Talk:Rock music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rock music article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies


==Rock and roll and rock music

These two articals are basicly the same, as rock is just a short of rock and roll. However the artical "Rock and roll" is shorter. Yes, of course the two articals should be merged together, but to keep the Rock and roll artical; it should tell the meaning of rock and roll instead of the history.

Contents

[edit] Come on, now...

Seriously - this is the worst article I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. It's a mess - uniformed and vague and serving no real purpose. A good description of the prevailing thematic elements of Rock and the history of it's evolution followed by a listing of links to articles about the subgenres would be much more effective. What can we do to fix this thing? I'm willing to help rework it from scratch. -LDB

What's there to fix ? The artice does this. --LimoWreck 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with LDB; this article needs to be totally reworked. LDB, or LimoWreck, if you're interested, I'd help you with the rewrite. JimmyTheKnife 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
yea this is pretty much the worst article ever. please redo the entire thing.
it's a nice article but it needs to be improved , you should add more informations about rock bands. thanks

[edit] NPOV problem

The section on grunge lacks a NPOV. It clearly glorifies grunge. oh please

[edit] Ye gods, what have we done here?

We've taken one pretty good article and turned it into two bad articles. Just for starters, let's look at the terminology (ostensibly the name for the split):

The lead for the rock and roll article says:

It later evolved into the various different sub-genres of what is now called simply 'rock', even if a less common usage is to use the phrase rock and roll to include modern rock, too.

While the lead for the rock article says:

Sometimes rock is also called rock and roll (also spelled rock 'n' roll, especially in its first decade), but a more widespread usage, followed also by the All Music Guide is to specifically use rock and roll to refer to the genre's early years in the 1950s and 1960s, and the shorter rock as an umbrella category.

I won't even begin to go into the problems with these paragraphs, but, tortured writing aside, what is a reader supposed to take away from these two leads?

Huge amounts of good writing have been lost in this 'transition', and I for one think it's a darned shame. And since when does the All Music Guide determine what conventions are appropriate here? Jgm 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't. Simply, this is the more common usage. Rock and roll is hardly ever used to refer to punk or to death metal. And there was some consensus for this move Talk:Rock_and_roll#Rock/Rock and Roll, where apparently nobody opposed to it.--Army1987 12:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a great relif to me that someone else has noticed that these two articles are rather messed up. My main concern is the fact that this page and the rock and roll page has such ambiguous names that people use the links interchangably in articles about albums, artists, etc. Grammar and writing can always be improved (and has been, since the original comment made by Jgm), but this kind of problem -- having two articles which seem to be, effectively, duplicates of each other -- lends itself to a lot of confusion and time wasting and just 'badness' all over.
It's slightly less encouraging that this discussion seemed to end like two months ago. Hopefully this will provoke some more input. --Qirex 03:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Check out the intro: I thought it was pretty clear now that rock was certainly not rock'n'roll in the early '60s, in the UK at least. Later on the terms were sometimes used interchangeably, but rock remained a broader genre, There's room to develop both articles, but one superarticle would be massive and messy. ...dave souza 21:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I should say that the leads have improved significantly since I made my original comment following the split. Beyond the leads, both articles are still ugly, though, almost formless in fact with massive splitting off of almost anything substantial into sub-articles of dubious individual value. It's a good example of why working on Wikipedia can be so frustrating. I did some significant work on the original Rock and Roll article, particularly on the areas of structure and flow; all that is unrecoverably gone at this point, and I feel little desire to take another hack. Jgm 00:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


I haven't touched eitrher of these articles myself, and I am not sure where to start. The confusion betwen the two terms ('rock' vs 'rock-and-roll') is due to the fact that the latter is a sub-set of the former.

'Rock' music as such is a VERY broad category. To put it in simple terms, Rock is thr mainstream American pop music that evoled following swing in the 50's. A more complicated definition would be a genre of poular music characteriaed by a straight eitgh-note rythm in common time, with emphasis on BOTH the down and back beat. Pretty much anything in straigh time, with the snare on two and four is Rock music. Yes, that includes everything from Madonna to Metallica, with a stop off in between for House, Techno, Rap, contemporary Country music, Soca, Ska, Speed Metal, Fusion...you get the picture.

More broadly, 'Rock' is a term that describes late-Twentieth Century music in general. This is the 'Rock Period' as much as there was a 'Jazz Period', a 'Romantic Period', a 'Baroque Period'. etc.

One thing that differetitates Rock from other forms, particulary Jazz and late-period Swing, it is the reliance on the "lower half" (bass drum and snare) of the drum kit and bass guitar for a rythmic foundation.

If there are two things, the other is the 'artifiliaity' of Rock, as opposed to Jazz and anything before it. Rock music evoloved in parallel with multi-track recording. The basic 'sound' of Rock is an artificial construct created in the recording studio. Non-musicians may no appreciate the difference, but this is a fundamental shift in the process of music creation. The goal of recording was, originally, to capture the sound of a live band playing (mostly) prearranged and pre-rehersed music. The freedomn of multi-track recording allowed music-producers to write, arrange, and orchestrate 'on tape' as it were. That is, the full musical number is typically NEVER played by an entire ensemble until AFTER it has been recorded. The practical upshot of all this is a complete reversal of the process. The goal is often to recreate the sound of a record live, as opposed to capturing the 'live' sound to tape.

Related to this is the question of electricty. Rock also devleoped in parrallel with what is essentialy a new type of instrument: the electric one. That is, electric guitar, bass, and keyboard. These are not 'complete' instuments themselves. Rather, they can be viewed as controllers, who's output is used to modulate a speaker system. Again,. this is a fundamnetal change that may evade non-musicans (actuall, it evades a whole lot of musicans as well.)

What of "rock-and-roll" then? It is a subgenre of Rock. More particularly, it is a transional phase between jazz and szwing, and Rock proper. On way to look at rock-and-roll is as Swing with a hard-hitting, electrified rythm section. It also represents a transition from professional musican ship to the cultural of 'talented amatuerism' that prevade popular music....but THAT is a whole nother article.

Anyways, those are some thoughts to chew on for anyone who wants to tackle the article. Any other thoughts?

Rob Wrigley

This really is a terrible article. Read it for the first time today. It's more like a breakdown of genres that an article about "rock". I'll have a stab at making it better. - I hope!--Mike Infinitum 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Does anyone agree with me that this article should be merged with Rock and Roll they are the same thing in essence. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck

Oppose as said above Rock and Roll is a subgenre of Rock or of Blues depending on the perspective. This is a transitional genre. It merits its own article. Vb 12:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Support They are, in essence, the same thing. In rock music publications, I have also seen the term "rock and roll" used in article on both punk and metal. There are many post-60's rock songs by the Ramones, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Richard Hell, Joan Jett, Dire Straits, Lenny Kravitz, Jesus and Mary Chain et al which use the term "rock and roll" to describe the music.Smiloid 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Rock and Roll is truly a sub-genre of Rock music, the difference being that rock and roll has varying degrees of blues, and other folk roots, while other sub-genres under rock music may have no roots in blues or folk music. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Rock and Roll and Rock are not the same things. Rock can also be for example alternative rock, progressive rock or heavy metal. For me, R'n'R is a subgenre of rock music. --Nr. 213-140-22-64 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British-centric

Sorry, but the clear-cut distinction drawn between "early Rock n' Roll" and "British Rock" is a construction. Rock is American by origin and it is an essentially American musical genre. And Rock n' Roll was not merely a "formative influence" on "Rock," which this article claims was invented in Britain. Absurd. One cannot separate the two without drawing a post-hoc, arbitrary line. It is clear, however, that British audiences were immediately receptive to Rock and English bands were highly influential in its evolution. There was constant borrowing back and forth across the Atlantic throughout the 50s and 60s. "Rock n' Roll" did not peter out in the U.S., travel to England, rebrand as "Rock" and retake America. It's not that simple. I look forward to an article labelling Jazz as English.

[edit] Rock music

I am just curious to know why the article is titled "rock (music)" instead of "rock music". The situation is identical with "pop music", which is not titled "pop (music)". I propose a change in article name. Any comments, suggestions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have waited three days for a response to this suggestion, however, since no debate materialized, I am going to go ahead and make the changes. If anyone opposes, please note that you do on the new talk page Talk:Rock music. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
because rock means a geological object like a stone. look it up in the dictionary.

[edit] Instrumental Rock

I have added a paragraph on Instrumental Rock. Comments welcome. Clockwise music 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is missing large sections of recentish histroy (1980-today)

It's missing important sections (hardcore? ska? how they relate to today?) and needs a lot of change. the pre 1980 It's not good enough to just have "alternative" in order to reference these subgenres. Hardcore, in particular has spawned several important subgenres of it's own such as the circa-1986 kind of emo (which is currently omitted) 2000s emo (obsurely refenced as an afterthought). Alternative can be used for anything. --CalPaterson 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

American alternative rock is mainly descended from hardcore, so you can throw that in. Yes, alternative is an umbrella term, but its mainly useful because in the 80s it meant most any rock music (well, except for underground metal) that operated out of tha mainstream, which covers a lot of genres that don't necessarily need to be analyzed in-depth on this page. I don't think we need a section on 80s emo because largely a localized (the DC scene) subgenre that while it was a bridge between hardcore and alternative rock as we know it, it largely concerned a very small amount of bands that in the bigger picture of rock music don't really need to be singled out.
The ska revival is late 70's New Wave, by the way. WesleyDodds 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perko

Whats with all that stuff about lindsay lohan and gwen steffani in the 2000-present bit? i though this was supposed to be an article on rock not pop or gangsta rappers. I agree

[edit] Can someone add Iranian_Rock to the list of regional rock?

I don't know how to change it. Thanks. Kirbytime 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is in need of serious cleaning

Rhythm and blues is rock n roll. Alan Freed just attached the term to R&B to detach the stigma from it in order to be embraced by the mainstream (i.e. white) America (look at the June 26, 1956 issue of Look). It is essentially African American music with heavy roots in blues, jazz, and gospel (hence rhythm and blues). Elvis has always paid his debts to African Americans for "rockin'" before him, from Louis Jordan down to Wynonie Harris. His "That's All Right" was a cover of bluesman Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup's original. He called Fats Domino "The King of Rock n Roll" and was friends with Little Richard, etc., knowing rock's real roots.

Robert Palmer, Dave Marsh, the entire Rock n Roll Hall of Fame and Rolling Stone magazine know this, and it seems that this author(s) is clueless to its history. Ruth Brown, LaVern Baker, Hank Ballard, Dominoes, 5 Royales, Big Joe Turner, etc., were big rockers, and Alan Freed featured many of them in his rock n roll shows.

The business aspect needs to be discussed, such as the role of the DJ, the transition from 78 RPMs into 45s, etc. Also, the racism of rock n roll needs to be highlighted. Rock back then was called "animalistic", "voodoo", "jungle", "Nigger" music, full of "congo rhythms", "jungle rhythms", euphemisms for racism towards African Americans.

Rock n roll was black slang and an intrinsic part of African American culture through language and R&B. It was used in gospel, jazz, and blues, from a form of dancing to sex to being possessed with the holy spirit as you can find them in many recordings in the 20s-40s. Wynonie Harris needs to be mentioned here greatly for setting off a "rock" trend as does Louis Jordan, THE roots of rock artist. Rock's primary artists/fans were black and it was originally a piano and sax based genre. It just took a white man- Elvis - to break rock through as he admitted himself. Since the whites as a whole were exposed to this, they believed that Elvis created rock and it has been ingrained into the public ever since as well as with the help of the media.

Country music does play a role, but these men were more influenced by R&B and country-infletced, trying to imitate black music and performers. Bill Haley, a true and neglected rock n roll pioneer, would have told you himself.

Disco, modern dance/electronic, hip hop, funk, grunge, metal, folk-rock, prog, doo-wop, soul, etc., are all part of the rock family tree. Remember, R&B IS rock and they are all still esentially African American forms no matter which way you look at it. They're all music geared towards teens, all rebellious in their own way, all with essential ties to rock's essential foundation of progressiveness, rebelliousness, etc. You snip out disco, you had better eradicate metal, grunge, etc., as well.

I think we need to get the real historians here.

I agree with that and the fact that the article needs cleaning. Some of these paragraphs, maninly the last one in the grunge section, seem like they were written by 5 year olds.

Feel free to clean up the language a little in those section... --LimoWreck 12:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sparks

A request for a peer review of the Sparks article has been made here Wikipedia:Peer review/Sparks (band). Please have a look and maybe help it along--KaptKos 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

I been told off for spamming, so I removed some sites smimilar to mine.

[edit] Pictures

Where are they?! Elvis, Hendrix, Beatles, etc. Jeez, an article like this has GOT to have pictures. Oh, and, also, this article kind of stinks... Torvik 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to go out and make some pictures or find some which may be released under a free license; if you think that's so easy --LimoWreck 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is U2?

Could someone please tell me why the group "frequently referred to as the biggest rock band in the world by fans and critics alike" (that's from the U2 article) has no mention in the rock article. the biggest band in the world is the Beatles I'd advocate placing them in the alternative section, if that's ok with LimoWreck, since he seems to have appointed himself the guardian of the article.

JimmyTheKnife 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, there are no other references to U2 indeed... strange. I am the self appointed guardian of the article, that's right; as no-one else seems to help me with it... Articles light this have unfortunately become a vehicle for dailly spamming of everyone's pet-artist, massive WP:NPOV edits, etc... etc... That's why I don't hesitated to revert mostly anonymous adding of unknonw bands, unlinked bands, endless lists of bands, praising fan talk, etc... --LimoWreck 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I don't think mentioning U2 qualifies as adding an unknown band. So, If you don't mind, I'm going to add them to the alternative section. JimmyTheKnife 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I really think U2 have to be added somewhere, but I don't really know where. The "alternative" section talks about bands not reaching mainstream, talks about indie labels, ... not really something that goes with what U2 accomplished in the 80s. The sentence about "they have been considered by critics and fans alike as the biggest rock band in the world" is plain POV, doesn't add anything to the discussion, and had to be deleted altogether ;-) Also they didn't fit at the bottom in the section about new young bands... there are more artists who are accumulating success during the years; U2 isn't a "know" phenomenon for that era anymore. But as I find no other suitable place, I think adding them to the list of the 80s somewhere seems the best place. --LimoWreck 21:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd disagree about the "biggest band in the world" statement, given their Grammys, their critical acclaim, their album sales, and their touring revenues. I mean, it's not like I'm making all that up. If it's really POV, it should be deleted from the U2 article too, where it has cited support. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. I've added one sentence to the alternative section, and another to the 80s section, as I felt that Bono's showmanship deserved mention if Freddy Mercury does. I'm not trying to get into a 'my band is better than your band' thing here. They're not my pet project, but their omission seemed odd to me. And originally, I put them in the present day section because they swept the Grammys for Rock last year. That's all. Granted, they are hard to classify. JimmyTheKnife 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

U2 at best are tangentially classifiable as alternative rock. The thing is they're really a post-punk band that outlived the genre. They were often played on the same college stations that played many alternative artists, but they also had a lot of success as early as the early 80s, putting them apart from what was going on in the underground. There's probably a better context in which to mention U2, they certainly deserve to mentioned. The overview paragraph for the 80s section could probably be reworked and expanded. WesleyDodds 11:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Being "the biggest band in the world" should disqualify them from the alternative rock section, shouldn't it? I agree that they began in a post-punk vein and kept alternative overtones for a few years, but their most popular records are sophisticatedly produced classic rock. Anyway, they shouldn't be added just for the sake of it if we can't think of anything interesting to say about them, which seems to be the case, and which to me points to the irrelevance of being "the biggest rock band in the world" in 2006. Ccoll 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a better way of mentioning U2 by creating a section for post-punk. WesleyDodds 05:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

does any1 know of a christian rock band? --jesusfreek2 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Switchfoot

[edit] What, no Dire Straits?

I realize that if someone were to give mention to Dire Straits, it wouldn't fit very well into the 'punk' section, when they originated. However, any history of rock that leaves out Dire Straits is seriously lacking credibility. -- Chris 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)they are classic rock

Not really, they're just another popular band; not really essential. Not everyone's pet band must be added, this article is about rock music, not about bloating and spamming it with every band --LimoWreck 20:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
At one point, Dire Straits were the most popular band in the world -- something that can't be said for most of the other bands in this article. Chris 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)you must be kidding me
This article isn't about listing all "popular" bands one by one, that's what charts are for. --LimoWreck 23:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Music is not about pop allways

[edit] this article is absured

generalities should be stayed away from; currently they're all over the place.

you're generalizing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] First song with the title "Rock and Roll"?

I'd like to make a precision about something written in the "Trivia" section.

The "Trivia" section states:

"There have been many songs with the title "Rock and Roll" from The Treniers in the 1950s to Led Zeppelin, The Velvet Underground, and Gary Glitter in the 1970s as well as Rainbow and The Rolling Stones. However, Trixie Smith is possibly the first artist to incorporate the words in the 1922 record "My Baby Rocks with One Steady Roll." "

But there is a song from The Boswell Sisters which is called "Rock and Roll": "The name of their song [Boswell Sisters' song] "Rock and Roll" is an early use of the term (though far from the first). It is not one of the sisters' hotter numbers; it refers to "the rolling rocking rhythm of the sea". (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boswell_Sisters)

The Boswell sisters recorded songs only from 1925 to 1936, so I think this must one of the first songs, if not the first, to be called "Rock and Roll".

Alfonso Anso (11 December 2006, 22:53 GMT +2)

[edit] "Notable Practicioners" of progressive rock

Okay, let's not get carried away. I added Genesis to the list of notable practicioners of progressive rock because they were a major prog band. But how many people know about Camel, Can, Faust, Magma, etc? And who *really* considers ELO to be progressive? Besides, this is just a short section of a more general article, and progressive rock has its own Wikipedia article. That would be a more appropriate place to mention the more obscure artists. This one just needs a few major examples so people get the idea of the style of music. 4.244.96.67 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ELO is proggresive/classic rock

[edit] Bubble Gum Pop?

The article says "Rock music had a short-lived "bubble gum pop" era, of soft rock, including groups such as The Partridge Family, The Cowsills, The Osmonds, and The Archies."

Is that right? I always throught bubble gum rock was late 1960s AM top 40 hits like "Yummy Yummy Yummy (I've Got Love In My Tummy)". See, e.g., http://oldies.about.com/cs/70spopandsoul/a/bubblegum.htm

68.174.12.63 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Present Day USA Centric

This whole section is based around whats happening in the USA at the minute, with only a small paragraph at the bottom referencing any other country, which in itself only mentions the UK. This definately needs expanding to cover British contemporary music better, and to perhaps shed some light on other international music scenes, as has beendone in the hip hop article.

ya,you would'nt wan't to leave out ,Seether from South Africa,plus silverchair from Australia.

[edit] the future of rock music in the musics industries!!

with its long divesity culture will rock music sarvive in the upcoming music industry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.44.139.66 (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rock'n'Roll and Rock?

I don't think Rock music and Rock'n'Roll should be combined because in some cases, rock and rock'n'roll can be completely different music. "No one ever compared Elvis to Green Day" is basicly what I'm saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rancor125 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Rock Music = Metal or is it a.....

I have recently done a search for the band Tool . Apon reveiwing its subsequesnt articals I came across several stubs , and various other incompletes etc. I am very new to this site, but would love to add any and all usefull and correct knowledge I can. I would like to discuss the song Hush a track off their debute record in 1992 Opiate. Being a fan for more then a decade, owner of their collected works and attendded shows since the age of 14 from Middle Of Nowhere, Maine to Lollapalooza 97'-Massachusetts venue to the other side of the country in Orange County, California. The discussion of their rock music merger should not be taken to lightly. Based on 2 important ideas their sound and thier fan base. Tool has such a diverse and unique style for them to be labled as just a rock band would be a shame. Yes their music contains elements of Rock music. However they also could be considerd Progressive rock,Alternative rock,Heavy metal or Punk rock. Merging them to Rock music therefore is comapairing them to the bands/fans that lay with in it's genres leaving no room for Metal to stand. From a fan's point of view it would be in poor taste. Then leading one to think Tool is for lack of a better term a rock band with out slight consideration of the most important aspect the metalhead fans. Metal would be much more accurate merge and or description in which the band Tool may be found under or searched in. Shanopolis 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)shanopolis

[edit] Thrash Metal

What Happened to Thrash Metal? I kept trying to write a section on the genre of Thrash, but everytime i did it, it kept getting deleted, i saved it and everything. Am I doing something wrong? or do people think Thrash does not exist? Because if you do, it is very real. Have'nt you heard of, Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, or Anthrax?

So can someone please write a section about Thrash, because it seems someone keeps deleting my artical.

- Krispy_k

Unreferenced original research is usually deleted from Wikipedia. This article is just an overview is Rock history and its different genres. Thrash metal is just a subgenre of Heavy Metal and is already covered in detail in that article and in its own article. The main points of heavy metal are covered here with the links to the appropriate sub-articles included. A description of Thrash Metal(or any other metal sub-genre) simply isn't required. 156.34.142.110 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/c/Talk%7ERock_music_268a.html"