![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
It is interesting that there is a lack of African Americans in the history of the music they created!!! There is the token mentions of some black 50's rockers and then we get the nice photograph of Jimi Hendrix. Where the heck is Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding, and James Brown? Any book on rock history covers these important artists---so does the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is amazing that the Tygers of Pan Tang (?) rate a mention--- but Stevie Wonder is not included. The inclusion of every obscure metal band is ridiculous and obviously the work of fanboys living in Mom's basement. This article is racist and inaccurate. It needs to be worked on by someone who really knows the subject.
P.S. Run-DMC are the Kings of Rock!!! 71.41.38.234 ( talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this article some problems with people coming here and editing it to include their favorite bands, and then everyones tearing at it to fix it. Some inclusion at how the black community virtually started rock and roll would be great, but with more of a general touch and not sentences of name listing like the Pop Music article. 24.124.40.164 ( talk) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol. I mean, this doesn't surprise me after seeing the splitting of the terms "rock" and "rock and roll" and lacking many primary sources from the pre-Beatles era that would squash these absurd distinctions. It's pathetic that Wikipedia and this rock article have been here for years and yet African Americans are sorely under appreciated in this regard and are finally starting to be given their due by the same people here who handle this page! I mean, scroll down, and you'll see the talk on doo-wop. Really sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.42 ( talk) 05:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I restored the deletion of this section, since it had not been discussed here and is a major change. It is pretty clear that this is "made up media term", but then they all are. If we do not have this we need some way of classifying acts from this period. I suggest that the origin and debatable nature of the term is briefly mentioned, but I am open to a better suggestion.-- SabreBD ( talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Honestly shouldn't you add the affects it gets onto people not just socially politically but also emotionally? Yet the only thing i see is that well the time line and recording hits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.65.200 ( talk) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You need to consider the role of Swing and Western Swing. Noel Boggs and his phased out electric guitar, Eldon Shamblen and the old man himself Bob Wills. They were a playing rhythm music before Rock too part of the name with it. It was all rhythm music. Stanleybadams ( talk) 16:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A couple of recent edits, and some points raised above, suggest that what I think is the consensus among regular editors on this article, (that rock is distinct genre that had its origins in late 1950s-early 1960s rock and roll, but really began in the mid-60s) is perhaps not sufficinetly clear in the article. All the other period based sub-headings now have the same format of a title with dates in brackets, except the 50-early 60s one. Would it help if we changed this to something like: The prehistory of rock (1950s-early 1960s), or perhaps The origins of rock (1950s-early 1960s)? The opening section on Rock and roll could then perhaps begin with something like "Rock music had its origins in 1950s rock and roll". Perhaps someone can come up with better title or opening phrases, but I hope the clarification I am suggesting is clear.-- SabreBD ( talk) 13:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This now done, along the lines of suggestion above.-- SabreBD ( talk) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The term has never been dropped by the musicians.
Rock and Roll Music (Chuck Berry 1957)Rock and Roll Music (Beatles 1964) Rock and Roll (Velvet Underground 1970)Rock n' Roll (Led Zeppelin 1971) It's Only Rock n' Roll (Rolling Sones 1974) Rock and Roll All Nite (Kiss 1975)Rock and Roll Doctor (Black Sabbath 1976)Rock n' Roll Fantasy (Kinks 1978) Rock n' Roll High School (Ramones 1979) I Love Rock n'Roll (Joan Jett 1982) Rock n' Roll (Motorhead 1987)Rock n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake 1994) Rock and Roll Girlfriend (Green Day 2004)Rock n' Roll Jesus (Kid Rock 2007) Rock and Roll Train (AC/DC 2008)
Rock and "Rock and Roll" are synonyms....."Rock and Roll" is not just pre Beatles music....John Lennon always thought of what he did as Rock and Roll. Kurt Cobain and the guys from Metallica have used both terms (kinda like a synonym). A whale and a bat are very different animals---but they are still under the heading "Mammal". Buddy Holly and Metallica are also very different in many ways but they share enough in common to both be Rock and Roll (or rock). i don't know the motive for seperating the obvious relationship.....age gaps.....racism maybe?.....whatever the motive is .....you're kidding yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 ( talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As I am moving towards the end of the great clean-up project there are a few suggestions for changes to sub-sections for consideration of editors, just in case their are any serious objections or useful suggestions.
As ever, comments very welcome.-- SabreBD ( talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the beginning of the New Millenium section as it is the only section which has such and intro and is rather. Some of these points seems very - if unsourced, but is odd to have this on only one sub-section. Do we want this sort of introduction to ever section, or is it unecessary?
-- SabreBD ( talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I know heroic efforts were made to expand these sections, but attempting to clean them up has indicated a number of problems. Essentially the difficulties are with the source articles that are being summarised or relied on here, which are often confused, contradictory and repetitious. Once all that has been sorted, along with some possible synthesis and OR, all the sections look very thin and I cannot find much to substantially expand them in any meaningful way as the usual sources have not caught up with the movements yet. I will keep looking, but my suggestion is that these are combined into one electronic rock sub-section, that mentions all of these sub-genres. They can always be expanded again if sources catch up with these developments and indicate their lasting importance.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have now done this, trying to make the more concise section at least as informative as the previous three. I called this "Digital electronic rock" in order to leave the door open for a section earlier on that might cover "analogue" electronic rock, (perhaps) between the late 70s and 90s. Views on that proposal also welcome.-- SabreBD ( talk) 12:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just a nobody in this discussion, but I've always assumed "Rock Music" is more like an era kind of like the "iron age", where you have like domination of tribal music forms, then folk music, then structured/institutionalized music - ie. classical music (which is by no means a limited to western culture) ... and now we have rock music which is basically de-institutionalized music. I doubt any publication champions this thesis, but if you try to crystallize how the term is used, this is a very natural fit for the word. Beyond rock may be a kind of faux "avant guard" era which like fine art will consciously seeks new outlets while enjoying mainstream recognition. You can get the fill of rock taking the backstage even now. That said I love the list like quality of this article, and Rock'n'Roll is something totally different from "Rock Music" in so far as "Rock Music" is really just a phrase, which in reality probably deserves little more than a broad definition than a look at all of the genres of the "Rock era." I guess I'm just trying to say I was very amused this article even existed and attempted to define something which is essentially a zeitgeist of an age in stark terms. -- 72.173.5.119 ( talk) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I was reading this (otherwise pretty excellent) article and I noticed that by the mentions of some rather old bands or artists there were contemporary photo's. Wouldn't it be more in style if pictures from their glory days were used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.164.82 ( talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent changed of the Encyclopedia Britanica with the Rock and Roll hall of fame because the Hall of fame is not a peer reviewed source and because it didn't say what the relevant sentence had been changed to. I will undertake to look for over some of the major sources and see if what they say. I should point out that this article is only summing briefly up what is in much more detail at Rock and Roll and a lot of detail may not be appropriate here.-- SabreBD ( talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Has there been an attempt to make rock music in 1890s Mickman1234 ( talk) 20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Although this article is long, it says virtually nothing about rock as music — in terms of harmony, melody and rhythm. 1Z ( talk) 11:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I reverted recent good faith edits in the Soft rock/hard rock/heavy metal section, because they broke up the chronological flow of what was being said, specifically the sentence they were added to was dealing with the first wave of (psychedelic) blues rock c. 66-67. Zeppelin are mentioned immediately after as having moved the sound on by 1970s. I am not sure what exactly the intent is here: does the chronology of these bands (Cream, Hendrix, Jeff Beck Group) need to be more clearly signposted? Or perhaps there is some other reason I haven't see yet.-- SabreBD ( talk) 12:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The article does not list Piano Rock as a genre , is it not a distinct genre ?
Gulielmus estavius ( talk) 07:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
[Copied from my talkpage] I recently mentioned pet sounds on the psychedelic section on the rock music page. I just wanted to know what was wrong with? Because I personally think that the info is reliable as the beach boys did use psychedelic themes in there songs on pet sounds. thanks for reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.85.232 ( talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There really should be a section about the revival of progressive rock in the mid 90s with bands such as Muse and Radiohead, considering the huge popularity they have.
Also, I feel the Emo section is way too long considering how new the style is. COmparatively, there is not really enough on Alternative style, since Alternative is such a broad type of rock.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.240.114.224 (
talk)
05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
These names and lables are without doubt troublesome, but the method of just comparing "Rock" and "Rock and Roll" is not sufficient. Since a lot of the definitions for "Rock" include the vital difference from "Pop" - the terms must be settled together. Is there a more suitable place to do that than here?
Also - why are there such distinct Year dates for the "Golden years" section? Are we dead certain on those exact years? What sources are there for such accuracy. Write "Mid-60s to Mid [or late] -70s" instead. I'm fixing that, if you wish feel free to revert but make sure to discuss it. CentraCross ( talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
It is interesting that there is a lack of African Americans in the history of the music they created!!! There is the token mentions of some black 50's rockers and then we get the nice photograph of Jimi Hendrix. Where the heck is Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding, and James Brown? Any book on rock history covers these important artists---so does the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is amazing that the Tygers of Pan Tang (?) rate a mention--- but Stevie Wonder is not included. The inclusion of every obscure metal band is ridiculous and obviously the work of fanboys living in Mom's basement. This article is racist and inaccurate. It needs to be worked on by someone who really knows the subject.
P.S. Run-DMC are the Kings of Rock!!! 71.41.38.234 ( talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this article some problems with people coming here and editing it to include their favorite bands, and then everyones tearing at it to fix it. Some inclusion at how the black community virtually started rock and roll would be great, but with more of a general touch and not sentences of name listing like the Pop Music article. 24.124.40.164 ( talk) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol. I mean, this doesn't surprise me after seeing the splitting of the terms "rock" and "rock and roll" and lacking many primary sources from the pre-Beatles era that would squash these absurd distinctions. It's pathetic that Wikipedia and this rock article have been here for years and yet African Americans are sorely under appreciated in this regard and are finally starting to be given their due by the same people here who handle this page! I mean, scroll down, and you'll see the talk on doo-wop. Really sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.42 ( talk) 05:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I restored the deletion of this section, since it had not been discussed here and is a major change. It is pretty clear that this is "made up media term", but then they all are. If we do not have this we need some way of classifying acts from this period. I suggest that the origin and debatable nature of the term is briefly mentioned, but I am open to a better suggestion.-- SabreBD ( talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Honestly shouldn't you add the affects it gets onto people not just socially politically but also emotionally? Yet the only thing i see is that well the time line and recording hits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.65.200 ( talk) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You need to consider the role of Swing and Western Swing. Noel Boggs and his phased out electric guitar, Eldon Shamblen and the old man himself Bob Wills. They were a playing rhythm music before Rock too part of the name with it. It was all rhythm music. Stanleybadams ( talk) 16:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A couple of recent edits, and some points raised above, suggest that what I think is the consensus among regular editors on this article, (that rock is distinct genre that had its origins in late 1950s-early 1960s rock and roll, but really began in the mid-60s) is perhaps not sufficinetly clear in the article. All the other period based sub-headings now have the same format of a title with dates in brackets, except the 50-early 60s one. Would it help if we changed this to something like: The prehistory of rock (1950s-early 1960s), or perhaps The origins of rock (1950s-early 1960s)? The opening section on Rock and roll could then perhaps begin with something like "Rock music had its origins in 1950s rock and roll". Perhaps someone can come up with better title or opening phrases, but I hope the clarification I am suggesting is clear.-- SabreBD ( talk) 13:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This now done, along the lines of suggestion above.-- SabreBD ( talk) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The term has never been dropped by the musicians.
Rock and Roll Music (Chuck Berry 1957)Rock and Roll Music (Beatles 1964) Rock and Roll (Velvet Underground 1970)Rock n' Roll (Led Zeppelin 1971) It's Only Rock n' Roll (Rolling Sones 1974) Rock and Roll All Nite (Kiss 1975)Rock and Roll Doctor (Black Sabbath 1976)Rock n' Roll Fantasy (Kinks 1978) Rock n' Roll High School (Ramones 1979) I Love Rock n'Roll (Joan Jett 1982) Rock n' Roll (Motorhead 1987)Rock n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake 1994) Rock and Roll Girlfriend (Green Day 2004)Rock n' Roll Jesus (Kid Rock 2007) Rock and Roll Train (AC/DC 2008)
Rock and "Rock and Roll" are synonyms....."Rock and Roll" is not just pre Beatles music....John Lennon always thought of what he did as Rock and Roll. Kurt Cobain and the guys from Metallica have used both terms (kinda like a synonym). A whale and a bat are very different animals---but they are still under the heading "Mammal". Buddy Holly and Metallica are also very different in many ways but they share enough in common to both be Rock and Roll (or rock). i don't know the motive for seperating the obvious relationship.....age gaps.....racism maybe?.....whatever the motive is .....you're kidding yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 ( talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As I am moving towards the end of the great clean-up project there are a few suggestions for changes to sub-sections for consideration of editors, just in case their are any serious objections or useful suggestions.
As ever, comments very welcome.-- SabreBD ( talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the beginning of the New Millenium section as it is the only section which has such and intro and is rather. Some of these points seems very - if unsourced, but is odd to have this on only one sub-section. Do we want this sort of introduction to ever section, or is it unecessary?
-- SabreBD ( talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I know heroic efforts were made to expand these sections, but attempting to clean them up has indicated a number of problems. Essentially the difficulties are with the source articles that are being summarised or relied on here, which are often confused, contradictory and repetitious. Once all that has been sorted, along with some possible synthesis and OR, all the sections look very thin and I cannot find much to substantially expand them in any meaningful way as the usual sources have not caught up with the movements yet. I will keep looking, but my suggestion is that these are combined into one electronic rock sub-section, that mentions all of these sub-genres. They can always be expanded again if sources catch up with these developments and indicate their lasting importance.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have now done this, trying to make the more concise section at least as informative as the previous three. I called this "Digital electronic rock" in order to leave the door open for a section earlier on that might cover "analogue" electronic rock, (perhaps) between the late 70s and 90s. Views on that proposal also welcome.-- SabreBD ( talk) 12:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just a nobody in this discussion, but I've always assumed "Rock Music" is more like an era kind of like the "iron age", where you have like domination of tribal music forms, then folk music, then structured/institutionalized music - ie. classical music (which is by no means a limited to western culture) ... and now we have rock music which is basically de-institutionalized music. I doubt any publication champions this thesis, but if you try to crystallize how the term is used, this is a very natural fit for the word. Beyond rock may be a kind of faux "avant guard" era which like fine art will consciously seeks new outlets while enjoying mainstream recognition. You can get the fill of rock taking the backstage even now. That said I love the list like quality of this article, and Rock'n'Roll is something totally different from "Rock Music" in so far as "Rock Music" is really just a phrase, which in reality probably deserves little more than a broad definition than a look at all of the genres of the "Rock era." I guess I'm just trying to say I was very amused this article even existed and attempted to define something which is essentially a zeitgeist of an age in stark terms. -- 72.173.5.119 ( talk) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I was reading this (otherwise pretty excellent) article and I noticed that by the mentions of some rather old bands or artists there were contemporary photo's. Wouldn't it be more in style if pictures from their glory days were used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.164.82 ( talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent changed of the Encyclopedia Britanica with the Rock and Roll hall of fame because the Hall of fame is not a peer reviewed source and because it didn't say what the relevant sentence had been changed to. I will undertake to look for over some of the major sources and see if what they say. I should point out that this article is only summing briefly up what is in much more detail at Rock and Roll and a lot of detail may not be appropriate here.-- SabreBD ( talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Has there been an attempt to make rock music in 1890s Mickman1234 ( talk) 20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Although this article is long, it says virtually nothing about rock as music — in terms of harmony, melody and rhythm. 1Z ( talk) 11:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I reverted recent good faith edits in the Soft rock/hard rock/heavy metal section, because they broke up the chronological flow of what was being said, specifically the sentence they were added to was dealing with the first wave of (psychedelic) blues rock c. 66-67. Zeppelin are mentioned immediately after as having moved the sound on by 1970s. I am not sure what exactly the intent is here: does the chronology of these bands (Cream, Hendrix, Jeff Beck Group) need to be more clearly signposted? Or perhaps there is some other reason I haven't see yet.-- SabreBD ( talk) 12:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The article does not list Piano Rock as a genre , is it not a distinct genre ?
Gulielmus estavius ( talk) 07:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
[Copied from my talkpage] I recently mentioned pet sounds on the psychedelic section on the rock music page. I just wanted to know what was wrong with? Because I personally think that the info is reliable as the beach boys did use psychedelic themes in there songs on pet sounds. thanks for reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.85.232 ( talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There really should be a section about the revival of progressive rock in the mid 90s with bands such as Muse and Radiohead, considering the huge popularity they have.
Also, I feel the Emo section is way too long considering how new the style is. COmparatively, there is not really enough on Alternative style, since Alternative is such a broad type of rock.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.240.114.224 (
talk)
05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
These names and lables are without doubt troublesome, but the method of just comparing "Rock" and "Rock and Roll" is not sufficient. Since a lot of the definitions for "Rock" include the vital difference from "Pop" - the terms must be settled together. Is there a more suitable place to do that than here?
Also - why are there such distinct Year dates for the "Golden years" section? Are we dead certain on those exact years? What sources are there for such accuracy. Write "Mid-60s to Mid [or late] -70s" instead. I'm fixing that, if you wish feel free to revert but make sure to discuss it. CentraCross ( talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)