Talk:Rock music

Rock and Roll and Exclusion of African American Acts

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

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

Are you saying that Joan Jett doesn't know what type of music she is playing?```` fdog9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed here many times, and the consensus is to have separate articles on 1950s-style rock and roll (and Its precursors) and post-1960s rock music, with an explanation in the text of the relationship between them. "I Love Rock'n'Roll" is certainly not 1950s-style rock and roll. But on the question of whether this article should have a clearer explanation of the relationship between rock music and soul music, disco, hip-hop, etc. etc.... I agree. It need not lengthen the article (which would be a problem) if parts of the current text, covered more fully in other articles, were removed to make way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur with your sentiments and text. BTW: Wikipedia has been blocking and harassing me for over 7 years. They cut you some slack, congrats. Please continue to share your wisdom and insights. They'll probably remove my response within days, but if they leave it up, it's only because it would be too obvious to delete mine and keep yours. Let's see what their fascist tactic is. BTW: I keep screenshots, have had some for years to prove the Wikipedia fascism, white-supremacy and sexism. They are BIG BROTHER.68.173.190.24 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Good news. Thus far, the racists, white supremacist editors have not deleted my talk page responses, as of November 27, 2019. After almost 10 years of harassment and being bullied by the racists, it's possible that they have lost in court or have been told (finally) by Wikipedia executives, to stop the bullying, harassment, and white-supremacist tactics. Let's keep a close eye on this situation. (I am not alone in this fight, other victims are coming forward.)--68.173.190.24 (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I Love Rock and Roll is indeed somewhat different than 50's style Rock and Roll but in the end both Buddy Holly and Joan Jett are a guitar, bass, and drums. It's the same style of music. A bat and a whale are very different types of creatures but they have enough in common to be called mammals. It's all Rock and Roll and the article should be titled that way. Fdog9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes in chronology

Hi, please allow me to introduce myself, I am a heavy contributor in articles related to rock music in the Spanish language version of Wikipedia. Through my life I collected many books, magazines, bookazines and documentaries about the rock scenes in many countries. Currently I'm making a major overhaul of the Spanish language article of Argentine rock, which until some months ago was seriously lacking in coverage of many contents, especially thouse about the events in recent years.

Well, the reason why I'm writing these lines is because yesterday I made changes in the chronology of this article, changes I did taking into account the perspective of seeing the evolution of rock through the decades. Ghmyrtle told me in my talk page that the changes were reverted because they were major and should be first discussed here.

So, please allow me to describe point by point my proposed changes:

1) Changing the name of the section "1950s: Rock and roll" to "Rock and roll and aftermath" and including the contents before "British invasions":
Ok, first of all, my proposal is that the names of the sections don't be tied to particular decades, because music is flexible and its evolution is not particularly tied to the arrival of new decades (i.e.: music per se doesn't automatically have a major overhaul when it passes from the last year of a decade to the first year of the next decade). Besides, as the current text of this section shows, its doesn't just deal with the boom of rock and roll in the 50s but also with the milestones from the 40s, thus a title like "1950s: Rock and roll" is misleading. Moreover, the further the chronology goes, we start to have sections like "Psychedelia", "Punk" and "Alternative" that don't have decades in their titles, so it is good to have a certain standardization in all the sections of the article, in my opinion.

Now, here comes the part where I explain the major changes in chronology. I propose that this section and parts of "Early 1960s" be grouped together and called "Rock and roll and aftermath". Normally, books and investigations of rock history have the 50s and early 60s phases grouped together, because it is understood that the British invasions were a force so big, an event so shocking, that they completely changed the music scene that was established in the early 60s, a scene which itself it is commonly seen by the authors as a sanitized, more polished version of the rawer sounds of the 50s. Thus, the article would follow a diagram that is commonly used by the authors of the history of rock, a diagram that I would further explain in the following points. The key point is seeing the high-impact events in rock music, events so influential that they clearly made a complete change in the model that rock music was following up to that point.

2) Creation of the section "British invasions and aftermath" including the contents from "British invasions" to before the explosion of punk:
It is related to my previous point. My proposal is that a section be created covering all the timeline between the two high-impact events in the 60s and 70s (the British invasions and the explosion of punk), the title would be "British invasions and aftermath", which would imply in a short title, and certainly accurately, the many changes brought thanks to the British invasions in the years following that event. After the British invasions, the sound turned increasingly rawer, bands that just some years before had a polished pop sound began to progressively incorporate more and more challenging and experimental themes, which would eventually define the progressive genre. So, in essence there was a kind of generational continuity through this period. There wasn't a high-impact event going from 1969 to 1970 that completely changed the evolution of music genres, instead it just continued to follow a seamlessly course that began with the British invasions. Hell, even the article agrees with this point, in the "Early 1970s" it doesn't describe a major event, it just says that it was a continuation of the trends already seen by the late 60s (really, I think we could just delete "Early 1970s", because it doesn't particulary describe a change in the course of the evolution of rock music). In the 70s bands, the themes and distinctive ideals of symphonic (or, progressive) rock weren't completely discarded. In terms of the scene, much like happened in the 50s-early 60s phase, authors of rock history commonly see the 70s period as a time of dilution of the previous decade, they view the pre-punk 70s as a time of increasingly formulaic models, complexity of the arrangements of music and high-budget projects. The term "dilution" is key: they don't see the pre-punk '70s as an abrupt cut of the previous decade, rather, it is seen as a diluted or more formulaic state of what was going on in the previous decade. Remember: we aren't going to see a massive change in the sound of music, and attitudes from newer bands towards the older musicians, until the explosion of punk in 1977.

3) Changing the name of the section "Punk era" to "Punk and aftermath":
I appreciate that this section forsakes the previous practice of tying a course in music to a particular decade. I also acknowledge that, starting with "Punk", the current contents accurately follow the course of evolution of rock. But, I think the title "Punk era" is misleading. The era where punk as a music genre was a dominant force in the music scene was very brief, just a couple of years in the late 70s. It is, however, the many music genres that took inspiration from punk, its themes and proposals, that would define altogether the course of the evolution of rock in the years following the punk explosion. Thus, I propose the title "Punk and aftermath", which would imply the many changes brought one way or another in rock music after the punk explosion.

4) Changing the name of the section "Alternative" to "Alternative and aftermath":
Related to my previous point, "Alternative" doesn't accurately describes the period, instead "Alternative and aftermath" would imply the different changes brought in the wake of the mainstream explosion of alternative rock.

5) Changing the name of the section "2000s–present" to "Decline of the physical sales and aftermath":
Now, here's the part that I think Ghmyrtle was more reluctant to, because I included a whole new section detailing the changes in the music industry that have altered the rock model of doing things in the 21st century.

The thing is, if we are honest, there hasn't been a high-impact event in rock music since the explosion of alternative rock in 1991. No band has made a change so influential, left an impact so evident, did a turn so revolutionary, that altered the course of the evolution of rock music in the years that have passed since 1991. In spite of that, it is clear that changes since then have happened. The rock scene today is clearly not the same as in 1991. And, for certain, things don't work today as they worked in 1991. Previously, an upcoming band with a completely new sound could make an impact by being signed to a major label and then smash the whole scene with their musical proposal. That's how the big changes through the evolution of rock music were made, young musicians that brought fresh air to a certainly stagnated, formulaic scene. But today things work very different than before. Today, it is much more harder for new rock bands to be signed by a major label and rise to stardom. Thus I started to search, through books, magazines and web pages, what could have possibly happened in all these years that could have led to this present state? What has happened that has made that in all the years since 1991, there hasn't been a band so revolutionary that could shatter all models in the rock scene? And then I found it. The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as I point out in the many references that I included in my text, made a significant overhaul in the way media companies work. Previously, there were limitations to the number of media outlets that a certain company would have; in essence, this was an anti-monopoly measure that allowed small media enterprises to display their products using their ingenuity and counteracting tactics to survive against high-budget media companies. But the Telecommunications Act of 1996 dismantled the measures that prevented a high-budget company from completely dominate a market, and in the years following the issue of the Act there were indiscriminate and massive purchases of radios, and increase of monopoly in the media industry, to the point that nowadays, the top 1% artists earn 77% of all music revenue, the top 3 labels control roughly 90% of the music you hear, and from the situation in 1983, where 50 companies controlled 90% of US media, now only 5 companies control that 90% (Comcast, Walt Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, and National Amusements). Thus, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 brought increased homogenization of sounds, greater restrictions to rises from newer and independent artists, the loss of local programming, and the establishment of programming that is exactly the same no matter which US region you are in, with even the same DJs and announcers. The Act would also signal why there hasn't been major changes in rock; previously, changes were due to cultural shifts, which are flexible and, shall I say, informal. But the Act was a completely different kind of thing, because laws are rigid, they are established in a formal frame and the only way to change them is through legal means, not through cultural shifts. Thus, this would explain why the situation has become established through the years and no cultural changes (new rock trends) have altered it.

Ghmyrtle argued in my talk page that this view only takes into account the situation in the US. The thing is, the US is not any country in the global scene of music. The US is a major producer of media and entertainment. In fact, it is "the" global producer par excellence. Any change that happens in the US is bound to alter the course in trends in all the other countries in the world, no matter how distant they are geographically, culturally, politically or ethnically. In addition, major media and entertainment companies are headquartered in the US, and their subsidiaries all around the world follow the legal frames and parameters from their parent companies. This is showed in that, even if you are from Argentina, when you read the terms of agreement of a certain software or online service, you read that you must comply with the Laws of California or the Laws of the US. Thus, a shift in the US music scene has effects in the scenes of the UK, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, etc. The enormous influence that the bands and artists from the US make in the rest of the world alters the kind of product that the other countries are going to generate. And the US models in media and entertainment also affect those patterns.

In the rest of the section I describe a certain pattern since 2000 of increasing growth of online consumption of music, and progressive decline of physical sales. Again, I included an ammount of references in the text to support this content. I talk about 1999 as the last year of an era, the last year that the music industry had growth in revenue, the last year that the CD as a format achieved growth. The following years not only the industry would never reach that peak again, but also each year would be a step down the stairs, with no steps upwards. I also talk about Napster and how, although it failed, set a precedent that other enterprises would follow. Then I talk how starting in 2013 the industry began to make small improvements in revenue again, now with a new model based on streaming and Youtube views. In truth, there are also now niche markets such as the return of the vinyl as a kind of "deluxe" or "collector" thing with high quality sound, but by far most of the revenue now is by online consumption. Rock is one of the genres that were most benefitted by the continuous technology advances in music recording through the decades, exemplified in the success of longer lengths in vinyls, which made possible the concept of gathering many separate singles to form a music album, and which in rock music led to a model of producing albums where all the songs follow a particular theme (the concept album). Thus, the return to stardom of the single format in the music industry and the decline of rock's favored format, the album, has had big effects in the course of rock music.

Lastly, I changed the name of the section "Mainstream decline (2010s)" to "Problems in the mainstream charts". Obviously, it is related to my proposal of standardization of titles and abstention of using decades. But also, declaring that rock is banished from the mainstream is hugely misleading. Rock continues to be mainstream in many countries around the world. Rock is one of the dominant genres at least in North America, Europe, Latin America, Northeast Asia and Australasia. Rock bands and artists continue to have some of the highest grossing tours and gigs all around the world, their albums continue to be among the best selling albums of the year, and news about rock are broadcast in significant media outlets. If we are talking about that nowadays the top 10 in the Billboard Hot charts are artists from pop, hip hop or electronic music, then it isn't the first time this has happened in history, lots of times since rock was born the top 10 was dominated by other genres of music. And, seeing the long-term effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it is completely unsurprising that rock would be dented by more polished genres. But then again, this is only a phenomenon seen in mainstream charts, and if your only means of evaluating the state of rock music is by listening to what the major media companies churn out through the mainstream charts, well, you would be misled into thinking that rock has banished from the mainstream, when in truth these are only "problems in the mainstream charts", hence the proposed title.
And those were all the changes I made in my edit.

One last commentary before I finish. I don't think rock will ever disappear. Rock has already made an impact so huge in the history of modern culture that I doubt that it would ever completely fade away. One can't delete, just like that, a musical movement that broke so many records and starred in so many significant cultural and political events of so many countries. Just think about this: before rock appeared, how many music genres could fill up a football (or soccer, if you are from the US) stadium? A couple of months ago, I was vacationing in the seaside city of Mar del Plata, and all of a sudden hoards of people appeared blocking the wide seaside boulevard avenue: they were gathering for the concert of Divididos, an Argentine rock band. The next day, the newspaper said that 140,000 people were in attendance. These are the kind of things that show you that rock will never die.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope you get responses from other editors, but WP:TLDR may apply. My own views are:

1. I think your first point has some merit, and I'd be happy with a section cut-off round about 1963.
2. What you are then suggesting is, effectively, a merging and lengthening of existing sections, in a way that would not be especially helpful to readers - although, I do think that (say) 1963 and 1976 are good start and end points. Personally (as I'm British) I loath the excessive use of the term "British Invasion" - it's a cheap journalese shorthand for the adoption by British bands of, firstly, R&B music largely ignored by mainstream white US, and secondly the performing of self-written material. What your second section in fact covers is the transition from "r'n'r" into rock, via the British bands, surf music, garage bands, psychedelia, prog rock, etc. - but then continuing on into the splitting of "rock" into discrete sub-genres like heavy metal, soft rock, glam, etc., in the early and mid-1970s. I think that's potentially confusing, and perhaps all we need are more informative headings for the existing sections, perhaps with some tweaking.
3. I've no problem with "punk and aftermath" as a heading....
4. ... but I dislike "Alternative and aftermath". What does it mean? - in fact, I'm not comfortable with "Alternative" as a heading.
5. The main problem for me, as you say, is the interpolation of your suggested section "Decline of the physical sales and aftermath" (that word again). It's a problem because the article is essentially about the music itself, not about the way it is packaged and marketed. So, the text about the changes in the music industry should be set out (if they haven't already been) in the article on the Music industry. Perhaps some aspects could be briefly summarised here, but they should not be the main focus of an entire section - and legislation that is specific to the US, while important and globally influential, should not be given undue weight. (Bear in mind, for example, that half of the top eight best-selling acts in the rock era are British.) You refer to "Problems in the mainstream charts" - again, this is not discussing the music itself, which is the focus of this article, but rather its promotion and marketing. That's important, of course, but it's not the story we should be telling in this article, in my view.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ghmyrtle, I agree that my post may have been a little long. It's just that I wanted to properly explain my proposed changes. Now, in response to your comments:

2) I don't see it as troublesome that the section would be lengthened. Also, one has to bear in mind that the period between 1964 and 1977 was a time of a multitude of changes in rock music and increasing improvement in the mechanics of recording. Thus, in my view, it wouldn't be the section's fault that it was lengthy, rather, it would just reflect how the situation and changes in rock history were (also, the "Punk" section covers events spawning 13 years, almost the same as my proposed section). I also don't see it as confusing that we include in this section the genres that gained prominence in the pre-punk 70s (metal, soft, glam): they had roots in the genres of the late 60s, instead of being an abrupt cut to the previous sound like punk was.

4) In that title I meant that, after the explosion of alternative rock in 1991, there were other genres that gained prominence. Besides "alternative", I can't think of any other word that would concisely and accurately point out the main force of change.

5) But if we go by the argument that the article should be discussing only the music itself, then the "Decline in mainstream" section shouldn't be here. Neither should be the "Early 1970s" section. Personally, as the evolution of rock is intrinsically tied to technological and cultural patterns, in my view there has to be some explanation about them, in order to properly understand why the changes in rock happened.

--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:TLDR isento (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your changes made this article far less accessible to readers. Follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This article encompasses many different trends, time periods, and styles. Provide an accessible overview, relegating further detail to the sub-articles. This article was delisted from GA-status because of WP:COATRACK and WP:DETAIL issues, issues which you've made worse IMO. The previous structure worked fine in suggesting or intimating a kind of chronology to readers, without getting hung-up on details of chronology. Many relocations make no sense - you imply that subgenres like jazz rock and rap rock are products of the British invasion. isento (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Isento, be careful, it is a vandalism to delete a stable version that has been since months, and without first discussing here. I gave one full month to anyone willing to discuss the proposed changes here, the fact that there weren't comments opposing my proposals were a sign of their approval.

My proposed version is more helpful to the readers, because it follows a chronollogical, linear narrative. The previous version was too confusing and didn't have a focus in the reasons why the trends happened (say, progressive rock appeared out of nowhere, it didn't have any relation to the huge influences brought in 1964 by the British invasion).

If the article was delisted from GA-status, it was with YOUR proposed version. So, it is YOUR proposed version that is inferior and deficient.

Lastly, the fact that you don't see any relations between the huge long-term changes brought by the British invasion and the genres that spawned in the following 13 years, is a huge warning sign that you lack knowledge of the history of rock.

--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Diablo del Oeste - please do not describe other editors' good faith edits as "vandalism"; please do not claim that your knowledge is superior to that of other editors; and please do not try to claim that any editor's failure to discuss your edits here within one month means they lose the right to discuss them. That's not how it works. Many of the posts on this page are TL:DR. What is needed is a succinct summary of the differences between the versions, so that constructive discussion can develop. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't "good faith". He edited in a very denigrating way, the first thing he said was that it was "awful". Rodney Baggins has just said something about erasing 41 editions, well... Isento erased the hard work of dozens of users that edited in the past months in this article. So, Isento did a much worse thing than anything that has been seen in this article, and the clearest sign of all, is that he erased info worth 18,000 characters that was compiled over the last months. Without reasoning, without coming here to talk it over. And that's vandalism.

TL:DR is a guide on how to write articles, not talk pages. Talk pages are supposed to be the places were changes can be discussed in all the length that is necessary. After all, Wikipedia's policies about dispute resolution state that there has to be significant discussion before a third party is called. Now tell me, Ghmyrtle, did you provide significant discussion back in April? No. You just walked away, and I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't by this argument with Isento, you wouldn't respond my message again.

Anyway, I have the knowledge from lots of books about rock history, and I certainly had the patience to navigate through all of them. And if you have the patience and attention span to read my arguments, and to follow Wikipedia's procedurals in dealing with edit disputes, then you are welcome to this debate. My arguments have been there for you to see, since quite a few months ago.

--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In your revision, there is practically no discussion of the British invasion in any of the subsections that follow the first two or three subsections in your "British invasion and its aftermath" concoction, in which there are 21 subsections. Doesn't exactly establish itself as a section about the British invasion, now does it? isento (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Given Diablo's attitude towards other editors and their edits, I see little point in trying to engage with her/him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And Ghmyrtle walks away from the discussion... again...--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Besides, I searched in the history of the article and you continued editing the article after I made those changes, so in the following 4 months you didn't have an objection to the proposed changes.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I summon the following users: MusenInvincible, Sundayclose, CherokeeJack1, Antikillerspirit.

Alright, I summoned you to notify you that your hard work editing the article of Rock music, the hard work in which you spent the last 4 months, the hard work you made investigating in various sources, gathering information, compiling it and editing it in a comprehensible way that is fit for the Wikipedia standards, all of that hard work worth 4 months and more than 18,000 characters has been erased in just 1 second by the user Isento. Without discussing it, without wanting to reach a consensus. This most heinous act of vandalism, clearly typified in the category «Blanking, illegitimate», doesn't have a place in Wikipedia and must be stopped.

In my proposed structure of this article, your good faith editions will be restored. Also, the good faith editions that Rodney Baggins has made over the last days will too be restored; through this discussion we will find a way to compile all of that varied information from various users in a comprehensible text, fit for Wikipedia's standards.

--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Spinning off history?

I think the history sections should be spinned off into a new "History of rock music" article. The current article is too long (this was [Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rock music/1 - Wikipedia}(cited) as a reason for the demotion from GA status). Instead, the article would have a short history section that summarizes major developments in rock music in a single narrative without any subsections, and another section which outlines the subgenres alongside a short description of each (they could still be chronologically listed). I am willing to do all the work and will do so if no objections arise. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Nevermind, the article is fine as it is. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What's Going On?

Rock music has all of its subgenres listed under it, but when I tried to do the same for Electronica, Heavy Metal, Extreme Metal, Metalcore, Punk Rock, Hardcore Punk, and Electronica, my changes kept getting reverted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:C4D:3A4:9D96:4EF2 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Album Era?

On the article overview, There was a paragraph about the start of the Album Era in rock music and how it was important, although it seems to have been deleted. Before its deletion, I did edit it to include the Albums Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, and Rubber Soul as prime examples of the start of the era, but, like I said, it has been completely deleted. Is it unnecessary to add a paragraph explaining the start of the album era in rock music?