Talk:The Stooges (album)

RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for Not including "Rock and roll" as the album genre is clear.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Malik Shabazz objects to the genre being linked in the infobox because of his point of view on the album's music (stated below), conflating it with his desire not to (presumably) mislead readers. The genre is verified in the article by one critic's description of the album, and according to Template:Infobox album#Genre, "genres should be linked" (in the infobox). Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox? (Plesh your arguments out under Discussion; explanations will be moved there if you accompany them alongside your Vote) Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't use five-dollar words if you don't know what they mean, Dan. I'm not "conflating" anything. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Would you feel better with a four-letter word? Dan56 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• No. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• No. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• No (see below) --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• No rock n roll is not a genre one places upon the progenitors of punk, this is just weird. ValarianB (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• No This is not relevant, I have never read a famous critic using this label for the first Stooges lp Woovee (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Despite the exact words a critic used, I am certain that no reputable critic intended to describe The Stooges as rock and roll, "a genre of popular music that originated and evolved in the United States during the late 1940s and early 1950s". Perhaps rock music, "a genre of popular music that originated as 'rock and roll' in the United States in the 1950s, and developed into a range of different styles in the 1960s and later", better captures what they wrote? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are you sure of that? Furthermore, why should what a Wikipedia article--especially the conflated mess that is the rock music article and the rock and roll article whose definitions have questionable verifiability--reflects determine whether we use the word here or not? A critic used it, we don't know their intentions behind using it or their understanding of the word anymore than any other critic using any other word for any other style of music. Also, keep in mind the garage rock article describes it as "a raw and energetic style of rock and roll". Can we avoid the other stuff exists line of argument and just stick to the source? Dan56 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why am I sure of that? Because I have two working ears and a working brain between them. I don't know what "the other stuff exists line of argument" is, but I know what common sense is. I know that The Stooges is not 1950s-style rock and roll, and if you insist on using that phrase, you shouldn't Wikilink it to an article about a style of music not present on the album. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations. I hope you have two working eyes and see that the critic called this album "rock and roll". You quoted a Wikipedia article in your argument, so that other stuff. You're also presuming your opinion of the music is relevant here. Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dan, it's unfortunate that you're more interested in "winning" than getting it right. I never argued that the critic didn't describe The Stooges as rock and roll, just that they didn't mean the same thing as the article you Wikilinked their phrase to. If you insist on pursuing this edit war for the sake of edit warring, I'll report you to AN/I (not AN3), where you and your shtick are well known. Readers 1, Dan56 0. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

*Yawn* You're coming off as arrogant. There's no discussing with you. I've said all I have to say. Dan56 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A one-sentence "review" at the back of a book about the White Stripes doesn't count as a reliable source on the Stooges. At best, the opinion is WP:FRINGE. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The source is Denise Sullivan, a music historian @NewYorkActuary:. She's qualified to make a significant judgment on the album. Dan56 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What difference does it make whether the opinion appears in a completely unrelated book? @NewYorkActuary: The source verifying "proto-punk" in this article is attributed to a review of the Stooges' The Weirdness, not of this album. Dan56 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I originally hoped to approach this as an independent admin to close the RFC. However, with only three contributors and limited on point discussion, I didn't feel comfortable closing this based upon the contents of the discussion. I did reach a conclusion but not wanting to close as a super voter, I'm adding my opinion as a vote and hope that someone else can close this. The statement of the notable experts such as Denise Sullivan ordinarily should carry a lot of weight. However, I think it is relevant that the statement is close to a throwaway comment in a book which is primarily about something else.

Our list of genres List_of_popular_music_genres#Rock Includes rock 'n roll within the larger category "rock" but both punk rock and alternative rock parallel to and not special cases of rock 'n roll.

Sullivan makes references to the Stooges several times in All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music. She talks about The Dream Syndicate and includes it, along with the Stooges as examples of contemporary alternative music. (page 126) Stephen Thomas Erlewine discusses Soundgarden comparing them to the Stooges, but using genres Alternative metal, grunge, alternative pop/rock (page 378). Steve Huey also mentions Ultramega OK, comparing it to the Stooges and refers to it as heavy metal.

• I find it compelling that the sole source (Sullivan) supporting the rock 'n roll genre is also on record with a reference to the Stooges and other albums and categorizes those other albums in multiple genres, none of which are rock 'n roll, and other notable critics also use genres other than rock 'n roll when discussing the Stooges.
• I also find it compelling that the Rolling Stones summary refers to "seminal punk classics" and does not use the term "rock 'n roll".--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Proto-punk" is not a genre and should be removed. Probably the same with garage rock. "Punk" is definitely out. The infobox should steer clear of most of this and stick with only Rock music, which includes all the nitpicky subgenres the Stooges could be labelled with (including Rock 'n' roll—though I seriously doubt Rock 'n' roll and Rock are actually different things, regardless of how Wikipedia presents it). Perhaps Hard rock, if you want to get any more specific. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Other sources supporting "rock and roll"

@Sphilbrick:,

• "Via repetitive three-chord rock'n'roll, 'The Stooges' articulated American post-adolescent boredom in a way no rock album had" (John Tobler, 1991, Who's Who in Rock & Roll);
• "The Stooges didn't so much connect with the music that came before it, rather it dragged rock 'n' roll down to the car wash and scrubbed it up one side and down the other" (Brian Smith, 2002, Detroit Metro Times, in 1969: The Year Everything Changed) Dan56 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your second source makes the case against you, as it says that the Stooges had no connections to previous music, too what was "rock n roll" at the time and made it into something new. ValarianB (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the book

Grit, Noise, and Revolution: The Birth of Detroit Rock 'n' Roll, (yes, Rock 'N' Roll) by David A Carson, describes the early Stooges as a "loud, raw, almost primitive-sounding rock band." Of course (another phrase meaning "in my opinion") they were a rock & roll band. They are, after all, in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, class of 2010. That is what Rock & Roll was in Michigan during the late 1960s. I don't think that I have ever disagreed with @Malik Shabazz: before, but, Mal, you are too young to make this call. Carptrash (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there really wasn't a name for what the Stooges were when they arrived on the scene so you really can't fault contemporary music critics who lacked the vocabulary to describe a wholly new genre of music. When KMFDM first started appearing in college radio playlists, reviewers called them "progressive house techno", as industrial music hadn't quite gelled as a thing yet. rock n roll is just too broad and generic of a genre type to apply when it can encompass everyone from U2 to Pink Floyd to Roy Orbison. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was a name for what they played when they arrived on the scene. That name was Rock & Roll. Carptrash (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

C'mon, you can't listen to the original I Wanna Be Your Dog and say that's actually "rock"? That's punk being born before they knew what to call it, and I think latter-day sources have acknowledged that. ValarianB (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just listened to it, and yes, that is what rock & roll was like back then. At least in Michigan. I agree that this is punk in the making, but you can't call it something that did not exist at the time. This is Detroit rock & roll. Carptrash (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash. Please recall what the Stooges sounded like. Then click on rock and roll. Does linking to that article convey anything meaningful to our readers about The Stooges? Did the band play 1950s-style rock'n'roll, which is what the Wikipedia article is about, or did they play ROCK AND ROLL!? According to Dan56, if a genre is included in the infobox, it must be linked to the corresponding Wikipedia article. I think a link to the music of Elvis Presley and Bill Haley and Buddy Holly does a disservice to readers who want to know what The Stooges sounds like. (Speaking of Detroit rock'n'roll, though, it's an appropriate link for the MC5's Back in the USA, which included covers of Little Richard and Chuck Berry.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay @Malik Shabazz:, you are going to get me to agree "by definition." What the genre should be in Rock music. What comes to mind is another Detroit musician Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels and the song, penned by Lou Reed, Rock 'n' Roll. Which I just learned, is not a rock n roll song after all. If you would, could you go to the Rock and Roll article, look at the second paragraph that begins "According to Greg Kot," which is followed by an "either" and no "or." I was browbeat by a grammar fascist mother who taught me that there is no "either" without and "or" and if I put the "or" in and finish the sentence the article will end up being about the "or" and the Stooges will be a rock & roll band. Again. Carptrash (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding accurate citations

To whom it may concern,

I have looked at the coding process for adding citations but I could use a quick personal tutorial from a Wikipedia employee / editor. I have edited The Stooges debut album Wikipedia page and have a list of my sources where I need to add the proper citations on certain passages where Wikipedia has flagged certain content [citation needed].

Please let me know how best to get started to learn the Wikipedia encoding process for adding the correct Wikipedia citations to link pertinet accurate sources to backup the content.

Thank you!

Jarrett Gardner Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• pertinent Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:REFB. However, these edits indicate that you also need to learn how to write in a more encyclopedic style, as well as citing sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I am the main author - I wrote the bulk of the following paragraphs -

" For their first album, the Stooges had intended to record seven songs: "Asthma Attack", "I'm Sick", "Dance Of The Romance", "Goodbye Bozos", "No Fun", "I Wanna Be Your Dog", and "1969".[citation needed] "Asthma Attack" was a completely different composition than the version of the song utilizing the same song title that appears on the album reissue.[citation needed] According to Iggy Pop, "'Asthma Attack' was a structured piece of repetitive descending chording that sounded a lot like (Syd Barrett's) Pink Floyd 'Interstellar Overdrive.'" He elaborates further, "And it was B (major), A (major), G (major), & E (major) like a Who thing – and then I would wheeze and say, 'asthma attack.'"[citation needed]

Ron Asheton's main guitar riff in the song "1969" which utilizes an "A (major) & G (major) two chord guitar pattern was directly lifted from The Byrds "Tribal Gathering" (originally occurring between :50-1:02 & again at 1:30-2:03 mark in the original song arrangement). The drum pattern in "1969" was directly lifted from the famous Bo Diddley percussive beat.

The main guitar riff to "I Wanna Be Your Dog" was inspired by the opening guitar riff to "Highway Chile" by The Jimi Hendrix Experience and the song arrangement to "No Fun" was inspired by Johnny Cash's "I Walk The Line". Embryonic versions of all seven songs were initially written from mid-late 1968 and early 1969. These seven songs were staples—and essentially the basis—of the Stooges' 1968 and early 1969 live set at the time.[citation needed] A typical Stooges song of the period[according to whom?] would involve either two minutes of composed song followed by several minutes of improvisation or avant-garde, free-form workouts. Having assumed that the seven songs as normally performed would cover requirements for the album, the Stooges were told by their record label Elektra that they needed more material.[citation needed] Pop later recalled: "We auditioned [the seven-song version of the album] live in the studio and they refused it. Jac Holzman, head of Elektra Records, is quoted having said, 'There aren't enough legitimate songs that contain structured lead vocals!' So we lied and said, 'That's OK, we've got lots more proper songs.' Upon hearing this Holzman then indicated to the band that they had one week to record and prepare the album."[2]

Within the week the group was able to complete the task the label requested and wrote four more songs, "We Will Fall" (based upon a musical chant by Dave Alexander), "Real Cool Time", "Not Right", and "Little Doll" (based upon "Goodbye Bozos" freak out, with an additional opening bass guitar riff directly lifted from Pharoah Sanders "Upper Egypt And Lower Egypt" originally played on stand up bass by Henry Grimes and occurring roughly at the halfway mark (9:03 minute mark) in the original song arrangement. ), and after producer John Cale informed the band that they needed "one more song to complete the album", Iggy revised "Ann" which was the first song he wrote for The Stooges that was initially discarded by the band in 1968.

Three of the four avant-garde, free-form songs were now restructured and edited into pre-existing original songs with only "I'm Sick" being discarded completely for the revised list repertoire of original songs recorded for the album. "Dance Of The Romance" was now added into the composition "Ann" tacked on as a musical coda after the ballad main song piece. "Goodbye Bozos" with an additional two chord sequence and updated lyrics now became revised as "Little Doll", while the Pink Floyd "Interstellar Overdrive" influenced structured piece known as "Asthma Attack" was now jettisoned for a more unstructured freak out piece which was newly improvised yet retained the original song title.

All restructured and edited compositions were now played and recorded for the first time in the studio. An initial mix by John Cale, apparently resembling ex-Velvet Underground bandmate Lou Reed's "closet mix" of that band's eponymous third album from the same year, was rejected by Elektra. The mix as heard on the final product was done by Iggy Pop and Elektra president Jac Holzman. Four of Cale's original mixes would later appear on the bonus disc of a 2005 reissued version, with pitch correction applied to them. Five years later, all eight Cale mixes were released unaltered on the first disc of a 2010 collector's edition release of the album.[3] "

30 minutes ago or so I slightly edited a few of my own previous self authored sentences to streamline content and update accurate pertinent accurate information and after posting I saw that all of my edits were deleted and no edits were added.

This is why I desperately need to learn the Wikipedia coding process that has to do with adding citations. The other Wikipedia coding I am familiar with except adding citations.

Please help!

Thank you,

Jarrett Gardner Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused...please don't take this the wrong way my intentions are for you to help me and for me to author sentences in the best way possible per Wikipedia's guidelines...

But if I need to learn to write in a more encyclopedic style than I must ask because why has the bulk of my previous self authored paragraphs all been published?

The Wikipedia paragraphs that currently appear that I just pasted I wrote minimum 80% of this content. Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Would it be best to add accurate sources / citations before I attempt to make any minor edits to the pre-existing published Wikipedia content that I previously self authored? Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Currently, there are 5 [citations needed] and 1 [according to whom?] that I need to add the correct sources / encode correct citations for to back up my previously authored content.

Previously authored content that I am assuming Wikipedia editors had previously greenlit and allowed to be published. Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone sounds smug or if I have jumped to arrive at false conclusions as this is never my intention!

As you know - plain text does not translate as well an a conversational speech...

However, I am under the assumption that there surely must be a past record log of my previous posts that Wikipedia employees / editors can see so to have knowledge of exactly what information I contributed to Wikipedia webpages. Is this correct? Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not used the Wikipedia "Talk" feature in some time. Please forgive me for my poor conversational skills and clunky non sequiturs. This is my first attempt in a long while trying to communicate with a Wikipedia employee. Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help it is GREATLY appreciated! Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Guy Hamilton,

I apologize for the overly elaborate long posts that must have come off as unprofessional and awkwardly emotionally charged.

My true intention is to learn as much as I can from professional Wikipedia editors / authors such as yourself so that I may one day learn to apply the information provided to the best of my abilities. My intention is to learn to apply constructive criticism and write in an objective, encyclopedic style. As well as learning to post the most accurate information along with learning how to cite sources properly.

I have read the information listed in the WP:REFB link you provided me with. I will carefully re-read this information so that I may learn to properly cite sources correctly.

Thank you for your time and help. It is greatly appreciated!

Kind regards,

Jarrett Gardner Jarrett Gardner (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, it's always a good idea to try to walk before you try to run. Experimenting with editing should always be done in your sandbox. Secondly, no-one "agreed to publish" any of your edits - you edited and published it yourself, by clicking the button that says "Publish changes". If I were you, I would concentrate on simply learning how to add citations to the material you have included. I'm sure it will then be possible for other editors to read through your contributions and improve the writing style. But, essentially, getting your edits right is your responsibility - no-one else's. I've added some guidance to your user talk page - I don't know why it wasn't done previously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)