This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 15, 2021. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was provided with references by an Unreferenced articles project volunteer on 2010-03-24. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources. |
"By this time, the Stones had begun to respond to the increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles, to whom they had long been promoted by Oldham as a rougher alternative."
The sources do support the later part of the sentence, but I'm not seeing where the sources are saying that in 1966 the Stones were responding to the " increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles". AllMusic says: "they began experimenting musically, incorporating the British pop of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Kinks, and the Who into their sound." The other two sources talk about the contrasting images, but not the music. SilkTork ( talk) 10:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a general (and harmless) moan about using Harvard referencing instead of the more common full footnotes. It really makes it so much harder to check the sources, and for no benefit at all. I do notice that when people are working up an article for FA that they tend to use Harvard, presumably because they see that's the system that most FA articles use, so it seems needed. But it's not. The standard full footnotes can be used. With the usual citation style I can click on the cite and be taken to all the information I need: author, book, date, publisher and page number, including any helpful url links. With the Harvard system I am first taken to an abbreviated note where I get: author, date and page number only. So I have to click again (thanks for linking it!) to get to the fuller details, which give me: author, book, date, and publisher, but no page number, and if there is a link, it's to the ISBN number, so I have to then do a separate search for the book on Google in order to check the page! But also having to check back to the earlier cite to see what the page number is! Grrrr! Rant over. I needed to get that out of my system because I am becoming rather frustrated. I only have a limited amount of time to spend on this, and the cite system is taking up a disproportionate amount of my time. I could have done more by now. SilkTork ( talk) 10:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I have two queries/problems with this sentence: "The album was also the first Stones LP to be recorded in true stereo." cited to Ryan, David Stuart (2013). 1967. Kozmik Press. ISBN 978-1492226918. page 15: [2]. The link redirects to Stereophonic_sound#Pseudo-stereo. So is it "true stereo" or "Pseudo-stereo"? And why is that being cited to a novel? And is the novel's publisher, Kozmic Press a reliable source - it appears to be a self-publishing enterprise: [3]. SilkTork ( talk) 11:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
This sentence: ""Goin' Home" is among the first pop songs to pass the five-minute mark—followed in 1967 by "The End" on the Doors' self-titled debut album and "A Day in the Life" on the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band—and the first ever to pass the ten-minute mark." It is cited to two sources. There are two tracks over 5 minutes on Five Live Yardbirds; "Lost Someone" on Live at the Apollo (1963 album) is over 10 minutes, but those are live albums. However, Bringing It All Back Home has four tracks at over 5 minutes, and Highway 61 Revisited and five tracks over 5 minutes plus "Desolation Row" at over 11 minutes. These are just albums that sprang to mind, they'll be others. Is it worth putting in a statement, albeit sourced, which is incorrect or dubious at best? SilkTork ( talk) 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't access the source right now. This sentence escapes me: "Jones' new relationship with the German model Anita Pallenberg took on sadomasochistic aspects and helped renew his confidence and encourage him to experiment musically". How did a sadomasochistic relationship encourage Jones to experiment musically? And how do we know this helped his confidence? Do we have a quote from Jones himself, or what this speculation by the author? If it's authorial speculation, then that should be made clear. SilkTork ( talk) 16:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry, I thought you wanted me to help out on the article. I misunderstood. I'll stop. No worries. SilkTork ( talk) 17:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Is the lead not too extensive? I don't think there's another album with such an extensive lead, considering that Aftermath is not highly regarded as one of the very top albums of all time based on rankings and critical ratings. I believe that it should be more summarised. Isaacsorry ( talk) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Isaacsorry: I agree with you and have tried condensing the lead a bit. I think that it can still be whittled down a great deal — much of the content regarding the title is not very interesting nor seems terribly significant, but I'm not that familiar with the Rolling Stones' history, so I'd rather get a second opinion before trimming more. ili ( talk) 02:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
All respect due, some consideration to the original editors of this article could have been given, since we processed it thru FA promotion, so maaybe we might have had some merit to how the article is. So maaybe the discussion step should be emphasized here ? Peter ( talk) 02:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Being considered an artistic breakthrough isn't redundant with it being also considered the most important of their early formative music. The latter suggests they had made other early formative music, which they had. Peter ( talk) 02:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Isaac started this discussion with an erroneous premise and basis. If you wish to continue this constructively, I hope there's some substantial issue you see with the lead that goes beyond some subjective determination of significance or interest. For example, enough reputable sources found it significant to detail the story behind the title and packaging, enough to make it possible for a pretty lengthy subsection here. So we'd be pretty remiss, I think, to overlook offering some kind of summary for it. Peter ( talk) 03:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I realize I have an attachment to this article. But I still believe the lead is fine, if not ideal. The lead length guideline I cited to Isaac back then suggests articles of 30,000+ characters be given three or four paragraphs of lead. This article has around double that character count. And while some of the sentences are a bit lengthy, the paragraphs are generally four to five sentences and capture everything key to understanding the topic. Peter ( talk) 03:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
But maybe I'm the only one who's read this article up and down to myself a hundred times lol. Peter ( talk) 03:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
"The album attracted thousands of new fans to the Rolling Stones."Really? Isn't this a sentence that could be added to the lead of just about every commercially successful album released by anyone? Of course, that sentence only exists to hammer in three points: 1) the album sold a lot of copies 2) a lot of people liked it 3) it marked an artistic turning point for the band. All three of these points have already been made elsewhere in the lead.
The album's release was briefly delayed by controversy over the original packaging and title – Could You Walk on the Water? – due to Decca and London's fear of offending Christians in the US. The UK release featured a [...]
Introducing the chronological number for each edition seems a bit heavy handed for a first sentence, no?
Read the article. Much of your arguments lack nuance and suggest to me that you haven't read article, which begs the question why you even care about trimming the lead or what's the motive here.
I can concede on condensing the title bit. But the answers to your other concerns can be found in the article as much as in anything I can say. Peter ( talk) 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The very definition of the word Aftermath, which if you're not sure of you should look up, suggests the meaning, and the wording connects the circumstances to the title. It is actually an apt and concise way of putting it across without explaining the obvious to readers. If redundancy is a concern... Peter ( talk) 05:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
In response to the lack of creative control" and "
the Stones bitterly settled on Aftermath". I realize this makes me look like I have terrible reading comprehension, but I'd rather just point to this as further evidence that there's too much covered in the lead. ili ( talk) 06:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
An artistic breakthrough isn't the same thing as a commercial breakthrough, and a commercial success doesn't necessitate a new crowd of customers, while a new crowd in this case involves different cross-sections of music audiences as detailed in the article. And not only that, but the statement about thousands of new fans is verified in the text. So, again, seems to be a poor assumption by you for not reading the actual article. Peter ( talk) 05:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The infobox introduces two covers. There is more detail about the cover designs in the article, but in the lead, at the very least, it can be mentioned briefly in passing that two different covers were made for each edition, as a consequence of the packaging controversy, as well as to transition to the edition differences in the next few lines. It isn't some off-hand arbitrary construction. There is a purpose to it. Peter ( talk) 05:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Usually, I am used to the standard of weight being given to content in proportion to its coverage in the article body ( WP:LEAD). But that is interesting... Peter ( talk) 07:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't experimental rock be mentioned in the infobox? considering the amount of unconventional instruments that were used. Isaacsorry ( talk) 12:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Shanejumpinj11:: The other rankings from subsequent publications of the Rolling Stone 500 greatest albums list are ancillary details in the big picture that is the Rankings section. Introducing them directly in the text inhibits the read and flow of the paragraph. They are better off in a footnote.
Here is the guideline: Explanatory or content notes are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read. ( Help:Explanatory notes). I believe mentioning rankings from 2012 and 2020, before discussing a ranking from 2008 in the next sentence, is awkward. I also believe it places a long and undue emphasis on the Rolling Stone 500 list, which distracts from the focus of the paragraph ( WP:UNDUE, WP:OFFTOPIC). Which leads me to conclude that allocating those other rankings into a footnote is the best approach to handling this extra information. isento ( talk) 22:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, your edits are continuously disrupting the reference formatting of this article. You have been warned about this several times, and you have been warned at your talk page to stop reverting back to your preferred revision without discussing it first. Stop editing this content. Discuss. isento ( talk) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@ PJtP:, firstly, always cite a reliable source for claims disputing verified claims in an article. Second, I don't know if Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely qualifies purely as a popular music LP -- professional reviews consider it performed in a jazz and classical vein, both of which are usually considered distinct from pop music, and a number of songs appear to be jazz covers. Lastly, how accurate are those song lengths at the Wikipedia article for the Sinatra album? Sources indicate the original LP had only 10 tracks, and I can't find a source to verify their original lengths. Are the lengths there taken from information on the reissue? isento ( talk) 17:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Isento: You're saying that a 39-word sentence is "too wordy" while a 36-word sentence is just fine, and that "wealth and fame" couldn't be taken as singular when such constructions are ten-a-penny? Please think again. Harfarhs ( talk) 07:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This phrasing is used to add emphasis in a way that is not only not supported in the article -- the idea that the fame was more surprising or important than the wealth -- but also borders on puffery and editorializing. isento ( talk) 07:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
For the record, the construction is actually "newfound wealth and fame", and I don't see too many appearances in Google search results. isento ( talk) 07:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
And yes, the sentence is long enough as it is, and your phrasing feels more complicated to read, just speaking as an average reader ( WP:AUDIENCE). isento ( talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
And if it can be taken as singular, why did you bother rewriting it before for the plural? isento ( talk) 08:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Well it backfired because you didn't read the article. isento ( talk) 08:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It says in the article that Jack Nitzsche and Bill Wyman claimed that Brian Jones was entitled to a coauthorship credit for his marimba hook on " Under My Thumb", but as far as I know, there is no evidence to confirm that Brian did in fact "compose" the hook/riff and he himself never publicly mentioned or confirmed their claims. Mick Taylor has made lots of claims that he cowrote songs that were credited to Jagger/Richards, but has never provided any proof. 27.32.188.134 ( talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. 27.32.188.134 ( talk) 01:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I recently added both the US and UK chronology to the infobox, though it was changed back by Piotr Jr. (wonderful work on this page by the way, PJ). Following WP:BRD, I thought I'd bring it here. A previous discussion at WikiProject Albums came to the consensus to limit to a single chronology, but the talk there centered around modern artists, like Taylor Swift, where the split chronologies were distinguishing between studio releases and others (e.g. compilations, live albums, etc.). But that's somewhat different than the situation here, only mentioned once in that WikiProject discussion by JG66, that releases by the Stones, the Beatles and other British invasion acts typically had different track listings, and even different albums, between the UK and US markets. See, for example, the chronology of Sgt. Pepper or Revolver. I think that having two separate chronologies will serve to better illustrate this difference. Tkbrett (✉) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The current revision of this page gives 2 July 1966 as the US release date. This is sourced using Bill Wyman's 1990 book, Stone Alone (p. 550). A couple other books provide different dates though; as is mentioned in the accompanying footnote, Margotin & Guesdon acknowledge Wyman's dating, but instead say it went on sale on 20 June (p. 139). Massimo Bonanno's The Rolling Stones Chronicle doesn't get more specific than June 1966 (p. 54). Andy Babiuk and Greg Prevost's 2013 book, Rolling Stones Gear, writes: "The release of Aftermath on London Records ... in the States was postponed until July 2, so that it came out in conjunction with the next US tour." (p. 226). The tour started on 24 June though.
One thing I'm wondering is whether Wyman's dating is even possible, given that the album entered the Billboard chart on 9 July (p. 40 (38 of the pdf), at No. 117.). A similar issue was raised for The Dark Side of the Moon in this talk page discussion. The creator of that thread, Piriczki, mentions that the Billboard 200 is done based off of the sales tracked two weeks before (e.g., "The album debuted on the Billboard 200 chart March 17, 1973 for which the sales tracking week ended March 4 ...") I can't vouch for whether this is true, so if anyone has a source indicating it, that would be appreciated. If this were true in 1966, that would mean the 9 July chart was tracking sales for the week ending 26 June. I think that would mean Margotin & Guesdon's dating of 20 June would make more sense. Thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 21:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Release date |
Source | Source year |
---|---|---|
June 1966 | Barry Miles [1] | 1980 |
David Dalton [2] | 1981 | |
Barbara Charone [3] | 1982 | |
Felix Aeppli [4] | 1985 | |
Massimo Bonanno [5] | 1990 | |
Steve Appleford [6] | 1997 | |
Bill Janovitz [7] | 2013 | |
John Covach [8] | 2019 | |
20 June 1966 | Phillipe Margotin & Jean-Michel Guesdon [9] | 2016 |
July 1966 | Geoffrey Giuliano [10] | 1993 |
1 July 1966 | Chris Salewicz [11] | 2002 |
1 or 2 July 1966 | James Karnbach [12] | 1997 |
2 July 1966 | Bill Wyman [13] | 1990 |
Alan Clayson [14] | 2006 | |
Andy Babiuk & Greg Prevost [15] | 2013 |
I would support specifying it and them in the body, following the late June claim. But not in the lead. The majority claim should be respected there. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 ( talk | contribs) 02:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I've found some more discrepancies in dating, this time between recording dates.
1965 sessions |
1966 sessions |
Source | Source year |
---|---|---|---|
"three nights" | 6–9 February | Bill Wyman & Ray Coleman [1] | 1990 |
"early December" | – | Alan Clayson [2] | 2006 |
6–10 December | 3–? March | David Dalton [3] | 1981 |
3–12 March | Massimo Bonanno [4] | 1990 | |
3–8 December | 3–8 March | Felix Aeppli [5] | 1985 |
"five days" | "two weeks" | Steve Appleford [6] | 1997 |
6–9 March | Bill Janovitz [7] | 2013 | |
8–10 December | Phillipe Margotin & Jean-Michel Guesdon [8] | 2016 | |
Andy Babiuk & Greg Prevost [9] | 2013 |
The current revision sources it per Bonanno. Given the above, I think it seems a little fuzzier. I'm not immediately sure on how to weigh things. Tkbrett (✉) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's deal with the body prose first. "The album was recorded in sessions held during December 1965 and circa March 1966; many secondary sources place the exact recording dates in the early weeks of each month." (Footnote: List the majority of sources that conforms with this thinking, and note Appleford's specification of how many days. Then qualify that Wyman gives the February claim.) That is one way I have in mind. And then we can see how it looks and base the lead and the infobox off of that. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 ( talk | contribs) 15:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 15, 2021. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was provided with references by an Unreferenced articles project volunteer on 2010-03-24. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources. |
"By this time, the Stones had begun to respond to the increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles, to whom they had long been promoted by Oldham as a rougher alternative."
The sources do support the later part of the sentence, but I'm not seeing where the sources are saying that in 1966 the Stones were responding to the " increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles". AllMusic says: "they began experimenting musically, incorporating the British pop of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Kinks, and the Who into their sound." The other two sources talk about the contrasting images, but not the music. SilkTork ( talk) 10:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a general (and harmless) moan about using Harvard referencing instead of the more common full footnotes. It really makes it so much harder to check the sources, and for no benefit at all. I do notice that when people are working up an article for FA that they tend to use Harvard, presumably because they see that's the system that most FA articles use, so it seems needed. But it's not. The standard full footnotes can be used. With the usual citation style I can click on the cite and be taken to all the information I need: author, book, date, publisher and page number, including any helpful url links. With the Harvard system I am first taken to an abbreviated note where I get: author, date and page number only. So I have to click again (thanks for linking it!) to get to the fuller details, which give me: author, book, date, and publisher, but no page number, and if there is a link, it's to the ISBN number, so I have to then do a separate search for the book on Google in order to check the page! But also having to check back to the earlier cite to see what the page number is! Grrrr! Rant over. I needed to get that out of my system because I am becoming rather frustrated. I only have a limited amount of time to spend on this, and the cite system is taking up a disproportionate amount of my time. I could have done more by now. SilkTork ( talk) 10:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I have two queries/problems with this sentence: "The album was also the first Stones LP to be recorded in true stereo." cited to Ryan, David Stuart (2013). 1967. Kozmik Press. ISBN 978-1492226918. page 15: [2]. The link redirects to Stereophonic_sound#Pseudo-stereo. So is it "true stereo" or "Pseudo-stereo"? And why is that being cited to a novel? And is the novel's publisher, Kozmic Press a reliable source - it appears to be a self-publishing enterprise: [3]. SilkTork ( talk) 11:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
This sentence: ""Goin' Home" is among the first pop songs to pass the five-minute mark—followed in 1967 by "The End" on the Doors' self-titled debut album and "A Day in the Life" on the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band—and the first ever to pass the ten-minute mark." It is cited to two sources. There are two tracks over 5 minutes on Five Live Yardbirds; "Lost Someone" on Live at the Apollo (1963 album) is over 10 minutes, but those are live albums. However, Bringing It All Back Home has four tracks at over 5 minutes, and Highway 61 Revisited and five tracks over 5 minutes plus "Desolation Row" at over 11 minutes. These are just albums that sprang to mind, they'll be others. Is it worth putting in a statement, albeit sourced, which is incorrect or dubious at best? SilkTork ( talk) 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't access the source right now. This sentence escapes me: "Jones' new relationship with the German model Anita Pallenberg took on sadomasochistic aspects and helped renew his confidence and encourage him to experiment musically". How did a sadomasochistic relationship encourage Jones to experiment musically? And how do we know this helped his confidence? Do we have a quote from Jones himself, or what this speculation by the author? If it's authorial speculation, then that should be made clear. SilkTork ( talk) 16:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry, I thought you wanted me to help out on the article. I misunderstood. I'll stop. No worries. SilkTork ( talk) 17:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Is the lead not too extensive? I don't think there's another album with such an extensive lead, considering that Aftermath is not highly regarded as one of the very top albums of all time based on rankings and critical ratings. I believe that it should be more summarised. Isaacsorry ( talk) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Isaacsorry: I agree with you and have tried condensing the lead a bit. I think that it can still be whittled down a great deal — much of the content regarding the title is not very interesting nor seems terribly significant, but I'm not that familiar with the Rolling Stones' history, so I'd rather get a second opinion before trimming more. ili ( talk) 02:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
All respect due, some consideration to the original editors of this article could have been given, since we processed it thru FA promotion, so maaybe we might have had some merit to how the article is. So maaybe the discussion step should be emphasized here ? Peter ( talk) 02:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Being considered an artistic breakthrough isn't redundant with it being also considered the most important of their early formative music. The latter suggests they had made other early formative music, which they had. Peter ( talk) 02:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Isaac started this discussion with an erroneous premise and basis. If you wish to continue this constructively, I hope there's some substantial issue you see with the lead that goes beyond some subjective determination of significance or interest. For example, enough reputable sources found it significant to detail the story behind the title and packaging, enough to make it possible for a pretty lengthy subsection here. So we'd be pretty remiss, I think, to overlook offering some kind of summary for it. Peter ( talk) 03:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I realize I have an attachment to this article. But I still believe the lead is fine, if not ideal. The lead length guideline I cited to Isaac back then suggests articles of 30,000+ characters be given three or four paragraphs of lead. This article has around double that character count. And while some of the sentences are a bit lengthy, the paragraphs are generally four to five sentences and capture everything key to understanding the topic. Peter ( talk) 03:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
But maybe I'm the only one who's read this article up and down to myself a hundred times lol. Peter ( talk) 03:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
"The album attracted thousands of new fans to the Rolling Stones."Really? Isn't this a sentence that could be added to the lead of just about every commercially successful album released by anyone? Of course, that sentence only exists to hammer in three points: 1) the album sold a lot of copies 2) a lot of people liked it 3) it marked an artistic turning point for the band. All three of these points have already been made elsewhere in the lead.
The album's release was briefly delayed by controversy over the original packaging and title – Could You Walk on the Water? – due to Decca and London's fear of offending Christians in the US. The UK release featured a [...]
Introducing the chronological number for each edition seems a bit heavy handed for a first sentence, no?
Read the article. Much of your arguments lack nuance and suggest to me that you haven't read article, which begs the question why you even care about trimming the lead or what's the motive here.
I can concede on condensing the title bit. But the answers to your other concerns can be found in the article as much as in anything I can say. Peter ( talk) 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The very definition of the word Aftermath, which if you're not sure of you should look up, suggests the meaning, and the wording connects the circumstances to the title. It is actually an apt and concise way of putting it across without explaining the obvious to readers. If redundancy is a concern... Peter ( talk) 05:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
In response to the lack of creative control" and "
the Stones bitterly settled on Aftermath". I realize this makes me look like I have terrible reading comprehension, but I'd rather just point to this as further evidence that there's too much covered in the lead. ili ( talk) 06:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
An artistic breakthrough isn't the same thing as a commercial breakthrough, and a commercial success doesn't necessitate a new crowd of customers, while a new crowd in this case involves different cross-sections of music audiences as detailed in the article. And not only that, but the statement about thousands of new fans is verified in the text. So, again, seems to be a poor assumption by you for not reading the actual article. Peter ( talk) 05:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The infobox introduces two covers. There is more detail about the cover designs in the article, but in the lead, at the very least, it can be mentioned briefly in passing that two different covers were made for each edition, as a consequence of the packaging controversy, as well as to transition to the edition differences in the next few lines. It isn't some off-hand arbitrary construction. There is a purpose to it. Peter ( talk) 05:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Usually, I am used to the standard of weight being given to content in proportion to its coverage in the article body ( WP:LEAD). But that is interesting... Peter ( talk) 07:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't experimental rock be mentioned in the infobox? considering the amount of unconventional instruments that were used. Isaacsorry ( talk) 12:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Shanejumpinj11:: The other rankings from subsequent publications of the Rolling Stone 500 greatest albums list are ancillary details in the big picture that is the Rankings section. Introducing them directly in the text inhibits the read and flow of the paragraph. They are better off in a footnote.
Here is the guideline: Explanatory or content notes are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read. ( Help:Explanatory notes). I believe mentioning rankings from 2012 and 2020, before discussing a ranking from 2008 in the next sentence, is awkward. I also believe it places a long and undue emphasis on the Rolling Stone 500 list, which distracts from the focus of the paragraph ( WP:UNDUE, WP:OFFTOPIC). Which leads me to conclude that allocating those other rankings into a footnote is the best approach to handling this extra information. isento ( talk) 22:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, your edits are continuously disrupting the reference formatting of this article. You have been warned about this several times, and you have been warned at your talk page to stop reverting back to your preferred revision without discussing it first. Stop editing this content. Discuss. isento ( talk) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@ PJtP:, firstly, always cite a reliable source for claims disputing verified claims in an article. Second, I don't know if Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely qualifies purely as a popular music LP -- professional reviews consider it performed in a jazz and classical vein, both of which are usually considered distinct from pop music, and a number of songs appear to be jazz covers. Lastly, how accurate are those song lengths at the Wikipedia article for the Sinatra album? Sources indicate the original LP had only 10 tracks, and I can't find a source to verify their original lengths. Are the lengths there taken from information on the reissue? isento ( talk) 17:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Isento: You're saying that a 39-word sentence is "too wordy" while a 36-word sentence is just fine, and that "wealth and fame" couldn't be taken as singular when such constructions are ten-a-penny? Please think again. Harfarhs ( talk) 07:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This phrasing is used to add emphasis in a way that is not only not supported in the article -- the idea that the fame was more surprising or important than the wealth -- but also borders on puffery and editorializing. isento ( talk) 07:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
For the record, the construction is actually "newfound wealth and fame", and I don't see too many appearances in Google search results. isento ( talk) 07:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
And yes, the sentence is long enough as it is, and your phrasing feels more complicated to read, just speaking as an average reader ( WP:AUDIENCE). isento ( talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
And if it can be taken as singular, why did you bother rewriting it before for the plural? isento ( talk) 08:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Well it backfired because you didn't read the article. isento ( talk) 08:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It says in the article that Jack Nitzsche and Bill Wyman claimed that Brian Jones was entitled to a coauthorship credit for his marimba hook on " Under My Thumb", but as far as I know, there is no evidence to confirm that Brian did in fact "compose" the hook/riff and he himself never publicly mentioned or confirmed their claims. Mick Taylor has made lots of claims that he cowrote songs that were credited to Jagger/Richards, but has never provided any proof. 27.32.188.134 ( talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. 27.32.188.134 ( talk) 01:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I recently added both the US and UK chronology to the infobox, though it was changed back by Piotr Jr. (wonderful work on this page by the way, PJ). Following WP:BRD, I thought I'd bring it here. A previous discussion at WikiProject Albums came to the consensus to limit to a single chronology, but the talk there centered around modern artists, like Taylor Swift, where the split chronologies were distinguishing between studio releases and others (e.g. compilations, live albums, etc.). But that's somewhat different than the situation here, only mentioned once in that WikiProject discussion by JG66, that releases by the Stones, the Beatles and other British invasion acts typically had different track listings, and even different albums, between the UK and US markets. See, for example, the chronology of Sgt. Pepper or Revolver. I think that having two separate chronologies will serve to better illustrate this difference. Tkbrett (✉) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The current revision of this page gives 2 July 1966 as the US release date. This is sourced using Bill Wyman's 1990 book, Stone Alone (p. 550). A couple other books provide different dates though; as is mentioned in the accompanying footnote, Margotin & Guesdon acknowledge Wyman's dating, but instead say it went on sale on 20 June (p. 139). Massimo Bonanno's The Rolling Stones Chronicle doesn't get more specific than June 1966 (p. 54). Andy Babiuk and Greg Prevost's 2013 book, Rolling Stones Gear, writes: "The release of Aftermath on London Records ... in the States was postponed until July 2, so that it came out in conjunction with the next US tour." (p. 226). The tour started on 24 June though.
One thing I'm wondering is whether Wyman's dating is even possible, given that the album entered the Billboard chart on 9 July (p. 40 (38 of the pdf), at No. 117.). A similar issue was raised for The Dark Side of the Moon in this talk page discussion. The creator of that thread, Piriczki, mentions that the Billboard 200 is done based off of the sales tracked two weeks before (e.g., "The album debuted on the Billboard 200 chart March 17, 1973 for which the sales tracking week ended March 4 ...") I can't vouch for whether this is true, so if anyone has a source indicating it, that would be appreciated. If this were true in 1966, that would mean the 9 July chart was tracking sales for the week ending 26 June. I think that would mean Margotin & Guesdon's dating of 20 June would make more sense. Thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 21:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Release date |
Source | Source year |
---|---|---|
June 1966 | Barry Miles [1] | 1980 |
David Dalton [2] | 1981 | |
Barbara Charone [3] | 1982 | |
Felix Aeppli [4] | 1985 | |
Massimo Bonanno [5] | 1990 | |
Steve Appleford [6] | 1997 | |
Bill Janovitz [7] | 2013 | |
John Covach [8] | 2019 | |
20 June 1966 | Phillipe Margotin & Jean-Michel Guesdon [9] | 2016 |
July 1966 | Geoffrey Giuliano [10] | 1993 |
1 July 1966 | Chris Salewicz [11] | 2002 |
1 or 2 July 1966 | James Karnbach [12] | 1997 |
2 July 1966 | Bill Wyman [13] | 1990 |
Alan Clayson [14] | 2006 | |
Andy Babiuk & Greg Prevost [15] | 2013 |
I would support specifying it and them in the body, following the late June claim. But not in the lead. The majority claim should be respected there. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 ( talk | contribs) 02:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I've found some more discrepancies in dating, this time between recording dates.
1965 sessions |
1966 sessions |
Source | Source year |
---|---|---|---|
"three nights" | 6–9 February | Bill Wyman & Ray Coleman [1] | 1990 |
"early December" | – | Alan Clayson [2] | 2006 |
6–10 December | 3–? March | David Dalton [3] | 1981 |
3–12 March | Massimo Bonanno [4] | 1990 | |
3–8 December | 3–8 March | Felix Aeppli [5] | 1985 |
"five days" | "two weeks" | Steve Appleford [6] | 1997 |
6–9 March | Bill Janovitz [7] | 2013 | |
8–10 December | Phillipe Margotin & Jean-Michel Guesdon [8] | 2016 | |
Andy Babiuk & Greg Prevost [9] | 2013 |
The current revision sources it per Bonanno. Given the above, I think it seems a little fuzzier. I'm not immediately sure on how to weigh things. Tkbrett (✉) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's deal with the body prose first. "The album was recorded in sessions held during December 1965 and circa March 1966; many secondary sources place the exact recording dates in the early weeks of each month." (Footnote: List the majority of sources that conforms with this thinking, and note Appleford's specification of how many days. Then qualify that Wyman gives the February claim.) That is one way I have in mind. And then we can see how it looks and base the lead and the infobox off of that. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 ( talk | contribs) 15:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)