Talk:Rock music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Rock music has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
March 13, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Rock music (Rated GA-class, Top-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon Rock music 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.


Beatles RfC[edit]

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalizing the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the project. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 14:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully others will agree with me that the current community consensus is: WE. DON'T. CARE. Life. Get a. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Please try and WP:AGF and WP:BITEY, you're not personally being asked to comment or get involved. Cheers Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 14:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The interminable and trivial nature of this "dispute" makes WP a laughing stock. Look at the bigger picture, and improve articles rather than wasting everyone's time, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have time. Cheers ( off to ACC ) Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
See you there then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The more !votes, the more clear and lasting the eventual result. Therefore, not !voting does not contribute to the consensus building or the solution, whereas !voting helps Wikipedia and its editors put this embarrasing episode behind us once and for all. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Rock in the 2010s[edit]

I suggest that we update this topic with a section that offers the rock music of the 2010s. I mean it has been 3 years since 2009 has ended, this article has to be update somehow.Picaxe01 (talk)

What recent trends do you have in mind?--SabreBD (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
We should be guided by what reliable sources say about music in the 2010s, rather than what individual editors might think is important. Do any sources take that perspective yet? - I doubt it. It's probably easiest to simply rename the heading as "......(since 2000)". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed.--SabreBD (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This article has always been dissappointing to me.[edit]

Rock music and Rock and Roll are the same thing. The article is racist as well.....ignoring artists like James Brown, Otis Redding, and Sam and Dave. Rock according to this article is just white boys banging on guitars. Rock and Roll is generally accepted as a broader term. All the major encyclopedias (except this one) begin the story in the 1940's and include the above mentioned African American acts in the story. All major rock critcs, Rolling Stone, Spin, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame use the term Rock and Roll and include african american acts in the definition.

Finally the artists themselves......Kiss, Nirvana, AC/DC, Metallica, Green Day, The Clash, the Stones etc. etc. all call it Rock and Roll and most have acknowledged the enormous influence of African American acts.

Are you saying that Joan Jett doesn't know what type of music she is playing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talkcontribs) 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are addressing the origins of the genre, (black, white, or whatever), you are simply in the wrong article. Origins and influences are addressed in the Origins of rock and roll, which also covers song predating the 1940s. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Both Britannica and World Book give a great deal of credit to Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding, and James Brown in their rock sections---why does Wikipedia reject the standard definition of rock music in favor of the fanboy definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talkcontribs) 20:35, 28 August 2013‎
The fact is that there are various overlapping definitions about what constitutes "rock music" and "rock and roll" - just as there are over the definitions of "rhythm and blues", "soul music", and just about every popular music genre that has ever existed. Another article - "rock and roll" - deals with the R&B-derived music which emerged in the mid-1950s and led to the style of music covered in this article. The consensus here is that this article should be the article that deals primarily with the mostly guitar-based music, mostly played by white musicians, that most reliable sources call "rock music". Many rock musicians like to associate themselves with the "rock and roll" of the 1950s, but generally don't perform anything like the same type of music. And, by the way, describing the efforts of editors with whom you disagree as "fanboys" and "racists" is unlikely to help your case. It might also help if you read and try to understand the multiple arguments about this issue that have taken place on this page before - including those in the archives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Whose consensus? It reads like mob rules to me. I am well aware that there are other articles covering the origins of "Rock and Roll" or "Rock Music". I am also aware of the debate in the talk section over this subject. It is just my opinion that it is misguided to reject the standard definition of rock music (rock and roll) that is presented by every other major publication on the planet (maybe pick up a copy of Mojo or Rolling Stone magazine). The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame just let in several guitar acts but also Donna Summer and Public Enemy. What about the consensus of almost every scholar of the music and most of the musicians involved in it? I also believe it misguided at best and racist at worst to leave out the enormous contributions of African Americans to the music. You'll never convince me that "When Doves Cry" by Prince (listen to that guitar in the song) or "Hold On I'm Coming" by Sam and Dave aren't rock records---sorry they just are. It is not "mostly" played by white musicians. Why is a Jazz Rock section allowed but rock's relationship with R n' B is not recognized? The article has improved somewhat over the last year or so (especially the beginning of the article)---but yes it is still very much a fanboy page---rock is simply white boys with loud guitars. Looking at the article today---there are 2 very bloated sections on Heavy Metal that don't simply name the major groups in the movement (like Black Sabbath, Metallica, and Megadeth) but list off a bunch of very minor groups and subgenres that are obviously someone's passion. Why is Iced Earth and Kamelot in the article but Otis Redding isn't? Should Children of Bodom belong in an article along side the Clash, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones? Do acts that were either regional or had cult followings belong in the article? The band Death is in the article---it has never charted a record in the US or the UK and it's biggest selling album sold 100,000 in the US---this is cult act. You direct people to other articles in Wikipedia for R n' B related music but metal is allowed to dominate a good portion of this article. Is this an article on rock music or heavy metal? The first punk section simply lists four acts---Pistols, Clash, Ramones, and Patti Smith---which is fine---that is the more or less the right number of acts to list off--- but many sections are out of control. As for me insulting the "editors"--- I was under the impression that Wikipedia was democratic and we are all "editors". Although that may be the problem here. Fdog9

OK, let me try a slightly different explanation. We write articles here on the basis of what reliable sources say, not necessarily what we personally believe to be true. One reliable source is "The Beat Goes On: Popular Music In America", by Michael Campbell, which is a widely used textbook for musicology and related courses in the US. I have a copy, and this is what it says in its glossary:

rock: (1) An umbrella term to describe the family of styles that share an eight-beat rhythmic foundation. (2) Music made by musicians associated with rock. (Many of the Beatles' songs, for example, do not use a rock beat, but they are classified as rock because they are by the Beatles.)
rock and roll: A transitional style that emerged in the mid-fifties as the precursor of rock.

Of course, the book has whole sections elaborating and explaining these definitions. This article could be rebalanced slightly - I'd probably agree with you that there should be some more about soul music, and less about some of the heavy metal genres - but that can be addressed by relatively minor changes, agreed with other editors, rather than by arguing that the whole article is "racist". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the whole article is racist.....but it is a form of music that was invented and continues to be influenced by African Americans and the article does not reflect that. That at least appears to be racist even if it was not the intent of the authors. The first Led Zeppelin LP has cover versions of African American artists....they obviously love African American music (as does almost every major British act)---that is one example ---I could go on all day. African American influences continued all through rocks history (in defense of this article Hip Hop is covered nicely). A small soul rock section would be nice. I am approaching this not as a fan---although I like soul and r n' b---I am really a huge fan of British rock---but it wouldn't be right if the the article only mentioned my favorites like the Beatles and the Clash. I hope i didn't offend you--it must be a tough page to maintain with thousands of people wanting to mention their pet genres and bands.Fdog9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.169.74 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like as a Wikipedia USER to concur with the views of Fdog and say that I found the neglect of artists like Wonder, Brown, Redding in this article make it feel it was written by people who lived on a different planet from me during this story. The term "Rock Music" is a hugely variable notion I agree, but based on a quote by an eminent member of the Rock Community "Rock Music Is NOT about Guitars, it's about Drums" (F Zappa) I feel the article places disproportionate emphasis on the role of guitars in the MUSIC rather than in the ICONOGRAPHY. What makes "Rock" Rock is the rhythm and the role the drums play within that. Hence the Oscar Peterson trio use drums (or rhythm) in a way that accompanies the piano to create something that is not ROCK, but Stevie Wonder's use of rhythm as the anchor for the rest of the music IS undoubtedly "Rock" music. I thereby suggest that everything from the iconographically correct AC DC through to the Rhythm Machine bound Rappers and performance DJs is ROCK music based on the central rhythms in which regular BASS DRUM/Snare patterns is a uniting and dominating factor. To see Rock described as a white music, male music etc is incredibly disappointing for an encyclopedia of this pre eminence. It demonstrates a restricted view of a glorious whole and a ludicrous attempt to section off whole subgenres where Black people are apparently doing something else from the rest of us. Without wishing to insult, offend or flame people, this article seems to have been written with a very conservative American slant. You've siphoned off white American/British music into this article and bunged the rest somewhere else. Rock is an umbrella term. Soul is under that umbrella. As are many other forms that should be clearly represented in an article of such enormous scope and complexity. I challenge the "GOOD ARTICLE" status and would very much like to see the colossal figures of Soul, Rap, Disco and Funk re-united with the people they have influenced and taken influence from. Until this is done, you are leading a new generation astray and distorting history. Please sort this out and take note of Fdog. My name is Andy. I do not edit Wikipedia pages nor do I want to, but feel that as a user I have a right to comment. Thankyou for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.254.217 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversial rock bands[edit]

Great article! Really enjoyed it. Shouldn't we write something about controversial bands/singers like M. Manson? I personally think the article should mention shock rock. What does everyone else think? Nataev talk 13:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a thought, but I am not sure whether it is significant enough, or there is enough to say, to fill out a whole section. I wonder if something in Social effects of rock music that could then be summarised here might be the way to go.--SabreBD (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't mean to say that there should be a whole section about such bands. Like you said, mentioning them in Social effects of rock music would be enough. Nataev talk 10:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede needs citations[edit]

Unless the rule has changed, it is my understanding that statements in the lede still need citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.246.80 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Its a case by case basis, but generally they don't need them.--SabreBD (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
More than that - it's better if they don't have them. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, not contain anything unique.--¿3family6 contribs 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the 5 pillars: Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed." The policy says anywhere in the article space, which would appear to include the lede. The statement about white males' influence on rock themes is a claim that could be challenged. I know it is sourced in ref 15, but I'm editing from a phone and I can't cut and paste the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.246.116 (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The most relevant bit is WP:LEADCITE, which states that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". If you know it is sourced then there doesnt seem much point in challenging it--SabreBD (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Heartland rock under Punk?[edit]

Why is Heartland rock listed under Punk in this article? It defines Heartland rock as "a more socially concerned form of roots rock more directly influenced by folk, country and rock and roll." This has nothing to do with Punk. Either it needs to be moved, or reliable sources linking it with Punk should be found and incorporated into the article. Right now, it doesn't make sense. Johnny338 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is in that section because the late 1970s were the punk era. That does not necessarily mean that it is punk. Neither is heavy metal. Perhaps "Punk era" is a better title for the section.--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That would make more sense. Right now it makes it seem like it was directly influenced by punk, which isn't necessarily true. I'll go ahead and make the change. Johnny338 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)