Talk:Paint It Black

Tour of Duty (TV series) soundtrack

There has been a dispute regarding the listing of Tour of Duty in the "Cover versions and usage in media" section. I was mistaken in my edit summary to link WP:COVERSONG as I actually meant to link the section below it, which covers pop culture and usages in other media (WP:SONGTRIVIA). The concern that I have with this four-fold:

1. WP:SONGTRIVIA states that the inclusion of an entry should only occur when it has "gained its own critical attention...is discussed by a reliable source...and is "not merely listed or mentioned in passing".
2. WP:VERIFIABILITY's section WP:BURDEN requires inline citations be given and places the burden to do so on those who either add or restore the content at hand.
3. The fact that Template:Citation needed exists does not discount the above
4. In short order, I plan to close the peer-review and work on nominating this article to become a featured article (WP:FAC / WP:FA). Citation needed templates and unsourced information is not appropriate for an FA nor an FAC

It is worth noting that WP:IMDB is not WP:RS per WP:Perennial sources. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of statements

This sentence surprises me on two fronts: "The unexpected success of the single in the US prompted the Stones to add the song to the American release of Aftermath, as its opening track, replacing "Mother's Little Helper" to avoid the controversy its release had caused in the UK."

Was the single's success really unexpected? One might expect to read that about "Satisfaction", but by mid 1966 the Stones were on a run of huge hit singles – "Satisfaction", "Get Off of My Cloud", "19th Nervous Breakdown" and then "Paint It Black". To the point that the limited success of "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby ..." truly was unexpected, and a major surprise. I can't access the source, but I question its accuracy and whether we should include the point even if a reliable source does state this.

Also (and again perhaps the source supports it, I can't check), it seems slightly illogical to say that "Mother's Little Helper" was omitted from the album to "avoid the controversy its release had caused in the UK" yet it was issued as a US single instead. It would've received far more attention in the US as a new Stones A-side than as an album track. Strange, no?

Oh, and it's incorrect to be saying that in 1966, "Paint It Black" topped the likes of the UK Singles Chart and the Official German Charts. These charts and organisations didn't exist then – they were the Record Retailer Chart and, most likely, the Musikmarkt Hit-Parade. It would be like saying the band played at a concert venue or recorded in a studio that was subsequently rebuilt and renamed, but using the modern-day name. (For example, the Rolling Stones recorded parts of their albums Goats Head Soup and It's Only Rock 'n Roll at Island Studio in Notting Hill, but we don't refer to the facility as Sarm West Studios.) JG66 (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@JG66: Rolling Stone states "The unexpected success forced the group to add it to the American release of Aftermath." in reference to "Paint It Black". The Billboard Book of Number One Hits (published by Billboard Books) stated "Written during a March, 1966, tour of Australia and recorded at RCA's studios in Hollywood, "Paint It Black" was included on American copies of Aftermath instead of "Mother's Little Helper," a song that scandalized England with its saga of suburban drug abuse."

I don't see the issue here given that it is sourced in RS?

With respect to the chart names, the confusion would've arisen due to the fact that the modern charts list them. For example, take Official Charts listing "Paint It Black" as having charted No. 1 on 25 May 1966. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging FAC participants to date @John M Wolfson and Aoba47: --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

1) Well, my point is, was the success unexpected after the Stones' previous hits? One RS might say this but dozens wouldn't, I believe. I helped get the Aftermath article to FA, using loads of the Stones biographies I own, and it's the first I've heard of "Paint"'s success coming as a surprise to anyone.

2) Yes, "instead of" Helper, but does that source support the idea that the motivation was to avoid a repetition of the controversy that had taken place in the UK? Because that's what we're saying.

3) Of course the contemporaneous charts have become the official ones we know now. But it's wrong to report that the song topped a chart that didn't yet exist by that name. I've given an example of a recording studio (and how we don't resort to using the present-day name); it would be the same for a music magazine or national newspaper – a reviewer would've reviewed a Stones album or single in Stereo Review magazine in 1966, not Sound & Vision, which SR became. On Wikipedia, it's only with music sales charts that I see this revisionism applied. It's historically inaccurate; I don't see editors of sports or history articles, for instance, having a problem with adhering to the correct contemporaneous names and organisations – quite the opposite, they're very fastidious about this. JG66 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

With regard to JG's second point, I agree that there is a disconnect between what the source says, only that MLH "scandalized England", and the article's claim that the change was made specifically "to avoid the controversy its release had caused in the UK." A new source will be needed for this point. Also, with regard to point three, I haven't seen anything in article style guides, but I agree that the established practice is to avoid anachronisms in chart names. Tkbrett (✉) 12:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• @JG66 and Tkbrett: Copy edited to address all points. With respect to #3, I was pointing out the rational cause for the confusion with respect to the UK (that the UK Official Charts claims it charted in it on that date that predates their existence), not arguing for revisionism as was seemingly implied. I was unable to find a ref for it peaking German number one, but did find Billboard tracking it internationally at number 2, so updated accordingly; I have a feeling it did hit no 1 given its trajectory, but Google Books appears to have a hole in its issues for Billboard. Template:Single chart doesn't support Record Retailer or Musikmarkt and could/should probably be added. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• TheSandDoctor, thank you, that's very good of you to address those points so quickly.
• With regard to Template:Singles chart, I confess I've felt the need to avoid using it (and the album version) for any articles I work on that cover music from this period. The template just doesn't seem to take into account that there was a chart world before things got official and before formal, national music industries took hold. The Melody Maker and NME charts were more prestigious than Record Retailer in the 1960s, for instance, it's just that the OCC and its antecedents subsequently recognised the RR chart for the 1960–69 period, because it was independently audited. But the point is, in 1966 it wasn't a BMRB, Gallup or OCC compiled chart. This era is of great interest to me but it's way before my time, and I'd similarly need to get educated if I was working on music articles from the 1950s – but again, the templates would have us believe that charts back then followed the present-day models. JG66 (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@JG66: I try to address and work through concerns as quickly as possible. The templates sure would; I am glad that we can manually add entries outside of them. Would you be interested in checking out the current FAC for this article now that concerns are addressed? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor: Not big on the FAC thing, to be honest, but I will try to leave some drive-bys there. Good luck with the nom. So sad about Charlie, such a gent ... JG66 (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I heard the news myself. Being a drummer myself, it hits hard... – zmbro _(talk) 02:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro and JG66: His passing was an unexpected gut punch to the music industry, I think. It is heartwarming -- and breaking -- to see all the tributes that are being made from artists spanning all genres and eras. Definitely shows he made a difference during his life. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TheSandDoctor. I didn't realize this was up for FA, or I wouldn't have made all those changes on my own without commenting at the review. I anticipate being a little busy for the next couple weeks, but if it's still up as an FAC I'll try to get a review in. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Title

Is it really "Paint It Black" or rather "Paint It, Black" as written on the single cover for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.167.199 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Refer to the explanatory note. Tkbrett (✉) 17:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Insider source started

An RfC at Westworld (TV Series) was spawned due to discussion at the FAC and PR related to this article. Please feel free to comment there. ---04:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Release date in infobox

At the moment, the infobox provides only the US release date, written as "7 May 1966 (US)". I added the UK release date (13 May) but TheSandDoctor removed it since he and zmbro discussed this in the January 2021 peer review. Apologies on not seeing that SandDoctor – I checked the FAC to see if it was mentioned but didn't think to look at the PR.

Anyway, here are my concerns: Template:Infobox song mentions the following: Generally, later releases or in secondary markets, reissues, on compilations, etc., should only be included in the body of the article. As well: Usually, this is the date that it became widely available to the public, such as in retail. My concern is that having it written as "7 May 1966 (US)" implies at first glance that the single only came out in the US. I think it would be clearer to write either "7 May 1966 (US) [break] 13 May 1966 (UK)" or "7 May 1966". Neither the UK nor US market can be considered "secondary", and the single did not become widely available in the UK until its release there, so I would prefer to have both, but I think having "7 May 1966" without the "(US)" would be acceptable as well. Tkbrett (✉) 11:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the other UK stuff is mentioned maybe it would be better to have both. Or we just remove "(US)" and keep it like that. – zmbro _(talk) 12:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that Zmbro is cool with it, I've restored your edit, Tkbrett. I hope that you don't take the revert personally, I just wanted further discussion given that it was part of the PR. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TheSandDoctor. And no worries at all, everything here followed WP:BRD to the tee. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't pay me enough to takes things around here too seriously. Tkbrett (✉) 12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett Hold up... – zmbro _(talk) 12:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: I was just thinking the same! Clearly, we've been doing this all wrong from the start! Tkbrett I don't know how you did it, but you must show us your ways of getting the WMF to pay you instead of the other way around --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous quote from James Joyce's Ulysses

"Commentators often speculated that Jagger took inspiration from novelist James Joyce's 1922 book Ulysses, particularly the excerpt "I have to turn my head until my darkness goes", referring to the novel's theme of a world view of desperation and desolation."

The commentators are wrong. There is no such line in "Ulysses", or any other work of James Joyce. Irl32csc (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The line is from "Paint It Black", not Ulysses. As your post suggests, the sentence ought to be reworded since it allows for this ambiguity. Tkbrett (✉) 00:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

One can apply Joyce to anything, but "Paint It Black" does not feel particularly derivative of Joyce or Ulysses. Rather than expressing a worldview of desperation and desolation, Ulysses "celebrates the strength of spirit required to endure the trials of everyday life". https://www.ulyssesguide.com/ Irl32csc (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)