Talk:Blues rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Blues rock is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Rock music (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


AAARGGH. This page looks awful on my machine (I use 800x600.) If someone with more formatting ability than I have wanders across this page, please fix this. Isomorphic 16:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

It looked crappy for me to. I did some fiddling but couldn't fix it until I switched the two footers. It looks fine for me now. How about you? Tuf-Kat 22:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
The Blues genres footer is wide enough to run into the bottom of the sidebar, but otherwise it's fine. Thanks for fixing. Isomorphic 22:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Blues Rock, Country Rock and Southern Rock[edit]

Copied from a discussion at Talk:Country rock:

Is there any meaningful difference between "country rock" and Southern rock? Tuf-Kat 06:12, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. Country rock is a lot more country. Gram Parsons is country rock, Lynryd Skynyrd are Southern rock. They don't sound all that similar. Naturally there's a crossover : Little Feat, Commander Cody et al. Country rock tends to be song and vocal based -- country songs with a rockier arrangement, Southern Rock are mainly rock songs with a countrified arrangement and harmony. Southern rock thinks nothing of filling entire sides of a double album with instrumental jams (Hey, the Allman Brothers Band, this means YOU!)

Southern Rock is arguably a fusion of country rock with blues rock, with a lyrical emphasis on Southern culture. Of course, all three subgenres are diverse and tend to overlap. Heck, the Marshall Tucker Band was countrier than most of what gets played on country radio these days. Just my 2¢. Archola 01:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Should Thorogood be added to Blues-Rock genre artists?

Band deletions[edit]

But Seriously[edit]

ZZ Top, Black Crowes, Tull are "Blues rock"? Why not just add metallica, elvis presley and brittney spears? I mean c'mon... And why is Snowy White omitted? -J.

Ok, whoever is deleting ACDC and John Mayer doesn't know what article they're editing. ACDC are known as being pioneers of Blues Rock, certainly far greater influences than bands such as the Rolling Stones, who're a rock n roll band who've dabbled in it.

In the same breath as I mention that, John Mayer has been removed from the listing. Now, all three of his studio albums have been intrinsically blues-rock based, with influences deriving from pop, country, ska and folk, but (arguably) every song he's ever written has been blues-rock, or just plain blues if not.

I'm putting both of them back in tehre, because there's no reason to delete them. Plus if it's taken out again, I'll remove The Rolling Stones. They don't even belong on this page, really, as they certainly didn't pioneer anything in this arena (as is suggested).

--lincalinca 14:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How about providing sources for those claims? I'm not going to argue about the actual music, because that would violate WP:NOR, but according to, John Mayer is nowhere near blues-rock, and from what I've heard from other sources, only his most recent album is very close to the blues tradition. The rest of his music is acoustic pop-rock. It would be like calling Bob Dylan blues-rock, just because his most recent album fits into the genre. You're missing the point of the list if you think that listing "blues-rock based" artists is the objective; the point is to list straight-ahead blues-rock artists in order to give the reader an better idea of the sound.
As for AC/DC, I can't recall one of their songs which follows a 12-bar blues. For god's sake, they play mostly power chords. The Allmusic guide would seem to support this argument, not including them in the genre, while the Rolling Stones are described as blues-rock. Personally, I can think of several Stones songs which follow a 12-bar blues, such as Carol.
Thus, I am going to revert the article back. If you have better sources than Allmusic, feel free to post them here, but otherwise, please do not engage in an edit war. Nevertheless, thank you for your contributions! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I did keep John Mayer as an example of a contemporary artist, though, as his recent work does represent the genre well. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well we seem to be at an impasse. I personally consider Allmusic to be run by a bunch of hacks (who're swayed by the glint of a little green) and would sooner respect the reviews from sputnik music but generally, my overall preference is to follow Rolling Stone and reputable newspaper music reviewers. Anyway, with relation to AC/DC, I believe they belong in the list as their involvement is to contribute the heavier side of blues-rock with blues riffs and licks being implemented at every turn, being much of the reason that they're - like Aerosmith - somewhat outcast in contrast to other heavy rock groups of their same era, such as Alice Cooper or Black Sabbath, who're primarily rock based and have no blues infusions or influences. Again, this I admit is subject to much discernement.
--lincalinca 09:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with the removal of AC/DC. Sure, they might be blues rock, but they're more hard rock than anything; I'd say they're more representative of the latter, and not the former. Just like the HTML comments above the list say, not to add any old band. Isn't rock rooted in the blues, anyway? You can hear the influence even in Metallica's Load and ReLoad albums, which are a lot more closer to AC/DC; but you wouldn't list Metallica here. Even I can see AC/DC's the odd-one-out in that list. --Dayn 06:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Precisely why I keep removing them. While some of their music may fit into the genre of blues-rock, they really are more of a hard rock band. I can't even think of one of their songs of which the chord structure resembles a twelve-bar blues. While this is not the sole criterion for blues-rock, it's an important one. Imagine some kid wonders what blues-rock is, sees AC/DC, a well-known group, and immediately associates the genre with them. They're not really indicative of the genre, so listing them would be misleading. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

John Mayer[edit]

John Mayer is a Blues-rock artist (as of 2005). Please consult his page and/or music for proof of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

You need to provide a citation for such a claim. Only his latest album can be considered blues-rock; his earlier music is definitely acoustic rock or something of the like. The aim of the list is to provide artists of whose music most is considered blues-rock, in order to provide readers with easy examples of the genre. I've explained this countless times in the edit history and above on the talk page, see there. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

List needs trimming[edit]

I don't know much about blues rock, but I can tell it's starting to become a full-blown list, and not just a sample as it's meant to be. Does anyone know definitive bands which are pretty notable, who exemplify the genre's sound to a tee? --Dane ~nya 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's becoming far too long. I'm going to trim the list a bit...I consider myself to know a fair amount concerning blues-rock and its sound. Critique is appreciated, though. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed a lot of the artists (all of the artists after ZZ Top and several others). Some of the artists I removed fit the genre pretty well (Cream and Derek and the Dominos for instance), but I tried to really shorten it a lot. Cream and DATD were both bands featuring Clapton, who is already on the list, so I removed them, etc.. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm not knowledgeable, I'll be a guinea pig. I know ZZ Top, SRV, Skynyrd, Santana, Zep, Hendrix, and Clapton... that pretty much gives me a good, wide view of blues rock. A couple of artists I haven't heard of give me an idea as well... so I think the current list works well, covers a wide area for a lot of eventualities. There aren't any more artists that are different that what's listed but are still predominantly blues rock, are there? --Dane ~nya 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are others, but no well-known examples come to mind right away. I am actually going to add The Black Keys back in though, seeing as there aren't many comtemporary examples. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am adding some more blues rock bands to give people a wider variety of lesser known bands they would not usually be able to find on first look. I think these bands and artists did major contributions to the blues rock genre and I hope people can respect the list even if it may be too long for some standards. User:Typicalhyjink101
The bands I added like Robin Trower and others are definitive blues rock bands, and if persons are curious as to why these bands should be in the blues rock list then you should research them and see for yourself. The bands are lesser known which gives people an option to listening to the most common and well-known blues-rock bands, and also give bands online exposure on wikipedia in which can be helpful in revitalizing interest in the band itself. thanks. user:Typicalhyjink101
I should bring to your attention that adding things simply for exposure is pretty much a no-no, as it equates to advertisement. --Dane ~nya 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate what Dayn said, it is highly frowned upon to use Wikipedia to advertise, see WP:ADVERT. I know that many of the bands you added are definite blues-rock bands, but this list needs to remain short and concise. Its purpose is to provide people who are not familiar with blues-rock with a short, exact, and easily identifiable list of artists that fit the genre. I am fairly familiar with the genre, and I haven't even heard of some of the groups you added. If you can present valid reasons to include some of the artists, I'd be happy to have a few of them back on the list, but otherwise, I think it should remain as is. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ohh yaa by the way, fuck you people for removing my bands. Your all a bunch of ignorant fucking slobs who hope people won't see through your big words and colorful bullshit. eat a dick, fuck your extended family, and I hope all the bad things on earth cause you great pain, Sincerely my true expression and deepest hatred for you unholy fucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typicalhyjink101 (talkcontribs)

Happy Valentines day to you for tomorrow as well. Why do you think each band deserves to be on the sample list, apart from exposure? Are they drastically different enough to warrant inclusion, for an overview of what blues rock is all about? --Dane ~nya 05:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the fuck are there no desciptive resons as to why all the other bands are on the list. My whole point in the first place was to add bands in which are blues rock which fit in the specific genre. If you want a reason as to why I added these bands then make all the others reasons visible for all the bands and just not make me right a reason for all the bands when I only see a few reasons for the present bands present. Groups like Steamhammer and the Black Crowes give people who wouldnt know blues rock a good example of blues rock. Why is there such a tough standard on the amount of bands which can be on this list, unlike the prog-rock and southern rock page when there is seemingly no limit. Lynyrd Skynyrd and Allman brothers should be in the southern rock section and bands like Juicy Lucy and Cactus would be a clearer projection of the style blues rock truly represnts and has represented this century. What the fuck just make sense with your authority. Also why cant there by a seperate page where there can be an extended list if blues rock bands in which can be found of many other music genre type pages. Also how can someone tell me certain bands dont belong when you have not heard them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typicalhyjink101 (talkcontribs)

First, calm down, or we won't be going anywhere. It's only a list, don't get worked up about it. Second, the list itself says a "sample" list, not a complete list. The present bands already added give a good sample list of well known bands; the catch here is well known, so people who come here and learn about blues rock can easily identify it. If you add obscure bands, how on earth will they know what it sounds like?
This is just a sample list, and really, those other pages should trim down as well; I have no doubt there's some non-notable bands in there. Okay, you mention Steamhammer and the Black Crowes. Do they offer anything different, than those already listed? If they don't, leave them off; if they do, can you explain how they enhance the list, instead of just adding to it?
And it's not "my authority" or "Cielomobile's authority", or "anyone's authority". Wikipedia works by people discussing changes, and establishing consensus. So there is no authority other than the policies, and majority doesn't rule; value of an argument in a discussion is imperative to making it work. And personally, I don't believe there should be separate articles for lists at all, for anything unless it's a short sample on an article, with links to categories down the bottom. Sure, I maintain many of them, but I would rather them all eliminated in favour of categories.
And I can't remove bands just willy-nilly; it would need to be discussed first, if anyone wants changes to the current revision. But to answer your question about how I can say they don't belong if I haven't heard them? Well that's just it. Why list obscure bands no-one has heard of, if it's meant to be a sample of the blues rock sound?
So can you please answer how adding them to the list will enhance it for the purpose of recognising the sound of blues-rock? It wouldn't have come to these large blocks of text with arguments, if changes were discussed first, so let's get to it. And remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~) please. --Dane ~nya 05:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I second what Dayn has said here. The lists on the other articles contain too many groups, and they should probably be changed at some point. Categories are much better than lists, so if you want to create a category for blues-rock artists ([[Category:Blues-rock artists]] for example), go ahead and do so. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to have a meaningful discourse, it would bode you well not use such vulgar language and not to attack us. Anyway, The Black Crowes aren't even described as "blues-rock" at, and after listening to some music samples from the iTunes music store, it seems to me that they are more of a hard-rock band than a blues-rock band. I can't say much about Steamhammer, but their Wikipedia article is short, and they don't have any music on iTunes, so I see little reason for their inclusion. If you want to make a seperate article for blues-rock artists, that's fine, but don't marr this article with bands that either not relatively well-known or don't represent the genre to a point.
Also, you need to provide sources for your claims that a lot of these groups are blues-rock. I suggest; it is a pretty reliable source. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blues Pentatonic[edit]

i think it has 1 b3 4 b5 5 b7 so at A it's: A C D Eb E G in the graphic ther is no E —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Indeed, you are correct; I will try to notate it correctly when I get to a computer with my notation program. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions to sample artist list[edit]

If you'd like to make any additions or changes to the list of sample artists, please discuss them here first. I am perfectly willing to make amendments to the list, but it should remain short and concise, as seen in the hidden HTML message in that section. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated The Black Crowes on the list. says "Taking their cue from the Faces and early-'70s Rolling Stones, the Black Crowes put the raunch back into rock & roll at a time when the genre was nearly blues-less" and "With their roots firmly planted in the alluvial top soil of '70s blues rock, The Black Crowes are a classic hard rock riff band". says "This straightforward document of a straightforward band is also the best entryway to the group's fabulous, swaggering, ballsy, bluesy rock & roll" on their review of the Black Crowes' greatest hits albumn. The group is one of the most popular contemporary blues-rock groups. Revolutionaryluddite 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting fusion genres to show[edit]

For some reason, the "fusion genres" section is not showing. Could someone see what is wrong? FMAFan1990 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I know someone who may be able to assist. I will flag them down. 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. --PEJL 06:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you kind samaritan :D . I figured you could tweak it out. 10:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Turn the articles Blue "blues" color to the Red "Rock" Color?[edit]

Technically speaking, although blues rock is a fusion/hybrid genre between blues and rock, it should be labeled with the red rock color rather than the blue blues color, because it is a type of rock that was heavily influenced by the blues. (Hence the name blues rock instead of rock blues). In addition, many other hybrid rock genres such as pop rock and punk blues have been labeled with the red rock color, so why not blues rock?


The sources to this article are questionable. The first two are books about the history of metal. The last one is one of the only pages speaking of blues-rock as an entire genre upon itself. I believe that blues-rock is the same as rock. Rock takes on many influences, mainly blues. Why should that be called blues-rock? That's like saying contemporary musicians get influences from classical songs, and therefore, should be called Classical-Contemporary. Those two are entirely different genres. Generally, I don't think fusion-genres should be noted as genres because they take influences and not necessarily characteristics of the genre itself.

Speaking of which, Stevie Ray Vaughan is listed as blues-rock and it should be rock. No artist can be called pure blues either, because pure blues came from field workers before World War II, singing repetitively in order to relieve the boredom, stress, and strain that they went through. By the way, blues was DEVELOPED, not created, in New Orleans and blues players were defined as blues players because they came from the area.

Flame away. -- I understand this is an ABOUT page.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 

Black Sabbath...[edit]

Why is Black Sabbath not mentioned?

61x62x61 (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they are a heavy metal band. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually they are not metal according to Tony Iommi they are a Hard rock band with a very strong blues incfluenced sound!! (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lemmy says that Motorhead isn't heavy metal either. But.... they are most certainly heavy metal as is Black Sabbath. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what heavy metal is: "hard rock with a very strong blues influenced sound" (but not that strong as it is in blues rock!!) (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But somehow you were right: The Electric Elves should be mentioned, while its singer Ronnie Dio was singing for Black Sabbath after Ozzi flew out! You should listen to some ELF songs and then you know what real Blues Rock is meant to be. (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Relocated list to new article[edit]

Hi, I relocated the list to a new list article. Lists like these can be problematic when they are right in the article, because it is just too easy for a person to add in an OR or POV band, or even add in a joke band. If I put in a 1980s death metal band in the list, it would probably stay up for months. Even the list article is a bit problematic, because of the elements of POV and OR in classifying some bands as blues rock groups. Ideally, each band included in the list should have a footnote, where a reputable critic calls the band a "blues rock" group.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Further reading or Bibliography[edit]

Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and Illustrating Articles/Article Sections and Tables of Contents : Bottom (...) Further reading or Bibliography. This section contains sources that weren't used in writing the article, but that provide material that could eventually be used. It's unusual to find this section, mostly because if a potential source is online, it should be listed under "External links", not in "Further reading". Figure 13-5 shows an example. Comments : 1. I only meant to provide further reading references which could (and sure will !) be useful to the reader and... which are not online 2. Would British rules be different to French ones ? For any article in France, a bibliography is widely encouraged... especially when applying for being rated A-class on the project's quality scale.Polofrfr (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC) --- Would the last person (wiki libs ?) who hesitated three times but finally did erase my bibliography additions in both Blues-rock and British Blues articles be polite enough to give me proper reasons of this undo, as there is a Further reading section in many other rock articles, which fully entitles me to ask my similar section to be included in both my quoted articles. And please explain what u mean when writing 'using popups'. Thanks. --Polofrfr (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Further reading sections for specific essays/writings which enhance the content of any article is a welcomed addition. Massive listing of non-notable publications which add nothing to the article are frowned upon and removed. The only purpose they serve is to advertise the non-notable books. Also, popups is a Wikipedia script which is used to quickly revert vandalism, trolling, spamming, soapboxing and personal attacks. It gives the editor a very quick way of reverting things that should not have been added to Wikipedia in the first place (like NN books advertisiments ' such) The Real Libs-speak politely 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Would one more reason be necessary to put back the Further reading section : out of these seven books, I owe and have fully read the first six of them. They ARE of deep interest for a deeper study of both British Blues and Blues-rock --Polofrfr (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I truly thank the contributors who have rightly deleted ‘personal’ and ‘out of subject’ info which I had written, inside Further reading section, for both blues-rock and British blues. As a youngster in both French and English WP, I still have to learn a lot and they were quite right doing so : thanks a lot again as, after a second thought, the remaining references suit me perfectly.--Polofrfr (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the hyphen?[edit]

Why does this article have a hyphen in the title, whereas others, like Folk rock, do not? Is this consistent with MOS? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking back to the origins of the article it seems there was a merger between blues rock and blues-rock and for some reason the hyphen won as the title. I suspect editors were confused by adjective use of the term (eg. Blues-rock masters). Are you suggesting a move? In which case I would have to agree.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am suggesting a move, as it would be in keeping with precedent. I almost made the move earlier, but decided a discussion would be helpful first. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It will have to be a requested move, though, as Blues rock is a redirect page. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok lets go for it. I doesn't look like it will be controversial.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Note: I've subsequently moved List of blues-rock performers and List of blues-rock musicians. -- œ 01:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

American Blues Rock[edit]

What I miss in this quite British article: Janis Joplin, and The Electric Elves (founded 1967, but only recorded the first album in 1972 due to a car accident). So Fleetwoot Mac weren't the first one, and they were British "clean", they hadn't the American "dirty" style. While both Janis' singing and The Electric Elves guitar play were strongly influenting Black Sabbath, beside Alice Coopers shocker show. So they were the precursors to heavy metal, and all Americans! (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Scaruffi defines "blues rock" as a "genre of rhythm'n'blues played by white European musicians." Yeah, and Jimi Hendrix didn't exist, huh? There you go with some "white" music: (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)