Talk:The Rolling Stones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Former FA 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.
The Rolling Stones is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified The Rolling Stones as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Polski language Wikipedia.
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.
  • After cleanup, improve to good article status.
Priority 1 (top)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rolling Stones article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies


Contents

[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)

Ask almost anyone and they will call the Stones classic rock. They might have had a few songs that could be called country or reggie but they were still classic rock.66.174.93.102 05:35, 24 February 2007 (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

Can we have a vote as to whether remove reggae and country?Hoponpop69 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[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)

No, he's just on his own, I think. MaulYoda 12:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Extensive Edits

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).

This article is bloated with trivial gossip and bad writing. If your going to restore copy without comment, it's presumed you have no defense for. Mr Anonymous

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)

[edit] "Rather critical": Keith records himself sonoring

"Seems to be rather critical" is a poor answer. Just what is "critical" and not trivia. Why is it needed to have text reporting that Keith Richard recording himself snoring? Have you looked at the edits, or just noted that edits were made with no regard for what was improved? Mr Anonymous

The point is, you are making changes that many people are objecting to. Your only defense is "I don't like this". Please stop and take it up HERE ON THE TALK PAGE. Bring others into the discussion. Come to a consensus as to what information in the article is "trivial" and what is "critical". Taking it upon yourself to remove large amounts of content WITHOUT discussing it first is bad form. I have looked at the edits, and things like the history of songwriting and development of the Jaggar/Richards songwriting team, especially with regards to their style IS important to understanding the Rolling Stones as a band. This seems to be the information you are removing. I disagree that this information is trivial. Others are as well. Please stop. DISCUSS IT HERE FIRST. --Jayron32 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayron. I never said "I don't like this". Please, don't quote me with a fabrication. This is dishonest and an apology is forthcoming. Also, I did explain the edits. You, on the other hand have mde no defense of the restored text. A question remains: how is Keith recording himself snoring for 40 minutes "rather critical"? That wes your judgement and the absolute rediculousnes of it indicates that you may be poorly suited for the role you have assumed. You like to have and intelligent and informed editor making edits who can respond to arguments and not avoid them with might over right. I don't think you have shown yourself to be well qualified. Nonetheless, I will note what changes will be made here befoe making edits. Mr Anonymous

P.S. Please don't remove the heading ""Rather critical": Keith records himself sonoring."" If this page is for open discusion. you have no business playing censor. You have caused your own emabarassment. Unlike yourself, I do take pains to truthfully quote other editors. If you say something silly, you still have said it.

See what you are doing right now... that thing where you go to a talk page to discuss what changes you make; that is a Good Thing. Keep doing it. It makes it clearer what your intentions are. If you read the notes at the OTHER IP address you are using (creating a user account would allow you to read ALL messages left for you, and thus you could actually SEE MY APOLOGY), I will state it AGAIN, since it is clear you didn't read it: I am sorry that you feel that I have not justified restoring the content. I never said that the "Keith snoring" coment belonged in the article. You removed THOUSANDS OF WORDS from the article, and just because you happend to catch a few probably trivial comments does not mean that the bulk of your removal was justified. If you kill a criminal by blowing up a bus, it doesn't justified the deaths of all of the innocents you took out as well. Furthermore, even if it was justified, you never explained what you were doing at the talk page. You are now doing that, and THAT IS A GOOD THING. DON'T STOP. Also, do not accuse me of being uninformed on this topic. I have never, not once, personally attacked you about your abilities as an editor, and yet you do this to me. Should I get out the books I have on the Rolling Stones? I am not here to prove myself knowledgable on the Rolling Stones. I have not, am not, and will not accuse you of any ignorance. I am merely noting that I only have your actions to judge you by, and your actions at first were easy to interpret as vandalism. As an anonymous editor, I have no way of knowing how much experience you have, or what your intentions are, or anything else. I can only see you repeatedly remove huge chunks of content from the article, and when others put it back, rather than explaining yourself (as you have NOW DONE. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT. BUT YOU DID NOT AT THE TIME THAT THESE PROBLEMS AROSE) you simply asked other, experienced editors, to justify themselves. Conservative principles say that those proposing the largest changes to the established article have the most reason to explain themselves, not those maintaining the status quo. Again, by choosing to be an anonymous editor, we cannot tell your intentions or your experience. Ceating an account would solve this problem. You edits, since they only had short, unhelpful explanations, made it hard to interpret your actions, and it appeared that your only goal was to remove content from the article indiscriminately. Let me say this again in simple terms: I now understand your reasonings but only because you have started to leave comments on talk pages explaining what you are doing. If you want to avoid being falsely accused of anything in the future, use the talk page to explain what you are doing and why you are doing it. I again apologize if my initial comments made it seem like I was personally attacking you. I wasn't. I do want you to understand that my goal was to prevent wholesale destruction of articles by anonymous editors, which is common practice here at Wikipedia. I had, at the time I made the revert to your changes, no way of knowing your intentions. --Jayron32 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayron, I never said you were "personally attacking" me so your apology was for an offense not taken and - as best I can tell - never intended by you. You've missed my point: you fabricated a quote and have yet to acknowledge that. I'll accept your apology when it is posted here. . You defending including mention 40 minutes of Keith's recorded snoring by restoring text in which that bit of complete trivia was included and thereafter termed it "rather critical". As a consequence you have endorsed it and are now trying to make it seem you did no such thing.

Also you restored the following text:

"It was also in this period that, according to the book Rolling With The Stones by Bill Wyman, Tom Wolfe offered his 1965 summary that
"The Beatles want to hold your hand, but The Stones want to burn your town".

If you dont see anyting wrong with that, you really ought to excuse yourself from editing this entry or any other entry. Mr Anonymous

Lets try this again. It is not what you did, it is how you did it. Yes, you can find examples of bad text in the sections you deleted. However, while I acknowledge that you never said "I don't like it" and I apologize for claiming that you said those exact words, I also still hold firm that at the time you made the edits you did, the explanation for your edits was insufficient to justify a wholesale change of the article such that you tried to make. I have no problem with you making the changes you are making. I will even concede that every single change you made was for the better However, you still respond to my attempts to get you to justify your changes so others can know that they are for the better by raising spurious accusations that either I am a bad editor, or not knowledgable, or anything else. Again, your edits were reverted because the manner in which they were carried out made them appear random and without prior forthought. I am no longer in objection to the edits you made since I now understand them and agree with them however, I was only able to do so after you came to the talk page to explain yourself. You could avoid these problems in the future by doing so from the start. While we're in the position of demanding apologies, you could consider the following slights you made:
    • You claim that I was objecting to something that I did not object to, specifically the Keith Richards snoring crap. I admited from the start that you were right to remove this sentance. Get off of this point, and simply justify the rest of your removals from this article. I will raise no objections to any edit you make, as long as those edits are made with explanations here at the talk page.
    • You continuously claim that I am a bad editor. I have never, in the last several months, done any of the following:
      • Added an unreferenced statement or assertion of fact to an article
      • Removed verifiable text from an article without explaining what I was doing at the talk page
      • Made any wholesale changes to an article without explaining what I was doing at the talk page
      • Redone changes I had done, and that were reverted by others, without first taking it up for discussion at the talk page.
So before you go saying things like "you really ought to excuse yourself from editing this entry or any other entry" and "You have caused your own emabarassment" and "I don't think you have shown yourself to be well qualified" you should stop making these personal attacks. I have never questioned your knowledge or your ability as an editor. I have never made it personal. You have. You have not yet looked at a single meaningful edit to any article I have done; you have never read any of the work I have done at various places at wikipedia. Do not make such statements unless you speak from a place of knowledge regarding my work here. All I have done is asked you to justify what you have done so that all editors can understand what you are doing AND so that we will no longer remove your work. If I understand what you are doing, I won't object to it. I did not understand when I reverted your edits, because you never adequately explained yourself. You now have explained yourself. I now understand. I no longer object. See how that works? --Jayron32 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Apology accepted and appreciated. But, Jayron, this will be maybe the fourth time the following point has been made. You did indeed deem mention of 40 minutes of Keiths snoring as "rather critical." When you call something "rather critical" the assumption is that your really did believe it to be so. You also removed a reference I entered to it on this page. All in keeping with tactics of trying to hide an embarrasment. How long will you dip and dodge on this one? Mattter of fact if my edits are possibly valid, what has stopped you from performing them yourself? You could start with the Tom Wolfe quote. Why would you let that stay in an article you purporte to be a model editor of? Also, since I have committed to submitting proposed edits on this page, your lecture on Wiki etiquette is moot and evidently a diversion. Mr Anonymous

You win. You are right and I am wrong. I am going to go back to improving this and other articles. You do... whatever it is that you do. --Jayron32 04:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the Tom Wolfe quote?

[edit] Clean-up push for this article

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)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. 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)

[edit] Edits of New Intro Paragraph

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).

More notes:

Brian Jones formed and led the band until Jagger and Richards started writing hits. Also from the very beggining the band played Rock n' Roll. - Mr Aonymous

And And And. The comparisons to the Beatles should be left in the body of the article. This not a Beatles entry and the intro graph is not the place to bring the Beatles into it. However significant they were to each other, they were not engaged in partnership sans collaboration like Picasso and Braque in founding cubism.

The founding section also need work. The graph below does much of this. In fact the second graph may make the recent insert uneeded. It includes trivia about aome Ramrod band that does't matter, and space doesn't allow. Also is should mention that Brian came from Chetlelham (SP?). Finally, were Keith and Mick childhood friends? I think they may have been playmates but they were more along the lines of acquaintances. - Mr Anonymous

    • reply Read the reference to this paragraph. The information (by a respected rock historian and critic) actually used the word "friends" so I preserved it here. --Jayron32 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I mostly removed and reworded a lot of the text as I indicated above. I think at this point it would be best to criticize the edits rather than restore their horrid predecesorrs. Also, it would be good to point out where citations are needed. I would be glad to provide. - Mr Anonymous

    • reply again, citations are key. The major trick to improving this article is to write from sources, that is have a book or a website open that we are writing from (and crediting with proper references). I have done that with the Lead and Founding section I rewrote. I am all for a dump and start-over for the rest of the article. It is mostly unreferenced anyways. We should use ref tags for at least every paragraph (where multiple paragraphs come from one source) or each sentance (where a single paragraph is written from multiple sources). It should be CLEAR where every assertion of fact comes from in this article. --Jayron32 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the opinion "a respected rock historian and critic" won't do. It has to be a primary source. - Mr Anonymous

      • Actually, no. Citing wikipedia guideline: WP:RS, and I quote: "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources" (emphasis mine). Citation of primary sources is considered interpretation which is by definition original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and thus we need to cite secondary sources. Stephen Thomas Erlewine, a respected rock historian, has interpreted Mick and Keith's relationship as friends, and neither I nor you are in a position to disagree with him, unless another equally respected rock historian has published information that says they were NOT FRIENDS. Either find a citation that disagrees with this published account, which I properly cited, or leave it in. --Jayron32 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the whole friendship thing is a minor point,(BTW - Erlewine - as best I can tell, didn't call them "friends" or anything like that. I read his article and it is pretty darn good). The bigger issue: mainly, Are we allowed to disagree with somebodies else's opinion - published or not? I say we are if the primary sources clearly contradict whatever is at issue. Since the primary sources are vast, such as interviews with the principles, there will often be primary materials available. Mr Anonymous

[edit] Further Edits Suggested

I agree that cataloging songs is too expansive. For instance, it would be more concise to say the first 2 albums contained mostly covers and some opriginals. Anybody can link to the entries on the albums to get the specifics. Also it would be good just to say than whatever album it was ( Maybe "Satanic Majesties"?) that UK and US releases had variances. To detail this obscure stuff in this entry is bogging down to article. Also I agree with the referencing of what is in the intro and the 62-65 sections would be good to do. I'm kinda weak in this area, but as I said before. Request a reference on this page and I'll try to come up with a primary source.

I'm parking this sentence here until I can come up with the references. I think Cashbox and Billboard, have the goods.

"the still active Stones have had every album of primarily new material 
 place in the top five in the U.S. and have usually grossed more than any other 
 act the years that       they tour. "

- Mr Anonymous

[edit] "Lineups"

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)

[edit] Bradford

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)

I pity the fool who can't work Google. Mr T

  • that was Geoff Bradford, who had been playing with Brian Jones & Ian Stewart and participated in the very first Rollin' Stones rehearsal -- only to quit over his distaste for Chuck Berry. For some reason his first name was deleted and replaced with a guy named Trevor Whittaker (never heard of him!) ScottSwan 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

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)

[edit] WikiProject Rolling Stones II

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)

[edit] Reasonable and Needed Reductive Edits: This Aint No Abridged Bio

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).

Will whomever who messaged me, and did not read the above the notes, take care and acutally read them? They refute his or her charges of un noted changes. Mr Aonymous

Er, isn't an encyclopedia article of a person or group exactly an abridged bio? The article is only 56 KB. I don't see how that is especially too long. john k 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, er, No. This is a quote from Wiki Guidelines: "...an edit warning is displayed when a page exceeds 32 KB of text in total, to act as a reminder that the page may be starting to get too long..." Entries are meant to be brief. If you think this one is not too long, the you have a tolerance of indulgent fannish writing that is staggerring. The tedious, and often editorialized, detailing of almost every album and tour is not needed. Mr Anonymous

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)

Again, "Entries are meant to be brief. If you think this one is not too long, the you have a tolerance of indulgent fannish writing that is staggerring. The tedious, and often editorialized, detailing of almost every album and tour is not needed." AND not "comprehensive". You're missing why the article needs to be shortned: it's loaded with useless, and fannish info. Mr Anonymous

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)

[edit] Does only a little of this seem fannish?

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

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.115.101 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Early Lineups

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).

  • Stewart can be seen as a "founder" in the sense that he had been playing with Jones at the time that Jones approached Jagger and Richards. 71.111.63.224 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If any Religon in the brand

I was wondering if anyone knew of some stones faith ?

I hear rumor Jagger was a least rise a catholic, but hey what that mean ?

I hear keith possble was some form of christian.

What anyone else say ?

[edit] the fab four or stones ?

I must say I like the beatle music more, but I do like the stones too. But the beatles were babies and would not do tours and for me that was lame for me. I think if were not for stones kicking out brain they would be greatest band. so I think neither , since they were not same band when they started.

[edit] Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka and Joujouka

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)

[edit] Recent Rise In Vandalism

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).

[edit] New Image?

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)

[edit] A note on GA status

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)

[edit] 1962 or 1963?

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)

Wait, never mind, I answered my own question, they were founded in 1962 but they didn't get big until 1963 which is when Watts joined the band. MaulYoda 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Rolling_Stones_b3be.html"