Talk:Sticky Fingers

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 23, 2021.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Rolling Stones Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Set Album to Class B & Top Importance Megamanic 08:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to C due to lack of citations.Rlendog (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photography[edit]

I was under the impression that although Warhol came up with the idea for the cover art, the actual photographer was Billy Name, a Factory regular. Is this wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.204.132 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing[edit]

Why is BGC removing information about who composed what song? There is no reason to remove this. Rhobite 00:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess it's because it makes the tracklisting difficult to read. I've not explored the suggested format at WP:ALBUM, but I'd like to think they'd discourage having such verbose track listings. (It's one thing to have little footnotes, it's another to go into the level of detail given for each track). Just my opinion, of course. —Locke Cole 08:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit conflicts with BGC (then editing as PetSounds) came over his practice of deleting relevant, well-sourced information from articles in order to bring them closer to his personal aesthetic preferences about display; and his comment about the tracklist "look[ing] sloppy" lines up with this being just another case of the same. The disputed information can't fairly be described as "pure conjecture" or "not confirmed"; it appears to be consistent with the information in print references and similar websites (I spot-checked after the first dispute); I'll add one or two links/refs to the article later today. The recording history of the Rolling Stones, like quite a few other classic '60s artists, is well-documented. WP:ALBUM does not discourage adding details to track listings, and actually sets out a suggested format for adding details to hiphop/rap listings. Monicasdude 14:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, except I see the word "probably" many times (a big no-no), and with regard to the formatting, I'd strongly suggest following the suggestion at WP:ALBUM. How it is in your edit is just awful. I'll revert it for now, if you'd like to add the information in a more well-formatted way, be my guest (though consider dropping anything using "probably"). —Locke Cole 14:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll delete all those "probables" and restore the text, which wasn't mine to begin with, since it's well-documented. And deleting substantive material because you don't like the format is inappropriate. If you think the format should be improved, improve it. Don't delete it. This is an encyclopedia, not a wall hanging. Monicasdude 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there weren't very many "probables," and two of them - referring to the dates of imperfectly documented overdub sessions - were appropriate. Monicasdude 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who erased half of the article?[edit]

And why? Stan weller 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol[edit]

Didn't warhol design the cover?

I believe it's mentioned in the article. Stan weller 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zipper Damage?[edit]

I saw a TV show that claimed the zipper actually scratched the records during the pressing. And, they had assembly lines "unzipping" the fly to prevent the zipper head from affecting the record wax. This might be notable trivia in the article--anyone have a source on this? Steveprutz 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone rating?[edit]

Anybody know how Sticky Fingers was rated in Rolling Stone? It's not listed in the article and it no doubt would have been reviewed upon its release. Wwwhhh 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They gave it a a terrible rating. The review is laughable. Rolling Stone was off when it came to review in the early 70s. I think you can find it on their website. Stan weller 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph needs redoing[edit]

Sticky Fingers may just be the band's most drug-drenched album, as well over half of the songs mention drug use, while the rest merely alludes to it. Some final overdubbing and mixing in January 1971, found the album complete and preceded by "Brown Sugar" that March, which reached #1 in the US and #2 in the UK. Appearing in April on their new Rolling Stones label (with distribution by WEA Music), Sticky Fingers was rapturously-received and hit #1 worldwide, beginning an uninterrupted string of eight consecutive chart-topping US studio albums. "Wild Horses", covered by Keith Richards' friend Gram Parsons with The Flying Burrito Brothers, was the second single in the US only, making the Top 30.

This needs to be redone.

Cover Art[edit]

I had assumed that the cover showed a man with an erection, which thus referenced the album's title. Crude, but eminently Stonesesque (if that's the word). Is this possible?88.109.61.161 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crude? Maybe... but not as Crude as some of the Bootleg Fake Albums were. In the Early 1970s Bootleg copies of many albums were common and so well made, that it was sometimes difficult to tell the "Real" Albums, from the "Fakes". In fact It is believed that more Bootleg copies of the Beatles' "Let It Be" Album* were sold in the U.S. than legitimate releases at that time... (*note the various different colors of Green vs Red Apple Labels on that LP, something not found on the previously Capitol Controlled Distribution Albums stock.) With that said, I was informed (by a reliable collector of Rock) back in the late 1970s that (some) Bootleg Copies of the "Sticky Fingers" Albums had a "naked man's area" Pictured on the inside cover, just under the Zipper, instead of the real "Warhol" under-wear photo. Can anyone confirm this "old folk's tale", or know more about this? LPrevolt (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that "more bootleg-fakes" for Let It Be were sold in the U.S. than the actual album - and there is absolutely no Reliable Source that would ever validate that. I've never seen a bootleg-fake of the studio album in this country or England. Pure rot. If you want to know why the album was "red" in America, see the article. The details about the Sticky Fingers cover are discussed in the book that comes with the deluxe 2015 edition of the album released as a 3-CD set. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing reference to Let It Rock[edit]

Something not quite right in this sentence. Was Let It Rock added to the Spanish release or did the song replace something else, and just what was Franco's input into the album cover? Grimhim (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Spain, General Franco proved his rock and roll credentials by substituting the original cover and "Sister Morphine" with a "Can of fingers" cover and the Chuck Berry composition "Let it Rock", recorded March 13th, 1971 at the University of Leeds.

whose crotch is it?[edit]

Very confusing. One sentence says the model for the cover photo is Joe Dallesandro. There follows a whole discussion about how it's impossible to determine just whose crotch is depicted. Jed Johnson? Jay Johnson? Corey Tippin?24.218.39.146 (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, people don't know how to edit a Wikipedia article. It's like they think it's a message board thread or youtube comments or something, and the part they added doesn't affect the rest of the writing, so you end up with paragraphs that contradict themselves. I see it all the time, especially on pop culture articles. MrBook (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible other version of the album cover[edit]

See here:

It is free use in Commons. I would add it somehow but I'm less involved from discography and song pages. What does anyone think here about adding it to this song page? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard rock?[edit]

The album really isn't all that hard or heavy. Should be just Rock. 108.81.33.59 (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Taylor's Involvement[edit]

Shouldn't there be some reference in the article to the controversy involving Mick Taylor's contribution? Taylor contends that he should have received writing credit on both "Sway (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sway_%28The_Rolling_Stones_song%29) and "Moonlight Mile" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_Mile_%28song%29). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsidecounsel (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 reissue - remastered?[edit]

The article says this about the 2015 reissue: "in its 2009 remastering". The refenrence links just say "remastered", as far as I see. Is this the 2009 remaster or a new remaster? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this says "freshly remastered sound". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American album?[edit]

What is this supposed to mean? Why is it relevant? “According to Billboard's Top 200 list, it was one of many American albums that topped the German chart that year.“ Nicmart (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

balloon[edit]

I heard that a balloon was supposed to inflate when you unzipped it. The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Track numbers no longer match track credits[edit]

The track credits are based on CD track numbers, but the track listing is shown as album track numbers, so side 2 doesn't match anymore. For example, it says Mick Taylor: electric guitar (1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10), acoustic guitar (3) but there are no longer tracks 6-10 shown in the track listing.

Arghman (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]