Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 20 February 2010 [1].

Like a Rolling Stone

[edit]
Nominator(s): I.M.S. (talk), Moisejp, Mick gold, Rlendog, Allreet - 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Co-nomination from I.M.S. - I am nominating this on behalf of the WikiProject Bob Dylan Collaboration Team. We have all been working very hard on the article for almost five months, building it up with the eventual goal of FAC. We now feel that the article is ready. Please express your opinions on the article, and we will try our best to respond to you and address any issues raised. Thank you for your time. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborators, please add your co-nominations to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Like a Rolling Stone/archive1

Media review: Three images. Alt text good for all.

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • Usage: Dubious. The cover provides the necessary and sufficient identification. Not clear at all what significant purpose this serves.
  • Rationale: Fine, except that Purpose of use is questionable, per above.
I have deleted this image. Moisejp (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage: Questionable. The event depicted is undoubtedly unique and famous, but is Dylan's visual appearance at all significant here? Surely it was the electrified sound of his music and the crowd reaction prompted by that sound that made this event historic. Is there audio of the event available—perhaps audio that captures both the sound of Dylan's performance and the crowd's reaction? Or the part that would explicate the article's mention of where he "recited the lyrics as if giving a speech"? That, I believe, would be more informative than the image. Of course, if there is something worthwhile to be said (i.e., sourced critical commentary) about Dylan's appearance at the event, that would improve the basis for the image's use.
  • Rationale: Inadequate. Full information must be provided on original source, The Other Side of the Mirror, including identification of copyright holder.

Three audio samples (fair use): Primary release version for infobox; significantly different alternative version, with sourced critical commentary; famous Jimi Hendrix cover version, with sourced critical commentary. Selection is good, but there are several problems:

I have added the copyright holder for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg and for File:Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone.ogg. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the rationale for File:Like a Rolling Waltz.ogg to try to clarify the necessity of including the sample in this specific article. Please let me know if my change is not the kind specification you had in mind. Moisejp (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, Moisejp. Audacity is not working for me at the moment - I'll try reinstalling it, then I'll get to work on shortening the clip. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I.M.S., let me know if you don't end getting Audacity to work. I could easily do a shorter sound clip myself. It might not be as good as yours, which fades in and out to show different highlights as I recall, but it would at least do the trick and fit the length requirements. But if you can get Audacity working, all the better! Moisejp (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will shorten "Like A Rolling Stone" and address the MOS problem. Should File:Dylan Rolling Stone Newport.jpg be deleted? - I.M.S. (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe copyright information for the Hendrix version still needs to be added. Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best, but I don't know the copyright information for the Hendrix version... does what I've added look alright? - I.M.S. (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
  • I have long been of the understanding that Dylan is referring to Andy Warhol in the stanza she rode on the chrome horse with her diplomat who carried on his shoulder a siamese cat - ain't it hard when you discover that he really wasn't where it's at after he took from you everything he could steal etc. His friend Bob Neuwirth, and Joan Baez and Marianne Faithful don't seem very likely as subjects in the story to me, perhaps Nico?
  • I am a little disappointed not to see the lyrics, is that possible? Otherwise great job so far...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment, Modernist. As to the Warhol reference, I agree with you that it would fit in with the "themes" section, but it would require a RS discussing the subject. Do you have one? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for a RS, and the lyrics, can you publish all or some?...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for doing the research—let's see what the other collaborators think, then perhaps we'll add it. In the past, however, Warholstars.org was contested by the GA reviewer of "LARS"—search the talk page for "Warhol". You might also want to take a look at this discussion about Warhol, Sedgewick, and Neuwirth. Many thanks for you help! - I.M.S. (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to POPism: The Warhol '60s by Andy Warhol & Pat Hackett, Harper & Row, 1980, is interesting. On page 108, Warhol reports that someone told him: "Listen to 'Like A Rolling Stone'—I think you're the diplomat on the chrome horse, man." I think this counts as WP:RS for the point that Warhol believed, or people in Warhol's circle believed that LARS was referring to Warhol. Warhol then states "I didn't know exactly what they meant by that—I never listened much to the words of songs—but I got the tenor of what they were saying—that Dylan didn't like me, that he blamed me for Edie's drugs." Mick gold (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Fine. What makes these reliable?

RB88 (T) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 82 (and the info it was supporting) has been removed. Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does not need any citations as the material has to be covered in the text. Please remove them and make sure the material is indeed covered in the text.
I have removed the most straightforward citations from the lead. What are left are the more "sweeping statement" kind. I'm sure it won't be too hard, but we'll just have to be careful when we're removing them that all the sweeping statements are explicitly cited in the article. They may well already be, I just haven't had time to look at them carefully. Hopefully I'll have time in the next few days, or if anyone else wants to look at them in the meantime, go ahead. Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the locations for uniformity, because they were a bit confusing. The ISBNs need to conform to the same layout. At the moment, there is mixture of 13 number ones and 10 number ones. RB88 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books only used once can be put in notes rather than being repeated twice. It improves readership and is less clunky. Also, some books listed in references have the titles repeated in the notes section.
  • I have removed the book titles from Notes. About whether to not put books in the Reference section that are only used once, is this optional? It seems simpler to me to in the References section list all books used, even if they're only used once. But if this is quite frowned upon, I can remove them. Moisejp (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing set in stone either way, but I encourage books only used once to be put in Notes rather than repeated twice. It is less clunky and makes for more streamlined articles. Aaliyah for example improved pretty well because of it. It's up to you at the end of the day. RB88 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - thanks for pointing it out. - I.M.S. (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (subject to satisfactory media and source reviews) - well done; nice to read such a comprehensive and engaging article on this seminal work. PL290 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I find the writing and unfolding quite stilted, and though all the info is already in the article, I'm not getting a clear view.

  • In the lead, we are told that the song is of the greatest, yet still given almost irrelevant facts like that it was written after a tour of England. Is is about England, the tour - this is left hanging. Also, the opening para should not mention trivial facts like the Irish chart placing - the song is too much history and gravatas now for that to be vital info. Also they create unnecessary blue, unhelpful links.
  • Similarly the story of Al Kooper is often told, and I'd like to see this in the lead. As far as I'm concerned his playing is why the song was such a watershed.
  • came from extended piece of verse - Is this not who most of Dylan's work from the period came about - long long verse that he would cut down into songs. The article makes it seem like this was a once off.
  • he was unhappy with his work and seriously considered quitting the music business - was he about to quit the business because of his unhappiness with this one song, or was it something more general. Ceoil sláinte 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About this final point, we're not talking about his dissatisfaction with the song, but with his music in general. One big clue for is that the tour took place in the spring of 1965, but Dylan didn't start writing "Like a Rolling Stone" until June. Also, immediately after it says that "'Like a Rolling Stone' changed it all." The song changed his "draggy situation" where he was unhappy with his own work. I don't see how this could be true if all he was dissatisfied with was the song itself. But if it wasn't clear to you, it may need clarification. If we changed "unhappy with his own work" to "unhappy with his musical direction" or "unhappy with his recent body or work" would it help? (I'm a little worried, however, that based on the quotation we are working with, we cannot be totally sure whether "unhappy with his recent body of work" or "with his musical direction" are precise, whereas a more general statement like "unhappy with his work" seems indisputable based on the quotation.) Or do you have other suggestions about how that could be made clearer? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just say what you just told me in the article (in far less words!) - if there is doubt, clarify in footnotes. The page, at present, seems to hedge. Ceoil sláinte 05:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed that bit to try to specify what we mean by "unhappy with his work." I hope I have not said more than can be inferred from the Playboy interview quotation we give. I have also based my interpretation on another two sentences he says that we excised from the quotation: "I was playing a lot of songs I didn't want to play. I was singing words I didn't really want to sing." Moisejp (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About whether or not to include Al Kooper's story in the lead, I'm a little worried about taking the subjective stance that his organ playing was key to the song being such a watershed. Kooper's playing was clearly one element that led to the song turning out how it did, but for one thing we do not know how the song would have evolved if Kooper had not showed up—some other act of inspiration could have pushed the song towards a different but equally brilliant end result. We have no evidence, for example, that Kooper's contribution led to the change from 3/4- to 4/4-time, or whether or not the fourth take on June 16 would have sounded good to Tom Wilson without Kooper's playing. In short, I think all we can say with certainty is that Kooper contributed the organ riff, and that Dylan apparently liked it and wanted it brought up in the mix, which is what we do say. Moisejp (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp, I don't think you need to worry, its usually taken as fact that the organ drove the song in all sources I've read - I think I've read that so many times now (though yes Kooper does milk it), I feel dizzy and need water. Apart from that, the lead is a little dry, some spice might engage a reader more, such an anecdote would help. And thanks for the delinks - while appreciating that it is difficult when a reviewer turns up so late saying I want this, this, and this!. Ceoil sláinte 05:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Kooper's contribution to lead. Ceoil has a point, in all accounts of the song's creation in the studio, Kooper's riff was the breakthrough. Mick gold (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Mick gold. I agree that it adds some spice to the lead. I have tweaked your edits slightly—have a look and feel free to tinker some more if my changes are not quite right. Moisejp (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK out of the lead. I have changed this to "and was a Top-10 hit in a number of other countries." I think it is important to give an indication in the lead that the song's success was not simply an American phenomenon, but that it had a worldwide impact as well. Or another option would be to take out all mention of chart positions (both American and other countries') from the lead. Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be more effective to say "had an impact worldwide" than say..no3 in holland, 4 in Irealnd, 1 in Germa... Ceoil sláinte 05:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil’s point:
  • came from extended piece of verse - Is this not how most of Dylan's work from the period came about - long long verse that he would cut down into songs. The article makes it seem like this was a once off.
V difficult to answer this. Much remains mysterious about how Dylan created his major work. In Dont Look Back, Dylan can be seen typing incessantly in his suite in the Savoy Hotel, London. Marianne Faithfull who visited him there, reported: "Dylan was constantly going over to the typewriter and pounding away. In the middle of a conversation he would tear himself away and toss off a song, a poem, a new chapter of his book, a one-act play. It was a wonder to behold." (quoted in Heylin, Revolution in the Air, p. 240) Much of this material subsequently surfaced in Tarantula, Dylan’s attempt at a "literary" book. However, he told three interviewers that LARS began as a long piece of “vomit” (in one account 10 pages, in another 20 pages) which then acquired musical form. He never spoke of any other major composition in this way. Mr Tambourine Man, Chimes of Freedom, It’s Alright Ma seem to have evolved as songs. Dylan clearly thought there was something different about LARS. Mick gold (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ceoil's got a point here, and I suggest that once again it's a question of saying what you just said, in the article. You've just shown that although not everything's known about Dylan's work, this one clearly was different; very different: instead of tearing himself away from conversations to type something, "a wonder to behold", he told three interviewers that LARS began as a long piece of “vomit” (in one account 10 pages, in another 20 pages) which then acquired musical form. He never spoke of any other major composition in this way. The current wording, "came from extended piece of verse", doesn't even come close to stating that there was any contrast at all with other composition. PL290 (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK PL290, an account of Dylan's writing trchnique in 1965 has gone in. Mick gold (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the 10/20 pgs thing in the lead as a footnote. Its not quite sufficient in differenciation the song; I trust ye can clarify / improve. Ceoil sláinte 15:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works well. But another sentence resulting from recent changes has me slightly perplexed: "However, Columbia Records were unhappy with both the song's length at over six minutes and its heavy electric sound. They delayed release until July 1965, and although radio stations were reluctant to play such a long track, "Like a Rolling Stone" reached number two in the US charts and became a worldwide hit." - the chart success is presented as if a consequence of the foregoing text. Is it meant to be? (For instance, is the delayed release thought to have helped chart success?) May need sentences splitting differently ... PL290 (talk)
I'm not sure where you are coming from. To me the notion is despite. I think that what most fans found appealing was its length, differentiating it from bubblegum throw-away pop, and that it was dare I say - electric. What Columbia feared about the track was what the 'kids' - excepting a few beards in Birmingham - liked in the end. Ceoil sláinte 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you fixed the article while I was writing that comment! I was talking about the old version. It's clear now. PL290 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is not apparent in the lead, nor is the signifance of "after a tour of England" (at present that seems like useless and tacked on info that leaves youscratching your head), and also that Columbia was unhappy with the sound is hugely significant but left hanging. In addition (sorry), there is no mention, in the lead why the song made such a connection with everybody, in the world, that I've ever met. Why is it so iconic, a career maker? It almost seems like it was a fluke they way the lead reads now. FWIW, I'm leaning towards support, this is a fine article overall, and am delighted to see the work that has gone into it.Ceoil sláinte 13:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with lead now, Moisejp. Thanks. Ceoil sláinte 14:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to describe why song was revolutionary, why song mattered. Tweak? Delete? Mick gold (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to me. Ceoil sláinte 15:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to change the lead that everyone was happy with, but RB88 above asked us not to include any references in the lead, and to only say in the lead what is later said in the main text. With that in mind I did a kind of temporary patchwork/remedy of including a brief summary of Gray's quotes in the lead, and then pasted the quotes as Mick gold wrote them into the Legacy section. I don't think they are very well sewn into the Legacy text, however, and I think it's going to need some tweaking but it was the best I could come up with for now. One thing I noticed, though, is that the Legacy section is kind of all over the place. I was wondering whether it'd be clearer if we structured more concretely as follows: The song had an impact (a) in its revolutionary sound; (b) in its lyrics (well, we don't want to overlap too much with the Themes section, but we can just emphasize that it helped show people they could write about other things besides love—but maybe Dylan's songs had already being doing that for a few years and this is less relevant—if so we could skip (b)); and (c) in its length. Then we could end the section as we do now with the paragraph about its place in polls. What do people think? In any case, if you have ideas to smooth in my placing of Gray's quotes into the Legacy section, that'd be appreciated, too. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it read better before the material was moved. I don't think those points are part of the Legacy of the song. They explain why it connected with its audience, and was a massive, if unexexpected, hit. RD88 asked us not to include cites in the lead. Is this mandatory? Surely it's guidance. I've just looked at 5 random WP:FAs in the Music section: Radiohead, Sex Pistols, The Waterboys, The Orb, Alison Krauss. They all have cites. Mick gold (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mick gold, I agree your version flowed better and that Gray's points don't really belong in the Legacy section. I'm confused about to what extent the rule of not putting references in the lead is just a guideline or is mandatory: one reviewer has told us explicitly not to, while another has said he or she liked the lead we had when the references were in there. For me personally it seems like a good policy to not have references in the lead and to use the lead strictly as a summary of the rest of the article, but you know I'm a pretty flexible guy and will go with whatever the majority decides. Another idea: add a section to the article along the lines of Smells Like Teen Spirit#Composition or Hey Jude#Musical structure. Surely there'd be room in such a section for Gray's remarks. Shelton, for one, also has some material we could use in the section (on page 319 in my copy, though I think yours is different): e.g. "The basic chord sequence is curiously familiar, suggesting 'La Bamba,' 'Guantanamera,' 'Twist and Shout.' Yet the massive, full sound moves away into a very complex structure." If we gathered together enough info like that we could perhaps give a somewhat technical description of the music and at the same time describe why musically it connected with its audience. Maybe the section could come right before Themes, such that first we'd be focussing on the music and then (in the Themes section) on the lyrics. What do people think? Moisejp (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp, I tweaked lead a little, I think it's fine now with the full extent of Gray's comment in Legacy section, which,after all, is about the influence of the song. best Mick gold (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'm happy with the way the lead reads now, it is far more clear to me since ye regiged. The rest of the article was strong anyway, tough I moved the "themes" section up towards the top of the page, and made some minor r/w's along the way. Very happy to support this engaging and insightful page. Glad to see that so much context has been included. Ceoil sláinte 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like that little piece of lyric - "how does it feel" as an addition...The lyrics are so ingrained in our consciousness I think there might be more added. As I remember when the song first came out in July 1965 it followed in the wake of I Can't Get No Satisfaction that had just made the 'Stones a worldwide sensation. Somehow Dylan's song and great title and chorus instantly transformed his reputation from folksinger to rock n' roll star to the originator of folk-rock. But kids were just learning there were Rolling Stones in the universe when Dylan comes out with Like a Rolling Stone...Modernist (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Showing our age now are we, Modernist? Ceoil sláinte 14:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wellll - I was pretty young back then. :)...Modernist (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty and young, or just pretty young? He he. Ceoil sláinte 15:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on who is lookin' I'd say both, although pretty doesn't really work...Modernist (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an aside - 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. 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) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Sorry to be so late; I have just two points... as others have said above I think there's scope for a little more inclusion of lyrics in the Themes section. I think judicious and skilled quotes from the lyrics to give us some of the flavour would really help the section and help people - like me - who have heard of the song but have never paid it close attention (I'm afraid Dylan is rather anathema to me). Secondly, I'm curious as to the ordering of the countries in the box showing its chart placing... the list is almost in alphabetical order except it places Ireland before Germany. The list isn't ordered according to height of chart placing nor - it would seem - by significance of the chart as relates to Dylan or the Western music world in general, so it just strikes me as a little odd. I wouldn't be sorry to see this as a featured article. I would say it didn't pull me in as much as other articles nominated here but, if anything, I have a slight antipathy to Dylan so I think that may well cloud my enjoyment. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the chart listings were supposed to be alphabetical, but somehow G and I got reversed! This has been fixed. Moisejp (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some lyrics to the "Themes" section. I am not sure how much can be addedbefore bordering on copyright issues. But I think these give a flavor of the song's lyrics, including the famous refrain. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Concerning the song title I wonder if anyone has ever wondered if besides the connection to the Stones and to the Hank Williams lyric from Lost Highway that he and Joan Baez sang (as recorded in Dont Look Back) - since his mothers maiden name is Stone and being on a whirlwind tour - he might have thought of himself as literally being just like a rolling Stone...Modernist (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting thought. I have never seen that remarked on anywhere. Rlendog (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clever, but unlikely. Ceoil sláinte 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd recommended taking "It was listed in 2004 by Rolling Stone as number one in its 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" out of the lead section. It places too much emphasis on something that isn't an award or a broad gauge of critical consensus like Village Voice's Pazz & Jop critics' poll (which is always a cross-section of critics from all sorts of publications, and not just one like the Rolling Stone list is). 07:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


What's the status on File:Dylan Rolling Stone Newport.jpg? If necessary, you can request a second opinion from User:Elcobbola, User:NuclearWarfare, User:Awadewit, User:Laser brain, or User:David Fuchs (among others). Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlendog asked me to give my opinion here. I would think that removing it would be the way to go. I agree with the person who did the media review above; the audio was what made the event historic, not the image of Dylan. NW (Talk) 16:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Thanks for your comments, Nuclear. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support re prose, clarity, and content. LOVELY article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with questions: Why does the first sentence of the lead not identify what kind or style the song is? I understand that Dylan straddled folk and rock and roll, but the first sentence, if read by someone who had no familiarity with popular music would tell the reader nothing they could relate to. I found no discussion in the article that addressed how the song was categorized or debated among musicians about whether it was folk or rock. What about "Like a Rolling Stone" is a 1965 rock and roll song by American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan. I caught one instance of punctuation in the quotations, and I'm really ambivalent about links in quotes although other MOS adherents will tell you Judas in a quote should not be linked. Otherwise, I found the article well-written and comprehensive. Good job. I love this song. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, Moni3. I’ve called it a rock song. Rock and roll was, I think, a term associated with the musical innovators of the 1950s: Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis. 1963 –1974 is often described as the “golden age of rock”. The summer of 1965 saw two extraordinary singles with a hard rock sound at the top of the charts: The Stones’ “Satisfaction” and Dylan’s “Like A Rolling Stone”. I think LARS has nothing in common with folk music, so, unlike The Animals’ “House of the Rising Sun” and The Byrds’ “Mr Tambourine Man”, which turned acoustic songs into rock singles, LARS should not be described as folk-rock. Mick gold (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Like_a_Rolling_Stone/archive1&oldid=1136096743"