Talk:The Byrds

Dubious sentence

I have tagged the first part of the following sentence as dubious:

Although they only managed to attain the huge commercial success of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones for a short period in the mid-1960s, the Byrds are today considered by critics to be nearly as influential as those bands.

With great respect for the Byrds, a look at The Byrds discography as compared to The Beach Boys discography, The Beatles discography, and The Rolling Stones discography reveals that the Byrds never attained the "huge commercial success of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones". If this statement weren't sourced, I would simply get rid of it--but it is. Does anyone have any thoughts? Is this source typically deemed reliable? SunCrow (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Allmusic is deemed very reliable and Richie Unterbeger himself has written a number of books on the Byrds, the entire folk rock movement, and other 60s bands, such as the Beatles and Velvet Underground. So, yes, it's reliable.

The band really did achieve a comparable level of success to the Beatles, Stones and Beach Boys for roughly six months, from mid-1965 until about early 1966. Originally, I did specify those rough dates in the lede, but it was removed by another editor who rightly pointed out that Unterberger only said "in the mid-1960s".

In addition, some of your other changes to the lede either lack adequate rationales in the edit summary, are removing information that is supported by the inline refs, or is incorporating information that is probably too trivial for the lede (their #1 chart success, for example, although I could be swayed on that last point).

To that end, I have reverted many of your changes to the article lede that you have recently made. However, I have left the changes to the rest of the article and the infobox, because they seemed like beneficial edits to me. Please feel free to discuss any concerns you have with the article lede here, and hopefully we and other editors can come to some kind of consensus. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Kohoutek1138, thank you for the explanation regarding the Byrds' popularity vis-a-vis the other bands.

I just made some cleanup-type edits to the lede, which I hope will be unobjectionable. I propose three additional changes to the current version. First, the lede currently states that the band's sound was "immediately absorbed into the vocabulary of popular music." I do not know what this means, and I would remove it. Second, "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Turn! Turn! Turn!" are the two most popular and notable songs released by the Byrds and should be mentioned in the lede. I would re-add the following sentence: "In 1965, the band scored number-one hits in the United States with "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Turn! Turn! Turn!"." Third, the final paragraph of the lede contains material that is not lede-worthy and makes the lede unnecessarily long and cluttered. I would trim it down to the following: "McGuinn, Crosby, and Hillman performed a series of reunion concerts as the Byrds in 1989 and 1990, and also recorded four new Byrds' songs. In 1991, the Byrds were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, an occasion that saw the five original members performing together for the last time."

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey SunCrow, I thought the majority of your most recent changes to the lede were fine and improved things. I have rejoined a sentence about Gram Parsons that you split into two: I think it works better from a syntaxical point of view as one sentence. I also dropped Gene and Michael's last names again because I don't think they're needed to improve clarity, and I removed the part about the group disbanding in 1973 because that is mentioned later in the lede, so it's kind of redundant. So yeah, good work!

The "immediately absorbed into the vocabulary of popular music" is a direct quote from the inline citation, I believe. It basically means that their sound was immediately imitated by other bands -- such as The Turtles, Love, and even The Beatles on Rubber Soul. I agree that it's a bit of a flowery phrase, but I would caution against removing it, because it is important that readers understand that the band's clear, ethereal harmonies and jangly sound was copied by others in the mid-60s. We could reword it, but I tend to avoid "interpreting" sources like that, if I can.

I don't disagree that "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Turn! Turn! Turn!" should be mentioned in the lede. However, adding the wording "In 1965, the band scored number-one hits in the United States with... " makes that part of the lede very U.S.-centric. Wikipedia is read by English speaking people all over the globe and should try, as much as possible, to reflect a global viewpoint. For example, "Mr. Tambourine Man" was also a number 1 single in the UK and, I think, somewhere else like Australia or maybe another European country (my memory's a bit hazy on that). It would be better to just say that those two songs are their biggest international hits or something. I'll try adding something like that now. Let me know what you think.

Hmmmm...yeah, I can see your point about the final paragraph being too long and trivial for the lead. I guess the legal shennanigans over the "Byrds" name isn't really essential info to get across to the reader in the lede. I'll try trimming that too, as you suggest. Again, let me know what you think.

Kohoutek1138, thanks for your comments and edits. I just made a few more edits to the lede. I removed the word "immediately" from the sentence about the Byrds' sound being absorbed into the vocabulary of music, etc. It does not reflect the first of the two cited sources (which is where the rest of the clause originates). I changed the sentence to reflect the source, which said the Byrds' music was "absorbed into the vocabulary of rock", and I inserted quotation marks. I also removed the "to the present day" clause at the end of the sentence, which is problematic because at least one of the sources is dated. I also removed one instance of the word "pioneering" because it was used twice in the same paragraph. I made some other minor edits. What do you think?

I have concerns about the third paragraph of the lede, which I think gets bogged down in minutiae about the band's membership. Otherwise, I think the lede is in good shape. SunCrow (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah SunCrow, those edits are fine and were probably needed. However, I have reinserted the word "pioneering" in regard to country rock. I know what you're saying about "pioneered" and "pioneering" appearing twice in the same paragraph, but the thing about the Byrds is that they really did pioneer multiple genres, which is why "time has judged the Byrds to be nearly as influential" as the Beatles, Stones & Beach Boys, to quote Unterberger in the inline citation. Besides, the word "pioneering" is used by Unterberger in relation to their contribution to the development of country rock, so I think it's fine to reinforce this aspect of the group in this instance.

With regard to the third paragraph, I think it's about as brief and streamlined as it can be already. The Byrds' ongoing personnel changes are dizzying by most band's standards, and are an important aspect of their history. The original quintet should definitely all be mentioned by name, since the period in which they were together is when the band achieved its greatest degree of fame. Gram Parsons and Clarence White should also be mentioned, I think, since they are the two subsequent members that have achieved a degree of fame among rock and country rock fans themselves, and therefore readers might come to the Byrds article looking for information about these two individuals. Likewise, Gene Clark's problems with anxiety and paranoia are pretty well known to fans of '60s music, and his departure from the band for those reasons is arguably the most famous departure in the Byrds' history. So, again, I feel that it's important enough to be mentioned in the lede. So yeah, I'm not sure how it could really be made more streamlined. My feeling is that it's fine as it is and we should leave it alone. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, Kohoutek1138. I am fine with the lede in its current form. SunCrow (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Influence

I wonder about the veracity of this statement

"and McGuinn's jangly twelve-string Rickenbacker guitar was "absorbed into the vocabulary of rock" and has continued to be influential.[1][3]"

Yes, I know it's been attributed - to someone who wrote about them - so naturally enough he praises his own subject, but McGuinn is on record himself saying that he got the idea of the 12-string from the Beatles

So simply their 'influence' is that they copied the Beatles, thus the Beatles are the source.

Montalban (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine. After all, it really was the Byrds and not the Beatles who popularized that jingle-jangle Rickenbacker sound, which has become a frequently heard sound in rock/pop music in the years since. Yes, it was George Harrison's use of the Rickenbacker 12-string on albums like A Hard Day's Night that initially inspired McGuinn to buy a Rickenbacker, but the way in which he played it is quite different from the Beatles. McGuinn used a "rolling" arpeggiated picking style, along with a highly compressed and sustained tone, and it was these elements that gave the band's music that ringing, bell-like jangle that became so influential.

Prior to the Byrds, the Beatles used the Rickenbacker 12-string to play chiming lead lines or riffs, as heard on songs like "You Can't Do That" and "Ticket to Ride", but after the Byrds you get Byrdsian jangly sound in songs like "If I Needed Someone" (which is itself something of an homage to the Byrds) and Nowhere Man, which -- although it didn't actually feature any Rickenbackers -- emulates the Byrds sound. My point being that it was the Byrds who popularized that particular style of jangly sound, even though it had its routes in the music of acts, like the Beatles, the Searchers and Jackie DeShannon. That's really all the "absorbed into the vocabulary of rock" sentence is really saying, with further details about the Beatles' influence being discussed in the "Formation (1964)" sub-section and in the main "Folk Rock" article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Touring members

User EPBeatles wants to add a "Touring musicians" sub-section in the article's Personel section. I don't think this is a good idea. The thing is, with the possible exception of Jimmi Seiter (and even that's arguable), these musicians really weren't members of the band. I feel that including them in a list like this is opening up a can of worms. I mean, where does it stop? Why not add their roadie who subbed on guitar for a couple of gigs in 1968? How about the hired hands who played with three Byrds members during a one-off, three-song reunion performance at a tribute concert in 2000? And if we're listing touring musicians, how about the studio session musicians who played on some of the band's biggest hits, like the "Mr. Tambourine Man" single? I mean, you could definitely argue that drummer Hal Blaine's contribution to the Byrds legacy is far greater than any of these touring sidemen, just because his contribution is heard on the Byrds best know song.

On a wider point, I'm not sure that touring sidemen should ever be listed in a band's Personel section on Wikipedia. I don't recall seeing this as a common thing in band articles. But in the case of the Byrds, listing these hired hands in this section places far too much emphasis on their contributions and elevates them to a similar level as those who were actually bona fide band members. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't disagree, but technically Battin, White and Parsons were hired hands. Rogan's book details the arrangement as them being paid by McGuinn. John Guerin comes to mind as he was with the group for several live performances toward the end of the groups existence. He was not much different than Parsons as far as being a 'Byrd" goes. I think that makes it tricky in the minds of some. Again, I do not disagree with your argument, just wanted to add something you may not have considered as to the why behind someone possibly adding folks like Guerin to the roster of members. Appreciate the work you and others have done on the article. Thanks! THX1136 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Byrds - big as the Beatles for a short time? Discuss

User:Isaacsorry has recently deleted the part of the article lead that repeated critic and music historian Richie Unterberger's assertion that the Byrds attained the huge commercial success of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones for a short period in the mid-1960s. This user's reason for doing so was, in their own words: "commercial success is completely fabricated, their biggest albums (mentioned in the lead) didn't crack the top 10 in the UK or US. Not comparable to the commercial success of the other bands."

Myself, I must admit that I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the lead calling the Byrds as big as the Beatles, even at their moment of peak commercial success in late 1965. But then again, in 1965, singles were generally of greater significance than albums and the Byrds did have two number 1 singles in the US in 1965 – that's one more number 1 than the Beach Boys had in 1965! The Byrds also had a number 1 single in the UK and another top 5 hit in 1965. Plus, contrary to what User:Isaacsorry wrote in the edit summary, the Byrds first album did reach the Top 10 on both sides of the Atlantic in 1965.

In addition to Unterberger's Allmusic Byrds biography, I found a second reliable reference also saying that the band's level of popularity in 1965 was comparable to the Beatles in Ric Menck's 33⅓ series book on The Notorious Byrd Brothers. Menck says that in 1965, "the Byrds became one of the most popular rock 'n' roll groups in the entire world, right up there with their idols the Beatles, and nothing would ever be the same for these five young men again." In addition, author John Einarson says in his biography of Gene Clark that, "[...by the fall of 1965] They were the pop flavor of the month, the group de jour for the teenyboppers, and their faces were plastered across every teen magazine." So clearly Einarson is indicating that their fame was at least of a comparable level to the Beatles, Beach Boys or the Stones.

As for Unterberger himself, he is a renowned expert on Sixties rock music in general, and folk-rock in particular (having written two well researched books on the subject). He's also published a book on the Beatles. So, he is clearly a rock solid source for this kind of information on the Byrds and the Beatles.

I'm just not sure it is really for us editors to "interpret" the cited inline citations in this way. If Unterberger and Menck are saying that the Byrds were as big as the Beatles for a short period in 1965-1966, and Einarson is saying that the band were everywhere in the pop music press and on teenybopper's lips at that time, shouldn't we just respect the sources and say as much in this article lede?

For my part, there are two possible solutions to this matter that I'd be happy with. We either put the disputed sentence back exactly as it was and add Menck and Einarson's citations to bolster it, or (and this would be my preference) we say that the Byrds were of a comparable level of popularity to the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Stones for a short period in the mid-1960s. I would feel more comfortable using the word "comparable" rather than justg straaight out saying "they attained the huge commerical success of the Beatles, Beach Boys and Stones."

I'd be interested in your thoughs on the matter, Isaacsorry, SgtPetsounds, SilkTork, EPBeatles, Richhoncho, Rlendog, and Mick gold or anyone else that wants to comment. Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If we're being entirely honest, no 1960s act attained commercial success similar to the Beatles. At all. The Beatles had 20 No.1 US hits alone during that time, the other three bands combined don't amount to that. So, I think that it should be clarified in the second paragraph that during a short time in 1965/1966, the Byrds established themselves as one of the "hottest groups"--(however you want to word it)--around. It also discredits the Byrds to compare them to other bands, in order to justify their "recognition". It's like putting in the lead of Prince: "Prince was one the biggest acts of the 1980s, comparable to the success of Michael Jackson and Madonna." Unsigned comment 16:37, 9 September 2020 by Isaacsorry

I note that this matter has been brought up previously. SunCrow raised the matter last year. It does seem on reflection to be an odd claim, because the three bands chosen are known to have been very successful, and the chart history of The Byrds is not really comparable to those three bands. It is difficult when reliable sources make statements that are not supported by evidence, and there is a feeling that Unterberger and Menck are exaggerating slightly to make a point about the popularity of the Byrds for a brief period. The Byrds had two number 1 singles in the US, and one number 1 and one top 10 in the UK in 1965, and one album in the top 10 in both countries in the same year. The Beach Boys had four Top 10 singles and six Top 10 singles in 1965 plus success before and after that year. The Stones had five Top 10 albums and seven Top 10 singles (five of them number 1). The Beatles had five number 1 albums and I'm not even going to count the number 1 singles in 1965. The Byrds did very well, but on the evidence they came nowhere near The Beatles - the success of The Beatles was simply staggering. The Byrds certainly had notable success with two number 1 singles in 1965, but so did The Seekers, while The Supremes had three number 1 singles. And looking further, The Kinks had two top 10 albums, and five top 10 singles in the UK and US in the same year, plus success before and after that year. The Who had a top ten album and three top ten singles in 1965, plus continued success afterwards.

"Mr. Tambourine Man" was, however, very successful. It was one of the biggest hits of the year, and while "Turn! Turn! Turn!" also briefly made number 1 in the US, it didn't achieve the same success as "Tambourine". I suspect what Unterberger and Menck are saying is that the success of "Mr. Tambourine Man" made the band internationally famous for a brief period. And I think we'd all agree with that. But the comparison with three of the most commercially successful groups of the Sixties is not helpful. It is difficult when reliable sources use hyperbole to make a point, because we are meant to reflect what reliable sources say. However, we do have WP:EXCEPTIONAL for situations like this. To use such an extraordinary claim, we would need multiple reliable sources: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." At the moment I don't think we have the weight of evidence to support a claim that The Byrds were as successful as The Beatles and The Stones in 1965. I think the wording we have in the lead right now: "Although they only achieved international commercial success for a short period in the mid-1960s, the Byrds are today considered by critics to be nearly as influential as their contemporaries the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones" is more proportional and acceptable than "Although they only managed to attain the huge commercial success of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones for a short period in the mid-1960s, the Byrds are today considered by critics to be nearly as influential as those bands", though it is making the same point. It would be really good if more research could be done to find a source which would nail that success to 1965, and to "Mr. Tambourine Man" in particular, because though roughly acceptable, "achieved international commercial success for a short period in the mid-1960s" is a very vague statement which is not helpful to the reader and a little misleading because they never again attained a Top ten album or single in either the US or the UK. SilkTork (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback both of you. You both make some great points and I more or less agree with everything you're saying. So, the way the sentence in question stands at the moment is, "Although they only achieved international commercial success for a short period in the mid-1960s, the Byrds are today considered by critics to be nearly as influential as their contemporaries the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones", which to my mind is just OK-ish.

My problem with it in this form is that it's quite vauge: what exactly constitutes "international commercial sucess?" After all, just getting a record into the Top 40 on both sides of the Atlantic could legitimately be considered "international commercial sucess". What I want to get across, is that the Byrds were in the upper echelons of the pop world for a short period in the mid-60s, with (as Einarson states) their faces adorning countless teen magazines as the group de jour for the teenyboppers, and two #1 singles in the U.S. and one #1 in the UK.

I'm sort of wondering how we can smoothly include Menck and Einarson's coments (which are detailed more explicitly later on in the article) in this lede sentence. I'm thinking of maybe changing it to something like: "Although their time as teenybopper favorites and one of the most popular groups in the world only lasted for a short period in the mid-1960s, the Byrds are today considered by critics to be nearly as influential as their contemporaries the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones." Thoughts? Suggestions of improved wording? Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The current wording - "..among the most influential rock acts of their era..." - looks fine to me - it seems unarguably true, and far preferable to the more debatable "...nearly as influential as...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the wording, "..among the most influential rock acts of their era...". After all, that's a factually correct statement. But that's not actually what the inline citations say. I don't think it's right for editors to "interpret" inline citations like this: it erodes text-source integrity and smacks of citation synthesis -- that is, combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources.

What the inline citations actually say is that the Byrds are regarded by critics as being nearly as influential as the Beatles, Beach Boys, and the Stones, and that for a short period in the mid-1960s the Byrds were "one of the most popular rock 'n' roll groups in the entire world" and that "they were the pop flavor of the month, the group de jour for the teenyboppers, with their faces plastered across every teen magazine." If anyone can find a reliable citation that actually says that the Byrds were "..among the most influential rock acts of their era..." then great. But until then, I think we should stick to what the inline citations actually say. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What you are doing is cherry-picking citations that support the case that you want to make - that they were "nearly as influential" as the other bands, rather than "among the most influential" (and how is "nearly" to be quantified?). It's irritating, but I'm not going to worry unduly about it - I don't intend looking through dozens of standard reference books to support a statement that is "a factually correct statement" with which you "don't disagree". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm annoying you, Ghmyrtle, that's not my intention. I want to work with you and other editors to make this disputed sentence as accurate and as well supported by inline citations as possible. To be absolutely clear, I would personally have no problem at all with altering the sentence in question to say "..among the most influential rock acts of their era...", because it's true. However, I'm concerned that soon enough some editor or other will come along and change it because that's not actually what the citations say. I've encountered this kind of thing before: a couple of years back, that sentence used to read: "Although they only managed to attain the huge commercial success of contemporaries like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones for a short period in the mid-60s, the Byrds are today considered by critics to be one of the most influential bands of the 1960s. Those were my words, but another editor came along and was adamant that the lede should be changed to more acurately reflect almost exactly what the citations said. That happening again is all I'm concerned about here. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not annoying me, but I don't think it's worth worrying too much about what other editors might do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm gonna remove the part that says "...alongside their contemporaries the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones" because it seems that consensus is not in favour of including it. Also, I do take User:Isaacsorry's point that "it also discredits the Byrds to compare them to other bands, in order to justify their 'recognition'." --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

To jump in way after the fact, I would agree with Silk Torkb& Kohoutek who mentions this early on. The 'problem' lies with the word 'commercial'. From an influence standpoint, it's undeniable that the group were highly influential as were the Beatles, Stones and Beach Boys on other artists.THX1136 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock and country rock

Are we sure that the Byrds originated raga rock, psychedelic rock and country rock? The Beatles' Rubber Soul was released the previous year, and several sources in the article mention that the album was the "first" psychedelic record, as well as a country rock record. "Norwegian Wood" is also a raga rock song. Isaacsorry (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say that they originated those genres - which would be untrue - but that they "were influential in originating" them - which is closer to the truth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm also unsure about folk rock. There's several sources debating whether The Beatles actually created folk rock pre-Rubber Soul. Roger Mcguinn, the Byrds' member, has also said that The Beatles actually created folk rock "without them actually knowing that they did". Isaacsorry (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

There are antecedents, like the Beatles' songs "I'm a Loser" and '"You've Got to Hide Your Love Away", which the Byrds themselves have always acknowledged. There was also the jangly, folk-flavoured compostitions of the Beau Brummels and Jackie DeShannon, along with the Animals' cover of "The House of the Rising Sun" in 1964. But the moment when folk rock finally coalesced into an identifiable sub-genre was with the release of the Byrds' cover of "Mr. Tambourine Man". That's not a controversial opinion at all, and it is supported by multiple reliable references in both this article and the Folk Rock one. The very term "folk rock" was first coined to described the Byrds' music in mid-1965.

Likewise, the band's important role in originating raga rock and psychedelic rock is widly recognised among critics and music historians. "Eight Miles High" was initially recorded in December 1965 and is deemed by many critics to be the first bona fide psychedelic pop song. To quote music writer Domenic Priore, "prior to 'Eight Miles High,' there were no pop records with incessant, hypnotic basslines juxtaposed by droning, trance-induced improvisational guitar." The Byrds also held a "raga rock press conferance" in March 1966 to explain the Indian-influences that they were experimenting with on "Eight Miles High" and, to a greater extent, its B-side "Why". It was during this press conferance that the term "raga rock" was first coined. So yeah, saying that the Byrds were "influential in originating psychedelic rock and raga rock" is not a controversial statement or a "fringe theory"; it's very well recognised by many authors and historians who write about '60s music. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

While raga rock may have first been pertained to the Byrds by critics in the 1960s, in retrospective and contemporary critic articles the Beatles' "Norwegian Wood" has been cited as the first raga rock song--as mentioned in the Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) article. Similarly to how Neil Young came to dubbed the "Godfather of Grunge", yet grunge music wasn't coined in his heyday. Isaacsorry (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we can do way better than Priore with such claims. Regardless, the Byrds originated raga rock because the term was invented for their single "Eight Miles High". Journalists and historians subsequently looked back and identified "Norwegian Wood" as raga rock; after that (historically but not chronologically), writers have said the likes of the Kinks' "See My Friends" was the first raga rock song. Same thing with folk rock (and probably country rock). "Folk rock" was the term given to the Byrds' Dylan–Beatles mix on "Tambourine Man", but writers have since decided that plenty of Beatles and Dylan songs from 1964 if not before are "folk rock" songs. McGuinn cited "She Loves You" (1963) as folk rock. Gram Parsons said "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" was country rock, or at least a blueprint for his work in that style. JG66 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Folk rock", 1963? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle: You mean how can the term be applied retrospectively to a recording from '63? I guess it's the same with, say, "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" being labelled country rock.

I've always found this retrospective genre application something of a problem on Wikipedia, although I appreciate it's just a reflection of how writers approach the issue (and we're merely meant to reflect that). It's probably because I'm interested in the historical aspect of '60s music and the scenes that developed to create labels like folk rock, psychedelia and country rock; whereas so many writers appear to view the music in the present, so to speak, and apply genres that didn't yet exist. So, they end up rewriting history when it comes to a '60s music scene vs a '60s music style. JG66 (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think my basic point is that it is almost always impossible to state definitively that any one band or artist "originated" any specific music genre. It's as mad as saying that, say, W. C. Handy "invented" the blues. All music genres developed gradually out of pre-existing genres, and the mixing of styles, by multiple sets of musicians. If a reliable source states an opinion that, say, the Byrds originated a particular style, it's OK to quote it, but we as editors should never seek to construct such a claim ourselves. (And incidentally, isn't "La Bamba" "folk rock"?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Not only is "La Bamba" technically folk rock, but so too is much of the Everly Brothers' 1958 album Songs Our Daddy Taught Us, technically. But the thing with the Byrds' "Mr. Tambourine Man" is that it combined the poetic or socially concious aspect of folk music that had evolved during the folk music revival of the late '50s and early '60s and married them to a "Beatle beat", to use McGuinn's own term. Dylan's lyrics were intellectual and extremely poetic and once that was blended with a rock beat it was a new thing -- hence the lable "folk rock" being coined by the music press to describe the record, just as it peaked at #1 in the States in mid-1965. It is hard to think of a record by a pop/rock act prior to that which featured such intellectual and literary wordplay. But yeah, I agree that the antecedents of folk rock and its evolution do stretch way back. Like a lot of sub-genres. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Amusing to hear raga rock applied to Norwegian Wood. Using a sitar played in the style of a guitar would not make the song raga rock. Problematic, but using a guitar to emulate the sound of a sitar playing a raga makes a better application of the term which is what the Byrds did. As far as the Fabs go, Love You To is more accurately raga rock than Norwegian Wood. I think the best guidance I would suggest is the 'law of first mention' as some here have detailed. The genre names mentioned were coined to describe the Byrds music and were first used with the Byrds to my knowledge. Seems logical to attribute those terms with the group they were first used with. THX1136 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

***IMPORTANT*** vandalism

In the “Years Active” part, the “1989-1991; 2000” number sequence is linked as a phone number. Does this count as vandalism? And can somebody please remove the link? KevinML (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

KevinML There is no link present in the infobox where it says "1989-1991; 2000". It's just plain text. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It must be a glitch on my phone, then. It’s seriously coming up as a phone number. KevinML (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No the link was removed KevinML (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The photograph description: They do not look 'windswept'.

The description of Crosby coming up at a venue and beginning to sing: Stop perpetuating this great myth that people can just come up, start singing, and be 'discovered' as a talent. In my over half a century on this planet, I have seen MANY very talented singers burst into impromptu singing, including harmonizing at entertainment events and elsewhere, WHO NEVER BECOME FAMOUS SINGERS OR get chosen by a well-known band, etc. Stop the myth. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet, this is exactly how it happened, according to both Crosby himself and Gene Clark. The majority of singers do not become famous or successful, obvuiously, but it's not a myth in this instance. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what your point is. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)