Talk:Rhythm and blues/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

British rhythm and blues

A bit surprised that this was deleted on the ground that this is only an American genre. It is well established in the scholarly literature that R&B was a major genre in Britain in the 1960s, although it could be better expressed and sourced than it is at present and I was toying with the idea of cleaning up this element of the article.--SabreBD (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made the same point at User talk:Steve Pastor.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. As I wrote in one of my comments, how about we have a new section Rhythm and Blues Overseas, or some such? I think it's important that what I would call the "derivative forms" be set off from the originators of the sound(s). If neither of you gets to it, I may start on it myself since I started this! If either of you objects to that approach, please get it in print here. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no obection to such a section and I think it would make more sense as at the moment it rather oddly crawls into the 60s and dies, then starts talking about Britain, which is potentially confusing. Not sure about the title, but I will try to give that some thought if I can come up with an alternative I will let you know. Do you want me to rewrite the British section, I'm happy to do so, or do one of you wish to do it?--SabreBD (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My main area of interest is with the "seminal", original stuff. That goes hand in hand with the end of the swing era and "rock n roll" from the 50s. Maybe one day my interest will move into the 60s, soul music, overseas, and how it moved back to the U.S. as the blues revival, etc. Given my current lack of interest in the overseas developments, (although those were the guys I "grew up with") I'd say go ahead and work on it. I was just going to restore the deleted material. I DO want the article to stay focused and not drift into comtemporary R&B. Anything that improves the article... Thanks. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with avoiding contemporary R&B here. I will start working something up on this that will make a reasonably sized sub-section. It might take a little while.--SabreBD (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I'll just make the point that "R&B overseas", to me, has slightly different connotations to the specific use of the term "R&B" in Britain in the 1960s, to describe a style of music played largely by white English men which was a crucial step in the development (internationally) of rock music. That is, the term "R&B overseas" can be used to describe acts like, say, Geno Washington (which I've just noticed is a pretty poor article - doesn't cover his 60s stuff at all!), who were regarded as "genuine" R&B performers (US-born, black) who performed overseas. However, quite dissimilar bands like The Yardbirds and The Who also played what was called R&B music in Britain at that time - it had developed from the music they listened to (Muddy Waters, Ray Charles, The Miracles etc.) but was actually quite a significant shift - they started writing their own material, and this then contributed substantially to the development of "white" rock music in the 60s and onwards. But, for a while, they called it "R&B". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are exactly the lines I was thinking of. I would probably prefer a sub-section on "British R&B", but the Ska element doesn't fit into this and must go somewhere. Suggestions welcome as to how we can resolve that problem.--SabreBD (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This now done. There turned out to be quite a lot so I created a longer article and have placed a summary here. I have created a section on influence for the time being. I will look at this again and see what else can be said there in a short time, but see next section below.--SabreBD (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

I have put this on my list for a clean up. Basically an attempt to source anything without a proper reference. Anything that cannot be sourced will be removed (not expecting a lot of this). I will also bear in mind legitimate points made above and if there is anything outstanding that needs attention now is a good time to post about it so it can be incorporated. It may be a while as I have a backlog.--SabreBD (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Influence on garage rock

In my view there is a strong case for mentioning - briefly - the influence that (black) R&B bands had on (white) garage bands in the early 1960s. Think of Richard Berry's "Louie Louie", the Isley Brothers' "Shout" and "Nobody But Me", etc. Anyone got good refs to support this line of approach? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bass base

There something that I do not understood in this whole talk about "Rhythm and Blues" & "Contemporary R&B": What about "Rhythme n' Bass"??? Isn't it the real name for "Contemporary R&B"? We got here a confusion between a classical RnB and a modern RnB, each accronym have been requalified to be missunderstood but they're not the accronym of the same thing. I have always heard about a "classical rhythm and blues" and "contemporary rhythm and bass" but never of something like a "classical rhythm and bass" (could have been a kind of disco sound) or "modern rythme and blues" (callable "contemporary classical rhythm and blues"). Or it's like the brainless who have used those years the expression "RnB" didn't knew the existing of Rhythm And Blues... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.154.218.123 (talk) 13:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, readers will begin to understand that there was Rhythm and Blues as a marketing term beginning in the late 1940s, and that it changed as time went on, and started being referred to as soul music. And the term resurfaced after a number of years. Should we try to make that more clear? Steve Pastor 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally have never heard "rhythm and bass" from any credible source. I'd guess that this is a sort of backronym that someone (perhaps with good intentions) came up with to try to differentiate "classic R&B" from "contemporary R&B." I have always thought of R&B from the '80s, '90s and beyond as simply a continuation of R&B/soul/funk of the '50s-'70s. While R&B since the '80s has tended to be produced using synths, drum machines, and samplers, it's still clearly descended from the classic styles that came before.

I think part of the confusion is that a) purists may feel that newer R&B is less authentic, since it rarely features live instrumentation, and/or b) there was a time in the late '60s-'70s when the term "R&B" wasn't used as much ("soul" being the preferred term at the time, perhaps in an effort to distance the music from rock & roll, which had actually developed from the same origins as R&B, but had by the '60s become a distinct genre in its own right). In the '80s and '90s, the term R&B began to be used more, and "soul music" fell into disuse. Because of this "gap" in the apparent lineage of R&B, people may perceive the "classic" and "contemporary" as two different genres. I, however, believe this to be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.128.78 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Elements of pop music

I reckon r&b uses and influences the use of pop music too because it sounds like pop music Beggsie221 (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

needs a lot of cleanup

I don't see why Deep Purple is considered R&B and Ciara isn't.... This calls for expert opinions.. Again categorization is very subjective.... I have a big enough problem seeing Deep Purple in this article.... If I brought this up with anybody else.., they would look at me funny.... R&B simply went through so many permutations including the so-called hip-hop soul of the mid 90s.... Like Rock music- R&B simply changed with the times.... But I guess some people here believe that British blues counts as R&B....Another valid reason - when did soul begin and end and when did R&B continue - Billboard still has an R&B chart section...This is so subjective to fans of music prior to 1970 and not after and that's why i'm questioning the validity as well as flagging it...

I've actually brought this up with an African-American friend of mine who's a musician and runs a studio.... and says nobody has read the lyrics to some of the songs of Deep Purple's "Machine Head" - he started shaking his head when he heard that this group was in this article....That will tell you something..... 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite a while ago the people who were editing this article decided that it should address the orginal period of rhythm and blues which was approximately 1948 through the early 1960s. This was done in part to avoid the type of discussion you bring up, and to provide information on this period of popular music. I keep hoping someone else decides that this is an important enough topic to begin adding actual, verifiable information about this period, rather than engage in discussions of which later day group belongs in this category. Maybe you or your African American musician friend would like to engage?Steve Pastor (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, SpyLab, I am prepared to continue working on this article, but not if all of it is going to be disputed. Or, maybe I should delete everything that isn't referenced. What do you say? Steve Pastor (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, tags always go at the top, unless the tags say "section."Spylab (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

10/4 Music has evovled as a whole changing every aspect and genre. Although R&B msic has changed greatly from when it first originated, most artists such as Ciara and Beyonce still incorporate R&B aspects into their music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.48.72 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

'Afro-Cuban influence' section

The whole section looks more like a long essay with a specific thesis ("Cuban roots of R&B are stronger than you believe"), and its "evidences" (sheet music, YT videos, etc., singling out specific examples of Cuban-influenced pieces), rather than a subsection of "History of R&B". -- 87.15.44.62 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhythm and blues VS Rhythm 'n Blues

Why is this article named "Rhythm and blues" and not "Rhythm 'n Blues"? I believe "Rock 'n Roll" and "Rhythm 'n Blues" are original and faithful historic terms. Netrat_msk (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Netrat_msk (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several to many "faithful historic" spellings that have been used for both of these broad categories of music, and it's impossible to decide when "original" occurred . Since there is no one, correct spelling, editors have decided to use the current "correct English" spelling. A listing of all of the various permutations is much less useful than information about the music, who made it, and what it sounded like. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "Rock 'n Roll" and "Rhythm 'n Blues," it's "Rock 'n' Roll" and "Rhythm 'n' Blues" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.5.118 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

British R&B (revisited)

I believe the text in the British R&B section needs to be cleaned up to avoid WP:UNDUE. At the moment, it is too wordy with only one source. Every time I attempt to clean it up it is reversed to status quo--DanJazzy (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC).

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have twice attempted to clean up the text and it has twice been reverted. That is why i brought up the discussion in the talk page.DanJazzy (talk)

Toggling template again. The template is meant for technical requests in which new and unregistered editors are unable to edit. Please do not use the template when you are able to edit. As for your situation, continue a civil discussion here on this talk. The template is not relevant for your situation here. — Andy W. (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The section in question clearly has an issue with WP:UNDUE. I'm appealing to the editors who reversed my edits on the text to discuss here why they did so. Ghmyrtle talk please respond.DanJazzy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that the section is "too wordy", or that it "clearly has an issue with WP:UNDUE". You are proposing taking out three sections: one referring generally to the UK R&B genre's influences and subsequent influence on rock music (globally); one relating to details of the Stones' repertoire; and one relating to UK R&B's relationship to mod culture in the 1960s. The first and third of those are clearly, in my view, very important in terms of the development of rock music and should remain. Personally, I'm less committed to keeping the sentence or two about the Stones, but it's pertinent and referenced and I don't see any strong reason to remove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: I'm moving I've moved this to a new section below, to distinguish this current discussion from the one six years ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Ghmyrtle (talk) the section on British R&B for the most part has only one source as reference. In addition, the section has more words than R&B from the 1950s to Contemporary combined. It insinuates that British R&B is the most influential and substantive sub-genre. Surely this is not the case. This is the textbook definition of WP:UNDUE.The section also has a link which anyone can click for more info if so desired. Finally, the influence on Rock should be emphasised in the Rock Music section, not on this one. I would very much like to hear what other editors think.--DanJazzy (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

So would I. It goes without saying that I would be delighted if the other sections of the article were to be expanded, based on reliable sources. That is the way forward, not removing pertinent and referenced information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Doo-wop

The lead should mention that "doo-wop" is a retroactive label for certain R&B.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently one sentence mentioning one group and one song. I'd like to see additional information in the body of the article before adding something to the lead.Steve Pastor (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Another issue is the completely disproportionate size of the section on "Afro-Cuban rhythmic influence". Yes, it's important, but it distorts the shape of the article as a whole. Frankly, the article needs a thorough overhaul, based on the best sources available. But... it's a big subject to tackle!! Ghmyrtle (talk)

Agree. Several years ago, there was a well-intentioned editor who was knowledgeable about Afro-Cuban music, and his influence on the articles he edited remains strong. What is needed is an editor (or a small group of editors) with time and access to good sources to balance the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Image location

Can I ask why the image was moved to the "etymology" section, rather than the portion of the text where Brown is specifically named? Chubbles (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule that photos should be placed explicitly where the subject is mentioned. The image was placed in the etymology section to illustrate an important progenitor of R&B genre. Thanks. --DanJazzy (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGELOCATION says: "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section....". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. How has this rule been violated in this instance? See pop Music for comparison. There's an image in the etymology section in that article and probably in many others. --DanJazzy (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What does Brown's image contribute to the etymology section, specifically? Why is this a better placement for the single image this page will have of her than the section in which her career in R&B is explicitly discussed? Chubbles (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the lady played a pivotal role in development of R&B, so much so that she's regarded by her peers and the general public as the "Queen of R&B". This is along the same lines as the "Rolling Stones" picture in the etymology section of pop music. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJazzy (talk • contribs)

The pop music article discusses the Stones specifically with respect to a dictionary definition of pop, but even still, i'm not sure it makes any more sense to put the band's image there, since they did not play a role in formulating or defining the term. She played a pivotal role in its stylistic evolution, to be sure, but many people have, and having been given the honorific "queen of r&b" doesn't tell us much about the term's etymology and usage - certainly not without some explanation of how she came to embody what r&b signifies. She's not even mentioned in the prose of that section. Chubbles (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I'm afraid I do not see any reason whatsoever why the image should not be there. Is there a Wikipedia rule that specifically disallows this? The caption may be changed to reflect Brown's significance to the genre, but I don't see any specific reason not to have this picture at that location. British blues has an image in the exact same location. Why the discrepancy? --DanJazzy (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, we do things for reasons, not because there's no reason not to. There is a better reason for her picture to be at the point where the article describes her career than at a point which does not describe her at all. If images are prominently placed in other articles for no apparent reason, maybe they should be moved, too. Chubbles (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, who is "we"? I'm afraid "general rule" may not pass muster in this instance. There is no Wikipedia rule which disallows that image to be placed where it is. Infact, many other articles have a similar layout.DanJazzy (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, other stuff may exist, but at the very least, in the two articles you have cited, the artists illustrated are actually mentioned in the sections where the images appear. Ultimately, they are separate arguments to be addressed on their own merits; in both cases, I might actually argue for their movement to elsewhere in the article (certainly on the pop article, I would). On this page, we (by which I mean you, I, and anyone else in the Wikipedia community who cares to weigh in) are not trying to determine whether the image is allowed to be where it is. We both agree that it is permissible to put the image on the page. We also both agree that Brown is an important figure in R&B. What we are attempting to assess is where the image is best put on the page. I have consistently argued that the better place for the image is the place in the article where Brown's career is discussed at some length; this is entirely consistent both with common sense and with MOS:IMAGELOCATION, mentioned above. I'm still waiting for a reason why placement in the etymology section, where Brown is not mentioned at all, is a better location (rather than merely being not prohibited). Chubbles (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it appears we are not able to arrive at a consensus. Perhaps you might want to take this up with the administrators. Thanks. --DanJazzy (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop edit-warring. The image used to be in the infobox, but has now been taken out of there because of new policy guidance. Having done that, there is now no good reason for the picture to be high up in the article. If it is retained (and there are very good reasons for keeping a picture of Ruth Brown in the article), it should be in the best place for it, which is most definitely not in the Etymology section. Chubbles is right. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is an unhealthy and suspicious fixation with this article and this image in particular. There are for example no issues raised with pop music and British blues, despite the two articles displaying images at that same section. In addition, there is actually no rule saying Brown's image should not be where it is. "I say so therefore I'm right" does not apply in Wikipedia Sorry --DanJazzy (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. As for British blues, the lead section is called "Origins" (it is not about etymology), and it discusses Alexis Korner at length in relation to the establishment of the British blues scene. Korner's picture is very sensible to include where it is. As for pop music, the Rolling Stones are mentioned in connection with a dictionary definition of the style. That said, the picture is rather arbitrary and contributes little to the section; I would argue that it be removed, but I already have my hands full here, and at least the picture is discussed in context. This is different than those two examples; here's why. Here, you want to put a picture of someone who is not mentioned in the section entirely, and whose photograph does not help the reader understand the etymology of the phrase. If her picture were next to the part where she is discussed, it would identify her and so contribute to reader understanding. I still do not know why you want her picture up top, other than that she is an important figure; but we could put any of dozens of important figures in the same place (say, Etta James, or any of the existing pictures on the page). So, I have not said "I say so therefore I'm right" - I have explained why I believe this is the best course of action. You have repeated "there's no rule saying I can't do this", but I have already explained why that's not a good argument. I beg of you to provide one. Chubbles (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe we're going round in circles here. Perhaps input from other parties or administrative intervention might be helpful.--DanJazzy (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm an "other party", and I agree with Chubbles. If you want to go to WP:3O or elsewhere, you're free to do that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where we're going 'round in circles. We're at the very end of your argument. Chubbles (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant that it would be helpful to have opinions from other parties, other than the two of you.--DanJazzy (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing what you'd be presenting to the other parties. What would you say to them to convince them that the image should be where you want it, rather than where I argued is the better placement? As far as I can tell, this isn't a question of two defensible positions that can't agree; it's a reasoned argument against a personal preference. You haven't addressed any of my substantive points. Chubbles (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry not my rules, it's Wikipedia. If there's no consensus on contentious issues,then there are administrative arrangements to solve the impasse.DanJazzy (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an absurdly minor issue to request administrator oversight about. Frankly, this just sounds like stonewalling, which is not encouraged on Wikipedia. I will drop another note at Wikiproject Music, where this kerfuffle ultimately started. Chubbles (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That's quite sensible, thanks.--DanJazzy (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is recapitulating all of my points; no one else seems willing to defend the placement of Brown at the top of the article. I think it's time to move it back. Chubbles (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is not exhaustive. I oppose this move. Thanks. DanJazzy (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Having heard no other voices at WikiProject Music willing to offer a good rationale for the current placement, and having heard from others who supported the placement I argued was best, I am restoring the placement of the Ruth Brown image to the text where she is mentioned. Please respect this consensus, or seek to establish a consensus that the page is better served by the placement you have suggested, before moving it again. Chubbles (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"Others" here meaning two other like-minded editors. This hurried "consensus" sounds mischievous to me. You might have had your way this time but I must say the credibility of this once great tool has really gone down the drain.--DanJazzy (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, three editors, and this was not exactly a hurried proceeding; this conversation unfolded over the span of a week and was directly prompted by the related prior RfC which ran for a month. Like I said, if you want to bring up new reasons or new proposals, the door is open. Chubbles (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I started to read

and attempt to understand the thread above about the placing of pictures and then thought to my self, “F**k Me”, that's not what this article needs. What it needs is getting rid of a bunch of the citation needed tags littered all over it. I’ve seen this before and (opinion) it’s as if someone’s plan for getting 100,000 edits is to go to 5, 000 random articles and put 20 citation needed tags in each of them. Since I do most of my editing out of my bookshelf I will not be able to make a huge dent here, but I will make a small one. My theory is that every time I add a source I will remove a cit needed tag even if the relationship between the two might seem tenuous or nonexistent. You do what you have to do. Carptrash (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

R&B music

This article gave a lot of knowledgeable information about the history of Rhythm and Blues. One constructional criticism thought would be to add more about how the different meanings of R&B impacted society during those certain time periods. There are no claims and seems to be very neutral when talking about the different meanings of R&B and the impact in made on people over time. It does achieve rhetorical objective because it informed the audience about the history and meaning of Rhythm and blues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emevangelisto (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

name change context

In 1948, RCA Victor was marketing black music under the name "Blues and Rhythm". ...In 1949, the term "Rhythm and Blues" replaced the Billboard category Harlem Hit Parade.

don't have a source but it goes sth like this: term "Blues and Rhythm" was coined in 1948 by RCA to replace "race records". In 1949 Jerry Wexler of Atlantic Records switched it to Rhythm and Blues and thought it sounded better. Atlantic was by far the biggest producer of records for blacks, RCA was behind them and a dozen indie labels that made records for black people, like King and Specialty and Chess and Federal and DeLuxe and Decca and sooo many others. They all grouped together and used the Atlantic Records term, and forgot RCA term, and in June of 1949 Billboard changed their list name. everybody thought RCA was for squares (whites) anyway. If a source could be found it would be great.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think what is in the article is adequately sourced, but yes, if you want to add this other stuff it needs a good source. Picardie & Wade's "Atlantic and the Godfathers of Rock and Roll" will not be the one. Carptrash (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)