Talk:Like a Rolling Stone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Like a Rolling Stone is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Like a Rolling Stone was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 15, 2008
Peer review Like a Rolling Stone has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Previous Discussions are available for viewing at the following links:

Please start any new topics below, if you want to continue archived topics, please "pull" the material to this page and start it with a new heading.--Mikerussell 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lyric reading comprehension

I would appreciate some sort of breakdown of the language used. What does 'Napolean in Rags' mean anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.32.190 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon refers to Napoleon Bonaparte, the famous French commander. "Napoleon in rags" just refers to the fall of one who was once powerful.
That's my basic interpretation, if I'm missing something deeper feel free to clarify.--Ycz6 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution tag

Since March someone has asked for an attrubution for "It is regarded by many as one of the greatest popular music songs of all time". This gets to be a sign of the tagger's own lack of trust and ability to put 2 + 2 together, to be asking for a fact check on this assesment. What sourced could confirm this to the satisifaction of the requestor; after all, common sense suggests there is no entity of board of judges to make these matters of opinion acceptable to all. If they read the article and had a sense for the sources cited, they could deduce the work is regarded by many as "one of the greatest popular music songs of all time". That's all the article needs to say. Thus I took out the tag.--Mikerussell 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Rolling Stone magazine it was voted Number One pop song of all time. Does that help? ThePeg 21:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard Greil Marcus say it is his single favorite song, but I'm not sure he's said that anywhere citable. Speaking of Marcus, has someone working on this actually read his book on the song? I would imagine that the article could be greatly expanded using material from that book. It's mentioned here as "further reading", but not cited. - Jmabel | talk 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.73.116 (talk)

[edit] Misogyny?

It would be good to see some reference for any "misogynist" accusations the song may have received. Reading the lyrics, it is not very comprehensible to interpret it as misogynistic when the lyrics only criticize (even if it is in a somewhat scathing manner)a sheltered rich girl's naivity to the trauma of life on the streets--is it because he refers to her as a "babe" once? Or is it simply because the subject of criticism is a girl and not a boy? It would be helpful to see the line of argument that justifies the accusations of misogyny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.100.126 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Real Meaning

I think this song is about popular high school kids about to face the real world. Come on "Princess...all the pretty people thinking that they got it made...Napoleon in rags(Jocks in dirty uniforms)", theres more messages I found in the song but I dont know all the lyrics by heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 02:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

  • Lead need rewritting, its just an overview of article remember, remove quote from lead, its too specific.
    • Presume you mean Springsteen's. Don't see that quotes in the lead is a problem, as long as it flows, but not hugely fussed if it went into the body along with other assessments (in the 'Legacy' section, since it's not a contemporary appreciation which would generally come under a 'Reviews' or 'Reaction' section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yikes, theres 2 quotes in there, oh thats not good, i was talking about the first one. Quotes shouldnt be in the lead really, ive had this problem myself over at the michael jackson article. You need to rewrite the lead anyway. I suggest you bring the quotes to the talk page, rewrite the lead and see if they are appropriate afterwards. Maybe when the leads stronger/bigger/whatever the quotes wont be objectionable. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd appreciate it if no one changed the lead. I'm not trying to be a control freak or anything, but, as The Almost Mighty One told me, the lead should be worked on last. If a substantial amonut of info is added to the body, then we're going to have to rework the lead anyway. I think it would be better to keep it until the rest of Realist2's improvements have been fixed. Cheers, Kodster(You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentions in other songs - heading needs a better title, section should be written out in pros with sources for all.
    • Y Done
  • Cover versions - section should be written in pros, remove any none essentuals and source all.
    • Y Done
  • In other languages - its not big enough for its own section, needs removing or tying in with cover version section somehow. SOURCE aswell.
    • Agree, and I'd seriously consider dropping the artists who don't rate an article in WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Y Done
  • The recorded dates for the info box and article content dont match
    • Y Done
  • (such published on The Bootleg Series Volumes 1–3 (Rare & Unreleased) 1961–1991, with a length of 1:36 much shorter than the 4/4 version) - this bracked section is a little confusing, could it be simplified?
    • Y Done
  • Sort fact tags
    • Y Done
  • inveigled - what does this word mean? I cant even say it lol.
    • Y Done It means "coaxed".
  • acquiesced - another big word i dont know
    • Y Done It means "to reluctantly agree".
    • OK, once that is done let me know and ill do a final look over, cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is a little short on information. I won't work on the lead until I get a bit more content on Recording and Legacy, as well as something on Musical Structure. (It won't be so easy without Alan W. Pollack) :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, im commenting at the peer review from now on. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds of Silence

Do we really need the last paragraph of Recording? I don't think it's relevant to the article that he recorded "Sounds of Silence" in the same studio. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove - pointless.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Best of luck, it should go well. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hi guys...

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the title is taken from "A rolling stone gathers no moss," with a brief explanation...? :) A nod to the proverb, Muddy Waters using it, The Rolling Stones getting their name from it, Dylan using it, and Rolling Stone magazine taking its name from it would be interesting. Rolling Stone magazine placing the song at #1 on their list is a bit biased, but that's their problem :)) BTWW, the "References in other songs" section is weak.--andreasegde (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we'll need a source for that. I got a book that explains the meaning, I'll use it when I get back. And that book also contains material for the "References in other songs" section, so I'll work on that too when I get back. Thanks for the suggestions. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

OK guys, for future reference. I will not fix the lead until the rest of the article is completed. It just makes more sense that way. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

I'm sorry to say I have failed this article's GA nomination. The reasons:

  • The article is already sparse on content, but once you remove stuff that isn't supposed to be there at all, you're left with barely anything. Stuff like Covers should not just be a list, "He covered it and so did she. And they mentioned the song in this song of theirs, and he performed it live once.") Info like that constitutes trivia per WP:TRIVIA, and I generally remove such "information" from articles with extreme prejudice. The correct way to write about covers is to mention their significance too, explain how a certain cover was important and how it shows the original song is so great in the first place. For example: Hendrix's live cover at Monterey Pop was really revolutionary. Apart from doing it in his own explosive way, Hendrix was very daring in that the song had such an ominous aura around it (even back then), that most artists were afraid to covering "Rolling Stone" for fear of disrespecting it. A list will simply not do.
    • Okay, I changed this section so that all of the covers by Johnny Thunders, Cher, etc. are not listed one by one, but consolidated into one sentence. Here's the sentence:
Many artists have covered "Like a Rolling Stone", among them Johnny Thunders, The Four Seasons, The Rascals, Cher, Judy Collins, The Rolling Stones, and Jimi Hendrix, who played a version live at the Monterey Pop Festival.
    • And then I go on to explain the importance of Hendrix's and Articuolo 31's versions.
  • This is the greatest pop song ever. So theoretically, more has been written and said about this song than any other; just a routine google books search will give you loads of references. Apart from that reflecting rather poorly on this article's sparseness of useful content, it also makes me wonder why the author(s) of this article would want to use so many dubious online sources:
  • Herb Bowie is not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, so what makes him a reliable source on any thing? His website seems to be a self-published one too.
    • removed
  • What is a Warhol fansite doing here?
    • removed
  • IF you do not have the book, that does not mean you can use a review as a substitute. Note: the reviewing site doesn't seem reliable either.
    • removed
  • Again, a less than satisfactory source. Why are book reviews being used to source information about the greatest song ever? What's next, a blog to reference Macbeth?
    • removed
  • Wow, "Like a Rolling Stone"'s legacy is Rolling Stone declaring it the greatest song ever and Bob saying, "that's not a big deal". And that's it. (were you going for a minimalist angle?)
    • Response: I added some more info. It was absolutely horrid as it was, so I added some substantial "meat" to it.
  • The lead is... well, you can see for yourself. (Acclaimed Music? Really?)
    • Still working on it, I'll save it to the end (making more sense considering that it has to accomodate the whole article).
  • "Martin Scorsese's recent movie about Dylan, No Direction Home, appears to show, in footage filmed backstage in 1966, that Dylan was deeply affected by the mixed audience reception at that time." - OR, anyone, anyone?
    • removed
  • Then, of course the usual suspects: incoherent prose ("The song was originally written in 3/4 (waltz) time, and with a length of 1:36, was much shorter than the 4/4 version; it was later changed to 4/4."), references formatted incorrectly etc.. The Recording section is written in some weird tense that makes it read like play-by-play commentary more than anything else.
    • I'm going to work on this next.

I see the WP:songs banner at the top of this talk page rating this article at start class. That's what this is, a start, nothing more. If you want to know what an "important" song's article is supposed to be like, look no farther than "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Hopefully, after a few months' hard work, using academic print sources, you can bring this article up to snuff, for that, good luck, indopug (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indopug, just a note... I think you may have been a touch harsh on this article. I'm often thought to be a tough reviewer (there's a long discussion about that at a current RfA!), and I agree with all your criticisms, but I'd have thought that this article had potential still, and could perhaps be rectified if it were put on hold for a week, given that there's an active editor working on it. (I don't mean myself, btw; I just popped in to help out with some formatting and copy-editing.) Anyhow, I just thought I'd encourage the editors who've been working on this. It's not a bad article although, yes, given that the song is so significant it could certainly be better sourced and more comprehensive. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's quite alright. (I'm saying that b/c I'm the "main" (quote unquote) author of the article. Everything indopug had to say was completely true. There's no need to water it down by saying, "Oh, it's a good start" when that's all it is...a start. I completely see now that this article is, if no one minds me saying, nowhere near GA status. So, thank you for the harsh truth. I don't think this would have been worth "on hold" either. There's definitely more info out there, and considering that I do have the Like a Rolling Stone: Bob Dylan at the Crossroads book, there's no excuse IMO. That's all. --Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Phew, I had just drawn up a long argument defending myself, and then, edit conflict ... so thanks Kodster, for understanding, indopug (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, no big deal. Just a suggestion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I worked on a lot of these suggestions as well as Ruhrfisch's PR. I think it's a lot better, but it still needs some work. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How can help

Hey Is there anything I can do to help? Ill do anything I can. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what the article needs right now is more information. Could you expand on the "Legacy" section a bit more, because this song has an enormous legacy. If you could, please explain its influence on music and pop culture. Thanks. I'll be working on it a bit too. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure ill give it a go. ;-) --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cover Versions

I added more info to "Cover Versions". Could someone please check it out? Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

[edit] Dubious sources

[edit] Source formatting

  • Notes, take a look at the notes, some have a full stop at the end of the page number yet some dont. Need consistancy in formatting. I would remove all full stops after the page number. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • done
  • Also, for some i see pp while for others I just see p . --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • done
  • "p" means one page, "pp" means more than one page (pages). Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • They should look like this <ref>Taraborrelli, p.207</ref> or <ref>Taraborrelli, p.312–313</ref> Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • done

[edit] Lead

Needs bulking up, you know what your article looks like now, make it an overview of your article, mention the most important aspects of each of your sections.

done, it covers just about all the main parts. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit issues

Many artists have covered "Like a Rolling Stone", among them Johnny Thunders[29], The Four Seasons[30], The Rascals[31], Cher[32], Judy Collins[33] , The Rolling Stones[34], and Jimi Hendrix, who played a version live at the Monterey Pop Festival. Hendrix was an avid fan of Bob Dylan, and especially liked "Like a Rolling Stone." "It made me feel that I wasn't the only one who'd ever felt so low..." Hendrix said.[35] After the first verse, Hendrix skipped to the fourth. Hendrix played his version with an electric guitar, and is described thus:

  • Puntuation should comes before the source, I corrected this but it appears to have been moved back. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • done

More wikilinking needed. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

done
Thanks, Realist2. I'll get to work on it right away. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, its a good article, just needs another days work and its ready to go. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)