Talk:Rock music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rock music article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
To-do list for Rock music: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Its Only Rock N Roll

    But I hate it. This may be the worst quality article I've ever fallen into, and what's even worse is how important it is LiAm McShAnE 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    I agree. this article sucks. how can you have an article defining rock music without even once mentioning Elvis Presley? that in itself should be some sort of crime. and starting the article off with British music? humpf! you might as well slap every black musician who ever lived directly in the face! what a crock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.25.252.218 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

    I think rock is amazing...It is the best music to get involved with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock.ollie (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Wow

    This article is absolutely incredible. Seriously, is anyone actually monitering this page? I have the biggest symathy for whoever it is. I'll get round to helping as soon as I've made myself an account. The Grunge section is particularly bad as it is factually incorrect, ignores the 1st wave and seems to be written by some lunk-headed Nirvana fan. Jeez... 92.3.140.121 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] 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.

    This article is so goddamn worthless. Remove it from the face of the earth and flesh out the rock and roll article.--Gustav Lindwall 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    [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
    I have to agree, i mean its a mess, and I echo, uninformed. Any one who knew much about AC/DC would know that they resent being called Heavy Metal. This article needs to subdivide the genres better. Also it must account for the fact that many of the definitions overlap, and bands change course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.33.112 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

    For goodness sake, take ELO out of Soft Rock! They are ORCHESTRAL ROCKERS! (205.250.167.76 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

    This is the worst article ever. It FUCKING SUCKS. Just the summary at the top is so bad it makes me cry.--Gustav Lindwall 14:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] NPOV problem

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

    you'd have to be blind not to see that. I feel a need to change it as it puts down one genre to glorify another, which is even worse LiAm McShAnE 17:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [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 Rock'n'roll is a separate subgenre. Netrat_msk (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    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)

    Oppose. I belive that Rock and Roll is a sub-genre of the greater Rock picture and should be treated as such. Perhaps it should be mentioned though that sometimes Rock and Roll is used interchaingably with Rock, even though Rock is the more proper term for the entire genre.

    Oppose. There's a reason why they both exist as two different genres of music. Rock and roll is obviously not the EXACT same as Rock. Therefore, there absolutely needs to be two seperate articles.

    Strong Oppose. Rock evolved from Rock 'n' Roll in the 60's/70's with bands such as Black Sabbath, The Who, The Beatles, putting a much more experimental (and ultimately successful) spin on Rock 'n' Roll's defining elements. Rock 'n' Roll has much more in common with blues than modern rock. Buddy Holly and the Crickets are Rock 'n' Roll, but out of Blues and Rock, they're closer to Blues. The use of Rock 'n' Roll as an alternative name for Rock shows ignorance of how the music has developed. A good example is how Rock 'n' Roll lyrics often describe love, explaining how the lyricist feels; Rock is skewed more towards spreading some sort of message, how people should feel. Since politics have become easier to access with global communications and new freedoms, Rock has reflected this and become somewhat politically driven. This isn't to say all Rock is political; bands in emo, punk and metal subgenres gain following by singing about how they feel, like Rock 'n' Roll. R'n'R's feelings are more towards love and yearning; modern Rock can be about feeling and doing things that might be defined as wrong or immoral by society and law - giving people who feel this way a sense of belonging, rather than staying an outcast. Because Rock is so expansive, narrowing it down to these two factors is not the whole story. They are two different genres, related but dissimilar. They are as different as Blues and Jazz. BonzaiRob 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose Rock and Roll is more of the classification of early rock like The Beatles and Elvis. As time moved on the kind of music that was formally called Rock and Roll became edgier and came more into what we have today. The term was orginally just a shortening of the phrase Rock and Roll but has come to mean something else as time evolved and Rock became more the Rock it is today instead of more pop music. That is at least my opnion feel free to argue with me.--St.daniel talk 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose Even though the words are similar and rock's derivative is rock & roll, they have evolved into two different genres. Merging these two articles would create much confusion and it could not be clear to the reader. Would anyone else be opposed to the removal of the merging template on this page. To me, it seems that the general consensus is to keep the articles separate and that it is not likely at all that the consensus will change. So if no one objects i will remove the merge template. YaanchSpeak! 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose To describe the two as the same would be as big a mistake as merging blues and jazz, they're closely linked and one has borrowed elements from another but the two grow further apart year after year. I think combining Rock and Roll and Rock is a bad idea if you come from even just a purely theoretical aspect, can you tell me they have enough constant features between the two to justify it? I don't think they do. 23:33 27,May 2008

    [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.

    I agree no matter if you think rock was invented by Elvis, or Chuck Berry, (personally i credit Chuck Berry), it remains the same, Rock is... to quote Springstien... Born in the USA.

    seeing as rock came from blues, and there is no way you can trace how back the blues have gone, and what influenced the blues to start, but i doubt that rock music was entirely "born" in the states, i myself think that it is a coming together of many countries. The best rock bands have definetly not come out of the states either, yes many great bands have, hendrix for instance but england has the beatles the stones zeppelin, and austrailia has ac/dc,rock definetly isnt from the states by itself

    ^^Why don't any of you sign your posts? Just because there are now bands from all over the world that play rock music, doesn't mean it wasn't invented in the U.S. It was. Robert Johnson's music was highly influential for rock, and he is often called "the Grandfather of Rock and Roll". He was American, btw. Mystery solved :P Pwnage8 01:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    [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)
    if you want to put in R&B fine, but make a distinction between the original good stuff and the more modern Hip-Hop like R&B. I don't think we want insult the memory of Jimi Hendrix, and have people to think the Pussycat Dolls are Rock.

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.33.112 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] Sparks

    A request for a peer review of the Sparks article has been made here Wikipedia:Peer review/Sparks (band)/archive2. Please have a look and maybe help it along--KaptKos 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    [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

    I wouldn't be so sure that U2 is the biggest rock group. You do realise that Aerosmith & AC/DC, never disbanded, and i'm pretty sure they have a larger following these days than U2 (not that i don't like U2) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.179.33.112 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

    [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).


    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] 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).

    He's right. Rock n' Roll is more like Elvis or the Beatles while Rock is more like the Stones and AC/DC. They're two completely different genres, that's why they have different names. Rock n' Roll well...uh...rolls more while Rock is more like massive guitar solos or music being blasted through amps. They're too different. Many genres, like heavy metal, are part of rock, but rock n' roll is it's own. MaulYoda 20:54, 9 April 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)

    [edit] You don't know EMO

    The band that were mentioned at the EMO section are NOTE EMO bands. Can't you just learn the difference?

    www.youdontknowemo.tk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.77.180 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] Just some suggestions

    I reckon that this article should be broken into a lot of stubs. This is just plain confusing with all the history and backround and meanings bunched together. There should be more contrasting information too, like complaints and positives about the genre. 203.173.220.227 05:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] don't merge

    Rock and rock n' roll are different. Sure, "rock" is just a short version, but it's developed into more than that. Rock n' roll has more of an emphasis on tempo and how the song flows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.43.11 (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


    [edit] Manchester / Baggy indie movement

    There is a whole section missing between "Alternative music and the indie movement" and "Grunge". What happened to the Manchester / Baggy indie movement from the UK (1989 - early 90's) - also known as the "Madchester" scene. How can indie music be described without mentioning "The Stone Roses", "Happy Mondays", "Inspiral Carpets", "James", "The Farm", early "Blur", early "Charlatans" etc.?

    [edit] no no no no

    these articles should definately not get merged, since they stand for 2 different things

    thats like saying lets merge the articles for New York City and the State of New York (i havent actually checked, but im pretty sure there are 2 seperate articles)


    the reasons?

    as for today, if the full word is said (rock & roll), it usually refers to the music of the 50's (and perhaps early 60's) only, with artists like Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, etc

    rock stands for the genres that evolved out of rock & roll (psychedelic rock, hard rock, progressive rock, heavy/trash/death/etc metal, grunge, and so on), with artits from the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, over bands like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin or Jethro Tull, up to groups like Soundgarden, Guns N' Roses, Nirvana or System of A Down


    i hope this makes it clear, or to sum it up: rock is NOT just the short for rock & roll - maybe once it was, but thats not how it is today, and thats what counts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.127.211.104 (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

    --I agree to a certain extent but we should talk about the orgins of rock. To know what something is you have to know it's orgins. It's possible to have a straight definition of rock but that would be in the dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.82.196 (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] How to edit rockbox

    How do you go about editting the rock box?Cjrs 79 14:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] How Come Iron Maiden Is not included in this article As the New Wave of British Heavy Metal

    In this article is bearly talked about NWoBHM and they dont even include Iron Maiden Into the Article...Iron Maiden was one of the Biggest Metal Influence of The Past and todayEdwinCasadoBaez 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    This article's focus is on the main aspects of rock music. New Wave of British Heavy Metal is just a sub-genre of heavy metal and it is discussed appropriately in the heavy metal article. It also has it's own article. It does not need to be discussed here. Peter Fleet 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] glam rock

    The article doesn't say anything about glam rock. Why? I know there is another article about it, but there should be something about it.

    Apart from that, the article contains many names, but it lacks some very important: Bowie (with glam rock), Iggy Pop or Lou Reed (the Velvet Underground)...

    I agree. If there is glam metal there should also be glam rock. Artists like T.Rex, David Bowie and Alice Cooper are glam rock and they are MUCH more important than some glam metal groups like Ratt or Poison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.164.186 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] References

    Such an important article, yet not a single reference and only one valid external link. This is hardly deserving of its current "B-class" status. Good quality refs and links needed please. —Moondyne 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    Wow - between the article and the comments here, this subject is a disaster. One would think a short but minimally conprehensive entry would not be so hard to produce. I don't want to seem to be making personal attacks, but this is just a total mess, and needs to be started over from scratch. There's plenty of room for argument, there are enough "history of rock" books and articles that a safe, reasonably inoffensive article should be simple enough to cobble together. MarkBul 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] About emo

    Emo is popular as slang term not as a genre of music. --Celldwellcius 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


    ^^Try telling that to the fans of emo music.

    Pwnage8 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    No matter what you think emo is, I think it's important enough to be mentioned as a popular music section for the 2000's. It has a subculture of followers just like grunge and punk and it is definatly going to be remembered as one of the definitive music genres of the 2000's whether it's worth calling it a music genre or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.4.101 (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Grunge and Britpop

    In the alternative section it mentions the rise in popularity of grunge and britpop but the article does not go on to mention these fairly important genres. A new section should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.90.141 (talk) 01:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

    the reason being that the creator of this article obviously went in with half arsed knowlegde of rock and thougfht why notLiAm McShAnE 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Golden Earring

    Apparently we've gotten some edits from a Golden Earring fan. The various references to Golden Earring throughout the article are hilarious. I'll be removing the most egregiously inappropriate ones, like the completely inane mention of their "Eight Miles High" cover. 74.77.208.52 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Is there such a thing as country rock?

    Just wondering if anyone knew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.250.146.76 (talk • contribs)

    Yes. -WarthogDemon 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    The Flying Burrito Brothers were country rock. Late Byrds would count as well.
    Questions like this are better asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Or just plug "country rock" into the search box and see what comes up. / edg ☺ ★ 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

    Can we have a country rock section. Maybe some genius could copy the "country rock" section and paste it in wikipedia?

    Zgrrly (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)zgrrly== Is there such a thing as country rock? ==

    Not only that, but what of Southern Rock???-- and such acts as Lynyrd Skynyrd, ZZ Top, Molly Hatchet, Allman Bros., et al., for example? That was around about the late '70s, early 80s, into the alleged "Arena Rock" section that's outlined here. In fact, ZZ Top opened for the Black Crowes (a later distillation of the genre) at an arena....

    You guys aren't kidding that this documentation needs BIG help! No disrespect, but, seriously, with every single genre/sub in existence, is it fathomable to hope to cover it all -bands included- in a straight written timeline?!?!?!

    [edit] Origin section needs expansion.

    After reading the comments here regarding the debate about "rock" versus "rock and roll," I think the way to solve the ambiguity is to clarify the origins. Currently there are short references to blues, country, swing, jazz, rockabilly, etc., but little detailed explanation of how they merged and created rock and roll. One issue to address would be to explain the difference between "rock and roll" (as defined in the article here in its narrow sense) and rockabilly.

    It seems clear that rock and roll has its origins in the American music of the early 20th century, from the interplay of black and white musical styles. Beyond that, I think it would be very helpful if a professional in modern musical history would do some work on the origin section of this article and related articles. -- Kevin Browning 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

    To go before the 20th century, look up the orgins of blues. Also, before blues made it's first popular splash, the white folk had their folk songs. These are what Martin built its guitars for. Country, swing, jazz, rockabilly are all blues based. They may not use the "blue" notes, but even some blues doesn't have the blue notes. Like country blues. Most music consists of call and response, sometimes in very unreconazable forms. Think, "dah dah,dah dah, dah dah,,,,dah dah,dah dah,dah dah. Call and response. Rap music is two bar blues.(no turn aroundThis goes back before blues in many things, like sonets and even some classical music. Country started out as a way to market blues to the white population. It turned into something of it's own(kind of, stuff like Johnny Cash is still blues, not the tone or the lyrics but the dah dah dah dah. I hear the train a rollin,,,,,dah dah dah dah the bend---and I aint----. It is the blues, although it's not bluesy. It does not use the blue notes, I am aware of that.) Listen to country music in the 1920, other than Bob Willis and the Texas Playboys. And when the two met again in the EARLY 50's and LATE 40's, a new form of the blues was created incorporating other elements. Electricity, dancing and the ability for music to spread across county lines through the radio had a HUGE impact on music. The blues is the basis for rock and roll. I don't expect any of this to end up in Wikipedia but it is interesting. I also have my own preference for which bands should be included but I don't believe that this is what this page is for. Is there such a thing as country rock? Just wondering if anyone knew. Maybe we could have a section for country rock, especially if someone is going to add "Iranian Rock"? We could just copy the wiki page for country rock and paste it.blah

    [edit] Slight Edits to Chronology

    I just thought I'd leave a quick not here so nobody accuses me of spamming the article, but I'm making a few small changes to the 90's section of the article. Some of the bands it's listed are not chronologically accurate, for example it lists POD as being one of the nu metal bands of the 90's whereas their first commercial single wasn't released until 2000. Several other similar examples. I'm not trying to change the artists listed to reflect my favorite bands or anything, I'm just trying to make the section as chronologically accurate as possible.

    S. Luke 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Merge rock band into this page

    Rock band (not to be confused with Rock Band or Rock Band (video game)) is a poorly written article with all sorts of vandalism and cleanup problems. It also cites no sources. Additionally, it's creating a disambiguation nightmare with the video game. Currently, different capitalizations of "rock band" lead to different places. The idea is that all capitalizations of "rock band" would lead to a disambiguation page leading to Rock Band (video game) and rock music. This has gotten some support at Talk:Rock_Band (video game)#Requested_move but not yet at rock band. There hasn't been enough discussion at Talk: Rock band#Merge with rock music to build a consensus. Any input from the editors of this page would be appreciated. Oren0 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] List of rock and roll performers?

    Redundancy with List of rock and roll performers? - User:Olivier

    Perhaps a move and merge of this list to the list of.. entry would be best (so that a larger list will live at the list of.. entry). --mav

    [edit] Local H?

    Is Local H really a "notable" exception to the four-member band structure? No offense to Local H, they sound good, but as far as I know they aren't nearly as notable as Ben Folds Five or the White Stripes. I find the inconsistency distracting. - Brendan

    [edit] "Rock" bands

    No mention nor redirect to the 19th century rock bands. NPR Story --138.89.96.185 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Prose

    Much of the prose is absolutely terrible. I've removed all of the redundant content I could find, but the phrasing is extremely awkward. --NeoVampTrunks 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, and Wolfmother."

    I'm guessing one of these bands won't be remembered five years from now. May as well change the article now... 71.238.124.147 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed, and no prizes for guessing which one of these it will be...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, there's a good chance that [Wolfmother] will still be around in five years and be remembered for something, but the chance that Wolfmother will ever have the same kind of historical impact or significance as The Jimi Hendrix Experience or Cream is so tiny that it's absolutely negligible.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    So now we have Chevelle and Green Day? Removing them. 220.245.149.248 13:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "Rock music"?

    Hell! There's no such thing as "Rock music"! The general term is "Rock and roll" ask anybody who knows sth about music ask yor school music teacher! It's just a popular belief that "rock" & "Rockandroll" are two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.19.17.178 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] My Chemical Romance are under the Emo genre? **** no.

    I just read through this page to find good bands that gained success in the 2000s, and, shocked, found this...

    Recently dubbed emo bands include: My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Cute Is What We Aim For and Panic! at the Disco.

    What the hell is this supposed to mean? Gerard Way and the rest of the band has for long denied that they focus on producing music in the Emo genre ([1], in case the idiot who added them don't trust me) - THEIR MUSICAL GENRE IS ALTERNATIVE ROCK, DAMN IT. I'm changing it. Who the **** created that stupid genre, anyway? It's ****ing ridiculous, simply. A Powerful Weakness (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness

    [2] - Third-party, reliable sources say they are emo, just because their singer doesn't like the word emo doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't include them in a section about emo music. And, btw, emo is a subgenre of alternative rock so both terms could apply to this band. Funeral 20:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    It does use the word 'dubbed'; all that's saying is that people have called them emo, not that they actually are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.32.62 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Split proposal

    "Rock music" and "History of Rock" should be 2 different articles, not the freeforall that this one has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.180.40 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Post-rock

    Seeing as post-rock isn't actually rock, ('it is the use of 'rock instrumentation' for non-rock purposes' according to the article on it) shouldn't it be put under derivative forms, rather than subgenres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.32.62 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Guns N Roses

    I added a little blurb about GN'R under glam. I point out that they aren't always considered "glam", but they were the biggest rock band in the world for a couple years, seems they should get some reference. Of course they were too "glam" for the grunge/90's crowd and too "punk" for the 80's hair crowd, so it's hard to categorize them, but they were way too big not to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Industrial Rock

    Suggest putting in industrial rock as a legitimate genre that came about in the early/late 90's, with bands such as Nine Inch Nails, Stabbing Westward, and Gravity Kills. --71.120.11.16 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Nerd Rock

    This should probably be included somewhere after grunge and before pop punk

    See Weezer and Nerf Herder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.8.25 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Masculinity and Rock bands

    There is a particular gendered reality to rock bands that no one has discussed yet or included in the article. A good source for this is:

    Mary Ann Clawson. 1999. "Masculinity and Skill Acquisition in the Adolescent Rock Band" in « Popular Music ». 18(10):99-114. 71.146.10.163 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)