Talk:Seven Ages of Rock

Article Accuracy

I couldn't get past Birth of Rock. I haven't seen this show so don't know if the show really says these things or if the person who wrote it got it wrong. For one thing Clapton wouldn't have been thought of as a god at that time since he was still fairly new to the scene. Also, everyone knows that Hendrix died of a pill overdose and not a gunshot wound.

The mistakes in the first section alone make the entire work suspect.

Episode subsections

The episode subsections in this article read to me more like potted histories of rock music from that era, with no real description of the episodes themselves. Not sure this article is the place for this sort of thing (an exception being the list of artists featured in the first episode, which should probably stay - could this be extended to all episodes?). Spike iron 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The listing of bands was a good idea. Someone else did that, but only for the first episode. I forgot to keep tabs of it. Maybe next time I watch the series. :) The descriptions are all taken from the episodes. What other description would you want? DirkvdM 08:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking dates

I hit return before I finished my comment when I changed the article, so let me explain here. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format — so it isn't about providing a clickable link so much as allowing the article reader to have the date presented according to his/her preference. This is why I wikilinked the dates in the first place and why I reverted the edits by the user who removed them. --Cheesy Mike 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I thought that had been changed. Which I would agree to because the linking a date is pretty useless and clogs the linking (readability) and it's just a matter of following the form of English the article is in. In this case English English, so day-month-year. I understand from the discussion page that this is rather controversial. The 'rules' also seem to say that linking the same date or year over and over again is rather pointless, such as the years in the list. And years don't need to be linked for the reason you mention. But I don't really care very much, so I'll leave it. You change it if I changed your mind. Or not if I didn't or you can't be bothered either. :) DirkvdM 19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanded top

I've expanded the top of this article and created some more Wikilinks, I've also formatted the refs, and added the definite article to the opening line. I know it was not called THE Seven Ages of Rock, but it makes better grammatical sense. I've also put it into the past tense now the last episode has been shown. I'll add more refs to the top section when I find them. I think it would be good to add some comments about the series by critics which migth expand it further. Regards. Escaper2007 12:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Programme 7

With apologies to whoever wrote it, the 'Programme 7' section is pretty poor. It starts off with a sentence of complete nonsense: "The British Indie scene began to develop in the council estates of Manchester in the early 1980’s with groups such as the Smiths, the Jesus and Mary Chain, The Fall, The Cocteau Twins and The Wedding Present, signed to independent labels giving them musical freedom." None of these bands were from Manchester council estates (most weren't even from Manchester), and the indie scene started much earlier. Some other odd passages: "Suede were a sinister group", and "However, afterwards numerous bands followed there style, signing up to Indie labels giving them musical freedom with groups such as Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs and Arctic Monkeys." (in reference to The Libertines). I wonder if this a bit of an essay rather than a reflection of the programme? I didn't see it, so I don't feel that I can rewrite this section, but I would rather someone improved this section as the other alternative is to cut out the poor stuff (which wouldn't leave much).--Michig 11:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost all the phrases i used in it were taken directly from the programme. I apologise if some of the passages became sonfused because of it. I did not agree with what was implied in the programme but merely gave what it said. For example it implied that 1980-1993 the scene was centred around Manchester and the council estates and that the later bands directly copied the Libertines "Like all influential bands the Libertines started off as a solitary voice but then, quite rightly, lots of other bands said 'Lets Run that way', for example you can clearly draw a line from the Libertines to the Arctic Monkeys" "Independent labels give bands space to be as wierd or freakish as they like...and thats key to us". Also the remark about Suede I considered important as it was implied to be the factor in them being influential in moving the Indie scene from Manchester to London. Also I feel this criticism is unfair in the light of the fact that many of the other programme synopses are quite underdeveloped, e.g. The Birth of Rock --Hammard (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it too personally. If the programme said that the 1980-83(?) scene was centred in Manchester, that's fine (though not strictly correct), but The Cocteau Twins, etc., were clearly not from Manchester. The link between the Libertines and Arctic Monkeys is fine, if that's what the programme said, but Franz Ferdinand and Kaiser Chiefs are not really similar, and in the case of FF, were doing similar stuff in other bands before the Libertines broke through. If the "weird and freakish" quote relates to Suede, that's fine, but that doesn't make them "sinister".--Michig (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are including statements from the programme, I think it's important to make that clear, rather than presenting them as facts.--Michig (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok The I will attempt to make that clearer, the weird and freakish quote is from the lead singer of Franz Ferdinand on the importance of Indie music, the quote about Suede does refer to them as sinister, only i dont have it written down anywhere. I think it whould be left as it is until someonelse can see the episode and edit it. I did not mean to present them as fact but rather as the programmes opinion, which was what I thought should be presented in the synopses.--158.143.179.104 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to make the changes I can, however, you may wish to rewrite some of it, I will write underneath why I originally wrote each of those sections you complained for so you can decide: "The British Indie scene began to develop in the council estates of Manchester in the early 1980’s" After rechecking the episode I realise the bit about Manchester was a misunderstanding on my part, however they list on the website that Indie Rock started in 1980 and imply in the discussion "what is Indie" that prior to the early 1980's what would be Indie would be classfied in Punk "signed to independent labels giving them musical freedom." I think this needs to be included somewhere as throughout the programme they say that the key to independent music is musicla freedom of the Indie label. "Suede were a sinister group" I though it was an importnat passage but I feel they way you've edited gets the point across "However, afterwards numerous bands followed there style, signing up to Indie labels giving them musical freedom with groups such as Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs and Arctic Monkeys." I feel I have fixed this necessarily. Can you give me a listof the other complaints you have so I can fix them?--158.143.134.142 (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's much better now, thanks. The only sentence I would change is the one about Arctic Monkeys "taking their style from The Libertines". I think something like "displaying influences from The Libertines" would get it across less controversially.--Michig (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then thanx--158.143.134.142 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode 1 expansion

I have redone episode 1 of the series after rewatching it as the original synopsis only covered a certain section of the episode.--Hammard (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

As this article is about the TV series and not rock music as such, critique should be more appropriate than content. Any ideas on why the two versions of Episode 1 were so different? How can a history of rock in the 60s ignore Hendrix and the Beatles? Was this a political or a commercial decision?

Accuracy: "...Hells Angels opened fire on the audience during the Stones' set, killing 46 people." Both "Seven Ages" and the Wikipedia article on Altemont state one homicide, three accidental deaths. Agbneill--Agbneill (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No creo que este bien omitir bandas como The Beatles y The Doors. Fueron grandes bandas, que provocaron grandes movimientos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.15.226 (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

November 2021

Regarding the multiple issues template, this article is way too long and intricate for the general readers and serves only a very specific audience. One can also see a post in the talk page here, someone just watched some episode again redid the synopsis or something. We need to avoid giving out too many details. And the article makes little mention of the “Seven Ages of Rock” as such and instead delves directly into the episodes. There is no proper, articulate, accurate description of the full thing. And there is no reception and criticism section, nor a history section (if applicable). MxWondrous (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)