![]() | This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He is listed as a musician, I would argue that he was more influential as a producer, any objections to changing categories? J04n( talk page) 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am working with two others to develop Outline of rock music. We agree that the article should be sandboxed first before continuing. I created the page Talk:Outline of rock music/Sandbox and emailed the original editor asking him to CSD the main page, just checking but if that is done the sandbox page created will still exist, right? The sandbox was moved to Outline of rock music/Sandbox so it can have its own talk page. Sswonk ( talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind hosting the sandbox page as suggested but would rather it be hosted under the WP:ROCK somewhere. Questioning sysop for guidance. Sswonk ( talk) 13:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
So, I'm about to move the page to where it will soon redirect, and then request deletion of the redirect as required. Sswonk ( talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Something that should be addressed and decided on sooner than later is influential bands. I just added Joey Ramone but I would say that the Ramones as an entity are more appropriate, the same with Bob Weir vs Grateful Dead, Joe Strummer vs The Clash, Tony Iommi vs Black Sabbath, etc. Then there is the issue of say John Lennon who should be included as a musician and The Beatles as a band. J04n( talk page) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Section was copied below for continuation
From a UK perspective, what strikes me most about the list so far is how white it is. Is this a US thing, that differentiates clearly between "rock" and "black music" in a way that really doesn't happen in the UK so much? Do you see "rock" music as something obviously different from, say "soul" or "hiphop" - apart from a few originators like Chuck Berry, and the odd exception like Hendrix? If you don't, then clearly there's a whole world of soul, Motown, R&B, hiphop etc. that needs to be recognised. Another thought - why not just start this Outline from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame lists, and work from there? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(copied from above) Something that should be addressed and decided on sooner than later is influential bands. I just added Joey Ramone but I would say that the Ramones as an entity are more appropriate, the same with Bob Weir vs Grateful Dead, Joe Strummer vs The Clash, Tony Iommi vs Black Sabbath, etc. Then there is the issue of say John Lennon who should be included as a musician and The Beatles as a band. J04n( talk page) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading all of the posts since my last entry I am struck by one thought: we need to organize this discussion. This discussion is only 12 hours old and I already can't follow it (which is probably more a reflection on me than anything else). I'm going to make subheadings on the points previously made (and offer my 2 cents). I think it is important that we reach consensus on each point and not allow discussions to fade away. Let's attempt to keep discussions under each heading on point and start new headings for new subjects, if I missed one please add it in. BTW: my opinion on Led Zeppelin I & II, it was Peter Grant ripping off the original artists. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The question here is do we start with 50s rock and roll or 60s rock? I could go either way but if we go back to the 50s I would hope that at least one of the contributers is fairly expert in that era, I am not. If we do start with 60s rock I would strongly be in favor of a progenitors section. Either way would make the outline less white and more historically accurate. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
In favor of including influential bands and being very judicious about having someone represented on both lists (for example John Lennon and the Beatles "yes", Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull "no"). J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the Rock vs Rock and Roll argument above, if rock and roll Motown should be included if rock I would say no. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is only acts that have significant cross-over success certainly Run-DMC, I would say Ice-T over NWA but that is a future discussion. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
We should attempt to have contributers that edit pages from as a wide range of musical tastes as possible. If we are deficient in an era or subgenre we should attempt to recruit. Myself, I normally edit hard rock/heavy metal and early punk bands and consider myself very knowledgeable about most rock from the 70s. I'm most ignorant of any bands that came out after 1994. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Once we decide on a scope I say we don't discuss individual entries until we are nearly finished, then if there is contention we can reach consensus before the rollout. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I think this list is completely unnecessary, there are some serious problems with its development. Firstly, the list of "persons influential in rock music" is inherently subjective and can never be completed. It's just a disaster waiting to happen. Secondly, the genre hierarchy is wrong in many places (post-grunge isn't a subgenre of grunge, indie pop isn't a subgenre of indie rock, New Wave is a subgenre of punk). Thirdly, the same problem that lies with the list of "persons influential in rock music" list also lies with the examples of artists representative of a particular subgenre. Fourthly, some of them are just plain wrong (despite what Blender says, The Velvet Underground is not an indie rock band, primarily because they existed nearly two decades before alternative rock was created; this is why we rely on a consensus of sources, in case one is wrong). Fifthly, and mostly importantly, who here working on this list is deeply familiar with rock music? Because I get the distinct impression that information and links are simply being pulled from articles (I see the sentence about Britpop comes from that article; I know, because I wrote it) or infoboxes. This is a big problem, as there are a number of poor quality articles floating around, particularly the Pop rock article, which revels in incorrect assumptions and original research (by the way, the whole list of "pop rock subgenres" listed here is highly suspect). If you really want to make this list, you need to do some in-depth research. After all, using Wikipedia itself as a reference is highly discouraged. WesleyDodds ( talk) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, you're not supposed to put Wikilinks in bold. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at other outlines and we should re-consider adding individuals/groups/examples. The subjectivity problem brought up by WesleyDodds can be avoided if we follow the lead of other outlines. The Outline of film does not list one actor or film, Outline of sports lists no athletes or teams. Provide explanations of genres, list the professions (producer, promoter, etc) just don't give examples, keep Pandora's box closed. J04n( talk page) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Section removed I have removed the "Persons influential in rock music" section as it is too contentious and prone to POV and OR. The list is obviously still available as part of the draft history through this diff. Sswonk ( talk) 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I am writing this as a separated section to address several comments made by Ghmyrtle regarding race, rock as an all inclusive form, and the perceived US bias that has been asserted. G, I am using that abbreviation from here on, G, you may be black. I am not. If you are making these comments from the perspective of being a black man, then they have more import than if not, I would think. Nevertheless, I want to make it very clear: saying an act is "crossover" is not US shorthand for "black". I don't know where you got that idea, and I don't like it.
There are many forms of popular music, called genres, and the broadest are broken down into groups that are fundamentally based on race. There is no disputing that. Blues, Soul, R&B, and Funk are primarily within the purview of, and primarily started in, African-American communities. To suggest that we must include those genres here in an effort to not appear racist, is in my view, silly. Mind-numbingly silly. It is not how we want to appear, but whether the encyclopedia is factual, that should motivate us. Rock, and it is now mostly called by that shorthand name but is meant to mean Rock and Roll, is deeply rooted within the African-American culture. From my perspective, the assumption of Rock and Roll as a unique genre of music, inherently separate from the others and also from major genres Jazz, Country, Folk and Dance, began with the acceptance of black culture by white Americans in the mid 1950s. It was called by some at the time "race music", but the phenomenon was not illustrated by multicultural, multi-ethnic groups congregating together, it was primarily white young people listening to and enjoying black music by some of the acts we have mentioned, Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, Little Richard and so on. It was demonstrated by the meteoric rise of Elvis, a man of disputed racial makeup who nevertheless appealed to white listeners with a reputed white version of southern blues and gospel influenced styles of singing and stagecraft.
That period was followed by the watershed of what is now defined by most publications that do what we are doing, categorize, as the British Invasion and the parallel surf music of the early sixties. From that time on, whether it is fair or not, Rock and Roll has been dominated by white acts. Yes, the Rolling Stones toured with great opening acts like Stevie Wonder and Peter Tosh. Yes Jimi Hendrix and Richie Havens and Sly and the Family Stone were prominent at Woodstock. Those acts and others can be considered here, no doubt. But isn't Peter Tosh a Reggae artist? Isn't Stevie Wonder both a R & B and a Rock artist? I find it disingenuous to say that we must include all of the Motown soul catalog artists, all of the Def Jam hip-hop catalog artists here. Prince is rock, Luther Vandross was not. The Neville Brothers are not regularly played on any station that calls itself Rock and Roll, Rock, Adult Alternative and so on here in the US. Neither are Notorious B.I.G., or Tupac Shakur. It's just a fact, not an attempt to exclude anyone at all.
Which leads me to my final response: what you are talking about regarding "crossover" and "black" and "white" with regard to differences between US culture and the UK appears to be a personal experience you have. I recognize the type of colorblind, racially diverse music catalog you might think we don't enjoy here as what is termed Pop, Top 40 or Jammin' music. Radio and TV routinely play this mix in many formats here. But what is known as Rock, shorthand for Rock and Roll, is distinct. I think that holds true everywhere. Music charts, categories at the Grammys, the index here at Wikipedia, sites like allmusic.com and amazon.com, all recognize the distinction and we should not dilute our outline against a common sense presentation of the truth. This is not the ranting of a thick, racist white American you are reading. This is a presentation of what the realities are, and for all of your knowledge of the subject I am suggesting that you stop making these statements without taking into account the existence of a separate musical style that, like it or not, is dominated by white performers. I don't imagine the creators of the Soul or Hip-Hop outlines being eager to avoid an appearance of racialism either. They will want to present the musical form as it has always existed, without needing to dilute it by gratuitously including obvious Rock and Roll acts into their lists. Sswonk ( talk) 11:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference between " rock and roll" and " rock music"?
I always thought they were synonomous!
The Transhumanist 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Outlines on Wikipedia are a type of list article. Each outline is about the subject identified after "Outline of" in the title. "Outline" refers to the format of the article...
" Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). In Wikipedia outlines, the hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets.
Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure). They also serve as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 13:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He is listed as a musician, I would argue that he was more influential as a producer, any objections to changing categories? J04n( talk page) 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am working with two others to develop Outline of rock music. We agree that the article should be sandboxed first before continuing. I created the page Talk:Outline of rock music/Sandbox and emailed the original editor asking him to CSD the main page, just checking but if that is done the sandbox page created will still exist, right? The sandbox was moved to Outline of rock music/Sandbox so it can have its own talk page. Sswonk ( talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind hosting the sandbox page as suggested but would rather it be hosted under the WP:ROCK somewhere. Questioning sysop for guidance. Sswonk ( talk) 13:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
So, I'm about to move the page to where it will soon redirect, and then request deletion of the redirect as required. Sswonk ( talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Something that should be addressed and decided on sooner than later is influential bands. I just added Joey Ramone but I would say that the Ramones as an entity are more appropriate, the same with Bob Weir vs Grateful Dead, Joe Strummer vs The Clash, Tony Iommi vs Black Sabbath, etc. Then there is the issue of say John Lennon who should be included as a musician and The Beatles as a band. J04n( talk page) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Section was copied below for continuation
From a UK perspective, what strikes me most about the list so far is how white it is. Is this a US thing, that differentiates clearly between "rock" and "black music" in a way that really doesn't happen in the UK so much? Do you see "rock" music as something obviously different from, say "soul" or "hiphop" - apart from a few originators like Chuck Berry, and the odd exception like Hendrix? If you don't, then clearly there's a whole world of soul, Motown, R&B, hiphop etc. that needs to be recognised. Another thought - why not just start this Outline from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame lists, and work from there? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(copied from above) Something that should be addressed and decided on sooner than later is influential bands. I just added Joey Ramone but I would say that the Ramones as an entity are more appropriate, the same with Bob Weir vs Grateful Dead, Joe Strummer vs The Clash, Tony Iommi vs Black Sabbath, etc. Then there is the issue of say John Lennon who should be included as a musician and The Beatles as a band. J04n( talk page) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading all of the posts since my last entry I am struck by one thought: we need to organize this discussion. This discussion is only 12 hours old and I already can't follow it (which is probably more a reflection on me than anything else). I'm going to make subheadings on the points previously made (and offer my 2 cents). I think it is important that we reach consensus on each point and not allow discussions to fade away. Let's attempt to keep discussions under each heading on point and start new headings for new subjects, if I missed one please add it in. BTW: my opinion on Led Zeppelin I & II, it was Peter Grant ripping off the original artists. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The question here is do we start with 50s rock and roll or 60s rock? I could go either way but if we go back to the 50s I would hope that at least one of the contributers is fairly expert in that era, I am not. If we do start with 60s rock I would strongly be in favor of a progenitors section. Either way would make the outline less white and more historically accurate. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
In favor of including influential bands and being very judicious about having someone represented on both lists (for example John Lennon and the Beatles "yes", Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull "no"). J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the Rock vs Rock and Roll argument above, if rock and roll Motown should be included if rock I would say no. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is only acts that have significant cross-over success certainly Run-DMC, I would say Ice-T over NWA but that is a future discussion. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
We should attempt to have contributers that edit pages from as a wide range of musical tastes as possible. If we are deficient in an era or subgenre we should attempt to recruit. Myself, I normally edit hard rock/heavy metal and early punk bands and consider myself very knowledgeable about most rock from the 70s. I'm most ignorant of any bands that came out after 1994. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Once we decide on a scope I say we don't discuss individual entries until we are nearly finished, then if there is contention we can reach consensus before the rollout. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I think this list is completely unnecessary, there are some serious problems with its development. Firstly, the list of "persons influential in rock music" is inherently subjective and can never be completed. It's just a disaster waiting to happen. Secondly, the genre hierarchy is wrong in many places (post-grunge isn't a subgenre of grunge, indie pop isn't a subgenre of indie rock, New Wave is a subgenre of punk). Thirdly, the same problem that lies with the list of "persons influential in rock music" list also lies with the examples of artists representative of a particular subgenre. Fourthly, some of them are just plain wrong (despite what Blender says, The Velvet Underground is not an indie rock band, primarily because they existed nearly two decades before alternative rock was created; this is why we rely on a consensus of sources, in case one is wrong). Fifthly, and mostly importantly, who here working on this list is deeply familiar with rock music? Because I get the distinct impression that information and links are simply being pulled from articles (I see the sentence about Britpop comes from that article; I know, because I wrote it) or infoboxes. This is a big problem, as there are a number of poor quality articles floating around, particularly the Pop rock article, which revels in incorrect assumptions and original research (by the way, the whole list of "pop rock subgenres" listed here is highly suspect). If you really want to make this list, you need to do some in-depth research. After all, using Wikipedia itself as a reference is highly discouraged. WesleyDodds ( talk) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, you're not supposed to put Wikilinks in bold. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at other outlines and we should re-consider adding individuals/groups/examples. The subjectivity problem brought up by WesleyDodds can be avoided if we follow the lead of other outlines. The Outline of film does not list one actor or film, Outline of sports lists no athletes or teams. Provide explanations of genres, list the professions (producer, promoter, etc) just don't give examples, keep Pandora's box closed. J04n( talk page) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Section removed I have removed the "Persons influential in rock music" section as it is too contentious and prone to POV and OR. The list is obviously still available as part of the draft history through this diff. Sswonk ( talk) 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I am writing this as a separated section to address several comments made by Ghmyrtle regarding race, rock as an all inclusive form, and the perceived US bias that has been asserted. G, I am using that abbreviation from here on, G, you may be black. I am not. If you are making these comments from the perspective of being a black man, then they have more import than if not, I would think. Nevertheless, I want to make it very clear: saying an act is "crossover" is not US shorthand for "black". I don't know where you got that idea, and I don't like it.
There are many forms of popular music, called genres, and the broadest are broken down into groups that are fundamentally based on race. There is no disputing that. Blues, Soul, R&B, and Funk are primarily within the purview of, and primarily started in, African-American communities. To suggest that we must include those genres here in an effort to not appear racist, is in my view, silly. Mind-numbingly silly. It is not how we want to appear, but whether the encyclopedia is factual, that should motivate us. Rock, and it is now mostly called by that shorthand name but is meant to mean Rock and Roll, is deeply rooted within the African-American culture. From my perspective, the assumption of Rock and Roll as a unique genre of music, inherently separate from the others and also from major genres Jazz, Country, Folk and Dance, began with the acceptance of black culture by white Americans in the mid 1950s. It was called by some at the time "race music", but the phenomenon was not illustrated by multicultural, multi-ethnic groups congregating together, it was primarily white young people listening to and enjoying black music by some of the acts we have mentioned, Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, Little Richard and so on. It was demonstrated by the meteoric rise of Elvis, a man of disputed racial makeup who nevertheless appealed to white listeners with a reputed white version of southern blues and gospel influenced styles of singing and stagecraft.
That period was followed by the watershed of what is now defined by most publications that do what we are doing, categorize, as the British Invasion and the parallel surf music of the early sixties. From that time on, whether it is fair or not, Rock and Roll has been dominated by white acts. Yes, the Rolling Stones toured with great opening acts like Stevie Wonder and Peter Tosh. Yes Jimi Hendrix and Richie Havens and Sly and the Family Stone were prominent at Woodstock. Those acts and others can be considered here, no doubt. But isn't Peter Tosh a Reggae artist? Isn't Stevie Wonder both a R & B and a Rock artist? I find it disingenuous to say that we must include all of the Motown soul catalog artists, all of the Def Jam hip-hop catalog artists here. Prince is rock, Luther Vandross was not. The Neville Brothers are not regularly played on any station that calls itself Rock and Roll, Rock, Adult Alternative and so on here in the US. Neither are Notorious B.I.G., or Tupac Shakur. It's just a fact, not an attempt to exclude anyone at all.
Which leads me to my final response: what you are talking about regarding "crossover" and "black" and "white" with regard to differences between US culture and the UK appears to be a personal experience you have. I recognize the type of colorblind, racially diverse music catalog you might think we don't enjoy here as what is termed Pop, Top 40 or Jammin' music. Radio and TV routinely play this mix in many formats here. But what is known as Rock, shorthand for Rock and Roll, is distinct. I think that holds true everywhere. Music charts, categories at the Grammys, the index here at Wikipedia, sites like allmusic.com and amazon.com, all recognize the distinction and we should not dilute our outline against a common sense presentation of the truth. This is not the ranting of a thick, racist white American you are reading. This is a presentation of what the realities are, and for all of your knowledge of the subject I am suggesting that you stop making these statements without taking into account the existence of a separate musical style that, like it or not, is dominated by white performers. I don't imagine the creators of the Soul or Hip-Hop outlines being eager to avoid an appearance of racialism either. They will want to present the musical form as it has always existed, without needing to dilute it by gratuitously including obvious Rock and Roll acts into their lists. Sswonk ( talk) 11:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference between " rock and roll" and " rock music"?
I always thought they were synonomous!
The Transhumanist 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Outlines on Wikipedia are a type of list article. Each outline is about the subject identified after "Outline of" in the title. "Outline" refers to the format of the article...
" Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). In Wikipedia outlines, the hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets.
Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure). They also serve as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 13:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)