Talk:Origins of rock and roll

Improving article

First rock and roll record

Could we talk about this article please? I had a lot of input into the shape of the article some years ago when I was a newbie here - it certainly needs review and changes, but can we agree a way forward at an early stage? Personally, I favour a timeline approach, perhaps a change of title, and a constructive approach that does not simply delete refs to 1916 recordings because they are not "rock and roll". Happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm always happy to talk, and collaboration is my favourite way of working on articles as it is better to have several views. As I'm working on the article I am wondering if it should be merged with Origins of rock and roll - the two cover the same territory, and it might be appropriate to have one as a section inside the other. I would think that First rock and roll record would be appropriate as a section inside Origins of rock and roll, and the section could then concentrate on listing those records which have been claimed as "the first" rather than having to deal with matters that probably belong more to the origin of rock and roll, such as general discussion of the origin of roll and roll. Having it all in the same article would make it easier to distinguish between those records which were part of the origin of rock and rock and contributed toward "the first", such as "The Camp Meeting Jubilee", and "My Man Rocks Me (with One Steady Roll)", but which are not actually claimed by reliable sources to be "the first". SilkTork *^YES! 11:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one place here for the moment, but it may be better to move it to the article talk page to get others involved. What I favour is a massive improvement to the Origins of rock and roll article (it's essentially pretty crap at the moment) supported by a timeline, probably as a standalone article (though I haven't checked the guidance as to whether that is supported). An article on what people have verifiably suggested as "the first R&R record" would be pretty short and also fairly random - as well as the usual contenders you have more off-the-wall ideas like Wardlow's suggestion of Blind Roosevelt Graves from 1929. It seems to me that what is needed, to inform readers, is a timeline and article that combine those ideas with refs to other relevant recordings that "bridge the gaps", without necessarily themselves ever being defined as "the first rock and roll record". That would be much more informative than an approach that solely refers to those recordings referenced in WP:RS as "the first". Actually, thinking about it, if we can link the Origins article with a timeline (title to be agreed, or possibly incorporated within that article), we might not need an article titled "The first..." at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Just a warning that I'm going to be busy in the real world over the next week or so, so my time here is going to be very fragmented. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

PPS: Would it be better to concentrate on the Origins article, to improve that, and then see what we have "left over", as it were? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with pretty much everything you've said above. I would like to keep the title "first rock and roll record", though perhaps more as a redirect to the appropriate section within Origins. The title is both useful and a likely search term. I agree with moving this discussion to the talk page of one of the articles. I think the Origins article, as that is the one we intend to work on. And provide a link to it from the talkpage of First. SilkTork *^YES! 12:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest, then, that the priority is to improve the "Origins" article, using material from the "First" article and elsewhere. When that is done, we can review what needs to happen to the "First" article - either total incorporation into "Origins" as either text or timeline, or a separate linked article as either text or timeline (or combination of the two). (I'd be sorry to see it go, but I acknowledge there is too much WP:OR in there.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging First rock and roll record

I agree that initially some content should be merged in from First rock and roll record, and then we can look at what to do with First rock and roll record as an article and title. I think the title is an important one, and if all the contents are merged, should be kept as a redirect to this article. SilkTork *^YES! 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in favour of the merger on the grounds suggested above. It may mean that examples have a bit more focus. At the moment it is occasionally difficult to keep speculative records out of the First record article.--SabreBD (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've started work on this - not a complete rewrite, but a partial rewrite, and merging in relevant material from other articles. I've had a go at the "terminology" section, and will do further work on the development of the musical style, influences, etc. At some point (hopefully, after I've done what I'm going to do), we can take another look at the "First" article - I envisage that, if the work here goes well, there might not be that much left in the other article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey ho. Right, I've been bold and done it. (Well, done something.) Don't know if anyone will like it, and there's a lot of work still needed to bring the refs up to scratch. The "Origins" article could also use some good images, and maybe sound files if we can find free ones. I am now going to retreat from the world (?!) for a couple of days, and prepare myself to take any flak when I get back. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work. Well done. I've not had a close look, but bringing in First rock and roll record as a section, and keeping the timeline as a separate section is, I think, the right way to go. I keep meaning to help out on this, but haven't got round to it yet. SilkTork *^YES! 22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Source

Just putting this here for now - [1] - says Joe Liggins Sugar Lump was described by Billboard in 1946 as "right, rhythmic, rock and roll music" and claims that was the first time "rock and roll" had been used in print. SilkTork *^YES! 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• [2] The Yale book of quotations supports the usage, though qualifies it as an isolated description rather than a label for the genre. SilkTork *^YES! 17:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good spot, but this comes up with an even earlier Billboard citation - 21 April 1945, referring to Erskine Hawkins' version of Caldonia. (Discussed, with the Liggins citation, here.) Original magazine here, page 66. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's awesome work there young Ghmyrtle! Though we have to be careful how we use it. The reliable secondary sources cite 1946, and what we have is a blog citing a primary source for an earlier use of 1945. We are close to original research here. Be good to see if a reliable source can be dug up. If not, it might be worth getting advice from someone with good knowledge of Original Research. SilkTork *^YES! 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't thank me, thank the blogger. It's interesting that both use identical (alliterative) wording - "right rhythmic rock and roll music". We can say (I assume) that citations say 1946, and that there is also a 1945 use of the words in Billboard (online - why is citing that any different to citing a current news site?) It would be up to the reader to make the inference that the 1945 ref was earlier, if not necessarily (we don't know) the earliest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that it might be acceptable to cite the RS on 1946, and make a note of the 1945 example in neutral wording. The reason why it is difficult for us to use the Billboard directly is that it is a primary source that a reliable source has not yet written about. It's not that we can't use it, but that we have to be careful not to be making any judgements about the implications of that source. As the context in which we'd be using it would be to record the first use of the phrase "rock and rock" to describe the rock and roll music form, we have to be careful that we are not presenting the 1945 Billboard as the first use of the phrase to describe the rock and roll music form, as nobody reliable has said it is. It shouldn't be Wikipedia or a blogger who says that the 1945 Billboard was the first instance - it should be a reliable source. Using the Billboard 1945 source and implying, even indirectly, that this is the first time that the phrase rock and roll had been applied to music, would be roughly the same as us listening to a recording and saying that was the first rock and roll record. This might be acceptable:

Maurice Orodenker's June 1946 Billboard review of Joe Liggin's Sugar Lump, which used the phrase "right rhythmic rock and roll music", has been noted as the earliest use of the phrase "rock and roll" in print, though qualified by the Yale Book of Quotations as an "isolated description rather than a label for a musical genre"; Maurice Orodenker had also used the phrase in an April 1945 review of Eskine Hawkin's Caldonia."

I'll ask something to look it over. SilkTork *^YES! 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. More interestingly (to me!) is that it tends towards giving Maurie Orodenker (who? 1908-1993 ??) the credit for first using the term to describe a style of music, over, say, Alan Freed or even Leo Mintz. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lionel Hampton's 1939 Flying Home

This source talks of Lionel Hampton's 1939 recording of Flying Home as being considered the first rock and roll record - a comment that seems to have some credibility. Some of the sources explain why they feel Hampton is rock and roll - I don't hear it myself - [3] - but my opinion don't count. SilkTork *^YES! 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who - apart from the authors of one book - would consider it "the first...", but it was clearly influential. So were hundreds of other recordings! I really, really, hope we don't get hung up on simply finding sources that claim one particular record as "the first". That is the absolute antithesis of the approach in the current "First..." article, and I would very strongly resist that approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: This gives some interesting leads as well (I'm not suggesting it's reliable in itself, and I'm not suggesting any WP:OR!). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Dave Macon

Macon had two songs which appear to relate to this discussion:

1. the 1927 track "Sail Away Ladies" has a chorus which appears to be: "Don't you rock 'im die-dy-0" see http://www3.telus.net/On-LineMusicWorldofWendy/Music/SailAwayLadies.txt. Some interpreters seem to think that this is a variant of "Don't you rock me daddy-oh" ."Uncle Dave Macon also included a chorus which went, "Don't she rock, Die‑Dee‑Oh?” but Paley notes that other old recordings have variants like "Don't she rock, Darneo?" and even "Don't she rock 'em, Daddy‑O?" (http://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/SAIL_SALLO.htm) Whatever is the case, this was re-imagined (or simply ripped) in 1957 by Lonnie Donegan. Macon did not write this song, this source suggests that it is related to "The Girl I Left Behind", which can be dated to the late 18C.
2. "Rock About My Saro Jane" (also 1927), is even more interesting. Macon claimed to have learned the song "Rock About My Saro Jane" from black stevedores working along the Cumberland River in the 1880s; this is referenced in Dave Macon#Repertoire and style).

Clearly the meaning of "rock" in these songs is related to boats - (Saro Jane is a ship, on which the singer has nothing to do, but "rock")

This might be worth a mention.--TonyFleet (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course - and I don't quite know how we managed to miss him out previously. Thanks for the reminder! I've added a brief para on Macon to the 1920s section, but feel free to edit it further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Orodenker

Per Billboard Oct 9, 1943 - This quote from M. H. Orodenker's review of the 78 rpm record, BEACON 7005 by DERYCK SAMPSON: "...Sounds more like the aimless ramblings thur a book of exercises. Just as meaningless and far short of the rock and roll spirit characterizing the city's music, is 'Kansas City Boogie woogie'..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.45.35.235 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Good spot! It would be great to have the time to go through all these online old Billboards - no doubt someone will do it one day. Anyway, the article text needs amending re Orodenker - about whom it would be good to know a little more, as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Even earlier! Back to 1942, and Rosetta Tharpe..... [4]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: See Maurie Orodenker. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In doing an online search for early uses of "rock and roll", I came across the term in Vernon and Irene Castle's ragtime revolution By Eve Golden. It appears to be a 1939 dance called "The Castle Rock and Roll", devised as an alternative to the Jitterbug. It is described as "..an easy swing step", as " Jitterbug dancing may be enyoyed by youngsters, but it is neither graceful or beautiful, certainly not dignified for anyone past their teens". Although this is not referring either to the music or a recognised R & R dance step, it is still probably worth a mention. There is also an implication here that "rock and roll" as a term must have been in circulation in 1939, but had not yet found a consistent meaning --TonyFleet (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Verrrry interesting........ Do you want to add something to the article or shall I? I'd suggest putting something in para 5 of "The term..." section, before the Marx Bros. ref. Good work!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's another potentially very important one from The Musician, vols 44-45, 1939 (exact citation is difficult to find). It is a review of "Yodellin' Jive" by the Andrews sisters. The quote I have found (and I can't paste the text, as it is an image) is as follows: "The Andrews sisters join the devilman Bing Cosby and Joe Venuti's Orchestra for twin specialities [somthing I can't quite make out - looks like Ciriliden] and 'Yodellin' Jive', that rock and roll with unleased enthusiasm tempered to strict four-four time". I have tracked the release of Yodelln' Jive down to December 4th 1939. This now pushes the use of the phrase 'rock and roll' in a musical context back into the 1930s.--TonyFleet (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ciribiribin", apparently - here. (And I think the word is "unleashed".) It would be good to know who wrote that review. Excellent! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added the Irene Castle and "Musician" refs to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Early musical reference to "rocking"

Here is a very early reference to "rocking" in a musical context:

David Guion is one of the younger school of American composers who has chosen to devote his talent to the use of Negro melodies. In this charming little song, with its rocking rhythm and its distinctly Negro melodic scale, the com-poser describes the various miracles of God...

reference is from: WHAT WE HEAR IN MUSIC A Course of Study in Music History and Appreciation by ANNE SHAW FAULKNER The Copyrights are: 1913, 1916, 1917, 1921 by the VICTOR TALKING MACHINE COMPANY , Camden. New Jersey, U. S. A. It is conceivable that the 1913 version contains these words, but we cannot be sure. It is certain that the 1921 version does.--TonyFleet (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It takes a rocking chair to rock, a rubber ball to roll

I have been doing a bit of research on the origin and uses of this phrase. In the article the phrase appears to be attributed to Jim Jackson, and was later incorporated into a song by Bill Haley. However I think that there are at least two musical references which precede Jackson's Kansas City Blues No. 1. Ma Rainey (1924) and Charley Lincoln (1927). This website claims the following: "Charley Lincoln probably got his version from Ma Rainey's 1924 "Jealous Hearted Blues." The song was copyrighted by Lovie Austin but the verses except for the first are traditional. Later the song was a rewrite hit with the title, "Evil Hearted Me." Still more lyrics to "Jealous Hearted Me" come from recordings by Minnie Pearl, who squawked out this tune regularly". In addition, the route to Bill Haley was rather more circuitous than is suggested in the article.

Original Research is as follows, to back up this claim:

• 1924 Ma Rainey: “Jealous Hearted Blues”: recorded October 16th 1924. “ It takes a rocking chair to rock : a rubber ball to roll, Takes a man I love : to satisfy my soul” http://www.blueslyrics.com.ar/Ma-Rainey/JealousH.html
• 1927 Charlie Lincoln & Barbecue Bob: “Jealous Hearted Blues”; November 1927 . this seems to be a version of the Ma Rainey number, but contains an interesting guitar lick underlying the words “It takes a rocking chair to rock, a rubber ball to roll”
• 1928 Jim Jackson: “Kansas City no. 1” October 10th, 1927. “It takes a rockin' chair to rock, rubber ball to roll, It takes a brown-skin [wo]man to satisfy my soul.” http://bluesdust.freehostia.com/component/content/article/11-k/70-kansas-city-blues-jim-jackson.html
• 1936 Carter Family: “Jealous Hearted Me”. “Takes a rocking chair to rock takes a rubber tire to roll, Takes the man I love to satisfy my soul”. This is obviously based on the Charlie Lincoln version, which was recorded in Atlanta for Columbia on November 4, 1927, mx 145103-2, released on Columbia 14305-D. “Clearly this is a song the Carter's borrowed.” [5]
• 1946 Bob Wills & The McKinney Sisters “Jealous Hearted Me”. Recorded 1946, possibly 1947 but definitely based on the Carter Family version - includes their guitar licks. [I have included this, as in 1946 Bill Haley was playing in a Western Swing Band- The Down Homers. Bob Wills was advertised as the King of Western Swing; there is a great likelihood that Bill would have heard this version.]
• 1952 Bill Haley: “Sundown Boogie” February 1952 (http://www.rocky-52.net/chanteursh/haley_b.htm ) This was reputedly penned by Haley (His popular-song compositions include "Green Tree Boogie", "Sundown Boogie", "Crazy Man Crazy" and "Rock-a-beatin' Boogie" http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006426/bio) This is a completley different song, but just happens to begin with the lyrics: “Takes a rocking chair to rock takes and a rubber ball takes the girl I love to satisfy my soul”.

Jim Jackson's song certainly deserves its place in the list, but I think that "Jealous Hearted Me" by Ma Rainey - on the B side of "See See Rider", should be cited as the origin of the phrase. --TonyFleet (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I could be over-interpreting this, but it seems to me that "..rocking chair to rock, a rubber ball to roll" together with the line which follows expects the listener to have prior knowledge of the pairing of 'rock' with 'roll' within a sexual connotation. In 1924, "Rock and Roll" did not exist as an established musical term; however, this song was composed less than two years after Trixie Smith's 1922 "My man rocks me with one steady roll". It might be therefore that this song is a kind of 'answer' to Trixie Smith, and the first verse of the song means something like: "I can rock (on a rocking chair), and I can roll (a rubber ball), but if I want to do both together, I need the man I love". --TonyFleet (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Rocking and rolling" was a long established term, originally from sailing but with well-known allusions to sex by the early C20 - the article makes that clear. All interesting stuff - haven't had time to look through your other points yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

New CD set

Anyone seen the liner notes of this CD compilation yet? I'm hoping it gives editors of this article a nice big juicy credit....... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: To be fair, they do.... "As soon as I read the Wikipedia entry about the first rock n roll record and came across the list created by Jim Dawson and Steve Propes for their book What Was The First Rock n Roll Record? I wanted to piece together all the tracks, to do a mind map of the various links and find out how the sound of rock n roll actually evolved....." - [6] Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing

This blatant POV pushing is undermining my efforts to clean this section up. Stick to what the sources explicitly say. There's a reason I provided external links to these book sources; Ruhlmann's quote says nothing about "followed": "...there is no dispute about what the first really successful rock 'n' roll record was. Yet 'Rock Around the Clock' was not alone in 1955, as a number of records led the way to the new style." [7]. After he says "Though...", Warner then says "many feel it was Brown's..."; ([8]) doesn't quite match up to "Others have taken the view that ". The last paragraph in #Views on the first rock and roll record does not equate to "many writers recognise that the way in which the genre developed make it impossible to name a single record as the first". Dan56 (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be more constructive and collaborative over this. I am not "POV pushing" in any way, and it would be good if you were to withdraw any such allegation and change the sub-heading. There is a whole vast mass of literature about the origins of rock and roll. What I am trying to do, in the introduction, is to summarise that wide variety of sources, in preference to simply reproducing the language used in a single (not especially authoritative) book. The suggestion that "Rock Around The Clock" was, chronologically, followed by other records that developed the genre is utterly uncontentious. I think you are relying too much on a single source. I have a high regard for your editing on articles about single albums and the like, but on a subject as diffuse and hard to define as this, language needs to be used which summarises information from many (possibly even "innumerable") sources, rather than closely paraphrasing one single source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Apart from using a more appropriate to synonym, stick to the source and don't use that expertise cop-out excuse. The lead is simple; summarize what is cited in the article. Dan56 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand some of that. There is not "the source" - there are "innumerable" (sic) sources, and we should avoid using identical words to any one source (which is by no means the most reliable source anyway - Dawson/Propes, for one, is far more authoritative and influential). What "expertise cop-out excuse"? And how is "many" less appropriate language than "innumerable"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Incidentally, I'm more than happy to collaborate in improving (or splitting) this article, and incorporate additional sources. But, that would require a lengthy process involving (I hope) other editors as well - and, it would require constructive engagement and consensus-building. The sort of scorched earth approach that requires the removal of uncontentious and valuable information - even if imperfectly sourced - is unlikely to lead to a better article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"...on a subject as diffuse and hard to define..."? And is that why there's an entire paragraph giving undue weight to one book? And how is "innumerable" anymore more unencyclopedic than "impossible"? The statement "many writers recognise that the way in which the genre developed make it impossible to name a single record as the first" is clearly not written "fairly, proportionately, and ... without bias" (WP:NPOV). "Recognise" assumes it to be fact rather than opinion, and the "evolutionary process" is only used by Vera as a reason for why he thinks it's foolish. Tosches only uses the word "impossible", and I cant seem to find a source for Hepcat, whose difficulty comes from defining the genre, but he cites a record anyway. Not only was your summary challengeable (a source that explicitly says that statement would be a cure-all), but it didn't even match up to what the "views on..." section originally had, so I accurately revised the lead. Dan56 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend every word in this article. I don't accept that the mention of Dawson/Propes is "undue weight" - it is regarded as an influential and authoritative book, but, again, if a case can be made for presenting other opinions as well, that's fine by me. Re "impossible" - it simply is, just as it's "impossible" to be certain over what was the first jazz record, or hip-hop record. Again. it's uncontentious wording. Musical genres develop organically over time - they do not have absolute start points. Many writers have made specific suggestions about "the first...", and one of the things this article does (or should do) is to itemise those (reliably sourced) suggestions - but none of them are individually authoritative. It is our job as editors to summarise the information from all those sources - not from a single source. I don't intend making a case for Hepcat. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

And my section heading stands. Dan56 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. It's irritating though. What "POV" do you imagine I have? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You've been summarizing a minority viewpoint in this article as a commonly held viewpoint, either because you agree with it (WP:TRUTH) or because you're drawing from personal knowledge or analysis of what has been written and published on the topic (WP:NOR). In your previous comment, you admitted to sharing that opinion. The lead shouldn't include what you think is right, but what is verified in the article and in proportion to what is prominent. Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've absolutely no idea what "minority viewpoint" that might be, or why you think it's a "minority viewpoint"...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Which/how many writers cited in this article say what you summarized them as saying? (2 =//= "many", 2 = "some", no?) Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It is simply not possible or desirable to namecheck, in the article, every writer who has commented on this matter. If you want additional opinions mentioned in the article, that's fine in principle, but will generate an even longer article which is undesirable. There comes a point, in an article like this that deals with a large subject, when there needs to be some recognition that editors should summarise material that is not specifically sourced, so long as the material is neutral and uncontroversial, as I believe my edits to this article are. See WP:FACTS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's easier to find a citation than to argue over why it is not needed. Dan56 (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Just a thought - are you confusing "the first rock'n'roll record" with "the first really successful rock'n'roll record"? They are by no means the same thing. A much clearer case can be made for "RATC" being the second of those than the first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

How did I give off that impression? Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

By appearing to give great weight to the Ruhlmann book. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for verifying what I write. Dan56 (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"The question is not whether readers can or can not be expected to have knowledge of a certain fact, but whether the fact in question is a relevant point of debate in the expert literature on the article topic. If there is any doubt about the claim addressed in the relevant literature, you should cite it. If the relevant expert literature does not bother to address a point (e.g. because it falls under WP:FRINGE, and its mere mention, if only to debunk it, would lend it WP:UNDUE relevance), it is likely that the corresponding Wikipedia article shouldn't, either." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, here, you are using one source - a newspaper obituary of Ike Turner - to justify your wording. Indeed, it says that "most historians" consider "Rocket 88" to be "the first rock and roll record". But, that's simply not true. Most rock historians would never say that any record is "the first rock'n'roll record", without very heavy caveats. Most (perhaps - certainly many) rock historians would say that "Rocket 88" is a strong contender, or similar, but any serious rock historian would balk at making such an unequivocal claim. You are again giving undue weight to a single source, of no great reliability on that specific point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you should stop putting words in rock historians' mouths. Dan56 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you should stop claiming that a line written by one journalist, with no specific expertise in the matter that I'm aware of, should be referenced here. If you wrote: "One journalist has stated that most historians believe that...", it would be accurate. But not notable enough to be mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. So we can cite blogs and such around here, but if it's backing up something you personally don't agree with... Maybe I should tag even "...although some have felt it is too difficult to name one record", since it's not actually stated in the article? Perhaps that would motivate you to actually find a source to support these views of yours about what rock historians would or wouldn't say. If you have a better source that writes about rock historians' position on "Rocket 88", I encourage you to find/use it. Dan56 (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, please, try to stop being so antagonistic towards me - WP:NPA is becoming increasingly relevant. It's really not worthy of you, and it's making a collaborative approach increasingly difficult. As I've said, I do not defend every word of this article. The article would not meet GA or FA criteria as it stands, and I would never suggest it should, unless there were to be a major effort at rewriting by a number of editors in collaboration. Parts have been added by many editors over the years, some better referenced than others, and some wholly unreferenced. I've monitored those changes to some extent, and removed those ones that are wholly unjustified while accepting some flexibility over sourcing and style. I had thought that it might be easier to persuade you to be somewhat more flexible - if that's not the case, and if you remove uncontentious and relevant information, I will indeed cite more sources, in my own time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Rocket 88"

I've replaced the claim that "most" historians consider "Rocket 88" to be the first rock & roll record - which was sourced from this newspaper commentary about Ike Turner - with a claim that "many" historians take that view. The sources are simply better - Allmusic and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. The same view is expressed in these books - [9], [10], [11], [12] - all of which are more authoritative than a journalist's passing comment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"Rocket 88" doesn't even have a backbeat. Besides, this whole article is about the impossibility of stating an unequivocal "first"Ortolan88 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. But, see the thread above.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted that guy a half-dozen times in recent weeks, always with the comment "Innocuous statements supported by the article sources and the article itself are not POV". Ortolan88 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not to sat that Ike Turner is not truly an "unsung hero of rock and roll".Ortolan88 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Of course they're better for the two of youse. They support your point of view (which is becoming more glaring with your opinions on the song), although neither sources dispute the "innocuous" statement "most rock historians consider...". None of your sources say anything about rock historians; these are all efforts to keep this article in your preferred state--poorly-written, OR-filled, and biased. How convenient to not speculate over credentials when citing a blog post by an unknown author, but to do so when you don't agree with something like here. And how convenient to argue that my addition is a "claim", while some POV BS about the opinion that there cant be above ("Re 'impossible' - it simply is") being a common fact that doesn't need to be cited. How convenient! Like I said in this edit summary, an unknown author in a blog post, and a critic from a music website, who say "often cited"/"many" and "many experts", respectively, neither addressing who or expertise in what, and you're gonna question the reliability of a writer from The Boston Globe? I wonder how this would have been received had she written otherwise. You wanted a reference to rock historians' overall stance and I provided it. And you're not being accurate; which of your book sources actually make reference to rock historians or what group of people are the "many" you've been rewording this article with? Or are they just ambiguous, passing references to an unclear "many"? Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• And stop calling your original, POV-written lead "innocuous"; they were NOT cited anywhere in the article and were being challenged by me reasonably, and you (like the other editor originally) refused to cite a source for those statements (WP:CHALLENGE), instead opting to revert my improvement of this article. You know what's really "innocuous"? Anderman from The Boston Globe saying that most rock historians consider it to be the first, considering Christopher John Farley saying that "innumerable sources" have called "Rocket 88" the first. Dubious statements like these reek of someone's opinion and cannot possibly be attributed as fact ("an exercise in narrowing things down farther than they can reasonably be narrowed"?????) ("But that has not stopped many people from asserting one song or another as the first"???) It's ludicrous to believe these aren't biased and verifiable. I suppose something innocuous when the two editors that police this article agree with it. Pardon me for the tone, but this resistance to improving this article is suspicious to me. I guess this comment illustrates why; someone's original research on something off-topic and not a majority viewpoint; the article's called "Origins of rock and roll". You CANT state "no single record can be..." ([13]) as fact when there's a section filled with one record or another having been cited as such, which clearly shows the former opinion being contrasted by prevailing references to the latter. They're both opinions, and you cant side with either. Get over it, please. Dan56 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since historians disagree, why not state that "Rocket88" is considered one of the first rock songs, and then go into some detail about why its considered as such? Its my understanding that this distinction relates to Turner's use of a damaged guitar amplifier whose speaker cone had been torn en route to Memphis from Clarskville. To my knowledge, its the distorted guitar, not the beat that prompts musicologists to attribute this distinction to "R88". Hope this helps, cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• State that ("Rocket 88 is considered...") in the lead? Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Revised the lead, although it cant be disputed: this "impossible" claim as fact is egregious, LOL. Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, maybe something like "'Rocket 88' is considered by some (or many) musicologists as the first rock and roll song due to the recording's prominent use of a distorted guitar tone." Or similar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is that verifiable? My attempt to name the group who is considering or citing it as such (i.e. rock historians) was contested by the other editor because they didn't agree with it for personal reasons rather than anything provable ([14]). Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Numerous sources come up on a Google search, here, here, here and here. There are many others. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the editing and the above conversations, and noting the two editors - Dan56 and Ghmyrtle, both of whom I have worked with and respect, I would say that both are well intentioned and are aiming for the same thing, but that communication has broken down slightly. I haven't picked up where it has broken down, but both are getting a little over-heated and impolite in their comments. This does happen. This is Wikipedia after all! It happens because we care about this stuff. It's difficult when emotions get aroused to back off, calm down, take a break, and look at things in perspective. But that's what is needed here for both editors are actually making good points, and together can improve the article. Dan - you're being too critical of Ghmyrtle; he has said that he knows the article is not perfect and wants editors like yourself to help improve. Stop being so hard on him. And Ghmyrtle, Dan is making some good points that need to be taken on board. I think you both need to work on compromising, and on working together to find appropriate solutions. I think both of you know that already and will do that as you are both good editors and good people. But it does sometimes help to have an outsider tell you the obvious. Ping me if you continue having difficulties, and if you need me to moderate a discussion on the best way forward. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The tension is a result of being constantly reverted with poorly explained edit summaries and arguments that constantly draw on personal point of view and knowledge of the topic. RE to GabeMC: Same issue I asked above--Graham Bennett says "many pundits" (expertise in what?), Tom Larson uses the ambiguous "regarded by many" (many what?), and Miller (a writer on how-to books and technical explanation) says "other music historians". But what does this have to do with the other editor contesting what I had cited here in the body? Dan56 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to source all the specifics in the article body and add the condensed/summarized version to the lead, where you won't need to mention everybody by name. Besides, if its not properly sourced in the article body, then it shouldn't be in the lead anyway. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

From here to here, that's been my aim, although sadly no one (other than me) has contested the unverifiable claim here that "most historians of the genre have felt it is impossible...". Seems like a double standard. Dan56 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest a neutral presentation of both sides of the debate. I.e., explain why some think "Rocket 88" might be the first rock song and why some disagree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)