![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
But I hate it. This may be the worst quality article I've ever fallen into, and what's even worse is how important it is LiAm McShAnE 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. this article sucks. how can you have an article defining rock music without even once mentioning Elvis Presley? that in itself should be some sort of crime. and starting the article off with British music? humpf! you might as well slap every black musician who ever lived directly in the face! what a crock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.25.252.218 ( talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think rock is amazing...It is the best music to get involved with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock.ollie ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is absolutely incredible. Seriously, is anyone actually monitering this page? I have the biggest symathy for whoever it is. I'll get round to helping as soon as I've made myself an account. The Grunge section is particularly bad as it is factually incorrect, ignores the 1st wave and seems to be written by some lunk-headed Nirvana fan. Jeez... 92.3.140.121 ( talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
These two articals are basicly the same, as rock is just a short of rock and roll. However the artical "Rock and roll" is shorter. Yes, of course the two articals should be merged together, but to keep the Rock and roll artical; it should tell the meaning of rock and roll instead of the history.
This article is so goddamn worthless. Remove it from the face of the earth and flesh out the rock and roll article.-- Gustav Lindwall 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what idiot thinks rock n roll and "rock" music are two different entities. They're all ONE. Rock is rock, with an array of subgenres falling under its tent. Whoever made this article is either woefully ignorant, a revisionist or racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.101.216 ( talk) 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This is another perfect and classic example of white guys trying to rewrite the history of American music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 ( talk) 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Rock is not the same thing as rock and roll. Rock and roll is basically just sped-up blues. Rock encompasses more forms, where as most rock and roll songs are 12-bar-blueses. Rock and roll came first, and rock evolved from it. Tez kag 72 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The difference between "rock" and "rock 'n' roll" is largely semantics relegated to a small coterie of record collector weenies. (I should know, I *AM* one of them.) While you can argue that a group of adherents separates them, letting rock and roll refer to the musical combination of country, blues, R&B, and gospel forms in the late 40s/early 50s (depending on where you stand on the "What is the first rock and roll record?" argument) and continuing on up until (loosely) the arrival of the Beatles at which point it began to morph into the more album-oriented "rock". If someone says they enjoy "rock" music, we know they mean music which traces itself back to those basic four roots musics. If we're going to start opening the can of worms that they are "different" then we also have to start making allowances for "oldies"..who the heck can definitely decide what eras THAT constitutes? (Even oldies radio stations can't figure that out.) I think the obvious answer is that this should all be ONE article...with a small section indicating that "rock and roll" typically refers to music of late 40s through early 60s vintage..and leave it at that. Anything else is inviting needless chaos. GBrady ( talk) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously - this is the worst article I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. It's a mess - uniformed and vague and serving no real purpose. A good description of the prevailing thematic elements of Rock and the history of it's evolution followed by a listing of links to articles about the subgenres would be much more effective. What can we do to fix this thing? I'm willing to help rework it from scratch. -LDB
For goodness sake, take ELO out of Soft Rock! They are ORCHESTRAL ROCKERS! ( 205.250.167.76 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
This is the worst article ever. It FUCKING SUCKS. Just the summary at the top is so bad it makes me cry.-- Gustav Lindwall 14:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The section on grunge lacks a NPOV. It clearly glorifies grunge. oh please
We've taken one pretty good article and turned it into two bad articles. Just for starters, let's look at the terminology (ostensibly the name for the split):
The lead for the rock and roll article says:
While the lead for the rock article says:
I won't even begin to go into the problems with these paragraphs, but, tortured writing aside, what is a reader supposed to take away from these two leads?
Huge amounts of good writing have been lost in this 'transition', and I for one think it's a darned shame. And since when does the All Music Guide determine what conventions are appropriate here? Jgm 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't touched eitrher of these articles myself, and I am not sure where to start. The confusion betwen the two terms ('rock' vs 'rock-and-roll') is due to the fact that the latter is a sub-set of the former.
'Rock' music as such is a VERY broad category. To put it in simple terms, Rock is thr mainstream American pop music that evoled following swing in the 50's. A more complicated definition would be a genre of poular music characteriaed by a straight eitgh-note rythm in common time, with emphasis on BOTH the down and back beat. Pretty much anything in straigh time, with the snare on two and four is Rock music. Yes, that includes everything from Madonna to Metallica, with a stop off in between for House, Techno, Rap, contemporary Country music, Soca, Ska, Speed Metal, Fusion...you get the picture.
More broadly, 'Rock' is a term that describes late-Twentieth Century music in general. This is the 'Rock Period' as much as there was a 'Jazz Period', a 'Romantic Period', a 'Baroque Period'. etc.
One thing that differetitates Rock from other forms, particulary Jazz and late-period Swing, it is the reliance on the "lower half" (bass drum and snare) of the drum kit and bass guitar for a rythmic foundation.
If there are two things, the other is the 'artifiliaity' of Rock, as opposed to Jazz and anything before it. Rock music evoloved in parallel with multi-track recording. The basic 'sound' of Rock is an artificial construct created in the recording studio. Non-musicians may no appreciate the difference, but this is a fundamental shift in the process of music creation. The goal of recording was, originally, to capture the sound of a live band playing (mostly) prearranged and pre-rehersed music. The freedomn of multi-track recording allowed music-producers to write, arrange, and orchestrate 'on tape' as it were. That is, the full musical number is typically NEVER played by an entire ensemble until AFTER it has been recorded. The practical upshot of all this is a complete reversal of the process. The goal is often to recreate the sound of a record live, as opposed to capturing the 'live' sound to tape.
Related to this is the question of electricty. Rock also devleoped in parrallel with what is essentialy a new type of instrument: the electric one. That is, electric guitar, bass, and keyboard. These are not 'complete' instuments themselves. Rather, they can be viewed as controllers, who's output is used to modulate a speaker system. Again,. this is a fundamnetal change that may evade non-musicans (actuall, it evades a whole lot of musicans as well.)
What of "rock-and-roll" then? It is a subgenre of Rock. More particularly, it is a transional phase between jazz and szwing, and Rock proper. On way to look at rock-and-roll is as Swing with a hard-hitting, electrified rythm section. It also represents a transition from professional musican ship to the cultural of 'talented amatuerism' that prevade popular music....but THAT is a whole nother article.
Anyways, those are some thoughts to chew on for anyone who wants to tackle the article. Any other thoughts?
Rob Wrigley
This really is a terrible article. Read it for the first time today. It's more like a breakdown of genres that an article about "rock". I'll have a stab at making it better. - I hope!-- Mike Infinitum 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with me that this article should be merged with Rock and Roll they are the same thing in essence. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck
Strong Support "Rock" is merely a delineation of TIME not really of GENRE. If you trace them back, both the 60s "rock" of the Beatles and the 50s "rock and roll" of Chuck Berry have the same basic 4 roots musics that bled into them: country, blues, R&B, and gospel. It's better to have a "disclaimer" in the article explaining that one term typically is used for the earlier music and a different one for the latter than having two bloated articles with large chunks of repeated content. I also can't accept the notion that "rock music" is some separate entity that was "invented" at some point in the 1960s. GBrady ( talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the clear-cut distinction drawn between "early Rock n' Roll" and "British Rock" is a construction. Rock is American by origin and it is an essentially American musical genre. And Rock n' Roll was not merely a "formative influence" on "Rock," which this article claims was invented in Britain. Absurd. One cannot separate the two without drawing a post-hoc, arbitrary line. It is clear, however, that British audiences were immediately receptive to Rock and English bands were highly influential in its evolution. There was constant borrowing back and forth across the Atlantic throughout the 50s and 60s. "Rock n' Roll" did not peter out in the U.S., travel to England, rebrand as "Rock" and retake America. It's not that simple. I look forward to an article labelling Jazz as English.
seeing as rock came from blues, and there is no way you can trace how back the blues have gone, and what influenced the blues to start, but i doubt that rock music was entirely "born" in the states, i myself think that it is a coming together of many countries. The best rock bands have definetly not come out of the states either, yes many great bands have, hendrix for instance but england has the beatles the stones zeppelin, and austrailia has ac/dc,rock definetly isnt from the states by itself
^^Why don't any of you sign your posts? Just because there are now bands from all over the world that play rock music, doesn't mean it wasn't invented in the U.S. It was. Robert Johnson's music was highly influential for rock, and he is often called "the Grandfather of Rock and Roll". He was American, btw. Mystery solved :P Pwnage8 01:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In agreement with the anonymous writers. If someone is going to tell me that British musicians "invented" a new genre, you'll have better luck convincing me on punk than on "rock". British musicians had an appreciation for the earlier R&B/blues singers that had waned in American popularity and essentially retooled that which came before them and reintroduced it. That's not to say that Britain didn't have a HUGE influence on the PROGRESSION of rock music...any music historian worth his salt will have to acknowledge the Beatles and Stones huge influence just to name a pair...but I can't honestly say the Beatles INVENTED a new musical genre though they did POPULARIZE psych thanks to Sgt. Pepper. Rock was born in America, foster parented in the U.K. GBrady ( talk) 14:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am just curious to know why the article is titled "rock (music)" instead of "rock music". The situation is identical with "pop music", which is not titled "pop (music)". I propose a change in article name. Any comments, suggestions? — Eternal Equinox | talk 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph on Instrumental Rock. Comments welcome. Clockwise music 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's missing important sections (hardcore? ska? how they relate to today?) and needs a lot of change. the pre 1980 It's not good enough to just have "alternative" in order to reference these subgenres. Hardcore, in particular has spawned several important subgenres of it's own such as the circa-1986 kind of emo (which is currently omitted) 2000s emo (obsurely refenced as an afterthought). Alternative can be used for anything. -- CalPaterson 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Whats with all that stuff about lindsay lohan and gwen steffani in the 2000-present bit? i though this was supposed to be an article on rock not pop or gangsta rappers. I agree
I don't know how to change it. Thanks. Kirbytime 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Rhythm and blues is rock n roll. Alan Freed just attached the term to R&B to detach the stigma from it in order to be embraced by the mainstream (i.e. white) America (look at the June 26, 1956 issue of Look). It is essentially African American music with heavy roots in blues, jazz, and gospel (hence rhythm and blues). Elvis has always paid his debts to African Americans for "rockin'" before him, from Louis Jordan down to Wynonie Harris. His "That's All Right" was a cover of bluesman Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup's original. He called Fats Domino "The King of Rock n Roll" and was friends with Little Richard, etc., knowing rock's real roots.
Robert Palmer, Dave Marsh, the entire Rock n Roll Hall of Fame and Rolling Stone magazine know this, and it seems that this author(s) is clueless to its history. Ruth Brown, LaVern Baker, Hank Ballard, Dominoes, 5 Royales, Big Joe Turner, etc., were big rockers, and Alan Freed featured many of them in his rock n roll shows.
The business aspect needs to be discussed, such as the role of the DJ, the transition from 78 RPMs into 45s, etc. Also, the racism of rock n roll needs to be highlighted. Rock back then was called "animalistic", "voodoo", "jungle", "Nigger" music, full of "congo rhythms", "jungle rhythms", euphemisms for racism towards African Americans.
Rock n roll was black slang and an intrinsic part of African American culture through language and R&B. It was used in gospel, jazz, and blues, from a form of dancing to sex to being possessed with the holy spirit as you can find them in many recordings in the 20s-40s. Wynonie Harris needs to be mentioned here greatly for setting off a "rock" trend as does Louis Jordan, THE roots of rock artist. Rock's primary artists/fans were black and it was originally a piano and sax based genre. It just took a white man- Elvis - to break rock through as he admitted himself. Since the whites as a whole were exposed to this, they believed that Elvis created rock and it has been ingrained into the public ever since as well as with the help of the media.
Country music does play a role, but these men were more influenced by R&B and country-infletced, trying to imitate black music and performers. Bill Haley, a true and neglected rock n roll pioneer, would have told you himself.
Disco, modern dance/electronic, hip hop, funk, grunge, metal, folk-rock, prog, doo-wop, soul, etc., are all part of the rock family tree. Remember, R&B IS rock and they are all still esentially African American forms no matter which way you look at it. They're all music geared towards teens, all rebellious in their own way, all with essential ties to rock's essential foundation of progressiveness, rebelliousness, etc. You snip out disco, you had better eradicate metal, grunge, etc., as well.
I think we need to get the real historians here.
I agree with that and the fact that the article needs cleaning. Some of these paragraphs, maninly the last one in the grunge section, seem like they were written by 5 year olds.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.33.112 ( talk) 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Modern R&B is different than "rhythm and blues". Modern R&B is more like hip-hop soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.101.216 ( talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, to distinguish rock music as a separate music form (in this case, rock n roll) is absurd and incorrect. It's called "rock" for a reason, and all of its various forms share a common thread, a commonality at its basic core. Rock evolves, seemingly every five years, yet all these genres, from soul to metal, fit under the rock umbrella. If you don't even know what "rock n roll means," then you need to seriously do your homework. In the '50s, "rock music" was just an abbreviation of rock n roll. OK, so the Beatles, Beach Boys, and Bob Dylan elevated the music to "art form," and technologies enhanced the features of this diverse music genre, but that still doesn't mean that now it's no longer rock n roll - it just means its a progression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.216.121 ( talk) 21:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A request for a peer review of the Sparks article has been made here Wikipedia:Peer review/Sparks (band)/archive2. Please have a look and maybe help it along-- KaptKos 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Where are they?! Elvis, Hendrix, Beatles, etc. Jeez, an article like this has GOT to have pictures. Oh, and, also, this article kind of stinks... Torvik 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me why the group "frequently referred to as the biggest rock band in the world by fans and critics alike" (that's from the U2 article) has no mention in the rock article. the biggest band in the world is the Beatles I'd advocate placing them in the alternative section, if that's ok with LimoWreck, since he seems to have appointed himself the guardian of the article.
JimmyTheKnife 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
U2 at best are tangentially classifiable as alternative rock. The thing is they're really a post-punk band that outlived the genre. They were often played on the same college stations that played many alternative artists, but they also had a lot of success as early as the early 80s, putting them apart from what was going on in the underground. There's probably a better context in which to mention U2, they certainly deserve to mentioned. The overview paragraph for the 80s section could probably be reworked and expanded. WesleyDodds 11:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Being "the biggest band in the world" should disqualify them from the alternative rock section, shouldn't it? I agree that they began in a post-punk vein and kept alternative overtones for a few years, but their most popular records are sophisticatedly produced classic rock. Anyway, they shouldn't be added just for the sake of it if we can't think of anything interesting to say about them, which seems to be the case, and which to me points to the irrelevance of being "the biggest rock band in the world" in 2006. Ccoll 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I found a better way of mentioning U2 by creating a section for post-punk. WesleyDodds 05:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
does any1 know of a christian rock band? --jesusfreek2 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Switchfoot
I realize that if someone were to give mention to Dire Straits, it wouldn't fit very well into the 'punk' section, when they originated. However, any history of rock that leaves out Dire Straits is seriously lacking credibility. -- Chris 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)they are classic rock
Music is not about pop allways
generalities should be stayed away from; currently they're all over the place.
The "Trivia" section states:
"There have been many songs with the title "Rock and Roll" from The Treniers in the 1950s to Led Zeppelin, The Velvet Underground, and Gary Glitter in the 1970s as well as Rainbow and The Rolling Stones. However, Trixie Smith is possibly the first artist to incorporate the words in the 1922 record "My Baby Rocks with One Steady Roll." "
But there is a song from The Boswell Sisters which is called "Rock and Roll": "The name of their song [Boswell Sisters' song] "Rock and Roll" is an early use of the term (though far from the first). It is not one of the sisters' hotter numbers; it refers to "the rolling rocking rhythm of the sea". (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boswell_Sisters)
The Boswell sisters recorded songs only from 1925 to 1936, so I think this must one of the first songs, if not the first, to be called "Rock and Roll".
Alfonso Anso (11 December 2006, 22:53 GMT +2)
![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
But I hate it. This may be the worst quality article I've ever fallen into, and what's even worse is how important it is LiAm McShAnE 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. this article sucks. how can you have an article defining rock music without even once mentioning Elvis Presley? that in itself should be some sort of crime. and starting the article off with British music? humpf! you might as well slap every black musician who ever lived directly in the face! what a crock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.25.252.218 ( talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think rock is amazing...It is the best music to get involved with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock.ollie ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is absolutely incredible. Seriously, is anyone actually monitering this page? I have the biggest symathy for whoever it is. I'll get round to helping as soon as I've made myself an account. The Grunge section is particularly bad as it is factually incorrect, ignores the 1st wave and seems to be written by some lunk-headed Nirvana fan. Jeez... 92.3.140.121 ( talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
These two articals are basicly the same, as rock is just a short of rock and roll. However the artical "Rock and roll" is shorter. Yes, of course the two articals should be merged together, but to keep the Rock and roll artical; it should tell the meaning of rock and roll instead of the history.
This article is so goddamn worthless. Remove it from the face of the earth and flesh out the rock and roll article.-- Gustav Lindwall 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what idiot thinks rock n roll and "rock" music are two different entities. They're all ONE. Rock is rock, with an array of subgenres falling under its tent. Whoever made this article is either woefully ignorant, a revisionist or racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.101.216 ( talk) 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This is another perfect and classic example of white guys trying to rewrite the history of American music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 ( talk) 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Rock is not the same thing as rock and roll. Rock and roll is basically just sped-up blues. Rock encompasses more forms, where as most rock and roll songs are 12-bar-blueses. Rock and roll came first, and rock evolved from it. Tez kag 72 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The difference between "rock" and "rock 'n' roll" is largely semantics relegated to a small coterie of record collector weenies. (I should know, I *AM* one of them.) While you can argue that a group of adherents separates them, letting rock and roll refer to the musical combination of country, blues, R&B, and gospel forms in the late 40s/early 50s (depending on where you stand on the "What is the first rock and roll record?" argument) and continuing on up until (loosely) the arrival of the Beatles at which point it began to morph into the more album-oriented "rock". If someone says they enjoy "rock" music, we know they mean music which traces itself back to those basic four roots musics. If we're going to start opening the can of worms that they are "different" then we also have to start making allowances for "oldies"..who the heck can definitely decide what eras THAT constitutes? (Even oldies radio stations can't figure that out.) I think the obvious answer is that this should all be ONE article...with a small section indicating that "rock and roll" typically refers to music of late 40s through early 60s vintage..and leave it at that. Anything else is inviting needless chaos. GBrady ( talk) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously - this is the worst article I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. It's a mess - uniformed and vague and serving no real purpose. A good description of the prevailing thematic elements of Rock and the history of it's evolution followed by a listing of links to articles about the subgenres would be much more effective. What can we do to fix this thing? I'm willing to help rework it from scratch. -LDB
For goodness sake, take ELO out of Soft Rock! They are ORCHESTRAL ROCKERS! ( 205.250.167.76 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
This is the worst article ever. It FUCKING SUCKS. Just the summary at the top is so bad it makes me cry.-- Gustav Lindwall 14:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The section on grunge lacks a NPOV. It clearly glorifies grunge. oh please
We've taken one pretty good article and turned it into two bad articles. Just for starters, let's look at the terminology (ostensibly the name for the split):
The lead for the rock and roll article says:
While the lead for the rock article says:
I won't even begin to go into the problems with these paragraphs, but, tortured writing aside, what is a reader supposed to take away from these two leads?
Huge amounts of good writing have been lost in this 'transition', and I for one think it's a darned shame. And since when does the All Music Guide determine what conventions are appropriate here? Jgm 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't touched eitrher of these articles myself, and I am not sure where to start. The confusion betwen the two terms ('rock' vs 'rock-and-roll') is due to the fact that the latter is a sub-set of the former.
'Rock' music as such is a VERY broad category. To put it in simple terms, Rock is thr mainstream American pop music that evoled following swing in the 50's. A more complicated definition would be a genre of poular music characteriaed by a straight eitgh-note rythm in common time, with emphasis on BOTH the down and back beat. Pretty much anything in straigh time, with the snare on two and four is Rock music. Yes, that includes everything from Madonna to Metallica, with a stop off in between for House, Techno, Rap, contemporary Country music, Soca, Ska, Speed Metal, Fusion...you get the picture.
More broadly, 'Rock' is a term that describes late-Twentieth Century music in general. This is the 'Rock Period' as much as there was a 'Jazz Period', a 'Romantic Period', a 'Baroque Period'. etc.
One thing that differetitates Rock from other forms, particulary Jazz and late-period Swing, it is the reliance on the "lower half" (bass drum and snare) of the drum kit and bass guitar for a rythmic foundation.
If there are two things, the other is the 'artifiliaity' of Rock, as opposed to Jazz and anything before it. Rock music evoloved in parallel with multi-track recording. The basic 'sound' of Rock is an artificial construct created in the recording studio. Non-musicians may no appreciate the difference, but this is a fundamental shift in the process of music creation. The goal of recording was, originally, to capture the sound of a live band playing (mostly) prearranged and pre-rehersed music. The freedomn of multi-track recording allowed music-producers to write, arrange, and orchestrate 'on tape' as it were. That is, the full musical number is typically NEVER played by an entire ensemble until AFTER it has been recorded. The practical upshot of all this is a complete reversal of the process. The goal is often to recreate the sound of a record live, as opposed to capturing the 'live' sound to tape.
Related to this is the question of electricty. Rock also devleoped in parrallel with what is essentialy a new type of instrument: the electric one. That is, electric guitar, bass, and keyboard. These are not 'complete' instuments themselves. Rather, they can be viewed as controllers, who's output is used to modulate a speaker system. Again,. this is a fundamnetal change that may evade non-musicans (actuall, it evades a whole lot of musicans as well.)
What of "rock-and-roll" then? It is a subgenre of Rock. More particularly, it is a transional phase between jazz and szwing, and Rock proper. On way to look at rock-and-roll is as Swing with a hard-hitting, electrified rythm section. It also represents a transition from professional musican ship to the cultural of 'talented amatuerism' that prevade popular music....but THAT is a whole nother article.
Anyways, those are some thoughts to chew on for anyone who wants to tackle the article. Any other thoughts?
Rob Wrigley
This really is a terrible article. Read it for the first time today. It's more like a breakdown of genres that an article about "rock". I'll have a stab at making it better. - I hope!-- Mike Infinitum 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with me that this article should be merged with Rock and Roll they are the same thing in essence. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck
Strong Support "Rock" is merely a delineation of TIME not really of GENRE. If you trace them back, both the 60s "rock" of the Beatles and the 50s "rock and roll" of Chuck Berry have the same basic 4 roots musics that bled into them: country, blues, R&B, and gospel. It's better to have a "disclaimer" in the article explaining that one term typically is used for the earlier music and a different one for the latter than having two bloated articles with large chunks of repeated content. I also can't accept the notion that "rock music" is some separate entity that was "invented" at some point in the 1960s. GBrady ( talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the clear-cut distinction drawn between "early Rock n' Roll" and "British Rock" is a construction. Rock is American by origin and it is an essentially American musical genre. And Rock n' Roll was not merely a "formative influence" on "Rock," which this article claims was invented in Britain. Absurd. One cannot separate the two without drawing a post-hoc, arbitrary line. It is clear, however, that British audiences were immediately receptive to Rock and English bands were highly influential in its evolution. There was constant borrowing back and forth across the Atlantic throughout the 50s and 60s. "Rock n' Roll" did not peter out in the U.S., travel to England, rebrand as "Rock" and retake America. It's not that simple. I look forward to an article labelling Jazz as English.
seeing as rock came from blues, and there is no way you can trace how back the blues have gone, and what influenced the blues to start, but i doubt that rock music was entirely "born" in the states, i myself think that it is a coming together of many countries. The best rock bands have definetly not come out of the states either, yes many great bands have, hendrix for instance but england has the beatles the stones zeppelin, and austrailia has ac/dc,rock definetly isnt from the states by itself
^^Why don't any of you sign your posts? Just because there are now bands from all over the world that play rock music, doesn't mean it wasn't invented in the U.S. It was. Robert Johnson's music was highly influential for rock, and he is often called "the Grandfather of Rock and Roll". He was American, btw. Mystery solved :P Pwnage8 01:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In agreement with the anonymous writers. If someone is going to tell me that British musicians "invented" a new genre, you'll have better luck convincing me on punk than on "rock". British musicians had an appreciation for the earlier R&B/blues singers that had waned in American popularity and essentially retooled that which came before them and reintroduced it. That's not to say that Britain didn't have a HUGE influence on the PROGRESSION of rock music...any music historian worth his salt will have to acknowledge the Beatles and Stones huge influence just to name a pair...but I can't honestly say the Beatles INVENTED a new musical genre though they did POPULARIZE psych thanks to Sgt. Pepper. Rock was born in America, foster parented in the U.K. GBrady ( talk) 14:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am just curious to know why the article is titled "rock (music)" instead of "rock music". The situation is identical with "pop music", which is not titled "pop (music)". I propose a change in article name. Any comments, suggestions? — Eternal Equinox | talk 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph on Instrumental Rock. Comments welcome. Clockwise music 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's missing important sections (hardcore? ska? how they relate to today?) and needs a lot of change. the pre 1980 It's not good enough to just have "alternative" in order to reference these subgenres. Hardcore, in particular has spawned several important subgenres of it's own such as the circa-1986 kind of emo (which is currently omitted) 2000s emo (obsurely refenced as an afterthought). Alternative can be used for anything. -- CalPaterson 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Whats with all that stuff about lindsay lohan and gwen steffani in the 2000-present bit? i though this was supposed to be an article on rock not pop or gangsta rappers. I agree
I don't know how to change it. Thanks. Kirbytime 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Rhythm and blues is rock n roll. Alan Freed just attached the term to R&B to detach the stigma from it in order to be embraced by the mainstream (i.e. white) America (look at the June 26, 1956 issue of Look). It is essentially African American music with heavy roots in blues, jazz, and gospel (hence rhythm and blues). Elvis has always paid his debts to African Americans for "rockin'" before him, from Louis Jordan down to Wynonie Harris. His "That's All Right" was a cover of bluesman Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup's original. He called Fats Domino "The King of Rock n Roll" and was friends with Little Richard, etc., knowing rock's real roots.
Robert Palmer, Dave Marsh, the entire Rock n Roll Hall of Fame and Rolling Stone magazine know this, and it seems that this author(s) is clueless to its history. Ruth Brown, LaVern Baker, Hank Ballard, Dominoes, 5 Royales, Big Joe Turner, etc., were big rockers, and Alan Freed featured many of them in his rock n roll shows.
The business aspect needs to be discussed, such as the role of the DJ, the transition from 78 RPMs into 45s, etc. Also, the racism of rock n roll needs to be highlighted. Rock back then was called "animalistic", "voodoo", "jungle", "Nigger" music, full of "congo rhythms", "jungle rhythms", euphemisms for racism towards African Americans.
Rock n roll was black slang and an intrinsic part of African American culture through language and R&B. It was used in gospel, jazz, and blues, from a form of dancing to sex to being possessed with the holy spirit as you can find them in many recordings in the 20s-40s. Wynonie Harris needs to be mentioned here greatly for setting off a "rock" trend as does Louis Jordan, THE roots of rock artist. Rock's primary artists/fans were black and it was originally a piano and sax based genre. It just took a white man- Elvis - to break rock through as he admitted himself. Since the whites as a whole were exposed to this, they believed that Elvis created rock and it has been ingrained into the public ever since as well as with the help of the media.
Country music does play a role, but these men were more influenced by R&B and country-infletced, trying to imitate black music and performers. Bill Haley, a true and neglected rock n roll pioneer, would have told you himself.
Disco, modern dance/electronic, hip hop, funk, grunge, metal, folk-rock, prog, doo-wop, soul, etc., are all part of the rock family tree. Remember, R&B IS rock and they are all still esentially African American forms no matter which way you look at it. They're all music geared towards teens, all rebellious in their own way, all with essential ties to rock's essential foundation of progressiveness, rebelliousness, etc. You snip out disco, you had better eradicate metal, grunge, etc., as well.
I think we need to get the real historians here.
I agree with that and the fact that the article needs cleaning. Some of these paragraphs, maninly the last one in the grunge section, seem like they were written by 5 year olds.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.33.112 ( talk) 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
Modern R&B is different than "rhythm and blues". Modern R&B is more like hip-hop soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.101.216 ( talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, to distinguish rock music as a separate music form (in this case, rock n roll) is absurd and incorrect. It's called "rock" for a reason, and all of its various forms share a common thread, a commonality at its basic core. Rock evolves, seemingly every five years, yet all these genres, from soul to metal, fit under the rock umbrella. If you don't even know what "rock n roll means," then you need to seriously do your homework. In the '50s, "rock music" was just an abbreviation of rock n roll. OK, so the Beatles, Beach Boys, and Bob Dylan elevated the music to "art form," and technologies enhanced the features of this diverse music genre, but that still doesn't mean that now it's no longer rock n roll - it just means its a progression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.216.121 ( talk) 21:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A request for a peer review of the Sparks article has been made here Wikipedia:Peer review/Sparks (band)/archive2. Please have a look and maybe help it along-- KaptKos 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Where are they?! Elvis, Hendrix, Beatles, etc. Jeez, an article like this has GOT to have pictures. Oh, and, also, this article kind of stinks... Torvik 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me why the group "frequently referred to as the biggest rock band in the world by fans and critics alike" (that's from the U2 article) has no mention in the rock article. the biggest band in the world is the Beatles I'd advocate placing them in the alternative section, if that's ok with LimoWreck, since he seems to have appointed himself the guardian of the article.
JimmyTheKnife 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
U2 at best are tangentially classifiable as alternative rock. The thing is they're really a post-punk band that outlived the genre. They were often played on the same college stations that played many alternative artists, but they also had a lot of success as early as the early 80s, putting them apart from what was going on in the underground. There's probably a better context in which to mention U2, they certainly deserve to mentioned. The overview paragraph for the 80s section could probably be reworked and expanded. WesleyDodds 11:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Being "the biggest band in the world" should disqualify them from the alternative rock section, shouldn't it? I agree that they began in a post-punk vein and kept alternative overtones for a few years, but their most popular records are sophisticatedly produced classic rock. Anyway, they shouldn't be added just for the sake of it if we can't think of anything interesting to say about them, which seems to be the case, and which to me points to the irrelevance of being "the biggest rock band in the world" in 2006. Ccoll 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I found a better way of mentioning U2 by creating a section for post-punk. WesleyDodds 05:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
does any1 know of a christian rock band? --jesusfreek2 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Switchfoot
I realize that if someone were to give mention to Dire Straits, it wouldn't fit very well into the 'punk' section, when they originated. However, any history of rock that leaves out Dire Straits is seriously lacking credibility. -- Chris 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)they are classic rock
Music is not about pop allways
generalities should be stayed away from; currently they're all over the place.
The "Trivia" section states:
"There have been many songs with the title "Rock and Roll" from The Treniers in the 1950s to Led Zeppelin, The Velvet Underground, and Gary Glitter in the 1970s as well as Rainbow and The Rolling Stones. However, Trixie Smith is possibly the first artist to incorporate the words in the 1922 record "My Baby Rocks with One Steady Roll." "
But there is a song from The Boswell Sisters which is called "Rock and Roll": "The name of their song [Boswell Sisters' song] "Rock and Roll" is an early use of the term (though far from the first). It is not one of the sisters' hotter numbers; it refers to "the rolling rocking rhythm of the sea". (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boswell_Sisters)
The Boswell sisters recorded songs only from 1925 to 1936, so I think this must one of the first songs, if not the first, to be called "Rock and Roll".
Alfonso Anso (11 December 2006, 22:53 GMT +2)