Talk:Instrumental rock

It is polite

@Woodroar: before you remove a lot of work another editor has done to alert them to the fact that you'd like to see a reference or references. I just started this section because the article needs sourced material and a more organized way of presenting a lot of material, and had spent most of Christmas Day doing it, but had not quite figured out where to put the sources, which are, Whitburn, Joel The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, Billboard Books, New York, 1992, Whitburn, Joel, The Billboard Book of TOP 40 R&B and Hip Hop Hits, Billboard Books, New York 2006, and Brown, Tony, Jon Kutner & Neil Warwick, The Complete Book of the British Charts: Singles and Albums, Omnibus Press, London, 2002. If I reference every entry it will get very messy Feel free to offer a suggestion. Carptrash (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Chart rankings, like any music-related subject, are rarely uncontroversial. Editors routinely rely on poor-quality chart data just like they shoehorn their favorite bands into articles and edit war about genres. This is exactly why MOS:CHARTS calls for individual and specific references and WP:CHART includes clear-cut examples of recommended charts and deprecated charts and even how to source Billboard in particular. (That being said, those are all really just specific applications of content guidelines like WP:CITE and policies like WP:V and WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH.) I removed the chart as part of WP:BRD because they're not cited at all. Remember that there's no deadline so if you'd like to add the chart back once it's cited, that's fine by me. Though now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if a standalone list with chart data might be more appropriate? I'm interested in what others have to say about that. Woodroar (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Woodroar: So you think I should put a reference next to each charting even though all the US ones are from one (mentioned) source, all the British are from another (mentioned) source and all the R&B are from a third (mentioned) source? I might add Country later, depending on what happens there. With a Country reference, of course. Carptrash (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Also I do not edit wikipedia because it has a great collection of rules, and policies and guidelines so tossing half a dozen of them at me hoping that I'll spot something germane is not effective. You want sources, okay. It's Christmas so I'll spend the next hour or two making you happy. The point of the chart is to demonstrate how pervasive and popular instrumentals were during the 1965s and 60s in a way that allows for a lot more artists too be included without resorting to long lists in the text. This is important, encyclopedic information and needs to be included. I have started chipping away at the largely (completely?) unreferenced text, but will put that task aside while I look to this reference thing. Carptrash (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Inline citations as well as online references are always preferable, because they help our readers find specific sources but also because they make it easier for us, as editors, to do what we do. Look at it this way: when an entire chart or paragraph or section is cited to a single source, it's difficult for others to add or change or rearrange that material. It's also trivially easy for someone to insert spurious claims or outright vandalize the text because there's no gap in references. I mean, I've discovered incorrect information added nearly a decade before that appeared correct because of a general article citation and I was only able to confirm it was vandalism by looking through pages and pages of history. Woodroar (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I get it. I too have been on wikipedia for over a decade and have seen what havoc both vandals and true believers can wreak. I'll get you your sources, I have a home library so most of my editing come from there, not from the internet. If you'd be more comfortable converting my chart book references to internet ones, have at it. Carptrash (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot! I have a feeling the billboard.com data has been archived but it can't hurt to look! Woodroar (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Jazz fusion section

• The jazz fusion of the 1970s often had considerable stylistic cross-over with rock, and groups such as Return to Forever, the Mahavishnu Orchestra and Weather Report had sizable followings among rock fans.

because although it might appeal to some rock fans it is not rock music so out of the scope of this article. Carptrash (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some sources. I've definitely heard "jazz fusion" used interchangeably with "jazz rock", and jazz rock even redirects to a section in jazz fusion. Plus Return to Forever and Mahavishnu Orchestra are described as progressive rock in their articles, so sources probably exist. But like I said, I'll take a look. Woodroar (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Woodroar: If you feel strongly about the fact that (for example) the Mahavishnu Orchestra belongs in the Rock genre you can put it back. I am as concerned with what you feel as with what the sources might say. Carptrash (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know, personally. I've only listened to Mahavishnu Orchestra casually a handful of times and I don't have any of their albums or know much about them, really. I just listen to a lot of newer prog and their name gets thrown out a ton. I'd definitely like to see what the sources say. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I remember how they turned the world on its head when they came out in about 1970 or so. I was already familiar with John McLaughlin through The Tony Williams Lifetime and it was crazy stuff but it was not rock music. Still is not from my perspective, but see what the sources say. Carptrash (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we spin-off the charts section to a new article?

As I mentioned a couple sections above, I'm wondering if we should spin-off the "1950s and 1960s chartings" section into its own article, maybe List of charting instrumental rock songs or something similar? It's encyclopedic information, but such specific detail is pretty UNDUE for a general article like this. Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with spinning it off. I am working on a 70 & 80s chart right now, music that I don't know as well so it is slower going. I don't care where they end up, I just like the chart form because it has (opinion) more information crammed into a smaller space than simple text. Carptrash (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, for comprehensive information like this, a chart is the way to go. There's no way we could fit this into prose, unless we were just mentioning a handful of prominent examples. Woodroar (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Instrumentals by vocal artists

The entire "Instrumentals by vocal artists" section strikes me as original research. Carptrash, do you know of any third-party sources that consider these songs particularly prominent examples of instrumental rock? I'm asking because the sources that I'm familiar with tend to focus on exclusively instrumental bands, though they'll usually include bands that record an occasional song with vocals (say, Pelican). Sometimes they will mention bands known for their extended instrumental tracks (The Allman Brothers Band, Metallica, and Phish come to mind) but not much else. Woodroar (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that they were released by bands such as The Beatles and the Rolling Stones makes them notable. They represents another aspect of rock instrumentals besides those produced by straight up instrumental bands. But let's just separate the charts into separate articles and then you won't need to worry about what I am doing and I won't worry about what you are doing. Carptrash (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)