Talk:Rock music

2000s

I am doing an expansion of this section. It is overviewing rock music's current state, so I figure it should be a little more expansive. Also, a lot of what's there would qualify as original research, so we may want to go over all that. Zazaban (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Garage rock revival and post-punk revival sections are really, really ugly and too short. I could use some help with them. Zazaban (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my area of expert knowledge ended around 1979, but I'll get my daughter to keep an eye on it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've dotted a few images around the article, which it was lacking is. Most of the article was just a sea of text. Zazaban (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the Garage rock revival and post-punk revival sections definitely need to be worked on. There isn't much to work with, as their main articles are pretty lousy as well. Zazaban (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Punk rock

This section is too big, and starts off rather abruptly with a discussion on the frankness of its lyrics. It does very little to explain the origin of punk, but spends of a lot of time talking about how it is 'an underground form of expression', which sounds like it was written by an idolizer of the genre, and has more to do with the subculture and less to do with the actual music. Zazaban (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I transplanted some information from the punk rock article. It looks much better now. Zazaban (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why hardcore punk legends Bad Brains aren't mentioned on this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.105.64 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Revival of Progressive rock / other issues

There really should be a section about the revival of progressive rock in the mid 90s with bands such as Muse and Radiohead, considering the huge popularity they have.

Also, I feel the Emo section is way too long considering how new the style is. COmparatively, there is not really enough on Alternative style, since Alternative is such a broad type of rock.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.114.224 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 

I figure that it's good to have the sections for current stuff to be large, as they are talking about rock music as it exists right now. That said, there should be a section on electronic rock/dance punk like stuff, which has become hugely popular in the last couple of years, to the point of eclipsing the other stuff listed in the 2000s section. Zazaban (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

This article is awful and needs a clean up badly. It is very disappointing because it is a subject I love to read about. In addition, "rock" and "rock and roll" are the same thing. Rock and roll is not a sub genre of rock. Chuck Berry, Metallica, and Green Day are basically doing the same thing with different styles. No matter how much a fanboy might disagree, all acts from the British invasion to punk to heavy metal are rooted in the R n' B sounds of the mid 20th century. I saw a recent documentary about heavy metal and the guys in Black Sabbath said that the music was rooted in the blues. Just listen to the first Led Zeppelin album and you will hear two blues covers. The articles should be merged under the heading Rock and Roll!

To bring my point home.....I give you exhibit A (Songs):

Rock and Roll Music (Chuck Berry 1957)Rock and Roll Music (Beatles 1964) Rock and Roll (Velvet Underground 1970)Rock n' Roll (Led Zeppelin 1971) It's Only Rock n' Roll (Rolling Sones 1974) Rock and Roll All Nite (Kiss 1975)Rock and Roll Doctor (Black Sabbath 1976)Rock n' Roll Fantasy (Kinks 1978) Rock n' Roll High School (Ramones 1979) I Love Rock n'Roll (Joan Jett 1982) Rock n' Roll (Motorhead 1987)Rock n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake 1994) Rock and Roll Girlfriend (Green Day 2004)Rock n' Roll Jesus (Kid Rock 2007) Rock and Roll Train (AC/DC 2008)

exhibit B (Lyrics): "Will some cold woman in this desert land- Make me feel like a real man? Take this rock and roll refugee" (Pink Floyd-Young Lust 1979)"How death or glory becomes just another story 'N' every gimmick hungry yob digging gold from rock 'n' roll" (Clash-Death or Glory 1979)

exhibit C (a quote): While new details the Metallica's Death Magnetic begin to surface, frontman James Hetfield is giving fans a little more insight on the album title. "It started out as kind of a tribute to people that have fallen in our business, like Layne Stanley and a lot of the people that have died, basically — rock and roll martyrs of sorts. And then it kind of grew from there," Hetfield explained of the term Death Magnetic. In 2002 Stanley, the frontman of Alice in Chains, was found dead in his apartment from an apparent drug overdose. He was 34.

How can you deny its all called rock and roll when all the great bands still use the term to describe themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We know all that. But "rock and roll" also, specifically, means the sort of music that was created in the 1950s. This has been discussed here many times, with the same conclusion - the articles should not be merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because its been discussed many times doesn't make it true. Rock and roll predates the 50's, by the way, but the majority of people think it started then. I have a large collection of rock and roll records and many of them were released in the 40's. Just one of the many mistakes made when writing about this subject. The majority is wrong in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.179.2 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to simplify things. If you have "rock and roll" records released in the 1940s, please feel free to add them to the article on First rock and roll record. Again, I'd be surprised if we don't already know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are records from the 40s in that article; I also would say that it originated in the 1940s. I'm listening to That's All Right Mama from 1946 right now, and I'd say it is rock and roll. Heck, I've heard stuff from wartime that sounds rock-ish. We will, of course, need sources. Zazaban (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Im very unhappy with the Rock, Rock and Roll thing, every rockstar seems to think them the same. Could you find one source that proves rock and roll is different? If not, it seems wikipedia users are just deciding they are different. I understand the change in rock and roll in the early 60's from dancable stuff to what it is today, but that dosn't make it different kinds of music. 24.124.40.164 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original comment about rock vs. rock and roll. The terms are interchangeable and the articles should be merged. The rock and roll of today obviously has evolved but its roots are in the music of the 40's and 50's and it does share many traits that have never changed. I said my piece. I know that the majority rules here and I know that they will most likely remain two separate entries. I stand by my statement that this is innaccurate. "Its a Long Way to the Top If You Wanna Rock n' Roll" says AC/DC---unfortunately there own fans disagree with them about what kind of music they are playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 February 2009

The terms are not "interchangeable" because "rock music" was not a term used before the late 1960s - "rock and roll" was. Clearly, as explained in the article, modern rock music largely grew out of what happened in the 1950s - but you can equally well argue that "rock and roll" grew out of rhythm and blues, which evolved out of African rhythms and singing styles from the 19th century and earlier - it's all been a flowing river. But the encyclopedia needs to be clear about terminology and, although in many, many respects "rock music" and "rock and roll" are now used interchangeably, there are points of difference between the terms which it is the responsibility of the encyclopedia to point out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude--you have no idea what you are talking about. The term "rock music" was used before the 60's. Ever see the movie "Rock Rock Rock" or hear "Rock Around the Clock"? It is in countless lyrics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 February 2009

Yes, the word "rock" is, obviously, but not the generic term "rock music" before, let's say, 1964 or 65 at the earliest, when a new and wider genre emerged from what at the time was called "pop music" or "beat music". "Rock and roll", at that point in time, was perceived as something from a past era - the mid to late 1950s. Since then, the terminology has become very confused, largely because many later musicians who were inspired by the music of the 1950s (Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley etc.) have sought to associate themselves with it, in many cases by consciously playing similar forms of music and/or by using the term "rock and roll" in their songs. But all that doesn't change the point that the specific term "rock and roll" can be used for the then-new music of the 1950s (and, at a push, the early 1960s) in a way which differentiates it from the later, much broader, "rock music". And, PS, please remember to sign your messages with four of these: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you know more than the Clash, Metallica, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, Nirvana etc. etc. --they have all used rock and rock and roll to describe the music they produce. I think I'll take Joe Strummers opinion over the ones on this post. People who like rock are sometimes very tribal---they want to feel they are punks or heavy metal fans or whatever category they enjoy and they don't want to see the relationship the music shares.

“If it's illegal to rock and roll, throw my ass in jail!” Kurt Cobain

"We took country and rhythm and blues, mixed them together and made rock music" Bill Haley

Fdog9 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Frank H.

Quotes don't back up a claim unless there are references to back up the quotes. --JHP (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, could you answer me about having a source backing all this? You have a good explanation, but its your explanation, you seem to be deciding alot of it. Never heard it before and it dosn't seem to match the critera i understood when i was listening in the 50's. Rock and Roll and Rock are the same, its just been mentioned too many times. Differentiating between them seems really misleading to people who don't know much about rock and roll. Is there even a need for another article about the sound as it was in the 50s and 60s? Maybe we could explain in the 50s part of the summary how rock changed from the rockabilly dance stuff to its current band base form, and include this, but it seems very useless to have two articles. I think a merger is definetly necessary. 24.124.40.164 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, if people seriously want to pursue a merge, they first read the earlier discussions such as the ones here and here, and elsewhere on this page, and then think about raising the issue more formally by going through the process described here. Any attempts to merge the pages without going through the proper processes will be reverted, obviously. Oh, bop doo day... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore......

It is interesting that there is a lack of African Americans in the history of the music they created!!! There is the token mentions of some black 50's rockers and then we get the nice photograph of Jimi Hendrix. Where the heck is Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, Otis Redding, and James Brown? Any book on rock history covers these important artists---so does the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is amazing that the Tygers of Pan Tang (?) rate a mention--- but Stevie Wonder is not included. The inclusion of every obscure metal band is ridiculous and obviously the work of fanboys living in Mom's basement. This article is racist and inaccurate. It needs to be worked on by someone who really knows the subject.

P.S. Run-DMC are the Kings of Rock!!! 71.41.38.234 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this article some problems with people coming here and editing it to include their favorite bands, and then everyones tearing at it to fix it. Some inclusion at how the black community virtually started rock and roll would be great, but with more of a general touch and not sentences of name listing like the Pop Music article. 24.124.40.164 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with both of the comments above (well, apart from Run-DMC...). The article is a mess, it needs much more coverage of African American contributions, and it suffers from a lack of a clearly referenced overview and an overemphasis on current musicians. People seriously interested in improving this and other articles could help by looking at, and maybe becoming part of, the task force at WP:ROCK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Electro-rock

Electro-rock has been fairly important in the rock music of the 2000s. It has no section here, and it's article is terrible. Dance-punk too has been fairly big. I propose a section for both of these genres at the end of the '2000s' section. They have mainly become popular in the last couple of years, (TV On The Radio, MGMT) although bands like Mindless Self Indulgence and KMFDM have been popular earlier in the decade. Lately more electronic rock even seems to be becoming the standard. It needs a section. Zazaban (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Post rock is proving itself to be highly influential as well. Perhaps it deserves a mention as well. Zazaban (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest drawing a sharper distinction between the terms "rock" and "rock and roll" as used in the late 1960s and early 1970s

In my personal experience (I was born in 1947) the term "rock" began to be used widely by young people of roughly my age in America in the late 1960s, in contradistinction to the term "rock and roll," as a way of indicating that "rock" was more meritorious than the former. This change came in response to the profusion of new "rock" styles in that decade, particularly toward its middle and end -- "folk rock"; "jazz rock"; "alternative rock" (in a usage slightly different from that found more recently), "progressive rock" (whatever that was construed to mean), etc. "Rock" was, for example, a principal subject of Rolling Stone magazine, founded in 1967, while mere "rock and roll" would have been thought too primitive to sustain that sort of intellectual intensity.

In subsequent years the "rock"/"rock and roll" distinction (as the terms were used, conceivably a separate issue from the nature of the music being produced) pretty much vanished. It became (rightly, in my opinion) widely understood that there could be no "rock" without its "rock and roll" roots.

Today, the two terms are basically interchangeable. I do not claim to be able to say precisely when the late-1960s/early-1970s distinction between the term "rock" and the term "rock and roll" melted away, as it were, but if someone in 1970 were to have said that his or her favorite music was "rock and roll," it would have been understood that something like "pre-Beatles music" -- Chuck Berry, early Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc. -- was meant; not late Beatles music and definitely not post-Beatles music.

I don't mean to say that "rock" was never used as a shorthand noun to refer to "rock and roll" prior to, say, 1965. I just mean that for some number of years starting about then the two nouns "rock" and "rock and roll" diverged (temporarily) in connotation, if not denotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.77.105 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very well considered comment, with which I totally agree. You'll see from comments of mine earlier on this page that I've resisted attempts to merge this article with "rock and roll", on the basis that post-1960s "rock music", in my view, has developed all sorts of genres which are quite distinct from "rock and roll" which, like you, I've understood to mean primarily the music of the 1950s. But as you suggest this may be a generational thing, and it may be correct that, today, the two are understood to be pretty much the same thing. I'm not sure and would like to hear other views. There's also a view that, today, "rock" (and/or "rock and roll") has become almost a sub-genre of what used to be called "rock" and is now just popular music in general - that is, to refer to mthe music produced by guitar-based bands ("heavy metal" and/or "indie"), rather than, for example, rappers, R&B singers, singer-songwriters, electronic-based musicians, etc. etc. which might previously have been considered all part of "rock". Again, interested to hear other views. (And apologies if my comments betray my age!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my view is the opposite of the anonymous commenter. As a child in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I understood "rock" and "rock 'n' roll" to be synonyms. I remember prominent songs of that era like KISS's "Rock and Roll All Nite" and Joan Jett's "I Love Rock N' Roll". I think the term rock 'n' roll was used more often then than now, which suggests to me that the longer "rock 'n' roll" faded over time in favor of the shorter "rock". Since the anonymous commenter mentions Rolling Stone magazine, let me point out that The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll was first published in 1983 (last updated in 2001) and it uses a broader definition of rock and roll. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, founded in 1983, also uses a broader definition of rock and roll. --JHP (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is largely true as well. The point the first commenter made though is that "rock music" was not a term that was used before the late 1960s, when it became used - post-Beatles, Dylan etc - for the wider range of music (that is, beyond commercial pop music) then starting to be produced. At that time, in the late 60s, "rock and roll" was used primarily for the 50s style of music. But I agree that, later on, the terms may have become more synonymous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The term has never been dropped by the musicians.

Rock and Roll Music (Chuck Berry 1957)Rock and Roll Music (Beatles 1964) Rock and Roll (Velvet Underground 1970)Rock n' Roll (Led Zeppelin 1971) It's Only Rock n' Roll (Rolling Sones 1974) Rock and Roll All Nite (Kiss 1975)Rock and Roll Doctor (Black Sabbath 1976)Rock n' Roll Fantasy (Kinks 1978) Rock n' Roll High School (Ramones 1979) I Love Rock n'Roll (Joan Jett 1982) Rock n' Roll (Motorhead 1987)Rock n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake 1994) Rock and Roll Girlfriend (Green Day 2004)Rock n' Roll Jesus (Kid Rock 2007) Rock and Roll Train (AC/DC 2008)

Rock and "Rock and Roll" are synonyms....."Rock and Roll" is not just pre Beatles music....John Lennon always thought of what he did as Rock and Roll. Kurt Cobain and the guys from Metallica have used both terms (kinda like a synonym). A whale and a bat are very different animals---but they are still under the heading "Mammal". Buddy Holly and Metallica are also very different in many ways but they share enough in common to both be Rock and Roll (or rock). i don't know the motive for seperating the obvious relationship.....age gaps.....racism maybe?.....whatever the motive is .....you're kidding yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

you're forgetting something

In early 2000s, evanescence is one of the rock band with orchrestra and choir i don't know and still confused whether i should call this kind of rock "alternative" or not? but one thing that's so sure, they're not gothic or christian rock! (anyway,where's "gothic rock"?)

and I wonder how this article can be trusted resource cause' when you talk about "rock" it should cover all kind of that, not just mention what've happened in each era.

it might be good if there's "history of rock" separated from "rock music" in order to make it more clarified.

I agreed this is not gonna be the rock music article without mention of Elvis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet-little-lie (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Post-punk revival and Garage rock revival.

These are possibly the two most important movements of this decade. So why are their sections so terrible? Zazaban (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Two must add-names if you want to get serious about Sub-Genres.

Captain Beefheart was unquestionably the king of Psychedelic music. None of the other bands mentioned (even Floyd etc.) defined the genre as much as he did (however obscure he may be) . His influence over music as a whole should be enough to get him on this page but in the Psychedelic Rock genre to leave him out would be ridiculous. (Not a fan boy, but within the music and critical world he is legendary)

Second is The Nice. As they are disputed to be among one of the first Prog rock bands ever they should be mentioned... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.20.181 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Metal subgenres

In continental Europe, especially Germany and Scandinavia, metal continues to be broadly popular. Well-established British acts such as Judas Priest and Iron Maiden continue to have chart success on the continent, as do a range of local groups. In Germany, Western Europe's largest music market, several continental metal bands placed multiple albums in the top 20 of the charts between 2003 and 2008, including Finnish melodic death metal band Children of Bodom, Norwegian symphonic extreme metal act Dimmu Borgir, and two power metal groups, Germany's Blind Guardian and Sweden's HammerFall.

I somehow doubt that the general public – or even the total newbie – that this article is geared to (or at least should be) has any concept of "melodic death metal", "symphonic extreme metal" or "power metal". Having these labels here is even more awkward considering that they come totally out of the blue, as nowhere does the article mention anything about the fact that metal has splintered into numerous very different subgenres (the differences being obvious even to a layman) and associated subscenes ever since the 1980s. Nor, of course, are the names of the subgenres even linked, even though there are extensive articles on them. Perhaps they are too confusing or irrelevant anyway for the general reader and should better be left out. The fact that numerous subgenres have developed, in itself probably deserves mention, though, as it is a characteristic trait of the underground metal scene. Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be better if the genre names aren't listed, and just the band names. Zazaban (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's time to improve this page

I feel the articles Rock Music and Rock and Roll should be merged. They are the same thing. Any music scholar or historian would agree with this.

The article has shamelessly left out the contributions of black artists from James Brown to Otis Redding to Prince to Run DMC. All four of these artists are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why are they recognized as rock artists by the Hall of Fame, music scholars, and university professors and not by this article. Why is any mention of soul, hip hop, or disco erased. Any good book on rock and roll includes these genres.

I think a bunch of metal heads and reactionary classic rock fans have shaped this page unfortunately. The article does not reflect a scholarly look at the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Prince definately yes, Otis Redding, perhaps, James Brown, maybe, Run DMC, absolutely not. Prince is a genre-bender, and quite often was in the realm of Rock during the '80s. Soul is sort of a grey area. Hip Hop does not resemble rock, and funk is a similar, but different genre. I'm not saying they are good or bad, soul, hip hop, funk and disco are freaking awesome, but they are stylistically different genres. Well, disco might qualify as pop rock. The Rock and Roll hall of fame is heavily critizised from all around for many, many reasons. I don't think Run DMC would consider themselves rock and roll. Zazaban (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard their early guitar heavy work like King of Rock? They are defenitely rock and roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a rock band, their influence is minor to nil. Definatley not enough to warrent a mention here. Zazaban (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask the Beastie Boys, Rage Against the Machine, or Faith No More if there influence is minor to nil. Rap has had a huge impact on rock and rates a mention. Many rock bands have praised their music.

If we start including things like reggae as 'rock', there is a danger of having every form of popular music in the last fifty years qualifying as 'rock'. Zazaban (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marley is a rock artist and is in any rock history book (and I have many).

African Americans invented this music and yet they barely rate a mention--we'd all be listening to Stephen Foster without their work.

If you are proposing adding sections on hip hop, soul, funk, disco, reggae, and I suppose electronica and contemporary R&B, since those would qualify too, I suggest copying from their articles and not adding unsourced OR. Zazaban (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The reggae sections origin is from the Wikipedia article---and I do think soul hip hop etc etc are forms of rock and roll and should be included as it is in every text book about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you essentially believe that every form of popular music from the last fifty or sixty years is rock and roll? Zazaban (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No---- but many of these forms shaped and influenced rock--think about Rage Against the Machine---great rock band---wouldn't exist without rap. I don't feel soul, rap etc. should be the focus but they rate a mention---rock in its present form wouldn't exist without them. African Americans invented rock music and they kept influencing it and it should be recognized. Just my opinion.

Wow---now I feel bad for being pushy---thank you --I appreciate it although I doubt it'll last long---thanks

Now that I think about it, it is impossible to include subjects as diverse as Doo-wop, Heavy metal music and Punk rock under the same label without including almost all of the music of the last sisty years. It's liberating actually, like a kind of unifying music for the world. Zazaban (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at it and I can't believe you did such a great job in that short time---it would have taken me days to do that! Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The sections on the 80s to present are looking very thin now, can you think of anything we could add there? I know Contemporary R&B and Electronica could fit under the 2000s, and electropop could get sections in the 80s and the 2000s, perhaps gangsta rap in the 90s. But they still will all be smaller than some of the eariler ones. Perhaps Hip Hop should be moved to the 80s? I'm not sure salsa belongs. Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's about all I can do for today. Zazaban (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Crunk/snap perhaps should have a section under 2000s, which should be split into early-mid and mid-late. Zazaban (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody think of anything more than could use a section? Zazaban (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is by no means the consensus on this article that these forms of music you are adding are rock music. The music clearly has a specific meaning used here which is outlined at the beginning of the lead. What you are doing is a very major change to the scope and direction of the article and needs to gain a consensus on this page before proceeding. Please allow some time for discussion before proceeding with such a major change.--Sabrebd (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources shall be found. I believe Fdog9 has quite a few. Zazaban (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not raise the issue of sources, but since you do, adding a lot of unsourced material to this article is the last thing it needs. However, the issue here is the inclusion of all these forms of music in an article about rock music. I think we should establish whether editors feel long sections on these belong in the article. ie., doo wop, funk, reggae, hip hop and disco. They are certainly all influences, but I think many readers will be puzzled to find sub-sections on them, in the way they might look for Progressive rock or Britpop. Lets give editors an opportunity to comments before radically adjusting the article and then we can aim for some kind of consensus.--Sabrebd (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue at the very very least, if nothing else is kept, there should be something on doo-wop, as the term 'rock and roll' was originally used to refer to it. Zazaban (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of it needs to be retained--if not in its own subsection--at least merged into other sections. African American contributions to rock should not be ignored. Fdog9 (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reading up on doo-wop as definitions, and its relationships to other forms of music, are complex. Some authorities suggest it was a 1960s phenomenon and others that it was part of rock and roll.--Sabrebd (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On this point, "doo-wop" was a term which was first used in the 1960s, as a convenient way to describe the predominantly black R&B group harmony vocal style of the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s - the music was clearly both a forerunner and a part of 1950s "rock and roll". There are multiple verifiable refs for that sort of definition. It should be mentioned here in that context, but more thoroughly, in my view, in the Rock and roll article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here, mirroring previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of rock music, and I'm sure elsewhere. There is one school of thought which argues that "rock and roll" and "rock" cover the same ground, and another that "rock" is a specific (but widespread) post-1960s ("noisy white men with guitars") development from the 1950s style. There is also a separate but related argument that the term "rock" is limited to that particular genre ("noisy white men with guitars"), and another school of thought which treats most modern rhythm-based popular music - including soul, funk, reggae, hip hop, disco, etc. etc. - as part of the overarching umbrella term "rock music". I'm sure that reliable refs can be found on either side. (There is an important side argument, which is that it is racist to exclude most black artists from "rock music".) What is important here is that the variations of definition are mentioned, and that articles are written which cover all the ground, with good solid links between articles and not too much overlap. In order to do that, some form of consensus needs to be reached. Is the best place for that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, rather than here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the school of thought that it is an umbrella term. But I can live with the over all theme of "noisy white men with guitars" if a bone is tossed to some African American acts here......please does anyone with ears really thinks Paul Simon (not erased) rocks harder than Prince (always erased)? Isn't Little Red Corvette a rock song? It does boil down to racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.179.2 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with the serious definitional issue that Ghmyrtle raises, I think it is a fair point that the article must deal with both definitions, if we can dig out appropriate sources - this would seem to imply we need a definitional section (at the beginning) and that it should be mentioned in the lead. There is a issue, increasingly reflected in modern musicology, that rock and roll itself can be seen as the marketing of a form of black music (rhythm and blues) for a white audience. Rock, as a genre that emerged in the mid 1960s (the sense taken in this article), was music largely performed by and for white males, with some very notable exceptions (both in race and gender). The problem is that rock is often defined in opposition to other forms of music (e.g. it is not pop, not classical, and for many it is not disco, soul, funk or hip hop - although only a very ignorant person could claim it was not influenced by all of those genres). These definitions were based on a social bias, among performers, fans and critics, but nevertheless, this distinction has dominated the genre, which had a clear sense that it had a separate history and identity. The distinction may be a false one (because objectively the "authenticity" of rock music is illusory), but it is one that has existed. I am not sure how we square that circle. Ghmyrtle may be right that the place for that discussion may be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, and given the ramifications for so many articles, I think it best to take the debate to there.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well put, Sabrebd - I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course rock is an umbrella term: show me a musical style definition that would include both The Who, Tom Waits, Bob Marley, Venom, The Pretenders, Yes and Styx, plus Music From Big Pink,Graceland and Tangerine Dream's Ricochet - all three of those are rock albums IMO. The only style/aesthetic unity that could be formulated would be at a given point in time and by reasoning around contrasts to what was not considered rock music at that time. Sounds like a good idea to say that rock music took shape and developed within several defining traits, so you get a number of "key characteristics"). In the early days it was supposed to be dangerous, punchy, with a powerful beat, harmonically blues/rock'n'roll-based, hot but not completely outspoken and graphic - but it didn't have to fit all those terms in every song.

It's probably a good idea to keep apart any definitions of the concept (as an art form) and the style of rock music, too. Hard rock and punk fans, expecially, like to think that it's the same, that the spirit of rock just gushes out into the music, but the idea of what one is doing to make it become rock - not amplified folk blues or shapeless musical therapy - and any style ideas are rather different things. /Strausszek (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Doo-wop

(Separated into new sub-heading for clarity)

On the more specific point of doo wop, I have had the chance to do a little more reading on this. Although there is some disagreement over what exactly it is, there is general agreement that it is not the origin of rock and roll (I think perhaps R&B was meant here), but a sub-form of rock and roll. There is a strong sense in recent writing that it has been unjustly neglected, but I think that the place it particularly needs a higher profile is in the rock and roll article and then here as part of the summary (in case anyone is puzzled, there is a link to later "rock" music as bands like the Beatles arguably took their harmonies from doo wop). I will do that if no-one else wants the job when I have the time.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree precisely with the argument that "it is not the origin of rock and roll...but a sub-form of rock and roll." As the doo wop article makes clear, the style has its roots in harmony vocal styles of the 1930s/40s (and earlier) but came to wider prominence in the 1950s - "In 1954, doo-wop groups played a significant role in ushering in the rock and roll era, when two big rhythm and blues hits by vocal harmony groups, "Gee" by The Crows and "Sh-Boom" by the The Chords crossed over onto the pop music charts. The success of these records was significant, and quickly other R&B vocal groups began entering the pop charts, particularly in 1955, the breakthrough year in the introduction of rock and roll." Although the ballad style of some doo-wop recordings was very different to the more upbeat aspects of r&r, the harmonies were a direct influence on groups who are generally regarded (I think!) as r&r such as the Coasters, Drifters, Danny & the Juniors, Dion & the Belmonts, etc. etc., and indeed later on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Nothing on this talk page has ever been archived, so I've archived most of it into three archives based on years. Archive 1 is 2006, archive 2 is 2007, and archive 3 is 2008. Zazaban (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Okay, am I the only one left interested in working with the multiple defenitions? Did that drop off the face of the earth? Zazaban (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just hoping someone else would start the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music.--SabreBD (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that discussion is going nowhere. I suggest we keep the note that has been added by another editor and modified by me about the existence of a wider definition (at the end of the lead) and then think about whether we want to include these other forms. Personally I see little point in including sections on hip hop, for example, mainly because this article would become little more than a summary of popular music. However, I suggest that we can easily fit a new sub-section at the end of rock and roll which takes the last paragraph and expands it to outline the developments in doo wop, soul and girl groups from the pre-invasion period. All of which were, at the very least, major influences on what followed.--SabreBD (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that approach in principle, though I don't particularly like the sentence at the end of the introduction. I think there needs to be something along those lines, but it needs to be clearer (not necessarily much longer) about the extent and nature of the use of the term "rock" to cover "other" sorts of music. As I've said before, to me (in the UK) it seems to be very much a US-specific thing to make a point of stating that rock has existed "in contrast to" soul music etc. - essentially it's an argument that goes back, in my view, to the whole history of racial segregation in the US, the existence of separate "black" and "white" music markets, R&B charts, the whole idea of "crossover", etc., which simply do not apply in the rest of the world. (Important: I am certainly not accusing anyone here of racism, just pointing out that the US experience of segregation etc. does not have world-wide applicability.) But I do accept that, now - much more than, say, in the 1960s - the divergences between "rock" (hairy white boys with guitars, etc) and other genres like hip hop, have grown substantially further apart everywhere - although that still does not necessarily mean that they are seen as "in contrast to" each other, just that they coexist and sometimes merge and overlap. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with most of that. Would you like to draft a version of the last sentence as I am not quite sure what will do the job.--SabreBD (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You may need to nudge me in a few days time - busy in the real world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I will see if I can pull something together for the section on Doo Wop and Soul etc, which I do not have a title for yet - so I am open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This now done. I went for "The inbetween years" as that was the most common description, but there was no real consensus. I have tried to indicate the traditional view that not much happened and more recent thinking that points to African American and female contributions in this period. I hope this helps redress the balance a bit. Most of the doo wop stuff went into the earlier rock section as otherwise it looks as it it didn't start till the later 50s, but I references it in here so that its influence would be clear.--SabreBD (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a fine job, Sabrebd. I've moved some of the British material back into earlier sections - I just had a feeling that the overall tone was a bit too US-centric, for instance in seeing all the British stuff as relating to the "Invasion" (which wasn't an invasion to us, we were here all the time!), and in fact people like the Shadows and Joe Meek were influential and important at an international level. I think it flows quite well - see what you think - I'm off to bed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the move of the British stuff into chronological order is a good idea. It is easier to read and points out some of the internationalisation of the genre. I will try to have a look through for things like wikilinks, which are always disrupted by a move like this.--SabreBD (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blues-rock and pop rock sub-sections

At the moment the article stumbles after the British Invasion and Garage Band sections. I propose putting in a section on Blues-rock and expanding pop rock to mention the rise of rock as a separate genre. Hopefully this will bridge the gap to psychedelic rock etc. Any comments and suggestions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Two interconnecting threads, perhaps - UK (Korner, Mayall, Yardbirds, Stones etc.) and US (Butterfield, Canned Heat, Joplin etc.) - with a mention of the folk blues (Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, etc) background? Go for it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That provides a useful plan. I think I can work something around that pattern. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have put something together. Not sure the balance is right, especially the paragraph on American acts. So any suggestions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gradual clean up and other issues

Regular editors and watchers will probably have realised (perhaps before I did) that I have moved from improving some early sections of this article to a gradual clean up. I am doing this a sub-section at a time, supplying citations, removing and POV, trying to improve the sense of the article, while preserving the good work already done. I am more than happy if editors get to a section to do this before me and I am very grateful to those that help improve what I have written. However, I am aware that, despite my best efforts, this does tend to make and already long article longer and this process is unlikely to be reversed as there is a legitimate argument to include notable, but missing, sub-genres. So a point for consideration is whether this article will one day need to be divided into several sub-articles, with this one staying as a summary of each. The only logical way I can see of doing this is by decade, and this does pose a problem, as many subgenres inconveniently failed to die when the year had a 9 at the end. You can perhaps get a sense of how this might work from the articles on British popular music, but obviously it would be on a grander scale. I am not really pushing this idea, or proposing that something needs to be done soon, but just putting it on the table for consideration and to try to gauge reactions.--SabreBD (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One possibility might be to have a WP:TIMELINE like this one, in parallel with the main article. Just another thought, I'm not necessarily proposing it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be useful as an addition, in essence a different way of covering a lot of information, but obviously not a substitute. If it had all the year by year articles it would be a lot of work to set up.--SabreBD (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New rave

I restored the deletion of this section, since it had not been discussed here and is a major change. It is pretty clear that this is "made up media term", but then they all are. If we do not have this we need some way of classifying acts from this period. I suggest that the origin and debatable nature of the term is briefly mentioned, but I am open to a better suggestion.--SabreBD (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it already mentioned? I thought it was, maybe in the main article. Zazaban (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have said the main article has this, I don't think its entirely clear in the current summary.--SabreBD (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Roots rock

Proposal for a new sub-section on Roots rock, which would be a summary of the that article, mentioning the back to basics movement of the late 60s early 70s: bands like Creedence Clearwater Revival and The Band, as well as Country rock and Southern rock. For the record I don't care for the term "roots rock" which was not made up until the 1980s, but there it is the term now used and there is a phenomenon here which it usefully describes. It would probably fit between psychedelic rock and progressive rock. This would help balance the Anglo-centric bias of this part of the article by indicating what the Americans are up to in a very creative era. If there no suggestions I will go ahead in a few days. Any suggestions welcome as usual.--SabreBD (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Subgenres

Rock music is 60's. Instrumental rock is 1958. Is instrumental rock and surf rock (1960-61) subgenres of rock music? No, It is not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mago266 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Western Swing

You need to consider the role of Swing and Western Swing. Noel Boggs and his phased out electric guitar, Eldon Shamblen and the old man himself Bob Wills. They were a playing rhythm music before Rock too part of the name with it. It was all rhythm music. Stanleybadams (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is valid, but is better addressed in other articles, such as Rock and roll, First rock and roll record (where Wills and Shamblin are mentioned), and Origins of rock and roll. This article basically deals with "rock music" as it developed after the early 1960s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rock and roll vs rock problem (again)

A couple of recent edits, and some points raised above, suggest that what I think is the consensus among regular editors on this article, (that rock is distinct genre that had its origins in late 1950s-early 1960s rock and roll, but really began in the mid-60s) is perhaps not sufficinetly clear in the article. All the other period based sub-headings now have the same format of a title with dates in brackets, except the 50-early 60s one. Would it help if we changed this to something like: The prehistory of rock (1950s-early 1960s), or perhaps The origins of rock (1950s-early 1960s)? The opening section on Rock and roll could then perhaps begin with something like "Rock music had its origins in 1950s rock and roll". Perhaps someone can come up with better title or opening phrases, but I hope the clarification I am suggesting is clear.--SabreBD (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think those points are true, although rather than headings such as "Prehistory.." or "Origins.." - which would generate arguments that the "prehistory" goes back at least as far as the 1920s - why not simply use the sub-heading "Background". This could make the introductory point that "rock music" derives from the coming together of styles in the early 1950s as "rock and roll", and then move on to the changes in the late 50s and early 60s, prior to what the colonies call the "British Invasion" and the start of "rock" proper. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Background is a good suggestion and might prevent the obvious disagreements that we have been around so many times.--SabreBD (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This now done, along the lines of suggestion above.--SabreBD (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for sub-sections

As I am moving towards the end of the great clean-up project there are a few suggestions for changes to sub-sections for consideration of editors, just in case their are any serious objections or useful suggestions.

• Hardcore sub-section

Hardcore was never had much widespread popularity, but it is necessary to refer to it constantly as a source for (for example) grunge, pop punk and alternative rock. Perhaps this would be easier if there was a seperate sub-section in the "Punk and its aftermath section". The punk section could be expanded a little in componsation as taking this out would make it very brief.

• Post-[Brit]pop/Trad British rock sub-section

There is a rather American bias to the 1990s section and a need to deal with the bands that emerged in Britain in the wake of Brit-pop, but before the garage rock/post punk revivial, such as Radiohead, Travis, Stereophonics and Coldplay. Problematically, there is no single easy term to refer to these bands, or wikipedia article to summarise, but perhaps I will be bold and create one.

This now done.--SabreBD (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Garage rock/post-punk revival

Proposal to combine these two short sections. They are the same bands and it is possible to give citations to indicate this. It would point out the two sets of sources for this movement.

(Since there was no evident dissent this now done.--SabreBD (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

As ever, comments very welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed aside

I removed the following text from the beginning of the New Millenium section as it is the only section which has such and intro and is rather. Some of these points seems very - if unsourced, but is odd to have this on only one sub-section. Do we want this sort of introduction to ever section, or is it unecessary?

In the early 2000s the entire music industry was shaken by claims of massive piracy using online music file-sharing software such as Napster, resulting in lawsuits against private file-sharers by the recording industry group the RIAA. During much of the 2000s, rock has not featured as prominently in album sales in the US as in other countries such as the UK and Australia. Another reason for the decline in album sales is the rise in popularity of Hip Hop on many music charts.

The biggest factor that affected the production and distribution of rock music was the rise of paid digital downloads in the 2000s. During the 1990s, the importance of the buyable music single faded when Billboard allowed singles without buyable, album-separate versions to enter its Hot 100 chart (charting only with radio airplay). The vast majority of songs bought on paid download sites are singles bought from their albums; songs that are bought on a song-by-song basis off artist's albums are considered sales of singles, even though they have no official buyable single.

--SabreBD (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If a reference can be found for the statements that rock music accounts for a declining proportion of songs purchased, and that this is explained by the growth in downloads and changes in chart rules, then I think it would be useful to include that in the article. More generally perhaps, if there is any way in which it can be sourced, some text on the global scale of the "rock" market, and its growth over the years (and recent decline), would be a valuable addition to the article, perhaps in a new section - if refs can be found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Electronic rock, dance punk, new rave

I know heroic efforts were made to expand these sections, but attempting to clean them up has indicated a number of problems. Essentially the difficulties are with the source articles that are being summarised or relied on here, which are often confused, contradictory and repetitious. Once all that has been sorted, along with some possible synthesis and OR, all the sections look very thin and I cannot find much to substantially expand them in any meaningful way as the usual sources have not caught up with the movements yet. I will keep looking, but my suggestion is that these are combined into one electronic rock sub-section, that mentions all of these sub-genres. They can always be expanded again if sources catch up with these developments and indicate their lasting importance.--SabreBD (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

= Rock as an Era

I'm just a nobody in this discussion, but I've always assumed "Rock Music" is more like an era kind of like the "iron age", where you have like domination of tribal music forms, then folk music, then structured/institutionalized music - ie. classical music (which is by no means a limited to western culture) ... and now we have rock music which is basically de-institutionalized music. I doubt any publication champions this thesis, but if you try to crystallize how the term is used, this is a very natural fit for the word. Beyond rock may be a kind of faux "avant guard" era which like fine art will consciously seeks new outlets while enjoying mainstream recognition. You can get the fill of rock taking the backstage even now. That said I love the list like quality of this article, and Rock'n'Roll is something totally different from "Rock Music" in so far as "Rock Music" is really just a phrase, which in reality probably deserves little more than a broad definition than a look at all of the genres of the "Rock era." I guess I'm just trying to say I was very amused this article even existed and attempted to define something which is essentially a zeitgeist of an age in stark terms. --72.173.5.119 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)