Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 1

Images (Dec 2004)

Is the second image in the public domain? I removed one image link that definitely wasn't —it looked like it was off Richards' official website!

No there is no need to pilfer pics off his own website. I wonder if you have seen it lately? The image of his arm and hand is from Sante D'Orazio, and from his Talk is Cheap record art, it has the photographers name on the image, if you look closely. There is really no need to withdraw the image, if properly credited as I understand the Wiki GNU license. --Mikerussell 00:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed text about Richards' collecting Nazi memorabilia —the totenkopf of his skull ring dates to the Prussian army, and I could only find reference to a staff car he bought and restored (then wrote off) in the late 1960s[1]. redcountess 18:46, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

This is a good move, I thought it was a strange thing when I read it. He is quoted as saying it makes him realize "people are all the same underneath". The Nazi ring, I think any Nazi ring is called a totenkopf- I don't know German well enough to understand what it means. --Mikerussell 00:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Totenkopf" translates as "dead man's head" —as the article I linked to points out, and that it is not necessarily linked to the Nazis, having first been used as a military insignia by the Prussian Army. German does not necessarily equal Nazi. - redcountess 09:24, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Johnny Depp himself has just confirmed minutes ago on Jay Leno that, yes, they ARE trying to get Keith Richards to play in POTC.Since that WAS the original question here...

All image links removed

All images linked to the article were copyright, so links have been removed. Will try to source at least one useable image under the GFDL. redcountess 23:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have reinserted several images in accordance with copyright provisions under law. After reading sections on Wikipedia fair use, and image tagging, the images have adequate information in their file- click on image to see. --Mikerussell 07:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keith Richards images

You uploaded those two pics to Keith Richards saying "out of copyright". No source, no evidence they would be out of copyright. Since they're not old enough to be public domain, they would be born copyrighted and would by default still be copyrighted. what are the sources and how are they out of copyright? - David Gerard 18:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The one with the hand and jewelry is from the Talk is Cheap Album art; the name of the photographer is included on the image. It is Sante D’Orazio. The older photograph and the one with his wife I just googled and they were the first images I put up. I actually did not know how to add captions, and I suppose I forgot about crediting sources. I think other authors changed the images too, so I imagined they were far from serious infractions of copyright, as I understand the GNU license. Are you suggesting these are copyright violations, or just not properly cited? Let me know please, because as I understand the GNU and educational purposes of Wikipedia, then other images I have placed on articles will need to be withdrawn. Additionally, since I have your ear and you seem to be an authority of some limited stature in this encyclopedic enterprise, what is the copyright status for taking images off google and then using software like Adobe to alter them and making a 'new' disnctive image? How does Wikipedia deal with these types of images?. --Mikerussell 00:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The answer is that no, it does not make it a new image. You've just taken their image. It's not covered by the GFDL. It's a straight-up copyright violation.

You may have a case for fair use of an album sleeve. But remember, "fair use" is a defense in court, not an excuse beforehand, in most circumstances.

I strongly suggest that before uploading more images without understanding how copyright works, you read:

• Wikipedia:Images
• Wikipedia:Copyrights (particularly "Image policy")
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags (particularly "Rationale")

If something is an official publicity shot, it might be "implied fair use". But I Am Not A Lawyer and don't want to need one.

Policy is to avoid images that aren't definitely clear for GFDL use wherever possible - David Gerard 09:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have reinserted several images in accordance with copyright provisions under law. After reading sections on Wikipedia fair use, and image tagging, the images have adequate information in their file- click on image to see. --Mikerussell 07:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removal of links to images

I Am Not A Lawyer, but have done some research. "Fair Use" only applies to U.S law, and even then, is generally only applicable for educational purposes, not entertainment, and certainly not to be accessible on the World Wide Web or other public forums. As the images are copyright, with no exceptions applying, and permission has not been secured from the copyright owner, links to these images have been removed. See: Copyright Quickguide and Checklist for Fair Use - redcountess 22:36, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an entertainment web site? If it is, by what definition? I understand it to be educational, a not-for-profit web site, thus your comments are not really on point.--Mikerussell 00:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excuse for me being skeptical of your legal knowledge, but are you a lawyer? In fact do you have any legal training at all? Your self-appointment as copyright adjudicator is vain and supercilious. You really need to confine your editing to matters where you can demonstrate a defensible authority. Your links to outside websites is no more valid then mine, and since you seem to have a very poor grasp of basic legal issues, including copyright, I would suggest you leave well enough alone. My images are approved for use in the Wikipedia articles by an Adminstrator and Bureaucrats. See my talk page --Mikerussell 20:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You appear to have a completely spurious view of the power of Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. Neither of these is a position of greater privilege in Wikipedia - they're positions of greater work. Thus, they are not authority for the purpose of appeals to authority.

Doesn't this undermine your authority to edit images that are tagged according to policy? You need to better understand the mediation process on Wikipedia. I think we have a definite difference of opinion, and efforts should be made to settle the issue once and for all.--Mikerussell 00:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should also Wikipedia:Assume good faith more. - David Gerard 20:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you have applied this policy unequally, I would ask you assume good faith on my additions and comments as well. --Mikerussell 00:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Legal Process, Regina v. Richard, CCC, 1980

Redcountess exhibits a major misunderstanding about basic Canadian legal procedure, and I have had to go back and correct her ‘clarification’ of Ontario’s legal process in Regina v. Richard, CCC, 1980. (CCC is short for Canadian Criminal Cases; it is a green bound series, go to the best Commonwealth legal library in London to find the series. Edward Greenspan Q.C. is the editor.)As a former law school student at the University of Western Ontario's Faculty of Law, I looked up this published case.

She didn't link the case in the first place, looking over the page history - David Gerard 20:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This issue was not linking? I fail to see what you are commenting on. She changed the legal procedure, thus presenting a faulty impression of how the criminal justice system works. She has acknowledge her error. Is this comment offered to me in good faith? I think you should be thanking me for correcting the error--Mikerussell 00:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain, the Judge (Justice Graburn)sentenced Richards to a free charity concert for the Candian National Institute of the Blind (CNIB), after the charge was reduced when the Crown admitted that Richards had not imported the narcotics, but procured them upon his arrival in Toronto. A Court of Appeal does not, and cannot sentence a respondent in a criminal matter. The Crown appealed this sentence. The Ontario Court of Appeal heard the appeal. The concert was performed already, and the date of appeal hearing was subsequent to the ‘charity concert’. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the original judge’s verdict, thus freeing the respondent of any further obligations under the law. It’s that simple. Accordingly, I have gone back to reinsert my original legally correct comment about the case, before your erred ‘clarification.’--Mikerussell 20:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyright in Law

Copyright is a major area of current legal scholarship; it emanates from the moral rights of authors and is tied to capital rights. Redcountess seems to feel that she owns the rights to images, which she had no part in creating or presenting. She has no more legal right to delete images than I have in creating a Wiki page with valid images that Wiki administrators have scrutinized and approved.

See the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats message to me, after I tagged all my image uploads. Infrogmation can be contacted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation

That message would be in their role of just an editor thanking you for having tagged your images, not some sort of validation. Trust me on this one - I'm on the arbitration committee, but that's NOT a special editorial role and doesn't accord me any privilege more than anyone else on this page ;-) - David Gerard 20:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Fair Use laws are internationally recognized and the copyright protocol differ in many jurisdictions, yet are unified under the Berne Agreement and WIPO, please see this web link for the international treaty rights that extend under NAFTA, and since I am a Canadian, I certainly do feel it is legal and appropriate to use the images in the article.

The servers are in Florida; US law applies. Furthermore, fair use is a defense if someone sues us, and creates problems for others wanting to reuse our content - which is why fair use images are against policy (hence my past reference to the image use policy) - David Gerard 20:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who is 'us' exactly? Are you a party to ownership of this enterprise? If US law applies then Redcountess' opinion is pointless, she stated that she removed images because fair use only applied in the US.

"Fair Use" only applies to U.S law, and even then, is generally only applicable for educational purposes, not entertainment,

Reccountess's words which began this difference of opinion. Also she incorrectly identified Wikipedia as an entertainment, as opposed to not-for-profit web site. Moreover, why is it our responsibilty when others use the pages? How can 'we'- all of the Wikipedia contributors- control or be responsible for the subsequent actions of third parties? Does not the GNU license and similiar opensource practices run counter to your concern?--Mikerussell 23:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WIPO site page: http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/clea_tree_org1.jsp

Additionally, I would ask you to refer to this document presented in Canada that discuss the history and application of copyright in the world. In fact, among other things, it makes clear the evolving and ambiguous nature of copyright law universally. I suggest you moderate your conduct in light of this information. --Mikerussell 20:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2004/wilkinson_2004.pdf

Florida law applies to Wikipedia, and fair use is not in fact international, which is a major problem for Wikipedia in general - David Gerard 20:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What authority do you have? Are you an attorney/ What bar do you belong to? Isn't your opinion no more valid than any other's?--Mikerussell 23:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Govern Yourself Accordingly, please

I would ask that you refrain from deleting images that you did not upload, create, personally own, or hold copyright to. If you wish to alert the lawful copyright owner of infractions, please do, and they can request removal; something, I doubt they would have any interest in doing. If you come across infractions please follow the procedure Wilikipedia has outlined.

You can request that, but that's not how it works at Wikipedia. No-one has ownership of an article or image - not you or me or anyone - David Gerard 20:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thus I reverted your edits percisely because of this fact.--Mikerussell 23:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the goal of the encyclopedia is educational and informational. It is not a personal web auteur site for self-appointed music experts. Everybody may not know who Mister Richards is, as I certainly am aware that many of the first year university students I teach don’t have a clue about the guy when I make references about him. I am sure readers around the globe will benefit from the inclusion of images. Since the wiki administrator has upheld and approved my images, please see my own User:talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikerussell , you have no valid reason to depreciate the work of others.

As I explained, an administrator has not in fact done anything of the sort just by thanking you for putting better tags on your images - David Gerard 20:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope you can respect the work of others. Otherwise, we will have to go forward with dispute mediation to settle the issue.

This is an unnecessarily confrontative attitude on your part. I strongly suggest you reread Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Threats of taking someone to mediation do not create a good working environment - David Gerard 20:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, it's just simple English. Why construe it so personally? I think your sensibilities are a bit too delicate; the comment was not even directed to you.--Mikerussell 23:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I have removed the quote from the first part. It does not refer to Roy Rogers and it is not editorially consistent, in an encyclopedia article, to ask readers to go out of the article to another site when the article itself is designed to be self-sufficient. Place the link at the end of the article for further reading, if necessary. --Mikerussell 20:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mostly dead site commented out

oldkr.co.uk is mostly dead, only splash and home page still accessible, so commented it out of external links. Is there another good fan site worth linking? - redcountess 22:49, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ontario legal proceedings and quote on rock and roll's influence

In trying to edit the paragraph concerning Richards' Canadian drug charges and trials, I had inadvertently, and in good faith, created a misinterpretation. This has now been remedied.

Also, I have reinserted the quote about Richards' first hearing rock and roll, because it's pertinent to his personality and style of playing, however, I have moved it to the beginning of the "early life section". I included the external link for reference. redcountess 20:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regina v. Richards 49 C.C.C. (2d) (1980)

I was actually in a law library the other day and looked up the actual case in hardback. The correct citation is

Regina v. Richards 49 C.C.C. (2d) (1980) Appeal September 17th, 1979

If someone has access to Lexis or Quicklaw, or Westlaw db, they may get a hit if they put in the full citation. Regina is Latin for Crown, Canada's version of the D.A. The print copy is on pages 517-527. The case is interesting in that he was pretty lucky to get off with the sentence he got. The appeal court admitted he should have been forced to "engage in a programme to point out the disastrous consequences of drug addiction and discourage its use." They also said Justice Graburn made a legal error by allowing a probation order outside of Canada, which is not allowed for. Apparently, Richards got some Doctor in NYC, Anita Stevens, to treat him for heroin addiction and supply probation reports to the Canadian court, which the appeal court conceded should not have been allowed. The Crown actually was arguing for a custodial sentence, which 55% of people in Canada at the time got for possession of heroin. The Ontario Court of Appeal argues that it would be impractical to have that sentence imposed subsequent to the free concerts and the satisfactory probation order, but it sounds like they think he should have gone to jail for awhile.

The material facts of the case state on Feb 27/1977, the Ontario Provincial Police and the R.C.M.P. went to the Harbour Castle Hotel to serve an arrest warrant on Anita Pallenberg, and Richards was sleeping while they searched and found 22 grams of heroin, at 32% purity worth wholesale in 1977 at about $2,000-$3,000. It would make 440 capsules of heroin and a heavy user would use 10 caps a day, the case states. The case summary also states that Richards used IV dope in 1969 thru 1972, tried to clean up several times in 73, 74, and was heavily addicted for 4 years when arrested.

The probation order mandates he attend to treatment in an ongoing basis and to report back to Dr. Stevens wherever he goes, so as to maintain a drug-free lifestyle.--Mikerussell 21:19, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean rumor (June 8 2005

Is there any source for the Pirates of the Caribbean rumor? I checked IMDB and no dice. Someone should probably remove that misleading bit about him being in the film. Although it would be really awesome if he were in the movie, I doubt that he actually is. --71.110.4.241 05:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what it's supposed to mean

Despite several attempts to read this sentence, I still have no idea what it's supposed to mean:

"After the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Richards' original sentence- the somewhat unorthodox charity concert at an Oshawa hockey arena (a concert attendees remember as being thick with marijuana smoke) Keith emerged healthy and in love with a young New York model." Kurivaim 12:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It means the sentence was appealed by the Crown, and the Appeal Court upheld the original punishment- a charity concert for the Canadian National Institute of the Blind. The sentence was controversial, and the fact that concert goers were smoking drugs, only further irritated many Canadians who thought Richards got off light because he was a celebrity. But Richards often cites the arrest and prosecution as a turning point in his life. Shortly after the episode he met his wife

Compound sentences aren't that difficult to follow are they.? --Mikerussell 00:47, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Battle of Britain over by 1943

If Keith Richards was born in 1943, then the sentence "Keith Richards was a World War II baby born in the "crossfire hurricane" (mentioned in the lyrics of "Jumpin' Jack Flash") of German bombings in the Battle of Britain." is just plain incorrect. The Battle of Britain was over by May 1941. Similarly trying to tie this line in to the Blitz would fail as it was in essence over by 1941 as well.

He often has recited the tale that his earliest memories were of the bombings in London during the War. If you want to check it out go to his web site [2] and search through the 'Ask Keith' section. He is on video telling how Hitler 'was on his tail from birth' and explains why he has always been interested in WWII artifacts and history. Strictly speaking you’re accurate, but I also think there is generally regarded, perhaps only in Canada, to talk about all events up to D-Day and even after as ‘The Battle of Britain” (meaning the period under siege of the occupied European continent by the Nazi regime), which I guess is historically inaccurate. It may be that his memories are of post D-Day battles, or just the rubble of the bombings that took years to rebuild. I guess people older then me, I was born in the late sixties, see this as a clear mistake.--Mikerussell 05:28, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

• correction* While the Battle of Britain was actually over by 1941, by 1944 German V1 "buzz bombs" were hitting England very often. Richards' house was actually hit by a V1. He is correct in saying he lived through bombing of London, albeit not during the famous Battle of Britain.

Guys, you're all correct with your dates: 'the Battle of Britain', in terms of the daylight duels in the air between British fighters and German fighters and bombers, was over by the end of October 1940. The 'Blitz' of London, night bombing by the Germans, continued afterwards but ended in May 1941. The V-weapons did not begin striking until mid-1944. Therefore we can't say 'Richards was born as the Nazi Luftwaffe bombed England' in any way, shape or form. We can say he 'lived through bombing of (or attacks on) London' as my unnamed co-contributor (or is it Mikerussell?) above has said. It would be good to put the bit in about his house being hit by a V1 but something that specific really needs to be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mention that he is often credited as Keith Richard

I think it's worth mentioning that he is often credited as "Keith Richard"...after all, he went by that name frequently enough to merit a redirect. I'm not sure where it should be written in. Was he born Richards or Richard?

why don't read the article before making comments already addressed fully in the text.--Mikerussell 03:12, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Recent Edit 'war' and debate

Reorganized chronologically (and into subheading) to try to make sense for readers on Feb 18th 2006.--Mikerussell 06:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Stufff

I have taken the liberty to make a few changes to the "songwriting" section because I noticed some unverified stuff and grammar errors. To my knowledge, the whole Nanker/Phelge thing was really used to designate that the song was written by the entire band and perhaps arose out of a group jam; thus, I do not think it was a pseudonym for songs that Mick and Keith thought were bad. I've never heard that before and I've read a lot of stuff on the Stones ut if someone can provide a citation I'll look into it but again I don't think that's true at all. I also added some stuff to the whole sentence about the musical influences and continued on into the 70s when they started doing those interesting reggae and dance-rock things on black and blue and some girls, because I think thats important for the overall songwriting style.

More recent changes and a new section started

Establishing what and who were blues purists and how they affected the Stones and other bands would take up too much space. I changed the description of the departing members to "nascent" to imply the context without obligating detailed explanation, beyond their lack of stomach for playing Chuck Berry.

I agree Richards' songwriting is at least as important as his playing and separate enough from his playing to have it's own section and one has been started. Being more interested and knowledgeable about his musicianship, I hope someone else expands the just opened section on his songwriting. Richards' songwriting is a demanding subject because he has written most in partnership with Jagger, separating Richards' contributions from Jagger's is no small task. There is also the influence and devolpement of Richards guitar playing, history of writing many songs on piano, early heros, contemporaries, different eras, social climates as well as geography that all require accounting. The prior brief reference in Career Accomplishments is transfered to a songwriting section as a suggested starting point.

OK

I would like to know what the factual errors are and will definately help correct any. Citing contrary sources is especially helpful. The idea is to have an accurate entry. No offense was intended over the spelling "idom"; the same mistake seems to have been made independently.

well, looking over the "richards as a musician" section, I actually don't see any blatantly factual errors. It's minor things, really. I think you should elaborate or change the thing about the blues purists at the beginning because it's kinda vague. i also think it could be expanded to include more on Richards, his growth as a songwriter and a musicianship, and maybe one more sentence on what happened to Jones and how that affected Richards' role in the band. There should aslo be something about his riffs/songwriting right around there.

Response

The previous editor has made a gross and careless error that indicates a profound ignorance about the Stones' early days, and demonstrated fundamental ignorance of musical lineups and the language of musicians. Regarding this excerpt. “The Rolling Stones began as a rhythm and blues band, but after Jagger insisted on Richards' being a band member, two blues purist objecting to playing Chuck Berry songs quit the Stones” (My sources are Dick Taylor - whom it is hoped the respondent is familiar with and will spare me the need to establish his bonafides, and an a corroborating Ian Stewart interview in Creem -maybe the only interview he ever did. BTW the two musicians names are Geoff Bradford and Brian Mckinght). This should answer the reckless question "did you just make this up?"

first of all, my main complaint was that the sentence didn't make sense "two blues purist"?? The sentence doesn't mean anything to someone reading the article. Furthermore, I'm not sure the band was named the Rolling Stones at this point, as Jagger and Richards and Jones were involved in other bands and the line-up shifted several times before the Stones as we know them were finally formed, but for all I know this sort of history is so obscure that you could be right. Even if you are, it's a completely puzzling and irrelevent sentence

The sentence also shows Richards' inlfuence on the band in bringing rock n' roll to it and the antipathy it could inspire.

If Richards bringing rock and roll to the band is what is important, then say that. The whole blues purist thing is really irrelevant since none of the most influential members of the Stones were really blues purists

Jones lost interest in guitar playing was meant to convay nothing about songwriting.

why would it? I mean to say you should include something about Richards songwriting. Furthermore, he still played guitar in addition to a bunch of other instruments, and I don't see why you are so incredibly dogmatic about asserting that he "lost interest" in guitar...you have no idea why he started playing all these other instruments, but that really doesn't matter. what's more important to say that his role in the band shifted and the result of that was Richards became the main guitarist.

Why Jones lost interest in guitar playing belongs in the Brain Jones entry

incorrect, since it relates to why he stopped playing as much guitar. I mean I'm sure he was actually less interesting in guitar and more interested in other instruments, but to say he just "lost interest" implies that he had few contributions and doesn't give the whole picture (ie his other insturmental contributions to the Stones, which can't be underestimated), which is important because it's why Richards became the main guitarist once Jones started playing all the weird instruments

the allusion to his troubled state is enough for a Ricahrds entry. The previous editor seems unaware that this is a Keith Richards entry. (This has come up several times without acknowledgemnt)

what? try not to exaggerate because it weakens your argument. are you saying there is too much about Brian Jones? There are about 2, maybe 3 sentences; if they were redundant, I apoligize. But fix them, for goodness sakes, don't re-paste the badly written stuff that was there before.

It also describes one of the most important facts about their relationship: Jones couldn't be counted on and Richards had to make up for it, it should go without saying that it effected Ricahrds as a musician greatly.

like the other person said, this is about interpreting sources, not saying things like "ones couldn't be counted on and Richards had to make up for it," which...I mean, come on...whatever truth there is in that, there's no reason to include something so blatantly subjective. Furthermore, Brian Jones made valuable contributions on Stones records up until Beggars Banquet and different people say different things about how useful he was. It seems like your agenda is to sort of downplay Jones as a way to emphasize Richards, which is easier for the writing process, but you have to make this stuff more balanced. I'm sure you know about the Stones and realize that it wasn't this simple, but the article makes it seem like it was, which is okay to the tiniest extent, but I think you go to far when you just say, you know "jones stopped playing guitar...was degenerating...Richards played all the guitars instead" because it really was more complicated than that.

Please reread the explanation of the importance of two guitarist other Stones sound, the distinction is well-explained. The writer has completely ignored the importance Richards himself has placed on this lineup, and it Richards personal regard for it's significance that it is included. Musicians, including Rchards, commonly talk of others with whom they are "sympathetic."

but "rhythmically sympathetic" sounds like bad poetry or poor music journalism. I don't know why you're so intent on emphasizing the two guitars, I mean it's technically true, but the Stones are a diverse and accomplished band and the greatness of their best work isn't contingent on the presence or absence of two guitars; most full-length biographies of the Stones have a brief section, at most, about the two guitar sound of the band because, frankly, it's pretty obvious. Furthermore, following your logic, this should be in the Stones article, not the Richards one. I mean if you were creative about it you could include an entire section about the bands sound and the importance of the dual guitars, but that would be more like an essary. Yeah, I mean sure Richards says he likes working with other guitarists all the time, so say that! That's interesting and important...but "Richards has kept the band from straying too far from the two guitar sound," is a weird because it's like...stray to where? synthesizers? I mean, come on the Stones are a rock band. Or else you could talk about the specifics of the Stones sound. I mean it's not like I object to the sentence, to be honest, it's just I think it's a bit extraneous and vague and, to be blunt, not necessarily true because there are plenty of Stones songs that are great but don't rely on the two prominent electric guitars in order to be good; furthermore, and this is all subjective, Richards sometimes claims credit for keeping the band close to that sound and not straying too far away, sometimes saying Jagger wanted to do that, but I'm not confident that's true. I actually think Jagger was probably aware that the double guitar sound was an integral part of the stones even if he wanted to do other, more contemporary stuff. A lot of people paint Jagger as like this ultra-trendy disco nerd, but I think thats sorta exaggerated. They do the same with Richards, they're like...he's the rocker and without him the Stones would have become a dance band...and like you said before his solo records are much better than Jagger's which leads people to believe that he's somehow greater or has more musical integrity and skill. Richards in interviews sometimes plays to his own stereotype, but sometimes he doesn't. this isn't completely relevant, but I just think the sentence kind of implies, actually definately implies that without Richards the band would most certainly have done stuff without the two-guitar sound, which isn't really possible to say because the Stones without Richards is unimagineable and the band itself has always had the guitar/bass/drums/guitar/vocals line-up and the twoguitar sound and I don't think anyone, even Jagger, ever really wanted to change that or do something radically different. Richards is responsible, sure, but it's not as simple as he prevented the band from doing radically different things.

In a long and rambling sentence of around 100 words, the previous editor seems to think that this editor regards Taylor as causing a "diverging" from the two guitar sound of the Stones. Taylor's work with Richards after he left the band, noted below, is used as an example to convay the opposite. This is simply careless reading by the respondent.

I'm not sure what you mean here. First of all the sentence was slightly long, but was well articulated and certainly readable; but I think I made it clear that when Taylor arrived, he played with more virtuosity than either Jones or Richards, which in some ways led to a more obvious distinction in solos/leads and rhythm playing, which you articulated to some degree. the Taylor/Richards collabo from 30 years later isn't the issue, because we're talking about the chemistry from a certain era. I think you're a little confused about the two guitar thing, because different eras sound different. Virtually all of them have had two guitars, but they all have different dynamics. The Taylor era certainly did cause a diversion from the Brian Jones era two-guitar weaving sound, which I'm confident was implied in that sentence, I obviously didn't say that the addition of a second guitarist caused a diversion from a two guitar sound, because that's ridiculous. I mean there's a lot of grey area here, but it's safe to say that all Stones eras have been built on two guitars, though the Taylor era, as you said yourself, was markedly different from the intertwining rhythm/lead of the Jones and the Wood eras, which is pretty much what I said there; so I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by two-guitar sound at this point, you mean the Jones/Richards style guitar weaving? or just the fact that thr band has always been structured around two guitarists?? I meant to imply that the former was not as true of the Taylor era

"Garage" is commonly used without adding "rock" to it.

right, but for an encylopedia article? And I mean people might say garage, but most music journalism I've read says "garage rock" when referring to that group of bands from the 60s. plus a lot of techno and british hip hop is also referred to as "garage"

We're getting into the problems of style definition needelessly and there should be no objection to a "garage rock" being used. (More detailed discussion on the style or "idom" is available in the Garage Rock. I didn't write sentence contaning the reference to Dela Blues, and grammatically correct re-edit would be welcome. "Virtouso" was indeed misspelled.

right, no... the change about the garage rock is good, I think. But if you read that article it does say that garage rock usually refers to 60s groups, and saying that it still exists, while technically true on some vague level, is weird. I mean as a historical term, garage rock exists today about as much as big band swing or jump blues. I don't think it's nitpicking over style definition to say that there's a difference between a historical term and just a general description, and garage rock can be both. And to be perfectly honest, you're not really at a liberty to make fun of my typo "idom" because the article that you've prevented anyone from even polishing in the slightest degree had tons of weird stuff and errors, a lot of which you havn't even addressed. At this point I don't care anymore so don't respond to this just fix the stuff.

Response

The previous editor has made a gross and careless error that indicates a profound ignorance about the Stones' early days, and demonstrated fundamental ignorance of musical lineups and the language of musicians. Regarding this excerpt. “The Rolling Stones began as a rhythm and blues band, but after Jagger insisted on Richards' being a band member, two blues purist objecting to playing Chuck Berry songs quit the Stones” (My sources are Dick Taylor - whom it is hoped the respondent is familiar with and will spare me the need to establish his bonafides, and an a corroborating Ian Stewart interview in Creem -maybe the only interview he ever did. BTW the two musicians names are Geoff Bradford and Brian Mckinght). This should answer the reckless question "did you just make this up?"

The sentence also shows Richards' influence on the band in bringing rock n' roll to it and the antipathy it could inspire. Jones lost interest in guitar playing was meant to convay nothing about songwriting. The allusion to his troubled state is enough for a Ricahrds entry. The previous editor seems unaware that this is a Keith Richards entry. (This has come up several times without acknowledgemnt)

Please reread the explanation of the importance of two guitarist other Stones sound, the distinction is well-explained. The writer has completely ignored the importance Richards himself has placed on this lineup, and it Richards personal regard for it's significance that it is included. Musicians, including Richards, commonly talk of others with whom they are "sympathetic."

In a long and rambling sentence of around 100 words, the previous editor seems to think that this editor regards Taylor as causing a "diverging" from the two guitar sound of the Stones. Taylor's work with Richards after he left the band, noted below, is used as an example to convay the opposite. This is simply careless reading by the respondent.

"Garage" is commonly used without adding "rock" to it. We're getting into the problems of style definition needelessly and there should be no objection to a "garage rock" being used. (More detailed discussion on the style or "idom" is available in the Garage Rock. I didn't write sentence contaning the reference to Dela Blues, and grammatically correct re-edit would be welcome. "Virtouso" was indeed misspelled.

Problems with the "Concise" entry...changes that need to be made

“As Jones lost interest in guitar Richards played all guitar parts on many recordings” badly worded…nothing about Richards songwriting at all or why this happened, or Jones role/relation with Richards, which was much more important than…

“The Rolling Stones began as a rhythm and blues band, but after Jagger insisted on Richards' being a band member, two blues purist objecting to playing Chuck Berry songs quit the Stones” did you just make this up?? First of all, read it. It has several errors. Second of all, what doesn this have to do with anything? Third of all, to my knowledge this never happened, or if it did the band wasn’t called the Stones at the time. Lastly, if you MUST include this, which you mustn’t, you have to explain why it’s even there… what does it mean?

“virtuouso” misspelled

“Richards derived much of his early driving rhythm style from Chuck Berry whose guitar work has remained a touchstone for him” pronoun disaster; implies that Berry’s own guitar work has remained a touchstone for himself.

“Taylor's addition also commenced a pronounced separation in the duties of lead and rhythm guitar.” What the heck does this mean… the idea of rhythm and lead guitar, if you know anything about music, is that they are separate things by definition…you can’t play them at the same time. you could point out how it was different from the brian jones sound or how Richards was more rhythm and Taylor more lead, perhaps? But again, you seem not to like any changes

“rhythmically sympathetic” what does ‘’this’’ mean?? It doesn’t mean anything…I understand what your trying to say about his dynamic with Richards, but for god’s sake…

“throughout the Stones' history Richards has kept the Stones from diverging too far from their signature sound of two guitars.” Doesn’t logically make sense because something can’t be a signature if it’s overwhelmingly common (two guitars)…don’t give me the white stripes because they are novel and an anomaly; don’t give me power trios because they’re called that for a reason; don’t give me “a lot of bands have only one guitar” because most rock bands, have two guitars, case closed; you have to explain what you mean by this sound…plus the mick taylor era, as you so aptly put it “commenced a pronounced separation in the duties of lead and rhythm guitar”; it sounded very different from the Brian Jones era…yes there were still two guitars, anyone who’s read a mini bio knows that… but diverging from a two guitar sound? maybe include at least one link the ancient form of weaving which describes it???… but then again, the mick taylor era wasn’t even really like that, only perhaps on stage to a lesser degree…so your call, just change it, don’t insist on bad writing.

“Richards' trademark sound, characterized by syncopated I IV chord changes” that’s like saying “Jagger trademark vocals, characterized by blues singing”…it’s ridiculous.

“This tuning, drawn from Delta blues and prominent on some of the Stones' biggest hits ("Honky Tonk Women," "Brown Sugar," "Start Me Up")” grammar mistake…what happened to the other thing the person put in about Richards sound, that was better…

On "Satisfaction" (1965), Richards recorded the first hit to feature a fuzz box, and helped to inspire a still existing style called "garage." Do you know anything about music? You can say “garage rock,” which generally refers to underground, amateurish 60s American rock groups from across the country… but “garage rock” is not a contemporary musical idiom as much as it is just a description… and that’s not debatable, go to allmusic.com or look garage rock up in a music encyclopedia; it’s usually used as a description of an amateurish band, or it’s used to describe a specific group of 60s bands, mostly America, many of whom were indeed inspired by satisfaction. Please do not debate this because my friend is a garage rock collector and writer and there are countless music historians who would back both him and me up.

“As a musician the body of Richards' work is on guitar” this is probably the funniest thing there… tell me how this is better writing

Further Changes

The entry went from concise to verbose. This entry is about Keith Richards not Brian Jones or Mick Taylor, and what was their influence on the band belongs elsewhere. There is no assertion that Mick Jagger is a a diminished talent or any quantification of his popularity. In regards to Jaggers talent the opposite in is stated, but it is worth noting that - as Jagger acknowledges and thereby substantiates - what is a very common conception of Richards. "Hard Rock" is a vague term - at one point Elvis and Little Richards were considered "Hard Rock. " "Rock n' roll" suffices well enough and avoids the stylistic problems encounter when encountering sub-genres. The exception of this is the inclusion of Richards influence on "garage"; because it is such a direct influence and it also occaisions the historicaly significant fuzz tone used on "Satisfaction."

Not acknowledging that Richards has insisted on the two guitar sound of the Stones is a fundamental omission. Richards has claimed credit for maintaining the band as such. Declaring that the Stones have "always had two guitarists!" is simply incorrect. For a brief stint of shows, Richards was the only guitar in the mid-sixties while Jones was ill and Richards found he strongly disliked being the only guitar player. The earlier dicussion noted too that Jones was a chronic no show at the studio.

Trios and duos are common alternatives as shown by Nirvana, Cream and the White Stripes. They also tend to use only one guitar player overdubbing or not. Richards has done this live and more commonly in the studio this and, again, has not found it to his liking. Besides working with Ron Woods on Stones records, Richards has consistently worked with other guitar players such as Waddy Wachtel and Mick Taylor on his solo records because - and this is the key point here - he likes to have another human on guitar to feed off of. The two guitar sound does distinguish the Stones from a good number of bands, escpecially as a live act.

Reduncies are rampant throughout the edit. Jones is described five times as emotionally troubled in effect this adds nothing of interest after it was stated once. "The ancient art of weaving" entry is also listed twice and seems like a non-sequiter. Consider the following edit "Taylor introduced a previously absent level of instrumental virtuosity into the band's sound, and his induction marked a more pronounced separation in the duties of lead and rhythm guitar." "Introduced" and "previously absent" mean exactly the same thing, and the readers can deduce that Taylor went through some sort of "induction." It's noble desire to improve poor writing, but it can't be done with even poorer writing .

The use the "anti-Jagger epidemic" was to explain why not only fans but also some writers have a bias towards Richards at Jagger's expense.

It is hoped that future edits benefit from a close reading of the previous entry, a basic knowledge of band musical lineup structure, an adversion to extraneous detail belonging in other entries, and an ability to make a valid and accurate points without being redundant.

Information on what the literary tradition "Apologia" is one click away.

if you say so, but as it is now it's pretty awwkwardly written, and I really don't think the two guitar sound is as important as you say because it's pretty obvious. "It's noble desire to improve poor writing, but it can't be done with even poorer writing." I think anyone would agree with me that my wording was better, furthermore your original corrections had tons of errors and grammar/punctuation mistakes. " "Introduced" and "previously absent" mean exactly the same thing" I'm not sure where you're coming from here, but they don't actually. Taylor introduced something that was previously absent... everyone I've talked to doesn't have a problem with this. Finally, the Stones have always had two guitarists; for a brief period in the mid 60s they did not, but they had every intention of filling the second guitarist slot because that was the lineup of the band for the past several years."Not acknowledging that Richards has insisted on the two guitar sound of the Stones is a fundamental omission," if it's so fundamental and you seem to be the authority on its importance to the band (even though it is obvious), then explain why its fundamental instead of tagging it on the end of a paragraph in a badly worded sentence. Taylor did go through an "induction" because he was "inducted" into the band. If you dislike the word change it. I don't understand why you are so against any changes, when everyone who has changed it so far is a better writer than you and has read more diverse sources; like the other guy said, this isn't a fan site. that being said, I'm taking all your silly stuff out. Also, if you follow logic, Richards importance to the Stones is demonstrated by the fact that he wrote all the freakin' songs and played all the freakin' guitar; it's not demonstrated by Jagger's bad solo work and that doesn't make any sense. If you want to follow that line of thinking, consider that the two best-received latter day stones records, Some Girls and Tattoo You, were in large part (even mostly) the work of Jagger (wrote over half of Some Girls songs, produced, mixed, rewrote lots of Tattoo You alone), and that the least popular later day record, Dirty Work, was written without much involvement from Jagger, so I'm taking that Jagger thing off. Plus this is a Richards page.

Changes

I've added a little bit more about the Stones history and more details of Mick Taylor and Richards' influences and role in the band. I also deleted the part about Richards being the heart and soul of the Stones, which was worded so it didnt make sense and sort of seemed to say that Jagger was musically inferior and Richards is more popular, neither of which are really verifiable. I've also cleaned up the writing which was a little weird and akward in some places and there were some punctuation mistakes.

Notes on changes

Brian Jones lost interest in guitar and couldn't an sustain an interest in anything - he missed Stones sessions repeatedly - "for over a year", according to Jagger. Richards didn't "take control," (which suggests that Jones was perhaps pushed aside) he had no choice but to play all parts or get someone else. A Keith Richards entry is an unsuitable location for a Jones apologia or condemnation. Also Mick Jagger has noted that "Rock writers perceive Keith a this sort of living fount of the real thing ." The "anti-Jagger epidemic" - as Nick Kent terms it, is not limited to fans. Finally, the Stones sound is a two guitar sound and that it has stayed so is due to Richards, and this is no small feat.

I see that whoever's writing this page is really against any changes, as I've ascertained from reading the argument that seems to have taken place. Saying that Richards took control doesn't, according to logic, necessarily imply that Jones was pushed aside; but even if I had said that, sources vary as to the fate of Brian Jones, most claiming that he degenerated into general incompetence, while a roughly equal number of bios (sometimes simultaneously) claiming that the Jagger/Richards collaboration began to take control and that Jones' importance in the band diminished because of this and his own various personal problems; most bios and other writings also say that Jagger and Richards, wittingly or unwittingly, contributed to Jones eventual decline, either by writing songs and taking leadership or because they were actually scornful of him and his apparently difficult personality. Likely, the truth falls somewhere between all these different stories, but I don't see how saying Richards "took control" is an "apologia" (I assume you meant apology) or condemnation of Jones (or Jagger-Richards, again I wasn't sure what you mean, but either way...), because it's simply what happened, ie its technically true, Keith did take control of most guitar playing according to historical data. I also don't understand what the anti-Jagger thing has to do with this...what do you mean?. As far as the two-guitar things, I think it's self-evident that every rock band is guitar oriented, and many if not most of them are two guitar oriented, so I don't completely understand how this is a "feat." lots, in fact almost all rock songs have multiple overdubbed guitar parts, sometimes three or four. I'm sure Richards would say he was displeased with Mick jagger trying to do less-guitar oriented songs (the sort of dance stuff, with emotional rescue and maybe like too much blood being the only real examples) and lots of people say that jagger really wanted to go in that direction, but I think it's safe to say that the stones and their audience are aware of the fact that they were a rock band and that all rock bands are guitar, often two-guitar oriented; the reason the Stones have staying two-guitar oriented is because... they've always had two guitarists! it was in fact Jagger who hired Mick Taylor and I don't think he ever objected to Ron Wood's presence, so I don't see how you could say that Richards is responsible for the band having two guitars, since that's just the way it always was. I mean, true it's sound is dominated by two guitars, but what else would it be dominated by? synthesizers?? not by a long shot...that's why theyve got two guitarists. It's sort of an unimportant thing to include in my opinion and I kinda think you are nitpicking over stuff that you think is like insulting to Richards or is defaming him, but the point of wikipedia isn't to just praise stuff, it's to try to tell it like it is and balance that praise with information. i agree with the person before (I think i do at least, it's sort of confusing who is who) that you shouldn't just automatically delete any changes, because the article as it is now isn't so greatly written and the changes that were pasted over (except for the stuff about the phsycedelic guitar work with was unnecessary) actually made it more readable and less akward. peace

Chairs on the table

"Going Home" was recorded in 1965, before The Cream existed. It's now time for my exit: this discussion has descended to ththae infantile.

Re: Re: Maybe the last word

co-sign

Re: Maybe the last word

What are you in fourth grade? Suck it up and keep your fanboy-dom to yourself.

Maybe the last word

Still won't cop to name calling after denying it.

Incredible

I don't see why "your feelings" are even an issue. As I said, if you act like a fanboy, expect to get labeled one; it was meant as a description of your silly writing. That's "inappropriate namecalling..." ? If you were offended by it enough to call me out for accurately describing your approach, then your feelings are clearly an issue, and you shouldn't include them in this debate. Also, I don't see why I shouldn't have the right to gainsay, considering that I have seemingly read a larger number of more diverse sources on the Stones than the admittedly narrow-mined editor. Do you even know what gainsay means? I don't mean to attack the editor, but he/she has continuously replaced virtually everything I've done with his own inferior arrangements, while citing minor squabbles and certain dubious factual information; he/she also saw fit to continuously attempt to discredit me just because I took issue with some of his/her more extreme, subjective sections and poor sequencing. Instead of insisting on having the last word, make the article better if you love Richards so much. Again, I don't see why you would feel the need to respond to this, just improve the article. I've tried to improve it but have been blocked every time, so I wash my hands of the whole thing.

Busted

Denies name calling and won't cop to it when found out, knows my feelings better than myself, has the right to gainsay. Enough said.

RE: Really?

I don't see how this response has much value. If you take issue with "fanboy," then your feelings are at issue, because your attitude in some sections of this article is that of a fanboy. With regards to Phelge, I think it's more than safe to say that a biography by a relatively minor character who wasn't a musician and who is probably writing a book solely because of his brief, almost forgotten association with the Stones isn't a particularly good source to use for an article like this. "Whatever happened with Cooder in the studio ultimately had a significant but relatively minor effect on Richards' playing" significant, but minor... "'It is questionable what mention of Cooder over all others who helped Richards at this time furthers a better understanding of Richards." fine this is the first reasonable assertion I've heard from this editor about the Cooder issue. You could ineed argue that it is extraneous, however I thought to include it because it was interesting and the editor insisted on attempting to discredit this still unclear, controversial issue in a wholly subjective manner. "The other editor, as often has been the case on other matters, is simply gainsaying without explanation that refutes specific points," I can't help but do this when you have repeatedly deleted my work and insisted on an article that lacks cohesion. In addition you have made some fairly silly assertions about rock history, Dylan, "productions," the Stones phsycedelic period, the Stones as 20-minute-solo jam band, etc. These assertions often stick to the exact party lines that have been so frequently replicated by mediocre writers, sometimes show little regard for respected analysis of music historye, and occasionally are just too unfounded and cultish to be included her. I can't help but feel I the right to gainsay and get the benefit of the doubt because so many of the things the editor has done have been stubbornly narrow and unprofessional and seemingly designed only to praise Richards and not present an interesting, multidimensional entry that addresses more than his frequently covered open tunings and 5-string technique. Please do not respond to this I feel I have addressed everything humanly possible and I just pray the article is improved by any means necessary, so let's end this.

Really?

So "fanboy" isn't name calling? Trust me, my feelings are not at issue. It's the lowering of the dialogue that is.

The Pheldge book (any reason it's not worthy of inclusion? )cited the Stones playing 20 minutes solos in his book as routine in the clubs. Becaue, as far as I know, no recordings exists of any of these dates , it's impossible to rate how good those solos were. The real issue is one of priority. The Stones were first and because of their incredible ensemble playing, they could make a jam work without guitar solos - as is the case on "Going Home≥".

I have to agree that a web page is not suitable citing for an encylopedia entry. Why do you think no mention of "2120" is in the article? I'm sure if I searched I could find the original suitable source, but since I have no intention to place it in the article this is not needed. I think were well on the way losing what is the purpose of this discussion page.

My issue regarding about Cooder is that was no greater and influence on Richards than Gram Parsons or Tah Majal. Whatever happened with Cooder in the studio ultimately had a significant but relatively minor effect on Richards' playing except that in that Richards really took to 5 string open G. It is questionable what mention of Cooder over all others who helped Richards at this time furthers a better understanding of Richards. There never was any assertion that Cooder didn't helped Richards with licks and tricks, in fact the oposite has been a fundamental assumption. Take care when making such a charge of others changing stances when nothing of the sort has happened. The issue again is about Cooders overall importance to Richards.

I'm still at a loss as to why Cooders' complaints should regarded as usual and not puzzling from the perspective of studio musician. The other editor, as often has been the case on other matters, is simply gainsaying without explanation that refutes specific points - which as if I recall correctly from a Monty Python skit, is not the basis for the advancement of argument.

Re: Time To Get a Grip

You've provided no illuminating rebuttals to any of my points. You continuously insist that Cooder's complaints are "unusual" an "puzzling," but this, in addition to being fairly ridiculous, is subjective. Stones were not a "jam band," ever, except perhaps on some live versions of "Midnight Rambler." "Going Home" is a minor entry into their catalog and was recorded in '66, after Cream had begun performing. It certainly does not count as a very early Stones cut from their club days. Furthermore it features almost no long, complex solos. I'm under the impression that the editor doesn't know what a jam band is. I don't think it can be disputed that the edited version of this article was superior in form and structure, and I don't think the editor should be using wikipedia if they insist on mainting their own versions no matter what changes are made, as this exhibits a fannish stubbornness that's just counterproductive. Timeisonourside.com obviously cannot be relied upon as a first-rate source because first of all it's an internet source and anyone with even minor journalistic credibility knowns that unless it is an official database that it's credibility is suspect for the same reason you don't take information off any fansite on the internet for a research paper. I think this would be obvious to anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of research and writing. I think it's relatively clear that the editor is a committed Richards fan and has little credibility in determining effective writing, structure, or citation for an objective article such as this. All musicians are always referred to by "news reporters" (not music historians or critics, I might add), by the instrument they play, meaning that the editor has no argument on this front. The only exception is perhaps "frontman," they'd probably refer to Jagger as "frontman" not "singer" or "vocalist." Since when has ANY article on ANY band in ANY newspaper introduced a musician or guitarist by saying "songwriter, so-and-so." They might refer to self-contained solo musicians as songwriters, but if they're in a band, they generally refer to the instrument. Keith Richards apparently sacred rhythm guitar playing would mean nothing whatsoever if he were not a songwriter. "It would also be suggested..." would also be suggested???? "that name calling has no place in this discussion and only lessons arguments the other editor wishes to make and which this editor welcomes." I don't recall any name calling, I merely criticised your writing and tone; and if I hurt the editor's feelings by calling out his poorly constructed section, then I'm sorry, but if you are going to write something that mediocre and subjective and stubbornly refuse to admit that many of the facts included are ambiguous, and then delete time-consuming structural changes with no regard for the work of fellow Richards fans, then you have to accept that you might recieve some criticism. I tried my best to incorporate all the biggest points in the original article into the re-write and made an effort to include much of the original wording in the new sequence, but the editor has insisted on an un-cohesive, non chronological structure that is amateurish and confusing. I suggest that they change this. "Lastly "I'll grant that the intro to "Honky Tonk Women" might be Cooders'" Why this sudden change of mind? I never wrote anything about who was right, I merely tried to include an accurate representation of Cooder's interview because I felt it was important. When the editor went out of his way to discredit Cooder in the article, I felt it crossed the line of objectivity. Furthermore, your argument is all over the place, continuously labeling Cooder's comments as "puzzling," as if you are in denial, first leaving my comments, then removing them completely, then saying Cooder has no credibility, then, most frustratingly of all, saying that because Cooder was a session musician, any alleged unfair recording of his playing without his knowledge is automatically okay. I'm not going to write anymore here if the editor insists that his changes were perfect. I hope the quality of this article is somehow improved.

Time To Get a Grip

The controversy surrounded of who first showed Richards open G comes down to what Cooder has said versus what Richards, with consistency, has said, All sources regarding this matter will ulitmately refer to one or the other. I suggest Richards account should be deferred to since it would be impossible for Cooder to know whether Richards open G knew before he met him. I have no reason to doubt that the Stones' recorded Cooder while he was unaware of it, andI'll grant that the intro to "Honky Tonk Women" might be Cooders', but one lick on one record is of questionble importance to a general discussion of Richards musicianship. The point seems minor. Especially since Richards has seldom attempted pedal steel licks on electric guitar elsewhere. Also referring to how a studio musician is typicaly treated is not a legal argument but simply a reference to the context of Cooders employment by the Stones' and why his complaints are unusual and puzzling.

The Stones' in relation to the Beatles is not really of interest to this editor. The effect of the Beatles influence Richards as a guitar player is. (The songwriting comments are suggestions for further entries - the other editor is entitled to his or her opinion.) The dspute regarding "2120" is by no means suggested as part of the main entry. The rumor that Muddy Waters played the only guitar on that cut should be treated as such. BIll Wyman, who took credit for the bass riff, made no mention of Waters playing on that or any other Stones record. My conviction is that it is Richards because Waters never played the tight rhythm driven solo evidenced on "2120." Of course were getting into and area that relies on conniseurship more that anything else, and the other editor is permitted to think himself or herself superior in that regard. (The excellent web page Timeisonourside.com list Richards as the only player on this track, and before sumariuly dissmissing this as a suitable source, the other editor might show in detail why it can't be relied upon.)

Richards is in fact known first as a guitarist, albeit a very famous one. That news reporters describe him thusly is indication that this is also the popular perception of Richards, Presumbly the criterium behind the other editor trying to place more emphasis on his songwrited was that he is better known as a songwriter. This is just wrong-headed.

I agree that the Beatles inspired the Jagger/Richard to write songs for artistic, and financial, reasons. And don't understand how there is any disagreement on this matter. And Dylan did have a huge effect on almost everyone in the sixties, ignoring the importance of this on Richards seem to be another persitent error of the previous editor.

The writer has finally aquiesced that the Stones did playing extended jams, but contradicts that admission by declaring emphatically "That sort of musicianship in rock didn't occur until the advent of Hendrix, Cream, West Coast Phsyeced "dlic music, etc. End of discussion." Wrong again: "Going Home" (recorded before Hendrix and the Cream began their explorations - and probaly was released following the example of Dylan releasing long cuts.) was arguable the first physchedelic jam on record. Whether this early jam is good or not is a matter of opinion, but the the Stones do have priority for the genre and that they inspired other musicians to do likewise is significant.

Another matter. Taylor and Richards continue to get along well with and have played and recorded together since Taylor departed the band. Taylor has admitted becoming addicted to heroin, but this was after leaving the band. Jagger may have presented more reasons for leaving the band. Where the other editor got the idea that Taylor was a junky while in the Stones is so far unknown.

It would also be suggested that name calling has no place in this discussion and only diminshes points the other editor wishes to make and which this editor welcomes.

Response

It has become clear to me that this page is in the control of unobjective Richards fans who insist on sticking only to the sources they have read and insisting that any contradictary source is automatically wrong. The previous editor is still haphazardly employing and dismmissing sources. According to David Dalton's "The Rolling Stones. The first 20 years"..." THERE ARE NUMEROUS STONES SOURCES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO PRESENT A SYNTHESIS OF SEVERAL POINTS OF VIEW, not to assert that one source that you happen to have read is automatically correct. I assure you I have read SEVERAL sources yo suggest different points than the ones you are making This is not a fanboy site, it is an objective encylopedia article. I find it in fact shocking that this fan actually thinks that the legal treatment of session musicians automatically makes Cooder's complaints unfounded and irrelevant. I shall state again that Cooder complained about being taped without his knowledge while practicing when no other musicians were present in the studio, and that the Stones later used his riffs on a number one worldwide hit. The fan is obviously uncomfortable with this controversy and is too close-minded and obssessed with Richards to consider even reading the interview in question. An abundance, by my count eight, sources have stated that Ry Cooder was primarily responsible for teaching Richards the open G tuning, end of discussion. "News reporters" tag richards as the guitarist in relation to what instrument he plays in the band. No news reporters refer to role of a musician in a band as "songwriter," period. Furthermore, if you're talking about news reporters today, they're generally referring to Stones shows. People in general address the musician in the band by what instrument he plays. "The previous editor also also seems to have quietly backed from earlier dissmissive ratings of Richards not being very "distinguished" " This statement is so unbelievably fictitious that it actually offends me, and I think it provides a very strong case that this editor confuses balanced, informed writing that is not simpering and reverntial with being automatically insulting to their celebrity guitarist hero. "Also worth noting that the editor has quietly let go of earlier edits trying to insinuate that Richards and Taylor equally share lead and Rhythm" yet another astoundingly fictitious assertion; this editor tied themselves in knots in order to state that MOST of the MOST PROMINENT, FREQUENT, and COMPLEX solos on mid period Stones records belong to Taylor. "As to Richards guitar playing after hitting the road, he had no time to woodshead. He was however a very able guitarist. "2120 South Michigan Avenue", besides containing a tight rhythm, shows Richards executing a blistering solo." Further subjective nonsense; where is the hard evidence to suggest that Jones did not play this solo, especially considering it appears on one of their very early records. Furthermore, if you want to go into the realm of rumor and speculation, that song was recorded at Chess studios, thus an explanation for the song title, which is the address of the studios, and it is rumored that Muddy Waters joined in to play guitar solos. Richards is not known for being a soloist and never has been. OF COURSE HE IS AN ABLE GUITARIST HE PLAYED FOR ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL BANDS IN THE RECORDED HISTORY OF THE WORLD. If you like some his solos, good for you, so do I; this doesn't mean it is a required entry in an encyclopedia article designed to relflect the most prominent aspects of his playing."The social commentary of "Satifaction" and "Mother's Little Helper" - would have unimaginalble before Dylan became a force" social commentary in rock in general was unimaginable before Dylan. It's like saying the Beatles influenced the Who and the Kinks, and every other British pop band. If you know anything about Dylan, you know that his influence extended to all rock bands. "Richards, in the same early senventies Rolling Stone interview cited above, termed Dylan "a slap in the face" who early on showed the Stones that songs could include subject matter outside of themselves" as virtually every other songwriter from the sixties has also asserted. I agree you could say, "during the mid 60s, the stones began to expand their songwriting by incorporating the influences of Dylan, physcedelic music, folk, pop, etc into songs like..." but you wouldn't include an entire section on Dylan unless there were a specific connection to the band. You think "Eight Miles High," "Norwegian Wood," "For Your Love," "Well Respected Man," "Break on Through," in fact ANY rock hit post 1965 would have been the same without Dylan? You underestimate Dylan's influence; the Stones were not more influenced by him than anyone else. You can say that MLH and PiB reflected the influence of then-contemporary Dylan, but you could not include a section about the direct influence of Dylan on these songs like you could with, say "Norwegian Wood," which was so blatantly derived from Dylan that Dylan actually recorded his own version of the song. MLH and PiB, while they were more lyrically amibitious that previous Stones songs, but they weren't clear appropriations of Dylan. I'm not going to even comment on the "brief theatrics" and "production touches" comments about the Beatles influence... The editor has no idea what they are talking about; ask any reasonably informed music historian and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of them will tell you that the Stones were apt to follow the Beatles lead in an enormous number of ways. It's not that I disagree with you when you say that Dylan was a bigger influence; it's that you are wrong, and every single music historian on the planet would agree with me. I will comment on your sitar being part of the "productions"... the sitar was integral to the success of the song. Do you even know what production is in music? It doesn't generally refer to the song arrangement. The Stones were MOST DEFINATELY influenced by the Beatles. They wouldn't have even started to write pop songs if it weren't for them. Aftermath, Between the Buttons, and Satanic Majesites, as well as plenty of the pop and folk songs from December's children, TONS of early Jagger/Richards ballads, their use of sitar, mellotron, fuzz bazz, not to mention just melodic pop in general. "were band that didn't play extended jams" they were not. In no way shape or form were they an extended jam band. That sort of musicianship in rock didn't occur until the advent of Hendrix, Cream, West Coast Phsyecedlic music, etc. End of discussion. They certainly improvised, and did extended jams, but not on the same level as the early Yardbirds, who were considered the most radical and that sense and even their live shows weren't that long. "What were the other mistakes?" factual mistakes might be inaccurate; instead, I find it extremely frustrating that you PASTE OVER someone else's paintstaking work with no sensitivity at all. Add your own changes if you like, but the structure of that original article was astoundingly poor and when I improved it the editor changed it BACK, not once, but THREE TIMES, which is UNBELIEVABLE. If you really love Richards so much, he really deserves better than this, but I've wasted enough my time arguing with stubborn editors. If you really think this is a quality article as is, then fine, leave it, I won't stop you.

Response

The previous editor is still haphazardly employing and dismmissing sources. According to David Dalton's "The Rolling Stones. The first 20 years" Ry Cooder was present during the Beggars Banquet sessions sometime between March 1 - June, 1968. (When those sessions were released is another matter, the Stones' record keeping is less then optimal.) Cooder being upset was odd: he was complaining about being treated no differently than any other studio musician. Let's get this straight once and for all, there has never been any dispute Cooder introduced Richards to open G 5 string tuning. The style Richards used with that tuning was already created. Consequently Cooders' contribution is no greater than those of the many other muscians Richards learned open tunings from. During a Rolling Stones interview made in the early seventies Richards responded to Cooders' accusations saying first Bukka White taught him open G tuning before Richards met Cooder, and there is no good reason to to think that chronolgy incorrect. Listing Cooder's complaints seems snarky. (In fair play, Richards low opinion of Taylor's rhythm skills, while accurate, will be removed)

Richards' is in fact one of the most well-known guitarist - commonly making lists of top guitarists. In the public mind Richards is better known as a musician. News reports tag him "Stones' guitarist, Keith Richards" not "Stones' songwriter, Keith Richards." The previous editor also also seems to have quietly backed from earlier dissmissive ratings of Richards not being very "distinguished" as a guitarist. Also worth noting that the editor has quietly let go of earlier edits trying to insinuate that Richards and Taylor equally share lead and Rhythm. As to Richards guitar playing after hitting the road, he had no time to woodshead. He was however a very able guitarist. "2120 South Michigan Avenue", besides containing a tight rhythm, shows Richards executing a blistering solo.

As to Dylan's influence on Richards being "tenuous." Richards, in the same early senventies Rolling Stone interview cited above, termed Dylan "a slap in the face" who early on showed the Stones that songs could include subject matter outside of themselves. The social commentary of "Satifaction" and "Mother's Little Helper" - would have unimaginalble before Dylan became a force. Regardless of how Dylan influenced others, he was critical to the Stones. Additionaly Dylan spearheaded the back to roots movement with "John Wesely Harding" and the inluence of Dylan - as well as the The Band - is all over "Banquet." The influence of the Beatles - also influenced by Dylan in no small way - has a lot with production and a brief tendancy to theatrics on songs around the time of "Satanic Majesties". It would be hard to find antecedent songs in the Beatles for "Paint It Black' (the sitar doesn't count -were talking about songs here, not productions), "Backstreet Girl" or "Satisfaction." The Beatles had a another significant influence on the Stones. They demonstrated that those who wrote their songs were successful and got to keep the royalties. The Beatles main influence on the Richards as a songwriter is that they were good and nearby. They were also one of many important influences - not the most important.

James Pheldge is not presented as a "music historian or critic" but as a primary source: it's unjustified and prejudicial dissmiss his book and accounts therin in a way without cause. Saying that "I’m sure the Stones improvised on the stage..." differs a little an earlier blanket assertion that the Stones' were band that didn't play extended jams. The editor still hasn't come up with one of the "most accounts" to the contrary.

Despite charging that the previous edit has "numerous, minor factual mistakes", only one has been produced: it is most probably correct that Jones did play slide on "No Expectations." What were the other mistakes?

Re: Recent Edits

Firstly, let me address some factual disputes. It’s important to keep in mind that no one version of the Stones history is definitive and various accounts differ, especially on details. To therefore paint this writer, who has read a substantial amount on the Rolling Stones, as “uninformed” shows an ignorance of the inherently questionable and often contradictory nature of rock biographies.

I have never read anything to suggest that Ry Cooder plays on No Expectations; in fact, everything I’ve read about the song states without a doubt that Jones is playing, thus an explanation for my removal of that section. I’m fairly confident that Ry Cooder’s contribution to the song is a rumor, however if the editor has very strong evidence that would belie this consensus I would be delighted to hear of it. I “allowed” that Cooder might have been at the Beggars Banquet sessions considering the issue of isolated album sessions is less clear-cut; certain songs from certain sessions ended up on later albums, and the Stones biography I consulted does not make it clear when he arrived in Britian.

In relation to the Cooder controversy, virtually everything I have read, including interviews with Keith Richards, implies that Richards learned the open G tuning mostly from Cooder. It’s certainly possible that he was exposed to the tuning by Bukka White, but the general consensus is that Cooder was a more important influence with that particular tuning (Richards himself admits it). Furthermore, I think the editor’s assertion that my changes painted Richards as an “uninspired thief” exhibits a sort of fannish, defensive extremism that is potentially damaging to their credibility. For one thing, I took pains to state that Richards had used open tunings before Cooder’s arrival, and even acknowledged that his use of the I IV set up in conjunction with the tuning was Richards’ creation. Even if I had stated flatly that Richards had stolen Ry Cooder’s style (which I don’t think is really true), this still would by no stretch of the imagination imply that Richards was an uninspired thief, since he had already amassed an impressive body of work before Cooder’s arrival, and would continue to due so afterwards. Cooder’s interview with Rolling Stone (which I take it the editor has not read) states that many of his best guitar parts were recorded without his knowledge while he was practicing in the studio. This interview was conducted right after the sessions and is very interesting and controversial and I definately think reference to it is a worthy and interesting inclusion in this article, even if some harccore fans find it difficult to swallow. The editor asserts that this is an isolated incident and I agree, it is an isolated incident: Cooder clearly conducted the interview out of anger (whether founded or not), and not to try to make money or a career out of the incident. I do not understand why the editor insists on asserting that Cooder was technically obligated by his role as a session musician to give up these parts, as if this were a court case. Though there is no way of knowing how much truth there is in Cooder’s story, this assertion, again, seems like fannish defensiveness and is highly unprofessional for an encyclopedia article. The inclusion of the Cooder section adds depth and interest and should not be excised simply because it makes Richards fans uncomfortable. The editor asserts that the argument is "weak," but it is not an argument, merely a recounting of Cooder's controversial reaction at the time. Whether or not the editor believes Cooder to be telling the truth is totally irrelevant. I also believe I took pains to imply that the majority of the most prominent, frequent and complex solos found on the Stones 70-74 records are the work of Mick Taylor. Furthermore the editor seemed to emphasize Keith’s dissatisfaction with Taylor’s rhythm work, while at the same time asserting that the division between lead and rhythm was more pronounced. Richards by all accounts did not get along with Mick Taylor for any number of reasons. It should be noted that both were heavily into heroin at the time. It’s certainly possible that Richards got tired of Taylor’s guitar style and long solos, though this is purely speculative. I don’t understand why this was included; Most sources that address this issue state that Richards found Ron Wood a more compatible musical partner, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to include in place of the somewhat suspect assertion that Richards found Taylor’s rhythm work lacking (this leans on Richards side of the story and I'm sure there's more to it than that. James Phelge doesn’t qualify as an important or reliable music historian or critic. I’m sure the Stones improvised on the stage, what else would they have done? The sentence was included to emphasize that neither Richards nor Jones were virtuoso instrumental soloists, although it can be reasonably argued that this is an irrelevant point.

The purpose of this article is the discussion of Richards as a musician. This being said, I think the article might warrant a short section on the technical specifics of Richards as a guitarist, but it makes more sense to include a larger section on his contributions to the Rolling Stones, which include songwriting and guitar-playing. I don’t think it’s possible to have one section on just Richards “songwriting” and one on his “guitar-playing,” since the two are often inseparable. Richards worked on his songs with a band and used his guitar playing to augment his songs, he didn’t write self-contained and self-arranged songs by himself and he didn’t contribute many complex, improvisational solos. Therefore I think segregating the two would make the article redundant in many respects. If you’re going to cover his guitar playing in detail, I think it exhibits more awareness and intelligence to focus on his playing throughout the Stones entire career, which includes less prominent guitar parts in the mid 60s and his psychedelic work. You state, as so many music critics have asserted, that the psychedelic recordings were “Jagger’s idea,” but considering that Keith Richards was as or more important musically in the band, I think it’s more than safe to say that he contributed a great deal to these compositions, especially the guitar parts. You could perhaps argue that his playing in the mid 60s (66-67) is less important than his more distinctive, late 60s/70s ound, but the article as a whole lacks cohesion, jumping from the early stones to a vague section on Richards acoustic playing, back to a section on open tunings, then to a section on the mid-60s, then a mere on sentence on Taylor and Richards, then mentioned Richards' uses of effects in an akward, isolated paragraph, then a huge, pre-written section on specific amps and technicalities. I took a good deal of time to edit this to make it cohesive and chronological, but the editor insisted on pasting over my work several times, with an old version that in terms of structure, I think can be objectively labeled significantly inferior. By all means if the editor takes issue with some of the new edits, then he/she should compromise with the re-writes and attempt to hone the article and make it better, but I think it is counterproductive to insist on pasting an old version over the new. I appreciate the editors reverence for Richards as an instrumentalist, but technical, sophisticated soloists like Clapton and Beck are generally given this sort of attention because they are known first as instrumentalists and not as songwriters. Therefore, I will attempt to edit this into two sections which I really think are a fair compromise: one on his general contributions to the Stones, one on the technical specifics of his playing, and I would very much appreciate it if the editor did not paste over all of my work before reading over it and deciding to change certain things rather than overhauling the entirety. Lastly, citing the "influence of Bob Dylan" on Richards is a bit of a stretch, and I think the majority of rock music historians would agree with me. Dylan's influence on the Stones was considerable, but it was about as much influence as he had on every other songwriter of the 60s. Entries for bands like the Beatles and the Byrds, would perhaps warrant an entire section on Dylan's influence, but Dylan’s connection with the Stones is more tenuous, certain songs such as “Who’s Been Sleeping Here,” and “Jigsaw Puzzle” blatantly recall Dylan, but the general consensus, which I think is accurate, is that Dylan had about as much influence on the Stones as he did on everyone else, i.e., more ambitious lyrical territory, introduction of folk idioms, etc. The Beatles would be more accurate touchstone to include, considering they were living, working, and recording in many of the same places as the Stones, and that the Stones were indeed apt to follow the Beatles innovations during the mid-60s, cliché though it may be; also, a large number of very early Jagger/Richards songs (mostly outtakes and unreleased tracks) were Merseybeat-type ballads and pop-oriented numbers. Also, the intense rivalry between the two groups ensured that their music would be closely related both in form and by association. I also think it’s safe to say that Jagger and Richards started writing songs because of Lennon and McCartney and their success as a songwriting team.

Re: Recent Edits

It takes a low regard for rhythm players in general to exclude Richards from the top rank. Richards has one of the most distinguisable styles there is - the mark of any great musician. And by other musicians he is highly regarded. Peter Rudge noted that "All the great guitarists bow to Keith."

The writer of the previous entry is in many instances is poorly informed. Ry Cooder didn't introduce Richards to open G. He introduced him to 5 string open G after Bukka White had shown Richards open G. An earlier entry inorrectly claimed Ry Cooder was the one who showed Richards the open G in the first place. Effectively sticking to a mistake, this has so far gone uncorrected by that writer. (The excised digression on Ry Cooders' influence essentialy implies that Richards is an uninspired thief. The argument is weak: tales of Richards lifting guitar tricks and licks from other guitarists to an egregious extent are pretty well confined to Cooders' brief aquaintance. Cooder, it should be understood, was also hired by the Stones under the general assumption that they would do whatever they thought best with what he played in the studio. Why Cooder's case should be different is puzzling. And Richards has never hid how Cooder, among others, influenced him.) The writer also initially thought Cooder had no part of the Beggars Banquet then later allowed that he might be. A more informed person would know that sessions from one year may appear on an album years later. This is a minor point but it becomes part of a pile of mistakes, some bigger than others. Another inaccuracy: Contrary to what the writer implies, Mick Taylor did assume the lions share of solo duties although Richards continued to solo here and there. The writer is incorrect in making it seem like an equal sharing of lead and rhythm went on between Richards and Taylor. Live recordings from around 1972 show Taylor noodling over rockers like "Brown Sugar" taking much of the drive from the song. Taylor - though one of the best lead players - was in fact nowhere near the rhythm player that Richards was - few guitar players are. And in an earlier entry the writer - citing unspecified "most accounts" asserted that the Stones did not do extended jams while playing London clubs. Their Edith Grove roommate James Pheldge in his book "Nankering With The Stones", reported that the Stones did indeed stretch out on tunes like "Crawdaddy" and that jams were routine. It would be interesting find out what at least one of those "most accounts" to the contrary were.

As for the the importance of acoustic guitar: Richards has argued that any guitar player is best judged by how he or she plays acoustic. To term "irelelevent" the brief but crucial - and explained - mentions of the importance of Richards acoustic playing and how it has affected his electric playing is a blunder. And, while we're at it what were the unspecified "the numerous, minor factual mistakes" not of the previous writers making?

A lot of material that was removed had more to do with the Stones or other persons than Richards. The Stones diversion into pyschedelia - which was really Jagger's doing - should be added to the general entry on the Stones. And what caused Brain Jones, and what he did with other intstruments - when he became indifferent to guitar also belongs elsewhere.

The writer while trading on false erudition has also confused faint praise for "objectivity." It's nice that several friends share the writers' opinions, maybe some of them can help verify facts. Correct information is plentiful and easily found. The writer should also reconsider just what "painstaking" implies.

The writer did have a point in that the technical discussion of his equiptment is a little too much and this will soon be acted upon. Likewise for removing the more fannish references while still giving due credit for Richards talents. Using the rational that the entry shouldn't digress too much, the silly arguments as to exactly how Cooder helped Richards was removed. The writer would do well to devote a section to Richards songwriting (and take care not to neglect, as the writer has so far done- the influence of Bob Dylan and others such as Buddy Holly and Hoagy Carmichael). The writer should also consider leaving alone appraisals of Rchards muscianship of which he or she has little appreciation and clearly posseses knowledge that is haphazard.

Recent edits

NOTE: Whoever overhauled my changes about Richards playing, in my opinion, really did a poor job and took out a lot of painstakingly researched stuff; they emphasizing his acoustic playing in a pretty irrelevant paragraph, (irresponsibly) downplayed the Ry Cooder controversy, and including numerous, minor factual mistakes, tending to focus exclusively on his "guitar style" and also displaying a sort of reverent stance that lacks objectivity. A prominent guitar stylist Richards is not, despite his distinctive uses of open tunings. He's known primarily as a songwriter, not an instrumentalist. The "richards as a guitarist" section overplays the minutae of his guitar set-up and virtually ignores his songwriting contributions, which are inarguably of more importance than the technical specifics of his playing. Most readers will find a general analysis of his musical contributions to the Stones, which self-evidently revolve round the guitar, more informative, especially considering the majority of people don't play the guitar. It's a general encyclopedi, not a music/guitar encyclopedia, so the information should be wide-rangin: i don't think this page should be for hardcore Richards fans and disciples of his playing. Therefore, I'm changing it back to the way it was and whoever changed his please dont re-haul the whole thing because I really don't think there's a justification for this format. If there are minor factual specifics that are incorrect, then by all means change them, but I really feel this version is far inferior to the original, and several people I've talked to agree with me.

Is this a Keith Ricards article or Rolling Stones one?

I made recent deletions due to the misguided, although perhaps well intended, recent additions tracing the beginning of Richards and Jagger's songwriting. It is way too unbalanced to do justice to the article. It belongs in the Rolling Stones article IMHO. There was too much editorializing too. Some valid effort should be made to add context about Richards role in the Stones, but there simply was way too much. I personally think a reader will read the Stones article for Keith's contribution to that band. This article used to be a real nice little addition to all the info on Richards as a Stone. People should try to restarin their enthusiasm for cramming in too much detail, for it detracts from the overall tone and temper of the Keith Richards article's focus. --Mikerussell 06:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert coments

Whom Richards plays with is central to him as a musician: he is a tandem player. This is directly pertinent and has been restored.

Received by email (OTRS #2006022610004754)

You incorrectly post Kieth Richard's original name as Kieth Richards - he was born Kieth Richard, all of his initial songs with Mic Jagger were credited to Jagger-Richard just look at any single or album from that time like "satisfaction" "I wanna be your man" etc. He changed his name because he was not the kind that wanted to correct people on this all the time.

Why don't you offer some validity to your claim, otherwise you just seem like a nut. Who are you, why should anybody believe you when the weight of consensus is heavily against you. The article deals with the name change issue, there is an explnation offered. If it is wrong you need to be more credible. Secondly, who the hell really cares, you know, he is known as Keith Richards now and unless you're his long-lost kin, what does it really matter?--Mikerussell 19:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: I think the email was a prank.

Factual Inaccuracies

From Tabcrawler.com is the following: "Nashville tuning refers to replacing the wound strings with strings tuned to the same note, one octave higher. One way to accomplish this is to use only the high strings that come in a set of strings for a 12 string guitar. It is popular in Nashville studios to double acoustic guitar parts with this tuning, hence the name." Richards has used the Nasville tuning but the 5 string open G tuning is not a Nashville tuning.

Saying that the Beatles "Think For Yourself" has priority over "Satifaction" is wrong: "Satisfaction" was released June '65 while "Think For Yourself wasn't recorded until November of that year. If not sure of the facts, post suggested changes on this page.

Thanks to whomever correctly identified Keith's favorite black Gibson is a ES-355 and not a ES-335.

Satisfaction and Bob Dylan

I understand that a faction of rock enthusiasts tends to credit Dylan for influencing the rebellious, semi-socially conscious lyrics of "Satisfaction," but I think this is a bit of a stretch for a lot of fans and critics. Dylan was influencing everyone and breaking down barriers, but I think if you asked Mick Jagger and Keith Richards if the song was specifically influenced by Dylan they would say "no." Songs like "Jigsaw Puzzle" and "Whos Been Sleeping Here" are much more obviously Dylan-influenced. For one thing, Dylan didn't invent social protest, his folk material from the early sixties wasn't really rock-oriented; his rock work starting in 1965 was largely poetic, sometimes abstract, and not always explicity political. "Satisfaction" is much more direct and much more aggressively rebellious than Dylan's rock work. I think if you read the imagery of "Get Off My Cloud," it reads more like a Dylan-influenced piece than "Satisfaction," but even that is speculation. So I'm taking that Dylan thing out and adding it to the list of general songwriting influences.

For what it is worth, I totally agree with your comments and edit. I think it really is a post-historical fantasy to claimn otherwise. --Mikerussell 19:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

There was no information added but the text became bloated. Information on Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley can be found in their entries. Adding "in tandem" was redundant. Whether the sixties "saw their longest period of sustained musical growth"" of the Stones was taken out because it is too much a matter of opinion and can easily descending into tiresome - and probably emotional - arguments. Reggae is a "personal favorite" of Richards, as is blues, country, soul, so the point of mentionng this is unclear. Richards is not the only fan of reggae in the band and drawing attention to Richards affection for the style seems trivial and not worth special attention.

I agree with your edits and deletion, whomever you are, the article should try to avoid personalized sentimentation- if that's a word- Richards himself probably would say his "personal favorite" music changes from day to day. Simply describing the songs and styles and not adding so called 'insight' is much better writing IMHO.--Mikerussell 19:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but I don't think that the sixties being their "longest period of sustained musical growth" is a matter of opinion much in the same way that they played with "soul, R&B, rock, country, etc." is a matter of opinion. I mean, have you listened to their albums from 64-69?? They're radically different; they started as a cover band, started writing songs, then covering soul music, then becoming more pop-oriented, then their lyrics started getting more adventurous, then phsycedelic stuff, etc. All the sounds they did, the way their songwriting developed, their lyrics, the instruments and studio production development, just general aging and musical experience in the decade of the most innovative rock music. I mean, their wasn't this much development from 70-2005 and that's a fact. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any rock critic on earth who'd say otherwise.

Is this a Stones article? You really seem to miss the point. It is only your opinion to suggest Richards has not grown musically. Look at songs like 'Sleep Tonight', "The Worst', 'Thru and Thru' and 'How Can I Stop' and compare them to 'Connection' and you have a strong argument he has expanded his range. In his solo recordings he presents a unique, personal collection of songs and it is some of his best music ever, IMHO. If the Stones were learning their craft in the sixities they would obviously show marked improvement or growth, but you really do sound like- and your edits suggest- you take your opinion too seriously. No need to lecture anyone about the Stones career- it ain't that hard to figure it out, you know, everybody and their little sister could probably spit out the plot line of their career. You take it too seriously- there is no one agreed upon opinion about there career and some people like Tattoo You more than Some girls, then Exile, blah, blah, blah- everybody has their favorites. You need to temper your zeal in editing the article on matters relating solely to personal opinion. --Mikerussell 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a Stones article, but the section about the Stones was just inaccurate, that's all. Conspicuously removing the part about sustained musical growth is removing factual information. You seem to think that I was implying that Richards new or post 70s music wasn't good, but I acually never said or came close to even implying that. Say what you want about his songwriting in and out of the Stones after the 60s; (for the record, I agree with you, and I like a lot of it); but that's not the point, nor is it the same thing as saying a concentrated period of musical development was the Stones' most productive (note that the songs Richards sings on aren't the only ones that he wrote); I think the idea is pretty obvious and simple, and it's nitpicking over one sentence anyway. Just to respond to your comments about taking myself too seriously, maybe you don't understand what I was saying. I think I said before I don't think it's much an opinion as much as it is matter of fact--it's like saying "they absorbed and were influenced by soul music"; I mean, even just the sheer number of songs, or even the fact that he started writing songs in the sixties is pretty obviously indicative of their most important decade, and anyone with a knowledge of the Stones and their career would agree. It's not about personal favorites, that's an irrelevant point. Some people think this stuff is all about opinions, but opinions only have so much value. You can actually look at a timeline of the stuff they did in the 60s, down to the records they lsitened to and wrote, and you'd agree, it was the busiest and most productive period of their career. And, seriously, read anything about the Stones and none of them, not one of them, will say that "oh it's all relative and everybody can say what they want about what the Stones biggest growth period was," because when you write about a band, it's not just personal viewpoint, it's also history--it's like saying "America's industrial Revolution took place during the 19th century"; I don't mean to "lecture," but keep in mind, saying that their longest period of sustained growth was in the 60s isn't POV and its not the same thing as saying it's their est. I think it's important to take stuff like this seriously because otherwise it's the equivalent of sloppy journalism. This isn't a fan page, it's supposed to be an informative and accurate encyclopedia article.

Small Revision

According to Stanley Booth's bio "Keith: Standing In The Shadow", Keith was at the Stones 1st rehearsal. This book is an excellent source of info with rare inteviews with Ian Stewart and others.

When Richards reverted to correct spelling of last name

It might be incorrect that 1982 is when this happened. I think it started in the 70s, but will check before making that assertion. the 1982 date was removed until it can e verified or corrected.

Edits on Solo Career

First, a special thanks to Ian Rose and others who have made awkward prose much more readable.

Richards decision to go solo was forced by matters, such as Ian Stewarts death, the poor health of the band - including Charlie Watts abuse of heroin and booze, and the general ill will within the band, and, of course, by Jagger's view that the band couldn't make it across the street let alone around the world. Better to have all of this in the Stones entry. The album "Dirty Works" has been rated highly by reviewers such as Robert Christgau, and opinions about it's quality are just that: opinions and generally not suitable for an encyclodpedia entry. Also whatever snotty names Richards called Jagger are of minor concern.

Listing theatres the Winos played is tedious. An attempt was made to show what the affects of Richards solo career were, and why it happened so late in his career. Also, incomplete listing of his cameo appearances was moved to a new section and edited to have some semblance of NPOV. This new section could use more extensive listings and an attempt at giving it some kind of artistic context.

Listing the theatres was useful for it showed the size of the audeinces he was playing for, sorry the information bored you, but you might want to think about how the article is read by the average reader and not just yourself, especially when you seem like such an expert. Since you seem to like to quote rock critics, I would imagine the stupidest rock critic would make notice of the venues an act plays in. I think Richards would too; accordingly, I restored the cuts.--Mikerussell 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Richards As Musician

Richards collaboative tendencies are so strong it made sense to began a section of his musicianship stressing that along with his loyalty to the Stones. Also his nickname the Human Riff deserves inclusion.

Yep, Somebody's Been Busy

The "Which Way To Go Section - I Don't Know" section was either centered on matters peripheral to this section, e.g. Charlie Watts throat cancer, or speculation that Richards MIGHT been in a movie expcept he just too busy. I just shit-canned the whole section. Information on bootleg material belongs in the Richards As Musican section.

It was a useful section to have as it served as a conclusion to the article and a section where users could update information. The inclusion of bootlegs fits this section too, for it points towards the day when, god forbid, the old guy croaks and just like the Beatles or Hendrix etc.- any rock great- they may officially be released, maybe even remastered.

Your edit is lame- at least I think it is you, since so many editors on this page do not edit under any identity it is hard to tell who is responsible for what exactly. Let me just say that when I read it today, it seemed very flaccid. I just recycled it. It is also a line from one of his solo songs, Demon, and it seems like a fitting way to keep the article current without mucking about with the main text. --Mikerussell 04:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Cameo Appearances

This section could use further additions and editing. An initial attempt to provide context and cohesion this section that amounts to more than a bare discography has been done.

I tried to take out POV unsubstantiated opinion, and sloppy editing, but it could use a lot more detailed additions, or maybe it should be scraped. Is it really a good title too- He co-produced the John Phillips record, as well as the Wingless Angels- seems stupid to say it is 'cameo' appearances. On second thought, I did collapse the info into the end of Solo Recordings. --Mikerussell 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicknamed the Human Riff

I took this out for the 2nd time. I think it is almost foolish to include this in general, but especially in the front section, where it came before his birth date! I don't know who is so attached to this nickname, but if they really think it is so important than why not put in a few sentences describing where it comes from and why it is significant to them (I am assuming if it means so much to them it might have similiar value to others). Otherwise it just gets to be almost comical, you know, like I see some sixty year old burnout wino in his flat editing it in because he has based his whole life around the career of "the human riff". I would like to know where it comes from because I hardly ever heard it. --Mikerussell 05:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Gram Parson comment regarding 'Say it ain't You'

Took out a line about George Jones duet 'Say it ain't you'. The POV comment was that this soing was a 'homage' to Gram Parsons. I don't know what that exactly means. Did Parsons ever record the country classic Jones made famous? Did Richards say somewhere he did for Parsons? The comment needs be explained betterr or removed because it just reads as a POV opinion.--Mikerussell 06:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits II

Keith didn't use the word "homage" but he described his motivation for recording "Say It Aint You" as such: he in fact did it as a debt to Parsons. I'll find the source then restore the homage statement then. Tour schedules add little to an encylcopedia entry, they are in fact near pointless. The full title of the Winos live album has been deleted (this is just sloppy) , and what is the point of listing it as a Virgin release? Terming a tour "memorable" has more to do with the editors' sentiment than anything else. This is still a Keith Richards entry and information regarding the Stones, such as Charlie Watts cancer belong on a Stones page, not here. Another edit was also sloppy: it was explained twice what may happen with the Winos reformation (careful with calling anything "lame", chickens do come home to roost). Being a frontman did change Richards as a performer - why is this not important - or less important than tour dates being listed?

I don't think you dealt with the issue in your above comment, Richards's 1988 tour was very 'memorable' because of the uniqueness of it, he has done 2 in 40 years. Go to his official website and take a look how large that period 1988-1992 is represented. Whether or not my sentiment is behind my edits is irrelevant, the objective historical fact of the uniqueness of the events- his solo tours- suggests my sense and sentiment are valid. Only unsubstantiated, biased, or irrelevent edits need to be deleted; moreover, you really cannot- as far as general wikipedia policy states- delete material that is factually accurate and has existed within the article as content for many months. I have very little arguement with including additional material, the way the 'frontman' wording was made when I first read it was poorly constructed- some odd statement about Jagger and Gimme Shelter (the film). As, or if, we enter an 'edit war' I might request you identify yourself with some entity- whatever alias you chose beyond a IP address- so a reader can track you as an editor. I will reinclude valid, factual info. --Mikerussell 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Theatre names and Summary section

I reverted the deletion of the material I mentioned in the above headings because they were deleted and no explanation was offered? (In the History or in the Discussion page. No editor beyond an IP address did this too- making it an anonymous edit, unexplained.) Whoever edits should try to respond to the edits they make, otherwise you simply place a fellow-wikipedian in an impossible spot, where I keep re-entering the material because I have a valid reason and there is no discussion offered otherwise. What is an editor to do? It gets kind of time-consuming, but everybody should assume good faith in making the edits and try to offer reasons- reasons others can evaluate and ultimately a consensus kind of develops- for making their cuts.

More specifically, I hardly think it is a grotesque injury to the article to include the halls he played at during his very unique solo tour. (Especially when they have wikipedian articles on them too!) If it was incorrect info, or subjective- "such as his greatest concert ever was at the Fox", that might be different. But the info is not uninteresting or redundant- and it shows that he was playing to a few thousand people.

Any of my subjective statements about the writing is a general statement- so many editors contribute, it is almosty impossible to ascribe the authorship to anyone contributor. If you go back and read the article as it was just before my edit of a few days ago, you see spelling errors, grammar problems, syntax errors and simply poorly edited sections- thus it was 'lame'. Before or after deleting material, try to justify the cuts with reasons beyond personal statments like it was "tedious' or 'boring', especially when their is no premeium on space.--Mikerussell 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

You're not responding to the merits of the of the discussion. Anybody can figure out that 2 solo tours was significant for Richards long career, adding the dates adds nothing to this. The live reocrd title is still incorrect. The use of "memorable" is the editors sentiment and reflects POV unsuitable for an encyclopeadia entry. The editor was ignorant that his George Jones duet was in fact an homage and excided that without investigation. Removed second mention that Richards recorded fewer solo recordings than other Stones.

Whatever guy, it means more to you than me. Good show!--Mikerussell 17:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We all know Keith is still with the Stones as they keep rolling, the bootleg material is considerable and the Apt # 9 Track - which earlier had said Ian Stewart played piano on belongs in the Solo recordings section

Edit war

Anonymous editing makes it difficult to get a consensus about what version should be kept. Please try to identify yourself and explain why your edits are valid beyond personal reasons. The article had a conclusion section and the material existed for a long time, an anonymous editor's opinion is just that and a resolution comes through a consensus of other users too. Bootlegs are valid to include in the conclsuion section, and the most famous one is valid to include (Apt #9) Who are you to say otherwise?. We are just wasting time until you chose an identity and make an effort to offer your reasons to the 'user community' of wikipedia who over time will help settle the issue. --Mikerussell 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

What encyclopedia biographical entry ends with a what-the-future-may-hold section? Deal with the merits of the changes instead of trivia like ID. The bootleg info belongs in the "Musical Career" section. There are many Keith Richard bootlegs, describing the details and circumstances of just one recording does little to flesh out the mass of unreleased recordings.

"The which way to go..." is leagues more insipid than the "Human Riff"" nickname the eidtor objects to so emphatically though the nickname is very much a part of Richards history. The editor has persistantly restored the incorrect title to the Winos live recording though this has been pointed out as an error repeatedly.

Re Edit

"Furious pace" and "rock icons" is respectable copy for a "Behind The Music" segment, but not here.

Unreleased Recordings

This section is just a rewrite of the "Which way to go I don'r know." section. It seems to be poorly worded rewrite too. "Richards has termed" when and where? The opinion offered is a little condescending to the reader too- "Typically unreleased recordings appear as post-career or as posthumous releases". (Which seems to be countrary to the stated Rarities album release) The previous edit was better, more factual- gave example of the bootleg collection and did not raise unexplained commentary like "and the still problematic issues regarding ownership of their sixties output" Uh huh, that's rather self-explanatory. I think the article will be amended by others because it needs it and it is rather written to a single editors limited purview, so I don't really think there is much point to say anything beyond that. --Mikerussell 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

69.237.115.101 edits need work

This-

"Ricahrds solo career lead to him being much more flamboyant live performer than the Richards seen in the documentary of the Stones' 1969 American tour, Gimme Shelter."

-is suppose to be good writing for wikipedia? The grammar isn't even correct. Does the average reader have any idea what Richards was like in the cult 1970s film Gimme Shelter? I'm not even going to fix it because it is so badly composed someone else will. --Mikerussell 03:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Example 2

After Jagger, who was in pursuit of a solo career and who, to Richards disappointment, had just nixed a Stones tour to suppport their newly-released album Dirty Work - Richards formed Keith Richards and the X-pensive Winos in 1988 (first named Organized Crime), a band that included drummer Steve Jordan who had recorded many tracks on Dirty Work and who was Richards' drummer for Hail! Hail! Rock and Roll!, a documentary of Chuck Berry's the 60th birthday concert that Richards hosted and for which he was musical director.

This is one loooong sentence. Some words have hyphens that don't need them, as in "newly-released" and the hyphen is used where a period should be placed. I think this is what happens when one person thinks it is their article, and tries to police it. The article is not readable in spots, and leaves me wondering what the heck it means- and I know a lot about about the guy to begin with. I would fix the errors, but when you have one anonymous editor constantly reverting anybody's edits but their own, it gets to be a waste of time. --Mikerussell 03:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Yes "the average reader" does have an "idea what Richards was like in the cult 1970s film Gimme Shelter?" That sentence informs the reader of that. Informing is the purpose of an encyclopedia entry. How did you miss this? Given this glaring blunder on your part, you really have no cause to assume a superior conceit.

The critcism of sentence structure are vailid and well taken. If a sentence is long and needs editing, by all means edit. Reverting with your previous errors uncorrected (this is called "sticking to a mistake"), while adding hyperbole and tedium is why the reverts were done.

Icons

Songs as "icons"? Lets leave pr hype out of it. Think about it, a song as an icon? You might want to check out just what an icon is.

Response

The Oxford English Dictionary, dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com all include this definition: "i·con :: An important and enduring symbol".--Dennywuh 19:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Response

Ok, so how is a song a symbol? What is this song a symbol of? Where has it been used as a symbol? And why is it not hyperbole?

Retort

The mentioned dictionaries include this definition: "sym·bol :: something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible: 'The eagle is a symbol of the United States'".

Songs are the basic units of contemporary music, in the same way as books are the basic units of literature and buildings are the basic units of architecture. In accordance with the above definition, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a symbol of modern architecture, The Odyssey a symbol of classic literature, and (I can get no) Satisfaction a symbol of rock music. In turn, each of these examples is important and enduring enough in its own field to be considered an icon.

Hyperbole requires, by definition, exaggeration, distortion of reality, as in "mile-high ice-cream cones". There is no exaltation or falsehood in the sentence "(I can get no) Satisfaction is an icon of rock music" in the same way as there is no hyperbole or exaggeration in these sentences:

   "Many consider (I can get no) Satisfaction the all-time greatest rock and roll song"

- The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

   "(I can get no) Satisfaction has become part of the Western collective consciousness"

- Allmusic.com

I don't mind you finding fault with the word 'icon', you'll notice I haven't attempted to reinstate it, but I do object to you accusing me of not knowing its meaning. This discussion has proved the opposite, that it was you who was ignorant of the word's significance, in the same way as you're unfamiliar with the definitions of 'symbol' and 'hyperbole'. Next time, I hope you will refer to the dictionary before editing other people's texts. --Dennywuh 20:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

re: retort

When you can find and provide examples of iconic uses of "Satisfaction" I'll buy your assertion. The above quotes are nothing of the sort. They are appraisals built on opinion and nothing more. For something to be an icon it has to be used as an icon in some way.

Additional note - "Satisfaction has become part of the Western collective consciousness"? People born in Finland and other parts of Christendom have "Satisfaction" hard wired in the DNA? Besides having nothing to do with iconography, this quote is just ridiculous by itself.

Rejoinder

The tune hit the charts for the first time in early 1966, 40 years ago, and someone or other has recorded it every single year since, with only five exceptions: '69, '73, '77, '79 and '80. This year, it has already been issued on three albums at least. The number of artists who have covered it, added to the airplay that the Rolling Stones versions have had over these four decades make it a well-known song. So popular, in fact, that in the developed world one would be hard-pressed to find someone who had never heard it before. This is, I think, what the author of the quote, Richie Unterberger, meant by it.

I find the quote significant for various reasons: a) Mr Unterberger is the respected author of many excellent books on rock music. b) The source, Allmusic.com (aka AllMusicGuide), is an established and trusted repository of musical knowledge. c) The wording is factual and objective, as opposed to your "hard-wired in the DNA" bombast. d) An assertion such as this cannot be made about many songs, which lends credence to my point about the enduring importance of this particular one.

Finally, Mr Anonymous, I confess to having grown tired both of explaining simple concepts to you, and of helping you with your English vocabulary. Personally, I shall end this discussion here. --Dennywuh 11:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rejoinder

The above rejoinder doesn't do anything more than say that "Satisfaction" is a very popular song - examples of it being used iconically are still not forthcoming. The editor may want to look at the entry on Carl Jung to see how ridiculous the "collective unconscious" claim is: the claim does amount to believing that "Satisfaction" is hard-wired at birth in western minds.

Petty Morals

"Richards' famous testimony regarding England's "petty morals" made him a target for establishment backlash" This needs to be supported. Why the establishment went after Keith is a broad area; rememeber he did become the most famous junky in the world. Anyways, if the above quote can be supported it should stay. If no support is given, it should be removed. - Mr. Anonymous

What?

"In the The 60s they wrote Rock n' Roll, Soul, Folk, Pop, Country and Psychedelic, incorporating the lyrical innovations of Bob Dylan into their Blues/R&B base. Their work in the 70s and beyond has incorporated Funk, Disco, Reggae, and Punk." This is an akward and inaccurate sentence--why are the "styles" capitalized? They didn't "write" these styles, which would imply they were deliberately aping these style of music and that their original material either derivative or authentic exponents of a number of far-flung styles of American music, neither of which is the case. Also, you can't write "phsycedelic" for the same reason you can't write "bluesy." I remember changing this before, but someone saw fit to revert it to this silly version not once, but twice. I'm going to change it to say that they ABSORBED theses styles of music (indisputable) and I'm going to decapitalize the styles (grammar) and change "psychedelic" to "psychedelia" (common term). I should also say that you can't really say that they incorporated lyrical innovations into blues/r&b--you can say it, but it's weird and akward, since lyrics aren't a musical style that is absorbed into another--they are a different part of songwriting.

More inaccuracies

""The Last Time" was the first Jagger/Richards song recorded by the band, in 1964, and in 1965 they wrote "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction", their first worldwide hit and a staple of Stones concerts to this day." Akward, comma-happy sentence; also, while I'm not 100% percent sure, I find it highly unlikely that 1965's "The Last Time" was the first Jagger/Richards song recorded by the group, as others--"Heart of Stone," "Tell Me"--were hits months, even years before that song's release. So I'm changing this sentence (which I think is another example of someone pasting in an old, poorly written, inaccurate version out of laziness and stubborn-ness when they don't like changes).

Recent edits

The edits are needed improvements. I always doubted the priority given to "The Last Time" and am glad to see someone make the correction and then support the correction. The only factual quibble I have is that declaration that the the Nanker/Phledge compositions are considered to be "apparently" group compositions. I hope somebody looks into it and can offer somthing more definite than "apparently". Since this is a minor point, I don't want to edit it out - especially since I don't have better information to supply at the moment.

That "Satisfaction" is still played by the Stones should stay included, this stresses the importance of the song to the Stones. Also the Stones started out playing the rock n' roll of Cuck Berry and Bo Diddley and their first hit was a Bo Diddley rocker version of Buddy Holly's "Not Fade Away." Consequently a small edit was made to include Rock n' Roll as a starting point for Jagger/Richards that they soon expanded beyond.

Again the edits are in the main welcome improvements - Mr Anonymous

Stating that Satisfaction remains a staple of Stones concerts to this day is an irrelevant point; it could be included in the article relating to the song, however the Stones have dozens of concert staples from 1964-2003; furthermore, the way the editors added this onto the previous sentence was stylistically awkward. So, I'm going to remove it as it's obvious, doesn't specifically relate to the Keith Richards page, and doesn't really add anything to the songwriting section except saying that their most famous song is still played in concert, along with about 40 or 50 other of their most famous songs that are still played in concert. I'll also change the Nanker Phelge thing by taking out the apparently, which I included as a concession to some stubborn participant who seems to insist that the pseudonym was used only for songs Jagger/Richards disliked, which is incorrect. YOU SHOULD ALL GET A LIFE, THERES MY EDIT