Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about The Rolling Stones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The '67 Drug Bust: Too much info?

Below is what we have. I'm suggesting keeping the essentials and trimming the laborious details:

Jagger, Richards and Jones now began to be hounded by authorities over their recreational drug use. In early 1967 News of the World ran a three-part feature entitled "Pop Stars and Drugs: Facts That Will Shock You", which carried allegations of LSD parties hosted by The Moody Blues and attended by top stars including The Who's Pete Townshend and Cream's Ginger Baker, and alleged admissions of drug use by leading pop musicians. The first article targeted Donovan (who was raided and charged soon after); the second installment (published on Feb. 5) targeted the Rolling Stones.

A reporter who contributed to the story spent an evening at the exclusive London club Blaise's, where a member of the Stones allegedly took several Benzedrine tablets, displayed a piece of hashish and invited his companions back to his flat for a "smoke". The article claimed that this was Mick Jagger, but it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity -- the reporter had in fact been eavesdropping on Brian Jones. On the night the article was published Jagger appeared on the Eammon Andrews chat show and announced that he was filing a writ of libel against the paper.[33]

A week later on Sunday 12 February Sussex police (tipped off by the News of the World) raided a party at Keith Richards's home, Redlands. No arrests were made at the time but Jagger, Richards and their friend, art dealer Robert Fraser, were subsequently charged with drug offences. Richards said in 2003, "When we got busted at Redlands, it suddenly made us realise that this was a whole different ball game and that was when the fun stopped. Up until then it had been as though London existed in a beautiful space where you could do anything you wanted."[34]

In March, while awaiting the consequences of the police raid, Jagger, Richards and Jones decided to take a short trip to Morocco, accompanied by Marianne Faithfull, Jones's girlfriend Anita Pallenberg and other friends. During this trip the stormy relations between Jones and Pallenberg deteriorated to the point that Pallenberg left Morocco with Richards.[35] Richards said later: "That was the final nail in the coffin with me and Brian. He'd never forgive me for that and I don't blame him, but hell, shit happens."[36] Richards and Pallenberg would remain a couple for twelve years. Despite these complications, The Rolling Stones toured Europe in March and April 1967. The tour included the band's first performances in Poland, Greece and Italy.[37]

On 9 May 1967 -- the same day Jagger, Richards and Fraser were arraigned in connection with the Redlands charges -- Brian Jones's house was raided by police and he was arrested and charged with possession of cannabis.[3] With three out of five Rolling Stones now facing criminal charges, Jagger and Richards were tried at the end of June. On 29 June, they were both convicted and given prison sentences; they were released on bail the following day pending appeal.[38] The Times ran the famous editorial entitled "Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?" in which editor William Rees-Mogg was strongly critical of the sentencing, pointing out that Jagger had been treated far more harshly for a minor first offence than "any purely anonymous young man".

While awaiting the appeal hearings, the band recorded a new single, "We Love You", as a thank-you for the loyalty shown by their fans. It began with the sound of prison doors closing, and the accompanying music video included allusions to the trial of Oscar Wilde.[39] In July, the appeals court overturned Richards' conviction, and Jagger's sentence was reduced to a conditional discharge. Brian Jones's trial took place in November 1967; in December, after appealing the original prison sentence, Jones was fined £1000, put on three years' probation and ordered to seek professional help.[40]

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Very thorough and with a lot of quotes. Nice work, Artist AKA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

what is it that you want to remove? it is a lot of detail, but it reads all right. Sssoul (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edit

Here's a suggested rough edit. Removed are exact dates (placing events generally in 1967 is less distracting) , and other unessential details, such as who wrote The Times' editorial. Added is an attempt to include how the busts and trials started years of legal hassles for the band.

In 1967 The Rolling Stones began being affected by what became 10 years of drug busts - usually involving Keith Richards. The first drug bust in 1967 followed when News of the World published a three part expose titled "Pop Stars and Drugs: Facts That Will Shock You". The reporter saw Brian Jones publically popping pills and displaying hashish at a night club, but misidentified in print Jones as Mick Jagger. After Jagger promised to sue News of the World for libel, the paper tipped off Sussex police to a weekend party at Keith Richards' Redlands home. Besides Richards and Jagger, among the arrested at Redlands were Marianne Faithful and art dealer Robert Fraser. A few months after Jagger's and Rchards' arrests, Jones was arrested and charged with cannibas possesion.

The public outcry against the resulting trial and sentencing of Jagger and Richards included The Times' editorial titled "Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?", which pointed out that Jagger had been treated far more harshly for a minor first offence than "any purely anonymous young man". Richards conviction was overturned on appeal while Jagger's sentence was reduced to a conditional discharge. Jones' separate case ended with a £1000 fine, three years' probation and an order to seek professional help.

As a thank for fan support, The Rolling Stones released the single "We Love You". The sound of prison doors closing began the recording, and the accompanying music video alluded to the trial of Oscar Wilde.[39] While John Lennon disparaged "We Love You" as faddish, Lester Bangs praised it effusively, making particular note of Brian Jones' synthisizer part. [Will get citations or cut this last sentence]

The busts changed Richards' perception of London where, in Richards' words, "Up until then it had been as though London existed in a beautiful space where you could do anything you wanted." The busts and trials occaisioned Jones' loss of Anita Pallenbergs' affections during a Morrocan trip during which she and Richards became a couple, and would remain so for the next 12 years. Though the band toured Europe in 1967, the legal ramifications of drug convictions would make scheduling tours difficult for years to come.

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

nice start to drafting a trimmer version. to me the dates are worth keeping, though, since the timing of the events is often misunderstood/misrepresented. in fact the last paragraph here wrongly suggests that "Jones's loss of Anita Pallenberg's affections during a Moroccan trip" happened after the trials, when of course that fateful Morocco trip happened between the Redlands bust and the arraignment (ie before Brian's bust and obviously before any trials).

i also object to saying that the busts/trip "occasioned" Anita leaving Brian - the Morocco trip was synchronous with her leaving him, but not the cause of it.

i wouldn't call the author of the Times editorial a minor point. the fact that someone as "respected in society" as William Rees-Mogg criticized the sentences was quite remarkable and significant, and to me that detail is considerably more noteworthy than (for example) what Lester Bangs thought of We Love You. so i vote to keep Rees-Mogg and the dates/sequence of the events. (some typos also need smoothing and some phraseology wants finetuning, but i understand that this is just a draft.) Sssoul (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ps: Marianne Faithfull was of course present at Redlands but she wasn't charged or tried. And the sentences passed on Jagger & Richards need to be stated, not just implied - the ludicrous harshness of the sentences is what the "public outcry" was about. Sssoul (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Sssoul's Edit Critique

The following is not much more than "thinking out loud", and a revised edit will be submitted in a day or two.

I do think that as long as it is clear what events preceded subsequent events, it's not too necesarry to state the exact dates, or months of events. I wonder how the inlcusiion of such facts benefits the general reader. I'm not too aware of what confusion exists about the'67 chronology, but I'm presuming some does exist since it was mentioned. However, if the entry is accurate and readable, esatblishing exact dates become a weight on the article, and unless there is an egregious misunderstanding, the entry isn't shouldn't be obliged to add too much detail since detail is bogging down a bloated entry. Maybe using the seasons as chronological markers could be used as well. I did notice that the final paragraph could include a line acknowledging almost all of '67 for the Stones was consumed by the distracting busts and trials.

Thanks for spotting the misuse of "occasioned". I'm all for restoring this copy While awaiting the consequences of the police raid, Jagger, Richards and Jones decided to take a short trip to Morocco, accompanied by Marianne Faithfull, Jones's girlfriend Anita Pallenberg and other friends. During this trip the stormy relations between Jones and Pallenberg deteriorated to the point that Pallenberg left Morocco with Richards. Adding: Pallenberg and Richards remained a couple for the next 12 years.

... the sentences passed on Jagger & Richards need to be stated, not just implied - the ludicrous harshness of the sentences is what the "public outcry" was about. Unfortunately, the current article doesn't detail the prison sentences of Jagger and Richards before appeal either.

I think that The Times published an editorial is emphatic enough; stating pretty clearly that the primier establishment neewpaper had balked at the sentences and made it's views known mightily. I'm not familiar with the editorial author William Rees-Mogg and my quick read of his Wikipedia entry makes me wonder just what the big deal is. The only editorial of his that does get mentioned is the "Fly on the wheel" editorial. Is he a major English media figure? I think mentioning of him should go since the article is too stretched out as it is. But since leaving him in is such a minor addition and not too distracting, it's not a disaster if he is included by name, even if I don't get it.

On the other hand Lester Bangs inlcusion is important, besides being an important music writer, his opinion of "We Love You" counters John Lennon nicely and allows the mention of Brian's synthsizer part. There is a perception that The Stones were shamelessly following the Beatles at this time, and Lennon did more than his part to perpetuate it. Lennons opinion illustrates this and brings an important facet of Stones reception history into the entry. Bang'sreview adds some needed balance to Lennons' sniping. (My own besides-the-point-opinion is that We Love You embodies and provides a bridge between psychedelia and the later hard rock of Street Fighting Man -which included phsydelic elements such as sitar, or whatever it was that Brian played on the later). Bangs has a lot more to do with how the The Stones have been received. What he wrote, wrongheaded or not, has shaped how the Stones have been perceived to this day since his cirticism is still in print. (For example, he famously dumped on Exile, only to reverse himself within months. I can't think of a better citation to contrast and typify the intitial and eventual reception of Exile.) This is a matter of opinion, but I think the case for Bangs is too arguable. So howzabout a compromise? Lets include both Rees-Mogg and Bangs The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

i just woke up but ... right: there's surely room in the article for Rees-Mogg as well as Bangs. i do question whether Bangs's opinions are real pertinent to this section of the article, and whether this section is in need of very much revision.

this episode was a quite striking moment in Stones history as well as in social/cultural history, and the dates of the main events in it are a] 100% encyclopedic and b] quite likely to be part of what many readers come to the page looking for. the sequence of events is rather complicated and if efforts to "summarize" it distort the facts (like implying that the Morocco trip came after the trials) or omit significant detail, that's not okay.

similarly, Rees-Mogg is one of the heroes of this episode, and it's 100% encyclopedic to mention him. he risked being charged with contempt of court for writing/publishing that editorial, and it was hugely significant that a respected "Establishment" figure went out on a limb like that. his editorial really was crucial to rallying public opinion against the sentences, and to the appeals process. someone's opinion of a track just isn't the same level of significance as that.

i agree that it's worth mentioning We Love You as part of this episode, but a] to me critical opinions of the track belong in the article on the track (properly sourced, of course), not here; and b] if your point is to mention/counter the perception that the Stones "followed" the Beatles, it would be way better to write a separate section about that, not to try to cram it into the section about the arrests/trials. that perception has nothing at all to do with these events (and "Lennon disparaged the track" doesn't say anything about who was following whom anyway). if any more detail about the track than what's in the original passage is really needed (which i'm not sure of) to me it's more noteworthy that Lennon & McCartney sing backup on it than that Lennon later got bitchy about it.

maybe worth mentioning in closing: i feel that the Stones article is generally more in need of more fleshing out than paring down, and that the Stones' cultural impact is one of the things the article as a whole currently gives too little attention to. this incident was significant not only in the band's history, but in social/cultural history, and it deserves to be fully and accurately reported ... which the original version does better than this rewrite. as noted earlier the specifics of Mick's & Keith's sentences need to be added (the way they're reported in Keith's article is nicely succinct) but beyond that the original section reads well enough as it stands. Sssoul (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

update: i've now added the specifics of the sentences (plus a reference) to the article. Sssoul (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree on Ress-Moog and leave him in. As to the reception of We Love You being out of place, if the article had a thematic outline instead of mainly chronological one in place, so some important issues, such as the Beatles influence on the Beatles, have to be mentioned along the way by necessity. I'm not really happy with the Musical Evolution section because is almost the only thematic section. The bust quasi-section is much too long, and the length does little to pay homage to the Stones rightful cultural place when it in fact diffuses it, and especially definite cultural issues get left out and context is not provided; e.g., the long term effects of the bust. Since trimming is possible with accuracy and narrative fully maintained, while context can be added, it is still a worthwhile goal.

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

when you have an accurate "trimmed" version ready it'll be interesting to see it. (but omitting the dates would truly not be an improvement either to the article or to the encyclopedia.) and the (currently weirdly truncated) "musical evolution" section doesn't have to be the only "thematic" section in the article, if you want to write something about the relationship between the Stones and the Beatles (and if you have the sources you'd need). Sssoul (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lacking is a sound and reasoned justification for preferring that exact dates be included. Instead, it is implied that more general - and still accurate - dating that leaves no doubt as to what happened before and after events is somehow deficient. Ever wonder why The Beatles article is not on the Featured Articles list and why the Bob Dylan article is? Look at the clutter of exact dates that noisily invade The Beatles article, then have a look at the Dylan article. Quite a contrast. The Beatles article demonstrates that readability is not within reach when a weed-like thicket of dates clutters the article. On the other hand, the Dylan article makes it clear (damn, gotta keep myself from saying "all too concise") that being over-exact is not mandatory. Also as to stating that the section is fine as it is, besides being preemptive, is unfortunate and seemingly opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia which, as we all should know, includes not taking ownership. A new suggested edit posted on this Talk page is on the way, and since at least some care is warranted and scrutiny is a sure bet, it may not be an immediate arrival. P.S. What adjective whould you suggest for the Musical evolution section that would not require the slight of quotation marks when it is referenced? I thought thematic was most appropriate and useful. P.P.S. I noticed that much of the interesting information above about William Rees-Mogg is not found on his article, and I would like to suggest it be added there. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) you're misreading me. my use of quote marks was not meant as disparagement, and i am not interested in fighting with you. i am interested in accuracy. i agree that this article needs a lot of work, but revisions that aren't accurate are not an improvement. the draft you proposed above was inaccurate/misleading in a few ways (it wrongly implied that the Morocco trip came after the trials; it left the timing of the European tour a mystery; and Marianne Faithfull was not charged/tried in connection with the Redlands bust - she was referred to at the trial, but wasn't named). as i've already stated: when you have an accurate rewrite ready it'll be interesting to see it.
meanwhile, dates are clear encyclopedic information, and they can be especially helpful when a sequence of events is complicated, as this one is. Sssoul (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

band sign

the band sign of the rolling stones was a mouth with a tongue sticking out!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.64.25 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

i dont understand,

i dont understand why does it say members then former members>? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.253.130 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure i understand the question - the "members" section lists the current members of the band and the "former members" sections lists ... well, former members is the usual term for it! musicians who used to be in the band. hope that helps Sssoul (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed Sullivan Show error

"When the band went to New York to perform the numbers on The Ed Sullivan Show, Jagger was asked to change the lyrics in the refrain to "let's spend some time together" to avoid having their appearance on the show cancelled, though he did not comply. Even so, the show went on"

They did agree to make the change and did so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.64.32 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

right - fixed now. thanks for pointing it out. Sssoul (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was Jim Morrison who refused to change the lyrics in Light My Fire when the Doors appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, thus they were never invited back again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Non existent resolve

since keith was back on h as early as some girls, and h was why the band shut down in the late 80s, there was no "resolve to end his habit" that wasn't momentary. To say otherwise is misleading and fannish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.34.156 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

plus this note transplanted from Sssoul's talk page, since the discussion belongs here, not there:

Do you think Keith really quit his heroin habit, and his resolve was not momentary and half-assed? Ian Mcglagan tells colorful stories of a strung-out Keith in Paris during Some Girls, including walking around with a needle stuck in his ass during a recording session. There's an obligation to point out that he only kicked it and made no recovery from addiction, as he was back on it quick. Let's not have fannish/devotional statements leaving readers mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.34.156 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for using the talk page to discuss this. the statement "This episode motivated Richards's resolve to end his drug habit" is not an assertion that he was immediately successful in ending it, and there's nothing misleading about it. the version you're pushing for sounds as if he never succeeded in ending it, which is misleading. also, the paragraph the sentence appears in covers a few years, not just the Some Girls recording sessions.

meanwhile, i am familiar with Ian MacLagan's charming book - may i ask if you're familiar with any other sources on Stones history?

also, please remember to sign your talk-page posts by typing four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~. that creates an automatic signature and timestamp so that it's on record who posted what when. thanks Sssoul (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"may i ask if you're familiar with any other sources on Stones history?" Do have a legitimate reason to ask, or simply being impertinent? Keith was strung out during Dirty Work, so it took him at least a decade to kick smack for good, if that was in fact what happened. He has admitted on radio to tasting it during the 2000s. So, no, he was not "immediately successful", which is one hell of an understatement. The obligation is to declare that whatever his resolve, he is known for many subsequent relapses. The current omission leads to a reasonable misunderstandings where a reader would naturally think that if the "resolve" didn't take hold, we would have told the reader so. The narrative is not one of nutrality, but one of partisanship, and thereby fannsih. I haven't forgotten about signing posts.

This is addressed to the last editor who forgot to sign his name: You do realise that you are slandering a living person with all of these unverified anecdotes. The article is not fannish or biased, but is, in point of fact, well-written and well-sourced.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

for the convenience of the anonymous editor who keeps neglecting to sign: here are wikipedia's policies regarding articles about living people; and since it sounds like you're not familiar with them, please check out WP:V and WP:RS as well. so yes, there are "legitimate reasons" for asking about sources. you really do need to cite your sources (and doublecheck what they actually say - such as who was having what problems during the Dirty Work sessions, and when that "tasting" actually took place).

and to make sure i'm being clear: i am not interested in fighting with you. i am interested in the accuracy and readability of this article. it needs a lot of work, certainly. some of your other changes were okay, but this particular change was not an improvement; and again, there's nothing wrong with the (sourced) statement that the Toronto bust was major motivation to quit. Sssoul (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Always the scold. I may seem slow, but could you kindly point me to the Wiki policy that shows how to cite facts on the talk page not intended for nor suggested for the main article? Also the issue is that the bust motivated Keith to quit, but "to end his drug habit" is something else, and very misleading. 12 step groups never view a habit or addiction as ended, but merely abated one day at a time. This, of course, is recovery speak, but they do have a lot of experience with unfortunates who resolved to "end" their substance abuse. Those addicts don't do as well: their chances are less than average. Of course, if a citation is lacking for Keith heroin use during Dirty Work, it doesn't belong in the article. I didn't know of anyone intending to place it there, but then, I could never claim to be as vigilant as yourself. Mick wouldn't tour behind Work, to paraphrase him, because the whole band couldn't make it across the street, let alone around the world. Keith did say in a radio interview that he regretted not being able to deal with his heroin addiction privately, but he did say in another radio interview in this decade that he still tasted it occaisionally while on tour. (Ooops, I didn't cite those did I? Bad. Bad. Bad.) - The Last Editor Who Reminds You That He Did Not Forget To Sign His Name But Wonders If You Could Read His Posts More Closely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.34.156 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad cat

Does anybody know what this was suposed to be? Category:English-language Records albums -Freekee (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion is probably where you want to ask that, or maybe Wikipedia:Help desk Sssoul (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Claim

Chuck Berry and Fats Domino were and are not generally regarded to be in the genre of blues.24.0.60.105 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

the poster above is referring to this sentence in the "Musical evolution" section:

Jagger, recalling when he first heard the likes of Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Muddy Waters, Fats Domino and other heavies of the American blues scene, said it "seemed the most real thing" <ref>Davin Seay ''Mick Jagger:The Story Behind the Rolling Stone''. York: Birch Lane Press, 1993.</ref> he had heard up to that point.

since the poster's point is fair enough, i'd change "heavies of the American blues scene" to "major American R&B artists", but i don't want to misrepresent what the cited source says. can someone who has access to that book check what the exact statement is, please and thank you? Sssoul (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

R&B is a fair description. 24.0.60.105 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, it's a fair description - but is it what the cited source says? we can't change referenced statements to whatever we feel is right - they've got to match what the source says. sometimes i find that real regrettable - but it's Wikipedia policy. Sssoul (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

update: okay, i've made the change, but if someone could please doublecheck that source - Davin Seay's Mick Jagger: The Story Behind the Rolling Stone (Birch Lane Press, 1993) - and let us know what it actually says, that would be brilliant, thanks. if it doesn't support the statement as it now stands, we can replace it with one that does. Sssoul (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Record labels

[transplanted from Sssoul's talk page] might you want to have a look at this...the "infobox" is missing one label, being London Records. Unless it's not absorbed by one of the others, should it not be listed here (like Interscope Records is in place of its parent Universal)... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

i presume you mean the infobox of the Rolling Stones article, so i'm transplanting this here. London was Decca's US distributor, so i reckon Decca covers it. but if you want to add London, i for one wouldn't object. maybe other editors have an opinion? Sssoul (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to its high importance as a record label (back in the 1960s, anyway), I'm going to insert London Records in the "infobox". If it may not seem right, it can always be removed. Thanks for ageeing with me Sssoul...Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Get Stoned album?

Maybe I missed it but I don't see a reference in the article or the template to "Get Stoned", a compilation album. Here's a link to a listing. Is there some inclusion criterion for the template that I don't know about, or is this an error? Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

well, if it exists it's not a product the Stones had anything to do with. i see it was released in 77, which is a few years after Allen Klein had become the owner of the rights to all those tracks, so maybe he licensed them to this Arcade label. i don't recall ever having heard of this compilation in particular, but there are several "minor" ones like that, most of which got distributed only in one country. maybe someday someone will write an article about them, but it doesn't seem like a very high priority either for this article or for the template. Sssoul (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It does exist; I used to own a copy which is why I was curious about the omission. Thanks for the explanation. Mike Christie (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Gimmie vs Gimme

It seems rather odd to insist on using the misspelling from the Let It Bleed album when the article for the song is "Gimme Shelter", every new issue uses the corrected spelling and every re-issue of the album-version of the song for a compilation uses the corrected spelling. Under what title is the song copyrighted?DavidRF (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

the spelling on the original release wasn't a misspelling - it's a UK variant. the film used the US spelling, and that's sort of "taken over", but the track on Let It Bleed is still spelled "Gimmie Shelter". Sssoul (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If the band didn't consider it a misspelling, why did they change it? They've used slang spelling in songs before ("Jumpin'") and never changed it. Also, this does not explain why the article for the song uses the Gimme Shelter spelling or the album infobox on that page uses that spelling... or even the Let It Bleed article uses the "gimme" spelling when that's the only place the "gimmie" spelling is actually used. Seems inconsistent to be pedantic about the original song spelling only on this article on not on any of the articles that actually deal more specifically with the actual song or album. Lastly, there's no mention in any of the reference books I've seen about there being a US/UK aspect to the variants... just that the "-ie" ending is more common when the word is used as a golf term.

Anyhow, I won't change the article. I'll leave that to editors who spend more time here. I'm just logging my confusion on the talk page because it seems like it could be a frequently source of confusion. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I also had a similar confusion, and my edit to "Gimme" was reverted. Upon further thought, the spelling "Gimmie Shelter" does seem correct when referring to the song as it appeared on Let It Bleed to be historically accurate (as in this article, and the one for Let It Bleed). That was the spelling at the time the album was released. The spelling "Gimme" is correct in all other cases, since it's used on subsequent recordings and compilation albums. It shouldn't matter why the spelling was changed. CuriousEric (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

200 million

Can someone please explain how this website: http://www.abo.fi/~jbacklun/moneymen.htm meets WP:RS criteria? 74.73.110.46 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like its just stating something readily found on other links such as this one, or this one. If you wish we can swap the current one with the reuters one... Reuters passes wp:rs in spades. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Reuters one is perfect. The current reference is embarrassing, imo. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

the latest "Charlie quits" rumour discounted

i've edited it to reflect what the source actually is/says, but in fact my vote is to remove it until it's confirmed by a reliable source. the only reason i'm leaving it in for now is to forestall it being added over and over in more sensationalized forms. which is not a very good reason at all, but i'm undercaffeinated. Sssoul (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

update: see this correction by the Rolling Stones' publicist. Sssoul (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding inclusion of Keith news

Keith recently gave Rolling Stone interview wherein he casually spoke of his working with Jack White. He doesn't offer any specifics, but I was wondering if any of this is worth a mention. Also of note is his mentioning of the forthcoming deluxe edition of Exile. Stan weller (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Young photo of Keith Richards

Hello, I felt the photos of the Stones need more biographical perspective, so I added one of Keith Richards, and hope perhaps it can be used on his page as well, if needed. The same is true of a photo of a young Mick Taylor, circa Exile on Main Street, which is on Taylor's page. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Great photo of Keith which I will add to article ASAP. However, as it was taken in early 1970s and not late 1960s, the image should be moved from the '60s section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound files: iffy

I've reviewed the use of the four sound files here. Unfortunately, WP:NFCC#3a requires minimal usage, and four is rather a lot when none is couched in its surrounding text in terms that describe the sound; that involves WP:NFCC#8.

Is someone willing to nominate one or two to delete, and to integrate into the text at least a little description of the sound to justify why each has "Contextual significance"? Tony (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

sound files don't play for me, for whatever reason, so i'm not especially qualified to assess them, but the sound of "Brown Sugar" is described in the section about Richards's use of open tuning ("Richards during this time (1968) started using open tunings ...") so that one should stay; perhaps it should be moved closer to that part of the text, and maybe the caption should more specifically refer to the sound.

a reference to the distinctive fuzz tone on "Satisfaction" would be easy enough to work in, but on the other hand the whole wide world knows what that riff sounds like, so it's probably of less educational value than "Gimmie Shelter" or "Paint It Black". Sssoul (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Added Category:Transcendental Meditation practitioners

Added Category to article per these sources: "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Telegraph (February 7, 2008) "The mystic who inspired The Beatles: The town that lost its guru" The Independent (February 7, 2008) -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian and Mick met the Maharishi, but that's a very long way from the Rolling Stones being TM practitioners. i'm removing the category. Sssoul (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss this with you. I have provided two reliable sources that say the Rolling Stones were involved in TM. But you have a different point of view. That's OK but do you have reliable sources to verify that? If so, would you please post them here? Thank you so much. -- — Kbob • Talk • 14:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

see Bill Wyman's book Rolling With the Stones, for one - page 289: he describes the rest of the band staying in the recording studio when Mick went to a TM conference in Wales in 1967 (the one that was cut short when Brian Epstein died). on page 290 there's a photo (from some unspecified other date) of Brian Jones attending a lecture. two band members attending a couple of lectures over 40 years ago is probably what your sources mean by saying they "endorsed" TM (which is a stretch); it definitely isn't grounds for categorizing the band (or even those particular members) as "TM practitioners".

there are also statements in various interviews, like Keith's "I draw the line at swamis" here; Charlie and/or Bill have also said that they just plain weren't interested.

meanwhile please note that the sources you've posted don't claim the Stones are or were "TM practitioners". Sssoul (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree this category doesn't seem appropriate. Please see a discussion I've now started at Category_talk:Transcendental_Meditation_practitioners as this is not just the Stones. PL290 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sssoul for providing specific references. Now that I have the details I agree with your assessment. Thanks. -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Musical Impact of The Stones

This is one area that could use development. It can be persuasively suggested that The Stones were the first proto-Jam Band, Their Crawdaddy sets included 20 minute jams, which according to Bill Wyman, were meant to highlight musicianship. They also released the first extended jam with Goin' Home on a top forty album. The Crawdaddy jams are legitimate antecedents to The Cream, which performed jams because they lacked material, and all of whom, especially Clapton, were familiar The Stones ability to jam. Later on, when free form FM radio came about in mid to later sixties, "Goin' Home' got extensive radio play in San Francisco on KMPX because it was for a time the only long track available in the rock 'n roll format. (This is according to KMPX DJ Bob McLAY, who reported this on the air in the mid seventies - I was the listener, and I doubt verifiable citations are around.) The later jams such as the bootleg "Still Fool" and "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" continue this facet of the band.

The San Francisco bands of the sixties played many songs they learned from the Stones. The Grateful Dead adopted the Stones' version of "Not Fade Away" and Bob Weir cited the first 2 Stones albums as very important to the Dead.

Also Gomelsky's assertion that the band had a large hand in making the Blues, particularly Urban Blues, popular worldwide is not hypoerbole, suggests but does not develope how much influence the band has had.

How to gather and include this in the article is another matter, but the influence of the band is enough to recommend attempting it. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.234.247 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Forty Licks Wine

The band unveiled its new Forty Licks Merlot wine in New York recently. Should this be included in the article when it discusses Forty Licks? Has the band had other non-music ventures over the years? If so, maybe a section should be warranted. What do you think? Rosestiles (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)rosestiles

what companies have been granted licenses to use the Stones' name/logo for marketing what items might belong in those companies' articles (if they have them) but they don't belong in this article, in my opinion Sssoul (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones' Early Studios

Mentioning the other studios is simply trivia - considering how unimportant they were to the band. "mainly" serves will in since implication is all they really deserve. Moreover, Oldham is emphatically crediting Regent for helping shaped the early sound. Keith only speaks of Regent when referring to the early days, and it is important to include the egg crates for reasons already argued. Regent was, for all intents and purposes, the only early studio worth mentioning. Also, the lack of citation is egregious, especially after it was pointed out. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.126.21 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

?! Olympic was hardly "unimportant to the band" . i understand that you feel Regent is "the only [one] worth mentioning"; i disagree with you. when ALO says (on page 253) "I have no doubt the feel of those early Stones records was due in no small part to avoiding the major studios", that isn't about Regent in particular, it's about their tactic of using small independent studios. there's a two-page passage in ALO's book about the recording of the first single at Olympic, and a very fine book entitled Black & White Blues devoted largely to their De Lane Lea sessions (see I Wanna Be Your Man if you're unsure why those sessions might be deemed notable). thanks for checking a variety of sources more carefully instead of insisting on keeping misleading statements. Sssoul (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The "unimportant to the band" quote is actually a paraphrase, and was either opportunistically or sloppily taken out of context - a context doubly established. First: I spoke of no other context than the early days. Secondly, no other time period is implicitly under consideration in the relevant section. The significance of Olympic is huge but in later periods only, and very minor to the Stones early expect they were unhappy with recoding at Olympic in '63 - a very different beast than the Olympic they used later. So yes, Regent is the main (not only) studio the Stones used before they started recording at Chess and RCA in America. Also, when recording in America, they bought studio lock out time, and no other artists could use the same studio, something unheard of in LA by RCA engineer David Hassinger, and something directly attributable to Regent and no other studio experience of the Stones. Minimizing the importance of Regent while they used it, and what affect it had later is indefensible. To repeat, Keith only talks about Regent when discussing the Stones pre-American recording studios. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.198.113 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones Split

No, not the recent hoax, but back circa February 1987. Article currently states "Many believed the group would disband." - it's my memory they *did* disband, and it was announced on the news (think I first saw the report on either BBC or ITV's breakfast televison programme at the time). I remember being saddened, as a 14 year old with the Stones as my favourite band! I can't remember what the TV station reported as their source, whether it was a definitive press statement from a member of the band, or whether they were just building a story out of the general friction between Mick & Keith at the time. Can't find anything about this with a quick Google, it's either been written out of history (I mean, bands split and reform all the time these days...two year 'splits' are pretty yawnsome and perhaps it's not even notable for a band such as the Stones) - or it simply didn't happen. Still it's been puzzling me, as I definitely remember this being big news at the time. Does anyone have any more info on this, whether it was 'for real' and thus worthy of inclusion in the article? Thanks, Benjitz (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Awards, titles, and accolades

The intro to this article doesn't seem to talk as much about the accolades the band has received over its 40+ year history as other articles such as ones on The Who and The Beatles do. The Rolling Stones are often titled 'The Greatest Rock and Roll Band of All Time' by various critics and publications, but no mention of this is made as it is in other articles. Does anyone agree? It doesn't mention that they're the most successful touring band in music history either. Wikipediarul e s 2221 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Influence section

I notice an Influence section was recently added, and got deleted twice by another editor and reinstated. While the section may not yet be mature or ideally formatted, I suggest it is a positive contribution to the article and should be improved rather than removed. It was criticized as "fannish" but that misses the point in respect of certain necessary and appropriate statements about the band's significance. The TOC structure of any article on a significant band is incomplete without a section on legacy or influence. I've reinstated it. PL290 (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is fannish to call the Stones "one of the most iconic and influential bands to emerge...". The section is also poorly sourced: it's no good to use a reference that is a cut and paste from an earlier version of this Wiki entry, as well as citing about.com. There are much better sources. The section was a worshipful listing of bands who have been affected by the Stones. It may deserve inclusion, but not as the glorified catalog it was. The Stones influence on the international ascension of the blues, their position as the first jam band, their affect on the look and sound of punk are a few of the topics. What bands they affected is worth one or two sentences, at most, and the list should be minimal with good references. Mr Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.235.173 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject; why not try improving the section yourself rather than deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.191.119 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You might have a point. ;-} Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.235.173 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty the section after the band's history (Musical evolution) was begun to combat outright fannish proclamations like the one cited above by showing how the Stones influenced music through their own artistic progression. I think it's best to work within those boundaries as opposed to listing bands that call the Stones an influence because such lists have proven time and again to be unruly. Stan weller (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Early Studios Redux

Olympic was an independent AND a major studio - the only four track facility in the UK - which the Stones regretted using early on, an experience Oldham termed "unerving"(sic). To restate: in the context of the Stones' early recordings, Oldham made no positive references to other studios, and to extract such references from noting is trying to try to make a positive out of a negative. Also to equate avoidance of major studios with an embrace of all independent studios (plural), is bad logic and nothing more than conjecture. Also, to insist the egg cartons are used for "soundproofing" is simply wrong. Talmy used the term "sound baffling", which is used to reduced reverberation in control rooms - though I could provide many references explaining how poorly it does so. "Sound treatment" is just as accurate and more likely to be understood by the lay reader. Not sure why this error was restored, since improvement of the article is the goal. All around, a little more care with facts and deductive logic would help immensely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Though misguided, the wrongheaded edits did spur me to look at the sources, which resulted in corrections of longstanding mistakes not yet caught.

Big list of songs?

Is there a big list of all The Rolling Stones songs? I can't find one here. Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Try here Portal:The Rolling Stones .. :) Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at Jagger/Richards. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead photo comment

Just a bit of drive-by criticism from a former editor-turned-casual visitor, but that main photo is a textbook example of why people think "free use" photos are on the whole garbage. You can barely see the individuals and the photo gives no sense as to who they are -- no instruments in sight. Surely there has to be a better image in the Commons somewhere. I understand all the "yadda yadda" about Fair Use, but frankly crap like that does more damage to the understanding of the subject matter than any copyvio. If I were still editing on a regular basis I'd actually be bold and remove the image totally. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I had also criticised the blurry photo in the lead, asking for it to be replaced by a better, clearer photo where one can see all the members of the group. Even a pre-Ron Wood photo of the band is preferable to this one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we replace the current photo with this one on the right? It shows the two leading members of the group, they are shown performing, and it's a good, clear image unlike the blurred one we have at the moment. Comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good as the photo is, The Stones are a true band, and a photo with all members is better suited to a lead photo. Mr Anon

True, but can't we find a better one somewhere which is Fair Use?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the current photo. Finding another photo that does what this one does well would be a challenge. It conveys the personalities and the current official lineup in a live setting, as well as a lot of other information, such as fan involvement. It is blurry, which I also like. A studio shot would be too staged. Good luck with finding another photo just as good. Mr Anon

You can barely see them; all one can see of Keith Richards is the back of his head. I homestly think there should be a clearer photo for the infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded that photo- the one that has been suggested. I too, don't think it portrays the band as a whole, which is why I placed it on the Jagger/Richards songwriting one. Let me look for a better one, as I don't like the idea of using "fair use" photos in any FA ranked article. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Stones photo issue

Having supplied over half of all the photos of The Rolling Stones, both in the band article and on individual member's articles, (from a variety of sources), I'm not sure I'll find a proper band photo, given that they play such large stadiums and move about so much. That being said, there's a small chance somene will have pics from them at curtain calls, something like that. The only other way to get a really accurate photo, would be taking several shots, and creating a montage of them. Something like what you can see was done on the Snow Patrol article. That was a pain in the ass, getting permissions, but the end result is good, I think, although really, technically beyond my computer abilities. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK! User:Moxy was kind enough to meld a strip of photos of the current band members of The Rolling Stones. It was as I noted, a practice done for the Nicky Hopkins and Snow Patrol articles, and here are his results, as either an alternative or a replacement for the infobox photo for The Rolling Stones article, sincee there were also complaints of using a non-free image. He took all the free images from Commons and put four together, and said:

option 1 --> with them older...

option 2 --> with them younger and seeing what they do in the band Moxy (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Personally, I like it.Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Support, only if Charlie Watts and Ronnie Wood's images can be switched around to show this as Jagger/Richards/Wood/Watts. If not, then I'll have to support the old dinosaur images. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

File:The Rolling stones mebers 2...JPG as per your command !!!..Moxy (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Support 100%! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets be bold ..i changed it..lets see what people say..can we make the size bigger??Moxy (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this looks good! Can we make Mick's picture B&W like the other three? Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

i dont like the shape perhaps in the main space -->File:Stones members.JPG

The file File:Stones members.JPG has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

Might we make Mick's picture B&W, we should use it as the cover of Book:The Rolling Stones. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done.........Moxy (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nicely done! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

its a bit blurry up close but fine for the template !!..Moxy (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel so proud! I'm so glad I thought of merging the photos, but the credit all goes to Moxy!!! Whoohoo! Great Job! I think this does finally address the band photo at last. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. It looks much better than the former blurry picture.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be safe, (I am not certain why, but it was required with the Snow Patrol article when User:Suede67 and I wished to merge those photos, we were told we needed permission from the sources from which I had uploaded those photos). Since I'm the one who uploaded all of The Rolling Stones photos in this montage except Charlie Watts, I've contacted the photographers of the other 3 band members who all gave permission and approved of us using their photos in that manner, however, when I looked at the source page of Watts' photo to ask for the same permission, (which I didn't upload), I saw this: [1] Note that there's no information about the photo, and, when I clicked the photostream source, it was a dead link someplace in Yahoo. It's also the ONLY photo uploaded to Commons for that "User" and there is nothing on their talk page either. This kind of concerns me, as to the credibility of us being able to use the photo at all. Does anyone else here see using that photo as problematic? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie Wood Out Of The Stones

According to www.rollingstones.com Ronnie Wood is no longer a member. http://www.rollingstones.com/people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What rot. The link you've attached shows 1976 to present. And sign your posts ! -Sticks66 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In Gypsydog5150's partial defence, that link did say -2010 earlier (I looked because this page is on my watchlist due to a vandalism reversion I did). Having said that - an ambiguous implication of a date in a caption was certainly not grounds to change the article - I googled at the time, and there was nothing anywhere to indicate he'd left the band. Begoon (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The link said 1976-2010 earlier, http://www.opposingviews.com/i/did-the-rolling-stones-fire-ronnie-wood So shut the fuck up!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.178.167 (talk • contribs)

So it seems we have 2 possibilities here, then:
(i) rollingstones.com just came up with the subtlest, most understated way in internet history to announce the departure of a high profile member from a major band, and are now fuming/laughing manically (depending on intention) at the fact that Google and the rest of the world didn't pick up on it and make it front page news...or...
(ii) a few people/blogs noticed a difference in the style/content of a caption on a picture whilst the website was being updated, put 2 and 2 together, and came up with...well, something...
I suppose anything is possible - only time will tell.
With regards to the last part of your comment, I'll pass thanks, but since you put it so nicely, I'll just note that in my previous post I was simply attempting to point out that more than one person had, in fact, seen this "anomalous" caption, and, whilst, in the absence of any other supporting evidence, disagreeing with the conclusion drawn from it, I felt it would be the right thing to do, having seen it, to confirm that the caption had, indeed, at one point read " -2010" (I couldn't remember the 1976 bit). Sorry if you didn't find that helpful...
Have a nice day - Begoon (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they never allow for sloppiness. Everything is instead precisely planned and executed - the last thing to expect from the Stones. If this kind of wild and virtually baseless conjecture is better reserved for speculations on the relative fortunes of mainland China political figures, it might free us any more "Paul-is-dead" discussions regarding the Stones. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.231.252 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely - but I think you're a little optimistic about ever being free from it. I think this guy said it best: I love humans. They always see patterns in things that aren't there. Begoon (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Auto Archiving

I noticed that IP:69.106.75.82 added some Misza bot archival code to the page.

I left them a message about it here: User_talk:69.106.75.82 because it's not properly functional as it stands.

I noticed the page used to be archived by Werdnabot, but I think that's defunct now - so I suppose a consensus would be needed along the lines of the message I posted on the IP talk page.

- Begoon (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Update

Well, I forgot to check whether the IP came back and fixed the error. He didn't, so the bot sprayed the archives around from Archive_1 to Archive_4...

I've undone the archiving, and restored the archives to their previous state. I've also corrected the parameter in the auto-archive code so that future archiving will start from Archive_4.

I removed the second archive box from the page, because it relied on someone updating it manually, and there is already an Archive link in the talk page header (I added search function to that) - but I left the "redundant" archive box in the page code, commented out, in case someone wants to put it back and be responsible for updating it.

I noticed that you didn't want the "Genres" discussions archived - so I added a line of code to each of those 3 sections that should prevent archiving them (well, until 2050, anyway...)

Provided I didn't screw up, the bot should run automatically now, archiving threads with no activity for 90 days, and starting from Archive_4 (which is currently empty).

I also added code for automatic indexing, and the index should be available at Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive index (which is also linked from the talkpage header) - but we'll have to wait until the bot runs to see if that works. (I'm not sure when that will happen, since the bot appears to be "down" currently, see HBC Archive Indexerbot down. I can't find another indexing bot, so maybe patience until it is fixed will be the best option there.)

- Begoon (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Update to the Update :-)

The bot archived correctly to Archive_4, and it didn't Archive the "Genre" discussions - so far, so good.

I don't know when the index bot will be running again - we'll need to wait and see, I guess. - Begoon (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Update to the Update to the Update :-)

The index bot appears to be working again, so the Index I created at Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive index, which is also linked in the Archive header at the top of the page, should work, now. - Begoon (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos from 1965

I uploaded several individual members' photos from 1965- other than placing the band photo from that date on the band page, I placed the member's photos on their articles, tentatively. Feel free to move them about as needs may be. One is of Brian Jones; I KNOW it's the only one of him ever uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a Creative Commons license, making it (along with this new band photo) the only "free image" we have that I'm aware of. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Photographs of the members, etc. of The Rolling Stones

I was able to upload some early photos of some of the members of the early years of The Rolling Stones, including: a band photo, which I placed here, a photo of Brian Jones, Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts, and Keith Richards. The photos of those individual members are on their own articles, but since I see picturss like these from my last upload of Richards and Mick Taylor, I wonder if any others might belong on the band page as well? Penny for your thoughts. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article needs a few more pictures.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of band's name

The article text is inconsistent with the band's name. I've seen:

"The Rolling Stones", including "the" capitalized mid-sentence
"the Rolling Stones"
"Rolling Stones", no "the".
"the Stones"
"three out of five Rolling Stones"
"The Rolling Stones'" (note possessive apostrophe)
...no "Stones's".

What is the name of the band? Are its members themselves Stones which are Rolling? Suggestion: pick one and stick to it. 203.214.15.148 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

the Wikipedia Manual of Style recently changed the guidelines about mid-sentence capitalization of the in names, but it's true that the article editors should decide on one style or the other and use it consistently. my personal preference would be not to capitalize it, now that the MoS allows that, but there are miles of RS-related articles using a capitalized mid-sentence The because the MoS required it, and it's not clear what the consensus is in all these articles.

meanwhile, the Stones is regarded as unencyclopedic and should be corrected to the (or The) Rolling Stones when you see it. naturally, the possessive plural form is used when it's required; similarly, three out of five Rolling Stones is normal syntax, not an inconsistency. i don't know what you mean by no "Stones's" - that looks like a typo. Sssoul (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sssoul. I have been guilty in the past of using "the Stones" only because that's how I refer to them in everyday life. But this is not everyday life. I'll take note and change it to "The Rolling Stones" whenever encountered in the future. Stan weller (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! It bugs the heck out of me, to keep following around (not you in particular, Stan) but in all of The Rolling Stones articles to keep correcting the name from "the Stones".--Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Stones" is clearly not encyclopedic, and I agree the full band name should be used. As to capitalization, though (other than in article/section titles), the question came up quite recently in a style guide discussion, and one editor drew attention to the Chicago Manual of Style's guideline:

Capitalization, Titles

Q. For rock fans, such as myself, it is sometimes important to know whether one is to capitalize the "the" preceding a rock group’s name. For instance, the group "the Who." In the middle of a sentence, do I say "the Who" or "The Who," given that the "the" is an integral part of the title and furthermore is the first word in the title?

A. When the name of a band requires the definite article, lowercase it in running text:

When I first saw the Who, they had short hair; when I last saw them, that was again true.

I can’t believe the Rolling Stones didn’t retire with all their money years ago.

The day I was introduced to the The was the day I learned that irony was finished.

It is true that "the" often gets capitalized on album covers, but our rule is to capitalize the first and last word in any title, which fits in with that practice (the The has usually employed a lowercase "the" nested above an uppercase "The" on its covers). Exceptions to the proper "the" rule are names that are captured within italics or quotation marks within running text. Hence,

Have you ever heard "The Real Me," that song by the Who?

I have three copies of The Soft Parade, one of the Doors' lesser-known albums. Chicago Manual of Style Q&A

There seems to be growing support for the view that we should now bring our articles up to date with what most of the world does, and drop the peculiarity of the "The" in running prose. PL290 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What he said - briefly: In running text, it should be "the Rolling Stones" - and not "The Rolling Stones" according to the Chicago manual of style. Now my two cents. First, this is not universally accepted: NPR uses the "The" while the New York Times and the Times prefer the "the". I'm voting for the "the' in running text. If this was The Who, I'd argue differently, but it's not. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done - in accordance with our own Manual of Style, which now gives specific guidance on the question:

Names (definite article)
An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name. ... Mid-sentence, the word "the" should not be capitalized in continuous prose, except when quoted or beginning a phrase in italics or bold. Capital "The" is optional in wikilinks, and may be preferred when listing: The Beatles, The Velvet Underground...
(Wikipedia Manual of Style on band names)

PL290 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)