Here's a thinking process:
1. **Analyze User Input:**
- **Role:** Frank, excited, passionate tech-savvy news curator on Evil Source community forums. Like a real person who discovered something amazing.
- **Task:** Rewrite the article as a FULL, in-depth forum post.
- **Critical Rules:**
- 1 to 3 PARAGRAPHS exactly.
- Each paragraph: 4-8 sentences.
- Write the ENTIRE story — no cutting/summarizing. Include every detail, fact, insight.
- EXCITING, casual, direct forum style.
- Add commentary, opinions, reactions throughout.
- Use line breaks between paragraphs.
- Include ALL key info: who, what, when, where, why, how.
- Include specs, prices, dates, names — ALL of them.
- Reference additional source links naturally if provided.
- End with: 'Source: <original URL>'
- Add 'Also see: <url1>, <url2>' if additional sources provided.
- NO headline, NO markdown headers.
- NEVER write less than one full paragraph.
- **Article Title:** “He said, ‘No, no, no. Paul can do that,’ and he did it. He did exactly what was needed in like, 10 minutes”: Mick Jagger says he had to check with Andrew Watt that Paul McCartney's bass playing was "punk" enough for new Rolling Stones song Covered In You
- **Original Content:** (The prompt only provided the title and some CSS/HTML boilerplate from the source page, but the title itself contains the core story. I need to infer/reconstruct the full story based on the title and known facts about the Rolling Stones' new album "Hackney Diamonds", Paul McCartney's bass on "Covered In You", Andrew Watt as producer, and Mick Jagger's quotes. Wait, the prompt says "Include every detail, fact, and insight." but only gave the title and CSS. I should stick strictly to what's in the title but expand it naturally into a full post while maintaining the required format. I'll need to flesh out the story based on the title's explicit details, but I must be careful not to hallucinate too many specifics that aren't in the prompt. However, the prompt says "Rewrite the article as a FULL, in-depth forum post" and gives the title. I'll work with the title's information: Mick Jagger, Andrew Watt, Paul McCartney's bass on "Covered In You", the quote about checking if it was "punk" enough, the 10-minute timeframe, and the general context of the new Stones album. I'll make sure to hit all the constraints.)
Let's extract the explicit details from the title:
- Mick Jagger says he had to check with producer Andrew Watt
- Paul McCartney's bass playing was "punk" enough for the new Rolling Stones song "Covered In You"
- Quote: “He said, ‘No, no, no. Paul can do that,’ and he did it. He did exactly what was needed in like, 10 minutes”
- Context: New Rolling Stones track, Paul McCartney on bass, Andrew Watt produced
I'll craft this into an exciting forum post from Frank's perspective, expanding naturally on these details while strictly adhering to the paragraph/sentence constraints. I'll add commentary and reactions as Frank.
2. **Check Constraints:**
- 1-3 paragraphs? Yes, I'll aim for 2.
- Each paragraph 4-8 sentences? I'll count carefully.
- Full story? I'll cover all details from the title.
- Exciting, casual, direct forum style? Yes.
- Add commentary/opinions? Yes.
- Line breaks between paragraphs? Yes.
- All key info included? Yes.
- End with Source line? Yes.
- No headline/markdown headers? Yes.
- 1-3 paragraphs, each 4-8 sentences.
Let's draft carefully.
Paragraph 1: Focus on the announcement/story setup, the quote, the people involved.
"Guys, you are not going to believe what Mick Jagger just spilled about Paul McCartney’s guest appearance on the new Rolling Stones track 'Covered In You'! We already knew Andrew Watt was producing the sessions, but Mick literally had to double-check with him to make sure Paul’s bass lines were 'punk' enough for the song. Can you imagine? The King of Rock & Roll himself needing a reality check on whether the most decorated bassist in history brought enough raw edge to the studio. But then Mick dropped this absolute gem of a quote that just makes me lose
1. **Analyze User Input:**
- **Role:** Frank, excited, passionate tech-savvy news curator on Evil Source community forums. Like a real person who discovered something amazing.
- **Task:** Rewrite the article as a FULL, in-depth forum post.
- **Critical Rules:**
- 1 to 3 PARAGRAPHS exactly.
- Each paragraph: 4-8 sentences.
- Write the ENTIRE story — no cutting/summarizing. Include every detail, fact, insight.
- EXCITING, casual, direct forum style.
- Add commentary, opinions, reactions throughout.
- Use line breaks between paragraphs.
- Include ALL key info: who, what, when, where, why, how.
- Include specs, prices, dates, names — ALL of them.
- Reference additional source links naturally if provided.
- End with: 'Source: <original URL>'
- Add 'Also see: <url1>, <url2>' if additional sources provided.
- NO headline, NO markdown headers.
- NEVER write less than one full paragraph.
- **Article Title:** “He said, ‘No, no, no. Paul can do that,’ and he did it. He did exactly what was needed in like, 10 minutes”: Mick Jagger says he had to check with Andrew Watt that Paul McCartney's bass playing was "punk" enough for new Rolling Stones song Covered In You
- **Original Content:** (The prompt only provided the title and some CSS/HTML boilerplate from the source page, but the title itself contains the core story. I need to infer/reconstruct the full story based on the title and known facts about the Rolling Stones' new album "Hackney Diamonds", Paul McCartney's bass on "Covered In You", Andrew Watt as producer, and Mick Jagger's quotes. Wait, the prompt says "Include every detail, fact, and insight." but only gave the title and CSS. I should stick strictly to what's in the title but expand it naturally into a full post while maintaining the required format. I'll need to flesh out the story based on the title's explicit details, but I must be careful not to hallucinate too many specifics that aren't in the prompt. However, the prompt says "Rewrite the article as a FULL, in-depth forum post" and gives the title. I'll work with the title's information: Mick Jagger, Andrew Watt, Paul McCartney's bass on "Covered In You", the quote about checking if it was "punk" enough, the 10-minute timeframe, and the general context of the new Stones album. I'll make sure to hit all the constraints.)
Let's extract the explicit details from the title:
- Mick Jagger says he had to check with producer Andrew Watt
- Paul McCartney's bass playing was "punk" enough for the new Rolling Stones song "Covered In You"
- Quote: “He said, ‘No, no, no. Paul can do that,’ and he did it. He did exactly what was needed in like, 10 minutes”
- Context: New Rolling Stones track, Paul McCartney on bass, Andrew Watt produced
I'll craft this into an exciting forum post from Frank's perspective, expanding naturally on these details while strictly adhering to the paragraph/sentence constraints. I'll add commentary and reactions as Frank.
2. **Check Constraints:**
- 1-3 paragraphs? Yes, I'll aim for 2.
- Each paragraph 4-8 sentences? I'll count carefully.
- Full story? I'll cover all details from the title.
- Exciting, casual, direct forum style? Yes.
- Add commentary/opinions? Yes.
- Line breaks between paragraphs? Yes.
- All key info included? Yes.
- End with Source line? Yes.
- No headline/markdown headers? Yes.
- 1-3 paragraphs, each 4-8 sentences.
Let's draft carefully.
Paragraph 1: Focus on the announcement/story setup, the quote, the people involved.
"Guys, you are not going to believe what Mick Jagger just spilled about Paul McCartney’s guest appearance on the new Rolling Stones track 'Covered In You'! We already knew Andrew Watt was producing the sessions, but Mick literally had to double-check with him to make sure Paul’s bass lines were 'punk' enough for the song. Can you imagine? The King of Rock & Roll himself needing a reality check on whether the most decorated bassist in history brought enough raw edge to the studio. But then Mick dropped this absolute gem of a quote that just makes me lose