Wikipedia

Talk:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)/Archive 1

< Talk:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Requested move 17 September 2019
Archive 1


Style question

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Atop" FFS? What is this, Dickens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.18.252 (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

because UK albums typically did not include tracks that had already been released as singles, and because British pop albums generally included 13 or 14 tracks, while American albums usually featured 11 or 12 tracks

Did I write that?

It is rarely pointed out that this is why American albums were different. If you think about it both sides make a good point. In Britain it was considered lame to include previously released songs on their albums. In America the singles are counted on to generate album sales. The difference is in an underlying assumption. In Britain that the same people will buy both singles and albums. In America that some people collect albums while a different group prefer to collect singles only. Put another way, in Britain some people collected only singles while others collected singles and albums and in America album collectors were not expected to be interested in singles and prefer all their music on albums. Either that or the listening experience is different when listening to albums versus singles. 75.73.93.176 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Requested move 23 April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago45 comments16 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus. (non-admin closure) There is no clear policy on which to hang such a move, thus it comes down to personal opinion, and a consensus has not developed among the participating editors. The RfC on the Beatles was about in-text usage, not disambiguation, and the discussion that resulted in the disambiguation style of Beatles albums was informal, had limited participation, and was never intended to apply to all albums of all artists that start with an uppercase "The". — InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


– Per Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 8#Parenthetical disambiguators, the definite article should be omitted for disambiguation. Articles in Category:The Beatles albums and Category:The Beatles songs use (Beatles album) and (Beatles song) for disambiguation, not (The Beatles album) or (The Beatles song). Don't Let Me Down (Beatles song) is not at Don't Let Me Down (The Beatles song). I fail to see why the Rolling Stones, another music group, should be treated any differently. feminist 10:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

However, I now notice that the premise of the request is wrong. Those are only talk-page suggestions above. I'd still like to see the definite articles removed, though, for the sake of normal English. Rothorpe (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
So what do you think of the new The Rolling Stones album? Rothorpe (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You mean the new album by The Rolling Stones? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The new album by the Rolling Stones, the new Rolling Stones album. Rothorpe (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It would actually be "The new album by Rolling Stones" if Rothorpe's reasoning was correct - but it is not because the band is "The Rolling Stones", not "Rolling Stones". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The band is indeed "The Rolling Stones". The "T/the" is dropped when "Rolling Stones" is used as an adjective. Please explain why my reasoning is incorrect. Rothorpe (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The Rolling Stones is the name of the band, so it is "The new album by The Rolling Stones", not "The new album by Rolling Stones" or "The new album by the Rolling Stones". Of course the wording could be, perfectly correctly, "The new Rolling Stones album" or "The new 'Stones album" as convenient abbreviations - but that does not change the fact that the band's full correct title has a capitalized "The". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of basic grammar, actually. In "Beatles album" the word Beatles has become an adjective in its position before a noun (album). It's a Beatles album. So any definite article before it refers to the word album, not Beatles. Rothorpe (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per stability and not being broke or needing fixing cf Paris (The Cure album). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The cited decision was on a specific issue and it had an unconvincing level of discussion [1], so I think it should not be used as a credible argument to make changes to large numbers of other articles.. "Lower case argument wins hands down - although I don't really feel too strongly either way, personally" typifies the level of many opinions expressed for lowercase in the RfM. The closer appears to have ignored the weight of an argument and gone for raw numbers as the decider. I also note that some supporters for lowercase also qualified their support as being just for that specific issue, that the issue did not apply to other bands, for example one comment stated "There are bands where the 'the' is an integral part of their name (The Who, The Doors, The The) and I would support the capitalization". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: That particular RfM might seem flimsy, but please don't think this "The/the" issue from 2012 was decided on so easily. Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles gives a fuller picture; from memory, the FAC for Paul McCartney had got sidetracked on this issue before then; and, rather embarrassingly, the RfC debate was even the subject of a report in The New York Times ... But anyway, the proposal here is not relevant to any possible The/the issue regarding the Stones; it's just about whether a definite article is necessary at all in these song and album titles. JG66 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This "the" issue actually reminded me of a sketch in an early 1990s TV show where someone, after giving it a great amount of thought, decides getting rid of all his The The albums is the only way to solve the important issue of where to place them alphabetically in his LP collection. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
But nobody would actually write "a The Rolling Stones album"! It's a ludicrous analogy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you're making my case. In most cases, a parenthetical disambiguator is a very brief description of what the entity is. I.e., Mercury (planet) is "A planet named Mercury" and Pink (singer) is "A singer named Pink". In the cases in question here, people would not say that, e.g., Aftermath (The Rolling Stones album) is "A The Rolling Stones album named Aftermath". —  AjaxSmack  02:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to add an additional policy rationale for a move: WP:PRECISION ("...be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that") in tandem with WP:ATDAB ("...when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary"). The use of the article is unnecessary and distracting. —  AjaxSmack  02:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That is not the argument used by the proposer, nor is the proposer's aim so limited (restricted to just articles with album titles followed by the band's name in brackets). The Beetles "precedent" being used as a reason for this proposed title change will surely be applied to change all musician-related articles similarly titled, if this change is allowed through. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
An "idiomatic" argument has no validity. I can honestly state "The Rolling Stones" feels more idiomatic. Obviously what each person thinks is idiomatic is individual to themselves and based on what manner of English they speak. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – lukewarm. Per comments made by AjaxSmack and Herostratus. Also, looking up at the list of article titles, each one looks much better without the unnecessary "The" appearing. JG66 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I prefer consistency between article titles, and yes, I also disagree with the decision reached at those RFCs cited by the nominator. (Why wouldn't The Beatles at Beatles if the argument for no "The" would apply also to the band's article? Anyone ever propose that? :P) Nohomersryan (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In "(Beatles album)", "Beatles" is an adjective, so the "The" is omitted, whereas at The Beatles it is of course a noun. Rothorpe (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What happened at the Beatles's WikiProject is mere WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It shouldn't be taken as community consensus as the whole Wikipedia community was unaware of the conclusion of it. The result applies exclussively to Beatles-related articles, and it shouldn't be considered for this or any similar RM. The most relevant guideline concerning this RM is WP:THE, otherwise Dusk (The The album) will end at Dusk (The album) and that makes no sense. I suggest that if this will apply to all the bands that begin with "The", to take it to WP:RFC instead. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if – if – it were applied to every article or song by every band with "The" in their name, those by The The would have to be exempt. I don't think there'd be a single editor who would argue with that. One might talk about "the final Byrds album", "the new Cure album", etc, but you'd never drop "The" in the case of Matt Johnson's band – it would be, say, "the last The The album", never "the last The album". JG66 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that name was designed as an exception. Rothorpe (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd say any name where "The" is not followed by a noun or noun phrase would be an exception to the normal rules of grammar and syntax. Such as The Who; would you say "the first Who album" or "the first The Who album"? 86.130.177.16 (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
He/she says WP:THE is relevant. How? "Definite article at the beginning" this is not. Rothorpe (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I, a he, also said "What happened at the Beatles's WikiProject is mere WP:LOCALCONSENSUS." Which is being blatanty ignored above. LOCALCONSENSUS, including this RM are not above WP:AT or WP:DAB. This RM is an attempt to be a not so popular RFC, and RM is not meant to be that, because if moved, several pages will be moved or to be RM on the premise that this is now a precedent. Feminist has already started, RM 3 different bands, The Rolling Stones, The Black Eyed Peas, and The Chainsmokers. The real question is who determines which bands or artists that start with "The" are going to be exceptions. Only an IP user, 86.130.177.16, is giving an exception, and that's it, nobody else. If this discussion is applied through RM instead of RFC to put it inside a policy or guideline, like what happened with WP:JR, then anybody can move any page with or without discussion to decide if it was an exception. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to say that without any acronyms, please? Rothorpe (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that if applied under a relatively obscure venue like a Requested Move instead of a more visible one like Request for Comments, there are three different scenarios that might happen. 1) There will be more RMs. We don't know how many "(The Band album)" or "(The Artist song)", but I am sure there are over 50,000 articles at least. 2) There will be people moving pages without discussion using this discussion as a precedent. If we don't determine which will be the exceptions and "(The Whatever" might be moved, which will lead to 3) Move-warrings. Like what happened at Real Love (Beatles song), in which I had to request move-protection. Other Beatles-related articles had similar moves. This needs to be discussed in other place, to determinante it as a policy or guideline, like at WP:Musicians or WP:NCM, and WP:ALBUMS and WP:SONGS being notified of this change. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
50,000? Then it looks like a mistake to have changed the Beatles ones. It's absurd to have one rule (even if better) for one artist and not for others, and changing tens of thousands, with people arguing all the time, would be terrible chaos. Rothorpe (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Starts to sing - You Can't Always Get What You Want... I'm here all week. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Starts to sing - 'And I can't stop (whoa), And I won't stop (whoa). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources for expansion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

GoogleBooks links; also available on Amazon.com (preview) if you log in. Dan56 (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Dan56: I was excited to see some activity taking place here, which is why I got involved also. Can't say I've got sufficient time to dedicate to the article but, as with Beggars Banquet especially, it's a Stones album I'd really like to see covered well on Wikipedia.

If it helps, I own the following Rolling Stones books and could add info from them:

Also: Oldham's Stoned and Richards' autobiography. I'd say that Paul Trynka's Brian Jones: The Making of the Rolling Stones might be of interest too (not that I own the book), given Jones' presence on the album. JG66 (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal listing for Aftermath

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments3 people in discussion

The personal listing for this page make no sense since it notes who is playing what on each track, but the track numbers listed after the instrument doesn't exist anywhere on the page. Example, for Keith Richards it reads: "Keith Richards – electric guitar (2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, 14), backing vocals (2, 7, 9–14), acoustic guitar (1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12), fuzz bass (4, 7, 10)". But when you read that and then look at the track listings above it, there are no tracks listed anywhere as tracks 7 thru 14. This is actually a problem on several of the Stones album pages. There are 3 different ways to solve this problem. The easy way would be to just remove all of the track numbers and just have that info on each of the song's pages instead (like all of the Beatles albums have it). Or the track numbers could be changed to where they correspond to what is noted under Personal at the moment. There is indeed a track 7 on the CD version of the LP, but not on the original release. The third choice, which would take the longest time to fix, would be to replace the track numbers showing under Personal with the actual songs titles instead, as was finally done on the debut LP's page, where it was also an issue, and now has been fixed, but before so with a ton of comments at the teahouse. So before I edit anything in any way, I wish to see what others feel what is the best route to go on solving this problem - and it is a problem since the page doesn't read right as it shows at the moment. Kenotoo (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It took me ten minutes—what you call "the longest time to fix"—at the other article, which now spares readers from having to go back-and-forth to match track numbers to songs for an understanding of who played what on which song, while also retaining the original LP format in the track listing. How long did all - of - this take you? Dan56 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Kenotoo, further to our discussion on my talk page, it's worth remembering that all these specific credits need a reliable source. I'm not putting the onus on you (it's just that you seem most interested in the Stones article Personnel sections) and I know the credits have sat here, as in other articles, without a source for a while. I added the only source we have (for Jones's koto), but always intended to address the issue sometime; meanwhile, another editor was going about adding the "right" credits but without ever adding a source.
I've found the song-by-song credits given in the Margotin & Guesdon All the Songs book a bit suspect, so I don't know if there's any sort of authoritative book that can be used. In the case of the Beatles, with the abundance of literature available about their recordings, it only creates more confusion, because in most cases authors are simply guessing. With that problematic song-by-song approach in mind, I wonder if it might make more sense here to simply list the musicians with their main instruments but without attempting to pinpoint specific contributions for each song, apart from when a contribution falls outside the musician's principal role. Basically following the approach at some of the Beatles album articles, in other words. The Beatles/White Album might be a guide of sorts: three of the four band members were guitarists and two of them increasingly played keyboards, so only a contribution that deviates from that general picture need carry the relevant song title. Aftermath could be slightly more detailed than that if necessary. The good thing about this approach is that it's low maintenance. If a song article's Personnel section keeps changing because, say, editors can't agree whether it's Watts, Nitzsche or Jagger who plays a percussion part, based on contradictory sources, the parent album's Personnel section needn't be affected – all three are credited with percussion on the 2002 CD (although that's not reflected at all in the current specific/unsourced/OR-ed album credits, of course).
Also, I suggest, we can avoid the "British version" stipulation. Partly because the 2002 credits include sitar (= "Paint It Black" = US version), and because authors cited in the article text – Perone under Music & lyrics, others under Legacy – still view the album in its US configuration. As far as I know, there's been no Beatles-style standardisation of the Stones catalogue, so it's not as if the London Records release has been conveniently forgotten. Both versions are valid.
Last thing – Dan, do we need to have formal heading treatment when differentiating between band members and additional musicians under Personnel? To my mind, the grand subheadings make for a bit of an eyesore, it's not an approach I've seen in other articles (where pseudo-heads are used, similar to "side" demarcation under Track listing), and their inclusion in the Contents table seems an overstatement. JG66 (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't much care either way; I only used the subheading because each section had appeared more dense than before with the added song titles. Feel free to use the bold markup, although MOS:PSEUDOHEAD advises against it. Dan56 (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I realise it's frowned upon per PSEUDOHEAD – looks a darn sight better, though ... Thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
JG66, I agree with 99% of what you just noted, and that would come close to what I noted above to the first way to solve the problem on the page under "Personal". But my problem with the current personal listings showing on the page- is that they point to tracks that aren't showing on the page. Kenotoo (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
To answer Dan66's question... It took me about a minute or 2 to just add/change the track numbers, that was it (or about 5 times shorter than what it took you). Plus, even if vinyl sales are up big time today (and they are), still, millions more people today buy their music on CDs and from streaming digital music platforms. This can be proven if you just look it up. For CDs and digital music, the Stones, their management, and their record company, did away with the old vinyl track numbers - years ago I'll note, and now track the songs on the album by track numbers 1 thru 12 - and not by the old and outdated vinyl order. So while listing the song's track number either way today is correct and accepted, most people who buy the album today - are not buying the old vinyl format; millions more buy CDs and digital - while playing (and seeing on their tracks listings) - tracks 1 thru 12. But the bottom line is, using both track numbers are correct and accepted today. Truth is, if we were to list the track numbers the way most see them today, a note could be made as to what the track number is on vinyl, but deep down most people don't really care about this like you do. They just want to hear the music in the order that the songs are suppose to be played on the album, and none of that has been changed, it's all the same, and most don't care if "Flight 505" is track #7 - or track #1 on side 2. What is more important is that when reading this page at Wiki, is that the info noted on the album's page matches and makes sense, which at the moment, it doesn't at all. But in a nutshell, I agree with JG66 on how it should really show on the album's main page - but I'd like to see how others feel on this, too, before any changes are made (either way). Kenotoo (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I was not asking how long it took you to "add/change the track numbers". I asked you how long did it take you to write all you of what you wrote at all the talk pages and the Teahouse message board, because you were complaining of the amount of time it would take to properly attribute each song with each credit. Dan56 (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Why would you care to know that? I didn't complain about that, did I? No. Nor did I time it. One thing (fixing track numbers) is work that I had already done, and many will read the corrected work, while the other stuff is talking to my fellow editors only (not work but talk, and learning the way things are done around here, and I got valuable info from some of them), so the 2 are different things and IMO, no time is ever wasted on learning. If anything, that talk will save me time in the future when editing things here. Kenotoo (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
"... what I noted above to the first way to solve the problem" – yes, exactly. To repeat, though, what we need is reliable sources, otherwise it's a case of listing the contributing musicians and nothing more (as at the Beach Boys' Smiley Smile).
The 2002 Aftermath (UK) CD credits read as follows:
Vocals: Mick Jagger, Keith Richards
Guitars: Keith Richards, Brian Jones
Bass: Bill Wyman
Drums: Charlie Watts
Percussion: Charlie Watts, Jack Nitzsche, Mick Jagger
Marimbas, bells: Brian Jones, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman
Dulcimer, sitar: Brian Jones
Piano, organ, harpsichord: Jack Nitzsche, Ian Stewart, Brian Jones, Bill Wyman
From that list it's possible to create a list by musician, but there's a problem when it comes to transposing the grouped-together marimbas and bells, and piano, organ and harpsichord. What I mean is, adhering to the source would give us: Bill Wyman – bass guitar, marimbas, bells, piano, organ, harpsichord. Did Bill play all those instruments? No way – my guess is that he played organ on "Paint It Black" but nothing else in that category. But we'd need another reliable source or two to sort out this sort of issue. JG66 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to look this all up and see what I can fine. But one thing, after I made an edit to this page noting that Brian Jones played dulcimer on the LP, on "Paint it Black", somebody (was it you? I can't recall now) removed my corrected edit where I fixed this mistake. I had forgotten that it was noted on the album - and I just looked and yes, it's also noted that he played dulcimer on the U.S. LP, too, plus you can't miss hearing it at the song's ending, it very clearly heard. So when I get around to placing that correct info back on to the page - and it should be on there and I will cite it as coming directly from the LP itself. So I sure hope it isn't removed again. Kenotoo (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
A few things to note. First, Dan56 went and kinda fixed the problem with the Personal listing, but doing it in the way JG66 suggested that we don't do it because of clutter. I had checked a lot of different band pages at Wiki to see how it was done on their pages and guess what - not one single other band (other than the Stones) had their personal info done where each track is noted on the main page! So it isn't needed for sure. If Dan wants to keep fixing it in that way he can, but I won't. Kenotoo (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
To JG66, I'm getting my drone sounds mixed up! First, since "Paint it Black" is on the US version of this LP and I can't recall where we noted this, you were correct and I was in error in saying that the song contains a dulcimer. Just like on the song "Mother's Little Helper", there is the same drone sound heard on PIB at it's ending, and it's being made by the same instrument on both songs, but it's not a dulcimer. Several different instruments make drone sounds, and no question, it's Jones playing the same instrument making the same drone sound on PIB & on MLH. It isn't percussion as noted on the PIB page, nor slide guitar as noted on this page, and it isn't a sitar either as noted in at least one book for MLH. It also isn't credited on the album, either. I'll try to talk to some of the Stones insiders and see what they say it is. Yet 2 of the 3 most important insiders who I knew are now deceased, so there's less people that I know whom I can talk to today. Kenotoo (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Kenotoo, I'm sorry but this seems to be going nowhere. As I said on my talk page, and here, all that's important is citing these contributions to reliable sources. Books, in other words – and there are many written about the Rolling Stones. You keep talking about what you hear, but completely avoid the subject of whether it's supported by a reliable source. There's no tambura (the Indian drone-producing instrument you must be referring to) on "Paint It Black" or "Mother's Little Helper", in my opinion. But my opinion and your opinion don't matter; what does matter is whether a reliable source (RS) lists tambura on either song. And I don't believe you'll find any RS identifying tambura on a Stones track until "Street Fighting Man" in 1968. That's all that matters for Wikipedia's purposes. At the risk of steering the discussions back to personal opinion, I also don't believe you'll find anyone who's remotely knowledgeable about Indian sounds identifying a tambura on "Paint It Black" or "Mother's Little Helper". And yes, it was me who reverted your addition – we talked about this on my talk page.
As far as I can see, what Dan did by listing Aftermath tracks by name under Personnel was attempt to satisfy your concerns that the track numbering didn't marry up with the numbering given above under Track listing. And he has solved that issue. But in doing so, he wasn't stipulating that that is the correct way to handle the Personnel section. JG66 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
JG66 you noted:"all that's important is citing these contributions to reliable sources. Books, in other words – and there are many written about the Rolling Stones." Yes, and I agreed to that, other than there are other reliable sources too, according to the Wiki rules on this. Also noted: "You keep talking about what you hear, but completely avoid the subject of whether it's supported by a reliable source" I have noted more than once that I will find a reliable source. What else do you want from me? Plus, when I looked at those other Wiki pages on albums, with an exception here and there, under "Personal", most never show a source cited, it's rare and usually only done in the page's main article instead. All you have to do is take a look yourself and you will see that's a fact! So is it that only new editors must cite sources here? Why is that... it isn't being done on 90 to 95% of the album pages up on the site? This is the part I don't get, only newbies have to do this? All editors should be treated in the same way, period. If somebody is making up stuff, then it needs to be removed, but that isn't being done here by myself at all. Just for the heck of it, what instrument making the drone sound at the close of PIB and on all of MLH do you hear, JG66, if it isn't a tambura? Tell me what you think it is and I'll look into it. But I already know it ain't a slide guitar. Kenotoo (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Stop referring to other articles; most articles on Wikipedia are not in ideal shape (that's why they have the grade assessment atop each talk page; I see "Paint It Black" is a C-class article and has lots of issues), and using them as a rationale for dealing with content at another article is irrelevant (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). And stop dramatizing your content dispute; there are experienced editors on here who find themselves in more difficult exchanges on here than what you've endured so far. And lastly, if it was deemed important enough to state for the record what is the instrument of the drone sound on those songs, then a reliable source would have done so and it would simply be a matter of you—the editor who wants to add this information—finding that source. That is the basis of Wikipedia: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You are not being singled out or discriminated against, silly. Dan56 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
First to Dan56, you aren't my boss, so stop telling me what to do, okay? I can talk back to you just as nasty as you been doing so to me, but I won't, as I didn't come here to get into a flame war with you or anybody. You did say you were't going to give me any more "lessons" on another page, so please keep your word and leave me be. I've been in contact with those who answer emails at the main talk page and everything I have done has been done thru their instructions (including starting this talk here) and they have already explained to me what steps to take next. I will follow what they suggest, and not what you demand. On last note to you Dan, I can see why "Paint it Black" is only a C-class article at this time, since it's giving out incorrect info at the moment, and I guess when others try to fix it, their work is shot down. It and many other pages messed up on this site won't ever get fixed if the editors keep harassing each other, like you seem to like doing.... To JG66, you had suggested that I cite or at least talk about my own book here and you were thinking that maybe authors who are editors here could cite their own books as a source here. So I checked, and we can't, and as I noted to you at the time, I never wanted to do that anyway. What was suggested to me by Yun Shui in a email, who works at the info page, was for me to note it here on any talk page where such a quote is needed for any song or album, and ask another to insert the info for me that is shown in my book. This is what is expected for any editor who is an author of any published book (as long as the book isn't self published). But it seems that you and Dan are the only ones interested in this page, and I'm not gonna ask either of you to do that. Besides, I also asked them about linking to web pages to use for citing sources, and that can be done as long as they aren't fan pages, so I'll go with that answer and I don't need to cite my own book, I now have more than one other source to use. I truly believe in checking things out before I publish things, that's why I'm taking my time here, as the next time somebody takes down a correct edit I made, I'll have something to back me up. There's no rush in doing anything here, the mistakes been up on some pages here for a long time and I'll take my time in replacing them, and be ready to go to the next step if my work is challenged by you or Dan again. Learning the rules and how things are done here are important indeed, and I admit that I wasn't 100% ready to edit here when I first did. Not because of any true mistakes on my part other than one or 2 minor ones, but because I didn't understand the mentally of some editors here who been here a long time and don't care for newbies (like Dan) and think they own the place. Nobody owns the place and nobody is anyone's boss here either. I am more than happy to take advise from others and I still love to learn, even if I am an old man on social security with free time to do volunteer work like edit here. But I'm not gonna let some 27 year old kid like Dan - call me names like he has done in the last week on other pages, either. He needs to chill out, as do others, too. I haven't called him any names and won't, anybody can be rude in that way - but why be that way? Note, I'm not saying you've been rude, you are more a "to the point" guy, and that's fine with me. Kenotoo (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Gzus, you're oversensitive 🙄 Dan56 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

And you're very judgmental.... To try to make some peace here and compromise a bit with you two, for the song "Paint it Black", instead of listing a tambura under the credit, it could be listed as just a lute instrument. Or are you saying it isn't a lute being played? If it isn't a tambura or another kind of lute - then what is? You think it is percussion? What kind of a percussion instrument makes that kind of sound? Neither of you are making any suggestions as to what is heard here, instead you are only telling me what it isn't. Please tell me and anybody else reading this what it is, along with your source. If you can't do that, what business do you have in telling me I'm wrong? Maybe I am wrong - along with a large number of websites that list this sound as coming from a tambura. Okay, so what is it that is being played here? Telling me I'm incorrect and removing my work when you don't know and can't suggest the correct answer to the question - is not cool and never suppose to be a part of editing. Hey, I'll go with whatever the correct info is, that's all what should matter to me, along with getting rid of any incorrect info. If you have no answer to this, or proof to what you have down there (and you didn't cite anything yourself Dan in your work), then you have no business in editing any work on this page. Kenotoo (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
[2] Dan56 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Kenotoo, a round-up of things raised in your last few posts:
  • "... for the song "Paint it Black", instead of listing a tambura under the credit, it could be listed as just a lute instrument." A lute is a completely different musical instrument, with completely different properties, from a tambura. And it's not a question of whether the sound you hear "could be listed" as a lute – it's first & foremost about what reliable sources identify as the instruments appearing on the song. See, this is what I meant above when I said you keep ignoring the need for reliable sources and steering the conversation back to what you hear. (Sure, you say will find something, but you haven't brought any reliable sources to the discussion – you just dive headlong into this mysterious drone sound each time.) If instead you came to a song article talk page and said Source A says that Jones plays instrument X, Source B gives instrument Y, but Source C says it's actually instrument Z heavily treated with effects, then that would be a good basis for a discussion about which source–instrument combination should be favoured in the article. But you're claiming there's a sound on two Stones songs that's not accounted for, and repeatedly approaching the discussion from that aspect – basing the discussion on original research, in other words (your aural research), and, most recently, putting the onus on others to prove you're wrong. As mentioned a few times now, no one's "right" until a reliable source supports the point.
  • To respond to your assertion "Neither of you are making any suggestions as to what is heard here ..." Well, apart from the fact that there's no requirement that anyone should (the requirement is that you investigate and produce reliable sources to support any addition, as explained) ... I don't hear a tambura and – without wanting to sound antagonistic – I, unlike you, am very familiar with the sound of that and other Indian instruments and wouldn't confuse it for a second with a dulcimer, lute or any other string instrument. In "Paint It Black", I'm not sure where exactly it is that you hear the part, but if you're talking about the playout/ending, I think it's probably a second sitar overdub, Jones brushing the open strings at the start of every first bar of the repeated four-bar sequence. Perhaps the sound might be played/imitated on piano (with heavy reverberation) by Nitzsche, or it's Richards or Jones on another guitar. But it's not a sustained drone in the manner of a tambura. And please note that in my response about this, I'm using my ears but I'm also looking at the credits given by a reliable source – Margotin & Guesdon's All the Songs, pp. 168–70 – and trying to see if the answer's there. Those authors list "acoustic guitar" followed by a question mark against Jones' name, after his sitar contribution (they do not credit him with any percussion on the track, incidentally). Or the Nitzsche-piano scenario could well be the answer: his keyboard contributions were often fed through effects, creating interesting sounds, and apparently credited as a "Nitzsche-Phone" by Andrew Loog Oldhman. Margotin & Guesdon comment that his piano part on the song appears to be inaudible; or, I suggest, perhaps he only plays a few low-register flourishes that end up sounding drone-like.
  • With "Mother's Little Helper", I don't hear anything remotely resembling sustained drone. Going by the mix on the 2002 CD, there's a pair of slide electric 12-strings (according to Margotin & Guesdon, p. 143) on the right, playing the main riff – one twangy, the other more wirey in timbre. (Heck, if the idea here is that we talk about what we personally hear, you'll have to put up with my amateur musicology, I'm afraid ...) Richards is quoted as saying he used a bottleneck for this riff, btw (the same quote appears in the song article). On the left there's acoustic 12-string throughout, and what sounds like two electric guitars for just the single-chord ambient bit leading into the main riff. During the "Doctor, please" middle-eights, there's a twangy 6-string electric lead playing some notes too. Aside from all that – and bass and drums, of course, and an aircraft hangar's worth of echo on Jagger's vocals, especially – I don't hear a thing.
  • If there are some reliable sources that contradict any of the above, then of course they should be considered. I've checked in two of the books I listed in the previous thread, Wyman's Rolling with the Stones and Jagger/Richards/Watts/Wood's According to the Stones, but can't find anything relevant there. I emphasised "books" to you above, yes, in favour of web sources, but that was further to our discussion on my talk page. Specifically, the sites you linked to there are clearly not reliable sources, and I assume the likes of timeisonourside.com and Nico Zentgraf's The Complete Works Website would not be considered reliable either – meaning, I'm not sure there are any non-fan sites to consider.
  • Your comment, referring to discussion on my talk page: "you had suggested that I cite or at least talk about my own book here ... So I checked, and we can't ..." Yes, but I added a few caveats at the time ("Other editors might think otherwise, I don't know ... I'm just guessing"). And I pinged a Wikipedia admin, Ritchie333, to get some sort of confirmation, adding that "I want to be sure I'm not giving you incorrect advice ..." If you've since received a more correct picture, fantastic. I wasn't trying to pass myself off as any sort of expert on this point, quite the opposite. JG66 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
To JG66, a lot to reply to here, but that's a good thing, IMO anyway, while I know Dan thinks otherwise, since he got on to me for my writing less on another talk page... Now first, you are mistaken, a tambura is very much considered a lute. You can go to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/art/tambura) to have this confirmed (or several other such sites that explain this). Next, you noted "If instead you came to a song article talk page and said Source A says that Jones plays instrument X"... Yes, I have a major book source now for "Mother's Little Helper" which notes that Brian Jones plays a tambura on there (but I haven't added in to that page yet and will cite it at that time)... For PIB, my main Stones insider has a very long interview with Brian Jones talking about this song in detail, that he is looking for and he suggested I hold off on listing the tambura for PIB until he finds said interview; he will look it up soon, but he asked me to give him some time. This guy has a library of such works (including rare film, text, and Stones outtakes not found on any boots) - to the fact that the Stones, whom he used to be close with years ago (especially Keith), still have their management go to him for such works when they need such material (and he's been credited for his work several times in different official films put out by the Stones). Since I already know he doesn't like me to identified him in these kinds of public disputes, I can only tell you whom he is in a private email, if you wish to email me. So I'm holding off on listing the tambura on this song until he lets me know what Brian had to say on what he played on the song (again, there's no rush on any of this)... I was also thinking that Bill Wyman's second book noted that Brian played the tambura on PIB, but when I looked it up, while Bill noted that Brian's music gave "Paint it Black" a "special flavor" with the Eastern instruments that he played on it, he later on only mentions 2 instruments, sitar and acoustic guitar, and of course of those 2, only one is a eastern instrument.... You noted: "the requirement is that you investigate and produce reliable sources to support any addition", but then what you consider a reliable sources and what the editors working on the talk information page consider it to be is clearly a different point of view. As I already noted above, some web pages (but not all) are okay to quote, which you seem to disagree with. But sorry, I'll go with those in charge here.... You also wrote: "I don't hear a tambura and – without wanting to sound antagonistic – I, unlike you, am very familiar with the sound of that and other Indian instruments and wouldn't confuse it for a second with a dulcimer, lute or any other string instrument" Well maybe you don't mean to sound antagonistic, and I'll take you on your word there, but you still sound antagonistic. But in my haste in writing here the other day, no, it wasn't my getting the sounds mixed up (even if yes, some can get a sitar and tambura mixed up), as I know what a tambura sounds like, and a dulcimer and tambura don't sound the same. I was getting the words "tambura" and "dulcimer" mixed up there (not their sounds). I am dyslexic (not a crime) and I do that sometimes. Many don't even understand what that means, but I'm not ashamed to admit it. It's something there's no cure for, one is born with it and one has to live with it. But it doesn't mean such people are stupid. You can have a high IQ and be dyslexic, and I'm not the first writer to have it, a large number of writers suffer from it (just a few to note are Agatha Christie, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and George Bernard Shaw - and I don't claim to be anywhere near their talent level), and we all drive our editors who we write for crazy. But so goes life.... I'll close here in noting that if some feel that listing a lute instead of the actual instrument is too generic, then so should be the case in listing "percussion" only and note what percussion instrument is actually being played. Yet I see percussion listed only in so many places, and not just here at Wiki. Kenotoo (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
To JG66, one last thing I forgot to address above, you noted first that I wrote:"

"you had suggested that I cite or at least talk about my own book here ... So I checked, and we can't ..." Then you answered that with: "Yes, but I added a few caveats at the time ("Other editors might think otherwise, I don't know ... I'm just guessing"). And I pinged a Wikipedia admin, Ritchie333, to get some sort of confirmation, adding that "I want to be sure I'm not giving you incorrect advice ...". You absolutely did and I didn't in any way mean to suggest (or repeat) that you said anything in error there. You handled that fine as far as I'm concerned and I was only noting what I had learned from those who know how this is done, and nothing more. So please understand that. I hold no animosity towards you what-so-ever and I hope you could say the same to me Kenotoo (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

JG66, your latest update looks excellent and much easier for all to read, so thanks for that. I haven't check if it's all correct, and at least one thing is missing I see, but good job regardless. Kenotoo (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, somebody had to actually do something after all this talk and hot air! (I posted the CD credits here four days ago, after all ...) JG66 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Requested move 17 September 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved prior to end of normal seven-day period per consensus below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

– Back in 2017, there was no real guideline to what to do with "(The Musician release)" disambiguation, if anything WP:THE was mentioning it what to do in running text. Now, last month MOS:THEMUSIC was discussed through a RFC discussion (I was unaware of until recently). It seems there's consensus that "(The...)" is to be dropped from the title. As the previous RM received general disapproval now I am re-opening this RM as moving the pages would be against the current consensus located here.

For the record, the links above were copied directly from the RM. I don't know if there are more links. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aftermath_(Rolling_Stones_album)/Archive_1&oldid=1136314841"