Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Dartford

It doesn't mention Dartford where they come from

Fannish tone

How are we doing with "fannish tone"? I think we've done a lot of work to strike most of it from the article. Anything specific that requires attention? If not, I think we can cross that out on the to do list. Stan weller 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Satisfaction

That Satisfaction broke the band in the US and etablished them as a top tier act needs to be added. I'd add this, but this needs sourcing. Also, the affect of the band on other bands is not brought out. I can't remember exactly the title. But there was/is a book of favorite selections of artists. Bob Weir cited the 1st 2 Stones records as very important, and Rock Scully wrote in his book that a lot a blues tunes SF bands were doing were learned from Stones records. Also, Mojo Magazine just came out with a special summer of love issue that has an Oldham interview and a concise description of the change between Stananic Majesties and Beggars Banquet. Inclusion of this would add to this entry. Mr Anonymous

That's what I was talking about when I said some sort of an influence section. It would help us get out from under the long chronology. I know there's a quote from someone like Robert Christgau calling Get Off of My Cloud the "first punk song". I'll have to look it up. But things like that would make for a solid section. Stan weller 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be circumspect with the 1st punk song citation. It's legit but if overstated, it's a dumb ass argument real quick. Also, the influence the Stones had on pyschedelia was huge, particulary the jamming which many took Goin Home as a cue. So the section on Satanic Majesties would be good place to mention that the Stones were attaching themselves to something they greatly helped put in motion. And the resulting release of the jam at the end of Can't You Hear Me Knocking was not a Johhny come lately at all. - Mr A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jagger/Richards feud

Reading the article, the feud comes across as little more than a holiday between albums. You don't really get a sense of the fact that the band was as good as split-up by 86-87. I know there's some nasty quotes out there from both Jagger and Richards, but I'm not sure they would fit into the overall chrono. we've got going. Does it deserve its own section or even a separate article? There are examples of other offshoot articles that had a great influence on a band or performer's career, like the Electric Dylan controversy. And you can see that the feud and eventual reconstitution has had an impact on the band to this day. Does it deserve its own write-up? Stan weller 05:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Stan makes a good comparison, citing the Dylan goes electric thing controversy, and I think there is probably much more info on the Jagger-Richards relationship then that one slice of history, which is the Dylan thing. It seems rather difficult to say it doesn't deserve an article, but it may open up a lot of difficulties, history bends with these two guys- they will say different things at different times and pulling quotes together may take readers into opposite directions, depending on the quotes and when they were said. Even some songs that were written for the feud years like "Kow Tow" by jagger and "You Don't Move Me" by Keith get revised explanations about what they meant now. Not to mention, the relationship is still evolving. That being said it is such a strong part of the Rolling Stones story, it doesn't seem you can go wrong by trying to have a detailed, factual account in a seperate related article, as opposed to cramming it into this article. Interesting idea, how to pull it off is more interesting.--Mikerussell 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It reaches all the way to the music they were producing as solo acts and even the stories about "Mixed Emotions" being "Mick's Demotion", which Keith of course denied. MC JAG Stan weller 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

British invasion ?

I find it odd that the north-american-centric term of British invasion should appear in the first sentence of the article. I propose rephrasing it simply as "(...) became popular in the early 1960s." and inserting a reference to the British invasion later in the "1962-1964 history" section. Marder01 07:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A good point, but the Beatles article includes it in the introduction. It could be placed elsewhere in the intro, a few sentences down maybe, but I think it belongs there. Stan weller 08:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The British Invasion was important to the British bands. Before then few British acts made it in the US. If it is "north-american-centric", big whoop. It is still important even in a global context. - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This article contains an excessive number of references to the bands influence in north America. For Americans who are used to this racial bias consider the following - if each reference to the US was converted into a reference to the bands influence in India ( as a random example ) how would it read? --82.171.126.125 19:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the stones play american music, so their influence in america is particularly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Stones owe a lot to America - for one they're not singing in German; also they play American music, they have had more success in North America than anywhere else, and they have recorded more in the US than any other country. Mick, Keith and Ronnie live in the US most of the time. Most, if not all, of their sideman including Bobby Keys, Daryl Jones, and Chuck Leavell - as well as their producer Don Was - are American. BTW: "American" isn't a racial category - and this requires no explanation. How much influence the band has had in India, while interesting, is beyond the scope of this entry, Neither India, or any other country, except England, is as important to the Stones as America. Not understanding this means not understanding the Stones. - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.128.2 (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    - "not singing in German" - sigh. Operation Sealion? Look it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.109.124 (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC) 

Reggae?

Genre, reggae? Can someone please clarify that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.234.34 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See Black and Blue, "Luxury" off It's Only Rock 'n Roll, "Send It to Me" off Emotional Rescue, "You Don't Have to Mean It" off Bridges to Babylon, among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan weller (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "Cherry Oh Baby" was to be included, also you can add "Too Rude" "Crackin Up" - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.162.177 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are a reggae band though. They are rock band and though they may have made some songs related to reggae, it's not appropriate for the Rolling Stones, do you think? Maybe you should check before you call an iconic rock band like the Rolling Stones a reggae band. Or an R'n'B band. Thundermaster367 13:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Playing "some songs related to reggae" and playing reggae songs is different. The songs listed above shows that the Stones played reggae songs. They were founded as and called themselves an R n B band. Mr Anonymous.

Exactly. They're genres associated with the Stones. No one would argue country music because it's what they're more well known for, with "Honky Tonk Women" and "Sweet Virginia". Stan weller 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is too many genres for an infobox. This is neither a country nor a reggae band, it's a rock band that dabbles in those genres. I would suggest removing all but a couple really band-defining genres from the infobox, and detailing stylistic adventures in the article body. / edg ☺ ★ 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't just dabble in country music. It's been a major part of the Stones' sound since the sixties on albums as differing as Let It Bleed and Some Girls. Stan weller 04:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Country, R&B and blues are certainly elements. This can also be said about Led Zeppelin. But this isn't a country, R&B or blues band. Let alone reggae. / edg ☺ ★ 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But the Stones didn't just incorporate these sounds into their music; they performed them. And if you're actually going to argue R&B, then you don't know the Rolling Stones. Stan weller 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to Mr. A: This may give us a good reason to start that "Musical Evolution" section. Stan weller 06:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The huge difference between the Stones and other bands is that they do cover so many genres. Referring to the blues as merely an "element" of the the Stones grossly ignores their history, reading the entry and any decent bio of the band will fix that. - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that some of the songs the Rolling Stones recorded many have had R'n'b and reggae elements, but aren't reggae or r'n'b. It's like I said on Slipknot's talk page, Slipknot may have thrash metal elements but they aren't thrash. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thundermaster, your repeating yourself, and in order to not repeat myself and others, and in interest of furthering a now stalled discussion, I'll suggest reading the above responses made to your arguments that you seemed to have missed or have ignored. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.131.226 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Personnel

This is a little too harsh, therefore I am changing it to "Members". Thundermaster367 13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Greatest rock and roll band in the world

Someone deleted it a few eeks back, but I re-added it as it's well known that the Stones are referred to as such in the media and by fans, etc. Should something like, "a title which has stuck", be added at the tail-end? Madonna's page reads, "Madonna is commonly referred to as the 'Queen of Pop' in the media." Stan weller 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to find a reference for it, but here's a video (of course I wouldn't use it) showing the Stones being introduced 5 times as the Greatest Rock n Roll Band, etc.: Keith Don't Go by Nils Lofgren --leahtwosaints (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bit too POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundermaster (talk • contribs) 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Musical evolution

I started this section. Feel free to subtract anything there. There isn't much, but it's just to get it rolling already. I think this is where we can move a lot of the quotes, Alexis Korner/Cyril Davies influence. Anyone's thoughts on breaking it up into sections by guitarist after a short introduction? Stan weller 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rolling Stones - Brown Sugar.ogg

Image:The Rolling Stones - Brown Sugar.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter.ogg

Image:The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the exact date and place of the first Stones concert?

I hear it's Lynn, Mass in Manning Bowl. did they play in 1964 for the first time in Manning Bowl? Did they kick off their 1966 tour in Lynn, Mass Manning Bowl as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.231.226 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rolling Stones - Brown Sugar.ogg

Image:The Rolling Stones - Brown Sugar.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rolling Stones - Paint It Black.ogg

Image:The Rolling Stones - Paint It Black.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rolling Stones - Satisfaction.ogg

Image:The Rolling Stones - Satisfaction.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Better front picture

The main picture of the band is of very poor quality, I suggest we upload abetter one. I'd suggest this one: [1]

I'm not sure about the fair use status, though. --The monkeyhate (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We've tried that one, but it usually gets removed. Stan weller (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a publicity photo to me. However, great recent photos showing all 4 "official" Stones abound! Why is this a problem? I really do think that to make this a great page, a better photo at the top showing at the least their FACES! --leahtwosaints (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Other Ones" -Meaning the Stones-

Wouldn't it be fair to add perhaps another layer in the box with the list of current members and past members, like, "support musicians" or something? I really think that the RS would sound piss poor if they only had 2 guitarists, vocalist and drummer on most of their songs. What about their current bass player? Or pianist? Or Lisa Fischer or Bernard Fowler singing backup for the past uh, 17 years? I think all four have contributed since at least 1995 if I am not mistaken. Thoughts? Am I the only one who thinks this?! --leahtwosaints (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Too unwieldy. You would constantly have people adding support members who they thought had contributed something to the band's sound/performances. Where would you draw the line? Billy Preston? Nicky Hopkins? Bobby Keys? Plus they're given mentions in the article and on the separate album/tour pages. Best to just stick to the ones who appeared in the publicity shots. Stan weller (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre

OK I think there to many genres and need to be less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiofile65 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to believe that reggae should be removed, but only reggae. While the Stones did record and perform reggae songs, it hardly had an influence on their music as a whole. The same thing applies to the session/sidemen question above. Where would it end? Funk music because it's present on Goats Head Soup? Disco because of Miss You and Emotional Rescue? The others should remain, but reggae I think should go. Stan weller (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've thought that as well. We can't have everyhing up there or it turn out like David Bowie's page or Tenacious D's page. 86.135.80.62 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think "R&B" should be removed, too. Maybe a stretch, but the only record this site itself classifies as partially R&B is their first one, name escapes at the moment, and I don't believe that's enough to categorize them as such, although it did have a large influence on them. CheezerRox4502 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

actually there have been several "discussions" in the meantime of the genres listed in the info box - see below. of course the Rolling Stones' roots are in R&B, and there are plenty of reliable sources that state that. what other wikipedia articles say or don't say is not too impressive an argument - wikipedia doesn't mistake itself for a reliable source. Sssoul (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

disco

how come this article totaly passes over the fact that the rolling stones had to major disco hits, miss you and, emontional rescue lol--Mikmik2953 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

feel free to add it. there's an edit button at the top of the page. lol Stan weller (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"English" or "British" band?

The question has arisen over on the page for The Beatles as to whether the band should be described in the lead as "English" or "British". Since the discussion there has implications for this article as well, contributors to the Rolling Stones article are invited to provide their input and vote in the poll found here. Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The wisdom of Solomon was found when somebody settled on "a band from England". You gotta wonder about Beatles fans when they argue at length if they should refer to a bands national orgins the same way the Royal Family are obligated to do so. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Really now. Does it matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.246.77 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess not. 69.116.246.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC).

Popular where?

The first sentence: ...became popular during the "British Invasion" in the early 1960s. - seems inaccurate and US-centric. They were popular in the UK and Europe before invading the colonies. Suggest dropping during the "British Invasion" from this sentence - it's talked about later. Danja (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Danja, you'll have to support "seems inaccurate" and explain what is not (yes, NOT) "US-centric" about the Stones, and what is minor about the British Invasion. - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Genres, again.

If reggae had to go, so should country. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Stan weller (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Related to the Stones genres, what makes reggae different from country? Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.245.113 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While I could make an argument for why country has a greater significance, I'll agree and remove it. Mention of their experimentation can be left for the musical evolution section. Stan weller (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see more on the rolling stones as a business. That would be the real information. This looks like a record company bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.142.45 (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What does that even mean? Stan weller (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The band is or the band are

If it reads akwardly, it shouldn't be used. Here is the argument made very well folk.uio.no/lynnp/Grammar_tips/ Collective_nouns_and_pronouns.pdf Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

read WP:ENGVAR British subject=British spelling and grammar. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific: throwing a whole style manual doesn't settle the issue any more than throwing a bible to settle a theological argument. So what exactly in English usage forbids a band being considered in a singular sense? Especially when the result is so mannered and awkward. Mr Anonymous.

Update. After delving and finding the Wiki page that actually applies, I located this passage: "In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals."

This is all from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/English_collective_nouns. Mr Anonymous

"using "the band" in the plural sense reads akwardly. Using "The Rolling Stones" in the plural, on the other hand, reads well." - Using "the band was" and "The Rolling Stones were" etc. would make the article inconsistent.

Considering that "Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Rolling Stones are a well-known band; The Giants are the champions.", "are", "were", "have" should be used throughout the article at all times, in accordance with WP:ENGVAR (the article is about a British subject so it uses British English, where bands are plural) and to keep the article consistent. Funeral 11:27, 20 March 2008 (UT

Funeral, You seem to have not read or have ignored the Wiki excerpt I cited above. I'll restate it and make it more explicit: The "Rolling Stones" refers to the band "as individuals" , while "band" refers to them "as an ensemble". And, as seems to have been missed though I quoted it, the British will therefore say ""the team is in the dressing room". And,"In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies.". In this case even the British, to their credit, don't like "The Band were." - Mr Anonymous

No the British will not say 'the team is in the dressing room'. 'The team are in the dressing room and the team are coming out onto the pitch' - whatever the Mercans say it isn't the British usage.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Egghead, "Mercans" is childish and offensive, and yes it is how we - and the British - speak. No one could read my citation and conclude that "They has sold!!!" is suggested or mandated. To avoid the appearance of being a gainsayer, could you state a source? The one I drawn on states the opposite, i.e. ""the team is in the dressing room". My source is the authoritative one in the abscense of a contrary citiation. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been done to death on articles for Pink Floyd, Queen, The Who, The Beatles etc etc. By all means change it but be prepared to be ruthlessly reverted by British people who would never say ' They was or The Rolling Stones was'. Have a nice day y'all--Egghead06 (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore him. He's a well establish troll. If you ("Mr.Anonymous") choose to ignore policies despite being outdone by consensus and numbers then you will be blocked for disruption. Read WP:ENGVAR like you've been asked to. British topic = British spellings/grammar. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Egghead and Scarian, those are not valid specific responses. I have read the link and it didn't have anything to say on the topic except that well established usage takes precedent. Also it lead me to more pertinent link that directly address the issue. So what exactly, not vaguely, "policies" am I up against? No one has cited policies that specifically point at the British usage does pair plural verbs with collective nouns that describe and "ensemble" such as, this will be third time this has been quoted from a Wiki article on British NOT AMERICAN - usage: "the team is [not are] in the dressing room", that is virtually the same as "the band was in the dressing room". Not "the band were in the dressing room". Any reason this has no bearing? I'm truly interested to find out how I am wrong. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that 4 different users have refuted you is good enough :-) - Have a nice day, Mr.Anonymous! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sacrian, it isn't good. Four often abusive, unsubstantiated and poorly reasoned opinions are just that until direct rebuttals are provided. So far there has been only inexplicable avoidance of the issues. So for the fourth time, reply to this with something bsides might is right: a Wiki article on British NOT AMERICAN - usage: "the team is [not are] in the dressing room", that is virtually the same as "the band was in the dressing room". Not "the band were in the dressing room". Any reason this has no bearing and why precedent in this article should be tossed, especialyuy that is against policy. - Mr Anonymous

Sure :-) - Anything you say. Current consensus on this topic stands though. Sorry :-( Scarian^{Call me Pat} 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have not responded, and ridicule is not OK. There was a consensus before the change, and a minority has usurped it. Would others please chime in so a gang of four who refuses to discuss why they insists on changing a long standing precedent will finally feel a sense of accountablility. Mr Anonymous

"There was a consensus before the change..." - Sorry, what? Where is the evidence for this? It's clear now that there is a consensus for British grammar in all British related articles. Thanks. Have a great day Mr.Anon! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply put - the British style, as foreign as it sounds to my American ears, is to treat collective groups as plural. "The band are", "The band were", "The band have", etc. And since this is an article about a British group, we use the British style. See American_and_British_English_differences#Nouns. It says either style can be used in British English, but the trend on Wikipedia is to use the plural form rather than the singular form. --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is standard. It's an article on an English band. The spelling, grammar, and prose should be consistent with the British style. It's the same reason why on Sidney Crosby, for example, the spelling is done the English way. He's Canadian, so it's only natural that it goes by his country. See WP:ENGVAR. It's inappropriate to change it simply because from an American perspective, it's awkward. Enigma ^msg! 20:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually proper Canadian spelling/grammar is identical to British/Australian/New Zealand... etc. But because Canada is regionally close to an English speaking country that doesn't use formal British spelling and grammar we tend to dumb it down a little. An article about a Canadian subject... done properly... would match Brit/Aussie/Kiwi... etc. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I said. By Canadian articles, it's done the English way. Enigma ^msg! 13:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So far many have said see WP:ENGVAR. But is doesn't apply at all, I can't see what it says about collective nouns and plural verbs. So far and no one has been able to refute this. My citation, on the other hand state that in "In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals." Also the link to American_and_British_English_differences#Nouns supports my position and in all important respects, restates my earlier citation. In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare a committee was appointed... with the committee were unable to agree.... If you want proof of common usage, I can add links from the BBC.CO.UK, timesonline.co.uk, and guardian.co.uk. I'm still mystified why "the band were" is maintined uniform usage when too much proof says something entirely different about what is "standard". - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To Mr.Anonymous: Go against consensus like that again and you will be blocked for disruption. Please read WP:POINT. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fiction: The British forbid and don't say "the band was" and that this is the "English Way"

For the benefit of the pretend erudites who didn't get memo see WP:PLURALS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/will-self/will-self-psychogeography-787687.html the band was limping along

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1769852,00.html ...he acknowledged that it was odd that the band was finding it easier to secure gigs overseas than at home.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/db1502.xml The band was effectively taken over by Chuck Berry

http://www.nme.com/news/mercury-rev/21720 The band was playing a one-off show at Shepherd’s Bush Empire

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5253782.stm He said the band was "thrilled to become citizens of Second Life".

And here's the clincher from the Sunday Times http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article3444861.ece Hufford and Edge have managed Radiohead from the start, when the band was still called On a Friday —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:so fix it then--Egghead06 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that WP:ENGVAR says is best take advantage of Opportunities for commonality, and clearly and explicity WP:PLURALS shows the British usage is the same as Amercican english, and that In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. and that it has been well proven there isn't reason to change, I will revert to the variety in place for years and regard the recent arguments to the contrary as ill-supported, ignorant and too late to qualify as consensus. It may take time to correct the wrong headed edits of others. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"I will revert to the variety in place for years and regard the recent arguments to the contrary as ill-supported, ignorant and too late to qualify as consensus. It may take time to correct the wrong headed edits of others."

That's not a very constructive approach. Enigma ^msg! 04:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

for the record, i agree with the point being made, even if it's being made in an um overexcited way - UK English does indeed happily use both "the band is" and "the band are"; and the way i read WP:ENGVAR, it seems to me that the policy supports both usages in a UK-oriented article - including using both in the same article, if the meaning calls for it.

and (i'm not certain i followed this argument right, sorry!) sure we can have both "the band is" and "the Rolling Stones are" in the same article, just like we can have "their music is" and "their songs are" - that's normal syntax, and not inconsistent in the least.

i don't mean to add to any brouhahas here, but in my grasp of both WP:ENGVAR and normal UK usage, both forms are acceptable in certain contexts. swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not entirely sure. Occasionally in England we use "is". e.g.: "Where is the band? The band are over there." - That could be an amalgamation of Brit English and Mercan English but it sounds okay. For consistency I think we should stay with one or the other. And so far, consensus seems to favour "are". Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

well ... my understanding is that it depends on the meaning - "the band were formed" sounded plain wrong to me, since the meaning is "a unit was formed", not "several individuals were formed"; on the other hand "the band were in their 20s" makes sense, sounds fine, etc. but anyway i hope the Compromise Solution i've proposed will suit everyone at least for the band-formation sentence. thanks and swing on Sssoul (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

follow-up: has this already been cited: American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement? what i read there is (again) that in British English it's normal to use both singular and plural verbs after collective nouns, depending on the meaning. "the band was formed in 1962" and "the band currently has four members" clearly refer to the band as a unit; those sentences don't want a plural verb in either variety of English. in British English such sentences co-exist quite happily with sentences like "the band were in their 20s" and "the band have declined to comment", where the sense is "several individuals". the tricky bit for users of American English is that British English tends to treat collective nouns as meaning "several individuals" more often than Americans generally expect - and of course i agree that in an article about a British group, British usage "wins" - but it's not normal/correct British English to *always* use plural verbs after collective nouns. it depends on the meaning.

as for "opportunities for commonality", i suggest taking advantage of the fact that this band has a conveniently plural name, which certainly makes it easier to sidestep the whole question - and/or there are always alternatives like "the band formed in 1962" and "band members have declined to comment".

apologies to everyone who finds this discussion absurd - i agree that there are way bigger things to worry about. 8) i simply got intrigued, since it's related to what i do for a living. Sssoul (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Opportunities for commonality" is the issue once proven commonality exists

Scarian, please prove commonality doesn't exist - contrary to WP:PLURALS, and I will have no problem with your preference. Also, is there any way to have others look at your postion direct opposition to Opportunies for commonality. - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the article being protected?

? Stan weller (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice anything? Enigma ^message 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly different than any other week. Stan weller (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it was significant enough to warrant semi-protection. Enigma ^message 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

which "55 albums"?

the introduction states that "The band have released 55 albums of original work[4] and compilations", which is pretty misleading - if it means "55 albums including compilations and concert albums", that's what it should say (and if it includes EPs and/or dvds it should say that too). meanwhile, the reference cited leads to a general page that has nothing at all about the Stones on it, as far as i can see. i'd change the statement myself except that the page is probably semi-protected for some reason, so i'd rather ask here first: what is it that this statement wants to refer to - studio albums? given the UK/US differences in the first 5-7, it may be hard to state an unambiguous total number - but it's not 55. if concert albums are being counted too, Shine a Light will be what - the tenth? counting compilations and dvd releases is trickier, since there have been several "country-specific" releases - but it'll be a good start to know what's being counted here, and from there finding a source to cite for it. thanks & swing on Sssoul (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

update: sorry, the OCD kicked in and i fixed that "55 albums" bit, plus a few other things that leapt to the eye. the numbers i've given for concert albums don't include Shine a Light, so that will want updating on April 1st; i've also added a new reference for the numbers of albums (http://www.timeisonourside.com/index2.html) but left the old one in as well, in case someone sees some value in it that isn't apparent to me. the other corrections i made should be self-explanatory, i hope - oh and i test-ran a couple of changes to sidestep the collective-noun brouhaha while i was at it. hope that's some help ... swing on Sssoul (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

seeking consensus on the genres in the info-box

since this seems to be generating a lot of edits lately, i hope a consensus can be reached here on the talk page.

the current list - rock & roll, rhythm & blues, blues, rock - is an accurate "minimalist" version. i object to the addition of "hard rock" for a couple of reasons: 1] we already have "rock", so "rock and hard rock" is like listing "bread and wheat bread"; and 2] if we *were* going to list miles of different genres i personally would include funk, soul, pop, country-flavoured rock, reggae-flavoured rock and psychedelic rock before listing "hard rock". obviously there may be different points of view regarding the "most important" of the many diverse genres the Stones have taken on, but plain "rock" seems like one we can all agree on.

and to the person who removed rock & roll from the list: the Rolling Stones have never forgotten what they started from, and have always made a big point of getting us to appreciate it. here's a very good essay that might help: http://www.timeisonourside.com/ecstasy.html Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As few as possible. We've already discussed this endlessly so no real consensus in needed. It's obvious they're a rock and roll band so its removal is ridiculous. Why does one person get to define "rock and roll" for the rest of us? Stan weller (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks Stan weller - it's good to know this has all been hammered out before, so i guess we just keep directing people to this discussion when they keep altering the genre list. by the way, in the meantime i checked out the wiki page for "hard rock" and it's not at all clear to me what people have in mind when they add it to the Stones' "genre list". Sssoul (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

HOW COULD ANY OF YOU FORGET HARD ROCK - Why is there no hard rock? They have so much hard rock songs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.84 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

see above - "rock" includes "hard rock" along with every other genre of rock the Stones do. the info-box is not supposed to include every detail of everything they've done. Sssoul (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

consensus-seeking time again! i still favour the "minimalist" version: rock & roll, rhythm & blues, blues, rock. if more genres really have to be added, though, i definitely vote for listing rock & roll and r&b first. Sssoul (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

update: okay, since there are no objections i've changed it back to the "minimalist" version. if other genres really need to be added (which i doubt) i'd see way more point in adding soul or pop rather than subdivisions of rock - rock is a nice broad category that covers blues-rock, country-rock, hard rock, etc. but the info box isn't meant to be all-inclusive, so it seems way more fitting to go into the details in the article itself. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the band........

.....is Rolling Stones , without The 86.90.206.178 (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, but until at least 1997 and the release of Bridges to Babylon, they were still using that "The" for their album covers. For those of us who still have their first 45, old habits are... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus their nickname is "The Stones." When's the last time someone said "We're going to see Stones"? Stan weller (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That last one is too easy. An other band: Four Tops, is also without the, and yes, I do say I saw the Four Tops. But that's not their name. Greetz, Edwinb (Dutchwikipedia) --86.90.206.178 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But what I'm saying is that it's how they're known. We've had this discussion before and it got to the point where we had people counting up the uses of "The Rolling Stones" vs. "Rolling Stones" on official releases by the band (in case you're wondering "The Rolling Stones" won). Everyone uses the "The" so it should remain. Stan weller (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Additions to 1965-69 section

I've added a couple of pars about the 1966 singles as I felt this section concentrated too heavily on (US) LP releases and didn't really reflect the band's huge succcess on the US and UK singles charts in that period.

Dunks (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Additions to 1965-69 section

I've added a couple of pars about the 1966 singles as I felt this section concentrated too heavily on (US) LP releases and didn't really reflect the band's huge succcess on the US and UK singles charts in that period.

Dunks (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Argument for reconsideration of listing keyboard players

The Stones have always had a keyboard player, and a a very good periodic history of the band could be fashioned around who was playing keys for the band. Ian Mcglagan, very prominent on "Miss You", wrote an autobiograhy that makes this clear, particularily in relation to Ian Stewart and Nicky Hopkins. What is sometimes regarded as the Mick Taylor or Jimmy Miller years could be just as well regarded as the Hopkins period. The musicality of Taylor was more than coincidently augmented and furthered by Hopkins. - Mr Anonymous

Listing in the info box? I think the one argument against doing that is that many periods overlapped. The Nicky Hopkins era overlapped the Billy Preston era and Ian Stewart overlapped both. Though it's obvious keys are important to the Stones' sound it seems like a mention of this would best fit in the "Musical Evolution" section, which still needs fleshing out. There you could mention how Stewart would refuse to play on certain tracks due to his musical preferences. During those occasions Hopkins would be brought in. While you can't ignore that impact their keyboardists had on the music (particularly Preston on their mid-70s albums; he even got an "inspiration" credit on Black and Blue) I think most fans and critics would relegate them to session/touring status. Stan weller (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

i agree that listing all the keyboard players either in the infobox or in the chart at the bottom showing the lineup changes through the years creates a lot of complications - and that writing about them in the article is an excellent idea. don't forget Jack Nitzsche! Sssoul (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre box...

Alright, I was thinking, it would make sense to add blues-rock to the genre box and maybe take out R&B, since the bulk of their records don't really have R&B tendencies. Thoughts? CheezerRox4502 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In "According To The Rolling Stones" Charlie Watts said Brian Jones was on a "crusade" for ads in Melody Maker to have the Stones "be billed as an R&B band." This topic has been discussed before, and even a brief look at the bands' genesis will resolve any debate as to whether R&B is a genre for the Stones. As for "Blues Rock": it has been also discussed, and the consensus is against it. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.151.69 (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page for this. It might be worth noting that nowadays R&B means something different than it did in the 1960s; and that the Rolling Stones are most definitely rooted in R&B in the older sense of the term; and that there's already a section on this talk page where this is all discussed: Talk:The_Rolling_Stones#seeking_consensus_on_the_genres_in_the_info-box Sssoul (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A Bigger Bang intro mention

I'm re-adding A Bigger Bang to the intro as I think it's necessary to mention the band's latest work. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the article and as it is now it looks like the Stones were a rock and roll band, not are. Stan weller (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Genres once more...

O.K., this looks just plain silly, having Rock, then Rock & Roll, then having Rhythm and Blues, followed by Blues. Rock & Roll is a subset of the more general category Rock, and Blues is a subset of Rhythm & Blues. Therefore I'm going to remove Rock & Roll and Blues as genre, because they are already covered by the genres 'Rock' and 'Rhythm & Blues'. Peter-T (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

um, please read previous discussions of this on this talk page: there is consensus on this, and one editor's opinion isn't enough to alter it. rock & roll is a predecessor of rock in addition to being a "subgenre"; similarly, the blues genre has a long history that pre-dates the invention of the label rhythm & blues. i support putting the terms in something more like chronological order, but any other alterations to this field require consensus among editors who contribute to this page. thanks for repecting that Sssoul (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that folk rock should be in the genre box. Beginning in the mid-sixties, the band has played numerous acoustic songs, like Lady Jane, As Tears Go By, and Wild Horses, to name a few. The acoustic presence is just as big as blues and R&B, so shouldn't that make "Folk rock" eligible? Krobertj (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

the genre field (like the rest of the info box) is supposed to be kept general. details about all the various genres & subgenres the Stones have explored belong in the main body of the article, with citations from reliable sources to back them up. (and the use of acoustic doesn't always mean "folk rock" anyway.) thanks Sssoul (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we've discussed this before. It's best to keep it as open and broad as possible. Look to the Beatles' page as an example. Rock and pop are the two genres listed. We call the Stones an "R&B band" because that's what they have called themselves. This is a band with a very rich and diverse collection of music so it can be tempting to add every genre they've explored, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Stan weller (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic.com

I notice there is no external link to [Allmusic.com]

The Stones pages is: Stones at Allmusic, but that may be a floating address.

The site gives their ID as P5298. Other artists such as Elvis Costello seem to have an ID number that looks different:

• Elvis Costello at AllMusic

It's a pretty comprehensive and credible site, and worth the external link. Can anyone figure out how to make the external link?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones main article, and the only external links are Official Site and Internet Movie Data Base??????--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah feel free to add it. I think it's a great website. Stan weller (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added MusicBrainz, Discogs, and Allmusic. The first two are okay, but the Allmusic is really worth being there.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible information to add somewhere

They are among the Holy Trinity of '60s British Rock 'N' Roll were The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who. See Matt Kent and Andy Neil, The Who: The Ultimate Collection (Santa Monica: MCA Records, 2002), 3. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No Kinks? Stan weller (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian's departure

From timeisonourside.com Mick: ...I wasn't used to kicking people out of the band. Brian got the boot, but a PR release from Leslie Perrin misleadingly presented it as a mutual agreed parting of ways. Why perpetrate the fiction? Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.154.118 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

because the interview with Mick that timeisonourside.com quotes isn't the only source around. the observable fact is that Brian and the band parted ways. who initiated the parting is a POV question and neutral wording is appropriate. "you can't fire me, i quit" does happen in real life. Sssoul (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple that are of the "observable fact" variety: Charlie Watts in the Stones video 5X25 said it was sad that Brain was kicked out: something along the lines the being a Stone was taken from him. And Mick makes it really clear as to what happened.

WENNER: Did you fire him, finally? JAGGER: Yeah. WENNER: How was that? JAGGER: Not pleasant. It’s never pleasant, firing people. But it had to be done because we felt we needed someone, and he wasn’t there. See http://www.jannswenner.com/Archives/Jagger_Remembers.aspx

And Victor Brokris (Keith Richards: The Biography‎ - Page 160 by Victor Bockris ) straight our says Brian was fired.

Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.153.77 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, i am cognizant of how the surviving Stones (and their biographers) view this, and - whatever i personally believe - that's only one "side" of the story. Brian Jones biographers present another viewpoint, which is why other editors keep swooping in here and changing "he was fired" to "he quit". it seems like the neutral wording that Brian and the others parted ways should satisfy everybody; but if you feel it's more appropriate to present both viewpoints, then go for it. presenting just one "side" isn't very adequate, though. Sssoul (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember an Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Caligula referring to his apologists, and of course, politely made them look marginal and silly. How the principals, Mick and Keith, since it is their band, and Charlie view the matter trumps the opinion of a sympathetic biographer, especially if there is on their part no acknowledgment of how the band now views the matter. The Stones had already defacto fired Brian when they started working with Mick Taylor, weeks before they worked out the fiction that Brian had quit. In other words, how do you quit when you've been replaced? Mick bluntly sees it as a "firing", and so does Keith: in According to the Rolling Stones Keith said "...the three of us [Keith, Mick and Charlie] don't take the trouble to drive down to somebody's house if we don't care about them, even if it is to tell them 'You're Fired.'" Charlie also viewed it as Mick and Keith and he did "took" the Stones away from Brian. They then then worked out the pleasant fiction of amicable departure that none of them continues to peddle. Jones' biographers seemingly pretend the original PR spin is how they actually then felt. A good compromise, if it ever turns into a issue, might be to say, "The Stones replaced an incapacitated Jones with guitarist Mick Taylor, shortly before Jone'es death", and then to lower down go into the circumstances and interpretations in more detail.

Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.150.13 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr Anonymous, the "parted ways" wording was enstated as a compromise after some editor had changed "he was fired" to "he quit". it was proposed to reduce edit warring over this point, not to prolong talk-page arguments. as i said above: if you feel it's more appropriate to present both viewpoints, then go for it. there are citeable sources for both viewpoints, so ... cite them in good health Sssoul (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know of the earlier discussion and would have read it with interest and possible benefit. Nonetheless, I don't think it would apply because it has the wrong focus. Instead, stressing why Jones was replaced weeks before he was fired, or quit, the band, is far less quarellsome than than the question of how he left. The passage in place "Shortly before his death in 1969, the band replaced an incapacitated Jones with Mick Taylor." avoids the controversy by being beyond dispute chronologically. (Using "incapacitated" is appropriate, since Taylor was taken on because Jones was so far out of it that he couldn't make one English gig at Hyde Park, let alone get a U.S. Visa and survive an American tour. Jones in fact was not able to complete last tour the Stones made of America 2 years earlier, and the band thereafter viewed him as replaceable when it might became necessary, which happened in 1969.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.150.13 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

again: i'm not interested in prolonging this discussion - change it to what you want, just please cite references so it's at least a little less susceptible to reversion by editors who insist that "Jones quit" is the correct wording. Sssoul (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's understood that I am not the one reverting the "fired" take on Brian's departure, but a Wiki Admin, without commenting - which is really annoying and troublesome, has made the reverts. I would like to avoid the whole issue of Brian was fired or quit in the intro, and think both sides can be cited in the body (which it isn't at this time, but that's a whole another matter). My offered compromise to stick to the chronology, the why, as it were, of Brian's departure, makes the fired or quit arguments completely besides the point. (BTW, I don't where this fired or quit argument was discussed on this page. Am I missing something?) Can I get someone to acknowledge that I have not been talking about restoring "fired" but instead a reasonable compromise? Mr Anonymous

not sure why you need someone to acknowledge that, but right: you have not been talking about restoring "fired". i feel the "parted ways" version was also a "reasonable compromise", but obviously there are different views. in any case i agree that the intro should avoid either "fired" or "quit", and the body of the text should mention both versions as long as reliable sources are cited for both.

as for "where this fired or quit argument was discussed": it may not have been discussed on this page; editors swoop in and change "fired" to "quit" without discussion. check the edit history. Sssoul (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith frankly admits that Brian was given the sack in one of his interviews in the Stones documentary 25 Years of the Rolling Stones which was released on VHS in 1990. You're out, cock as he put it in regards to Brian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the other four had no alternative. Jones wasn't able to obtain a visa to the USA due to his drug offenses, and that 1969 US tour was crucial to their career. By 1968, Jones could barely function as a band member. Look at him in the Godard film, Sympathy For the Devil.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're OK with the intro, it'd be good to detail what happened when Brian left. Currently it reads :"By the release of Beggars Banquet, Brian Jones was troubled and contributing only sporadically to the band. Jagger said that Jones was "not psychologically suited to this way of life".[44] His drug use had become a hindrance, and he was unable to obtain a US visa. Richards reported that, in a June meeting with Jagger, Richards, and Watts at Jones's house, Jones admitted that he was unable to "go on the road again". According to Richards, all agreed to let Jones "...say I've left, and if I want to I can come back".[4] His replacement was the 20-year-old guitarist Mick Taylor, of John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, who started recording with the band immediately. On 3 July 1969, less than a month later, Jones drowned in the pool at his Cotchford Farm home in Sussex. Besides having more details than needed for an entry, e.g. "Cotchford Farm home in Sussex" this is OK with how it handles the fired or quit issue, but we could add that later Richards and Jagger regarded it a firing while noting that at least some of Jones' biographers prefer to say he "quit". Also it omits that weeks prior to Brian's departure, Taylor was already playing with the Stones doing overdubs and rehearsing for the Hyde Park gig. Mr Anonymous

Associated Acts

Hopefully guidelines exist for Associated Acts. Having only the Faces and Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings is incomplete. Those acts also are so tangential that you have to wonder if they rightly belong. Mr Anonymous

neither Faces nor the Rhythm Kings belong there, since they are neither precursors nor offshoots of the Stones. even Little Boy Blue and the Blues Boys would be stretching it, in my view; i propose leaving that field blank. Sssoul (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Winos? Stan weller (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

in my view the Winos belong in Keith's info box, not here. Sssoul (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Better image needed for intro box

The current image in the intro box is blurred and looks awful. Why not replace it with the black and white vintage photo, which is seen further down the page? Apart from the fact that it's a better quality photograph, it shows the original line-up of the band.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

in my opinion a photo of the current lineup is appropriate for the intro. but if you can persuade some photographer to donate a better/clearer image than the one that's there now, that would be great. Sssoul (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And where would I happen to find that photographer?! It's a pity more professional photographers don't contribute to Wikipedia and upload their photos, thus improving articles. As it stands, the current photo in the intro is terrible. The Stones are barely recognisable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I like to stay out of image discussions, but I like the current photo. It shows well who is in the band as full members, it shows them as a live act, which is what they regard themselves as primarily, and it shows the presonality of the band, particularily Ronnie with his hands in the air, and Charlie looking so unassuming. It also lacks the pretense and artiface of studio shots. It'd be a pity to see it go. Mr Anonymous

But it's blurred and of poor quality; what's more, you cannot see Keith's face!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Not too sure as to why the Wiki Libs - a Wiki Admin presumably - has reverted the page to go against consensus - bot like behavior? - but I left a note on his or her Talk page explaining the edits and asking for comments that may be of help. It all sounds like a revert war that doesn't need to be started. They tend to getting heated too quick. Mr Anonymous

The edit altered more text than the edit summary implied including introducing false information. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What false information? Consensus is against saying Brian was fired.

After finding a better explanation on an obscure Admin page, which took some hunting to find, and since we can't rely on that Admin to offer good explanations in obvious locations, I'll relay that I found that saying Wyman "retired" is objected to. Though his Rhythm Kings is more of a hobby band, it's not that big enough deal to try to make a federal case out of it. Work with us, baby. Mr Anonymous

Archiving this talk page

After I've had my account long enough, I plan to move this page to archive. Of course, anyone else is welcome to do so. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Brian's departure

From timeisonourside.com Mick: ...I wasn't used to kicking people out of the band. Brian got the boot, but a PR release from Leslie Perrin misleadingly presented it as a mutual agreed parting of ways. Why perpetrate the fiction? Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.154.118 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

because the interview with Mick that timeisonourside.com quotes isn't the only source around. the observable fact is that Brian and the band parted ways. who initiated the parting is a POV question and neutral wording is appropriate. "you can't fire me, i quit" does happen in real life. Sssoul (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple that are of the "observable fact" variety: Charlie Watts in the Stones video 5X25 said it was sad that Brain was kicked out: something along the lines the being a Stone was taken from him. And Mick makes it really clear as to what happened.

WENNER: Did you fire him, finally? JAGGER: Yeah. WENNER: How was that? JAGGER: Not pleasant. It’s never pleasant, firing people. But it had to be done because we felt we needed someone, and he wasn’t there. See http://www.jannswenner.com/Archives/Jagger_Remembers.aspx

And Victor Brokris (Keith Richards: The Biography‎ - Page 160 by Victor Bockris ) straight our says Brian was fired.

Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.153.77 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, i am cognizant of how the surviving Stones (and their biographers) view this, and - whatever i personally believe - that's only one "side" of the story. Brian Jones biographers present another viewpoint, which is why other editors keep swooping in here and changing "he was fired" to "he quit". it seems like the neutral wording that Brian and the others parted ways should satisfy everybody; but if you feel it's more appropriate to present both viewpoints, then go for it. presenting just one "side" isn't very adequate, though. Sssoul (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember an Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Caligula referring to his apologists, and of course, politely made them look marginal and silly. How the principals, Mick and Keith, since it is their band, and Charlie view the matter trumps the opinion of a sympathetic biographer, especially if there is on their part no acknowledgment of how the band now views the matter. The Stones had already defacto fired Brian when they started working with Mick Taylor, weeks before they worked out the fiction that Brian had quit. In other words, how do you quit when you've been replaced? Mick bluntly sees it as a "firing", and so does Keith: in According to the Rolling Stones Keith said "...the three of us [Keith, Mick and Charlie] don't take the trouble to drive down to somebody's house if we don't care about them, even if it is to tell them 'You're Fired.'" Charlie also viewed it as Mick and Keith and he did "took" the Stones away from Brian. They then then worked out the pleasant fiction of amicable departure that none of them continues to peddle. Jones' biographers seemingly pretend the original PR spin is how they actually then felt. A good compromise, if it ever turns into a issue, might be to say, "The Stones replaced an incapacitated Jones with guitarist Mick Taylor, shortly before Jone'es death", and then to lower down go into the circumstances and interpretations in more detail.

Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.150.13 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr Anonymous, the "parted ways" wording was enstated as a compromise after some editor had changed "he was fired" to "he quit". it was proposed to reduce edit warring over this point, not to prolong talk-page arguments. as i said above: if you feel it's more appropriate to present both viewpoints, then go for it. there are citeable sources for both viewpoints, so ... cite them in good health Sssoul (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know of the earlier discussion and would have read it with interest and possible benefit. Nonetheless, I don't think it would apply because it has the wrong focus. Instead, stressing why Jones was replaced weeks before he was fired, or quit, the band, is far less quarellsome than than the question of how he left. The passage in place "Shortly before his death in 1969, the band replaced an incapacitated Jones with Mick Taylor." avoids the controversy by being beyond dispute chronologically. (Using "incapacitated" is appropriate, since Taylor was taken on because Jones was so far out of it that he couldn't make one English gig at Hyde Park, let alone get a U.S. Visa and survive an American tour. Jones in fact was not able to complete last tour the Stones made of America 2 years earlier, and the band thereafter viewed him as replaceable when it might became necessary, which happened in 1969.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.150.13 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

again: i'm not interested in prolonging this discussion - change it to what you want, just please cite references so it's at least a little less susceptible to reversion by editors who insist that "Jones quit" is the correct wording. Sssoul (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's understood that I am not the one reverting the "fired" take on Brian's departure, but a Wiki Admin, without commenting - which is really annoying and troublesome, has made the reverts. I would like to avoid the whole issue of Brian was fired or quit in the intro, and think both sides can be cited in the body (which it isn't at this time, but that's a whole another matter). My offered compromise to stick to the chronology, the why, as it were, of Brian's departure, makes the fired or quit arguments completely besides the point. (BTW, I don't where this fired or quit argument was discussed on this page. Am I missing something?) Can I get someone to acknowledge that I have not been talking about restoring "fired" but instead a reasonable compromise? Mr Anonymous

not sure why you need someone to acknowledge that, but right: you have not been talking about restoring "fired". i feel the "parted ways" version was also a "reasonable compromise", but obviously there are different views. in any case i agree that the intro should avoid either "fired" or "quit", and the body of the text should mention both versions as long as reliable sources are cited for both.

as for "where this fired or quit argument was discussed": it may not have been discussed on this page; editors swoop in and change "fired" to "quit" without discussion. check the edit history. Sssoul (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith frankly admits that Brian was given the sack in one of his interviews in the Stones documentary 25 Years of the Rolling Stones which was released on VHS in 1990. You're out, cock as he put it in regards to Brian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the other four had no alternative. Jones wasn't able to obtain a visa to the USA due to his drug offenses, and that 1969 US tour was crucial to their career. By 1968, Jones could barely function as a band member. Look at him in the Godard film, Sympathy For the Devil.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're OK with the intro, it'd be good to detail what happened when Brian left. Currently it reads :"By the release of Beggars Banquet, Brian Jones was troubled and contributing only sporadically to the band. Jagger said that Jones was "not psychologically suited to this way of life".[44] His drug use had become a hindrance, and he was unable to obtain a US visa. Richards reported that, in a June meeting with Jagger, Richards, and Watts at Jones's house, Jones admitted that he was unable to "go on the road again". According to Richards, all agreed to let Jones "...say I've left, and if I want to I can come back".[4] His replacement was the 20-year-old guitarist Mick Taylor, of John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, who started recording with the band immediately. On 3 July 1969, less than a month later, Jones drowned in the pool at his Cotchford Farm home in Sussex. Besides having more details than needed for an entry, e.g. "Cotchford Farm home in Sussex" this is OK with how it handles the fired or quit issue, but we could add that later Richards and Jagger regarded it a firing while noting that at least some of Jones' biographers prefer to say he "quit". Also it omits that weeks prior to Brian's departure, Taylor was already playing with the Stones doing overdubs and rehearsing for the Hyde Park gig. Mr Anonymous

Associated Acts

Hopefully guidelines exist for Associated Acts. Having only the Faces and Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings is incomplete. Those acts also are so tangential that you have to wonder if they rightly belong. Mr Anonymous

neither Faces nor the Rhythm Kings belong there, since they are neither precursors nor offshoots of the Stones. even Little Boy Blue and the Blues Boys would be stretching it, in my view; i propose leaving that field blank. Sssoul (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Winos? Stan weller (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

in my view the Winos belong in Keith's info box, not here. Sssoul (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Better image needed for intro box

The current image in the intro box is blurred and looks awful. Why not replace it with the black and white vintage photo, which is seen further down the page? Apart from the fact that it's a better quality photograph, it shows the original line-up of the band.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

in my opinion a photo of the current lineup is appropriate for the intro. but if you can persuade some photographer to donate a better/clearer image than the one that's there now, that would be great. Sssoul (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And where would I happen to find that photographer?! It's a pity more professional photographers don't contribute to Wikipedia and upload their photos, thus improving articles. As it stands, the current photo in the intro is terrible. The Stones are barely recognisable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I like to stay out of image discussions, but I like the current photo. It shows well who is in the band as full members, it shows them as a live act, which is what they regard themselves as primarily, and it shows the presonality of the band, particularily Ronnie with his hands in the air, and Charlie looking so unassuming. It also lacks the pretense and artiface of studio shots. It'd be a pity to see it go. Mr Anonymous

But it's blurred and of poor quality; what's more, you cannot see Keith's face!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Not too sure as to why the Wiki Libs - a Wiki Admin presumably - has reverted the page to go against consensus - bot like behavior? - but I left a note on his or her Talk page explaining the edits and asking for comments that may be of help. It all sounds like a revert war that doesn't need to be started. They tend to getting heated too quick. Mr Anonymous

The edit altered more text than the edit summary implied including introducing false information. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What false information? Consensus is against saying Brian was fired.

After finding a better explanation on an obscure Admin page, which took some hunting to find, and since we can't rely on that Admin to offer good explanations in obvious locations, I'll relay that I found that saying Wyman "retired" is objected to. Though his Rhythm Kings is more of a hobby band, it's not that big enough deal to try to make a federal case out of it. Work with us, baby. Mr Anonymous

Andrew Oldham

As soon as I locate a sound source, I shall mention how Oldham played a crucial part in the ousting of Brian Jones from his role as former frontman of the band. It was he who had suggested to Mick and Keith that Brian was to be pushed into the background; as it turned out, Brian's position within the group would end up being little more than that of a cipher.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid view to have, but there are arguments against it and they deserve to be acknowledged if the issue is going to mentioned in the entry: mainly circumstances manifested the marginalization of Brian making it unnecessary for anyone else to speed it along. Brian was still in the band after Oldham was gone. Keith said that Brian was the only one who thought he could upstage Mick Jagger. The point being, that if you are onstage with Mick Jagger, you are automatically pushed to the background. Note how long it took for Keith to get noticed. It was musicians who promoted him as a great, original guitar player well before journalists caught on and would stop peddling the poor mans' Chuck Berry meme, e.g. Lester Bangs. Matter of fact, Mick Taylor's integration into the band was not all that seamless as some think. Robert Greenfield reported Ian Stewart saying how Taylor's inclusion forced the band to forgo a lot of material because he was not up to where Brian was with many songs. As for being a cipher, well maybe, but until the end he made wonderful contributions, particularly the slide guitar on No Expectations and the autoharp on You Got The Silver. Trying to think of those songs without Brian's playing offers sad and poorer alternatives. I think, but I could be a little off, nonetheless it still applies, Keith referred to Brian's end citing Neil Youngs' poignant line about every junkie being like a "setting sun", flickering before disappearing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not downplaying Brian's unique contributions to the group, both musically and visually. Indeed, his extraordinary talent was made manifest with his uninhibited sitar playing in Paint it Black, not to mention his exquisite additions to LPs such as Between the Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties Request. In point of fact, in the early days (1962-1965) of the Stones career, Brian was the most charismatic and visible member of the band. On stage and on album covers, Brian was in the foreground. Mick as lead singer obviously commanded much attention; however, and this is pertinent as prior to the late 1960s the Stones fans were mainly teenage girls, Brian was the best-looking member of the group. Mick only developed his own messiniacal brand of charisma once Brian was effectively pushed into the background- as a result of Jagger's ego and Oldham's furtive machinations, not to mention his own destructive substance abuse. Had Jagger possessed in 1964 the personal charisma he had in 1968, Dean Martin would never have dared to publically insult the Stones the way he did. Can you imagine Martin trying that stunt on John Lennon?! I have seen the Stones perform live, Jagger's energy is palpable, overwhelming. Yet, look at the old Stones clips; Jones dominated the stage with his flamboyant presence until 1966, when Jagger became the focal point of the fans. As for Keith, journalists ignored him until his own outlaw hero persona emerged in the late 1960s along with belated recognition of his original, mesmeric guitar-playing. His black-haired saturnine appearance, laconic speech, and consistant anti-authority stance also helped win the admiration of the new generation of Stones fans (The Easy Rider generation) that had emerged in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Taylor had the talent, but not the personality to be a true Rolling Stone, whereas Ron Wood fitted right in.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting and novel enough opinions that will need a lot of citations to support. Good luck. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to check my dog-eared, much-read copy of Bill Wyman's Stone Alone. He gives such a good, detailed account of the Stones' early years.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, three things

1) The page is starting to look cluttered again with those little bits of useless information. A good chunk of the 1965-69 section is devoted to the drug bust era and is too detailed and unsourced. Anyone agree it's time for some edits?

2) I'm going to merge the 1992-1999 and 2000-2004 sections together because the 2000-04 section has very little info and the Licks Tour could be a good defining line when it comes to one era of the Stones' ending a new era (the album was titled A Bigger Bang) beginning.

And number 3) What has happened to the intro? I was pleased with the version Mr. A and I finally settled on some months back and now it's all over the place.

Stan weller (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

smile: well, you know what they say about wikipedia: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... " 8)

indeed the intro went through some changes recently; some of the discussion is still on this page, and/or you can check the edit history to trace what happened. it's not the smoothest intro in the world at the moment, but to me it doesn't look "all over the place" ... Sssoul (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved two sentences around to make the intro more chronological. Stan weller (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Intro Edit

The 2nd paragraph concerns personnel and band leadership, the 3rd parapgraph concerns reception/achivement issues. The line about how they became popular is independent of who was in the band and who ran the band. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

about that Little Red Rooster ...

in the "1962 - 1964" section we used to have the statement "The band's US distributors (London Records) declined to release 'Little Red Rooster' as a single there, probably due to its sexual overtones"; that latter clause is speculation that technically needs a reliable source back it up. that clause was recently changed to an assertion that London Record's reason for this decision was "possibly" Sam Cooke's recording of the number. that edit did cite a source - but does that source speculate that Cooke's record may have led to London Records declining to release the Stones' version in the US?? if not, that's original research, which isn't what Wikipedia is about. until further notice i've removed both of the speculative allegations, leaving just "The band's US distributors (London Records) declined to release 'Little Red Rooster' as a single there." Sssoul (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)