Talk:Rock music/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Rock music. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Much of the middle of this article is little more than a description of genres, each one full of a bunch of name-dropped acts. I'm sorry, but this really is about the most pathetic that a popular article could possibly get. By analogy, imagine if the article "mammals" just had a bunch of sections, each on a particular type of mammal, with maybe some particular mammals name-checked in each section. Or if the article "automobiles" was nothing more than a bunch of sections with titles like "The Return of Diesel" and "The Japanese Invasion". 90% of this article should be nuked from orbit. Sections 2 thru 7 could be eliminated almost completely. A person reading this article should learn about the history and characteristics of "rock music" - not "which bands are grunge". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

... And there we were thinking it was a comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced, good article. How foolish and deluded we were. Perhaps if you were to make some useful and concrete suggestions, and show some respect for previous contributors, we might take your opinions seriously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And honestly, put Van Halen on one of these sections. They were a bigger part of rock music than lots of these other artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.22.93 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we update this topic with a section that offers the rock music of the 2010s. I mean it has been 3 years since 2009 has ended, this article has to be update somehow.Picaxe01 (talk)

What recent trends do you have in mind?--SabreBD (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We should be guided by what reliable sources say about music in the 2010s, rather than what individual editors might think is important. Do any sources take that perspective yet? - I doubt it. It's probably easiest to simply rename the heading as "......(since 2000)". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.--SabreBD (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Great article! Really enjoyed it. Shouldn't we write something about controversial bands/singers like M. Manson? I personally think the article should mention shock rock. What does everyone else think? Nataev ^talk 13:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a thought, but I am not sure whether it is significant enough, or there is enough to say, to fill out a whole section. I wonder if something in Social effects of rock music that could then be summarised here might be the way to go.--SabreBD (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't mean to say that there should be a whole section about such bands. Like you said, mentioning them in Social effects of rock music would be enough. Nataev ^talk 10:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless the rule has changed, it is my understanding that statements in the lede still need citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.246.80 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Its a case by case basis, but generally they don't need them.--SabreBD (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

More than that - it's better if they don't have them. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, not contain anything unique.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the 5 pillars: Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed." The policy says anywhere in the article space, which would appear to include the lede. The statement about white males' influence on rock themes is a claim that could be challenged. I know it is sourced in ref 15, but I'm editing from a phone and I can't cut and paste the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.246.116 (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The most relevant bit is WP:LEADCITE, which states that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". If you know it is sourced then there doesnt seem much point in challenging it--SabreBD (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is Heartland rock listed under Punk in this article? It defines Heartland rock as "a more socially concerned form of roots rock more directly influenced by folk, country and rock and roll." This has nothing to do with Punk. Either it needs to be moved, or reliable sources linking it with Punk should be found and incorporated into the article. Right now, it doesn't make sense. Johnny338 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is in that section because the late 1970s were the punk era. That does not necessarily mean that it is punk. Neither is heavy metal. Perhaps "Punk era" is a better title for the section.--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That would make more sense. Right now it makes it seem like it was directly influenced by punk, which isn't necessarily true. I'll go ahead and make the change. Johnny338 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP edits from 5/19–22/2015 are not supported by the references and do not follow policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85 (more info: WP:Jagged 85 cleanup and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85/Archive). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Article quite noticeably stops at 2010. No new genres ...nuffink. It's over then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.230.173 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you name one?--SabreBD (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly true that critics like Kaye, Marsh, Christgau, etc., used the term "punk" in the early 1970s to describe the garage bands of the 1960s. But, can we find a single, reliable source that confirms that? As Dan56 says, simply listing individual examples is synthesis. Rather than keeping unsightly tags, I've reverted to the previous wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are two:

• Laing, Dave. One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning in Punk Rock. PM Press. Oakland, California. 2015 ISBN: 978-1-62963-033-5 - pg. 21-23, 34, 92
• Bangs, Lester. (ed. Greil marcus) Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung. Anchor books, a division of Random House, Inc. New York. 2003 ISBN: 0-679-72045-6 - pg. 8 , 56, 57, 61, 64, 101, 225 Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have either of those books. Are they online, or could you set out, here, a sentence or two from each that make the point? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is too long. It should be more like Pop music, which focuses on the broader subject of "Rock music", rather than the slew of genre spin-offs and subcategories. Most of these sections are more than three times the length of their respective articles' lead paragraphs, when they should be half that (WP:COATRACK).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Rock music and Rock and Roll are the same thing. The article is racist as well.....ignoring artists like James Brown, Otis Redding, and Sam and Dave. Rock according to this article is just white boys banging on guitars. Rock and Roll is generally accepted as a broader term. All the major encyclopedias (except this one) begin the story in the 1940's and include the above mentioned African American acts in the story. All major rock critcs, Rolling Stone, Spin, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame use the term Rock and Roll and include african american acts in the definition.

Finally the artists themselves......Kiss, Nirvana, AC/DC, Metallica, Green Day, The Clash, the Stones etc. etc. all call it Rock and Roll and most have acknowledged the enormous influence of African American acts.

Are you saying that Joan Jett doesn't know what type of music she is playing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are addressing the origins of the genre, (black, white, or whatever), you are simply in the wrong article. Origins and influences are addressed in the Origins of rock and roll, which also covers song predating the 1940s. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Both Britannica and World Book give a great deal of credit to Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding, and James Brown in their rock sections---why does Wikipedia reject the standard definition of rock music in favor of the fanboy definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 August 2013‎

The fact is that there are various overlapping definitions about what constitutes "rock music" and "rock and roll" - just as there are over the definitions of "rhythm and blues", "soul music", and just about every popular music genre that has ever existed. Another article - "rock and roll" - deals with the R&B-derived music which emerged in the mid-1950s and led to the style of music covered in this article. The consensus here is that this article should be the article that deals primarily with the mostly guitar-based music, mostly played by white musicians, that most reliable sources call "rock music". Many rock musicians like to associate themselves with the "rock and roll" of the 1950s, but generally don't perform anything like the same type of music. And, by the way, describing the efforts of editors with whom you disagree as "fanboys" and "racists" is unlikely to help your case. It might also help if you read and try to understand the multiple arguments about this issue that have taken place on this page before - including those in the archives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Whose consensus? It reads like mob rules to me. I am well aware that there are other articles covering the origins of "Rock and Roll" or "Rock Music". I am also aware of the debate in the talk section over this subject. It is just my opinion that it is misguided to reject the standard definition of rock music (rock and roll) that is presented by every other major publication on the planet (maybe pick up a copy of Mojo or Rolling Stone magazine). The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame just let in several guitar acts but also Donna Summer and Public Enemy. What about the consensus of almost every scholar of the music and most of the musicians involved in it? I also believe it misguided at best and racist at worst to leave out the enormous contributions of African Americans to the music. You'll never convince me that "When Doves Cry" by Prince (listen to that guitar in the song) or "Hold On I'm Coming" by Sam and Dave aren't rock records---sorry they just are. It is not "mostly" played by white musicians. Why is a Jazz Rock section allowed but rock's relationship with R n' B is not recognized? The article has improved somewhat over the last year or so (especially the beginning of the article)---but yes it is still very much a fanboy page---rock is simply white boys with loud guitars. Looking at the article today---there are 2 very bloated sections on Heavy Metal that don't simply name the major groups in the movement (like Black Sabbath, Metallica, and Megadeth) but list off a bunch of very minor groups and subgenres that are obviously someone's passion. Why is Iced Earth and Kamelot in the article but Otis Redding isn't? Should Children of Bodom belong in an article along side the Clash, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones? Do acts that were either regional or had cult followings belong in the article? The band Death is in the article---it has never charted a record in the US or the UK and it's biggest selling album sold 100,000 in the US---this is cult act. You direct people to other articles in Wikipedia for R n' B related music but metal is allowed to dominate a good portion of this article. Is this an article on rock music or heavy metal? The first punk section simply lists four acts---Pistols, Clash, Ramones, and Patti Smith---which is fine---that is the more or less the right number of acts to list off--- but many sections are out of control. As for me insulting the "editors"--- I was under the impression that Wikipedia was democratic and we are all "editors". Although that may be the problem here. Fdog9

OK, let me try a slightly different explanation. We write articles here on the basis of what reliable sources say, not necessarily what we personally believe to be true. One reliable source is "The Beat Goes On: Popular Music In America", by Michael Campbell, which is a widely used textbook for musicology and related courses in the US. I have a copy, and this is what it says in its glossary:

rock: (1) An umbrella term to describe the family of styles that share an eight-beat rhythmic foundation. (2) Music made by musicians associated with rock. (Many of the Beatles' songs, for example, do not use a rock beat, but they are classified as rock because they are by the Beatles.)
rock and roll: A transitional style that emerged in the mid-fifties as the precursor of rock.

Of course, the book has whole sections elaborating and explaining these definitions. This article could be rebalanced slightly - I'd probably agree with you that there should be some more about soul music, and less about some of the heavy metal genres - but that can be addressed by relatively minor changes, agreed with other editors, rather than by arguing that the whole article is "racist". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the whole article is racist.....but it is a form of music that was invented and continues to be influenced by African Americans and the article does not reflect that. That at least appears to be racist even if it was not the intent of the authors. The first Led Zeppelin LP has cover versions of African American artists....they obviously love African American music (as does almost every major British act)---that is one example ---I could go on all day. African American influences continued all through rocks history (in defense of this article Hip Hop is covered nicely). A small soul rock section would be nice. I am approaching this not as a fan---although I like soul and r n' b---I am really a huge fan of British rock---but it wouldn't be right if the the article only mentioned my favorites like the Beatles and the Clash. I hope i didn't offend you--it must be a tough page to maintain with thousands of people wanting to mention their pet genres and bands.Fdog9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.169.74 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like as a Wikipedia USER to concur with the views of Fdog and say that I found the neglect of artists like Wonder, Brown, Redding in this article make it feel it was written by people who lived on a different planet from me during this story. The term "Rock Music" is a hugely variable notion I agree, but based on a quote by an eminent member of the Rock Community "Rock Music Is NOT about Guitars, it's about Drums" (F Zappa) I feel the article places disproportionate emphasis on the role of guitars in the MUSIC rather than in the ICONOGRAPHY. What makes "Rock" Rock is the rhythm and the role the drums play within that. Hence the Oscar Peterson trio use drums (or rhythm) in a way that accompanies the piano to create something that is not ROCK, but Stevie Wonder's use of rhythm as the anchor for the rest of the music IS undoubtedly "Rock" music. I thereby suggest that everything from the iconographically correct AC DC through to the Rhythm Machine bound Rappers and performance DJs is ROCK music based on the central rhythms in which regular BASS DRUM/Snare patterns is a uniting and dominating factor. To see Rock described as a white music, male music etc is incredibly disappointing for an encyclopedia of this pre eminence. It demonstrates a restricted view of a glorious whole and a ludicrous attempt to section off whole subgenres where Black people are apparently doing something else from the rest of us. Without wishing to insult, offend or flame people, this article seems to have been written with a very conservative American slant. You've siphoned off white American/British music into this article and bunged the rest somewhere else. Rock is an umbrella term. Soul is under that umbrella. As are many other forms that should be clearly represented in an article of such enormous scope and complexity. I challenge the "GOOD ARTICLE" status and would very much like to see the colossal figures of Soul, Rap, Disco and Funk re-united with the people they have influenced and taken influence from. Until this is done, you are leading a new generation astray and distorting history. Please sort this out and take note of Fdog. My name is Andy. I do not edit Wikipedia pages nor do I want to, but feel that as a user I have a right to comment. Thankyou for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.254.217 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it's 3 years later and no change.....no soul section.....no acknowledgement that this started out as African American music. No mention of records like "When Doves Cry" or "Superstition".....both rock and roll records in my book.....Nope unless it's white---male---and banging loud guitars it isn't rock and roll.....still a fan boy page after all these years....sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

So why don't you try improving it, Fdog9? There currently are templates up mentioning that there are problems with the article. And the article does mention that rock and roll, which, by convention on this article, is considered a predecessor to rock, does mention that it started as African American music. Some quotes from the article: "Its immediate origins lay in a melding of various black musical genres of the time, including rhythm and blues and gospel music, with country and western," "Debate surrounds which record should be considered the first rock and roll record. Contenders include Goree Carter's "Rock Awhile" (1949); Jimmy Preston's "Rock the Joint" (1949), which was later covered by Bill Haley & His Comets in 1952; and "Rocket 88" by Jackie Brenston and his Delta Cats (in fact, Ike Turner and his band the Kings of Rhythm)..." Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and The Shirelles, among others, are also mentioned. Maybe the article doesn't emphasize African Americans enough. Go ahead and rectify that, please.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I may try again. I tried to edit the article three years ago by adding a soul section and it was immediately removed. Actually the mentions of Motown, and soul music in the beginning of the article are the remnants of what I wrote. I also pushed for fusing the articles "Rock and Roll" and "Rock Music". This was rejected. I managed to get token mentions of Prince and Stevie Wonder in the article. There was a time when the only African American acts mentioned were Little Richard, Check Berry, and Jimi Hendrix. So some of my whining has done some good.....it is much better than it used to be. It is difficult because this page is watched like a hawk by a couple of people who believe it is guitars only in rock music and mostly white as well.Fdog9 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fdog9: Please review WP:INDENT, using ---- is not the norm in a talk page discussion. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

In the context of rock music, which is what this article is about, it is definitely mostly white. Rock and roll on the other hand is traditionally mostly black. It's generally accepted that "rock" and "rock and roll" are different genres. They're occasionally used interchangeably, but rock and roll is the progenitor to rock music. At some point rock split to become something distinct from rock and roll. As such, the two have separate articles to detail their separate histories. Lizard (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a good article until you reach the bottom and find a feminist manifesto. There's plenty of female participation in rock music. Granted, not many, but it's not like women we're shunned either. It just makes the entire article look inaccurate and biased as hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.109.162 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(A bot removed my last attempt to start discussion on this article's issues)

To explain why I placed each cleanup tag.

• The article simply has too much detail for its own good. We can't devote this amount of space to every subcategory of rock music ever conceived. The article should be modeled after Pop music, which is straightforward and provides a brief, general overview of the genre's most important points. Too many WP:NAMEDROPS, too much WP:COATRACK.
• The sources hardly ever corroborate the text. There is also a great number of WP:WEASEL phrases like "has been seen", "some saw", "it has been argued", etc.

I added a {{to do}} list for my other thoughts. Hopefully we can get some additional opinions before the bot archives this section.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Rock music and Rock and Roll are the same thing. The article is somewhat racist as well.....either no mention or just a blurb about acts like James Brown, Otis Redding, and Sam and Dave. Rock according to this article is just white boys banging on guitars. Rock and Roll is generally accepted as a broader term. All the major encyclopedias (except this one) begin the story in the 1940's and include the above mentioned African American acts in the story. All major rock critics, Rolling Stone, Spin, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame use the term Rock and Roll and include African American acts in the definition. The article needs a good soul/rock section and it needs to cut down on the heavy metal.....do we really need a list of every metal band that sold 100,000? The result is an article that doesn't mention James Brown (the man that topped Mick Jagger on the stage), but it mentions Iced Earth.

Finally the artists themselves......Kiss, Nirvana, AC/DC, Metallica, Green Day, The Clash, the Stones etc. etc.-- all call it Rock and Roll and most have acknowledged the enormous influence of African American acts.

Are you saying that Joan Jett doesn't know what type of music she is playing? Fdog9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fdog9: Two points: First, please stop the racism accusations. Racism is an attitude more than anything else. And there is no evidence that anyone here excluded or included any information based solely on race. I get very, very tired of the knee-jerk reaction of calling everything someone disagrees with that happens to involve different racial or ethnic groups "racist". If you disagree, please give us clear evidence of racist intent in the editing of this article, not just which artists or which type of music is included.

Secondly, Fdog9, did you edit your comments while signed out? If you didn't then someone changed your comments, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Please clarify whether all or part of the above is your writing, and if it's only partly yours, which parts? Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

First....I don't think the article is racist in the sense that a klansman is racist...but yes, I stand by my opinion that there is a soft racism to this article. Every major rock publication and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have a much broader definition of what rock music is and it always includes the enormous contribution of African Americans to the music. There should be at the very least a soul section in the late 1960's.....Otis Redding was most definitely rock and roll. Until the article accepts the standard definition of rock and roll, I will stand by my opinion. Second....the statement is entirely mine. I must of done a few changes after logging out.....my apologies if that violates any rules. Finally if you suggest I take it upon myself to make this correction, I and others have already tried.....just to have the sections removed.....unless it's angry white guys banging guitars---the people who watch over the article do not want it included. Fdog9 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

For Otis Redding, how about these sources: [1], [2].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Page Rock_music was started by cutting-and-pasting from page Rock (music) on 21 February 2006‎. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think your article might be a bit too long, so if possible could you please maybe remove 1 or 2 paragraphs of your article? Thanks, SamRathbone (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This page may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (August 2016) This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Specifically, rock music subgenres. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (August 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (August 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article gives self-sourcing popular culture examples. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources and remove less pertinent examples. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged or removed. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

If an editor wishes to propose improvements to the article, my understanding is that the talk page is the normal place for these proposals to be raised and discussed. Thank you, OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite - read WP:CLEANUPTAG and WP:WTRMT.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ilovetopaint is right on the meaning of tags and policies, however I think that the aforementioned tags are totally inadequate and clueless for an article as good as this. Of course, it is perfectible (as all articles are), but I do not think it is too long, bloated or filled up with superfluous information. In fact, the article is quite concise, give the lenght and complexity of the history of rock (some leading bands are not even mentioned) and mostly well written. I basically agree with User:Joefromrandb and I would ask him to express his views also here, and not just in edit summaries. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Search Wikipedia for Classic Rock and you get: "For the music genre associated with this format, see Rock music. For other uses, see Classic Rock (disambiguation)." Would someone who knows the definition of both, please add them to the article. Classic Rock is another term for "Rock" (or perhaps "Progressive Rock") of the 60s and 70s whereas Classical Rock is Rock and Pop music played by a symphonic orchestra. Thanks  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How do i listen to the music grrr lol White knight 88 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything who derivatives from rock & roll should be listed as subgenre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

See my comment below. This article is not primarily about rock and roll. It's about rock music. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit a couple of times. My view is that beat music was a genre that developed in the UK in the late 1950s and early 1960s out of rock and roll, and skiffle to an extent (at least, many of the practitioners of beat music were former skiffle players). It can't be a sub-genre of "rock music" as that term is used on this site and elsewhere because "rock music" in that sense did not get started until the mid 1960s. If you take the term "rock music" as incorporating 1950s rock and roll, then I can understand the reasons for the edit, but that's not how the term is used in this article, in my view. Though perhaps angels and pins come to mind. Anyway, we should have the discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No one called the genre is fusion of rock & roll and skiffle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't describe it as a "fusion". Please answer this - during the time that "beat music" existed as a genre (roughly 1958-1964), was the term "rock music" in existence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how this article can be considered complete if some of the largest acts in Rock Music over the last 40 years are not mentioned - Heart, Bryan Adams, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi... Runaways and Joan Jett are missing too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede talks about what has distinguished rock "musically" but it speaks only of instrumentation (yes, the human voice is a musical instrument). I changed this to "instrumentally" but it was undone. Even if we disagree about voices and say that "instrumentally" doesn't quite fit, it is still much more accurate than "musically," which is far too broad a term to use for this. "Musically" would include such elements as meter, rhythm, chord structures, tonality, lyrical structure, dynamic variety, and much, much more. Thus, unless someone has a better suggestion, I will change it back or at least to something similar to what I had. --Sm5574 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Rock music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rock music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As usual, Wikipedia editors (and Wikipedia owners) allow racism and white-washing of history. They also continue to delete my edits and comments that are an attempt to end the racism on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I am keeping screenshots to help prove the lack of free speech that Wikipedia supports in their effort to promote racism, xenophobia, sexism, eugenics, revisionist history, white-supremacy and fascism. --68.173.190.24 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You're lying. It explicitly says " Its immediate origins lay in a melding of various black musical genres of the time, including rhythm and blues and gospel music, with country and western." It also says "rock has been seen as an appropriation of black musical forms for a young, white and largely male audience." It doesn't even discuss the Red Hot Chile Peppers, just uses their picture to show the various instruments characteristic of a rock group. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, please allow me to introduce myself, I am a heavy contributor in articles related to rock music in the Spanish language version of Wikipedia. Through my life I collected many books, magazines, bookazines and documentaries about the rock scenes in many countries. Currently I'm making a major overhaul of the Spanish language article of Argentine rock, which until some months ago was seriously lacking in coverage of many contents, especially thouse about the events in recent years.

Well, the reason why I'm writing these lines is because yesterday I made changes in the chronology of this article, changes I did taking into account the perspective of seeing the evolution of rock through the decades. Ghmyrtle told me in my talk page that the changes were reverted because they were major and should be first discussed here.

So, please allow me to describe point by point my proposed changes:

1) Changing the name of the section "1950s: Rock and roll" to "Rock and roll and aftermath" and including the contents before "British invasions":
Ok, first of all, my proposal is that the names of the sections don't be tied to particular decades, because music is flexible and its evolution is not particularly tied to the arrival of new decades (i.e.: music per se doesn't automatically have a major overhaul when it passes from the last year of a decade to the first year of the next decade). Besides, as the current text of this section shows, its doesn't just deal with the boom of rock and roll in the 50s but also with the milestones from the 40s, thus a title like "1950s: Rock and roll" is misleading. Moreover, the further the chronology goes, we start to have sections like "Psychedelia", "Punk" and "Alternative" that don't have decades in their titles, so it is good to have a certain standardization in all the sections of the article, in my opinion.

Now, here comes the part where I explain the major changes in chronology. I propose that this section and parts of "Early 1960s" be grouped together and called "Rock and roll and aftermath". Normally, books and investigations of rock history have the 50s and early 60s phases grouped together, because it is understood that the British invasions were a force so big, an event so shocking, that they completely changed the music scene that was established in the early 60s, a scene which itself it is commonly seen by the authors as a sanitized, more polished version of the rawer sounds of the 50s. Thus, the article would follow a diagram that is commonly used by the authors of the history of rock, a diagram that I would further explain in the following points. The key point is seeing the high-impact events in rock music, events so influential that they clearly made a complete change in the model that rock music was following up to that point.

2) Creation of the section "British invasions and aftermath" including the contents from "British invasions" to before the explosion of punk:
It is related to my previous point. My proposal is that a section be created covering all the timeline between the two high-impact events in the 60s and 70s (the British invasions and the explosion of punk), the title would be "British invasions and aftermath", which would imply in a short title, and certainly accurately, the many changes brought thanks to the British invasions in the years following that event. After the British invasions, the sound turned increasingly rawer, bands that just some years before had a polished pop sound began to progressively incorporate more and more challenging and experimental themes, which would eventually define the progressive genre. So, in essence there was a kind of generational continuity through this period. There wasn't a high-impact event going from 1969 to 1970 that completely changed the evolution of music genres, instead it just continued to follow a seamlessly course that began with the British invasions. Hell, even the article agrees with this point, in the "Early 1970s" it doesn't describe a major event, it just says that it was a continuation of the trends already seen by the late 60s (really, I think we could just delete "Early 1970s", because it doesn't particulary describe a change in the course of the evolution of rock music). In the 70s bands, the themes and distinctive ideals of symphonic (or, progressive) rock weren't completely discarded. In terms of the scene, much like happened in the 50s-early 60s phase, authors of rock history commonly see the 70s period as a time of dilution of the previous decade, they view the pre-punk 70s as a time of increasingly formulaic models, complexity of the arrangements of music and high-budget projects. The term "dilution" is key: they don't see the pre-punk '70s as an abrupt cut of the previous decade, rather, it is seen as a diluted or more formulaic state of what was going on in the previous decade. Remember: we aren't going to see a massive change in the sound of music, and attitudes from newer bands towards the older musicians, until the explosion of punk in 1977.

3) Changing the name of the section "Punk era" to "Punk and aftermath":
I appreciate that this section forsakes the previous practice of tying a course in music to a particular decade. I also acknowledge that, starting with "Punk", the current contents accurately follow the course of evolution of rock. But, I think the title "Punk era" is misleading. The era where punk as a music genre was a dominant force in the music scene was very brief, just a couple of years in the late 70s. It is, however, the many music genres that took inspiration from punk, its themes and proposals, that would define altogether the course of the evolution of rock in the years following the punk explosion. Thus, I propose the title "Punk and aftermath", which would imply the many changes brought one way or another in rock music after the punk explosion.

4) Changing the name of the section "Alternative" to "Alternative and aftermath":
Related to my previous point, "Alternative" doesn't accurately describes the period, instead "Alternative and aftermath" would imply the different changes brought in the wake of the mainstream explosion of alternative rock.

5) Changing the name of the section "2000s–present" to "Decline of the physical sales and aftermath":
Now, here's the part that I think Ghmyrtle was more reluctant to, because I included a whole new section detailing the changes in the music industry that have altered the rock model of doing things in the 21st century.

The thing is, if we are honest, there hasn't been a high-impact event in rock music since the explosion of alternative rock in 1991. No band has made a change so influential, left an impact so evident, did a turn so revolutionary, that altered the course of the evolution of rock music in the years that have passed since 1991. In spite of that, it is clear that changes since then have happened. The rock scene today is clearly not the same as in 1991. And, for certain, things don't work today as they worked in 1991. Previously, an upcoming band with a completely new sound could make an impact by being signed to a major label and then smash the whole scene with their musical proposal. That's how the big changes through the evolution of rock music were made, young musicians that brought fresh air to a certainly stagnated, formulaic scene. But today things work very different than before. Today, it is much more harder for new rock bands to be signed by a major label and rise to stardom. Thus I started to search, through books, magazines and web pages, what could have possibly happened in all these years that could have led to this present state? What has happened that has made that in all the years since 1991, there hasn't been a band so revolutionary that could shatter all models in the rock scene? And then I found it. The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as I point out in the many references that I included in my text, made a significant overhaul in the way media companies work. Previously, there were limitations to the number of media outlets that a certain company would have; in essence, this was an anti-monopoly measure that allowed small media enterprises to display their products using their ingenuity and counteracting tactics to survive against high-budget media companies. But the Telecommunications Act of 1996 dismantled the measures that prevented a high-budget company from completely dominate a market, and in the years following the issue of the Act there were indiscriminate and massive purchases of radios, and increase of monopoly in the media industry, to the point that nowadays, the top 1% artists earn 77% of all music revenue, the top 3 labels control roughly 90% of the music you hear, and from the situation in 1983, where 50 companies controlled 90% of US media, now only 5 companies control that 90% (Comcast, Walt Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, and National Amusements). Thus, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 brought increased homogenization of sounds, greater restrictions to rises from newer and independent artists, the loss of local programming, and the establishment of programming that is exactly the same no matter which US region you are in, with even the same DJs and announcers. The Act would also signal why there hasn't been major changes in rock; previously, changes were due to cultural shifts, which are flexible and, shall I say, informal. But the Act was a completely different kind of thing, because laws are rigid, they are established in a formal frame and the only way to change them is through legal means, not through cultural shifts. Thus, this would explain why the situation has become established through the years and no cultural changes (new rock trends) have altered it.

Ghmyrtle argued in my talk page that this view only takes into account the situation in the US. The thing is, the US is not any country in the global scene of music. The US is a major producer of media and entertainment. In fact, it is "the" global producer par excellence. Any change that happens in the US is bound to alter the course in trends in all the other countries in the world, no matter how distant they are geographically, culturally, politically or ethnically. In addition, major media and entertainment companies are headquartered in the US, and their subsidiaries all around the world follow the legal frames and parameters from their parent companies. This is showed in that, even if you are from Argentina, when you read the terms of agreement of a certain software or online service, you read that you must comply with the Laws of California or the Laws of the US. Thus, a shift in the US music scene has effects in the scenes of the UK, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, etc. The enormous influence that the bands and artists from the US make in the rest of the world alters the kind of product that the other countries are going to generate. And the US models in media and entertainment also affect those patterns.

In the rest of the section I describe a certain pattern since 2000 of increasing growth of online consumption of music, and progressive decline of physical sales. Again, I included an ammount of references in the text to support this content. I talk about 1999 as the last year of an era, the last year that the music industry had growth in revenue, the last year that the CD as a format achieved growth. The following years not only the industry would never reach that peak again, but also each year would be a step down the stairs, with no steps upwards. I also talk about Napster and how, although it failed, set a precedent that other enterprises would follow. Then I talk how starting in 2013 the industry began to make small improvements in revenue again, now with a new model based on streaming and Youtube views. In truth, there are also now niche markets such as the return of the vinyl as a kind of "deluxe" or "collector" thing with high quality sound, but by far most of the revenue now is by online consumption. Rock is one of the genres that were most benefitted by the continuous technology advances in music recording through the decades, exemplified in the success of longer lengths in vinyls, which made possible the concept of gathering many separate singles to form a music album, and which in rock music led to a model of producing albums where all the songs follow a particular theme (the concept album). Thus, the return to stardom of the single format in the music industry and the decline of rock's favored format, the album, has had big effects in the course of rock music.

Lastly, I changed the name of the section "Mainstream decline (2010s)" to "Problems in the mainstream charts". Obviously, it is related to my proposal of standardization of titles and abstention of using decades. But also, declaring that rock is banished from the mainstream is hugely misleading. Rock continues to be mainstream in many countries around the world. Rock is one of the dominant genres at least in North America, Europe, Latin America, Northeast Asia and Australasia. Rock bands and artists continue to have some of the highest grossing tours and gigs all around the world, their albums continue to be among the best selling albums of the year, and news about rock are broadcast in significant media outlets. If we are talking about that nowadays the top 10 in the Billboard Hot charts are artists from pop, hip hop or electronic music, then it isn't the first time this has happened in history, lots of times since rock was born the top 10 was dominated by other genres of music. And, seeing the long-term effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it is completely unsurprising that rock would be dented by more polished genres. But then again, this is only a phenomenon seen in mainstream charts, and if your only means of evaluating the state of rock music is by listening to what the major media companies churn out through the mainstream charts, well, you would be misled into thinking that rock has banished from the mainstream, when in truth these are only "problems in the mainstream charts", hence the proposed title.
And those were all the changes I made in my edit.

One last commentary before I finish. I don't think rock will ever disappear. Rock has already made an impact so huge in the history of modern culture that I doubt that it would ever completely fade away. One can't delete, just like that, a musical movement that broke so many records and starred in so many significant cultural and political events of so many countries. Just think about this: before rock appeared, how many music genres could fill up a football (or soccer, if you are from the US) stadium? A couple of months ago, I was vacationing in the seaside city of Mar del Plata, and all of a sudden hoards of people appeared blocking the wide seaside boulevard avenue: they were gathering for the concert of Divididos, an Argentine rock band. The next day, the newspaper said that 140,000 people were in attendance. These are the kind of things that show you that rock will never die.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope you get responses from other editors, but WP:TLDR may apply. My own views are:

1. I think your first point has some merit, and I'd be happy with a section cut-off round about 1963.
2. What you are then suggesting is, effectively, a merging and lengthening of existing sections, in a way that would not be especially helpful to readers - although, I do think that (say) 1963 and 1976 are good start and end points. Personally (as I'm British) I loath the excessive use of the term "British Invasion" - it's a cheap journalese shorthand for the adoption by British bands of, firstly, R&B music largely ignored by mainstream white US, and secondly the performing of self-written material. What your second section in fact covers is the transition from "r'n'r" into rock, via the British bands, surf music, garage bands, psychedelia, prog rock, etc. - but then continuing on into the splitting of "rock" into discrete sub-genres like heavy metal, soft rock, glam, etc., in the early and mid-1970s. I think that's potentially confusing, and perhaps all we need are more informative headings for the existing sections, perhaps with some tweaking.
3. I've no problem with "punk and aftermath" as a heading....
4. ... but I dislike "Alternative and aftermath". What does it mean? - in fact, I'm not comfortable with "Alternative" as a heading.
5. The main problem for me, as you say, is the interpolation of your suggested section "Decline of the physical sales and aftermath" (that word again). It's a problem because the article is essentially about the music itself, not about the way it is packaged and marketed. So, the text about the changes in the music industry should be set out (if they haven't already been) in the article on the Music industry. Perhaps some aspects could be briefly summarised here, but they should not be the main focus of an entire section - and legislation that is specific to the US, while important and globally influential, should not be given undue weight. (Bear in mind, for example, that half of the top eight best-selling acts in the rock era are British.) You refer to "Problems in the mainstream charts" - again, this is not discussing the music itself, which is the focus of this article, but rather its promotion and marketing. That's important, of course, but it's not the story we should be telling in this article, in my view.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ghmyrtle, I agree that my post may have been a little long. It's just that I wanted to properly explain my proposed changes. Now, in response to your comments:

2) I don't see it as troublesome that the section would be lengthened. Also, one has to bear in mind that the period between 1964 and 1977 was a time of a multitude of changes in rock music and increasing improvement in the mechanics of recording. Thus, in my view, it wouldn't be the section's fault that it was lengthy, rather, it would just reflect how the situation and changes in rock history were (also, the "Punk" section covers events spawning 13 years, almost the same as my proposed section). I also don't see it as confusing that we include in this section the genres that gained prominence in the pre-punk 70s (metal, soft, glam): they had roots in the genres of the late 60s, instead of being an abrupt cut to the previous sound like punk was.

4) In that title I meant that, after the explosion of alternative rock in 1991, there were other genres that gained prominence. Besides "alternative", I can't think of any other word that would concisely and accurately point out the main force of change.

5) But if we go by the argument that the article should be discussing only the music itself, then the "Decline in mainstream" section shouldn't be here. Neither should be the "Early 1970s" section. Personally, as the evolution of rock is intrinsically tied to technological and cultural patterns, in my view there has to be some explanation about them, in order to properly understand why the changes in rock happened.

--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:TLDR isento (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your changes made this article far less accessible to readers. Follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This article encompasses many different trends, time periods, and styles. Provide an accessible overview, relegating further detail to the sub-articles. This article was delisted from GA-status because of WP:COATRACK and WP:DETAIL issues, issues which you've made worse IMO. The previous structure worked fine in suggesting or intimating a kind of chronology to readers, without getting hung-up on details of chronology. Many relocations make no sense - you imply that subgenres like jazz rock and rap rock are products of the British invasion. isento (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Isento, be careful, it is a vandalism to delete a stable version that has been since months, and without first discussing here. I gave one full month to anyone willing to discuss the proposed changes here, the fact that there weren't comments opposing my proposals were a sign of their approval.

My proposed version is more helpful to the readers, because it follows a chronollogical, linear narrative. The previous version was too confusing and didn't have a focus in the reasons why the trends happened (say, progressive rock appeared out of nowhere, it didn't have any relation to the huge influences brought in 1964 by the British invasion).

If the article was delisted from GA-status, it was with YOUR proposed version. So, it is YOUR proposed version that is inferior and deficient.

Lastly, the fact that you don't see any relations between the huge long-term changes brought by the British invasion and the genres that spawned in the following 13 years, is a huge warning sign that you lack knowledge of the history of rock.

--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Diablo del Oeste - please do not describe other editors' good faith edits as "vandalism"; please do not claim that your knowledge is superior to that of other editors; and please do not try to claim that any editor's failure to discuss your edits here within one month means they lose the right to discuss them. That's not how it works. Many of the posts on this page are TL:DR. What is needed is a succinct summary of the differences between the versions, so that constructive discussion can develop. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't "good faith". He edited in a very denigrating way, the first thing he said was that it was "awful". Rodney Baggins has just said something about erasing 41 editions, well... Isento erased the hard work of dozens of users that edited in the past months in this article. So, Isento did a much worse thing than anything that has been seen in this article, and the clearest sign of all, is that he erased info worth 18,000 characters that was compiled over the last months. Without reasoning, without coming here to talk it over. And that's vandalism.

TL:DR is a guide on how to write articles, not talk pages. Talk pages are supposed to be the places were changes can be discussed in all the length that is necessary. After all, Wikipedia's policies about dispute resolution state that there has to be significant discussion before a third party is called. Now tell me, Ghmyrtle, did you provide significant discussion back in April? No. You just walked away, and I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't by this argument with Isento, you wouldn't respond my message again.

Anyway, I have the knowledge from lots of books about rock history, and I certainly had the patience to navigate through all of them. And if you have the patience and attention span to read my arguments, and to follow Wikipedia's procedurals in dealing with edit disputes, then you are welcome to this debate. My arguments have been there for you to see, since quite a few months ago.

--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In your revision, there is practically no discussion of the British invasion in any of the subsections that follow the first two or three subsections in your "British invasion and its aftermath" concoction, in which there are 21 subsections. Doesn't exactly establish itself as a section about the British invasion, now does it? isento (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Given Diablo's attitude towards other editors and their edits, I see little point in trying to engage with her/him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And Ghmyrtle walks away from the discussion... again...--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Besides, I searched in the history of the article and you continued editing the article after I made those changes, so in the following 4 months you didn't have an objection to the proposed changes.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I summon the following users: MusenInvincible, Sundayclose, CherokeeJack1, Antikillerspirit.

Alright, I summoned you to notify you that your hard work editing the article of Rock music, the hard work in which you spent the last 4 months, the hard work you made investigating in various sources, gathering information, compiling it and editing it in a comprehensible way that is fit for the Wikipedia standards, all of that hard work worth 4 months and more than 18,000 characters has been erased in just 1 second by the user Isento. Without discussing it, without wanting to reach a consensus. This most heinous act of vandalism, clearly typified in the category «Blanking, illegitimate», doesn't have a place in Wikipedia and must be stopped.

In my proposed structure of this article, your good faith editions will be restored. Also, the good faith editions that Rodney Baggins has made over the last days will too be restored; through this discussion we will find a way to compile all of that varied information from various users in a comprehensible text, fit for Wikipedia's standards.

--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Rock music and Rock and Roll are the same thing. The article barely mentions or outright ignores artists like James Brown, Otis Redding, and Sam and Dave. Rock according to this article is just white people banging on guitars. Rock and Roll is generally accepted as a broader term. All the major encyclopedias (except this one) begin the story in the 1940's and include the above mentioned African American acts in the story. All major rock critics, Rolling Stone, Spin, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame use the term Rock and Roll and include African American acts in the definition.

Finally the artists themselves......Kiss, Nirvana, AC/DC, Metallica, Green Day, The Clash, the Stones etc. etc. all call it Rock and Roll and most have acknowledged the enormous influence of African American acts.

Are you saying that Joan Jett doesn't know what type of music she is playing?```` fdog9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed here many times, and the consensus is to have separate articles on 1950s-style rock and roll (and Its precursors) and post-1960s rock music, with an explanation in the text of the relationship between them. "I Love Rock'n'Roll" is certainly not 1950s-style rock and roll. But on the question of whether this article should have a clearer explanation of the relationship between rock music and soul music, disco, hip-hop, etc. etc.... I agree. It need not lengthen the article (which would be a problem) if parts of the current text, covered more fully in other articles, were removed to make way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur with your sentiments and text. BTW: Wikipedia has been blocking and harassing me for over 7 years. They cut you some slack, congrats. Please continue to share your wisdom and insights. They'll probably remove my response within days, but if they leave it up, it's only because it would be too obvious to delete mine and keep yours. Let's see what their fascist tactic is. BTW: I keep screenshots, have had some for years to prove the Wikipedia fascism, white-supremacy and sexism. They are BIG BROTHER.68.173.190.24 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Good news. Thus far, the racists, white supremacist editors have not deleted my talk page responses, as of November 27, 2019. After almost 10 years of harassment and being bullied by the racists, it's possible that they have lost in court or have been told (finally) by Wikipedia executives, to stop the bullying, harassment, and white-supremacist tactics. Let's keep a close eye on this situation. (I am not alone in this fight, other victims are coming forward.)--68.173.190.24 (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I Love Rock and Roll is indeed somewhat different than 50's style Rock and Roll but in the end both Buddy Holly and Joan Jett are a guitar, bass, and drums. It's the same style of music. A bat and a whale are very different types of creatures but they have enough in common to be called mammals. It's all Rock and Roll and the article should be titled that way. Fdog9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the history sections should be spinned off into a new "History of rock music" article. The current article is too long (this was [Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rock music/1 - Wikipedia}(cited) as a reason for the demotion from GA status). Instead, the article would have a short history section that summarizes major developments in rock music in a single narrative without any subsections, and another section which outlines the subgenres alongside a short description of each (they could still be chronologically listed). I am willing to do all the work and will do so if no objections arise. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Nevermind, the article is fine as it is. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Rock music has all of its subgenres listed under it, but when I tried to do the same for Electronica, Heavy Metal, Extreme Metal, Metalcore, Punk Rock, Hardcore Punk, and Electronica, my changes kept getting reverted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:C4D:3A4:9D96:4EF2 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Most times I visit the 'rock music' Wikipedia page, and pages on Wikipedia relating to American popular music and I mean every year, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to attack already established facts and mislead the general public by editing historically factual origins of rock music, and other musical styles to favour the contributions of a particular American ethnic group. Most especially, African American. (This is not an attack on any ethnic group, but a rebuke and ridicule of the troublesome editor themselves).

These biased changes keep going back and forth and are disturbingly ridiculous because most oblivious people view Wikipedia in this age as the most reliable source of info on just about anything, and being info on it it is constantly being tampered with, it sets a bad precedent.

In all actuality, the origins and foundations of rock and roll, rock music and American popular music have been hotly debated by scholars but also generally agreed by them that it is the mixture of the musical styles of different ethnic groups relative to the location that it arose out of.

Instead of childishly editing historical facts to suit one's pride, and by doing so, misleading the general public who read, and use and depend on this info immensely, one really should go back to the books, and scholars to update their knowledge of historical facts and figures before publishing arrant nonsense for 'God knows whatever ridiculous reason'

Revisionist history is a disease. Please whosoever partakes on this crime should desist from such and grow up.....before Wikipedia becomes a joke. Antikillerspirit (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you find out new, conflicting information, very well founded, do you change your views to accommodate? It's difficult to do so, I acknowledge that.

In my view, ignoring new information is the disease. No, it's more like a poison seeping into American culture these days. An anti-science, anti-research, anti-expert, anti-education poison.

We could continue to portray a false white-folks-only sock-hop image of rock music, with buzz cuts on the guys, and poodle skirts for girls, all American Graffiti–like, but after new writers have revealed previously under-represented history, some new foundations of the topic have exploded established notions. The guideline WP:OLDSOURCES encourages us to embrace new scholarship while reducing the weight of older thought. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Rock music and Rock and Roll are the same thing. The article barely mentions or outright ignores artists like James Brown, Otis Redding, and Sam and Dave. There should be a whole section on Motown!! Rock according to this article is just white people banging on guitars. Rock and Roll is generally accepted as a broader term. All the major encyclopedias (except this one) begin the story in the 1940's and include the above mentioned African American acts in the story. It is telling that currently the only picture of an African American act is a mural of Chuck Berry. Berry didn't even rate a real photo apparently. All major rock critics, Rolling Stone, Spin, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame use the term Rock and Roll and include African American acts in the definition. Finally the artists themselves......Kiss, Nirvana, AC/DC, Metallica, Green Day, The Clash, the Stones etc. etc. all call it Rock and Roll and most have acknowledged the enormous influence of African American acts. Are you saying that Joan Jett doesn't know what type of music she is playing? Fdog9 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Fdog9

Personally, if this were sent to a merge discussion I'd oppose it, as this discussion has taken place many, many times and has always come out that there is too much differentiation between discussions of the genres to be one single article. Also, that books like From blues to rock: an analytical history of pop music and Popular Music in America: And the Beat Goes on both cite rock and roll's decline as being in the late-'50s to early-'60s, which was definitely not when the entire rock genre saw a decline. As for the Motown topic, I personally haven't seen many reliable sources relating Motown directly to rock, it seems to be more often associated with rhythm and blues, however if you can find some they would probably be good inclusions. I also just want to point out that there is now two ongoing discussions on this talk page as to whether the article is biased in favour of black artist or if it puts too much emphasis on black artists. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Rock and roll isn't a separate genre that declined in the early 60's. Other than being louder, acts like Creedence Clearwater Revival and Bob Seger have the same elements as what you call "Rock and Roll (the rock and roll that died in the early 60's supposedly)". Seger, for instance, has many Chuck Berry riffs in his music. So does AC/DC! The Rolling Stones probably owe their entire careers to Chuck Berry!! I think there is a mistake of making subgenres into actual genres of music. Heavy Metal has it's roots in blues, the British Invasion, and surf guitar. It's just a mutated version of what came before. Buddy Holly, Elvis, Chuck Berry, and Bo Diddley all used guitar, bass, and drums (and sometimes piano). What is Metallica? What is Green Day? Guitar, bass, and drums! If you look up "Mammal" in wikipedia.....you will find out that a mammal could be a blue whale or a bat or us!! Rock and roll is the same thing......It could be Chuck Berry or the Go-Go's or Metallica. You cited two books. Look at "The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll" or visit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Motown is most definitely rock and roll according to many sources. The Stones and the Beatles have covered Motown songs because they were perfect fits into their sound. "Hot Stuff" by Donna Summer, "When Doves Cry" by Prince, "Superstition" by Stevie Wonder (which inspired Led Zeppelins "Trampled Underfoot).....all sound like rock songs to me. This article ignores Black artists and it is criminal. As for two discussions on the subject, I posted this years ago and it was censored and as long as the article remains incorrect, I will repost it. Besides the benign racism of the article merits two discussions....it's 2021....time to be inclusive. I mean African Americans invented the music and you'd think they had little to do with it from this article. Fdog9 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You can state all of this all you want, but it won't make a difference on Wikipedia unless you provide WP:RELIABLESOURCES to back everything up, and reference specific parts of the article that you want changed. Otherwise there's no objective discussion, just difference of opinions. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This has all been discussed multiple times before - check the archives. One of the factors is the need to keep articles to a reasonable length. Another is that there are multiple different definitions of what constitutes "Rock music" and "Rock and roll", and no one definition is more correct than any other definition. Put at its simplest, some definitions would include R&B, reggae, etc. etc. while others would not, and there may well be cultural differences between the US and the UK (and the rest of the world) over which terminology is most used. "They all sound like rock songs to me" is not a valid argument. An option could be to rename the Rock and roll article as Rock music (1950s) - but that is not what it is commonly called. Rather than simply rehashing old arguments at length, I will simply agree with Issan Sumisu, and suggest checking the archives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made changes to the article and cited sources. Some have stuck, most notably in the British Invasion section. Anytime I try to expand the article to include Motown or African American sounds, it is quickly deleted. It doesn't matter how many sources I provide. As for it being cultural, I read the British magazine Mojo and they seem to subscribe to the notion that rock and roll is a broader term. I have British friends, and they seem to think Aretha Franklin or Bob Marley falls under rock and roll. Franklin and Marley are both in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The majority of sources do define rock and roll as this broader term. The article actually cites Robert Christgau and I've read his work and he believes rock and roll to be a broad term as well. So this is simply a group of editors with an opinion. It's (almost) unbelievable that the ethnic group that invented the music barely gets a mention! At least give Chuck Berry a real photograph (not a mural) and restore the picture of Hendrix (I guess Prince is too much to ask for). It's 2021....the article is embarrassing fellas!!Fdog9 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support trying to find a way to include a picture of Hendrix here. If anyone wants to swap him for Clapton, be my guest. I don't know why we use a Chuck Berry mural but not a picture of Berry himself, but it might be an image rights issue. As for Prince, he is sort of in his own category genre wise, so it may be hard to find a right place for him (he's mentioned in the section on glam rock, but I don't think that would be a good fit). -- Calidum 15:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You're still speaking too generally, just mentioning that Mojo says something isn't notable unless you provide a quote with info on what issue its mentioned in. This can't get changed unless you try to work with other editors, instead of presenting them as a barrier to your preferred style of the article. I'm personally not at all opposed to the inclusion of black artists, but how can they be further mentioned? In the 1950s section, there's 30 artists listed, 18 of which are black and it's explicitly stated multiple times that it is melding of various black musical style. This emphasis on it is even discussed in the threat above this one as apparently putting too much emphasis on its black origins (which I disagree with). Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I support the image changes Calidum mentioned above. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll try again to work some Black sounds into the article and see if it sticks. Yes African Americans are mentioned in the beginning of the article and that's great. I think Black music had a continual influence on the music that isn't reflected in the article. One thing I put in long ago was rock's relationship with hip hop citing the Clash and Blondie's early Hip Hop influenced songs and managing to get Run DMC mentioned. That amazingly has stuck. I think the article needs to acknowledge the continued influence of Black music on Rock and Roll. Rock heroes like David Bowie (listen to Young Americans) and The Clash (Police and Thieves) knew it....we need to do better.Fdog9 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Fdog9 has only made a few edits to the article, mostly 12 years ago, in 2009, and a couple more in 2016. I don't see a recent pattern of trying to include black musicians and being reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have only been periodically involved in editing the article--it's true. I did get the section on the Beatles impact in America which is still there (Ed Sullivan....whole top 5....that's me!). I did manage to get Prince and Run DMC mentioned. The first two sentences of the hip hop section is still me. I did write a section on Motown and Soul artists and also Phil Spector which were either removed or edited down. A friend of mine when wild one time and had Soul, Reggae, and Disco sections. They were all quickly removed. I came to the conclusion that the inclusion of Black music was going to be a tough sell. The top comment was there for years as a protest really....I really thought it would be ignored. I do understand that there are regular editors of the page and it must be tough dealing with a subject that everybody has an opinion about.....There seems to be tons of stuff that probably should be removed but can't (Christian rock comes to mind). Until recently, I worked 60 hour weeks....but life is slowing down now. So I'll give it another shot. Fdog9 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

On the article overview, There was a paragraph about the start of the Album Era in rock music and how it was important, although it seems to have been deleted. Before its deletion, I did edit it to include the Albums Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, and Rubber Soul as prime examples of the start of the era, but, like I said, it has been completely deleted. Is it unnecessary to add a paragraph explaining the start of the album era in rock music? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defwe12 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is not in ideal shape, including the lead. But reliable high-quality sources demonstrate the importance of the album era in rock music. So I don't see how it isn't any less worth of a mention than anything else in that paragraph, including the so-called "classic rock" period. isento (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also correct to refer to the Beatles as effectively kicking off the "album era". Whitburn - in a quote specifically referenced in the text - says "The arrival of The Beatles on the music scene in 1964 ushered in the rock album era. Soon album sales exploded and eventually outpaced the sales and releases of singles." Multiple sources can be found saying essentially the same thing. (The 1964 date of their "arrival" refers to the US, of course.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: The disagreement with another editor is over the inclusion of the sentence: "Beginning with the Beatles, rock musicians in the 1960s advanced the album ahead of the single as the dominant form of recorded music expression and consumption, initiating a rock-informed album era in the music industry for the next several decades." This is an important background statement, and something like it needs to be included. To me, it seems almost self-evidently true - and is supported by reliable sources. Whitburn explicitly mentions "the arrival of the Beatles" as "ushering in the rock album era". The other citation for the sentence is this article from 1997, which states: "the big growth in the music business was in the album era, when rock musicians started to see themselves as something more than suppliers of ephemeral hit singles. The album era coincided with the coming of age of baby boomers, and it's possible that it was a one-generation phenomenon, a blip in the longer history of popular music. If so, it's the blip that built the industry, which is geared to selling albums...". Taken together, it seems to me that those sources support the sentence. The other editor says that "Bob Dylan and The Beach Boys also played a role..". Dylan did not release any "rock" albums until 1965 (after the Beatles), and the Beach Boys did not focus on albums until Pet Sounds in 1966. It seems undeniable, per multiple authoritative sources, that the Beatles initiated something new, which could reasonably be called "the album era", from before either of the other acts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It is true that in the mid-1960s, rock musicians advanced the album ahead of the single format as the dominant form of recorded music expression but one part that I disagree with is that it started with The Beatles. Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited was released before The Beatles's Rubber Soul. The Beach Boys also played a role in that field but yet someone on here said that it started with The Beatles. Yesterday, I erased the statement about Beginning with The Beatles and instead I added Rock musicians in the 1960s advanced the album ahead of the single. Technically if you think about it, Rock musicians in the 1960s advancing the album ahead of the single sounds more accurate because there were others like Bob Dylan and The Beach Boys who played a equal role compared to The Beatles. The whole beginning with The Beatles sounds like if they are the beginning of everything which pretty much leads into idol worship and a bias opinion favoring them as the starters rather than actually seeing how the album era came to be. Sure, The Beatles did played a massive role in starting the album era but there were others as well. I think is best to remove the Beginning with The Beatles and replaced it with Rock musicians in the 1960s because that sounds more accurate and it doesn't sound bias. The others also played a role and ignoring their contributions just so that it can say Beginning with The Beatles sounds disrespectful, hubris and bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan1518 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You removed a statement citing a claim from a reputable source simply because you disagreed with it. If you'd included a counter-argument supporting your opinion, from another source, that would have been fine. But removing reputably sourced information because you don't like it is not acceptable. (And please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with four of these symbols: ~). Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So I could add a source stating that it was rock musicians in the 1960s who advanced the album ahead of the single? If I could, that would be fine. I don't have anything against The Beatles but I do think that it is unfair to make them the beginning of the album era when there were other artists who were also contributing to that field. Bob Dylan influenced The Beatles to write folk songs, The Beach Boys influenced Sgt. Pepper although Rubber Soul influenced Pet Sounds.

I am reading a book about popular music and the book states, "the starting point for the album-oriented radio format was the mid-1960s work of Bob Dylan and The Beatles, the first rock artists who self-consciously addressed social and philosophical issues in their music and the first rock artists to view the album as a unified whole rather than a haphazard collection of singles and filler." However, in this rock article it starts with beginning with The Beatles which seems false because Bob Dylan was also starting the album era around the same time as The Beatles. Could I remove beginning with The Beatles? Bob Dylan also played a big role in that too but yet is getting ignored because of The Beatles.( Bryan1518 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC) )

Whether you can remove "Beginning with the Beatles..." depends on several things. What is the book? Is it a reliable source? What do other editors think? Personally, I think the evidence is that the role of the Beatles at that point in time is so significant as to be worth mentioning, but I'm not going to object if other experienced and knowledgeable editors agree that it should be removed from that one sentence. If necessary, you could start a more formal request for comment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The book is called Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music Of The World is from 2003. That is where I got my source from about Bob Dylan and The Beatles. It seems to me that other artists played a role in starting the album era and it would be silly to say that The Beatles started it when there others doing similar things. The Beatles did start The British Invasion but when it comes to albums, I don't think there was one particular artist who started the album era. It's was a couple that did that not just one.( Bryan1518 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC) )

I also want to point out that a user added that Beginning with The Beatles part a couple of months ago and he put a source that had nothing do with Beginning with The Beatles. Go back to the Rock music article from February 21, 2021, the source that was added for his claim about the Beginning with The Beatles part came from this New York Times article from 1997 called https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/05/arts/all-that-music-and-nothing-to-listen-to.html. I read the article and it doesn't say anything about Beginning with The Beatles for the album era. Around March of 2021, a user was mentioning Bob Dylan because Dylan definitely played a role in starting the album era. The first source about Beginning with The Beatles wasn't around in February of 2021 and that came later around April/May of 2021. I do think that Beginning with The Beatles part should be removed because last year or years ago, that was never mentioned in the article. Some user decided to put that and added a source that had nothing to do with The Beatles being the first ones to start the album era.( Bryan1518 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC) )

The sentence was added here by Isento. The Whitburn reference was added here - bizarrely, the source makes no mention of Dylan or the Beach Boys, though it does specifically mention the Beatles (see earlier in this thread). As it stands, the text mentioning the Beatles is supported by the sources, though there is little if anything on the "album era" in the main text. What there is, is a link to that article, which says: "The arrival of the Beatles in the US in 1964 is credited by music writers Ann Powers and Joel Whitburn as heralding the "classic album era" or "rock album era"....", with sources, and goes into some details about it. There needs to be more text in this article, summarising that text, and also supporting the current statement in the lead. It might help if Isento - an experienced editor, with whom I don't necessarily always agree - could comment on this, as a major contributor to both articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The NYTimes source says "But the big growth in the music business was in the album era, when rock musicians started to see themselves as something more than suppliers of ephemeral hit singles." Expanding on this point, the article goes on to say "In the past, a bewildered music business was a fruitful one, as in the mid-1960's and the New Wave late 1970's, when innovative and off-the-wall musicians got a chance because no one was sure of their commercial prospects." isento (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to the article on this point and did my best to reconcile that in the lead. But feel free to reword or offer additional sourcing. isento (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I like the led by The Beatles part better than beginning with The Beatles but I also feel like that shouldn't be on the top of the article. I think it would be best to add that under The British Invasion section of the Rock music article. There are no other bands or artists mentioned at the top of the rock music article except for The Beatles which it makes it seem like if rock is The Beatles which is the other way around. It would be best in my opinion for that part about The Beatles to be included under The British Invasion section of the Rock music article and removed The Beatles part at top of the article. Pretty much keep the statement but don't include it at the top of the article, included under The British Invasion section of the Rock music article. Therefore, it is neutral for all of us. If you could do that, I would definitely stop editing the rock music article in terms of that problem.( Bryan1518 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC) )

With all due respect, the Beatles appear to be by far the most discussed act in this article, mentioned 26 times, across different subsections of the article, reaching as far as the 1990s post-Britpop section. Dylan and the Beach Boys are only mentioned 12 and 6 times, respectively. In the spirit of WP:WEIGHT, I think a peripheral mention of the Beatles in the fragment of this one sentence doesn't constitute a problem. isento (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're getting somewhere, though I don't like the wording of "Led by the Beatles" - most leading musicians would not see themselves as being "led" by anyone - or "Sgt. Pepper was later recognized as the greatest album of all time..." - as though that is a true and uncontentious statement, which it isn't. How about: "Influenced by the [artistic and commercial] success of the Beatles..." ? And: "Their albums Revolver and Sgt. Pepper were acclaimed as the most innovative albums in popular music...." ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was recognized as such, in general, often, albeit not unanimously. But there are other sources out there that confirm this. And the Beatles did lead the trend, as those sources say. Other acts influenced the trend too, so revising it that way would make the sentence less effective and less faithful to the source(s). Again, for anything new, cite a source. It would be hard for me to argue against what reliable sources say. Coming from Jim DeRogatis, Greg Kot and other major rock writers, I'm inclined to trust what they said in relation to this topic, the Beatles, rock-album era, etc. isento (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The Beatles certainly "led the trend", but they did not "lead.. the musicians...", which is what it now says - but it's just a question of tweaking a bit further, I hope. What is your source for Sgt Pepper being "recognized as the greatest album of all time"? Some critics may have claimed that at one time, but many didn't. I'd like to avoid weaselly words like "Many critics" or "widely recognized", which is why I prefer my wording. I think that most reputable critics now would regard Revolver as more significant in any case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The DeRogatis/Kot book is the source cited for that sentence. This BBC News article concurs, and I'm sure there are others... I was simply looking for literature connecting Beatles albums to the album era, per this talk page. This statement seems hardly controversial to me. Revolver is not even mentioned anywhere in this article, whereas Sgt. Pepper was the only Beatles album of note here. isento (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The BBC source is 22 years old, and says it "regularly tops greatest album polls", which was once true, but isn't now - and isn't quite what your text says. It should say something like: "Sgt. Pepper often topped critics' polls as the greatest.... ". Saying it is recognized as "the greatest" suggests that the opinion is correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

My text says it "was later recognized" ... which is true. isento (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a matter of language. The wording - "recognized" - has more than one meaning. It can mean simply "was later identified as.." in polls, which is factually true (not in every poll, of course). But "recognized" can also mean "acknowledged as valid" - which is not true. There cannot, ever, be an album universally acknowledged as the greatest ever, because it's a matter of opinion. What there can be is an album which tops polls as the greatest. There is a big difference in the meanings of the word "recognized", and because of that it would be better to use different words. It's undeniably correct that it topped polls; it is not undeniably correct that, objectively and neutrally, it really is "the greatest". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence to say at the end that "the Beatles [were] at the forefront of this development", i.e. the album era. Better? isento (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

And I've replaced "recognized" with "regarded". isento (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Much better, in my view. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I am satisfied by the change of the statement regarding The Beatles. It looks much better now than what it did before. I enjoyed The Beatles's music but I know that there were a couple of musicians/artists who paved the way for the album era, not only The Beatles. I am pleased with it.( Bryan1518 (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC) )