Jump to content

Talk:List of deaths in rock and roll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mrs. Jan Cola (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 18 March 2016 (→Add Frank Sinatra, Jr.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I decided to create this page today when trying to remember if an artist had died or whether I as confusing them with someone else. I couldn't find any good reference lists of deaths in rock. So I decided to create this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argeiphontes (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 August 2006

age at death

Any thoughts on putting the artist's age at death when the DOB is available? --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 03:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. It's relevant to the topic and interesting to know. If we know how, where, and when the person died, we might as well put how old they were. - k|e|n|g - t | c - 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some missing

I don´t see Steve Clark (Def Leppard), Jeff Porcaro (Toto), Marvin Gaye and Frank Sinatra. And I don´t think Selena was a Rock and Roll artist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aslavenas (talk • contribs) 03:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC). I don't see Jim Ellison from Material Issue, he killed himself in his garage choking on Carbon Monoxide in 1996. Nor do I see Stuart Anderson who was and led Big Country, he hung himself in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeLaRue (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I do not see Aaliyah Dana Haughton (January 16, 1979 - August 25, 2001), ? She was 22 when her plane crashed leaving the Bahamas after a video shoot. If the have Tupac listed. he is not rock and roll. So Aaliyah should be listed also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.114.110 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have no idea how to edit the actual "list of deaths in rock and roll" page page, so I will mention a few from the 2000s that are missing:

Matt Fitzgerald, Jeremy Gage and Adam Cox all of The Exploding Hearts-- died in a car crash on July 20, 2003.

Bruce C. Allen, guitarist for the Suburbs December 07, 2009

Vic Chesnutt, December 25, 2009 (suicide)

Chuck Biscuits, legendary punk drummer (D.O.A., Danzig and Social Distortion) October 24, 2009 (throat Cancer)

Willie DeVille, August 6, 2009

Jay Bennett, (Wilco & Titanic Love Affair) May 24, 2009

Ellie Greenwich, August 26, 2009

Delaney Bramlett (Delanie & Bonnie), December 27, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbvraul (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add these yourself. Wikipedia is a joint effort between many people. — Kendra Michele — 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



What about Buddy Rich and Johnny 'Guitar' Watson?

Buddy Rich died of heart failure following surgery for a malignant brain tumor on April 2, 1987.

Johnny 'Guitar' Watson died on stage May 17, 1996, while on tour in Yokohama, Japan. According to eyewitness reports, he collapsed mid guitar solo. His last words were "ain't that a bitch", probably in reference to the song "Ain't that a Bitch".

Source: Wikipedia

Feel free to add them in. You don't need permission to add things to articles on Wikipedia. Just add it in, using the format used in the article. :-) — Kendra Michele — 14:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style Content

To make the content easier to read how about either alphabetizing each name in the proper decade list or at least put the list together in date of death order?

Ric Grech (Blind Faith) - Liver and Kidney failure, March 17, 1990 in Leicester, England

seems to be in contradiction with what is found in the article about him on this site, where its says he died of cerebral hemoragia. someone should check this out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.183.116 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table

I was going to turn this information into a comprehensive table. Does anyone oppose? - k|e|n|g - t | c - 14:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. — Kendra Michele — 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this list?

I would entirely understand, and support, a list of rock and roll musicians (and related people - songwriters, producers, etc.) who have died young, for whatever reason. But rock and roll as a genre is now about 60 years old, and it's not surprising, or particularly interesting or notable, that many of its early practitioners, and a growing proportion of later musicians, have died. There are other sites - notably The Dead Rock Stars Club - that provide much more comprehensive lists than we do here. Should there be an age cut-off point for this article, so that we only list musicians who have died under the age of, say, 40, or 50? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but at the same time, I don't believe that the intention of this list was to only list musicians who have unfortunately passed away at a young age. If, for instance, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd passed away (as he inevitably will), I would want to see him on this list, regardless of his age. I've sometimes wondered the nobility of this article entirely, seeing as it began as a list of rock and roll deaths but has evolved into a list of musicians in general, but questioning who should be included based on just age doesn't seem right. Just my opinion, though. :-) — AngelCaboodle — 00:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have List of deaths in jazz? Or List of deaths in classical music? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why not. Both are notable in my opinion. :-) — AngelCaboodle — 21:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this list is sick. Does it mean it is "rock and roll" (like 'cool' somehow) to die of "rock and roll" behaviour (like drug abuse) or is it "rock and roll" to commit suicide because of financial problems?. Pete Ham is not a Rock and roll musician.(E-Kartoffel (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I think most people would class him as a rock musician, but I share the underlying concern. If this article is to continue, there needs to be some guidance about who it should cover, and why. What is "encyclopedic" about this list? If it were restricted to cover rock musicians who died at a relatively young age (which I assume was the original intention), it would be more defensible than the current ragbag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list could be changed to a list of musicians, regardless of genre. However, then we get into issues of notability... although, really, we're facing that issue with the list as it is. I don't really see the purpose of a list of deaths in rock and roll; there is no (non-original) research that draws conclusions from the information given. Although I've contributed a lot to this article (I converted the former bulleted lists into tables a few years ago), I don't really have an opinion of whether the article should even exist at all. — AngelCaboodle — 05:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the list interesting and I'd be disappointed to lose it completely, but I think it should be trimmed, and criteria established. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the limit should be rock and roll musicians who have notable deaths - where there's a reliable source focusing on the circumstances of the death itself rather than merely the fact a famous person died. Things like "complications following colon surgery age 89", "peacefully in his sleep", "after a fall in the nursing home" are what you'd see on line three of an obituary, whereas "shot himself", "drug overdose" or "died on stage" attract headlines of their own. All people die, even rock musicians. Not everyone dies notably, unusually, unexpectedly. This criteron would stop the list from slowly becoming identical to Category:Rock musicians 193.9.13.138 (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 193. This list should be restricted to notable, unusual deaths of notable rock and rollers. I've gotten rid of most (but not all) of those who don't have articles of their own or whose deaths are just mentioned in passing or not at all in their group's article. Many of these don't even have details about cause of death or references, just a date. For the moment, I've stopped from deleting more, but what is so unusual about people in their 50s, 60s or older dying of cancer, heart attack, or other mundane diseases (e.g. 74-year-old Big Joe Turner)? My hesitation stems from where to draw the line. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we start a new thread, below, to establish and agree these criteria? I agree that the problem is where to draw the line. There is another editor down below who argues that names should be excluded because they do not fit his definition of "rock and roll". I disagree with some of them, so that's one arguable point - there are many many definitions of "rock and roll". You suggest that there is nothing "unusual" about people dying in their 50s or 60s. That worries me (!), but in any case the introduction to the article says nothing about deaths listed here being "unusual", and I would certainly argue that unexpected deaths - like that of Gene Pitney, to give one example - should be included. Anyway, we need to establish what the criteria are - hopefully through consensus here, or with the involvement of other editors - and ensure that the article title and lead actually reflect the content of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best known songs

I've reverted an editor adding a new column of "best known songs" to this table. Do we need it? I don't think so - if this article is about anything it's about their deaths and the reasons for them, not about what they achieved in their lives - information that can be gained simply from clicking on their links. It would bloat the article and be a magnet for edit warring over what are people's "best known" songs, and how many we should list in each case. We simply don't need or want it in this article, in my opinion. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have a new colum called "Best Known Songs" or "Famous songs by the Artist" so people will be able to recognize them better and it recognizes their song talent this way. I put 4 hours of editorial work on "List of Deadrockstars", Ghymyrtle, and you removed all my editorals. All I`m asking is to share this idea. After all Wikipedia is for the public and not just for you, so don`t assume what everything you say goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The235003 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever read the "Encyclopedia of Dead Rockstars" it shows each artist`s recognized songs, so why cant we do it here? And why do you have Don Cornelius and Dick Clark in your list? They were never involved in music making. Take them away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The235003 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like Researching under the Dead Rockstars Club because there`s too many people listed on the webpage that many had little to no significance in music making. If you want to get better information check out a book called "Encyclopedia of Dead RockStars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by The235003 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 23 July 2012‎
This is a long-established article to which many editors have contributed over several years, and to date I don't think anyone else has suggested that we should add the column you suggest. If people need to know more about a particular entry, they click on the links. That is how Wikipedia works, by linking articles, not by adding unnecessary material to individual pages. The list here does not only cover performers, it also includes producers, DJs etc. (such as Dick Clark and Don Cornelius, who you deleted from the list without explanation). If all you are asking is to share your idea, what you should have done is to have canvassed the views of other editors first, either here or at (for example) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music. If you didn't know that page existed, it suggests that it might be better for you to read up on how to edit Wikipedia, rather than by diving in to make major changes to an existing article. As it is - if other editors agree with your point of view - my changes to your text can be undone with one click of the mouse. But, my very strong advice to you is to read up on the advice on how to edit Wikipedia - which I've added to your own talk page - and get other editors' views on this article before making any further changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You also need to learn how to add comments to the correct place in a thread; to indent them using these - : ; and to sign your comments using four of these - ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Thanks for adding Nick Ashford by the way - but I needed to correct his place and cause of death, which you copy-pasted without changing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no need for this column. This is not a paper encyclopedia like the "Encyclopedia of Dead Rockstars" and readers can just click on links if they need to find more about an artist. I am looking at this on a narrow display at the moment and this extra column makes the table very crowded. I am sorry if you spent four hours on this, but if you want to make major changes it is a good idea to test opinion on the article talkpage before beginning.--SabreBD (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree fully that a list of best known songs is not needed here. By using the links to the individual's own page surely provides such information. It is debatable (at best) what constitutes 'best known', and is more likely an individual editor's own preference, and therefore 'original research'. Plus the article title is "List of deaths in rock and roll" - that does not state that said individual has to have been a musician. Further consensus is needed before wholesale and arbitrary changes are made. Finally, and I do go back here to earlier discussions, and wonder whether this page is actually required. A 'List of deaths in wallpapering accidents' anyone ?
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-performers

Again, we have an editor removing mention of non-performers from the list, without any explanation apart from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Other editors are welcome to pile in, advise, warn, revert and if necessary block - I'm going out to enjoy the rarity of a warm sunny day.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I`m sorry for deleting the non-performers and I`m sorry for bugging you about "best known songs." I won`t do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The235003 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology, and thanks for adding in all the other musicians to the list as you've done over the last few hours. I'm happy to leave it at that, and hope that you learn from the experience. It would be really helpful if you could add references to the information you've added - see WP:CITE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Dead Rockstars

Hey, about the references: I got the information from Encyclopedia`s List of Dead Rock Stars and a Youtube video on list of dead rockstars but I don`t know how to cite these sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.14.145.195 (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking at the copious advice and guidelines given at reliable sources, verifiability, citing sources and YouTube. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Rock N Roll is a specific genre. I understand the inclusion of artists that while during their career crossed over from other styles into rock n roll. But artists that were specific to a genre outside of rock n roll should not be on the list. If you feel the need to just make it a list of dead musicians the name of the article should be changed. Otherwise once you include such artists and you defend the inclusion of such artists from outside the genre, then you must include all from outside the genre. Which means we must then add Mozart, Beethoven, Pavarotti, Hal Hasting, Zinka Milanov, and Leen 't Hart and so on and so on from all different styles. Swampfire (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the subject of past discussions. In many ways I agree with you - the list is bloated with the names of people with limited connections with rock and roll - or rock music (and whether or not you think the two are synonymous is a separate discussion) - and, given the length of time that the music has existed, it includes many unexceptional deaths. The article would in my view be more interesting and useful if it focused on extraordinary, rather than ordinary, deaths. The question of whether Hank Williams and Patsy Cline should be included is a small part of that wider question. Without the slightest scintilla of doubt, Hank Williams was highly influential on rock and roll music - just as influential if not more influential than, say, Muddy Waters or (to quote a recent example also included) Pete Seeger. If you listen to, say, "Move It On Over", a strong case can be made for Williams performing something very close to rock and roll. Similarly, Patsy Cline has been highly influential on many singers whose music is considered to be "rock". Another approach is to note that both Cline and Williams are listed in sources like Talevski's Rock Obituaries - here and here - and in the generally respected Dead Rock Stars site (my emphasis both times) here and here. If the argument is that the introduction to this article fails to reflect adequately the article contents, I agree. If the argument is that it includes many ordinary deaths and some only tangentially related to rock and roll, I agree. Correcting either or both of those would in my view be a substantial improvement - though the second option has been and probably would remain opposed by many other editors. But removing two names because you personally consider them to be "outside the genre" is unacceptable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being influential to rock n roll doesn't make you rock n roll, any more than Michael Jordan as a basketball player being influential to football/soccer players suddenly qualifies Jordan to be included on football/soccer lists. This is a specific genre. As I stated if you feel the need to add them back (unjustly) then I guess I'll start adding every dead musician to the list no matter the genre they come from. Adding names to the list because you personally deem them influential is unacceptable. Especially since the genre is clearly defined as rock n roll. So as I state it is what you are doing by adding them, is what is unacceptable. You need to create a county list, (and when you do add Freddie Mercury and John Lennon to it) and see what happens.Swampfire (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
now that I have found this list I will be continually monitoring it to remove such non-rock n roll artists. BTW if someone were to included such country artists as Kenny Rogers, Charlie Daniels after they die. It would be totally acceptable because they have crossed over as artists into the genre, But neither Williams or Cline ever did so. So as you can see I have no problem including country acts that actually contributed to Rock n Roll in their lifetime as an artist, my problem is including those that never did so, simply because they were well known. Beethoven, Bach and Mozart influenced a lot of rock artists should they be included as well?Swampfire (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But hey feel free to produce any citable references of Williams or Cline releasing/producing/writing anything to be specifically released as rock n roll during their lifetime. If you find it then I'll agree they belong, otherwise simply adding them because you want them here in unacceptable.Swampfire (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the false impression that this is simply an argument between you and me. It isn't. It's an argument between you, acting unilaterally based on your own opinions, and all the other editors who have contributed to the list. You also seem to be under the false impression that there are no questions about how the term "rock and roll" is defined. Anyone who knows anything about rock and roll and rock music knows that that is utter nonsense - it is impossible to come up with definitions of the terms that everyone agrees. "I will be continually monitoring it to remove such non-rock n roll artists". That is, frankly, an unbelievably and unacceptably arrogant attitude for an experienced editor to take. What reputable sources have you got that say that Kenny Rogers or Charlie Daniels count as rock and roll for the purposes of this article, but Patsy Cline doesn't? None. It's your opinion. This article is not based on one editor's opinion on what should be included. It is based on the collective inputs of many editors - not all of whom I agree with. There is massive scope for the article to be improved - but through collective discussion and agreement, not through unilateral decision making. Sadly, the issue here is simply that your behaviour is unacceptable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why to be included you should simply fall to Wikipedia standards. Which means using a verifiable citable reference that during their lifetime, they were in rock n roll or intentionally crossed over into it. Not simply saying someone in rock n roll says they were an influence to them, or that someone after they died took their work and transformed it into a rock n roll recording. It should be based on the intent of the artist themself during their lifetime. Swampfire (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second if you noticed, I haven't added Kenny Rogers or Charlie Daniels(but then again they aren't dead). I merely stated they belonged on the list long before the others. For simply reasons in the 1980's Kenny rogers intentionally released songs onto rock radio satations, And I shouldn't have to explain Charlie Daniels but I guess since you don't know the CDB was actually a Southern Rock band in the 70's and their records were released to rock radio not country. But at the end of the 70's as southern rock was dying they changed into recording country music. Heck even Garth Brooks intentionally cross over into rock radio when he released his Chris Gaines album. But as I stated I won't be adding them when they die. Also Beethoven influenced tons of rock musicians. He will never belong on the list simply because of that.Swampfire (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also you say this is not simply a discussion between me and you. But I tried and I can't find any such discussion on this page, and I sure don't see an archived version. Also I am not acting unilaterally, I simply stated if you feel the need to try and add them feel free as long as you back it up with verifiable citable references of their foray into rock n roll during their lifetime.Swampfire (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to create some criteria for the fact of even if you are in the RnR industry. What it takes to make the list. Should they be notable in the industry? Or can someone include their cousin Freddy simply because he was in a local RnR band? For starters I think if the person doesn't have a Wikipedia page they shouldn't be on the list.Swampfire (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to remove those who don't have any article at all. And here's another criterion - we should only include musicians who are included in both Talevski's Rock Obituaries and the Dead Rock Stars site. Surprise surprise, both Williams and Cline are in both. Trying to police this article by trying to decide who is "rock'n'roll enough" to be included is an endeavour doomed to disaster. For example - would you include Miles Davis? Or Marvin Gaye? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong those are both personal lists, with no real criteria on who is includedSwampfire (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is a big difference in who is rock n roll enough, and who isn't rock n roll at all. For instance Francis Scott Key is not suddenly rock n roll because Jimi Hendrix decided to record the star spangled banner.Swampfire (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Set out your criteria. Those sources, by the way, are both regarded as reliable, and are both directly relevant to the content of this article. There is a strong argument that says that only those deaths which are listed in books of rock deaths (or reliable sites) should be listed in an article on rock deaths. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard then this list needs to be deleted as it serves no purposeSwampfire (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... no, it needs good criteria, as I have said many times. What are your criteria? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the talevski book states it is not simply for the rock genre, and the dead rock star sites states the same thing. And since Wikpedia not simply about copying readily available lists. It needs defining criteria for inclusion. The first and foremost thing should be the intent of the person. Did they intend to be rock n roll or crossover into it? Second should be were they notable in the industry and on what level. Third is the list simply about people that were RnR that are now dead(even if it's just because they got old and died) Forth their actual contribution to the genre(not influence to people within the genre)Swampfire (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure more criteria can be thought of, but simply influencing someone should never be on it.Swampfire (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your suggestions are - apart from the one about basic notability, with which I agree - worthless and unworkable, because they are based on personal opinion. How do you judge "the intent of the person"? You seem to think that the answers to some of these questions are obvious. They are not. Again - would you include Miles Davis, or Marvin Gaye, or Bob Marley? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you suggestion of including people because they influenced someone(but weren't actually in the genre) is worthless and unworkable. Also the intent is into based on my personal opinion. It is based on the artists work itself. You can tell their intent by what genre they released their material within, during their lifetime. And basing what you deem to be people on them influencing someone in a completely separate genre is a personal opinion. As I have stated feel free to provide verifiable citable references of them actually releasing material within the genre and then they will belong.Swampfire (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a list was created named ""List of deaths in Heavy Metal"" George Harrison and John Lennon would NOT belong on the list, even though Ozzy Osbourne cites the Beatles as his greatest influence into becoming a music artist.Swampfire (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also if a list was create named ""List of deaths in country music"" John Bonham would not belong on the list simply because the influenced some country drummers.Swampfire (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Rather than reverting me and returning to a preposterous wording - how can you know people's intentions in that way? - please continue the discussion here. Apart from agreeing that entries without articles should be removed, nothing that you have suggested makes any sense. We should base the article on what sources say - rather on what you believe to be the case. I have suggested two sources - both with the word Rock in the title - that could form a basis for this article. And you still haven't answered my question. I'll ask it more generally. Where do you draw the line as to what is, or isn't, rock and roll - and, arising from that, what sources do you have to back up your definition? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, "the term "rock and roll" now has at least two different meanings, both in common usage: referring to the first wave of music that originated in the US in the 1950s and would later develop into the more encompassing international style known as "rock music", and as a term simply synonymous with the rock music and culture in the broad sense." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have not suggested 2 sources on what musical genre an artist belonged too. What you suggested was 2 separate peoples list of dead people in the music world, and they just happen to use ROCK in the name of their book and website. The book itself says it includes more than just people in rock, and the website actually says it includes country artists on his list. I can create my own list on my own website too and name it deadrockstarroyalty.com and included every one ever in music. That doesn't make them rock n roll simply because I put ROCK in my title. Bottom line you have NO verifiable citable references to them being in the genre. And as I have repeatedly stated both lists you stated are not list of only people in rock n roll and their list state that. You keep trying to quote a list that in themselves use NO verifiable citable references to the people on their list being in rock n roll. It's simple feel free to find verifiable citable references to them being in the genre. What you are wanting to do is make this into a ""list of deaths in music"" which it is not. Whats next, are you going to go to the ""List of female rock singers"" and include Robert Plant because he was an influence? And if you think that sounds silly, that basically the same thing you are wanting to do here.Swampfire (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have given no indication of what "in the genre" means to you. You seem to think it's obvious, and can't be disputed. It is not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

Given recent discussions, I suggest we agree some criteria for inclusion in this article, which can be listed in the article lead when we achieve consensus. I'll base my initial thoughts on what has been discussed so far, and urge editors to add their thoughts below - or add additional possible criteria. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only notable individuals with their own pages should be included

Agree with caveats: There may be exceptions - for example, several members of a notable group (like The Bar-Kays) dying in the same incident. And, I can think of deaths of individuals lacking articles that I would be reluctant to exclude (Mary Ann Ganser of the Shangri-Las, Arlester Christian of Dyke & The Blazers, Malcolm Owen of The Ruts, etc.). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with exceptions allowed. If the unarticled person's death is discussed in some length in their group's article (i.e. had a significant impact on the group), I feel they should be included. However, if they died long time after they left, then no. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (no caveats) I think if you feel an artist without a page should be included. Then a page for that artists should be created first, Then they should be added to the list.Swampfire (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only deaths which are unexpected (not age-related) should be included

Comment: There may be disagreement over what is "age-related" - does an unexpected death by a heart attack at age 66 count? It might be best, and certainly clearer, if we specify an age limit - for example, only deaths of those under 70, or 60, or 50. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the age-related criterion, but I don't think you can choose an arbitrary sharp age cutoff. Also, most fatal heart attacks are unexpected. One in your 20s, 30s, maybe even 40s is notable/shocking, not so much when you're 66. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disgree (with caveat) I think if we use the (non-age related thing) we need to then define what that means. I mean say if someone dies of cancer at 23, and someone dies of the same cancer at 86. Are neither age related, or are they both age related.Swampfire (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only "unnatural" deaths should be included

Comment: As suggested here, but not pursued. May be relatively easy to define. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...although "natural" deaths as a result of substance abuse (heart attacks, liver disease, etc.) fall into a grey area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree, with the exception of highly unusual natural deaths at an early age, e.g. Stuart Sutcliffe. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Unless the name of the page is changed to reflect the distinction. I think eliminating all the people that never actually performed as a rock n roll artist and such will be sufficient.Swampfire (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only deaths of those who performed what is clearly "rock and roll" should be included

Comment: Only performers? What about producers, etc.? And, there are myriad difficulties in defining what is "rock and roll". Should Hank Williams - a formative influence on rock and roll - be included? What about Bob Marley, or Marvin Gaye, or Patsy Cline, or Miles Davis? Do any, or all, of those count as "rock and roll"? I would support an inclusive approach, rather than attempting to pigeonhole creative artists into a tightly defined genre. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree (sort of). As long as this list has this title, anybody closely associated should be included. However, I don't like adding people who are influences. That's going a bit too far, IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree(with caveat) I don't think it should be just performers(because of the name of the page) But I do think it should be only people of notable careers in the development of the artists career. Such as producers, and songwriters and such. I don't think it should included people that are simply a ceo of a label, or roadies. As far as performers I think it should be defined as "clearly rock n roll" it's really very easy to find a verifiable citable reference to an artist releasing material for rock/pop listeners if you look. Swampfire (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable Citable References

Comment As with all Wiki pages should reference of their material released within the genre be included, And not simply a reference to them being on someone elses list, or simply a reference to them being deadSwampfire (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting weary with repeating myself, but what do you mean by within the genre? Would you require the words "rock and roll" to be contained in their obituary? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though by now you would have educated yourself on what a music genre is, also saying you someone is rock n roll, is not the same what genre their music is released in. George Strait can say he is Rock n Roll, but if the only music he has ever written/produced/performed is strictly country and only released to the country market, well then he's country and not rock n roll. As I have stated before it seems as though you think all music is Rock n Roll, which is laughable.Swampfire (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This obsession with genres (and categories) is a bizarrely US phenomenon. The rest of the world does not have "markets" in the same way - it does not, for example, have different charts, or different radio stations, for so-called different "genres", to anything like the same extent. What we need to do here is take a global perspective - not one which tries to apply the narrow definitions that you seem to insist on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you say you don't understand what a music genre is, and yet you want to edit genres, not only that, Country music is a bizarrely US phenomenon(with the small exception of Canada and Australia). Which is obviously why you don't understand why traditional country artists do not belong in a rock n roll category. Which is why I said the only way to keep people like you that do not understand what a music genre is, to come along and add people that have no business on the list. As I have stated time and time again what you want is a "list of deaths in music" not a list of deaths in rock n rollSwampfire (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also you say the rest of the world doesn't have genres, if that's so I'm guessing BBC Radio 1xtra and Capital Xtra often are blasting Judas Priest. and I'm guessing Kiss radio in England often blasts Iron maiden and Black Sabbath. I'm also guessing you think Luciano Pavarotti belongs on this list since ""In your opinion"" the world doesn't have genres.Swampfire (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, again. Of course genres of music exist - the problem here is with trying to categorise musicians in the way you suggest, based on some assessment of whether they typically, or intentionally, play music that fits within one single genre. Most leading musicians play music that transcends tightly defined genres. One of the most typically "country" performers was Johnny Cash - do you think that he "has no business" to be on this list, despite the fact that he (for example) recorded what would now be called rockabilly at the Sun studios, and recorded with Rick Rubin? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Ghm here, Swampfire. But would we not have to be guided by the genre(s) given at the article for each performer? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Ghmyrtle MOST people in genre such as country music in the U.S. do not transcend their tightly defined genres. However some do cross-over into other styles. Johnny cash is one of those to cross-over. First in his early career he played Rockabilly the same as Elvis Presley and they even played quite a few shows together in the 50's. Also throughout his career he released music on both styles on radio. Then towards the end of his career after country radio in America cast him out as no longer relevant, he turn to Rick Rubin as his producer in which they began releasing more edgier material which was aimed more at a rock radio style, but once country radio saw that he was building a brand new audience in the rock/folk world they embraced him back onto their airwaves. Then of course there was the Million Dollar Quartet with (Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis and Carl Perkins). As I have stated if you want to turn this page into a dumping list of every dead person in music, then the name of the page needs to be changed.Swampfire (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Swampfire, you ought to write an article about him! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Swampfire - can I remind you that this discussion has nothing to do with anything I want to do with this article. I was reasonably content with it as it was, though I think it could be improved by firmer criteria for inclusion. It is you, Swampfire, who has sought to change the article - without consensus - from what it was (by removing Williams and Cline, in particular). And you have still not indicated what your criteria for inclusion would be, except by vague and ill-defined references to genre. You have still not indicated what your definition of rock and roll is, let alone started to convince anyone else that your definition is the one that should be used here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated please include verifiable citable references to their rock n roll releases and then I will agree they should be on the list. I have not sought to change the article simply by maintaining that if you wish to include someone that you follow standards set forth by Wikipedia. So by all means why don't you take the amount of time you have spent trying to complain, to get them on the list. And spend that time trying to find the citable referencesSwampfire (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My thoughts

As I stated far earlier on this page, I am not certain that this list is 'needed' at all. Certainly the current name for the article is unhelpful, as there are people listed who do not fall in the rock and roll genre. In fact, to use the relatively narrow definition of the terminology, very few of those named here were true rock and roll performers. Age limits, and causes of death limitations, probably create more problems than it solves. I suspect the original intention was to list those such as Buddy Holly, but it has thereafter grown like topsy.
Frankly, I suspect consensus will be very difficult to achieve, and awkward to police as time passes. Negative thoughts I know, but I am not very enthusiastic about this list.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to propose it for deletion, of course... but a consensus there would be even more difficult to achieve. So, if it stays, we need clear criteria that will allow it to become more useful as an encyclopedia article. By the way, an early version of the article looked like this - so, quite wide-ranging even then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Derek, especially if this list is simply to copy and paste people from other lists.Swampfire (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I believe

I think the name rock and roll has changed so much. For many, it's a genre associated with the 1950s and 1960s, for others, it goes further to the 1970s and 1980s in terms of hard rock music, and for some, it's a blanket name for all of these genres that have emerged since the first generation rock and roll emerged in the mid-1950s, which can explain why Marvin, Patsy and them are included. I'll add more but these are my initial thoughts after seeing this. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Patsy Cline and Hank Williams were removed here - I've tried reinstating them, but that has so far not been accepted - see the thread above this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the criteria, except the limitation to the narrow definition of rock and roll. I think at least a definition that includes rock works better.--SabreBD (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding in formatting here. The criteria up above are not my suggestions. I listed them that way as criteria to be considered, and expected other editors to add their comments underneath each of them, as a way of perhaps getting towards a consensus. I don't necessarily think they're workable as they stand. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't edit when I'm this tired. I will try to take a detailed look tomorrow.--SabreBD (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though the excuse for including Patsy and Hank are because they were included on 2 people private lists, One in a book(that clearly states the book includes people not in rock) and the other a website(which on the website that person states they include country artists) Artists such as Patsy and Hank devoted their entire career to country music and never tried crossing over into rock n roll of the time. Such artists should not be included. As I stated before Ghmyrtle wants to include them based on them being an influence to some people in the Rock n Roll world. If you then open this list up to those standards then this list is useless. Muchless it seems as though he just wants the page to copy and paste the people from those lists making this page entirely unnecessary. As I haver continually stated to him. PLEASE use a verifiable citable reference to them actually releasing material for rock n roll, and then they should be included. but if he can't find such reference it is because they don't exist. Because those artists were exclusively country. This page is about Rock n Roll and not about simply famous people in all genres and should be treated with that respect.Swampfire (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read above to a discussion I have already had with Ghmyrtle what he is basically wanting is no different than adding Beethoven to this list because he was an influence as well. I don not think the list should be narrowly defined. I do think it should partially be based on whether they actually played rock n roll, produced rock n roll records, wrote rock n roll songs (during their lifetime). To me it is actually disrespecting Hank and Patsy's career to try and include them on a list of a genre that they stayed away from musically. I feel as though Ghmyrtle should actually create a new list for those artists, or the name of this page should be changed.Swampfire (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I do not want to include Beethoven - I want to apply criteria. It's no use saying that they should be "rock n roll" people if you do not explain how you define the term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want to include people simply because they were an influence, so by that standard you want to include BeethovenSwampfire (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the fun...

If List of unusual deaths is anything to go by, we can look forward to at least 10 RfDs. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) but this might be a useful source: [1][reply]

That's one of the sources I've proposed using as a basic source, but it's been suggested that some of its entries should not count as "rock" (with or without the "roll"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of surprising, given the title of the book. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see we don't (yet) have List of deaths in jazz, but I'm already proposing (and predicting) Blood, Chet and Tears. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing truly ROCK about that book is the title. It cleary states genres from outside Rock n Roll were used in making the list. Also that book is simply one persons list that he released as a book, and as far as a verifiable citable reference goes, that book is simply a reference to the death, Without the book itself citing references to how the person was Rock N Roll. The only real qualification to be in his book, was that you actually be dead.Swampfire (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, well even that's not always certain with some rock stars. But I getting a distinct feeling of deja entendu from your comment there. In fact, I'm half expecting The Gloom Father to re-appear from the abyss any time now... demanding at least three authoritative sources for any entry Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest solution may just be to change the name of the page.Swampfire (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To what? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"List of tragic deaths in the music industry" That way all genres can be included, and yet we remove such things as old age(yet things like cancer could still be included)Swampfire (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most deaths are "tragic" to someone. And, as Martin suggests, we would need authoritative sources describing them as "tragic". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said for the use of the word "unnatural"Swampfire (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not true - deaths are either due to "natural causes" or not. But any criterion for deciding which deaths should be included will cause some deaths to be left out. You either include all deaths, or only those below a certain age - or you only include "notable" deaths, as now, while recognising that leaves great flexibility over interpretation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be simply about age. If Tony Bennett or BB King dropped dead suddenly right now. It would be a tragedy despite their age. Also I am not speaking of the tragedy that it is to someone that knows them. I am speaking of the sudden tragedy to the industry and fans. Also what if someone lets say 23 drops dead of a massive heartattack while on stage playing a show, by the term "unnatural" they shouldn't be included.Swampfire (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tragic? Well, kinda. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it could become, could include ALL genres, while at the same time remove those that died simply because of old-age, of those retired from the industry.Swampfire (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically should be about those still actively in the industry, and the death was unexpectedly short (like cancer or illness of less than a year)Swampfire (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.. could we have Bizarre deaths in zydeco, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Rock and Roll" ??

Then why are people like Wes Montgomery, Miles Davis, and Chet Baker on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.3 (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article survive given it is completely unsourced

One reference to another Wiki article, most deaths completely unsourced. How does this article survive? Left like this nothing is verified and entries could just be completely wrong? Entries either need verifying or deleting.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. The tables need an extra column adding for "Source(s)". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae? Soul? Jazz? Gospel? R&B? Country? Perry Como??

Do the recent additions highlight the problematic definition of the genre, or are they just completely misplaced? Should other articles be created for these other genres? I see there has been quite extensive discussion of this and related topics already. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with either including people who influenced rock (and indeed roll), or including people from closely related genres. Splitting the article up into more strictly defined genres would be a recipe for disaster... or, at least, endless and pointless edit wars that we can live without. As the introduction says, it's never going to be a definitive list - it's just a fun article for browsing through (which could be better referenced - though we could probably just source everything to the Dead Rock Stars Club). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... can't keep up - Major genre invasion, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a workable definition of rock and roll that restricts it to a genre of music performed between about, say, 1954 and 1964, when it transmuted (via the Beatles, etc.), into "rock music". But that is a very tight definition, and some would see (and often do see) a definition that excludes parallel and (at least) massively overlapping genres such as R&B, jazz, gospel, soul, reggae, disco, rap, etc. etc., as, frankly, somewhat racist as well as not useful. (Of course, I'm not accusing you of being racist - but look again at the implications of your heading.) As I've said before, I think clear criteria should be set for inclusion in this article (as well as including references). It's just that I don't think anyone benefits from setting those criteria too tightly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shucks. And I thought Elvis was black. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
A latecomer. Try this, this, this and (of course) this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So looks like Charley Patton, Pinetop Smith, Blind Roosevelt Graves and the rest of the Mississippi Jook Band, are all missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a lot easier to define a starting date for rock and roll (somewhere between 1946 and 1954, though the phrase was used much earlier and the style started to develop much earlier), than it is to define the genre itself (unless you take the tight 1954-64 definition I mentioned). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a relief. "Racist? moi??"... thank goodness Billy is still around. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's a nice down home country gal. Do you think the genres in her info box suggest she should be here? I've got nothing against Kitty, and I'm sorry she died of a stroke at the age of 92. But I searched in vain for the words "rock" or even "roll" in her article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC) ... sing it Kitty one! ... and Kitty too[reply]
I doubt we can define a starting date for rock and roll. Currently our lengthy article on the origins of rock and roll contains a list of key recordings starting with "My Man Rocks Me (With One Steady Roll)" (1922) and ending with "That's All Right" (1954). I wonder if the deaths of all these pioneer rockers have been included here. In any case, what music genres are closely related enough and should be included here?:
Dare I suggest "it's all a bit subjective". The way things stand, this article could become one of the longest lists at Wikipedia. Not sure how useful, though. Personally, I'd use the genre(s) used in the individual's infobox (if they have one). No reason why other genres should not have their own lists, if needed. There might be a lot of overlap, of course. Maybe "main genre" should be used? I'm really not sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe User:Thomas.W has a view? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to change it, if their genre isn't listed as "rock and roll" they don't belong in the list. Create new lists for jazz, Perry Como (!?) or whatever you want, but don't widen the scope of this list, because it's long enough as it is. Thomas.W talk 15:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be the easiest and fairest criterion to apply. Martinevans123 (talk)
@Binksternet:@Thomas.W: Were those criteria applied in this edit? I see no evidence that only those musicians whose genre is defined in their articles as "rock and roll" have been retained. If I am wrong, please correct me. In any case, the criterion that "...if their genre isn't listed as "rock and roll" they don't belong in the list" has been asserted, but not agreed. Clearly, editors have many different interpretations of what "rock and roll" means. Should it, for example, only include musicians who performed that music between, say, 1954 and 1959? Should it exclude musicians who are included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, like Marvin Gaye? Is it, in fact - as some would argue - simply racist to exclude many of those soul, etc., musicians who have been excluded in the recent edits? I'm not explicitly accusing any editors of that - but it is a point worth considering.
I live in hope that editors on this page will, one day, engage in a constructive and comprehensive discussion on this page about what criteria should be used for inclusion in this list. But, what we still seem to have currently is individual editors asserting that their own particular definitions for inclusion are correct, and in particular that their definition of "rock and roll" is correct. That isn't necessarily the case - there are many definitions of the term, and many possible criteria for inclusion in this list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So could we use those genres that are used in the info box and/or opening section for each artist? If so, I see that the very first list entry Cecil Gant might have to be excluded as a blues artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it is applied consistently, that would be one approach (though I note that Frank Watkins (see below) does not have R&R listed as a genre). Other approaches may be equally valid. For example, it seems perverse to me to exclude inductees of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. We should also take into account consistency with our article - which, at present, makes a clear(ish) distinction between R&R and "rock music" which itself is debatable (and has been much debated). I doubt whether the genre of "rock and roll" is applied to many of those currently listed here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say most of the existing entries are rock musicians. So maybe there's an argument for an article re-name here? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with any comment that starts "I'd say..." is that other people, perhaps, wouldn't. If it's important to people that this article meets the highest possible standards (which, perhaps, is debatable), it needs clear and unambiguous criteria that everyone accepts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the existing entries are rock musicians. Agree the article needs clear and unambiguous criteria that everyone accepts. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Watkins

From Obituary and Gorgoroth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Jan Cola (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Now added, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non rock and roll artists

So, I'm curious what artists, and genres don't belong on this list. Does the article on the person have to say 'rock and roll' in order for them to be relevant? Or how does it work? 2602:304:CDC0:D470:C07B:65AE:97D4:9298 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are persisting in making changes to the list without explanation. Your editing is disruptive. Use edit summaries, and explain here what you are trying to achieve. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about commenting in the ongoing discussion two threads above? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not only that there is no consensus over who should be included in a "deaths in rock and roll" list, there is no consensus over what to do about it, and - apparently - an unwillingness among some of those who seem to hold strong views on the matter to communicate on this page. Some editors seem to think that it's "obvious" who should be covered, or not covered, when that is clearly not the case. As I've said before, there is a need for editors to communicate with each other on this page, with a view to achieving a consensus on the criteria that should be used to decide inclusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see I'm the only one who has expressed a clear opinion, and suggested criteria to go by when adding content, so until others make their views clear, and/or suggest alternate criteria for inclusion, I see no need to add anything... Thomas.W talk 16:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I asked "So could we use those genres that are used in the info box and/or opening section for each artist?" I can re-write that as my clear opinion if required. You seemed to agree with that. Ghmyrtle suggested also including (any others) who have been inductees to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W:. So, you suggest that "if their genre isn't listed as "rock and roll"" they shouldn't be included. Is that right? As well as contravening WP:CIRCULAR, that would exclude many, if not most, on the current list. We should, at the very least, seek to base any criteria on reliable sources independent of Wikipedia - or, go back to the previous approach of taking a liberal view towards inclusion. As a matter of interest, what would your view be if the article was moved to "List of deaths in rock music". Would your opinion be identical, or different? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{Currently the article uses no sources independently to establish any links to "rock and roll". I had been assuming that any genre used from an article would itself be supported by reliable sources at that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Sourcing is clearly a major issue with this article. But, what precisely should sourcing cover? For instance. should we be looking for specific mentions of the term "rock and roll" in articles about them, or would the word "rock" be sufficient? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle: I have expressed my opinion, and proposed criteria for inclusion. If there's a consensus for different criteria, or a move in order to widen the scope of the list, I will of course abide by that decision, but I see no reason to change my stated opinion. Thomas.W talk 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W:. I am trying to clarify what your opinion is. So, you suggest excluding those who do not list "rock and roll" in their infobox - like, for example, Frank Watkins, whose article refers to heavy metal, death metal, and black metal, but not "rock and roll". Is that right? Sorry - the answer may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to everyone else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I'm suggesting, as I already told you on my talk page. Let people slug it out on the artists' own talk pages, and decide their genres there, where editors interested in the artists can see the discussion, and take part in it, and not here. Thomas.W talk 17:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, just to be clear, you're saying Frank Watkins should not be here as there is no "rock and roll" genre at his article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If rock and roll isn't listed as a genre, then yes. But that's no comment on whether his genre was r&r or not, that has to be decided on Frank Watkins, not here. Thomas.W talk 18:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with where a decision on his genre should be made. I added Watkins as I believed that the article, as it stands, allows for artists of all types of rock genres, not just rock and roll. Do you think this is what the article should be ( - and this should involve a name change)? Or do you think we should restrict it to rock and roll performers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move to List of deaths in rock music if someone proposed such a move, but with the current name/scope of the article Watkins doesn't belong here. Thomas.W talk 18:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what Ghmyrtle suggests. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from other editors as well. The problem is that "rock and roll" has several meanings. As the article says, it "can refer either to the first wave of music that originated in the US in the 1950s prior to its development into "rock music", or more broadly to rock music and culture." Infoboxes contain the specific genres used by musicians, and the genre of r&r is specifically that which emerged during the 1950s before it diversified into more specific new genres within the overarching area of "rock music" - which, confusingly but routinely, was and is also called "rock and roll". So, an infobox genre-based criterion for this article would exclude many who are conventionally included within lists of deaths within "rock music" - such as, for example, Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, or Lemmy. Renaming this article would only help, really, if it is made clear at the start of the article that genres such as heavy metal, etc., are counted as being part of "rock music". But - how widely does the "etc." extend? Such musicians as Bob Marley, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, Laura Nyro, etc. etc., are included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame - as performers, not as influences. If a definition is used in this article which excludes such musicians as them, it fails to reflect the way the phrase "rock and roll" is in practice often used in the real world. In my view they should be included here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see an explanation at the start of the article - that might even avoid a rename that way. And I agree RnRHoF inductees should be allowed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Hall of Fame inductees are included, it seems to me only right that notable musicians who performed within the same genres as those Hall of Fame musicians should be included. So, not only Johnny Cash but also Patsy Cline. Not only Marvin Gaye but also Frank Reed.... etc. That would take us back to the default position that prevailed here before the recent removals of names. What would need to be done, in that case, is a clear explanation in the lead, that those musicians included are those who are notable within the wider cultural definition of "rock and roll" (that is, not the 1950s genre of r&r), which is defined in broad terms as coterminous with the definition used by the Hall of Fame. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A step too far for me, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems little value, to me, in having a list of dead R&R Hall of Fame inductees, plus people whose infoboxes contain the words "rock and roll". Apples and pears. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sour grapes, more like. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Marvin, but not Tammi? Not Johnny Burnette? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rockabilly fine by me. But not Tammy no, sorry. Or did some rock rub off from Marvin? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have none of your hand-picked obscure vintage sources here, Gmh, just to prove a point! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, Nimrat, it shows that contemporary independent sources saw her as a rock and roll performer - and that fact is important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if that's the only source that has ever said Tammy was a rock and roll artist, I'm not sure it is "an important fact". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ... is that like Nimrod, but lives in sewers and carries bubonic plague?[reply]
It simply goes back to the question of whose definition of "rock and roll" (or "rock", for that matter) we use - and, like everything else here, it should be based on what independent outside sources say, not what editors believe to be the case. Mhg = Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you adding "rock and roll" as a genre in the infobox for Tammy, based on that source? Nitram = Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's not a genre she performed in. As I said, there is a difference between rock and roll as a genre - the music played by Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, etc. - and rock and roll as an overarching label for the popular music of the late 20th and early 21st century - which is the music recognised by the Hall of Fame and the published lists I've mentioned. It is the latter meaning of rock and roll that this list has always covered. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided (Jet Magazine, 8 Feb 1968, Vol. 33, No. 18) describes her as "rock 'n' roll singer Tammi Terrell"? The article Rock and roll describes it as "a genre of popular music"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest they are using different definitions of the phrase "rock and roll". But, if someone wants to add "rock and roll" to her infobox, with that article as a source, I wouldn't stand in their way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it would not affect anything here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(@Ghmyrtle) ??? You'll need a clear consensus for that, because it's way outside the intended scope of this list, judging by the title of it (it's List of deaths in rock and roll, not List of dead musicians of all kinds). Thomas.W talk 21:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing anything different to the position held in this article until a month or two ago - and I'm not proposing anything different to the criteria adopted by the Hall of Fame. I don't see any evidence that you have accepted the fact that "rock and roll" has more than one definition. You seem to be insisting on using one (tight) definition - other definitions are widely used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone interested in this discussion - "Each year, with the announcement of the next class of nominees for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a debate swirls as to what music is considered "rock and roll." The announcement of the 2014 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees – the Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Chic, Deep Purple, Peter Gabriel, Hall and Oates, Kiss, LL Cool J, the Meters, Nirvana, N.W.A., the Replacements, Linda Ronstadt, Cat Stevens, Link Wray, Yes and the Zombies – brought with it passionate discussions as to not only who should be inducted, but also how the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum and people all over the world interpret and define rock and roll......Over the past five decades-plus, rock and roll has evolved in many directions. Numerous styles of music – from soul to hip-hop, from heavy metal to punk, from progressive rock to electronic – have fallen under the rock and roll umbrella. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame recognizes these different types of music and looks forward to seeing how rock and roll will continue to reinvent itself in the future...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The passionate discussions belong there. We can just use the outcome as a clear criterion here. It might be inaccurate criterion, but at least it's a clear one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're saying. Only Hall of Fame inductees?? This list with a deaths column?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying anybody with a "rock" genre label, plus any in that list who's dead. Goodness me, we'll be booting out Ian Fraser Kilmister next! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, "rock" would encompass any of its offshoot genres - as at List of rock genres, for example? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have to. Especially Taqwacore, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see some merit in that - especially if it serves to reduce the genre edit-warring here - but am still not convinced it would be workable. WP:CIRCULAR - I don't think we should be using WP lists as criteria for inclusion in a different WP article. I would still prefer to use reliable outside sources. As I said previously, both this book and this list could provide an external basis for inclusion (though inevitably there would be discussions over the reliability of each of them). Both take a generous view of who should be included (as does the Hall of Fame, despite its egregious exclusion of Chic). By the way, I have no problem with renaming this article, or with setting out inclusion criteria clearly at the start of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, to sum up so far: 1. We can rename the article ("List of deaths in rock music"?) 2. We can define terms and criteria for inclusion at the top of the article. 3. We can't use artists' Wiki articles, or any Wiki lists, as sources, since "Wikipedia is not a WP:RS". 4. We can't use RnR HoF induction as a source as that's incomplete and/or controversial. 5. We can use the thedeadrockstarsclub.com list as a source. 6. We can use the Nick Talevski book as a source. Everyone agreed? Any other sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that, except 4. We can use the Hall of Fame as a source, even if it's incomplete - in fact, it's the most reliable source that exists which uses the performance of "rock and roll" - in one sense, not every sense - as a criterion for inclusion. It's far more reliable than any editor asserting "but X did not perform rock and roll". Whether or not the article should be moved to another name will need to go through the requested move process, as it's potentially contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we have those three sources. Do we need more? What's the best way to get consesnsus here. Other editors have been rather quiet of late. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose simply rewording the current introduction:

In the history of rock and roll and rock music, there have been many notable deaths, many quite young but still leaving their mark on music. The following is a list of the names of many such figures, who have been associated with the genre as performers, producers, songwriters and other occupations, along with the date, cause of death, location, and age at time of death.

so that it reads:

The following is a list of notable performers of rock and roll music or rock music, and others directly associated with the music as producers, songwriters or in other closely related occupations, who have died. The list gives their date, cause and location of death, and their age.
Rock music developed from the rock and roll music that emerged during the 1950s. The terms "rock and roll" and "rock" each have a variety of definitions, some narrow and some wider. In determining criteria for inclusion, this list uses as its basis reliable sources listing "rock deaths" or "deaths in rock and roll", as well as such sources as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok. I see you have put "such sources as", Are we (allowed) to prescribe sources? There has been interminable grief over at List of unusual deaths about what constitutes a suitable source. Is any WP:RS to be allowed here? Should sources supporting inclusion in the "rock" genre always added to each entry in the table? Do we need to link to some definition of recognised "genres of rock"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be too prescriptive. Reliable sources should be provided that justify inclusion, particularly where inclusion is contentious. Of course, this doesn't address the question (not discussed this time round, but in the past) of whether all "rock" deaths should be included, or just unusual / unnatural / unexpected deaths. Perhaps that's for another time - or would it help to try to cover it in any changes now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to open an WP:RfC just on what has been proposed so far. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. I'd still like to hear other editors' comments before doing that - as you say, some editors have been quiet despite, from their edits, appearing to have strong views on the matter. I'd be happy to let things rest for a day or two, to see if others come forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree. Satan Vermin 321 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any further comments, I'll do that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

So, twenty minutes after the article protection was lifted, the unexplained IP edits started again. They are not vandalism as such - that would be easy to deal with - but some are inaccurate, and many if not most are unnecessary. None of them have edit summaries or any explanation. Some seem to geolocate to Lyndon Township, Michigan. Given that we are still (I think) waiting for a decision on how best to proceed with this article (though if two of us count as a "consensus" I'm happy to proceed on the basis I suggested in the thread above) - do we need to protect this article for a longer period against edits by unregistered editors? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What this article needs more than anything is cites. As long as it remains an unsourced list it is pretty much free game for anyone adding anything they like. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016 - Wrong cause of death

Please change the cause of death of Josefin Nilsson from "Tuberculosis" to "Unkown". It is not known what she died of. See this recent article as a reference (Google translated from Swedish to Englist): https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnoje%2Fmarie-nilsson-lind-bryter-nu-tystnaden%2F&edit-text= Fivbu (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add Frank Sinatra, Jr.

He recently died.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_deaths_in_rock_and_roll&oldid=710621201"