Talk:Rock and roll/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fashion

Rock and Roll has changed fashion over many decades especially during the 1960s, 1970s, and the 1980s. During these decades is when Rock and Roll really took off and came from underneath the skirt of blues, R&B, and Rockabilly. In the 1960s is when the early rock, girl bands, and the Beatles made it big during this time you would see male teens wearing suits and ties to concerts and the females would wear a nice dress. During the 1970s Led Zeppelin, ACDC, Pink Floyd, and Deep Purple to name a few were extremely popular the hard rock and disco also became popular during the mid to late 1970s which also change the way that people would dress you would see big hair, ripped jeans, bellbottom jeans, and tight shirts. In the 1980s Michael Jackson, Madonna, Duran Duran, and Queen became popular and fashion had again changed you would see leather jackets and the dirt look came out. You may have showered but you would look like you just woke up with your hair messy and clothes are crinkled, big hair was still in though.

style v. structure

The article is all correct about stylistic developments and social influences. But it fails to identify the single 'structural'Italic text characteristic that distinguishes R&R (and its blues and R&B roots): the controlling primacy of the chord(s).

All R&R melodies are mere elaborations of the chords (typically 3), which repeat sequentially. That is the only transcribeable innovation of blues-R&B-R&R. All other stylizations, such as beat and instrumentation, are shared with other musics.

That is, all other musics begin with melodies and then find chords to complement the notes. Thus, ironically, the hit "I Love Rock & Roll" (Joan Jett) is not R&R.

Kirk wilde (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Kirk wilde, 7/2010

Wikipedia is, essentially, a compendium and summation of information that has already been published in reputable sources. If you can find reliable references for your statements, they can be included in the article. But if they are original research, they cannot. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I can not quote references, I feel the music itself provides evidence for the following: Early Rock and Roll music had an underlying triplet (swing) feel which is the roll, the accentuated beat being the rock. Rock music is in straight 4/4 whereas Rock and Roll has the triplet on each of the 4 beats. Let the listner to early Rock and Roll sing "did-a-lee" on each beat of any early Rock and Roll song to verify this. I feel this is the real and important distinction between Rock music and Rock and Roll. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wezmabini (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Kirk. "all other musics begin with melodies and then find chords to complement the notes" is simply incorrect. The 12 bar blues is an obvious example of chord based music, but examples can also be found in almost every genre including classical music. ----

it states the following, but I don't remenber watching it, is it on the DVD? -ezbqzjwsd "In the documentary film Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll, Bruce Springsteen demonstrates a compelling explanation of how Chuck Berry developed his brand of rock and roll, by transposing the familiar two-note lead line of jump blues piano directly to the electric guitar, creating what is instantly recognizable as rock guitar." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.14.185 (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the name

The article previously was much clearer about the origin of the term. It now says "rock and roll did not acquire its name until the 1950s". It would be more informative to say that there was music called "rock and roll" at least as early as the 1930s but it didn't evolve into something resembling its present form until the 1950s. The 1930s citations were very clear in the previous versions.--61.18.170.65 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd be very interested to see any reliable sources that agree that "there was music called "rock and roll" at least as early as the 1930s". The terms "rocking and rolling" and "rock and roll" were indeed used in lyrics that early, and the music clearly had antecedents in blues, gospel, country and swing music at that time - but that is not at all the same thing as saying that "there was music called "rock and roll" in the 1930s. Most reliable sources state that the music was not called "rock and roll" on a regular basis until Freed started using that term (initially as an alternative term for rhythm and blues) in the early 1950s. See also Origins of rock and roll. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

More images are needed

This article only has one image. I think there should be more, perhaps of the Beatles or The Rolling Stones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can do.--SabreBD (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Jeanne, that this is specifically an article about Rock and roll, not Rock music more generally (and PLEASE let's not get into that debate again.....!) and there are remarkably few free images of performers from the period covered in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have done my best. Ghmyrtle is right, there are remarkably few contemporary images, and this may be just about all of them. I am working on my laptop (which has a very narrow display) so this might need some revision.--SabreBD (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks much better though - excellent! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article looks great now. Nice choice of images!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

While images enhance articles, perhaps soundbytes would be even more useful in articles about music. Is there provision for this? ------ _____

First Rock and Roll Song?

Could an editor indicate the recording of Hank Williams "Move It On Over" 1947-1948 as the first rock song? When I listen to this recording, I hear the artists "rockin' out". Don't you? ---- N.K. 11-5-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.56.43 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's one of many songs listed and discussed at the article on Origins of rock and roll. Yes, its tune influenced "Rock Around The Clock", but it would be wrong to call it unambiguously "the first rock song". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sister Rosetta Tharpe performance shows all characteristic elements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnWz2AJ4I7s --Arebenti (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not all ... some. We go with what sources say, and, generally, both Hank Williams and Rosetta Tharpe are seen as essential precursors and contributors to the emergence of rock & roll, but not themselves part of rock & roll. Again, see Origins of rock and roll. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is shameful. At least back then whites admitted to hijacking "the negro sound". Blacks remember that time quite differently. FYI Even my high school music teacher knowers that Wester Swing was a Derivative of Jazz and blues. So, how can iWestern Swing influence Rock & Roll , which was influenced by the very music that "influenced Rock & Roll? . There are numerous examples of Rock & Roll before the label was created; it was that whites called the "Negro Sound". During a time, when they didn't want "Coloreds" on the covers of their own albums.. There isn't any examples of Rock in Roll in country music before the label was used. The country influence was added later. Rock and Roll is nothing, but the white interpretation of the Negro sound, because as we know whites love our music and culture, but hate us. This wasn't a collaboration. This was theft. This was cultural theft. Elvis was the answer to the dilemma even Trivia pursuit bit that much right. I'll put this Wiki with the website claiming that whites are the true creators of Jazz and Blues. Even the Wiki has majority of White artists pictured. the same thing happened in Do Wop, Blues, Jazz, Soul, R&B and now Hip-hop.. Even the very talented Eminem can agrees with this. There was a conscious effort to duplicate black music. This wasn't a passive endeavor? You leave that out. Why? There are several books on the subject. This happened in the. Harlem Renaissance too. Forget it..You keep writing your history and leave out the cultural theft and racism. Give credit to genres like Western Swing that are examples of the same type of theft. Go with the sources... I will go with the artists, who went to the grave starting that "they" are tying to "jam" like us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.232.126 (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2013‎

Opinion

I feel that this article has too much opinionated language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.8.65 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Such as? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Such as the article attributes Rock n Roll to the United States rather than Papua New Guinea. LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSmario (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel,"... "I could make a billion dollars." Phillips (denies later) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.232.126 (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

University Rock Historian Joseph Burns

An interesting article? perhaps - http://news.discovery.com/human/worlds-first-rock-and-roll-song-identified.html --Roujan (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just one of many, many suggestions, and just one person's view. See Origins of rock and roll for that, and more. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rock and roll

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rock and roll's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Rubin":

• From Punk rock: Rubin, Mike (2009-03-12). "This Band Was Punk Before Punk Was Punk". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
• From Anti-Americanism: Rubin, Judy (4 September 2004). "The Five Stages of Anti-Americanism". Foreign Policy Research Institute. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 15 May 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Distortion (music): Dave, Rubin (2007). Inside the Blues, 1942 to 1982. Hal Leonard. p. 61.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

too many white guys in picture, not enough black guys

when discussing the origins of rock and roll and i look at this page, I see a bunch of old pictures of white men. I then see one newer picture of little richard.

this leads me to believe that there is an implication that white men started rock and roll, that they were the most "important".

I also know that the majority of the people editing this topic are not black. they are mostly white men.

None of this is fair or accurate. Wikipedia is dangerous. You say you are open to all, but many abuse the power you give them, wielding it like thugs,creating in their own images. When the little people question their authority, the mob rule breaks out.

i hate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.254.54 (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The first part of your message is a reasonable point, which is best answered by saying that we use the images that are freely available. But the second part of your message is irrelevant and abusive, and it would be better if you removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You don’t mention that “African Americans at the time viewed advent of Rock N roll as plagarism or style theft. Elvis is the emobodiment of that theft. This has been argued for sometime now. Are you saying that there are no soucres to support this? This was not an evolution. How can Western Swing, which is an “outgrowth of Jazz” be credited; it is redundant. The fact that there are little to no black artists on this page is perfect; it is fitting. This simply was not an evolution. The sound of the black Rock and Roll artsits such as Jackie Wilson “The Black Elvis”, didn’t change or evolve. They didn’t adopt the country sound. White artists mimicked or gave their interpretation of the “negro” sound and that is what became Rock and Roll. This is true for Western Swing. My problem is with the wording of this Wiki. Evolve is not correct. This is durong a time when black artists could not be pictured on their own albums. Nothing has changed. Whites hate us, but not our culture, especially our music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.43.149.205 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Two of the most seminal figures in rock and roll were Chuck Berry and Diddley...and they were Rock & Roll. I would love to see their pictures in the article. Chuck Berry's guitar riffs would become the foundation of practically all rock and roll that followed. Bo Diddly was one of the first musicians to get a "hard" rock sound. The article could discuss the stylistic features of their sound and its influence a bit more. The article could also discuss the role of Chess Records in relation to their careers. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Section on garage rock needed

The rock & roll article needs to include a section on garage rock (as is done in the Wiki "Rock Music" article). Garage rock shares the unique dual characteristic of being perhaps the last indigenous outpouring of original rock & roll, as well as being the beginning of what would later be termed "punk rock." Garage rock, is one of the rawest and purest forms of rock & roll (perhaps the last truly pure form) and the most brazenly "rock & roll" of all 60's styles of rock. It epitomizes the rock & roll dream: that anyone can join a band--that all you have to is get a few friends togther, pick up some guitars and drums, and form a band. It was the largest grass roots rock & roll movement ever (by far). I have heard it estimated that, conservatively, there could have been as many as 300,000 bands playing in the U.S., alone, in 1966. So, how could it not have a section devoted to it here?

Surf rock (an earlier form) could have section of its own in this article (or perhaps it could share a section with garage rock).

The article could more adequately address itself to post-psychedelic rock & roll revival movements: early 70's roots rock, mid-late 70's punk & new wave, , etc. The article could make mention of the Rolling Stones period of 1968-1972, when they came to be regarded as the quintessential rock & roll band. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I see very little point in repeating large sections of the rock music article here. It is already dealt with quite adequately there.--SabreBD (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As the hatnote says, "This article is about the 1950s style of music." However, I think there is scope for a new section that covers the legacy of specifically the 1950s style of music on later musicians, and the later use of the specific term "rock & roll" in rock music - not necessarily in music that would be described as rock & roll in the sense of this article. That could cover the direct impact of musicians like Chuck Berry and Little Richard on later musical styles, the establishment in rock & roll of the classic guitar/bass/drums/vocals band line-up, the use of the term by bands like the Rolling Stones, etc. - as well as in rock & roll revivalism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I do think sections for Surf and Garage would be appropriate, although, if there has to be a cut-off line, it would be after them. They are both basic, often downright primitive, styles of rock and roll. If the British Invasion is included here, then so can they. Both of these genres, especially garage, capture America at a unique turning point (a convergence of epochs): the Sixties coming into full force, with young generation's thirst for all that was new, along with a certain restlessness and despondency--yet, at the same time, a certain almost mythical innocence that is associated with what Lester Bangs described, when discussing garage bands, as "Old America." These two genres were the last to conjure up a now lost world of big fast cars with strips of chrome running down sculpted sides, AM radio, little "mom-'n-pop" restaurants and hamburger stands, main streets, amusement parks, sock hop dances, motels with flashing neon signs, nurses with white hats, full-service gas station attendants...and, oh yes, the milkman that came to your door. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

".....primarily from a combination of African American blues, jump blues, country, jazz, and gospel music...."

An IP removed the long-standing phrase "African American" from the lead, User:Fat&Happy reverted the change, and I've reverted again. Why do we need the phrase "African American" in there? No-one, I hope, is denying that African-American music was the main contributor to the formation of rock and roll - through blues, jump blues, jazz and gospel. But equally no-one, I hope, can deny the role of country music, or say that country music was primarily African-American, when it wasn't. So, the wording "....primarily from a combination of African American blues, jump blues, country, jazz, and gospel music...." is nonsensical because one component - country - was not "African American". If we need to emphasis that most of the input to the development of rock & roll was from African-American sources, we need to find a less clumsy and more accurate phraseology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I was in the process of writing something similar when I noticed you had beaten me to it. I agree the previous phrasing was sub-optimal, but I do think it's a bit odd to have an article on rock and roll without any mention of African-American (or black) in the lead. Could we work on a modified version; I'll start with:

primarily from a combination of African-American genres such as blues, jump blues, jazz, and gospel music, together with country music of the American South

as a first draft. (While looking at the paragraph, I also wonder whether we shouldn't modify the following sentence so that the 1920s are mentioned before the 1930s.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go with your draft - looks good to me. And, yes, swap the mentions of the 1920s and 1930s around. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ... sort of. I was actually hoping for a suggested change of some type, because my phrasing just seems a tiny bit off to me, but I can't say exactly why/where. I'll go ahead and make the changes, but if something comes to you that you see as an improvement, feel free to try it out. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "...of the American South" is that it excludes Western swing. I'll make a modest change - happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Plead

For every sake's, add a title picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.189.191.15 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Origins of phrase

I've reinstated the reference to the nautical origins of the phrase "rocking and rolling", which was deleted in this edit as being "irrelevant". Etymology deals with the origins of words and phrases, not necessarily what they mean now. The edit was also incorrect in stating that the use of the phrase as a sexual metaphor came before the nautical use - which is obviously false. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

african american genres

why is that it says primarily from African-American genres despite those genres listed having European influence? if that's the case, how can they be purely black African-American genres? Jazz being influenced by Classical, Blues European Folk, etc, and so one. the word "primarily" in its use on the current article would indicate that rock came primarily from African-American genres and those genres were purely black and had no Euro influence, which is clearly false, that's why the word "African-American" should be removed as it clearly can be misconstrued and those genres aren't pure African-American in terms of creation anyways Izoko89 (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, what Wikipedia articles say is based on what published reliable sources say, not what you or anyone else believe. Secondly, no-one says that r&r developed from "purely black African-American genres", and I think few people would deny that some of those African-American genres were influenced by European culture. That does not affect in any way the statement that r&r developed "primarily from African-American genres". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

obviously you can see how that can be misinterpreted to be believed that "primarily from African-American genres" can construed in a way that those genres are purely African-American, with "primarily from African-American genres" and then it goes on to list these genres. even if it is supposed to be interpreted in a way that meant those genres were predominately African-American influenced in creation, it still ignores the European influence on these genres and where are the factual statistics that state (Jazz came 75% from African-Americans and the other 25% from whites), etc, you see my point do you not? it's quite clear the current state of the article can easily be misinterpreted, which is why i made my initial edit.19:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Izoko89 (talk)

There is no consensus for making that change. But, I'd welcome other editors' comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle that saying "primarily from African-American genres" is no the same as exclusively from these genres. I think the text accurately reflect the major reliable sources at the moment, although I am always open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

THE current style of the article is racist, creating some black white divide, and i see ghmrytle spoke on this already (about 2 years ago) but the current state of the article deems certain genres "African-American" despite having European influence and then goes on to allude that country and western swing are "white" genres, despite country having Afican american influence. it's false and ignores certain European and African influences on genres and even if the way the current article is written isn't meant to deem certain genres "african american" but saying they're primarily african influenced or country is primarily European american influenced, where is the factual statistic to back this up? im not disputing the genres rock & roll was influenced by, but the current is just a race baiting mess and ignoring certain influences on genres. just list the genres rock and roll was influenced by and people can then go on that genres page (by a simple clickk) and see their stylistic origins Izoko89 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

i made a change to the article "primarily from african-american influenced genres" instead of the former version. what do you guys think? it makes it more clear that these genres arent purely african american (like the former state of the article can be interpreted that way as it labels these articles "primarily african american" instead of stating its referring to the influence) but instead makes it more clear. Izoko89 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Stating that those genres, such as blues, are no more than "primarily African-American influenced" is factually incorrect nonsense. Check your sources... not what you personally believe. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary box

Summary box is a disaster. No subgenres. No derivatives. This is not worthy of Wikipedia. Only bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser9672 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are derivatives listed. One of them is rock music, which is probably what you are looking for. Check the infobox there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How Rock and Roll has Changed

The article should include a section dedicated to describing the different styles of rock and roll over time. The genre changed quite a bit from the 1950s to today. If each decade were addressed with respect to how prominent bands of that time were different from each other, it would make for a good connection to the "Alternative Rock" Wiki article.ItsJeffers (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)itsJeffers

Just a rough start:

Evolution: Over time, rock and roll has been interpreted and performed in different fashions. These changes have been audible, visual, and conceptual in nature. With each decade after its founding, rock and roll music seemed to take on a new tone. 1950s: The first years of rock and roll featured an upbeat and energetic musical style composed of guitars, bass guitars, and drums. Artists like Elvis Presley and Little Richard coupled lively rhythms with spunky dances in order to emphasize the free-spirited nature of rock and roll. Despite the fun music and dance, however, 1950s artists typically played shows wearing suits and sporting slicked-back hair. 1960s: Rock and roll would see its first evolution in the decade following its birth. Many bands of the 1960s, such as the Beatles, were musically similar to the artists of the ‘50s (using the same instruments and maintaining a clean sound), albeit songs at this time were generally slower paced. Others produced notably different music. Jimi Hendrix, in particular, embraced the idea of innovation in rock and roll. Hendrix played complex musical compositions with distorted electric guitar, and sported an afro with loose, colorful clothing. ItsJeffers (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources, please. And how on earth is Hendrix's hair style and clothing relevant to this article??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, image is an aspect of rock & roll as a cultural phenomenon. But, as the subhead says: "This article is about the 1950s style of music." So, talking about the evolution of rock & roll beyond the '50s style is off-topic. Hendrix would be considered "rock music." Pstoller (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I must agree with ItsJeffers on this, surely we can afford to add a little expansion to this page? At the very least we can add a paragraph or two as an overview of the evolution and then redirect to another page. Think of it like a gradient of information from page to page. Garebearius Maximus (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a rock music page for that.--SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's simply a question of slightly expanding and rephrasing the section currently titled "Decline", to explain more clearly and thoroughly (with sources) the process through which rock and roll changed and developed into "rock music", I would not be opposed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Decline" section of this article does make for a nice connection to the Rock Music article. With some summary of the content in Rock Music, this portion of text could serve as a transition to that article:

==Decline==

Some commentators have suggested a decline of rock and roll in the late 1950s and early 1960s. By 1959, the death of Buddy Holly, The Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens in a plane crash (February 1959), the departure of Elvis for the army (March 1958), the retirement of Little Richard to become a preacher (October 1957), the scandal surrounding Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his thirteen-year-old cousin (May 1958), the arrest of Chuck Berry(December 1959), and the breaking of the Payola scandal implicating major figures, including Alan Freed, in bribery and corruption in promoting individual acts or songs (November 1959), gave a sense that the initial phase of rock and roll had come to an end.

With many of Rock and Roll’s biggest artists moving out of music production, other artists arose to fill the gaps left behind. New performers like Duane Eddy and The Ventures] developed a form of instrumental rock in the early 60’s referred to as Surf Rock. Full of alternate picking and a distinctive “wet” reverb tone, this new style set a new standard for rock and roll. The Beach Boys were particularly successful with vocal music in their hit, “Surfin” (1962). The surf music craze and the careers of almost all surf acts was effectively ended by the arrival of the British Invasion from 1964.

[You focus on the changes of rock and roll to "surf music". Good job emphasizing who played key rolls and events that led to the change in music.

Yes, you cite info well and the information seems very reliable because of the use of exact dates and people involved.

The article is written from a neutral point. Only factual info was added. No speculations.

Readers have easy access to links that take them to linked wiki pages and can learn more information about those linked pages that played a key roll in the change of rock and roll to "surf music".

I did not notice any big grammatical or spelling errors in the paragraphs provided.] BeauLamey28 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

British bands such as The Beatles, Yardbirds, and Rolling Stones arrived in the United States in the early 60s, bringing with them a new sound which drew on multiple American influences including soul, rhythm and blues, and surf music. The Beatles’ first #1 hit on the Billboard 100, “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” spent 7 weeks at the top and 15 weeks on the chart in total. The Beatles later went on to become the biggest selling rock band of all time.

There was also a process that has been described as the "feminisation" of rock and roll, with the charts beginning to be dominated by love ballads, often aimed at a female audience, and the rise of girl groups such as The Shirelles and The Crystals. Some music historians have pointed to important and innovative developments that built on rock and roll in this period, including multitrack recording, developed by Les Paul, the electronic treatment of sound by such innovators as Joe Meek, and the 'Wall of Sound' productions of Phil Spector, continued desegregation of the charts, the rise of surf music, garage rock and the Twist dance craze.

Surf rock in particular, noted for the use of reverb-drenched guitars, became one of the most popular forms of American rock of the 60s.

References

I separated this sentence because, as I am introducing surf rock earlier in my own paragraph, I believe that it should be either edited or removed if my changes are applied to avoid redundancy. ItsJeffers (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I assisted in creating these additions and modifications Garebearius Maximus (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but is there a bit of this post missing? I am not quite clear what is being proposed here?--SabreBD (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a continuation of the previous thread - the heading has been copied over from the article page. I've tried to format it so we can understand it Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks for that Ghymrtle, that makes a bit more sense to me now. Well there are quite a few MOS issues here, but the main thing is that this looks like it will break up the logical flow of the existing article. The impact of rock and roll on beat music is already mentioned in the British rock and roll section, so this will now be repeated. The bit about the "feminisation" of music is also out of place, this happened before the British Invasion. I am just worried this is going to be messy an not add very much.--SabreBD (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Sabrebd. The problem with adding a sentence or two about the "British Invasion" etc. in this section is that it then precedes the section on British r&r - which should be avoided. Perhaps an alternative approach might be to have a new section called something like "Transition to 'rock music'", after the section on "Cultural impact". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That might work.--SabreBD (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Like the article good sources. Changing the intro a little especially if you put it under a new section.--Kyakid (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Is "the feminization of rock" a mainstream critique of the period? The citation seems pretty marginal. ("Feminization" was also a claim leveled as a pejorative at virtually every generation of male pop singer since at least Frank Sinatra.) I also question whether the only (or even main) stylistic development worth mentioning between '50s rock & roll and the British Invasion is Surf Music. From '63–'65, there was so little distinction between R&R and R&B that Billboard ceased publishing a separate R&B chart. Dominant sounds included Motown and the Brill Building groups. Surf was an interesting development, but singling it out makes it seem like rock & roll was an entirely White pop format by 1963. Pstoller (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A misunderstanding here I think, the "feminization" is women having hit records in the period.--SabreBD (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is different. I think it relates to the increased targeting of music towards a young female audience, with the focus both on teen idols (Bobby Vee, Vinton, etc.), and on female singing groups (Shirelles, Crystals, etc.) - which developed from the r&r of the mid-late 50s but was much milder in content and style, much less threatening, and much easier for the music business (and parents) to assimilate and accept . The more aggressive style of early r&r was seen as passé, and - in the US, before the "British Invasion" - many musicians either reverted to gospel, country, etc., or formed predominantly instrumental bands. Obviously that's an over-simplification, but I think is worth mentioning here if it reflects reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My fault for being over concise. Yes all of that, if it can be sourced. Also a question for Pstoller is, what else would you highlight beside surf rock in this period? I am thinking we can then work towards some sort of outline.--SabreBD (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd either provide a comprehensive definition of "feminization" or omit the term altogether. I already cited Motown and the Brill Building sound (including, but not limited to, girl groups) as things to highlight. I think we'd also have to mention soul, garage rock (e.g., the Kingsmen and "Louie Louie"), teen idols, the Four Seasons, and possibly the rise of folk (especially Bob Dylan). Pstoller (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor is edit warring over the inclusion of the (sourced) statement that "There was also a process that has been described as the "feminisation" of rock and roll, with the charts beginning to be dominated by love ballads, often aimed at a female audience, and the rise of girl groups such as The Shirelles and The Crystals." That seems pretty uncontentious to me - though perhaps the wording could be clarified - and I'm sure many other sources can be found for similar statements. What do other editors think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I might agree that during the "girl group era" there was a rise of women and girls as prominent artists in, and targeted consumers of, rock & roll. But, I still think "feminization" is an unclear term in this context, given the word's multiple meanings, some of which could readily be seen as pejorative. I also think the other editor, while improperly edit warring, has a point about the proximity to "decline" exacerbating this problem. If I had my druthers, I'd eschew the term and be more circumspect about what the article is implying about the impact of women/girls on rock & roll. Even if we accept that rock & roll declined and that women had greater impact on the genre at the time, correlation ≠ causation. Pstoller (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure why anyone should see "feminization" as in any way pejorative. But, as I've said, I'd be more than happy to see the section rewritten, to cover the changes that took place in the pop music market and in the style of rock and roll played between the mid/late 1950s and the (so-called, very irritatingly if you're a Brit like me) "British Invasion" of the early 1960s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In some common popular contexts, "feminization" is comparable to, or even synonymous with, "emasculation." While it can certainly be read as merely noting the addition of females (and female perspectives) amongst both creators and consumers, rock & roll of the era under discussion is often criticized with pejorative sexualized language: e.g., "it lacks the balls of '50s rock & roll." In this sense, "feminized" reads as "effeminate" or "sissified," and not at all in a neutral way. This may not be the case in Great Britain (where you and SabreBD reside), but it's pervasive where I am in America. Hence my concern about the term, especially under the heading, "Decline." Pstoller (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Shirelles & the decline of rock

Hi Everyone,

I have found a line in the section marked "Decline" to be a mischaracterization:

There was also a process that has been described as the "feminisation" of rock and roll, with the charts beginning to be dominated by love ballads, often aimed at a female audience, and the rise of girl groups such as The Shirelles and The Crystals.

I find the idea that "the 'feminisation' of rock" and the rise of groups like The Shirelles specifically contributed to the decline in early rock's popularity to be a serious mischaracterization. This line is vague ("a process that has been described"). The cited source for this line isn't particularly helpful, either.

The rest of the "Decline" Wiki section marks specific events in the history of rock that changed the public's intake/perception of the genre, such as Buddy Holly's death and the Payola scandal. The popularity of The Shirelles and other 'girl groups' or the so-called "feminisation" of rock did not play any particular role in the decline in the genre's popularity. Characterizing love ballads as "feminisation" is also questionable, since Buddy Holly and other rock figures listed before the "Decline" wrote popular love ballads.

Discussion of The Shirelles and girl groups makes more sense, organizationally, in the "Doo-Wop" section of this article because their sound was described as doo-wop and/or R&B. The Shirelles are also adescribed as pre-cursors to Motown performers as African-Americans appealing to black and white audiences, which again has more direct topical connection to Doo-Wop and therefore belong in the "Doo-Wop" section.

In The Shirelles Wiki article itself, there is no mention of the group's role in the "decline" of rock music. This description seems to me to be an mischaracterization of the decline of rock music's popularity.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebuxac (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

References

You are misreading the article. It does (did) not say that "The feminisation" of rock and the rise of groups like The Shirelles contributed to the decline in early rock's popularity". It said (says): "There was also a process that has been described as the "feminisation" of rock and roll, with the charts beginning to be dominated by love ballads, often aimed at a female audience, and the rise of girl groups such as The Shirelles and The Crystals." It does not say that one contributed to the other - it says the growth of girl groups etc. happened at the same time as a decline in the popularity of R&R artists - in response to commercial pressures, mainly. But you are quite right to say that Buddy Holly (and also, for example, Elvis) were major contributors to that change - their music increasingly contrasted with that of people such as Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc., who became less popular - their style of rock and roll was (until the Beatles came along) seen as old-fashioned by the late 50s. The Shirelles (etc.) did not sing doo-wop - that was a genre that essentially took place in the early 50s, though clearly vocal groups continued long after that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This sentence is in the "Decline" section and does not specify whether "feminisation" was an element outside of rock music or an evolution within rock music. It is implied that along with the rise of girl groups and 'feminisation' that R&R declined. That is the implication. The article does not clearly say that two separate trends happened "at the same time". If I am misreading the segment then that further proves my point that this section needs to be edited. I did more Talk reading and it seems other users have taken exception to this statement as well. Does this statement actually contribute clarity and insight to the article or the topic? I don't think so. I imagine a kid looking up this page to learn more about the history of rock 'n roll and I think that kid would read this statement and get the wrong impression.

I did not mean to say that the Shirelles were a strict doo-wop group, but that their contributions (and other girl group contributions) to music during this time frame make more sense, organizationally, in the Doo-Wop section that discusses crossover popularity between black and white audiences as well as the sharp musical harmonies doo wop groups AND girl groups were known for--as it says in The Shirelles article:

Wadhams, Nathan, and Lindsay describe the style of the Shirelles early work as "tight, almost doo-wop harmony".[21]

Even just rearranging the placement of the sentence on the page out of the "Decline" section would clarify the sentiment you explained above, which I believe is not evident in the article as it is currently written.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.163.190 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to improving the wording, and the cited source - R.Dale, Education and the State: Politics, patriarchy and practice (Taylor & Francis, 1981), p. 106 - may well not be the best one to use (it's not online, and its title seems somewhat peripheral to the subject). What wording, supported by which sources, do you suggest to cover the point at issue - that is, the decline in the commercial standing of more aggressive styles of rock and roll, and the parallel growth in commercial success of other styles of music that increasingly appealed to a wide and young audience, in the late 50s and early 60s? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually think the "Inbetween Years" section of the "Rock" music page gives a concise analysis:

While early rock and roll, particularly through the advent of rockabilly, saw the greatest commercial success for male and white performers, in this era the genre was dominated by black and female artists. Rock and roll had not disappeared at the end of the 1950s and some of its energy can be seen in the Twist dance craze of the early 1960s, mainly benefiting the career of Chubby Checker.[46] Having died down in the late 1950s, doo wop enjoyed a revival in the same period, with hits for acts like the Marcels, the Capris, Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs, and Shep and the Limelights.[35] The rise of girl groups like the Chantels, the Shirelles and the Crystals placed an emphasis on harmonies and polished production that was in contrast to earlier rock and roll.[47] Some of the most significant girl group hits were products of the Brill Building Sound, named after the block in New York where many songwriters were based, which included the number 1 hit for the Shirelles "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" in 1960, penned by the partnership of Gerry Goffin and Carole King.[48]

Followed by the paragraph including Phil Spector.

Thanks!63.138.163.190 (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.163.190 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC) 

63.138.163.190 (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks doe 💀🙄

Yea rock and roll was just created by black people Akira johnson (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relationship to pop music

I've reverted a persistent IP who keeps inserting a claim that pop music derived from rock and roll. In my view, it didn't - pop music started developing before rock and roll existed. In particular, the development of radio and juke boxes in the 1920s and 1930s, and the first publication of lists of popular records, pre-date the emergence of r'n'r, and singers like Rudy Vallee, Bing Crosby, Perry Como, Rosemary Clooney, etc. etc. recorded pop music that was certainly not r'n'r in the 1940s and early 1950s. Of course, most - but by no means all - pop music since the mid-1950s has been influenced by rock and roll, but it is a misunderstanding to claim that pop music as a whole "derives from" r'n'r. Thoughts, anyone? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph reads

"According to Greg Kot, "rock and roll" can refer either to a style of popular music originating in the U.S. in the 1950s prior to its development by the mid-1960s into "the more encompassing international style known as rock music".[8] For the purpose of differentiation, this article deals with the first definition."
So if the article deals with the first definition, what is the second definition? Notice we have and "either" without an "or". That is not good writing but I am not the person to correct it because this is not a concept that I am not comfortable with, that out R&R article should just be about the 1950s. So, want to give it a try? Carptrash (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL! I just came here to make exactly the same point. I'm quite happy to edit but I have no idea what the 'or' is! leter 'rock'? Earlier 'Jazz/Blues'? I think it's important to recognise that 'rock and roll' remains a significant sub-genre within modern 'rock, notably bands such as AC/DC. Stub Mandrel (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Same here. This just goes to show that some people should not write, period. If they are not clear on English grammar, who knows how accurate their knowledge of some topic might be. Ignorance is as ignorance does.73.90.84.55 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it shows that even experienced editors need to review their edits before posting them. The change from understandable to nonsensical wording was made in this edit by Dan56. I've reverted it back to the earlier version, but I'm sure we can have further discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake; obviously simple grammar was overlooked with no "or" to make sense of the "either". But it is still an individual point of view that needed to be properly attributed, and it wasn't in the original revision you reverted back to. Dan56 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rock and roll. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324225234/http://www.sixtiescity.com/Culture/dance.shtm to http://www.sixtiescity.com/Culture/dance.shtm

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) 00:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The third paragraph

contains the phrase, "The beat is essentially a blues rhythm ", and I am not happy with that. If it were "The beat is essentially a rhythm and blues rhythm" I could go along with it. I mean, what is "a blues rhythm" anyway? Your thoughts, because I am not going to adjust it until I hear from you. Or until I get bored, whichever comes first. Carptrash (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I take your point....but I don't think that the phrase "rhythm and blues rhythm" would be very meaningful. I don't have the source from which "blues rhythm with an accentuated backbeat" is derived. But the basic problem is deeper than that one phrase. The whole of the third paragraph of the introduction - which is supposed to be a summary of the main article text - is not covered at all in the main text. There needs to be an entire new section in the main text which covers the characteristics of rock and roll as a musical style. Sources exist that would cover that - here is just one example. A new section of the article needs to be drafted on the basis of the best sources available. The introduction should then give a summary of that section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: You can find the reference here, [1] and it, if anything, reenforces the "R&B" rather than “blues” usage. But I have several issues with the author, see what you think. He says, (top of 154) "Try listening to ‘Sh-boom’ by The Crew Cuts, a typical R&B song….” and while the original 'Sh-Boom’ by The Chords might have been R&B (though not typical, it is typically classified as Do-Wop) the Crew Cuts version clearly is NOT R&B. Earlier (p. 153) he claims that “The Comets’ 1954 hit ‘Rock Around the Clock’ is generally acknowledged to be the first great rock & roll record” is a claim and song that is not, in my opinion “generally acknowledged to be the first great rock & roll record.” His slightly later statement that the “sixteen and thirty-two bar structure used in jazz standards,” is also in my opinion misleading. Those structures were used in American pop, i.e. ‘Tin Pan Alley’ writing of songs that later became jazz standards. I don’t like this guy at all. So, how to improve the article? I’m thinking, but I suspect that removing this section might be a good place to start. Carptrash (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the author's comments about "Rock Around the Clock" and "Sh-Boom" are inaccurate. Also, I don't think that our phrase "...blues rhythm with an accentuated backbeat" is justified by the source. However, what I think would be justified by that source is wording such as "...blues format with an accentuated rhythm and backbeat". I don't think that removing the "section" (which section? Just one sentence, or more than that?) would be a positive step. What would improve the article, as I suggested, is an entirely new section in the article, based on good quality sources, that summarises the musical style that was known (in the 1950s) as rock and roll. After that section has been written, the introduction should be revisited to make sure that it summarises the article text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I am not that compelled to use a source that both of us agree has multiple issues, none of them good. However this is not rush job, we'll keep poking around and find the right phrase with the right source. Carptrash (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)˜

Oaky, I found a source and just changed "blues" to "dance" and I believe it's better. Not the greatest sentence, but at least accurate. Feel free to change it for the better. Carptrash (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Both "blues" and "dance" in this context are vague to the point of meaninglessness. Alas, I have nothing getter to suggest at the moment, but I think we should be looking for a beat associated with a specific dance and/or musical style. Pstoller (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Someeting better would be . . ...better, but I feel that "dance rhythm" - besides being a direct quote from a source - is an important factor in R&R and hardly "meaningless". R&R is dance music. This is the first time the word "dance" appears in the article and I think it is not too soon. I don't think we need a specific dance because there were many many of them and R&R was not developed for any particular dance. Rather we need to suggest, even stress, that the music was dance music, played for its audience, on record or live, to dance to. And I think this does that.Carptrash (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pstoller: - Would my suggestion of "...blues format with an accentuated rhythm and backbeat" be an improvement, or not? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Carptrash, your point that rock & roll is dance music and that the article should say so is well taken. As far as that goes, I couldn't agree more. The problem with addressing that issue in this way is that "dance rhythm" applies equally to every rhythm ever intended and/or used for dancing across all genres, cultures, and millennia. As such, the only thing it tells us about rock & roll is that people danced to it, which, while important, does nothing to differentiate rock & roll from any other form of popular music (and many forms of non-popular music, for that matter). I think some combination of "dance rhythm" and Ghmyrtle's more specifically descriptive suggestion would steer us in the right direction. Of course, what we could really use is an authoritative and articulate source that puts it far better than we have up until now. I'll make an effort to find one: I have a fairly extensive library of topical reference books to consult. Pstoller (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change but before you do, what do you think of the way that paragraph opens? "In the earliest rock and roll styles of the late 1940s and early 1950s," So what exactly are the "rock and roll styles of the late 1940s" - could you name a few songs for me? Carptrash (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the words "..of the late 1940s and early 1950s..". They're unnecessary as the origins of the style are mentioned earlier, and, as you suggest, potentially confusing if taken out of context. I've also linked the Origins of rock and roll article to the opening sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Rock and roll → Rock-and-roll – Or rock 'n roll, this is how I saw in the concert 209.52.88.173 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close No clear rationale for changing. Appears in the dictionary as "Rock and roll" with the hyphens only being an alternate spelling._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The existing title is the most standard form. I'll grant that some sources do hyphenate it, but that's the exception rather than the rule — and while it's also true that some sources abbreviate the "and", it's a total tossup as to whether they write 'n with the apostrophe before, n' with the apostrophe after, or &. So rather than editwarring over conflicting sources, it's best to leave the article at the most standard form. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per above comments. All alternate stylized spellings/punctuations already redirect to the standard spelling. Any change would be counterproductive. Pstoller (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. Been a long time since I rock and rolled... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need for a hyphen between rock and and and and and roll. Dohn joe (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. A song written a little before the genre, but Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Coasters as Doo-wop?

I'd like to remove the Coasters from the Doo Wop section of this article. In the 8 CDs of doo-wop that Rhino Records put out they include zero (0) Coasters songs. Our Coasters article sort of suggests that they are a doo-wop group in the lede, but then never mentions it again, so there is no reference. Their place in the article about doo-wop groups who charted could be filed by Dion and the Belmonts who charted (US Top 40) seven times before they broke up. Carptrash (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I, for one, would be fine with that. Leiber and Stoller never considered the Coasters to be a doo-wop group, nor the material they wrote for the group (or most of what they wrote for the Coasters' precursors, the Robins) to be doo-wop songs. Likewise, Coasters leader Carl Gardner said, "Don't call us a 'doo-wop' group." The Coasters were an R&B vocal group specializing in comic material, substantially different in musical and lyrical style from doo-wop. Pstoller (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Harry the Hipster

The sentence reads "contenders for the title of 'first rock and roll record'", so Harry the Hipster's "4F Ferdinand, the Frantic Freak" needs a reliable source that specifically says this. It's not mentioned nor referenced in his WP article. Birnbaum writes "the remarkably rock-like '4F Ferdinand, the Frantic Freak'",[2] but doesn't mention "first" or something similar. It may be appropriate for the Origins of rock and roll#1940s article, but only the most obvious should be included here, otherwise it would become a long list. Maybe What Was the First Rock 'n' Roll Record has something to say, but I don't have access to the book (Ghmyrtle?). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What Was the First Rock 'n' Roll Record by Dawson and Propes doesn't list any of Gibson's records in its list of 50 "milestones which have elements of rock'n'roll in them". Unfortunately that book lacks an index, so it may be mentioned in passing, but, even if so, it certainly shouldn't be given the emphasis the IP edit sought. However, I do think that Gibson should be mentioned in the Origins article if he isn't already - I must admit I haven't edited that article seriously for quite a while, and certainly haven't attempted to incorporate Birnbaum's pretty comprehensive research into it. A job for the future (or for someone other than me....). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing viewpoint on racial dynamics

A strand of recent scholarship focuses on how racist attitudes within and toward rock and roll gradually pushed African American artists out of the genre, as well as how the genre's boundaries were defined in part by race. See for example "How Rock and Roll Became White" (an excerpt of the book Just Around Midnight by Jack Hamilton) and "The Truth About Elvis and the History of Racism in Rock". Currently, the article's description of race in rock and roll only represents the viewpoint that it championed racial integration, which this new scholarship directly challenges. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 15:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Are those articles scholarship or simply opinion pieces? It's also worth considering that this article is about 50s-style rock and roll - not the later-emerging rock music which has its own article, and is a topic with a wide variety of definitions, some of which are more inclusive of genres like soul, disco and hip-hop than others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The book is scholarship; I'm not as sure about the second article. These sources focus more broadly on rock music. The book's description says: "Rooted in rhythm-and-blues pioneered by black musicians, 1950s rock and roll was racially inclusive and attracted listeners and performers across the color line. In the 1960s, however, rock and roll gave way to rock: a new musical ideal regarded as more serious, more artistic―and the province of white musicians." So while it doesn't challenge the idea of racial inclusivity in rock and roll per se, it does contribute a perspective about what happened afterward. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 00:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure the book is a useful contribution to scholarship, but the statement in the brief description that "1950s rock and roll was racially inclusive and attracted listeners and performers across the colour line" is, at best, very partial and debatable. Many black musicians disliked what they saw as the appropriation of R&B by white performers and audiences, and its renaming as "R'n'R" (e.g. here). There is not a simple single viewpoint here. If the book makes a cogent argument for "what happened afterward", that could form part of the discussion over at the rock music article. But it's hard to see how the sources you've mentioned so far justify adding the tag to this article. I'd be interested to see Pstoller's input (and other editors of course). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead section

Isn't actually a complete sentence. -Awhit003 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

First song of Rock and Roll and name

I disagree about first song of Rock and Roll. There is a song in 1929 When the Levee Break" by Kansas Joe McCoy and Memphis Minnie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swhEa8vuP6U

About name and ... "Rock and Roll" by the Boswell sisters in 1934" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b5oWwFUhN0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.39.51 (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Have you read "Origins of rock and roll"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition of R&R

The R&R article does not contain a musical definition of the term. I have written it: "Rock and roll and rhythm & blues are styles of music originating in the 1940s in the United States characterized by repeating chord patterns and relentless offbeat rhythms (stressing the 2 and 4 in the usual 4/4 format), melodies elaborations of the fundamental chords, with blue notes teasing other minor chords." That should lead the whole article. You're welcome. ˜˜˜˜Kirk Wilde, Denver 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk wilde (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Rock and roll may have contributed to the civil rights movement because both African American and White American teenagers enjoyed the music.[12]

Unlike jazz then, that was hated by one of the groups? Or what are you trying to imply? 85.224.252.61 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

New editor

A new editor is attempting to edit the opening paragraph, against consensus, and has failed to offer any reasoning on this page. Reported at WP:ANEW. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

BlueWorkers has been indef blocked. Their behavior since the block makes it seem unlikely that they will ever get themselves unblocked. CodeTalker (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Chuck Berry image

Should an image of Chuck Berry be included in the article? Yes, of course. Should it be included in the infobox at the head of the article? No, it shouldn't. It does not "illustrate" the subject matter. It simply presents one performer, who was important but not by any stretch of the imagination the sole creator of r'n'r. No-one was. The infobox, in this case, should be left unadorned with images of individuals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)