Talk:Instrumental rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rock music (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Instrumental 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.

Removed text[edit]

Rem text:

(Although groups like the Beach Boys and Jan and Dean were identified with surfing as subject matter, they are usually called 'surf pop' and not considered surf music proper.)

I don't think that's true, the rise of groups like The Surfaris that were equally competent in both surf pop and surf instrumental music made it more logical to see it as a single genre. See surf music for this more developed. Andrewa 13:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Major changes[edit]

Moved the introductory paragraph into a body tag titled "History of Instrumental Rock", separated the list of instrumental rock musicians into bands and separate artists, and added a small section on Modern Instrumental rock. Removed reference to a few bands who are not within the instrumental rock genre.

Would appreciate more info on instrumental rock bands, particularly modern ones.

Also added a quick sentence or two on television theme songs, which often are instrumental. More examples would be great.

Clockwise music 06:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cacophony details needed[edit]

I have removed the "After the poor reviews of Cacophony's sophomore album Go Off! in 1988" line, as I think a few citations would be needed to make this claim. Can anyone find any poor reviews of "Go Off" dated to 1988?

Other than that the anonymous tidy-ups were very good - thanks mr mystery (wo)man! Clockwise music 02:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


I removed The Fucking Champs from the opening. They are an indie stationed in Calfornia and do not have much notoriety elsewhere. I replaced them with Trans-Siberian Orchestra which is much more well known. I also added that some bands like Metallica and Rush also record instrumental tracks and enjoy much success. Aurocker49 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you said about The Fucking Champs, even though I love them.  :) I disagree about TSO as a band that specializes in the style, since the entry on TSO mentions that they currently have 14 vocalists and at least one of the founding members was successful in a band (Savatage) that, while releasing some instrumental tracks, had vocals on most of their songs. Rather than replacing it with anything, I just removed TSO entirely. Wyatt Riot 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I am still looking for a good picture to place in this article.

Eric Johnson[edit]

This article completely leaves out Eric Johnson, who was pretty much the only guitarist to have radio play in the '90s with his instrumental "Cliffs of Dover" along with other instrumentals from his album "Ah Via Musicom."

Notable guitarists in the '80s[edit]

There is also the curious omission (in the actual article) of players like Tony MacAlpine, Greg Howe, and Vinnie Moore, along with the prevalance of other artists from Shrapnel Records in the '80s instrumental scene.

The Shadows and Fleetwood Mac (a.k.a. bands that sometimes played instrumental rock)[edit]

This is mostly for User:Laneo12345 but others should add their input as well. I would argue that The Shadows and Fleetwood Mac should not be included with artists who are primarily known for instrumental music. In particular, I disagree with the claim that The Shadows "specialize in the style", especially since they are listed as an "instrumental and vocal rock and roll group" in their article, which also mentions numerous vocal releases. In a similar vein, I've never heard it claimed that Fleetwood Mac are "noted for instrumentals". Now I'm not claiming that these bands don't do instrumental tracks, which they clearly do, they're just not known for it like the rest of the bands listed in the opening paragraphs. Thoughts? Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankstalk for the opportunity for a open discussion.
The Shadows are labeled with vocal on top of instrumental as a style purely for the fact that they have on occasion done a song with vocals. This is very rare. The only ones were on the early albums. The Shadows “sometimes” played songs with vocals. The double majority of their stuff is instrumental.

:“Hank B. Marvin, is an English guitarist, lead guitarist for The Shadows. The group, which primarily performed instrumentals, was formed as a backing band for singer Cliff Richard.”- From Hank Marvin page.

The Shadows recorded and had success with instrumental covers of very popular tunes (examples being A Whiter Shade of Pale and Don't Cry for Me Argentina), just like any other specialty instrumental outfit. They were a band that is often labeled the most influential band before the Beatles in England. This was not through their singing by any means. The Shadows with their backing of Cliff Richard had a role much like Booker T & MGs. The Shadows were as much an instrumental band as The Ventures. The only difference being the US exposure. The Shadows had several no.1 hits in the Commonwealth nations and they were all instrumentals. It is also interesting to note the high profile tribute album with the likes of Ritchie Blackmore, Brian May, Tony Iommi, Steve Stevens, Peter Green, Neil Young And Randy Bachman, Mark Knopfler, Peter Frampton, Keith Urban & Stewart Copeland, Andy Summers and Bela Fleck And The Flecktones contributing towards it. The album is funny enough is ALL instrumental.
This all suggests that they in fact do specialize in this. I think that somebody who is familiar with their work is somewhat better situated to make a statement about the specialty of the band.

As far as Fleetwood Mac goes as a band that had noted instrumentals I am just indicating the string of them done by the early carnation of the group. Albatross was a big hit, the B side Jigsaw Puzzle Blues was also an instrumental. They also had one named after the band, Fleetwood Mac. They also had a dozen or so Peter Green guitar driven ones include Watch Out, Red Hot Jam and the Supernatural. Somebody that is familiar with Peter Green’s Fleetwood Mac would note their instrumental pieces.

[[User:Laneo12345(talk) 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if The Shadows played predominantly instrumental rock and Fleetwood Mac wrote a few as well, do you think they're really on the level of the bands in those early paragraphs? I mean, I've got my favorite instrumental or primarily instrumental bands as well, but I wouldn't even think about putting Electro Quarterstaff or The Minibosses (for example) next to Joe Satriani and Steve Vai. Maybe it's just me, but I think we need to stick with very notable or recognizable bands in the lead paragraphs. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wyatt Riot (talk)

Both these bands are notable and recognizable. That is undeniable. Did either Electro Quarterstaff or The Minibosses (for example) score a number of hits around the world? Or influence generations of musicians including Eric Clapton, The Beatles, Jeff Beck and Neil Young (for example)? I think you should go research a little more about really how important The Shadow are. Neither The Shadows were not well know in the US at the time. Let alone now. I've met both Joe and Steve and im telling you now, after listening to their music, i know who i would rather stand next out of them and Hank Marvin or Peter Green. User:Laneo12345(talk) 20:54 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not really about how influential they were, but if they're so notable and recognizable that they deserve a mention in the lead paragraph. You can't name every band who released a few instrumental hits. Hell, I'd say that some of the other bands mentioned (Booker T. & the M.G.s and The Champs) should probably be pruned as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jethro Tull - mainstream?[edit]

In this article, it says "...mainstream bands like Metallica, Rush, Jethro Tull...". How can someone even come up with the idea of calling one of the past century's most innovative bands "mainstream"? Sick... - (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire passage per WP:NOR. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Flag's instrumental work[edit]

eg. Family Man and The Process of Weeding Out.

Should this be mentioned?

--The Laxative (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-instrumental rock bands with the occasional instrumental[edit]

There is an Allman Brothers mention, but what else should be done in this article's treatment of rock bands who aren't Instrumental Rock -focused but who do instrumental songs occasionally? Specifically, I'm thinking of "Moby Dick", the John Bonham extended drum solo, and "Orion" from Metallica's "Master of Puppets"

KingAlanI (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic origins[edit]

Instrumental rock is a type of rock and roll which emphasizes musical instruments, and which features no or very little singing.

Rock music is 60's, Instrumental rock is 1958. Can you change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mago266 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Selective removal of bands[edit]

Hello everyone. I recently added Animals as Leaders to the article as they compose and produce instrumental metal music exclusively. My edit was reverted by User:Sabrebd though, apparently because to him, my edit looked like an advertisement. Only in '2000s' section, mentioned are various artists without any references to cover their notability. I'm wondering, what is different this time about my edit? Thanks. --Λeternus (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For me, the "newly formed" bit is what set off the spam-dar. It really has no place except in advertising. ("Try our NEW bacon double patty melt!") Even beyond that, the statement was unsourced, and references are a basic requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. This article is fundamentally unreferenced—which is a bad thing for us—and adding further unreferenced statements won't do. In fact, I've been thinking of hacking this article back to stub status until we can get it properly referenced; it's been tagged for cleanup since November 2007—almost five years!—and nobody's found proper references yet. I hope this helps! Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to the talkpage Aeternus. Wyatt Riot's comments pretty much cover it: anything that says "recently formed" and does not demonstrate a significant contribution to the subject of an article is likely to be treated as spam. That fact that other items in the article are unsourced does not mean that unsourced statements are justified, it is just increasing the problem. I would support the idea of cutting back to a stub. The subject of the article is inherently problematic and it is questionable whether this is a genre or just a series of genres with no lyrics. However, I notice that Allmusic does have a page on the topic [1] and perhaps that could for the basis of something.--SabreBD (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I agree on removing all unsourced text from the article. --Λeternus (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Instrumental Metal[edit]

Numerous instrumental metal acts are mentioned in the article, but there is no reference to them being metal acts, and there is no mention of the instrumental metal scene in general. Instrumental metal is an important part of the instrumental rock scene, especially when popularity of metal guitarists in the 80's created a new demand for instrumental rock, and it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed Hot Rats[edit]

Removed section claiming Hot Rats is instrumental rock. It features a track with vocals and is closer to jazz than rock. It is also misleading to suggest that Frank Zappa was an instrumental rock musician.Twelvetoner (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


I think this article needs to be almost completely rewritten. The writing style seems incredibly unprofessional in places, and doesn't contain enough information to accurately convey the genre. The history section is also messy, it seems to feature a pretty random list of artists, most of which aren't even significant instrumental rock artists. For example, in the 1970's section it surely would be better to include a paragraph about instrumental jazz fusion, and then quote musicians like Jeff Beck, instead of just randomly referencing musicians. Your thoughts? Twelvetoner (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten with information from reliable sources. We have to find them and start from scratch. --Λeternus (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. There is very little here worth saving. It would be easier to start from scratch with reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As a "genre"[edit]

I feel like maybe the infobox should be removed since instrumental rock isn't really a genre. It's simply any kind of rock music without vocals. For example, the electronic rock article used to have an infobox, but it was removed because it isn't just one genre. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, although given the almost total lack of sources, this is a bit of a deckchair and Titanic situation.--SabreBD (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)