Talk:(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction/Archive 1

Just For Fun
Should Mick Jaggers quote "I'd rather be dead than be singing Satisfaction at 45" be included? Just as a piece of Trivia? 216.141.239.249 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Article needs work

 * There are a lot of citations missing, especially concerning quotes, and some of the article is simply bizarre. Why the hell is there an info box concerning Otis Redding's cover and release of the song? There's a lot of poor writing that needs work, too - "Junior Well's did a smokin' version on "Paint It Blue". Are you shitting me? This article needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb and fixed up; if no one replies or changes the article within the next week or so, I'm nominating it for Featured article status removal. TheImpossibleMan 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm on it. (Cut it some slack, two years is a lot of time for people to add a bunch of useless/stupid/inane/irrelevant/trivial/inadequately integrated content to the article.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ...holy crap, you did this article too? What are the odds? No, seriously. That's a strange coincidence. Anyhow, assuming you make some adjustments, I won't put this up for FARC; you don't need to have it perfect in a week, just work on it some. TheImpossibleMan 15:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okie dokie. Actually I think most (at least those dealing with non-modern pop music) of the song articles on FA were edited substantially by me, so don't be too surprised if I show up on other similar articles too. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I cut out nearly everything about the cover versions, which were given too much weight. We don't need to know that movie X had some actress who sang a version of the song if our sources don't see fit to mention it. That was the only major problem with the article, IMO. Everything is footnoted now, and I expanded it a little. The writing might be a bit sub-par; it's 1AM here, so I'm doing the best I can. We can work on that later. The Otis Redding infobox will probably stay, pending a response from the relevant WikiProject. Johnleemk | Talk 17:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it's fine if there is a separate section for cover versions; in fact, I encourage it. Why should it be combined into the "Release" section? TheImpossibleMan 11:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because there's not enough content to merit a separate section. I'm trying to come up with a better title for the release section as it stands because it covers the song's legacy and impact as well. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very strongly that cassettes even existed back in 1965....Can someone confirm this?
 * Richards is quoted as saying: "I woke up in the middle of the night, put it down on a cassette."


 * Why don't you check the Cassette Tape article? They were introduced a few years prior. -71.59.233.232 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears Cover
It seems to me there's a little too much detail on the Britney Spears live cover, or rather, the detail is on anything but the song: "She began by singing "Satisfaction" in a suit, but soon ..." and the article goes into detail about how she did a medley, undressed and had to explain herself. I'd remove a lot of this if I knew how to word it. Anyone? Suede 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia regarding money made by the song
Hey, isn't there a story about this song where their lawyer at the time ended up owning the rights for it, and thusly the Stones haven't ever seen a penny from it?

Rob Mango in Boulder —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.212.205 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

This needs help
It's a bit embarrassing to see an FA with only 12 line citations on the site's main page. I realize this got voted back in November '04, but standards have changed enormously and this probably ought to be in review. The critical review and cultural impact aspects have serious shortcomings. Who decried the song's frank sexual longing? Did anyone in 1965 defend that aspect? Who called it as a critique of commercialism? How exactly was it a sign of the times, and what does that assertion really mean? Other than popularity polls in later music press, has anyone published a serious musical analysis on this song? On its lyrics? On its sociological significance? What we have boils down to It's catchy and here's how the Stones made it. Although those are good things to know, this doesn't dig very deep. Today's main page readers who aspire to raising their own favorite subjects into featured articles are going to be disappointed if they perceive this as the standard. Many of the site's current good articles have better citation and more comprehensive treatment. Durova Charge! 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; however, I've removed the featured article review. From WP:FAR, "Please do not add reviews for pages that are Today's Featured Article or listed as one of the three recently featured."  I support renominating it in four days though, when the article will be gone from the main page.  ShadowHalo 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch. I missed that clause.  No problem.  Durova Charge! 13:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

References to censorship might be extended, to cover the point that whilst "trying to make some girl" was censored, the much ruder: "And I'm tryin' to please some girl, Who tells me baby better come back later next week 'Cause you see I'm on a losing streak" escaped, probably because the censors didn't understand what was being said. Too risque to include in Wikipedia?

Are you wondering why this was chosen now as a FA? Could it have anything to do with the Stones announcing thier new tour dates? Coincidence? You can't always get want you want, but if you try sometimes, you can grease some wiki wheels and generate publicity when you need it. 69.68.238.142 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly it. It's not like it was promoted back in 2004.  Oh, wait...  17Drew 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously surprised about this, not least because the citations are mostly titles with links and an access date. No publisher, few authors, no other info. Poor. J Milburn 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious Contradiction
The body of the article says that "Satisfaction" displaced The Four Tops from the No. 1 place in the US charts; the table at the bottom says it was The Byrds. The list says the former, but with a break in their stay by the latter. I don't have any knowledge of this other than what i find in Wikipedia, and am not willing to edit the day's FA on that basis. Anyone else know? Cheers, Lindsay 09:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Move Page
The page right now is featured, but at a later date, I propose that we rename the article to "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Song)". What do you guys think of it? --Andrew Hampe | Talk 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? There is nothing more prominent known as (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, so why do we need to put the brackets, suggesting that this is not the (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, but a song by the same name? I can't actually find the convention now, but if the name is not going to be used for something else (which is more prominent, or equally so, in which case a dab would be appropriate) then it can keep its conventional name. J Milburn 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to move it, IMO. WP:NC, an official policy, says "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using (band), (album), or (song)..." (my emphasis). Given there are no other entries in WP now, and anything with the same name would necessarily be following the lead of this song, it should stay as is. The average reader will expect that entering the full name of a very popular song with a distinctive name would lead directly to the page. &mdash; John Cardinal 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to move it, IMO. WP:NC, an official policy, says "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using (band), (album), or (song)..." (my emphasis). Given there are no other entries in WP now, and anything with the same name would necessarily be following the lead of this song, it should stay as is. The average reader will expect that entering the full name of a very popular song with a distinctive name would lead directly to the page. &mdash; John Cardinal 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Colin Cowherd and Patrick Duffy?
Can anyone explain this? Rolling Stone lists the producer as:

Written by: Mick Jagger, Keith Richards Produced by: Andrew Loog Oldham

Any reason why B celebrities are being listed as producers? 204.17.31.126 13:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The "Patrick Duffy and Colin Cowherd" entry was done by a known vandal who has been visiting this page. --64.47.97.2 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Singles on Albums
I dispute the assertion that it was not standard practice in the UK to have singles on albums. Several early Beatles albums do this for example.20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Revolver66


 * releasing album tracks as singles after the album's release was not that unusual - the Stones did it too. what's referred to here is the fact that at the time, the UK market preferred that non-compilation albums should not "re-run" tracks that had already appeared as singles, while the US market *expected* the hit singles to be on the albums. obviously that's all different now, but the article isn't inaccurate on that point; but if it's confusing to people who don't know 1960s pop-music history, that bit could probably be omitted. Sssoul (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Richards is quoted as saying: "I woke up in the middle of the night, put it down on a cassette." I doubt very strongly that cassettes even existed back in 1965....Can someone confirm this?
 * in the Compact Cassette article, you can find "Philips introduced the compact audio cassette medium for audio storage in Europe in 1963, and in the United States in 1964, under the trademark name Compact Cassette. Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems at the time, the Compact Cassette became dominant (...)". Perhaps Keith Richards had access to some of the latest gadgets of the time. --Jerome Potts 02:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * if not Keith then who? :D yes, he's stated that it was a brand-new gadget at the time, and one that he felt was a great tool for musicians on the move. Sssoul (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Music sample
The "Play in browser" music sample plays the old version of the ogg. The file was changed on March 23. --Apoc2400 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Got a filename for the new (and presumably better) sample? All yo uhave to do is put the filname in the template. &mdash; John Cardinal 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Melvin and Howard
It's use was just as prominent in Melvin and Howard as it was in Apocalypse Now. Does it deserve a mention? Stan weller 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Björk and PJ Harvey cover
You need to mention one of the best covers of this song, by Björk and PJ Harvey! Really. 24.68.87.100 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearwater or London?
in the inspiration section, where it specifies that Keith dreamed the riff in Clearwater Florida ... i know that's an often-repeated story, but Keith has stated in interviews that that happened in London (at the Hilton hotel, if memory serves). Clearwater is where he and Mick worked the song up prior to its first recording in Chicago (may 11th or whenever it was). i'll try to locate the London Version of the story, but meanwhile suggest making that part of the article less specific about the locale of that dream incident. Sssoul (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i've found one source of the London Version of the story: Stanley Booth's biography of Keith (original title: Keith Richards: Till I Roll Over Dead, Headline Book Publishing, 1994, ISBN 0-7472-0770-4) page 51:
 * "'At the Hilton in London,' Keith recalled, 'just there for a night or two - something to do with Allen Klein and a record deal we were doing - I woke up in the middle of the night and I dreamt this riff. Which I don't do that often. That was the first time that had ever happened to me. Because I'm on the road, just passing through London, happens to be my town but I'm only there for a night and so I've got my guitar and ... "I can't get no satisfaction ... I can't get no satisfaction" ... snore ... '"
 * and then the usual story of how he found the tape all the way at the end the next morning and checked out what was on it. then on page 60:
 * "Sitting around the pool at a motel in Clearwater, Florida, Keith and Mick worked on the song that had come to Keith in his sleep at the London Hilton; a few days later, in Los Angeles, the Stones would record it."
 * (He's skipped the first take, recorded at Chess Studios on may 10th.)
 * Booth's book is based mainly on his own interviews with Keith, not regurgitating other people's writing. One of course realizes that Keith is not invariably 100% accurate in his recollections, but this account of the story seems to me to be good grounds for either mentioning this "alternate version" in the article, or (at least) not stating specifically where he had this dream.
 * hope that's of interest and/or of some help. Sssoul (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

update: i've just reverted the addition of the name of the Clearwater FL hotel and i wanted to explain why: the source that's cited for that sentence doesn't state the name of the hotel (see the full quote above), so it isn't really okay to imply that it does. if another source can be cited, fine - but it would be great to avoid saying specifically where Keith dreamed the riff. thanks Sssoul (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

revising ...
i've gone ahead and redone the "inspiration" section as suggested above, and while i was at it i tried to trim some of the many highly-repetitive bits from the article. it could still use some more of that kind of clean-up - for example the "rankings" could be removed from the intro paragraph since they're repeated in the "success" section, and that unreferenced critic calling it "an attack on the status quo" doesn't really need to be in the article twice. in the "lyrics" section, i took out the bits that seemed excessively POV-ish, and the statement about the repetitions of "and i try": the really interesting thing about that moment in the lyric is that in the studio version he sings "'cause i try and i try", while in concert renditions it's changed to "but i try", "so i try", "though i try" and "and i try". those are all quite different philosophical statements, if you think about it - which (as Keith says) one probably shouldn't too much :D so i decided to simply skip it. i hope what i've done makes sense to people and is some kind of help ... swing on Sssoul (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Devo cover
Generally, separate versions of the same song are combined in the same article. The Devo version, however notable, is only 1,992 bytes, and fits fine in here. And Devo are obviously referencing the Stones' version here. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Having multiple infoboxes in a single article is unsightly. You might also be interested in seeing a prior case at Higher Ground (song) and Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song). indopug (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks fine. "Unsightly" is not mentioned in WP:SUMMARY as a reason for splitting an article. And "Higher Ground" should probably be merged as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to read this discussion. Fact is, there is plenty of info out there about the Devo cover, and including it all here would make this article cumbersome. Also, this article is about the Rolling Stones original, as evidenced by the first line of the article.
 * But all this is moot anyway; since the Devo cover charted on a significant national chart, it deserves its own article. indopug (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated here, can you please not continue to delete  information on the Devo cover from this article? Even if the Devo article grows beyond this article&mdash;which, despite your statement above, has not happened, nor has it been demonstrated that it will happen any time soon&mdash;the Devo cover is still highly relevant to this article, as this addition to the Devo article actually demonstrates. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Otis Redding's version
Otis Redding covered this song. I'd like to know why, how and when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.238.7 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations and Citations Needed
I have added a few citations. Three of these are regarding all the 'Top so-many lists', where I found the list published on the web, but on a source that might not be considered fully reliable. Here I somewhat make-do cited both the link with the full list for those interested, and the magazine or issue that the list originally appeared in. This may not be according to the standards, so maybe someone who has some more experience should have a look and change (or approve) the references to fit the standards.

Currently there are still some 'Citation needed' tags, but I am doubting the relevance of some of these requests. In my, very humble, opinion these citations are not necessary as it is a fact the track is on the album and a citation could simply be the album itself. This feels as if one would have to cite a text, that proves that another text actually can be used as a citation... If one would put on the record, one would hear screaming, distorted guitars, and lyrics that do not match up to the original, so what further citing is needed? HoundDog (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones regarding notable cover versions - Why does it need a citation when there is a link to a wikipedia article including the tracklist of the album mentioned. E.g. Paul Revere & the Raiders covered it on their 1966 album Just Like Us!.
 * Similarly: "Satisfaction" was released as a 7-inch single by The Residents in 1976. It is a complete reworking of The Rolling Stones's version.   The Residents' version features extreme guitar noise (courtesy of friend and guest guitarist Snakefinger), distorted, screamed vocals, and altered lyrics.

Didn't Otis Redding perform this song before the Rolling Stones
While driving home one day I heard "Satisfaction" being song by Otis Redding on the radio. I immediately presumed it was a remake of the Rolling Stones classic, however after further investigation, I learned Otis Redding performed the long before the Rolling Stones. Why isn't this fact mentioned in the contents and history of the song?68.52.254.38 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is the Otis Redding song, but I doubt whether he recorded it 'long before' the Rolling Stones. If you have a source, please tell us, but as far as I know the first recording of Satisfaction by Redding stems from 'Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul' from 1966, recorded in 1965. This was after the first performance of the song by the Rolling Stones, albeit only two months. Funny thing is, I don't have a source for that either... HoundDog (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Jagger and Richards actually wrote and recorded the first version of this song. See wiki article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/(I_Can%27t_Get_No)_Satisfaction

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6596661/500songs?rnd=1121840899755&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212?OpenDocument
 * In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-20 21:20:02, 404 Not Found
 * In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-31 04:21:52, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6598060/74_otis_blue
 * In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-20 21:20:02, 404 Not Found
 * In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-31 04:22:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=852
 * In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-20 21:20:14, 404 Not Found
 * In (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction on 2011-05-31 04:22:15, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Covers and esp. singles
This article is about the song, not solely about the Rolling Stones version of the song, and some of the material deleted by SilkTork recently should be restored. Covers issued as singles may warrant an infobox, for example. Collapsing the cover material to a single paragraph is an extreme position on this content and says that none of the 200 covers was worth more than a word or two. That does a disservice to readers who want to know about the song. By all means, the Rolling Stones version should be dominant as it was far and away the most notable. Still, there's plenty of room on the WP servers for other notable information about the song. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that kind of change definitely needs to be discussed here on the talk page, to see whether there's consensus for it. i've restored the material and trust we can proceed with the D phase of WP:BRD now. thanks Sssoul (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

An would somebody please change the genre of the song to Rock (without having another wikipedia editor change it back)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.5.36 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Hard Rock?
I was on the article about "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time", and there it says that it is a Hard Rock song. Tell me, it is or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.9.114.251 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Hard Rock", though as silly meaningless designation for a sub genre (it was applied to Elvis, let's no forget), is not in dispute. And the source for Rock and Roll, could not be more solid and can not be excluded. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keith's opinion means nothing? Now I've heard everything, but what else to expect from an editor who never edits a black artist's page. Anyhow, I can accept the compromise, even though "Hard Rock" is a non-existent style/genre. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Genre
I have removed rock and roll because its such a universal term, its overly used and predominantly most of the time it doesn't define a particular song; especially one during the mid sixties. If anything, stand alone rock would make more sense than rock and roll.

Rvd4life (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A better informed editor would know how much Keith disdains the term "rock", let alone "hard rock". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr Richards personal view is meaningless in defining a genre for a particular song. To compromise and stop this trivial dispute, I'll happily settle with just with "Rock and roll, hard rock". Rvd4life (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he wouldn't know and is no kind of authority on music or its history, never mind that few know more than him. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)