Talk:(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

Britney Spears cover

I wonder if it's just me, or do others think that the article gives rather more space to the cover by Britney Spears than is warranted. For goodness' sake, Otis Redding gets about two or three sentences and Spears gets three subsections? Did she breathe surprising new life into the song? Was it a breakthrough? Or did she just happen to record it recently, and so garner more discussion than she ought?

I don't get it. Phiwum (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: This invitation to talk about the relative importance of Spears' performances has been met with silence for a couple of days now, so I've been bold and trimmed some. If anyone wants to talk about it, here's the place to do so. Phiwum (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but should be trimmed more, the notability of the song itself is surely 99% a result of the Rolling Stones and the space allocated for Britney should reflect that, ie. a few lines. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact the whole cover versions and samples section needs a serious trim, seems out of balance, too much detail on what seem to me obscure versions eg. 'A 12 minute cover of the song under the title "Wild Satisfaction" is included in Taste of Conium, the 2nd album by Socrates Drank the Conium, a Greek rock band of the 70s'. Better to just have a list of the covers I think, with a select few having a few lines of detail: Otis Redding, Devo, Spears Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If there was ever a good reason to invoke WP:UNDUE this is it. A huge section on one version of a remake sticks out as silly in an encyclopedia article. Woody's suggestion is a good one, and if fans of other versions keep inflating their own favorites, then just a list period. Jusdafax 06:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

While I can understand the imperative to dismiss Britney Spears as an inferior artist, I would still like to see a fairly thorough treatment of each notable cover, and expanded coverage on Otis Redding (whose version charted[1], and completes a narrative about Richards' intended arrangement). Ideally, I'd like to see an audio snippet from each artist's version, and notes on which artists chose to omit the guitar lick (as I believe Spears and DEVO did in their studio versions, but not always on stage).

The Spears personnel section appears non-duplicative of the album containing this track, so I would argue for its complete inclusion. Performance history can be done in a sentence or two (by snipping the costuming details not relevant to the song, and duplicative of the Promotion section for the album). As for the weight given to Spears relative to The Residents, I would attribute this to Spears' cover received considerably more attention overall, rather than the relative merits of the performances (both being equally disappointing IMO).

Samples I have no strong opinion on. Barring a lawsuit or considerable public attention, I'd say a chart or a bullet list, possibly detailing what part taken. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored a somewhat condensed version of the Britney Spears section here. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Spears personnel section being non-duplicative is not in my view a strong argument for inclusion here and being non-duplicative generally is not an argument for inclusion anywhere. The question for inclusion is that of notability and really only a few of the covers are barely notable. 'Fairly thorough treatment' for these barely notable few is WP:UNDUE to me, just a few lines each for Redding, Devo and Spears and a list for the rest. I think the Otis Redding version rocks, but it's not that notable today from my perspective. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean seriously none of these covers rate much for notability, it's not like Joe Cocker's version of With a Little Help from my Friends for any of them. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a review site, so let's get past whose version rocks correctly—personally I've listened to Television (band) do this song more than any artist listed here, but I doubt their cover deserves more than a sentence. For a generation of women now 25-30, the most notable thing about this song is that Britney performed it, and the rest of this article is Dad reminiscing. I think the facts that it took 4 assistant mix engineers to tweak that generic backing track, and that Spears, widely considered a mannequin, claims this cynical appeal to music critics was her move— I wish there existed better documentation on this, but personally I'm not diving into Britney coverage to look for it —are well worth inclusion. And the fact that she resorted to playing the Stones' original in concert seems pretty relevant even from the Stones must WP:OWN this article perspective.

Since the historical narrative of a (notable) song is (usually) its interpretation by different artists for different communities and times, I think WP:GNG-notable covers are always worth inclusion. (Not because WP:GNG applies here as policy, but because that's a good, neutral standard for inclusion.) Does it irk me that Madonna's cover of "American Pie" dominates that article? Sure. But I believe that beats ignoring NPOV, which I think requires us to give well-known covers a thorough treatment, perhaps especially when they exist as cultural events rather than well-regarded pieces of music. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

edg has "listened to Television (band) do this song more than any artist listed here, but I doubt their cover deserves more than a sentence" but they didn't get a sentence. DyNama 14:06, 25 September 2014

I think you underestimate the cross generational appeal of the Stones, a lot of the women I know in that age group (which is close to mine) are quite familiar with the standout songs from the Stones like Satisfaction. Only those who own the Spears' album containing the song or who went to concerts where she performed it would be aware she even did it, it was never a single, and women 25-30 are a small subgroup anyway. Her version is not notable, it doesn't deserve extensive treatment. There's no comparison with American Pie because Madonna released it as an extremely successful #1 single in many countries, at least matching or approaching the original version in chart performance, that is notability. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The secret of the main riff

I think this article should reveal the secret behind the magic of the main riff. While the lead guitar is going, B, B, B - C# - D, the bass guitar (in a notably different rhythm) is playing E, E, F#, G#, A. With the addition of the acoustic guitar strumming (more audible in the stereo version), what we're getting is an E5 (E power chord) leading to a Dsus2/A (or possibly an Asus4, I'm not sure).

Surely there are musicians out there who know this song note-for-note, that can back up these assertions?!? I have the sheet music book and could do it myself, but I'd rather a true Stones fan did it.

--Ben Culture (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Blues Festival 1964

How come there is a track called "Satisfaction" on "Chicago Blues Festival 1964" if it was written in 1965? http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001FS6P50/ref=dm_ws_tlw_trk5_B001FS6P50

--Polly Math (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question, and this is probably the answer: "The recording date is questionable. Although the title of the album’s 2003 release is "Chicago Blues Festival 1964", but you can read in the liner notes by Athan Maroulis, that "these live recording from the mid-seventies".[2] Both of them are impossible. They played Richards/Jagger’s Satisfaction, which was first recorded by Rolling Stones in May 1965. In the mid-seventies they didn’t play with two sax players, and the sound is less modern. So it is assumed, that this show was recorded in the second half of the sixties." In short, there's no particular reason to suppose the 1964 in the title is true.Dgndenver (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518082914/http://www.mrpopculture.com/thereport/rolling-stones-satisfaction-1965-history/ to http://www.mrpopculture.com/thereport/rolling-stones-satisfaction-1965-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013131920/http://blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=852 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=852

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)