Talk:Music of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Queen is not rubbish you goon.

usa is better that you you pigs i am the zapper and you will see me alot!!!!go usa!~

^aah, the calling card of an jealous tard. I'd just like to rub it in his fat ignorant face by saying: The Beatles, David Bowie, Elton John, Cream, Queen, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Kinks, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Damned, The Stranglers, The Buzzcocks, The Good The Bad And The Queen, Motorhead, Dire Straights, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Pulp, The Cure, The Human League, The Clash, The Smiths, The Police, T-Rex, Rainbow, The Stone Roses, Herman's hermits, Status Quo, Fleetwood Mac, Sting, Tom Jones, Slade, The Jam, Elvis Costello, Def Leppard, Whitesnake, Oasis, Blur, Radiohead, Manic Street Preachers, Lost Prophets, Coldplay, Feeder, Stereophonics, The Feeling, The Automatic, Basement Jaxx, The Streets, Snow Patrol, Travis, Keane, Embrace, Athlete, The Kooks, Kasabian, The Magic Numbers, Bloc Party, The Libertines, The Klaxons, The View, Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs, Arctic Monkeys, Muse, Placebo ,The Darkness, Razorlight, The Zutons, U2, The Charlatans, The Verve, Maximo Park, Spinal Tap, and The Rutels.

Owned. OWNED.

My computer logged me out, but the original article was written by me. Tuf-Kat

I tried not to overstate my Americocentrism, but I might have accentuated the influence. It was also damn hard to find actual info online about the characteristics of UK folk musics, but I have provided a start here. Tuf-Kat

In reorganizing this article, I don't know what to do with the section on sea shanties. Should they be here or at music of England or what? Tuf-Kat 06:30, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

I am in the process of rewriting this and making it into a series. I'm not entirely sure I like I where I'm going with it, so I'm putting it at User:TUF-KAT/Music of the United Kingdom. Comments welcome either here or there. Tuf-Kat 08:24, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Done. Known issues include:
  • I probably used almost entirely American spelling. Feel free to fix it.
  • The series table at music of Ireland is perhaps contentious.... The best way to fix it is to make a music of Ireland series, but that may be a long time coming.
  • This article (the parent) could be fleshed out a lot and be more useful as more than a parent page for the others in the series

A suggestion: change the title of the article series to "Music of the United Kingdom and Ireland". This solves the problem with Irish music being included in a series on the UK (which is both factually wrong and politically insensitive), but is better than splitting Ireland off entirely:

  • For better or worse, Ireland and Britain have much shared history, and continue a close relationship today due to shared language, media, etc;
  • It would make no sense whatsoever to divide Irish music into "Music of the Republic of Ireland" and "Music of Northern Ireland" (if you go with the title change you could also change 'Northern Ireland' simply to 'Ireland' in the introduction.)
  • Irish folk music has close relations with folk music from parts of the UK, e.g. Scotland;
  • Modern Irish pop/rock music probably has a close relation to British pop/rock (compared to for example French pop/rock, Spanish pop/rock, etc.).

Blorg 16:18, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection. In what way is it "factually wrong" to include Irish music as a part of UK music? Nobody disputes that part of Ireland is part of the UK, and thus I don't see why anyone would claim that Irish music is not part of UK music. Yes, the UK and Ireland have many musical connections, which I think are aptly explained by the article texts and the overlap between the Music of the United Kingdom and Celtic music series. Changing the title to "Music of the United Kingdom and Ireland" would falsely imply that there is no significant difference between the two topics, which is both factually wrong and politically insensitive. Tuf-Kat 20:57, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's a suggestion rather than an objection; you have a good article, I'm just suggesting this as a sensible and sensitive categorisation (I'm an Irishman from Dublin).

Part of Ireland is indeed in the UK but most of it is not. "Ireland" by itself is generally understood to reference the southern state which has not been part of the UK since 1921.

However we have had a common history. Certainly from a folk music point of view Ireland and Scotland are closer for example than Scotland and England. But I don't see that it makes sense to treat North/South Ireland seperately in a musical regard - such a treatment would be politcally artificial.

You (or someone) makes the point in the article that they are not sure of the including of Ireland in the UK series.

So the point is really just about acknowleging Ireland as a seperate entity in the series and not worrying about an irrelevant NI/RoI distinction (musically) which just isn't significant! (Until we get on to the level of detail when we are dealing with the Ulster-Scots tradition !?...)

This is quite a standard approach, c.f. ("Yahoo UK & Ireland) etc. etc. We can even vote in each others elections, you know ;-)

-- Blorg 23:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ireland as part of the Music of the United Kingdom series[edit]

Naming this series "Music of the United Kingdom" is extremely insensitive. Six counties out of thirty-two on the Island of Ireland of Ireland are part of the state named "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," the other twenty-six are a completely independent state called the "Republic of Ireland". The term "United Kingdom" is a very political one, and certainly not suitable for labeling a genre of music. In 1998 the Good Friday Agreement was reached establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly with devolved legislative powers. Scotland has achieved Home Rule and Wales has a lesser form of home administration. Even the term Music of the British Isles would be unacceptable to many Irish people, as well as some Scottish and Welsh nationalists. The neutral name for the islands of Ireland, Britain, and other islands in the region is The Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA), as these are the islands in question, the series could be renamed "Music of the North Atlantic Islands" or something along those lines, or else remove Ireland from the series and rename it "Music of Great Britain".

No way should Irish music be part of this series.

Eh? What? Are you serious? "The Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)" - Does this make us IONA-ians then? PC rubbish! With no real widespread love or use. Its offensive to me that by using this acronym it infers you are ashamed to be Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh or Manx etc!

Scottish and Welsh Nationalists: Both deluded minorities who are fantasists. Canny Scots know when the're onto a good thing and as for the Welsh, well there's probably more chance of Yorkshire becoming an independent socialist republic!

I'm sorry, but there's no way we're excluding Northern Ireland from this. Are you insane? They're part of the United Kingdom and that's a fact.

Also, I would like to remind you that U2 is half-British, and Thin Lizzy is more British than Irish as very few members were Irish and almost all were British. It'd be much better to include them as well in this article.


Does anyone else think that 2004 in music (UK), and its fellows, would be better named 2004 in British music or 2004 in United Kingdom music. We are currently involved in a discussion of a similar issue at Talk:1976 in television/Temp on developing national subpages for the years in television series and this issue has arisen. I feel that it is always best to use actual phrases for article names. The current titles also seem to violate the "do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles" part of the naming convention. Most similar pages do not append the country name in brackets. We have 2003 in Canadian politics, not 2003 in Canada (politics), 1978 British leaders, not 1978 leaders (Britain) etc. - SimonP 21:27, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these should be moved to something else; 2004 in British music seems fine to me, but the important thing is to remove the parenthetical disambiguator. Tuf-Kat 23:53, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure if overseas territories should be included under Music of the UK; strictly speaking Turks and Caicos and the other dependencies are not part of the UK. Also the phrase British invasion is extremely US-centric, maybe it could be re-phrased somehow because it assumes the reader is American and knows this phrase. Also there are several music festials other than Glastonbury - V2, Isle of Wight, Reading, WOMAD, etc, and various awards especially the infamous Brit Awards. JW 00:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding British Invasion, I agree it shouldn't be the primary term (it's worth a mention though). I would like to point out that it isn't really all that US-centric, as I know the term is used in Australia and the British Invasion occurred in many parts of the world, at least including South America and Japan, even if they didn't call it that (I don't know what they called it). That's pedantic though, as I agree it shouldn't be the primary term used in this article. Regarding overseas territories, I think a link in the box is appropriate, though the article itself shouldn't discuss the music of those places. Even if it's strictly not part of the "United Kingdom", its still an overseas territory, all the others of which are considered a part of a "music of" for their respective countries. Tuf-Kat 02:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's just my opinion that the overseas territories should be kept separate, but if that's the standard format then I suppose they should be included. I shouldn't think "British invasion" was a phrase used in Australia & other Commonwealth countries as they were constantly exposed to British films, TV, culture, etc, so listening to British music was probably no big deal. They may have followed British usage; in the UK The Beatles, Gerry and the Pacemakers, etc were known as Merseybeat as they came from Liverpool. In other countries like Japan, they may not know the difference between British and American bands. I could have a go at re-phrasing the intro, but it might be better if you do it. As for festivals, awards, etc, how many should be included? JW 00:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On awards and stuff, I'd recommend no more than about five of each, preferably only two or three. I'll see if I can think of a rephrasing for the lead. Tuf-Kat 04:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

2006 in British Music[edit]

Well I've created the above page, but I'm not srue how to alter all the templates to include it; if someone knows how it'd be a kind thing to do! Robdurbar 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Music

I'm pretty sure that The Chieftains and The Boys of the Lough are NOT Scottish bands - they are Irish (and from the South, not the North). This makes me wonder about the rest of the material in this section. Anyone know for sure? Notdrowningbutwaving (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Why is there no reference to grindocre music in this page (or the page on 80s British music)? It was one of the most original, notable and influencial new sub-genres to come about in the 80s and deserves a mention.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom[edit]

Could anyone who is interested in helping sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_of_the_United_Kingdom#Participants. Thanks! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Music in the 50's.[edit]

Having just read the chapter on the 50's I felt I should add the comments inserted. The 50's were two distinct periods and are often discussed as just one. Those of us who were around at the time clearly remember the Haley influence and Blackboard Jungle which seemed to split the decade into 2 distinct parts. My National Service started with playing Guy Mitchell's 'Singing The Blues' but soon saw Elvis take over. I really believe that the rubbish produced by British Recording companies trying to compete with American RCA , Columbia, Decca, Capitol and MGM and slavishly copying their output was eventually seen through by the young generation and that the first UK record chart (Top 10 - although 12 entries) was dominated by US offerings which was just too much and something had to change. Haley and Presley were the catalysts and although the UK Decca output 'London American' label was dominant, it was a source for new talent and new ideas which led to the Stones and The Beatles in the 60's. If that idea is to be challenged I suggest you look at the early catalogues of most emerging UK acts and see how many original London label titles are in there. The unbalance - despite the worst efforts of the Musicians Union who held UK music back for years - was to be redressed in the mid 60's and both UK and US industries are now regarded with equal respect - the day the music changed.... daddyp

--- "Music of the United Kingdom, along with that of the United States, arguably has one of the greatest effects on modern music worldwide."

The music of the united kingdom alone has arguably one of the greatest effects on modern music worldwide. America does aswell, but it doesn't need mentioning here.

The British Top 100 Singles[edit]

Two problems with this: Only 5 are listed. The figures appear to be complete nonsense, where did they come from? Stutley (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Queen - Sheer Heart Attack - Killer Queen.ogg[edit]

The image Image:Queen - Sheer Heart Attack - Killer Queen.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Music of the United Kingdom[edit]

I just extracted most of the popular music out of Music of the United Kingdom and placed it in British popular music. I didn't see this wikiproject when I made that change. There was a discussion at [[1]] that inspired the edit. Had I seen this wikiproject, I would have consulted here first. My intent was the make the general article very basic and leave all the details for the child articles. Drop me a line if there are any issues. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see why that move was done but it really was a major cut has made this article a little odd. The title suggests it is a major article about UK music, it starts by talking about popular music in the late twentieth century and then its only content is folk music. Either we rename this as UK folk music and summarise the folk music articles for the four nations, or we need to create something that summarises all forms of British music, folk, classical and popular.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The first paragraph now reads as if 'Music of the United Kingdom' and 'Popular Music in the United Kingdom since 1960' are synonymous. The opening paragraph needs to be more general, and needs to reflect the fact that comparatively recent commercial success isn't the same thing as enduring relevance.--Stevouk (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to reframe the intro to fit the article, covering the whole range of UK music. It also suggests some areas that can be sub-headings.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

from 1707[edit]

The UK was only formed in 1707 - how can an article called 'music in the united kingdom' describe stuff before that date as being music of the united kingdom. I've tried to cover that by saying that the music of the united kingdom was informed by its history... but my attempt was reverted. I've reverted back but won't again. Bye (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The title has been a matter of some considerable debate, that is why there is an article called Early music of the British Isles of which just a summary is provided at the beginning. These articles were originally set up by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom, for myself and some others the "United Kingdom" was a bit of a problem, particularly when going into the past. However, it is important to be aware that the any use of Britain and even British Isles to include parts of Ireland, Scotland and Wales (and even Cornwall) is considered contentious by some editors. For myself I think the recent change of opening statement ("Music of the United Kingdom refers all forms of music associated with the United Kingdom and its people since its formation in 1707") is probably an improvement, but there is a problem, it was the kingdom of Great Britain that was established in 1707 and there was no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (now just NI) before the Act of Union of 1800/1 (the 1707 act is at [2]). I will adjust it to reflect this. Horribly complicated isn't it.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I obviously should have pointed to the relevant section of the 1707 act which is article 1: which says that England and Scotland will be "One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN", so if the article is called Music of the United Kingdom 1800 is the key date. However, in the spirit of getting a more durable solution, as pointed out above I do not think this is the best title, so perhaps we should open the debate on renaming. Possibilities include "Music of the British Isles" and "Music of Britain". Both have their problems. Perhaps more important is that a number of other articles and templates will also have to be renamed to fit in with this, meaning that it will take a lot of getting approval from interested editors.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The date of the formation of the UK has been of particular interest to me. In checking the treaty of union, it is clear that while the name of the new state was explicitly identified as 'Great Britain', the treaty thereafter refers to it throughout as the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain'. Certainly the term United Kingdom caught on prior to the union with Ireland, by which time the popular name was incorporated formally as the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. There are a number of wikipedia articles that refer the date of the formation of the UK as 1707 and it certainly looks bad if different articles use different dates. Why not just rename to 'Music of Britain and Ireland' as that will cover both islands and all time periods? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the idea of renaming this article. The United Kingdom is a country and i find it totally unacceptable that there should be an article on Music of Scotland, Music of England, Music of Wales and Music of Ireland but not one on the United Kingdom.
The implications of changing this article title are huge, consider all the articles with United Kingdom in their title where the same problem exists of when the state started.. History of the United Kingdom, Military of the United Kingdom, Military history of the United Kingdom , Culture of the United Kingdom to name but a few. If these other articles manage to cope with the fact the UK was only established 300 years ago then this one can too.
Either the introduction should be changed to explain this also contains information from before the union or everything relating to music from before the 1707 should be removed. Ofcourse if for example there was something from 500 years ago and it is still popular today, there is no harm at all in mentioning it and explaining when it was first introduced (pre union). It may be worth looking at how the other articles handle this, including to see if England or Scotland mention any music from BEFORE they became England and Scotland. But like i first said, totally opposed to renaming this article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh and it should certainly state 1707 not 1801. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Most seem to deal with the problem by ignoring it. Not sure that is much of a solution.--SabreBD (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

anything worth while at all?[edit]

this doesn't mention anything of any worth at all, it has no rock in it! the only British music worth noting. J (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really just an overview article, pointing people who want detailed info to other articles like British rock (which in term points them to further articles on particular styles etc.). Barnabypage (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It over emphasizes the effect so I toned down the language a bit. QueryOne (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)QueryOne
It really doesnt overemphasise and there are a lot of sources to support the text.--SabreBD (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It definitely does. QueryOne (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)QueryOne


It's too long - it overbalances the article, and I think contains details which are not in the main text - contrary to WP:LEAD. The introduction should be a summary of the article. Do we agree that a process of copyediting is required, to overcome the current imbalance? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes its too long. Do you want to try editing it down, then we will look at what we have left?--SabreBD (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've had a first go, but it's more of a hack job than a considered copy-edit. I think I've retained virtually all of the text, but incorporated parts into the main article itself. Feel free to revert / re-edit / recycle / regenerate / etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Its actually quite good. My only reservation with the lead is the definite date of 1707, which is at the very least disputed as a start date for the UK, can we change this for the more neutral "in the eighteenth century" or something similar? What we probably need most are more references in the text. I will try to see what can be dragged over from the main articles, but it can be very hard to find refs that cover summaries. This might help decide how statements need to be edited so that they fit the sources.--SabreBD (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
OK - I've changed the opening sentence and added a link to History of the formation of the United Kingdom, which should cover it and avoid too many arguments (?!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of music etc.[edit]

The title of the table "Timeline of music of the United Kingdom and its preceding states" is somewhat confusing.

It shows only those composers of "Classical music" and its predecessors, excluding all other forms of British music. I think that the table should be placed immediately beneath the "Classical music" section. All the same, does the article really need it?
Also, I can only think that "and its preceding states" refers to the earlier forms of what was to become "classical music".
I've relocated the table, changed the title to make it clearer, and reworded it as "British" to fall in line with the other terms used for other forms of music mentioned in the article.

Twistlethrop (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I placed this in the article originally and after many years of looking at it, I think it may be better just to remove it: it is pretty ugly and probably not that relevant.--SabreBD (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)