Talk:Psychedelic rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Psychedelic rock has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
April 2, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Psychedelic rock:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : The article fails to cover many subjects that are touched upon at Acid rock. Most of the sources in that article refer to "acid rock" as an AKA of "psychedelic rock", so some of it would be applicable here. The article also fails to acknowledge how much of a nonterm "psychedelic rock" is, and that it was heavily coopted as a marketing label similar to "progressive music". The "characteristics" section could be expanded into prose, rather than a brief list format.
  • Infobox : Genres should have inline citations to prevent edit warring.
  • Maintain : Create a consistent citation style with {{sfn}}, but only for book sources, don't make the same mistake other articles have.
  • Notability : Remove trivial content. This includes seemingly random namedrops of bands who have no clear significance to psychedelic rock along with meanderings into totally different subjects and specific details about individual bands that have nothing to do with the broader topic (i.e. practically everything in the "decline" and "influences" sections)
  • NPOV : Many statements demand attribution. For example: "King Crimson's album In the Court of the Crimson King (1969) has been seen as an important link between psychedelia and progressive rock" – has "been seen" by whom?
  • Split : Psychedelic rock in Australia and New Zealand, Psychedelic rock in Latin America
  • Verify : Many of the sources (particularly toward the end of the article) are talking about the influence of psychedelic music in general, not psychedelic rock. These need to be checked (WP:SYNTHESIS).


pls remove beatles from this page5.88.53.150 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Ditto from me: why? The Beatles did a huge amount to popularise psychedelic rock – their records sold millions. Not only that but many of their psyche rock songs (e.g. Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields, It's All Too Much, I Am the Walrus) were pretty groundbreaking. JG66 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Then it makes absolutely no sense to delete them.--SabreBD (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that they popularised psych rock, doesn't make them psych rock musicians. In Italy Giovanni Allevi popularized classical music, this doesn't make him a classical composer.

Most of that weren't psychedelic songs, in fact they were pop ditties with psychedelic studio effect, which is very different. Very few of them meets the requirements and anyway they didn't break new ground at all. Their contribution to the history of psych rock is very little, they contribution to it's development is inexistent. But it seems they are the band that is named more often in this page. Bands that have given much more considerable effort are not even mentioned.

Too bad most of the sources on which Wikipedia rely for rock music are written for the purpose of selling more records, not giving accurate informations. (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction: they were pop rock ditties. What specific bands gave "much more considerable effort"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
...If you ask me, I would have said there were a ton of garage/surf/freak scenes between 1961–65 that set the stage for psyche rock. But nobody seems to ever trace psychedelia that far. I've looked. People who write about this topic do tend to skew it in favor of pop groups after '66. I believe this is because "psychedelic rock" is too loose of a term. Its scope is usually limited to jammy hard rock from 1967–69 rather than a style of rock music that evokes a kind of dissociation. This chapter is the most lucid piece of academia I've ever found on "psychedelic music". Of course, one way to evoke "dissociation" is to enact on tape what you can't in real life. For that, people like the Beatles and the Beach Boys were hugely important. But maybe not as important as Joe Meek, Les Paul, or Phil Spector.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

quoting: "...If you ask me, I would have said there were a ton of garage/surf/freak scenes between 1961–65 that set the stage for psyche rock. But nobody seems to ever trace psychedelia that far. I've looked. People who write about this topic do tend to skew it in favor of pop groups after '66. I believe this is because "psychedelic rock" is too loose of a term. Its scope is usually limited to jammy hard rock from 1967–69 rather than a style of rock music that evokes a kind of dissociation"

i agree "psychedelic rock" is too lose of a term, but i believe there are some certain key points in it's history that denote some specific innovations in playing and songwriting. Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Doors, 13th Floor Elevators, Red Crayola, Velvet Underground, Silver Apples and early Pink Floyd were really groundbreaking. The few Beatles songs that fit into the psychedelic rock genre pales in comparison with them and also with countless other not so groundbreaking musicians that were still able to cut real psychedelic records (Love, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Deviants, Hawkwind, etc.)

Beach Boys are even less relevant in this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that the Beach Boys and the Beatles' innovative recordings predate those by every single one of the bands you listed? lol. Be specific: what "playing and songwriting" are you talking about? None of those guys (with the exceptions of Elevators and Airplane) had a record out until 1967. And none of it was really "groundbreaking" as far as I can tell.
"Psychedelic" music was more or less fully formed in '65 and, apparently, it wouldn't be until '66 when anybody recorded anything that really fit the style. All you had was obscure garage rock and weirdly produced top 40 pop rock singles, like the #1 hit "This Diamond Ring" (issued January 1965, definitely would have been labelled "psychedelic pop" if it came out 2 years later). When psychedelic users started to produce top 40 pop rock songs about drugs is when the genre really came into its own.
How much farther out did anyone go "psychedelically" after 5th Dimension, Pet Sounds, Psychedelic Sounds, Revolver, and "Psychotic Reaction"? You can find one or more of every characteristic listed here in those works. Other bands recorded just as iconic songs or albums after 1966, but they can't be accounted for in the article unless somebody somewhere has actually written "[album(s) and/or song(s)] are considered significant to psyche rock". And if you're so confident that they were important, then it should be easy for you to Google a source. (WP:PROVEIT)
My opinion: all I can think of that made '67 a different year from '66 in psychedelic music was that all these former garage bands took a hint from Pet Sounds and Revolver and decided to go beyond 3 chords. And that's proto-prog influencing psychedelic rock, when you really think about it. Piper is art/avant rock fused with psyche rock. And weren't the Velvets anti-psychedelic?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It's obviously a waste of time talking to someone who believes that Beach Boys and Beatles were more groundbreaking than, for example, Silver Apples just because they cut their "innovative" records earlier. -- (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The Beach Boys were recording and releasing psychedelic rock songs with electronic oscillators a year before the Silver Apples were even formed. Who is wasting their time here? Again, what "ground" did they break exactly? If you can't be specific, then maybe you don't know as much about the subject as you think you do? Just a thought.
I know what the Silver Apples did. But how does it relate to psych rock? Is it because of how they used electronics? In what way, exactly? Remember that The United States of America came out a few months earlier and charted higher. It also sounds way more like conventional psyche rock.
I think the Apples are more relevant to the subject of electronic music. Their debut has more in common with krautrock or "proto-acid house" than it does psychedelic rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You said that "psychedelic rock" is a loose term. Inclusion in a music genre also comes from the historical and cultural context. The United States of America is a good record, probably more "art" than "psych", but it would deserve a mention, more or less like it does Frank Zappa's debut which came much earlier. Actually the fact that it sounds more conventional makes it less interesing to me. I think that this page would be more exhaustive if it would mention those less conventional records that pushed forward the evolution of the genre, than those hundreds of conventional records that sounded more or less the same, or worse, a selection of those conventional records that happened to top the charts with very conservative and traditional songs plus a few utterly naive experiments like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and such. -- (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at it like this: did any of these people redefine the parameters of "psychedelic rock" as a perceptible genre? In other words, were they working in a unique, "groundbreaking" style that was subsequently picked up by a wave of psyche rock groups? If not, you can hardly say that they influenced the genre in any meaningful way. All they did was create a new type of music that merely contained influences from psychedelia. While those records may have very well been exciting, new, and influential in their own right, it doesn't mean that they influenced the psychedelic genre or were prominent within the movement.
A distinction is made when a significant number of psychedelic groups build upon those innovations. This is why Beach Boys/Beatles/Byrds are given so much attention, because so many psyche rock musicians heard what they did and proceeded to imitate them (or at least made recordings that otherwise would not have existed).
Being "different" or "unconventional" is not what psychedelic music is. If it were, then all avant-garde music would be "psychedelic". Unorthodox pop/rock records are relevant to experimental pop and experimental rock. Those are the articles where you'll find coverage on Floyd, Mothers, Velvets, Fugs, Doors, et. al.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sure Byrds (and many others, included Beatles) were heavily influenced by Beach Boys, but i don't think this makes Beach Boys a psych band. Byrds took non-psych influences (Beach Boys, Bob Dylan) and turned them into a psychedelic form of music (Elevators were influenced by Howlin' Wolf, this doesn't make him a psych musician).

But which are the "so many" psyche rock musicians that imitated the Beatles? I probably can't name any of them. Psychedelic rock was already full of eastern-sounding music and drug-related lyrics way before the harmonic bungle of "Within You Without You" and the silly semi-explicit reference to hallucinogens of "Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds". Their relevance to the topic has much more with popularizing the genre to a wider audience, than influencing other artists.

You don't have to be a psych band to have at least one psychedelic-tinged single that made a big impact. Regarding Beatles imitators, (purely) rock musicians began taking the "studio as an instrument" approach only after the advent of Pet Sounds and Revolver. And how can "popularizing the genre" be less notable than "influencing other artists"? They mean almost the same thing. Take Sgt. Pepper for example: the album isn't prog rock, but if it wasn't the massive commercial success it was, prog rock as we know it would not have existed.
I can recall someone claiming that Syd Barrett's dream was to "be like John Lennon". I can't think of any others off the top of my head. But seeing as how much Pet Sounds and the Beatles' 1965–67 work were raved upon release, it is very hard to believe that they weren't a huge influence on many.
This is all besides the point anyway. The main point is: to what extent was [record] influential? In what respect was [record] innovative? To what degree was [record] popular? Those are the questions that need to asked before you can definitively state "[artist] was more important to psyche rock than the Beatles". According to most people, "Eight Miles High", Pet Sounds, and Psychedelic Sounds (March–August 1966) were among the earliest psyche rock recordings, period. "Psychotic Reaction" (July 1966) was the first commercially successful psyche rock recording. "Strawberry Fields Forever" (February 1967) unleashed a wave of "pastoral" or "nostalgic" psychedelia. "Itchycoo Park" (1967) was the first example of phasing on a psyche rock recording. Details like these are important. If you're unable to claim anything similar for other artists while providing a source, then neither can the article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Excessive tag bombing[edit]

I object to the tag bombing that disfigured the article. A section or overall article tag would be more appropriate. If the tagger has time to identify all the areas they find objectionable, they have time to fix the article to their liking, not just walk away, leaving an unencyclopedic mess. Jusdafax 09:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree, it is really over the top and unclear what on earth the problems are.--SabreBD (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Ditto from me. The third para under 1967–69: Peak years is a joke – in that it turns Wikipedia into a joke. The tagging should be done with some attempt at discretion without bombarding the reader. If editors want to treat an article as their personal work-in-progress, they should work on it in their sandbox (and most editors do). JG66 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "unclear what on earth the problems are"
    "If the tagger has time to identify all the areas they find objectionable, they have time to fix the article to their liking"
    "The tagging should be done with some attempt at discretion without bombarding the reader."
You fellows are all aware that {{elucidate}} has a "reason" parameter, and that it has been used in this case? No, I don't have time to listen to every single one of those albums and Google the hell out of them to find if there is any one thing that it did for the genre. The section reads like a recommendations list of albums somebody thought was "cool" or important to mention. It fails to explain why any of them are important with regards to "psychedelic rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the significance is clear. Phrases like "introduced" are a clue here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That appears once. For the Small Faces. I left it alone.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify WP:UNDUE

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

The following albums are mentioned:

  • Their Satanic Majesties Request
  • The Piper at the Gates of Dawn.
  • Fairport Convention
  • S.F. Sorrow
  • Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake

None of the text elaborates upon these examples other than to say "they exist". Thus, further explanation is needed. Did they actually develop the genre? I'm not sure. I don't think so. Some of these are nice albums, indeed, but what did they do that was different from their predecessors? I'd rather have left it up for someone else to figure out.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Piper is by far the most important album of british psychedelia. Some of the other mentioned are fairly important, but sure not milestones. The first Fairport Convention album is hardly noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


Beatles are irrilevant on this page, you should remove it. They didn't influence psychedelic music, they didn't make psychedelic music, let alone art/avant/prog music. They only influenced Coldplay and Oasis. -- (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an opinion that virtually nobody holds.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal[edit]

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