![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I feel the articles Rock Music and Rock and Roll should be merged. They are the same thing. Any music scholar or historian would agree with this.
The article has shamelessly left out the contributions of black artists from James Brown to Otis Redding to Prince to Run DMC. All four of these artists are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why are they recognized as rock artists by the Hall of Fame, music scholars, and university professors and not by this article. Why is any mention of soul, hip hop, or disco erased. Any good book on rock and roll includes these genres.
I think a bunch of metal heads and reactionary classic rock fans have shaped this page unfortunately. The article does not reflect a scholarly look at the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever heard their early guitar heavy work like King of Rock? They are defenitely rock and roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 ( talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ask the Beastie Boys, Rage Against the Machine, or Faith No More if there influence is minor to nil. Rap has had a huge impact on rock and rates a mention. Many rock bands have praised their music.
Bob Marley is a rock artist and is in any rock history book (and I have many).
African Americans invented this music and yet they barely rate a mention--we'd all be listening to Stephen Foster without their work.
The reggae sections origin is from the Wikipedia article---and I do think soul hip hop etc etc are forms of rock and roll and should be included as it is in every text book about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No---- but many of these forms shaped and influenced rock--think about Rage Against the Machine---great rock band---wouldn't exist without rap. I don't feel soul, rap etc. should be the focus but they rate a mention---rock in its present form wouldn't exist without them. African Americans invented rock music and they kept influencing it and it should be recognized. Just my opinion.
Wow---now I feel bad for being pushy---thank you --I appreciate it although I doubt it'll last long---thanks
I'm looking at it and I can't believe you did such a great job in that short time---it would have taken me days to do that! Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It is by no means the consensus on this article that these forms of music you are adding are rock music. The music clearly has a specific meaning used here which is outlined at the beginning of the lead. What you are doing is a very major change to the scope and direction of the article and needs to gain a consensus on this page before proceeding. Please allow some time for discussion before proceeding with such a major change.-- Sabrebd ( talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of it needs to be retained--if not in its own subsection--at least merged into other sections. African American contributions to rock should not be ignored. Fdog9 ( talk) 04:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting discussion here, mirroring previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of rock music, and I'm sure elsewhere. There is one school of thought which argues that "rock and roll" and "rock" cover the same ground, and another that "rock" is a specific (but widespread) post-1960s ("noisy white men with guitars") development from the 1950s style. There is also a separate but related argument that the term "rock" is limited to that particular genre ("noisy white men with guitars"), and another school of thought which treats most modern rhythm-based popular music - including soul, funk, reggae, hip hop, disco, etc. etc. - as part of the overarching umbrella term "rock music". I'm sure that reliable refs can be found on either side. (There is an important side argument, which is that it is racist to exclude most black artists from "rock music".) What is important here is that the variations of definition are mentioned, and that articles are written which cover all the ground, with good solid links between articles and not too much overlap. In order to do that, some form of consensus needs to be reached. Is the best place for that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, rather than here? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
(Separated into new sub-heading for clarity)
Free files do, or could reasonably, exist which illustrate all of these subgenres, and so they should be used in favour of the non-free files. If we do not yet have a free example, then an effort should be made to find one, but, in the mean time, none should be used. Please see non-free content criterion 1. J Milburn ( talk) 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I see a little better where you are coming from, but there still seems a big leap from #8 to the position you have adopted on use of audio outside of single song articles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) actually gets you closer to this, particularly the clause that states that samples should be near to paragraphs mentioning them. This could be taken to suggest that (free and non-free) samples should be mentioned in the text and I for one would be willing to accept that as a premise, I think it makes for a much better article and if they are non-free it might help justify use (although note below the album problem for rock). This article mentions several recordings, so they would be candidates for inclusion under this view (without prejudging the issue of whether there need to be samples at all - which we can - and should - come back to). This also implies that several samples can be used and this suggests that use of audio in general can illustrate different aspects of a topic. The next clause specifically states that there is no limit to the number of samples and then directs us back to the issue of minimal use for non-free samples.
So to summarise: it is legitimate to have several samples, those samples should probably be mentioned in the text, if they are non-free there should be minimum use - i.e. only used if there is no alternative (#1) and if they significantly enhance understanding and not having them would be "would be detrimental to that understanding" (#8). If we accept the concept that samples should be mentioned, then the issue of free alternatives is irrelevant in this case, as a free file will be of a different version and so cannot replace a non-free one. The two issues remain, does this article need audio at all and, if so, we should looking at each named song and consider whether it would enhance understanding to have it/be detrimental not to have it? I have point out that because of the nature of rock, for a lot of its history an album based genre, I would argue that what needs to be mentioned in the text could be a specific album from which a track could then be given in a sample, but that its relationship would need to be clearly stated (perhaps on the link to the sample).
I might add that this is not to simply justify the inclusion of large number of non-free samples, as I am not entirely convinced that the article needs samples at all. If that is settled in the positive I see absolutely no practicable way of deciding if not having a non-free sample would be detrimental. In one sense all samples are additional enhancements, but then if we take that view then we have to delete them from all articles, even song articles and if that were the case there would be no policy on non-free use. All I can suggest is that in that sort of case we would have to argue out some reasonable criteria that fit minimum use.
So if editors follow all that there are two issues I would request editors to comment on:
Given that there were long-standing samples on this article and that the editor that removed the non-free ones did so over a copyright issue, not a principle that there should be no samples, I am going to take it that there is a consensus for including samples as illustrations of the development of the genre. If there are objections in general to samples or this way of discussion them now is a really good time to state them. For those that have not read the sub-section above, the relevant policies are WP:SAMPLE and WP:NFCC, which outline the nature of the files and also issues about use, particularly minimum use of non-free material. The intention of this section is to suggest sections for which samples would enhance understanding of the article and to try to come to a consensus on what should be included. As a note, there is clearly no reason to give every section a sample. I am not trying to impose anything here. Anyone can suggest or comment, or indeed comment on this process. To get the ball going I suggest looking at what, I hope, are the least controversial subjections:-- SabreBD ( talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Rock and Roll<Br.> This is the only section that currently has a copyright free sample: "Jesus Walked That Lonesome Valley" by the Million Dollar Quartet (actually Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis and Johnny Cash). There is no copyright because the recording is over 50 years old and the tune is traditional. It seems to me that if any section needs a sample this is one of them. On the plus side these are four major artists in the genre (Cash is a bit more marginal and not in the article) and the song is historical contextual and in a rock 'n' roll style. On the downside it is not one of the major tracks of the era and those mentioned in this section as significant (" Rocket 88" " Rock Around the Clock", " That's All Right (Mama)" and " Shake, Rattle & Roll") are all in their ways much greater influences and typical in sound. On balance, I would suggest this is one where we can accept that there is a free alternative. Its not perfect, but it ticks most of the boxes. Obviously, the significance needs to be stressed in the link. Please feel free to comment.-- SabreBD ( talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
British Invasion<Br.> I suggest that this section would be particularly enhanced by a sample which would help demonstrate the nature of the new style and its connections to older forms. In fact is very difficult to understand the impact of bands like the Beatles without one. If there are suggestions for free use we should consider them, but I do not obviously see how this might be done given that material form this period will be in copyright. A number of candidates might be advanced but logically "I Want to Hold Your Hand", which was the breakthrough single for the Beatles, the first and most important bands to "invade" the US. I suggest this meets the criteria for NFCC as it would enhance understanding and the lack of it or a similar song makes the impact of the events and their origins difficult to understand.-- SabreBD ( talk) 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Blues rock<br.> Arguably one of the two most important sub-genres in the creation of rock, so a sample would be a useful enhancement here. Obviously a lot of songs in this genre are in the public domain, but the problem here is finding a copyright free recording for the relevant period. I have spent some considerable time looking, but with no success so far. If interested editors take a look that would be helpful.-- SabreBD ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Folk rock and psychedelic rock<br.> Trying to think a little more broadly here, and cut down the potential number of non-free samples, there \are a number of sub-genres that cross over. If I was asked for seminal rock tracks that represent a style " Mr. Tambourine Man" by the Byrds would be pretty much at the top of my list, but perhaps we can kills two birds with one stone here by using something like their " Eight Miles High", which is both folk rock and psychedelic. However, that is just a possible example, and I retain some hope that the 60s ethos might have led someone significant to put their work in the public domain. On which topic, does anyone understand the status of the Grateful Dead's concerts at the Internet Arcive? Apparently they can be "shared", but not used commercially. That would seem to suggest that they could be used by not-for-profit Wikipedia. However, if that is so why doesn't every GD related article have them?-- SabreBD ( talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hard rock/Heavy metal This is one of the three major sub-genres that rock has spawned and I would argue that all three need to represented even if free content cannot be found, as it is extremely difficult to argue that rock music can be understood without understanding these. Before embarking on a search for free material I would welcome thoughts on which sort of heavy metal this should cover. The first section dealing with this is a strong candidate, with something from the late 60s and early 70s as it moved from blues rock to the developing new sound. But a case could also be made for the extreme metal of the 80s and 90s, which is a significant turning point in the genre. It would be nice to have both if there is free content, but I would only make an argument for non-free on one, since this would probably be enough to distinguish the genre within the context of this article.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Punk Clearly a key sub-genre and, in my opinion, a strong candidate for audio coverage even if no free content can be found. I would suggest that this needs to be something that marks the startling contrast between early mid-70s punk and what came before. The issue then being do we need an audio example from the early 70s that it can be contrasted with?-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Alternative rock The last of the major sub-genres that I would argue are so significant that it needs audio coverage even if it has to be non-free. I would also argue that either the early development in the 80s (in the R.E.M. or Smiths period) or the mainstream breakthrough with bands like Nirvana are likely to give a reader the best idea of what it is all about.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Digital rock<br.> Just to get this one going. Personally, I think it would be useful for the article to have something here that demonstrates the very different sound of this type of rock, but I am not convinced that this is such and imperative that it justifies a non-free sample (others may, of course disagree and that I am underestimating this - and they may be right because I am really old). I would have thought that this would be the sort of music (current and already in a digital format) where there might have been likely to find something in the public domain if it can be found for any genre, but after hours of searching I begin to despair, as I can find nothing by any major artist named here. If anyone can restore my faith that all this effort is worth it and come up with something I would really appreciate it. Aside from that, a summary of my thoughts is: lets have this one if we can find a free sample, otherwise - probably not.-- SabreBD ( talk) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the remaining sound files from the page as it does not appear to be possible to get consensus on this at this time (seen Folk rock above for details).-- SabreBD ( talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Having added a sub-section emphasised another issue about organisation. The "Golden Age" section is now considerably longer than any other in the article. I propose splitting this in half between the 60s and 70s after psychedelic rock and before roots rock. The chronology is a little difficult because the genres overlap here. I suggest titles of "Development (mid 1960s to late 1960s" and "New sub-genres (late 1960s to mid 1970s)", but other editors may have better suggestions.-- SabreBD ( talk) 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Slightly dangerous perhaps as this article is still up for a good article nomination (but then it could be there for a very long time), but I want to propose two new subsections. The first is jazz rock, which would fit at the end of the "Golden age" section after psychedelic rock. The main prompt being that it is mentioned in the lead and does not have much of a presence. The second is probably more controversial and that is that I would like to return to the definitions problem. About a year and a half we had an abortive attempt to produce such a section and ended by putting material in the lead instead. On reflection I think this is rather unsatisfactory as the lead is supposed to reflect the article and this does not appear else where. It may also clarify the recurring debate over issues like the relationship between rock and roll and rock. I am proposing a section right at the start before the article embarks on the genre histories. It would reflect the musicological issues as well as the differing common definitions. I plan to start work on the jazz rock bit now, but will leave a bit of time before drafting the definition and give time for editors to comment on what is probably the more difficult topic.-- SabreBD ( talk) 09:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
While I would like to applaud the considerable efforts of the editors who have worked on this article, I am not sure its content and structure have been approached in the best fashion. In particular, the fact that this article is structured around the chronological study of rock sub-genres doesn't seem appropriate. In my opinion, somebody visiting this article is looking for basic information about rock music (defintion, musical elements, aesthetics, a brief history), not a detailed, subgenre-by-subgenre look at its history (I'm very surprised that mention of niche bands ranging from Iced Earth to Mudhoney—while important within their own scenes—have found their way into this article). As daunting as it seems, I think this article needs a complete rewrite (to something structured like pop music, which looks much better).— indopug ( talk) 10:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lemurbaby ( talk) 16:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There is little mention of African Americans and their contributions to the music. Otis Redding and Donna Summer (both Rock Hall members)are not mentioned. Many are barely mentioned....Princes "When Doves Cry" not rock enough for you? The article is slanted towards white guys with guitars---it is not the standard accepted history of rock but a wikipedia creation. fdog9
Wow! I disagree about the GA status---I have always felt it is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It does not follow the standard definition of rock music (see Mojo Magazine, Rolling Stone, most critics and authors,The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Britannica and World Book, and the artists themselves). It is a slanted work that has a narrow definition of rock music and includes numerous bands that have achieved no real note (but obviously someone's favorite)---particularly in the heavy metal field. Article should be merged with the Rock and Roll article (they are the same thing) and include the enormous contribution of African Americans to the genre. Otis Redding is not in this artcle but Iced Earth is.....horrible article. fdog9
This article is awful and needs a clean up badly. It is very disappointing because it is a subject I love to read about. In addition, "rock" and "rock and roll" are the same thing. Rock and roll is not a sub genre of rock. Chuck Berry, Metallica, and Green Day are basically doing the same thing with different styles. No matter how much a fanboy might disagree, all acts from the British invasion to punk to heavy metal are rooted in the R n' B sounds of the mid 20th century. I saw a recent documentary about heavy metal and the guys in Black Sabbath said that the music was rooted in the blues. Just listen to the first Led Zeppelin album and you will hear two blues covers. The articles should be merged under the heading Rock and Roll!
To bring my point home.....I give you exhibit A (Songs):
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)
exhibit B (Lyrics): "Will some cold woman in this desert land- Make me feel like a real man? Take this rock and roll refugee" (Pink Floyd-Young Lust 1979)"How death or glory becomes just another story 'N' every gimmick hungry yob digging gold from rock 'n' roll" (Clash-Death or Glory 1979)
exhibit C (a quote): While new details the Metallica's Death Magnetic begin to surface, frontman James Hetfield is giving fans a little more insight on the album title. "It started out as kind of a tribute to people that have fallen in our business, like Layne Stanley and a lot of the people that have died, basically — rock and roll martyrs of sorts. And then it kind of grew from there," Hetfield explained of the term Death Magnetic. In 2002 Stanley, the frontman of Alice in Chains, was found dead in his apartment from an apparent drug overdose. He was 34.
How can you deny its all called rock and roll when all the great bands still use the term to describe themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Just because its been discussed many times doesn't make it true. Rock and roll predates the 50's, by the way, but the majority of people think it started then. I have a large collection of rock and roll records and many of them were released in the 40's. Just one of the many mistakes made when writing about this subject. The majority is wrong in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.179.2 ( talk) 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Im very unhappy with the Rock, Rock and Roll thing, every rockstar seems to think them the same. Could you find one source that proves rock and roll is different? If not, it seems wikipedia users are just deciding they are different. I understand the change in rock and roll in the early 60's from dancable stuff to what it is today, but that dosn't make it different kinds of music. 24.124.40.164 ( talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the original comment about rock vs. rock and roll. The terms are interchangeable and the articles should be merged. The rock and roll of today obviously has evolved but its roots are in the music of the 40's and 50's and it does share many traits that have never changed. I said my piece. I know that the majority rules here and I know that they will most likely remain two separate entries. I stand by my statement that this is innaccurate. "Its a Long Way to the Top If You Wanna Rock n' Roll" says AC/DC---unfortunately there own fans disagree with them about what kind of music they are playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 February 2009
Dude--you have no idea what you are talking about. The term "rock music" was used before the 60's. Ever see the movie "Rock Rock Rock" or hear "Rock Around the Clock"? It is in countless lyrics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 February 2009
I guess you know more than the Clash, Metallica, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, Nirvana etc. etc. --they have all used rock and rock and roll to describe the music they produce. I think I'll take Joe Strummers opinion over the ones on this post. People who like rock are sometimes very tribal---they want to feel they are punks or heavy metal fans or whatever category they enjoy and they don't want to see the relationship the music shares.
Fdog9 ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Frank H.
Ghmyrtle, could you answer me about having a source backing all this? You have a good explanation, but its your explanation, you seem to be deciding alot of it. Never heard it before and it dosn't seem to match the critera i understood when i was listening in the 50's. Rock and Roll and Rock are the same, its just been mentioned too many times. Differentiating between them seems really misleading to people who don't know much about rock and roll. Is there even a need for another article about the sound as it was in the 50s and 60s? Maybe we could explain in the 50s part of the summary how rock changed from the rockabilly dance stuff to its current band base form, and include this, but it seems very useless to have two articles. I think a merger is definetly necessary. 24.124.40.164 ( talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been pointed out, but it seems the movement to distinctly separate "rock" and "rock and roll" is an attempt to assert a view that the British played a fundamental role in the foundation of the former. If one holds that they are indeed two different genres, and that the emergence of The Beatles is the primary point of demarcation, then this conclusion follows quite naturally. I suspect that attributing the United States with sole credit for the invention of a form of music so integral to the culture and identity of modern Britain may be a bitter pill to swallow. Hence, a need felt by some to distinguish the music before and after the arrival of well-known British acts. If, on the other hand, one holds that "rock" and "rock and roll" are but two terms employed to describe the same (albeit ever-evolving) genre, then it would be difficult to evidence a British hand in the foundations of this singular style.
While I agree that there is an implied difference between the terms (contemporary vs. nostalgic), it exists almost exclusively when the two are deliberately and directly contrasted, as is the case here. In other words, if you ask someone to draw a distinction, they can. That does not mean that there is a fundamental difference. It's akin to distinguishing between a "bunny" and "rabbit". The choice between the two terms reveals more in the way of the speaker's disposition and inclinations than of the subject under discussion. And let's be frank, clearly the term "rock" is merely shorthand for "rock and roll". Young people have long had a tendency to abbreviate.
Drawing attention to the characteristics of style during the era in which "rock and roll" was the preferred term is perfectly reasonable. So too is the preference for the umbrella term "rock" given its modern prevalence. Clearly we are not talking about different genres though, but rather different time periods. There's no such thing as a modern "rock and roll band" wholly distinguishable from a modern "rock band". 67.142.171.26 ( talk) 02:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess Joan Jett doesn't know what kind of music she plays according to these guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. I just wanted to say a big well done to every one who edited this as it really is a fantastic article. Surprised it doesn't have a star. I'm quite young but have listened to a fair few of these rock genres but others like jazz rock and New Wave I have yet to give much listen so thanks for bringing them to my attention!!
I have edited the "Emo" section to have a little paragraph about "post-hardcore". Again it's a genre which started in the 80s, carried on into the 90s but wasn't made popular until 2000s with a slightly poppier, clearer sound. It's fair to say the bands listed though have been very popular and I'm sure influential in the future, but are not represented very well under the emo label (with MCR, Paramore etc) nor the metalcore label (with Killswitch or Bullet For My Valentine). Unfortunately citations are needed but there are some on the actual post-hardcore page and of course the paragraph might need edited. If people want it deleted however I'd like a vote as I do think it's valid.
I don't think we should be writing anymore until say 2013 at the earliest with concerns to 2010-2019 rock music (can't wait!) but I'd keep an eye on this indie folk scene. Led by Mumford & Sons who have just picked up 2 Brits but also featuring The Decemberists which got to No.1 in America, Fleet Foxes have a Platinum album here in the UK and them along with Beirut have new albums coming out. Bon Iver's worked with Kanye West. Theres Noah & The Whale and Iron & Wine too who I think have had big sellers too. Oh and Brit winner Laura Marling and American band Grizzly Bear. What I'm asking is do you think a part will need to be written for this new indie-folk scene? Poiuytre ( talk) 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Despite my best efforts at finding alternatives for the pictures of dubious status that were removed so that we could get GA status, I have hit a bit of a wall on finding a replacement here. I am down to a Fender amp or a Mosrite guitar at this point. If anyone can help I would be very grateful. Obviously the image needs to be copyright free and loaded to the commons. There are pictures of modern incarnations of surf bands, but it looks very odd seeing these bands aged 60 and doesnt really communicate the era. If we can't find one I guess I will post a guitar or an amp, rather than have this as the only subsection without an illustration.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a wide genre now, but yet no section! (I don't know any sources to write, neither my English allows me to). Please, someone, do this work for the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.123.186.29 ( talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the image of the Red Hot Chili Peppers should be replaced by one of the Rolling Stones, who are regarded by many rock journalists as the "greatest rock band in the world". Red Hot Chili Peppers don't even come close to defining rock.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 08:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
stop removing puddle of mudd and 3 doors down because they are a good example on post-grunge — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.173.244.88 (
talk)
17:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
what a shame no chuck berry photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.244.88 ( talk) 17:11, 12 November 2011 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I feel the articles Rock Music and Rock and Roll should be merged. They are the same thing. Any music scholar or historian would agree with this.
The article has shamelessly left out the contributions of black artists from James Brown to Otis Redding to Prince to Run DMC. All four of these artists are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why are they recognized as rock artists by the Hall of Fame, music scholars, and university professors and not by this article. Why is any mention of soul, hip hop, or disco erased. Any good book on rock and roll includes these genres.
I think a bunch of metal heads and reactionary classic rock fans have shaped this page unfortunately. The article does not reflect a scholarly look at the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever heard their early guitar heavy work like King of Rock? They are defenitely rock and roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 ( talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ask the Beastie Boys, Rage Against the Machine, or Faith No More if there influence is minor to nil. Rap has had a huge impact on rock and rates a mention. Many rock bands have praised their music.
Bob Marley is a rock artist and is in any rock history book (and I have many).
African Americans invented this music and yet they barely rate a mention--we'd all be listening to Stephen Foster without their work.
The reggae sections origin is from the Wikipedia article---and I do think soul hip hop etc etc are forms of rock and roll and should be included as it is in every text book about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No---- but many of these forms shaped and influenced rock--think about Rage Against the Machine---great rock band---wouldn't exist without rap. I don't feel soul, rap etc. should be the focus but they rate a mention---rock in its present form wouldn't exist without them. African Americans invented rock music and they kept influencing it and it should be recognized. Just my opinion.
Wow---now I feel bad for being pushy---thank you --I appreciate it although I doubt it'll last long---thanks
I'm looking at it and I can't believe you did such a great job in that short time---it would have taken me days to do that! Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It is by no means the consensus on this article that these forms of music you are adding are rock music. The music clearly has a specific meaning used here which is outlined at the beginning of the lead. What you are doing is a very major change to the scope and direction of the article and needs to gain a consensus on this page before proceeding. Please allow some time for discussion before proceeding with such a major change.-- Sabrebd ( talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of it needs to be retained--if not in its own subsection--at least merged into other sections. African American contributions to rock should not be ignored. Fdog9 ( talk) 04:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting discussion here, mirroring previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of rock music, and I'm sure elsewhere. There is one school of thought which argues that "rock and roll" and "rock" cover the same ground, and another that "rock" is a specific (but widespread) post-1960s ("noisy white men with guitars") development from the 1950s style. There is also a separate but related argument that the term "rock" is limited to that particular genre ("noisy white men with guitars"), and another school of thought which treats most modern rhythm-based popular music - including soul, funk, reggae, hip hop, disco, etc. etc. - as part of the overarching umbrella term "rock music". I'm sure that reliable refs can be found on either side. (There is an important side argument, which is that it is racist to exclude most black artists from "rock music".) What is important here is that the variations of definition are mentioned, and that articles are written which cover all the ground, with good solid links between articles and not too much overlap. In order to do that, some form of consensus needs to be reached. Is the best place for that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, rather than here? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
(Separated into new sub-heading for clarity)
Free files do, or could reasonably, exist which illustrate all of these subgenres, and so they should be used in favour of the non-free files. If we do not yet have a free example, then an effort should be made to find one, but, in the mean time, none should be used. Please see non-free content criterion 1. J Milburn ( talk) 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I see a little better where you are coming from, but there still seems a big leap from #8 to the position you have adopted on use of audio outside of single song articles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) actually gets you closer to this, particularly the clause that states that samples should be near to paragraphs mentioning them. This could be taken to suggest that (free and non-free) samples should be mentioned in the text and I for one would be willing to accept that as a premise, I think it makes for a much better article and if they are non-free it might help justify use (although note below the album problem for rock). This article mentions several recordings, so they would be candidates for inclusion under this view (without prejudging the issue of whether there need to be samples at all - which we can - and should - come back to). This also implies that several samples can be used and this suggests that use of audio in general can illustrate different aspects of a topic. The next clause specifically states that there is no limit to the number of samples and then directs us back to the issue of minimal use for non-free samples.
So to summarise: it is legitimate to have several samples, those samples should probably be mentioned in the text, if they are non-free there should be minimum use - i.e. only used if there is no alternative (#1) and if they significantly enhance understanding and not having them would be "would be detrimental to that understanding" (#8). If we accept the concept that samples should be mentioned, then the issue of free alternatives is irrelevant in this case, as a free file will be of a different version and so cannot replace a non-free one. The two issues remain, does this article need audio at all and, if so, we should looking at each named song and consider whether it would enhance understanding to have it/be detrimental not to have it? I have point out that because of the nature of rock, for a lot of its history an album based genre, I would argue that what needs to be mentioned in the text could be a specific album from which a track could then be given in a sample, but that its relationship would need to be clearly stated (perhaps on the link to the sample).
I might add that this is not to simply justify the inclusion of large number of non-free samples, as I am not entirely convinced that the article needs samples at all. If that is settled in the positive I see absolutely no practicable way of deciding if not having a non-free sample would be detrimental. In one sense all samples are additional enhancements, but then if we take that view then we have to delete them from all articles, even song articles and if that were the case there would be no policy on non-free use. All I can suggest is that in that sort of case we would have to argue out some reasonable criteria that fit minimum use.
So if editors follow all that there are two issues I would request editors to comment on:
Given that there were long-standing samples on this article and that the editor that removed the non-free ones did so over a copyright issue, not a principle that there should be no samples, I am going to take it that there is a consensus for including samples as illustrations of the development of the genre. If there are objections in general to samples or this way of discussion them now is a really good time to state them. For those that have not read the sub-section above, the relevant policies are WP:SAMPLE and WP:NFCC, which outline the nature of the files and also issues about use, particularly minimum use of non-free material. The intention of this section is to suggest sections for which samples would enhance understanding of the article and to try to come to a consensus on what should be included. As a note, there is clearly no reason to give every section a sample. I am not trying to impose anything here. Anyone can suggest or comment, or indeed comment on this process. To get the ball going I suggest looking at what, I hope, are the least controversial subjections:-- SabreBD ( talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Rock and Roll<Br.> This is the only section that currently has a copyright free sample: "Jesus Walked That Lonesome Valley" by the Million Dollar Quartet (actually Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis and Johnny Cash). There is no copyright because the recording is over 50 years old and the tune is traditional. It seems to me that if any section needs a sample this is one of them. On the plus side these are four major artists in the genre (Cash is a bit more marginal and not in the article) and the song is historical contextual and in a rock 'n' roll style. On the downside it is not one of the major tracks of the era and those mentioned in this section as significant (" Rocket 88" " Rock Around the Clock", " That's All Right (Mama)" and " Shake, Rattle & Roll") are all in their ways much greater influences and typical in sound. On balance, I would suggest this is one where we can accept that there is a free alternative. Its not perfect, but it ticks most of the boxes. Obviously, the significance needs to be stressed in the link. Please feel free to comment.-- SabreBD ( talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
British Invasion<Br.> I suggest that this section would be particularly enhanced by a sample which would help demonstrate the nature of the new style and its connections to older forms. In fact is very difficult to understand the impact of bands like the Beatles without one. If there are suggestions for free use we should consider them, but I do not obviously see how this might be done given that material form this period will be in copyright. A number of candidates might be advanced but logically "I Want to Hold Your Hand", which was the breakthrough single for the Beatles, the first and most important bands to "invade" the US. I suggest this meets the criteria for NFCC as it would enhance understanding and the lack of it or a similar song makes the impact of the events and their origins difficult to understand.-- SabreBD ( talk) 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Blues rock<br.> Arguably one of the two most important sub-genres in the creation of rock, so a sample would be a useful enhancement here. Obviously a lot of songs in this genre are in the public domain, but the problem here is finding a copyright free recording for the relevant period. I have spent some considerable time looking, but with no success so far. If interested editors take a look that would be helpful.-- SabreBD ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Folk rock and psychedelic rock<br.> Trying to think a little more broadly here, and cut down the potential number of non-free samples, there \are a number of sub-genres that cross over. If I was asked for seminal rock tracks that represent a style " Mr. Tambourine Man" by the Byrds would be pretty much at the top of my list, but perhaps we can kills two birds with one stone here by using something like their " Eight Miles High", which is both folk rock and psychedelic. However, that is just a possible example, and I retain some hope that the 60s ethos might have led someone significant to put their work in the public domain. On which topic, does anyone understand the status of the Grateful Dead's concerts at the Internet Arcive? Apparently they can be "shared", but not used commercially. That would seem to suggest that they could be used by not-for-profit Wikipedia. However, if that is so why doesn't every GD related article have them?-- SabreBD ( talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hard rock/Heavy metal This is one of the three major sub-genres that rock has spawned and I would argue that all three need to represented even if free content cannot be found, as it is extremely difficult to argue that rock music can be understood without understanding these. Before embarking on a search for free material I would welcome thoughts on which sort of heavy metal this should cover. The first section dealing with this is a strong candidate, with something from the late 60s and early 70s as it moved from blues rock to the developing new sound. But a case could also be made for the extreme metal of the 80s and 90s, which is a significant turning point in the genre. It would be nice to have both if there is free content, but I would only make an argument for non-free on one, since this would probably be enough to distinguish the genre within the context of this article.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Punk Clearly a key sub-genre and, in my opinion, a strong candidate for audio coverage even if no free content can be found. I would suggest that this needs to be something that marks the startling contrast between early mid-70s punk and what came before. The issue then being do we need an audio example from the early 70s that it can be contrasted with?-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Alternative rock The last of the major sub-genres that I would argue are so significant that it needs audio coverage even if it has to be non-free. I would also argue that either the early development in the 80s (in the R.E.M. or Smiths period) or the mainstream breakthrough with bands like Nirvana are likely to give a reader the best idea of what it is all about.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Digital rock<br.> Just to get this one going. Personally, I think it would be useful for the article to have something here that demonstrates the very different sound of this type of rock, but I am not convinced that this is such and imperative that it justifies a non-free sample (others may, of course disagree and that I am underestimating this - and they may be right because I am really old). I would have thought that this would be the sort of music (current and already in a digital format) where there might have been likely to find something in the public domain if it can be found for any genre, but after hours of searching I begin to despair, as I can find nothing by any major artist named here. If anyone can restore my faith that all this effort is worth it and come up with something I would really appreciate it. Aside from that, a summary of my thoughts is: lets have this one if we can find a free sample, otherwise - probably not.-- SabreBD ( talk) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the remaining sound files from the page as it does not appear to be possible to get consensus on this at this time (seen Folk rock above for details).-- SabreBD ( talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Having added a sub-section emphasised another issue about organisation. The "Golden Age" section is now considerably longer than any other in the article. I propose splitting this in half between the 60s and 70s after psychedelic rock and before roots rock. The chronology is a little difficult because the genres overlap here. I suggest titles of "Development (mid 1960s to late 1960s" and "New sub-genres (late 1960s to mid 1970s)", but other editors may have better suggestions.-- SabreBD ( talk) 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Slightly dangerous perhaps as this article is still up for a good article nomination (but then it could be there for a very long time), but I want to propose two new subsections. The first is jazz rock, which would fit at the end of the "Golden age" section after psychedelic rock. The main prompt being that it is mentioned in the lead and does not have much of a presence. The second is probably more controversial and that is that I would like to return to the definitions problem. About a year and a half we had an abortive attempt to produce such a section and ended by putting material in the lead instead. On reflection I think this is rather unsatisfactory as the lead is supposed to reflect the article and this does not appear else where. It may also clarify the recurring debate over issues like the relationship between rock and roll and rock. I am proposing a section right at the start before the article embarks on the genre histories. It would reflect the musicological issues as well as the differing common definitions. I plan to start work on the jazz rock bit now, but will leave a bit of time before drafting the definition and give time for editors to comment on what is probably the more difficult topic.-- SabreBD ( talk) 09:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
While I would like to applaud the considerable efforts of the editors who have worked on this article, I am not sure its content and structure have been approached in the best fashion. In particular, the fact that this article is structured around the chronological study of rock sub-genres doesn't seem appropriate. In my opinion, somebody visiting this article is looking for basic information about rock music (defintion, musical elements, aesthetics, a brief history), not a detailed, subgenre-by-subgenre look at its history (I'm very surprised that mention of niche bands ranging from Iced Earth to Mudhoney—while important within their own scenes—have found their way into this article). As daunting as it seems, I think this article needs a complete rewrite (to something structured like pop music, which looks much better).— indopug ( talk) 10:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lemurbaby ( talk) 16:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There is little mention of African Americans and their contributions to the music. Otis Redding and Donna Summer (both Rock Hall members)are not mentioned. Many are barely mentioned....Princes "When Doves Cry" not rock enough for you? The article is slanted towards white guys with guitars---it is not the standard accepted history of rock but a wikipedia creation. fdog9
Wow! I disagree about the GA status---I have always felt it is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It does not follow the standard definition of rock music (see Mojo Magazine, Rolling Stone, most critics and authors,The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Britannica and World Book, and the artists themselves). It is a slanted work that has a narrow definition of rock music and includes numerous bands that have achieved no real note (but obviously someone's favorite)---particularly in the heavy metal field. Article should be merged with the Rock and Roll article (they are the same thing) and include the enormous contribution of African Americans to the genre. Otis Redding is not in this artcle but Iced Earth is.....horrible article. fdog9
This article is awful and needs a clean up badly. It is very disappointing because it is a subject I love to read about. In addition, "rock" and "rock and roll" are the same thing. Rock and roll is not a sub genre of rock. Chuck Berry, Metallica, and Green Day are basically doing the same thing with different styles. No matter how much a fanboy might disagree, all acts from the British invasion to punk to heavy metal are rooted in the R n' B sounds of the mid 20th century. I saw a recent documentary about heavy metal and the guys in Black Sabbath said that the music was rooted in the blues. Just listen to the first Led Zeppelin album and you will hear two blues covers. The articles should be merged under the heading Rock and Roll!
To bring my point home.....I give you exhibit A (Songs):
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)
exhibit B (Lyrics): "Will some cold woman in this desert land- Make me feel like a real man? Take this rock and roll refugee" (Pink Floyd-Young Lust 1979)"How death or glory becomes just another story 'N' every gimmick hungry yob digging gold from rock 'n' roll" (Clash-Death or Glory 1979)
exhibit C (a quote): While new details the Metallica's Death Magnetic begin to surface, frontman James Hetfield is giving fans a little more insight on the album title. "It started out as kind of a tribute to people that have fallen in our business, like Layne Stanley and a lot of the people that have died, basically — rock and roll martyrs of sorts. And then it kind of grew from there," Hetfield explained of the term Death Magnetic. In 2002 Stanley, the frontman of Alice in Chains, was found dead in his apartment from an apparent drug overdose. He was 34.
How can you deny its all called rock and roll when all the great bands still use the term to describe themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Just because its been discussed many times doesn't make it true. Rock and roll predates the 50's, by the way, but the majority of people think it started then. I have a large collection of rock and roll records and many of them were released in the 40's. Just one of the many mistakes made when writing about this subject. The majority is wrong in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.179.2 ( talk) 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Im very unhappy with the Rock, Rock and Roll thing, every rockstar seems to think them the same. Could you find one source that proves rock and roll is different? If not, it seems wikipedia users are just deciding they are different. I understand the change in rock and roll in the early 60's from dancable stuff to what it is today, but that dosn't make it different kinds of music. 24.124.40.164 ( talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the original comment about rock vs. rock and roll. The terms are interchangeable and the articles should be merged. The rock and roll of today obviously has evolved but its roots are in the music of the 40's and 50's and it does share many traits that have never changed. I said my piece. I know that the majority rules here and I know that they will most likely remain two separate entries. I stand by my statement that this is innaccurate. "Its a Long Way to the Top If You Wanna Rock n' Roll" says AC/DC---unfortunately there own fans disagree with them about what kind of music they are playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 February 2009
Dude--you have no idea what you are talking about. The term "rock music" was used before the 60's. Ever see the movie "Rock Rock Rock" or hear "Rock Around the Clock"? It is in countless lyrics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 February 2009
I guess you know more than the Clash, Metallica, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, Nirvana etc. etc. --they have all used rock and rock and roll to describe the music they produce. I think I'll take Joe Strummers opinion over the ones on this post. People who like rock are sometimes very tribal---they want to feel they are punks or heavy metal fans or whatever category they enjoy and they don't want to see the relationship the music shares.
Fdog9 ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Frank H.
Ghmyrtle, could you answer me about having a source backing all this? You have a good explanation, but its your explanation, you seem to be deciding alot of it. Never heard it before and it dosn't seem to match the critera i understood when i was listening in the 50's. Rock and Roll and Rock are the same, its just been mentioned too many times. Differentiating between them seems really misleading to people who don't know much about rock and roll. Is there even a need for another article about the sound as it was in the 50s and 60s? Maybe we could explain in the 50s part of the summary how rock changed from the rockabilly dance stuff to its current band base form, and include this, but it seems very useless to have two articles. I think a merger is definetly necessary. 24.124.40.164 ( talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been pointed out, but it seems the movement to distinctly separate "rock" and "rock and roll" is an attempt to assert a view that the British played a fundamental role in the foundation of the former. If one holds that they are indeed two different genres, and that the emergence of The Beatles is the primary point of demarcation, then this conclusion follows quite naturally. I suspect that attributing the United States with sole credit for the invention of a form of music so integral to the culture and identity of modern Britain may be a bitter pill to swallow. Hence, a need felt by some to distinguish the music before and after the arrival of well-known British acts. If, on the other hand, one holds that "rock" and "rock and roll" are but two terms employed to describe the same (albeit ever-evolving) genre, then it would be difficult to evidence a British hand in the foundations of this singular style.
While I agree that there is an implied difference between the terms (contemporary vs. nostalgic), it exists almost exclusively when the two are deliberately and directly contrasted, as is the case here. In other words, if you ask someone to draw a distinction, they can. That does not mean that there is a fundamental difference. It's akin to distinguishing between a "bunny" and "rabbit". The choice between the two terms reveals more in the way of the speaker's disposition and inclinations than of the subject under discussion. And let's be frank, clearly the term "rock" is merely shorthand for "rock and roll". Young people have long had a tendency to abbreviate.
Drawing attention to the characteristics of style during the era in which "rock and roll" was the preferred term is perfectly reasonable. So too is the preference for the umbrella term "rock" given its modern prevalence. Clearly we are not talking about different genres though, but rather different time periods. There's no such thing as a modern "rock and roll band" wholly distinguishable from a modern "rock band". 67.142.171.26 ( talk) 02:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess Joan Jett doesn't know what kind of music she plays according to these guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. I just wanted to say a big well done to every one who edited this as it really is a fantastic article. Surprised it doesn't have a star. I'm quite young but have listened to a fair few of these rock genres but others like jazz rock and New Wave I have yet to give much listen so thanks for bringing them to my attention!!
I have edited the "Emo" section to have a little paragraph about "post-hardcore". Again it's a genre which started in the 80s, carried on into the 90s but wasn't made popular until 2000s with a slightly poppier, clearer sound. It's fair to say the bands listed though have been very popular and I'm sure influential in the future, but are not represented very well under the emo label (with MCR, Paramore etc) nor the metalcore label (with Killswitch or Bullet For My Valentine). Unfortunately citations are needed but there are some on the actual post-hardcore page and of course the paragraph might need edited. If people want it deleted however I'd like a vote as I do think it's valid.
I don't think we should be writing anymore until say 2013 at the earliest with concerns to 2010-2019 rock music (can't wait!) but I'd keep an eye on this indie folk scene. Led by Mumford & Sons who have just picked up 2 Brits but also featuring The Decemberists which got to No.1 in America, Fleet Foxes have a Platinum album here in the UK and them along with Beirut have new albums coming out. Bon Iver's worked with Kanye West. Theres Noah & The Whale and Iron & Wine too who I think have had big sellers too. Oh and Brit winner Laura Marling and American band Grizzly Bear. What I'm asking is do you think a part will need to be written for this new indie-folk scene? Poiuytre ( talk) 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Despite my best efforts at finding alternatives for the pictures of dubious status that were removed so that we could get GA status, I have hit a bit of a wall on finding a replacement here. I am down to a Fender amp or a Mosrite guitar at this point. If anyone can help I would be very grateful. Obviously the image needs to be copyright free and loaded to the commons. There are pictures of modern incarnations of surf bands, but it looks very odd seeing these bands aged 60 and doesnt really communicate the era. If we can't find one I guess I will post a guitar or an amp, rather than have this as the only subsection without an illustration.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a wide genre now, but yet no section! (I don't know any sources to write, neither my English allows me to). Please, someone, do this work for the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.123.186.29 ( talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the image of the Red Hot Chili Peppers should be replaced by one of the Rolling Stones, who are regarded by many rock journalists as the "greatest rock band in the world". Red Hot Chili Peppers don't even come close to defining rock.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 08:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
stop removing puddle of mudd and 3 doors down because they are a good example on post-grunge — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.173.244.88 (
talk)
17:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
what a shame no chuck berry photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.244.88 ( talk) 17:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)