Talk:Rock music/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

We're talking about Rock music not Rock and roll Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:58, 14 June 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)

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)

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)

I don't know what idiot thinks rock n roll and "rock" music are two different entities. They're all ONE. Rock is rock, with an array of subgenres falling under its tent. Whoever made this article is either woefully ignorant, a revisionist or racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.101.216 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is another perfect and classic example of white guys trying to rewrite the history of American music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rock is not the same thing as rock and roll. Rock and roll is basically just sped-up blues. Rock encompasses more forms, where as most rock and roll songs are 12-bar-blueses. Rock and roll came first, and rock evolved from it. ^Tezkag₇₂ 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference between "rock" and "rock 'n' roll" is largely semantics relegated to a small coterie of record collector weenies. (I should know, I *AM* one of them.) While you can argue that a group of adherents separates them, letting rock and roll refer to the musical combination of country, blues, R&B, and gospel forms in the late 40s/early 50s (depending on where you stand on the "What is the first rock and roll record?" argument) and continuing on up until (loosely) the arrival of the Beatles at which point it began to morph into the more album-oriented "rock". If someone says they enjoy "rock" music, we know they mean music which traces itself back to those basic four roots musics. If we're going to start opening the can of worms that they are "different" then we also have to start making allowances for "oldies"..who the heck can definitely decide what eras THAT constitutes? (Even oldies radio stations can't figure that out.) I think the obvious answer is that this should all be ONE article...with a small section indicating that "rock and roll" typically refers to music of late 40s through early 60s vintage..and leave it at that. Anything else is inviting needless chaos. GBrady (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Yaanch^Speak! 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

Strong Oppose I agree with earlier comments in this discussion. "Rock and roll" originated as a new form of music in the early/mid 1950s, and its development in that period alone justifies its own article. It then led on to "rock" in the late 1960s, and all the subsequent genres (or sub-genres). So, it's correct that "rock and roll" is both a specific type of 1950s-styled music, and also that it can be used as a wider term that encompasses "rock". But they don't mean the same thing, and so there need to be separate articles. Given the opposition to merger expressed here, I think it's time to remove the merger tag, so I'll go ahead and do it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support Trying to separate the two is making all of you either ignorant, racist or both. Another classic example of white people trying to rewrite African American history. Seriously, do you guys even know the history and roots of rock music? Probably you're all wired like followers to believe Elvis created rock n roll. Do you know what context means? Do you know that a genre can have many diverse genres and fall under the same umbrella? Don't sit here and tell me that we need separate articles for jazz-funk and experimental jazz since those two differ greatly from traditional jazz. Rock n roll is the starting point for all of its myriad genres, and you can trace ALL of "rock" music back to the late '40s and '50s. This supposed term "rock" is fundamentally rock n roll, from the vocals to the standard instrumentation and rhythm -- all the essential characteristics of rock and roll are still there. The two terms are interchangeable because they both mean the same thing (i.e. "sex" in African American slang, the same with "jazz"). Rhythm and blues itself was supplanted with "rock and roll" to make it appeal to a white, mainstream American audience, even though rhythm and blues was saturated with sex itself. This separation of "rock" and "rock and roll" began in the late '60s and beyond because of these ignorant and/or racist journalists who deemed rock important enough to be an "art form" and thereby want to rewrite its roots and history to fit their own views. Since then, it's been institutionalized, much like racism in America in particular. If you want, I can go and show the error of each claim above in this section and show the dumbness of the separation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I totally agree that rock music (mainly) derived from rock & roll, which (mainly) derived from black R&B, which (mainly) derived from earlier black music. "Rock n roll is the starting point for all of its myriad genres, and you can trace ALL of "rock" music back to the late '40s and '50s. This supposed term "rock" is fundamentally rock n roll, from the vocals to the standard instrumentation and rhythm -- all the essential characteristics of rock and roll are still there." - I could not agree more with all of that, and hopefully not many others here would take a different view. That view is (perhaps not very well) set out in the article. But can we turn the question round? There was a lot of music produced in the 50s which derived from R&B and was popular with white audiences - the music which at the time, and now, we call rock & roll. What title would you give to a separate article on that music? Sometimes the subject matter of articles just gets to be too big for a single article and needs to be split, but, yes, perhaps it does need to be made clearer that "rock" is fundamentally rock n roll, as you rightly say. (But, just to be pedantic, the term "rocking and rolling" was originally used by sailors to describe the motion of ships, centuries before it was used as a term for sex.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and to be more pedantic, the words "rock" and "roll", at least in current English context, mean just that. But rock n roll is more than terminology obviously. But if the article is split because of space concerns, then I see what you're getting at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support "Rock" is merely a delineation of TIME not really of GENRE. If you trace them back, both the 60s "rock" of the Beatles and the 50s "rock and roll" of Chuck Berry have the same basic 4 roots musics that bled into them: country, blues, R&B, and gospel. It's better to have a "disclaimer" in the article explaining that one term typically is used for the earlier music and a different one for the latter than having two bloated articles with large chunks of repeated content. I also can't accept the notion that "rock music" is some separate entity that was "invented" at some point in the 1960s.GBrady (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

I can't believe that this is still an issue. This article is so biased as to be useless. Rock was not "invented" in the USA, but formed out of a continuum of American pop music. The British meerly took a few steps back from where the USA developed (more towards the RnB spectrum) and brought out more of the blues roots, leaving out the country. This is especially evident in the Yardbirds and the Rolling Stones (both essentially blues bands.) Rock and Roll is American, there is no doubt, and though the Brits helped keep it alive in the 60's, they can hardly claim it their own. Starting this article with British roots is offensive. CancelHoo72 (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As a Brit I totally agree with the last post. I've cobbled together a brief introductory section on Rock and roll, drawn from the existing article. Hopefully it improves the flow of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with the anonymous writers. If someone is going to tell me that British musicians "invented" a new genre, you'll have better luck convincing me on punk than on "rock". British musicians had an appreciation for the earlier R&B/blues singers that had waned in American popularity and essentially retooled that which came before them and reintroduced it. That's not to say that Britain didn't have a HUGE influence on the PROGRESSION of rock music...any music historian worth his salt will have to acknowledge the Beatles and Stones huge influence just to name a pair...but I can't honestly say the Beatles INVENTED a new musical genre though they did POPULARIZE psych thanks to Sgt. Pepper. Rock was born in America, foster parented in the U.K. GBrady (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Instrumental Rock

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

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)

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

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)

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).

Modern R&B is different than "rhythm and blues". Modern R&B is more like hip-hop soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.101.216 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, to distinguish rock music as a separate music form (in this case, rock n roll) is absurd and incorrect. It's called "rock" for a reason, and all of its various forms share a common thread, a commonality at its basic core. Rock evolves, seemingly every five years, yet all these genres, from soul to metal, fit under the rock umbrella. If you don't even know what "rock n roll means," then you need to seriously do your homework. In the '50s, "rock music" was just an abbreviation of rock n roll. OK, so the Beatles, Beach Boys, and Bob Dylan elevated the music to "art form," and technologies enhanced the features of this diverse music genre, but that still doesn't mean that now it's no longer rock n roll - it just means its a progression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.216.121 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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

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)