Talk:Rock and roll/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name of article

Why is this article named "Rock and roll" and not "Rock 'n Roll"? I believe "Rock 'n Roll" is the original and faithful historic term. Netrat_msk (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday User:WalterWalrus3 changed the article title from Rock and roll to Rock & Roll without consultation on the grounds that, quote, "Amphersands [sic] are bosser". On the basis that that doesn't seem to me to be a reasoned decision reached through consensus, I've changed it back again. Has this been discussed here before, or is this the basis for a new discussion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured that YOU are correct, and did right. Sfahey (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree that such changes should not be done before thay are discussed, and that's why I've created this section. So what do you people think about moving the article to "Rock 'n Roll"? Or maybe "Rock 'n' Roll"? Netrat (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Google, there are 53 million hits for "Rock 'n' Roll" and only 27 million for "Rock and Roll". Netrat (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've raised this question here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another discussion

This article is decidedly racist. The racist tone of this article should be changed to reflect actual history instead of bias opinions.

I second that. Superracist shit, as if black haven't created a thing, evthing has been created by white. With no a reference btw.

I don't know what you guys are talking about. This article clearly says that rock'n'roll evolved from Rhythm and blues.

In need of serious cleaning

Where on earth is doo-wop, rhythm & blues, and other rock genres of the '50s? This article is seriously flawed and handled by someone who doesn't even know what they're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.145.47 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:When people complain rather than edit. Apart from missing topics what are some flaws in the current article and how should they be fixed? Hyacinth (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I removed the merge tag following discussion here. 86.112.217.138 (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (That was my comment - for some reason it logged me out!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the term "Rock and roll" is used to describe rock and roll up to and including today and thereby encompassing the music described as "rock music" in this article by critics (i.e. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Rolling Stone's "Rock & Roll Daily", Rock and Roll: A Social History By Paul Friedlander, The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, Rock and Roll: An Introduction), the rock artists themselves (as evidenced by the songs Rock and Roll, Rock and Roll All Nite, I Love Rock 'n' Roll, Cities on Flame with Rock and Roll, Rock and Roll, It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution and Rock 'n' Roll Suicide to name but a few) and fans, the article "rock music" should be merged with "Rock and roll".--Darknus823 (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just pathetic. You made me laugh. This have probably been discussed before 100's of times, so why don't you read archives? Netrat (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag removed again - see discussions here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Read this This is a horse that has been beat to death. Rock and roll and Rock music remain separate for numerous reasons. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This needs cleanup fast!

No offence to any who have contributed to the article but this article really sucks
I have noticed that this page has not been semi-protected like the rap page, and I don't want to be biased
but rock and roll still has as many fans as any rappers and some people on [http://www.youtube.com youtube] have openly declared what they think about rap, and I am sorry to say a lot of the described things are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albinoblackrabbit (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 July 2008

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cover versions

I have an interest in finding real data about cover versions. It's been known for years that during the early stages of RnR, black bands and singers had no choice but to sit back and allow the white bands and singers to take their songs and record them because of segregation laws, yet this part of the article says nothing to that effect. It makes it sounds as if the black performers, who weren't enjoying any of the monetary benefits where just happy to have their music recorded, which everyone knows it far from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughnkb (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mudslinging war

A vandalism war seems to have broken out between rap and rock, with anon IPs adding attacks like "Rock and roll is really gay and who gives a shit about it rap is the shit bitch" to both this article and hip hop music. Knowing how things like this can escalate very fast on the internet, let's keep an eye out. Zazaban (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roll music

Has any authority, writer, magazine, or so forth ever suggested a seperate genre known as just "roll music"? A long time ago I heard it might have been used in the 1960s, when it was still a novelty, maybe being tagged to music with a strong groove line, but maybe the whole thing is just urban legend. I would check this out for myself but it's really difficult to Google since "roll music" is contained within the words "rock and roll music". -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger

I think people should check out our current discussion in the Rock Music Talk Page, it looks like this article might not have long to go. 24.124.40.164 (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Music genres

Please see ongoing discussion towards the bottom of User_talk:Redheylin#Categorization. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

An article this long with not one single image? ProfDEH (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One added. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice (didn't the Clash do something almost identical?). More needed, look at Jazz for comparison. ProfDEH (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. A lot of the jazz photos are much older and out of copyright - there are some photos of rock'n'rollers like Chuck Berry and Bill Haley in other articles, but in most if not all cases they are much more recent, and I'd rather use earlier ones if possible. In most cases the older ones are probably copyrighted, and on the basis of past experiences I'm reluctant to upload images that are likely to be deleted again - but I've found one of Alan Freed on Wikimedia Commons, and added that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC) .....+ some more. Ghmyrtle (talk)

Close paraphrase

While looking for citations to support the article I stumbled across Jose Rosa and Hector Necios, World Music Survey: The History of Music from Cuba, the Caribbean, South America and the United States On Lulu.com, 2008. ISBN 0615201520, 9780615201528. Not sure what is going on here - it is always possible that the "book" is taking text from Wikipedia, every bit of it I can read seems to be a wikipedia article - looking into it, but if this book is genuine there will have to be a major rewrite.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to access any of the text of that book (self published?), so don't know what your concerns are. Could you be more specific? So far as I can tell, this article has been edited by many different hands, and it would seem unlikely, on the face of it, that much of it comes from a single source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The self published electronic book is dated 2008, this article predates it. Its amazing to produce something that is just Wikipedia articles and then copyright it. I've removed the tag.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline of rock and roll

I would like to propose a sub-section on the, commonly perceived, decline of rock and roll, beginning c. 1958. Most logically it would before the Beatles and Brit Invasion sub-section.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And I would like to propose a section on the enduring influence of rock and roll on the later super-genre of rock. A large fraction of what we call "rock" is simply 1950's rock and roll with a more modern instrumentation and singing style (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and Creedence Clearwater Revival provide some of the best examples). 71.194.38.54 (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

That is a POV, unfortunately since the issue is very much debated any section would have to strive for a NPOV, putting all the diverse interpretations. This also may not be the place for it, as the article notes: "the broader musical genre is discussed in the rock music article."--SabreBD (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins of the style

I think the recent changes are a big improvement, but it occurs to me that more needs to be said about the cultural mixing that was going on at the time, perhaps arising from WW2 and the spread of records and radio (lots of black musicians listening to country stations, white musicians listening to blues records, for instance). This would obviously need good references. On a related point, do the other active editors now involved on this article think that the Origins of rock and roll article should be expanded, or merged with this article? I'm happy to help but (1) I'm in the UK so may not be attuned to cultural sensitivities so much; (2) don't have that many refs; and (3) will be offline a lot in the next few weeks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a valid point over culture. I will see what I can find. On the Origins of rock and roll article I am in favour of merging that article to here, but not in favour of merging the First rock and roll record, which serves a clear and distinct purpose. The main problem is the lack of sources in that article, which would mean more hunting for someone so that this article can remain verifiable.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of the First rock and roll record article was "mine", in my early days of editing, so I'd personally like to keep it separate. Happy for others to improve it though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions on Little Richard

Apart from the problems created for citations etc: while Little Richard is very important this is not an article about Little Richard. He has similar space and emphasis to other leading figures in the development of rock and roll (compare with Berry and Elvis). If you wish to argue for major changes please do so here and try to achieve consensus before proceeding.--Sabrebd (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are different opinions as to how to define Rock n Roll. Many would think that the country, African cultural rhythms in blues, etc. description in the intro is appropriate. I and many others would think not. The intro is full of rockabilly and nothing to do with the funky rock n roll that expolded in the mid-50s with Little Richard, who Ray Charles, James Brown, Smokey Robinson and other rock n roll legends/pioneers considered to be the start of a new kind of music - funky, drivin, never let up rock n roll. Bo Diddley also unleashed his own style of rnr in 1955. Berry was a combination of country and uptempo blues. The three have been considered the Holy Trinity of Rock n Roll. Nothing about in the opening?! Unbelievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovedogg (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page to discuss this. Nobody gets mentioned in the intro because it is meant to general, providing a definition and outlining the importance of the topic as per WP:LEAD. I am a bit puzzled about what exactly is being argued for here, are you saying that Ray Charles, James Brown and Smokey Robinson are rock and roll artists? That combination of names would normally be associated with soul. Perhaps this discussion is being conducted on the wrong page.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Check who was inducted into the rock n roll hall in the first induction year - Richard, James, Ray, etc. There wa an explosion in 1955 that the rock hall says blew the lid off the 50s - nothing compared with Little Richard's impact at that time and only Elvis is mentioned (politely) as a possible rival. ray charles ca be seen and heard in the youtube video referenced saying that Little Richard was the man that started a kinfd of music that set the pace for alot of whats happening today. James Brown called him his idol. elvis said his music inspired him and called him the greatest. many people are editing here without understanding true history. read professor david kirby's new book (available for pre-order) on amazon.com - LIttle Richard: the Birth of Rock n Roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.78.125 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

James Brown is looked to by rock artists such as Prince and Michael Jackson as a major influence, along with Little Richard. But Little Richard was James Brown's idol and inspiration. Rap, soul, funk, rock, r&b owe more to Little Richard than any other performer. Period. If one looks at the whole picture and look at what the legends of modern music said themselves, they will see that there is no artist more highly acclaimed than Little Richard. All the 'little people' can say what they want. Maybe Richard shouldn't have 'boasted' about being thae start so much. But maybe it was because he really wasn't getting the credit he deserved. He really wasn't. And now the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame says that history seems to bear out his boast. The truth is coming to light, more and more with time. This is not to say that Bo didn't start a new kind of music. But the real splash was made by Little Richard.--Smoovedogg (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So to be clear: you are saying that Ray Charles, James Brown and Smokey Robinson are primarily rock and roll artists (and Michael Jackson too?). There is a case for Prince and to a degree for Charles, but the latter did start his career before Little Richard. The others do not even have rock in their infoboxes on wikipedia. It is worth bearing in mind that The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not the arbiter of what is rock and roll and many (actually most) of their decisions about who to induct have been, to say the least, highly controversial. If you want to argue that Richard was the most influential rock and roll musician it might be good to look for later 1950s artists who are unequivocally rock and rollers that single him out. I look forward to reading David Kirby's book, but that may take some time, if it is only available for pre-order. It is also worth noting that if it says that Little Richard invented rock and roll that will be interesting, probably worth noting, but that this claim is not made by other major sources such as All Music and similar comments can be found for many other artists. The article tries to cover many of these, because it attempts to achieve an objective balance. I can see you want to gain greater recognition for Richard, but that is not what an encyclopedia is for.--Sabrebd (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the rock halls' choices have not been controversial - but SOME choices over the years have been, as well as who hasn't been inducted yet. The first induction year was not very controversial at all (with the exception of Bo not getting in until year 2). Deciding which of the 7 would get in first was tricky. Ray Charles scored hits on the charts before Richard did, but not real pure rock 'n' roll. Richard was set up to compete with Ray but it didn't go that way. Ray was in the recording world when Richard's New Orleans recordings exploded onto the sence and saw the impact from inside the industry. His assertion that his was the start of a new kind of music sets the tone for the influence piece - if he started something new, then perhaps some others might have followed. And the other quotes support that many did indeed follow. The artists that are listed that are not considered Rock n Roll at their wiki sites need review and revision. They fit into the Rock n Roll genre, as well as others (as Richard does - some have tried to remove R&B in the past of all things!!). Brown and Hendrix, Dylan and Presley, as well as the Beatles and the Stones, are listed ahead of Richard on the Rolling Stone TOP list (Charles and Franklin behind at 9 and 10). But all were influenced significantly by Richard's music. Harrison said "it was all Little Richard's fault" when accepting the induction on behalf of the Beatles into the rock hall (although he also loved Carl Perkins' music), Jagger was mesmerized by Richard and became his first idol - calling him "the originator." Kieth Richard said that everything changed to "techniclolor" when he heard "Tutti Frutti" and on and on and on. No one else that I have studied has had the testimoials pile up as high as Little Richard. Not even close. The influuence section just touches the tip of the iceburg. And understandably, many don't like this because they are trying to jealously protect other artists. An encyclopedia should give a clear description of a topic and a clear picture of a significant individual. To minimize his role in the development of what might be the most significant art form of the twentieth century would be wrong. Of course, it cannot be exaggerated but it needs to accurate. That is where, I believe, this will move over time. I am committed to that process, as I started working on this decades ago (just recently with wiki).--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact very similar praise can easily be found for other major figures like Elvis, Holly and Berry. For Chuck Berry a quick search produced the following: John Lennon said that he was "the biggest influence on Earth..." Jet 1985; he was Keith Richard's childhood hero, who said "I lifted every lick he ever played" Keith Richards: the unauthorised biography‎ - Page 314; "Of all the early breakthrough rock & roll artists, none is more important to the development of the music than Chuck Berry" All Music. The point is not that Chuck Berry needs more said about him, but that if we only focus on one the article will become unbalanced. We have to strive for the same sort of balance that can be seen in other general entries on a subject.--Sabrebd (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) it's a side issue, but: i've removed that reference to the Bob Dylan biography until further notice. in the Little Richard article, that same page of that book is cited regarding Dylan's statement in his high school yearbook that his ambition was "to join Little Richard", which is fine - but that doesn't have much to do with the statements in this article. what exactly does the Dylan bio say that supports assertions about "laying the foundation for rock and roll" or "influenc[ing] generations of musicians"? exact quotes and page number[s] would be appreciated - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at where Bob Dylan placed in the TOP Artists of all time, according to Rolling Stone, it is important to leave his quote in there. He was influenced by Richard to the degree where his desire as a teen musican was to join his band.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

that quote is in the Little Richard article, not this one. i removed the reference from this article because it wasn't supporting anything in this article. Sssoul (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul yes, you are right. i forgot which article i was in when i wrote that, except i think i inserted it here to show the range of rock-related genre artists (dylan being folk rock) that Little Richard impacted before it began to get edited out. the reference was part of what was left...--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Smoovedogg, please call a halt to the continued changes that are being made until a consensus can be achieved over what should be done. Recent piecemeal changes continue to alter the meaning of sections and the overall balance of the article. Please discuss them here first. It might help if you were clear about what changes are actually desired, perhaps opening a special projects page that could be looked at and contributed to by other editors would help. At the moment a lot of time is spent dealing with the consequences of changes that is very time consuming and is making the article very unstable.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Race

We have had a recent spate of very poor quality school essays on the subject of rock, roll and race - see this list. We also had Alan Freed and payola which I think comes from a different stable. I think there is more that can be said on the subject in this article. In particular, are there reliable sources to confirm the suggestion that radio stations would prefer white cover versions? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted a couple of these from this article recently, which may have been the same editors. I think the point on airplay can be substantiated. I will look into it. Its an important topic and probably needs to be addressed, but it has to be reliably supported.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Doo wop

Arising out of discussion at Talk:Rock music it has been suggested (mainly by me) that this article needs to make greater mention of doo wop, which can be seen as a sub-style of rock and roll. If there are no objections, is a summary sub-section, as per rockabilly, the best way to proceed? This is slighly difficult as the existing doo wop article is a little confusing.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

origin of rock and roll.

The one and only origin of rock and roll is the amplifier. Its origin is found in the 1950's, starting with tube amplifiers. If someone could eliminate the audio amplifier all rock and roll would no longer exist. Isn't that simple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.201.49 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)