![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 |
A bit surprised that this was deleted on the ground that this is only an American genre. It is well established in the scholarly literature that R&B was a major genre in Britain in the 1960s, although it could be better expressed and sourced than it is at present and I was toying with the idea of cleaning up this element of the article.-- SabreBD ( talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This now done. There turned out to be quite a lot so I created a longer article and have placed a summary here. I have created a section on influence for the time being. I will look at this again and see what else can be said there in a short time, but see next section below.-- SabreBD ( talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have put this on my list for a clean up. Basically an attempt to source anything without a proper reference. Anything that cannot be sourced will be removed (not expecting a lot of this). I will also bear in mind legitimate points made above and if there is anything outstanding that needs attention now is a good time to post about it so it can be incorporated. It may be a while as I have a backlog.-- SabreBD ( talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In my view there is a strong case for mentioning - briefly - the influence that (black) R&B bands had on (white) garage bands in the early 1960s. Think of Richard Berry's " Louie Louie", the Isley Brothers' " Shout" and " Nobody But Me", etc. Anyone got good refs to support this line of approach? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
There something that I do not understood in this whole talk about "Rhythm and Blues" & "Contemporary R&B": What about "Rhythme n' Bass"??? Isn't it the real name for "Contemporary R&B"? We got here a confusion between a classical RnB and a modern RnB, each accronym have been requalified to be missunderstood but they're not the accronym of the same thing. I have always heard about a "classical rhythm and blues" and "contemporary rhythm and bass" but never of something like a "classical rhythm and bass" (could have been a kind of disco sound) or "modern rythme and blues" (callable "contemporary classical rhythm and blues"). Or it's like the brainless who have used those years the expression "RnB" didn't knew the existing of Rhythm And Blues... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.154.218.123 ( talk) 13:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
I personally have never heard "rhythm and bass" from any credible source. I'd guess that this is a sort of backronym that someone (perhaps with good intentions) came up with to try to differentiate "classic R&B" from "contemporary R&B." I have always thought of R&B from the '80s, '90s and beyond as simply a continuation of R&B/soul/funk of the '50s-'70s. While R&B since the '80s has tended to be produced using synths, drum machines, and samplers, it's still clearly descended from the classic styles that came before.
I think part of the confusion is that a) purists may feel that newer R&B is less authentic, since it rarely features live instrumentation, and/or b) there was a time in the late '60s-'70s when the term "R&B" wasn't used as much ("soul" being the preferred term at the time, perhaps in an effort to distance the music from rock & roll, which had actually developed from the same origins as R&B, but had by the '60s become a distinct genre in its own right). In the '80s and '90s, the term R&B began to be used more, and "soul music" fell into disuse. Because of this "gap" in the apparent lineage of R&B, people may perceive the "classic" and "contemporary" as two different genres. I, however, believe this to be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.128.78 ( talk) 04:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I reckon r&b uses and influences the use of pop music too because it sounds like pop music Beggsie221 ( talk) 05:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why Deep Purple is considered R&B and Ciara isn't.... This calls for expert opinions.. Again categorization is very subjective.... I have a big enough problem seeing Deep Purple in this article.... If I brought this up with anybody else.., they would look at me funny.... R&B simply went through so many permutations including the so-called hip-hop soul of the mid 90s.... Like Rock music- R&B simply changed with the times.... But I guess some people here believe that British blues counts as R&B....Another valid reason - when did soul begin and end and when did R&B continue - Billboard still has an R&B chart section...This is so subjective to fans of music prior to 1970 and not after and that's why i'm questioning the validity as well as flagging it...
I've actually brought this up with an African-American friend of mine who's a musician and runs a studio.... and says nobody has read the lyrics to some of the songs of Deep Purple's "Machine Head" - he started shaking his head when he heard that this group was in this article....That will tell you something..... 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what, SpyLab, I am prepared to continue working on this article, but not if all of it is going to be disputed. Or, maybe I should delete everything that isn't referenced. What do you say? Steve Pastor ( talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, tags always go at the top, unless the tags say "section." Spylab ( talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
10/4 Music has evovled as a whole changing every aspect and genre. Although R&B msic has changed greatly from when it first originated, most artists such as Ciara and Beyonce still incorporate R&B aspects into their music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.48.72 ( talk) 17:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The whole section looks more like a long essay with a specific thesis ("Cuban roots of R&B are stronger than you believe"), and its "evidences" (sheet music, YT videos, etc., singling out specific examples of Cuban-influenced pieces), rather than a subsection of "History of R&B". -- 87.15.44.62 ( talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is this article named "Rhythm and blues" and not "Rhythm 'n Blues"? I believe "Rock 'n Roll" and "Rhythm 'n Blues" are original and faithful historic terms. Netrat_msk ( talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Netrat_msk ( talk) 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not "Rock 'n Roll" and "Rhythm 'n Blues," it's "Rock 'n' Roll" and "Rhythm 'n' Blues" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.5.118 ( talk) 00:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe the text in the British R&B section needs to be cleaned up to avoid WP:UNDUE. At the moment, it is too wordy with only one source. Every time I attempt to clean it up it is reversed to status quo-- DanJazzy ( talk) 23:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC).
The section in question clearly has an issue with WP:UNDUE. I'm appealing to the editors who reversed my edits on the text to discuss here why they did so. Ghmyrtle talk please respond. DanJazzy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect Ghmyrtle ( talk) the section on British R&B for the most part has only one source as reference. In addition, the section has more words than R&B from the 1950s to Contemporary combined. It insinuates that British R&B is the most influential and substantive sub-genre. Surely this is not the case. This is the textbook definition of WP:UNDUE.The section also has a link which anyone can click for more info if so desired. Finally, the influence on Rock should be emphasised in the Rock Music section, not on this one. I would very much like to hear what other editors think.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 03:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The lead should mention that "doo-wop" is a retroactive label for certain R&B.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 21:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Can I ask why the image was moved to the "etymology" section, rather than the portion of the text where Brown is specifically named? Chubbles ( talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule that photos should be placed explicitly where the subject is mentioned. The image was placed in the etymology section to illustrate an important progenitor of R&B genre. Thanks. -- DanJazzy ( talk) 20:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. How has this rule been violated in this instance? See pop Music for comparison. There's an image in the etymology section in that article and probably in many others. -- DanJazzy ( talk) 20:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the lady played a pivotal role in development of R&B, so much so that she's regarded by her peers and the general public as the "Queen of R&B". This is along the same lines as the "Rolling Stones" picture in the etymology section of
pop music. Thanks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DanJazzy (
talk •
contribs)
Thanks for your contribution. I'm afraid I do not see any reason whatsoever why the image should not be there. Is there a Wikipedia rule that specifically disallows this? The caption may be changed to reflect Brown's significance to the genre, but I don't see any specific reason not to have this picture at that location. British blues has an image in the exact same location. Why the discrepancy? -- DanJazzy ( talk) 03:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, who is "we"? I'm afraid "general rule" may not pass muster in this instance. There is no Wikipedia rule which disallows that image to be placed where it is. Infact, many other articles have a similar layout. DanJazzy ( talk) 08:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, it appears we are not able to arrive at a consensus. Perhaps you might want to take this up with the administrators. Thanks. -- DanJazzy ( talk) 17:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is an unhealthy and suspicious fixation with this article and this image in particular. There are for example no issues raised with pop music and British blues, despite the two articles displaying images at that same section. In addition, there is actually no rule saying Brown's image should not be where it is. "I say so therefore I'm right" does not apply in Wikipedia Sorry -- DanJazzy ( talk) 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe we're going round in circles here. Perhaps input from other parties or administrative intervention might be helpful.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 08:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I meant that it would be helpful to have opinions from other parties, other than the two of you.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 20:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry not my rules, it's Wikipedia. If there's no consensus on contentious issues,then there are administrative arrangements to solve the impasse. DanJazzy ( talk) 07:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's quite sensible, thanks.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 13:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion is not exhaustive. I oppose this move. Thanks. DanJazzy ( talk) 09:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"Others" here meaning two other like-minded editors. This hurried "consensus" sounds mischievous to me. You might have had your way this time but I must say the credibility of this once great tool has really gone down the drain.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
and attempt to understand the thread above about the placing of pictures and then thought to my self, “F**k Me”, that's not what this article needs. What it needs is getting rid of a bunch of the citation needed tags littered all over it. I’ve seen this before and (opinion) it’s as if someone’s plan for getting 100,000 edits is to go to 5, 000 random articles and put 20 citation needed tags in each of them. Since I do most of my editing out of my bookshelf I will not be able to make a huge dent here, but I will make a small one. My theory is that every time I add a source I will remove a cit needed tag even if the relationship between the two might seem tenuous or nonexistent. You do what you have to do. Carptrash ( talk) 01:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This article gave a lot of knowledgeable information about the history of Rhythm and Blues. One constructional criticism thought would be to add more about how the different meanings of R&B impacted society during those certain time periods. There are no claims and seems to be very neutral when talking about the different meanings of R&B and the impact in made on people over time. It does achieve rhetorical objective because it informed the audience about the history and meaning of Rhythm and blues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emevangelisto ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 |
A bit surprised that this was deleted on the ground that this is only an American genre. It is well established in the scholarly literature that R&B was a major genre in Britain in the 1960s, although it could be better expressed and sourced than it is at present and I was toying with the idea of cleaning up this element of the article.-- SabreBD ( talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This now done. There turned out to be quite a lot so I created a longer article and have placed a summary here. I have created a section on influence for the time being. I will look at this again and see what else can be said there in a short time, but see next section below.-- SabreBD ( talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have put this on my list for a clean up. Basically an attempt to source anything without a proper reference. Anything that cannot be sourced will be removed (not expecting a lot of this). I will also bear in mind legitimate points made above and if there is anything outstanding that needs attention now is a good time to post about it so it can be incorporated. It may be a while as I have a backlog.-- SabreBD ( talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In my view there is a strong case for mentioning - briefly - the influence that (black) R&B bands had on (white) garage bands in the early 1960s. Think of Richard Berry's " Louie Louie", the Isley Brothers' " Shout" and " Nobody But Me", etc. Anyone got good refs to support this line of approach? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
There something that I do not understood in this whole talk about "Rhythm and Blues" & "Contemporary R&B": What about "Rhythme n' Bass"??? Isn't it the real name for "Contemporary R&B"? We got here a confusion between a classical RnB and a modern RnB, each accronym have been requalified to be missunderstood but they're not the accronym of the same thing. I have always heard about a "classical rhythm and blues" and "contemporary rhythm and bass" but never of something like a "classical rhythm and bass" (could have been a kind of disco sound) or "modern rythme and blues" (callable "contemporary classical rhythm and blues"). Or it's like the brainless who have used those years the expression "RnB" didn't knew the existing of Rhythm And Blues... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.154.218.123 ( talk) 13:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
I personally have never heard "rhythm and bass" from any credible source. I'd guess that this is a sort of backronym that someone (perhaps with good intentions) came up with to try to differentiate "classic R&B" from "contemporary R&B." I have always thought of R&B from the '80s, '90s and beyond as simply a continuation of R&B/soul/funk of the '50s-'70s. While R&B since the '80s has tended to be produced using synths, drum machines, and samplers, it's still clearly descended from the classic styles that came before.
I think part of the confusion is that a) purists may feel that newer R&B is less authentic, since it rarely features live instrumentation, and/or b) there was a time in the late '60s-'70s when the term "R&B" wasn't used as much ("soul" being the preferred term at the time, perhaps in an effort to distance the music from rock & roll, which had actually developed from the same origins as R&B, but had by the '60s become a distinct genre in its own right). In the '80s and '90s, the term R&B began to be used more, and "soul music" fell into disuse. Because of this "gap" in the apparent lineage of R&B, people may perceive the "classic" and "contemporary" as two different genres. I, however, believe this to be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.128.78 ( talk) 04:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I reckon r&b uses and influences the use of pop music too because it sounds like pop music Beggsie221 ( talk) 05:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why Deep Purple is considered R&B and Ciara isn't.... This calls for expert opinions.. Again categorization is very subjective.... I have a big enough problem seeing Deep Purple in this article.... If I brought this up with anybody else.., they would look at me funny.... R&B simply went through so many permutations including the so-called hip-hop soul of the mid 90s.... Like Rock music- R&B simply changed with the times.... But I guess some people here believe that British blues counts as R&B....Another valid reason - when did soul begin and end and when did R&B continue - Billboard still has an R&B chart section...This is so subjective to fans of music prior to 1970 and not after and that's why i'm questioning the validity as well as flagging it...
I've actually brought this up with an African-American friend of mine who's a musician and runs a studio.... and says nobody has read the lyrics to some of the songs of Deep Purple's "Machine Head" - he started shaking his head when he heard that this group was in this article....That will tell you something..... 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what, SpyLab, I am prepared to continue working on this article, but not if all of it is going to be disputed. Or, maybe I should delete everything that isn't referenced. What do you say? Steve Pastor ( talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, tags always go at the top, unless the tags say "section." Spylab ( talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
10/4 Music has evovled as a whole changing every aspect and genre. Although R&B msic has changed greatly from when it first originated, most artists such as Ciara and Beyonce still incorporate R&B aspects into their music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.48.72 ( talk) 17:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The whole section looks more like a long essay with a specific thesis ("Cuban roots of R&B are stronger than you believe"), and its "evidences" (sheet music, YT videos, etc., singling out specific examples of Cuban-influenced pieces), rather than a subsection of "History of R&B". -- 87.15.44.62 ( talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is this article named "Rhythm and blues" and not "Rhythm 'n Blues"? I believe "Rock 'n Roll" and "Rhythm 'n Blues" are original and faithful historic terms. Netrat_msk ( talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Netrat_msk ( talk) 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not "Rock 'n Roll" and "Rhythm 'n Blues," it's "Rock 'n' Roll" and "Rhythm 'n' Blues" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.5.118 ( talk) 00:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe the text in the British R&B section needs to be cleaned up to avoid WP:UNDUE. At the moment, it is too wordy with only one source. Every time I attempt to clean it up it is reversed to status quo-- DanJazzy ( talk) 23:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC).
The section in question clearly has an issue with WP:UNDUE. I'm appealing to the editors who reversed my edits on the text to discuss here why they did so. Ghmyrtle talk please respond. DanJazzy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect Ghmyrtle ( talk) the section on British R&B for the most part has only one source as reference. In addition, the section has more words than R&B from the 1950s to Contemporary combined. It insinuates that British R&B is the most influential and substantive sub-genre. Surely this is not the case. This is the textbook definition of WP:UNDUE.The section also has a link which anyone can click for more info if so desired. Finally, the influence on Rock should be emphasised in the Rock Music section, not on this one. I would very much like to hear what other editors think.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 03:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The lead should mention that "doo-wop" is a retroactive label for certain R&B.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 21:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Can I ask why the image was moved to the "etymology" section, rather than the portion of the text where Brown is specifically named? Chubbles ( talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule that photos should be placed explicitly where the subject is mentioned. The image was placed in the etymology section to illustrate an important progenitor of R&B genre. Thanks. -- DanJazzy ( talk) 20:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. How has this rule been violated in this instance? See pop Music for comparison. There's an image in the etymology section in that article and probably in many others. -- DanJazzy ( talk) 20:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the lady played a pivotal role in development of R&B, so much so that she's regarded by her peers and the general public as the "Queen of R&B". This is along the same lines as the "Rolling Stones" picture in the etymology section of
pop music. Thanks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DanJazzy (
talk •
contribs)
Thanks for your contribution. I'm afraid I do not see any reason whatsoever why the image should not be there. Is there a Wikipedia rule that specifically disallows this? The caption may be changed to reflect Brown's significance to the genre, but I don't see any specific reason not to have this picture at that location. British blues has an image in the exact same location. Why the discrepancy? -- DanJazzy ( talk) 03:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, who is "we"? I'm afraid "general rule" may not pass muster in this instance. There is no Wikipedia rule which disallows that image to be placed where it is. Infact, many other articles have a similar layout. DanJazzy ( talk) 08:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, it appears we are not able to arrive at a consensus. Perhaps you might want to take this up with the administrators. Thanks. -- DanJazzy ( talk) 17:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is an unhealthy and suspicious fixation with this article and this image in particular. There are for example no issues raised with pop music and British blues, despite the two articles displaying images at that same section. In addition, there is actually no rule saying Brown's image should not be where it is. "I say so therefore I'm right" does not apply in Wikipedia Sorry -- DanJazzy ( talk) 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe we're going round in circles here. Perhaps input from other parties or administrative intervention might be helpful.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 08:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I meant that it would be helpful to have opinions from other parties, other than the two of you.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 20:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry not my rules, it's Wikipedia. If there's no consensus on contentious issues,then there are administrative arrangements to solve the impasse. DanJazzy ( talk) 07:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's quite sensible, thanks.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 13:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion is not exhaustive. I oppose this move. Thanks. DanJazzy ( talk) 09:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"Others" here meaning two other like-minded editors. This hurried "consensus" sounds mischievous to me. You might have had your way this time but I must say the credibility of this once great tool has really gone down the drain.-- DanJazzy ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
and attempt to understand the thread above about the placing of pictures and then thought to my self, “F**k Me”, that's not what this article needs. What it needs is getting rid of a bunch of the citation needed tags littered all over it. I’ve seen this before and (opinion) it’s as if someone’s plan for getting 100,000 edits is to go to 5, 000 random articles and put 20 citation needed tags in each of them. Since I do most of my editing out of my bookshelf I will not be able to make a huge dent here, but I will make a small one. My theory is that every time I add a source I will remove a cit needed tag even if the relationship between the two might seem tenuous or nonexistent. You do what you have to do. Carptrash ( talk) 01:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This article gave a lot of knowledgeable information about the history of Rhythm and Blues. One constructional criticism thought would be to add more about how the different meanings of R&B impacted society during those certain time periods. There are no claims and seems to be very neutral when talking about the different meanings of R&B and the impact in made on people over time. It does achieve rhetorical objective because it informed the audience about the history and meaning of Rhythm and blues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emevangelisto ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)