Talk:Their Satanic Majesties Request

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Rolling Stones Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Beatles' miscellanea

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SatanicMLP.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about John Paul Jones

"...playing keyboards or bass guitar for artists including the Rolling Stones on Their Satanic Majesties Request (it's Jones' string arrangement which is heard on "She's A Rainbow")." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Jones_%28musician%29

Amongst Stones fans too young to have bought "Their Satanic Majesties Request" upon release, the album has a much better reputation. Keith Richards hates the album to this day; however, it was Bill Wyman's favorite, and Mick Jagger seems to have joined in the general reappraisal of the album.

That shouldn't be a criterion. This is a history article, not a music review article anyway. Jagger was the Beatles' 'gofer' - they let him into their recording sessions, he went out for fish 'n' chips for them etc, and in turn he got to steal all their ideas. And they didn't care. Everything Jagger did was a rip-off - not some artistic achievement. Jagger saying he's 'reappraised' the record is simply an attempt to get sales going again; citing this as of some importance to this HISTORIC article is meaningless.

Could somebody please give details of when the original release was (uk and usa). If the original recording was in Mono or Stereo and subsequent reissues. Also, we would like to know how to identify these different releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 November 2007 UTC

To answer some of your questions: John Paul Jones is already mentioned in the track listing. The album was originally released on 8 December 1967 (UK) and 9 December 1967 (US) and was mono – subsequent releases were stereo. Regarding identifying the different releases, this site may help you. --Bruce1ee 08:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gomper

Gomper is very similar to Velvet Underground's Lady's Godiva Operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.216.155 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles, you say?

According to this article, some or all of the Beatles performed backing vocals on She's a Rainbow... but on that song's article, it says that this is just a rumor. Which is it?--Teiladnam (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They never performed on any of their albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.5.74 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you listen closely to Sing This All Together there is one spot in particular where Lennon's very distinctive voice can be heard clearly coming out of the mix a bit when they sing the chorus. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source that the 3d art was destroyed??

How is that the case if numerous CD reissues have restored the original 3d hologram, since the 80s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.191.47 (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The numerous CD reissues with a lenticular cover have used the original 2-D-photograpgh, and have it artificialy converted into a semi-3-D-lenticular image. Different portions of the 2-D-photograph have been cut and put onto different layers. Say, the background with the mountains and the citadel, is a 2-D-plain, on a lyer in the background. The Stones are on a different layer, in mid-ground. Some parts in the foreground are on layer right in the foreground. In a similar way, the lenticular cover for the 2017 super deluxe anniversary set was re-created in a similar way. It's not really 3-D, but just different portions of the photograph(s) on different levels. The original 3-D-lenticular cover on the contrary, really is 3 dimensional and is much clearer and sharper than the re-creations. You need to see these covers in reality to tell the difference. Images of the various covers on discogs.com cannot reveil the differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.82.56 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jones - No guitars?

I've just read the personnel section - is it true that Brian Jones played no guitar on this album at all? I find that extraordinary given that it was his main instrument. Or was this part of his gradual withdrawal from the group? Best Witchwooder (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a conflict: The musician credits for the song "She's A Rainbow" list Brian Jones on guitar, yet the musician credits for the album as a whole do not list him as playing guitar. Only one can be correct. How do we reconcile?Cbben (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised as well but it could be. And I think you nailed it, this was when he was really withdrawing from the group. You can really see it in the very weird movie Sympathy for the Devil (aka one plus one) by Godard. Half the film is just a recording of the Stones in the studio working on the iconic song. It's really very cool if you are a musician watching how that song evolves from a funeral dirge to the masterpiece it turned into and one of the things you see is Brian is always off literally walled off in a corner of acoustic walls barely participating or being noticed by the rest of the group. Sigh, makes me sad just thinking about it, such an amazing and creative guy. It's one of the reasons I actually like this album so much... even if Brian didn't play guitar between the sitar, sax, xylophone, and countless other instruments he added an incredible creative dimension to the band and I think it really shows on this album. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Starostin - Vandalism?

Why has the link to George Starostin's review page been classified as vandalism? If no-one objects, I am going to reinstate it. Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus has not changed since this discussion in 2009. ~~Your contributions~~Those edits, BTW, should not have been labelled vandalism. Radiopathy •talk• 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Radiopathy, I've learned something new today. I have a suspicion that I've used George elsewhere. I'll find them and remove them. Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Their Satanic Majesties Request/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

All the start class criteria

Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Y Categorisation at least by artist and year
Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Cavie78 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article requirements:
Y Start: reasonably complete infobox; lead section with overview of album; track listing; reference to at least primary personnel by name; Categorization by at least artist and year.
Y C: all of start and (1) cover art in infobox; (2) at least one additional section of prose; (3) track lengths & song authors in tracklist; (4) a personnel section including all musicians.

B: all of C and (1) most technical details in infobox; (2) technical personnel in personnel section; (3) no obvious issues with sourcing; (4) no obvious issues with readability, though it may not conform completely to style guidelines; (5) no glaring omissions of information (see some suggestions at WP:ALBUM) or extraneous information, like trivia.
Higher Classes are not assigned by WikiProject Album. Please review "the perfect article" and, if already B class, consider seeking additional feedback from Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on article class. To request a reassessment from the Album project, when concerns are addressed, please see "requesting an assessment".

Last edited at 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Their Satanic Majesties Request. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160126084927/http://infodisc.fr/Album_R.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_R.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]