Talk:Social effects of rock music

Jungle beat

This article was redirected after AFD and a merge with Rock music was requested. Some or all of this information may be suitable for in this article (Yomangani^talk 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)) :

A jungle beat or jungle music is a beat or musical style that is inherently evil, immoral, and/or sensual, according to some conservative Christians.[1] In modern use, proponents of the existence of jungle beats most commonly single out the musical genres of rock and hip-hop as containing such beats.[2] Thus, according to the term's proponents, any song in the rock genre is inherently evil because of the song's musical beat, regardless of the song's lyrics or message. Some extend this analysis to Christian rock songs.[3]

Though the precise origins of the term are unclear, its use gained some prominence in the 1960s. Conservative author and evangelist David Noebel is one of the most notable proponents of the existence of jungle beats. In his writings and speeches, Noebel held that the use of such beats in music, especially rock and roll, was a communist plot to subvert the morality of the youth of the United States.[4]

Additionally, the term has a connection with racism or Victorian mores. In the 1950s, American conservative white ministers condemned rock and roll as "jungle music" or containing a "jungle beat" that they associated with "raging sexuality" because of its origin in the blues, which, at the time, was nearly exclusively performed by African-Americans.[5]

Sources

1. Description of Noebel's The Marxist Minstrels
2. Music; how does it affect you? from Virtue Magazine
3. Is Music Really Neutral?
4. Jesus -- The Rock That Will Not Roll
5. How to become a Christian
6. Always Jesus People: An Ongoing Revolution
7. Whose Blues Are They?, Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper, December 5, 1996
8. Debate Spurs Hearings on Rating Rock Lyrics by Jon Pareles, New York Times, September 18, 1985

I've included the relevant information from this in the Spiritual aspects section. Pwnage8 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

The statement "it is often stated that the lifestyle of rock and roll during the 50s and 60s was far worse then the much more normal lifestyle of modern rock" has not atttribution. Who is it that often states this, and what reasons do they have to support their position? --Wombattery 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed that section for now. If anyone has citations for that claim, put that section back in and add them. Pwnage8 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Several teenagers today" - thats just stupid, who cares if 3 kids start their own trend, find some source for this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.12.195 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a truly dreadful article

Just letting you all know...

I am researching Rock and Roll for a college essay and so far, this has to be the most trashy article I've read.

I would clean it up but I honestly can't see the purpose of it as an article. To be readable, let alone useful, it would need a massive overhaul.

If you don't like it, go ahead and fix it up. It would be helpful if you signed your name. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of the worst articles on wikipedia. 71.111.4.42 (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I third the point -- this is a TERRIBLE article. There's obviously NO NEED for an article on the "social effects of rock and roll". Certainly not a separate article, anyways. If wiki were to include an article on the "social effects" of any cultural phenomenon, then they list would be endless. Why not, say, an article on the social effects of comic books, coffee, smart phones, grocery stores -- all of which have 'social effects'. If they didn't, they wouldn't be social!!!! Please someone put this article out of its misery!--98.190.145.152 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"However Varg Vikernes and numerous others in the early Norwegian black metal scene were Satanists..."

As one user has mentioned, this article is dreadful, but this paragraph is particularly terrible for being biased ("and even burned down churches") and just plain wrong (many of the musicians involved do admit to being anti-Christian, but never Satanist). Dethmetal (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Morally conservative bias.

I sense a strong christian moral tone in this article. Seriously, it is dreadful. Zazaban (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it screams major rewrite, preferably based on some major mainstream sources.--SabreBD (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see strong christian moral tone? Perhaps I missed something but in my opinion it is fair and plainly informative. Critical opinions ("Religious rock") are balanced with positive ones (like "Helping the world"), without taking sides. Personally I don't see anything wrong here. Ammon86 (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sex and Drugs section is particular bad, including phrasings like "The lessons of the excesses of the earlier eras were ignored" and "cleaned up their act". Also, the section attributes rock's 'moving into the social norm' to conversions to christianity. A major rewrite is desperately needed. There is a undertone of moral panic all over the place. Zazaban (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of complaining lets improve the article. Portillo (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have started. Zazaban (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon Imagine, and preceeding song, "God"

Wikipedia- John Lennon released the famous hit Imagine, describing a better world in which religion was absent. The summary of the reference below on Lennon is that Imagine was basically a sugar-coated version of previous songs, "God" and a couple of others that were more strongly atheistic. Lennon needed to sugar coat the message in order for it to be palatable to the public. http://books.google.com/books?id=0mqPf0hnePsC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=john+lennon+imagine+god+sugar+coated&source=bl&ots=PMOOJ_Q11q&sig=C0eNEWGb5Ne3jx8Dm3ftMJA8Ttw&hl=en&ei=n7KRTYG0OZGitgez1Z12&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false "You have to put your political message...with a little honey." Lennon page 52

"God" lyrics

God is a concept, By which we can measure, Our pain, I'll say it again, God is a concept, By which we can measure, Our pain, I don't believe in magic, I don't believe in I-ching, I don't believe in bible, I don't believe in tarot, I don't believe in Hitler, I don't believe in Jesus, I don't believe in Kennedy, I don't believe in Buddha, I don't believe in mantra, I don't believe in Gita, I don't believe in yoga, ...... I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me, Yoko and me, And that's reality. .... Natural (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

The Beatles

I do not think it is right to call The Beatles of the early 60s a "rock band" nor to suggest that they played "rock music". They were a pop group. Is pop rock?

Likewise Gene Vincent. He sang 'rock and roll' and rockabilly. --Bridge Boy (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's the Social effect of Country Music article

stupid premise to this article... Country has done more brain damage to Americans than rock 73.249.77.147 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You tell 'em! Pink Floyd Fan 101 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Bias

The section of this article dealing with the claims that rock music is "evil" or what not doesn't do a lot to balance it out. This is 2024, not 1985, remember. Gives off too much of a "satanic panic" vibe. We shouldn’t be giving credence to silly moral panics like this IMO. Pink Floyd Fan 101 (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)