Talk:Mother's Little Helper

Sitar

The article for the album Aftermath claims that Mother's Little Helper uses a sitar, whereas this articl contradicts that by saying it is often mistaken for a sitar, a correction must be made, but I don't know the answer. Although it does sound more like a sitar to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.134.160 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have heard both album and single version and I am sure that album version has sitar in it, but single version a guitar with harmonizer/octaver or some kind of effect pedal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.196.241 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

About the sitar part you wrote about back in 2010. I read in a Stones book (that I'm currently looking for) years ago that it's not a sitar, but a Octave twelve Mando-guitar. Has anybody heard this before? The info up on this page at the moment isn't correct as to what is being played and I would like some feedback before I make an edit. As it is noted at the moment, it has Keith Richards on electric twelve-string-slide guitar. The song was recorded in 1966, and Keith didn't play slide guitar until 1968, but yes, he did play a 12 string on this song. Since this comment I'm replying to is so old, I would like some comments from others here on this, thanks. Kenotoo (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nembutal

I am curious about the assertion that a "mother's little helper" was Nembutal. I always thought it referred to dexedrine, which were available as yellow tablets in the sixties. They were widely prescribed as a slimming aid and mood lifter, before the dangers were fully appreciated. Augusta2 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 5 mg. Valium (benzodiazepine) tablets were a relatively new drug, available on the National Health Service at the time. They are yellow, and the song refers to "little yellow pills' and "doctor please, some more of these". Pustelnik (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nembutal was the common in England at the time this song was written. Valium was too new, and Yellow Submarine is supposed to have been about Nembutals. Furthermore, Nick Mason stated that Syd Barrett consumed them, and furthermore, its hard to OD from a Benzo especially compared to a barbituate. Furthermore, its also hard to overdose from Dexedrine. And Dexedrine doesn't calm most people down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.26.147 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand Nembutal is a sleeping capsule, it wouldn't be commonly used in the daytime. I was a teenager at the time and we were all certain that Dexedrine was the drug referred to. Many of our mothers were prescribed these as a pick-me-up, doctors handed them out hand over fist back then. aldiboronti (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Valium was first prescribed in 1963, so it was fairly new, however Librium, the very first benzodiazepine, similar to Valium, was released in 1960 and rapidly prescribed everywhere quickly after its release. So while it may not be valium, it is more likely referring to a benzo like Librium or Valium because by that time both drugs had begun to quickly replace the prescription of barbiturates, such as Nembutal, by the time this song was written. This is data that can be found anywhere - including Wikipedia's article on benzodiazepines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soco79 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the color of the pill used in the song seems like a pretty substitutable detail. Just like now, different manufacturers use different colors for the same drug all the time, and for different dosages. And the issue of overdose is also a very general detail to debate with - it may be easier to overdose on a barb then a benzo, but the blanket point of that part of the song is a general warning that any drug "Mommy" may be taking to self-medicate can cause her harm and possible overdose. I'm with the editors on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soco79 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally, Dexedrine is a stimulant. There was no Dexedrine epidemic, at least not compared to that of Valium, Librium and other benzos (so much that it involved one of the largest class action lawsuits ever waged against pharmaceutical companies). The Stones are clearly talking about a depressant "Mother needs something today to calm her down." While benzos were prescribed for insomnia, they were more so as an anti-anxiety medication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soco79 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lady Jane.jpg

The image Image:Lady Jane.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not Valium

Valium was too new at this time. Nembutal was easy to overdose and yellow. Exactly as described in the song. The properties of valium are different from that which is written about. Stop changing it.J. M. (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from telling editors what they should do. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold in their edits. Do you have any verifiable sources to support your claims? Lame Name (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Valium was released in 1963 and by 1969 was the largest selling pharmaceutical in the USA (see valium wikipedia entry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.3.53 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cover versions

Am looking for a cover version by a lady once heard on the radio. Don't know who she was. Anybody can add other artists to the cover versions chapter? 89.28.224.2 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The phrase

I'm curious as to where the phrase came from. Was this song the first example of the phrase "mother's little helper", or was it derived from e.g. a television advert, or newspaper headline? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The phrase definitely does not originate with the Rolling Stones song. One example of its use predating the song is in the "Katy and Roscoe" episode of the American radio show "My Favorite Husband". In it, at around the 18 minute 31 second point of the episode, Liz (played by Lucille Ball) says "...and mother's little helper is bringing him home for dinner". According to http://everythinglucy.youns.com/fhindex.asp that episode aired November 6, 1948. From the way the line is delivered it sounds as if the expression was a common one at the time. To hear the episode in its entirety, see the Internet Archive.

Furthermore, from the context and use, it is improbably that its use at the time of the radio episode had anything to do with drug use. Far more likely is that is simply an affectionate way to refer to a helpful child. Snapdragon630 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

possible explanation for title

the origin of the line "mother's little helper" might possibly go back a lot further, back to the early 19th century.

Opium tincture also known as "laudanum", sold under brand names like "Godfrey's Cordial" (http://www.archive.org/stream/fourperiodsofpub00kaysrich#page/168/mode/2up) or "Dalby's Carminative" was apparently nicknamed "mother's little friend" or "mother's little comforter" (Davis, Comrade or Brother,2009:55) It was used to dope anyone who could not fall asleep because of severe hunger or the like. Lots of infants died of overdoses. I doubt that the grown-ups abstained from laudanum. After all, there were more than 30.000lb of opium imported to the UK and checked for consumption in the year 1835. ( http://books.google.com/books?id=ns5PAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA455&lpg=RA1-PA455&dq=laudanum+price+1830&source=bl&ots=IvbiE9lu99&sig=iqW61kL9BZQqt6KnQ-y-tBqfU8w&hl=en&ei=YHyfTJfjLI7Mswai0ZnmDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=laudanum&f=false)

With about 12 million Brits as possible consumers, you end up with at least 1gramm of opium/head/year. And 2 ounces of laudanum contained only 1 grain (64mg) of opium. You could comfort quite a number of mothers with that opium...

I think the Rolling Stones were quite aware of their nation's history. Definetly in those areas were history and drugs collided. I hope that all this will help you a bit

Cheers

Actioncoordinator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.119.240 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In other media

This section seem trivial and doesn't, to me, enhance the understanding of the song's cultural importance. Any objections to deleting this section with its "Simpsons" episode and craft beer? --Cantabwarrior 00:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Having waited several weeks and heard no objection, I've made the deletion. --Cantabwarrior 16:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantabwarrior (talk • contribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mother's Little Helper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 17:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Assessment being prepared and may take a few days. Here are some things to start off:

(1) The title yellow pill is almost certainly referring to Valium. The article seems not to make this explicit. Could it be made more prominent, or give some explanation why it is not center stage.

Agreed. I've fleshed this out a bit more in the Writing and recording section, and included a note explaining the context of the Valium boom in the early 1960s.

(2) "Lyrical interpretation" might look better as "Interpretation of lyrics". Seems like noun form works better here.

Changed.

(3) The Wikipedia article for Valium does have sections for 'Tolerance' and "Dependency" which might have some useful information to be covered in this article. The article touches on abouse of the drug, and issues of the drug culture inherited during the 1960s, though this seems only related through individual comments on specific reliable sources and the separate views expressed. Can these be better outlined; some on drug abuse, some about domestic depression, some about marital inadequacy, some about parental inadequacy, etc.

As mentioned under (1), I added some more into a note regarding the boom of Valium in the early 1960s. Now that both the note in Writing and recording and parts under Interpretation of lyrics discuss pharmaceutical drug reliance, I'm hesitant to extend beyond the scope of this page except where needed. Those topics are best restricted to those other articles.

(4) There seems to be an explicit contrast of reception upon release criticism and retrospective critical reception. It might be nice to make explicit the contrast between the two separate time frames; do they support each other, do they contradict each other, are the more recent ones better informed than the original criticisms, etc.

I reworked the lead a bit to elucidate this difference.

(5) "Folk rock" or "blues rock", there seem to be more for the blues influence. Folk rock like Dillon or Peter, Paul and Mary does not seem to work here. See here: [1].

I have not found a single source that describes the song as blue rocks (Discogs is user generated and is therefore not a reliable source; WP:RSDISCOGS). By contrast, most sources describe the song as folk rock, so it is described and sourced as such in both the infobox and throughout the body. (WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE).

(6) There seems to be a lot more covers than I thought, here is a list of them: [2].

I have only included those which meet the threshold of WP:COVERSONG.

(7) 'Dark satire' and parody seem worth emphasizing. There is nothing pleasant about what the mother is going through here in the song.

I agree the description of the lyrics was a little light under Writing and recording, so I've fleshed it out a bit.

(8) Song title was used for a Hollywood film in 2019 I seem to recall.

I'm having trouble finding sources on the film, let alone any sources that connect the film's title to this song.

(9) Wikipedia disambiguation page for the song's title might have some extra ideas not covered in the current version of the article.

Nothing I can see.

(10) Use of Indian stringed instrument I don't think means Eastern influence, which the Stones also used in other songs like Paint it black.

The composition's Indian influence is well-establish through the body and by the sources used.

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments above. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 13:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Monday comments

Those improvement over the week-end were useful. Some other things to look at.

(1) The lyrics I read as being 4 stanzas of 5 verses each, being answered by the 3 verses of the refrain throughout the song. It might be nice for the structure of the song to be recounted in this article, possibly in the Lyrics section. For example, the 1st stanza seems focused on misbehaving children and parental inadequacy; the 2nd stanza deals with the tedium of daily household chores and repetitive kitchen duties; stanza three deals with marital complaints about a husbands inadequacy; while the fourth stanza lists the malaise of daily survival among life's daily setbacks. Doing this or adding some added quotes from the lyrics might make this more plain for the reader of the article and make more plain Jagger's lamentation about the struggling housewife. For example, see here for the music theory: [3].

In other song articles I do my best to provide as much as I can on the song's composition and structure, but I'm somewhat limited here by the sources available. Unterberger has a bit on the escalating characteristic of the verses, so I've mentioned that. Unfortunately, HookTheory is a user generated site.

(2) This is the Rotten Tomatoes version of the film I mentioned, which seems more than a merely coincidence of matching words in the titles; problems with children, etc.: [4].

The connection is not mentioned in any reliable sources. Without any, we cannot include it without relying on original research.

(3) Your comment that this is the first song dealing with addiction problems might need to be adjusted. Use of 'cocaine and champagne' was part of Cole Porter's songs well before the Stones, and songs about drinking oneself to either oblivion or to death are of a very old tradition. The point you make is valid, however, and its a question of the best wording to describe what the Stones are doing with the very old issue of substance abuse.

The statement is support by John Campbell McMillian in his book Beatles vs. Stones (Simon & Schuster, 2013, p. 141) and is cited as such in the body. McMillian qualifies the statement as applying to pop music, so Cole Porter isn't relevant here.

This phrase in the article looks dubious (even with you citing RS): "The first pop song to address middle-class drug dependency". Even if I limit myself to only substance abuse in using alcohol as a 'cure' for sadness or heartbreak, then calling this the "first pop song" on this subject seems a stretch, with or without using an RS.

(4) As I go through the listings of genre on a simple Google search then "rock" by itself seems the largest and most popular designation with some stating 'psychedelic rock' and 'folk rock' and 'rock-n-roll', but not folk rock by itself. I just don't hear this as a folk rock song like something by Peter Paul and Mary. What do you hear as 'folkish' about this song; it can't be the lyrics, or is it for you?

Most of the sources that describe the genre characterize it as folk rock; this is sourced in the article by Luhrssen & Larson 2017, Margotin & Guesdon 2016 and Davis 2001. Unterberger, who wrote two books about the genre, also uses the terms folk rock multiple times to describe its sound. What I think isn't really relevant, since that would be original research – better to let the sources direct you.

(5) Similar point about it having Eastern influences. The fact that the song uses a sitar does not seem to go very far. For example, if someone told me that a song which used a cowbell was therefore a farm song, then I would have difficulty with this type of assertion. The sound itself is exotic and maybe you could call it that, rather than calling it Eastern because of the country of origin for the instrument used. The sound of the instrument is exceptional, like in Paint it Black, but Paint it Black is not an Indian (Eastern) song. Here is an interesting video on the electric version of it if you have not seen it: [5].

The song's Eastern/Indian influence is well established by the authors and musicologists cited in the article, such as Margotin & Guesdon 2016 and Babiuk & Prevost 2013. Malvinni discusses the song's modal qualities directly in how they relate to an overt Indian-influenced sound, and this is mentioned in the body of the text. I don't follow your points about the sitar, considering that this song does not even incorporate one, a point the page makes clear. The page for "Paint It Black" also discusses that song's Eastern influences, though that's beyond the scope of this page.

This is a video of the isolated tracks; it is the slide guitar substituting for the sitar which is usually discussed for the Indian or Eastern sound which you can hear on this link [6].

The article is fairly close to being at peer review level, see if you can look at some of the last comments I have made. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments above. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 17:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing

Article is a fairly straightforward presentation of the song, its musical structure and its lyrics. I have mentioned several optional topics to take up in the article, particularly on drug use and substance dependence to solve emotional problems dating to well before the 50s and 60s in song. The article is well-written and covers the main topics, with some nice images in the text which are on Wikimedia. Article is promoted. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

My edits reverted for the page, Why?

Hey, Tkbrett, I saw you removed my additions to the page for Mother's Little Helper. I was wondering why, I spent a while today working on adding detail and generally filling out the page with further information, but all you said was that my changes "weren't improvements" and removed all of them.

I understand that you wrote the current version of the page and are responsible for most of the edits on it, but why can't other people add to it with new detail, or just change things about the page? Pages don't belong to one user, but you reverted my additions to the page just because in your opinion they didn't improve it. In my opinion they do, I don't know why it's up to you to decide what makes this page good, and not also up to other people who want to work on it. Hartcanyon (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with ownership -- if you keep making poor additions, there are going to be removed. The recent additions are made up of original research and poorly sourced content from user-generated sites like Discogs. Other sources don't adhere to the establish formatting. The release section has unnecessary detail about the release of Aftermath that disrupts the sections flow. You added a "John Mendelsohn" (actually Jason) quotation that is actually already in the article in proper context. Also, the length of this page does not warrant a four(!) paragraph lead. Tkbrett (✉) 13:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't do any original research so I don't know where you're getting that claim from. The Discogs citation was only to reference a notable live performance that has seen only unofficial releases since being broadcast, so of course a more official source is difficult to come by, you're right that I should've either found a better source or excised it, but that's only one problem. I can fix the formatting of sources but I don't think the Aftermath information disrupts the flow, it just clarifies some things. And the Mendelsohn mistake was only because I was getting it confused with a different review of the song, which is also my fault. So you have a point with some of my changes which don't add much, but I don't think deleting everything I put is a good response. I'll spend the next few days on my sandbox fixing the problems with my article draft while keeping more detail present, and if you still have a problem when I resubmit it with these elements, then we can have a further discussion. Hartcanyon (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)