Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Stupid sentence

      "No other band was so lascive, syncopated, scholarly and original all at the same time."

None of these can really be qualified. While Charlie may have been a jazz drummer, he was hardly more "syncopated" than anyone else, and I don't think it's possible to describe either Mick or Keith as "scholarly". Neither were they really original, as they kept bringing out the same country-blues-rock they always had. And according to www.dictoinary.com, "lascive" isn't a word.

I'm not saying the stones aren't one of the greatest bands in historyor trying to slag them off or something, I'm just saying this sentence seems to be specifically celebrating some of their few weak points, so I think it should be changed.

"Shibboleths" etc.

I've made an attempt to translate the paragraph starting "One critic has described the band at this period as being a "cross between Robert Johnson and Friedrich Nietzsche"." Feel free to revert if it makes even less sense in English. I'm assuming much of the vocabulary used ("realpolitik" for example) was a reference to the Nietzsche comparison, but it all looked very out of place in this article. I contemplate deleting the quote, or even the whole paragraph, but I won't try to judge the value of the points made. Monkeynutter 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Country?

The country at the little box at the top of the page says London, England. Last time I checked London wasn't a country...

Stones Songwriters

Were Mick Jagger and Keith Richards the only Stones who wrote songs for the band? --Ian911299

Info on the 21 years between 1971 and now

Is someone enought masochistic to write something about the 25 years between 1971 and today ?

Yes, I am. I've got up to about 1981 on my laptop, and will integrate it shortly. -- User:GWO

Haven't there been, er, 35 years since 1971?? john k 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Circus?

It would be nice if someone could add something about the Rock and Roll Circus film of December 11 1968, which was finally released to video in 1995. I have already referenced it elsewhere under the tag Rock and Roll Circus. Thanks. -- B.Bryant

Message to 128.200.69.203: Good job on this article, it has really improved since you started working on it. Thanks. -- User:GWO

---

I think we need a discography here. dave 15:27, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Took a stab at sectioning out this long article for readability and editability. I'm not too happy with the section titles, perhaps someone can improve upon this. Jgm 10:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Someone should mention the Robert Johnson lawsuit (brought by his family) against the Stones.

Never heard of it. Can you give me any details I can use for research... Gareth Owen

Search google groups for: stones "robert johnson"

The Stones covered two Robert Johnson songs (Love in Vain and Stop Breaking down), and credited them as "uncopyrighted/traditional/arranged by Jagger/Richards" (as I recall) on early pressings of their records. No royalties were set aside for Johnson (who'd been dead for thirty years at that point). Later they changed the credit to Robert Johnson, but still didn't set aside any royalties. The suit was brought in the mid or late 90's by whoever inherited the rights to Johnson's songs (a dubious claim, given the fact that he left no will and the songs weren't copyrighted). The suit was widely seen as a money grab, given the fact that Johnson's songs have been covered by dozens of artists, a lot of whom didn't give credit (Elmore James and Sonny Boy Williamson spring to mind), and the fact that Johnson himself covered songs without nec. giving the proper credit.

The suit was decided in favor of Johnson's family, and in my circle (tape traders and blues fans), the ruling was seen as completely off the wall. The Stones were wrong not to credit Johnson, and the royalty issue was shady as well, but the judge just threw out common sense and said that just because record labels regarded Robert Johnson's music as trash in the 1930's and didn't bother to copyright it, doesn't mean copyright can't be declared retroactively to squeeze a few more pennies out of their back catalog.

There was some speculation that a lot of blues reissue labels would be driven out of business by lawsuits, but so far (thankfully) that hasn't happened.

The only noticable effect of the ruling was that Robert Johnson's music is only available on Columbia Records--none of the other blues labels are willing to test Columbia's resolve and reissue it themselves.

---

Actually, the ruling was not off-the-wall at all if you look at the history of cases and statutes which lead to the decision. The decision was made as a result of a few amendments to the copyright act passed by congress; the point of which were to reinstate the original interpretation of the copyright act before the case of "La Cienega" (another copyright case featuring ZZ Top. see La Cienega, 53 F.3d at 953) affected case law in allowing the distribution of phonographic records to constitute the publication of a "musical work embodied therein". The ruling in the case of ABKCO Music, Inc. v. LaVere (Representatives of the Rolling Stones v. Representatives of Robert Johnson's estate) was necessary due to the addition of amendment 303(b) to the copyright act and also the clarification by congress that the amendment "is intended to restore the law to what it was before the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in La Cienega Music Co. v. Z.Z. Top.". The fact that the amendment was intended as a clarification of prior law is an important one because if,conversely, it were intended to change existing law, it would lose it retroactivity and thus not be applicable in the case of ABKCO Music, Inc. v. LaVere. (FYI note: section 303(b) of the copyright act reads as follows: "The distribution before January 1, 1978, of phonorecords shall not constitute publication of the musical work embodied therein for purposes of the Copyright Act of 1909."

The?

Is somebody positive that the word the is part of the band's name? I thought they were just Rolling Stones...

No one's terribly sure. Even the band themselves : Exhibit A: [1]; Exhibit B: [2]. The first album was called "The Rolling Stones Now", which lends me to believe that the "The" was originally part of the name. -- GWO 07:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amazon.com lists the band as The Rolling Stones, as does IMDB.com - redcountess 02:09, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

AMG lists the band as The Rolling Stones as well. link PlasticBeat 02:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following links provide clear, common sense help based on a sound feel for the language. --Espoo 15:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.chicagomanual.org/cmosfaq.CapitalizationTitles.html http://fmwriters.com/community/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=17&topic_id=33574&mesg_id=33576

Their website says "the Rolling Stones" consistently.

Possibly unfree image

The image linked to this article has had its copyright status disputed and has been listed on Possibly unfree images. - redcountess 01:58, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits

Have made the discography a separate article, Rolling Stones discography to reduce article size. Have wikified rest of article and updated it. Commented out para on Brian Jones's departure as it needs a reference, and is possibly POV. redcountess 17:29, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the article is pretty seriously POV. In the 60s it pretty clearly takes a pro-Brian Jones, anti-Mick and Keith POV. It is completely unafraid to make its own critical judgments of Stones albums. It asserts, seemingly without evidence, that Keith had little involvement with Sticky Fingers because of his heroin use. So, I think it needs some work. john k 21:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I coudn't agree more —however, despite being a Stones fan most of my life, I really don't know that much about them, and focused on getting the article Wikified to start with, and dealing with the more contentious statements. If you know more about their history, do you want to have a bash at re-writing? (Commenting out the grossest POV while we wait for references might be a way to go, rather than just deleting it) - redcountess 01:46, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

You might find the following resource useful for Richards' heroin use on Sticky Fingers: www.timeisonourside.com - redcountess 02:00, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a link to the (now separate) discography on the page? I didn't see one... Musser 20:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is now. <_< ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Excellent! I would have done it myself, but I just got started here. Musser 02:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, who's Gary Ward? I'm guessing this is vandalism. See the edit of 13:12 July 4, 2005 (UTC): "The band have made several attempts to bring on board respected talent, such as Gary Ward. Ward has so far turned down offers, prefering to build a career with a successful bank in Tankersley, SOuth Yorkshire." I'd remove this, but before I do that, I want to make sure I don't delete something real. Shanemcd 04:26, 01 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Distance quibbling

I hate to be a quibbler (oh, no I don't). Altamont is indeed about 51 miles from SF by road, but measuring it off my east-bay Rand McNally it would seem to be 37.5 miles from the Ferry Building to Altamont. I changed 50 to 40 in the article, and clarified that it's roughly east of SF. -- John Fader 19:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pallenberg/house

Part of the article suggests that during the time Jagger, Jones and Richards lived together (1963) - Jones started to see Anita Pallenberg (which didn't happen until 1965). Additionally it mentions "Richards" as starting to see her, which he didn't do until 1967. So I fixed it.

Image reinstatement

Recently added image may not be fair use, where album cover presumably is. Longstanding image was replaced in guise of "minor edit" without notice or discussion. Monicasdude 05:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Awesome!!

That describes the stones in 2005, baby. They still know how to rock!

'Argued'?

Photo caption of lips and tongue was changed to not 'argued to have been designed by Andy Warhol' - why 'argued?'

In 1970, the Stones formed their own record label - Rolling Stones Records and released "Sticky Fingers," which reached # 1 in 1971. The album also introduced fans to the Andy Warhol designed "lips and lolling tongue logo." That same year Jagger married Nicaraguan fashion model Bianca Perez Morena de Macias.

http://www.therollingstones.net/history.htm

Some strange edits taking place here...Barrettmagic 15:30 15 August 2005

"Rolling stones today" isnt really a fair statement as it wont be true in fifty years. I would put a date but I don't know enough about the image to do such. Olleicua 02:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Age

The band is so old that their early pictures are probably in the public domain. Jobe6 12:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of a small quibble, I know, but unless you mean the Stones are the longest surviving rock 'n' roll band in history UNDER THE SAME NAME, then the band Styx have, as far as I am aware been around for longer (1961 cf 1962), though they have changed names a couple of times. Now, don't get me wrong, Styx ain't no Stones, but credit due an' all that.

It doesn't matter anyway, as Golden Earring has existed under the same name since 1961. I removed the line as it is false. BocoROTH 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures on Rolling Stones Article

I just reverted the top picture back to the previous posting, stronger image, better formatted for leading image, took new image and placed it under early history (three images now there from same period, ca. 1964)

Overall article has enough images now - runs the risk of taking up too much space. Should contributors wish to add more content, look to Beatles article for guidance. Additional detail pages may be appropriate and useful. -- Barrettmagic 14:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem I see with the images featured is that they don't properly capture the band over forty-plus years. Stan weller 05:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Magazine, Bob Dylan Song

There should be info on what came first, and what if anything influenced the others: - The Rolling Stones - Rolling Stone Magazine - Bob Dylan's Like a Rolling Stone

Too Long

This article is a bit long, and I mean too long. I either needs to be split into one or more separate articles, or have a summary sections as load times a excessive and people often do not have time to read though the wealth of information.

• It loads fine for me. Comprehensiveness is not a crime. Deltabeignet 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• At 40kb it's a bit long, but not bad. It's worth considering how to split it up not because it needs it now, but because it can't really be expanded at all without needing splitting. A band as important as the Stones ought to have a good couple paragraphs on critical reception and musical and social impact for example, and that (along with hopefully some sound samples and inline references and a longer lead) will push the article over. Tuf-Kat 18:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"Dance ... leaked into their recordings"

from 2nd para: "Reggae, punk, and dance, country music and even Arab music have leaked into their recordings." Ugh!

Sentence structure - ugh. "Leaked" - ugh. "Dance [a type of movement] leaked into their recordings"!! I'd fix it if I knew what the dance reference meant. I hope it's not dance music because the definition of that is so broad as to be meaningless in this context. Nurg 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Amazing Female Singer on Four Flicks

I was hoping someone can reveal to me who's the amazing female Afro-American backing singer who sang during the 2003 Tour and can be seen at the Live At The Twickenham Stadium, London DVD from the Four Flick box set. Mick pronounced her name and it sounded like Lee Safisha, however I couldn't find any info on a singer of that name.

• I'm not a fan of the band but some common sense led me to the conclusion that it was probably Lisa Fisher he was failing to enunciate [3]. --bodnotbod 11:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it's Lisa Fischer. It never even crossed my mind! :)) Big thanks!

The name 'Rolling stones'

In Bill Wyman's ROLLING WITH THE STONES, the popular story of the Stones being named after Muddy's 'Rollin Stone' is challeneged by a person who was a friend of the naescent band at the time.This person states unequivocally that the band was in fact named after the section of Muddy's 'Mannish Boy' where Muddy states 'I'm a rollin' stone'. The reason it CANNOT be from 'Rollin' Stone',is that 'Rollin' Stone' had only been released on 78,and NObody in those days had 78s..only LPs and 45s.

Not true! We had 78s 45s and 33.3333s! Early Elvis records were made on 78s then when 45s and LPs became available most record players could play all 3 speeds - certainly in the 60s post Stones' arrival.

Charlie Watts joining and other early history

The article has a BIG error: Charlie joined AFTER Bill Wyman...Wyman joined in December 62,and Charlie joined in January 1963. The drummer at the 'first' Stones gig at the Marquee in April 1962, is usually credited as Mick Avory (later of the Kinks),but MIGHT have been Tony Chapman,who was also in the same band (The Cliftons) as Wyman (then Bill Perks) at the time.The Stones really had no 'regular' drummer at the time,and sometimes played the few gigs they got without a drummer. Someone PLEASE correct this!

Also some more emphasis should be made in the early history of the fact that the Stones at this time was BRIAN JONES' group,not Mick and Keith's-a point that Wyman tries to make in both of his books-even Keith has said over and over that the Stones was 'Brian's baby',and him and Mick were just members of it in the 1962-late 63 time period.

Hmmm, but I thought Charlie (re)joined the band in January 1963, after a period of dithering, but he had played with the nascent Stones in 1961. So... he was their drummer, then he was on-again, off-again during much of 1962, but finally committed to the band for good at the beginning of 1963. In which case, his association with the band began in 1961, and he should probably be listed under that date (as he currently is). ProhibitOnions 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hank Williams?

In the first paragraph it states that the Stones' original recordings included covers of Hank Williams' songs. I have all their 60s albums as well as plently of bootleg studio sessions from the early years, and I don't remember them ever covering a single Hank Williams song.

Can anyone back this up?

this web site is as close as I can find, unless you want to consider "Honky Tonk Women" as some sort of Hank tribute [or something] but it is not early Stones.

http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/influenc.htm Carptrash 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

Can someone peer review Tumbling Dice? No Parking 04:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Altmont song & death

1. WTF? I know i'm clueless abt rock, but i know for a fact that the Altamont killing was supposed (& i thot widely supposed) to have taken place during "Sympathy for the Devil", and to have led to its not being publicly performed (for years or ever?) after then. Is this legend so obscure as to rate no mention?

   Aha, Talk:Sympathy for the Devil has more detail, tho it cites a dead site. It seems clear that the violence started during 'Sympathy..", and that the legend is not just mine; needs mention.

2. Text says

a young black fan who had unwisely brought a pistol (and a white girlfriend) to the show, was stabbed and beaten to death by the Angels during the band's performance of "Under My Thumb".

The gratuitous "unwisely", especially in the context of the parenthetical "white girlfriend", is pretty damn offensive, whether or not the word is accurate. But the real problem is giving this much detail without recounting what anyone said the sequence of events was, and results of the criminal investigation if not trial that surely followed. If there is no verifiable information about what else anyone claimed happened, i doubt what is there is useful enough to justify its retention. If the subject is so involved as to overpower the article, say less than at present in this Rolling Stones article, and a lot more in an Altamont concert article lk'd from what's left.

Further, "the Angels" clearly does not refer in this context to the entire membership of that organization. But as written (w/ no estimated number) the most reasonable interpretation is that all the members recruited for security roles that day (hundreds? over a thousand?) converged on the scene, each either stabbing or beating the victim, or intending to facilitate that.

There's more, relevant to my comments, at the talk page i cite above. And IMO, it's clear there's enough (including the "Sympathy..." confusion) to justify Altamont concert. Specifically re my preceding 'graph, it strongly suggests what is denied by the tone of the existing text, i.e. that there was some reason to believe the victim provoked the incident by exposing the gun in the middle of a crowd (i.e., appeared to be threatening action almost guaranteed to cause serious collateral damage) and that there is no reason to rule out his death having occured in the course of a wise effort to protect public safety by minimizing the violence.

I haven't tried to ameliorate these, since a passage outrageous enough to be dismissed out of hand is better than one (which i would have to leave still inadequate) that might be given a little more credence and do more damage than the existing horrible one. Step up to the plate, Stones fans; don't neglect this and provoke this rock ignoramus into fixing this neglect my way.
--Jerzy•t 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The stabbing definately was during "Under my thumb" and not during Sympathy for the Devil. Any serious biography about the Stones will confirm this.

The stabbing was during "Under My Thumb". I have the movie on VHS.

Is/Are?

Shouldn't the first line be "The Rolling Stones is a British rock group..." The name of the band, while having a plural noun within it, is, on the whole, a collective noun which should use singular verbs [4]. mtz206 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In Re. to Is/Are?

In Britain, verbs that would be used in describing the actions of plural nouns are used for collective nouns, also. When you think about it, either way it makes sense. Therefore, saying "the Rolling Stones are an overrated rock band" is just as accurate as saying "the Rolling Stones is an overrated rock band." Swatson1978 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Angie, Richards's blood, etc

Surely the claim that "Angie" is about Anita Pallenberg should be qualified? We don't know for sure who it's about. In the same way, we don't know what happened to Keith Richards's blood. Have a look at Snopes on the subject: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/richards.htm and http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/bowie.htm and http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/marsbar.htm Vhata 16:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

suspended sentence

The copy states, "...with Richards eventually receiving a suspended sentence..." A suspended sentence is not someting one finds in Canadian law. Maybe it was a conditional discharge.

Half time at the "Bowl"

Well to start, the Seahawks did a great job getting to the bowl, it is was too bad we lost, however there is next year; GO HAWKS!! congratulations to the Steelers.

The rolling stones rock!!!!!!!!!!!

"biggest?"

"Biggest" as used here appears vague and colloquial. Perhaps "most successful" would be better: "...one of the world's biggest and most influential bands"

Makes no sense to me...

"The audio on his microphone was lowered twice for the two requested omissions, but Jagger did sing those lyrics. [3]. Contrary to many media reports, he was not censored."

Sounds like censoring to me. -newkai | talk | contribs 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

2006:I'm only17 'n' I love them

They are the most exiting,crazy and fire-on-stage group ever!I'm from Greece and I started listening to their music in 2000.at the beggining i didn't gave much attention to them.I had "Forty Licks" but i just knew some popular songs of them like "Satisfaction".I always loved rock 'n' roll,hard rock and generally,good music.I used to listen to Pink Floyd,Black Sabbath,Fleetwood Mac and other.But i hadn't much contact with music 'cause i wasn't playing.After i started playing guitar i realized the greatness of Rolling Stones because i understood music.Now i want but i can't stop listening to them.They're PERFECT.You are never bored with their music.I believe that the secret of Rolling Stones is that they are an orgy meaning that they're not just playing music.When you're listening to them you reach an absolute pleasure.Their music is the "forbitten" the "crazy".Their songs aren't always perfect and compicated by musical aspect,but the style of playing them is exceptional.I'd like to add that they write(Mick n Keith mostly)very crazy and very good lines for their songs.

Mick Jagger is amazing.His moves when he's singing are theatrical.He lives the song and it's like playing in theater.On stage he's incredible!!!

At Last at 25th June they are here,in Greece.They Came in Greece in 1967 and in 1998.Their concert in 1998 finished(good for fans)better than their concert in 1967.Now,2006,25th June they are here and i have the chance to enjoy them.In their live concerts they are parfect.They are the best group on stage.They have the ability to lead your body,your soul and your mind in a place of pleasure.They are 62 years old but they're acting like 25 y.o.In 1998 i was very young to go to their concert but now i'm ready to enjoy them on their concert for their new album "A Bigger Bang" which is really amazing!!! LOVE THEM AND ENJOY THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Daryl Jones and Ian Stewart

Even though he has been playing with the Stones since Bill Wyman retired, he is not a member of the Rolling Stones.

Also, Ian "Stu" Stewart was never a full-fledged member of the band even though he was always considered to be the "Sixth Stone" and was actually one of the bands founders. Full membership was offered up to Stu but he turned it down.

At some point in time I would like to add a list of musicians, both former and present, that have been stage musicians, sidemen, contributors, etc.

Cheers billnict

Is/are in intro

Once again I am called on to provide examples of how plural band names should receive "are/were" verbs. First, even if "The Rolling Stones" is considered a collective noun, British usage still supports "The Rolling Stones are..." Second, even if we decide to use American grammar, "The Rolling Stones" isn't a collective noun, it is a plural noun. Here are some citations to support this usage:

"After 44 years of touring the globe, the Rolling Stones will make their first appearance in mainland China" (Rolling Stones tour brings hot rocks to Shanghai; But Chinese culture cool to rowdy music, USA TODAY, April 7, 2006 Friday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. 10A, 811 words, Calum MacLeod). "the Stones have decided they don't need anything but the basics" (The Rolling Stones Get What They Need, The New York Times, September 4, 2005 Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 2; Column 2; Arts and Leisure Desk; MUSIC; Pg. 22, 944 words, By JON PARELES) "THE Rolling Stones have given their Sydney fans plenty of satisfaction" (Rolling Stones just the ticket, The Daily Telegraph, March 1, 2006 Wednesday, State Edition, LOCAL; Pg. 3, 93 words) Rhobite 17:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There will be no agreement. Since the band is British, I'd suggest using British usage, but I don't know how this article started out. Mak (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an American, am regarded as extremely knowledgable about matters of grammar, and "The Rolling Stones is" sounds HORRIBLE.

For God's sake, keep it plural.Carlo 13:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it started out. This is not one of those situations where either word is acceptable. In both British and American English, it is grammatically incorrect to write "The Rolling Stones is..." But to answer your question, the article started in 2002 with "The Rolling Stones are..." and it has consistently used the plural for years. Could someone please change it now? Rhobite 19:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bah!

The American/British distinction is bogus. Collective nouns on both sides of the Atlantic sometimes take plural verbs, and sometimes take singular verbs. (Sometimes there is flexibility, and choice should then be based upon whether one wishes to emphasize or to deëmphasize the underlying plurality.)

Now, who here would write, of the American baseball team, “The Yankees is in town.”?

—Gamahucheur 14:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments from RfC request

English language is based on usage. We would never say, "The Beatles was at number one in the charts." It would always be "The Beatles were...". Same for any group name using the plural. I assume this is because John, George, Paul and Ringo are each classified as one Beatle and four of them as Beatles. Usage, whenever we talk about their activities, is to use a plural agreement in the verb. An exception would be if we were talking not about the term Beatles as referring to the individuals collectively, but merely to the label "The Beatles". See in the following example how the verb can change from one sentence to the next: "Some band names are puns. 'The Beatles' is one such band name. The Beatles were at number one..." Now try reversing it: "Some bands names are puns. 'The Beatles' were one such band name. The Beatles was at number one..." Tyrenius 04:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

An image is affected, not effected

Recently, the 1st para phrase "The Stones affected a rebellious, bad-boy image" was changed to "The Stones effected a rebellious, bad-boy image". If the image was an affectation, then affected should remain. If their nature really was rebellious etc rather than affected, then the sentence should be rewritten, replacing both affected and image with other words. I'm reverting the change for now. Nurg 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Keith and the Coconut

I think we need something about how Keith Richards was recently hopitalized after a coconut fell on his head. DeadDisco

Organization and cleanup

First off: This article needs a proofread to re-order some of the events that have been copied and pasted haphazardly, leaving paragraphs split up and confusing.

Second: The diction this Author(s) used is far too daedal (get it?). The average Stones fan isn’t any more entertained by the cumbersome words you've used. Revising the speech of this article will make it read smoother and cleaner... as well as be far more interesting. Didgepenguin

Get Yer Ya Yas Out

I've a dim sort of recollection that this album, although recorded live, was heavily overdubbed in the studio afterwards. Can anybody illuminate? BTLizard 10:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually that was Got Live If You Want It, it was the Stones first live album and they added overdubs but Ya-Yas was all live.DeadDisco

bassist

they don't seem to have a bassist right now, do they? Joeyramoney 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Out on bail from what?

The last paragraph of the "Early History" section starts off "With Richards and Jagger out on bail and shortly to be acquitted on appeal..." but there is no preceding discussion of what they were arrested for or charged with. A hasty edit? Either all references to improsonment should be excised, or details on the prison episode should precede this paragraph. 128.220.142.247 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing statement

What in God's name does this mean? (at the bottom of the tours section)

What would become Tour begat Gimme Shelter (ditto, second)

That makes absolutely no sense. Can anyone interpret/re-write it? --Stellis 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the passage, as it really makes no sense. I reverted to [5] --Snakemike 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

how many songs

how many songs do the rolling stones have?

Gram Parsons & Wild Horses

In a recent BBC documentary on Gram Parsons, Keith Richards said that he wrote 'Wild Horses' and gave it to Gram to record prior to the Stones own version. This article states that the song caused a disagreement between Gram Parsons and Mick Jagger over songwriting credits. How exactly? A disagreement wasn't mentioned in the Parsons documentary - someone else mentioned how unusual it was for the Stones to give a song away at this time (although not unique - see Marianne Faithful). The Parsons/Jagger rift either needs to be expanded and referenced or deleted altogether.

From garmparsons.com:

Did Gram write Wild Horses for the Rolling Stones?

Gram did not write Wild Horses although he was the inspiration for the song. Wild Horses was actually written by Keith Richards and Mick Jagger (it is widely held that the song was originally written for Gram to sing, an idea that was refused by the record label). The Rolling Stones did allow Gram to record the song before the Stones themselves had recorded it (a first for the Rolling Stones). Gram did however arrange the version of Honky Tonk Woman that the Stones later called Country Honk and was also the key inspiration for The Stones' "Country-ish" movement following Exile On Main Street.

NPOV?

This article contains so many conjectures and personal opinion that it requires a real overhaul before it could be considered halfway decent! A few examples:

'It was at this point that the "Establishment" decided it had had enough of the burgeoning youth movement that was threatening to undermine the moral fibre of society, and it was the Rolling Stones who would feel the first crack of the reactionary whip. '

Really? Who says? Full of tired old cliches in any case.

'The truth was that the Rolling Stones, by deliberately opposing the Beatles' well-upholstered suburban appeal in the early sixties, had cultivated mixture of braggadocio, delinquency, and realpolitik that was by all accounts natural to the ringleaders of the band. This drove a coach and horses through many of the collective delusions of the late sixties (while occasionally pandering to them) not to mention the shibboleths of British society.'

Pretentious? Moi? Whose truth exactly? An awful, pompous paragraph.

And even more conjecture:

'Some sources claim that on the morning following the concert, Mick Jagger turned to Keith Richards on the plane back to London and said: "Flower Power was a load of old crap really, wasn't it?"'

This doesn't sound realistic to me! Entirely apocraphyl until a reliable source can be credited.

'By the time Exile on Main St. had been completed, Jagger had made the other band members aware that he was more interested in the celebrity lifestyle than working on its follow-up'. How did he make them aware? Or is this more conjecture? Possibly its Keith Richard's point of view but surely not NPOV?

Sorry to be so negative!

Bill Wyman

On the page it says that Bill Wyman left the band in 1991. This is also mentioned in the line-up section but Bill Wyman left The Rolling Stones officially on January 6th, 1993. Is there anyone who has an official quote to verify this date. I've read it on a bio of Bill Wyman. Peter Jensen July 16, 2006

Additions

Reading through the article, I picked up a few things which I think should be included in the article that currently aren't. I thought I'd post them here first instead of going ahead and changing the article myself because I think a consensus is needed, especially on such an important article as this.
-Documentation of Mick and Keith's chance meeting on a train platform when they were teenagers which inspired them to join a band together.
-A mention Bill Wyman originally being chosen to join the group over a rival bassist because he owned two amplifiers.
-The information on the LSD swoop at Keith's ranch is in conflict with the story I have previsouly been led to believe, eg the police did indeed find a large quantity of drugs at the house.
These are just some ways in which I believe the article could be improved, there are also several grammar and punctuation mistakes, overall I think it is pretty obvious the article does not do such a great band like the Rolling Stones justice and needs a concerted effort by many people to be improved. Wwwhhh 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

"One critic has described the band at this period as being a 'cross between Robert Johnson and Friedrich Nietzsche'. The truth was that the Rolling Stones, by actively opposing the Beatles' clean-cut image of the early sixties, had developed a rebellious appeal, full of swaggering arrogance, yet retaining an earthy delinquency that gave them a degree of realism. This challenged many of the collective delusions of the late sixties (while occasionally pandering to them) and also the restrictions that British society placed on them."

I still feel that this paragraph is problematic. What are these vague "collective delusions of the late sixties"? Who believes them to be delusions? Surely it is POV to call something a delusion? It implies that there is a "true" point-of-view that somehow isn't deluded. Why not just remove the whole paragraph? It serves no real function - the rebellious image and the opposition to the Beatles have already been dealt with previously in the article.

Notes on edits

The Stones have never been more pyschedelic than during "Satanic Majesties" but they have frequently released pyschedelic tracks since then such as "Moonlight Mile", the bridge in "Rocks Off" the intro to "Shine A Light" the whole of "Can You Hear The Music", "Time Waits For No One", "Heaven", and "Continental Drift". To suggest that pyschedelia of "Satanic Majesties" was a "brief flirtation" disregards how deeply the style/tendency has seeped into their catalog.

Also describing Jagger/Richards as among the "greatest songwriters" is overboard for an encyclopedia and simply an opinion - while saying that they are among the most "well-regarded" is supportable. - Mr Anonymous

OK. When I said "see dicussion" I was referring to above note that covered many changes. If you gonna take out Elizabethian Ballads, try to deal with the merits of whether The Stones did songs in that style or not.

The intro paragraph was reworked because it focused on the too much on the sixties, made referrence to "Satanic Majesties" which is more of an anomaly and belongs further on down in the entry. "Hard Rock" is an odd term and was taken out: the term existed and included Elvis at one point. You can find this context mentions in Anthony Scaduto's biography of Dylan.

I've yet to see anybody prove that Richards ripped off Cooder. Bill Wyman's book "Stone Alone" provides examples of sloppy record keeping by the Stones as to whom played on what. Cooder was credited more than once for his work with the Stones, and what he may not have been credited is more likely due to the benign neglect Wyman has described. Richards has acknowledging that Cooder did help spur him to use open G more than he had been - though he used in completely different manner than Cooder. Cooder used it for slide and Richards used it for rhythm guitar, taking his cue from Don Everly more than anyone else. The deleted excerpt starts off with the unsupported statement that Cooder taught Richards "his" unpecified "open G tuning." This somehow implies Cooder owned the open G. I'd like to see any documentation that shows that the disputed tuning Cooder showed Richards was a 5 string variant. Cooder's influence may have had more to do with Richards brief adoptin of slide playing that he has seldom picked up after Mick Taylor joined the band. It a serious matter to accuse Richards of artistic theft and not acknowlge that the charges have always been controversial and contested by Richards, and that that charges are very dubious as the recordings show. Cooder was one of many involved with Richards picking up open tunings, and he certainly wasn't the first.

Saying Jagger was a friend of Parsons is a stretch when the opposite was more evident. - Mr Anonymous

Needs Work

It reads like it took seven different people to write every single sentence. This really needs some ironing out. I'm surprised by how much information is repeated throughout the article. I'm gonna work out the last section which currently reads like a fact sheet.Stan weller 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert Comment

"the waning year of the century they helped to score" is not going to fly. Read Wiki criticism regarding fannish copy. - Mr Anonymous

well then fix your middle paragraph. it's hardly an introduction to the band. you're mentioning tracks that a person might not even know about. specific tracks aren't mentioned in the beatles', led zeppelin's, or the who's opening paragraphs. Stan weller 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 40+ years the band have existed." Stan weller 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific: What is this "middle paragraph"? What are these "tracks"? - Mr Anonymous

Look back to your revert on friday, Buddy Holly. Stan weller 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Since those were removed (by me, in fact) how would this be relevant and why request changes made to removed text? And while we're at it, what defense do you have for the "waning years" drivel? - Mr Anonymous

No defense. Do you see me ressurecting it? I didn't say it had to stay. The intro needed a new direction and what I wanted was people to see where I thought it should go. You obviously didn't agree and I'm fine with that. But the intro should be longer. Over 40 years of history wrapped up in four or five sentences? Even zeppelin managed to get three paragraphs. Stan weller 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If your gonna call people out for their deleted copy, then it's fair to call you out for your deleted copy. You have just given yourself the benefit of a double standard, Stan. - Mr Anonymous

Not true. You brought the middle paragraph back up after I re-wrote. Meanwhile I've left my revision to the past after you found a fault with it. Stan weller 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong - I removed it after I restored it (yep, I was for it before I was against it). Regardless of who did the final deletion, it was gone when you made an issue of it. But you insist no one can make an issue of your deleted text. - Admit it, your taking advantage of a double standard by objecting to my deleted text after it was deleted. - Mr Anonymous

We're not getting to three paragraphs by arguing. You put something up that isn't fannish and we'll see where it goes form there. Stan weller 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

C,mon - just admit it, you used a double standard. A little intellectual honesty would do you some good. - Mr Anonymous

I'll admit to wanting a better article. Stan weller 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well well well, dip and dodge Stan - Mr Anonymous

Not quite. It's not my problem you've got issues with people touching your beloved article. Stan weller 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dick Taylor?

How come no mention of Dick Taylor? I don't see any mention anywhere and he's certainly not in the list of members, the list of line ups, or the the template. There's a lot of difference between all of these things when it comes to members. It needs to be better organized and complete. The Secretary of Funk 02:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Redlands Weekend

I have rewritten and expanded the text concerning the Redlands Drugs Bust as I think it was a critical event in the Stones' story - a change in how the band came to be percieved by the wider public. --twitter 12:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Altamont

I'm thinking of some wholesale improvements to the Altamont section (another key even). Stuff like this: Jagger's refusal to perform during the day, again to ensure a better film with lighting at night, resulted in an escalation of violence between the 250,000 fans and security . This doesn't really ring true. Watch 'Gimme Shelter' and you can see that the whole event was a disaster but the blame really lies with poor organisation by the Stone's tour manager and the unprecedented violence of the Hells Angels who were providing 'security'.

and this There are also rumours that they weren't real Angels, but just wannabes out to impress the gang with their toughness - watch the film. Those guys were nut cases. Genuine Hells Angels? How can you tell? What makes a Hells Angel genuine?

Intro Paragraph Correction

The chart information was culled from http://www.beatzenith.com/the_rolling_stones/rsalbumslist.htm which cited as their sources the following

" Based on US Billboard and UK Record Retailer/Music Week/NME/BPI positions. Compiler: AC Palacio. Chart listings found here are based on positions from the two largest and most accurately maintained calculations of sale only, though early UK charts lend much to the imagination. Chart sizes between 1964 and 2004 are as follows:"

If someone wants to hit the primaries on this, go ahead. I'll just accept this as a good secondary source that corrects what I had mistakenly and too vaguely stated before. No mention was made of the single charts but it would difuse the point that the band is still a top seller of recordings.

There could be a little added about the Stones being at the forefront of the R & B movement in England tha (BTW - they thought of themselves at the time as being a R & B band primarily and not as a "Blues Band".) But the whole style things gets messy fast. Something for later, y'all. - Mr Anonymous

It still isn't long enough. Conciseness may read well, but it needs to sum up the article - not just the band. Stan weller 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No shit, "waning years" Stan. I said it needs a "little added". - Mr Anonymous

Then add it, Buddy Holly Stan weller 05:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you.

OK - let me do it! How about:
The Rolling Stones are an English rock band that rose to prominence in the early 1960s. Originally an R&B outfit, their music encompasses a range of styles including Blues, Country and Heavy Rock. Although they could be considered to have reached a creative peak in the late 60s and early 70s they continue to record and perform, and are one of the longest running and most successful acts in show business. They have released more than 35 albums during their career, selling more than 240 million albums worldwide with each new release consistently reaching the top 5 of the U.S. album charts. They also continue to be a huge live attraction and their current (2005/2006) tour has broken the record for gross tour earnings in the US having beaten the previous record which was also held by the Rolling Stones.
Although the line up has changed over the 40+ years of the band's recording career, three key personnel i.e. Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts have been ever present during that time. .twitter 08:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragrah comment

Pretty darn good. The only thing I would suggest changing is the opinion about their creative peak. Mainly because it is an opinion. It amounts to commentary. Again, pretty good job there, twitter. -

Further comment: When it comes to styles it would be good to include Reggae, Country, Rythm and Blues, Phychelida, Rock n' Roll. I think "heavy rock" is problematic because it's too vague and rarely used while Rock n' Roll encompasses much more without referrring to sub Genres. Mr Anonymous

I'm not keen on adding Reggae and Psychedelia - surely it isn't necessary to list every genre the Stones recorded otherwise you could add Disco, Rap, Folk Rock etc. It ends up as a list rather than a sentence. I've removed the 'creative peak' reference, so howabout:

The Rolling Stones are an English rock band that rose to prominence in the early 1960s. Although originally an R&B outfit, their music encompasses a range of styles from Rock and Roll, Blues and Country through to Hard Rock. They have continued to record and perform and are one of the longest running and most successful acts in show business. They have sold 240 million albums worldwide and consistently reach the top 5 in the U.S. album charts.

They also continue to be a huge live attraction and their current (2005/2006) tour has broken the record for gross earnings in the US, beating the previous record (which was also held by the Rolling Stones).

Although the line up has changed over the 40+ years of the band's recording career, three key personnel i.e. Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts have been ever present during that time.

Reggae and Pychedelia are important to the Stones - hard rock is an odd term while Rock n' Roll has been around much longer and again is much more inclusive. Keith might even object - if he were to care. He has said he is more about the roll than the rock. - Mr Anonymous

Well I disagree that Reggae and Psychedia are important. The Stones have made some great country tracks but great reggae tracks? Psychedelia was just a band wagon they jumped on at the time and a mere blip i.e. one album in 35+ (I've seen the other tracks mentioned as being pyschedelic but a bit of phase shift doesn't make it pyschedelic for me). I included Rock and Roll. Hard Rock is, I agree, an odd term but the Stones are referenced on Hard Rock and I wanted to describe something on the 'heavy riff' end of the scale. I guess its difficult to please everybody - and this is only the Intro! twitter 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Stones have many Reggae tracks. "Cherry Oh Baby", "Too Rude", "Luxury", "Crakin Up", " Luxury, "Send it To Me". Pychedelia is something that was not a passing fad. Since "Satanic Majesties" There have been many physche tracks including "Can You Hear The Music" and "Continental Drift". The arugument aboout these tracks using just a bit of "phase shift" goes to hell quickly by missing the connectin these songs have to what physche tenedencies evident b 4 and after "Satanic Majesties. Those tracks can be described as physchelic and they do owe to tendencies "Satanic Majesties" put in full view that have perisisted. Many other tracks by the Stones use a phaser but wouldn't qualify as physche such as "Shattered" and "Coming Down Again". There were also a Rock n' Roll outfit at inception - they were doing Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley from the get go. Why use "Hard Rock" and not "Rock n' Roll"? - Mr Anonymous

er, I HAVE included Rock n Roll! I don't really like the term Hard Rock but wanted to include something that described the heavy riff end of their music. And I know the Stones have plenty of Reggae tracks but I said GREAT Reggae tracks? We also disagree on what psychedelia is - I think its a distinctive sound coupled with a mind bending lyric (e.g. Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Sgt Peppers, Mr Fantasy (Traffic), Satanic Majesties, Donovan, Itchycoo Park, Strawberry Fields, I am the Walrus etc). However you have the right to change it as you see fit. I've spent long enough on it and I'll leave others to improve/wreck it. Regards twitter 07:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro redux

The intro as it was gave little indication of why the Stones were famous or influential. I've dug out the old intro from a year ago and worked it in. Wasted Time R 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Presented" is more accurate and than "affected", there was no "brief experiment with psychedelic music" (see above) -calling the 1969 and "72 tours "infamous" when they could also be called "triumphant" is distracting and limiting as to what did happen. "Artistic growth" is commentary, especially when each single is treated as proof of it. I attempted to add in twitter's suggestions and his or her good work while taking out the fannish comentary and reduncdancies of the most recent edit. Mr Anonymous

I have tried to expand things a little while removing some more of the non-encyclopaedic tone. However, none of this stuff is referenced and some of it could still be considered POV e.g. At the peak of their success, they were considered to be second only to The Beatles in popularity. Any thoughts? twitter 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Commemts: The Stones were originally a rock n' roll outfit as well - they did Chuck Berry and Bo Diddlye songs from the beggining. I agree there is too much POV and unsupported asssetions. They may have not been second only to the Beatles - Gerry And The Pacemakers could have been more popular. Whether or not this is true, I don't know, I'm just saying it's safer to leave out such statements rather than making the effort to support them.

I reverted and revised an earlier edit, Too much was placed on PR concerns such as poplarity, but their influenece and success is mentioned to an extent enoough for an intro seciton - Mr Anonyomous

Tours

I've completed the Tours section, using the Roy Carr An Illustrated Record book as a valuable reference for what tours took place before 1969, and for official tour names (usually discerned from a tour poster, many of which are reproduced therein) of tours after 1969. I've also found all (or almost all) of the references to these tours in other WP articles, and red-linked them to these names. All that remains is for people to gradually write the tour articles! I did so for The Rolling Stones American Tour 1972, and discovered an orphaned article that's at least a start for Licks Tour. Have at it.... Wasted Time R 11:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done The Rolling Stones American Tour 1969 and Rolling Stones Tour of the Americas '75 since, but that's it. I don't even like the Stones ... Wasted Time R 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bang in the wrong place

There was waaay too much 2005-2006 tour information in this article, the vast majority of which I've moved to A Bigger Bang Tour, where it belongs. Wasted Time R 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

Some peopple just have to pains in the ass. Since when has that the Stones have often been referred to as "The Greates Rock n' Roll Band in the World" been in dispute? I'm taking out citation needed for anything that is the same realm as pasting citationt needed for obviou facts similar to the assertion that the sun rise in the east. If it is in dispute, dispute it - not gainsay it - then ask for a citation. Mr Anonymous.

BTW if anyone want to humor Mr./Ms. Citations needed, add them as footnotes. Here the wiki link for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes

OK I give you Greatest saying. But you are wrong - Rolling Stones no sell 240 millions albums. Where is proof of that? Rolling Stones not top gross tour of 2005. Vertigo Tour U2 is. See that article. They got the Billboard tours awards, not Stones! Who says Jaggers-Richards best one of songwriting partnerships ever? By what measure? How many peoples covers their songs? This needs proof, not just you saying its "obvious"!!205.188.116.9 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And looking at RS Disography, I see in last 20 yrs maybe half albums make US top 5, half don't. Again does not proof your intro.205.188.116.9 20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I added back deleted specifics that make the top 5 statement true: It's there studio releases that this was in reference to. Thanks for catching the error - Mr Anonymous

And you are Anon too, Mr 69.237.115.101!!!!! Only difference, you anon with no proof of anything.205.188.116.9 20:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You have some good points and they are well taken: it's good to have - as you have done - facts disputed with arguments supported by facts.

Here's a breakdown " The Rolling Stones continue to record and perform and are one of the longest running and most successful acts in show business. (No citation needed)

They have sold 240 million albums worldwide consistently reaching the top 5 in the U.S. album charts. Citation needed

They also continue to be a huge live attraction and their current (2005/2006) tour has broken the record for gross earnings in the US, easily surpassing the previous record which was also held by the Rolling Stones. (Citations needed) Mr Anonymous, to you buddy.

OK I don't like this sentences: The Stones presented a rebellious, sexual, bad-boy image that many other bands have emulated ever since. I agree that they cultivated that image but 'sexual' doesn't mean anything in this context. The Beatles presented a sexual image as well (witness 1000s of screaming girls) as did almost every band that were appealing to young people. I suggested 'more overtly sexual' but you deleted it. Bad-boy sounds like a juvenile expression here - isn't that aspect already covered by rebellious? The Stones weren't the first artists to appear rebellious and overtly sexual so its incorrect to say that other bands are merely emulating the Stones if they adopt that image (Elvis anyone?). And this sentence is also just fannish: Beginning with their 1969 American tour, the Stones have been intoduced and referred to as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World." How about introduced as the self styled Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World?. Which is more accurate, less fannish and NPOV. I have tried to improve the Intro but it keeps getting reverted to this fannish style. This is one of the things holding this article back from being a featured article. twitter 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Self styled" needs to be supported - you can get into an argumeent on that Sam Cutler famously introduced him as such but did the Stones actively have anything to do with that. The epithat has stuck not because the Stones included it on "Ya Ya's" but because other have picked it up and circulated it. "self styled" is a little too much into the area of commentary. I agree with the objection to the sexual adjective. Mr Anonymous

Well Sam Cutler was the Stones tour manager but it smacks as being Andrew Oldham's idea (he was good at things like that). But 'the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the world' is obviously a bit of PR hype and it should be recognised as such. The fact that other media outlets have picked up the phrase shows how effective a slogan it was. 'Self styled' includes Cutler and Oldham as they were part of the Rolling Stones organisation. Its commentary to suggest that somehow this phrase developed independently or the title has somehow been awarded to the band. Its HYPE - as a fan you may consider it true but that doesn't make it a fact. Lets drop all these fannish outpourings. twitter 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, they had canned Oldham well before the 1969 tour. (I'm starting to wonder about you, twitter) The phrase is an ephithet commonly attached to the band. What they are commonly called is valid and very appropiate for the intro. It is well beyond hype. - Mr Anonymous

Yes you're quite right about that. However this is what Mick says about the 'epithet':
The greatest rock and roll band in the world is) just a stupid epithet. It just seems too Barnum & Bailey to me - like it's some sort of circus act. The first time we heard it said was to introduce us every night (note: in 1969). So I used to say, Will you please not use that as your announcement? It's so embarrassing. And what does that mean? Does it mean the best, the biggest, the most long-lasting? You know? - Mick Jagger, 1995 I wanted to improve this article but it just keeps getting worse. We now have the Stones described as 'Bohemian' (Gypsy like?) and Stu 'hidden from public view due to image issues' - this makes it sound like he was locked up in the attic! It makes me wonder how the Pink Floyd and Beatles aticles got to be so good while this one just gets worse and worse. Anyway I quit! twitter 08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So much for "self-styled". Whether Mick likes the epithet or not, it does exist - and in a very prominent way. They do have a bohemian image. There' a diffrence between that and saying they are "Bohemian". Oh yeah, that Pink Floyd entry really kicks some serious ass. The first sentence is head and sholders above the anything in the Stones entry. I definitely feel the envy when I read "Pink Floyd are an English progressive rock band noted for philosophical lyrics". Oh brother and thanks for quiting, twitter. - Mr Anonymous

Tour sales

This article: http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1519628/20060103/rolling_stones.jhtml sheds some light on the U2 vs. Stones 2005 tour issue. U2 sold more tickets, but the Stones had greater revenues due to higher ticket prices. I guess the Billboard awards decided to go on how many people saw shows, not how many well-off people saw shows.... Wasted Time R 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the Stones are the highest grossing act, and the argument over that assertion is over. I just said they are the highest grossing act the years that they tour. Which is now established as a fact - Mr Anonymous

Album sales

As for number of albums sold, this RIAA table: http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp gives a fresh U.S.-only figure of 65.5 million, tied for 11th place overall. That's about the only reliable figure I've seen. Unless there's some strong sourcing that can be brought forward, the 240 million worldwide figure in the intro is very dubious and should be yanked. Wasted Time R 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Better specs on the top 5 statement undelted - source cited below.

Here's the source for all their albums hitting the top 5 in the US http://www.beatzenith.com/the_rolling_stones/rsalbumslist.htm. It's a secondary source: if there is a primary available, let's go get it. So, now. How do you footnote the sucker? - Mr Anonymous

added sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll lifestyle

Everybody knows that this band started it, it is alwayse mentioned in t.v. shows, the radio, interviews etc. SO it was only obvious that I had to add that in their. -the bird

Check out what "bohemian" is about some day and keep that "Everybody knows.." chatty drivel SO away from here. - Mr Anonymous

bohemian? Yeah dude none of them match the 'Stones - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+bohemian -The Bird

No but really everybody talks about how they were the first ones to start the whole "rock 'n' roll lifestyle" you know, sex, drugs, desturction, etc. IT's in countless interviews, t.v. specials, etc. Ask any rock band and they will tell you the same thing. -The Bird

Maybe you should read what you cite: "A person with artistic or literary interests who disregards conventional standards of behavior." The idea that The Stones invented sex drugs and rock n; roll lifestyle is easily dispelled by reading a few biographies. - Mr Anonymous

Dude I read that bohemian thing and it does not make any sence, look you can't sugar coat the fact, you christian freak that the 'Stones invented the Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' roll lifestyle

And how would "A person with artistic or literary interests who disregards conventional standards of behavior." make no sense? And how - beyond "everybody knows"- did The Stones invent the sex and drugs lifestyle? And how did I become a "christian freak"? If you're going to dispute something and win your argument, you're obliged to support your assertions. - Mr Anonymous

Grammatical Corrections

added some grammar. Just help me out and tell me if i was right, or if i was wrong. For the 40 plus years of The Stones; Jagger, Richards, and drummer Charlie Watts, have been constant members. or... For the 40 plus years of The Stones Jagger, Richards, and drummer Charlie Watts have been constant members.

Just a suggestion

Let's be honest here. We could probably chop the whole article down to "Keith Richards sold his soul for an everlasting cigarette" and people would be perfectly happy. Just an idea.

Good one. Wwwhhh 08:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Rolling Stones/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated B: Almost completely uncited Teemu08 08:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)