Talk:The Rolling Stones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

The Rolling Stones is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	To-do list for The Rolling Stones:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary. all images need sources and fair use rationales. The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone the sections themselves are extremely long. It seems like they could be reorganized so that instead of a chronology of the band, each section focused on one element of the band and how it changed throught the band's history. 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 Fannish tone.

Contents 1 Suggestion 2 Added Hardrock to their music genre 3 Response 4 Why are the Stones not categorized as classic rock? 5 Genres Explained 6 Brian Jones, harpist? 7 Now let's look at this bit . . 8 thanks, Mike 9 I notice that some wit 10 WikiProject: The Rolling Stones 11 Genres 12 Tom Wolfe quote 13 Introduction 14 Back To Genres 15 So . . .. is Bill Wyman really DEAD?

[edit] Suggestion

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)

[edit] Added Hardrock to their music genre

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)

[edit] Response

Bird, you're putting putting words into my mouth, and still have trouble reading. You have have also taken issue with supposed positions of mine that exist only in your imagination. I never said whether the Stones played hard hard rock or not or should be regarded as hard rock or not. The issue is entirely somthing else: should a sub genre should be included or not?

The sub genre of hard rock is problematic and too vague to be of use. You have completely ignored the repeated reference to Elvis being call hard rock. There's a historical context to the phrase, and it's latest redefinition is ad hoc. Rock n' Roll already covers whatever hard rock might include. The Stones don't define themselves as hard rock, and certainly don't use the phrase The following has has already mentioned, but has been totally neglected by you: Keith has said he is more about the roll than the rock. To include hard rock as a genre (which is at best a sub genre) needs more of an argument than one asserting that the Stones have played some really hard rock n' roll in the 80s. "Route 66" and "Not Fade Away" from the Stones' first album rock as hard as anything anybody else has ever done. - Mr Anonymous.

[edit] Why are the Stones not categorized as classic rock?

Why doesn't the sidebar show the Rolling Stones as belonging to the "classic rock" genre? If you go to the classic rock article[1], 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)

"Classic Rock" is a type not of music pe se - but a designation of a radio format made by radio executives. So the Stones did not and do not play "classic rock" Radio stations describe the music they create as being "classic rock" . There is a big difference. It would be accurate to say that the Stones music is heard on stations that play so-called "classic rock" Davidpatrick 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genres Explained

The Stones have played all genres listed. Removing Rock n' Roll and replacing it with rock music and blues rock further demonstrates ignorance of what the Genres section is for. And, yes, the Stones are an excellent reggae band. That is not to say the are reggae, something the Genres section does not require. - Mr Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.123.5 (talk • contribs).

Hi, just because The Stones have recoreded a song or an album in a specific genre does not necessarily merit its inclusion in the article. The genre section is used mainly to convey what most of their music is classified as, and should thus be kept to a bare minimum. - Mike | Talk 13:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike would you care to reference your Genre Criterium, and explain why "blues rock" and "rock" are better genre designations than "rock n' roll"? - Mr. Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.123.5 (talk • contribs).

I agree that rock 'n' roll is a good example and it should be added as well. After all, The Stones have recorded a song called "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll". It is User:RattleandHum that objects to that. Blues rock is a good genre because of the significant blues influence in the Stones' music. BTW, I would recommend creating an account if you have not already. The registration process requires no personal information, and you can even make your username "Mr. Anonymous" if you like :-). - Mike | Talk 03:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Blues-rock" is not a good genre. Know of any rock and roll that isn't "blues rock"? Mr Anonymous

Excuse my brackets, but it turns out that, unknown to me (who was more or less there), that blues-rock is now a type of music - of which the Stones were/are founding members. I'd say that Dion and the Belmonts might be R&R that is not blues rock, but in general i agree with Mr. Anon - except that i agree that he should register up. Carptrash 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is actually more private to have an account, as then nobody can trace your IP. - Mike | Talk 20:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not the way I do it. Mr Really Anonymous

Just the fact that you do not sign using your IP address does not affect anything. Your IP is still publically logged in the page history. This would not happen if you had an account. Then User:Mr Anonymous (or whatever use account name you would choose) would be recorded in the page history. In addition, you would have access to features that non-registered users do not. - Mike | Talk 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, you can keepa running track of your contributions even if your IP changes. - Mike | Talk 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah - Mr Anonymous

Suit yourself. We have plenty of great anon contributors around like this guy. The only thing that I ask is that you sign your comments with four tiles like this (~~~~). You can keep signing as Mr. Anonymous...just add that sig afterwards. Hope you reconsider at some point! Check out this page and maybe it will change your mind. Happy editing! - Mike | Talk 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were gonna let me suit myself? Kinda a slightly passive agresive there, Mike. Oh well, it's still a nah. - Mr Aonymous

So . . .... back to the Stones and the genre thing - - - ahhh heck, this gossipy stuff is more fun anyway. I'm a "Suit yourself" as in "Suit yourself." I susoect that your need for privacy has nothing to do with tracked Whatever Numbers or the need to have an edit count. I, for example, have no clue as to how many edits i've done, or how to find out. The advantage opinion to registering is that you get a user page and these sorts of conversations can take place there in a bit more privacy then there is at the Rolling Stones article. Carptrash 23:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Genres I found some technical problems with the "genre" sidebar. While the Stones took cues from both country and reggae, it cannot be reasonably argued that they are either a reggae or a country band, or that these two styles are even among the most visible of their influences. The number of straight reggae and country songs released by the Stones adds up to less than a handful each, and doesn't represent even a significant minority of their recorded output. I changed the Genres bar to its current form, and I can't imagine anyone taking issue with the genres presented (rock and roll, blues, R&B, blues-rock, hard rock, british invasion). The only potentially controversial inclusion is "psychedelic rock." I realize that the Stones aren't thought of as a psychedelic rock band, for a number of reasons, but psychedelia in general played a very important role in their development during the mid-60s. They released an entire psychedelic album, and their records from Aftermath through Beggars Banquet showed at least some measure of psychedelic influence. Furthermore, a number of their most popular, important, and innovative hit singles were heavily informed by psychedelia, such as "Paint it Black," or "Have You Seen Your Mother," or even "Street Fighting Man." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.137.58 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for those eidts! I removed a few of the genres there -- Psychedelic rock being one of them -- but otherwise I think that they are an accurate depiction. - Mike | Trick or Treat 02:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike, I think you have odd ideas of what a genre might be; "British Invasion" is emblematic of how you are challenged and misinformed. Blues, Country and Reggae are proper genres all of which the Stones have played and have played very well. Pretty telling is your removal of blues - I be very interested as to why blues does not belong. You have implied you know what a genre is but have provided us with know idea how you imagine it. So far your judgement is suspect and your premises are all but impossible to discern. - Mr Anonymous
P.S. You're incorrect about the influence of psychedelia. They have recorded many songs of the flavor in the throughout their history, but it does not belong as a genre. The point is that you seem to have spotty knowlege about the Stones to add to dubious critical skills.

Yeah, counrtry should to go, reggae should go and psychedelia needs to come back. British Invasion is not in the picture as a genre, though i wonder if there is an entry for it? So... is this one of those places where we each hack away at the list or are we possibly going to arrive at some sort of consensus here?

The Rolling Stones have never been explained to me as a Reggae band, nor have I ever heard any songs of theirs that were Reggae. Not to say that they've never recorded any, but I really don't believe it merits inclusion. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mick Jagger's singing on Peter Tosh's Don't look Back notwithstanding, Reggae has got to go. I'll even do it, if it has not already been done. Carptrash 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Carptrash, you are poorly qualified to comment. Genres is for what genres they have recorded or played. If you are unaware of any Reggae tunes the Stones have recorded you really should excuse yourself from this discussion. Mike, you still haven't referenced anything as to what a genre is or isn't. Your responses have so far been ad hoc. - Mr Anonymous

Well being poorly qualified has never stopped me in the past and i'm not about to start now. To me Genre means that one can say "The Rolling Stones are a __________ [fill in the blank] band, and Reggae just does not fit. By the way, what are the Stones great Reggae songs that make them a Reggae Band?

Carptrash, you'll have do do better than admitting to being poorly qualified, and then justify your reverts with the the equivilant of "because I say so" - which has never been a good argument. Standards are a little bit higher than that for this entry, and your reasoning is expected be - well - reasoned. Encyclopedia entries avoid judgements about wether a band or arstist as "great" or not. Mr Anonymous

Okay - Fine - so roll out your qualifications, your good arguments, your song list - - put me to shame and let's get on with life. In any case this is ALL subjective, and since you seem to care about labeling these things and i really don't, have at it. Carptrash 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard a bigger cop out than it's "all subjective" - it simply isn't and never has been. Mr Anonymous

You know, i keep waiting for your objective reasoning as to why the Stones are either a country or a reggae band and all i seem to get is what is wrong with my way of doing things. Sir, [or Madam] please explain yourself. What is your objective reason as to why the Stone should be considered a country band? Carptrash 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you had quit. Anyways, I'll quote from my previous posting since you seem to need help with reading. I have in fact addressed the issue of what is a genre. As I said above "Genres is for what genres they have recorded or played." I'll further help you with your less than close reading be pointing out that several requests for explanations of what is a genre that contradicts this. Of course none of this should matter to your since it's "ALL subjective". To follow your argument to it logical conclusion, nothing can really mean anything. - Mr Anonymous

Well certainly all this babbling of yours does not really mean anything. And i don't see why the fact that i suffer from dyslexia needs to come into this discussion. So you make up a definition of what the Genre slot is for and then everyhting that you do after that is Objective, Nice trick. I suppose that you'll be over to the Beatles next, who are listed mearly as a rock band and explain that they played Country and R&B and Broadway and Soul and a bunch more and get that fixxed up? Carptrash 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC) PS wander over to Music genre and check out the section on subjectivity. Then . . .... re-read your last posting to me, then . . . ... have fun.

I'm sorry to here that you "suffer" from dyslexia - something I've been diagnosed with, but I'll never use it as an excuse mistake it for stupidity. I'm wondering what part of the article on Music Genre is relevant to this discussion? Mr Anonymous

"Stupidity?" Whatever. The answer to your question is the part that says, "One of the problems with the grouping of music into genres is that it is a subjective process that has a lot to do with the individual's personal understanding and way of listening to music." It's been real. Carptrash 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody ignorant wrote the Music Genres entry: it should never be used as a guide. Mr Anonyomous

this was posted [not by me]

(I hope that we can agree on this. It's clear that nobody feels the Stones are a Reggae or country band.)

I think it is pretty clear that Mr. A DOES feel that way. Carptrash 03:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Stones have played the genres. Will sombody please explain what the genre designations means besides styles played. The Music Genre entry cited above, besides being sub par - has nothing to say about what a Wiki Genre field is for. Also the insistance of inlcuding blues rock is ridiculous. It is not a genre and the Stones would never refer to themselves a blues rock. For that matter who does call themselves blues rock? I can't think of anyone who does. Also removing Ryhthm and Blues is evidence of extreme ignorance. Mike, you apparently know little about the history of the band. The Stones regarded themselves as R & B very much so in their early years. Mr Anonymous

I am reading the back of the EP entitled The Rolling Stones that came out in 1964. On it i find, Their approach to their music is far closer to the brash hard-driving Chicago style rhythm and blues than the majority of groups . .... and on their first LP, also 1964, I read, a raw, exciting basic approach to Rhythm and Blues.... Sorry, R&R has got to stay. Carptrash 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Carptrash, who said R&R had to go? Again, please read b4 you jump. Mr Anonyomous

Well as Dorothy said about Oz, "Things come and go so quickly around here." This genre thing is not a done deal, i don't think, and i'm just putting in some ideas as to why R&R should be included. Carptrash 15:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Carptrash. this page has a history tab. Check it b4 you recklessly toss out accusations. Another case of you not reading before you post. Mr Anonyomous

The R&B stuff i added was for Mike and not for you, MrA. And since when is quoting Dorothey Gayle recklessly tossing out accusations? Carptrash 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike, you need to delcare and support what you think the genres section is for. This has been requested of you several times. You also need to explain why you have repeatedly removed Rythm and Blues and inserted the challenged and questionable Blues Rock. In short, you need to explain and defend your changes . So far you have done this poorly - if at all. Mike you are also confusing candor and forthrightness for a lack of civility. If your going to play policeman with the genre section, you will need to know what wiki law you are trying to enforce is relevant. My guess is that you are depending on your opinion and not much else. You have displayed ignorance repeatedly, and have not once acknowleged your limited knowleged of the subjects at hand, particulary when you are wrong. Civil discussion depends on parties being able to admit to mistakes. - Mr Anonymous

Several times I have explained to you why I believe that the set of genres I have inserted into the page are correct. This is not based on any Wikipedia policy, but the clear fact that the Rolling stones are not and never have been a Reggae or country band. Blues rock is correct because of the heavy blues influence of many Stones' songs. And calling me "ignorant" is a personal attack whether you see it as such or not. I do not challenge your forthrightness and I think you are a great editor, but I am simply asking you to comment on the article, the issue, or my edits, not the person who made them (as explained at Wikipedia:No personal attacks). - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike, you have displayed ignorance. Your affected and false erudition regarding Stones and physchedlia is a glaring example of how in fact you are ignorant in regards to the Stones. (BTW, this will be the first time I have called you "ignorant" - but this is only in reference to your lack of knowlege of the Stones your above protestation is baseless. I do not know you well enough to venture if you are ignorant as a person. Time to stop playing the role of the victim, Mike. Especially since I have taken pains to detail your ignorance.)

You also have not explained what you think the Genre section is for. Your avoidance is of this repeated request is now appearing willful. It seems your criteria for what is a genre is purely personal. Why should I agree with it? I've explained my criteria for genre above and will leave it to you to read it and argue with it. If you were to, this would be a welcome change in approach on your part. It seems you have so you have not read it.

As for taking issue with trivia, this seems to be your prime tactic given how often you have ignored arguments contrary to you ill defined and badly explained and seldom even offered rartional. For instance, why have you again and again excised Ryhthm and Blues. How can anybody who knows anything about the Stones history not regard this as evidence of ignorance? - Mr Anonymous

Well. well: I may have been wrong, Mike; you have explained genre. Here is the relevant text.

" The genre section is used mainly to convey what most of their music is classified as, and should thus be kept to a bare minimum."

Apologies offered for my missing this. Nonetheless, why it this the determining standard of what the genres sections is to be? Where are you drawing this standard from besides your opinion? I still say genres governs what the Stones have played. The Stones are still a credible Country and Reggae band. They have played these genres in a way that would not emabarass those who play them in the main. - Mr Anonymous

Apology accepted, no harm done. I understand what you are saying, but often bands play some tracks outside of their normal area of epertise. This can be mentioned, but the genre overview should mostly display what the vast majority of their music can be classified as. - Mike | Trick or Treat 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, were now having a dialogue. However what we have so far seems to refer to your opinion of what a genre "should be" . Country and Reggae fall squarely into the Stones' "normal area of epertise". Can you refer to any other source to butress you definition of "Genre"? Mr - Anonymous

So if AC/DC suddenly decided to record a ballet, and they were quite good at it, would you list it under their genres? - Mike | Trick or Treat 04:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It stops when:

• I give up -which HAS happened
• You give up - which has NOT happened
• He gives up - which will NEVER happen.

Get it? Carptrash 05:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Carptrash, Ballet is not a music Genre, neither is an analogue Feature Films. Ignorance abounds. Mr Anonymous

Uhhhh, Mr. A - i said nothing about either ballet or analogue feature films. so please point that thing somewhere else. Carptrash 17:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops and sorry Carptrash. The honors do indeed go the Mike - Mr A

[edit] Brian Jones, harpist?

I've removed the reference to Brian Jones as a harpist a few times and it's been reinstated each time; here's my reasoning behind removing it, and I'll let all of you decide. Although BJ played harp on a few (I don't know how many) Stones' songs, he definitely was not their harp player, in the same way for example, George Harrison was not The Beatles' sitar player. BJ might have picked up the harp once in a while but he was the band's lead guitarist, who played harp on some recordings. He played recorder on Ruby Tuesday, yet is rightly not considered the band's recorder player; they do not have one. Wwwhhh 15:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Brian Jones, was a harpist and not an occaisonal one. In Rolling Stone interview where shortly after Brian Jone's death, Pete Townsend lamented the loss a Jones' harp playing. Remember Townsend saw the band a lot before in their early days. Brian Jones alos taught Mick Jagger how to play harp. Also how did you figure out that Jones was the lead guitar player? The harpist designation has been restored. Mr Anonymous

[edit] Now let's look at this bit . .

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)

[edit] thanks, Mike

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)

Of course, no problem. That edit was in violation of WP:SPAM anyhow. - Mike | Trick or Treat 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I notice that some wit

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)

[edit] WikiProject: The Rolling Stones

I'm thinking of starting a Rolling Stones WikiProject. Any thoughts or comments? Wwwhhh 12:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Genres

The Stones are in fact a very good country and reggae band. Once again, Mike, you have not answered many requests to find out why your personal opinion of what a genre is should prevail. Genres are for styles played. Mr Aonymous

Mr. Anon, your opinion is not the only one that matters. Clearly most do not believe that the Stones are a major reggae band. Sure they've recorded a Reggae or country song a few times, but this is not primarily what they are known for. It's ok to mention it in the article, but the genres section should describe the majority of their music at a glance. Please stop reverting the page or you will be blocked for violation of WP:3RR. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike, is that your opinion and your opinion only? This may well be the 10th time you've been asked to provide some support for your position on genres. Could you stop evading this point of argument and get on with it? - Mr Anonymous

Additinally: you have been more than happy to revert, often with no rational given or objections answered . Mr Anonymous

Have you actually read my comments? I think I've been very clear and stated many times my position and reasons for it. I did not add hard rock, BTW. Let me explain this to you one last time -- the genres section should represent the majority of the Stones' music rather than every genre they have ever performed. The infobox is meant to be an overview not a complete list of every genre they've ever played. See U2, The Beatles and AC/DC for examples. I'm not just making this up. I have no problem with mentioning that they have played other genres before in the article, but it should not be included in the overview infobox. How many of the Stones' top 40 hits were reggae? - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

None, but what has chart status to do with this discussion? - Mr A

My point is that all of the Stones' well known songs were rock and roll with some R&B influence, so that's what should be in the infobox. Like I said, if Frank Sinatra suddenly decided to record a hard rock album, and even if by your standards he was a great rock musician, I doubt that it would merit inclusion in the article unless the album became very popular. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

well now Frank did use the great R&R drummer Hal Blaine on his biggest hit ( opinion ) Strangers in the Night, so . . . ...... well . .... maybe ... . . . . ...... ? Carptrash 05:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mike here, the reggae reference in the infobox is incorrect for the reasons he has stated. (And Mr A, start signing your posts with tildes rather than print). Wwwhhh 07:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

it seems to me User:Wwwhhh, that you should ask rather then tell, but, for the record, Mr A is not a registered wikipedian, so using the 4~ will not help much, if at all. Carptrash 08:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The only definition of genres offered is one of Mike's opinion citing selective examples that form an ad hoc defintion. This discussion may be one of the few on Wiki about what a genre is.

The Stones are unique: they are a great country and reggae band with the recordings to back it up. Mick and Keith wrote a country hit (on the country charts) which the Stones never recorded: that would be "Party Doll". Many songs of both country and reaggae can be cited.

Trying to find another band that has recorded so many genres as the Stones is difficult. This is in part because of how long their carreer has been so extended. The band apporximately close would be the Grateful Dead. The Stones also have the distinction of doing these genres in a manner that would not emabarass those who are of these genres in the main. (This is something I've said above before.) To insist that the Stones are not of these genres is to miss what makes them so different and distinct from other bands in a major way. Contrary to what has been suggested, they have not been dillitants. Mr Anonymous

[edit] Tom Wolfe quote

"The Beatles want to hold your hand, but The Stones want to burn your town".

Is it not "burn your thumb"? 75pickup (talk • contribs)

no, it's "town"

[edit] Introduction

People need to stop changing the introduction. The intro I wrote several months ago for this article was concise, accurate, and superior to most of the edits that came after it. It was not POV at all. The stones "took up" reggae? The stones have less than a dozen songs with reggae influences, and virtually no straight reggae songs at all. That's just one example, but I feel like people keep making arbitrary changes to this stuff based on personal opinion rather than accuracy.

You may want to become more familiar with the Stones' catalogue. For starters, "Cherry Oh Baby" and "Too Rude" directly contradict your " virtually no straight reggae songs at all" assertion. Mr Anonymous

[edit] Back To Genres

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)

BTW, I suggest that you read WP:OWN. - Mike (Talk) 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Response:

Mike, this is not about your feelings, it's about your behaviour. You haven't answered any of my points immediately above. If you really believe that "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." your actions have not shown it to be so: You've made changes you have not discussed repeatedly. - Mr Anonymous

[edit] So . . .. is Bill Wyman really DEAD?

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)