Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Tongue and Lip Design"

as the logo is very well known it should be mentioned in the article. --217.10.60.85 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

2012

I don't think that my English is good enough to add this knowledge, but The Rolling Stones has announced that they will stop in 2012.

They have made no such announcement to anyone. Don't fall for a promoter trying to hype ticket sales in a lousy market. Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.239.188 (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the period "till" (currently present) changed to 2012? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.55.238 (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'd need to show a reliable source for this announcement, and even then it would be incorrect to alter that date because wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and until something happens, it hasn't happened. :-) "till" present is correct, until it's not correct at the present, which in this theoretical case would be 2012, so you could pop back and change it then, if it turns out to be correct.  Begoon^talk 11:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the timeline

Just to thank those who have made and contributed to the timeline; it gives some key information in an easy to digest way. The addition of the lines for album releases is a lovely touch. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Good deal. Minimalist version, naturally, says more.--69.108.136.43 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2010 (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)

Is/are

Pardon me, - I believe the top should read "The Rolling Stones is the name of an English Rock Band", - see, 'is', at the beginning, rather than 'they are' - this is too precarious an identification. Thank you, and sorry for the trouble, Jed Eno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.234.183 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Referring to bands in the plural is correct in British English, which this article uses. PL290 (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing deleted pic

File:Stones1960s.jpg

The Rolling Stones in the 1960s. From left: Jagger, Jones, Richards, Wyman and Watts

So i guess an image got deleted from the 1962–1964 section....so what should we replace it with ??? anyone have an opinion

.Moxy (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The band has

Prodigious examples of British English employing "the band has" are found here. The categorical argument that this is never the case can not be made. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No one said it's never the case. What's your point? Radiopathy •talk• 02:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Frank without ambiguity implied so. Nonetheless, that is only tangential to the discussion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The convention here is that UK bands are referred to as plural, so "The Stones are" is generally regarded as correct usage, whereas "The Stones is" would grate beyond belief. It doesn't matter what you find on Goggle; the various manuals of style that have fed into our consensus usage here don't necessarily show up on Google. However, vast hours of editors' experience, and negotiation, makes this so. Accordingly, "The band have", in relation to The Stones, is utterly acceptable here, and beyond argument, unless you want to begin a project-wide discussion, during which much metaphorical blood will (again) be shed. Perhaps better to learn to live with it. Rodhullandemu 02:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not tangential at all: two editors have opined that the term 'the band have' is appropriate for an article written to UK English standards, and both have been summarily reverted without any discussion beyond insults and links to Google and The Times. Since you're concerned with Google hits, I searched google.co.uk, and 'the band have' checks in with 542,000,000 hits, as opposed to 'the band has' with 516,000,000; a slim majority, but a majority nevertheless.

So what is it that we're talking about if the issue of the appropriateness of the aforementioned term is just tangential? Radiopathy •talk• 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have studied statistics, and this is just not a reliable indicator. If it were limited to "Pages from the UK", which I can do, or "Pages from the USA" (which US editors may be able to do), there would have to be some analysis of variance against the total pages to indicate some significance. But that's unnecessary, since we have already been through this loop on numerous previous occasions, and don't need to repeat the exercise. Goggle can be used to prove whatever you want it to, but statistically valid it ain't. Rodhullandemu 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can do 'Pages from the UK', and I get 19,100,000 for 'the band have' and 17,100,000 for 'the band has', but whatever. I thought this issue had been argued to death and settled by now. Radiopathy •talk• 02:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, save us from statistics. I like "the band has" for stylistic reasons, the same way I like "the data is." The idea of making language follow post-cartesian dictates regardless of how ugly the results are has little attraction. Even so, I thought the baby got split in these arguments by the criterium of opportunities for commonality. That is why we say "the Rolling Stones are", at least per an old argument on this talk page. No one can dispute that the Times allows both, and the ratio of 2:3 is besides the point. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Any editor is free to like whatever they choose to like, but the consensus here on Wikipedia is that "UK bands are referred to as plural", as noted by User:Rodhullandemu. If that isn't to the liking of some editors, then I suggest that they go to Wikimedia:Village pump and draft a new policy for debate amongst editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah. There is no such consensus, as I detail below, but you could visit the pump and get a move on since no one has done so in either case. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There are any number of things that can be proven with statistics, but that doesn't make them proper. In the same way, there are plenty of examples of incorrect spoken grammar, such as "...me and John went to the store..." or "...I could care less..." or "...it's not that big of a deal..." which are patently incorrect and yet very commonly used. That doesn't make them proper for an encyclopedia with policies, a style manual, and global readership. In 10 or 20 years (or 50...or never) the current form of referring to a band in the plural may change. Right now, that's the accepted usage, and that's how Wikipedia does it. I personally think the American habit of writing dates in MMDDYYYY format is ludicrous, but that's how we do things, so despite my personal reaction against it, I leave it alone when others change it in articles I've put it into. YYYYMMDD or DDMMYYYY makes so much more sense, but...despite RFCs on it and plenty of comment from the community, there isn't a single way of doing it around here...and that's sometimes how style things go. This is way less ambiguous than dates because the Stones are clearly a British band. Wait...even in American English, they are something. :-)  Frank  |  talk  13:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you could post the WP standard that hold U.K. bands to be referred to only in the plural, It would be helpful to see if the standard is improvised, haphazard and de facto or not. I'm especially interested to find out if mass noun and opportunities for commonality factored in the discussion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is no standard that would hold they should only be referred to in the plural, but that's common usage both on- and off-wiki. There are relevant style guide entries at WP:PLURALS, WP:ENGVAR, and WP:TIES. Surely you're aware of those sections, as you've linked to WP:COMMONALITY (also on that page), even though you appear to have used it out of context. This isn't a case of commonality but rather divergent style; it's not a construction that is not understood - it's just plain different.  Frank  |  talk  19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: both "the band has" and "the band have" have been used, with the former appearing first,it seems. I mistakenly believed you made that argument by alluding to "the convention here", and my suspicion of a haphazard and improvised standard is truly the case. It now appears your assertion is nothing more than a variant of because-I-said-so. None of the policies you cite account for both usages being correct in British English, or advise that usage ratios could be of help or any Solomonic techniques. Even WP:PLURALS makes the point that usage can vary by context. I'm also interested on your views of mass nouns. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My views of mass nouns are irrelevant, as is the fact that my own dialect of English - both verbal and written - agrees with using "has", as you are trying to do. What matters here is that it's a British band and by convention around here and in the wild, it is referred to in the plural. That the other usage is also seen in British English is not the point; it isn't the more common.  Frank  |  talk  21:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What convention? You're very insistent on that, but have not substantiated it one bit, nor acknowledged, that "the band has" is common in British English, as the above link to the Times establishes. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles were...The Who are... perhaps you've heard of these English bands?  Frank  |  talk  04:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No need for further discussion. Check recent edits that make the issue moot. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Who knows if it will stick, but it is certainly clever.  Frank  |  talk  05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking that as a compliment. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not above offering credit where it is due. My assessment was sincere and freely given, and I hadn't thought of rewording myself. I might even go so far as to offer "elegant".  Frank  |  talk  05:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it is 'the data are'; data is the plural form of datum, and has been for thousands of years. It's not a question of who likes what, or in which country they live. Radiopathy •talk• 17:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that the inelegant usage of the "data are" has persisted (that was my implied point), as well as that "Since the 19th century", "data is correct as both a count noun and as a mass noun". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PLURALS is the guiding principle here. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And I would add that the meaning of context appears to have bee misunderstood by some here.

• Fowler, H.W. (1926, 2003). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press. pp. 388–392. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help) has more on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to do more than refer to Wiki policy, since Wiki policy deems that a poor way to argue. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I got into the solution, and I think I hear my Mom calling me. Enjoy. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Grammar Girl. Radiopathy •talk• 02:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I don't understand why you can't say both "The Rolling Stones are" and "The band is". I'd say that a band is a singular thing, but that one should use the plural if the subject is the band name and the band name is explicitly plural. The Rolling Stones are a band, but Pink Floyd is a band. This seems like how actual spoken English would generally work. john k (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, around here, Pink Floyd were a band.  Frank  |  talk  21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

I think we need a Legacy section on this one. NandO ^ta_lk! 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This band was too influential during an incredibly dynamic time for music. It's also an important aspect of the band and of this article.fds^Talk 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Abe3ibkj96akc
• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A4kq4g40ttv6z

--CactusBot (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hard Rock

Does anyone else think hard rock should be added to the genre list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.166.17 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems in the lead

Seeing that I've basically had any changes I've written into the lead erased, I'll put my complaints here. First, Brian Jones was the founder of the band. He was also a multi-instrumentalist--- perhaps not at the very moment he and Keith Richards agreed to form the band, but very quickly. Also, saying The Rolling Stones played the blues in a different manner than their more "primitive" American counterparts is not just really poor writing but it smacks of racism or at least an elitist attitude on this side of the puddle. Perhaps this might help a "little": Keith Richards discussing the early Rolling Stones, and far more. Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A source that shows Jones as the founder would be helful, but I would suggest checking KR's life first. Stew and Brian agreed to start a band with Brian doing much of the recruiting and assuming leadership while Stew found the rehearsal space. When you say the Stones were formed when multi instrumentalist BJ formed the band. You imply he was one at the time. BTW, Keith is also a multi instrumentalist plays guitar bass guitar, keyboards and perscussion. While Jagger plays harmonica, keyboards, bass, guitar, drums, percussion and who knows what else. And Ronnie is the current utility player for the band very much the same way Brian was. Nonetheless there is a distinction to be made with Brian, and I will added a line to account for that. As for "racism" or "elitism", I've never heard of that before, but I will consider it if a source vis a vis the blues is forthcoming. There is no comparison presenting the Stones as playing a more primitive style of blues than the that Chicago artists (talk about a tall order they never tried to fill). I simply can't respond to the imagined conjecture of that statement. The video, which I have seen before, BTW, seems mute on the matter. But it does have someone saying Brian recruited him as a singer after Mick had joined the band. Even as dodgy as Brian was, go figure that one. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the lead? It says, "The Rolling Stones' early material, but from the start they have included rock and roll in their repertoire. They are credited for raising the international regard for the more primitive blues typified by Chess Records' artists such as Willie Dixon and Muddy Waters, who wrote the song "Rollin' Stone", after which the band is named." In other words, this is saying that the American blues players (who were predominantly African-American, were the more "primitive" blues players. Maybe the person who wrote that sentence did not realise that it sounds racist and elitist, but it seriously does. I strongly feel that the wording be revised and clear on this point. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that particular passage, and I hope Leah has read it closer and no longer thinks that I somehow said, as the editor carelessly distorted in paraphrase, "The Rolling Stones played the blues in a different manner than their more "primitive" American counterparts." It seems to me, Leah has twice said nothing more than, I don't like because, well, just because. (What, if anything, would explain why the YouTube video was offered to support that editor's argument is a mystery. I suspect nothing in it applies, and will go out on a limb and suggest that is why it no longer figures in the argument.) Feelings are not what we go by around here. We use RS's instead. WP has a no censorship policy. So unless there are RS's to bring to bear, there has been presented no valid and supported reason to change the lead. BTW, if any editor wants to know what the context the "more primitive blues" is, and what was being contrasted, I would suggest checking my source. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To avoid the inexplicable and illogical, but nonetheless contentious idea that a comparison was made between the Stones' blues and those of many Chess artists, from the phrase "more primitive" the first word has been deleted. This makes sense because a comparison was made but not explained. If "more' remained attached to "primitive", a digression unsuitable for the lead would be obliged. The focus should remain on the Stones' critical part in raising international appreciation of gutbucket - or down home - blues. Their first mission. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Talking about problems in the lead, it claims that the band was formed in APRIL 1965, after the first two albums were released! I'd call that a problem, wouldn't you? Dylanexpert (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My fault for not seeing this till now! (I've been extremely ill.) There's a great interview with Keith Richards discussing the influences of the Chicago blues on the band, as well as another documentary I can't get on this side of the pond now. My concern is about using words like "more "primitive" contrasting the music from the U.S. to the Stones' sound. As a resident of an almost entirely African American and Hispanic city in the projects here (I fall into the second category) is that being called "more primitive" than the Anglo members of the Stones sounds racist. Maybe you have to walk in our shoes, I don't know. While I assume the intention was not racist, please take into consideration the often frequent suspicion of such a community as this. (It certainly doesn't help that Bill Wyman's replacement, bassist Darryl Jones, and both notable backup vocalists, Bernard Fowler. and Lisa Fischer (a Grammy Award recipient herself) are the only regular black performers with the Stones, and the only ones that will never have the opportunity to have an actual place as an official band member. This is a biographical article, and thus, per WP policy, should do all it can to avoid misunderstandings, POV, and touchy wording.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"More primitive" is not used, and has not been part of the article for some time.

Sources, not peculiar personal feelings are what we go by since we do not censor. Face the facts, they blues the RS played were primitive, that's what the source says. They weren't playing uptown BS. The groundless charge of racism seems anxious and is pointless. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wyman did not retire in 1990

Article states Wyman retired in 1990. This is not true. 1990 may be the last gig he played as a member of the Stones. However, he did not offically retire until very early 1993. Please correct (PershingBoy)205.204.248.86 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed to 1993. Incidentally it said December 1992 elsewhere in the article, but that was Jagger letting the cat out of the bag early in an interview - I've gone with the date of Wyman's announcement.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Death by a 1000 edits

What a mess. This article needs to be locked and taken over by a few people who can write. Dickdock (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That was not helpful and disparaging. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Genres

I think the Rolling Stones are a HARD ROCK band too. Songs like Brown Sugar and Start Me Up have a hard rock sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.73.215 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think brown sugar is defitnantly a hard rock song all these edit nazis who just wanna say that they were'nt a proto-type for other hard-rock bands dont get it's not like were calling them heavy metal i wish people would stop changin my genre contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.155.2 (talk) 8 August 2011

to the the or not the the, when is the question - let's not re-argue the wheel

Consensus established last yearTheArtistAKA 02:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, "the Rolling Stones" makes sense if it's referring collectively to the members of the group, but "The Rolling Stones" makes much more sense when referring to the group as an object. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though that is a well-thought out and well-explained view, consensus is established. TheArtistAKA 03:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be a "consensus" of 2 editors, and it is not very solid when the MOS page used as its basis currently has as an example: "In mid-1962 The Rolling Stones started as one of a number of groups..." The "well-thought out and well-explained view" should prevail, no? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been been a botched reading or a misrepresentation. No, there is not only one view of merit - one which, and this already stated point has been somehow missed, both the Chicago Manuel of Style of the New York Times differ with. So much for MOS being the sole "basis". (These tiresome counting errors oblige you to repeat points made over a year ago.) The editors should also reread the MOS; nothing is mandated regarding the issue at hand. To be helpful to those who missed was clearly in plain site, MOS actually says "Capitalized 'The'may be preferred when listing bands" (emphasis added). Two hardly involved, and hardly up to speed, editors should serve as a basis for overturning a long held consensus. Moreover, the corrections have been half-assed leaving both forms in the article. Very messy. TheArtistAKA 05:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't make sense of your reply. Are you claiming that differing external style guides was a "basis" for choosing one of them? As you say, the MOS page permits capitalising "The". It also gives an example which uses the subject of this article. That seems like an argument for capitalising "The", no? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speculation from a dubious source

Please check sources, and their reliability, before jumping to conclusions (POV) and passing on speculation of non events, i.e. ones that may or may not happen. Such as, Contactmusic thinks there may be no Stones tour cuz Mick's feelings are hurt. Mick has not said anything of the sort - just a "maybe" statement, so where that comes from is anybody's guess. There are great fan boards for this stuff. If you checked the actual report,[1] which is has no author attribution - nothing is established about the doubtful future a Stones tour, whether they will tour or not. The report is only about a Marquee reunion gig, and for some reason, though declared obvious, Keith can't go to it. The report thinks Keith's autobiography ruined any chance of a anniversary tour, without substantiation. Furthermore, contactmusic.com - the actual source - is of dubious merit. Who are they? Who is the publisher, the editor, the owner? As best as can be deduce, it is a crowd sorucing site which Anyone can write for it in exchange for possible free tickets and other schwag. TheArtistAKA 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Update - it gets worse: The source according to NME is Live magazine, a quarterly written by those aged 12-24. Nice exploitative biz model. BTW, I can't find what Live had to report on their site. TheArtistAKA 18:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

re Update: to show how cheesey Live magazine (beta) is - as it home page declares itself - here is how they describe themselves on Facebook "Live Magazine: a youth-created magazine and digital platform that gives young people a voice and a place to learn media and design skills." Very much below reliable source standards.[2]

This is your presumption that it's garbage, you're ridiculously over protective of the article purely because you like the band and don't want to accept there's even the possibility of them breaking up. You've actually substantiated the original NME source (which is a respected music magazine in the UK and has been for several decades) by finding a link on a second source, we need a 3rd party here, but until that it has been proved by two separate sources and should stay, your opinion of the separate sources is irrelevant 93.97.150.79 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a gross misunderstanding, NME is not the "original source" in any way. NME fingered Live magazine (a crowd sourcing site - now in "beta", and in its print form it says it is "Live Magazine is a free, quarterly magazine that is created by young people, and distributed around London."). We can't use such tyke generated sources in this context. Our standards are higher than such junk.TheArtistAKA 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede changes

Here's the text removed by two editor's and explanations as to why it is in many cases an inferior repetition of points already made in the lede, as well as often reliant on dubious sources:

With a successful career spanning five decades, the Rolling Stones have been considered as one of the most prolific, enduring, controversal, influential and one of the most best rock bands in history.

Let's break it down.

With a successful career spanning five decades, the Rolling Stones have been considered as one of the most prolific,

The lede already tells us the length of the Stones career, their many successes and their productivity,

and enduring,

This comes from a selp help book, The Power of Focus, (ugh), but the much more estimable Robert Palmer has already established in the lede much better their endurance, along with why they have endured .

"controversal" [sic]

The source for this is Presbyterian survey, Volume 69, p. iv. Presbyterian Church in the U.S., 1979. Enough said.

"influential"

This is from a guitar teacher whose grasp of Rolling Stones history is shaky: He claims "Honky Tonk Women" was first released on a greatest hits compilation. Again, enough said.

one of the most best rock bands in history.

The editor sure writes real good here. The source, BTW, does not engage in such hyperbole.

TheArtistAKA 00:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please flesh out the Discography section. since i am new to this article i wanted to request it first here. Maybe just grab some text from the daughter artcle. Include a quote from early on, say from a critic about a span of albums instead of singling any one out. Just my 2c. -A98 98.92.189.110 (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fact Check

It appears that the following statement in the first paragraph is not correct:

The group's earliest line-up consisted of Brian Jones (guitar, harmonica), Ian Stewart (piano), Mick Jagger (lead vocals, harmonica), Keith Richards (guitar, vocals), Bill Wyman (bassist) and Charlie Watts (drummer).

From a newspaper clipping posted to Mick Jagger's official Facebook page, it would appear that the original lineup that played on July 12, 1962 at the Marqee was Mick Jagger (vocals), Keith Richards, Elmo Lewis (guitars), Dick Taylor (bass), 'Stu' (piano), and Mike Avery (drums).

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150922059921606&set=a.90724416605.97008.508291605&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.121 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"US"

I see "US" used throughout this article, rather than "U.S.", to which I am accustomed. I was about to begin changing it, but figured I'd better check here first. I'm fairly well-versed in British Engilsh, but not so much so with punctuation. Is it that "US" is generally written without the full stops in British media? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, "US" is far more common (in fact, I don't think I've ever seen the slightly fussy and antiquated "U.S." in a British newspaper). I've never understood why most Americans insist on writing "U.S." but not "C.D.", "L.P.", D.J.", "U.F.O.", etc. (or, for a timely one, "S.O.P.A."). JonC^Talk 09:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't USA look better?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Either/or. Although then technically we'd have to change UK to UKGBNI :) JonC^Talk 10:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, in that case let's stick with US. I must say, being American, that I have never used nor seen US written as U.S.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Chicago manual of style recently deprecated the 'U.S.' spelling, but people have been following Wikipedia's manual of style for years by not presenting it in that way in articles about UK topics.

BTW, the MoS also advises not to use 'USA' except when it's part of a name, e. g., 'Team USA'. Radiopathy •talk• 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Genres

I would like to propose the addition of hard rock to the list of genres. AmericanLeMans (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is opposed to the ideaThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: All the "concensus" against it in any of those discussions comes from "Mr Anonymous" himself. That being said... I don't think it's worth putting in the box. Many of their albums would be more than warranted having hard rock added to the album infobox and feel free to add hard rock in of of the Stones album article where it applies. Just make sure there is a reference to it somewhere in the body of the album article itself. That way the editors who think they own those articles can't remove it. Hard rock doesn't need to be listed here in this article unless a valid 'new' consensus for it stems from this thread. 142.166.163.242 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Carlo Little

Should he be listed under "Past Members"? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

1964

my catholic school girlfriends and i met the boys on our class trip at the empire state building in nyc while they waited to meet with hollywood palace people they were fun and untainted by fame at the time im sure this was not the highlight of their trip but it was for a few schoolgirls who are now almost as old as they are not obsessed but still makes for a great story Ann M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.221.28 (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 and 50th anniversary

This section seems unnecessarily detailed - almost daily updates of the band's scheduling. While many fans may be excited, it's not in line with how other bands' pages are written. JohnAKeith (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite. I've deleted a lot of the pointless rumours and updated the tenses. Ericoides (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Piriczki (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no mention of Nicky Hopkins piano on a lot of tracks from the 70's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.238.16 (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

call it quits

didnt they announce they were retiring. If so then shouldn't it say the Rolling Stones WAS a band instead of ARE a band24.101.172.61 (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be WERE where we come from. Ericoides (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary of their history

The history section in this article is huge. There really should be a summary of that in this article, for people who want a brief overview of their story, and the complete history in a new article... --Jules.LT (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Good idea, make that great idea, but that's gonna take some heavy lifting. I suggest creating the history page, then trimming the main page. Luck y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.91 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artists

There seems to be some confusion regarding the difference between a wikilink and a reference in regards to the following sentence:

In 2008, Billboard magazine ranked the Rolling Stones at number 10 on its "Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artists" chart.

A wikilink, highlighted by blue text, simply links to other related Wikipedia articles and is not to be confused with references, which are reliable outside sources enclosed within the <ref></ref> tags. The reference for the sentence in question is Billboard Volume 120, No. 38 dated September 20, 2008, page 16, not the other Wikpedia article which is linked in the sentence. If the other article lacks reliable sources, that is an issue that should be addressed in that article, not this one. Piriczki (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I got a low opinion of BB, but I'll accept that as legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.187.78 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're suggesting this particular achievement isn't significant enough for the lead section I would agree with that. It should probably go elsewhere (with consensus from others). Piriczki (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Rolling Stone Magazine has more credibility in critically appraising a band. I also think the BB formula for placing the Stones is a little complicated. So what they mean by a 10th ranking is not so obvious. My quick read is that it is entirely a commercial ranking, and the lede, having said they have sold 200 million records establishes that well enough, Even so, I will leave the edit alone, but my sympathies do lean toward leaving BB out of the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.124.26 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

Who cares what Robert Palmer said about the Rolling Stones?!? This is completely inappropriate and unnecessary and irrelevant information. Please desist from adding information which pointless like this. (120.149.120.26 (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC))

Mission?

I have tried to improve the introduction to the article by removing, for instance "early mission was to share...", and my version has now been reverted twice by the same IP. I really can't be bothered to press the issue and prefer to leave it to the community to decide which is more encyclopedic. Needless to say, the Stones did/do not have a mission (check any dictionary for the correct use of the term), and simplifying a lot for the sake of argument, they happened to share a liking for a particular kind of music, and even that statement is open to many nuances. --Technopat (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tech is poorly uniformed from the outset and seems committed to staying so. The added ref - which any editor the least bit familiar with the band's origins would not require - settles any baseless charge of "nonsense" completely and clearly. #Thasall.

Much of the recent rewrite of the lead section (see here) was based on a recent podcast by someone named Yuval Taylor. Considering the innumerable articles and books about this group that have been published by notable writers over the years I don't think the lead should be based on the opinion of one particular author of far less standing. Piriczki (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The source is good and notable. Pir, probably doesn't even know anything about the source's standing, and has not bothered to. Learn the brief first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.43.125 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that readers may have different interpretations of the word "mission" which could imply an ambitious objective which they hoped to achieve. Simpler wording such as "aim" or "intent", which appears to be how it was meant in the interview, might be a better choice. Piriczki (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Pir has checked the ref. The word "mission" is not mine here, it is Mick's and Keith's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.77 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Its an utterly rubbish edit, too long, to complcated and use of English isnt common. No offence. Its changed a good easy-to-read lead into a piece of essay like meandering. The consensus seems to be the previous lead, I will restore, while drawing the IPs attention to both WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. Murry1975 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To call it rubbish and then say no offence is hypocritical. See ref to Youtube video where the Keith and Mick tell exactly what their "mission", their word, was. Run on sentences may be common, maybe to common, but we don't have to have them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.77 (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I presume the two IPs aret the same editor (both geo-locate to Cal)? The youtube clip you added is a copyright violation. Reverting, one editor doesnt decide what is right, or consensus, and with a copyvio invovled its no-brainer to remove. Murry1975 (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Since when have links to youtube vids been "clips" or copyright violations. The ignorance shown is compounding.

Consensus at the moment is indicated by my view, Technopat and Piriczki, only the dual IP seems to think otherwise. Murry1975 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither has substantively responded to counter arguments. They in short, are working from their ignorance and prejudices. The ref, not "clip", has been ignored by them. They would not otherwise take issue with Mick and Keith's stated "mission": there word. Authority issues seem to be at play.

I think you mean "thier" not "there", but then again ts only grammar, which too is why the edit shouldnt be included. As per you lack of copyright knowledge, Wiki cant use youtube as a ref if its not an offical/original clip. Some guy uploading an interview that he doesnt have copyright to cant be used. Both have responded yet you havent understood thier comments. Murry1975 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Typos are correctable, so is ignorance, but it seems less likely to happen. When the facts are against you argue the law. But I wish Murry was even up to that. Per WP guidelines: "This page in a nutshell: Videos on YouTube and other user-submitted sites can sometimes be used as references or external links, but copyright infringement and unreliabil ity will rule out the use of many of these videos." I hope I do not have to explain that the video has been "used". It would be no problem to get the link straight from NBC via iTunes, (http://video.tvguide.com/NBC+News+On+Stage/The+Rolling+Stones+The+Matt+Lauer+Interview/8134189) but the editors are more concerned protectng turf, No one has acknowledged, and has in fact denied, that the Stones early mission was to spread r n b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.77 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. Thats not an iTunes link, its a site using an iTunes link. D'oh. You have to read the guidelines IP. And your entire mission here to have your edits included against consensus. Here the clip listing from NBC for The Rolling Stones, and I dont see your clip in there. Now you cant be polite or properly discuss changes wikipedia might not be the place for you. Stop using personal attacks on myself and others who disagree with your edits. Murry1975 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Section titles

I see someone has changed the title that included "Decline" to something softer. Actually I came here to say that I feel the divisions are a bit arbitrary. I personally would have Altamont as "the end of an era" at the end of one of the sections. At the moment it is in the section titled "The Golden Age". A quick read of the events there will give anyone an idea of why this IMO doesn't seem quite right. Britmax (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rock, pop

Like with the Beatles' Wiki infobox, The Rolling Stones' infobox should just list "Rock, pop", since these are general terms which cover all the sub-genres that the band played, instead of cluttering it up by having loads of different genres. As this is the current consensus on the Beatles' page, it should also be one on here.You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Should "Early members" section be added? Should Darryl Jones be added to "Members" list?

• Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts were in the first settled, permanent, official line-up. Dick Taylor, Mick Avory, Carlo Little, Tony Chapman, Ricky Fenson and Colin Golding were all early members of the band that played on some gigs in 1962 and 1963 that weren't part of an official tour and they haven't recorded anything with the band. So I thought about adding an "Early members" section just like Queen page has and listing all of them there. Either that or removing them completely but I don't get it why only Tony Chapman and Dick Taylor are listed as former official members now.
• Darryl Jones isn't an official member but rather a contributor. Still, he isn't just a touring member like Chuck Leavell, Lisa Fischer etc., but also plays bass guitar on most of their recorded songs 1994-2012. So I thought about adding his name but in small format to the "Members" list and also his name to "Current members" list in the "Members" section and his name to the coloured graph just like Bon Jovi page has for Hugh McDonald. What do you think about it?

You can see these changes: here. 93.139.6.205 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Anglo/American commonality of "the band is" proven

I hope I need not point out the Opportunities for Commonality where they exist our out preference, and in spite of repeated explanations that both "the sand are" and "the band is" is common and proper in England. Despite apparent prejudice that would have the Queens being quaint and archaically bound, the Time UK, per a search of it's site, has used the phrase "the band is" 327 times. Since context does matter, here is one example "Non-followers of McFly may be surprised to learn that the band is still in business, never mind successful enough to sell out four consecutive nights at the Albert Hall. " The phase "the band are" occurs 464 times. Let's call the ratio 3/4 and proof of commonality. I eagerly await word from anyone who can say commonality is not a policy in effect in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.44.136 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

MOS:COMMONALITY is not a policy (its is guideline) and it does not apply in this case, because it is clearly about spelling. What does apply as a guideline is MOS:PLURALS and WP:ARTCON on consistency in this article.--SabreBD (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You have read poorly, Commonality is about "usage", and "the Band is" is accepted as proper by the Times. What better authority exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.44.136 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

POV if you are considering the Times the only source that matters. Two things from the Times, one they use both, and two that is totaally dependent on the author of the piece.

And collective nouns in BE can be threated either way, but in general common usage, are is most common, now if you want to split hairs- changing one term on one article is trying to prove a point is not the way things are done on here. If you dont agree with something discuss at the relevant guideline talkpage, try discuss instaed of edit warring. But on this one, I cant see going through.

And do everyone a favour, stop using Anglo/American. Like whats that meant to mean? American English? Or an English-American? That phrase really shows a lack of understanding of British English matters. Murry1975 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So I stop reverting and go to the talk page and what do I get? Bitched out. Personal piece of advice, don't go into management. It won't suit you.

I am and it does. Murry1975 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.134.28 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"was led" versus "was lead"

I was reverted by an editor because allegedly "was lead" is British English. Yet from oxforddictionaries.com, set in UK English, we get this example: 3. Be in charge or command of: a military delegation was led by the Chief of Staff. Therefore I can't see how the form "was lead" can be supported as correct UK English usage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, of course, that Oxford spells with a 'z' when the rest of the UK spells with an 's' in words such as specialise/specialize. And you realize, of course, that if n=1 then it does not really counterbalance the case of n = many thousands. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the "z' spelling is a feature of the Oxford spelling, but that doesn't address the present issue which is the past-tense spelling of "lead". The settings of oxforddictionaries.com are for UK English, not Oxford spelling. In any case I'm not sure what you indicate by n=1 and n=many thousands. If you are trying to invoke the induction method, I can't see for what reason. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Cambridge Dictionaries online concurs. Radiopathy •talk• 00:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge is another top-notch reference for UK English. Thank you Radiopathy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I’m Canadian (but I’ve read plenty of BrE.) If I’ve ever even seen “was lead” it’s been so rarely that it was dismissed as an error and forgotten. But personal experience is neither here nor there … Collins also concurs with the above. Furthermore, the old dead-trees OED indicates that the spelling of the past participle as “lead(e)” appears only in the XVII c., while “led” has been in use since the XIV.—Odysseus1479 07:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree fully. I also think your reply is as definitive as it gets in settling this question. Any more detail than that and we would have to write a master's thesis on the topic. Since I think we have consensus, I will wait for a day and then revert back to the original form "led". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Genres in the infobox

I would like to reach a consensus on whether to change the genres in the infobox to just "Rock, pop, blues". I have been trying to do this on other articles because Wikipedia's policy dictates that the infobox must be as general and concise as possible. The musical style section can elaborate more on what specific genres the Rolling Stones fall into (with reliable sources). Twyfan714 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need for all the subgenres like hard rock and blues rock, etc. Rock, pop, and blues cover it perfectly. The same has been done to articles on The Beatles, The Kinks, The Monkees, The Eagles, Queen, Black Sabbath, and I believe there are plans to do it to Led Zeppelin, so why not Rolling Stones as well? Poppermost2014 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)