Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeanne boleyn (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 13 March 2009 (→Andrew Oldham). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	The Rolling Stones is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 11, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. The Rolling Stones Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rock music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archives

/Archive 1: July 2003 - Sept. 2006 /Archive 2: Sept. 2006 - Aug. 2007 /Archive 3: Aug. 2007 - March 2009

seeking consensus on the genres in the info-box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genre box...

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

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

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

Genres once more...

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

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

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

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

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

Brian's departure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associated Acts

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

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

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

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

Better image needed for intro box

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Reverts

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

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

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

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

Andrew Oldham

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

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

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

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class The Rolling Stones articles
• Top-importance The Rolling Stones articles
• WikiProject The Rolling Stones articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Rock music articles
• Top-importance Rock music articles
• WikiProject Rock music articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists