Jump to content

Talk:Psychedelic music

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

Inclusion of reggae and dub

[edit]

I can't help but feel like under the realm of 'psychedelic' music, dub should be included on the list. I've always thought of it as a psychedelic complement to reggae, with it's use of echo and other production techniques to create a spacier, more 'trippy' sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.88.106.156 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Disambiguation page

[edit]

Should this really be a disambiguation page? It seems like Psychedelic music should have an article about, which links to the other forms of psychadelic music within the article. I'm sure lots of people would like to know about psychedelic music in general, not just a subset. --Daniel Olsen 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably shouldn't be a disambiguation page as it doesn't really fit in with your normal dag pages. This page should really be an article that is a synopsis of the different forms of psychedelic music with links to the main articles. --Mattarata 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is psychedelic music? I created this disambiguation because in rock communities "psychedelic music" refer to psychedelic rock, in trance communities it refers to psychedelic trance etc.
Unless you are suggesting to write an article about the influence of psychedelic rock on modern music (and I think this could fit as a paragraph at psychedelic rock) I can't see how there could be an article that decribe the connection between psychedelic pop and acid punk, for example. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 08:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Psychedelic rock should be moved to psychedelic music, with psychedelic folk, psychedelic soul and psychedelic pop merged in. They really aren't separate genres: they all originated about the same time and share the same defining characteristics; those other pages only exist because 'rock' doesn't adequately describe the genre as a whole. --Alcuin 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say to write a short intro (maybe adapted from psychedelic rock) and then a short paragraph on each subgenre with a link to each daughter article. --Daniel Olsen 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and make it an article. Dekimasu 09:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it should be an article. Which is proabably why so many pages link to it! - Superbfc 11:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Main article with sections (and sub-articles). —EdGl 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on an idea that could be a good basis for a complete rewrite of at least the 'Background' section. Currently It's a 7000 word time-line (1964 - 2000), which could be broken down into: 60's; 70's; (acid) punk (aka. crusty) and acid house eras. I can't improve on neo-psych as I don't know enough about it. The 60's time-line is more or less complete and would provide a useful structure for links. I'd suggest putting the 60's timeline on this page along with disambiguation links to related pages and other eras / sub-genres at the top and bottom. What do you think? I'm happy to just get on and do it. --Tim Hall 16:27 14 Nov 2007 OK, Going for it. --Tim Hall 23:23 23 Jan 2008


Musicology

[edit]

As I am going to post elsewhere, we've added one more article to the large set of useless garbage. It seems that most of editors can't understand the difference between words meaning /referring to a musical scene or an artistic movement, and words/terms dealing with stylistic features, the latter being the only ones that can properly define a music genre. This is due to the fact that books available on such topics are usually written not by independent researchers, but by journalists or djs .--Dr. Who 16:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean: more enciclopedic tone.:p--Doktor Who 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, movements and circles produce styles, so the distinction seems rather pedantic. jkolak 3/11/2008 I agree with Doktor Who. Psychedelia isn't just about the music, it's an entire movement and stylistic feature. And 'jkolak', what are you talking about?? thats unrelated.

Psytrance

[edit]

What about psychedelic trance groups like infected mushroom and astral projection?

dragonsofeden 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

artists associated with psychedelic music? Thom Yorke?

[edit]

Is Thom Yorke associated with psychedelic music? I've never heard or read that he is or has been influenced by psychedelic music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.23.47 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though Thom Yorke and Radiohead are known for experimenting with psychedelic styles in some songs the majority of their catalog would fall more under alternative or progressive rock. The key difference is that psychedelic music in the traditional sense is more random (see Pink Floyd's debut Piper at the Gates Of Dawn) compared to the more arranged and dense progressive rock (see Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon). Though the latter does often contain elements of psychedelic music it is not purely psychedelic.
Saviorofbroken (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles

[edit]

Many of their songs (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, Across the Universe, I am the Walrus) are some of psychedelia's most known. Beatles' support to the psychedelic movement is arguably of great importance, so it's imprecise to say they are merely associated to psychedelia.

Proposed deletion of "Psychedelic artists" section

[edit]

This section attracts passing edits - people wanting to list their favourite bands of the 60s-70s (sometimes with little discernable link to psychedelia unless it is just that the bassist once wore a pair of loon pants); others wanting to throw in their own band of the moment. Does this add anything to the article? Either a band should appear in the text or not at all. Proposal: delete the list. Opinions? AllyD (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs some cleaning up (Pink Floyd appears twice, for instance), but I don't think it needs to be deleted entirely. 24.140.73.43 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "Other artists associated with psychedelia" section

[edit]

This section is worse than the "Psychedelic artists" section, not even purporting to be more than semi-detached to the article subject. Proposal: delete the list. Opinions? AllyD (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on this section, several of the groups listed have very little to support their inclusion, Led Zeppelin being one on the list that comes to mind. 24.140.73.43 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Syn

[edit]

There's been a wave of editing activity around The Syn and Steve Nardelli, including a certain amount of dispute. Some 'third parties' with expertise in psychedelic music would be valuable if anyone would like to come on over. Bondegezou (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pink elephants on parade as psychedelic music

[edit]

Doesn't the lyrics and style of that song may be considered psychedelic music? The song appears on the film Dumbo, from 1941, 20 years before than the first psychedelic songs according to this article. I did not changed the article, because I do not have sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.215.30 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic music can occur in almost every genre of music

[edit]

"Psychedelic music can occur in almost every genre of music, including classical Western art music."

Examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.248.91 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

This page clearly has a lot of problems, as just about every post indicates. I will undertake a clean up in the near future. The plan is to provide sourced summaries of the major articles on psychedelic music (rock, pop, rave etc). The genre infobox should go as this is not a genre, but a blanket term. If you have any further suggestions this would be a good time to post them.--SabreBD (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This now done. Sorry it took so long but it was a hard task. There are still some areas that could use a little more expansion by someone who is an expert, particularly relevant forms of electronic music, but at least they are now in here.--SabreBD (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving Neo-psychedelia

[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:Neo-psychedelia#Reviving this article. The summary here would remain (largely) unaffected.--SabreBD (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article not rated?

[edit]

I only found this article today and I find it excellent. I checked the talk page to see if was a Good Article or nominated for Good Article, only to discover it's not rated at all! It doesn't even seem to be included in any WikiProject. The involved editors would know best which project it should be in, so I won't rush in and do anything, but I think it ought to be rated by some project ASAP, and serious consideration given to going for GA. Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that (for the bits for which I can take credit). I have toyed with the idea of putting this in for GA for a while. I expect there would be some tidying up and updating to do before it could pass and prompted by this perhaps I will get back to this. I guess its not rated because it doesn't fit into one genre project.--SabreBD (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic drugs

[edit]

Question at: Talk:Psychedelic_rock#Psychedelic_drugs regarding association between drugs and music. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Psychedelic music/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a go. I'll spend the next day or two reading through the article and its references thoroughly, and list comments as i go.

General

  • No disambig links and no dead URLs

Lead

  • The punctuation on the first sentence looks a bit confusing. Do you mean to say "Psychedelic music (sometimes known as psychedelia, derived from etc)?
 Done The etymology was unnecessary anyway.--SabreBD (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll come back to the rest of the lead later

Characteristics

  • Is there a specific reason why the information in this section is a list and not prose?
 Done Not really. I changed it to prose.--SabreBD (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and they profoundly influenced the thinking of the new generation of youth". I'd prefer to attribute this to a particular author. While we might look back and think the 60s was a time of revolutionary new thinking, outside of Haight-Ashbury and Swinging London it wasn't really at all.... I mean look how much commercial success Ken Dodd had in the 60s!
 Done I attributed it, which hopefully makes the conditionality clearer. Any references to hippies, particularly in the UK should point out the relatively small numbers and limited class base, but I we are prisoners of our sources. Even so I think Ken Dodd had a different demographic.--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic folk

  • I think the picture of Donovan would sit better than one of the Grateful Dead - for all his pop / rock crossover success, he started out as basically Dylan-influenced folk artist (as indeed the relevant paragraph states)
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "backward tapes" - should this read "backwards tapes"?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning the specific instruments that John Fahey used - the Allmusic source mentions flute and sitar
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic rock

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is psychedelicsight.com a reliable source? The citation is also tagged with "clarification needed"
 Done No I don't think it is.--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Traffic were really part of the UK underground. They formed after Pink Floyd and Soft Machine and spent the early part of their career holed up in a cottage in Berkshire. Tomorrow might be a better choice here, though not as commercially successful, they were part of the underground scene and spawned Keith West and Steve Howe.
  • "The same year saw the débuts" ... what is "débuts" referring to here exactly?
 Done Albums.--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure the picture of Steve Winwood is not from 1969 - his hair looks nothing like the footage for Blind Faith's gig that June, and I don't think Traffic gigged at all that year.
 Done I think you are right, the 1969 tag was inherited, so I removed it.
  • "apogee" seems a bit unnecessary - why not just say "peak"?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Beatles' releases, "definitive" and "controversial" are loaded terms? Definitive and controversial according to whom?
 Done the source, but I removed them.--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth mentioning that not only was Their Satanic Majesties Request overly psychedelic, it was the only time the Stones ever went near this sort of style
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pink Floyd produced what is usually seen as their best psychedelic work" - "usually seen" to whom?
 Done I believe this was in the source, but I removed it anyway.--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure The Who were ever psychedelic. Several sources stated that Keith Moon in particularly hated hippies.
I can see for miles, was one of their few forays - as the source indicates.--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of development from straightforward R&B to psychedelia, the Small Faces are worth mentioning - phasing on Itchycoo Park, blatant drug references on Here Come The Nice, Ogden's Nut Gone Flake.
No argument on the overall significance of the Faces, but they were a little late as pioneers and this part is a summary of Psychedelic rock. I added a bit more about them there, but it complicates the chronology a bit here. Unless you insist I would rather leave them out of this summary.--SabreBD (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic pop

  • The Barrett era Floyd fits more into psychedelic pop, at least partially through their recorded output
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline

  • "and their deaths were closely followed that of" doesn't seem to make gramattical sense
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if Abbey Road is best described as a "raw style"
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning Kevin Ayers in the list of "psychedelic-influenced and whimsical strand of British folk"?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Influence

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Popol Vuh really that influential in synth development?
 Done I dont think so. The wider Krautrock bands were probably more significant and are a more obvious link with the psychedelic.--SabreBD (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Allmusic source cited stated that psychedelic influences played a part in creating bubblegum pop, but all the source says is comparing Sagittarius as being "not as bubblegum" as The Lemon Pipers
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-psychedelia

  • I wonder if it's worth giving Julian Cope a bit more of a mention here, as outside the Teardrop Explodes he's kept the psychedelic flag flying with his solo work - of which the cover of Fried is a great example
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic electronic music

  • The lead part of this section is only one sentence. To use appropriate summary style, you probably want to grab a bit more from Rave music to pass GA status
 Done I deleted that bit. There is no requirement to have a section lead and it wasn't really adding much.--SabreBD (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there can be a case for adding something about psychedelic hip-hop, such as 3 Feet High and Rising ("Transmitting Live from Mars" sounds pretty psychedelic to me)
 Done Although I may have to come back to this if I find more sources, at least the basics are here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audio

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

  • OnBeyondZebrax (talk · contribs) has made a substantial contribution to this article, and you reverted him a few times. I don't think there's any long term stability issues, but I'm interested to know what was going on here?
Only two reverts I think and one of them was partial. Mainly formatting issues and some unsourced statements. Nothing really major.--SabreBD (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's it. No real major show-stopping issues, so I'm putting this on hold for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is all the issues addressed. Over to you.--SabreBD (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note - I haven't forgotten about this, but my time on WP has been a bit limited this week - I'm looking at closing this down in the next couple of days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any delay, but I think all the issues are accounted for, so it's a pass. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all the effort.--SabreBD (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

[edit]

Only just noticed this is was up for GA, so, good luck well done! One point hit me in the eyes. Is Abraxas a good or typical example of psychedelic music? I know the sleeve is a good example of psychedelic art, but the article isn't about that. Just a thought. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is a fair point. The image was inherited from a much earlier version of the article, but I kept it because most of the available copyright free images are black and white and it provides a rare bit of deep colour. I am very open to any alternative suggestions, but a good, relvant image is not easy to find.--SabreBD (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but this album does not contain pschedelic music (irrespective of the cover), and Santana was never really known for it, as fantastic as he is. Something like The Beatles' Revolver, or Sgt. Pepper, or Airplane's Surrealistic, etc., might be more representative, if rights allow. Many of the most influential early psychedelic albums did not have patently psychedelic covers. Just thoughts...Learner001 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose replacing the Santana cover with this file: DisraeliGears.jpg. Discussion?Learner001 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same query as I had about the Santana sleeve. The album cover may be good psychedelic art - but is Cream's music really typical psychedelic music? This article is about the music, not the album covers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be also to get away from a copyright image if possible and going to another album cover probably doesn't solve that part of the problem.--SabreBD (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic & Counterculture

[edit]

To SabreBD: Looks like you've done a lot of great work on this article! I don't believe there's any question about the connection between the emergence of psychedelic music and the counterculture. I'll appropriately cite if/when I attempt to include in the future. Hopefully it will be much more expansive and clearer to all. Best wishes!Learner001 (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic Hip Hop

[edit]

As I revised the section Psychedelic Hip Hop, I found out that hardly no references are presented to support those long, rambling, excessive lists of different artist names that are claimed to fall under this certain category of "psychedelic hip hop". Actually, no decent description about what psychedelic hip hop even is, is given.

Most of those artists mentioned do have absolutely nothing to do with psychedelic music. Just long, misleading lists are given.

In order to publish a section concerning "psychedelic hip hop", serious revisions are needed to be made. Therefore I removed the whole section until something reliable is given to support those things claimed. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was sourced in the citation at the end of the section and was good enough to pass a GA review, as you can see if you follow what is above. It is a good idea not remove sourced information without getting consensus first. If you come up with some alternative sources then we can discuss them here.--SabreBD (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So please tell us here, which part of your so called source supports such rambling listings? Please discuss it here and present some evidence before making any further changes. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of it. I am reverting it under WP:BRD. If it for you to present evidence if you want to make changes to sourced material.--SabreBD (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am questioning your source material. So please provide the exact passages in order to support your entries. According to my investigations, they are none. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are arguing now that the book is not a reliable source? If that is so please take your case to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, until then you have no good reason for deleting sourced material. If you have evidence that what is said in the relevant section does not reflect the source, then by all means point it out. If you have alternative sources that present a different picture, then by all mean identify them here so that we can incorporate them. However, until you present some alternative evidence you have no case for deleting reliably sourced material from an article just because you do not like it.--SabreBD (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles

[edit]

Beatles is irrilevant to the developement of psychedelic music. They just followed the trend. Why doesn't the article give so much space to the Beatles instead of more important bands like Pink Floyd, Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Red Krayola, 13th Floor Elevators, Silver Apples, Velvet Underground and so on? --2.234.228.28 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more specific about what changes you think should be made. To me, it does not look as though the Beatles' role is overemphasised in this article. Whether the VU can be described as "psychedelic" is, however, extremely debatable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS:... and you must not remove referenced text without getting agreement from other editors on this page. So, stop it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles evolved their sound and lyrics and structures to the trend already started by other artists. They are in no way innovators of the genre (e.g Johnny Watson used feedback in 1953, Lennon himself knew he wasn't the first to use it, as he said in an interview to Playboy in 1980). This page says that they introduced this elements to mainstream audience which may be relevant for the psychedelic pop section, but they didn't anything that other psychedelic rockers didn't before them. I think this page should talk less about them and more about musicians that are more important for this genre --2.234.228.28 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a profound misunderstanding here. Many people point to Mr. Tambourine Man as supposedly "the first ever psychedelic song in the world", when that Byrds song was only a derivation of the style of jangle pop which The Beatles themselves had been using since at least the A Hard Day's Night album released in July 1964 (and arguably, in an earlier, more archaic form already on some of their songs from With The Beatles released in November 1963). In fact, The Byrds have gone on record numerous times that with their own 1965 song they simply tried to get as close to the AHDN sound as possible and Mr. Tambourine Man was only a derivative offshoot of that. After Mr. Tambourine Man was released in March 1965, many bands started picking up on particularly this aspect of The Beatles which in turn has been dubbed "early psychedelia" when in fact it was still largely Beatle-y jangle pop and jangle folk in the AHDN, Beatles For Sale, and Help! style that everybody was doing for most of 1965. It took until Rubber Soul for *ACTUAL* psychedelia, originated by The Beatles, to arrive on the scene in December, as much as Rubber Soul and Revolver were still strongly indebted to the band's earlier jangle pop period.
Rubber Soul was released more than a year before Pink Floyd ever first walked into a recording studio, and according to Mason 2005, p. 49., Floyd were still doing pretty much exclusively R&B up until late 1966. The Doors didn't turn psychedelic in sound until their stay at the London Fog during the spring of 1966 at the very earliest. Jefferson Airplane couldn't even be called a skilled live band until very late in 1965, they were still largely doing Otis Reding-influenced soul and R&B with a growing folk and folk rock influence for most of 1966 and their debut album Jefferson Airplane Takes Off released in September 1966, almost a year after Rubber Soul. Red Krayola didn't even form up until "sometime in 1966" and didn't release anything up until summer 1967. The 13th Floor Elevators didn't form until the very month in which Rubber Soul was released, and even though their debut album included the word Psychedelic in the title, it was only released 11 months after Rubber Soul. The Silver Apples only formed as late as 1967 as The Overland Stage Electric Band and still needed pretty much another year to even just sort out their name and line-up. The Velvet Underground may have been founded as The Warlocks as early as 1964, but according to David Fricke, they mainly played "Olde English folk" up until the spring of 1966 when they re-recorded three of their early songs in a more experimental style. Quicksilver Messenger Service only formed on Christmas 1965, took up until summer 1967 to work out their line-up, and up until early summer 1968 to ever actually release anything. Love formed in spring 1965, but played garage and proto-punk at least up until early 1966. Country Joe & The Fish played fully acoustic old-fashioned Wood Guthrie-style folk up until June 1966. The Peanut Butter Conspiracy didn't form up until nine months after Rubber Soul and didn't sign a record deal until very late in 1966.
Oh, and as for the feedback on I feel fine (which was never psychedelic per se), John didn't acknowledge anybody. According to Sheff 2000, p. 173, he literally said towards the end of his life, "I defy anybody to find a record – unless it's some old blues record in 1922 – that uses feedback that way."
So, bottom line: Psychedelic music didn't start up until Rubber Soul, everything before that was nothing but either jangle pop (and purely acoustic folk, or folk rock at best) largely popularized by The Beatles since at least 1964's AHDN and partly already on 1963's With The Beatles, and much of what many people seem to confuse for "early inventors of psychedelia long before The Beatles" actually only started to develop months and years after Rubber Soul. The only serious contender to Ruber Soul as originator of truly psychedelic music that has been identified is Heart Full of Soul, released by The Yardbirds in the summer of 1965, but a.) MacDonald argues that it's really just an offshoot of the sound from Ticket to Ride released in April, and b.) in the case of the Yardbirds song mainly was simply an R'n'B song with a fuzz guitar and a harpsichord. --2003:EF:13C6:DC63:4AD:29C9:41CD:AAF7 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Boys

[edit]

Most of the Beatles' information doesn't need to be removed, but some details would do better in footnotes. What about the Beach Boys? There's plenty of information to be copy and pasted from the articles Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations". In discussions of psychedelic music, the two bands should be spoken in the same breath, being the first artists to have high-charting psyche songs. A couple sources here to get started:

  • Longman, Molly (May 20, 2016). "Had LSD Never Been Discovered Over 75 Years Ago, Music History Would Be Entirely Different". Music.mic.
  • Marcus, Jeff (September 18, 2012). "Psychedelic era yielded great music, but fewer picture sleeves". Goldmine. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject proposal

[edit]

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre info box?

[edit]

Hello. I am wondering if Psychedelic Music should have an "info box" like the ones used for other genres (ie. Hip Hop) with a section dedicated to it's cultural origins, it's stylistic origins (electronic, experimental etc) and it's derivative forms. It may seem like a needless idea but I am just curious...

Drug Bias

[edit]

Hello, I see that the overview paragraph for this article only references one book from 2007. If there is only one source connecting drug use to the genre that’s strong enough to be part of the summary then I’m not sure it’s reasonable to include that point in the summary.

I prefer this definition:

“Psychedelic music celebrates and explores the capabilities of the human brain.”

although I don’t have sources ready to include here yet. I’m not caught up on the references used for this article (there are 79 today), can someone summarize or point to the most important sources so I can read them?

My view is the current article starts with unnecessary bias, the association with drugs should be secondary to the description of musical intention; the topic of drug use influencing music in the genre should be a subsection if included.

--TextApps (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there are 99 citations, there are only 7 actual works which are listed under a separate heading and referred to by the citations. I think listing the references this way for Psychedelic music would help me and others verify the content of the article. I’ll rearrange the references this way eventually if there’s no disagreement here.
--TextApps (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Psychedelic music

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Psychedelic music's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "part":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychedelic_music&oldid=1254888683"