Talk:Rhythm and blues
|WikiProject Music/Music genres task force||(Rated B-class)|
|Rhythm and blues has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject R&B and Soul Music||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
Rhythm and blues was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: December 18, 2006
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team|
- 1 Sources
- 2 Bass base
- 3 needs a lot of cleanup
- 4 History
- 5 Charts
- 6 Team Work
- 7 Rhythm and blues VS Rhythm 'n Blues
- 8 Racism and Music
- 9 Technical problem with citations section
- 10 Soul music
- 11 Introduction
- 12 sign up
- 13 Info Box
- 14 Requested move
- 15 Clear up the genre table
- 16 British rhythm and blues
- 17 Clean up
- 18 Influence on garage rock
- 19 Elements of pop music
This page is seriously lacking sources. Can someone please make it a broken page or whatever? There aren't any sources past the introduction, and there are no evidence at all for what is being said.
The page as a whole is just broken. It needs ALOT of work.
And BTW. This page is mainly referring to early 1940's/50's R&B, which is the basis of Rock n' Roll. It is very different than modern R&B. Though this is a problem. The main R&B page should be just a history of the term, and then branching off into different categories to define its meaning at different points in time.
Do add relevant, referenced, verifiable text. Regarding sources, you are right about the lack of them. For instance, this broad category of music was not created to be a precursor of rock n roll. It stood on its own. Finding suitable material to add, or replace unreferenced text, requires a fair amount of effort, however. Rhythm and Blues was the name of this music starting in the late 1940s, and that is what we decided to address here - the period through the time "soul music" replaced it. Steve Pastor 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There something that I do not understood in this whole talk about "Rhythm and Blues" & "Contemporary R&B": What about "Rhythme n' Bass"??? Isn't it the real name for "Contemporary R&B"? We got here a confusion between a classical RnB and a modern RnB, each accronym have been requalified to be missunderstood but they're not the accronym of the same thing. I have always heard about a "classical rhythm and blues" and "contemporary rhythm and bass" but never of something like a "classical rhythm and bass" (could have been a kind of disco sound) or "modern rythme and blues" (callable "contemporary classical rhythm and blues"). Or it's like the brainless who have used those years the expression "RnB" didn't knew the existing of Rhythm And Blues... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully, readers will begin to understand that there was Rhythm and Blues as a marketing term beginning in the late 1940s, and that it changed as time went on, and started being referred to as soul music. And the term resurfaced after a number of years. Should we try to make that more clear? Steve Pastor 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally have never heard "rhythm and bass" from any credible source. I'd guess that this is a sort of backronym that someone (perhaps with good intentions) came up with to try to differentiate "classic R&B" from "contemporary R&B." I have always thought of R&B from the '80s, '90s and beyond as simply a continuation of R&B/soul/funk of the '50s-'70s. While R&B since the '80s has tended to be produced using synths, drum machines, and samplers, it's still clearly descended from the classic styles that came before.
I think part of the confusion is that a) purists may feel that newer R&B is less authentic, since it rarely features live instrumentation, and/or b) there was a time in the late '60s-'70s when the term "R&B" wasn't used as much ("soul" being the preferred term at the time, perhaps in an effort to distance the music from rock & roll, which had actually developed from the same origins as R&B, but had by the '60s become a distinct genre in its own right). In the '80s and '90s, the term R&B began to be used more, and "soul music" fell into disuse. Because of this "gap" in the apparent lineage of R&B, people may perceive the "classic" and "contemporary" as two different genres. I, however, believe this to be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
needs a lot of cleanup
I don't see why Deep Purple is considered R&B and Ciara isn't.... This calls for expert opinions.. Again categorization is very subjective.... I have a big enough problem seeing Deep Purple in this article.... If I brought this up with anybody else.., they would look at me funny.... R&B simply went through so many permutations including the so-called hip-hop soul of the mid 90s.... Like Rock music- R&B simply changed with the times.... But I guess some people here believe that British blues counts as R&B....Another valid reason - when did soul begin and end and when did R&B continue - Billboard still has an R&B chart section...This is so subjective to fans of music prior to 1970 and not after and that's why i'm questioning the validity as well as flagging it...
I've actually brought this up with an African-American friend of mine who's a musician and runs a studio.... and says nobody has read the lyrics to some of the songs of Deep Purple's "Machine Head" - he started shaking his head when he heard that this group was in this article....That will tell you something..... 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Quite a while ago the people who were editing this article decided that it should address the orginal period of rhythm and blues which was approximately 1948 through the early 1960s. This was done in part to avoid the type of discussion you bring up, and to provide information on this period of popular music. I keep hoping someone else decides that this is an important enough topic to begin adding actual, verifiable information about this period, rather than engage in discussions of which later day group belongs in this category. Maybe you or your African American musician friend would like to engage?Steve Pastor (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what, SpyLab, I am prepared to continue working on this article, but not if all of it is going to be disputed. Or, maybe I should delete everything that isn't referenced. What do you say? Steve Pastor (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
10/4 Music has evovled as a whole changing every aspect and genre. Although R&B msic has changed greatly from when it first originated, most artists such as Ciara and Beyonce still incorporate R&B aspects into their music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you are over-reacting by starting from scratch, but that's just me.
Here, for reference, is the removed passage:
- In its first manifestation in the late 1940s, rhythm and blues was played by small combos of four or five musicians; usually a bass, drums, one or two saxophones, and possibly a rhythm guitar or piano. Louis Jordan is generally credited with being the first jazz crossover artist to be considered "R&B". In 1951 it was also being called rock and roll. It was strongly influenced by jazz, jump blues and black gospel music. It also influenced jazz in return. Rhythm and blues, blues, and gospel combined with bebop to create hard bop.
- Several musicians recorded both jazz and R&B, such as the swing bands of Jay McShann, Tiny Bradshaw and Johnny Otis. Count Basie had a weekly live rhythm and blues broadcast from Harlem. Bebop icon Tadd Dameron arranged music for Bull Moose Jackson and spent two years as Jackson's pianist after establishing himself in bebop. Most of the R&B studio musicians were jazz musicians, and many of the musicians on Charlie Mingus' breakthrough jazz recordings were R&B veterans. Lionel Hampton's big band of the early 1940s — which produced the classic recording Flying Home (tenor sax solo by Illinois Jacquet) — was the breeding ground for many of the bebop legends of the 1950s. Eddie "Cleanhead" Vinson was a bebop saxophonist and a blues shouter.
- In the 1950s, overlapping with other genres such as jazz and rock and roll, R&B developed regional variations. A strong, distinct style straddling the border with blues came out of New Orleans, and was based on a rolling piano style first made famous by Professor Longhair. In the late 1950s, Fats Domino hit the national charts with the songs "Blueberry Hill" and "Ain't That a Shame". Other artists who popularized this Louisiana flavor of R&B included Clarence "Frogman" Henry, Frankie Ford, Irma Thomas, The Neville Brothers and Dr. John. The first rock and roll hits consisted of R&B songs such as "Rocket 88" and "Shake, Rattle and Roll", which appeared on popular music charts as well as R&B charts. The song "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin On", the first hit by Jerry Lee Lewis, was an R&B cover song that reached number one on the pop, R&B and country and western charts.
- By the early 1960s, rhythm and blues had taken on more gospel-influenced elements, as pioneered by artists such as Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, James Brown and Aretha Franklin. This newer style was given the name soul music. A little more than a decade later, however, rhythm and blues made a comeback." The early and mid 1960s saw the rise of young white bands whose music was labelled R&B or blue-eyed soul; such as The Yardbirds, The Rolling Stones, The Pretty Things, The Small Faces, The Animals, Dr. Feelgood, Deep Purple, The Spencer Davis Group and The Who. Those bands all played covers of songs by established black performers, in addition to their own material. The Who were once considered Maximum R&B by their mod fans. Around the same time in Jamaica, a local variation of R&B was emerging, called ska. Like soul music, it was also popular with mods and their offshoots: the skinheads, suedeheads, casuals and scooterboys.
- duplicate ref
- I spent a fair number of hours running down the references that you see in the introduction of the article, dealing with the stuff that was there before, trying to make it fit, etc. I don't want that tarnished by tags that have nothing to do with that material. Spylab insisted, on my talk page, that tags always go at the top, and would not accept the compromise that I offered, which was to have the tags below the referenced section. All unreferenced material is subject to removal, as a stated policy of wikipedia, as you probably know. I have been watching this article for a long time, and I agree it needs a lot of work. And it would be really nice to do it right.
- I would appreciate help putting this article make together. But I would like someone else to put as much time as me into authoritative, verifiable sources. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions the Billboard R&B chart in 1947, and then, in the next paragraph, mentions that that name was only used as a category starting from 1949. Should be reworded? Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting delema...Billboard has all these years listed under one heading...Rhythm and blues and Hip Hop, or something like that. And the listings are continuous even through the Soul Music years. The pre R&B term for music made for and purchased by African Ameicans was "Race Records". But I'm not sure they called it the "Race charts". So, I don't know, maybe something about the record buying public made it a hit ??? Steve Pastor (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Still on the topic of charts, it seems that the article is starting to focus a bit too much on the placement of songs in the charts, instead of on what R&B actually is, and how it developed and evolved. Spylab (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, well, I had a section on the instrumentation in Jordan's Tymphany Five, and it was removed. And of course if you want to talk about "style" or "sound", you have to talk about what instruments were used. I am seeing a pattern of evolving from jazz based blues with big band like playing and blues shouters, to the softer sound of vocal and doo wop groups. The other thing that will happen is the rise of "rock", then the "soul" sound. Do you think it would be better to try to work it into each section, or break it out into separate sections like instrumentation or over all style? The charts, of course, tell us what was most popular as each year goes by, and tastes change. I am thinking about a section on record labels, too, since most of them are now mostly forgotten. If anyone else has anything to contribute...Steve Pastor (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I am thrilled with how well this is shaping up. I have been researching this subject, and related items for at least a year. I was reluctant to mess with what was here before, but now... I hope those of you who are helping with the more sophisticated formating are satisfied with how things have been going. Thanks a bunch. Sometime soon, the article will need sections. Right now I'm thinking in terms of Setting the Stage, which would be WWII / early 40s, then start of the R&B period, early to mid fifties, mid to late 50s, etc. Alternatives? Comments? Steve Pastor (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Rhythm and blues VS Rhythm 'n Blues
Why is this article named "Rhythm and blues" and not "Rhythm 'n Blues"? I believe "Rock 'n Roll" and "Rhythm 'n Blues" are original and faithful historic terms. Netrat_msk (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Netrat_msk (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are several to many "faithful historic" spellings that have been used for both of these broad categories of music, and it's impossible to decide when "original" occurred . Since there is no one, correct spelling, editors have decided to use the current "correct English" spelling. A listing of all of the various permutations is much less useful than information about the music, who made it, and what it sounded like. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Racism and Music
SpyLab just deleted this paragraph: In April of 1956 three white men rushed the stage as Nat "King" Cole was performing in Birmingham, AL. One man reached Cole and hit him with a flying tackle, and then attempted to drag him off stage. Police officers swarmed over the three men, beating them with fists and nightsticks, and took them away in handcuffs. A shaken Cole, recovering in his dressing room, received an apology from the mayor of Birminghan and other officals, and was encouraged to continue his performance. Cole received a five minute long standing ovation when he returned to the stage. Although he did not resume the show, he did perform a second show for an all black audience. The attack was condemned from one end of the country to the other, and even the most ardent and diehard segregationists found the incident more than a little hard to swallow.
- In MAY be off topic, but I put it in the article because Carl Perkins was very worried, as was his brother, when they showed up to play what appeared to be an all black venue. And he was touring with a bunch of black performers. Perkins was worried that he would become the next Nat King Cole, or be shot by someone in the audience. He had been confronted in the past for making "black" music. I know that I have often rolled my eyes when someone brought race into a discussion of music, but these issues were clearly important to the people who made and performed the music. I think it would be a mistake to ignore it completely. Go Cat Go is due at the library soon, and I don;t want to waste time wrting text that will be deleted. Comments, please? Steve Pastor (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- What does the paragraph specifically have to do with Rhythm and Blues? Make that clear and maybe there's a place for that information in the article (but not with every minor detail). The way it's presented now, it just looks like something that belongs in the Nat King Cole article, not a broad article about one music genre.Spylab (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Technical problem with citations section
dire dire dire article - who will catch that teardrop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC) In my opinion, one thing is missing in this article. That is Little Richard.. You can't write an article on Rhythm and Blues history and then leave him out. His influence is profound, not only on contemporary music, but also on later musicians and all the way forward till today.
SpyLab, What is it that is in the article that leads you to write that rhythm and blues was influenced by jazz, etc, rather than being those things. Obviously, there is a common usage, but where in the article is that stated and supported by a referenced source? In fact, all of the referenced statements in the Etylmology section indicate that they were all included under the term invented form marketing purposes. Your stated reason for the revert was not very helpful. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead should define what rhythm and blues actually is, not just what the word originally meant as a marketing term. At some point the term rhythm and blues started being used to describe a distinct style of music, and stopped being used as an umbrella term for all African American popular music, such as jazz and gospel.Spylab (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. But, how do we capture that, and what do we use as a reference, while a the same time making it clear that the common use meaning changed? One possibility would be from a British dance book I have that equates rock n roll with rhythm and blues. And, that could actually sort of fit with that name being adopted by British rockers while the American market turned to soul music. Could we use the film "The Commitments" as a referenece? Steve Pastor (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have a proposal, to replace the existing introduction with the following:-
- Rhythm and blues (also known as R&B, R'n'B or RnB) is the name given to a wide-ranging genre of popular music, originally created by African Americans in the 1940s but which has subsequently had a number of shifts of meaning. The term was originally used by record companies to refer to recordings bought predominantly by African Americans, at a time when blues recordings were increasingly using rhythms derived from jazz, amplified instrumention (especially electric guitar), and sophisticated vocal stylings and harmonies. After this style of music contributed substantially to the development of rock and roll, the term "R&B" was then used from the 1960s particularly by white groups to refer to musical styles which developed from and incorporated electric blues, as well as gospel and soul music. By the 1970s, the term "rhythm and blues" was being used as a blanket term to describe soul and funk. Since the 1990s, the term "R&B" is now mainly used to refer to a modern version of soul and funk-influenced pop music.
- A reference for the first 3 sentences would be Peter Gammond, The Oxford Companion to Popular Music, Oxford University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-19-311323-6, p.488. Rather than making this change myself, it would be good to get a degree of consensus first. What do people think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have a proposal, to replace the existing introduction with the following:-
Good - The term was originally used by record companies to refer to recordings of blacks bought predominantly by blacks (African Americans OK, too) in the late 1940s but which has subsequently had a number of shifts of meaning. By the 1970s, the term "rhythm and blues" was being used as a blanket term to describe soul and funk. Since the 1990s, the term "R&B" is now mainly used to refer to a modern version of soul and funk-influenced pop music.Steve Pastor (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Good - the term "R&B" was then used from the 1960s particularly by white groups to refer to musical styles which developed from and incorporated electric blues, as well as gospel and soul music. By the 1970s, the term "rhythm and blues" was being used as a blanket term to describe soul and funk. Since the 1990s, the term "R&B" is now mainly used to refer to a modern version of soul and funk-influenced pop music. comment This is all good, but maybe it should be at the end of the article where we move into soul, etc.Steve Pastor (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Bad? Or, I don't entirely agree with these: at a time when blues recordings were increasingly using rhythms derived from jazz, amplified instrumention (especially electric guitar) Really, it's more like the jazz players were playing blues, as they always had, and got big "playing for the people". Most "rural blues" players adopted a harder sound, and it was jump that "became rock n roll". Check out the recent additions and edits I made to the jump blues article. comment Note that although electric guitars were used, and there were prominent guitar players, the tenor sax was the predominant instrument. Electric guitar was far more prominent in country/rockabilly in this era. After this style of music contributed substantially to the development of rock and roll, comment Nothing changed substantially in the music. People just called it something different. See all the rock n roll movies from the 50s. Sure, Chuck Berry is an exception. All of this is too complex to be in an intro, but would be good to explore in the body of the article. But then would it be too much about styles of blues? Guess so.Steve Pastor (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we leave out the "controversial" stuff - ie the stuff I have labeled as "Bad?", and go with the then shortened version.
- Thanks for your comments. Re length and complexity of intro - it's a complex topic, and I think it's important that the intro provides an overview of the whole of the subject matter covered. It can highlight the original 1940s meaning, but in my view also needs to summarise, succinctly, the later meanings. If paragraph length is a problem (personally I don't think it is) it can be split into two paras. On the detailed points, I'm happy not to mention guitar (or sax). The line about blues players playing jazz rhythms came specifically from the Gammond reference - if we can get a more appropriate (and referenced) phrase from the body of the article text it would be much better. Re the move into R&R - I thought "contributed substantially" was about as neutral as I could get, given there will be an argument that R&R also drew on Hank Williams, Bob Wills, etc etc, and it would be better to give a (relatively) uncontentious overview in the intro and explore the details in the article itself. Happy to hear other views - I think it's important to get a neutral and stable introduction to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking into whre Lindy Hop came from, and there's another case where people were doing something, and it was given a name "Lindy", but the name was the only thing that was new. It ocntinued to change, however, just like R&B/jump blues did. I think it's important that people understand that names for things, in this case a "genre" of music, are just words that the industry makes up, "rhythm and blues", or Alan Freed's use of "rock n roll". (Course, doo wop is considered to be "rock n roll" within the context of the 50s.)Steve Pastor (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, I just just prefer words that don't confuse people into thinking, oh, it was something new, right? Then we have endless arguments about what was the first ???? Also, Electric blues - Bad. Note the weak nature of the article that was created for it.Steve Pastor (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Leaving out the parts I suggested would address SpyLab's concern about the intro being too long. Considering the length of the article at this point, the intro should be fairly brief. If someone wants to address these, and other issues, within the article itself, go for it. Most of it currently sticks to the facs and avoids the hysterical "SO and SO was the GREATEST R&B artist type stuff. But, it could be filled out considerably. It DOES nead a longer intro, which is why I tried one. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've made some changes to the intro which hopefully take on board most of these points. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
These things are problematic. Editors come along and put stuff in them with no justification, and they are often things that can't be found in the article itself. I support removal of ANY item in the INFO BOX that: isn't in the article, and/or doesn't have a reference. Is anyone aware of, and can share, guidelines for the Info Box? Steve Pastor (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Clear up the genre table
Someone who has a good knowledge on the topic, clear up the genre table at the beginning of the article, especially section about "derivative forms", "subgenres" etc. It's obviously a nonsense to claim, for instance, "hip hop" is a derivative of rhythm and blues. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
- In "New Blue Music", rock and roll is defined as a derivative of R&B, though "Icons of R&B and Soul" specifically underlines rock and roll wasn't a distinct musical form from R&B. Those two seem to be polar opposite opinions -- Appletangerine un (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
British rhythm and blues
A bit surprised that this was deleted on the ground that this is only an American genre. It is well established in the scholarly literature that R&B was a major genre in Britain in the 1960s, although it could be better expressed and sourced than it is at present and I was toying with the idea of cleaning up this element of the article.--SabreBD (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK. As I wrote in one of my comments, how about we have a new section Rhythm and Blues Overseas, or some such? I think it's important that what I would call the "derivative forms" be set off from the originators of the sound(s). If neither of you gets to it, I may start on it myself since I started this! If either of you objects to that approach, please get it in print here. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have no obection to such a section and I think it would make more sense as at the moment it rather oddly crawls into the 60s and dies, then starts talking about Britain, which is potentially confusing. Not sure about the title, but I will try to give that some thought if I can come up with an alternative I will let you know. Do you want me to rewrite the British section, I'm happy to do so, or do one of you wish to do it?--SabreBD (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- My main area of interest is with the "seminal", original stuff. That goes hand in hand with the end of the swing era and "rock n roll" from the 50s. Maybe one day my interest will move into the 60s, soul music, overseas, and how it moved back to the U.S. as the blues revival, etc. Given my current lack of interest in the overseas developments, (although those were the guys I "grew up with") I'd say go ahead and work on it. I was just going to restore the deleted material. I DO want the article to stay focused and not drift into comtemporary R&B. Anything that improves the article... Thanks. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree with avoiding contemporary R&B here. I will start working something up on this that will make a reasonably sized sub-section. It might take a little while.--SabreBD (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll just make the point that "R&B overseas", to me, has slightly different connotations to the specific use of the term "R&B" in Britain in the 1960s, to describe a style of music played largely by white English men which was a crucial step in the development (internationally) of rock music. That is, the term "R&B overseas" can be used to describe acts like, say, Geno Washington (which I've just noticed is a pretty poor article - doesn't cover his 60s stuff at all!), who were regarded as "genuine" R&B performers (US-born, black) who performed overseas. However, quite dissimilar bands like The Yardbirds and The Who also played what was called R&B music in Britain at that time - it had developed from the music they listened to (Muddy Waters, Ray Charles, The Miracles etc.) but was actually quite a significant shift - they started writing their own material, and this then contributed substantially to the development of "white" rock music in the 60s and onwards. But, for a while, they called it "R&B". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree with avoiding contemporary R&B here. I will start working something up on this that will make a reasonably sized sub-section. It might take a little while.--SabreBD (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This now done. There turned out to be quite a lot so I created a longer article and have placed a summary here. I have created a section on influence for the time being. I will look at this again and see what else can be said there in a short time, but see next section below.--SabreBD (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have put this on my list for a clean up. Basically an attempt to source anything without a proper reference. Anything that cannot be sourced will be removed (not expecting a lot of this). I will also bear in mind legitimate points made above and if there is anything outstanding that needs attention now is a good time to post about it so it can be incorporated. It may be a while as I have a backlog.--SabreBD (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Influence on garage rock
In my view there is a strong case for mentioning - briefly - the influence that (black) R&B bands had on (white) garage bands in the early 1960s. Think of Richard Berry's "Louie Louie", the Isley Brothers' "Shout" and "Nobody But Me", etc. Anyone got good refs to support this line of approach? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)