Talk:Like a Rolling Stone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Writing and recording section

There is some repetition between the third paragraph that begins "From the extended version on paper" and the fifth paragraph that begins "On the first day or recording," specifically about the fact that the first takes were in 3/4 time. We have to decide where we want to include this information.

I am also concerned with the sentence "The song was originally written in 3/4 (waltz) time, and with a length of 1:36, was much shorter than the released 4/4 version." This sounds like the song was originally written/planned to be 1:36, but we clearly say elsewhere that this take [the one released on Bootleg Series 1-3] was an incomplete take. That sentence is sourced to Heylin's Behind the Shades, which I don't have, so I'm not sure exactly what he says. If I get a chance I can try to see if it is on Google Books, but in the meantime I just wanted to point out that this sentence needs fixing. Moisejp (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the repetition. I took a sentence out & I think it reads better. I'm puzzled by footnote to Creswell (2006) - I don't know what this refers to. I'll leave it in, in case someone can figure it out. I'll try to look at Heylin again. Mick gold (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mick gold, I agree it reads more smoothly without the sentence you took out. By the way, the "On the first day of recording" paragraph is sourced to Marcus. Does he say which of the five takes on the first day is the one where Dylan says "My voice is gone, man . . ." (and was released on Bootleg 1-3)? Was it the fourth take? Right now it's not totally clear in the article. You have that book, don't you? Unfortunately I don't. Moisejp (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to relate to Toby Cresswell, 1001 Songs: The Great Songs of All Time and the Artists, Stories and Secrets Behind Them. Can't say I've read the book. The verification for the russian band is a link to a lyric site (in russian, too!). Don't the Legacy and cover versions need to be swtiched in order? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Richhoncho, you're right. I've added Shaun Considine's account of how the song was released as a single, despite objections from marketing & sales departments. Mick gold (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I found the cited info in Creswell's 1001 Songs. I added the book information to the references section. Rlendog (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"his musicians"

Alternative wording could be "and the studio musicians," or "the session musicans", not sure I like ""his" in this circumstance. Curiously, I wonder who picked the session musicans, I would suspect it was Tom Wilson, probably with input from Dylan. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Irwin, Bloomfield was requested by Dylan himself and the rest were Wilson's call (although Kooper is its own story). Several of the musicians (at least Gregg and Griffin) had been used by Wilson on Bringing It All Back Home, so Wilson at least knew that Dylan got on with them. Rlendog (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Two concerns

I had two questions that sprang to mind while reading this article. One is that the information box says the b-side was "Gates of Eden" but elsewhere it says that the second half of the song was put on the B-side. Are these different versions of the single? This should be clarified.

My second concern is the sentence "The song's six-minute length caused Columbia Records to reject it as a single, but Bob Johnston, Dylan's new producer, released the song anyway." If Columbia rejected it as a single it sounds like they refused to release it, and it is not clear how the producer had the power to override the record company's decision. Also, do we need to explain why it is Bob Johnston who was making this decision, and not the song's producer, Tom Wilson? I understand that his regular producer changed around that time, but maybe if we suddenly mention Bob Johnston we need to explain this change? Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In the UK Gates of Eden was the b-side. There may have been a radio edit with LARS split over 2 sides sent to radio stations in the UK, but I don't know. It was usually (always?) played in 2 parts. Other territories may be different. As I understand it, Dylan's original contract with Columbia was not very beneficial and I very much doubt either Dylan, Wilson or Johnson had any control over the choice of single release. Certainly contracts issued in the 60s are very different than today's contracts. All in my opinion of course. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Could it have been meant that "The song's six-minute length caused Columbia Records initially to reject it as a single, but Bob Johnston, Dylan's new producer, lobbied for its release and convinced the label"? I'm pretty sure that it was released on Columbia - as evidence, there's a walking eye in the corner of the cover image that Moisejp added. If someone could find some solid refs, then we could mention the issue of multiple edits (standard, radio/dj, etc). - I.M.S. (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the article now reflects the situation properly, at least per various sources. The promo copies of the song were in two parts on separate sides, but the officially released single had the full song as the A-side and "Gates of Eden" as the B-side. Rlendog (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have found some information about the different single versions, including the split version here: http://www.searchingforagem.com/1960s/MonoSingles1960s_2Rolling.htm and here: http://www.searchingforagem.com/1960s/1965.htm

It sources some of this information to a book called "Highway 61 Revisited" by Mark Polizotti. Does anyone have this book? Anyway, I haven't had a chance to carefully look at the info on the two links above carefully yet but will try to in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=1TOjQItTnj0C&pg=PP1&dq <---- That's the Google books listing for "Highway 61 Revisited" by Mark Polizotti. It's out of the "33 1/3" series, which is a trusted and rather definitive series of books on different landmark recordings over time (Highway 61 Revisited, The Village Green Preservation Society, Harvest, etc). It looks like a solid source (both the website and book) - I'd add that info to the article! - I.M.S. (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of adding more audio samples

I would like to know what people think about the possibility of adding more audio samples. I am inspired by the Smells Like Teen Spirit article, in which, in addition to the audio sample for the studio version, there is a live version and two cover versions. Now, I know on the discussion page for the Bob Dylan article we still haven't resolved whether or not six sound clips are too many, but I'm not proposing that we bring the number on "Like a Rolling Stone" up to six, maybe just up to about three? Some possibilities: the 3/4 waltz version, which would be useful for better illustrating the evolution of the song's development (the only thing is this sound clip could only be about 10 seconds long, 10% of the track's very short length); the 1966 live version, which we go into some depth about in the article; or a cover or two. The Articolo 31 version could be a good one because we talk about it for a couple of sentences. I have this song on Masked and Anonymous (not totally sure if this is the same recording as appears on their Nessuno album that we mention--this might have to be clarified). I also have the Rolling Stones and Mellencamp versions, but if we included these we might have to expand what we say about them in the text. Anyway, I think any two or three of the 3/4 take, the 1966 live or the Articolo 31 track would be good candidates if other people think this is a good idea. If we did decide to try this out, I'd be happy to prepare the sound files. Moisejp (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Or if anyone has the Jimi Hendrix version, of course we do go into a long discussion about it, so it'd be a good candidate, too. But unfortunately I don't have it, so I wouldn't be able to offer to make the sound file. Moisejp (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think three samples would be best - the original, the alternative (i.e., the 3/4 version), and the Hendrix version. Jimi Hendrix's cover is probably the most famous one, and it is interesting in context to the rest of the article to see how it was interpreted by others, as his was so drastically different from the original. One or two more from other covers would be all right, I suppose - but putting too many isn't, IMO, a good idea. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was going to add that I'd add the samples if I could, but at the moment my .ogg converter isn't working - I anyone has one, please post here so we can figure out how to add the samples. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a sample for the 3/4 version of LARS. As mentioned above, it is necessarily very short (10 seconds) as it can only be 10% of the song's length of 1:35. Please feel free to add a caption to it, if anyone has any good ideas. Now we just need someone to add the Jimi Hendrix version, if everyone agrees that's the way to go. Does anyone besides I.M.S. have the song? I agree with I.M.S. that too many samples is not good. We could add the Hendrix cover, which'd make it three total, or possibly one more, making it four. Moisejp (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Legacy" issues

The paragraph below, in the Legacy section, fails to show that the song has influenced the music which followed. I'm taking it out for now, but if anyone wants to work on it to show more clearly that it has been influential, rather than simply "exceptional," please feel free to put it back in.

Many aspects of the song influenced the music which followed. Dylan's raw voice, which has been compared to Muddy Waters', displays the "personal accusation" of the song. Kooper's "apocalyptic charge" on the organ accompanied with Dylan's singing "keep [the song] from being just another icy hipster bitch session...." Dylan's voice has an edge that nears "heartbreak".

Moisejp (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a little concerned that these two sentences in the Legacy section are simply repeating what the Paul McCartney quote showed: "The six-minute length, considered too long to be put on a single at the time, has also influenced music. It gave more opportunities for future songs to be singles, without the time constraint that was previously an issue." So the flow between those two paragraphs is not so hot. Right now I am trying to think of a way to reorganize that. One idea is to merge the "six-minute single" and the "six-minute radio airings" ideas into one or two sentences (or one sentence with a semicolon), and then bring that to the front of the paragraph about McCartney and Zappa. The only problem is that McCartney talks about the song's length, but Zappa doesn't. Oh well, I will have another look at it soon, or if anyone else has any ideas, by all means. Moisejp (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover versions

As it is now, we don't give any indication as to why Jimi Hendrix's recording is any more notable than any of the other listed artists' recordings, and why he gets six sentences, when everyone else just gets to be part of a list. Above I.M.S has said that Hendrix's version is probably the most famous. Does anybody have any references or anything to back that up? Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I wonder about that, maybe an avid Hendrix fan added it. Is it the most notable version? FWIW I don't like "Jimi Hendrix recorded a live version at the...." because Hendrix played it and the recording engineer recorded it! Semantics maybe. Cheers --Richhoncho (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't believe Hendrix's (both live and studio - I do believe he recorded the latter as well) is more "notable" than the others. Since he is the only one mentioned in the intro, I believe we have two options:

• A) Add a few more "notable" covers to the intro.
• B) Remove it from the intro altogether.

Also, I believe this edit changed it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it ready?

Does anyone think that this article is ready for F.A. Candidacy? If not, do we need to extend the "collaboration time" to another month? When everyone's ready, we can joint-nominate the article. Any opinions? - I.M.S. (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty close, it certainly has come a long long way. I'd like to see the Charts section become more complete (i.e. adding a few more countries, although obviously we can't add every country in the world!). I can try to work on that in the next few days. In the discussions above a few very small issues have not been resolved, and that'd be great if we could, because they are the kinds of things the FAR evaluators are likely to notice. Also, did we decide to add a sound clip of Jimi Hendrix's version? If so, does anyone have it? If anyone has it but isn't sure how to make an audio sample, it's easy, just use Audacity, which you can download for free. Personally, I'd rather NOT see the collaboration time extended another month. We have so many articles to work on, and I'm eager to get going on the next one. Possibly with a little final push in the next few days we could be ready for FAR by this weekend. I don't know if other people think that is realistic, though. What do others think? Moisejp (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used Audacity many a time, I find it useful for importing music, especially off of my old vinyl. I don't have an .ogg converter (that works) at the moment, though. Could you recommend a good (free) one, Moisejp? Many thanks for your input, - I.M.S. (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I.M.S., sorry, I really don't know much about that kind of stuff, I just use the .ogg converter that's in Audacity. I just go to File → Export as Ogg Vorbis. But I assume when you say your .ogg converter doesn't work, you mean that Audacity function doesn't work for you? Sorry I can't be more help. Moisejp (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The collaboration only started around October 11, so the article hasn't had a full month yet. I don't think we need to get overly technical about sticking to calendar months for the collaboration time, nor necessarily to a strict 30 or 31 day limit. The goal was to get this article into shape for FAC, and it is going well, so there is no need to cut it off just because October is coming to an end, and if improvements are still being made on November 11, there is no reason we couldn't extend a few more days. Then again, if the article gets nominated to FAC on, say, October 29, we could move on to a new article at that time. Some WikiProjects have their "Article of the Month" collaborations go on for many months. I am not suggesting we do that, but we don't have to be overly strict about either calendar or temporal months if the collaboration is moving forward. Rlendog (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

O.K., how about working on this article for another week or two, and, if it looks like all work has been done, nominate it? In the meantime, say, November 1st, we could start a new collaboration. I like your point on how some WPs extend their collaborations for as long as is required. While we're at it, any ideas for the next project? - I.M.S. (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the next collaboration on the Dylan Project Talk page rather than here. Moisejp (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. On another subject, I've just added the Jimi Hendrix version to the article. Moisejp, you helped me solve a problem that has been bugging me for a long time now - I didn't know that Audacity could created .ogg vorbis files! It was right under my nose all the time. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been helpful, I.M.S. Thank you for uploading the Hendrix version. Moisejp (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart positions

If anyone has the information, or knows where to get it, it might be useful to have a section at the end that tells its chart position in different countries. Hmm, there seem to lots of websites that have chart positions from different countries around the world, as here: Billie Jean#Charts. I will try to look at that in the coming days and put together a list. Moisejp (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This: Wikipedia:Record charts/sourcing guide :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, k.i.a.c. This will be very useful. I'll try to get on that in the next few days. Moisejp (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started the Charts section and plan to add more countries bit by bit. If anyone has free time and wants to help out you can. But otherwise I will keep at it little by little. Moisejp (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through all the countries' listings on the link above and have been able to find seemingly reliable info about five countries: Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany and the USA (actually, k.i.a.c. and Riendog added these last two, I believe). Many of the countries listings do not go back as far as 1965 or seem to do so inconsistently. At some point I may peruse the link above again and see if I missed anything, but I am not expecting to find too much more. Canada shows a #7 [1] and then a #3 [2] chart position in August 23 and 31, 1965, but then there seems to be no listing shown for the following week after that, so one has no way of knowing if it peaked at #3 or possibly went higher. I have added to the lead a mention of the fact that the song was Top 10 in some other countries, but then do we want to mention this again in the "Release and live performances" section where we mention again that it reached #2 in the U.S.? If we do mention again there that it was Top-10 in other countries it gets a bit repetitive, but if we don't, the article seems a bit U.S.-centric. Another option would be to say in the lead simply that it was Top 10 in various countries and not single out the #2 ranking in the U.S., and then in "Release and live performances" we could list the ranking numbers in a few countries including the U.S. But that is still a bit repetitive because these numbers are all listed again in the Charts section—but maybe that level of repetition is OK? Another option would be not have any mention in the lead of the it reaching Top 10 in any countries, and then in "Release and live performances" mention its #2 ranking in the U.S. and say that it was Top 10 in certain other countries ("such as Ireland, the Netherlands, UK") without listing the specific rankings. What do people think? Moisejp (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a mention of the top 10 in numerous countries and number two in the US, is fine. Just consider, he is an American performer, it is his own country, where he is most popular and most relevant. I am usually a critic of the US-centric statements, but it is justified here. I also think if you are going to mention it in the lead, a mention in the section is fine as well, since the lead is meant to be summarising what is in the actual article, not just the album's success. It gets quite difficult to source early charts, things will usually pop up somewhere though. I will see if I can find someone who owns the Kent Music Report book for the 1960s as well, to see how it charted in Australia. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the "sample" to the song should show some of the verse melody

The chorus is just a refrain of one melody basically and does not represent the song well as the sample... Someone make it include at least some of the verse heading into the chorus possibly if you can. Doesn't sound good... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version... does it sound better? - I.M.S. (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah good job sounds better now.

Getting Ready for FAC

Let's get this article ready for FAC. First, let's list whatever issues we have that have remained unresolved. Please list these concerns below - I want this article to be ready before we nominate it! - I.M.S. (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of things bugging me a little. The article should cross reference Electric Dylan controversy - even to the point of removing some of the duplication, and "Themes" as a header it is quite meaningless. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that the Paul McCartney quote is saying more or less the same thing as the following paragraph about the six-minute length, without any attempts by us to bridge the two. And I'm concerned that in the Covers section we give so much more attention to the Hendrix version than other artists' covers, without explaining how his is more notable. But maybe that's not a big deal? One idea I had was to focus more on the fact that, as we mention already, his version is very different from Dylan's, and we could focus on this aspect of it, to illustrate the idea that some artists' interpretations may have differed quite a bit from the original. I'm not sure if that'd work, though, it's just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the paragraph about the length of the song in 'Legacy' was incredibly repetitive; it seemed to make the same point four times in a row. So I attempted to re-write it. If 'Themes' is a meaningless header, is there a better one? It's not really 'Origins' because the origins lie in the 10 pages of verse. I think the material in 'Themes' is interesting, but if others disagree it could go.Mick gold (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No objections to the content, it's just that it should be "subject matter" and I am not keen on that either, although it is more precise. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: Does everyone believe this article is ready for WP:FAC. In May 2008, it failed a nomination for Good Article. Since then, it has improved, but has it improved that much? I notice that "Mr Tambourine Man" is currently undergoing a WP:GAN and it's arguable that article is more advanced than this one is. Should we go for WP:GAN initially? Mick gold (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it stands a serious chance at FAC. We can give it a shot, and, if it doesn't work out, we can come back to it later and keep improving it. Let's work on the article a little bit more, then maybe it will be ready. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This article failed GAN in May 2008, but passed in June 2008, so it already is a GA. I'm not sure what its chances at FAC are though. Only way to find out is to nominate it. Although I would hold off while there are still significant edits being made so it is in the best shape possible. An alternative would be to go through peer review first before taking it to FAC. If we address any issues that are raised in peer review, that should help its FAC chances significantly. Rlendog (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rlendog, thanks for pointing out my mistake. Your peer review suggestion sounds good. Mick gold (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also support putting the article up for a peer review. Moisejp (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kooper's hustling himself a spot in the band

I don't have the Marcus book, but in "No Direction Home" Kooper says that when he told Wilson that he had a great organ part for the song, it was "total bullshit," and implied that he improvised his part once he got to the organ. I wanted to add something about this, because I think it's pretty interesting, but I couldn't think of a way to do so without disrupting the flow. I'll have another look at it later, but if anyone else has any ideas for how to add it in, please do.

Also, I added a couple of references to Kooper in NDH in that paragraph, but maybe it'd be an idea to add Marcus a couple more times in the paragraph. Before there was just a citation for Marcus at the end of the paragraph to cover several sentences, but now that the NDH references are in there too, if we add Marcus a couple more times it'll be clear that some of this info is said in his book as well. Moisejp (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Marcus book is available on Google Books, in limited preview but with many significant portions available including parts if not all of the Kooper story scattered throughout. Also check out the related books. For a next purchase, in case anyone is interested, I recommend Mojo's Dylan: Visions, Portraits and Back Pages. Most of it relates to 1961-70, though it covers the later periods as well. Next to Gray's Encyclopedia, it's become my favorite. Allreet (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Allreet! I will try to have a look at that in the next few days. Moisejp (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, when I checked it just now, it said "No preview available." Allreet, you say you have been able to access sections of the book through Google Books. I know that for some books they allow you to do that, but when I checked just now it didn't seem to be the case for this one. I wonder if I am doing something wrong . . . Moisejp (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's way too weird. I just tried the Google Books link and had no problem accessing the limited preview. And just in case you might wonder if Google blocks users on some basis, I captured the link at home and just ran it from my office PC. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this, because I recall doing a Google (not Google Books) search for a book I had previously previewed, but could only find a no preview link. Then, maybe a few days later, I chanced upon the preview link in another search. The only thing I can suggest is to google the title and author to see if the preview version comes up in your search results. Allreet (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Moisejp: Just curious about this. When I checked out the All Related Books listing, most of the books were available with limited preview, for example, No Direction, Chronicles, Old Weird America, Beyond the Shades, Down the Highway, etc. Are you able to access these? Allreet (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Behind the Shades, Chronicles, Old Weird America are no preview, but some books such as Down the Highway and Bob Dylan: performing artist 1974-1986 are limited preview. Moisejp (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I bet it is because Moisejp lives in Japan, and copyright laws are different there. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering as well if that might be the reason. Moisejp (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, would someone who does have the Marcus book or access to it on Google Books want to add a couple more footnotes linking it to the information in the Al Kooper paragraph? If you could, that'd be great, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits, November 2, 2009

I've made a fair number of revisions to the Release and Live Peformance sections. I don't expect all of them to "make the muster", but believe most are improvements in terms of how the sections flow. The way in which articles like this evolve - that is, the adding of facts from time to time - often results in a disjointedness, either jumps in style, unnatural "shoe horning" or little sense of how one thought needs to lead to another. I've tried my best to rectify that. Along the way, I also fact checked everything carefully against the sources, correcting errors, re-phrasing certain points, cutting unnecessary detail and adding bits of information I felt were more interesting or pertinent. Overall, I feel I've remained true to what was here originally. Meanwhile, I hope none of these changes offends anyone and welcome any reverts where I've fallen short of my intent. Allreet (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good copy editing! I think you've improved the flow & coherence. Mick gold (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Allreet, I like your edits in the Legacy section where you tied the Dylan quote to the changing ratings in various polls. Nice work! Moisejp (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A few thoughts on where similar work is needed:

• The 2nd sentence in the lead is somewhat nonsensical. The verse from which the song was taken could only have been written before he recorded and released the song. The thought is: "He took the song from an extended piece of verse that he wrote after returning from his British tour in early June 1965." Alluding to the fact that Columbia was reluctant to release the single (without giving away the details that come later) would set up everything that follows. For example, "Dylan recorded the song a few weeks later, but Columbia, unhappy with the single's length and sound, held up its release for a full month."
• Everything else is in pretty good shape up to the Themes section, the article's weakest. Personally, I'd like to see this expanded to work in one theme/issue that's raised but not addressed in the Writing section (IMO one of the most notable associated w/the song). Gray, Sounes, Mojo and other sources including Hentoff's Playboy interview all highlight the backdrop to the song. Dylan was burned out when he returned from London and seriously considered quitting. The song revitalized his interest in and approach to songwriting and performing. I've researched this fairly thoroughly and believe it would be easy to segue from here to the rest Marquesee's interpretation and the Edie-source paragraph. The alternative is to expand Writing into its own section, followed by a separate Recording section.
• Two of the paragraphs in the Legacy section have weak opening sentences: "Musicians commented..." and "As mentioned earlier." Something more incisive is needed in terms of style. The first para is okay otherwise. The second could use a thorough re-write.

If the above could be ironed out, I'm of the opinion that FAR would uncover little more than relative tweaks. I'd be happy to start and/or collaborate on these, but would like some feedback first. Allreet (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a useful & thoughtful analysis, Allreet. I've begun to respond & re-write. Feel free to revert if you don't think it's going in the right direction. Mick gold (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Allreet, what is your idea? That Themes would begin by describing Dylan's alienation (i.e. he almost quit after England. He flew back from London on June 2, 1965.) Then comes Marqusee's idea that Dylan is writing about his own sense of being on his own 'with no direction home'? That could work, I think. Mick gold (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and I think the writing will naturally draw the connection; in other words, not forcing a conclusion but just telling the story and at most, adding a segue. Maybe at that point a better title will suggest itself. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I've hit one of those lulls. Allreet (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a promising idea. Do you want to try writing it in that vein? Mick gold (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

First and second day

Do you think (or does anyone have information about whether) the Al Kooper incident happened on the second day of recording? Because we say Dylan was on piano on the first day, but Paul Griffin was on piano the second day. If this the case then our description of events jumps back and forth a bit from the second day back to the first day. As it is, the musicians paragraph flows really well, and the first and second days of recording paragraphs each flow well, so it'd be a shame to break those up. I don't have any easy solutions, but I just wondered if anyone thinks this needs to be fixed and has any ideas for how to do so. Moisejp (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Info. Clinton Heylin's My Life in a Stolen Moment argues that the version released in Bootleg Series. Vol 1 - 3 was recorded on first day, and Dylan is playing piano. Heylin assumes that it's the last of four false starts. After this take, Heylin thinks Griffin switches to piano & Kooper switches to organ. On final take of day, says Heylin, sound is beginning to gel. So they resume the next day & record the historic 4th take. The implication of this history of the recording is that Kooper's tale of sneaking on to the organ & playing the great improvised part on his first take is not really true. Marcus's take by take analysis in his Like A Rolling Stone book is not very clear on this point, but I think Marcus is suggesting that Kooper switches to organ at start of second day. Mick gold (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's very interesting. I think we should state explicitly that it's not clear whether the change in piano player, and Kooper's getting on the organ, happened on the first or second day, and we can use Heylin and Marcus as references. Incidentally, Kooper does say in No Direction Home that the switch occurred a couple of hours into the session, but I'm not sure if that helps clarify things either way. In any case, our only problem, if people agree that this info should be added, is to put it in without disrupting the flow. I'd really like to try to solve this, but no easy answers have come to me and I haven't had the time in the last several days to sit down and give it some good thought. I'll try to give it some thought if I can in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Heylin and Marcus have different opinions on this. If we alternate between the two (Marcus, however, argues that) it might disrupt the flow. We may want to add some online reliable sources for another third-party interpretation. I currently have Marcus' book, but I've never seen Heylin's - I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute very well on that front. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Marcus states unambiguously that Kooper only attended the second day of recording as a guest of Wilson's, June 16, and then sat in on the session (p.104). Marcus further points out that, on master tape, after two rehearsal takes, at start of first recorded Take 1, you can hear Wilson's voice saying "What are you doing there?", evidently registering his surprise at seeing Kooper seated at the organ (p.213). I find this pretty convincing as an account of how Kooper came to play his role in the recording session, so I've added it to article. Mick gold (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I really like your changes a lot, Mick gold. I made a small adjustment to the sentence that listed the musicians, because as it was, "the other musicians" sounded like it should be all the other musicians, but then a couple of paragraphs down we find out that Kooper also played on it. But anyway, great work on that section! Moisejp (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Green Day cover

Hey Green Day covered this as a bonus track for 21st Century Breakdown. I added the band to the list of bands that covered it and someone removed it. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.13.157 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may have noticed, quite a few editors from WikiProject Bob Dylan have been involved in improving this article to FA status. Therefore, we have been trying to keep the article free and clean from inconsistencies and insignificant bits of info. Green Day's cover of this song was issued on the "iTunes pre-order edition" of the album, and it will probably not see release anywhere else. Frankly, we collaborators do not see this as significant or notable enough to merit mention in the article. If you can find some refs and sources, as well as instances where this particular track was mentioned, reviewed, etc., then it might deserve mention within the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

Why don't we get the ball "rolling" and take this article to peer review? Any flaws present in the article will be pointed out specifically there. After that, the article should be ready for FAC. Opinions? - I.M.S. (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking about how we would all nominate this for FA. What I'd like to do is add all of our names to the "nominated by" list. Here's the edit count:

• 77 Kodster
• 74 Rlendog
• 72 Allreet
• 54 I.M.S.
• 51 Moisejp
• 39 Mick gold
• 29 Ian Rose

In truth, my name doesn't even need to be on the list, as the true contributors have been the Users listed above me. I'd just like all of you (Rlendog, Allreet, Moisejp, Mick gold) to get proper recognition for it. Tell me what you think. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - the images will need alt text. I'll go ahead and add it. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is still something puzzling me structurally about this article. This is the point that Allreet made above (in Copyedits, November 2, 2009) that: "Dylan was burned out when he returned from London and seriously considered quitting. The song revitalized his interest in and approach to songwriting and performing." I've been thinking about this, and I'll consult Allreet about how we include this material, because I think it's interesting, and, arguably, important. I've been busy in real life, and haven't been as speedy as I might have been. Mick gold (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mick gold and Allreet, I tried to make a version where I was going to put the info about his being burned out and ready to quit, and then revitalized with "LARS," at the beginning of the Writing and Recording section. However, I wasn't very happy with it, so I didn't save it. One problem with my version is that I guess it wasn't just writing of the song, but also the fact that it became a hit single that changed Dylan's outlook. So from that point of view maybe the Writing and Recording section isn't the best place for it. I also would have liked to put more info about him being burned out but didn't have any at my fingertips—maybe I need to do more reading. In any case, for reference, here is my version in case it gives anyone any ideas (this would come right at the beginning of the Writing and Recording section):

In the spring of 1965, prior to writing "Like a Rolling Stone," Dylan was feeling "drained" and ready to quit singing. In an interview with CBC radio in Montreal, Dylan called the creation of the song a "breakthrough," explaining that it changed his perception of where he was going in his career. He said that he found himself writing "this long piece of vomit, 20 pages long, and out of it I took 'Like a Rolling Stone' and made it as a single. And I'd never written anything like that before and it suddenly came to me that was what I should do...After writing that I wasn't interested in writing a novel, or a play. I just had too much, I want to write songs."

Initially, as Dylan has described to journalist Jules Siegel:

"It wasn't called anything, just a rhythm thing on paper all about my steady hatred directed at some point that was honest. In the end it wasn't hatred, it was telling someone something they didn't know, telling them they were lucky. Revenge, that's a better word. I had never thought of it as a song, until one day I was at the piano, and on the paper it was singing, 'How does it feel?' in a slow motion pace, in the utmost of slow motion."

From the extended version on paper, Dylan crafted four verses and the chorus in Woodstock, New York. The song was written on an upright piano in the key of G sharp and was changed to C on the guitar in the recording studio.

Moisejp (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Moisejp, thanks for your draft. I've had a go at starting the 'Writing and recording' section with Dylan's thoughts of "quitting the music business". Please edit if it looks unsatisfactory. Mick gold (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

Just a notice that I'm going through the article right now, doing a brief copyedit of it. It switches date formats between YYYY-M(M)-D(D) and prose (January 1, 1900) forms in the refs and text. If it's alright with the rest of you, I'm going to go ahead and switch them all to the latter format. I just got through a failed FAC, in which the inconsistent date formats were pointed out. I fixed them, but it appears to be a very important part of FAC - making them uniform also makes for an easier read, in my opinion. Mick Gold and Moisejp are experienced in that "field" (with their work on the Dylan FAR - did I miss anyone else?), so if they have any comments on what would help I would appreciate the advice. As was brought up a few sections above, it certainly can't hurt to wait and make sure the article is ready. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Another question; are we using two spaces after every period or one space? It seems the majority of the article uses two. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The dates should all be consistent now. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your copy editing looks good to me. I've added the thought of Dylan quitting the music business just before writing LARS. Let's discuss if this works. Any further thoughts before proceeding to peer review? Mick gold (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry about the delay - I'm quite busy (as, I'm sure, we all are) for the holidays at the moment. I don't have much time, but I'd like to say that the bit you added works fine, and adds a great deal to the background story, and how Dylan felt when he wrote and recorded LARS. It was also nice to see yet another unique perspective that Dylan had on it. Good job! - I.M.S. (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Mick gold. Let's go ahead with the peer review. I think it will be very helpful to get some outside input on whether the article has any weaknesses we haven't thought of. Moisejp (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and submit it, if you like. Do you know of any good peer reviewers? I know one, name of Gongshow, who has always done a very thorough and helpful job reviewing some of my articles. Let's list all the ones we know - we can request all of them to take a look at the article. The more outside input, as you said, the better. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now started a peer review page. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that, I.M.S. So, we now have some peer review comments from Ruhrfisch. Do we discuss these on this talk page or on the peer review page? Other peer review pages don't seem to have much in the way of responses from the articles' contributors, but some have lines through the issues that have presumably been addressed. So I'm guessing, unlike a FAR, we don't discuss it on the peer review page. If that's so, I guess we can discuss stuff here. Moisejp (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ready for FAR?

What do you all say, are we about ready for FAR? I think we've addressed most of the concerns that came up in the peer review. Maybe not 100% of them, but most. Other issues will be brought up in the FAR process, so if anything we've missed gets brought up again we can address it then. If we don't put this up for FAR soon, I'm afraid we're just going to keep tinkering with it indefinitely. We've got to take the plunge sooner or later, and I personally think now is a good time. Let's go for it! Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure! If you want, I'll set up a nomination - however, let's not make the jump until we get the go-ahead from the other editors. Mick gold, Rlendog, Allreet - what do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why not? Moisejp makes valid point, there's a risk we'll keep tinkering with it forever. Mick gold (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed a major red flag - some of the refs completely lack publication dates, and some lack any publication information at all. I would appreciate it if someone went through and helped me with this, as the article will simply not pass if the references are not properly formatted. I'm currently in the process of converting all offline refs to Harvard ( Example 2010, p. 1 ) format, which might take a while, but will certainly improve its chances at FAC. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I look over the list again, I see that most do have pub. dates, but we'll need to be certain that every one does. If we miss any, it truly doesn't matter - reviewers will point out the individual ones that require work. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we're fine now. I'll go and set up the nomination... - I.M.S. (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's up and running! If each of you will add to the FAC page a Co-nomination by ..., followed by a brief explanation of why you think the page meets FA criteria, what you've done to it, etc., I would appreciate it. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I followed SandyGeorgia's suggestion and moved the co-nominations to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1. Moisejp (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove the image File:Dylan_Rolling_Stone_Label.jpg from the article, following DCGeist's suggestion. Any objections to this? I kind of agree with DCGeist that its necessity in the article seems unclear. Moisejp (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist asked us to add copyright information to the sound files, which I did for the "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Like a Rolling Waltz." My question: Here in the liner notes of Bootleg Series 1-3 [[3]] it lists the copyright of the Waltz version as "Copyright © 1965 Warner Chappell". You'll notice if you look at some of the other songs' copyrights there are some song that were "Copyright renewed by 1991 Special Rider Music". But nothing after 1991, when Bootleg 1-3 came out. The copyright for the regular version of LARS on bobdylan.com [[4]] is "Copyright ©1965; renewed 1993 Special Rider Music." Tentatively I put the latter copyright info for both versions of the song, assuming both would fall under that 1993 renewal, and that the liner notes for Bootleg 1-3 have simply not been updated. If anyone knows about these kind of things, would you agree with my judgment, or would you think it is likely the waltz version has a different copyright that may not have been renewed in 1993? Hmm, in the book The Bob Dylan Copyright Files 1962-2007 by Tim Dunn there is no mention of the waltz version having a separate copyright, so maybe my assumptions are safe enough. If anyone disagrees, let me know. Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights. Quite a minefield, but in simple terms there are TWO copyrights, a songwriting copyright and a mechanical copyright. For simplicity's sake, think of the Hendrix version of Watchtower. Hendrix gets the mechanicals i.e. the recorded performance, but Dylan gets the songwriting royalties and credit irrespective of who might own the mechanicals. The Bootleg series is not silent, it confirms that Special Rider handles the songwriting copyright and as they are 2 versions of the same song there is no need to repeat the information. However there will be two mechanical copyrights, I would guess held by the same legal identities /persons, but probably not Special Rider which is a publishing i.e. songwriter vehicle. I tried Harry Fox for confirmation of who owns the mechicals, but not listed there. I'll try and do a little more research --Richhoncho (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Covers section

In Ruhrfisch's peer review, he or she brought up the issue of what our criteria is for including bands in the covers section. For a long time we were resisting including Green Day but we seem to have tentatively relented. Now someone has added Bachman-Cummings. I was thinking of cutting it, but decided to leave it in until we discuss if we have any clear policy for deciding the bands we list. (Also, unlike Green Day, Bachman-Cummings is listed on the altmusic site we are using as a reference.) So far the consensus has seemed to be to include only the most "notable" performers, but from one point of view what constitutes "most notable" is highly subjective. I guess this problem comes up anytime there is an "including" list like this in Wikipedia articles, and there may well be no easy solution. Also, anytime anyone else adds their favourite band who has covered LARS, we're going to have to constantly delete it, arguing the band isn't notable enough, imposing our concept of notability over others. But, maybe that is only natural for regular contributors of an article to have more say than one-time contributors, and maybe that's just the way Wikipedia works. I don't have any strong opinion one way or the other, but since Ruhrfisch touched on the question, I just thought I'd see what other people think about all this. Moisejp (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, I get fed up removing Unknown Artist performed a song (we are told) live. I raised my solution for Mr. D a couple of months ago, but the concensus (I think) was that a sortable database wasn't liked/didn't work. We already have a list of artists who have covered Dylan in artist order, I'd still like to see one in song order, with a note at the bottom of this and probably most Dylan songs, "for a list of artists who have recorded this song see..." which I think would be an interesting and important list and the right place for Burton-Cummings, Green Day et al.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth noted in the Peer review that reference 81 does not have a publisher. The page is all in Russian, so I cannot find the publisher on it. The editor who added that reference on January 17, 2009 is Andrey Balaguta, who does not have a talk page, so there is no way to get a hold of this person. One option would be to track down someone else on Wikipedia who can read Russian. However, Ruhrfisch suggested that the Covers section may be too weighted towards foreign language bands. One idea might be to cut this Russian band Grazhdanskaya Oborona. Or maybe we could try to track down some information in English on the band. Looking quickly, I didn't find too much. On this link: http://www.answers.com/topic/russian-field-of-experiments there is no mention of a song called "Take the Overcoat" on their Russian Field of Experiments album. Hmm, I don't want to say that all information that we cite needs to be in English, but maybe at least it should hopefully be verifiable by one of the regular contributors to the article, or at least an editor who we are able to contact. What do people think? Moisejp (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not easily verifiable by us, then I don't see why it doesn't hurt the article to remove it. Good idea on checking with someone who speaks Russian - I would try at Wikipedians by language. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why Paula West was removed from the Covers Section? She's fairly well known and does a unique jazz version (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJGoGrG0h5g). Thinman10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Radio play

Initially the radio stations were playing a shortened version of the song - close to three minutes. Eventually by 1966 and especially with the advent of the popularity of FM and with public outcry and with the revolution of LP's the radio stations began broadcasting the entire long version. Very occasionally during 1965 they played the long version. The LP revolution was an important part of the enormous success of the Beatles, Dylan, the Stones and the other 1960s groups. Although it started with the folksingers...Modernist (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Bob Marley

I have never heard of a version by Bob Marley and the Wailers. There is a cover by The Wailers featuring Bunny Wailer's lead vocals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeonlyjbk (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Remiss of me. Congrats from me too. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Live Problems

First, weren't there two Newport performances? Existing film and photographs show that one was given in the light, and one in the dark. I have only seen film of the one given in the dark; I don't know if the one that is lighted was filmed. Second, the band never reverts to a waltz, even at the very end. I have listened to the Newport version several times, and I have never heard an incident where the band reverts to a waltz (although the end is rather sloppy; it kind of just falls apart).BootleggerWill (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles

I have read, in various books and articles, that the Beatles covered "Like A Rolling Stone" during the "Get Back" sessions of January 1969. So far, I haven't heard a single instance of this while listening to tapes from these sessions (although, John shouts the phrase "like a rolling stone" quite a lot in the eight-minute version of "Dig It", but I don't known if this constitutes as a cover of the song).BootleggerWill (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Exact duration

In the infobox, s'dy wrote an extra 4 seconds for the duration of the song in album versions (6:13 vs 6:09)

As this detail is not mentionned in the album article, and as my CD copy does not mention the durations, would s'dy be kind enough to clear out this point ?

Maybe it's only a question of fading (or extra silence) at the end of the song ?

If no real difference (which is my feeling), please amend. In case of any... please duly report :-)

Thanks a lot --Polofrfr (talk) --Polofrfr (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Personnel section

I found the article to be very well done, but I think it could profit from a personnel section. Also, this source (which is cited in the article) says that Bruce Langhorne played the tambourine, and this isn't mentioned in the article. That's all. --74.96.170.164 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I added in Bruce Langhorne as part of the personnel in the second session, although the tambourine is hardly audible in the mix. I'm still in support of adding a personnel section. --74.96.170.164 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the word "B.B. King shit" changed to "B.B. King stuff"? Why is there censoring on this page?

I thought this site was supposed to be encycolpedia like. The quote is "B.B. King shit", not "B.B. King stuff". There's a lot of connotations attached to that word that is very different then "stuff".

Anyway I tried to change this twice, and someone keeps changing it back. For one, it is mis quoting Bob Dylan, which is more then censoring.

The reference for this Dylan quote is p. 110 of Greil Marcus's book Like A Rolling Stone, 2005. On p.110, Bloomfield says of Dylan: "He said, 'Hey man, I don't want any of that B. B. King stuff'." So the quote is accurate, it hasn't been censored. Mick gold (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's likely Bloomfield has told the story more than once, with slightly different wording each time. Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In one Google search, I traced this quote on the first page of results to two books ("Revolution in the air: the songs of Bob Dylan 1957-1973", "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited") and the online site "The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia". I also seen documentries about this song and the producers repeat the same quote. But this story has been told more then once by bloomfield, so that is why there is different quotes I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:2512456

--CactusBot (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This was the link that had all the covers of LARS, and unfortunately I.M.S. and I cannot find the same list elsewhere on Allmusic. I.M.S. replaced it with another link, but at least for now, it doesn't seem to list all the cover versions, but only a handful curiously scattered among the same Dylan versions listed over and over. I'm going to revamp the list of examples we have to reflect what is in the new link. By the way, when this becomes article of the day, we are no doubt going to get an absolute onslaught of everybody trying to add the favourite band to the list, unreferenced of course. Oh well, we'll just have to deal with that then. Moisejp (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcus's account of LARS at Newport, 1965

Since LARS is about to become a main page FA, I've modified a comment I do not think is accurate: Marcus's description of the performance of LARS at Newport in July 1965. I've listened to a recording of this performance several times, and Marcus's account seems plain wrong. LARS begins in an uncertain way, but finds its feet when Dylan starts singing. The worst mishap occurs when Dylan fluffs the lyrics at the beginning of verse four, ("Princes on the steeple") and mumbles some syllables for a few seconds, but he recovers. Kooper improvises some little organ stabs during the final line ("You're invisible now you got no secrets to conceal") which work well. Then the song ends rather abruptly. But at no stage does "Dylan give up singing it and begin declaiming it, as if it were a speech". So I've put Marcus's comment into a footnote, as Marcus's interpretation of this event. I'd be happy to lose his comment altogether. Mick gold (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mick, I don't mind if you cut that footnote. Moisejp (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for consensus, I've cut it. Mick gold (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sedgwick and Dylan

Dunks58 has added material to this article, building up the alleged relationship between Bob Dylan and Edie Sedgwick. Both bits of information are properly sourced, one part to Stein's biography of Sedgwick, and a second part to Jonathan Sedgwick's claims about the Sedgwick-Dylan relationship, including an alleged pregnancy, published in the New York Post, 2007. I've edited the material, and I've eliminated Jonathan Sedgwick's claim for 2 reasons. First, the alleged relationship between Sedgwick and LARS is spelt out at some length in this FA: we have Stein's claim, Gray's playing down of this conection, and an alternative interpretation by Greil Marcus and Thomas Crow. This seems to me enough detail about Sedgwick and Dylan in the context of LARS. Second, Jonathan Sedgwick's claims about Dylan's relationship with Edie, and alleged terminated pregnancy, were publicised in the context of threatened legal action by Dylan's lawyer against the movie version of the relationship in the film Factory Girl. This is legally fraught material which is best omitted in light of WP:BLP policy. This policy includes the comment:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Please comment if you agree or disagree. Mick gold (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed it further. There were too many unnecessary mentions of Warhol, for one thing. But I agree with you that we don't have to go into too many details about the allegations of their relationship, and that it is better not to mention the alleged pregnancy. Moisejp (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight for Articolo 31 ?

Does anyone else feel that Articolo 31's version is given undue weight? I would propose changing to something like this: "Articolo 31's version is a hip-hop song which contains overdubs of a confused girl's voice, rapped parts and DJing." If DJing is a word at all, if not then something like this: "Articolo 31's version is a hip-hop song which contains overdubs of a confused girl's voice and rapped parts." Any thoughts? Ineverheardofhim (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have agree and have chopped it down quite a bit. Moisejp (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice, I call that an improvement. However is it necessary to mention the various members of Articolo 31? Ineverheardofhim (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact I have removed them now.Ineverheardofhim (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A few minor ambiguities

Nice article. I enjoyed it very much. And congratulations on the TFA. I've spotted a few things that seem unclear (or at least that I'm unclear about):

• In the intro graph, it's said the song was "demoed ... as a waltz." Would it be more accurate to say it was demoed in 3/4 time? I doubt Dylan expected people actually to waltz to this song. Later in "Writing and recording," the first five recording takes are described more accurately as being in "3/4 waltz time." Perhaps this expression could be used in the intro as well.
• In "Writing and recording," it's said the song was first composed in the key of G sharp. Really? This would be the whole way 'round the circle at eight! sharps. Is this meant to be g-sharp min?
• In "Release," it's said that the released single has "Gates of Eden" on the B side, but then later that "LARS" extended onto the second side of the vinyl. Were the DJ copies different from the released single? Perhaps this could be clarified a bit, or am I just being thick?

Best regards and thank you to who wrote this fine article. Hult041956 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hult041956. Thank you very much for the praise and for your suggestions. User:Mick gold (talk) has already changed the "waltz" mention to "3/4 time" as per your suggestion. We will look into clarifying the B-side question in the near future. As for what key the song was composed in, personally I know nothing about music composition, but the source does clearly say "G Sharp". You can see it on Amazon.com with the "Look Inside" feature: [[http://www.amazon.com/1001-Songs-Artists-Stories-Secrets/dp/1560259159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294532407&sr=1-1]]. As you'll see, Dylan himself gave this information. Thank you again! Sincerely, Moisejp (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I didn't feel knowledgeable enough myself to make the edits. I think you've handled things well. We all know Dylan himself doesn't make everything crystal clear; that's one of the things we like about him, right?  :-) Hult041956 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dylan and Wilson picture

An anonymous editor has added a copyrighted picture of Dylan and Tom Wilson to the article with a fair use rationale. While the picture is very nice, I do wonder how necessary it is. These days it seems Wikipedia is getting stricter and stricter about requiring good reasons for using non-free media. The rationale given with the picture seems flimsy to me. I would say it is very likely the use of the pic is going to be contested later and we might as well delete it now. Any other opinions for or against this action? Moisejp (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Moisejp Mick gold (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too - it's a nice picture and I wish we could use it, but I don't think it's possible without a very good rationale. The article will be fine without it. I wouldn't nominate it for deletion, though, as it is currently being used in the Tom Wilson article. I think the criteria is met there, as Wilson died in the late '70s and was not a very public figure. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

While Wikipedia's Non-Free Policy leaves some wiggle room, a similar rationale (no fair use photo is available) could be made for most copyrighted works. We may not have enough experience to decide, but the practice around here seems to support a narrower reading, which requires meeting all 10 criteria. On that basis, the photo shouldn't be used in either article. Allreet (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and cut it from LARS. I didn't touch the Tom Wilson article, though. Moisejp (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Since Tom Wilson is deceased, it may be appropriate to use the photo in the Tom Wilson article, since it illustrates the subject of the article - i.e., Tom Wilson himself (assuming of course that no appropriate free image is available). But a photo of Wilson and Dylan does not necessarily illustrate the subject of this article. Rlendog (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Magazine

I think it's painfully obvious that they chose that song as an inside joke. AmericanLeMans (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed, unfortunately.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles and 'Dig It'

'Dig It' is a song on the Beatles' Album Let it Be. The first two lines of the album version are a shouted 'like a rollin' stone' which I believe is a reference to this — the Beatles cover the song in the film and in the eight-minute studio version, he shouts it quite a lot.

I think it should be put in this article somewhere. 68.99.140.120 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Themes: Edie Sedgwick and "Everyman"

The opening of the Themes section is, to be very kind, weak. The "theme" is that the song might be about someone Dylan didn't meet until after it was written, though "other sources" say he might have met her earlier (note that two significant "ifs" need to be proven). Only one source is given to support the latter of the two, and it's a BBC h2g2 posting that takes a number of fanciful leaps; for example, Dylan and Edie enjoyed visiting NYC nightspots together, and Dylan socialised frequently with Warhol. Nothing on record indicates Dylan spent any time frequenting "nightspots" in this period, let alone went out on the town with Edie Sedgwick, and there's only one account of Dylan and Warhol meeting, his sole visit to the Factory a month or so after marrying Sara. Meanwhile, out of all that Dylan has said, there's not a hint that the song is about anyone in particular, and nothing contained in the song suggests that it is. So what is the paragraph about? In my opinion, the perpetuation of a myth among some fans that reduces works filled with significant personal and social themes to soap operas. While that may not be very kind, I think it's sad that if Elliott or Keats writes a poem, it's about "everyman," but if Dylan writes a song, we're too quick to allow that it must be about one of three women. The section's second paragraph makes a similar point, an observation that's far more helpful in gaining an understanding of both the song and the artist. Allreet (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps renaming the section and rewriting the first paragraph is called for. We could change the section header name to "Inspiration" or "Inspirations". Perhaps the section is inessential as a whole, as Sedgwick's involvement as the inspiration of the song is unconfirmed and simply speculation. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, along the lines of "X has speculated that the song is about y, a has speculated it's about b or c. However Dylan has never confirmed who or what the song is about" ....Then keep second paragraph (or even move to first para in section). NB How about putting a few lines of the song in the article within in lines of quoting for study purposes - quite legal, and will give the reader a flavour of the lyrics. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Allreet, I totally agree with the gist of your comment, and share your dismay that one of Dylan’s greatest works has been reduced to the level of unsubstantiated gossip. However, I don’t agree with your assertion that Dylan had no connection with Sedgwick, or with Warhol’s Factory scene. A hip New York artist, which Dylan was in late ’64 and early ’65, knew what was going on at the Factory. In George Plimpton’s biography, Edie: An American Biography, 1982, we find Dylan sidekick Bob Neuwirth saying:

“Bobby Dylan and I occasionally ventured out into the poppy nightlife world. I think somebody who had met Edie said, ‘You have to meet this terrific girl.’ Dylan called her, and she chartered a limousine and came to see us. We spent an hour or two, laughing and giggling, having a terrific time… It was just before the Christmas holidays; it was snowing and I remember we went to look at the display on Houston street in front of the Catholic church… Edie was fantastic, she was always fantastic.”

This places the meeting a month before Sedgwick met Warhol, and three months before she starred in her first Factory film, Vinyl, shot in March 1965. Sounes’s Dylan biography concludes Sedgwick was a peripheral figure in Dylan’s scene, but she went on to have a relationship with Neuwirth. Gray’s Dylan Encyclopedia concludes there is no evidence that Dylan and Sedgwick had a significant personal relationship, but “she was an interesting personality, visually memorable made more so by the air of tragedy she carried around with her: the fog, perhaps in ‘her fog, her amphetamines, and her pearls’.” Gray concludes Sedgwick had no connection with “Like a Rolling Stone”, but “there’s no doubt that the ghost of Edie Sedgwick hangs around Blonde on Blonde.” Todd Haynes’s surreal Dylan biography, I’m not There, has a long sequence about Cate Blanchett / Dylan’s relationship with a character clearly based on Sedgwick, called Coco Rivington. Patti Smith published a poem ‘Edie Sedgwick’ in 1972, which began, “Everyone / knew she was the real heroine of / Blonde on Blonde / she was white on white / so blonde on blonde”. Anyway, you’re right, Themes needs a re-write, I've tried to make a start.Mick gold (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with the Themes section was that we somehow missed describing what the lyrics of the song were about in the article. I added an opening paragraph to the Themes section giving a general description of the lyrics and some basic commentary about what they mean from various sources (including one somewhat self-contradictory Dylan quote). I think that strengthens the section but others can take a look and see if they agree. Rlendog (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The lyrics fit Edie-in-1966 so well that it takes a real effort to remember that they were written in May 1965, long before her 'fall' in 1966. We think Dylan first knew her in December 1964, before either of them met Warhol, when she was still a rich, incandescent party girl, and we think Dylan didn't meet Warhol until much later, maybe December 1965. Through most of 1965 Edie and Warhol were bff's, appearing together on Merv Griffin in October. She expected Warhol to launch her acting career, to solve her growing financial and emotional difficulties. We don't know how often Dylan and Edie spent together in 1965, but if she was always with Warhol, and Dylan didn't meet Warhol until December 1965, they couldn't have seen that much of each other, and he couldn't have known in May the effect Warhol would eventually have on her. So most all those convenient interpretations involving Warhol's exploitation have to be firmly rejected. We're still possibly left with the druggy rich girl in "finst schools... juiced". robotwisdom (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Personnel

There are different people listed for Piano and Bass in the text and then in the credits below. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4001:784A:A47E:9E56:C76A:2795 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Relation to The Rolling Stones

Also, I wonder what is the relation of this song to The Rolling Stones? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In the first issue of Rolling Stone, November 9, 1967, editor Jann Wenner wrote:

You’re probably wondering what we’re trying to do. It's hard to say: sort of a magazine and sort of a newspaper. The name of it is Rolling Stone which comes from an old saying, "A rolling stone gathers no moss." Muddy Waters used the name for a song he wrote. The Rolling Stones took their name from Muddy’s song. "Like A Rolling Stone" was the title of Bob Dylan’s first rock and roll record. We have begun a new publication reflecting what we see are the changes in rock and roll and the changes related to rock and roll." Mick gold (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting; we should quote it in the article! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed, but I bet there is one out there to find. A critic must have made the comment. Note that this song was recorded just 10 days after The Rolling Stones' Satisfaction was released in the US and that song would have been played on the radio every day, if not every hour, and Dylan would have been hearing it and loving it. It was the Stones' biggest hit to date. Dylan went from folk to rock with this song. Dylan probably played Satisfaction 100 times before he recorded this song. Everything points to Dylan having named the song after the band. But... citation needed. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Like a Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319091720/http://everyhit.com/ to http://everyhit.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Mobile Station for WP Dylan Collaboration

You may notice that there has been quite a lot of activity surrounding this article recently. This is because Like a Rolling Stone has been selected as the "collaboration of the month" for WikiProject Bob Dylan. Please feel free to join us here, and join in the discussion as well.

---

Collaborators (if interested, add your name to the list located here here):

• I.M.S.
• Mick gold
• Rlendog
• Moisejp
• Allreet

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Like a Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515004941/http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs04122005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs04122005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517091658/http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/rolling.html to http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/rolling.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227200236/http://50.6.195.142/archives/60s_files/1965.html to http://50.6.195.142/archives/60s_files/1965.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Like a Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170118061702/https://books.google.com/books?id=MSfa_mwdnXwC&dq=greil+marcus+like+a+rolling+stone&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=zXYQSpThIoOItge-o9iCCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 to https://books.google.com/books?id=MSfa_mwdnXwC&dq=greil+marcus+like+a+rolling+stone&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=zXYQSpThIoOItge-o9iCCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Like a Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505071126/http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/green-day-430/ to http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/green-day-430/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Like a Rolling Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128100513/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.5644&volume=4&issue=1&issue_dt=August%2031%201965&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.5644&volume=4&issue=1&issue_dt=August%2031%201965&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=m89iq841abagb37ld9c0fdc1f3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)