Talk:Rock music/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Furthermore......

It is interesting that there is a lack of African Americans in the history of the music they created!!! There is the token mentions of some black 50's rockers and then we get the nice photograph of Jimi Hendrix. Where the heck is Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding, and James Brown? Any book on rock history covers these important artists---so does the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is amazing that the Tygers of Pan Tang (?) rate a mention--- but Stevie Wonder is not included. The inclusion of every obscure metal band is ridiculous and obviously the work of fanboys living in Mom's basement. This article is racist and inaccurate. It needs to be worked on by someone who really knows the subject.

P.S. Run-DMC are the Kings of Rock!!! 71.41.38.234 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this article some problems with people coming here and editing it to include their favorite bands, and then everyones tearing at it to fix it. Some inclusion at how the black community virtually started rock and roll would be great, but with more of a general touch and not sentences of name listing like the Pop Music article. 24.124.40.164 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with both of the comments above (well, apart from Run-DMC...). The article is a mess, it needs much more coverage of African American contributions, and it suffers from a lack of a clearly referenced overview and an overemphasis on current musicians. People seriously interested in improving this and other articles could help by looking at, and maybe becoming part of, the task force at WP:ROCK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I mean, this doesn't surprise me after seeing the splitting of the terms "rock" and "rock and roll" and lacking many primary sources from the pre-Beatles era that would squash these absurd distinctions. It's pathetic that Wikipedia and this rock article have been here for years and yet African Americans are sorely under appreciated in this regard and are finally starting to be given their due by the same people here who handle this page! I mean, scroll down, and you'll see the talk on doo-wop. Really sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.42 (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

New rave

I restored the deletion of this section, since it had not been discussed here and is a major change. It is pretty clear that this is "made up media term", but then they all are. If we do not have this we need some way of classifying acts from this period. I suggest that the origin and debatable nature of the term is briefly mentioned, but I am open to a better suggestion.--SabreBD (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it already mentioned? I thought it was, maybe in the main article. Zazaban (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have said the main article has this, I don't think its entirely clear in the current summary.--SabreBD (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly shouldn't you add the affects it gets onto people not just socially politically but also emotionally? Yet the only thing i see is that well the time line and recording hits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.65.200 (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Western Swing

You need to consider the role of Swing and Western Swing. Noel Boggs and his phased out electric guitar, Eldon Shamblen and the old man himself Bob Wills. They were a playing rhythm music before Rock too part of the name with it. It was all rhythm music. Stanleybadams (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is valid, but is better addressed in other articles, such as Rock and roll, First rock and roll record (where Wills and Shamblin are mentioned), and Origins of rock and roll. This article basically deals with "rock music" as it developed after the early 1960s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rock and roll vs rock problem (again)

A couple of recent edits, and some points raised above, suggest that what I think is the consensus among regular editors on this article, (that rock is distinct genre that had its origins in late 1950s-early 1960s rock and roll, but really began in the mid-60s) is perhaps not sufficinetly clear in the article. All the other period based sub-headings now have the same format of a title with dates in brackets, except the 50-early 60s one. Would it help if we changed this to something like: The prehistory of rock (1950s-early 1960s), or perhaps The origins of rock (1950s-early 1960s)? The opening section on Rock and roll could then perhaps begin with something like "Rock music had its origins in 1950s rock and roll". Perhaps someone can come up with better title or opening phrases, but I hope the clarification I am suggesting is clear.--SabreBD (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think those points are true, although rather than headings such as "Prehistory.." or "Origins.." - which would generate arguments that the "prehistory" goes back at least as far as the 1920s - why not simply use the sub-heading "Background". This could make the introductory point that "rock music" derives from the coming together of styles in the early 1950s as "rock and roll", and then move on to the changes in the late 50s and early 60s, prior to what the colonies call the "British Invasion" and the start of "rock" proper. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Background is a good suggestion and might prevent the obvious disagreements that we have been around so many times.--SabreBD (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This now done, along the lines of suggestion above.--SabreBD (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The term has never been dropped by the musicians.

Rock and Roll Music (Chuck Berry 1957)Rock and Roll Music (Beatles 1964) Rock and Roll (Velvet Underground 1970)Rock n' Roll (Led Zeppelin 1971) It's Only Rock n' Roll (Rolling Sones 1974) Rock and Roll All Nite (Kiss 1975)Rock and Roll Doctor (Black Sabbath 1976)Rock n' Roll Fantasy (Kinks 1978) Rock n' Roll High School (Ramones 1979) I Love Rock n'Roll (Joan Jett 1982) Rock n' Roll (Motorhead 1987)Rock n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake 1994) Rock and Roll Girlfriend (Green Day 2004)Rock n' Roll Jesus (Kid Rock 2007) Rock and Roll Train (AC/DC 2008)

Rock and "Rock and Roll" are synonyms....."Rock and Roll" is not just pre Beatles music....John Lennon always thought of what he did as Rock and Roll. Kurt Cobain and the guys from Metallica have used both terms (kinda like a synonym). A whale and a bat are very different animals---but they are still under the heading "Mammal". Buddy Holly and Metallica are also very different in many ways but they share enough in common to both be Rock and Roll (or rock). i don't know the motive for seperating the obvious relationship.....age gaps.....racism maybe?.....whatever the motive is .....you're kidding yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for sub-sections

As I am moving towards the end of the great clean-up project there are a few suggestions for changes to sub-sections for consideration of editors, just in case their are any serious objections or useful suggestions.

• Hardcore sub-section

Hardcore was never had much widespread popularity, but it is necessary to refer to it constantly as a source for (for example) grunge, pop punk and alternative rock. Perhaps this would be easier if there was a seperate sub-section in the "Punk and its aftermath section". The punk section could be expanded a little in componsation as taking this out would make it very brief.

• Post-[Brit]pop/Trad British rock sub-section

There is a rather American bias to the 1990s section and a need to deal with the bands that emerged in Britain in the wake of Brit-pop, but before the garage rock/post punk revivial, such as Radiohead, Travis, Stereophonics and Coldplay. Problematically, there is no single easy term to refer to these bands, or wikipedia article to summarise, but perhaps I will be bold and create one.

This now done.--SabreBD (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Garage rock/post-punk revival

Proposal to combine these two short sections. They are the same bands and it is possible to give citations to indicate this. It would point out the two sets of sources for this movement.

(Since there was no evident dissent this now done.--SabreBD (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

As ever, comments very welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed aside

I removed the following text from the beginning of the New Millenium section as it is the only section which has such and intro and is rather. Some of these points seems very - if unsourced, but is odd to have this on only one sub-section. Do we want this sort of introduction to ever section, or is it unecessary?

In the early 2000s the entire music industry was shaken by claims of massive piracy using online music file-sharing software such as Napster, resulting in lawsuits against private file-sharers by the recording industry group the RIAA. During much of the 2000s, rock has not featured as prominently in album sales in the US as in other countries such as the UK and Australia. Another reason for the decline in album sales is the rise in popularity of Hip Hop on many music charts.

The biggest factor that affected the production and distribution of rock music was the rise of paid digital downloads in the 2000s. During the 1990s, the importance of the buyable music single faded when Billboard allowed singles without buyable, album-separate versions to enter its Hot 100 chart (charting only with radio airplay). The vast majority of songs bought on paid download sites are singles bought from their albums; songs that are bought on a song-by-song basis off artist's albums are considered sales of singles, even though they have no official buyable single.

--SabreBD (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If a reference can be found for the statements that rock music accounts for a declining proportion of songs purchased, and that this is explained by the growth in downloads and changes in chart rules, then I think it would be useful to include that in the article. More generally perhaps, if there is any way in which it can be sourced, some text on the global scale of the "rock" market, and its growth over the years (and recent decline), would be a valuable addition to the article, perhaps in a new section - if refs can be found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I will look into this and see what can be done. Perhaps a section just before social impact?--SabreBD (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Electronic rock, dance punk, new rave

I know heroic efforts were made to expand these sections, but attempting to clean them up has indicated a number of problems. Essentially the difficulties are with the source articles that are being summarised or relied on here, which are often confused, contradictory and repetitious. Once all that has been sorted, along with some possible synthesis and OR, all the sections look very thin and I cannot find much to substantially expand them in any meaningful way as the usual sources have not caught up with the movements yet. I will keep looking, but my suggestion is that these are combined into one electronic rock sub-section, that mentions all of these sub-genres. They can always be expanded again if sources catch up with these developments and indicate their lasting importance.--SabreBD (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now done this, trying to make the more concise section at least as informative as the previous three. I called this "Digital electronic rock" in order to leave the door open for a section earlier on that might cover "analogue" electronic rock, (perhaps) between the late 70s and 90s. Views on that proposal also welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rock as an Era

I'm just a nobody in this discussion, but I've always assumed "Rock Music" is more like an era kind of like the "iron age", where you have like domination of tribal music forms, then folk music, then structured/institutionalized music - ie. classical music (which is by no means a limited to western culture) ... and now we have rock music which is basically de-institutionalized music. I doubt any publication champions this thesis, but if you try to crystallize how the term is used, this is a very natural fit for the word. Beyond rock may be a kind of faux "avant guard" era which like fine art will consciously seeks new outlets while enjoying mainstream recognition. You can get the fill of rock taking the backstage even now. That said I love the list like quality of this article, and Rock'n'Roll is something totally different from "Rock Music" in so far as "Rock Music" is really just a phrase, which in reality probably deserves little more than a broad definition than a look at all of the genres of the "Rock era." I guess I'm just trying to say I was very amused this article even existed and attempted to define something which is essentially a zeitgeist of an age in stark terms. --72.173.5.119 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken, it's always been a specific genre. Even during its height there were other popular genres. Zazaban (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

I was reading this (otherwise pretty excellent) article and I noticed that by the mentions of some rather old bands or artists there were contemporary photo's. Wouldn't it be more in style if pictures from their glory days were used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.164.82 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would, but those pictures are usually in copyright - so we cannot use them here. Most of the pictures here were taken by current photographers who were good enough to allow free use of their work.--SabreBD (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Southern origins of rock and roll

I have reverted the recent changed of the Encyclopedia Britanica with the Rock and Roll hall of fame because the Hall of fame is not a peer reviewed source and because it didn't say what the relevant sentence had been changed to. I will undertake to look for over some of the major sources and see if what they say. I should point out that this article is only summing briefly up what is in much more detail at Rock and Roll and a lot of detail may not be appropriate here.--SabreBD (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Im wondering (if it's possible people put relevant titles in their sections!)

Has there been an attempt to make rock music in 1890s Mickman1234 (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what this means, unless time travel is employed? Could you clarify please.--SabreBD (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Musiclological disucssion

Although this article is long, it says virtually nothing about rock as music — in terms of harmony, melody and rhythm.1Z (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that rock music is so diverse that it is difficult to define. We attempted to have a section on definitions which might usefully have had this included, but the attempt floundered on a lack of enthusiasm. I will try to look out some usuable musicology when I have time.--SabreBD (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick look for sources indicates it will be possible to produce a sourced sub-section that deals with rhythm, melody, harmony and songwriting elements such as hooks and riffs. For an idea of what this might look like, if there is anyone unfamiliar, the beginning of the Heavy metal music article provides a model. Although this will have to be a bit more general, due to the diversity of the genre. Perhaps editors can post here if they see any objections. There is the obvious one for every new sub-section - this article is already very long.--SabreBD (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin edits

I reverted recent good faith edits in the Soft rock/hard rock/heavy metal section, because they broke up the chronological flow of what was being said, specifically the sentence they were added to was dealing with the first wave of (psychedelic) blues rock c. 66-67. Zeppelin are mentioned immediately after as having moved the sound on by 1970s. I am not sure what exactly the intent is here: does the chronology of these bands (Cream, Hendrix, Jeff Beck Group) need to be more clearly signposted? Or perhaps there is some other reason I haven't see yet.--SabreBD (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is- if later bands like Queen and Thin Lizzy, which are equally related to heavy metal, are included in the "hard rock" section, then why the heck does Zeppelin not belong there? These bands are included just after the Invasion and Psychedelic crap. Talk about chronology, huh? Scieberking (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This was opened as a secondary point, so is the first point about where Led Zep appear accepted? I am not convinced that Queen, Lizzy and AC/DC are as related to heavy metal as to hard rock: the only mention they get on the heavy metal music page suggests that they were not as heavy metal as Black Sabbath had already been. Its always hard to differentiate these two genres at this point, as the terms (hard rock and heavy metal) were often used interchangeably, but I think this was meant to suggest that some bands stuck to a hard rock sound and others drew inspiration from Sabbath, then Judas Priest and the NWOBHM. I am willing to look again at the issue of where these bands lie in the separation of the two genres if that would help. Perhaps the line is being drawn too early here.--SabreBD (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to remove those bands from there. Any true rock aficionado knows that Queen and Thin Lizzy, both Zep-influenced, incorporated pure heavy metal sound in their early days. Aerosmith and ACDC are even more related to heavy metal. Apart from that, Jeff Beck Group ain't that much "psychedelic" as compared to Cream and Jimi Hendrix Experience. Scieberking (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Being an aficioado is kind of irrelevant here. I would like time to check the sources on this. I should also say that that may take me a little longer as I am away next week, but it has been this way for a long time and it can probably wait a while so that we can get it right.

On the initial point about Led Zeppelin, which hasn't been discussed yet except by me, I would really appreciate an attempt to get a consensus before changes are made under WP:BRD. As logically there are three possibilities:

• Leave the mention as it is.

• Mention Zeppelin with the Jeff Beck Groups in a clause after Cream and Hendrix (I guess creating another chronological distinction).

• Mention all these bands together and drop Zeppelin from the next paragraph.

I should add that the Cream, JHE and Jeff Back Group are mentioned together because that is what the source does at [1]. It would be really helpful if editors could comment so that we can move this away from a two-way discussion and resolve it quickly.--SabreBD (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This one's much better IMO:

• Mention Zeppelin with the Jeff Beck Groups in a clause after Cream and Hendrix (I guess creating another chronological distinction).

As for the Allmusic source, it doesn't even mention bands like Queen and Thin Lizzy in between, or anywhere. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I was citing that as the source for Cream, JHE and JBC. It is used later on and mentioned AC/DC and Aerosmith, but there needs to be another source for Lizzy and Queen. Again something I am happy to look for and see what they say, given a little time.--SabreBD (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks and take your time, but I really think everything should be properly sorted out in a precise chronological order just like the way its on Allmusic, Britannica, or any other peer-reviewed guide. The second suggestion previously offered by you, as I've already mentioned, seemed pretty logical and reasonable. Scieberking (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Piano Rock

The article does not list Piano Rock as a genre , is it not a distinct genre ?

Gulielmus estavius (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't attempt to list every genre and to be honest I am not convinced that piano rock is one in any case: it does not even have its own Wikipedia article, so I am probably not alone in this. However, most of the figures who might be cited as piano rock (Elton John for example) are already in the article. If you think that it is notable enough to be pursued, I suggest finding some reliable sources and adding a sentence or two to the Soft rock article (which is where piano rock redirects). We could then look at that and see whether it has sufficient notability to be summarised here.--SabreBD (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's not a separate genre. The questioner should remember that the very origins of rock & roll are substantially rooted in piano music - long predating even Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable about rock music, but I was a bit surprised when 'Piano rock' redirects to Soft rock which I think does not mention the word 'Piano rock' anywhere. As for Piano Rock being a genre one reference I could find was at Last.fm [2], which thinks groups like Fray ,Keane and Jack's Mannequin to be practitioners of what they consider as 'Piano rock'.Gulielmus estavius (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately last.fm is not a considered a reliable source. I have done a search of the use of the term, but I have not yet managed to find anything that outlines it as a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Beach boys

[Copied from my talkpage] I recently mentioned pet sounds on the psychedelic section on the rock music page. I just wanted to know what was wrong with? Because I personally think that the info is reliable as the beach boys did use psychedelic themes in there songs on pet sounds. thanks for reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.85.232 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Three reasons: it was unsourced and all such statements should have a reliable source, it was I am afraid ungrammatical and finally, it seemed out of place, as with the best will in the world, the Beach Boys were not central to psychedelic rock: in fact the original version of the sentence (which I happened to write) from the psychedelic rock article, goes on to mention that Pet Sounds probably had more impact on pop music. I hope that helps clarify the edit.--SabreBD (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Revival of Progressive rock / other issues

There really should be a section about the revival of progressive rock in the mid 90s with bands such as Muse and Radiohead, considering the huge popularity they have.

Also, I feel the Emo section is way too long considering how new the style is. COmparatively, there is not really enough on Alternative style, since Alternative is such a broad type of rock.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.114.224 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 

I figure that it's good to have the sections for current stuff to be large, as they are talking about rock music as it exists right now. That said, there should be a section on electronic rock/dance punk like stuff, which has become hugely popular in the last couple of years, to the point of eclipsing the other stuff listed in the 2000s section. Zazaban (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Sinebot. The fact that Muse is not mentioned in this article is a complete joke. 209.115.153.68 (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rock, Pop, Rock'n'Roll and Popular Music

These names and lables are without doubt troublesome, but the method of just comparing "Rock" and "Rock and Roll" is not sufficient. Since a lot of the definitions for "Rock" include the vital difference from "Pop" - the terms must be settled together. Is there a more suitable place to do that than here?

Also - why are there such distinct Year dates for the "Golden years" section? Are we dead certain on those exact years? What sources are there for such accuracy. Write "Mid-60s to Mid [or late] -70s" instead. I'm fixing that, if you wish feel free to revert but make sure to discuss it. CentraCross (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On the date issue, I think that this was a valid change to fit in with the other titles and this was just a hangover from older versions of the article. I have to admit I am not quite sure what the proposal is over rock and rock and roll is here. Perhaps you could give a bit more detail.--SabreBD (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is the always reoccuring issue of what is "Pop" and what is "Rock", and the pretty much undefinable line between them. If we are having a major discussion on how to define the term "Rock'nRoll" as opposed to "Rock" on Wikipedia, we should also pay attention to the similar and closely related issue of "Pop" vs "Popular Music"

What I am really asking is: Is there a place on the site when this entire label issue can be properly discussed, and which has the power to set up guidelines for the whole project - concerning how we use these (and other) labels?

If not - I'd like there to be one. CentraCross (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If it has that Authority. CentraCross (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No where on Wikipedia really has "authority" in the sense that I think you mean, but this may be the best place to get a consensus, which is what will be needed for a major change. Even if you do that, to change existing articles you will need to form a consensus among editors of those articles and a start would be to notify them of the discussion on the article talk pages and any related project, in the hope of convincing them of your view or finding a compromise.--SabreBD (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is also a question of whether, or to what extent, these dividing lines between genres actually need to be drawn rigidly on Wikipedia. Clearly there needs to be a degree of consistency of approach, and consistency between articles, but there is absolutely no reason, in my view, why the content of articles cannot overlap. Why does there need to be an "authority" stating that X is "rock" and Y is "rock'n'roll" and Z is "pop"? If the article on "rock" addresses the issue of its relationship with "rock'n'roll", and the article on "rock'n'roll" explains its relationship with "rock", etc., what is the problem? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)