Talk:1950s in music

Sources

I've provided a couple sources. Retromaniac (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not done. No consensus to narrow scope of topic for this page. DMacks (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1950s in music → 1950s in popular music — In my opinion, this change is necassary to prevent confusion mainly because the article need to focus only on the most prominent and significant events and trends in popular music worldwide and not include insignificant events and trends (the significance of each event and trend is of course debatable and would be determined acording to the consensus reached by the editors). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think events in traditional music and art music are automatically insignificant? --Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the event or trend is popular enough to be mentioned - it is considered to be part of popular music history. I think that we must focus on the most significant trends and events in popular music worldwide because if we don't we might, for example, have users add information about insignificant artists/events/trends in the history of music (f.ex as a Japanese singer whom only succeeded in a small part of Japan in the 1980s). My aim is to make it clearer that these articles focus on the significant events and trends only. Please provide an example of a significant event or trend in traditional music and art music from the 1950s until today which should be included in these articles which would be excluded if we change the title to "1950s in popular music". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How will this move help if the insignificant addition is a J-pop singer? Significant events in classical music: John Williams' compositions, which are some of the most memorable music of the 1980s. The Three Tenors touring in the 1990s. Possibly the retirement of Arturo Toscanini in 1954. These could all be arguably considered "popular" events, but will attract scope complaints because they are not about popular music. --Closeapple (talk)

• Oppose moves. (I already opposed this on an old copy of Wikipedia talk:Requested moves but the section was deleted.) Normal Wikipedia guidelines for WP:UNDUE already apply to all articles and "year in subject" articles already aren't intended to be WP:LISTCRUFT; there is no need to change article names to say "excluding the insignificant parts" or anything similar. That's what maintenance tags like {{listcruft}} or {{undue}} are for. Also the nominator's view of "popular" is an ambiguous term that is redundant at best, and artificially limiting at worst. Popular music is usually taken to be a division of music genres, not a division by how popular a specific work is. If these articles are renamed, it will almost certainly lead to classical music or other forms of traditional music being omitted or argued about on the basis that they are not "popular music" (as a genre) or "popular enough" (in commercial sales) even if the subject's notability is supported by academic or critical publications. (Also, one should not be swayed by scope statements in the article like "This article includes an overview of the major events and trends in popular music". Those were added less than a month ago by the same user (User:TheCuriousGnome) who has now nominated the renaming.) --Closeapple (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article seems too rock centric

I was writing a summary of music of the 50's for a private project, unrelated to Wikipedia, and came here for some help. Surprised at all the typos (e.g., "pioneers of Rock and roll music") and stuff like this: "Blues had a huge influence on mainstream American popular music in the 1950s with the enthusiastic playing styles of popular musicians like Bo Diddley[7] and Chuck Berry,[8] departed from the melancholy aspects of blues and influenced Rock and roll music." Makes no sense to me.

Particularly dismayed at the rock-centric viewpoint of the article. The roll n roll artists did not start dominating the charts until the 2nd half of the decade, but the article dismisses everybody else. ("Rock and roll entered the mainstream and became a major force in American record sales. Crooners such as Eddie Fisher, Perry Como, and Patti Page, who had dominated the previous decade of popular music, found their access to the pop charts significantly curtailed.[14]") That simply is not factually true. All of those artists had their biggest successes in the 50's, both in terms of chart position and the number of hits on the charts. With the decline of the big bands, individual singers became the big stars, and music began to showcase their vocal talents instead of the band arrangements. The 50's was the golden era of the vocalist and their genre (which we now call easy listening). The article seems to think that music in the 50's was a zero sum game, where only one genre was the main focus. That was not the way it was. It was a decade of co-existence and cross-pollination of musical styles like no other.

The 50's saw the end of decades of dominance by jazz based music, which left a void that was filled by all of these other genres almost all at once. It is hard now for people to understand what a music free for all there was back then. Everything was being played on the radio. It was all new. I know it is hard to imagine that easy listening was new at one time, but it was -- it was a radical departure from swing. All of these forms were cross pollinating like crazy, instantly. Nobody was looking back, it was all cutting edge. We were open to new musical ideas then and it was in that atmosphere of experimentation and novelty that rockabilly, rock and roll, doo-wop etc were able to achieve recognition. We think of the 50's as the most staid decade, but in reality it was probably the most innovative musically in terms of sheer quantity of change (not necessarily quality). The article focuses almost exclusively on the emergence of rock n roll and overlooks the incredible musical melting pot that was the 50s.Jim C. (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Completeness

I was surprised to find no commentary in this section on the prevalence of orchestral (without vocals) music during the early half of the decade. Big orchestras - Montivani, Nelson Riddle, Jackie Gleason, et. al. - comprised a major segment of radio play at that time and are now preserved in 'Golden Oldies' CD collections.

Given the fact that many of the non-vocal cuts made the top ten during this period, shouldn't there be some mention in the writeup of the impact (or lack thereof) of this genre ? And shouldn't it have a name, like Big Orchestral Music? 74.51.175.160 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Ed Collins West Newton, PA edcollins@yukonwaltz.com 74.51.175.160 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Johnny Cash Promotional Photo 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

extremely partial article, for an extremely vast subject

This article should be extremely vast. As it is now, it's rock/US centered. Should call for contributors in diferent parts of the world to be accurate. 154.148.77.151 (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)