Talk:The Rolling Stones American Tour 1969

Fair use rationale for Image:69rstonebyrd.jpg

Image:69rstonebyrd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

as requested: the D phase of WP:BRD

thanks for being open to a discussion of the issues i see with parts of the text. i used the edit summary "clean-up" because it seemed (and still seems) to me that i was eliminating bits that just aren't in line with Wikipedia's standards.

I'm open to discussion too. But "clean-up" usually refers to correcting grammar, spelling, formatting, and other usage problems. Serious content concerns require more specific edit summaries than that.

the first sentence i trimmed was:

This was the Rolling Stones' first US tour since July 1966, with the absence partly due to drugs charges and subsequent complications.[1]

since there were numerous reasons for the hiatus, it doesn't seem encyclopedic to mention only one rather sensationalistic-sounding reason. i propose trimming it down to a simple statement of fact: "This was the Rolling Stones' first US tour since July 1966." readers can find more detail about 1966-1969 in the main Rolling Stones article.

The drugs-based legal problems of the Stones during that era are well known, not sensationalistic, and in fact are given a lot of attention the Stones main article. The hiatus is important because it clearly whetted the appetite for the 1969 tour and added further to their 'bad boys' image. If there are other reasons for the hiatus that can be succinctly added here, then do so.

the next bit i trimmed was the following descriptive passage, since it appears to be synthesis and also sounds quite POVish:

The performance itself featured the Stones showmanship that would become familiar: Charlie Watts businesslike drumming leavened by an occasional wry smile, Bill Wyman's undertaker persona on bass, the guitar interplay of Mick Taylor with Keith Richards, and most of all Mick Jagger's prancing, strutting, leering and preening in front of the crowd.[3]

it seems to me that this kind of writing isn't in line with WP:NPOV unless it's a direct quote from the source cited; but if it is a direct quote then of course it needs to be designated as such.

The description of Jagger is pretty much a straight paraphrase from the sources given. If you don't believe that is an accurate description of Jagger's stage act at the time, I can pile on further sources that say the same thing. The description of the other band members isn't covered both those cites; I'll try to find some that support it. I don't see any POV in this; this is simply a description of the image that the various Stones members affected onstage. Some people loved it, some were left cold by it, but the description is objective.

the next bit i trimmed also appears to be synthesis:

Stones media appearances during the tour featured typical banter of the time on other issues; while other members of the group affected boredom, Jagger gave non-sequitor responses to cultural questions,[5] and said of New York, "It's great. It changes. It explodes."[5]

i find this very confusing: is the paragraph really about plural "media appearances during the tour", or specifically about the NYC press conference? and what does "typical banter of the time" mean? whose assessment is it that the bandmembers were "affect[ing] boredom"? what is meant by "cultural questions", and why is Jagger's quote about New York singled out?

I agree the writing is a bit confused; it's making reference to the style of interaction with the straight press that the Stones, Dylan, the Beatles and others practiced back then. I'll try to come up with cites and clarity on the media interactions during the tour. But feel free to add some yourself.

again, thanks for being open to discussion - i'm sure we'll arrive at a version everyone can agree on. Sssoul (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The primary mission of this article has to be to explain and illustrate why the tour is, as the lead quotes, "history's first mythic rock and roll tour", "part of rock and roll legend", and one of the "benchmarks of an era." A dry recitation of personnel, set list, and tour dates won't cut it. So this article needs more, not less, description of what the shows were like, what made the Stones a special case among rock acts, what their interaction with the U.S. media was, how the tour built up the Stones' public image, and so forth. There's been a lot of stuff written about the Stones, their touring, and their interactions with America, so there shouldn't be a lack of source material. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your replies. i still feel "This was the Rolling Stones' first US tour since July 1966" is sufficient for that first bit. singling out that one reason gives undue weight to a rather stereotypical view of the band, which i reckon isn't your intention. maybe adding a "see The_Rolling_Stones#1965.E2.80.9369" in parentheses would satisfy both of our aims here?

as for the descriptive section: it's not that i disagree with the description; i even admire it. but i do question whether original descriptive writing is in line with Wikipedia policies. can't we have a direct quote from the source cited instead? and/or from Stanley Booth's brilliant description of their stage personae at MSG?

i'm glad you see what i mean about how confusing the part about media interaction is. what you're saying sounds like the "typical banter" part really is WP:synthesis, as well as being unclear. but if there's a source you can cite for it, and if it really adds something worthwhile to the article, i hope you can make it clearer. as for the Stones' other press conferences on the tour: i know they held one in LA - i believe Stanley Booth wrote a bit about it - and of course the one in NYC, but i'm not aware of any others, so i won't be adding anything to that section. (i also feel you to either remove or cite a source for the assertion that any of them were "affect[ing] boredom" at the NYC press conference, as opposed to being genuinely bored, and/or any of the other possible emotional/mental states their various demeanours might represent.)

but i admit i don't see their interactions with the press as very crucial to the "legendary" quality of this tour. i'd focus more on the music, the sound system and the staging. maybe some of the quotes here will be helpful?

anyway thanks for discussing it ... oh and: in other Stones-related articles, calling the band just "the Stones" outside of direct quotes has been rooted out as "unencyclopedic". Sssoul (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see we're at a crossroads here. If we can't do "original descriptive writing" that is agreed upon to be accurate and is supported by supplied citations, and instead just have to construct quote farms, then I don't want to be doing this. I've never thought that articles about popular culture have to be written with same tone as articles about the taxonomy of flatworm species, and if we can't write "the Stones", like hundreds of reliable-source books and other publications including the The Oxford Companion to Popular Music‎ do, then I don't want to be doing this. If only the music, sound, and staging of the Stones (oops, did it again!) can be considered "legendary", and not their sociocultural impact and their media-celebritydom impact and their sexual-Lucifer-ironic detachment impact and so on, then I don't want to be doing this. I can see from the state of the main article that this is indeed the case; it's basically a narrative discography of personnel changes, record releases, and chart achievements. It completely and utterly misses the full story of the Stones. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)