Talk:Garage rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Rock music (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Garage 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject United States / American Music (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American music (marked as Mid-importance).

Turn On[edit]

Any1 looking for a brand new garage rock revival band, check out turn on [[1]] right out of Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


In reply to the comment offered up below, and to quote Chris Gaylord, of The Lyrics fame, "All I can say about that is, 'So What!'"

Damn garage rock bands love using the word The in their names. Anyone notice that? --Arm GODdamn garage bands use Thee —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If God has a name, then "The" comes in front of it. All Glory to garage rock!!!Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Garage band[edit]

There should be pages about the garage band software made by Apple and by the Garage Band website [2]

There was a link to Cotton Mouth here that goes to the dryness of the mouth condition. I changed it so it goes to the disambiguation page. If there is a Cotton Mouth garage band someone can add it there. Superclear 22:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The garage rock catagories should remain as they are due to the fact that identifying each era is important to some. For example, some folks may be strictly interested in information on original 60's garage rock, while others may be interested in all forms of garage rock, even some which is deemed and often catagorized as revivalist garage rock. My vote is to keep the catagories era specific. Hamilton Styden 06:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is just so unfortunate that every name that has ever been applied to garage rock gets taken away by somebody else. First "punk rock" got taken away and now "garage band" (thank you Apple). I guess the next thing will be "garage rock." You will be able to buy a corporately advertised "Garage Rock" to put in your garage to hold the oil tarp in place. It is sad to see this maginificent musical genre suffer cultural desecration and demolition by neglect. What did these wonderful bands and artists ever do to deserve this? Even Wiki makes them suffer the indignity of a way-too-short feature summary article. This moment was the crown pinnacle of rock's greatest era and these bands were a huge part of it (this was the largest grass roots rock movement ever by far). Yet, all we are provided with here is paltry breadcrumbs. Let's provide something more comprehensive. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Too US?[edit]

I know that the US had lots of Garage Bands but so did the UK. The Troggs, who are mentioned in the article, are one of the most popular garage bands. This article doesn't seem to acknowldge the British garage scene which ultimately led to the punk scene. DR. Martin Hesselius 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Garage Rock is the true Punk Rock as this is the original[edit]

The Punk Rock sound of the 70's grew out of the true Punk Rock that was hitting the headlines in the States. To try and rename the true punk rock to Garage Rock is wrong. The sound that was started by the Ramones and the Sex Pistols etc is just an angle from Punk Rock that took a major explosion into the world press. Even the CBGB venue in New York will confirm this. The sound and attitude coming from the Bromley contingent was just Shock Rock aimed to shock and create an image. If anything it is this part of Punk Rock that should adopt a new name and we should not compromise history due to many peoples biasisms and ignorance.

Punk Rock is basically a term for Rock 'n' Roll in its rawest form played by amatures. Punk Rock is a music developed in the 60's that didn't recieve its title until the early 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talkcontribs) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Punk and Garage are part of the same line that might go something like Bo Diddley etc, British Invasion, Garage, Iggy, NYDolls, Ramones, UK Punk, Black Flag etc, and then so on. I think the telling thing that happens at the same time that the "punk" tag comes along is that the music gets really fast. Classic Garage can have a really belligerence, but often with a mid-tempo swagger. So keeping the genres seperate is useful. Almost-instinct 09:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard "1523 Blair," by the Outcasts (1966). It is faster than anything by the Sex Pistols. (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the article should make it clearer that this genre developed from the music of 50s artists such as Little Richard and Richard Berry. Rp (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The name garage rock[edit]

The article claims that the name refers to the fact that many of these bands rehearsed in garages; isn't it more significant that the records sound as if they're coming from a garage? Rp (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "garage band" was in use in the 1960s, in reference to groups who were perceived to rehearse in a garage. As I recall, it had little if any connotation of style or genre; most of these groups were what today would be called cover bands, doing popular songs of the day. Some were pretty good musicians, even if they only did covers, many others were probably less skillful. But the main idea was that a garage band was a group of young, essentially amateur (in the sense that music was not their career$ musicians who were likely to rehearse in the family garage. Wschart (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alice Cooper?[edit]

Why... is Alice Cooper Not mentioned in this article? the Alice Cooper Band helped popularize the genre garage rock in the late 60's and early 70's, and through to the 80's. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 07:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking through Alice Cooper I see nothing that refers to Garage rock. Aren't their roots more in Psych.? Including him here would strike me as POV. My own POV is that AC is on the road to metal, not to punk... Maybe if you could find some other people's opinions about how the core of mid-sixties Garage rock subsequently led onto Psych and thence to Glam that would be a usful extra section, perhaps called something along "subsequent influence". Yours, a little staidly, Almost-instinct 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Last year i did a research project on AC and i found many book sources that stated that the Alice Cooper Band was one of the pioneers in early Garage Rock. It really should be worth mentioning in the article, just a tad bit, one sentence. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 10:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, having been doing some thinking ... don't know what you'll make of this:

  • Since Garage Rock has its roots in the late 50s I can't really see how Alice Cooper could be a pioneer of early Garage Rock
  • Pre-name change Alice Cooper ("The Spiders") were clearly operating in that scene, in the scene's usual, not-very-successful way
  • The article at the moment says that Garage Rock in its classic incarnation was spent by 1968—and then was "revived" four years later! Clearly something happens in between...
  • Garage Rock, in its classic form, is essentially a naive genre. Choosing "Alice Cooper" as the name of a band is the opposite; a theatrical gesture.
  • Leaving Garage Rock and becoming theatrical is probably the first notable thing about Alice Cooper.
  • This transformation would fill the mysterious gap in the chronology from 1968–72. I suggest the opening paragraph of the "revival" section should be on AC. Something like "with their roots in garage rock as The XXXXs they developed in this way ... moving away from that ... using these parts of the tradition ... etc"
  • Once that's done the section might want to be changed from "revival" to "developments and revivals" almost-instinct 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Alice Cooper's music ever qualified as 'garage rock'. It's a more complex musically. Rp (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

New Irish Band?[edit]

What's with the one line advert for 'new irish phenomenon' or whatever, right at the end? it doesn't fit. It's ADVERTISING. makeitgoaway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levis517 (talkcontribs) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

2 sub-genres or 1[edit]

At the moment the article is in the odd position of having two infoboxes. If garage band and the revival are the same sub-genre there should probably be one box, if not, perhaps there should be two articles. Opinions and polite suggestions welcome.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Since Frat rock is also known as early Garage rock it seems logical to merge information here and simply point out the alternative name.--SabreBD (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Enough Detail[edit]

I believe that the whole article is too brief with a lot of information missing and too brief.Garage Rock is a vast musical genre and this article is much too short to cover the vast topic that is Garage Rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Theburning25 (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole article is way, way, way too short and needs to be significantly expanded. Other Wiki articals on mere individual bands in other genres (some of them awful--who cares about hair metal bands) garnish more attention that this. When it comes to garage rock, one of the few bands that gets any kind of lengthy discussion is the Monkees, a fake made-for TV garage band (whose music I admittedly love!!!). It is shameful to treat such a vast and large phenominon as garage rock, the original form of punk rock, with this kind of demolition by neglect. I believe that garage rock should be declared a National Treasure and treated as such. There is only one picture of a mid-60's garage band shown (there were more bands in the garage era than in any other period in rock, by far). The only other picture shown is of Iggy Pop from his time in The Stooges, bless him, but that covers a later period. I'm sure we can find at least several picures of mid-60's garage bands (in public commons). More is said about revival bands than the actual 60's garage rock bands that this article is supposed to cover--what a tragedy!!! A good way to start would be to have a slightly longer and more richly-worded heading. The heading , as it stands, is almost anemic. I made some additions to it that were later rescinded. Would the master editors please let me restore some of those additions? But, this time, I will try to make sure that the language is more carefully-worded. This article deserves a heading that matches the scope and historical importance of its topic. Garage rock, is , in terms of scope and size, the largest punk rock phenominon (or any rock paticipatory phenominon) ever, by far. It is estimated that there were over 300,000 garage bands playing in America in 1966 alone. There are so many stories to be told. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)03:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am very dissappointed that the improvements I made in the heading (explained above) have been rescinded. I ask the master editiors to please restore them. Here is a comparison of texts: With my improvements: Garage rock is a raw form of rock and roll that was first popular from about 1963 to 1967, when numerous bands were formed in the United States and Canada (as well as other countries). Along with the British invasion and folk rock, it hepled define the guitar rock sound of the mid-60s. During the 1960s, it was not recognized as a separate music genre and had no specific name. But, in the early half of 1970s, some critics referred to the style as "punk rock", making it the first form of music to bear this description. Although it is sometimes called garage punk, protopunk, or 60s punk, the style has become predominantly referred to as garage rock. Without: Garage rock is a raw form of rock and roll that was first popular in the United States and Canada from about 1963 to 1967. During the 1960s, it was not recognized as a separate music genre and had no specific name. In the 1970s, some critics referred to the style as "punk rock", the first form of music to bear this description; although it is sometimes called garage punk, protopunk, or 60s punk, the style has predominantly been referred to as garage rock. I made necessary additions to the heading of the Garage Rock article, which better serve the proportions of the genre which the article addresses. I added mention of the "numerous bands," because this is not only factual, but essential to understanding the phenominon of garage rock craze that swept the country (and other countries) during this period. I added the reference to "other countries" (in parenthesis), because the phenominon, though most prevelent in North America, also took place in other countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, Itlay, Peru, Japan, etc., as well as having a close relationship with many bands in the UK (though these are more commonly referred to as "British Invasion," and/or "Freakbeat, however thare are certain bands, such as The Troggs or The Renegades that have been commonly referred to as "garage"). Some of the bands in the Wiki list of garage bands come form other countries--i.e. the ones who have been characterized as "garage." I added mention that garage rock "along with the British Invasion and folk rock, helped define the guitar rock sound of the mid-60s," because this is, not only true, but also essential to our understanding of it in its place in history. I added "early half" to the description about the critics in the 70s, beacuse, without it, the statement is confusing. This addition makes the statement, not only more precise, factually speaking, but more clear. I added "..early half.." (of the 70's) (I should have said "first half" or "early") to make it clear to reader exactly when garage rock was spoken of as "punk rock" by critics, otherwise there will be confusion. Readers will find the sentence hard to believe if it does not sepecify which part of the 70s. (please see my detaide/referenced posts on this page and in Talk: punk rock. I put the phrase "has become" (I should have said "is now") in the last sentence, because it is more factual. The genre has not always been predominantly referred to as "garage rock." In the early to mid seventies it was almost always referred to as "punk rock," (sometimes "garage band" was used to refer to individual bands but not to the whole genre as was "punk"--see my detailed/referenced thread about "Etymolgy" in Talk: punk rock). I made some other slight changes in wording, as to make smoother, clearer transitions, but I tried to keep as much of the earlier text as possible. I have tried to respect the contributions of earler editors. My changes and additions are merely refinements and improvements, and do not constitute an overhaul. However, there remains a pressing need for greater expansion of other sections of the article, as well as possible additions of new sections, considering the vastness and importance of this topic. Let us have an open forum on which heading (1 or 2) is better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 09:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)03:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You have replied to an old post and the article has been expanded since then. You additions were not sourced in the article and do not seem relevant. They also introduce several grammatical and formatting errors.--SabreBD (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasons. Perhaps you could help me source the references in the article and correct any errors (grammatical or otherwise) in my revision of the heading, then you could restore it (albeit in corrected form). Please read again my comments above. I should be easy to reference any disussion of historical importance, because garage rock was by far the largest grass roots movement ever in the history of rock, in terms of the number of bands and people invoved. It probably affected every neighborhood in the country. I probably should have made a seperate section in talk rather than putting the comments into this thread. But, as it stands, the article remains way too short for a topic of this breadth, but expanding it is going to take time and the effort of several editors. Perhaps we can all make this a collective effort. Much thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

SabreBD, I like the addition of the photo of Paul Revere & The Raiders. That is a good addition. I appreciate your efforts to expand the pictures in the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In interest of expaning and improving the article, I found the Spanish language Wikipeia article on garage rock. It has a lot more information and goes into much more detail. Perhaps we could find someone fluent in Spanish to translate some of it--in the pursuit of expanding, improving, and enriching our own article. The Spanish article gets higher marks of approval in its questionaire than ours, so it might serve us well as a model. Don't get me wrong, their article is not perfect, either, and has one imperfection: It tends to de-emphasize the pre-British invasion (pre-1964) American garage phenominon as not to detract from the emergence of the Latin bands in 1964 (they view the genre more in post-British invasion terms). But, they do go into more detail about practically everything (including revival--The Chsterfield Kings, etc). Though my Spansih is not good, from a glance, it looks as though they attempt to walk you through the subject and teach you about it (as ours should do). Our article just bleets out a few quick things, but does not really develop the topic in an enriching, edifying, or meaningful way. Ours does have better pictures though, but let's find a few more. Our article should be second to none!!! [[3]] Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have attached the Spanish article to this site as recommened on the instuction page for translation expansions. We could rectify the best characteristics of both articles. For instance, ours could keep its "Garage Started in 1963" perspective, but have the necessary expansions. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have de-attached it as it screwed up the formatting and it is a pretty poor and largely unsourced article.--SabreBD (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish site could use more sources, but, at the same time, we will eventually need to build up our site to have more of the range and breadth that theirs has (but obviously with necessary supporting references). I think that we can find references for most of the details that they discuss. And, we should carefully study their article, because it may be more informative than ours. There is no reason not to find a translator. A broadened article is what we should aspire to achieve here at this site. Are you willing to help make that an obtainable goal? Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The answer is the same as to every other version of the same thing on this talkpage and on other articles. If there are reliable sources then the article can be expanded. But please check what makes a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We must make absolutely sure that any additions are properly referenced first. I have a feeling that many of the bands listed in the red letters on the Spanish site already have articles written here on our English wiki sites (not to mention sources here at this site as well)--they may not realize that there may be existing sourced material available in English that they can translate from us--and we may not realize that we may already have things at our own fingertips to use in the goal to expanding this article. If they could translate some of our biographies on those bands, it would go a long way towards helping them better source theirs. And in turn, could too could benefit in the process. We should make an effort to contact them and share resouces. When I get some spare momets I might go and check to see which bands they metion, which we already have bios on. Would anyone objcect to adding carefully referenced discussion of these bands? Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This whole article reads like some handlebar mustachioed d-bag bragging about his record collection. There needs to be information about how the music went from "Rocket 88" in 1951 to "Rumble" in 1958 or how it is that "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "You Really Got Me" came out the same year? "this band was influenced by that band" (allegedly). Great. How did band B even hear about band A in 1960? AM radio? All the arguing about whether it is punk music (or any other permutation of the name) misses the point of an encyclopedia-how and why did it happen? (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It's always a good idea to start off a complaint by randomly abusing the editors who have written it. (Not.) Why only look at this article? You seem to be thinking of Rock and roll, Origins of rock and roll, Rock music, British rock, etc. etc. Try looking through Category:Rock music genres. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I apologize to all the handlebar mustachioed d-bags I offended. I will check out those articles. (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

why was the page redirected to "garage band"?[edit]

garage rock is a real genre from the 1960's. any modern rock 'n' roll historian can tell you that. can someone explain why it was redirected to a different article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashyourface86 (talkcontribs) 06:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No I can't, but I have restored the article. Thanks for drawing this to the attention of editors.--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Garage Rock vs Post Punk[edit]

Garage rock is a retronym for the rock bands of the 1960s whose musical style had a major influence on early punk bands. Such artists include The Standells and The Atlatnics.

Post punk is a retronym for a do-it-yourself variant of new wave music. Artists include New Order and Joy Division.

Garage rock revival artists include The White Stripes and Jet. These artists provide a punk-blues style reminiscent of the original sixties rock sound.

By comparison, the post punk revival does not in any way resemble garage rock.

In my opinion, garage rock and post punk should not be categorized together. AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion is not very important on Wikipedia, [[WP:Verifiability|verifiability is. Do you have and reliable sources that indicate that this is the case?--SabreBD (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We could go per allmusic: Garage rock revival vs. Post-punk revival. Garage rock revival, according to them, has been going on since the 1980s and relates to Garage punk and "garage rock revival bands aimed to recapture the wild, rowdy, raucous spirit of '60s garage rock", while Post-punk revival refers to bands that "surfaced with clear indebtedness to post-punk and new wave", not to Garage rock. In other words, there's difference in time of appearance and in influences. Yes, bands such as The Libertines, The Strokes, Arctic Monkeys and Yeah Yeah Yeahs tend to be categorized as both sometimes. But do you have any specific source stating that any of the following have had some sort of influence of Garage rock?: Interpol, The Killers, Bloc Party, Editors. For that matter, most of those bands appear in this list of post-punk revival bands, but they seem not to be usually mentioned in lists of Garage rock revival.

In addition, post-punk revival states nothing about garage rock (save for a mention in the "see also"). (And on a personal note, putting Garage rock revival and Post-punk revival in the same category is as inaccurate as putting 60s garage rock bands with late 70s/80s post-punk bands.) -- (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic do use the term for two different things in this case, but that doesn't mean that the terms have not been used indiscriminately. For example, see the extract at: [4].--SabreBD (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because they're used indiscriminately (in this case, with the case of The Strokes, a band that, as I said, tends to be put as both garage rock and post-punk revival) doesn't mean there is not a distinction/difference between the terms. And for that matter, the author also uses "noise rock" and "grunge-pop" as examples of "neo-punk" of the 90s, would that mean that we have to indiscriminately use those terms to refer to these bands too? But the point stands, is there any source that refers to any of those bands mentioned above (and most featuring on the post-punk revival bands category) as garage rock? -- (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I mean... I guess my only objections are the appearance of post-punk revival bands that are not qualified for the most part as garage rock revival and the fact that the article mentions how post-punk revival seems to be only an alternative name to the garage rock movement of the late 90s/00s when it clearly is a separate, albeit somewhat related, genre -- (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In the end we will need to come up with some form of words that outlines the different ways the terms are used, both for distinct bands and interchangeably. I will give it some thought, but I am open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking something like "In the 2000s, another garage rock revival, sharing some common artists with the post-punk revival movement that appeared during the late 90s" etc. but I don't know what you think. -- (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Something along those lines would be good. Perhaps "In the early 2000s, garage rock artists received a level of airplay and commercial success that was unprecedented for past bands attempting to revive the subgenre." List off a few and then mention "There was a great level of intersection between garage rock and a simultaneously occurring post-punk revival as evidenced by bands such as..."--ARomanNamedStatusQuo (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I think I prefer the more less elaborate first one. It also needs to correspond with the sources.--SabreBD (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

2000s "garage punk"[edit]

The recently added last paragraph on bands that emerged in the mid-2000s has been deleted and re-added several times, including readdding by myself. However, I can see why it was deleted as it is not clear that these bands are garage rock (most are described by their Wikipedia pages as garage punk - for what that is worth). Their status could be debated, but a more important issue is that most of this is without reliable sources and has been tagged for some time. If anyone wants to keep this could they provide a rationale and preferably some sources. Otherwise I will delete the unsourced material soon and then look at what is left and whether we can justify keeping it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin-American bands[edit]

Consider mentioning Peruvian band Los Saicos, they were preety punk back in 1964. Example: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Although short lived, Los Saicos was arguably the wildest rock & roll band in the 1960s. Director Hector Chávez released a documentary about the band in 2010 Saicomanía. Perú was probably the only country, outside of North America and the UK, which had a garage rock scene. See also: Los York's, Los Shain's and Jean Paul “El troglodita”. --Rivet138 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that the unsigned editor brought up Los Saicos and that someone has now included a passage about them in the article. I am also glad that Rivet138 made mention of some of the other bands from Peru. But, I beg to differ with Rivet138's assertion that Peru was the only other country that had garage. Garage rock was a worldwide phenomenon. It happened in a lot of counties: Uruguay, Mexico, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Australia/New Zealand, Japan (and even inside the Iron Curtain). Yes, it was at its biggest (and best epitomized) in the United States, but it was going on in a lot of other places as well. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Punk started in the early to mid 60's not in the mid to late 70's[edit]

Not enough is said in the Wikipedia article, "Garage Rock," about how garage rock was the original form of punk rock. The term was origianlly applied to it as a retronym in the early 70's by important rock critics. Dave Marsh, in his May 1971 Creem Magazine review of Question Mark and the Mysterions, referred to them as "punk rock." Lenny Kay in his liner notes for the original 1972 compilation, Nuggets (on Electra), refered to the what we now call garage rock (of the mid 60's) as "punk rock," with the assumption that it was commonly referred to that way in knowlegeable circles. Supposedly, Lester Bangs also wrote on this topic, designating the garage bands of 1963-1967 as "punk rock." The article on Wikipeda needs to be longer, cosidering the scope of this music: I read that it is estimated that there may have been at least 300,000 American garage bands playing and/or recording in 1966 alone.

The role of mid 60's garage rock is in bad need of, not only greater appreciation, but of a full re-evaluation in the history of punk rock. Since the explosion of New York and British punk in the mid to late 70's garage rock has been seen more as a precursor to punk, rather than true punk itself. However, this was not the view in the early 70's. Let me explain:

I acknowledge that the 60's garage rockers had not claimed the word "punk" for themselves. If the word punk had been used to describe the music in the 60's, it would most likely have been used in a disparraging way by older people. And, I also acknowlege that it wasn't until the mid to late 70's that newer bands started calling temselves "punk," and adopting a look, philosophy, and ideology that was completely seperate from other forms of rock.

In the 60's it wasn't really necessary to do that, because the youth had their collective back up against the wall and had to stand united against the older establishment; any divisions in the ranks would have weakend their efforts rather than strengthened them. Even if the term "punk" had been used, there would have no use in creating a distinction between "punk" and "hippie" at that time. All of the rock of that era, whether you call it "mod," "British invasion," "folk" "punk," "garage," "psycedelic," "acid," "hippe" whatever was tied up in a nexus. To appreciate just how true this is, watch the Standells performing in a club during the opening credit sequence of the movie, "Riot on Sunset Strip" to understand what I am talking about. They are punky as hell!!! ...and yet somehow there is the hippy thing at the same time. But, the more you excavate through the 60's, the more you find punk. The term was not self-referentially used at that time, but the reality of its existence was already very much there. And all it needed do would be to find people to point it out and codify it (Marsh, Bangs, Kaye, et. al. in 1971-1972). Want to see what typical rock & roll was like in 1966? Check out the Sylvania TV ad from that year on Youtube (with that wild rock & roller guy). What do you find? Punk!!! Keep on searching, researching, listening to records by garage bands. Get deeper into the lesser known ones. You will come to realize that this was the first golden age of punk rock. Don't take my word. Check it out for yourself. You will come to the same conclusion.

So let's talk about "punk" as it relates to the 60's: Is it necessary for musicians and people in a certain cultural milieu to have to self-define thier own genre or label and create a whole seperate look and philosophy to be considered a part of that label or designation? No. Did the first heavy metal performers (such as Blue Cheer, early Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc.) call themselves "heavy metal?" No. In fact many of them denied the label after it later became fashionably applied to them. Their look and aesthetic style was not much differnt from other bands of the late 60's (check out Robert Plant's or Ian Gillin's tie-dye shirts in '69--same thing that Crosby, Stills, and Nash would have been wearing). They were just singing to their generation. Does that mean that they weren't "heavy metal?" Of course not. The term was coined to apply to them. Of course, later on, heavy metal would evolve into having a whole seperate look and identity from other forms of rock, but that was a few years away. By the way, didn't the Ramones deny the label punk for awhile circa '78? Does that make them not punk?

Did the mid 60's garage rockers have to call themselves "punk" and look completely different form everyone else at that time to be punk? I say no. Because, the term "punk rock," as it was first used, applied to them. Did The Creation ever have the slightest clue in 1966 that people would one day be refering to them as "freakbeat?" Certainly not. Does that mean that they weren't freakbeat? Of course not.

I'll be the first person to grant that, when the term "punk rock" was first used to describe these 60's garage rockers, it was used as a retronym by rock critics in the early 70's to designate a sub-genre within a larger genre (much as was the case with "freakbeat"). It did not necessarily denote a whole seperate movement. Does that make it not punk? No. There is no way of getting around it: the garage rock of the mid-60's was the original form of punk rock and was the first style to be designated as such within the rock critical community. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact. Do your research.

I am in no way disparaging the later more identifiable punk rock post-1975. It was my love of that music that brought me to want to discover where it came from. And, it is my love for great bands such as The Clash, who proudly showed thier solidarity and proclamed "We're a garage band" on thier first album, that led me to this. And I have heard Joe Strummer say in a documentary that he considered the garage bands of the 1960's to be the original punk (The Ramones have also said the same thing). I wish that some of the other great 70's punk icons could have been as generous. Some people said that the Clash moved away from punk on the London Calling album. Wrong 'em boyo, The Clash returned punk to the richness and diversity of expression that it had known in the 60's.

There can be no denying the genius of the bands of the 70's punk movement, particularly the British bands. They created a whole new look and philosophy to go with thier brilliantly updated (and re-defined) punk sound at a time when rock really needed it, and created a whole new look and iconography to go with it. They truly shook the music world. They took something that had started almost accidently years before and brought it out into the light of day for the whole world to see, while developing it in new ways. The punk movement of the 70's should have been the ultimate vindication for the long neglected and forgotten 60's punk rock bands. But, instead the 60's groups have been relegated to proto-purgatory ever since. The very punk people who should be championing this music have reduced it to orphan/stepchild status. And, that is just not right.

DIY: The 60's punk bands didn't say much about it--they went out and did it--like no one ever before or since. They had the gumption to go out and form bands by the hundreds of thousands--playing live and recording (often on numerous independent labels--sounds familiar?). There is no way of counting, but as I said, 1966 there could have been at least 300,000 or more garage bands active in the United States alone--a phenominon that touched practically every niegborhood in the country. There is nothing even comparible in any other rock era in terms of size or scope. The amount do-it-youself grassroots rock bands at the time was staggering. In terms of size, 1966 was the greatest explosion for punk rock ever (or any kind or rock, for that matter). When people mention 1977 and 1992 as the years "that punk broke," I laugh. If you don't believe me, go look at the factory orders for Ludwig drums and Fender guitars and amps. The factories had to go through massive expansions and run quadruple 24-hour shifts night and day. Fender today is the largest guitar company in the world, but the factory they have now is a fraction of the size as the one they had to build, then, to keep up with the demand.

But, the 60's garage punk craze was a stealth revolution. Nobody know what to call it or make of it at the time. It is almost as if these bands did unconsciously what later gerations would have to do consciously. They were the invisible, forgotten punk revolutionairies (the real Genration X). Due to the overabundance of competion, there was just no way for most of these bands to ever have much monetary succes (many of the later punk bands got filthy rich in comparison and stole a lot of the credit). The guitar and drum manufacturers were the only ones who made much money out of the whole garage rock craze.

All-Female Bands: If the guys in many of those bands' lacked feminist awareness (is it ever as high as it should be?), then here is the perfect antiodote: go to the Girl Garage Mayhem blog on Myspace and read the list of approximately 160 all-female groups operating at the time. Then go listen to them on Youtube. This is over ten years before The Runaways or The Slits. The Pleasure Seekers and The Luv'd Oneswere especially terrific. The girls in almost all of these bands had a ton of attitude and make some of rocks first defiantly feminst statements. Yet they have all been overlooked or forgotten. What a tragedy.

Sadly 60's punk gets very little mention in most books and histories about punk rock. Rarely are any pre-1975 artists, other than Iggy and The Stooges, MC5, The New York Dolls, or The Velvet Underground mentioned. And, the Velvets were more avant garde than punk. There are hundreds of bands form the mid-60's who deserve serious discussion. Isn't it time they got their due? We need to engage in a greater appreciation and critical re-evaluation of garage rock as the original form of punk rock. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 06:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why you posted this huge slice of text already posted to Talk:Punk rock here, as most of this does not seem relevant to this article. It would be better to post some short and easily comprehensible points if you think there is something that needs correcting or expanding and then try to get consensus. I must also point yet again to the guidelines and policies at WP:LEAD, WP:Verify, WP:CITE, WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OR. The changes you keep making under your ip address fail to meet these guidelines. Opinion is not valuable on Wikipedia, it is not a forum. Edits need to be supported by reliable citations.--SabreBD (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

After reading your comments, I went back and revised my post to greater highlight some of the facts and show how my post is relevent to the Wikipeia article. Sorry if I have made too many revisions. I want express these ideas the best way that I can. I'm sorry if it is a bit long. I will try to keep future posts more concise. Thanks.Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)21:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

statement in heading misleading[edit]

The statement "In the late 70's some rock critics retroactively identified it as an early incarnation of punk" is misleading. That is not exactly true, although I appreciate the fact that you are moving in the right direction, by acknowledging it as an "early incarnation of punk," as opposed to the former term, "protopunk." Still, the reference about the late 70's has no citations to support it. Which critics are they referring to? Where? What periodicals? Its factual basis is not sound. Yes, in the late 70's many critics began to use the term "garage rock" rather than the former "punk" to denote what we now call garage rock, in the wake of the Sex Pistiols, as not to be confusing. Greg Shaw, one of original critics who had spoken, in the early 70's of garage rock as "punk" later started to use "garage," but he now feels that garage rock should now be able to re-claim its "punk" designation. [1] Factually speaking, it was in the early 70's, not the late 70's that critics retroactively identifed garage rock of the mid-60's as as "punk."

Here is what needs to be said, factually speaking (with citations): In the early 70's certain rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, whether individually or collecively, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock. [2] [3]

To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." [4] Lenny Kaye took the colloquial, unofficial term that was floating around and, in the act of writing about it, officially codified it in the larger public mind in his notes on a major record relase by a major record label with widespread ditribution (Electra). Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Statements in the lead are sourced in the article and so do not have to be sourced again in the lead, which is a summary. You also need to look at WP:OR and WP:Synth. An editor cannot look at album covers and then draw a conclusion. It has to be in reliable secondary sources.--SabreBD (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but these liner notes were the work noted rock critic, Lenny Kaye, who later became a member of of the mid-70's punk scene in New York (in the Patti Smith Group). He wrote the liner notes in the form of an essay, with a title. There are also writings by Dave Marsh, Greg Shaw, Alec Palao, and others, from both the early 70's and today, which confirm this point of view. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)19:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the heading to the "Punk Rock" article in Wiki has now been ammended by master editors to reflect this fact. Even the Wiki article, "Protpunk," makes mention of this fact. It is now time to make a change on the heading here.

If album liner notes are not enough: There is a great website devoted to the etymology of punk (and the developent of how the term came to be used in rock) ( It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands. The critics later speak of the mid-70's punk movement in New York (they were there at the time) as a punk revival (not as a new thing called punk). They talk about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries. Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets says:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973) [5]

Shaw in a later review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976) describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (the early Sex Pistols sand covers of "Steppin' Stone," by Paul Revere & The Raiders, etc. and "Substitue," by the Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon. But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975) [6]

I am glad to see that the heading to the article has been modified to achieve greater historical accuracy, along the lines of the quotes and references mentioned above. I still feel that the words "...early half of..." or "..early to mid..." should be added before "...1970's, some critics...", so that the reader can clearly understood that it was in the earlier half of the decade (pre-1976)that the term "punk rock" was applied to the mid-60's garage bands. This would be more factual and make the overall statement more comprehensible and less confusing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of article: mention more early influences: Link Wray,etc.--California Latin and Tex-Mex groups--all-female groups--Vietnam war--change in British Invasion wording[edit]

  • The "Origins" section of this article could make mention of Link Wray, who is often considered an important influence on the garage rock. This Maryland native has a short profile written about him on the Garage Hangover website [[5] and has often been cited as a key early influence on punk rock. [[6]] Fellow Maryland natives and garage band, The Dagenites, knew him and shared his manager. [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] The Origins section could also mention the earlier influence of blues, 50s rock & roll, and rockabilly. Link Wray serves as a vital connection between the earlier rockabilly and later surf (primarily instrumental surf) styles, which then feed into Northwestern rock and frat rock (the two earliest forms of garage rock, i.e. 60s punk).
  • Then, of course comes the British invasion: The phrase "...adopt a British lilt" sounds awkward and not very encyclopedic, and makes it sound too "cute" (and it might be misconstrued as imlying that the bands tried to "mimick" British accents, which was not generally the case). It should be replaced with "...adopt a bolder approach," which would come closer to the actual reality (particulary in light of the influence of the tough London bands such as The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Yardbirds, The Who, etc.). Something could be said here about the mod influence as well. Yet, the rockabilly, Link Wray, and surf influences remained strong, even after the British, mod, and folk rock influences arrived. Psychedelic influences could also be mentioned (although some blame psychelia for eventually bringing about the demise of garage).
  • There could be discussion of Latin bands (from southern California and Texas) who helped sire this genre early on, as well as the scores of all female groups such as Luv'd Ones and The Pleasure Seekers, who would serve as a model for later groups, such as The Runaways and The Slits.
  • One meaningful addtion to the "demise" section of this article would be a discussion of the role of the Vietnam War in brining about the demise of garage movement. I have read in several places that this was often a contributing factor. Supposedly, members of lesser known bands were often targeted for the draft, because rock music was often viewed as a bad influence (it was harder to go after big name bands with legal resources and big-label support--although even ceratin well-known stars had to contend with draft board issues as well). I believe that one member of the Squires (who sang "Going All the Way") got drafted. I also have read that a former member of the Reddlemen was killed in action in Vietnam, 1968. On the Garage Hangover website, there is a piece about garage rock anti-war protest songs. [10] It should not be difficult to find sources about this topic. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

SabreBD, I noticed addition of reference to the draft in decline section. That is a positive improvement. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I added (annotated) mention of Link Wray influence to the article. I also changed the wording (in the part about British Invasion influence) from "to adopt a British Invasion lilt," which sounded silly and unencyclopedic, to "adopted a response..." (i.e. to the British Invasion), which not only sounds more appropriate, but is more correct. I added several sources to back this up. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not a fan of the "lilt" bit of this sentence, but it was in the source and to say that they were just influenced doesn't help the reader that much. However, I have cut down the repetition here and left the meaning. Also please note that there is a set format to references in this article, so please do not add bare urls. I don't have time at the moment, but I will come back and fix these later.--SabreBD (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I just went in and tried to insert the needed information into the url references, but it only messed things up, so I reverted them to thier prior bare state. After you insert the information into the url references, I can then use that format on future tries. By the way, I like your change in the wording. It sounds better and more clear. If I can find necessary sources, I would like to add something about all-female garage bands, such as The Pleasure Seekers and the Luv'd Ones, as well as adding a mention of early rock & roll influences, such as rockablilly, and also mention of Latin bands in Southern California and Texas. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

...something I forgot to mention: perhaps we could add a paragraph or section devoted to bands outside of North America. One editor made mention of Los Saicos, and perhaps we could include his/her contribution in the new paragraph or section. We could try to find sources on some of the Latin American bands/scenes. There was a good bit of activity in places such as Mexico and particularly Uruguay (see Uruguayan Invasion). There could be some discussion about Freakbeat as it relates to certain UK bands. Continental Europe had a lot of activity, particularly in places such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and even Italy. Perhaps the second largest garage explosion (behind the U.S. and Canada) was in Australia/New Zealand (and it was huge). I am reading a terrific book about the 60s Aussie garage rock scene called Wild About You, by Ian D. Marks and Iain McIntyre. I highly recommend it as a source for anyone interested in contributing on this topic. The wiki article Australian rock, covers this period, too, in the "Second wave," section, but that article is in bad need of better sourcing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent Changes are Detrimental--Article Needs to Return to Earlier Configuration[edit]

I am always in favor of editors making changes in this article for the sake of its improvement, but major changes were made, which I consider to be detrimental. These changes were done without prior notice and were never proposed on the Talk page in advance, and that goes against the Wikipedia norm. No feedback was ever solicited from other editors. Yet changes were made that dramatically change the way the article reads. Let me explain.

A whole section has been added to the heading, which would be better explained (or is already explained) in the Characteristics and History sections. It begins: "...Its name derives from the perception that many often rehearsed in a family garage..."

This point is discussed already (and in a better way) in the Characteristics section, where it should be. The later explanation (in Characteristics) is superior because it goes on to explain that some bands were older and professional (as well as sometimes urban) which avoids a tendency towards oversimplification and stereotyping. No doubt many of the bands were indeed suburban and amateur (but that does not necessarily mean "amateurish"--sometimes yes (but in a good way of course), at other times the musicians were surprisingly proficient, despite their young--or sometimes older age). But, un-encyclopedic stereotyping in the heading aside, why set up a false redundancy for the rest of the article?

The rest reads:

"...It was characterised by lyrics and delivery that were more aggressive than was common at the time and guitars distorted through a fuzzbox. It began to evolve from regional scenes as early as 1958, heavily influenced by surf rock. The "British Invasion" of 1964-66 greatly influenced garage bands, providing them with a national audience. Thousands of garage bands were extant in the USA and Canada during the era and hundreds produced regional hits and a handful had national chart hits. By 1968 the style largely disappeared from the national charts. It was also disappearing at the local level as amateur musicians faced college, work or the draft..."

These parts were either once discussed or are still (already) discussed in the History section, where they work best (and belong).

I have a problem with the insinuation that a fuzzbox was somehow always used. Yes, it was indeed used, and used a lot. But, even more often, the guitars were plugged directly into the amps (usually using the bridge pickup and bright settings to get a shimmering and sparkling sound). But, shouldn't the particulars of tonal effects be discussed in the Characteristics section (not in the heading)?

Yes, I understand the need to expand the heading a little bit. I have said before that I think that it could use richer and more expressive language (i.e. "Britannic" language), as could the rest of the article. But, the changes made here are not the answer. I say this with all due respect. I think that we should undo these changes return the article to its earlier configuration, at least for the time being, and then work up a consensus about how to make later changes. And I think that I have the right, as a fellow editor, who happens to be knowledgeable on this topic, to insist, for this unfortunate change to be undone. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the fact that: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points..... The previous lead - three sentences long - did not do that. User:Sabrebd has made a useful and necessary attempt to start the process of developing the lead - which, ultimately, should become longer than it is now so as to give a fuller overview. There is absolutely no problem in summarising later sections in the article lead - in fact, it is precisely what is required. I've tweaked and formatted the text slightly. The current version of the lead (both before and after my tweaks) is in my view better than the earlier version and closer to the approved style, and there was absolutely no need to seek prior consensus here for those improvements. The article as a whole certainly needs to be expanded and improved, based on what reliable sources say (rather than on personal opinions). And please, for everybody's sake, try to make your points more succinctly..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Some confusion here I think. This was not a major edit, it was in line with MOS guidelines, responding to a template pointing out that the lead was too short and the material is still in the article. As pointed out by Ghmyrtle in the post above, this certainly does not require prior permission on this talkpage. There were no changes in meaning and the point seems to be missed that there was no characteristics section until I created it in these edits. This is all pretty normal stuff for a music genre article of any quality.--SabreBD (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the new changes Ghmyrtle made, and I think that they look good. I always felt that the heading needed to be expanded. And yes, I do want to acknowledge my thanks to SabreBD for making the first attempt to do so, particularly in light of the template requirements he mentioned, so if I was splitting hairs, it was only to refine things a bit. I am very grateful for the many improvements SabreBD has made here and elsewhere. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is evolving in a good direction, however, I should note two changes that need to be made to statement at end of heading section which reads: "In the 1970s, some critics referred to the style as punk rock, the first form of music to bear this description; although it is sometimes called garage punk, protopunk, or 1960s punk, the style has predominantly been referred to as garage rock."
  • The word "early" should be placed in front of "...1970s," as to avoid confusion on the reader's part. We need to clarify that this was the practice of critics in the early part of the decade (as, obviously the use of the term changed post-1974). This way of wording is more factual and precise.
  • We need to change "1960s punk" to "60s punk." "60s punk" is the way this term is always used, when employed as such (i.e. note Pebbles compilations sub-heading "60s Punk and Psych Classics'--I think that is a good barometer). I believe that we already have a disambiguation (link) for the term: see 60s punk. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The first one sounds fine. The second one is more of an issue, since the MOS says not to use truncated decades. Is it really that much of a fixture of scholarship on this topic?--SabreBD (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of publicity material or journalism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"60s punk" is an oft-used colloquial name for this genre of music, so when the article makes reference to its likeness, it is only tying to inform the reader about the popular use of a colloquial term (or catch-phrase name), not assigning a formal designation in time. So, the MOS may not apply in this particular case. After all, if the article is trying to inform the reader what names people refer to the music as, then shouldn't we try to be as accurate and helpful as possible? Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. We don't have to copy the shorthand of journalists.--SabreBD (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, then I accept that we should keep "1960s punk" expression as is, if that best corresponds to wiki stylistic norms. So, there appears to be a consensus that we should not to make the second proposed change. As for the first proposed change, I assume that there would be no objection to making it? Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
OK with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. Thank you fellow editors for your time and consultation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Time to archive this page?[edit]

This page is getting rather long. Issues raised in most of the threads have now been resolved and/or have reached consensus. I would say that we can remove just about all of them (and put them in the archive), except any that editors feel are necessary for the future development of the article. The only thread that I think is still applicable is the one, "Expansion of article...". Even there, some of its points have already been addressed. We could, either keep that thread, or if we archive it, I could create a new thread dealing with some of the later bullet points raised there. What do you think fellow Wikipedians? Sound off. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ [G. Shaw, "Sic Transit Gloria...: The Story of Punk in the 60's," liner notes to Nuggets CD box set, Rhino, 1998]
  2. ^ [D. Marsh, Review for Question Mark & the Mysterions. Creem Magazine. May, 1971]
  3. ^ [L. Kaye, liner notes to Nuggets LP compilation. Electra Records. 1972]
  4. ^ [L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972)]
  5. ^ [G. Shaw. Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973]
  6. ^ [M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975]