Jump to content

Talk:Rock music/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

"Rock music"?

Hell! There's no such thing as "Rock music"! The general term is "Rock and roll" ask anybody who knows sth about music ask yor school music teacher! It's just a popular belief that "rock" & "Rockandroll" are two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.19.17.178 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance are under the Emo genre? **** no.

I just read through this page to find good bands that gained success in the 2000s, and, shocked, found this...

Recently dubbed emo bands include: My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Cute Is What We Aim For and Panic! at the Disco.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Gerard Way and the rest of the band has for long denied that they focus on producing music in the Emo genre ([1], in case the idiot who added them don't trust me) - THEIR MUSICAL GENRE IS ALTERNATIVE ROCK, DAMN IT. I'm changing it. Who the **** created that stupid genre, anyway? It's ****ing ridiculous, simply. A Powerful Weakness (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness

[2] - Third-party, reliable sources say they are emo, just because their singer doesn't like the word emo doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't include them in a section about emo music. And, btw, emo is a subgenre of alternative rock so both terms could apply to this band. Funeral 20:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It does use the word 'dubbed'; all that's saying is that people have called them emo, not that they actually are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.32.62 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Funeral and talk. Bands always try to define themselves other than how critics or even the public would but the band IS described as "emo" in mainstream reliable third-party sources. They can call themselves whatever they want but an encyclopedia should list them as "emo" and as "alternative rock" (since "emo" is a subgenre of "alternative" as Funeral correctly points out. Wonder when a Sunny Day Real Estate fan is going to come in here and whine that none of the three are "emo"? GBrady (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

"Rock music" and "History of Rock" should be 2 different articles, not the freeforall that this one has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.180.40 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-rock

Seeing as post-rock isn't actually rock, ('it is the use of 'rock instrumentation' for non-rock purposes' according to the article on it) shouldn't it be put under derivative forms, rather than subgenres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.32.62 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Guns N Roses

I added a little blurb about GN'R under glam. I point out that they aren't always considered "glam", but they were the biggest rock band in the world for a couple years, seems they should get some reference. Of course they were too "glam" for the grunge/90's crowd and too "punk" for the 80's hair crowd, so it's hard to categorize them, but they were way too big not to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol? Serious?! GnR being glam?! No way! GnR was the one major band that didn't go glam in the 70s. GnR is more of a hard rock/punk/heavy metal band. Chaoticfables (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with talk. GnR definitely deserve mention but I don't see them as really being "glam" in any sense. Yes, they had some punk influences and probably some glam influences as well but I don't see them as leaning hard enough either direction to call them anything but "rock". GBrady (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Industrial Rock

Suggest putting in industrial rock as a legitimate genre that came about in the early/late 90's, with bands such as Nine Inch Nails, Stabbing Westward, and Gravity Kills. --71.120.11.16 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nerd Rock

This should probably be included somewhere after grunge and before pop punk

See Weezer and Nerf Herder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.8.25 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's apart of two different subgenres - power pop and alternative rock and is too minor to mention in this broad overview. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating a "nerd rock" heading is really just bloating the article too much. I actually own music from both those bands but I don't think we need a section indicating that they appeal to "nerds" in an overarching general article about the rock music genre. GBrady (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Masculinity and Rock bands

There is a particular gendered reality to rock bands that no one has discussed yet or included in the article. A good source for this is:

Mary Ann Clawson. 1999. "Masculinity and Skill Acquisition in the Adolescent Rock Band" in « Popular Music ». 18(10):99-114. 71.146.10.163 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock 'n' Roll. The Real Definition

If i'm not mistaken, i recall the real term for rocknroll was actually sex back in the 1920s, when racism was still at hand. and it was a slang used mostly by blacks refering to the movement of the body while having sex.

And I think they need to add the part that rocknroll was actually formed by black people (unless there are a couple of proud rednecks out there who wont accept this theory, thinking rocknroll is a white music.)

the whole page about rocknroll should not avoid the topic on racism at all.

RocknRoll was basicly made from jazz n blues, the music that expresses one's depression against the world.

and who invented jazz n blues? the black slaves from way back.

if there's anything that needs changing, it's definitely the history of Rock music itself.

Also, the page should place more details during the 1970s period

since that was the decade when rock music was at it's peak with the whole issue of racism finally being tackled and also the issue on going against pointless wars(eg: the vietnam war)

Rock music had the most influence during those harsh periods, since the flow of influence on any youth comes from the media.

and though this extra topic might be offending to fellow rock lovers, we should not forget, rock music did influence the wide usage of marijuana and other drugs especially during the 1970s period.

hope these changes could be dealt with soon

thanks for reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.165.42.195 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this yet again Rock 'n' Roll is different from Rock music. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock n roll is not different from rock music. This article is really retarded for the split between the two. Obviously a lot of ignorance and/or racism here (or teenagers), trying to rewrite its history. True, the post-Beatles music was called "rock," but guess what, it's still fundamentally rock n roll. Rock and rock and roll are interchangeable terms, both as an African American euphemism for sex. Rock n roll is the standard to which this supposed "rock" built upon and expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rock is not the same thing as rock and roll. Rock and roll is basically just sped-up blues. Rock encompasses more forms, where as most rock and roll songs are 12-bar-blueses. Rock and roll came first, and rock evolved from it. Tezkag72 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thos whole thing of people saying genres are not genres because they derived from one type of music so its no different from the last is stupid (would you really compare an R&B star such as rihanna to the legend that is jimi hendrix and say they're music is the same genre?) all music derives from other music for instance i could say that jazz was the same as classical because it has its origins in that its just idiotic [[[Special:Contributions/81.158.50.162|81.158.50.162]] (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

This article really sucks

this article really sucks, i mean how can you have aarticle on rock without mentioning great rock and roll artists like AC DC. this article needs a clean up and then it should be protected to stop people wrecking an article about one of the most important genres in music itself, as rock is so important to a lot of people who don't like rap (eg 99.9% of people with any taste). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albinoblackrabbit (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

History

The section as it stands makes it sound like Rock started in Britain. No mention of Elvis, Chuck Berry or anything? An unexperienced reader would think that Rock didn't come to North America until the British Invasion, which is totally untrue. This rather urgently needs to be fixed. Zazaban (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I second this. After "Early British Rock," the next section begins with "The British Invasion spawned a wave of imitators..." with no mention of the original American roots. The line "...without the race barriers which kept "race records" or rhythm and blues separate in the U.S.," seems to imply that the U.S. didn't properly appreciate "race records," which is incorrect. Rock music is almost always anti-establishment, so mainstream acceptance shouldn't be focused upon. (As an example, my dad, who is an ardent racist, owned many Sam Cooke LP's.) This article is almost totally based on a british perspective (read: opinion) and should be scraped.CancelHoo72 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've cobbled together a brief introductory section on Rock and roll, drawn from the existing article. Hopefully it improves the flow of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Very nice. Thank you. CancelHoo72 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not as bad as you're all making out!

Its not as bad as you're all making out!
It acually isnt ALL correct information but studying Degree history has made me take and interest in the 1960s and their music and culture. The page is useful information and the person who wrote should be proud to have written it.

Everyone edits this article, it's not written by one single person. Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Zazaban (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember, it is the easiest thing to critisize someone elses work

but remember the effort and research that must have gone into this piece! Annoyed, 30, devonshire

Like I said above, thousands of people have contributed to this article, including probably everybody who has commented on this talk page, it is not the work of one person. As such, nobody is criticizing anybody's work, but suggesting how to improve it. Zazaban (talk) 05:19, 24 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) 02:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Coldplay

I've just removed an entire paragraph relating to the British band Coldplay. In my view no band needs its own section in a wide-ranging article like this. Do others agree? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. At best, they should get a one-sentence mention. Tezkag72 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If The Beatles and The Rolling Stones aren't getting their own sections, I doubt Coldplay can ever get ahold of one. The section that keeps being added is just fanboyism.Zazaban (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I count myself a fan of Coldplay but I also agree that this should be an overarching article not a treatise on individual bands. If they manage to produce something so groundbreaking that it creates a new genre of its own then perhaps that would be worth mentioning but I think any mention of them at this point should be limited to something like "among popular British rock acts of the 2000s are Coldplay, artist, artist..". GBrady (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard Rock/ Heavy Metal section cleanup and Pop Rock mention.

I changed the section in hard rock because the wording really bugged me. It just dismisses the genre really in the late seventies by stating their were rarely big hits in the genre at the end of the decade. Boston, Heart, Foreigner, Aerosmith, all had big hit singles in the late seventies and they were in hard rock. Hard Rock maintained a strong popularity well into the eighties. Also, I was wondering if we can incorporate a section on the west coast rock/pop rock genre of the time. rock bands such as Eagles, and Fleetwood Mac were hugely popular in this period but are not mentioned in the article. I guess soft rock would fall into this as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.182.87 (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why funk metal band Living Colour and rap metal band Body Count aren't mentioned in the heavy metal section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.105.64 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the wording a some of the points. However, I am wondering about a few of the example bands, especially in the early 70s. Consider the following excerpt from the section-in-question...

A second wave of British and American rock bands became popular during the early 1970s. Bands such as AC/DC, Grand Funk Railroad, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Queen, Alice Cooper, Judas Priest, Status Quo, Aerosmith, Black Sabbath, Kiss and Uriah Heep played highly amplified, guitar-driven hard rock.

Why would bands like The Rolling Stones (just for argument) be included in the above list and (also for argument) The Who not be included? "Who's Next?" and "Quadrophenia" seem innovative and influential examples of the early 70s hard-rock genera. However, the Stone's catalogue at that period seems more a return to their roots of country and blues: e.g. Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, etc.

Of course, all bands listed above are certainly "highly amplified" and "guitar-driven", but arguably so were most rock bands of that period. However, as written, the section seems to frame hard rock as a precursor to heavy metal and punk -- and, if so, that seems both reasonable and supportable. However, with that progression in mind, should bands like The Stones be credited with moving music towards metal/punk any more than, say, David Bowie or Fleetwood Mac? Really, if anything, The Stones seemed to adopt the elements of hard rock during the early 70s, as they adopted psychedelic rock for "Their Satanic Majesties Request" in the 60s and disco for "Some Girls" in the late 70s.

For the record, I am not trying to insult The Stones or minimize their achievements. I merely feel "hard rock" is better exemplified by other bands. Actually, I could have gone on a similar rant with Queen, another band I love. In a nutshell, while I think Queen played "hard rock" astoundingly well, I see their contribution to rock more in production, tracking, orchestration, vocals, etc. In retrospect, I would say Queen started as what we might now call "progressive rock" and ended as something akin to AM Pop, like Elton John, The Beatles, or a thunderous kickass version of Abba (Freddie forgive me... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansinphool (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_music/Archive_3&oldid=742098100"