Talk:Roots rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rock music (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Roots rock is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.


Doesn't "roots rock" also have a reggae-related meaning? Unfortunately, I don't know for sure, but there seem to be a lot of Reggae things named "Roots Rock ___" (or "Roots, Rock, ___"). 04:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the same as roots reggae. ( (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Jack Mandani[edit]

The article starts by saying that "Jack Madani claims that that roots rock was popularized in the late 1960s etc"; who is Jack Madani? What's his day job? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

History of use of term - References[edit]

This article is in need of a history of the use of the term. Current use does not usually include reggae, but rather a varying hybrid of country, bluegrass, folk and rock (or more ambiguously Americana) -- reggae and country are 2 entirely different genres both musically and with regard to their respective historical "roots". The term "roots rock" originated from reggae culture, which is Jamaican.

To define the term the article is using MSN which in my opinion is borderline acceptable, especially since many of the larger web info gathering sites often reference wikipedia. That would be circular and a high risk for original research. Worse however, for rock history the article is using an anonymous blogger entry (which I just removed as a reference, but did not alter the text) and some guy's geocities page - which currently is still referenced. - Steve3849 talk 00:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

I plan a clean-up of this article, bearing in mind the points made above and adding reliable sources. The blog based material will have to go, but hopefully reliable sources can be found to replace it. Please add any other issues that you think need attention in the process below.--SabreBD (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This now done.--SabreBD (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Patrolled By Radar[edit]

I added information to Roots rock. Critic Simon Braund from UK's Empire Magazine, in Reverb Nation, described the LA band Patrolled By Radar as a Roots Rock band; another website called Dailymotion lists the band as "Roots Rock". I provided two inline citations. You deleted my addition along with the references on the grounds that they weren't "reliable". Please explain why you think these views are not reliable. Further, I notice the Roots rock article has few inline citations meaning almost all of this information is hard to verify; I am wondering why you are deleting inline citations in favor of hard-to-check references in books?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I kindly reinstate my request for an explanation about the deletions from user SabreBD? Wondering why SabreBD's sense of Roots Rock should prevail over that of music critic Simon Braund of Empire Magazine? Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It is important to try not to personalise issues. To that end please do not employ user names in sub-headings and I would appreciate it if you didn't copy a comment from my talkpage here as if I had posted here - this might give the wrong impression about what I am saying and is, in any case, unnecessary - accordingly I have changed the sub-heading title of this section and deleted the comment that belonged on my talkpage.
Getting back to the issues, I was unconvinced that the two citations were from reliable sources. On the Reverb Nation cite, it might have helped if the cited page had been the biography and not the front page for the band, which mentions no authors. But even on that page it is not Braund who describes them as roots rock, the extract from Empire Magazine says nothing about roots rock at all. I note that this site allows bands to sign up, and to upload information from Facebook, so I assume that the other information on the page comes from the the band's Facebook page. Facebook is a user-generated source and so not considered reliable, although it is not quite clear how Reverb Nation works, so this might be worth further investigation. The Daily Motion is just a user generated website, and so cannot be considered reliable.
The original edit also introduced a grammatical error and if reliable sources can be found, at best it needs to be added in a different form. It is also worth considering that looking for opportunities to add a band to genre articles is a problematic approach. It is much better to work from the genre article and consider what examples help make a point. I also have to point out an evident confusion between "inline" citations and "online" citations. The article has lots of inline citations - i.e. references with numbers in the text. That it uses scholarly books does not make them unverifiable, in fact quite the reverse, it just means that editors sometimes have to read books.--SabreBD (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I still feel that Patrolled By Radar is a Roots rock band; there are several sources which will point to this besides Reverb Nation. But what I'm less sure about at this point is whether the band is notable enough, or Roots-rocky-enough, to justify being in this article. I see a larger problem that many bands would like to be included everywhere but what happens is list creep; so on this matter I will defer to your judgment about this since I sense you're more up on music than I am at this point, and have done a good job looking over these music-related articles in general. I still think online references (inline, online, you say po TAY toe, I say poh TOT too) are best since they're so easy to check -- two mouse clicks, boom, there's the reference -- while a book may provide a good reference too, but it's much harder for us to check. This is a reality that Wikipedians confront regularly, as more and more information comes online, perhaps it will be less problematic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)