Jump to content

Talk:Folk rock/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Change article name

The proper way to spell "folk rock" is without the hypen. This is the only place where I have seen it spelled "folk-rock." I propose that we rename the article. KitHutch 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree - just some of the links like electric folk* and folk music are without the dash. To be consistent, the word should be "folk rock"; therefore, move the article and rename the usage of the word. --Supercoop 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Other discussion

Hmm. None of that list are what I would classify as "Folk-rock" and the list excludes Fairport Convention who are argued to have created the genre with Liege and Lief -- SGBailey 22:05 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to edit as much as you like. Take off what you don't like, or better yet, explain why those don't fit right. What's Paul Simon classified as? or Joni Mitchell? I would have a hard time saying that these artists didn't make at least a couple of folk-rock tunes, but sure, to classify their whole career as folk-rock is more difficult. A better definition of the term is in order.
- Tubby

Why is there a hyphen in the name? -- Zoe

Cos it isn't folk and it isn't rock but is a combination of the two and is a standard way of writing it. ? -- 217.24.129.50 11:51 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Shrug. That's just the way it came out. Feel free to change/move it. -Tubby 23:44 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

It is very poor linking style for the article to read:

See Turkish Music Genres and Artists for detail.

...if there are no details in Turkish Music Genres and Artists. I'm going to wait and see what happens to that link, even though it is presently going to waste the time of anyone looking for information on "Turkish folk-rock."

Update: somebody has wikified the destination as " Turkish music ". The present link will be redirected there. Two16

O'88, with all respect, The Turtles are kinda of grey area. Yes, I agree with your comment, and yes, they did all sorts of folk-rock songs (i.e.: Let Me Be, House of Pain, All My Problems) BUT, they had very diverse influences, and to catagorize them as a folk-rock is somewhat limiting in describing The Turtles. After all, they started as a surf band, worked with Ray Davies and sort of with Frank Zappa, and had pop hits (She'd Rather Be With Me, Happy Together). Just my small amount in your local currency -- Two Halves

But they broke out nationally doing Dylan. Their diversity is why I added the introductory paragraph before the list. What about The Animals? Ortolan88
As I said before, it's a grey area where one could side with one shade as well as the other. I think that this just happened!!! (BTW, with which Dylan song? I can't remember the one you are talking about.) As for The Animals, well we all know that The House of the Rising Sun is a folk song. I'm not familiar enough with their non-top 40 songs really to make this distinction. Someone will make it, however... Two Halves
    • please don't let me be, misunderstood danana

"It Ain't Me Babe" was a Dylan tune that was one of the Turtles' early big hits, if not their first. soulpatch

Just for the record, allmusic categorizes the Lovin' Spoonful in this category. I just removed the Turkish guy because he may have mixed Turkish folk and rock, but the term as used and described in the article refers to Appalachian folk (esp. bluegrass) being mixed with rock. Unless he actually mixed this kind of folk with rock and roll, he doesn't belong on the list. Of course, a discussion of other kinds of folk being fused with rock would be interesting, both here and on a separate article -- when that occurs, he should be re-added appropriately. Tokerboy
Too elaborate, folk music refers to a large category of musics; virtually all popular music today fuses rock and roll with some kind of folk music. Even the hardest death metal is a whole lot of rock and a tiny bit of blues (blues is folk). Tokerboy
"All music is folk music. I ain't never heard a horse sing a song." Louis Armstrong. Ortolan88

Undoing the laundry list

I'm not sure the laundry list of groups was useful as it stood, so I've decided to be bold. The Pogues have not got much in common with Renaissance, to put it mildly. I think we need to make some distinctions here. I've plunged in to try to make them, though I'm sure it will not be without controversy. Some of these bands I don't know enough to really classify, can someone else try to follow through? Also:

  • Does Gordon Lightfoot really belong here at all? I hear almost no rock elements in his music.
  • Similarly, are there enough folk element in the Corrs to qualify? If them, why not the Cranberries? or even Sinéad O'Connor? Anyway, I've tried to be charitable in where I've placed them.

Anyway, the restructure I think provides a better basis for talking about parallel developments outside of North America and the British Isles, although doubtless some of these should be little more than single mentions or see-alsos. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:01, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've decided to be even bolder. I've done a complete rewrite (and major expansion) of the narrative portion of the article, giving it a structure I believe we can build on. I think the lead and the section about the roots of folk-rock are pretty solid.

My suggestion for further developing the article is that we abandon having a long list of artists at the bottom of the article. Instead, we should try to work them into the narrative as appropriate and that any lists go at the end of the section to which they are relevant; at worst, a list at the end can be a catch-all for blendings of folk and rock that don't fit our narrative.

I know I came into this out of nowhere and did a major edit; I was working on Fairport Convention, stumbled across this, and felt that there was a lot more I could do to rapidly improve this article than that one. Anyway, I will now stay mostly out of editing this one for a couple of days to give others time to react/respond. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Notable or not?

Would someone else take a look at the recent additions by User:66.185.85.81? To the best of my knowledge, neither Nathan Bishop nor Celtae are particularly prominent, influential, or otherwise meriting discussion in this article, but I'll admit to not being expert on contemporary Canadian folk-rock. (I'm not Canada-bashing here: Spirit of the West certainly merit mention.) -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Gundula Krause

Is Gundula Krause well-enough known to merit mention in this article? I will readily admit to never before having heard of her. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Germany she´s wellknown under the name "göttliche Teufelsgeigerin" (divine fiddler of devil). Audax 12:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Renaissance folk-rock

I'm toying with the idea of adding "Renaissance Folk-rock" to cover Gryphon, Amazing Blondel, Blackmore's Night and Phillip Pickett's "The Bones of All Men". Maybe some of John Renbourn would fit in, but I'm not sure, since the rock element is negligible. Would you want it appended to this article, or put somewhere separate? Would you prefer the name "Medieval Folk-rock", or some other title?

A separate article would be fine, but there should be a summary here, written in Wikipedia:Summary style. The title should be whatever is most common; if there is no terribly common name, then just pick whatever seems most reasonable and make redirects from other titles. Tuf-Kat 20:53, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no particularly common name for this subgenre, but yes, there is a reasonably distinct style here. Renaissance folk-rock seems like an appropriate article title. I agree with Tuf-Kat about a short summary here, linking to an article elsewhere. I think the article should include Renbourne: it's true that the rock element was minor, but conversely it's almost impossible to imagine anyone having taken his approach to this music before the rock era, and he performed in rock venues. Similarly to Renbourne in that respect, you might also mention City Waites.
It would be nice to find an authority to quote on why Renbourne and City Waites are distinct from straight folk revivalism or "early music" consorts. I think the case is pretty clear, but not so self-evident as to lack any need for citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any recognition of the title Renaissance folk-rock or Medieval Folk-rock outside this discussion? Blackmores Night are widely known as a folk rock band. --Paulw99 13:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a big growth of artists that are including Mediaeval/Renaissance stylings to their music that are coined as "Mittelalter Rock" in Europe, and "Neo-Medieval" in the US. These artists span from traditional to incorporating the formentioned stylings to Rock, Metal, and Gothic/Darkwave music. Although it is generally agreed upon that this form of "Neo-Medieval" Metal differs from the Folk Metal that associates itself within the Black Metal genre. JanderVK (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is recogniton of the term 'Medieval folk rock' (sometimes medieval rock or medieval folk), whereas renaissance rock turns out to be pretty much be used exclusively just by Blackmore for his band. Accordingly I created a medieval folk rock page that covers the aspects mentioned above with citations. After some discussion a disambiguation page was created for Medieval rock, which leads to medieval folk rock Medieval metal, neo-medieval music (which will deal with dark wave and new age stuff). I will post a summary of the medieval folk rock page in this article. I am unsure about summaries of the other two, they may not fit here.--Sabrebd (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Steeleye Span

Kalimac, with reference to your edits on Steeleye Span: do you know their earliest albums (especially Hark! The Village Wait)? I don't have it handy as I'm writing, but I don't believe there is anything electric on that album. I'll check if you think I'm wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 02:12 (UTC)

Jmabel, I'm sorry I never noticed your query earlier, but the early Steeleye was amplified up the wazoo, infamous for their very loud noise. Even if one queries whether amplified music is electric music, Ashley Hutchings always played electric bass, and the first album credits also list an electric dulcimer and electric guitar played by Tim Hart and Terry Woods. Kalimac 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My record collection is in storage at the moment, so I can't check credits and dates, but what are you counting as their "first album"? Hark! The Village Wait? Or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Jmabel, yes, the first album is Hark! The Village Wait. It is both amplified and electric. Kalimac 25 June 2006

Possibly inappropriate illustration

I see someone has added the jacket of The Times They Are A-Changin' as the lead illustration in the article. This seems wrong to me: the album isn't folk-rock at all, it's a singer-songwriter album solidly in the folk revivalist tradition, and almost devoid of rock influence. Many songs on the album were covered by folk-rock artists, but the album itself is not folk-rock. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Kazuki Tomokawa?

Judging by the article on Kazuki Tomokawa, he doesn't belong here. If anyone from Japan deserves to be mentioned, I would think it was Osamu Kitajima for his work around the time of Benzaiten. But I don't know Japanese music all that well, and won't do this unilaterally: would someone else please weigh in? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

poor choice for album...

I don't think Blonde on Blonde should be used to exemplify folk rock. Essentially, it's a rock album. I would choose something like Pentangle's Sweet Child....File:Sweetchild.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelmross (talk • contribs) 14 Nov 2005.

Concur. But that image needs an image copyright tag or it is liable simply to be deleted. Once you deal with the appropriate copyright notices, I would gladly agree to the substitution.
A Byrds album in addition would also be good; betwen those two we would cover the two most prominent streams of folk-rock. Any objections? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Simon and Garfunkel

What about Simon and Garfunkel? Why are they not listed on this page?

--Seficity-- 27 Feb 2006

Funny - I was reading this page tonight (July 19 2012) and had similar feelings, especially as "folk rock" is given as one of the genres on the article in Wikipedia on Simon and Garfunkel. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They are hard to categorize and the limits of this categorization are vague. I think it's mostly a matter of if someone wants to put them in. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that they should be included. I've added a brief para, but have no objection to it being expanded further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious recent edits

I just compared the current state of the article to one from 40 days ago; I can't say it's encouraging:

  • "…Fairport Convention" ==> "…Fairport Convention(Richard Thompson)"
    • Why? Nothing against Thompson, I'm a fan and all, but Fairport in its heyday wasn't any more his band than, say, Sandy Denny's. And Ian Matthews, Simon Nicol, Ashley Hutchings, and Martin Lamble were no slouches either. Why single out one member? FWIW, Thompson's name was also added to two other lists in the article. Thompson certainly deserves a mention in the article, but three?
  • "…veteran Breton Celtic harp soloist Alan Stivell" ==> "…veteran French Celtic harp soloist Alan Stivell".
    • Ridiculous. What matters in respect of musical tradition isn't his citizenship, it's his ethnic cultural background. (BTW, remarkable that we have no article on Celtic harp.)
  • + "Another folk-rock band is Gåte from Norway who combines Norwegian folk songs(stev) and rock."
    • Might be fine. I don't know them, can someone weigh in on why they are significant enough to be mentioned? Nothing in our article on them suggests that they are particularly notable. Stev lacks an article.
  • + a mention of Blaggards
    • A not terribly notable band from Texas whose entire recorded output appears to be one song on a compilation album.
  • + "The best radio source for this style of Celtic Rock is through the weekly streaming radio show with the largest international audience of this genre at Paddy Rock Radio."
    • Who says it's the best? Barring a citation to that effect, at most this belongs as an external link.

Unless someone weighs in with a good defense of some of these, I'm pretty inclined to revert/delete the lot (except a mention or two of Richard Thompson). - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

3 weeks, no answer. I've dropped the spare mention of Thompson, reworded the Stivell remark so that both Breton and French are mentioned, dropped the Blaggards, and demoted Paddy Rock Radio to an external link. - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nick Drake

"Nick Drake's music has had a large impact on modern folk-rock." Has it? I respect his work enormously, and he certainly has had an influence on a certain type of folk-influenced popular music, but is it really folk-rock? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. I love his music, he may have had an impact on early Fairport work (although I have not seen evidence of this yet) but he does not belong in a electric folk section.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Category

Should there be a Category for folk rock musical groups? Nareek 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think so. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Would "Category:Folk rock musical groups" be the proper phrasing? Nareek 13:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds sane to me, but I'm not expert on the category system. If you get it wrong, someone will bring it to WP:CFD, come up with a better name, and fix it with a bot, so don't get too hung up on naming exactly right. - Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoops--there's already a Category:Folk rock groups. Maybe that category should have its name changed, to fit in better with the other musical categories, but for now I'm trying to speedy-delete the new category I made. Nareek 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Folk rock artists

i've moved most of this section to list of folk rock artists. If it's better, please delete this section (or the newly amde article).--sin-man 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It would've been better if this was done striaght away. I've merged the two lists (hopefully correctly), and removed the one in this article -- lists don't belong in an article
-- TimNelson 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Italian section

I'm glad there's an Italian section, but its translator seem to have had a little trouble with English. I've corrected it where possible, but there are a few that will need attention from someone else:

  • "flag of Sardinia in the world" -- I can think of a few meanings for this. If anyone knows what it means, please disambiguate.
  • If anyone knows what "rinascimental" means, can they please either add an explanation or replace it with something a bit more common?
  • "A record that was out of market rules" -- not sure what this means either

-- TimNelson 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Additions

I think there should be additions to the page to include brief paragraphs for the Neofolk (Apocalyptic, Folk Noir etc.) and Folk Metal genres. JanderVK (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"s. Earthy "unplugged" musically simplified sound of the music and common presentation reflected the genre's connection to a more earthy look at society's state of affairs."

i am unable to make any sense of the preceding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Accoustic Rock?

Why Accoustic Rock redirects to Folk Rock? They are not the same thing and if you're looking for information about Accoustic Rock this article will not be usefull for you. I think that this redirection should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.7.20.163 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, find a writer who makes the distinction and post it here. It must be sourced. Meanwhile, I'd be interested to hear what you think the difference is? Byrds vs Fairport Convention? Guns n Roses vs Steeleye Span? Up to you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Byrds-MrTambourineMan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Progressive and Psych folk

In order to update summaries of Electric folk and Medieval folk rock (see comments above), I had to remove some comments on British folk groups that did not fit under those categories. I plan to rewrite the following eventually, Prog folk, Psych folk and Baroque folk, which will deal with these in detail and them summarise them here, so they will not be excluded.--Sabrebd (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

100% England

George Harrison the First artist Folk rock """"1964"""

  • the american band byrds 1965
  • Canada they not have artists in this years!
  • Obvious the folk rock is 100% Brit

Folk rock is origin BRITISH

George Harrison the First artist Folk rock """"1964"""

  • the american band birds 1965

Canada they not have artists in this years!

You are ignoring artists which have not been "sponsored by the British Empire": Brittany's Alan Stivell, about same time, as much talented.82.126.46.10 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Beatles for Sale" (1964) the first FOLK ROCK album in the History

Allmusic citation on the Beatles and folk rock

All Music Guide lists Beatles For Sale 1964 as folk-rock and interesting also country-rock and this pre-dates both Dylan and the Byrds. All Music Guide review of "I'm A Loser" Musically, ""I'm a Loser"'s also notable for being perhaps the first Beatles song to directly reflect the influence of Bob Dylan, thus nudging folk and rock a little closer together toward the folk-rock explosion of the following year". Song Review by Richie Unterberger. --Nelsontony (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Nelson

Roger McGuinn of the Byrds has clearly stated many times that the Beatles were doing folk with rock before the Byrds and that is why the Byrds formed. "In 1964, when the Beatles arrived, with their long hair and Elizabethan accents, giving us back rock & roll greats like Little Richard and Chuck Berry, even folk purists took note. Roger McGuinn, then going by his given name of Jim, came out of the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago straight into playing backup guitar for the Chad Mitchell Trio. After he heard the Beatles he decided to leave the Village and folk music behind to form the Byrds in Los Angeles. As much as the Beatles were loved for their re-invention of rock & roll, McGuinn liked them for their "folk changes" -- the way they combined folk and rock to form something new and exciting". The eMusic Dozen: '60s Folk-Rock [[--Nelsontony (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Nelson]]

The last sentence of the article's lead claimed that "Allmusic also credits The Beatles for fusing folk with rock in 1964." Paragraph 13 of the Allmusic bio of the Beatles says nothing of the kind. It mentions that George Harrison's 12-string influenced (former folkie) Roger McGuinn's and the Byrds' foray into rock, but it doesn't credit the Beatles with the "fusion" or use any similar word or combination of words. Also, Allmusic does not state such a "fusion" took place in 1964, only that Harrison was playing a 12-string by that point. In other words, the reference as written was a stretch.

As indicated by recent comments from other editors, there appears to be some sympathy for making folk rock a British-originated phenonmenon. The historical record on this, however, is both clear and if you will, a bit of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Clearly, the success of the Beatles renewed Dylan's interest in rock, while it is equally clear that Dylan influenced the Beatles into writing more than "puppy love" songs. As for who had a greater influence on the Byrds, Lovin' Spoonful and other early folk rockers, everything else is speculative. The only thing that can be said for sure is that the genre evolved from an amazing cultural exchange between two nations. So if we had to locate the epicenter of what Allmusic calls "the folk rock explosion of 1965," it would have to be somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. Allreet (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to endorse the recent edit, as Allmusic does not say what was being claimed for it. I think that the above paragraph correctly sums up the position. There are early moves in this direction in the UK including The Animals version of ‘House of the Rising Sun’ in 1964 (probably derived from Dylan's version and a hit on both sides of the Atlantic) and the Beatles, but it does really take off in the US in 1965 with the Byrds and then Dylan getting on board. The evidence we have supports the conclusion that it was an Anglo-American creation and the article (and infobox) should reflect this. Repeating that it is British (or American) does not change the facts we have. I would support a re-edit to reflect this.--Sabrebd (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Sabrebd, for the backup. This just begins to scratch the surface, however. The three paragraphs following the lead make a quantum leap to the late 1960s in what appears to be a further attempt at tying the UK to the genre's development (certainly legitimate, but only in regards to this latter period). While I have no dispute with the facts presented, I do have a problem with the biased focus. Of equal concern, this and much of the material that follows fail to cite any sources. In fact, based on the style and scarcity of hard facts, the information as presented strikes me as original research. A template to this effect appears to be justified. Allreet (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed again. The opening section is rather long and rambling. The lack of citations is a serious flaw. Some kind of clean up of this and the origins sections is needed, if it can be done without howls of protest.--Sabrebd (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It needs to be done even with howls of protest. It is just plain contra-factual. The Beatles had nothing whatsoever to do with the inception of the genre and were widely declared the "enemies" of "folk" music - and this is sourceable from docs already linked in other Wiki articles. The Mamas and the Papas and the Byrds released their first records within weeks of each other in '65 after having gotten together in '64, with Simon and garfunkel not far behind and Dylan plugging in that August - at which time, BTW, Beatlemania was just beginning to sweep the US - and sweep the huge popularity of groups like the Kingston Trio out the door.
I'm afraid that the only WP:RS for this will be in print and not online. I'd add that people like Robert Shelton and Nat Hentoff who were actually there at the time (as I was) are going to make far more accurate assessments than agenda-driven people who weren't. More to come on this for sure. Sensei48 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too concerned about "howls of protest." The record is clear. The challenge is to do the subject justice, and it's a difficult one because the impact of folk rock was immense and the cast of characters long. More than identifying a particular form, it describes an evolutionary period in which two branches of music met at one end and everything else diverged at the other, all within the span of a couple years: electric folk, psychedlic, country-rock, etc. In a way, folk rock is kind of pop music's missing link, and the Beatles, like everyone else, were as much benefactors as they were originators. Besides the books of his that I listed below, Richie Unterberger has a wealth of material online that goes beyond the usual suspects - just google his name to get there. Also, I think Shelton's books are available for preview on Google Books; at least I'm sure No Direction Home is. Anyway, back to "howls," it's difficult to protest material that's amply referenced. So if you will, read up and write on. Allreet (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Very well put, Id say - and I'd include Unterberger (whose work I know well) in that group, despite his relative "youth." I think parts of the article accurately identify the cross-pollination that existed in the fusion you describe - but sourced clarification is possible that avoids some of the more obvious misstatements of the article - and to clarify I will be digging up what I can. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Folk Rock article has numerous issues. I applied a template for what I believe is the worst of these, original research, but among related concerns are POV problems that, in my opinion, have prompted the omission of primary information on the genre and its development. As it stands, the article opens with a string of loose assertions about the origins of folk rock. It then skips the entire period in which folk rock flourished to relate the development of one of its offspring, British electric folk. Scattered throughout all of this are conclusions and interpretations that could only be those of the author(s). Given that no sources are provided to support any of this material (other than one citation that had been distorted) and given that a cursory review of the published record would lead any reasonable person to a completely different understanding, I contend that the article is not only presenting but advocating a unique view of the subject.

To assist editors in researching and writing new material to fill in the story and remove unsupportable material, I've gathered the following sources, all available through Google Books. In addition to other books, I'd suggest checking for articles and similar references to unearth additional information and perspectives:

  • Brocken, Michael (2003), The British Folk Revival, 1944–2002, Ashgate
  • Cohen, Ronald D. (2006), Folk Music: The Basics, Routledge
  • Einarson, John (2005), Mr. Tambourine Man, Backbeat Books
  • Friedlander, Paul (2006), Rock And Roll: A Social History, Westview Press
  • Frith, Simon (2004), The Rock Era, Routledge
  • Shelton, Robert (2003), No Direction Home: The Life And Music Of Bob Dylan, Da Capo Press
  • Sweers, Britta (2004), Electric Folk: The Changing Face of English Traditional Music, Oxford University Press
  • Unterberger, Richie (2003), Eight Miles High: Folk-Rock's Flight from Haight-Ashbury to Woodstock, Backbeat Books
  • Unterberger, Richie (2002), Turn! Turn! Turn!: The '60s Folk-Rock Revolution, Backbeat Books
  • Walker, Michael (2006), Laurel Canyon, Macmillan
  • Woodstra, Chris; Erlewine, Stephen Thomas; Bogdanov, Vladimir, Editors (2002), All Music Guide to Rock (Byrds), Backbeat Books {{citation}}: |first3= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Zak, Albin (2001), The Poetics of Rock, University of California Press

Allreet (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


This is a useful range of books that allow for a balanced view of the Anglo-American issues and a move to an article that relies on valid citations. As a way forward on this article I propose the following for the first part:

  • Shortening of the introduction, which is too long for an article of this length (WP:LEAD) and contains much that should be in the main body.
  • A short section that deals with the precursors of folk rock, particularly the American folk revival and British Invasion.
  • A section that outlines early attempts to marry rock and folk on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere (e.g. the Animals, Beatles, and early experiments in the US). This may lead into the Byrds seminal recordings and Dylan's (and others), plugging in depending on length.
  • Spread and expansion of this in both the USA and the UK and elsewhere.

Suggestions and comments welcome. Unless there are major objections I will undertake this when I finish current projects.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly wrong

This is a poorly researched and poorly presented article, and needs an overhaul if not a complete re-write. Folk rock starts in the United States with musicians who had previously been on the American folk music revival circuit forming rock and roll bands in the wake of the popularity of The Beatles and Bob Dylan. Although the Beatles were influential in folk rock, and later began to absorb some of its elements, their acoustic stylings on Beatles for Sale are not the beginning of folk rock, regardless of what is stated in an article on allmusic.com. The Byrds, The Mamas and The Papas, and other groups in California and New York should feature prominently in a discussion of folk rock's genesis.

Folk rock quickly mutates into the psychedelic rock of the San Francisco acid rock bands, and takes a completely different form in the United Kingdom with the influence of finger-picking guitarists such as Davy Graham and the incorporation of ballads as collected by Francis James Child and Cecil Sharp by bands such as Fairport Convention and The Pentangle. Where the info on musicians and groups from other parts of the world is welcome, it shouldn't be the balance of the article, as it is now.PJtP (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read the two sections above you will find the same points made. I would agree with the general thrust of your argument, but left this alone as someone else had undertaken to re-write the article. It is probably time to get back to this now.--SabreBD (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Geez you guys are killing me. The Beatles mixed English folk influence primarily skiffle into their music. So of course it's not traditional American Folk music lyrically and musically but it's still folk music with rock and roll. From the horses mouth or one of the memebers of the Byrds.

David Crosby – Goldmine 1995

They (The Beatles) were our heroes. They were absolutely what we thought we wanted to do. We listened to every note they played, and savored it, and rubbed it on our foreheads, and were duly affected by it. I was in Chicago, living with a British guy named Clem Floyd on Well Street, right in the middle of it all. I was singing at Old Town North and Mother Blues. I was trying to quit smoking, and the way I figured to quit was to buy a quarter-pound of pot, which I rolled and smoked every time I wanted a cigarette. I'm not saying to try this at home, kids - but it worked. So I was in a high old state of affairs, and Clem walked in one afternoon with that first Beatles album, Meet the Beatles. He put it on, and I just didn't know what to think. It absolutely floored me- "Those are folk-music changes, but it's got rock and roll backbeat. You can't do that, but they did! Holy yikes.

RigbyEleanor (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

The problem with that analysis is that skiffle was certainly not "English folk music" - it was a British version of American folk and - in particular - American country blues music, as originally recorded by people like Lead Belly and Big Bill Broonzy. Skiffle itself was certainly a precursor of folk rock, both directly in Britain, and indirectly through the influence adopted by people like the Beatles and the Searchers (who were particularly influential on the Byrds) - but it had very little to do with British folk music. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Skiffle is not rock music and are you denying the Beatles influence on early folkies going the folk rock route or being influential?. You don't get what I'm saying because the Beatles were influenced by skiffle which had folk influences they incorporated that into their music which was noticed by the Byrds. I don't know who invented folk rock but the Byrds got it from the Beatles. Do you need more evidence?

The artful Roger: in The Folk Den with Roger McGuinn

At the same time all this was happening, McGuinn also experienced a major epiphany that would have a profound effect on his musical future: The Beatles had exploded onto the American charts. Captivated by their skiffle beat, mellifluous chord progressions, and infectious melodies, he instinctively knew that melding those distinguishing characteristics with his own tried-and-true folk sensibilities and training would yield a pretty unique sound.

"When the Beatles had come out, the folk boom had already peaked," McGuinn notes. "The people who had been into it were getting kind of burned out. It just wasn't very gratifying, and it had become so commercial that it had lost its meaning for a lot of people. So the Beatles kind of re-energized it for me. I thought it was natural to put the Beatles' beat and the energy of the Beatles into folk music. And in fact, I heard folk chord changes in the Beatles' music when I listened to their early stuff like 'She Loves You' and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand.' I could hear the passing chords that we always use in folk music: the G-Em-Am-B kind of stuff. So I really think the Beatles invented folk-rock. They just didn't know it."RigbyEleanor (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC) RigbyEleanor

Rig, you are misreading McGuinn's point, even as you quote it:"to put the Beatles' beat and the energy of the Beatles into folk music." It was the beat and energy to which McGuinn refers. The chord changes are characteristic of folk and rock because the ultimate roots of rock are in American rhythm and blues and just plain blues - both of which are American folk genres, meaning they arose informally among a large number of native musicians over a period of time. What McGuinn is not saying is that the Beatles invented folk-rock. What he is saying is that he took the beat and energy elements of the early Beatles and applied them to folk. The chord change similarities are incidental and made the task easier - but he is NOT saying that the Beatles had anything folkish about them except for accidental similarities in the chords. Let's let McGuinn speak to this himself with a musical demonstration - here he is speaking at the Folk Alliance in 2009 and addressing exactly this point: [1]

Sensei48 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Sensei48 - what is your basis for saying the similarities were "accidental"? The Beatles developed in a culture where folk music (particularly Irish music) was widespread and commonplace. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and three of them were partly or wholly of Irish descent. But by their own testimony - their primary influences included Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters, and Lennon vigorously rejected the contention that they were a skiffle band. They were rock all the way. The accidental nature is that, as I noted, rock 'n' roll was an American derivation of blues, which is the primary indigenous folk form of the U.S., blending as it does The European chromatic scale with African rhythms and "note sliding." Blues evolves parallel to the Anglo-Scots-Irish-German folk music of the largely rural U.S in the 19th century - but the chord progressions of blues follow the Euro patterns necessitated by the use of chromatic-scaled instruments like the guitar and native African instruments like the bania that morphed into the banjo, originally fretless but eventually chromatic. One grandparent music of American rock and folk is thus the same, so the chords are even if the music is not. And beyond the blues/rock foundation of the Beatles music - each grew up with the distinctively music-hall-oriented pop that their parents listened to - as evidenced esp. in Sgt Pepper but elsewhere as well.
To say that the Beatles had a hand in the creation of folk-rock beyond what McGuinn explicitly states - and in the 2009 video I posted you'll see him assert that it was HIS idea to play "folk music with a Beatles beat" as he demonstrates on the vid - please find a source from any of the Beatles or anyone close to them where they mention any kind of folk, Irish or anything else, as an influence in their musical development. To say that there was a lot of music around and it therefore must have influenced them is a) the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and b) more to the point perhaps here WP:OR. Sensei48 (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the story is quite as clear-cut as you suggest. Obviously, Chuck Berry etc were the major influence on the Beatles, and the Beatles were the major influence on McGuinn. But there are other factors as well - the Beatles started as a skiffle group influenced by folk and country blues music, as well as by Irish music in Liverpool. The fact that Lennon said they were not a skiffle band doesn't mean that they weren't when they started out.

"The case could be made that there were some elements of folk in the Beatles' music. McGuinn and others picked up on the likeness of some of their chord changes and vocal harmonies to those heard in folk, and the Beatles, in a limited sense, had actually started as folk musicians. They had their roots in a Liverpool high school group, the Quarry Men, that had formed and first performed in 1957 as a skiffle group. Skiffle, that strange mix of folk, blues and trad jazz, had just been popularized by Lonnie Donegan in Britain with his cover of Leadbelly's "Rock Island Line"....." - Richie Unterberger, Turn Turn Turn: the 60s folk-rock revolution, p.67

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


The folk influence on the Beatles came from skiffle this is not rocket science. They also had other influences as well as using pop styled bridges with blues based verses in the same song "You Can't Do That" for example which made them already different than their British blues rock counterparts. The Beatles would use intervals of 4ths and 5ths vocal harmony instead of the conventional 3rds and 6ths. The Beatles did not use straight I-IV-V progressions much of the time. Diminished chords and augmented chords are common as early as their second single "From Me to You". Well much of this comes from covering a lot of songs when then started out but it originially came from skiffle. Lonnie Donegan was a big early influence on George Harrison before he even knew about rock and roll. Sense I am not misreading anything the Byrds think the Beatles invented folk-rock. To say the early Beatles were only rock makes me think you are not versed in their music. George Harriosn was using the Dorian Mode 1963 on "Don't Bother Me" in a tune I wouldn't call a blues tune. What I find amusing you have it from the best sources Roger McGuinn and David Crosby. The facts are the Byrds heard folk in the Beatles via through their chord changes it came from skiffle and folk music. Rock and Roll was only one element of vast sources the Beatles used.


From the book For What It's Worth: The Story of Buffalo Springfield By John Einarson, Richie Furay Page 42-43 " I realized this was indeed electrified folk music. I was never really a purisit, but I did respect the people who liked acoustic music and didn't want to change. However I realized the Beatles were incorporating a lot of folk music changes in their songs, folk music changes. They had played skiffle so that's a folk influence on them." Roger McGuinn

In fact in 1963 one of the Beatles early songs 1963 "I'll Get You" melody was influenced by Joan Baez's recording of the folk tune "All My Trials." Also considering the Beatles introduced the electric 12 Rickenbacker sound that was a key element in folk-rock besides jangle-pop that influenced the Byrds and other folk rockers we need to give the Beatles some credit here. "What You're Doing" George's chiming lead guitar part, laced with an uncommonly odd kind of distortion for the era, would prove a huge influence on the folk-rock movement, coming a full six months before the Byrds recorded "Mr. Tambourine Man." RigbyEleanor (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

Ghm and Rig - Certainly both Unterberger and Einarson are excellent WP:RS. I think, though, that the issue here is an very subtle one and requires an extreme delicacy of phrasing. I believe that Pt above, who started this "mostly wrong" section, is objecting to the overstatement of the article's lede in terms of the Beatles' influence. The article states


Roger McGuinn of the Byrds has also stated The Beatles inspired him to mix folk with rock music. Allmusic also credits The Beatles, along with Dylan, as being heavily influential on the folk rock explosion of 1965.


Both of these sentences take a one element of what McGuinn and Allmusic state and inflate it past the original intent of the source - which is why pt and I sniff some WP:OR. Nowhere does McGuinn say he was "influenced to mix folk and rock" - he was after all a folk musician who'd attended Chicago's Old Town School of Folk Music and was of course working with big pop folk groups like the Limeliters and Chad Mitchell Tro. That's where he gets his chord changes and folk sensibilities as well; he is noting a similarity between what he was doing professionally and what small number of Beatles songs included as well. That does not constitute "heavily influential," which is a conclusion inflated past what he actually says and therefore OR. He is explicit that the influence was limited to the beat and to a hint of what would become his f/r guitar style. This is not exactly either inspired (a conclusion) or "heavily influential" (a conclusion). What Rig says about giving the Beatles "some credit here" is exactly the point; I think the tone of the phrasing in the current article needs to be modulated a bit. And FWIW - diminished and augmented chords that appear from the first in Beatles songs are definitely not part of traditional folk music in either the UK or US. Sensei48 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sense I mention about diminished and augmented chords as you said the Beatles were only rock but that was a different argument.

Read the All Music Guide Biography on the Byrds it mentions Roger McGuinn of the Byrds has also stated The Beatles inspired him to mix folk with rock music .

It clearly states the Byrds were inspired by the Beatles success of mixing folk and rock. This coincides and proves with what Roger McGuinn has said many times the Beatles were mixing folk elements with rock music before them. The Byrds went electric because of this they went out and purchased every instrument the Beatles were using at the time. How more can a group be influenced by one group? End of story.

"They were inspired by the success of the Beatles to mix folk and rock; McGuinn had already been playing Beatles songs acoustically in Los Angeles folk clubs when Clark approached him to form an act, according to subsequent recollections, in the Peter & Gordon style. David Crosby soon joined to make them a trio, and they made a primitive demo as the Jet Set that was nonetheless bursting with promise. With the help of session musicians, they released a single on Elektra as the Beefeaters that, while a flop, showed them getting quite close to the folk-rock sound that would electrify the pop scene in a few months". All Music Guide Biography on the Byrds —Preceding unsigned comment added by RigbyEleanor (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of logic here. Clearly McGuinn was inspired by the Beatles to mix folk and rock - but that does not necessarily mean that he thought that they had already done so, and the AMG quote doesn't say that he thought they had. He was inspired by the Beatles per se - not by their (real or supposed) mixing of folk and rock. The Unterberger quote suggests that there were folk music elements in what the Beatles did, which I'd agree with - but it is going too far to suggest that the Beatles had already consciously combined folk and rock before McGuinn came along. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, you're saying what I was trying to say but much more succinctly. And as much as I like the AllMusic Guide, I again refer to McGuinn's own words on the video - his point is exactly what Ghm is saying. Emphasis and accuracy are important in the article. Sensei48 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there some anti-Beatles thing going on here because the Beatles influenced so many things in pop and rock music. There is some major problems you have here. Roger McGuinn admits he got the idea of mixing of folk with rock because he heard it from the Beatles first. David Crosby admits to hearing folk chord changes with a rock and roll backbeat and saying you can't do that. Many early Beatles songs melded rock and roll with British Skiffle. The Byrds were still an acoustic band so they couldn't be folk rock. It was after seeing A Hard Day's Night that the Byrds decided to plug in and go electric .... The last time I checked you need to plug in those amps to make it rock music. I don't KNOW what Roger McGuinn said in 2009 but he has stated repeatedly the Beatles did the folk rock thing before them. Also listen to David Crosby words.


David Crosby – Goldmine 1995 They (The Beatles) were our heroes. They were absolutely what we thought we wanted to do. We listened to every note they played, and savored it, and rubbed it on our foreheads, and were duly affected by it. I was in Chicago, living with a British guy named Clem Floyd on Well Street, right in the middle of it all. I was singing at Old Town North and Mother Blues. I was trying to quit smoking, and the way I figured to quit was to buy a quarter-pound of pot, which I rolled and smoked every time I wanted a cigarette. I'm not saying to try this at home, kids - but it worked. So I was in a high old state of affairs, and Clem walked in one afternoon with that first Beatles album, Meet the Beatles. He put it on, and I just didn't know what to think. It absolutely floored me- "Those are folk-music changes, but it's got rock and roll backbeat. You can't do that, but they did! Holy yikes!" RigbyEleanor (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

You have a serious, serious problem with reading comprehension - which is why you are drawing unjustified conclusions from these quotations, as you did above.
AllMusic, as quoted by you: "They were inspired by the success of the Beatles to mix folk and rock.."
Rig:"Roger McGuinn admits he got the idea of mixing of folk with rock because he heard it from the Beatles first."
That AMG quote does absolutely NOT SAY what you maintain it does. How much of a grammar lesson do you need? They (the Byrds) is the subject of the sentence; "were inspired to mix folk and rock" is the predicate. The sentence says that the Byrds mixed folk and rock, not the Beatles. The sentence says as well that it was the Beatles' success (popularity, record sales, financial - the standard meaning of success in the music business) that motivated the Byrds, not that the Beatles had already mixed folk and rock. Here's the lead from AMG about the Byrds that you do not quote:
"They were not solely responsible for devising folk-rock, but they were certainly more responsible than any other single act (Dylan included) for melding the innovations and energy of the British Invasion with the best lyrical and musical elements of contemporary folk music."
AMG is all but handing the invention trophy to the Byrds. Grammar again - it is the "energy and invention" that the Byrds are taking from the Beatles and cohorts, not the mixture of folk and rock. Ditto Crosby - he hears "folk music changes" or chord patterns in Beatles songs. That's ALL. He doesn't hear a blend of two styles of music.
I have loved the Beatles since they arrived here, and I'll bet Ghym does too - and those of us old enough to remember rock before the Beatles certainly understand and appreciate exactly how much and what they changed. But their prominence and legacy are not well-served by exaggerated, false claims based on an inability to read and comprehend simple, clear sentences in English. Sensei48 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's go at it a different way. All Music Guide says the Byrds “They were inspired by the success of the Beatles to mix folk and rock". So I guess that would imply by using “they were inspired by the Beatles success to mix folk and rock” and they key phrase INSPIRED BY THE BEATLES SUCCESS TO MIX FOLK AND ROCK that the Beatles were already playing folk rock.

Let's try this one. All Music Guide Review on Beatles For Sale by Stephen Thomas Erlewine. One of the styles listed clearly says folk-rock. Now remember this Beatles For Sale 1964 was out at least six months before the Byrds Mr. Tambourine Man which was released Released June 21, 1965.

Here is a portion of the review

"Beneath those surface suspicions, however, there are some important changes on Beatles for Sale, most notably Lennon's discovery of Bob Dylan and folk-rock."

Richie Unterberger 1960s FOLK-ROCK DISCOGRAPHY

"The Beatles, Beatles for Sale (1964, Capitol). More music that, if only unconsciously, continued to help bring folk and rock closer together, explicitly so on "I'm a Loser" and "I'll Follow the Sun."

Also the Beatles in 1964-1965 were clearly just not a folk-rock group it was just one element as you start hearing country, raga and psychedelic elements specifically on Rubber Soul. Here is another comment from David Crosby.

DAVID CROSBY: They had taken folk music changes from skiffle and from stuff in England that they were listening to, folk music, and put a back beat, a rock and roll back beat with it and this just hadn't been done".

I think even with all this it would not be good enough for you Sense. I think you are reading what you want to believe. RigbyEleanor (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

This argument is going on to a ridiculous length. The answer is between your two positions. Yes, the Beatles incorporated some folk music elements (perhaps derived through skiffle) in their music, and that struck a chord (as it were) with people like McGuinn (not only McGuinn). But the AMG quote can equally well be read, simply by changing the words around, to state: "They were inspired to mix folk and rock by the success of the Beatles". That is, by the success of the Beatles, not by a belief that the Beatles had already mixed folk and rock. But surely this is really angels dancing on pins. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Improving this article

Hi folk-rockers! I've just added a fairly large section on The Byrds’ place in pioneering folk rock to the lead - the almost total lack information pertaining to The Byrds in this article is ludicrous. They were instrumental in defining folk rock as it initially appeared in the U.S. during 1965 - in fact, the very term "folk rock" was first used by the U.S. music press to describe the band's sound in mid-1965. I've also started to add multiple inline references to support some of the text, since this article is woefully lacking in refs. Personally, I like to see refs in the lead and the main body of the article, since many people will only get as far as reading the lead. I know that some editors don't like refs in the lead but I feel that it stops people challenging statements if the can see exactly where it's been sourced from. Hopefully no-one will mind me adding refs to the lead.

I'm a bit of an armchair expert on folk-rock myself (at least in its original mid-60s incarnation) and over the coming weeks I would like to work towards getting this article fully referenced and have the "Original research" tag removed. I do however agree with that tag at the moment - there's A LOT of unsourced, original research in this article currently. As I say, I'm less knowledgeable about late 60s/early 70s folk-rock, so any help with reliable refs in that area would be appreciated.

Also, with regards to all of your above comments, I mostly agree with what PJtP and Ghmyrtle have been saying. I think that perhaps there are those here who aren't quite able to differentiate between the antecedents of folk rock and those artists who actually created music firmly within that genre. The Beatles are not a folk rock band in my opinion - yes, they were extremely influential on the genre (particularly their Beatles for Sale and Help! era stuff) and they later co-opted a folk rock/Byrds influence on Rubber Soul ("Nowhere Man" and "If I Needed Someone") but they weren't actually folk rock themselves. That's no disrespect to The Beatles, I’m a massive fan and consider them the best 60’s band ever...EVER! But they weren't folk rock in the strict sense of the word. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know I play music and I clearly hear folk-rock in the early Beatles. All Music Guide lists A Hard Days Night and Beatles For Sale as folk rock. The Byrds certainly didn't invent folk rock and clearly what really counts is what the musicians say. Just because the Beatles were not only a folk-rock band does not mean they were not folk-rock band. I don't think I'm going to win on this but the Byrds went electric because of the Beatles. Why is this not mentioned in the article is beyond me. I thought Wikipedia was about being truthful and being impartial. By the way Beatles for Sale is before the Byrds not to mention the Byrds already admit the Beatles did it before them. I think I'm wasting my time but if the Beatles are fusing British Skiffle into their music that must mean they were fusing folk and rock together. I said what I had to say but the the revision of the article doesn't tell the story especially when it comes to the Beatles influence on the Byrds.
David Crosby – Goldmine 1995 They (The Beatles) were our heroes. They were absolutely what we thought we wanted to do. We listened to every note they played, and savored it, and rubbed it on our foreheads, and were duly affected by it. I was in Chicago, living with a British guy named Clem Floyd on Well Street, right in the middle of it all. I was singing at Old Town North and Mother Blues. I was trying to quit smoking, and the way I figured to quit was to buy a quarter-pound of pot, which I rolled and smoked every time I wanted a cigarette. I'm not saying to try this at home, kids - but it worked. So I was in a high old state of affairs, and Clem walked in one afternoon with that first Beatles album, Meet the Beatles. He put it on, and I just didn't know what to think. It absolutely floored me- "Those are folk-music changes, but it's got rock and roll backbeat. You can't do that, but they did! Holy yikes!" RigbyEleanor (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor
I've split this latest discussion off into a seperate topic because the "Mostly wrong" one was getting rediculously long.
Yes, there are certainly traces of folk music in the early Beatles' stuff, without a doubt, and those folk influences were very important on the development of folk-rock but I really don't feel that The Beatles can be classed as a folk-rock band. It's the difference between the genre’s antecedents and bona fide purveyors of folk rock. It is widely...and I mean VERY WIDELY...accepted that The Byrds cover of "Mr. Tambourine Man" is what kick-started folk rock as its own, distinct subgenre of rock or pop. That's not to say that The Byrds' created folk rock in a vacuum, but they were the first to meld together the individual component parts that made up folk rock (British Invasion sound, traditional folk material, current folk-based songwriting).
As for Crosby's comments, I think that you're taking them out of context somewhat. What he's referring to in that Goldmine interview are the folk influenced chord progressions and harmonies that The Beatles used - all those lovely minor chords and folk-influenced harmonic thirds. He's pointing out that their music wasn't just straight, major chord Rock 'n' Roll: it had a folk influence inherent within it. Crosby is pointing out how influential The Beatles were on The Byrds and no-one's disputing that. But that doesn't make The Beatles folk rock and nor is that what Crosby is saying.
The Byrds were mostly ex-folkies who had been seduced by the sound of The Beatles and the other British Invasion bands and wanted to get in on the fun that those bands were having with electric instruments. During their early rehearsals in 1964, The Byrds tried to play music just like The Beatles but being dyed-in-the-wool folkies, it came out far more folk-influenced than even The Beatles most folk flavored material. Add to that the fact that The Byrds' repertoire consisted of traditional folk songs, Dylan tunes and Gene Clark’s own Dylan and Beatles influenced material and there you have the template for folk rock circa 1965 - 1967.
The Beatles’ influence on folk rock is kinda similar to their influence on country rock. For example, John Lennon called Beatles for Sale the band's "country & western album" but that doesn't mean that it should be classified as a country record. That's just silly. There are country influences present in a number of songs ("Baby's in Black", "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party", and "Honey Don't") and in George Harrison's Carl Perkins-influenced guitar playing but the music on the album isn't country or even country rock. However, the country influence in many Beatles songs during 1964 and 1965 was massively influential on the genre of country rock. It's the same thing with folk rock, influential on the genre, yes, but not actually within that genre.
As for Allmusic, they also list Beatles for Sale as being psychedelic rock!! Plainly that's nonsense but again, the lyrical introspection and complexity that began to rear its head on Beatles for Sale (itself influenced by Dylan's music) was definitely influential on the soon to emerge psychedelic music scene.
I will be adding information pertaining to The Beatles and the full extent of their influence on folk rock in the relevant section of the article in the coming weeks. However, I agree with Ghmyrtle that adding more than there already is about The Beatles' influence on the genre in the lead is overkill. The Beatles influence on the genre is outlined in the second paragraph and that’s probably enough. Remember the lead is only supposed to give a brief overview of the main article as per WP:LEAD and I think it more or less does that – or will do once I’ve made further additions to the main body of the article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Spot on, Kohoutek - I totally agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic how since I came on board and have protested loudly that the Beatles have been phased out of this article and my changes were not included. Oh Lord now we are debating if the Beatles that Beatles For Sale doesn't have country rock when John Lennon call it their country-western record and George Harrison was influenced by Chet Atkins. Have you guys about heard about being ahead of the curve when it comes to music. I think because the Beatles had a strong pop influence and let's face it were more musically more complex than Dylan is clouding you're judgment whether the songs on Beatles For Sale were both country rock and folk rock. Beatles For Sale of course has folk-rock it’s not as strong as Dylan and the Byrds but it’s there as they were consciously fusing Dylan and rock on Beatles For Sale.

No I'm not misreading what David Crosby says I think you guys are. He heard folk chord changes with a rock and roll backbeat hence the Byrds were influenced by the notion you can do it in rock and roll. In your new revision you don't mention the fact the Byrds were more influenced by the Beatles than anyone else. You mention the British Invasion talk about misleading the facts. When I put the Beatles in you guys erase it. Ok let's change history and let's devalue the Beatles influence on the Byrds on going electric. Also not everyone is in agreement that the Byrds actually popularized folk rock or pioneered it. On the magazine Guitar Edge the issue "The Beatles Tribute to the Greatest Band Ever" on page 14 it states George Harrison application of the Rickenbacker 12 string guitar on A Hard Days Night launched both folk rock and as corollary jangle pop. by Alan W. Pollack's Notes on "I'm A Loser" For a rock song, this one contains a stronger blend of folk elements than almost anything else the Beatles had done to-date

I strongly disagree with the assertion that the Byrds pioneered folk rock. They got the idea from the Beatles the Byrds didn't invent it out of thin air. Where the Beatles as folk rock as the Byrds well of course not. That's like saying Pink Floyd were more psychedelic than the Beatles but it doesn't mean the Beatles were not psychedelic.

Here is a statement from Roger McGuinn and where he got the idea of folk-rock.

How did the instantly recognizable Byrds sound come about?

RM: The sound actually was formed in New York before I flew out to California. Well, not the 12-string Rickenbacker part, but the part about mixing folk and rock.

I was working as a songwriter in Bobby Darin's publishing company in the Brill Building. My job was to listen to the radio and write songs like ones that came over on the radio.

The Beatles came out about that time and I got really jazzed by the Beatles. I loved what they were doing and they were doing a lot of passing chords. Like instead of just going like G, C, D, they'd go G, Bm, Em, C, Am, to D. So, the minor and passing chords I liked and, I thought these are really folk music chord changes. I kind of got it from what they were doing, I guess because they'd been a skiffle band. RigbyEleanor (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

Your argument seems to be essentially that, instead of (as now) the Byrds being mentioned in the opening para and the Beatles in the second para, the order should be reversed. That is (1) pretty trivial, and (2) wrong, because the term "folk rock" did not exist before the Byrds, and it is in practice used primarily to define the music that emerged around the Byrds (and later) - and so the explanation of that sequence of events should have primacy. No-one is suggesting that the Beatles did not do what you say they did - that is mentioned in the introduction at some length, and no doubt when Kohoutek and/or others get round to developing the "Antecedents" section it will be explained in there too. But, please, move on from this. This has been discussed at great length now, and I see little support for your specific views among other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine we disagree but I think it's a joke that when you mention the Byrds it was Dylan and the British Invasion but the Beatles were not mentioned. Ok we all know the Beatles started the British Invasion or is that another point where we disagree on but the Beatles were the primary reason the Byrds mixed folk with rock music. So yeah the term folk-rock didn't start until 1965 but what does that have to with the Beatles influence on the Byrds or what the Beatles were doing musically. Again the Beatles were ahead of the musicial devolopments of 1965 and were a huge on the devolopment of it. Yes I will move on from this topic as I feel I have wasted my time and effort. RigbyEleanor (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

Personally I would have no problem at all with the first para being changed to read something like "....in a style heavily influenced by the Beatles and other British bands". The "other British bands" would cover, for example, the Animals and the Searchers who were both also influential on Dylan and the Byrds. I dislike the inappropriate use of the term "British Invasion" - it describes a social phenomenon that happened in the US, but it is inherently US-centric and it should never, in my view, be used to describe a musical genre. To people like myself in the UK, the groups that emerged at that time were not one unified genre, they played different varieties of "beat music" (or, more simply, "pop music"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I've not much more to add to this debate - I've already said all I have to say and can back up my points with numerous online and offline refs - but I would say to RigbyEleanor that you're wrong if you think that The Beatles' contribution to folk-rock is being "phased out" or "down played" here. Myself, I don't have some kind of anti-Beatles agenda or whatnot, and I do fully intend to describe their participation in the development of folk rock in more detail in the main body of the article I'll also be touching upon several other notable influences, including Bob Dylan, The Searchers, The Beau Brummels, and The Animals for example. But the article lead is not the place to do this - it's only suposed to be a brief summary of the major points for casual readers as per WP:LEAD.
However, I take your point about a mention of the British Invasion but not the Beatles specifically and so, as Ghmyrtle suggests, I'm gonna change it to something along the lines of "....in a style heavily influenced by the Beatles and other British bands". To me the phrase "British Invasion" essentially means The Beatles first and foremost but maybe we need to be less ambiguous on this point. Just to be clear, I don't think any of us is saying that The Byrds "invented" folk rock out of thin air, we seem to all be in agreement about the fact that they were heavily influenced by The Beatles. It really seems like we’re all going around in circles and agreeing on a lot of the same points. So I don't really see what the problem is?!??!
As for the fact that you "strongly disagree with the assertion that the Byrds pioneered folk rock" that's unfortunate because it IS widely accepted as fact. Just go on to Google and type the four words - Byrds first folk rock - and within the first few pages you'll see a number of reliable sources saying as much, including Rolling Stone, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Allmusic (in their entry for Folk Rock), About.com, and PopMatters. Indeed, folk rock expert Richie Unterberger calls The Byrds "The first and best folk-rock band" in his Essay on the subject for Allmusic. So really, there's not a whole lot left to say on the matter. Wikipedia is only concerned with what's verifiable as per WP:VERIFY not the opinions of individual editors. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've just made a few slight changes based on your comments guys. Hopefully they'll meet with your approval. I have to say that if you read the first two paragraphs of the lead now, there's actually quite a lot of referring to how important The Beatles were in the development of folk rock. I really don't see an anti-Beatles slant to what's written at all. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Folk Rock in Romania

First of all, there was no repression whatsoever in the Socialist Republic of Romania. Actually, Phoenix became popular through a cultural movement called "Cenaclul Flacăra"; its goal was promoting new musical talents.

I read the article about Phoenix lyrics, stating "they contained thinly-veiled allusions to the Communist regime". As a matter of fact this is a false statement, as Phoenix lyrics were either written by some Romanian poets such as Şerban Foarţă and Andrei Ujică, or were based on Romanian traditional culture and history.

The attempt to encapsulate elements of traditional Romanian music succeeded. And further more, the reason Phoenix left Romania was for a better living which they hoped they'd find abroad (it is well known that the late period of Romanian Communism meant harsh living conditions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.44.19 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmie Rodgers' contribution

An editor seems intent on adding a lot of biographical information about Jimmie Rodgers and his contribution to the development of folk rock to the article lede. Apart from the fact that this text has been written in a decidedly non-neutral way, it has also been almost totally without reliable, third party references to support it. The one reference that was provided (page 55 of Maury Dean's Rock 'n' Roll Gold Rush : A Singles Un-Encyclopedia) simply says in a flippant, tongue-in-cheek manner "Folk Rock begins with Jimmie Rodgers II. Or the Lonnie Donegan Skiffle Group." It's worth noting out at this point, that Dean's book is written in a deliberately flippant, witty manner, as an alternative to more serious rock encyclopedias—not that it isn't reliable, of course.

While it's true that both Rodgers and Donegan were forefathers of the genre—as already detailed in the article—neither of them were actually playing bona fide folk rock. Yes, the Skiffle craze in the UK and '50s artists dabbling in folk music like The Everly Brothers, Ritchie Valens and Jimmie Rodgers were important on the development of the genre but they were clearly antecedents of folk rock, rather than folk rock itself. In addition, these artists weren't even close to being the most important influences on the development of folk rock...not when compared to the artist and bands that made up the Folk Music Revival and The British Invasion.

My comments regarding Jimmie Rodgers' imfluence on the folk rock genre isn't just my opinion either, it is the opinion of a number of acknowledged and well respected experts on the subject, with most histories of folk rock that I’ve read failing to even mention these earlier pre-1960s rock influences. Indeed, Richie Unterberger's expansive, two-volume history of folk rock barely mentions Rodgers' contribution at all but it does say this: "In the late '50s, Jimmie Rodgers (no relation to the Depression-era country great) had hits that matched vaguely rockabillyish pop with folk songs, including 'Kisses Sweeter Than Wine,' which The Weavers had done with some success earlier in the decade." ...and that's all it says!

Bearing all this in mind, it's clear to me that Rodgers' contribution to the genre is far too trivial to be mentioned in the article lede, especially in such a non-neutral fashion. It is my opinion that there is an agenda here by someone who is a BIG fan of Jimmie Rodgers to overplay and over-inflate his contribution to folk rock, rather than present a balanced overview of the history of folk rock, which is what this article is attempting to do. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Its worth mentioning briefly, but not sigificant enough for the lead. We have to reatain a balance where the major reliable sources lie.--SabreBD (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Unterberger does call him "a distant forefather of folk-rock" here, so I think there is a case for mentioning him briefly - perhaps in the section on "The folk music revival", though it is hard to see quite how he fits in there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I added a breif mention of Rodgers and his "rock 'n' roll flavored renditions of traditional folk songs" to the paragraph dealing with pre-British Invasion influences in U.S. rock. This paragraph is currently located at the end of "The Beatles and the British Invasion" section but I'm thinking that I should maybe move it to the end of the "Proto-folk rock" section instead, since that seems a more relevant place. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Another Insertion of the band Love

There has just been another insertion of the band Love, and again in sentences with a short list of the most prominent and influential folk rock bands ever. I know nothing about them / never heard of them so I'd like to ask here if that is appropriate? North8000 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Love were very significant in the US scene, but not as famous in Europe. They had a fairly limited involvement with folk. True to say they were influenced by the Byrds I think. I do not think they much influenced Fairport as now claimed, but I would have to check the source to be sure.--SabreBD (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It was me who added Love. Their first album is very Byrds influenced and very folk rock sounding, albeit with a liberal dose of garage punk. After that they went in a more psychedelic and baroque pop direction. Founding member Bryan MacLean was actually a roadie for The Byrds in 1965 and Love very much modeled themselves on The Byrds in their early days. Finding an inline ref to support all this shouldn't be a problem. I was only thinking yesterday that I might start really expanding the 1960s: Other groups sub-section soon. I did a lot of work on the first half of this article a year or two back. I think it's time I finished it off. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Cool. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Kohoutek1138. Incidentally, it's not quite true that they were not famous in Europe. Forever Changes regularly places very highly on UK and European "all time best albums" lists, and though they may not have been commercially very successful in the short term, their records have been both successful and extremely highly regarded and influential in the longer term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification for Beatles sources

I noticed that the article states "Mr. Tambourine Man" has a "Beatlesque beat". But I thought the song was based on the beat of "Don't Worry Baby"? After checking the source, it appears that Allmusic states they believed the song has "Beatlesque harmonies". I'm wondering how much of the rest of the article is like this considering there is absolutely no mention of the Beach Boys influence on Terry Melcher and three million mentions of the Beatles.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Folk rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Folk rock. 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:

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) 09:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The tag is right

The tag is right. The lead is major piece of the article and has much material that is not in the article. I'm going to move it into a section and then start building a new lead. This will leave it messy for a bit but I think iit will get it to a better place. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done and I removed the tag. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folk_rock/Archive_1&oldid=1136732756"