmy Miller, Jagger and Richards produced some of their most memorable work...
Unencumbered by Jones and strengthened with the fluent blues playing of Taylor, the rhythm section could put its foot down. Their producer, Jimmy Miller, called them "the greatest white rhythm section I've ever seen."
1969 saw the end of the band's 1963 contract with Decca Records. The intervening years since they had signed with the record company had seen them become global superstars,
Sticky Fingers ... continued where Let It Bleed had left off, featuring one of their best known hits, "Brown Sugar", the country-influenced "Wild Horses", the moody "Moonlight Mile" (featuring Paul Buckmaster's evocative string arrangement and one of Jagger's finest vocal performances), and a version of Marianne Faithfull's "Sister Morphine" about her own ambiguous relationship with heroin. ...However, all the songs were credited as usual to "Jagger/Richards", which frustrated Taylor and perhaps contributed to his eventual exit from the group.
Mick Jagger began to move in more elevated social circles. He married the Nicaraguan model Bianca Perez Moreno de Macias, and the couple's jet-set lifestyle put further distance between himself and Richards. 
They eventually decided to quit Britain for the South of France, the band members taking to this enforced change of lifestyle with varying degrees of success. Bill Wyman, in particular, soon felt at home in his new mountainside house and became friendly with French painter Marc Chagall.
When it finally arrived, Goats Head Soup (UK #1; US #1) (1973) featured strong tracks such as "Winter," "Heartbreaker" and the Keith Richards-sung "Coming Down Again," and was memorable largely for the hit single "Angie", popularly believed to be about David Bowie's new wife, but in reality was another of Richards' odes to Anita Pallenberg.
Taylor shocked the music world by announcing he was quitting The Rolling Stones.
Jagger and Richards seemed to channel much of the personal turmoil surrounding them into renewed creative vitality. 
"Start Me Up", (first recorded in 1977 as a reggae number but never released) showing that Richards was still capable of writing monster guitar parts of the same calibre as ten or fifteen years earlier....Upon its release Tattoo You was praised by critics as a solid effort, ironically, and a true return to form for the group.
And after much time to cool off, Jagger and Richards appeared to bury the hatchet, and, with a new understanding and appreciation for each other, re-focused on the recording of a new album as The Rolling Stones, which would eventually become Steel Wheels 
And how did 59k being OK quietly turn into 50K being acceptable? Hhmm, the sounds of standards shifting. 
Mr Anonymous
::::Keith did not write the song "Angie" for Anita Pallenberg, nor was it written for David Bowie's wife (as correctly stated here).  "Angie" could have been called "Mangey or Raunchy" as Mick once was quoted as saying.  ~~Absolute 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.115.101 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does only a little of this seem fannish? 

message: The founding section needs lots of work; there's no need to list every one who was in the band for a minute. Also, for some reason Jagger and Richards were at the same rehearsal under the same circumstances as Ian Stewart but they are not regarded as founding members. The founding member who organized the whole thing is Brian Jones. That is the only difference between him and the rest. Sooo, once again: this article is too long and a lot of trivia needs to go. Mr Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.115.101 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Lineups 

message: This talk page is designated for discussions about improving the Rolling Stones article. Please go to the Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka and Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka pages to learn about or work on those articles. A user has had previously an interest in this although he and I came to a resolution on this subject today at the talk page, but still other people can help edit to improve articles. They must be kept NPOV and Tuathal has told me he will try to help in that regard. The article histories and talk page histories have relevant info but there's basically a name spelling change that a band underwent in 1972 that created some confusion and thus he and I decided to have two articles to solve a simple dispute. Emerman 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka and Joujouka 

message: I'm going to be looking in to subjecting edits to review as a way to mitigate vandalism. 
Any thoughts? 
Mr Anonymous 
(Kinda bums me, I'll have to go legit and offically sign my stuff. Oh well) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.115.101 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Rise In Vandalism 

message: How come the main image is of them in 1963? Surely a more recent one would be more suitable, and have that one moved down to 'early years' or something? Ka5hmir 07:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image? 

message: I see that this article was at one time a Featured article or FA candidate. However, the article is not listed as a Good Article . As part of the Rock music WikiProject, it is suggested that an article achieve Good Article (GA) status before having it's candidacy re-newed. So be sure that points from any previous Features article candidate (FAC) archives and peer reviews are taken and applied to the article, and shoot for a GA nomination. Good luck! -- Reaper  X 22:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on GA status

message: I've heard from some sources that the Stones were founded in '63, but here and and in some other such places, it says '62.  Which one is it? MaulYoda 12:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1962 or 1963? 

message: Although I like their music I thought they were terrible live. Is this mentioned in the article? ProtoCat 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow someone has a cheerful attitude. Anyhow that is one thing I always remembered about the Stones and have heard others say the same thing. Of course I do not know how to document that. But I was seeing if others felt the same. The same can be said of the Beatles. The Beatles had little live performance credibility after they hit
 big. I think they were more of recording band. ProtoCat 19:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are missing my point. rock or pop bands do basically 2 things play live and record. I suppose there must be some who have bad recordings but play well. Rundgren for example is another terrible live perfomer but great recorder. i think these would be interesting facts in some of these articles. but how to source them? Also when you listen to remastered Stones and Beatles recordings they are not very good either. Was it the producer? And I am checking if others have the same ideas and maybe we can find some sources. ProtoCat 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  has anyone seen them live? 

message: The article mentions that Guitarplayer magazine named Mick T. and Keith "best guitar duo ever", but I can't find a ref to this title anywhere. So just a heads up to anone who wants to look for it. Stan weller 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "best guitar duo ever"

message: I just tried to edit a small mistake but couldn't. The word 'stromg' should be string I guess in this part: 
The release in May 1968 of the single "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and, later that year, the album Beggars Banquet (UK #3; US #5), saw the band return to its blues roots aided by producer Jimmy Miller Richards started using open tunings, most prominently a 5 stromg  open-G tuning (with the lower 6th string removed)heard on the 1969 single "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar" (Sticky Fingers, 1971), "Tumbling Dice"
If someone who is allowed to edit this topic would correct this I'd be very happy. Thanks
Malice1982 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small grammar error 

message: Um, excuse me, but why in the effing hell are the Rolling Stones listed as Nu-Metal, Post-hardcore, Reggae, Country, and just about every other rock genre? When you try to edit this it gets changed right back. They most certainly are not any of those genres. They are, however, Rock n' Roll, Blues-Rock, and Hard Rock. This article needs serious changes.
Shouldn't this be changed to just Rock/Pop or Rock & Roll like the Beatles have it, and then a mention can be made of how diverse their music is later in the article?  I would change it myself, but I am not very good at making edits bigger than just removing a few words or correcting spelling and grammar.  Sittingonfence 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre List 

message: The Beatles article has a section called "Musical evolution" and I can see something like that fitting on the Stones' page. It read like a good summation point (may not the right phrase to use) but would give the article the opportunity to go into detail on the Stones' music without having to clog the main text. Thoughts on this? Stan weller 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical evolution

message: While a number of them have been very good, it seems like we are losing a lot of information that isn't so much POV, but merely lacking a source or specific quote from the band. Someone just lopped off the fact that Some Girls was very much considered the band's return to form and that kind of information should be included. The article is now starting to read like a list of albums and the songs featured without really going into detail about the times and what the band was going through. Stan weller 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Deletions

message: The "The" is omitted on the album covers of Live Licks, Voodoo Lounge, Flashpoint, Steel Wheels, and Dirty Work - among others. And according to the legal notice at the bottom of the band's official website, the Musidor trademark is simply "Rolling Stones". Ribonucleic 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Bigger Bang's cover reads "therollingstones". they were just trying to be hip. pearl jam, nine inch nails, sonic youth, rolling stones. Stan weller 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they even "The" Rolling Stones any more? 

message: and when I said "we should" I mean NOW Zephead999 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should talk about how the stones alwayse evolved with the times 

message: I think this section needs looking at. Many of the titles are incorrect and release dates maybe wrong. Some are not even Stones releases - should they be removed?
Actually most are correct, just incorrectly titled. Just need to be fixed. Stan weller 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vidéography 

message: This band has a hell of a lot longer history than the Beatles or Led Zeppelin but is managing to have a shorter and shorter article by the day. Maybe some quotes? I stress the inclusion of sections dedicated to an examination of their music. Myabe i'll just go ahead and do it. Stan weller 06:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking the Stones deserve a WikiProject. Almost every other major band has one. There are a lot of pages out there connected to the Stones. Stan weller 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems stunted 

message: The Stones now have a WikiProject. I encourage everyone (including Mr Anonymous) to become a member. Stan weller 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should join, both the project and wikipedia. Stan weller 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling Stones]]

message: How does everyone feel about quotes from the band? The great thing about the Stones is that we have a large amount of interviews with every member from over a forty year period. I think the use of quotes to help tell the overall story would work well, particularly when it comes to things like Richards' meeting Jagger on the train platform or Jagger's response to Taylor quitting and Taylor's own response as well. Stan weller 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: I've been reading the out of print "Standing In The Shadows", a bio of Keith by Greenfield and will post a full citation, or least trying to. It has many interviews with Keith as well as Ian Stewart.
A couple things stuck me. One, the band regarded itself as an Rhythym n' Blues band, and the London R n'B scence revolved around Korner and Cyril Davies years before the Stones appeared. Korner was the facilitator of the Stones meeting each other. Everyone but Wyman was in his orbit. Two, the T.A.M.I show was one of the most notable events of the first tour. The did in fact do what few other acts have ever done, successfully follow James Brown. 
While we are at it, it would be good to bring that Jagger started recording guitar and other instruments with "Sticky Fingers" - at least I think that's when he hopped in. 
Mr Anonymous
: Yes! I just re-read about Korner and Davies, too. The Stones go into some detail in "According to the Rolling Stones" about them. I wondered if they would be to minor a detail. I'm for the inclusion. I also just put in the mention of the Crawdaddy Club. Their eight month residency was also very important. Off topic: Were Ike and Tina Turner and the Ronettes on their first UK tour? I thought it was only Little Richard, Bo, and the Everly Brothers. Stan weller 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also notice that Korner and Blues Incorporated have articles on wikipedia. Stan weller 18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree on the inclusion of Korner, Davies, and Blues Inc. Very necessary to the telling of the Stones' history. Like you said it connects them to the booming scene in London. Stan weller 03:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring Omissions: ALexis Korner and the T.A.M.I show.

message: Two ideas for separate sections (possilby even new articles) keep coming to mind. One was the band's musical evolution. This could easily be it's own article, complete with quotes from the band and media, and would offer a place for more in depth coverage of their music without having to clutter the main article with breakdowns of the albums/songs. The second (and possibly less necessary) is a section dealing with the Stones performances as a live band. This has been a focus of the band's career (particularly as of late, as they've been derided in some circles as more of a live band now than a recording one) and the evolution of their stage show from clubs to theatres, theatres to arenas, arenas to stadiums, is an important one to take note of. A lot of people would take this as an opportunity to wax poetic on Jagger's stage personas, but I could see this being a section/article more firmly entrenched in the development of the music, e.g. Taylor era vs. Wood era. Stan weller 03:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New sections/articles

message: I think you said you have a Keith biography. Would you mind seeing if you could cite some of the claims around the section regarding his arrest and trial in 77? That or delete/restructure the setences. Stan weller 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. A