Talk:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

Response to the Beatles
"By this time, the Stones had begun to respond to the increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles, to whom they had long been promoted by Oldham as a rougher alternative."

The sources do support the later part of the sentence, but I'm not seeing where the sources are saying that in 1966 the Stones were responding to the " increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles". AllMusic says: "they began experimenting musically, incorporating the British pop of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Kinks, and the Who into their sound." The other two sources talk about the contrasting images, but not the music. SilkTork (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "consciously crafted as the anti-Beatles ... the combined clout of image and sound ... the band projected an ironic detachment, arrogance, and aggressive sexuality" (p. 71 in British Invasion: The Crosscurrents of Musical Influence) isento (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The mention of "sound" as referring to the Stones responding to the music of the Beatles is dubious, and certainly does not support "the increasingly sophisticated music of the Beatles" - who is saying this? I'll have a go at working it closer to what the sources are saying. SilkTork (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "As the self-consciously dangerous alternative to the bouncy Merseybeat of the Beatles … Considerably rougher and sexier than the Beatles, the Stones were the subject of numerous sensationalized articles in the British press … By 1966, the Stones had decided to respond to the Beatles' increasingly complex albums with their first album of all-original material, Aftermath." (Erlewine, AllMusic) isento (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah! OK. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC) I didn't read far enough! SilkTork (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Harvard referencing
Just a general (and harmless) moan about using Harvard referencing instead of the more common full footnotes. It really makes it so much harder to check the sources, and for no benefit at all. I do notice that when people are working up an article for FA that they tend to use Harvard, presumably because they see that's the system that most FA articles use, so it seems needed. But it's not. The standard full footnotes can be used. With the usual citation style I can click on the cite and be taken to all the information I need: author, book, date, publisher and page number, including any helpful url links. With the Harvard system I am first taken to an abbreviated note where I get: author, date and page number only. So I have to click again (thanks for linking it!) to get to the fuller details, which give me: author, book, date, and publisher, but no page number, and if there is a link, it's to the ISBN number, so I have to then do a separate search for the book on Google in order to check the page! But also having to check back to the earlier cite to see what the page number is! Grrrr! Rant over. I needed to get that out of my system because I am becoming rather frustrated. I only have a limited amount of time to spend on this, and the cite system is taking up a disproportionate amount of my time. I could have done more by now. SilkTork (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * if you hover the mouse over the blue-linked footnote, then hover over the blue-linked name-year reference that opens up, the full citation pops up. isento (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just been trying that, but no luck. Essentially what I want is somewhere where I can get all the information in one place, and if there is a possibility of linking to the page on GoogleBooks, to be able to click and go straight there. If there is no link to the page on GoogleBooks, then linking to the title page on GoogleBooks is not helpful, as that encourages me to look for the page, to discover that there is no link. Essentially, if there is a page link, I'd like to see it linked, but if not, then just the details of the book (author, title, date and publisher) and page number are fine. In many cases the information can be verified online elsewhere. Anyway, this is not an FA, GA or Wikipedia requirement, just something that some editors do that I find useful. And sadly, it is something that is too often lacking in articles that are being prepared for FA. Largely, I suspect, because the users who first created FA articles mostly used Harvard referencing, and others aiming for FA have since copied them on the misunderstanding that Harvard referencing is required. But enough of this. If anyone gets me on this topic I can rant for hours! SilkTork (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you are having difficulty viewing it. But I assure you, generally speaking, under normal circumstances, it should work. See a screenshot here: isento (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

True stereo
I have two queries/problems with this sentence: "The album was also the first Stones LP to be recorded in true stereo." cited to Ryan, David Stuart (2013). 1967. Kozmik Press. ISBN 978-1492226918. page 15:. The link redirects to Stereophonic_sound. So is it "true stereo" or "Pseudo-stereo"? And why is that being cited to a novel? And is the novel's publisher, Kozmic Press a reliable source - it appears to be a self-publishing enterprise:. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted it. Lots of fan sites and forums talk about it being the first Stones album in true stereo, but few reliable sources. I found this which appears to be reliable, and analogplanet.com is used as a source on a number of other Wikipedia articles, but it is possible it might be user generated. SilkTork (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Good catch. isento (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Michael Fremer, the writer and publisher of the website, is a credible source, given his previous credits. isento (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact, several prior Stones albums had tracks recorded and mixed in true stereo; "12 x 5" had half of its tracks recorded in this manner at Chess, and there were true stereo tracks sprinkled throughout their earlier discography, including "Look What You Done," released in true stereo on the original "December's Children.". In some cases, they weren't _released_ in true stereo until later ("12x5", for example, until the remastering program; more precisely, the tracks from the session for the "5x5" EP and "It's All Over Now", which were first released in true stereo in the early 1980's on said EP.) Fremer was more or less on the right track, but was probably being offhand and not attempting to be precise, and I'm sure he'd confirm if asked.
 * Here's a page that has good info on the early stereo Stones tracks. Easy to confirm its accuracy by using one's ears.  http://lukpac.org/stereostones/stereosongs.htmlSojambi Pinola (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

First past the 10 minute mark
This sentence: ""Goin' Home" is among the first pop songs to pass the five-minute mark—followed in 1967 by "The End" on the Doors' self-titled debut album and "A Day in the Life" on the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band—and the first ever to pass the ten-minute mark." It is cited to two sources. There are two tracks over 5 minutes on Five Live Yardbirds; "Lost Someone" on Live at the Apollo (1963 album) is over 10 minutes, but those are live albums. However, Bringing It All Back Home has four tracks at over 5 minutes, and Highway 61 Revisited and five tracks over 5 minutes plus "Desolation Row" at over 11 minutes. These are just albums that sprang to mind, they'll be others. Is it worth putting in a statement, albeit sourced, which is incorrect or dubious at best? SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. Early Dylan is more "folk" than "pop music", but I won't quibble. isento (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Anita Pallenberg
I can't access the source right now. This sentence escapes me: "Jones' new relationship with the German model Anita Pallenberg took on sadomasochistic aspects and helped renew his confidence and encourage him to experiment musically". How did a sadomasochistic relationship encourage Jones to experiment musically? And how do we know this helped his confidence? Do we have a quote from Jones himself, or what this speculation by the author? If it's authorial speculation, then that should be made clear. SilkTork (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I know little about Brian Jones, as my interest in the Stones mainly starts when he leaves, so I wasn't aware of the claims of sadism. But just doing a quick search and I can see a number of references to him being a bit sadistic, and also that he beat up Pallenberg. But I'm not getting the sense from this admittedly quick search that the relationship was sadomasochistic. Abusive, yes, but sadomasochistic seems (to me at least) to imply consent from Pallenberg, which I'm not getting from the sources. What we do know is that Richards stopped Jones from beating her, and thereafter Richards and Pallenberg entered a long term relationship,  which does suggest that the Jones-Pallenberg relations was abusive - and the violence was not consensual. SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * : "beating eac other with whips in cross-dressing furies of love". isento (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * By the way, can you please raise your issues in a separate section at the nomination page? That way, we can have a dialogue first about what appears to be issues and what really are issues, before deciding what needs to be edited or changed. isento (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, I thought you wanted me to help out on the article. I misunderstood. I'll stop. No worries. SilkTork (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem. I appreciate you are trying to be thorough. isento (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead
Is the lead not too extensive? I don't think there's another album with such an extensive lead, considering that Aftermath is not highly regarded as one of the very top albums of all time based on rankings and critical ratings. I believe that it should be more summarised. Isaacsorry (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol. Don't you dare. isento (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Immature reply that; you ask for consensus, and when a user does you don't offer a genuine conversation. Isaacsorry (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Why should I entertain this when you don't offer a genuine argument? isento (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEADLENGTH is an appropriate reference for forming an argument in regards to a lead's length. Not some half-baked notion that whether Aftermath ranks right alongside Sgt. Pepper in magazine lists has any bearing here. isento (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

July 2021
I agree with you and have tried condensing the lead a bit. I think that it can still be whittled down a great deal — much of the content regarding the title is not very interesting nor seems terribly significant, but I'm not that familiar with the Rolling Stones' history, so I'd rather get a second opinion before trimming more. ili (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Introducing the chronological number for each edition seems a bit heavy handed for a first sentence, no?
 * Removing critical background on the circumstances leading into the album makes no sense, especially since the background section is three paragraphs.
 * Pushing the critical legacy to the top misleadingly suggests this is the most important aspect, while breaking away with the chronological style much of the lead is structured around.
 * Introducing the album as LP at the start of the paragraph isn't very kind to the non-specialist reader who's only been alive the past few decades, for instance.
 * Why remove the music scholar attribution, when much of the discussion in the article about the music is sourced to scholarly sources. Peter (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

All respect due, some consideration to the original editors of this article could have been given, since we processed it thru FA promotion, so maaybe we might have had some merit to how the article is. So maaybe the discussion step should be emphasized here ? Peter (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Being considered an artistic breakthrough isn't redundant with it being also considered the most important of their early formative music. The latter suggests they had made other early formative music, which they had. Peter (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Isaac started this discussion with an erroneous premise and basis. If you wish to continue this constructively, I hope there's some substantial issue you see with the lead that goes beyond some subjective determination of significance or interest. For example, enough reputable sources found it significant to detail the story behind the title and packaging, enough to make it possible for a pretty lengthy subsection here. So we'd be pretty remiss, I think, to overlook offering some kind of summary for it. Peter (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I realize I have an attachment to this article. But I still believe the lead is fine, if not ideal. The lead length guideline I cited to Isaac back then suggests articles of 30,000+ characters be given three or four paragraphs of lead. This article has around double that character count. And while some of the sentences are a bit lengthy, the paragraphs are generally four to five sentences and capture everything key to understanding the topic. Peter (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

But maybe I'm the only one who's read this article up and down to myself a hundred times lol. Peter (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Less is more. I don't understand why we must establish that the Stones had hits prior to 1966, or why we should split hairs between "an artistic breakthrough" and "their first classic album". There are many other little things about the lead that make it sound more like a press release than an encyclopedic article.
 * "The album attracted thousands of new fans to the Rolling Stones." Really? Isn't this a sentence that could be added to the lead of just about every commercially successful album released by anyone? Of course, that sentence only exists to hammer in three points: 1) the album sold a lot of copies 2) a lot of people liked it 3) it marked an artistic turning point for the band. All three of these points have already been made elsewhere in the lead.
 * It seems like the debacle over the release and title could be summarized in just a sentence.
 * The album's release was briefly delayed by controversy over the original packaging and title – Could You Walk on the Water? – due to Decca and London's fear of offending Christians in the US. The UK release featured a [...]
 * Boom. Move on. And if you think that's too short, then the upside is that it leaves us with more room to explain what the Aftermath title is even supposed to mean, which is surely more interesting to everybody than trivia like "Andrew Oldham came up with a title that the band never used." And is there anything to the significance of the album having different cover art in the US? I can't find anything concerning the notability of the sleeve design(s) under "Influence and legacy" — they didn't win any awards, unlike the cover designs of Revolver and Sgt. Pepper, so it doesn't seem like it should be considered part of the article's "most important contents." ili (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what the lead feels like: someone wrote too much, got worried that readers would glaze over a few things, but instead of cutting the lead down, the editor elected to copy and paste the same "important" details that were already there to ensure that readers don't miss them. So we end up with something akin to "The apple is red. Its color was a dark shade of red. People who look at the apple saw that it was red." ili (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to say. And I'm losing interest. Again, if the article doesn't interest you, don't read or edit it. Excluding Isaac, who's garnered a reputation for controversial/disruptive edits to album-article leads, no one else has seemed to had a problem. And this article gets several hundreds views a day, if not a thousand. Peter (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the absence of complaints from others is a valid argument, considering the tedium involved with editing Wikipedia, let alone the process of going on talk pages. ili (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia, last time I checked... Peter (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, minor and constructive changes to phrasing have gotten through over the time since FA, if you look at the history. But I don't think anyone has made your particular complaints. Peter (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, minor and constructive changes to phrasing have gotten through over the time since FA, if you look at the history. But I don't think anyone has made your particular complaints. Peter (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Read the article. Much of your arguments lack nuance and suggest to me that you haven't read article, which begs the question why you even care about trimming the lead or what's the motive here.

I can concede on condensing the title bit. But the answers to your other concerns can be found in the article as much as in anything I can say. Peter (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The very definition of the word Aftermath, which if you're not sure of you should look up, suggests the meaning, and the wording connects the circumstances to the title. It is actually an apt and concise way of putting it across without explaining the obvious to readers. If redundancy is a concern... Peter (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the lead actually tripped me out so much that I failed to draw a connection between "In response to the lack of creative control" and "the Stones bitterly settled on Aftermath". I realize this makes me look like I have terrible reading comprehension, but I'd rather just point to this as further evidence that there's too much covered in the lead. ili (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sure you would rather do that. Peter (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

An artistic breakthrough isn't the same thing as a commercial breakthrough, and a commercial success doesn't necessitate a new crowd of customers, while a new crowd in this case involves different cross-sections of music audiences as detailed in the article. And not only that, but the statement about thousands of new fans is verified in the text. So, again, seems to be a poor assumption by you for not reading the actual article. Peter (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's tacit. I think most people can pick up on the fact that the Stones had new fans after releasing an immediately well-respected artistic breakthrough much like people can pick up on the fact that the record company made a lot of money after selling millions of copies. ili (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but can they gauge just how many fans? I think not. And well-respected among critics doesn't necessarily translate to huge commercial success. Peter (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The infobox introduces two covers. There is more detail about the cover designs in the article, but in the lead, at the very least, it can be mentioned briefly in passing that two different covers were made for each edition, as a consequence of the packaging controversy, as well as to transition to the edition differences in the next few lines. It isn't some off-hand arbitrary construction. There is a purpose to it. Peter (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't ever see leads talk about sleeve designs unless there is content later in the article suggesting that the sleeves are considered to be particularly iconic, or have been afforded accolades. ili (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting observation. Peter (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Usually, I am used to the standard of weight being given to content in proportion to its coverage in the article body (WP:LEAD). But that is interesting... Peter (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * And considering this principle, I'm reducing the bit about the album era, since that aspect does not get a great enough deal of critical commentary in the article. Peter (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Experimental rock
Shouldn't experimental rock be mentioned in the infobox? considering the amount of unconventional instruments that were used. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that says the album's experimental rock? JG66 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's quite a few sources that mention them "experimenting", but does not specifically mention "experimental rock". Isaacsorry (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone 500 list rankings

 * The other rankings from subsequent publications of the Rolling Stone 500 greatest albums list are ancillary details in the big picture that is the Rankings section. Introducing them directly in the text inhibits the read and flow of the paragraph. They are better off in a footnote.

Here is the guideline: Explanatory or content notes are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read. (Help:Explanatory notes). I believe mentioning rankings from 2012 and 2020, before discussing a ranking from 2008 in the next sentence, is awkward. I also believe it places a long and undue emphasis on the Rolling Stone 500 list, which distracts from the focus of the paragraph (WP:UNDUE, WP:OFFTOPIC). Which leads me to conclude that allocating those other rankings into a footnote is the best approach to handling this extra information. isento (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, your edits are continuously disrupting the reference formatting of this article. You have been warned about this several times, and you have been warned at your talk page to stop reverting back to your preferred revision without discussing it first. Stop editing this content. Discuss. isento (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Longest pop LP claim
, firstly, always cite a reliable source for claims disputing verified claims in an article. Second, I don't know if Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely qualifies purely as a popular music LP -- professional reviews consider it performed in a jazz and classical vein, both of which are usually considered distinct from pop music, and a number of songs appear to be jazz covers. Lastly, how accurate are those song lengths at the Wikipedia article for the Sinatra album? Sources indicate the original LP had only 10 tracks, and I can't find a source to verify their original lengths. Are the lengths there taken from information on the reissue? isento (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"wealth and fame"
You're saying that a 39-word sentence is "too wordy" while a 36-word sentence is just fine, and that "wealth and fame" couldn't be taken as singular when such constructions are ten-a-penny? Please think again. Harfarhs (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This phrasing is used to add emphasis in a way that is not only not supported in the article -- the idea that the fame was more surprising or important than the wealth -- but also borders on puffery and editorializing. isento (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It does nothing of the sort - the phrase merely distinguishes the wealth and the fame, which, as I say, is necessary. Harfarhs (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The dictionary source I linked above says it does just that. And it sounds like it does. I think you're in denial bro. isento (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the construction is actually "newfound wealth and fame", and I don't see too many appearances in Google search results. isento (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Newfound" is merely an adjective. Please don't treat other editors as idiots. Harfarhs (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel like an idiot. I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that. isento (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You realise that comment looks very like trolling? Harfarhs (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. isento (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

And yes, the sentence is long enough as it is, and your phrasing feels more complicated to read, just speaking as an average reader (WP:AUDIENCE). isento (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're seriously citing yourself as "an average reader"? Really? And you have the nerve to mention WP:BRD to other editors? Harfarhs (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, you literally defied protocol by reverting back to your preferred revision before even talking it out with me. isento (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

And if it can be taken as singular, why did you bother rewriting it before for the plural? isento (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because "those" is necessarily plural, while the previous version could have been either singular or plural; hence, I was removing ambiguity. It isn't rocket science. Harfarhs (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it backfired because you didn't read the article. isento (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Writing credits
It says in the article that Jack Nitzsche and Bill Wyman claimed that Brian Jones was entitled to a coauthorship credit for his marimba hook on "Under My Thumb", but as far as I know, there is no evidence to confirm that Brian did in fact "compose" the hook/riff and he himself never publicly mentioned or confirmed their claims. Mick Taylor has made lots of claims that he cowrote songs that were credited to Jagger/Richards, but has never provided any proof. 27.32.188.134 (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you said, it's a claim and it's attributed, so there's no problem. Besides, what evidence could they or Mick Taylor provide, let alone proof? Jagger and Richards often did this, or have often been accused of not acknowledging others in the writing credits (by Wyman, Taylor, Ry Cooder, Billy Preston, Ron Wood ...) Years ago I read Richards saying that they were going to sort it out with Taylor, that he deserved to be recognised for his contributions – but I don't know if that ever happened. JG66 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. 27.32.188.134 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

US and UK chronology
I recently added both the US and UK chronology to the infobox, though it was changed back by (wonderful work on this page by the way, PJ). Following WP:BRD, I thought I'd bring it here. A previous discussion at WikiProject Albums came to the consensus to limit to a single chronology, but the talk there centered around modern artists, like Taylor Swift, where the split chronologies were distinguishing between studio releases and others (e.g. compilations, live albums, etc.). But that's somewhat different than the situation here, only mentioned once in that WikiProject discussion by, that releases by the Stones, the Beatles and other British invasion acts typically had different track listings, and even different albums, between the UK and US markets. See, for example, the chronology of Sgt. Pepper or Revolver. I think that having two separate chronologies will serve to better illustrate this difference.  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I definitely support having two chronologies (if we're not dropping the feature altogether, as a few of us proposed at that previous discussion) . It's what all the other Stones and Beatles album articles have. As much as it feels like a luxury perhaps, this approach is infinitely more reader-friendly than trying to bundle both markets into one chronology, particularly as the reader finds plenty in this article about the different release schedules. The shorter US version, the inclusion of a non-album A-side, details on the subsequent releases of tracks omitted from Aftermath US – they're all reflective of UK vs US release chronologies, so I don't see the merit in misrepresenting the situation in the infobox. JG66 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cases like this need separate chronologies: based on what they know was released in their home country, readers in the US or UK may see an out-of-sequence Big Hits or Out of Our Heads or missing Flowers as wrong. Of course, chronologies would be better handled by a navbox at the bottom (the "UK and US releases 1964–1967" navbox almost does it), but there hasn't been much support for it. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

US release date
The current revision of this page gives 2 July 1966 as the US release date. This is sourced using Bill Wyman's 1990 book, Stone Alone (p. 550). A couple other books provide different dates though; as is mentioned in the accompanying footnote, Margotin & Guesdon acknowledge Wyman's dating, but instead say it went on sale on 20 June (p. 139). Massimo Bonanno's The Rolling Stones Chronicle doesn't get more specific than June 1966 (p. 54). Andy Babiuk and Greg Prevost's 2013 book, Rolling Stones Gear, writes: "The release of Aftermath on London Records... in the States was postponed until July 2, so that it came out in conjunction with the next US tour." (p. 226). The tour started on 24 June though.

One thing I'm wondering is whether Wyman's dating is even possible, given that the album entered the Billboard chart on 9 July (p. 40 (38 of the pdf), at .). A similar issue was raised for The Dark Side of the Moon in this talk page discussion. The creator of that thread,, mentions that the Billboard 200 is done based off of the sales tracked two weeks before (e.g., "The album debuted on the Billboard 200 chart March 17, 1973 for which the sales tracking week ended March 4...") I can't vouch for whether this is true, so if anyone has a source indicating it, that would be appreciated. If this were true in 1966, that would mean the 9 July chart was tracking sales for the week ending 26 June. I think that would mean Margotin & Guesdon's dating of 20 June would make more sense. Thoughts?  Tkbrett  (✉) 21:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I would go with the majority view among the most authoritative sources (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), while acknowledging dissenting or minority views in an adjacent footnote (WP:WEIGHT). There is a footnote in the Marketing and sales section where the release date is mentioned, citing some of those sources you've named. Perhaps you can compile some more sources to flesh out what's the majority view here, if it's not July 2. As for Billboard, yes, what exactly was the procedure for chart tracking could shed further light on the matter. Piotr Jr. (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Below are the dates provided by various sources.  Tkbrett  (✉) 14:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that a late June release date makes much more sense, and a source like Guesdon & Margotin is typically aware of conflicting versions of an artist's history and seeks to find the most plausible version. (I'm referring to the same authors' book on the Beatles, where they comment on confusion among various sources on any given issue.) I remember adding a few of those possible release dates to the article, not long before it became GA then FA; it always struck me as an issue where you need a Mark Lewisohn-type biographer/historian to rule on the release date. I just don't know whether there is such a recognised author among Stones biographers. Have to say, Piriczki really knew/knows his stuff (and I don't say that about many editors here) . All that said, I appreciate sources are needed to support our understanding of the methodology with regards to time elapsed before Billboard compiled its weekly charts in the '60s. I imagine it's well covered in all those US chart books, some of them official Billboard publications, written by Joel Whitburn. JG66 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I should add that Margotin & Guesdon are the only ones I read that even acknowledge the confusion: "In the United States, the new Stone album went on sale on June 20, 1966 (July 2 according to Bill Wyman)..." (p. 139). I think this gives them more authority in the discussion than the sources that simply provide a date in passing.  Tkbrett  (✉) 17:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any trade ads listing this album's release? I've seen these kind of sources cited among jazz LPs from the same era, clearing up ambiguities surrounding release dates. Sir Teflon (formerly Piotr Jr.) (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked through Billboard, Cash Box and Record World. Trade ads ran in the Saturday July 2 issues of both Billboard and Cash Box (p. 17 and 189, respectively), but neither specify release dates. In the same issue of Cash Box, there's an article appearing on page 190 titled, "London Rushes Stones' New 'Aftermath' Album". The first line states: Aftermath,' the new Rolling Stones LP released by London Records last week to coincide with the group's return to the US for their fifth North American tour..." Now, because the magazine came out on a Saturday, I would think "last week" would refer to June 20–26, though it could mean June 27 – July 3. Perhaps to help confuse the situation, Record World ran the exact same article (a word-for-word copy) in their July 9 issue.
 * Another clue is the July 9 issue of Billboard. The magazine includes it on page 34 as a "New Action Album", listed alongside Yesterday and Today, which was re-released on June 20. Both albums chart for the first time today (No. 117 and 120, respectively). I think this strongly suggests they came out the same week (i.e. June 20–26).  Tkbrett  (✉) 19:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would support changing the in-text US date to late June 1966, with an accompanying footnote led off with a source-by-source naming of those authors supporting June 1966, followed by the details you mentioned suggesting the late-month timeframe, and then an "On the other hand" sentence listing the sources in the minority claiming July. Perhaps we need not list ALL of the sources, but at the very least the most notable, authoritative ones. Sir Teflon (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support this footnote in both the lead and the body where the date appears ("Marketing and sales"). Sir Teflon (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we could probably use M&G's 20 June dating in the body, given the level of awareness they display in mentioning Wyman's dating, but I don’t feel that strongly about it. We should definitely at least write late June in the body, then include 20 June and the other dates mentioned in the note as you suggest.  Tkbrett  (✉) 00:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would support specifying it and them in the body, following the late June claim. But not in the lead. The majority claim should be respected there.𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the "majority claim" is not the most scholarly claim; and especially on the internet, very sloppy information can be exponentially parroted. There truly seems to be a lot of debate about the release date, and I think it makes more sense to reflect this lack of clarity in the lead.  Otherwise, the article is actually encouraging misinformation.  Wikipedia is now, at times, contributing to the misinformation loop--putting out foggy information, which is then used as a reference in sloppy publishing....which then is used as reinforcement on Wikipedia for these false claims.  Let's help break that pattern.  I agree with those in this thread who suggest that the claims of July 2 simply don't make much sense, even given the way the album appears in primary charts of the time.  Sojambi Pinola (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that both the UK and US versions of the album are canonical, historically important, kept in print, and extremely different in their effect, wouldn't it make sense to include both release dates in the infobox? It's not like the US is a later reissue-- it's a distinctly different piece of work.  What's the logic here?


 * This is not a hill I'm ready to die on. :D I just figure that if it is useful to me, a pretty typical historically-minded music fan, it's probably useful to others. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Recording dates
I've found some more discrepancies in dating, this time between recording dates.

The current revision sources it per Bonanno. Given the above, I think it seems a little fuzzier. I'm not immediately sure on how to weigh things.  Tkbrett  (✉) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we could treat it as around December 1965 and March 1966, and then a footnote summarizing these individual sources. In the Infobox, it would be appropriate to use the circa template followed by the months. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Which dates would we use for the circa? It may be simpler to simply write it as Early December 1965

Early March 1966.  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's deal with the body prose first. "The album was recorded in sessions held during December 1965 and circa March 1966; many secondary sources place the exact recording dates in the early weeks of each month." (Footnote: List the majority of sources that conforms with this thinking, and note Appleford's specification of how many days. Then qualify that Wyman gives the February claim.) That is one way I have in mind. And then we can see how it looks and base the lead and the infobox off of that. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 15:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)