Talk:Rock music/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

2000s

I am doing an expansion of this section. It is overviewing rock music's current state, so I figure it should be a little more expansive. Also, a lot of what's there would qualify as original research, so we may want to go over all that. Zazaban (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Garage rock revival and post-punk revival sections are really, really ugly and too short. I could use some help with them. Zazaban (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my area of expert knowledge ended around 1979, but I'll get my daughter to keep an eye on it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've dotted a few images around the article, which it was lacking is. Most of the article was just a sea of text. Zazaban (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the Garage rock revival and post-punk revival sections definitely need to be worked on. There isn't much to work with, as their main articles are pretty lousy as well. Zazaban (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Punk rock

This section is too big, and starts off rather abruptly with a discussion on the frankness of its lyrics. It does very little to explain the origin of punk, but spends of a lot of time talking about how it is 'an underground form of expression', which sounds like it was written by an idolizer of the genre, and has more to do with the subculture and less to do with the actual music. Zazaban (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I transplanted some information from the punk rock article. It looks much better now. Zazaban (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why hardcore punk legends Bad Brains aren't mentioned on this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.105.64 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Electro-rock

Electro-rock has been fairly important in the rock music of the 2000s. It has no section here, and it's article is terrible. Dance-punk too has been fairly big. I propose a section for both of these genres at the end of the '2000s' section. They have mainly become popular in the last couple of years, (TV On The Radio, MGMT) although bands like Mindless Self Indulgence and KMFDM have been popular earlier in the decade. Lately more electronic rock even seems to be becoming the standard. It needs a section. Zazaban (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Post rock is proving itself to be highly influential as well. Perhaps it deserves a mention as well. Zazaban (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest drawing a sharper distinction between the terms "rock" and "rock and roll" as used in the late 1960s and early 1970s

In my personal experience (I was born in 1947) the term "rock" began to be used widely by young people of roughly my age in America in the late 1960s, in contradistinction to the term "rock and roll," as a way of indicating that "rock" was more meritorious than the former. This change came in response to the profusion of new "rock" styles in that decade, particularly toward its middle and end -- "folk rock"; "jazz rock"; "alternative rock" (in a usage slightly different from that found more recently), "progressive rock" (whatever that was construed to mean), etc. "Rock" was, for example, a principal subject of Rolling Stone magazine, founded in 1967, while mere "rock and roll" would have been thought too primitive to sustain that sort of intellectual intensity.

In subsequent years the "rock"/"rock and roll" distinction (as the terms were used, conceivably a separate issue from the nature of the music being produced) pretty much vanished. It became (rightly, in my opinion) widely understood that there could be no "rock" without its "rock and roll" roots.

Today, the two terms are basically interchangeable. I do not claim to be able to say precisely when the late-1960s/early-1970s distinction between the term "rock" and the term "rock and roll" melted away, as it were, but if someone in 1970 were to have said that his or her favorite music was "rock and roll," it would have been understood that something like "pre-Beatles music" -- Chuck Berry, early Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc. -- was meant; not late Beatles music and definitely not post-Beatles music.

I don't mean to say that "rock" was never used as a shorthand noun to refer to "rock and roll" prior to, say, 1965. I just mean that for some number of years starting about then the two nouns "rock" and "rock and roll" diverged (temporarily) in connotation, if not denotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.77.105 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very well considered comment, with which I totally agree. You'll see from comments of mine earlier on this page that I've resisted attempts to merge this article with "rock and roll", on the basis that post-1960s "rock music", in my view, has developed all sorts of genres which are quite distinct from "rock and roll" which, like you, I've understood to mean primarily the music of the 1950s. But as you suggest this may be a generational thing, and it may be correct that, today, the two are understood to be pretty much the same thing. I'm not sure and would like to hear other views. There's also a view that, today, "rock" (and/or "rock and roll") has become almost a sub-genre of what used to be called "rock" and is now just popular music in general - that is, to refer to mthe music produced by guitar-based bands ("heavy metal" and/or "indie"), rather than, for example, rappers, R&B singers, singer-songwriters, electronic-based musicians, etc. etc. which might previously have been considered all part of "rock". Again, interested to hear other views. (And apologies if my comments betray my age!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my view is the opposite of the anonymous commenter. As a child in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I understood "rock" and "rock 'n' roll" to be synonyms. I remember prominent songs of that era like KISS's "Rock and Roll All Nite" and Joan Jett's "I Love Rock N' Roll". I think the term rock 'n' roll was used more often then than now, which suggests to me that the longer "rock 'n' roll" faded over time in favor of the shorter "rock". Since the anonymous commenter mentions Rolling Stone magazine, let me point out that The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll was first published in 1983 (last updated in 2001) and it uses a broader definition of rock and roll. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, founded in 1983, also uses a broader definition of rock and roll. --JHP (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is largely true as well. The point the first commenter made though is that "rock music" was not a term that was used before the late 1960s, when it became used - post-Beatles, Dylan etc - for the wider range of music (that is, beyond commercial pop music) then starting to be produced. At that time, in the late 60s, "rock and roll" was used primarily for the 50s style of music. But I agree that, later on, the terms may have become more synonymous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The term has never been dropped by the musicians.

Rock and Roll Music (Chuck Berry 1957)Rock and Roll Music (Beatles 1964) Rock and Roll (Velvet Underground 1970)Rock n' Roll (Led Zeppelin 1971) It's Only Rock n' Roll (Rolling Sones 1974) Rock and Roll All Nite (Kiss 1975)Rock and Roll Doctor (Black Sabbath 1976)Rock n' Roll Fantasy (Kinks 1978) Rock n' Roll High School (Ramones 1979) I Love Rock n'Roll (Joan Jett 1982) Rock n' Roll (Motorhead 1987)Rock n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake 1994) Rock and Roll Girlfriend (Green Day 2004)Rock n' Roll Jesus (Kid Rock 2007) Rock and Roll Train (AC/DC 2008)

Rock and "Rock and Roll" are synonyms....."Rock and Roll" is not just pre Beatles music....John Lennon always thought of what he did as Rock and Roll. Kurt Cobain and the guys from Metallica have used both terms (kinda like a synonym). A whale and a bat are very different animals---but they are still under the heading "Mammal". Buddy Holly and Metallica are also very different in many ways but they share enough in common to both be Rock and Roll (or rock). i don't know the motive for seperating the obvious relationship.....age gaps.....racism maybe?.....whatever the motive is .....you're kidding yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

you're forgetting something

In early 2000s, evanescence is one of the rock band with orchrestra and choir i don't know and still confused whether i should call this kind of rock "alternative" or not? but one thing that's so sure, they're not gothic or christian rock! (anyway,where's "gothic rock"?)

and I wonder how this article can be trusted resource cause' when you talk about "rock" it should cover all kind of that, not just mention what've happened in each era.

it might be good if there's "history of rock" separated from "rock music" in order to make it more clarified.

I agreed this is not gonna be the rock music article without mention of Elvis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet-little-lie (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Post-punk revival and Garage rock revival.

These are possibly the two most important movements of this decade. So why are their sections so terrible? Zazaban (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Two must add-names if you want to get serious about Sub-Genres.

Captain Beefheart was unquestionably the king of Psychedelic music. None of the other bands mentioned (even Floyd etc.) defined the genre as much as he did (however obscure he may be) . His influence over music as a whole should be enough to get him on this page but in the Psychedelic Rock genre to leave him out would be ridiculous. (Not a fan boy, but within the music and critical world he is legendary)

Second is The Nice. As they are disputed to be among one of the first Prog rock bands ever they should be mentioned... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.20.181 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Metal subgenres

In continental Europe, especially Germany and Scandinavia, metal continues to be broadly popular. Well-established British acts such as Judas Priest and Iron Maiden continue to have chart success on the continent, as do a range of local groups. In Germany, Western Europe's largest music market, several continental metal bands placed multiple albums in the top 20 of the charts between 2003 and 2008, including Finnish melodic death metal band Children of Bodom, Norwegian symphonic extreme metal act Dimmu Borgir, and two power metal groups, Germany's Blind Guardian and Sweden's HammerFall.

I somehow doubt that the general public – or even the total newbie – that this article is geared to (or at least should be) has any concept of "melodic death metal", "symphonic extreme metal" or "power metal". Having these labels here is even more awkward considering that they come totally out of the blue, as nowhere does the article mention anything about the fact that metal has splintered into numerous very different subgenres (the differences being obvious even to a layman) and associated subscenes ever since the 1980s. Nor, of course, are the names of the subgenres even linked, even though there are extensive articles on them. Perhaps they are too confusing or irrelevant anyway for the general reader and should better be left out. The fact that numerous subgenres have developed, in itself probably deserves mention, though, as it is a characteristic trait of the underground metal scene. Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be better if the genre names aren't listed, and just the band names. Zazaban (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Nothing on this talk page has ever been archived, so I've archived most of it into three archives based on years. Archive 1 is 2006, archive 2 is 2007, and archive 3 is 2008. Zazaban (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Okay, am I the only one left interested in working with the multiple defenitions? Did that drop off the face of the earth? Zazaban (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just hoping someone else would start the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music.--SabreBD (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that discussion is going nowhere. I suggest we keep the note that has been added by another editor and modified by me about the existence of a wider definition (at the end of the lead) and then think about whether we want to include these other forms. Personally I see little point in including sections on hip hop, for example, mainly because this article would become little more than a summary of popular music. However, I suggest that we can easily fit a new sub-section at the end of rock and roll which takes the last paragraph and expands it to outline the developments in doo wop, soul and girl groups from the pre-invasion period. All of which were, at the very least, major influences on what followed.--SabreBD (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that approach in principle, though I don't particularly like the sentence at the end of the introduction. I think there needs to be something along those lines, but it needs to be clearer (not necessarily much longer) about the extent and nature of the use of the term "rock" to cover "other" sorts of music. As I've said before, to me (in the UK) it seems to be very much a US-specific thing to make a point of stating that rock has existed "in contrast to" soul music etc. - essentially it's an argument that goes back, in my view, to the whole history of racial segregation in the US, the existence of separate "black" and "white" music markets, R&B charts, the whole idea of "crossover", etc., which simply do not apply in the rest of the world. (Important: I am certainly not accusing anyone here of racism, just pointing out that the US experience of segregation etc. does not have world-wide applicability.) But I do accept that, now - much more than, say, in the 1960s - the divergences between "rock" (hairy white boys with guitars, etc) and other genres like hip hop, have grown substantially further apart everywhere - although that still does not necessarily mean that they are seen as "in contrast to" each other, just that they coexist and sometimes merge and overlap. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with most of that. Would you like to draft a version of the last sentence as I am not quite sure what will do the job.--SabreBD (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You may need to nudge me in a few days time - busy in the real world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I will see if I can pull something together for the section on Doo Wop and Soul etc, which I do not have a title for yet - so I am open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This now done. I went for "The inbetween years" as that was the most common description, but there was no real consensus. I have tried to indicate the traditional view that not much happened and more recent thinking that points to African American and female contributions in this period. I hope this helps redress the balance a bit. Most of the doo wop stuff went into the earlier rock section as otherwise it looks as it it didn't start till the later 50s, but I references it in here so that its influence would be clear.--SabreBD (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a fine job, Sabrebd. I've moved some of the British material back into earlier sections - I just had a feeling that the overall tone was a bit too US-centric, for instance in seeing all the British stuff as relating to the "Invasion" (which wasn't an invasion to us, we were here all the time!), and in fact people like the Shadows and Joe Meek were influential and important at an international level. I think it flows quite well - see what you think - I'm off to bed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the move of the British stuff into chronological order is a good idea. It is easier to read and points out some of the internationalisation of the genre. I will try to have a look through for things like wikilinks, which are always disrupted by a move like this.--SabreBD (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blues-rock and pop rock sub-sections

At the moment the article stumbles after the British Invasion and Garage Band sections. I propose putting in a section on Blues-rock and expanding pop rock to mention the rise of rock as a separate genre. Hopefully this will bridge the gap to psychedelic rock etc. Any comments and suggestions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Two interconnecting threads, perhaps - UK (Korner, Mayall, Yardbirds, Stones etc.) and US (Butterfield, Canned Heat, Joplin etc.) - with a mention of the folk blues (Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, etc) background? Go for it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That provides a useful plan. I think I can work something around that pattern. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have put something together. Not sure the balance is right, especially the paragraph on American acts. So any suggestions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gradual clean up and other issues

Regular editors and watchers will probably have realised (perhaps before I did) that I have moved from improving some early sections of this article to a gradual clean up. I am doing this a sub-section at a time, supplying citations, removing and POV, trying to improve the sense of the article, while preserving the good work already done. I am more than happy if editors get to a section to do this before me and I am very grateful to those that help improve what I have written. However, I am aware that, despite my best efforts, this does tend to make and already long article longer and this process is unlikely to be reversed as there is a legitimate argument to include notable, but missing, sub-genres. So a point for consideration is whether this article will one day need to be divided into several sub-articles, with this one staying as a summary of each. The only logical way I can see of doing this is by decade, and this does pose a problem, as many subgenres inconveniently failed to die when the year had a 9 at the end. You can perhaps get a sense of how this might work from the articles on British popular music, but obviously it would be on a grander scale. I am not really pushing this idea, or proposing that something needs to be done soon, but just putting it on the table for consideration and to try to gauge reactions.--SabreBD (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One possibility might be to have a WP:TIMELINE like this one, in parallel with the main article. Just another thought, I'm not necessarily proposing it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be useful as an addition, in essence a different way of covering a lot of information, but obviously not a substitute. If it had all the year by year articles it would be a lot of work to set up.--SabreBD (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Roots rock

Proposal for a new sub-section on Roots rock, which would be a summary of the that article, mentioning the back to basics movement of the late 60s early 70s: bands like Creedence Clearwater Revival and The Band, as well as Country rock and Southern rock. For the record I don't care for the term "roots rock" which was not made up until the 1980s, but there it is the term now used and there is a phenomenon here which it usefully describes. It would probably fit between psychedelic rock and progressive rock. This would help balance the Anglo-centric bias of this part of the article by indicating what the Americans are up to in a very creative era. If there no suggestions I will go ahead in a few days. Any suggestions welcome as usual.--SabreBD (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Subgenres

Rock music is 60's. Instrumental rock is 1958. Is instrumental rock and surf rock (1960-61) subgenres of rock music? No, It is not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mago266 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)