Talk:Like a Rolling Stone/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Someone should ....
2 If you insist...
3 Further Comments
4 Response
5 Monicasdude Comments
6 'One of the most influential ever recorded'?
7 no direction home
8 Cover Versions?
9 Further readings part
10 Versions on Dylan albums
11 Page move
12 Song title vs. Magazine title and the song's placement

[edit] Someone should ....

This talk page is simply a huge, old flame war. someone should archive it, it is a disgrace to the song. 129.173.194.66 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you insist...

Okay, I really didn't want this to devolve into a flamewar. People get so possessive of these pages, it's ridiculous. At least it's a good argument for propety rights. However, if you insist:

Your comments, my responses:

1) 8 hours is not a "full day."

It is in America, where some of us go home after work. However, as your slavish adherence to a robotic writing style clearly shows, you are living in some Communist state where work never ends, so that's my bad.

I may be an unpatriotic, rotten doctor Commie rat, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. Monicasdude 15:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) He made that statement, which is not what you say in your text. You say "Dylan once stated that he based the lyrics on a short story he had written about a debutante who becomes a loner after dropping out of high school" and that's what needs to be sourced.

Then why not replace the indirect quote with a direct one, rather than deleting the whole thing? If you say you're interested in information, include it. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite.

Your argument seems to be that I should not delete an unsourced, manifestly inaccurate account unless I write a replacement. I disagree. Monicasdude 15:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) I fouled that up; (sic) the error is that Kooper was not invited to the sessions as a guitarist, but as a spectator. Tom Wilson invited him, and Dylan picked his own guitarists.

Nope. Your info contradicts Al Kooper: "Kooper had been invited to the session as a guitar player, but after hearing Mike Bloomfield play guitar, Kooper put his guitar aside and sat down at the organ," as well as the website where I got the info on the song in the first place. If you weren't disposed to deleting stuff pell-mell, I might give you the benefit of the doubt over those sources, but since you are being such a little martinet with this page, I'm going to assume you're wrong and comport the information to other Wikipedia pages. Strikes me as prima facie unlikely that a guitarist invited "as a spectator" would just randomly be allowed to play organ. Also, while I appreciate that Communist linguistics professors have taught you a unique approach to punctuation, your sentence should read: "I fouled that up. The error is that Kooper was not..." Please see semicolon, as English Wikipedia is generally read in the free world.

The Kooper page is wrong, and I'll fix that shortly. As Greil Marcus says in his new book, "As Al Kooper as always told the story, he was just supposed to watch. (p. 104) Monicasdude 15:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4) That's a response to your general comments, not to specific text, and is more applicable to your previous version of the article.

Then why does it appear to be commenting on specific text, and why is it included in the talk page for my current version? As Pope once said: "No man should ever be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday." I don't know if you're a dude or a woman named Monica, as you've elected to continue your unique approach to grammar in the realm of apostrophes, but I think that quote applies either way. Oh wait, do I need to source that?

5) My comment about the interpretation of the lyrics sets out the most common speculation, which isn't necessarily mine. It's mentioned in the major bios, in books about Sedgwick, etc. I mention it not because I agree with it, but because it is the most prominent speculation (by a wide mark). I left it in as a compromise, since you were insistent that some reference to lyric interpretation was vital.

Again, please read what I've written before you respond. Nowhere do I say that this represents your opinion. I stated that it came from your version of the article (i.e., it was written by you). So, I found it confusing that you would not only delete your own work, but then attribute it to me as if I had made a mistake by including it. That was the craziest piece of editing/criticism I have ever encountered. I still don't understand why this can't stay...

I have no idea what your argument on the merits is here. This is a four-verse song, not Paradise Lost, John Brown's Body, or even The Rime of the Ancient Mariner; and it calls for a lyrics link, not an idiosyncratic lyrics summary/analyis. Monicasdude 15:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6) I would say the burden of proof is on the person who adds the text.

I would say you're wrong when it comes to people/groups as famous as the few listed here. But if you want burden shifting evidence, then I would also say the fact that each of the artists here has his own Wikipedia entry certainly creates a rebuttal presumption that they are famous. If you would care to explain how any of the cited artists does not qualify as famous, that would be great. But remember, here in America, fame is not something that the government can give and take away at will. You don't get to decide on your own.

7) And that argument rests on your characterization of the song as a folk-rock song; which is mostly subjective and, in terms of Dylan's intentions, probably inaccurate.

This is almost the craziest thing I have ever heard anyone say in an "intellectual" context. What genre is it, then? Techno? What Dylan's intentions might have been have nothing to do with the fact that this song is universally classed as folk-rock (along with the rest of Highway 61 Revisited: please see the sidebar's genre listing). It could have been Vanilla Ice's intentions to make a great rap song out of Ice, Ice Baby. That doesn't change the fact that he made a shitty pop song instead. It could have been Napoleon's intention to beat Wellington at Waterloo, that doesn't change the fact that he lost. LARS is arguably the most famous folk-rock song of all time, and virtually any critic will tell you the same. If you need further evidence, please recall the fact that Dylan was allegedly booed off stage at the Newport Folk Festival as a result of playing rockier folk songs like this one.

"The fact that Dylan was allegedly . . ." That encapsulates the problems with your argument. As for what the song is "universally" considered, "And in his electrifying vocal performance, his best on record, Dylan proved that everything he did was, first and always, rock & roll" says Rolling Stone in the # 1 of 500 songs piece. In the BBC radio documentary, Kooper commented that Dylan had used a guitar tuning typically associated with blues, not folk music. And, from an interview Dylan gave in 1965: "These people call it folk-rock -- if they want to call it that, something that simple, it's good for selling the records. As for it being what it is, I don't know what it is. I can't call it folk-rock. It's a whole way of doing things." (emphasis added, of course). Monicasdude 15:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

8) Write back when you learn how "privilege" is spelled.

Well, you got me there. On the other hand, at least I've managed to graduate beyond two-letter words: "your account that the song ia adapted from a short story Dylan wrote." That "is" is a toughie. A good tip is that the letter you were looking for is actually towards the other end of the alphabet.

9) I would say it reads like an encyclopedia entry, which is, I would think, the goal. I would not trade off factual accuracy for more pleasant prose.

Well, given that they are not mutually exclusive, as I clearly said: "I would posit that while it is unarguably crucial to have factually accurate information, it is equally as important to create something that someone would enjoy reading", you're not addressing my point. Also, if you think it reads like an encyclopedia entry, why did you previously state about a practically identical version: "I've done a cleanup job on it, but what I've left is nowhere near a finished product, but, I hope, a base people can build up from." I know your prose in that sentence is a bit hard to follow, but I think you'll see how it doesn't seem to make sense that you could think a "nowhere near finished product" reads "like an encyclopedia entry." Reads more like a collection of facts with no continuity, transitions, attention to detail, proper punctuation, or any soul to me.

10) Why did you take out my reference to the late Paul Griffin, a well-known studio keyboardist who provided the piano intro and riffs that are an integral part of the track?

Must have done so by mistake and not noticed. This is what you call a one-time thing that you could have easily fixed yourself, and thereby kept the large part of the information. That's what editors are supposed to do. Plus, your response still doesn't explain why you took out who played what instrument, or why that information is not "substantive."

And finally:

The saddest thing about this whole debacle is that I went out of my way to accomodate your version of the text (I included virtually all of it in the merged version), and that I spent a great deal of time attempting to explain clearly and politely why I did what I did. You have not given any explanation for your scorched-earth deletions or retarded punctuation

I believe that people who use "retarded" as a term of casual abuse are ignorant and contemptible. It's a hateful epithet, comparable to racial and sexual hate speech. Monicasdude 15:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've seen you use epithet a lot. Pull some new tricks out of your bag.

Okay, I wasn't going to come back to this page, but a fellow wikipedian mentioned to me that you made this comment. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's when scum like you make a pathetic, craven attempt to instigate the "red scare" mentality against a person who has out-argued you, by invoking that anathema of anathemas: accusations of prejudice. Not only are you an coward and a blackguard for doing so, but I would note that whenever ANYONE does this type of thing, he's departed from logic entirely.

As you are obviously not familiar with the tools of rhetoric or formal logic, allow me to explain. Calling me ignorant, contemptible, racist, sexist or whatever is an example of a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad hominem." It is fallacious because it basely attacks the speaker, rather than the point he is making. To illustrate: let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-handicapped and just generally "contemptible." Does any of that make my point about the nonsensical, irresponsible nature of your deletion policy any more or less true? If the answer is no, and it must be no, then your attack on me has no significance whatsoever; it simply does not address my point (which I therefore must conclude you have conceded). [<-- THAT is the proper use of a semi-colon.]

I refuse to be cowed by thinly-veiled threats, and I will not be made afraid to say whatever words I deem appropriate and accurate on this or any other contribution. I honestly believe that you already knew the following, but, for the record: I judge everyone as an individual (anything else would be illogical and ethically wrong). I hold absolutely no prejudices against any groups or classes of people, including the mentally handicapped. But I do hate assholes like you.

that any reasonable person would be likely to accept. If you don't like me, or my writing, or charming, creative, handsome people generally, just come out and say so, and drop this charade. You're just "editing" anything that you didn't put in the article yourself (and, amazingly, even some stuff you did).

Please do not respond to these comments. You clearly do not have a creative synapse in your brain (I cannot believe anyone would treat such an iconic rock-and-roll song and such a fascinating character as Bob Dylan so clinically), and I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself by trying to make comebacks. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go home and put some water in your mom's dish. Peace.

Goddammit I hope some people come to read this talk page. Reading back over this, I am a friggin' comedic genius!

I forgot to add that I concede the page to you from here on out -- I'm done. I got off my chest what I wanted to say, and I made a revision/reversion I consider final. That's all the effort I'm willing to expend on this one Wikipedia entry. If you're not happy with it, feel free to revert it to your version. I won't be back again. That goes for this talk page, too. Also, it would help if you were more constructive and less sarcastic in your responses to discussion-page criticisms in the future. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

RiseAbove 07:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further Comments

I don't want to get into a revert-the-reversion wikipedia battle, so I'm going to revert it one more time (pending your rebuttal to the below), but if you really, really want this version, that's fine. I would say the following in response to your comments:

1) You didn't wait for my responses. -- I waited nearly a full day for your responses.

8 hours is not a "full day."

2) your account that the song ia (sic) adapted from a short story Dylan wrote, which contradicts Marcus, Heylin, and Shelton, as well as the 1966 Dylan interview I quoted -- The quotation you quoted: "I found myself writing this song, this story, this long piece of vomit, 20 pages long, and out of it I took Like A Rolling Stone and made it as a single." My "account" that it was adapted from a short story consists of one sentence which began: "Dylan once stated...." Did he or did he not, given the above quotation, once make that statement?

He made that statement, which is not what you say in your text. You say "Dylan once stated that he based the lyrics on a short story he had written about a debutante who becomes a loner after dropping out of high school" and that's what needs to be sourced.

3) your comment that Dylan invited Kooper to the LARS session, which contradicts Marcus, Heylin, and, I believe, Kooper -- When did I comment that Dylan invited Kooper to the session? The sentence begins: Kooper had been invited to the session as a guitarist... Dylan is not mentioned, nor is anyone, as the agent of the action. That is why I chose to use the passive voice, as the agent is unimportant and better left out. The important thing is WHY he was invited, not who invited him. I think your comment evinces a hard-and-fast adherence to a "people, places and times" philosophy. Sometimes, though, it's good to have some motivations, character development and something somebody might actually enjoy reading, instead of a card catalog entry. Regardless, though, the fact remains that I never mention Dylan or anyone else as having done the inviting, so your complaint here is unfounded.

I fouled that up; the error is that Kooper was not invited to the sessions as a guitarist, but as a spectator. Tom Wilson invited him, and Dylan picked his own guitarists.

4) your comment that Dylan was said to intensely dislike Warhol in the spring of 1965 -- This is according to popular myth, and to the previous version of this article which you had left unchanged. Thus, I endeavored to include it in the new version in an attempt to merge my version, the original version and your version. It doesn't need to stay.

with regard to specific text:

5) Presenting a preferred interpretation of a set of lyrics and dismissing other interpretations with significant support is plainly an NPOV violation. -- The new paragraph about the interpretation of the lyrics is entirely taken from YOUR previous version (except for the additional comment about Dylan's purported feelings for Warhol). WTF? Oh, and I changed a bad semicolon. WTF?

That's a response to your general comments, not to specific text, and is more applicable to your previous version of the article.

6) I don't think it's appropriate for the bulk of the text of an entry about a song to be a single editor's interpretation/commentary on the lyrics. The history of the page shows that you wiped out previous editors' lyrics comments, in particular the opinion that the lyrics bordered on the misogynistic -- an opinion that is neither better nor worse than the one you express. Opinion is not "information." -- I agree, and I again respond that the paragraph about the interpretation of the lyrics is almost entirely YOURS. Thus, I remain confused. If you are referring to the paragraph that SUMMARIZES the thrust of the lyrics, how in the heck does that qualify as opinion? It's just summarizing what the lyrics mean, including a quotation from the lyrics. If you are unhappy with my suggestion that the lyrics are sardonic or sarcastic, my recommendation is that you actually listen to LARS.

My comment about the interpretation of the lyrics sets out the most common speculation, which isn't necessarily mine. It's mentioned in the major bios, in books about Sedgwick, etc. I mention it not because I agree with it, but because it is the most prominent speculation (by a wide mark). I left it in as a compromise, since you were insistent that some reference to lyric interpretation was vital.

7) The covers section was unsourced, unverifiable, and had as much to do with one editor's opinions of the merits of particular covers as anything else. If you want, for example, to say that B.B. King's cover of LARS is one of the more famous ones, you should be able to cite a survey, or at least an appropriate source discussion. I'm going to add links to a pair of cover lists instead. -- The sentence reads: These artists include such luminaries as... Where do I state that the below versions are the most famous covers? I just state that these are some famous artists who have done covers of the song (either live or on studio albums). I would say that the burden is on you to prove that the below artists do not qualify as "luminaries," and not on me to prove that they do. At any rate, this info is easily verifiable and is not so crucial to the factual integrity of the article that many reasonable people would seriously consider requiring citations for these. I suppose I could list the albums on which each of these covers appear... Again, though, please read the sentence before you comment on it, as this is the second time that you have accused me of saying something that I didn't say because you failed to do a close read.

I would say the burden of proof is on the person who adds the text.

8) I didn't see any substance in the instrumentation section; listing some but not all of the instruments used, with a subjective comment about Kooper, doesn't strike me as appropriate. There are a lot of people out there who think Mike Bloomfield's guitar parts are more "famous," and more important to the song, than Kooper's keyboards. -- Every instrument used was listed, except electric piano. It strikes me as more sensical to add one instrument and keep the information about who played what (which does, for some crazy reason, strike me as "substance"), than to delete everything and leave people guessing. One portion of the comment about Kooper may, indeed be subjective (the rest, about his rarely playing organ, etc., is not). It is nevertheless an opinion held by many people, which is all I stated in that section. I would also rejoinder that while Bloomfield's guitar parts are undoubtably famous, the use of a guitar in a folk-rock song is far from uncommon, whereas the use of an organ is. Remember, we're theoretically writing this article for someone who has NOT HEARD the song, so we want to give it as much texture and life as we can. Plus, again, this is an anecdote-rich subject, and I think the information about Kooper rarely playing organ and yet rocking the house is very interesting and worth knowing.

And that argument rests on your characterization of the song as a folk-rock song; which is mostly subjective and, in terms of Dylan's intentions, probably inaccurate.

And I would make a few other comments (I'm not trying to needle you, but to point some things out, if you choose to revert back to your version again after my revision):

1) You consistently misuse the semicolon. The semicolon should generally only be used as a replacement for a direct coordinating conjunction. Using it as a subordinating conjunction is not standard. It should not be used simply as a long comma, and it should NEVER be used to replace a period. On the other hand, if you're taking some literary license in your usage, that's cool, but then why castigate me for doing much the same thing with the content?

Write back when you learn how "privilege" is spelled.

2) Slavish adherence to the wikipedia "rules", such as NPOV, etc., makes for pretty piss-poor reading. I would posit that while it is unarguably crucial to have factually accurate information, it is equally as important to create something that someone would enjoy reading. This is especially true when discussing such anecdote-rich subjects as LARS, Dylan and 60's-era rock music. Your version is fine, but it reads like a book report. I think LARS deserves a bit more soul. That's my two-cents, anyway.

I would say it reads like an encyclopedia entry, which is, I would think, the goal. I would not trade off factual accuracy for more pleasant prose.

3) You seem to remove things just because I wrote them. Why take out which instruments were played by the session musicians? Does that need a footnote or something? Giving people less information just to preserve a version that you like the look of strikes me as egotistical. Why remove the section headings? Even if you want less text, they still make the article easier to navigate... Please understand, I'm not trying to turn this into a contest of the wills, I just want to create an article that is worthy of Wikipedia, LARS, and that people will read.

Why did you take out my reference to the late Paul Griffin, a well-known studio keyboardist who provided the piano intro and riffs that are an integral part of the track?Monicasdude 21:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm sure you'll disagree with my version, again. This is my last hurrah, though, so if you're determined, bully for you.

RiseAbove 20:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

First appeared as a single, about two months before H61R was released. Not even the longest song on the album, and not in the same league as "Desolation Row," "Brownsville Girl," "Sad-Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands," "Highlands," . . . .

A single release typically precedes an album release, but is not generally considered significant. However, you are most definitely correct in a technical sense -- that could be added to the intro. As for whether or not it is the longest song on the album or Dylan's longest song ever, this is immaterial: it is one of Dylan's lengthier songs, and certainly one of the longest to receive consistent radio airplay (the only longer one is, perhaps, "The Hurricane"). I think this line should remain the way it was.

The Rolling Stone list was compiled by polling 172 (the magazine's count) voters; I've never seen any criticism that RS "fixed" the poll to put this song at the top.

I have, though it was probably humorous in nature. This could be indicated in the sentence.

I believe the vernacular term has been "putdown" songs, not that it's a hard-and-fast technical term. I don't know of any source supporting the claim about radio airplay.

I like "screw-you" songs better -- it's got more kick -- so I think it should stay. If someone else prefers "putdown songs," this can be changed in the future. I would remove the radio airplay claim, as I cannot find the source where I had read it.

Given that Dylan himself has said something like this (the quote very roughly goes "When I look back at some of those song, when I said 'you' I really meant "me"), this heavily non-NPOV segment ends rather badly.

I'm not sure why this is NPOV. It comments on the facial meaning of the lyrics and their relationship to the idea that Dylan was referencing himself. Regardless of what Dylan said in a post hoc interview, the lyrics as they are don't change. I think this comment can stay, but if other people disagree, feel free to remove it.

I don't know of anybody who's seriously/solidly suggested the song is about Warhol; but there is a good argument that the diplomat/Siamese cat lines allude to him, strenghening the Sedgwick theory.

I'm not sure how to respond to this comment. The fact that you are personally unaware of serious suggestions that the song is about Warhol doesn't obviate the fact that it has been suggested that the song is about Warhol. Plus, it makes a good segue into the Edie Sedgwick sentence. I think this section should stay.

Perhaps you could respond to it by citing a specific serious/solid suggestion that the song is about Warhol. Monicasdude 18:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This really needs a primary source if it's going to be mentioned at all; the standard origin, taken from a Dylan interview in 1966, is: "I found myself writing this song, this story, this long piece of vomit, 20 pages long, and out of it I took Like A Rolling Stone and made it as a single.

Fair enough. The primary source can be found, but why remove pertinent information about the song entirely? I don't get it.

Given that Dylan played the song on tour for 13 years without a keyboardist of any kind, and only his own electric piano for the last 4, this doesn't pan out.

Dylan's own interpretations don't really count as "covers," however, looking back on it, I do think this line is NPOV. This should be removed, I agree.

Source/backup?

Ever been to a classic rock concert where they didn't cover it? ;-) This can be removed.

Columbia didn't report this; an ex-publicist for the label wrote it in the New York Times. Associating a specific quote with "some critics" is generally not appropriate.

This line can change to reflect that it was an ex-publicist. The quotation comes from Songfacts.com, I see no reason to specify that when "some critics" works just as well. The quotation marks can be removed, I suppose.

As an aside, I would comment that many Wikipedians take the NPOV direction way, WAY too far, and tend to use it as a cloak to hide behind when what they really mean is: "this article disagrees with my opinion/understanding of the facts."

Presenting a preferred interpretation of a set of lyrics and dismissing other interpretations with significant support is plainly an NPOV violation. Monicasdude 18:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I would posit that when we're writing articles for this, or any other, collection of knowledge, it's important to understand that we're not writing a clinical report -- we're trying to get the facts across impartially, yes, but also in a way that someone, somewhere would actually like to read. The NPOV instruction is commonly taken much too seriously. It is utterly mystifying why someone would seek to delete large swaths of largely correct, organized information, simply because he doesn't find it clinical-sounding enough.

At the very least, keep the information in an altered form. In the instant case, Monicasdude has deleted at least five paragraphs of information for which he has given no real explanation.

I don't think it's appropriate for the bulk of the text of an entry about a song to be a single editor's interpretation/commentary on the lyrics. The history of the page shows that you wiped out previous editors' lyrics comments, in particular the opinion that the lyrics bordered on the misogynistic -- an opinion that is neither better nor worse than the one you express. Opinion is not "information." Monicasdude 18:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why delete the information about the covers, or the song's instrumentation? Makes no sense.

The covers section was unsourced, unverifiable, and had as much to do with one editor's opinions of the merits of particular covers as anything else. If you want, for example, to say that B.B. King's cover of LARS is one of the more famous ones, you should be able to cite a survey, or at least an appropriate source discussion. I'm going to add links to a pair of cover lists instead.

I didn't see any substance in the instrumentation section; listing some but not all of the instruments used, with a subjective comment about Kooper, doesn't strike me as appropriate. There are a lot of people out there who think Mike Bloomfield's guitar parts are more "famous," and more important to the song, than Kooper's keyboards. Monicasdude 18:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will probably revert this article with additions/correction by Monicasdude, pending his rebuttal to this response.

You didn't wait for my responses. I've posted an NPOV-compliant revision, close to my previous draft, which I'm sure you won't agree with. Before you contest it, however, could you provide sources for

1) your account that the song ia adapted from a short story Dylan wrote, which contradicts Marcus, Heylin, and Shelton, as well as the 1966 Dylan interview I quoted

2) your comment that Dylan invited Kooper to the LARS session, which contradicts Marcus, Heylin, and, I believe, Kooper

3) your comment that Dylan was said to intensely dislike Warhol in the spring of 1965 Monicasdude 18:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RiseAbove 19:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude Comments

Deleted text, my comments in italics:

"Like a Rolling Stone" is a song written and performed by Bob Dylan. It first appeared on Dylan's 1965 release Highway 61 Revisited. Aside from being one of Dylan's longer songs (about 6 minutes), it is perhaps Dylan's most popular song, and has influenced countless later artists and, indeed, entire subgenres of rock and roll.

In 2004, Rolling Stone Magazine ranked Like a Rolling Stone as the #1 "greatest song of all time." While the ranking was subject to the inevitable criticisms and detractions (one being that the magazine chose Dylan's song as the best merely because of its title), it is nevertheless indicative of the hugely iconic status that Like a Rolling Stone still holds in popular culture to this day.

The Rolling Stone list was compiled by polling 172 (the magazine's count) voters; I've never seen any criticism that RS "fixed" the poll to put this song at the top.

Lyrics & Interpretation

Dylan is among the most successful songwriters in the, for lack of a better term, "screw-you" subgenre of songs. But while some of his other screw-you songs have been very successful (notably Positively_4th_Street and Don't_Think_Twice_(It's_All_Right)), Like a Rolling Stone, is generally regarded as the best of them. It is certainly the most popular, receiving more consistent radio airplay than any of his other songs, regardless of type.

I believe the vernacular term has been "putdown" songs, not that it's a hard-and-fast technical term. I don't know of any source supporting the claim about radio airplay.

In part, this popularity may due to the ease with which many people can identify with the song's vitriolic attack on its object, presumably a former lover of Dylan's, for her arrogance and stupidity. The lyrics in large part consist of a sardonic description of the formerly priveleged lifestyle of its object, and how the object squandered that privelege through ignorance, naivete, and pride. The lyrics also clearly demonstrate Dylan's (somewhat sadistic) pleasure in the fall that the object has taken.

The most famous section of the lyrics drips with sarcasm when it asks:

       How does it feel?

   To be on your own,
   With no direction home,
   Like a complete unknown,
   Like a rolling stone?

While many listeners believe the song to be directed at a specific former lover of Dylan's (which would place it in the same vein as Positively 4th Street, for example), some have commented that Dylan may, in fact, be castigating himself. However, while it is indubitable that Dylan engaged in some wild behavior in his lifetime, it seems unlikely that he would launch an attack at himself for having fallen into obscurity and malaise at a time when he was at his most famous and productive.

An alternative interpretation would have it that the subject of the song is Andy Warhol, whom Dylan supposedly disliked intensely. This, again, does not seem to be borne out by the lyrics, as Warhol was neither obscure nor destitute at the time at which the song was written. A more likely suggestion is that the song is based (at least in part) on socialite Edie Sedgwick who was part of Warhol's entourage, and who was the subject of a tug-of-war of sorts between Warhol's crowd and Dylan's.

I don't know of anybody who's seriously/solidly suggested the song is about Warhol; but there is a good argument that the diplomat/Siamese cat lines allude to him, strenghening the Sedgwick theory.

For his part, Dylan stated that he based the lyrics on a short story he had written about a debutante who becomes a loner after dropping out of high school.

The title of the song and it's refrain, are not, as some have suggested, a reference to The Rolling Stones. Instead, they refer to the aphorism "A rolling stone gathers no moss," and suggest that the object of the song is forced by her indigent lifestyle to continually move from place to place, never finding time to "gather moss" or put down roots. Dylan said that he got the idea for the song from the Hank Williams number Lost Highway, which contains the lyric: "I'm a rolling stone, I'm alone and lost."

Music & Performance

Like a Rolling Stone, produced by Tom Wilson, contains some compelling instrumentation. Apart from Dylan's standard harmonica and guitar, as well as drums and bass guitar, the song is famous for (and instantly recognizable because of) its striking organ part, played by Al Kooper. So integral is this organ part, that it is considered de rigueur for any covers of the song.

Given that Dylan played the song on tour for 13 years without a keyboardist of any kind, and only his own electric piano for the last 4, this doesn't pan out.

Some music critics have noted the disconnect between the rather mean-spirited, sarcastic lyrics and the more-or-less upbeat music. This, however, is not uncommon for Dylan: a similar example can be found in Don't Think Twice (It's All Right). It can be said to increase the ironic force of the lyrics to some degree.

Covers & Miscellany

Like a Rolling Stone has been covered many, many times and is a very popular choice for bands to cover at live shows, if not on their recordings.

Source/backup?

Some of the more famous (live and otherwise) cover versions include those by:

   The Black Crowes
   Jimi Hendrix (well known for his Dylan covers)
   Nancy Sinatra (almost universally panned, and deservingly so)
   B.B. King
   and, appropriately
   The Rolling Stones (who took 30 years to finally cover it in 1995)

It has been said by some critics that Like a Rolling Stone "raised the bar for future songwriters," in terms of its musical and lyrical quality, as well as in terms of its sheer length. Interestingly, following the #1 ranking by Rolling Stone, Columbia Records reported that Like a Rolling Stone was almost "canned" because of its length and the company's attachment to the then mainstream genres of jazz and pop.

Columbia didn't report this; an ex-publicist for the label wrote it in the New York Times. Associating a specific quote with "some critics" is generally not appropriate.

Aside from this decidedly non-exhaustive list of relatively factual issues, the article seems to have devolved into a run of duelling lyrics interpretations, most of which fail the NPOV test (as do a few other comments). I've done a cleanup job on it, but what I've left is nowhere near a finished product, but, I hope, a base people can build up from. Monicasdude 18:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'One of the most influential ever recorded'?

This could be a lapse into hyperbole I suggest. For those of us who heard it at the time, we knew it was good and a significant change of genre for Dylan - but 'most influential ever recorded'? not really. And of my two sons (20 & 17), the younger one has never heard of it and the older one probably views it as a piece of black & white newsreel! Linuxlad 13:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It sounds hyperbolic to me, too, but it's not very different from what the Rolling Stone top 500 songs piece says, and the impact on mass-market popular music -- on what would and wouldn't be played on AM radio in particular -- can't be denied. I've toned it down a notch; what do you think of the revision? Monicasdude 05:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO in the context of WP all statements of judgement should be qualified (eg some consider... whilst others say...), or an attribution to an identified third party... (NME in 2007 said this song was greatest ever...).

And it isn't as if it's that clearcut - in the context of the time, 'Desolation Row', with its mordant balladic style and description of a demi-monde of drifters and hobos Dylan has a ready sympathy with, was probably as important. Linuxlad

I've deleted the UNCUT quote again -- it's not properly cited, since the phrase was applied to a collection of dozens of songs, movies, TV shows, etc. It also has not real content -- it was a slogan that tha magazine settled on, then went out and found a list of pop culture artifacts to apply it to. I think the rewritten version I'd put up before is more accurate -- it underlines the point that the song was influential as a song, and the single (as a commercial product) changed the presentation of popular music on mass-audience radio/TV. It wasn't my addition to begin with, and I toned the original version down to meet objections, but I do think it reports the majority opinion carefully without asserting the point as fact. Monicasdude 13:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy that we can describe LaRS as 'one of Dylan's most influential works' - there have been many programmes, outside the strict pop-music circle, and articles on LaRS and Dylan's compositions of this era. Calling it the 'most influential' is open to question, as is 'most famous' - and to go beyond Dylan's work to compare with 'all recorded work' say, is unnecessarily contentious.Linuxlad

I'm pretty much in agreement with all of that -- but I do think that the universe of "pop music singles" (as opposed to "all recorded music") is sufficiently well-defined as to be meaningful; that there is a well-developed body of commentary on that universe; and that in the commentary there is a consensus that the LARS single had a substantial impact on mass-audience music than few other singles made. That's what I think should be reported in some form, without the unqualified superlatives presented as facts (to which you quite correctly object). Monicasdude 14:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] no direction home

I included a comment on a scene from the recent Scorsese film, 'no direction home', which appears to show Dylan rather upset after a mixed reception to one of his concerts c 1966. Someone has deleted, but I've reverted for the time being. I don't wish to get into a flame war over this - life is too short - but ask those who disagree with the comment to give an alternative interpretation (the clip IS publically available on CD I believe). Linuxlad

Whether one agrees or disagrees, or has an alternative, isn't the point. Editors' individual interpretations aren't appropriate for inclusion. Violate both "no original research" and verifiability guidelines. Monicasdude 00:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Tosh! 1) Verifiability is not an issue - go buy the DVD, (or ask one of the other 100M people who watched the film). 2) Interpretation that Dylan is upset (even if flamboyantly so) is Scorcese's in the way he's edited the film, so NOR is irrelevant. But have (some of) it your way... I have edited to quote the scene (NB - verifiable fact) and say it _appears_ to show (ie Scorcese has edited so that we think...) that Dylan was 'deeply affected' (which includes your 'acting up' suggestion, in my book). I remind you that the essence of WP is intelligent compromise :-). Bob

As rewritten, it's your interpretation of Scorsese's unstated motives in editing the video, which would violate NOR and verifiability, since we can't verify what Scorsese's motives are. And what does this have to do with the song, anyway? It's a gloss of commentary about commentary about the song, which is far too tenuous a connection. Monicasdude 16:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

By the standards of BD articles as a whole it's a pretty good fact - people have been hanged on less - and it's got everything to do with the song (why else to people respond to it, and why does the article go on for half a page else on who 'she' may be). But have it your way, . . I may edit to be a reference out to the DVD (you can't deny there are scenes from 1966 backstage can you) and we'll take it from there. Bob

[edit] Cover Versions?

I understand that there was quite the flame war above, and frankly I don't care to read through it all, but the topic of cover versions came up. This currently doesn't appear on the page. Why not? This seems to be fairly standard practice with articles like I Want To Hold Your Hand (former featured article), or Yesterday (a song, like this one, which has many very famous covers). It doesn't have to be prolonged (it isn't in either of those articles) but there have been some notable covers of this song (B.B. King, Jimi Hendrix, etc.) that should be mentioned in any article about this song. The Disco King 05:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, cover versions are addressed via the external links section, which cites both a comprehensive list and a selective list. The problem is that Dylan's original version is pretty clearly definitive; most of the memorable covers are generally seen as memorably awful. Monicasdude 05:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further readings part

There seems to be an edit war in this part... a analysis of the song that has been deleted, then reverted, several times. I think it should be kept deleted, as it is quite POV and original research. Besides, the style is completely unencyclopedic. This analysis should not be here. Do you agree?--Ryusenshi 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Personal essays don't belong on Wikipedia. I'm keeping this article on my watchlist and if 158.223.61.27 continues to ignore their warnings, then I will be referring him/her to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -- Netsnipe CVU ^(Talk) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versions on Dylan albums

Should Masterpieces be removed, seeing as how it is not part of the "official" Dylan cannon? And, if it isn't removed, because I know I'll have my critics, shouldn't all the other greatest hits-style albums, like the recent The Very Best of Bob Dylan, that contain the song be added? Maybe it would be better to list the major releases and then make a mention like "it has also been released on a number of Dylan's greatest hits collections." Dlmccaslin 05:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I have moved this page back to Like a Rolling Stone as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names. Regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Song title vs. Magazine title and the song's placement

I was looking at the list, thinking that there were a lot more influential/ epitomizing rock songs than Dylan's scratchy-voiced tune. But wait- Rolling Stone Magazine (not panning the publication, it's all good) is named after the song, thus the #1 spot. No matter how "convention- challenging" the song is, there are many other songs more worthy of the #1 spot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.103.173 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC).