Talk:Garage rock/Archive 1

Too US?
I know that the US had lots of Garage Bands but so did the UK. The Troggs, who are mentioned in the article, are one of the most popular garage bands. This article doesn't seem to acknowldge the British garage scene which ultimately led to the punk scene. DR. Martin Hesselius 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

New Irish Band?
What's with the one line advert for 'new irish phenomenon' or whatever, right at the end? it doesn't fit. It's ADVERTISING. makeitgoaway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levis517 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

2 sub-genres or 1
At the moment the article is in the odd position of having two infoboxes. If garage band and the revival are the same sub-genre there should probably be one box, if not, perhaps there should be two articles. Opinions and polite suggestions welcome.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The name garage rock
The article claims that the name refers to the fact that many of these bands rehearsed in garages; isn't it more significant that the records sound as if they're coming from a garage? Rp (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "garage band" was in use in the 1960s, in reference to groups who were perceived to rehearse in a garage. As I recall, it had little if any connotation of style or genre; most of these groups were what today would be called cover bands, doing popular songs of the day. Some were pretty good musicians, even if they only did covers, many others were probably less skillful. But the main idea was that a garage band was a group of young, essentially amateur (in the sense that music was not their career$ musicians who were likely to rehearse in the family garage. Wschart (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Garage Rock is the true Punk Rock as this is the original
The Punk Rock sound of the 70's grew out of the true Punk Rock that was hitting the headlines in the States. To try and rename the true punk rock to Garage Rock is wrong. The sound that was started by the Ramones and the Sex Pistols etc is just an angle from Punk Rock that took a major explosion into the world press. Even the CBGB venue in New York will confirm this. The sound and attitude coming from the Bromley contingent was just Shock Rock aimed to shock and create an image. If anything it is this part of Punk Rock that should adopt a new name and we should not compromise history due to many peoples biasisms and ignorance.

Punk Rock is basically a term for Rock 'n' Roll in its rawest form played by amatures. Punk Rock is a music developed in the 60's that didn't recieve its title until the early 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talk • contribs) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Punk and Garage are part of the same line that might go something like Bo Diddley etc, British Invasion, Garage, Iggy, NYDolls, Ramones, UK Punk, Black Flag etc, and then so on. I think the telling thing that happens at the same time that the "punk" tag comes along is that the music gets really fast. Classic Garage can have a really belligerence, but often with a mid-tempo swagger. So keeping the genres seperate is useful.  Almost - instinct 09:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard "1523 Blair," by the Outcasts (1966). It is faster than anything by the Sex Pistols.174.70.125.143 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the article should make it clearer that this genre developed from the music of 50s artists such as Little Richard and Richard Berry. Rp (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

reply
In reply to the comment offered up below, and to quote Chris Gaylord, of The Lyrics fame, "All I can say about that is, 'So What!'"

Damn garage rock bands love using the word The in their names. Anyone notice that? --Arm GODdamn garage bands use Thee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If God has a name, then "The" comes in front of it. All Glory to garage rock!!!Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Turn On
Any1 looking for a brand new garage rock revival band, check out turn on [] right out of Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.168.196 (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

why was the page redirected to "garage band"?
garage rock is a real genre from the 1960's. any modern rock 'n' roll historian can tell you that. can someone explain why it was redirected to a different article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashyourface86 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No I can't, but I have restored the article. Thanks for drawing this to the attention of editors.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Garage Rock vs Post Punk
Garage rock is a retronym for the rock bands of the 1960s whose musical style had a major influence on early punk bands. Such artists include The Standells and The Atlatnics.

Post punk is a retronym for a do-it-yourself variant of new wave music. Artists include New Order and Joy Division.

Garage rock revival artists include The White Stripes and Jet. These artists provide a punk-blues style reminiscent of the original sixties rock sound.

By comparison, the post punk revival does not in any way resemble garage rock.

In my opinion, garage rock and post punk should not be categorized together. AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Opinion is not very important on Wikipedia, verifiability is. Do you have and [[WP:RS|reliable sources that indicate that this is the case?-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We could go per allmusic: Garage rock revival vs. Post-punk revival. Garage rock revival, according to them, has been going on since the 1980s and relates to Garage punk and "garage rock revival bands aimed to recapture the wild, rowdy, raucous spirit of '60s garage rock", while Post-punk revival refers to bands that "surfaced with clear indebtedness to post-punk and new wave", not to Garage rock. In other words, there's difference in time of appearance and in influences. Yes, bands such as The Libertines, The Strokes, Arctic Monkeys and Yeah Yeah Yeahs tend to be categorized as both sometimes. But do you have any specific source stating that any of the following have had some sort of influence of Garage rock?: Interpol, The Killers, Bloc Party, Editors. For that matter, most of those bands appear in this list of post-punk revival bands, but they seem not to be usually mentioned in lists of Garage rock revival.

In addition, post-punk revival states nothing about garage rock (save for a mention in the "see also"). (And on a personal note, putting Garage rock revival and Post-punk revival in the same category is as inaccurate as putting 60s garage rock bands with late 70s/80s post-punk bands.) --186.82.60.241 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Allmusic do use the term for two different things in this case, but that doesn't mean that the terms have not been used indiscriminately. For example, see the extract at: .-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because they're used indiscriminately (in this case, with the case of The Strokes, a band that, as I said, tends to be put as both garage rock and post-punk revival) doesn't mean there is not a distinction/difference between the terms. And for that matter, the author also uses "noise rock" and "grunge-pop" as examples of "neo-punk" of the 90s, would that mean that we have to indiscriminately use those terms to refer to these bands too? But the point stands, is there any source that refers to any of those bands mentioned above (and most featuring on the post-punk revival bands category) as garage rock? --186.82.60.241 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean... I guess my only objections are the appearance of post-punk revival bands that are not qualified for the most part as garage rock revival and the fact that the article mentions how post-punk revival seems to be only an alternative name to the garage rock movement of the late 90s/00s when it clearly is a separate, albeit somewhat related, genre --186.82.60.241 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the end we will need to come up with some form of words that outlines the different ways the terms are used, both for distinct bands and interchangeably. I will give it some thought, but I am open to suggestions.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something like "In the 2000s, another garage rock revival, sharing some common artists with the post-punk revival movement that appeared during the late 90s" etc. but I don't know what you think. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Something along those lines would be good. Perhaps "In the early 2000s, garage rock artists received a level of airplay and commercial success that was unprecedented for past bands attempting to revive the subgenre." List off a few and then mention "There was a great level of intersection between garage rock and a simultaneously occurring post-punk revival as evidenced by bands such as..."--ARomanNamedStatusQuo (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think I prefer the more less elaborate first one. It also needs to correspond with the sources.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

2000s "garage punk"
The recently added last paragraph on bands that emerged in the mid-2000s has been deleted and re-added several times, including readdding by myself. However, I can see why it was deleted as it is not clear that these bands are garage rock (most are described by their Wikipedia pages as garage punk - for what that is worth). Their status could be debated, but a more important issue is that most of this is without reliable sources and has been tagged for some time. If anyone wants to keep this could they provide a rationale and preferably some sources. Otherwise I will delete the unsourced material soon and then look at what is left and whether we can justify keeping it.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Garage band
There should be pages about the garage band software made by Apple and by the Garage Band website

There was a link to Cotton Mouth here that goes to the dryness of the mouth condition. I changed it so it goes to the disambiguation page. If there is a Cotton Mouth garage band someone can add it there. Superclear 22:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The garage rock catagories should remain as they are due to the fact that identifying each era is important to some. For example, some folks may be strictly interested in information on original 60's garage rock, while others may be interested in all forms of garage rock, even some which is deemed and often catagorized as revivalist garage rock. My vote is to keep the catagories era specific. Hamilton Styden 06:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is just so unfortunate that every name that has ever been applied to garage rock gets taken away by somebody else. First "punk rock" got taken away and now "garage band" (thank you Apple). I guess the next thing will be "garage rock." You will be able to buy a corporately advertised "Garage Rock" to put in your garage to hold the oil tarp in place. It is sad to see this maginificent musical genre suffer cultural desecration and demolition by neglect. What did these wonderful bands and artists ever do to deserve this? Even Wiki makes them suffer the indignity of a way-too-short feature summary article. This moment was the crown pinnacle of rock's greatest era and these bands were a huge part of it (this was the largest grass roots rock movement ever by far). Yet, all we are provided with here is paltry breadcrumbs. Let's provide something more comprehensive. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

statement in heading misleading
The statement "In the late 70's some rock critics retroactively identified it as an early incarnation of punk" is misleading. That is not exactly true, although I appreciate the fact that you are moving in the right direction, by acknowledging it as an "early incarnation of punk," as opposed to the former term, "protopunk." Still, the reference about the late 70's has no citations to support it. Which critics are they referring to? Where? What periodicals? Its factual basis is not sound. Yes, in the late 70's many critics began to use the term "garage rock" rather than the former "punk" to denote what we now call garage rock, in the wake of the Sex Pistiols, as not to be confusing. Greg Shaw, one of original critics who had spoken, in the early 70's of garage rock as "punk" later started to use "garage," but he now feels that garage rock should now be able to re-claim its "punk" designation. Factually speaking, it was in the early 70's, not the late 70's that critics retroactively identifed garage rock of the mid-60's as as "punk."

Here is what needs to be said, factually speaking (with citations): In the early 70's certain rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, whether individually or collecively, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock.

To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion:


 * "...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case."  Lenny Kaye took the colloquial, unofficial term that was floating around and, in the act of writing about it, officially codified it in the larger public mind in his notes on a major record relase by a major record label with widespread ditribution (Electra). Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Statements in the lead are sourced in the article and so do not have to be sourced again in the lead, which is a summary. You also need to look at WP:OR and WP:Synth. An editor cannot look at album covers and then draw a conclusion. It has to be in reliable secondary sources.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but these liner notes were the work noted rock critic, Lenny Kaye, who later became a member of of the mid-70's punk scene in New York (in the Patti Smith Group). He wrote the liner notes in the form of an essay, with a title. There are also writings by Dave Marsh, Greg Shaw, Alec Palao, and others, from both the early 70's and today, which confirm this point of view. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)19:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the heading to the "Punk Rock" article in Wiki has now been ammended by master editors to reflect this fact. Even the Wiki article, "Protpunk," makes mention of this fact. It is now time to make a change on the heading here.

If album liner notes are not enough: There is a great website devoted to the etymology of punk (and the developent of how the term came to be used in rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's.  The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands. The critics later speak of the mid-70's punk movement in New York (they were there at the time) as a punk revival (not as a new thing called punk). They talk about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries. Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets says:


 * "Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973)

Shaw in a later review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976) describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (the early Sex Pistols sand covers of "Steppin' Stone," by Paul Revere & The Raiders, etc. and "Substitue," by the Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon. But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:


 * "But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975)

I am glad to see that the heading to the article has been modified to achieve greater historical accuracy, along the lines of the quotes and references mentioned above. I still feel that the words "...early half of..." or "..early to mid..." should be added before "...1970's, some critics...", so that the reader can clearly understood that it was in the earlier half of the decade (pre-1976)that the term "punk rock" was applied to the mid-60's garage bands. This would be more factual and make the overall statement more comprehensible and less confusing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Punk started in the early to mid 60's not in the mid to late 70's
Not enough is said in the Wikipedia article, "Garage Rock," about how garage rock was the original form of punk rock. The term was origianlly applied to it as a retronym in the early 70's by important rock critics. Dave Marsh, in his May 1971 Creem Magazine review of Question Mark and the Mysterions, referred to them as "punk rock." Lenny Kay in his liner notes for the original 1972 compilation, Nuggets (on Electra), refered to the what we now call garage rock (of the mid 60's) as "punk rock," with the assumption that it was commonly referred to that way in knowlegeable circles. Supposedly, Lester Bangs also wrote on this topic, designating the garage bands of 1963-1967 as "punk rock." The article on Wikipeda needs to be longer, cosidering the scope of this music: I read that it is estimated that there may have been at least 300,000 American garage bands playing and/or recording in 1966 alone.

The role of mid 60's garage rock is in bad need of, not only greater appreciation, but of a full re-evaluation in the history of punk rock. Since the explosion of New York and British punk in the mid to late 70's garage rock has been seen more as a precursor to punk, rather than true punk itself. However, this was not the view in the early 70's. Let me explain:

I acknowledge that the 60's garage rockers had not claimed the word "punk" for themselves. If the word punk had been used to describe the music in the 60's, it would most likely have been used in a disparraging way by older people. And, I also acknowlege that it wasn't until the mid to late 70's that newer bands started calling temselves "punk," and adopting a look, philosophy, and ideology that was completely seperate from other forms of rock.

In the 60's it wasn't really necessary to do that, because the youth had their collective back up against the wall and had to stand united against the older establishment; any divisions in the ranks would have weakend their efforts rather than strengthened them. Even if the term "punk" had been used, there would have no use in creating a distinction between "punk" and "hippie" at that time. All of the rock of that era, whether you call it "mod," "British invasion," "folk" "punk," "garage," "psycedelic," "acid," "hippe" whatever was tied up in a nexus. To appreciate just how true this is, watch the Standells performing in a club during the opening credit sequence of the movie, "Riot on Sunset Strip" to understand what I am talking about. They are punky as hell!!! ...and yet somehow there is the hippy thing at the same time. But, the more you excavate through the 60's, the more you find punk. The term was not self-referentially used at that time, but the reality of its existence was already very much there. And all it needed do would be to find people to point it out and codify it (Marsh, Bangs, Kaye, et. al. in 1971-1972). Want to see what typical rock & roll was like in 1966? Check out the Sylvania TV ad from that year on Youtube (with that wild rock & roller guy). What do you find? Punk!!! Keep on searching, researching, listening to records by garage bands. Get deeper into the lesser known ones. You will come to realize that this was the first golden age of punk rock. Don't take my word. Check it out for yourself. You will come to the same conclusion.

So let's talk about "punk" as it relates to the 60's: Is it necessary for musicians and people in a certain cultural milieu to have to self-define thier own genre or label and create a whole seperate look and philosophy to be considered a part of that label or designation? No. Did the first heavy metal performers (such as Blue Cheer, early Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc.) call themselves "heavy metal?" No. In fact many of them denied the label after it later became fashionably applied to them. Their look and aesthetic style was not much differnt from other bands of the late 60's (check out Robert Plant's or Ian Gillin's tie-dye shirts in '69--same thing that Crosby, Stills, and Nash would have been wearing). They were just singing to their generation. Does that mean that they weren't "heavy metal?" Of course not. The term was coined to apply to them. Of course, later on, heavy metal would evolve into having a whole seperate look and identity from other forms of rock, but that was a few years away. By the way, didn't the Ramones deny the label punk for awhile circa '78? Does that make them not punk?

Did the mid 60's garage rockers have to call themselves "punk" and look completely different form everyone else at that time to be punk? I say no. Because, the term "punk rock," as it was first used, applied to them. Did The Creation ever have the slightest clue in 1966 that people would one day be refering to them as "freakbeat?" Certainly not. Does that mean that they weren't freakbeat? Of course not.

I'll be the first person to grant that, when the term "punk rock" was first used to describe these 60's garage rockers, it was used as a retronym by rock critics in the early 70's to designate a sub-genre within a larger genre (much as was the case with "freakbeat"). It did not necessarily denote a whole seperate movement. Does that make it not punk? No. There is no way of getting around it: the garage rock of the mid-60's was the original form of punk rock and was the first style to be designated as such within the rock critical community. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact. Do your research.

I am in no way disparaging the later more identifiable punk rock post-1975. It was my love of that music that brought me to want to discover where it came from. And, it is my love for great bands such as The Clash, who proudly showed thier solidarity and proclamed "We're a garage band" on thier first album, that led me to this. And I have heard Joe Strummer say in a documentary that he considered the garage bands of the 1960's to be the original punk (The Ramones have also said the same thing). I wish that some of the other great 70's punk icons could have been as generous. Some people said that the Clash moved away from punk on the London Calling album. Wrong 'em boyo, The Clash returned punk to the richness and diversity of expression that it had known in the 60's.

There can be no denying the genius of the bands of the 70's punk movement, particularly the British bands. They created a whole new look and philosophy to go with thier brilliantly updated (and re-defined) punk sound at a time when rock really needed it, and created a whole new look and iconography to go with it. They truly shook the music world. They took something that had started almost accidently years before and brought it out into the light of day for the whole world to see, while developing it in new ways. The punk movement of the 70's should have been the ultimate vindication for the long neglected and forgotten 60's punk rock bands. But, instead the 60's groups have been relegated to proto-purgatory ever since. The very punk people who should be championing this music have reduced it to orphan/stepchild status. And, that is just not right.

DIY: The 60's punk bands didn't say much about it--they went out and did it--like no one ever before or since. They had the gumption to go out and form bands by the hundreds of thousands--playing live and recording (often on numerous independent labels--sounds familiar?). There is no way of counting, but as I said, 1966 there could have been at least 300,000 or more garage bands active in the United States alone--a phenominon that touched practically every niegborhood in the country. There is nothing even comparible in any other rock era in terms of size or scope. The amount do-it-youself grassroots rock bands at the time was staggering. In terms of size, 1966 was the greatest explosion for punk rock ever (or any kind or rock, for that matter). When people mention 1977 and 1992 as the years "that punk broke," I laugh. If you don't believe me, go look at the factory orders for Ludwig drums and Fender guitars and amps. The factories had to go through massive expansions and run quadruple 24-hour shifts night and day. Fender today is the largest guitar company in the world, but the factory they have now is a fraction of the size as the one they had to build, then, to keep up with the demand.

But, the 60's garage punk craze was a stealth revolution. Nobody know what to call it or make of it at the time. It is almost as if these bands did unconsciously what later gerations would have to do consciously. They were the invisible, forgotten punk revolutionairies (the real Genration X). Due to the overabundance of competion, there was just no way for most of these bands to ever have much monetary succes (many of the later punk bands got filthy rich in comparison and stole a lot of the credit). The guitar and drum manufacturers were the only ones who made much money out of the whole garage rock craze.

All-Female Bands: If the guys in many of those bands' lacked feminist awareness (is it ever as high as it should be?), then here is the perfect antiodote: go to the Girl Garage Mayhem blog on Myspace and read the list of approximately 160 all-female groups operating at the time. Then go listen to them on Youtube. This is over ten years before The Runaways or The Slits. The Pleasure Seekers and The Luv'd Oneswere especially terrific. The girls in almost all of these bands had a ton of attitude and make some of rocks first defiantly feminst statements. Yet they have all been overlooked or forgotten. What a tragedy.

Sadly 60's punk gets very little mention in most books and histories about punk rock. Rarely are any pre-1975 artists, other than Iggy and The Stooges, MC5, The New York Dolls, or The Velvet Underground mentioned. And, the Velvets were more avant garde than punk. There are hundreds of bands form the mid-60's who deserve serious discussion. Isn't it time they got their due? We need to engage in a greater appreciation and critical re-evaluation of garage rock as the original form of punk rock. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 06:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you posted this huge slice of text already posted to Talk:Punk rock here, as most of this does not seem relevant to this article. It would be better to post some short and easily comprehensible points if you think there is something that needs correcting or expanding and then try to get consensus. I must also point yet again to the guidelines and policies at WP:LEAD, WP:Verify, WP:CITE, WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OR. The changes you keep making under your ip address fail to meet these guidelines. Opinion is not valuable on Wikipedia, it is not a forum. Edits need to be supported by reliable citations.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

After reading your comments, I went back and revised my post to greater highlight some of the facts and show how my post is relevent to the Wikipeia article. Sorry if I have made too many revisions. I want express these ideas the best way that I can. I'm sorry if it is a bit long. I will try to keep future posts more concise. Thanks.Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)21:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Alice Cooper?
Why... is Alice Cooper Not mentioned in this article? the Alice Cooper Band helped popularize the genre garage rock in the late 60's and early 70's, and through to the 80's. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 07:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking through Alice Cooper I see nothing that refers to Garage rock. Aren't their roots more in Psych.? Including him here would strike me as POV. My own POV is that AC is on the road to metal, not to punk... Maybe if you could find some other people's opinions about how the core of mid-sixties Garage rock subsequently led onto Psych and thence to Glam that would be a usful extra section, perhaps called something along "subsequent influence". Yours, a little staidly,  Almost - instinct 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Last year i did a research project on AC and i found many book sources that stated that the Alice Cooper Band was one of the pioneers in early Garage Rock. It really should be worth mentioning in the article, just a tad bit, one sentence. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 10:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, having been doing some thinking ... don't know what you'll make of this: I don't think Alice Cooper's music ever qualified as 'garage rock'. It's a more complex musically. Rp (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Garage Rock has its roots in the late 50s I can't really see how Alice Cooper could be a pioneer of early Garage Rock
 * Pre-name change Alice Cooper ("The Spiders") were clearly operating in that scene, in the scene's usual, not-very-successful way
 * The article at the moment says that Garage Rock in its classic incarnation was spent by 1968—and then was "revived" four years later! Clearly something happens in between...
 * Garage Rock, in its classic form, is essentially a naive genre. Choosing "Alice Cooper" as the name of a band is the opposite; a theatrical gesture.
 * Leaving Garage Rock and becoming theatrical is probably the first notable thing about Alice Cooper.
 * This transformation would fill the mysterious gap in the chronology from 1968–72. I suggest the opening paragraph of the "revival" section should be on AC. Something like "with their roots in garage rock as The XXXXs they developed in this way ... moving away from that ... using these parts of the tradition ... etc"
 * Once that's done the section might want to be changed from "revival" to "developments and revivals"  almost - instinct 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Since Frat rock is also known as early Garage rock it seems logical to merge information here and simply point out the alternative name.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Enough Detail
I believe that the whole article is too brief with a lot of information missing and too brief.Garage Rock is a vast musical genre and this article is much too short to cover the vast topic that is Garage Rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.57.245 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Theburning25 (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole article is way, way, way too short and needs to be significantly expanded. Other Wiki articals on mere individual bands in other genres (some of them awful--who cares about hair metal bands) garnish more attention that this. When it comes to garage rock, one of the few bands that gets any kind of lengthy discussion is the Monkees, a fake made-for TV garage band (whose music I admittedly love!!!). It is shameful to treat such a vast and large phenominon as garage rock, the original form of punk rock, with this kind of demolition by neglect. I believe that garage rock should be declared a National Treasure and treated as such. There is only one picture of a mid-60's garage band shown (there were more bands in the garage era than in any other period in rock, by far). The only other picture shown is of Iggy Pop from his time in The Stooges, bless him, but that covers a later period. I'm sure we can find at least several picures of mid-60's garage bands (in public commons). More is said about revival bands than the actual 60's garage rock bands that this article is supposed to cover--what a tragedy!!! A good way to start would be to have a slightly longer and more richly-worded heading. The heading, as it stands, is almost anemic. I made some additions to it that were later rescinded. Would the master editors please let me restore some of those additions? But, this time, I will try to make sure that the language is more carefully-worded. This article deserves a heading that matches the scope and historical importance of its topic. Garage rock, is, in terms of scope and size, the largest punk rock phenominon (or any rock paticipatory phenominon) ever, by far. It is estimated that there were over 300,000 garage bands playing in America in 1966 alone. There are so many stories to be told. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)03:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am very dissappointed that the improvements I made in the heading (explained above) have been rescinded. I ask the master editiors to please restore them. Here is a comparison of texts: With my improvements: ''Garage rock is a raw form of rock and roll that was first popular from about 1963 to 1967, when numerous bands were formed in the United States and Canada (as well as other countries). Along with the British invasion and folk rock, it hepled define the guitar rock sound of the mid-60s. During the 1960s, it was not recognized as a separate music genre and had no specific name. But, in the early half of 1970s, some critics referred to the style as "punk rock", making it the first form of music to bear this description. Although it is sometimes called garage punk, protopunk, or 60s punk, the style has become predominantly referred to as garage rock. Without: Garage rock is a raw form of rock and roll that was first popular in the United States and Canada from about 1963 to 1967. During the 1960s, it was not recognized as a separate music genre and had no specific name. In the 1970s, some critics referred to the style as "punk rock", the first form of music to bear this description; although it is sometimes called garage punk, protopunk, or 60s punk, the style has predominantly been referred to as garage rock.'' I made necessary additions to the heading of the Garage Rock article, which better serve the proportions of the genre which the article addresses. I added mention of the "numerous bands," because this is not only factual, but essential to understanding the phenominon of garage rock craze that swept the country (and other countries) during this period. I added the reference to "other countries" (in parenthesis), because the phenominon, though most prevelent in North America, also took place in other countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, Itlay, Peru, Japan, etc., as well as having a close relationship with many bands in the UK (though these are more commonly referred to as "British Invasion," and/or "Freakbeat, however thare are certain bands, such as The Troggs or The Renegades that have been commonly referred to as "garage"). Some of the bands in the Wiki list of garage bands come form other countries--i.e. the ones who have been characterized as "garage."  I added mention that garage rock "along with the British Invasion and folk rock, helped define the guitar rock sound of the mid-60s," because this is, not only true, but also essential to our understanding of it in its place in history.  I added "early half" to the description about the critics in the 70s, beacuse, without it, the statement is confusing. This addition makes the statement, not only more precise, factually speaking, but more clear. I added "..early half.." (of the 70's) (I should have said "first half" or "early") to make it clear to reader exactly when garage rock was spoken of as "punk rock" by critics, otherwise there will be confusion. Readers will find the sentence hard to believe if it does not sepecify which part of the 70s. (please see my detaide/referenced posts on this page and in Talk: punk rock. I put the phrase "has become" (I should have said "is now") in the last sentence, because it is more factual.  The genre has not always been predominantly referred to as "garage rock."  In the early to mid seventies it was almost always referred to as "punk rock," (sometimes "garage band" was used to refer to individual bands but not to the whole genre as was "punk"--see my detailed/referenced thread about "Etymolgy" in Talk: punk rock).  I made some other slight changes in wording, as to make smoother, clearer transitions, but I tried to keep as much of the earlier text as possible. I have tried to respect the contributions of earler editors.  My changes and additions are merely refinements and improvements, and do not constitute an overhaul.  However, there remains a pressing need for greater expansion of other sections of the article, as well as possible additions of new sections, considering the vastness and importance of this topic. Let us have an open forum on which heading (1 or 2) is better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 09:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)03:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You have replied to an old post and the article has been expanded since then. You additions were not sourced in the article and do not seem relevant. They also introduce several grammatical and formatting errors.--  SabreBD  (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasons. Perhaps you could help me source the references in the article and correct any errors (grammatical or otherwise) in my revision of the heading, then you could restore it (albeit in corrected form). Please read again my comments above. I should be easy to reference any disussion of historical importance, because garage rock was by far the largest grass roots movement ever in the history of rock, in terms of the number of bands and people invoved. It probably affected every neighborhood in the country. I probably should have made a seperate section in talk rather than putting the comments into this thread. But, as it stands, the article remains way too short for a topic of this breadth, but expanding it is going to take time and the effort of several editors. Perhaps we can all make this a collective effort. Much thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

SabreBD, I like the addition of the photo of Paul Revere & The Raiders. That is a good addition. I appreciate your efforts to expand the pictures in the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In interest of expaning and improving the article, I found the Spanish language Wikipeia article on garage rock. It has a lot more information and goes into much more detail.  Perhaps we could find someone fluent in Spanish to translate some of it--in the pursuit of expanding, improving, and enriching our own article.  The Spanish article gets higher marks of approval in its questionaire than ours, so it might serve us well as a model.  Don't get me wrong, their article is not perfect, either, and has one imperfection: It tends to de-emphasize the pre-British invasion (pre-1964) American garage phenominon as not to detract from the emergence of the Latin bands in 1964 (they view the genre more in post-British invasion terms).  But, they do go into more detail about practically everything (including revival--The Chsterfield Kings, etc). Though my Spansih is not good, from a glance, it looks as though they attempt to walk you through the subject and teach you about it (as ours should do).  Our article just bleets out a few quick things, but does not really develop the topic in an enriching, edifying, or meaningful way.  Ours does have better pictures though, but let's find a few more. Our article should be second to none!!! [] Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have attached the Spanish article to this site as recommened on the instuction page for translation expansions. We could rectify the best characteristics of both articles. For instance, ours could keep its "Garage Started in 1963" perspective, but have the necessary expansions. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have de-attached it as it screwed up the formatting and it is a pretty poor and largely unsourced article.--  SabreBD  (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish site could use more sources, but, at the same time, we will eventually need to build up our site to have more of the range and breadth that theirs has (but obviously with necessary supporting references). I think that we can find references for most of the details that they discuss. And, we should carefully study their article, because it may be more informative than ours. There is no reason not to find a translator. A broadened article is what we should aspire to achieve here at this site. Are you willing to help make that an obtainable goal? Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The answer is the same as to every other version of the same thing on this talkpage and on other articles. If there are reliable sources then the article can be expanded. But please check what makes a reliable source.--  SabreBD  (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We must make absolutely sure that any additions are properly referenced first. I have a feeling that many of the bands listed in the red letters on the Spanish site already have articles written here on our English wiki sites (not to mention sources here at this site as well)--they may not realize that there may be existing sourced material available in English that they can translate from us--and we may not realize that we may already have things at our own fingertips to use in the goal to expanding this article. If they could translate some of our biographies on those bands, it would go a long way towards helping them better source theirs. And in turn, could too could benefit in the process. We should make an effort to contact them and share resouces. When I get some spare momets I might go and check to see which bands they metion, which we already have bios on. Would anyone objcect to adding carefully referenced discussion of these bands? Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This whole article reads like some handlebar mustachioed d-bag bragging about his record collection. There needs to be information about how the music went from "Rocket 88" in 1951 to "Rumble" in 1958 or how it is that "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "You Really Got Me" came out the same year?  "this band was influenced by that band" (allegedly).  Great.  How did band B even hear about band A in 1960?  AM radio?  All the arguing about whether it is punk music (or any other permutation of the name) misses the point of an encyclopedia-how and why did it happen?69.138.223.87 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's always a good idea to start off a complaint by randomly abusing the editors who have written it. (Not.)  Why only look at this article?  You seem to be thinking of Rock and roll, Origins of rock and roll, Rock music, British rock, etc. etc.  Try looking through Category:Rock music genres.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize to all the handlebar mustachioed d-bags I offended. I will check out those articles. 69.138.223.87 (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Time to archive this page?
This page is getting rather long. Issues raised in most of the threads have now been resolved and/or have reached consensus. I would say that we can remove just about all of them (and put them in the archive), except any that editors feel are necessary for the future development of the article. The only thread that I think is still applicable is the one, "Expansion of article...". Even there, some of its points have already been addressed. We could, either keep that thread, or if we archive it, I could create a new thread dealing with some of the later bullet points raised there. What do you think fellow Wikipedians? Sound off. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to your post at User talk:Misza13, I've added the "MiszaBot/config" that asks the bot to archive threads that are inactive for 90 days; but I've also added a "DNAU" so that the "Expansion" thread will not be archived for a while. The bot should be along within 24 hours or so. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent Changes are Detrimental--Article Needs to Return to Earlier Configuration
I am always in favor of editors making changes in this article for the sake of its improvement, but major changes were made, which I consider to be detrimental. These changes were done without prior notice and were never proposed on the Talk page in advance, and that goes against the Wikipedia norm. No feedback was ever solicited from other editors. Yet changes were made that dramatically change the way the article reads. Let me explain.

A whole section has been added to the heading, which would be better explained (or is already explained) in the Characteristics and History sections. It begins: "...Its name derives from the perception that many often rehearsed in a family garage..."

This point is discussed already (and in a better way) in  the Characteristics section, where  it should be. The later explanation (in Characteristics) is superior because it goes on to explain that some bands were older and professional (as well as sometimes urban) which avoids a tendency towards oversimplification and stereotyping. No doubt many of the bands were indeed suburban and amateur (but that does not necessarily mean "amateurish"--sometimes yes (but in a good way of course), at other times the musicians were surprisingly proficient, despite their young--or sometimes older age). But, un-encyclopedic stereotyping in the heading aside, why set up a false redundancy for the rest of the article?

The rest reads:
 * "...It was characterised by lyrics and delivery that were more aggressive than was common at the time and guitars distorted through a fuzzbox. It began to evolve from regional scenes as early as 1958, heavily influenced by surf rock. The "British Invasion" of 1964-66 greatly influenced garage bands, providing them with a national audience. Thousands of garage bands were extant in the USA and Canada during the era and hundreds produced regional hits and a handful had national chart hits. By 1968 the style largely disappeared from the national charts. It was also disappearing at the local level as amateur musicians faced college, work or the draft..."

These parts were either once discussed or are still (already) discussed in the History section, where they work best (and belong).

I have a problem with the insinuation that a fuzzbox was somehow always used. Yes, it was indeed used, and used a lot. But, even more often, the guitars were plugged directly into the amps (usually using the bridge pickup and bright settings to get a shimmering and sparkling sound). But, shouldn't the particulars of tonal effects be discussed in the Characteristics section (not in the heading)?

Yes, I understand the need to expand the heading a little bit. I have said before that I think that it could use richer and more expressive language (i.e. "Britannic" language), as could the rest of the article. But, the changes made here are not the answer. I say this with all due respect. I think that we should undo these changes return the article to its earlier configuration, at least for the time being, and then work up a consensus about how to make later changes. And I think that I have the right, as a fellow editor, who happens to be knowledgeable on this topic, to insist, for this unfortunate change to be undone. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to ignore the fact that: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points..... The previous lead - three sentences long - did not do that.  User:Sabrebd has made a useful and necessary attempt to start the process of developing the lead - which, ultimately, should become longer than it is now so as to give a fuller overview.  There is absolutely no problem in summarising later sections in the article lead - in fact, it is precisely what is required.  I've tweaked and formatted the text slightly.   The current version of the lead (both before and after my tweaks) is in my view better than the earlier version and closer to the approved style, and there was absolutely no need to seek prior consensus here for those improvements.   The article as a whole certainly needs to be expanded and improved, based on what reliable sources say (rather than on personal opinions). And please, for everybody's sake, try to make your points more succinctly.....  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some confusion here I think. This was not a major edit, it was in line with MOS guidelines, responding to a template pointing out that the lead was too short and the material is still in the article. As pointed out by Ghmyrtle in the post above, this certainly does not require prior permission on this talkpage. There were no changes in meaning and the point seems to be missed that there was no characteristics section until I created it in these edits. This is all pretty normal stuff for a music genre article of any quality.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the new changes Ghmyrtle made, and I think that they look good. I always felt that the heading needed to be expanded. And yes, I do want to acknowledge my thanks to SabreBD for making the first attempt to do so, particularly in light of the template requirements he mentioned, so if I was splitting hairs, it was only to refine things a bit. I am very grateful for the many improvements SabreBD has made here and elsewhere. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is evolving in a good direction, however, I should note two changes that need to be made to statement at end of heading section which reads: "In the 1970s, some critics referred to the style as punk rock, the first form of music to bear this description; although it is sometimes called garage punk, protopunk, or 1960s punk, the style has predominantly been referred to as garage rock."
 * The word "early" should be placed in front of "...1970s," as to avoid confusion on the reader's part. We need to clarify that this was the practice of critics in the early part of the decade (as, obviously the use of the term changed post-1974).  This way of wording is more factual and precise.
 * We need to change "1960s punk" to "60s punk." "60s punk" is the way this term is always used, when employed as such (i.e. note Pebbles compilations sub-heading "60s Punk and Psych Classics'--I think that is a good barometer).  I believe that we already have a disambiguation (link) for the term: see 60s punk.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The first one sounds fine. The second one is more of an issue, since the MOS says not to use truncated decades. Is it really that much of a fixture of scholarship on this topic?--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of publicity material or journalism.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "60s punk" is an oft-used colloquial name for this genre of music, so when the article makes reference to its likeness, it is only tying to inform the reader about the popular use of a colloquial term (or catch-phrase name), not assigning a formal designation in time. So, the MOS may not apply in this particular case.  After all, if the article is trying to inform the reader what names people refer to the music as, then shouldn't we try to be as accurate and helpful as possible?   Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. We don't have to copy the shorthand of journalists.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then I accept that we should keep "1960s punk" expression as is, if that best corresponds to wiki stylistic norms. So, there appears to be a consensus that we should not to make the second proposed change.  As for the first proposed change, I assume that there would be no objection to making it?  Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change. Thank you fellow editors for your time and consultation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Latin-American bands
Consider mentioning Peruvian band Los Saicos, they were preety punk back in 1964. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haVaaDLwWvI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.248.203 (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Although short lived, Los Saicos was arguably the wildest rock & roll band in the 1960s. Director Hector Chávez released a documentary about the band in 2010 Saicomanía. Perú was probably the only country, outside of North America and the UK, which had a garage rock scene. See also: Los York's, Los Shain's and Jean Paul “El troglodita”. --Rivet138 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that the unsigned editor brought up Los Saicos and that someone has now included a passage about them in the article. I am also encouraged that Rivet138 made mention of some of the other bands from Peru. I would love to see the article expand to encompass a more international perspective, but I realize that we will have to find enough sourced material to make that goal possible. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of article: mention more early influences: Link Wray,etc.--California Latin and Tex-Mex groups--all-female groups--Vietnam war--change in British Invasion wording

 * The "Origins" section of this article could make mention of Link Wray, who is often considered an important influence on the garage rock. This Maryland native has a short profile written about him on the Garage Hangover website [ and has often been cited as a key early influence on punk rock. []  Fellow Maryland natives and garage band, The Dagenites, knew him and shared his manager. [] [] []  The Origins section could also mention the earlier influence of blues, 50s rock & roll, and rockabilly.  Link Wray serves as a vital connection between the earlier rockabilly and later surf (primarily instrumental surf) styles, which then feed into Northwestern rock and frat rock (the two earliest forms of garage rock, i.e. 60s punk).


 * Then, of course comes the British invasion: The phrase "...adopt a British lilt" sounds awkward and not very encyclopedic, and makes it sound too "cute" (and it might be misconstrued as imlying that the bands tried to "mimick" British accents, which was not generally the case).  It should be replaced with "...adopt a bolder approach," which would come closer to the actual reality (particulary in light of the influence of the tough London bands such as The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Yardbirds, The Who, etc.).  Something could be said here about the mod influence as well.  Yet, the rockabilly, Link Wray, and surf influences remained strong, even after the British, mod, and folk rock influences arrived.  Psychedelic influences could also be mentioned (although some blame psychelia for eventually bringing about the demise of garage).


 * There could be discussion of Latin bands (from southern California and Texas) who helped sire this genre early on, as well as the scores of all female groups such as Luv'd Ones and The Pleasure Seekers, who would serve as a model for later groups, such as The Runaways and The Slits.


 * One meaningful addtion to the "demise" section of this article would be a discussion of the role of the Vietnam War in brining about the demise of garage movement. I have read in several places that this was often a contributing factor.  Supposedly, members of lesser known bands were often targeted for the draft, because rock music was often viewed as a bad influence (it was harder to go after big name bands with legal resources and big-label support--although even ceratin well-known stars had to contend with draft board issues as well).  I believe that one member of the Squires (who sang "Going All the Way") got drafted.  I also have read that a former member of the Reddlemen was killed in action in Vietnam, 1968.  On the Garage Hangover website, there is a piece about garage rock anti-war protest songs.   It should not be difficult to find sources about this topic.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

SabreBD, I noticed addition of reference to the draft in decline section. That is a positive improvement. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I added (annotated) mention of Link Wray influence to the article. I also changed the wording (in the part about British Invasion influence) from "to adopt a British Invasion lilt," which sounded silly and unencyclopedic, to "adopted a response..." (i.e. to the British Invasion), which not only sounds more appropriate, but is more correct. I added several sources to back this up. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not a fan of the "lilt" bit of this sentence, but it was in the source and to say that they were just influenced doesn't help the reader that much. However, I have cut down the repetition here and left the meaning. Also please note that there is a set format to references in this article, so please do not add bare urls. I don't have time at the moment, but I will come back and fix these later.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just went in and tried to insert the needed information into the url references, but it only messed things up, so I reverted them to thier prior bare state. After you insert the information into the url references, I can then use that format on future tries.  By the way, I like your change in the wording.  It sounds better and more clear.  If I can find necessary sources, I would like to add something about all-female garage bands, such as The Pleasure Seekers and the Luv'd Ones, as well as adding a mention of early rock & roll influences, such as rockablilly, and also mention of Latin bands in Southern California and Texas. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

...something I forgot to mention: perhaps we could add a paragraph or section devoted to bands outside of North America. One editor made mention of Los Saicos, and perhaps we could include his/her contribution in the new paragraph or section. We could try to find sources on some of the Latin American bands/scenes. There was a good bit of activity in places such as Mexico and particularly Uruguay (see Uruguayan Invasion). There could be some discussion about Freakbeat as it relates to certain UK bands. Continental Europe had a lot of activity, particularly in places such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and even Italy. Perhaps the second largest garage explosion (behind the U.S. and Canada) was in Australia/New Zealand (and it was huge). I am reading a terrific book about the 60s Aussie garage rock scene called Wild About You, by Ian D. Marks and Iain McIntyre. I highly recommend it as a source for anyone interested in contributing on this topic. The wiki article Australian rock, covers this period, too, in the "Second wave," section, but that article is in bad need of better sourcing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made some improvements to the article that I think everybody will really like.  I added pictures of a few of the best known bands of the genre.  I created several subsections under the new heading "Later developments" to make the breakdown of time (1971-present) more  comprehensible to the reader. I added a section about critical appreciation to explain how garage rock came to be considered a genre.  Some of the improvements will make things more clear and informative to the reader.  I have taken care to find wording that untangles things, so that the are no apparent contradictions in the reader's mind.  I have striven to use language that is neutral and objective.  I would still like to create a section for garage outside of North America and a section on Female garage rock bands of the 60s.  I think we are now beginning to have a really big beautiful article covering what was the largest rock explosion in history. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I recommend going into discussions about garage bands that were early influences of the garage punk genre. As for the female bands, that sounds like a positive addition. I know of some bands that should belong in this article if anyone is interested. TheGracefulSlick (talk) April 12, 1:14


 * I'm interested! Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(Will continue to expand) Daughters of Eve, Continental Co-ets, Beatle-ettes, The Heartbeats, The Pleasure Seekers, The Luv'd Ones, The What Four, The Ace of Cups, Fanny, The Feminine Complex, She Trinity, The Debutantes, The Beat Chics TheGracefulSlick ( talk)


 * I added a section for female garage rock. Most of the bands you mentioned are now there.  We can add the rest, but I want to go check their Wiki articles to make sure that they are well-sourced.  The She Trinity article, lacks sources, so we need to go upgrade that  article, them we can mention them here. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood, I'm on the finishing touches of another article I'm working on then I wanted to improve upon a female pop group known as The Goodees. Afterwards, I can improve the She Trinity article though, they are well worth the addition. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)


 * That would be fantastic. I would like to add a section, after the one on female bands, about garage outside of North America, covering the UK (Freakbeat etc.), continental Europe, Australia, Latin America, and Asia (i.e.Group Sounds), etc.  But, I am going to have to gather a ton of sources, so it will be a work in progress.  I have a terrific book at home about the Australian bands (called Wild About You, by Marks & McIntyre), but I need to get a lot more "stuff" together for the other countries.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I know of a good number of UK and Latin bands, The Troggs and Los Bravos, a tip of the iceberg. I'll need to assemble a more proper listing that could help. I am willing to contribute more to the article than just listings, but this is more of your project. I just want to see it keep going in its positive direction that you are steering it in. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

This is a minor thing, but I was wondering why the Count Five image was in the section pertaining to female bands. Can it be moved?

P.S. Sorry I was not logged in for that edit, forgot to do so. Don't think it matters though. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)


 * I was thinking the same thing. Luckily, as the female bands section grew, the picture of the Count V moved down, so is now underneath.  However, eventually, we could create sections for garage outside of North America, and perhaps an section about Hispanic American & African American contributions to the genre (it was not all white).  So, at that point where we may have to move or remove the picture of the Counts.  Right now it serves a useful purpose, but it may have to go at some point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it was not a big concern, but I'm glad it is being addressed. It would be too bad if the Count Five had to be removed, but understandable if it has to happen at some point. I like the ideas for the future as it is encompassing all of the aspects of the genre. When this is complete, I believe it will be one of the more superior articles relating to musical genres. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

'''The first and largest phase of expansion of this article is now completed and ready to take to take place. Whew! I will insert the new body of text into the article within the next day. You can view the this, the Stage I expansion, the Sandbox 1 on my user page. Here are some thoughts:


 * The scope of the artile will be greatly expanded, not only to include in-depth regional coverage within the North America, but also to encompass the reality of Garage worldwide. The sources not only allow for this, they demand it.  In my best judgment, as someone who is knowledgeable in this topic area, any article not discussing it in this day and time would be woefully inadequate.  Please be attentive especially to the four sources cited in the preamble to the "Garage worldwide" section.  I have modified the opening sentence in the heading of the article to accommodate this reality which is now sourced in the article, not only there, but in numerous other places.  While the statement still regards the primacy of the North American phenomenon, it mentions the reality of garage elsewhere.  I think it strikes the right balance.  Note that I have enhanced some other areas, for instance discussion the Beales' performance on the Ed Sullivan Show.  I want to find richer language throughout the article to capture more of the whole spirit of the thing, and there will be more of that to come in the Stage II addition.  Also, tomorrow I need to clean up a few minor glitches in a few of the citations on the Stage I addition, before I enter it in.


 * I will add another expansion in the Stage II expansion to happen later this month (you can view what it will look like in my sandbox 4. It will include sections on garage rock in the east and a section of psychedelic and avant garde garage.  I want you to glance at this in Sandbox 4.


 * My sandbox 3 is a "scrapbook" of ideas to be added into the sections that will already be there after the Stage II expansion. I want to focus on areas of improvement in certain areas: 1) the American South and the more rural parts of the Midwest and Western states.  2) More coverage for Latin America--there are other countries to be discussed 3) More counties to be discussed in the east, such as India (which had quite a good garage scene, with all of the Simla Beat stuff, etc. --I have just finised reading a book on it.  There was also a good deal of activity in Saigon as well as Cambodia.  But, give me a few months.  Rome isn't built in a day.

'''You are welcome to register any comments. But, I ask that comments be constructive and that we all embrace the broader parameters I have envisioned for the artile. In other words any subtractions should be with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. You are also welcome to bring up any bands or things that you wish to see added. I am open to these things. This article is about to take a quantum leap forward. Finally we are about to have an article that will capture the full scope and majesty of this largest of all rock genres.''' Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had a very quick first look at the version at User:Garagepunk66/Sandbox. There is certainly some copyediting needed, and I also need to look at some sources that I have, such as Lester Bangs' essay "Protopunk: The Garage Bands" (in The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll).  The section on origins needs some work, especially to draw on references to young white bands assimilating (directly and indirectly) the work of R&B performers like Little Richard, Hank Ballard, Larry Williams, The Isley Brothers, etc. etc.  For instance, although the Kingsmen's "Louie, Louie" was no doubt an influence on other bands later, it derived from Richard Berry's original, via Rockin' Robin Roberts.
 * In a sense, there were two distinct phases to the genre - pre- and post-British Invasion. There were proto-garage (?!) bands already existing across the US, and then the numbers mushroomed and styles developed after the Beatles appeared.  I'm not sure how much that is reflected in sources, but it is certainly my perception.  Regarding the section on the UK...  I think it needs to be rewritten, and cut back.   The reason is that, though stylistically similar, the terms "garage band" and "garage rock" were really never applied to Britain.  In Britain, "garage rock" is seen as a US phenomenon (to some extent paralleled in Latin America, etc.)..  In the UK, we did not have garages at that time - the term "garage band" is not used in the UK to describe UK bands.  But, we had a vast number of beat groups.  The article on beat music is woefully inadequate, but in my view that is where the British bands like The Troggs, etc., should be mentioned - with links across, of course.
 * Those comments are just from a very brief initial look at what you've done. It's not a hostile criticism - you're doing a fine job - it's just that I think a lot more work is needed.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that the origins section needs to be expanded and more detailed--I can make that a priority in the stage 2 expansion. I will take into account the points you are making, in fact, I have thought many of the same things myself.  I got so tied up with adding new sections of material, that I didn't have enough time to devote to the origins, so the top paragraph of the origins section is still identical to what is in the current article.  However, I added more discussion about the Beatles' visit, because it is so essential to the history of garage, not only on a musical level, but also in its impact on society--the way it affected the whole younger generation in so many ways, not to mention the way it motivated people to start bands in droves.  I agree that the origins section could discuss could better discuss the distinction between garage pre and post British invasion.  Would it be OK if I wait until the stage 2 of expansion to re-work the pre-Beatles part of the origins section.  I could go ahead and add the new sections that are here and ready to load-in (but with a slimmed-down British section).


 * There is one statement in the current first paragraph of origins that I have a little trouble with: the statement that treats frat rock as somehow something other than early garage. It is my understanding that frat rock essentially formed the lions' share of pre-British Invasion garage, so it cannot be fundamentally separated from other garage of the pre-Beatles period.  However, it can be distinguished from much later garage, although its strain continued, even post Beatles.  Certainly, the Medallions had a hit in 1966 with "Double Shot of My Baby's Love" and practically every garage comp has a couple of post-1964 frat songs.  So, we could explain that some of its influence continued, even after the Beatles' visit.  Somewhere about 1963 is probably when we can still speak of garage as "garage" (somewhere around the time of "Louie Louie" and "Surfin' Bird"--I would say that "proto-garage" would proceed or coincide with surf, and then early garage would be influenced by surf, like say like the Trashmen, but come before the Beatles' first visit.  Obviously, people who played in American bands in 1963 were musicians and were probably a little more in the know than most--many of them were probably already aware of the Beatles before everyone else caught the bug.  Amongst critics from the early 70s, there was not a clear-cut line as to when garage officially began--some spoke of it as post-Beatles, but then I believe some as pre--it is fuzzy.  On pg. 18-19 of his notes to the Nuggets 4-CD box set (rel. 1998, Rhino), Greg Shaw discusses the period he calls "protopunk" (i.e. proto garage), which began in 1958, and ended in 1962 or 1963--he suggests that in 1963 things were beginning to coalesce, so that may open the door to 1963 as a beginning--that was the year such bands started having national hits (and which were vocal, not just instrumental).  However, he makes a clear distinction between pre-Beatles and post Beatles.  I don't know where we should draw the line.  Right now I would probably be in favor of including 1963, but I am willing to change my mind if sources dictate otherwise.  I will intentionally leave the wording "fuzzy."


 * Regarding the British section, I have whittled it down and taken a few things out. I might actually add a few things about the Downliners Sect and the Pretty Things, because they are the ones (along with the Troggs and the early Kinks) considered most "garage"  of the British bands.  Obviously the challenge when dealing 60s garage is that, unlike, say later 70s punk, the lines are not as clearly drawn--there are overlapping boundaries (it is not a zero-sum game).  The 70s punks said "We're not disco!"--"We're not classic rock!"--"We're not hippies!"--"We're not sixties!" (although they owed a thing or to, if you ask me)--"We don't dress like people in other genres of music!"--"We have a subculture built around our music that is totally separate!"--"We want nothing to do with anyone else!"  Whereas 60s garage bands had no interest in labels or separating themselves from the rest of music.  They did not think of themselves as a genre.  They just wanted to start bands inspired by their heroes, like the Beatles and the Stones.  The only separation would have been generational, and they really didn't want that either--it just so happened that parents din't dig their music and ideas.  And similar things took place all around the world.  Keep in mind that until the early 70s there was no consciousness about garage rock a as a genre here in the U.S. either.  I suppose that people had used the term "garage band" here, but it probably meant nothing more than a neighborhood band.  And, of course there are still "garage bands" today in suburban neighborhoods in the U.S., but more often then not they play heavy metal, so those kinds of bands cannot be classified as garage rock.  It was American critics, after all, who defined the garage genre in the early 70s, and sometimes they included mention of certain British bands.  In Lester Bangs' Book, "Psychotic Reactions..." he is very explicit about the Troggs as "punk" (i.e. the term for garage at that time)--he views them as the quintessential "punk" band, bar none.  If the Troggs aren't garage then no one is. They must go in. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I just addressed most of the changes you indicated you'd like to see. I went and made some corrections and clarifications in the origins section.  It made more clear the difference between pre and post British Invasion garage.  I also added some sociological backdrop in the preamble to the section.  I went into the British section and cut out a lot of things previously there, and added a "caveat" statement in the first paragraph, which places things in a different context--I think you'll like it.  I added a couple of statements about the Pretty Things and the Downliners sect, because, along with the Troggs (and early Kinks), they are often considered the most "garage" of British bands--so I put more weight on them and less other things.  As for the Troggs: please do buy a copy of Lester Bangs' Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor  Dung.  He is extremely emphatic their status as "punk" (i.e. at that time the word for garage).  Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

While I was on a walk this evening, I came up with a great solution! We could add the word "counterparts" to the title of international section and re-name it "Garage counterparts worldwide" or something to that effect. With that, it would re-contextualize things in such a way to make the topic approachable and allow us to give the worldwide aspect the coverage it needs to thus properly inform the readers on all of the necessary dynamics of the topic. For Britain, I re-worded it to be viewed in a broader context, which I think you will like. I do still respectfully disagree regarding the Troggs, but I make sure to have their statement well-sourced, which I sure will alleviate some of your concerns. I just noticed that had accidently forgotten to put my intended citation there earlier, so that may have been what caused the confusion. I think that you will concur with the way I have things worded now--I want you to know that have taken our recommendations very seriously, as you will see reflected in the latest text. I thank you for helping me refine my orientation on the topic. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - Please don't get back into your old bad habits of writing lengthy essays on talk pages about how you think the article should develop. It's much easier if you make a few changes to the article at a time, paragraph by paragraph or section by section, backed up by reliable sources, and then anticipate that other editors (like me) will make further changes, either for copyediting, or to add further sources. This page is primarily to discuss differences that arise between editors during that process - not for lengthy TL;DR personal expositions.   Anyway, I'll get round to editing this article a little (directly - not in your sandbox) when I track down the best sources and find the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

From what you just said, I assume you have no major disagreements on content issues at this point. I hope that I have adequately addressed the issues you raised. I know that I've written a "novel" on this thread, but I just want to make sure that everything is kosher. I realize that I am going to have to make the entries in a large, superimposed block, but they will include all of the improvements you asked me to do above, so that is the only reason why there will be superimposition over current bodies of text. I let Derek R Bullamore know, because he made a few edits in the last day. He is the only other person that know of who has made recent edits. So they will go in in the next day. I think you will like them a lot. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't even started reading the article properly yet. When I do have time to do that, I'm sure I'll have further comments and thoughts, and will want to make further changes.  Please don't appear to want to bounce anyone into committing to your version of the article.  There is no rush.  When I track down good sources that I think will improve the article, I'll use them.  So will other editors.  So far as I'm concerned, it's always a never-ending process of article improvement, by many editors.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This thread is getting rather long (which is largely my fault), so we have a new thread below called "Expansion of article (Part II)" you may post comments on this topic there (as a continuation of this discussion). Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of article (Part II)
This thread is a continuation of the discussion above. If you have any comments related to that discussion (expansion of article), you are welcome to place them here. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * At the request of Ghmyrtle, I will make additions in smaller doses, with one section going in every day or so. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I like the mention of origin of term "garage band" a lot. Perhaps we could begin the statement with something to the effect of: "The earliest use of the term is impossible to determine, but..."  There may be the possibility of its use earlier even in the 60s, although no one can say for sure (not to designate a genre, of course, but just to refer to "the rock group down the street," courtesy of Goffin & King in the Monkees' "Pleasant Valley Sunday").  Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, but if it is attributed to a certain point of time, we go with that set time. Wikipedia is about facts, not truth, so we can't really use that altered statement you want, since you can't actually verify and counteract the original statement at the same time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * is absolutely right. The problem with some of the edits by  - not only the suggestion about the first use of the term - is that they appear to be synthesis, which is not allowable.  Particularly, some of the edits about "baby boomers" and the Kennedy assassination seem to derive from sources which make no reference at all to garage bands or garage rock.  The statements may be partly true, as background - but, they should not be included here as they advance an argument beyond that contained in the sources themselves.  So, when I get round to it, I'll be looking to edit and maybe remove some of those statements.  We are not writing a student essay here - we are summarising what existing reliable and verifiable published sources actually say.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is my humble opinion that the statements about JFK are essential to Beatles' appeal as the sources make abundantly clear--we are making a statement about the impact of their visit--it inspired people to form bands--there would be no garage boom without it, however I can see your point. I wasn't aware of the synthesis rule.  I think that Britannica tends to allow a little more synthesis and richness of expression--and I have always admired their style.
 * GracefulSlick, you have a good point that we should not try to appear to counteract the pre-exiting statement without textual support, and of course I'm not in favor of adding the extra words to the statement unless we can find a source--I was only bringing up the possibility of investigating the matter--that is why I did not actually edit it. But, we could try to look for a source.  We don't want to accidently convey the impression that it was the first time the term was ever used, when it might have been in earlier use. On more general matters, and with all due respect, I do slightly beg to differ that we go just by facts and not truth.  Sometimes facts can be presented out of context, and occasionally even a normally reliable source might make a mistake--and I have even seen good sources that contradict each other--so we have to make a decision and consider the truth of the matter which must be part of the touchstone of our judgment.  In certain cases, we have to carefully weigh the facts. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop off another installment into the article tomorrow. So there will be some new things to check and comb through then. By the way, Ghmyrtle, if you think we need to get rid of the JFK references in origins, I'd would understand. I like the part, yes, but whatever you think works best, I'd go along. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm trying to focus on improving and expanding the opening part of the Origins section, pre-Beatles. All these things take time, unfortunately, in tracking down good sources.  We'll get there eventually though.  The thought also occurred to me that, perhaps when the article is more complete, we should try to differentiate more between those bands who were genuinely groups of relatively unprofessional teenagers having fun, often quite amateurishly recorded (the Kingsmen, for instance), and those groups who were co-opted by the major labels, often using professional songwriters, session musicians, producers, etc.  (eg the Prunes, the Strangeloves).  I'm not sure what sources make that sort of distinction, though.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess we'll just take a little more time to get to the next station. In the meantime we'll let the sources lead and we can follow (like a horse & carriage) and go wherever they take us.  What an adventure! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * can you just let Ghmyrtle makes his changes before adding another "installment". By the looks of it, he is getting solid references and rewriting the origins. He works at a slower (but effective) pace on these larger articles, so I don't want him to have his workload mount every time another section is added, especially since this isn't his only priority. Ask for consensus on the type of additions you want and they will be evaluated. Saves a lot of time and headaches.TheGracefulSlick

No problem--just told him I'd wait (the next carriage stop being further on down the line). So, don't worry, I'll be patient--you've got my promise! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So far as I'm concerned, there's no need to wait for me. I'm only working on the first part of the Origins section, to expand it a little. I still haven't got round to reading most of the article, so please carry on making changes as you wish, and we can discuss any problems as and when they arise.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The darndest thing just happened to me. I just received a book I had ordered about Florida garage bands, and when I started reading, guess what I saw right on the first few pages--a direct reference to the JFK assassination, the Beatles, and garage! The book is called Savage Lost, by Jeffery Lemlich. See new citations and quotations in article next to JFK statements. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is one matter where I slightly beg to differ with Lemlich (the author of that book). He seems to indicate that the people of high school age in the mid 60s would not have had recollection of early rock 'n roll.  I disagree: high-schoolers of circa 1964-1967 would have been just old enough to hear Elvis and Little Richard on the radio when they were little children (I know that from those I have spoken to, but I realize that that is off the record).  I know that Ghmyrtle had asked to see if we could find a connection there.  It is certainly a common sense proposition (Wiki guidelines state that a common sense statement does not necessarily have to be cited in all cases).  I made reference to early rock and roll recollection at the beginning of the section, but with demographic citations--but I realize there is a common sense appeal there.  Most people remember when they were five or six quite clearly and distinctly.  This connection is obviously apparent.  But, if the statement is synthetic we could remove it--or maybe find a more particular source to confirm it.  Whereas, the JFK statement is now directly verified (no longer synthetic) and it corroborates with the more general sources cited there, so it seems to now be usable, assuming everyone agrees. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

At least or now, the "Peak of popularity section" will be more or less the same, but I thought I'd add something about battles of the bands which was part of the whole milieu. 60s Garage Bands.com makes mention of such contests on their title page. However, I could cite a couple of references to individual bands (at contests) as well. Jeff Lemlich mentions some local and regional band contests in his book. He also makes mention of The National Tea Council Event, which was a national event and perhaps the largest, so I would add other references if need be. I added a reference to those contests and one hit wonders. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just added the American regional scenes sections. I will wait off at a while before adding the international and psychedelic garage sections, so no hurry.  In the next few months I want to come back to the American regional sections and add a few other things:
 * I'll add a sub-section on the Pacific Northwest (but right now I make mention it at top of Regions)
 * I also want to add more mentions of bands throughout the American south (right now the section is named "Florida and the South," but we can re-name it "Southern States" come that time).
 * I would also like to add mention of bands from Texas and plains states (Oklahoma, etc.) and more coverage of Ohio (eg. Dayton, Columbus, etc.).
 * I'll add more on Canada in the coming months too.
 * It is a work in progress. Rome was not built in a day. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the author of the article in Spanish Wikipedia about Garage Rock. Well... I'm not exactly the creator of the original article, but its main "re-writer" some years ago (so, actually, its real writer in fact, ehem). I want to say that I've readen this English Wiki article and I think it's much better now than some years ago. It's a much more informative, complete and comprehensive text. And much better than mine, of course. I want to thank the explanations about the origins of Garage Rock. I'm not Latinoamerican, I'm Spanish (Spaniard, from Europe) and in Europe, we used to think that the origins of Garage Rock are the influences and reactions developed by 1964 British Invasion in young and amateurish American bands. But reading the article I've seen that there are some real connections with the Fifties and the own-American Rock'n'roll traditions (Bo Diddley, Rockabilly, Instrumental Surf Music, Frat-rock, etc). So I'm going to include that facts in the Spanish article, for sure.

As I said, I'm not Latinoamerican, but my "re-written" article in Spanish Wiki includes an extensive section about Latinoamerica 'cause the most of its readers are Latinoamericans (and 'cause the original article included it too; and I thought I should respect the spirit of that section). But I've not included mentions about Spaniards bands from the Sixties (nor Italians, French, English, Turkish, Japanese, Escandinavian, Australians an Dutchs) because I keep thinking that the original Garage Rock from the Sixties is only and exclusively a North-American (USA and Canada) movement.

In this way, I've got the audacity to modify slightly your excellent article: I've just misplaced the paragraph dedicated to the Peruvian band "Los Saicos" (I love them, really). It was in the "Peak of Popularity" section; but I think the better place for it is the "Off the Mainland" section. So I've put it here. Excuses for my audicity. I've also taken some pictures for the Spanish Wiki article from here (thanks a lot).

Thanks a lot for the article and the information. And excuses for my pressumption and (especially) for my poor English.--Stephen Strange (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Stephen Strange, I want to thank you for all of your wonderful contributions to the Spanish Wikipedia "Garage Rock" article. You don't need to worry: though garage rock may be primarily thought of as American, it is not not exclusively so.  From the very beginning of its christening as a genre in the early 70s, other nationalities have been mentioned.  For instance, Lester Bangs considered The Troggs from England to be the quintessential garage rock band (at the time the word for garage rock was "punk rock"---I have his writings on that citied down below).  There was a huge Australian garage scene in the 60s--and the name "garage" and "punk" is oft-used for it by well-known writers.  Latin American Bands play an important role: There is now the Los Nuggez compilation here in the states commemorating its role.  I just finished a book about Australian Garage as well as a book about garage in India during the 60s.  It's OK to include other countries when discussing garage--in fact necessary in light of books that have been written.  Any article at this time not mentioning other countries would be woefully inadequate.


 * I like the section at Wikipedia en español about Latin American garage bands and I am using a lot of it as the basis for the section I will be adding soon (wait a week or two) about Latin American garage that will appear in this (English) article--you can view it in my sandboxes #1 and 3. I will then move the discussion of Los Saicos down there and put it into to that new "Latin America" section of this article.  In fact I really loved the wording in the preamble so much, that I retained most of those wonderful opening sentences.  Also, you will notice that in the garage rock article (at Wikipedia en español), I moved the section on Latin American garage up near the top, so it could have it's rightful pride of place there (that is OK: Latin bands can be considered part of the garage story too--just be sure to have some sources and citations attesting to that, and refer to them as them as "counterparts" to American garage).  Latin America has provided a great and overlooked contribution to this genre, and we will soon have a section here in English to share its riches with people in the English-speaking world. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Time to archive most of this page
I think we could do a little "housecleaning" and send most of the contents of this page (with exception of the "Expansion of article: international (Part III)" thread). All of the issues dealt with in these threads which are all devoted to issues related to the expansion have now been addressed. Any future issues can be discussed in "Expansion of article: international (Part III)" and, of course, future threads. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of article (Part III)
If you have any thoughts or concerns about the expansion of the article you are welcome to post them here. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now entered the suite of interational sections. Tomorrow I will comb through them to make sure everything is tidy.  If you have any concerns, don't hesitate to let us know.  In the next few weeks I will be adding a psychedelic garage section, which will steer the article back into an American focus and act as segueway into the Decline section.  Right now, there is not yet the "transition" we need, but I ask you to be patient--it is on the way.  Also, after that I will do a folk rock influence section which will be placed right before the Psychedelic.  So, those two sections will provide the necessary amount of "boomerang" back to an American focus. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just put al of the old threads into the archive, in light of the fact that all of their concerns have now been addressed. No to the future. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Florida issue
Dear unsigned editor, Rather than engaging in an unconstructive edit war, please discuss your issue regarding Florida with the other editors. I can assure you that we would give your concerns a fair hearing and might even try accommodate some of your ideas (if we can find the right sources)--perhaps find a way to include a couple of Jacksonville bands, etc. Our problem is not with your concerns, but how you are going about things. We welcome you to express your thoughts here, so we can listen to what you have to say. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

British section
As I've indicated to other editors, I've partly rewritten the British section, drawing largely on other (well sourced) articles including Beat music, British rock and roll and British rhythm and blues. I've retained almost all of the previous text, but have reordered some of it, and also included some of the background which is necessary to explain why the mid-60s scene in Britain was different to that in the US. (There was no "British Invasion" in the UK - we were here already.)  One key sentence that I have removed is this:  "Along with the Beatles' innate personal charm, stylistic diversity, and pop sensibility, their frantic and energetic approach to playing rock & roll was a large part of their early appeal and served as a basis for the formation of countless groups."  That was not particularly true from the UK perspective - what were important in Britain about the Beatles were their freshness, cheek (chutzpah in US-ese), and (above all, so far as development of the music was concerned) their songwriting coupled with George Martin's production skills. Though the Beatles were of course huge in Britain, I've always had the sense that their shock effect was greater in the US than it was the UK.

I've also taken out the reference to the Equals, who didn't really figure until later in the 60s, and really fall outside the remit of this article, in my view. And, as well as adding some background, I've tweaked the sentence and paragraph order to make greater chronological sense, and also to differentiate between those groups that already existed in some form before the Beatles broke big (in 1962/63 in the UK, not 1964), and those that emerged afterwards such as the Kinks, Who, etc. Incidentally, US editors here may be interested in an excellent series of 100+-page monthly magazines that has started to come out in the UK called (boringly) The History of Rock - - which consists simply of well-presented verbatim reprints of articles from contemporary issues of the Melody Maker and NME - they give superb overviews of what was happening in UK music at the time (though focusing on the big names), and are well worth getting if you can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As per changes 10/28/15: I see some good information added in the British section, not to mention some helpful sources, which is most definitely a plus. By the way I like the mention of the Animals.  But, I have some slight issues with the re-ordering and shift in emphases.
 * In the course of my own drafting process for the section, I had to whittle away at some of my previous drafts which were a bit to all-encompassing about everything-British-rock, and to hone my own text down to the handful of bands and aspects which were the most similar in approach and kin to American garage--primarily the rawer harder-edged bands and more obscure groups-so I rightly or wrongly I tried to put the emphasis on that. I tried to establish a narrative momentum that cruises strait into that flow, and pulls the reader into the midst of it, focusing on that vital connection.  So, right now the section has seems to have lost a bit of that focus.  It now becomes harder for the reader to see the connection.
 * What happened to " However, as 1965 approached another wave of British Invasion bands based in London and other cities outside of Liverpool emerged, who were more blues-based and confrontational in their approach..." Wasn't that key?
 * Freakbeat, I think, should have more of a central focus in the section, not at the end--It is usually thought of by garage commentators as a key and central correlative. Freakbeat began a little bit before full-blown psychedelic than the new wording seems to indicate--it makes it sound like it came a little too late in the game (it did indeed transition into psychedelic with the passage of time).  We seem to have now lost the connection between freakbeat and mod, which is absolutely essential.
 * The impact and centrality of mod seems to have diminished.
 * We could try to better capture the Beatles' impact on Americans and how they got them excited about starting bands--I could have said more about that, but I subtly touched on it in the way I began the section. But, now that aspect is harder to see.
 * Perhaps we could say more about the Stones' too--about their attitude and influence on Americans--i.e. the way their 1965 and 1966 records had this...yes "punky" kind of sound, i.e. use of fuzzbox in "Satisfaction," "snotty" attitude, etc. In Teenbeat Mayhem, by Mike Markesich, he even goes as far as to credit the Stones with inventing 60s punk (a point which I do not agree--the Stones were Chess purists in '64 when they played alongside the Barberians on the T.A.M.I. show--and I think they got some pointers from the Barbs and other American garage bands of the time, Dylan did a kind of fuzz-punk proto rap in "Suterranean Homesick Blues" predating "Satisfaction").
 * "Although Britain did not develop a distinctive garage rock style in the same way as the United States"--perhaps not as specifically, but in more ways than the statement allows--there numerous stylistic similarities and connections. A lot of this boils down to classification and perception.  Obviously, America had more homegrown groups with a band playing on practically every other suburban block, but there was just so much British influence.
 * Don't we say too much about Merseybeat? Do we have to go into the whole background on Liverpool? Yes, the Beatles blew everyone away, but after 1964 the more pop-oriented Mersey Beat groups the followed in on their coattails diminished in popularity as the harder London-based bands came into vogue here in the states, it would be those bands (and of course still the Beatles) who would have the greatest influence on American garage.  Gerry and the Pacemakers?  Not much influence on garage.
 * "The most distinctive characteristic of the music was the strong beat, with vocal harmonies..." Beat, yes, but the harmony thing his blurs the connection to garage American bands, who were't as into harmonies.
 * What happened to the Equals? They did "Baby, Come Back " in '66--it didn't become a hit until later, but they were around.  Most of the bands I emphasized were ones that didn't have a lot of hits.  The Equals had a fast punky sound that ties right in.  We need them back in the article.
 * So we have some great new additions here now, but are we now saying too much and losing the focus on the essentials? We're taking three steps forward, yes, but are we also inadvertently taking four back?  Maybe we could rework things some more to get it to look just right.  We have a bigger ship, but is it moored in the harbor? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I know my version may go into too much depth about the British scene pre-1965, but I do think that much of that - maybe edited a little - is needed to give the necessary background. The problem is that, if we say - as we do - that garage bands didn't really exist as such in the UK, we are in danger of entirely picking a few bands out based on their obscurity or style, and not addressing in any way the context in which they existed.
 * As I have said many times, there was no such thing in Britain as "British Invasion bands" - for reasons that are hopefully obvious. They were simply called, at the time, beat groups (not "rock bands" until at least 1965 and probably later).  Some of them were certainly more blues-based (as I say), and one or two (e.g. the Who) were more confrontational - but they were not one and the same, they came from different backgrounds and barely overlapped.
 * My understanding of "freakbeat" is that essentially it developed after, say, 1965, under the influence of US bands - but, I could just be wrong about that.
 * I mention mod in relation to the Who, Small Faces, etc., so hopefully I haven't diminished it.
 * The impact of the Beatles in the US is probably for another section, so I haven't addressed it.
 * Ditto for the Stones, if you like - I would have thought a lot of US garage bands' sneering/snarling tone came from Jagger.
 * The point I was trying to get across is that the huge growth of numbers of bands in the UK came really in the late 50s and early 60s (with skiffle, and beat groups) more than in the mid-60s as it was in the US.  There was no "garage band" mentality or movement in Britain - though there was certainly a similarity of approach in some of the bands.
 * Yes, there probably is too much about Merseybeat - my point was that it exemplified (in an extreme way) the growth in band numbers in Britain in the early (not mid) 60s, and G and the Ps epitomised that. They, and other Merseybeat bands like the Big Three, were as "punky" as the Beatles, and at least as popular locally, before they were co-opted into the London "Tin Pan Alley" system
 * The harmonies were certainly important in the UK (and I would say in the US as well) - but possibly slightly earlier than the period we're discussing here. Again, I mentioned it to give a more correct background summary.
 * As I said in my earlier comments, I really don't think the Equals belong in this article at all - it seems very odd to me to mention them in this context. They were different, and later. - that is, unknown until 1968.
 * Bedtime here - I'll try to pick up comments over the next few days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we can safely trace Freakbeat back to '65 (see: English Freakbeat, Volume 2, []). I don't think the Freakbeat were necessarily influenced by the American bands, but that there were key similarities, albeit the freakbeat bands tended to be a bit more sleek in style and sound. And regarding the Equals, they were recording and active in '66--they were part of that whole mod freakbeat scene. They had a lot of protopunk elements that would influence later bands like the Clash.
 * Honestly..., the more I think about this and upon further reflection..... the more I think that the section has strayed from where it needs to be. It was compelling reading the way I had it written, and it went straight to the point with vital information that garage rock fans would want to know without saying too much.  I realize that you have made it more chronological now, whereas I had it more in an elliptical form, with greater centrifugal emphasis on mod and freakbeat--that is where garage people tend to gravitate most in hierarchy of interest.  Wouldn't it be best to restore it more-or-less it to its prior form, but then make the necessary additions and changes?  Was all of this overhall really necessary?  I don't think so.  If you put the two versions side-by-side, you'll see that the way it was yesterday looks closer to what a garage rock article requires.  Does that mean it was perfect? Certainly not.  But, we could take what was there, then make the necessary improvements, modifications, additions, and additional citations, as I said.  I worked really hard to make it look just right--and I kept everyone's criticisms (yours and others') in mind--that is one reason why I eliminated things not of vital interest from a garage standpoint.  I cut out a lot of fat.  I went out of my way to mention that the term garage rock is not usually used to refer to British bands, but went on to note correctly that there were still certain stylistic similarities, parallels, and connections (in key situations, i.e. not the Gerry & the Pacemakers--keeping in mind on how they came to be known, Tin Pan Alley, etc.).  But, now the those stylistic connection's are being practically negated in the opening sentences, which is going to make readers wonder why we have a section here at all, then some of the subsequent things are going to further erode perceived relevance to this article.  Back when I did the earlier version of the section, I even removed some of the discussion I previously had (in my sandbox) of the Who, which, in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have done--man did I say what needed to be said about them, and like a fool I took it out (shame on me), because I was sensitive to people's criticisms and (I became apprehensive about saying too much about the famous bands as not to be criticized for wasting space).  But, if I had to choose, I'd put more of the Who in there and less Gerry & the Pacemakers, Mersybeat, Tin Pan Alley, etc.  The Who were confrontational as were the Rolling Stones, the Pretty things, the Yardbirds (who we could mention), the Creation, etc.  We could put a qualifier in the "confrontational" clause (i.e. "certain groups").  I thought that I had a tight section that was a good-read and established the necessary connection to American garage (and to the global beat and garage boom--for the "inspired countless bands" clause I meant worldwide not just in the UK, and I don't mind an allusion somewhere to skiffle--but the London scene was huge in the mid 60s nonetheless).  Now the section is just not as focused--it lacks its former driving purpose, and we need to get to the right place, somehow some way.  I realize that I am not from Britain.  I don't pretend to know as much of what British rock looked like from the inside--no American ever could (and I agree we have a terrible habit in the states of over-using the term British Invasion and that the word rock bands was not used then).  But, I do see it from an American perspective, which could provide some valid points. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I owe you my honest thoughts, but I am confident that this conversation will result in the best possible section.  Even when we see sometimes things differently, we always come to consensus, and it always results in something better than what either of us could have come up on our own.  You have indeed brought in some good things for improvement (in the section), so I have every reason to be optimistic that we will get it just right, just as we have so many times. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I think I've said before, I'm not at all sure that there should be a British section in this article. Garage bands did not exist in the UK, and perhaps we should just say that.  Clearly, however, there were a large number of bands in Britain in the 1960s who became nationally popular in the UK, were in almost all cases co-opted by the London music business and the major (in UK terms) music companies, and who influenced US bands, through their music and other aspects of style.  There were also many bands who were not successful, some of whom recorded.    The problem for this section - whether it's "your" section or "my" section - is how much we mention either of those - the successful bands, or the unsuccessful bands.  Compilations of UK garage band-type music, and freakbeat, concentrate on the obscurities - so, are they the bands we should write about in this section, and ignore the popular bands, and the context?   At the moment, the text mentions the Stones, Yardbirds, Animals, Them, Small Faces, Kinks, Who, Troggs, etc. - all of whom were very successful bands in British terms.  They had some stylistic similarities to US garage bands, and influenced them, but they were not themselves "garage bands" and they were not obscure - they were among the most successful of the period in the UK charts.  We need to get the balance right.
 * I'm happy to go back to a version that is somewhat closer to your text. I still think that readers need a little bit of context, to explain why the UK scene was different to the US - but, we could reduce the mentions of Merseybeat, and I suppose the Equals could be mentioned alongside the freakbeat groups.
 * To critique your version line by line:
 * Along with the Beatles' innate personal charm, stylistic diversity, and pop sensibility, their frantic and energetic approach to playing rock & roll was a large part of their early appeal and served as a basis for the formation of countless groups.  Not true, for the UK.  Firstly, there was a huge boom in beat music before the Beatles became popular - the Beatles themselves were part of that.  Did they really have a "frantic and energetic approach to playing rock & roll"??  I don't think they were more frantic than Little Richard, Gene Vincent, etc.  I thought they were popular because they were "cute".  The growth in band numbers in the UK was not an outcome of the Beatles' popularity - it was part of a wider cultural trend in which the Beatles were just a prominent part.   Huge numbers of US musicians say "we were inspired by the Beatles" - but you don't find many British musicians saying that.
 * However, as 1965 approached another wave of British Invasion bands based in London and other cities outside of Liverpool emerged, who were more blues-based and confrontational in their approach, such as the Rolling Stones, the Animals, the Yardbirds, and the Who.'  They were not "British Invasion bands" - most were R&B groups.  But, we shouldn't group them all together.  The Stones, Animals, Yardbirds, (also Pretty Things, Downliners Sect) were R&B groups, and they were not "confrontational in their approach", though older generations may have seen some of them as challenging their values (hair length, etc.).  The Who (and Small Faces, etc.) don't really fit into that category - they were slightly later (a year or two, at least), they were not so much R&B-based, and they consciously adopted mod, etc., imagery (and, it's fair to describe the Who as "confrontational").
 * A musical cross-fertilization materialized between the two continents. Indeed - including the adoption by British bands of the style of US bands like the Byrds
 * In their 1964 transatlantic hits "You Really Got Me" and "All Day and All of the Night," the Kinks would take the influence of the Kingsmen's version of "Louie Louie" and apply greater volume and distortion, which in turn, would influence the approach of many American garage bands. Their influence would continue with several more hard-driving, yet increasingly despondent songs, such as "Where Have All the Good Times Gone," as well as "I'm Not Like Everybody Else," later covered by the Chocolate Watchband.  All OK
 * While the British bands, except in certain instances, are not generally classified as garage rock, they nonetheless shared certain characteristics with the American bands who often attempted to emulate them and are sometimes seen as counterparts to garage, particularly in the case of certain lesser-known UK groups. Seems a little confused - maybe rewrite?  But in general terms I think a statement like this should lead off the section.
 * Bands such as the Who and the Small Faces would tailor their appeal directly to the burgeoning mod subculture happening in London, whose sense of style would become influential with American youth.  OK, though they emerged out of the mod culture as much as tailoring their appeal to those people.
 * Many of the harder-driving and more obscure bands associated with the mod scene in the UK are sometimes retroactively referred to as Freakbeat, which is sometimes viewed as the more stylish British correlative to garage rock. Several bands often mentioned as Freakbeat are the Creation, the Action, the Move, and the Smoke, the Sorrows, the Red Squares, Wimple Winch, and the Birds, featuring Ron Wood, later of the Rolling Stones.  OK (except that I don't think "correlative" is a real word - how about "parallel"?)
 * The Equals, from North London, and were a racially integrated band consisting of black and white members, and featured lead singer Derv Gordon and guitarist Eddy Grant (later to gain fame as a reggae star in the 80s with the hit "Electric Avenue"), specialized in an upbeat style of rock typified in songs such as "Baby Come Back," "Softly Softly," and "Police On My Back," which was later recorded by The Clash on their 1980 Sandinista album.  Well, we could mention them, briefly.  They were unknown in the UK until 1968, and I don't think any mention of Grant's later work, or the fact that the Clash recorded one of their songs, is appropriate here at all.  As a wider point, I was thinking of putting together a list of British groups who made the UK charts between (say) 1963 and 1968 who aren't mentioned here at all.  Many were not "garage bands" - but, many (most? all?) of those mentioned in this section were not "garage bands" either.
 * The Syndicats, whose ranks included Steve Howe, later of Yes, recorded several sides including "Crawdaddy Simone" and the protopunk, "What to Do."  Obscure, and presumably only mentioned because Howe was a member.  Hundreds of bands recorded in this period, and many others also had members who were later notable.
 * The Pretty Things, who took their name from the title of a Bo Diddley song, in addition to their unkempt appearance, were known for their raw approach to blues-influenced rock, as exhibited in songs such as Diddley's "Midnight to Six Man," as well as and "Don't Bring Me Down."  OK - very much an R&B band originally, but definitely worth mentioning as a relatively close parallel in some ways to the US bands.
 * The Renegades, from Birmingham, never had much success in their native country, but became considerably better known in Finland and Italy. They recorded an album and a number of songs, including "13 Women."  Again, very obscure - I know nothing about them. Another British band who had more success abroad were The Rokes.
 * The Downliners Sect were if anything even more brazen in their approach.  More brazen than who?  I would group them with the Pretty Things.
 * The Troggs scored a massive worldwide hit with "Wild Thing" in 1966. Extolling the virtues of their seemingly unrepentant primitivism and sexually charged innuendo, the Troggs were the British band that Lester Bangs would single out as perhaps the quintessential "punk" (i.e. garage) band of the 60s.  OK - definitely need to be mentioned, per Bangs.   The "primitivism" was that they came from a relatively rural area, not a big city.
 * From Belfast, Northern Ireland came Them, led by Van Morrison and the Wheels. Them recorded two songs that would become widely covered by American garage bands, "Gloria," which would become a big hit for Chicago's the Shadows of Knight and "I Can Only Give You Everything' which was covered by numerous American acts, such as The MC5 and The Little Boy Blues. The Wheels would record the original version of "Bad Little Woman," which like "Gloria" before it, would be covered in 1966 by the Shadows of Knight.  Again, Them should certainly be mentioned, but they seem out of context in this paragraph - I would put them more as an R&B band, parallel to the Animals, Yardbirds, etc.
 * Rhino Records's 2001 box-set compilation Nuggets II: Original Artyfacts from the British Empire and Beyond, 1964-1969 contains many of the better-known songs performed by obscure British beat and freakbeat acts of this era.  OK.
 * Will touch base as and when I'm around over the next few days. If you really feel a need to revert some of my changes for the time being, go ahead, so long as we are continuing an amicable dialogue here and agreeing to compromise with a view to a longer term solution.  I do appreciate all the work you've done on this and other articles, but I sense from one or two of your comments that you still need to be aware of WP:OWN!.. From my point of view, I also need to be aware that my thoughts need to be backed up by good sources.  I have plenty of good sources, but I doubt whether they address the specific questions, like should band X or band Y be classed as "garage rock" or not.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't need to worry, our dialogue will always be amicable. I'm just playing devil's advocate--we both want the best for the article.  I don't pretend to be the owner of any article, but I'm obviously deeply invested in this one and I just want to make sure that it turns out right.  I might make a few changes of my own, but otherwise I'd rather just have you work on it, and appeal to you by providing my honest feedback (and I think I've now touched on all my points).  If you feel it needs to be in chronological order, that's fine.  My main concern is that we tighten it up, and re-instate the hard-blues-based rock/mod-freakbeat/1965/1966 emphasis, which is what garage people are going to find most useful and relevant.  When I did the older version I was careful not to try to tell the whole history of British rock, because that had one of people's criticisms of one of my earlier drafts, so I pared it down (with that in mind) and focused on the bare essentials as they related only to the article here.  As for freakbeat, 1965 is fine--with the whole mod/swinging London thing blossoming then.  Even the Who and the Small Faces could be considered freakbeat if it weren't for their popularity.  Freakbeat begins pre-psychedlia as more blues/R&B-based, but then eventually melds into psych (but not the elaborate kind of say Sgt. Pepper, more like the Move, etc.).  But, I think that you will come up with something better than what was there before, so I'm glad you're working  on it--it just needs some more changes--it's a work in progress--but I do ask that you put priority on it, so it can be ready in the next couple of days, as it is currently under review. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see this issue get sorted before I continue my GA review. Let's not rush, though; I'm not going anywhere. We can extend the GA review period if we all agree. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Binksternet. I've now had another go at redrafting the British section, which hopefully goes some way towards addressing some of the concerns.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am confident that this will all work out for the best--I can easily predict that I will come to happily embrace the GHmyrtle's final revisions--and I ultimately defer to him on all matters, even when I debate beforehand--he has indicated that he agrees with me on a lot of points. I also recognize he has made several key improvements, so I really think that what we arrive at will be better than what I had there before--it is really just now a matter of fine-honing things.  I don't think there are going to be any major areas of disagreement from here on out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! Wonderful! I absolutely love Ghmyrtle's latest version! I can say unequivocally that I am 150,000% behind it and I now think we have the perfect section.  Bravo!  Consensus not only reached reached, but better yet, perfection attained! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But articles are never perfect – they can always be improved, and I'm sure that I and others will think of ways to improve it in the weeks, months, and years to come.  But, I've no plans to do that now, and I'm happy with the current wording.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Me too! You are right--I realize that articles are never perfect, nonetheless I really like your current wording a lot--it's just my way of going the extra mile to say thank you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

House cleaning for archive
It seems to me that all of the issues discussed on this page have pretty much been dealt with, so now it is time to move on and place the current threads in the archive. I'm guessing that everyone would agree. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Garage rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://60sgaragebands.com/terrythetelstars.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Noticed term "garage rock" beginning to be used for newer bands--how to respond?
I have been noticing lately that a lot of the kinds of modern bands that we were calling "garage punk" a few years ago (i.e. those doing an updated version of garage, not doing a "retro" revival) are now using the term "garage rock" to describe themselves (particularly in San Francisco), and I've noticed that some Wiki editors are now using "garage rock" to describe them in articles. So I'm trying to accommodate this development without changing the article's overall focus (on the 60s bands). Perhaps we could mention something in the Revivals section (and maybe a line somewhere in the heading)--using the reliable sources that are out there and doing it in such a way that does not confuse readers nor in any fundamental way alter the article's present orientation. No big change, but a slight adjustment. But, I thought I'd run it by everyone first, before I make any slight changes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Tags
I'm going to remove the WP:TAGBOMBING on the article again. Please give specific examples of problems here on the talk page (preferably starting individual threads on each issue) so they can be specifically analyzed and addressed here on the talk page, rather than tag-bombing a GA article. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Look directly above this section.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggested to-do lists belong on article talk, in a thread(s), for other editors to opine on, assess, and address if necessary. Softlavender (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis, citation style, and other issues
I added a to do list on this article's issues containing my thoughts.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That to-do list under the talk-page banner is a unilateral analysis which attacks another editor. I'm going to suggest that you remove it and post the issues that you perceive as separate threads here on the talk page, to be assessed and discussed. This is a GA article, and no one should be posting unilateral to-do lists at the top of it which have not been agreed to and confirmed as necessary and important by WP:CONSENSUS of various editors. Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to remove the to-do list if nobody has yet to disagree with the points I've raised (WP:DRNC). Here are some pertinent quotes from the above split discussion.
 * I'll admit that I could reduce some of the citations in some of the statements.
 * It [the article] is simply too long, and not easy to navigate.
 * While I also thank and encourage Garagepunk's work on the article, it has become much too large for average readers to navigate [...] I recommend Ilovetopaint spearhead the project
 * This article is too long, too complex, TLDR and needs to be split. The citations alone would break my scroll key. Please.
 * I don't believe we need a consensus to determine whether cluttered citations, 500-word paragraphs, weasel words, indiscriminate examples, and synthesis is okay. These problems are obvious and and apparent.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with all the points raised. More pertinently, I abhor tag bombing as disruptive editing.  There are better ways to improve articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which ones?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Through discussion, primarily. And splitting paragraphs, and reducing citations, etc., are usually unobjectionable changes that any competent editor can do easily themselves.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant which points you disagreed with.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's is no consensus to place an undiscussed unilateral to-do list at the top of the article. Those sorts of banner to-do lists are normally decided by WikiProjects and/or group discussions. There is no consensus that there is an extensive problem with "weasel words, indiscriminate examples, and synthesis", or some of the other items. The way to improve a GA article is to start talk-page threads on each issue, allow other editors to check, analyze, opine, and if necessary, fix. In terms of paragraphs, inserting a paragraph break takes only a few seconds. Softlavender (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer reviewed?
In August 2016 a template above the banner was changed to the effect that the article had been peer-reviewed. However, there is no link to any such peer review, and this article's Archive contains a successful GA nomination in October-November 2015, but no 2016 peer review. Garagepunk, can you clarify this and link properly to the peer review, or remove that template? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A peer review was done a few months ago. Unfortunately, when the bot put the peer review template at the top of the article, it did not properly link the review.  We could get an administrator over at the review pages to go into their archive and access it.  The last time I went to the collective archive, I could not could not locate it.  We could contact an admin. to help us find it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The link is here: I do not know how to link as the bot is supposed to at the talk page top, alas but here are the contents: . The category is: August 2016 peer reviews. Fylbecatulous talk 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have now tweaked the link for the template above the banner. It is now able to be read by clicking through.. Fylbecatulous talk 17:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Much thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Some neutral thoughts
Hi all. I was pinged to stop by this article and upon reading the talk page here, I see that inquired if I'd take a look at the article to see how it might match up with the FAC criteria. I have read the entire talk page discussion, and did a light read of the article, and here are my preliminary observations, sorry they are lengthy, but I hope they help. Montanabw (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC):

First off, this is clearly a labor of love and the lead editor(s) are to be commended for a very thorough job.

Second, any potential FAC will benefit from a copyedit by someone who has an outside and neutral view and is not one of the primary contributors or a project member (that said, the inside crew can also copyedit their own stuff if they understand it is a collaborative process). The outside reviewer needs to be someone with a good reputation as a copyeditor and also someone willing to say the hard things that need to be said. I have often tapped folks like Eric Corbett for my own articles; sometimes it's a rough ride and tough not to feel a little under siege, but the end result is something you can feel really proud of. (see as an example Talk:Oxbow (horse) and then its FAC- it was the first article I took to FAC as lead editor, and I felt like I went through a marathon!)

So do a copyedit that focuses on existing content and leaves the split-or-not-to-split question to others; if the article is split, then the edited sections can simply be moved with proper attribution and they will be ready to go in a straight copy-paste. (For example, we did this with horse years ago when we took it to GA. We spun out at least 5 or 6 new articles initially, plus moved a fair bit of info into existing articles, and for each left a "main" tag with a summary.

Third, if you split, you may not want to wed yourself to the proposals on the tag; the worst kind of splits are those with false equivalencies where you might have one half-decent article and a bunch of one-paragraph stubs. For example, rather than a geographic split, perhaps a sub-genre split/move would be useful (i.e. there already is a proto-punk article, perhaps material on psychedelia could also be moved or a new article started). I have no opinion on that at present, as my experience has been that as the article is improved section by section, the areas that would make good stand-alone articles kind of jump out at you. That said, I don't think raw length would be a deal-killer at FAC.

Fourth, what jumped out at me was that the article definitely is overloaded with citations; 900 is overkill. This is the #1 issue for me. Yet, I also sympathize and props to you for excellent verification! Given the topic and the reality that there appear to be few comprehensive critical overviews ( Bogdanov, and...?), I can see a need for more than the usual number of cites, but I still think they can be trimmed to maybe 300 or 350, somehow. What I am seeing as one easy place to start chopping is that a great deal of information is sourced by two to four citations per sentence/paragraph. My suggestion is that many of these be trimmed to one cite each along the following principles:
 * 1) If any one citation will verify the entire sentence, use it and chop the others. You don't need several sources saying the same thing (that said, occasionally you do have to use multiple sources in a sentence, just try to not do it any more than you absolutely must).
 * 2) If material can be rewritten so the same source can be used once instead of twice, try it. (i.e. combining or moving material so two sentences — or even an entire paragraph—can be sourced with a single footnote) the copyedit above may do some of this for you!
 * 3) If there is a tidbit responsible for the multiple sourcing, maybe ask if that tidbit is really needed at all or if it can be tossed.
 * 4) If multiple citations are needed to verify something, consider if they are being used for WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, and thus the whole sentence or paragraph really has to be tossed out entirely. Here's what I mean:
 * It is OK to have multiple citations —either within the sentence or piled at the end—for situations where there simply is no unified source, such as where you wrote, "Occasionally, local groups had the opportunity to open at shows for famous touring acts passing through their cities and towns.[8][9][10][11] " — you appear to be showing examples that verify the statement and there is probably no single book or source that says this (but if there is and one source COULD verify the info, do so). That said, absent a source with actual statistics, the word "occasionally" may butt up into the realm of OR or SYNTH, it might be better to simply say "Sometimes, local groups..."
 * In contrast, cites used to "make a case" in absence of source material that makes the case for you can be SYNTH or OR. Normally, we want our sources to make the case.  For example, it would be OK to use multiple sources to support a statement such as,  "three reviews that appeared in local newspapers said this band was great,[cite][cite][cite] and one said they sucked,[cite]"; but it would not be OK to use the same set of multiple sources to say, "this band was great,[cite][cite][cite] and the only naysayer[cite] was clearly a jealous hack who wouldn't recognize genius if it hit him between the eyes".  Better yet, in a perfect world, there is a book about Garage Rock that discussed critical review at the time and you could use it to say, "most local critics  gave the band favorable reviews.[cite book and page number]."  (Though if there is no such source, you are probably stuck with multiple cites).  To avoid a SYNTH problem altogether and trim cites, it could say, "four local reviews ranged from critic Schmoo who said, 'A plus' to critic Schmoz who said 'F minus'."[cite][cite]"

Here is the analysis of this article with Drpda's tool. I compared it to two FAs that I worked on: my longest and most bloated FAC California Chrome and an FA I helped on a tiny bit, Richard Nixon, which is a huge topic with multiple spinoff articles. I'd suggest you look at how they handled the Nixon article for your guide, as his career spanned decades and there is a huge amount of source material on him. Yet, you will note that the Nixon article is about half the size of this one by many data metrics, though readable prose size is about 2/3 of yours, so I don't think raw length is a huge problem here. I think the footnote situation is the main issue.

Garage Rock Document statistics: 915 footnotes, moderate-length bibliography
 * File size: 1244 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 258 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 71 kB
 * Wiki text: 349 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 111 kB (18710 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 5657 B

California Chrome Document statistics: 266 footnotes, small bibliography
 * File size: 548 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 105 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 17 kB
 * Wiki text: 168 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9953 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 1710 B

Richard Nixon Document statistics: 284 footnotes, very extensive bibliography
 * File size: 690 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 132 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 20 kB
 * Wiki text: 151 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 75 kB (12430 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 1632 B

Hope this helped. Montanabw (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your generous and detailed remarks. I think you are definitely correct to advise against the type of split proposed in the tag at the top of the article.  The tri-global split just would not work, and I'm glad you pointed that out.
 * I feel that all of the sections (currently here) cover necessary bases vital to correct understanding of the topic, but that there needs to be a lot of trimming to the sections currently present.
 * And, as you mentioned, there needs to be a lot of trimming to the citations, as well. I put extra citations mainly to serve as corroborations, because I know that some of the sources that our circle of editors who cover garage rock consider to be almost Biblical in terms of reliability and accuracy (Garage Hangover run by Chris Bishop, 60s Garage Bands.com, run by Mike Dugo, and Beyond the Beat Generation, run by Hans Kesteloo, the world's first known collector of garage records--all noted garage rock authorities) might be deemed by outside editors as "small-shop" affairs--so I put the extra citations in as a way of showing multiple coverage and verifiability. I intentionally erred on the side of using too much, realizing, all along, that at some point we were going to have to trim them back.  I also used Mike Markeich's book in a lot of places.  However, I could trim down the citations and try to get them to just one each, maybe occasionally two (unless, of course, there is a multi-pronged set of facts mentioned in one statement).  I think you are correct that we can reduce a lot of kilobytes from trimming down the citations.  Then, of course, we can also trim a lot of extraneous text in a bunch of sections--here too.  I'll probably end up going through a several rounds of trimming before we finally peel away down to the irreducible element in each section.
 * On the psychedelic garage section: The section addresses psychedelic garage rock as a uniquely distinct aspect of garage rock, distinct from other forms of psychedelia.  People tend to think of psychedelia as an elaborate and sophisticated rock form, but psychedelic garage is much more primitive and basic--it was essentially garage bands "on a trip".  Psychedelic garage is considered to be a vital part of the garage rock genre by the majority of its adherents, and has been treated as such by some of the original definers of the genre, such as Lester Bangs (in Rolling Stone History of Rock), as well Greg Shaw, who was known for championing the genre's stylistic diversity, as well as contemporary commentators such as Mike Markesich, who recognizes it as a necessary feature.  Psychedelic garage has never really been identified as a free-standing, self-contained genre apart from garage, so it would not need its own seprate Wikipedia article. While there could be discussion of it the Psychedelic rock article, I believe that it still should remain here.
 * The psychedelic garage section, while it addresses psychedelic garage as distinct from the rest of psychedelia, is by no means out of context. In fact that section is where the article reflects on garage rock in the context of its times as part of the whole 60s experience--ultimately we have to treat it not just as a musical genre, but also a part of our collective history.  In many ways it is the heart of the article--the best part of the article in my mind.  For the section to be spun-off anywhere else would greatly impoverish this article.  The section also addresses the psychedelic thread that runs through all of garage rock going back to early 60s with surf (Link Wray's sonic experiments on the electric guitar in the late 50s) the s, that is present in the "pure garage" in 1965 and 1966, and connected to Dylan influence, etc.
 * Protopunk: While there is a separate article on protopunk, the section on it in this piece only addresses protopunk in relation to garage rock. The punk rock article also has a section on it, and I believe that the section here is just as necessary.  In the early 1970s when rock critics first identified garage rock as a genre, they cited acts such as Iggy and the Stooges and MC5 as examples of "punk rock", which at the time was the word for garage rock.  Protopunk form 1969-1974 is the essential bridge between garage rock of the 1960s and punk rock of the 1970s and was a necessary channel (and conduit) to pass the influence along influence along.  Clearly there is a necessary symbiosis between 60s garage/early 70s protopunk and later punk rock that has to be explained.  What I feel the article has to do is take the reader by the hand and walk him/her through the topography, passing each of the essential bases in the garage rock landscape and teaching the reader about all the major topics that a fan of garage rock is supposed to know.
 * The main problem with the article as it stands is that I put in way too many citations throughout the whole article and went into too much detail in the regions sections (and maybe elsewhere). I'd also be open to trimming other sections if necessary.
 * I think that one FA article that would make a good touchstone and reference point for this would be the punk rock article. Like this one, it is a big article that covers a whole musical genre made up of many different personalities.  If there is one difference, it would be that garage rock is a much bigger genre than later punk in terms of the amount of bands and acts.  It was the ground zero of the largest rock boom ever.  It is by far the largest rock genre ever, and I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that there were probably as many bands playing from 1963-1968 as in the last fifty years put together.  Mike Markesich's book includes records made by 16,000 bands in the Unites States alone from this period, and I've heard a number of records not included in his book.
 * I hope I'm not being over-optimistic (you have more experience with these kinds of things than I do) but I believe we can reduce a significant amount of KBs from the article with the sections we presently have here trough extensive trimming of text and citations--I think it can be done. I'll try the best I can to help out in getting it there.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, so here is the analysis of punk rock: So, overall, it is slightly longer than the Nixon article, but definitely leaner than this one. Hope that helps. I'd suggest you start taking the pruning shears to the shrubbery yourself, and then when you want more outside feedback, pop by my talk page and ask for input -- I also have a lot of page watchers who might also enjoy weighing in for you. Montanabw (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 388 footnotes, extensive bibliography
 * File size: 540 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 156 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 14 kB
 * Wiki text: 177 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 85 kB (14012 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 1822 B


 * Thank you so much. I promise to do everything I can to make the necessary reductions.  I'll be a busy bee.  I've only just started, so I have a lot more to do.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to point out—the punk rock article was promoted in 2004 and last reviewed in 2007. It's highly unlikely the current article resembles the one that was promoted, and it's exactly the type of article that drive-by editors would constantly add bloat to.  Here it is the day it passed FAR—it stood at 37kb of readable prose then. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Future-in-past
Please for heaven's sakes don't use future-in-past constructions: "would go on to", "would release", "would play", "would be", etc. -- nothing makes writing sound weaker or duller or more corny. Say "went on to", "released", "played", "was". Just avoid the word "would" altogether. I've now removed this construction throughout the article. If more text is added to the article, please don't use the word "would". Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll avoid it in the future. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Peak of popularity
Most of what I have seen before the regional descriptions looks great, but I have a concern about this section. Since the era was indeed "rife with one-hit wonders", wouldn't it be useful to give some examples? There are some songs mentioned but almost none of them are one-hit wonders. "The Witch", a classic garage song, never charted, "Where You Gonna Go?" never charted, "It's Cold Outside" did reach number 68, but that is not high enough to be a one-hit wonder. To save us time, the Standells' "Dirty Water" is an actual example of a one-hit wonder in the bunch. Why not mention "Little Bit O' Soul", "Talk Talk" or "Little Girl"? Selecting songs to reach conclusions that are not supported by text can be considered synth. It would be a mistake to let readers believe those songs were hits. I have appropriate sources to amend the issue if will allow it. Also, it would be wise to move the Beau Brummels to the second paragraph since the first section appears like it was trying to focus on one-hit wonders. Perhaps swap it with "Psychotic Reaction", another prime example.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. This section precedes my tenure at Wikipedia,  but I'll admit that I got so preoccupied with addition sections, that I put his section on the back burner.  I did add the line about one-hit wonders, but should have found the right examples to back it up.  It's now kind of a hodge podge.  This is the section that I've done very little in, so I should have been more involved at this one.  I made the mistake of assuming that, since it had been there, that I could focus on other sections instead.  I've ignored this section, and I'm sorry.  The songs you mentioned would be great additions, by the way.  And then, later in the text, we could have the some of the lesser-hits (later in the paragraph), and move others elswhere.  You are definitely right that this section has problems.  In earlier conversations, I didn't realize that, when you were talking about WP:Synth, you were referring to this section--I thought it was the other sections.  Thanks for the recommendations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I went in and re-worked some things. The section makes more sense now. I could make more improvements if need be.  If you have some better sources and would like to add/replace what's here, go right ahead. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

General discussion
I just wanted to point out that the readable prose size for this article is roughly 120 kilobytes. Because of the messy citation style, however, the article ends up being around 370,038 bytes. It would really benefit from templates.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DO NOT SPLIT: I am completely against splitting the article. Readers deserve to have the benefit of an article that fully and properly educates them on the topic.  Having spin-offs will only lead to confusion.  American garage rock is the centrifugal core through which all other national variants have to be connected, in order to be meaningful and helpful to the reader.  By the way, there are plenty of other long articles at Wikipedia.  This article just happens to be about a particularly large genre in terms of participants and recording--it is by far rock's largest genre in terms of the number of bands and records, so the article has to cover the form it in its true breadth.  The kilobyte rule is in place because, when smartphones first came out a few years back there was a concern that long articles would not be able to properly load.  Since then, smartphones have not only become more powerful, but now also sub-divide into different sections (i.e. do not appear on the same page).  Let's keep the article in its full form rather than truncating it.  The templates just inserted are unnecessary and unfounded.  There is no synthesis--I've tried to be accurate.  Yet, you say there is not enough central discussion--it is in the Milieu and Characteristics sections--they explain the overview in detail.  I'll admit that I could reduce some of the citations in some of the statements.  Nonetheless, this article has already gone through the rigorous process of review and is deemed to be of high quality. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I am fully appreciative of the huge amount of valuable work that  has put into this article over the years, I agree in principle that the article should be split.  It is simply too long, and not easy to navigate.  It would benefit from being split into smaller articles, without losing any of the well referenced text, and retaining a good structure.  We need to approach any split with care, and it should not be on the lines initially suggested by .  There needs to be a single overview article, which sets out the style's background and origins; a summary of the regional styles; and the later developments.  Linked from that main overview article, there should be separate articles on the various regional garage rock scenes - perhaps regionally in the US, and some national and continent-wide articles.     Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – We can leave a couple paragraphs that summarize the major points of garage rock as a worldwide phenomenon. After split, it'll be easier to focus on the issue of self-sourcing examples, which is a huge one for the article, but particularly for these sections. They almost entirely consist of namedrops.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's not jump too soon to assume that there will be a split. Rather than splitting the sections off into different articles (which would make them seem orphaned and incomplete), we could collapse them into fold-downs here.  I think that would be a much better solution.  We could start with a general discussion of each regional scene, followed by a collapse that goes into more detail.  But, if that cannot be done, the let's just leave it in its present configuration, albeit with some improvements.  I am beginning to see that there could have more general discussion of each regional scene (before discussing individual bands).  I'm not opposed to removing some bands, but we should do that with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.  And, we do have a table of contents to help us navigate (but we could re-work the section titles if necessary).  There was a similar discussion at the punk rock article a few years ago that resulted in no concensus to split--it is still in its full form.  There are plenty of other long articles around here--many that are FA and GA (this one is GA).  So, let's be careful in how we proceed.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If anyone has the time (I don't), it should be possible to work up an alternative structure in a sandbox. The core article should do more than merely "summarize the major points of garage rock as a worldwide phenomenon" - it needs to be an overview, to highlight the background and history (primarily in the US), link to regional articles (which should retain the mentions of notable individual bands), and probably also cover the later developments (post-1960s).   I don't think "fold-downs" (if I understand them correctly) are a good answer.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think it needs international coverage--there is more to it than just the US, though the US is its core. For instance, the Australian thing was huge, and there were other national scenes as well.  I am not in favor of chopping whole sections out, but rather, going in and trimming out some of the fat.  I'll be the first to admit that there is some fat.  First, we could reduce the amount of citations.  Believe it or not, I am not against removing some of the bands and any excessive or extraneous detail.  I have been thinking about nominating the article for FA, and I was expecting there to be some "tree-trimming" in that process.  Actually, such a review might be helpful, because it could help us resolve some of these problems, and we could get some extra hands on the deck.  But, I think we should proceed carefully.  I cannot go along with any move to split, but we can trim, yes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would agree a split needs to be strongly considered and organized. I think it would be best to have the main garage rock article include an overview similar to the one Ghmyrtle recommended with mention of key groups from the genre.. While I also thank and encourage Garagepunk's work on the article, it has become much too large for average readers to navigate. I recommend spearhead the project if he is interested since he possesses the most experience with music genre articles. I am willing to help with some regional scenes in North America, such as Texas and the West Coast when the time comes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of months ago you told me that you were "blown away" by the article and how much you enjoyed reading it. You even called it "the best music genre article at Wikipedia".  You said that in a Barnstar.   I cannot understand this at all.  Why would you have more confidence in someone that knows very little about this topic.   I'm not just frustrated with you, but everyone here.  I feel that I am being given a vote of no confidence.  This article that has been the backbone of my work here.  Let's not truncate it.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did enjoy reading it. I gave you praise because it was vastly improved and you needed encouragement since you felt no one appreciated the work. However, it has indeed become too large for itself and needs to be divided (with all info intact) in order to fix some of the issues that still persist with this subject. Ilovetopaint has the knowledge to properly format the article's split; look at his track record.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, he has no knowledge or care about this topic. So, you say now that I needed encouragement, but then you said it was the best genre article.  I actually didn't think so--I thought it still needed some improvements, but you said you thought so.  If your opinion was not that high of my work then, then you never should have led me to think it was.  We need to have these sections here.  I will not accept a split.  I had the article peer reviewed a few months ago and no one said any of these things.  I spoke with the FAC Coordinator, and though while she pointed out some things that needed to be improved, she did not say the article should be split.  This is disconcerting. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But if consensus states a split is in order, you will need to accept it. So far three users have approved it. I would think Ilovetopaint cares considerably about the topic; otherwise, he would say nothing to improve it (the split). Please take a step back and look at the bigger picture, thanks. When a split occurs, I will dedicate my efforts to the Texas and West Coast scenes as I mentioned.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no such consensus at this time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree for a split: I come, not having edited any on this article (probably, maybe), but bearing three WikiProject music related userboxes and thousands of edits to modern music articles. I am even involved in the most convoluted musician talk page controversy we have, it seems :Laura Branigan (who is not still living, but won't lie down). I do not agree with the comment: he has no knowledge or care about this topic as a valid comment to shut down this undertaking. seems to have a stellar reputation and steady good article creation of related subjects. I am not a cat, have poor knowledge of physics nor have travelled in a time machine, but I dare to work on those articles with pride. (I do play drums...) s I will not accept a split, and This article that has been the backbone of my work here, are demonstrative article ownership and thusly if no better rationale can be offered should be discounted.  This article is too long, too complex, TLDR and needs to be split. The citations alone would break my scroll key. Please. There are editors willing to take on the task.. Fylbecatulous talk 19:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to own the article, nor ever have. I just admitted that we need to reduce the captions, so your scroll key should end up just fine.   I'm want to make sure that it does not get diminished in such a way that it looses necessary information.  Though, I have not at this point seen a good enough solution to make me change my mind, I could consider the idea of a split if I am confident that the article can retain its scope and breadth and cover all of the necessary topic areas--the international areas are import for a good briefing.  But in a hypothetical split situation that I could consider endorsing, the article could keep all or at least most of its current sections, but many of them would be shortened to general summaries that could be linked to new articles conveying more specific information about bands and local scenes.  So, each region and nationality have a still have a place here, but a one or two paragraph summary, and we be could link it to a more specific article.  But, let's still keep the sections, please in some form.  I do not own this article, but I I have demonstrated enough hard work and dedication to have the right to ask to have some input and to be part process of changing it.  If you're looking for someone to do the heavy lifting, you've got a pair of willing hands right here.  As for Ilovetopaint, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt--maybe he cares more than I realize.  I'll be a constructive with everyone, but we need to do this right.  So, let's keep the necessary bases to cover. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Initial thoughts: 370K bytes seems pretty long when you recite the number, but it's a GA, and the readable prose is only 120 kilobytes (less than a third of that) and if it were an FA (which it probably could be) this size would likely be OK in order to be comprehensive. I think we should ask some FA reviewers like and  (is she an FA reviewer?) if it's reasonable to have an article size this big (readable prose at 120 kilobytes). I'm kind of torn about it, because I can see the merit of keeping everything together. It loads OK, and I didn't have any trouble editing it, so I don't see a technical problem with the size. Obviously if it does get split the parts that are split off should be well and truly summarized in this parent article, to the point of greatly repeating a lot of material. Perhaps side articles could be started now, without any splits, and if the side articles are good enough they could be labeled "main" and then the sections here could be slightly trimmed, as Binksternet notes below. Also note that there are 100 Wikipedia articles longer than this one, with the longest being 5.5 times the size of this one: Special:LongPages. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC); edited 06:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Trim not split. The subject ought to remain under one name, especially since our sources talk about the topic as having a very localized and yet a global presence. The whole topic is worthy of whole coverage. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Trimming the tree is definitely better than chopping off branches. We could probably eliminate at least 100 bytes or more by reducing the number of citations.  Then we can reduce the text--a quarter to maybe a third in the regions and nations sections.  I don't think it is realistic to expect it to go below 120KBs, but we could get it around 200.  The punk rock article has 180--but garage rock is amuch larger genre--it is by far the largest rock genre in terms of participants and recordings.  I knew that in the FAC process we would have to trim these things.  When you want to carve a piece of wood you need a big-enough block to whittle down.  When I was working on the last rounds of expansion, I intentionally erred on the side of too much--I put more bands in with the expectation that some of them would have to come out later--I wanted us to be able to make the best choice about which bands to ultimately include, and the best way to do that is start with a larger array to choose from--that way nothing we end up wanting will get forgotten.  I also agree 100% that in the regions sections, we could have more overview in each section (along with less bands).  I was actually thinking that we could come up with such overviews during the FAC process.  So, let's not have a split, but a constructive FAC process to get the article to the place where it needs to be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Promote to FA, do not split. This article seems like it could easily be an FA. I agree with Garagepunk66 above; splitting should not even be considered at this point; instead the article should go to FAC. And I agree with Binksternet that the whole topic is worthy of, and should have, whole coverage. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I was asked by GaragePunk for an opinion. Firstly, as a FAC coord, I would ask that we don't use the FAC process for determining how the article might be split or trimmed; those sort of structural questions should be ironed out on the article talk page, or at Peer Review. An article submitted to FAC needs to be stable at the very least, and that will be a risky proposition unless the structure has consensus first. Secondly, as an editor, looking over the article and checking page size, the article as it stands is bigger than most but I'm not sure of the benefit of splitting the way it's been proposed. Even if you create forks to regional articles you still need a detailed main article like this, so I'd consider trimming this one and perhaps creating those forks, but no more than that for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Stability is definitely key. The only rational course now for the article is to trim it in a prudent, responsible way (not to truncate or split it in a way that would be highly, even gravely detrimental).  I have heard your concerns and wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be trimming (we are all in 100% agreement on that!), particularly in the regional sections, where there could be more summary, but less mention of bands and songs.  Another reason a split should be ruled out is that, in addition to hurting the article, even possibly destroying it, the task would be far more complicated and time consuming than anyone here can imagine.  It would involve creating way too many sub-articles--people are just not going to have enough time to do all of it.  What we'd end up with is a big mess, not a solution.  I ask everyone who has thought otherwise to please step back and consider the problems a split would cause rather than solve.  Now, let us do the right thing and keep the article in its present format and structure, but trim it down and make the necessary changes and modifications. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to change my opinion if the trimming is complete and the tags (which for some odd reason were removed) are taken care of. This included name dropping, synthesis of sources, paragraph splits (easiest fix), and un-encyclopedic language throughout the article. I overviewed the article again and can confirm these were real issues that need to be amended even though the tags were removed. But please stop saying a split should be ruled out. Four (kinda five if you count Ian Rose's in-between response) editors who work extensively in music-related pages have given viable reasons to initiate a split over one constructive, but brief counter-reason by Binksternet. You, me, and Ilovetopaint would be more than prepared to go into the process which is hardly as complicated as you are making it out to be.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't primarily edit music articles, but then I think it's a good idea to get thoughts from within and without the WP music community anyway. Further, if you want to place me in any grouping of the editors who've commented re. a split, I'd be with Binksternet, and it looks to me that Softlavender would be too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate that you have expressed an open mind. You are welcome to come to whatever position you wish, but if you considered a "trim not split" position, I can guarantee you and everyone that I would be a constructive partner in the trimming/modifying process.  Keep in mind that I agree about the need for reductions and mod's, particularly in the regions sections I recently added a few months ago.  I looked back over them about a month ago and came to the conclusion that they were going to need changes (at the time I was expanding those sections, I was trying to just get the sections done and out of the way, figuring we could go back later and fix any problems).  I was expecting such changes to be made during the FAC process.  If there are any genuine examples of WP: Synth or encyclopedic language, we can discuss them and back and fix them if need be.  But, sometimes we confuse synopsis with WP: Synth (and not all synthesis constitutes WP: Synth (WP: What SYNTH is not).  To skeptical editors here let me make an analogy: let me make an analogy to Brexit or Trump.  Just because things aren't perfect is not sufficient enough reason to drive off a cliff and make a bad decision in the hunger for change.  A split is the equivalent of a Wiki-Brexit that would gravely diminish or harm this article.  When a split proposal is made in a hast of "tag bombing", we have to step back and ask if it is healthy to over-react to a radical change proposal to overhaul a GA article, whom one editor here (who is a professional editor) has stated is near to being FA.  The editor who reviewed this article, and who is one of the most respected reviewers here is in agreement that a split would inappropriate.  If the article is near to achieving FA, then, by golly, we should agree to keep it in its present format and structure and get it over to FAC as soon as possible where we can trim sections down and make necessary improvements.  All editors here would be welcome to contribute in the FAC process, and there, we would also gain the help several additional editors who specialize in reviews.  I appeal to us to come to a sensible consensus right away and then we can proceed to FAC. Garagepunk66 (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * you need to accept there are multiple issues with the article and FAC is not a solution to them. At this point, with everyone just going back and forth over the obvious issues, but not addressing them, I do not want to be involved in this for much longer. If you want the article to stay a mess, then so be it. If reviewers want it that way, then go right ahead. But if you want to improve upon the article, I would be happy to contribute. You may not like Ilovetopaint, but he has brought key concerns and has a better knowledge of genre pages than both of us combine.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is not a mess--it is not far from FA. But it has problems, I agree--It needs trimming and fixing.  But organization is not the problem.  We need to fix the real problems here.  I can assure you and everyone that they will be properly fixed, whether here and/or at FAC.  I assure you that everything will work out just fine. I a m a person who keeps my word and promises.  I have pledged to work with everyone.  I have listed to everyone's concerns loud and clear. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, regarding a comment I made in a paragraph above: If there are any Brexit or Trump supporters here, I was only making an analogy.  Being American, I have no great opinion about the Brexit issue, which of course is an internal matter in the UK--no offense to Brexists out there.  Trump?  Well I could find another analogy... Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not in the UK either, but equating one Wikipedia article going under the proverbial knife of revision (split v trim) to the subtraction of an European state from the United Kingdom makes me wish to retreat to corresponding with the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office. I am willing to hope for adequate improvements to this article to revision and reduction instead of splitting, but the histrionic language (ie: drive off a cliff) during this process needs to be trimmed as much as the 'meanderings' mentioned above. Fylbecatulous <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 19:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , your point is well-made. I should have used a different expression.  I didn't mean badly.  Thanks.  Meow... Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I want to assure everyone that we will get the problems fixed right here and I will do everything I can to help fix them before any thoughts of FAC. In the sub-thread right below we are discussing one of the regions (incidentally you'll notice that an editor has a vote there). We could do a mini-thread for each region, one-by-one in order.   Please offer any comments that you feel will be helpful in the process.  I will listen intently to whatever specific concerns you think need to be addressed in each region section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am confident we will get the job done, and I shall do my part. But, I hope you don't mind if I meander just one second to ask a question.  If my analogy above sounded a tad overstated, then what about someone's characterization of the article as "a mess"?  Would that be any more appropriate, or should one rather be justified to compare this article to Donald Trump's hairstyle on a windy day?  I thought I'd ask our highly esteemed college and professional editor,, to weigh whether the whole "mess" characterization is apt, or if that phrase would have better been left sitting on the cutting room floor along with the trimmings that I am working on right now?  Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've looked through the article and I find it to be excellent – a highly useful, cited, and exhaustive treatment of the subject by someone who clearly knows their stuff. To me it reads like a standard FA (FAs are supposed to be exhaustive) and I think it should go to FAC. promoted it to GA in November 2015; he has written four FAs; I wonder what he thinks about this article being FACed, now that it has more than doubled in size? I'd also like to get the opinion of, who has written many FAs and knows how complete and exhaustive they need to be. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

really? Like seriously? Stick to the issues with the article, not whatever petty indifference you had with my comment. I thought our talk helped move us past this, but obviously not. I'm very dissappointed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , regarding your further comments : But, I hope you don't mind if I meander just one second to ask a question. If my analogy above sounded a tad overstated, then what about someone's characterization of the article as "a mess"? Would that be any more appropriate.... Yes I do mind. Why extend what should have been a closing to my comment to drag back someone who has gone to your talk page to attempt to make peace and get an entire diatribe in response, which you think is now hidden in your edit history and reverted just because you say it is no one else's business.  My comment was to your use of language alone and no hurtful analogy to another editor was appropriate. It seems obvious that you will never let any of this lie down and sleep, even when we are still agreeing to work with you.  Buyer beware: if I collaborate with you it will never be about just article content. Much too disturbing for me. Sorry.   <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 12:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , have a little sense of humor. I wasn't putting you down personally--I meant no hard feelings.  I was just humorously pointing out something to, because I don't want to be held to an unfair standard. That's all.  I was just asking everyone, in a lighthearted way, to be fair.  No hard feelings.  Keep in mind that for everyone else, this is probably just a thread to place comments--and I know that everyone is well-intended.  But, for me it is a frightening and stressful thing--I've invested so much into this project.  I was trying to lighten up my understandable worries with a sense of humor.  It was a bit uncouth, but I meant no harm.  Please accept my apology. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Opposed to split. It's a big subject and requires a big article. Carptrash (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

1) Pacific Northwest 1964-1968
Here is a typical excerpt from the article, taken from "Pacific Northwest 1964-68":
 * In 1964 keyboardist Don Gallucci, whose signature electric piano riffs punctuated the hit version of "Louie Louie", left the Kingsmen to start his own combo, Don and the Goodtimes, whose initial lineup briefly included fellow ex-Kingsman Jack Ely, who had sung lead vocal their hit version of "Louie Louie", before he went form Jack Ely & the Courtmen in 1966. Don and the Goodtimes sported top hats on stage and specialized in a keyboard-driven garage sound, particularly on their earlier records, and landed an engagement as the house band on Dick Clark's Where the Action Is, promoting the band to name an album after the TV show, specializing in R&B-flavored Northwest fare. After undergoing key lineup changes, they moved to Los Angeles in 1967, where they were teamed with producer Jack Nitzsche to record the album So Good, known for his arrangements on many of Phil Spector's 1960s hits, who preferred to use session players from Los Angeles' A-list, the Wrecking Crew in place of the band members on certain cuts. Moving in a more progressive direction, the band changed their name to Touch.

TL;DR: Fascinating stuff for the Don and the Goodtimes and Jack Nitzsche articles, but it's unclear why any of this is significant to Garage rock. The only other time Don Galluci is mentioned is in "Later developments"
 * Don Galluci, who played keyboard on "Louie, Louie", was in another band called Don and the Goodtimes.
 * Don and the Goodtimes wore top hats.
 * The band's first line-up included another Kingsmen member, Jack Ely, who formed another band later.
 * The band were on Where the Action Is.
 * The band recorded an album with Jack Nitzsche.
 * Jack Nitzsche previously worked with Phil Spector.
 * The band then changed their name to Touch.
 * The Stooges recorded their follow-up with Funhouse in 1970, produced by Don Giulucci, previously in the original lineup of the Kingsmen and later his own group, Don and the Goodtimes

I think that once these meanderings are trimmed, and/or placed in a nota bene footnote, then a split will not be unnecessary.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. The trims there would be fine with me. We can cut out those unnecessary details. If you'd like me to, I could go in and trim them out. If I trim to much then we could put things back it.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to ask... Would you like me to remove all or most of those statements. Could you tell me exactly which statements need to be removed? Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You could put all of the info in a footnote if you think it's important enough to note. I don't think it is. The Kingsmen are a huge part of garage rock, but not everything they did had an effect on the genre. Everything that doesn't present a self-evident rationale for inclusion should be removed. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. I took out some of the statements about their later stuff, but could take out even more.  We could maybe keep the thing about the FBI investigation for alleged profanity in "Louie, Louie", everyone was talking about that at the time, from what I've heard.


 * , I just eliminated the extraneous stuff on Don & the Goodtimes. Do you see any other issues in the Pacific Nortwest 64-68 section? Once we have that section finished we can focus on New England. That section looks better--most of it was there when the article got GA reviewed, but there may be a few of my more recent additions that need to get removed or trimmed.  I was thinking that we could go region by region in order, one at a time.  You could create a subsection right below for each region and tell me what you think needs to be removed.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you explained what should be kept--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that most of what is there now can be kept. There are a few lesser-known bands at the end (this is garage rock after all), but they take up very little space and they are covered in Blecha's books.  The section is now a lot more concise than it was.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

2) New England and California
These sections are almost identical to how they were last year when the GA review was done, so they probably don't need much revision. I added a few statements at the end of the New England section a few months back, but I just went in and trimmed them back. They are now very brief and succinct. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The GA review did not cover self-sourcing examples, so referencing it is meaningless. I envision at least 80% of the sections' being cut.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that 80% is extreme, considering that these regions produced a lot of the most well-known bands in the genre, particularly California. However, I could make cuts. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

3) Further reductions
Please discuss here any future reductions you'd like to see. Garagepunk66 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation style (again)
One of the problems in this article that has yet to be resolved is its citation style. For an example to strive for, see Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Additionally, sentences like these:

... still need to be fixed. There are numerous suggestions for how to alleviate this issue at WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. There should not be more than one inline citation for a simple, noncontroversial fact like:

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've converted many of the citations to Harvard style and reduced the amount of them in other sections, and would like to covert/reduce a lot more. But, please be patient--I've been trying to get reductions done in the Regions sections first.  I will get to the section you are referring to as soon as I can--this is a long article.  I appreciate your advice and I'll be sure take it--give me time to get to that particular section.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Adjusting the archive bot
This article still has issues, and readers deserve to read all of this before the archive bot puts any thread to an Archive page. Shall I increase the time duration to 100 days or 120 days? Shall I increase minimum amount of threads left to "7" or "8"? What else shall I do? --George Ho (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, none of that needs to be changed. If you believe the article has issues, you can detail them here. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no need at the moment to repeat the issues that have been addressed previously. The editors are working on this page at the moments. Meanwhile (...I think), I just stumbled upon this page after I got involved at Talk:Garage punk. Garage punk may also have issues, like the sourcing and the naming. There, the renaming and redirecting are proposed. I made comments there and mentioned sources, but I've not yet voted. From what I see, the editors might have trouble interpreting the sources and defining what "garage punk" and "garage rock" are and deciding whether they should be interchangeable for most readers. The whole thing is too complex to concisely summarize. Read all of Talk:Garage punk if you may. --George Ho (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Self-sourcing examples
As I verify some of the sources you use, I'm slightly bewildered at how you ascertain notability. I've found details about "96 Tears" and "Louie, Louie" that are infinitely more significant to garage rock than their location of origin, but you rarely add that kind of info. Here's one example that discusses "Wild Thing" as an anthem of American '60s punk bands. In Wiki, the song is lost among the swamp of No. 99 singles and deep album cuts, given only the diluted merit of being a "massive worldwide hit" next to a comically large citation to like 20 irrelevant AllMusic bios (btw, none of them say the song was a "massive worldwide hit", just that it hit No. 1).

Also, concerning these edit rationales:

See WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

See WP:VERIFY and WP:POPE. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the Regions sections are there to expose the readers to bands who, if not in most cases famous, were central to the scenes in those places (60s Garage rock, is essentially a small bands/regional rock genre and its very nature necessitates the discussion of lesser known acts in the context of their regional scenes).
 * You'll be glad to see that I've just trimmed some more bands and songs out of the regions sections. I'm trying to get down to just the main players in each region (or bands that produced songs retrospectively deemed notable or classic by garage rock commentators).
 * I agree that we should move any big hits up into Airplay section (or other high-profile sections) and give those songs and artists greater exposure.
 * "Wild Thing" is discussed near the top in Impact of the Beatles and the British Invasion, but there is also be mention of the Troggs in UK counterparts section--a statement should be there too, since they are key in that context.
 * I think that "Louie Louie" is very prominently discussed up in Early recordings (where there used to be a sub-section titled Pacific Nortwest 1958-1963), but I like the way the Early recordings scton lokks right now and I'm glad you added the thing about "96 Tears" in Airplay.
 * As for sources, if you can find better ones for any of the things mentioned, then go ahead and add new citations. We can also remove lesser sources (as long as they do not contain vital information referenced in the sentence that would otherwise be lost).  I can trim some of the longer refs. provided we don't lose vital info (and assuming they do not go with potentially controversial statements where a lot of sources are needed).
 * I added a source for the Florida sentence.
 * I think that things are moving on the right track. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're overestimating how many readers care about minutiae like what garage bands from Minneapolis had a single in the Billboard Top 100. Given that most of the sources have nothing worthwhile to say about specific bands (except that they had a song that charted somewhere for a week in 1965), why not make List of garage rock songs by regional chart position? ... Or better yet, Regional scenes of garage rock where such a list can be housed?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I would not be in favor of taking out the regional sections in this article, and I don't think there is a consensus to do that. We don't necessarily have to mention every hit by every local group, per se.  But, you've heard me say that garage rock is by its very nature, particularly when addressing the 1960s, a regional/grassroots phenomenon--the little bands genre.  So, to have an article that adequately educates the inquisitive reader about the topic, we have to give coverage to the bands in different places of America (and elsewhere--which is also necessary).  But, that is a challenge--a balancing act.  With that need, there is certainly the danger of putting in too much.  A while back, in an effort to make sure the regions got ample coverage, I admittedly put in too many bands in.  But, at the time I felt that we first needed to get stuff in there--and being too choosy at that time would have been a hindrance.  Keep in mind that when you're doing the initial expansion for an article about a genre so large (it produced over 16,000 records in the US alone during that period), there is going to be a tendency, at lest at first, to err on the side of more rather than less.  But, I've now eliminated a lot of things and am not closed to taking out more, but I think that downsizing has now gotten near the point where, if we were to do more reductions, I'd like to hear advice and opinions from a range of experienced editors.  I want to submit the article for an FAC, which would be a good place to get that kind of feedback.  The only reason I've put off doing the FAC sooner is that I had actually wanted to do more reductions.  But, now I think that I'm near ready to nominate the article for FAC.  Once that process begins, we can all deliberate about things that the article needs for improvement, and then make whatever necessary changes.  If there was to be a consensus for more reductions I'd consider it.  But, I think right now we need to be careful and not jump the gun.  If we take out too much, we could end up hurting the article.  So, I just want to make sure that at the end of the day, the article ends up reaching its true potential and becomes the best article it can be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article were split, it would still contain a summary of the regional scenes, per WP:SUMMARY, covering the most important points of the subject. There are two kinds of people coming to this article
 * Someone looking for "Garage rock had its biggest scenes in the United States and Canada, particularly the Pacific Northwest. Bands varied in this way and that."
 * Someone looking for "Garage rock had a big scene in United States. In Texas, there was ... In Washington, there was ... In New York, there was ... there was ... there was ... Garage rock had a big scene in Canada. In Toronto, there was ..."
 * Articles with a broad scope (like this) should accommodate #1. You don't seem to understand how much of a turn-off it is to be confronted with an abundance of trivialities like "They [the Sonics] released two albums on Etiquette, Here Are The Sonics!!! (1965) and Boom (1966), followed by Introducing the Sonics (1967) on Jerden Records." Why should I care about the intricacies of their discography and record label? Nobody in this article even cites the Sonics as an influential band. Why is that? You focused all your efforts on providing a backstory to seemingly every garage band that stepped inside a recording studio and forgot to put down anything they did that actually made a difference in the global pop/rock landscape.
 * "In 1966 the Ugly Ducklings, from Toronto, had a hit with "Nothin'" and toured with the Rolling Stones." Okay? What was the nature of that hit? Was it a No. 1 or a No. 50? And why does it matter that they toured with the Rolling Stones? That kind of detail would go in a footnote at best, if the band themselves were even worth noting in the first place. And so on...
 * Your rationale about this being "the little bands genre" holds no weight. Sunshine pop is another niche genre with countless compilations devoted to its little studio-based one-hit wonders like the Free Design and Roger Nichols, but it would be madness to fill that article up with enumerations on every album those people released.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sunshine pop was not nearly as large a genre and was not a grassroots movement the way garage was. The nature of the garage topic is different.  However, I can still take some more bands out, so I see some of your points.  I can find testimonies for bands here and cut out unnecessary detail.  I could easily find testimonies about the Sonics (though we may need to keep mention of a couple of their most well-know albums, in light of their reputation as a seminal band in the genre).  I am opposed to a split, because it will involve taking too much out haphazardly and leve us with the burden of having to tend to a plethora of new articles when we are trying to get this one ready for FA.  There is not a consensus for a split. Garagepunk66 (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just want to clarify some of Ilovetopaint's points GP66. When he says "Why should I care...?" he is taking the perspective of a new reader interested in what garage rock generally is and if it's worth exploring further. If they are overwhelmed by seemingly every band with even a marginal amount of notability, they will not bother reading the article. It is unfair to ignore groups that had a lasting impact on the genre just to include a couple of bands that had great songs but nothing else. Bands like the Count Five, the Music Machine, the Standells, ? and the Mysterians, those are the kind of acts that deserve notice here because sources easily will identify their significance to the genre and beyond. You sometimes get into worthwhile details about notable groups but then there are too many of these: "Also from Boston, the Rockin' Ramrods recorded the distortion-driven protopunk of "She Lied", in 1964". That's nice, they recorded a song, but what does that offer to the reader's understanding of garage rock? I understand what you are trying to visualize: garage rock is a massive genre. By doing that, however, you are degrading the overall experience for the reader when those groups you just list can be found in the list for garage bands. Let it be known to you, I do not have an opinion on a split because I feel we bludgeoned the subject to death anyways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my thoughts exactly.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree about reducing bands--in fact I've been doing quite a bit of that in the last two months, so there should be not be any question of my willingness. However, I do not think we can limit discussion to just artists that scored top twenty hits--that that would be only surface coverage, and the article needs to be in depth.  We have to scratch a little bit beneath the surface and go beyond the obvious.  We need to include bands who, though they may not have made the top 40, nonetheless cut songs that have come to be recognized as remarkable by garage rock commentators--songs like "Project Blue" by the Banshees" and others.  A song such as "Its a Cry'in Shame" by the Gentlemen may never have broken the national charts, but it is now considered a seminal song in the eyes of several key commentators, and should definitely be mentioned.  In some cases, such songs were more groundbreaking than what was heard on the top 40.  I can hardly say that "96 Tears" is one of the more groundbreaking songs.  The Rockin' Ramrods may not have gone to the top 40, but they were one of the two or three most popular bands in the Boston area (along with the Remains and the Barbarians) and were quite prolific.  The song "She Lied" was quite innovative for 1964, utilizing a wall of overdriven guitars that pre-dates the Ramones by over ten years--several sources have commented on the song's distinctive characteristics.  Keep in mind that in order to satisfy people's wishes to see less citations, I removed a lot of sources--some of which may have contained key testimonials.  I'll try to pare down the sections further and get it to the point where we are left with a) the more famous bands who had the big hits and b) the more notable less-famous acts who did work that has become prominent in the estimation of garage rock commentators.  I could actually add more discussion of certain songs' characteristics (provided the sources say so).  After making more reductions to the regions section, I'll need to take some things out of the international sections as well (as a counterbalance), because the international section should not be larger than the North American.  One has to understand that when you do reductions in one place, you have to do them in others to maintain balance. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree we need to include bands who did not chart, but you need to display their impact on the genre. Listing a song and where they originated from is just namedropping and adds nothing to the article other than clutter. There are plenty of non-charting but notable bands needed on this page like the Remains, the Zakary Thaks, the Sonics etc.. Any sentence that is just band + song or origin with no other follow-up whatsoever to attest to its impact on garage rock should not be in this article. And do you really believe that "96 Tears" was not as groundbreaking as you say? It was the template for many garage songs and proto-punk. It was also covered numerous times during that era and beyond; not to mention, it was a huge hit. That may be a little personal bias on your part.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I wanted to mention more about those bands' impacts, but I got so busy trying to expand and populate the article, that I was trying to get stuff in there (I'll admit that I was rushing a bit to get it done in a time frame). I knew that I'd later have to go back and re-visit it and make changes and reductions.  You may be surprised that after I went back and looked over the additions, I felt the same way about name-dropping (long before anybody mentioned it), and that was one reason that I hesitated to nominate the article for FAC.  I figured that I could fix those issues in time.  Nobody voiced any objections initially, so I thought that I was the only one that felt that way.  But, in November, after the whole split debate, I realized that others were critical.  I've made good about doing a lot of the needed reductions.  But, let me trim it down first before I go in and add statements about impact (I'm going to have re-examine the sources to come up with such statements).   As for "96 Tears", it has always been on of my favorite songs, so my only bias could be positive, but I am in no way putting it down when I say that by 1966, music (including garage rock) was beginning to move into bolder directions--the song is a perfect distillation of the form as it had been developed up to that time--it would take people in the 70s to look back and admire it for its virtues (so yes it was an influence). Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , In the Australia/New Zealand section, we could convert the citations for Marks & McIntyre to Harvard notes (sfn method). The only reason I kept the full refs is to keep links to the Google Images of the chapters of the book for each artist.  But, I could go ahead and change them to sfn method (I could save a record from the date in the edit history from where it is now as an archive for reference).  Or, I could put a link to the book pages after the sfn citations.  The only thing is that I am trying to remove kilobytes, so the maybe the plain sfn's (without links) might be the best method.  Incidentally, I notice that the text of this article is now shorter than the punk rock article (the punk rock article takes about 34 rolls on my scroll key, whereas this article only about 24).  So, though this article has more Kbs, it is probably due to the citations.  But, I still have more text trims to do (and wording improvements).  But, I any way I could make the citations more efficient would be beneficial.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * and, I have pared down the international sections to only the most notable bands from each country. Australia is the most extensive--they had the second largest scene to the US (and Canada, which has not been well-served by sources)--each band mentioned In the Australia section has a whole chapter in Marks' & McIntyre's book.  So, I think that we're now ready to remove the self-sourcing tag for the international sections.  Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Current size of article
I thought I'd ask everyone (,, , , , , , , , ,  , , , and anyone else interested) to let me know how you feel about where the article currently stands in terms of size. Do you feel that the article is now at a point of manageable size? I realize that there are some who would like to see it smaller, others who would have wished it kept larger. With everyone's wishes in mind, I have attempted to help reduce it to a size that hopefully we (as a team of editors) can embrace. Since November, I (along with the help of Ilovetopaint and others) have reduced approx. 172,00 bytes from the article's previous size (370,000 bytes) down to 197,000 (almost half its previous size). We have greatly reduced the number of bands and songs mentioned in the Regions and International sections--down to a select handful of the most notable acts in each region and nationality. I hope that the article is now near its ideal size and scope. That is not to say it is yet perfect, but I hope it is something we can all embrace. Please let me know what you think. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks mor reader-friendly and navigable. It's still at 60kb of readable prose, though, which might cause trouble at FAC (it's the readable prose size they'll care about, not the overall number of bytes).  Try giving it a thorough copyedit to tighten the prose.  You can cut a lot of fat by reducing things such as "In the period between 1969 and 1974" to "Between 1969 and 1974". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I just made a few trims like you suggested, and tonight I will go in and make some more.  Let me ask, would 50kbs be the right amount of readable prose?  I'll try to get it to the magic number. Gobble gobble. Garagepunk66 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's User:Dr pda/prosesize, a tool that can help you detect prose size. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks . When I tried to set up the Dr. Prosesize, the edit box gave me warning saying that installing it might make my pages unsecure, so maybe I should let some of the editors more experienced with this type of thing (who already have it installed) check for me.
 * But, let me ask everyone, do we now have the article at or near what most would deem to be acceptable size?  showed me some articles above such as California Chrome (which has a text size of 57kbs--very close to where this one is now) and Richard Nixon (which has s slightly longer text at 72Kbs).  Obviously the punk rock article's textis longer than those two, but he noted it may now be too large.
 * I'm definitely glad that we have trimmed this article way down from where it was in November, but I worry that it may now be on the verge of becoming incomplete--the coverage in Regions may now a bit too scanty (though I admit that the section used to be way too large).
 * Do you think we are now at the point where we could submit the article to FAC? If the consensus then is it that the Regions sections are slightly too small, I could restore a few previous elements (without returning to the previous bloat).  If FAC reviewers feel the article could be slightly smaller, I could make a few more trims.
 * Do you think it is ready to go to FAC? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm... Right now, the article is undergoing heavy edits. Maybe hold off the FAC for now until the editing has slowed down. George Ho (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That would be my feeling too. Luckily I think the article is approaching the point where it can finally go into "cool-down period".  I'll still look for any improvements I can make. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Responding to Garagepunk's ping on my talk page, I just skimmed the article now. The basic layout seems fine to me, and length at approx. 9,500 words doesn't seem excessive. For comparison, two recent FAs, Viking Metal and New wave of British heavy metal, are currently between 6,000 and 7,000 words, and neither topic has as long a history as garage rock. Was there a complaint about the density of referencing before? If so that seems to have been addressed to a reasonable extent, while still ensuring that every statement is cited. In those respects it may well be ready for FAC but I haven't spotchecked prose yet. I realise you're getting a default Peer Review here but it may still be worth submitting to another formal PR before FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Ian said. The article looks solid and I don't see any obvious red flags (other than the tag). Be prepared to face questions about the length and citations, even though a lot of it has been worked out here. It will be helpful if you can refer reviewers to existing discussions that resulted in consensus/agreement. I have not done a detailed read-through so I can't speak to the quality of the writing, nor have I looked closely at the bibliography to see if the major literature on the subject is represented. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would address the tags in Early 1960s, that will not pass in a FAC. Size is not the direct concern, just what is used within that space. I'll try to read over the article when I can.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll address the tags. I'm trying to track down the source.  If I can't find one, we can take it out.  Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They are really essential statements in the article. I don't think simply removing them is a very wise secondary option.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think that they're essential (that is why I left them there).  Any prospect of removal would only come about as a result of consensus.  I'll try to track down the source that was originally intended, or I could find a new one to (as best as possible) confirm the statement, which I  think is fundamentally true and necessary. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * showed me some helpful things. I have certain parts of the statement cited now, and I'll try to get the rest of it covered. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a peak at the prose and cites. The article's certainly getting there, but still needs some work on the prose and on MOS compliance. The refs will need to be checked through—I could see at least on AllMusic cite that didn't actually name AllMusic, page ranges need to MOS:ENDASHes, etc. The prose could still be tightened and tidied up quite a bit, and should avoid phrasing such as "scored a hit" or "of AC/DC fame". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You should also avoid setting the pixel size of images, as it (a) overrdies user settings, and (b) will look different on different screens regardless (don't trust your own screen). If you absolutely need to have a larger or smaller image, use upright, as it scales along with user settings, but don't use it unless you really need to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. After I merged two of the sections a couple of days ago, I took out one of the pictures, so I wanted to go back and restore the diagonal composition that had been there--but when I switched the pictures, I noticed that they looked different in terms of size, so I tried to compensate. But, I'll try to avoid that in the future (or try the formula you recommended).  I'll admit that I'm not an expert when it comes to pictures.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All the more reason not to fiddle with them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * True. I'm sorry--I was just trying to make it look really nice.  You'll be glad that I removed the "scored a hit" phrases, but I'll go in an do some more "tightening up" with other things.  To help me, perhaps you could point out a few of remaining statements and places that need attention. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I could give it a copyedit, but it won't happen today. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, I could handle the technical things relatively quickly, but to copyedit for readability etc will take time that I don't have today. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It'd be a good idea to throw in a bit on what the word "punk" meant back them—today it's pretty tough to disassociate it from punk-rock tropes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I could try to go into more detail about that. Between 1971-1974 (and even later), when the term "punk rock" was used for music, it was primarily intended to designate the what we now call garage rock, particularly when used by the garage-oriented circle of writers and critics at Creem and Rolling Stone(Dave Marsh, Robert Cristgau, Greg Shaw, Lester Bangs, Lenny Kaye, etc.), and at associated 60s garage fanzines of the era (many of which had some of the same writers involved, such as Shaw).  Most of the musical references were used to refer to what we now call 1960s garage rock (and for artists that were perceived as following in their tradition, such as obviously the Stooges, but even the Guess Who and Grad Funk Railroad--both of whom grew out of 60s garage).  Jon Savage used to have a website devoted to etymology of punk with a lot early references (it is by no means exhaustive--the are a bunch of other uses of "punk" for garage the appear in Lester Bangs' anthology Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung and statements by other authors of the time).  Writers in the early 1970s also used "punk" for certain music after the 60s.  And, there are instances when the term "punk" was used to refer to other examples of primitive music.  The outer parameters of the genre were not yet strictly defined as far as post-60s acts were concerned--but there was a general consensus that 60s garage formed the core of what was then called "punk rock".  When the word "punk" was used to designate an actual genre, it was primarily for 60s garage rock (and whatever was deemed to be connected):
 * On pg. 21-23 of his book One Chord Wonders (2013), Dave Lang discusses the 60s garage bands: "The arrival of the punk concept, then arrived in about 1972-1973., well after the disappearance of most of those bands to whom the term was then applied. In part, the role of the punk genre was to rehabilitate some of the lost legions of past popular music." On pg. 23 he states, "Punk rock in those days was a quaint fanzine term for a transient form of mid '1960s music..."
 * Greg Shaw wrote about "what chosen to call 'punkrock' bands—white teenage hard rock of '64–66".
 * Robert Christgau writing for the Village Voice in October 1971 referred to "mid-1960s punk" as a historical period of rock-and-roll.
 * Lenny Kaye in liner notes to Nuggets: "The name that has been unofficially coined for them—'punk rock'—seems particularly fitting in this case ..." In the track-by-track notes, he uses the term, "garage punk" to describe a song by the Shadows of Knight as "classic garage punk".
 * In 1973 Greg Shaw commented, "Punk rock at its best is the closest we came in the 1960s to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll..."
 * The text of our Garage rock article used to have a lot more statements about it (the Etymology section was near the bottom--it used to be called Critical identification).  However, all of those references are still in the article, but have been moved into notes.  The Etymology section of the punk rock article says a lot about it too.  But, I could figure out how to make the matter more clear to the readers.  Perhaps we could put some of what is now in notes back into the text.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I've made some tweaks to the etymology section that I hope make matters more clear to reader. If you see anything there that could be improved, just make whatever changes or let me know what you'd like to see changed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "punk"—I meant something about why the word "punk" was used (as in "punk kids, get off my lawn!"). People today normally associate the word with mohicans and safety pins or whatever, and many people may not realize it had a somewhat different connotations once upon a time. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I've actually been looking to find this kind of thing for a few  years, but have not yet found a suitable explanation in the sources.  I can certainly hypothesize, but I'd like to find confirmation.  I know that the older generation didn't like how the people in bands often grew theier hair long for the times (it was not uncommon for band members to get kicked out of school--I have sources about that), and they probably thought that being in a band was a waste of time that could be better used in sports and school-sponsored activities.  I'd imagine that they saw the bands as a certain kind of rebellion against suburban "bourgeois" mentality.  I know that in Hicks' book he discusses how, though many bands had aristocratic names such as "the ...Kinghts" (as had been the case for awhile), after 1964 (perhaps as a result of Rolling Stones' influence) a lot of bands started having names like "the Barbarians", "the Savages", "the Misfits", etc., perhaps an indication an anti-bourgeois sentiment and/or primitivism.  I'd imagine that the bands just mainly wanted to have fun.  The problem is that we may not be able to find sources to indicate exactly what the critics meant by the term "punk" (other than as just music).  I could try to look further and see if I could find some.  If we can't find such sources, then could we perhaps take the word "etymology" out of the section title?  That might free us up just to discuss the terminology in strictly music-related terms.  The first paragraph of what is now called "Etymology and classification" used to be in the Milieu section (at the top of it), and the Milieu section came before what is now Etymology.  Perhaps we could move that paragraph back into Milieu and move Milieu above Etymology, and change the name of Etymology back to "Identification and Classification"(?).  Just a thought. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I've looked back through the various early 1970s sources and can still not find a single statement that sufficiently expresses the underlying meaning of why term "punk" was used (for 60s garage music) beyond being a "tag". One reason is that I doubt that the term was actually coined by the rock critics themselves.  I have a hunch that the name may have been floating around in certain circles (in the very late 60s) before the rock critics got their hands on it, but I can't prove that.  As far as the music was concerned, the writers were quite clear that there was a certain identifiable genre of 60s music they called "punk" (which, to a much smaller extent, they saw the remnants as being still present in the early 1970s--with artists such as the Stooges and others).  But, as far as why the name "punk rock" was emplyed, there was apparently not much conscious deliberation about it--they just used it but never explained their rationale.  In his book, Teenbeat Mayhem, Mike Markesich quotes Lenny Kaye years later:
 * Descriptions were called forth rather than chosen. There was no searching or even discussion about "garage" or "punk"...like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin, they jus' grew.  ...we were referring to an instinct that transcended age and went right to the core of the music.
 * So, I don't think that it is possible to say exactly what the critics meant by the term, beyond being a tag for the music. But, it might be best to take the word "etymology" out of title the section (that might relieve pressure on us to come up with an explanation that will probably never be found).  We could call the section "Identification and classification".  I could ask you,  and everyone else if that would be the best solution?  Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea, but keep an eye out, as it'll certainly be confusing to at least some readers. For instance, the Wiktionary entry notes that in the UK, the spiked-hair-and-safety-pins "punk rock" sense of the term is "the only common usage". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, and everyone. I just made a few changes.  I removed the word "etymology" from the title of the section about classification--that takes the pressure off us to uncover etymological understructures that are unlikely be found (I can keep looking, though).  I moved the section about milieu up above the one about categories.  It is probably best that we introduce the subject in terms of sociological background and stylistic features first before we try to address how it came to be classified and recognized.  That not only gives readers a richer and more meaningful first contact, but also follows the chronology better. The sociological/stylistic attributes preceded categorization in chronological time.  Also, I moved the statement about bands in suburbs out of the classification section and back into Milieu, where it was originally intended to be--the statement, despite mentioning the terms "garage rock" and "garege bands" was originally intended to underscore the social milieu, not terminology--it makes a good introduction to the socio-background.  Both of the terms "garage rock" and "garage band" are addressed in further detail (terminologically speaking) in the Recognition/classification section.  It is my hope that now the readers can have the best possible first introduction to the genre.  I also simplified the wording a bit here and there, making things more concise. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh by the way, I just noticed your changes, and I like them a lot. They definitely make things look tidier.  Thanks.  Gobble Gobble! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article's definitely getting there. I can't speak to how well it adheres to sources, but the prose is nearly there.  I'll try to find the time to give it a couple thorough run-throughs, and not just the jumping around I've been doing.  The next big thing is to clean up the refs—some have surnames first, others surnames last, and that'll never get through FAC.  Endashes etc need to be fixed, too. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * and, I thought I'd ask about the statement in parenthesis in the lead sentence. I know  that Curley Turkey removed it and Ilovetopaint put it back in.  So, I just want to ask how you both feel about the statement being there.  Personally I don't mind whether it's there or not.  But, if we do keep it there, shouldn't it say "sometimes called" or "sometimes referred to as"?  What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's redundant—both are already in the lead, and it's not like the other two terms are anywhere near as common as the main one. It was better the way I put it—more readable and placing the terms in context, rather than cluttering up the opening sentence.  Read both versions out loud. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * and : At Curly Turkey's advice I removed the parenthetical statement in lead sentence. Personally I'm fine with either way, but since Curly Turkey has done a lot of FA reviews (an he pointed out that the terms are already mentioned elsewhere in the lead section), I feel that it would be best to go with his advice. However, I appreciate Ilovetopaint's many undeniable improvements to the article, so in no way is that meant to be a negative.  I'm very thankful to you both.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "it's not like the other two terms are anywhere near as common as the main one" Um... Historically, "garage punk" is as common a term as "garage rock". I know that goes against conventional wisdom, but it's an obvious fact to anyone who goes looking through Google Books for a few minutes. I'm strongly opposed to not including "garage punk" in the opening sentence. I'm not sure if "'60s punk" is a "real" term or if it's OR (I could never find a source that says "Garage rock is also known as '60s punk").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Garage rock is usually listed as the "official" term/category (i.e. AllMusic, etc.), and the other two are common alternates (but not treated as quite on the same level).  indicated that we don't need the parenthetical statement there, and he gave several legitimate reasons.  I'm leaning in his direction.  However, if you insist that we need to keep the parenthetical statement, then we would have to word it a better way. For instance, we should also mention "60s punk"--it is also very commonly used.  We should include "...sometimes called..." or "...sometimes referred to as...".  If all we say is "sometimes garage punk", it implies that, the genre somehow changes it spots like a leopard and becomes a different thing on certain occasions.  We need to use more precise terminology.  I'm not necessarily opposed to having a parenthetical statement there, but if we're going to have it, let's word it a better way. , let's see if Curley Turkey would be willing to change his mind and go along with having such a statement.  If he remains opposed to the statement's inclusion, then I think we should heed his wishes and take it out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ilovetopaint: you can't be serious, and you're ignoring the readability and redundancy concerns. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That statistic may as well be including "books" like these. The fact stands that "garage punk" (or "punk") is still a very common term to describe garage rock by. The only "readability" concern is in WP:SURPRISE, which is a greater issue than so-called "redundancy"
 * WP:LEADSENTENCE: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. ... use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
 * If acknowledging synonyms in the opening sentence is redundant, what about "flourished in the mid-1960s"? Isn't that "redundant" of the next paragraph, which states that surf rock "motivated thousands of young people to form bands between 1963 and 1968"?
 * Also, I found a source for "'60s punk".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "That statistic may as well be including "books" like ..."—even if it did, it would apply to all terms—and even if it it applied only to "garage rock", the gap in usage is gaping. Imagine if such books made up 50% of all cites to "garage rock"—it would still make no difference.
 * "If acknowledging synonyms in the opening sentence is redundant"—"acknowledging synonyms" isn't what I said, is it? They're by far lesser used terms that are put in context further in the lead.  That's sufficient, and bolding them makes sure they don't get ignored.
 * "Isn't that 'redundant' of the next paragraph, which states that surf rock 'motivated thousands of young people to form bands between 1963 and 1968'?"—you're capable of answering this silly question yourself. I'm here to improve the article, not play games. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: your source for "'60s punk": I don't know why you brought this up, but if it were to "prove" the pedigree of "'60s punk", it's both irrelevant and incorrect. Irrelevant, because all that matters is what terms are used now.  Hardcore punk was once called "thrash", but that fact doesn't even find its way into that article's lead today.  Incorrect, because, as the NGRAM shows, "garage rock" has been used since the 1970s (and there were no reprints of Wikpedia articles back then).  But since the lead includes the term "'60s punk"—and bolds it—just what is the issue? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * [re: '60s punk] I was responding to Garagepunk66
 * [re: "thrash"] Just because somebody overlooked a really significant detail in another article doesn't mean we should too
 * [re: "what terms are used now"] It's been demonstrated over and over again that garage punk and garage rock have always been common synonyms, and to downplay that hugely important chunk of this music's history is a huge disservice to readers with no prior knowledge of what those terms mean. And this is not a case of word usage changing over time, it's still common for people to call garage rock by punk or garage punk in the 2010s. That fact is so crucial in establishing the article's scope and such an obvious thing to cover in the first sentence. Why would you hide it in the second-to-last sentence of the third paragraph?
 * [re: "As NGRAM shows"] ... that "garage rock" is 10x more frequently used than "garage punk", but how many magazines and books does NGRAM trawl? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000?" If there are 10,000 publications using "garage punk" in place of "garage rock", that's extremely significant.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's still in the lead, and bolded. Why gunk up the lead sentence?  Too many ugly articles like that.  What do you have against readability and context? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Curly Turkey
I'm going to go through this paragraph-by-paragraph and do a thorough copyedit or two, and leave comments below. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, about setting image sizes: this should be generally avoded, as (a) it overrides user settings (b) what looks good on one screen will not on others (c) "upright" is preferred, as it doesn't override user settings, but "upright=.73" is micromanaging and should be avoided (per (b)).
 * Some reviewers may object to using "they" to refer to bands in AmEng. "They" is used more or less consistently in BrEng, but in NAmEng it depends on context—most often groups are referred to in the singular, but in some contexts plural is more appropriate.  At FAC, you'll find reviewers insisting on "consistency", and since the plural cannot be used in the plural in many contexts in NAmEng ("Metallica have a new album out" is totally unacceptable in NAmEng), reviewers will insist on the foolish consistency of using only the singular.  You should either settle on that, or get ready to defend the use of plurals.  It's completely idiotic, but there you go.


 * I'll get to the pictures, but I was thinking that we could get everything else done first, so that we can then adjust the pictures to fit into the overall spacial context in the finished form--that way we can achieve the best graphic composition for the whole look of the article. I was thinking about going to a bunch of different computers and seeing how the sizes and shapes look.  I tend to prefer the pictures small (but not too small)--that way it can allow for us to fit more without it getting crowded.  I like using a diagonal arrangement for the same reason--and we want to let the readers get to see pictures of a lot of bands.  I interrupted the diagonal flow in a couple places, because one editor told me that when the people in the picture are not facing forward, then their bodies should point to where the text is.  I don't know if that it true or not, but that editor was pretty adamant about it, so I went along.
 * Let's try to see what we can do about "they"--depending on the contexts of course. By, all means make any changes you think are best.  We can also see what the other editors think during the FAC process. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Social milieu and stylistic features

 * "according to Mark Nobles, it is estimated that over 180,000 bands formed in the Unites States"---is this Nobles' estimate, or his reporting of an estimate? If the former, I'd like to reword it to "Mark Nobles has estimated that over 180,000 bands formed in the Unites States".
 * "amongst which several thousand"---there are those at FAC who will object to "amongst" rather than "among", claiming it's un-American, too many characters, or some other bull. I'm not one of them, but if you intend to retain it, you should get an alibi ready.
 * "bars, nightclubs, and college fraternity socials", "locally, regionally and nationally", "amateurish, naïve or intentionally raw", "nasal, growled, or shouted vocals", etc: you have to settle on either the serial comma or non-serial---the MoS requires consistency
 * "Tea Council of the U.S.A."---worthy of a WP:REDLINK?
 * "bar chord riffs, sometimes referred to as power chords"---power chords are not "riffs". This'll need a better explanation, and a brief explanation of what a power chord is ("easily-fingered root-fifth chord" or somesuch).  Do you play guitar?
 * "mouth harmonicas"---are there harmonicas not used with the mouth? Was this once worded "mouth harp" or something?
 * "ranging from crude two- and three-chord music to near-studio musician quality"---not the best contrast---plenty of pro rock was three-chord (think Hendrix on "All Along the Watchtower")


 * Thanks, I'll fix/address each concern listed above.
 * Nobles: On pg. 21 Nobles writes "It is estimated that from 1964-1968 more than 180,000 teen garage bands formed in the United States..." I don't know where he got that estimate (he does not lest his sources), but he is clearly referring to something he has read.  Should we keep the wording the same or change it? , what you recommend to do in this situation? Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep it. I was just double-checking.  Editors often use generalized wording like this when stating a claim made by a single source, and I wanted to make sure that wasn't happening. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed "amongst" to "among". Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer to use the Oxford comma and I'd imagine that it would be the consensus of most editors. The Oxford comma is logical when there is a compound noun consisting of more than three words.  So I went in and made sure that the Oxford comma is consistently applied.  However, if you see any places that I overlooked, then go ahead and insert an Oxford comma. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (?): I put red link for Tea Council--predicated article on title "Tea Association..." because that is the main term now used, but book says "Tea Council..." Here is a link that establishes both terms can be used.  Normally, I'm not a fan of red links--I find that they look unsightly and make an article look unfinished.  If you think it would be better not to have red links for the Tea Council, you are welcome to remove them.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I took out "...riffs". It now says just "bar chords". Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I took out "mouth..." It now just says "harmonicas". Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed "ranging from crude two- and three-chord music to near-studio musician quality" to "ranging from crude and amateurish to near-studio level musicianship". Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Recognition and classification

 * "applied to groups emerging after 1974"---this is ambiguous. Garage acts that emerged after 1974?  No.
 * I changed "emerging" to "that emerged" as you recommended. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Emergence of the garage rock style

 * "After the demise of Blue Notes"---who? We haven't been introduced.
 * "which became an unofficial anthem"---"unofficial anthem" is not really encyclopaedic wording
 * "that took off"---ditto
 * "The Sonics, who formed in Tacoma in 1960, later recorded a rendition of Berry's "Have Love, Will Travel"."---is this of special significance? Why is it mentioned?
 * "Elsewhere, regional scenes of teenage bands playing R&B-oriented rock were particularly well established several years before the British Invasion, in Texas and the Midwest."---is this limited to Texas and the Midwest?
 * "(not the Milwaukee band)"---the Milwaukee band is mentioned in a footnote, so this seems to jump out of nowhere.
 * I restored the statement about the Blue Notes (which had been relegated to side notes) back into the regular text, making more clear their past. I moved the statement about Rockin' Roberts stint in the Wailers further down in order to properly introduce the Wailers first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed "unofficial anthem" to "standard". Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I replaced "took off" with "had the greatest impact". Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I took out the statement about the Sonics. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I clarified the statement about Texas and the Midwest, by adding "places such as...". Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the whole mention of the California Nomads (where it said "not the Milwaukee band). I looked in Lester Bangs' article in R.S. R&R History and his mention of "the Nomads" seems hypothetical and case-in-point and does not single them out as being important.  The whole mention of them was causing confusion w/ the Milwaukee band.  At first I was going to look up the town they came from and put that in parenthesis. But, I couldn't find mention of them in Markesich's book. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Impact of the Beatles and the British Invasion

 * "Much of this new excitement was expressed in music, sometimes much to the chagrin of parents and elders"---something of a non sequitur. Surely elders and parents had nothing against music.
 * Comment: I added "rock..." before "music". There was tons of resistance to rock music by the older generation.  Not always, of course, but sometimes.  Parent's and elders hated it and considered it a bad influence.  Many of the older generation were taken aback when the Beatles landed on our shores.  Spitz goes into this in his article--he quotes Cronkite admitting to being "offended" when he saw the Beatles' hairstyles.  Even Andy Griffith didn't look so amused when Opie joined a neighborhood garage band.  Hey, check this out--see that worried look on Andy Griffith's face!  Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you'd like me to take out the thing about skeptical elders, I can. Either way is fine with me. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Female garage bands

 * "it fostered the emergence of all-female bands whose members played their own instruments"---shuld we be surprised that they would play their own instruments? Was that unusual for either females or garage rock?
 * Comment: Most readers are aware of the famous girl groups in the 60s who just sang, such as the Ronettes, etc. The (singing) girl groups are much better-known than those that played instruments.  I'd imagine that the phrase there may be necessary to avoid confusion.  I'd guess that many readers would be surprised that all-female bands playing their own instruments existed in the 60s--there is a popular misconception that the whole girl band thing started with the Runaways and the Slits in the 70s.  Even those who are aware that girl bands existed in the 60s may have no idea how many there were or know about the whole garage rock component.  Even garage rock fans and compilations tend to overlook the all-female bands.  In terms of the amount of acts that played, the 60s was the golden age of female rock bands by a country mile.  There were probably several hundred of them.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S.: However, if you want me to take that part out, I will. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest

 * "the highly overdriven "The Witch""---I assume this means the guitars were distorted, but that may not be obvious
 * I simply removed "overdriven". Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

New England and Mid-Atlantic

 * "which Rob Fitzpatrick of The Guardian called"---it's not immediately clear this is not a contemporary comment. The fact that it was in The Guardian is probably not relevant.  Mentioning the Ramones here will take some readers by surprise---a Wikipedia article is aimed at a general audience, and we shouldn't make assumptions about what they know.
 * "on the 1972 edition of Nuggets"---at this point, the reader is aware of only the 1972 edition


 * Comment/Question: I removed "The Guardian" and added the helping verb "has" to make it more clear that this is a modern reference . Would it be OK to keep the quote with the Ramones?  I added the quote because everyone asked me to include more examples of things that show why certain songs/bands are important and worthy of inclusion here.  I think that the Ramones connection is absolutely key for this song.  The Ramones connection came straight to my head the first time I heard the song, and I think that most people would have the same first impression.  The song's anticipation of the Ramones is what makes it so standout, influential and important.  I think that the Ramones are well-enough known that most people will know who they are (if not there is a Blue Link).  But, most people are not aware of the degree to which garage rock anticipated later punk.  One of the imperatives of any good garage rock overview is to inform people about those influences, and this is song prime sourced example.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed "the 1972 edition of..." for Nuggets.

California

 * "later played in Quicksilver Messenger Service"---same issue---the reader shouldn't be expected to know QMS, and might assume it's a garage band
 * I took out mention of QMS. I see your point.  Unlike the Ramones (as we discussed above), QMS is not nearly as well known, and unlike the Ramones there, QMS is not key in this context.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Midwest

 * "featuring Jim Sohns on lead vocals"---is there a reason to single out the singer in this band?
 * "whose ranks included lead vocalist Ron Stults and guitarist Rory Mack"---ditto
 * "what later became Grand Funk Railroad"---need some context
 * "a song which Michael Hann of The Guardian described as"---same issue as above
 * "also from Cleveland"---meaning the Outsiders were from Cleveland?
 * Comment: Regarding the Shadows of Knight, Sohns was always their leader and front man, but after all of the original members left in 1967, he became the de facto sole proprietor. In the late 60s, the Shadows of Knight were just he and a bunch of hired hands, basically, and it remained that way in most of their reunions, until the last few years, where they have brought back some of the original members.  It is probably best to mention Sohns because of his extra-prominent role in the band's history.  However, I realize that his not a household name, so if you want me to remove his name, I can.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If he's going to be named in this context and scope, the reader should be given some explanation why. Noting the name raises reader expectations, and then leaves them up in the air. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you have a good point. I removed mention of Sohns. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed "whose ranks included lead vocalist Ron Stults and guitarist Rory Mack". Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I added " the successful 1970s group ..." before Grand Funk Railroad, to provide more context.
 * I removed "The Guarian".
 * Comment: The Outsiders were from Cleveland.  I had already put that in Success and airplay, so I didn't want to sound repetitive.  I put a brief mention of the Outsiders here, but quickly have it move on to the other groups.  If you wish me to change the wording, that's fine--I can do it however you recommend.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

South

 * "whose album Impact has become one of the most collectable LPs of the era"---is this an empirical fact, or hyperbole in the source? Regardless, is it relevant?
 * "the proto-punk "1523 Blair" which Jason Ankeny described as "Texas psychedelia at its finest""---it's proto-punk? or psychedelia?  and I thought proto-punk wasn't actually a genre, per se?
 * "which has been mentioned as a garage rock classic"---requires attribution, but we'd assume as much if it's worthy being mentioned at all
 * "which Mojo included in their top 100 psychedelic songs of all time"---when? At the time?
 * I've stepped in and added the year. Didn't want to interfere but I also replaced one of the refs with a link to the article at Rock's Backpages. Thinking about it, though, maybe I'm wrong –, is a page at wordpress acceptable after all? JG66 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ", which Jacob Berger referred to as "an instant garage band classic""---who? And why should we care?  We already know it went to No. 1.


 * (?): Richie Untergerger said the thing about the album Impact being big with collectors in the AllMusic piece that's cited, but I toned down the wording. If you'd like me to take the statement about collectors out entirely, I can. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (?)/Comment: While proto-punk is not a exactly genre (it is music of different genres that anticipates the sounds and sometimes attitudes of 70s punk--garage rock makes up a big part of it, but not all of it). For that reason, it can be used to describe music that simultaneously falls into various established genres.  I realize that most genres are not set in stone and sometimes there is sometimes overlapping.  Many garage psychedelic songs of the 60s have elements recognizable in later 70s punk.  "1523 Blair" is a prominent example--it almost sounds hardcore, but is also psychedelic.  Jason Arkeny in the AllMusic piece, described the Outcasts as "psych-punk" (I'd also add "blues..." in there for some of their songs).  That's why I had put "proto-punk before the song.  I took "proto-punk" out, but if you'd want me to put it back in, let me know. , I think that we should describe the punk characteristics of the song--just saying "psychedelic", alone, may no be enough.  A hardcore-sounding song in late '66/early'67 is a pretty incredible thing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but we want to avoid ambiguity as much as possible, too, and "hardcore punk" can refer to a movement and lifestyle, and not just a sound (think Minutemen—classed as "hardcore" for reasons other than their sound). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a good point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the Gentlemen's "It's a Cry'n Shame, I modified the statement to be more specific in attribution. I added mention of Mike Markesich's book.  There is also a footnote that explains that the song was ranked by the panel of writers/collectors/experts as the #2 garage record of all time, just behind the 13th Floor Elevators' "You're Gonna Miss Me", which is #1. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I took out the "instant classic" phrase for the Paragons. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Great Plains and Southwest

 * "now considered a garage classic"---again, one would assume if it's being brought up in this article. Is there nothing more descriptive or contextualizing that can be said?
 * I removed the phrase "now considered a garage classic". Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Canada, islands, and territories

 * "The Painted Ship were known"---if they're worth mentioning, are they worth redlinking?
 * "which was later covered by the Who"---is there some reason for mentioning the Who's version?
 * "which has been re-issued in the Pebbles compilation series"---is there some reason for mentioning this here? I imagine a lot of the songs in this article were included in Pebbles, and mention of the series just jumps out without any real context.
 * ""The World Ain't Round It's Square", a song of youthful defiance that has been mentioned as a garage rock classic"---again, we would assume so by its inclusion
 * I put "The Painted Ship" in red links. They are definitely worth mentioning--they are one of the better known bands to come out of the Vancouver scene, and some of their songs (esp. "Frustration") anticipate the sound of the Stooges.   had expressed an intention of doing an article on them.  I could see if he'd still like to do it.  If he doesn't want to write it, then I could, but I need to ask him first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed mention of the Who's version of "Shakin' all Over". Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the reference to Pebbles.
 * I took the "garage rock classic" statement our of the part about the Savages' song.

United Kingdom

 * "adopted new forms of amplification"---curious as to what new forms of amplification this refers to. Different kinds of amps?
 * "even more brazen in their approach"---meaning?
 * "Rhino Records' 2001 box-set compilation Nuggets II: Original Artyfacts from the British Empire and Beyond, 1964–1969 contains many of the better-known songs performed by obscure British beat and freakbeat acts of this era."---this probably belongs elsewhere in the article
 * I replaced the line "new forms of amplification" with "adopted the more powerful amplification becoming available". I did not write the original line, but I think that is what it meant.   We're all aware that at the turn of the 60s amplifiers started becoming more powerful.  While there had been powerful guitar amps for quite a while, there was a challenge in finding heavy-duty drivers/cones that could handle heavy bass.  Around 1960, Fender started equipping certain amps with really heavy-duty drivers, that could really handle bass--suddenly bassists traded in their old doghouses and, with the new equipment, could really crank it up!  Once bassists had these new powerful aps, the guitarists started cranking up their amps even louder to compete in this new "space race".  So, in the early 60s you start hearing this new "supersonic" sound in a lot of rock--such as surf and beat.  Fender amps were hard to get in England, but Vox made great equipment and it became really popular with beat groups.  Jim Mashall started making his amps too.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: By "even more brazen in their approach", what I meant was "rawer", "louder", and "more bold". According to Richie Unterberger: "Of all the British R&B bands to follow the Rolling Stones' footsteps, the Downliners Sect were arguably the rawest. The Sect didn't as much interpret the sound of Chess Records as attack it, with a finesse that made the Pretty Things seem positively suave in comparison".  I was trying to find a shorter, more understated way of saying that.  But,  would you like me to change the wording?  I could if need be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd go with "louder" or whatever; "more brazen" could mean pretty much anything—such as "more controversial in their lyrics" or something. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I took out "brazen..." and substituted it with "raw..." That comes closest to Unterberger's characterization. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rhino Box Set issue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Continental Europe

 * The Trans World Punk Rave-Up series is devoted to covering 1960s garage rock and primitive beat music in continental Europe. —I'm thinking these things should probably be put into a section on compilations or whatever. Regardless, the way these things are introduced gives no indication that they were not contemporary releases.
 * Trans World issue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Latin America

 * The Uruguayan Invasion gets two sentences, and then Los Saicos gets three long ones. Were they really more significant than an entire "invasion"?  Is this balanced?
 * The Los Nuggetz compilation series covers Latin American beat and garage rock of the 1960s.—same issue.
 * I could see if there is more info on the Uruguayan Invasion to add. Another writer added the info. about Los Saicos (originally in another section--what used to be Peak of popularity, if I remember)--I tidied it up and put it here.  I realize that Los Saicos have been getting a lot of press in recent years, so there is some notoriety there. But, I could see if the sources could yield about Uruguay.  I know that Los Mockers and Los Shakers were really big.  I could add some info about them. Thanks for the advice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Los Nuggetzissue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Asia

 * The far East was not immune to the beat bug—an encyclopaedia should avoid this style of writing.
 * The Simla Beat 70/71 compilation includes recordings of some of the bands who competed in 1970 and 1971.—was it a contemporary release?
 * I replaced "...bug" with "...craze". I hope that this works better.  I was trying to capture the madness and mayhem of the whole beat/garage thing--I hope that "...craze" works better.  Let me know if I could say it better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Simla Beat issue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand

 * The garage boom in those countries has been the subject of compilations such as Down Under Nuggets: Original Australian Artyfacts 1965–1967.''—same issue, as well as with the primary sourcing.
 * an historic—ugh. Sorry, personal pet peeve.  You don't have to actually do anything about it.
 * expressionistic use of guitar feedback—I'm having trouble picturing what feedback has to do with expressionism
 * the intensely overdriven "I Want, Need, Love You"—keep in mind that many readers won't realize what "overdriven" refers to, especially if they don't play an instrument. It could be interpreted as, say, a performance style or attitude
 * The Creatures were one of the more notorious groups of the period.—this is tantalizing
 *  the Blue Stars —why is this piped to "Blue Stars" rather than "Bluestars"? The band's article doesn't make it clear.
 * Down Under Nuggets issue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I took your advice and removed "historic".
 * Comment: When I put in the phrase "expressionistic use of guitar feedback", I was trying to distill Ian Marks' remarks about the song "Black" into something more concise. About the song, on pg. 53 Marks writes "...at the end of the third verse - as if 'Black' had not been dark and tumultuous enough - the band explodes into an earsplitting sonic purge.  Feedback-drenched guitars wail like air-raid sirens against reverb-shrouded cries and harmonic rumbling bass.  Wow!  What a festival of melodrama and angst!  And how uncommercial to boot!  Alongside the Purple Hearts' 'Early in the Morning', 'Black' was the most adventurous pop recording made in Australia during 1966." Here is a recoding of the song.  , should I leave the wording the same or would there be a better way to say it? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's think on this ... "expressionistic use of guitar feedback" simply sums up no sort of mental picture in me, and in encyclopaedic writing words that don't clearly communicate an idea are wasted. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I replaced "highly overdriven" with a less ambiguous reference to the guitar sound and a direct quote from Marks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a little quote from McIntyre further elaborating on the Creatures' notoriety. I'm sure you'll find it amusing.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed "Blue Stars" to "Bluestars". A little typo. Thanks for pointing it out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Historical and cultural associations

 * sometimes employing eastern scales---is there anything good to link to here?
 * the Byrds had a huge hit with the musically innovative "Eight Miles High"---it failed to reach the top ten. Is that "huge"?
 * The members of garage bands, like so many musicians of the 1960s, were part of a generation that was largely born into the paradigm and customs of an older time, but that with the advent of television, nuclear weapons, civil rights, the Cold War, and space exploration began to conceive of a higher order of human relations and to reach for a set of transcendent ideals, sometimes experimenting with drugs, in a process that, while set to a backdrop of events that ultimately proved disillusioning, held for a time great promise in the minds of many.---that's one motherfucker of a sentence. It'd be more readable if cut into two or more.
 * While testing the frontiers of what the new world had to offer, 1960s youth ultimately had to accept the limitations of living in the new reality which was for some a painful "crash course" in history, yet often did so while experiencing the ecstasy of a difficult but apparently exalted moment when the realm of the infinite seemed somehow possible and within reach.---this veers into mystical babble. Could we get something more simmple and to the point?
 * For the statement about Eastern scales, I added reference from pg. 266-267 in Schinder and Schwartz's Icons of Rock. Here is the link. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed "huge" from description of Byrds' hit.
 * I broke up the sentence beginning with "The members of garage bands, like so many musicians of the 1960s..." into three sentences. So much for James Joyce... Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I simplified the last part of the section and "de-mystified" the language a bit. I was trying to capture the whole psychedelic 60s experience in a few sentences, but I think I have now struck the just-right balance. , I hope I now have it just right. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Garage-based psychedelic/acid rock

 * written by Manny Feiser---do we need to know this here?
 * praised by many record collectors as one of the greatest psychedelic/garage songs---double checking: does the source say this, or does the source merely praise it?
 * I removed the statement about Manny Freiser. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Concerning the opinion of collectors, the source does say this. But, I added an attribution to Richie Unterberger. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Primitivist avant-garde acts

 * whose members were American and former US servicemen who chose to remain in Germany---not sure of the exact meaning of "American and former US servicemen"
 * That was just a typo. I meant to say "former US servicemen".  I changed it to the correct wording. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline

 * Teen clubs that had served as reliable and steady venues for young groups began to close their doors.---it'd be nice to know why.
 * Comment: The reasons for the demise of teen clubs were complex and have not been fully-enough explained in any of the sources I've read, but I would imagine that it was all tied up in the other things happening simultaneously: the switch from AM to FM, the shift from 45s to big elaborate concept albums, the move from mono to stereo, increasingly sophisticated rock more suited to headphones than dance floors, all of which was really cool at first (in the late 60s), but then in the 1970s it became self-indulgent and hypeded/commercialized. Then of course there were all of those graduations in May '68 that came just when everything began to fall apart: assassinations, Tet Offensive, riots, etc.  And, then as the 70s dawned, came the breakup of the Beatles and the deaths of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison.  The teen club scene was inexorably intertwined with the larger context. Berger and Coston's book laments the demise of teen clubs on pg. 152.  While it does not give an exact time frame of the demise, it implies that it was a thing of the past that somehow disappeared along with 60s (but not necessarily all at once--so I was careful not to give an exact time frame).  Berger comments "I would love to see the resurgence of the teen club culture.  I feel that there are so many kids that don't have a venue to play when they should." Later on that page, he goes on to mention how everyone loved to dance at the clubs.  On pg. 149 he laments the move away form AM radio--he notes how the music was racially integrated on AM, unlike FM, and how it challenged young people to see beyond the confines of race, and he also misses the stylistic variety on AM then--the way you could hear soul, rock, country, all on the same station.  According to Berger, ''"I attribute the homogenization of pop music and because of that the homogenization of youth culture all due to the inception of FM as a format..."  Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Garage-based proto-punk 1969–1974

 * Rather than listing the Stooges' recordings, why not focus on their music and performance? We learn nothing from this other than that they existed and get no clue why they're even being mentioned.
 * Same thing with Death---we get lots of details on an unreleased album, but no indication of why they're being listed.
 * the Punks recorded a batch of songs, including "My Time's Comin'" and "Drop Dead",---is there a reason to highlight these two songs?
 * The Real Kids were founded founded by former Modern Lover John Felice---is this part of the Rathskeller club scene?
 * I added material about the Stooges' musical style.Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I made same kinds of additions for the Death.Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I made same kinds of additions for the Punks.Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I know that the Real Kids played at the Rathskeller.
 * , I hope you like the changes I made to this section. If you see anything I still need to do or improve, let me know.  Gobble gobble! Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Emergence of punk aesthetic and movement 1975–1978

 * with the eventual arrival of the New York and London scenes---this assumes a greater familiarity with events than an encyclopaedia article should. The reader at this point may have no idea what the "New York and London scenes" refers to.
 * Iggy and the Stooges and others of their generation carried garage rock and protopunk into the early 1970s.---isn't this both redundant and out of chronology?
 * I added the word "punk" into the sentence New York and London scenes and made blue links to the sections on the New York and UK scenes discussed in the punk rock article. I hope that this makes things more clear to the reader. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement about Iggy and the Stooges. It was a holdover that had been in the article for years.  It used to say "Iggy and the Stooges, arguably the last garage band, carried protopunk into the early 1970s", which I thought was an overstatement.  I always wanted to remove it, but I'm reluctant to remove what others have put in, so I modified it and toned it down.  At that time, there was not a separate section about early 70s protopunk, so perhaps it had a reason to be there then, but now it is redundant and unecessary.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Revivalist and hybrid movements 1980–present

 * Stooges-era protopunk---was there another era of protopunk?
 * , christened by the media as the The bands, or "The saviours of rock 'n' roll"---the media in general did this? This sounds awfully hyperbolic.
 * Comment: Yes, there was an earlier era of protopunk--in mid-1960s with garage rock (that is, viewing it from a post-1977 framework--obviously the music from the 60s was before that called "punk rock" prior to the late 70s--there was no "proto-" then, garage was "punk"). Lester Bangs' 1980 article about mid-60s garage rock in The Rolling Stone History of Rock & Roll used the terms "protopunk" and "garage rock" in its title (he had to make the transition from calling 60s garage "punk" to "protopunk" or "garage").  So, the term "protopunk" can be applied to both periods 1963-1968 and 1969-1974.  Ironically, Greg Shaw, in the liner notes to the 1998 Nuggets box set, refers to music of 1958-1962 as "protpunk", and that wasn't unintentional.  To his dying day, Shaw steadfastly refused to relinquish the label of "punk" for 60s garage--a sentiment most garage rock fans (such as myself) tend to concur with.  It is a staple of "gospel truth" in "garage world" that "garage rock was the original form of punk rock".  Garage rock fans generally do not like the term "protpunk" (maybe for pre-1962...).  But, as a Wikipedian, I have to step out of my "garage world" shoes and put on Wiki-boots, so when I'm writing in articles, I always use the Wiki-prescribed terminologies for the prescribed time periods (and of course supply the historical background). Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the hyperbolic language about the revival bands. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Refs
Lots of cleanup needed here. I suspect this'll be the most time-consuming job. There's still a lot of inconsistency in formatting—some refs are surname first, others last, and some refs are duplicated, appearing both in " —I wonder how many sources like this are used. This is a primary source, and doesn't put the statement sourced in context.  This is quite serious, and the article will have to be thoroughly checked for things like this before taking it to FAC.
 * "Rhino Records' 2001 box-set compilation Nuggets II: Original Artyfacts from the British Empire and Beyond, 1964–1969 contains many of the better-known songs performed by obscure British beat and freakbeat acts of this era. " ---this is a primary source. If this statement cannot be sourced to a tertiary publication, it'll have to be dropped.

More to come ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Corrected Jets citation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the Syndicate of Sound, I added additional references and information about their influence on later bands. I also went in and added tertiary refs. after all of the Billboard refs.Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)`
 * I replaced the primary sources w/ tertiary (for Nuggets). Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick look (so far)
Okay, I've finished a first run of the article. Sorry it took so long—I've been doing other things than Wikipedia lately. I still have to fix up the refs, which'll take a while, and I want to do at least one more run through the article, but I'd like to see the above dealt with before I do. A couple of things:

Sometimes bands and recordings are introduced without really giving any indication about why they're included, other than that they fall under the genre. That's not really helpful to the reader for contextualizing the genre's development, and can make for dull reading (it's an article, not a list, remember). I'm going to want to do a closer reading to draw out more of this.

You've also finished up a bunch of subsections with pointers to comp ablums, but without really indicating why these albums are particularly significant, or whether the comps were contemporary or retrospective (I assume they're all retrospective). We can see the significance of Nuggets, but what is the significance of the others, other than that they happen to be complilations including works from those particular subsections? I also feel like a subsection on the landmark compilations might be worth thinking about—perhaps tagged onto the "Recognition and classification" section.

The article's well researched and everything, but it'll still need work to really get it to FA level—but it has a solid foundation and will certainly get there with the proper care. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I've got to say, it's been an educational read. I can't thank you enough for introducing me via this article to "7 and 7 is", which I've been listening to on repeat for days now and have taught myself to play. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , thanks so much for your advice. I'll try to make the kinds of enhancements and additions you mentioned.  A compilations section sounds like an inviting idea--something to try.  In some of the sections, I mentioned compilations that might be helpful to introducing the reader music of specific countries and regions, but I could try to better justify these inclusions or remove some of them.   For the new Compilations section/subsection, we could focus on well-known general compilations--any remaining region-specific or nation-specific comps. could perhaps get mentioned elsewhere (if justified).  I've thought about possibly adding a Legacy section at the end (at some point)--I'd have to research it.
 * As for the citations--I'd imagine I can find good secondary sources for those statements. Also, I'm aware that a lot of the citations need to be standardized, so we could work on that.  I'm thankful for the feedback and any more tips you have--they help a lot.  And, of course, you can always go ahead change whatever citations you see fit.
 * I've thought about adding more socio-cultural background in the Milieu section. I'm fascinated by the way the genre emerged out of suburbanization in the postwar era with the new mobile culture--the way the way garage rock rose out of the postwar spirit of optimism (somehow epitomizing American dream), yet was at the same time wrapped up in the turbulence of the 60s--that whole exciting, yet tragic, catharsis that ultimately led to disillusion.  The music is a soundtrack to that interesting time in history--it takes you right into the neighborhoods and shows you how everyday people experienced the era firsthand.
 * I've always been a fan of the group, Love. "7 and 7 Is" is one of my favorite songs (especially the mono mix! ).  Arthur Lee and Love were so versatile--the way they could go from the hard punk sound of "7&7" to the eclectic folk/classical/mariachi/jazz/whatever else of Forever Changes.  One song-mention I took out during  my recent "reduction/extraction" (I should probably put it back in) is the "Voices Green and Purple" by the Bees.  It is a landmark song--even the artwork on the sleeve was way ahead of its time.  I want so much for us to introduce people to this huge treasure trove of music--from a magical lost Atlantis buried in the sands of time.  I want people to know that this music existed.  There is an old saying "If it is too good to be true, it probably is."  But, the garage thing really happened.  It was too good to be true, but it really happened.
 * I'm guessing you have a guitar. What kind of axe are you totin'?  I play too--I've got a Mexican Strat (it actually sounds really nice--it's got that "clang" & "twang" that I seek). Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got a BC Rich that I bought when I first moved to Japan. I was looking for an SG, and couldn't find one at any price, so I figured they didn't sell Gibsons in Japan.  Of course, the next day I found an SG, and for $100 less than I'd paid for the BC Rich ... Today I wouldn't get an SG, though.  I've been itching to get a Telecaster—more the sound I'm into these days.  The problem is convincing "the boss" it's a sound investment ...  Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , I love Telies--I almost got one, but it was made in Corona and I couldn't quite afford it, but the Mexican Strat was easily the next best sounding guitar on the rack--it beat out a lot of the American made's. And, of course I love Gibsons too, especially the ES-325s and 335s. And, I dig SGs and Les Paul's.  The best guitar I ever owned was a G&L Legacy.  You probably know that G&L was the last company Leo Fender owned before he died (years after he sold Fender).  The Legacy is their Strat style model (and I consider any guitar by them to be true Fender).  My G&L Legacy was American made (made in Leo Fender's factory in Fullerton California) and was the best sounding/playing Strat I have ever played including vintage Strats from the 50s and 60s people have been kind to let me play.  I couldn't put the darn thing down.  I'd start playing it at 6:00pm and play it all night 'till 6:00am after the sun was coming up.  Incidentally, I'll be making some of the improvements to the article, as you recommended.  I could start in the Regions sections.  I'll have some time this weekend to make some headway on it.  I was thinking I'd go region by region and you could give me feedback as I work on each section.  And, by all means, make any improvements you wish.  Gobble gobble!  Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , I'm focusing on the first few Regions sections right now: Pacific Northwest, New England, California, Mid Atlantic, and Midwest. I just made a few changes in there, but tell me if there are more things that should be changed in those sections. In the California section, I could remove the Flamin' Groovies.  Though they formed in '65 and released an EP in '67, the majority of their body of recordings is mostly post-garage era.  I could put back the Great Society with Grace Slick (?). Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey, I didn't realize that I was making a change from how you wanted the statement worded with the Shadows of Knight song--I thought I was editing my own previous wording. Sorry for the mistake.  You have a good point about there not being a contrast. Let me know if you see anything in the first few Regions sections that needs to be changed.  I removed the phrase "less successful" from the description of the Shadows of Knight's  "I'm Gonna Make You Mine".  I probably should have never put "less successful" in there.  Even though it was not as big a hit as "Gloria" (which was really just a toned-down version of Them's version), "I'm Gonna Make You Mine" is now generally considered their most remarkable song.  You'll notice that I'm going in and making some changes in the Regions sections--I think you'll like the changes.  After we go thought the regions sections, then we could tackle the compilations, and finally work on the citations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Etc

 * Why is "cultural icon" in quotes? Is it an unattributed quotation? "scare quotes"? is it even necessary, or just hyperbole? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * it is a quotation from the book I used. I thought the wording was perfect to describe the importance of the song, but I did not want to take credit for saying it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording. I don't want to distract from more pressing concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * TheGracefulSlick: All quotations are required to be attributed in the text (not merely cited), for a number of reasons, such as resolving ambiguity (as I pointed out above, quotation marks serve several purposes), and we have to be careful of WP:WEIGHT—is this merely one über-fan's opinion? What does "cultural icon" even mean?  Encyclopaedic writing is straightforward, unambiguous, balanced, and unhyperbolic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cultural icon is a common term but I have changed it already. The author, Robert Dimery, has written several respected musical publications so I wouldn't describe him as a mere "uber-fan". I hope the rewording is more straightforward for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Cultural icon is a common term"—in hyperbolic, promotional media, yes, just like "legend", which has just as little meaning. We don't use that kind of language here, and the pedigree of the source makes it no more acceptable.  The article must be purged of such language if it hopes to stand a chance at FAC. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * as I have said twice already, I have changed the wording. It was a mistake that I have recognized without argument. I am excusing myself from editing this article any further.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ??? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting refs
I've started reformatting the refs, but I've already run into problems. The Bill Dahl stuff if from a blog—there's no way that kind of thing will get through FAC. You chould go through the refs for this kind of stuff and decide which stuff you want to hunt down better refs for and which stuff you should just ditch. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are Laing 2012, Laing 2013, and Laing 2015 really three separate sources?
 * Ditto Shuker 2002 & Shuker 2005
 * Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the citation of Dahl's piece written for the Ponderosa Stomp and replaced it with one from the Times Picayune (NOLA.com). I didn't realize that Ponderosa Stomp's site was a blog.  The Ponderosa Stomp is a well-organized bi-annual festival that, in addition to hosting musical performances, holds seminars, lectures, panel discussions featuring noted music experts and writers.  I notice that Dahl has written for AllMusic, so I'd imagine that he is notable writer (see the Buckinghams).  But, I was able to find a better source. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I corrected the typos for the years in the Laing citations to all read 2015, which is the correct copyright year.
 * I corrected the mistakes for the years in the Shuker citations to all read 2005, which was the copyright year for the second edition. There is a newer 2015 edition, but it is not the one referenced here.  All of the Shuker references here have been in the article for a long time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting refs (pt. 2)

 * What's going on with Lemlich 1992 and Lemlich 2001? They have the title, and the 2001 one says it's the first edition. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A tip, for the future: when formatting refs, it's a really good idea to put the author's surname first out of all the fields. Otherwise, alphabetizing them will prove to be a massive time sink, as you have to slowly scan each ref to find out where to move them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What is Rodel (2004)? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We need publication details for Ravan Lollipop Lounge Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I changed 2001 to 1992 for Lemlich's book. It was a typo.  The copyright date should read 1992.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll take your advice about putting the surname first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I replaced Rodel with better sources.Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I replaced the Lollipop Lounge citations with better sources.Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting refs (pt. 3)

 * What Makes New York Night Train a WP:RS? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the endnotes should be reviewed for those that actually clear up potential ambiguities or whatever and those that just provide extra tidbits—the latter should probably be dropped. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced http://www.billboard.com/artist/396259/count-five/chart is an appropriate source for "Psychotic Reaction" going to No. 5. If this is so significant, it should be trivial to find a non-primary source, both to source the fact and to source the significance of the fact. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Same issue with http://www.billboard.com/artist/383731/beau-brummels/chart for "In 1965 the Beau Brummels broke into the charts with "Laugh, Laugh", followed by "Just a Little"." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And "In July, the Standells from Los Angeles almost made it into the top ten with "Dirty Water"." with http://www.billboard.com/artist/419182/standells/chart. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like there's an awful lot of this. Something will have to be done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question:, I'm having trouble finding the New York Night Train ref. Could you tell me what section it appears in and what artist/song it pertains to?  That way I can remove/replace it.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see it now, either, or any name that looks like it. Was it removed, perhaps? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably so. If we find it later, we can remove/replace it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I removed almost all of the efn notes. If there are any that you feel I should re-instate, let me know.  If there are any remaining ones you want me to remove, let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the Billboard citation for the Count V.Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed all citations from the Billboard website, not only for the Beau Brummels and the Standells, but for all other acts in the article. I think there is still a reference from a Billboard book, but I'm guessing that that would be considered tertiary(?). Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting refs (pt. 4)

 * The biggest issues I'm running into right now are:
 * Dealing with AllMusic; their articles are undated, which causes a number of issues, including issues with WP:LINKROT. Even if a bot comes along and archives the link, we can't be sure the content of the archived version is the same as the version consulted.  There's nothing to stop AllMusic articles from being updated without notice, introducing different and even contradictory content.  A potential solution is to archive the links manually while double-checking the content (no point in doing it if the content's not going to be double-checked first), and then link only to the archive so we can be sure of the content.
 * (Another solution is to use more stable sources—if you have books with any of this info, it'd be awesome to swap in cites to them.)
 * Another is dealing with the bundled citations, or rather with the number of comments that accompany them. We could just leave them as they are, I suppose, but if we reformat them as I've been doing, we'll end up with a whole whack of inline citations & endnotes, which is one thing I was trying to avoid.  As I commented above, though, most of the comments seem trivial or superfluous to me—if we could ditch them, I could reformat the cites pretty easily. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1966.htm—this is an online music store. Not an appropriate ref for "In April 1966, the Outsiders from Cleveland had a hit with "Time Won't Let Me"." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we get a better source for the Cashbox charts than http://www.tropicalglen.com? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've removed most of the efn notes (see thread above), so I hope that issue is resolved--let me know if there is anything more I can do. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Luckily the two sources you mentioned (musicoutfitters.com and tropicalglen.com) appear to no longer be in the article., if they are still present, let me know in what sections and what artists/songs, and I'll go remove/replace them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll try to see if we can find quality alternate sources to replace as many of the the AllMusic refs as we can, whenever possible. In instances where no other goo sources are available, then we can archive the refs. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting refs (pt. 5)

 * I'm starting to archive some of the web sources as well at the Wayback Machine; it's a good habit to get into, as web sources can disappear without notice and without a trace. For example, http://www.60sgaragebands.com/pleasureseekers.html has gone dead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure http://subrealities.waiting-forthe-sun.net/Pages/PhantasticLA/sunsetstrip_memories.html is not considered an WP:RS, so you'll need a better source for "The Sunset Strip was the center of L.A. nightlife, providing bands with high-profile venues to attract a larger following and the attention of record executives." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't get access http://www.nabilechchaibi.com/resources/latinos%20in%20the%20garage.pdf. Is there something wrong with the url? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * |website=TCM: Turner Classic Movies http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/514200/Mondo-Mod/|website=TCM: Turner Classic Movies is not an appropriate source for the content cited. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How is Elswhere an WP:RS? Isn't it just someone's blog? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto Psychedelicized. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And United Mutations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And Canadian Bands. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What is Dangerous Minds? It calls for advertising, but it doesn't come across as very WP:RS-y.  I suspect it'd be rejected. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I found a better source for the Sunset Strip. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I found archive version of dead link (about Latino bands). Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement about Mondo Mod, because I couldn't find a sufficient alternate source for TCM. I also removed the TCM citation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (double correction): I removed/replaced the two weak sources (Elsewhere and Psychedelcized) for the Blues Magoos. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the weak ref (United Mutations) for Thee Sixpence/Strawberry Alarm Clock. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the weak ref (Canadian bands) for the Ugly Ducklings. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the weak ref (Dangerous Minds) for the Mynah Birds. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Curly Turkey

 * "Garage rock was a precursor to acid rock. With the advent of psychedelia ..." This seems to imply acid rock came before psychedelia, and that the two were unrelated?  Also, ""Garage rock was a precursor to acid rock." seems to come out of nowhere, and then just disappear---it doesn't flow well.


 * I removed the statement "garage rock was a precursor to acid rock" from the lead section. You can still find the statement in the Psychedelic garage rock section, so it is remains in the article.  I think that this change best solves the problem.  I don't think we have to mention "acid rock" in the lead--it is a later, much more sophisticated form of music.  But, you will see the statement in the Psych section--it is still in the article, just in a different place. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It loks like you've removed a bunch of commentary you had on the subject. It would be interesting if you could find an RS that talks about the relation of garage, psychedelic, and acid rock.  You've also run into one of the more obnoxious apsects of writng about rock genres—the sources always conflict.  Was Judas Priest NWOBHM?  Lots of sources state so as a "matter of fact"; others define NWOBHM so that they couldn't've been.  Luckily that one hasn't resulted in any warring—other articles are particularly prone to that sort of thing.  The optimal solution is to find a source that addresses the conflicting definitions ... but that assumes one exists. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"This seems to imply acid rock came before psychedelia" - It did, depending on who you ask (see Acid rock)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * and, I removed my previous comments above, because I think I got too wordy, and I don't want to burden everyone--and I've probably been wearing Curly Turkey out lately--he's been really nice to help me with this peer review. But, I could put the comments back (I could put them below) if both of you would like. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

More comments: Success and airplay section

 * "which Bruce Eder called "a rock & roll tour de force""---rock critics typically throw this type of hyperbole into every other sentence. What make this quote relevant, or even meaningful?
 * "and mentioned as a classic in the genre"---by whom? Greene?  Wouldn't most of the songs named be considered "classics" by someone anyways?
 * "which Bruce Eder singled out as a garage classic"---again, so what? What does this mean?  Does saying so help the reader?
 * Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment (I hope these issues are fixed): I just took those three statements out., I hope you understand that I'm trying to find solutions.  You had earlier asked me to add more things in places such as those to show why the songs were important--to justify why they should be mentioned in the section.  But, I'm limited to what the sources I have say.  There are a lot of things I'd like to say about the songs that I know are true--I could go into what the guitars and vocals sound like, etc. and how the songs were prototypical specimens of moon rock before its time...  The problem is that I have to have sources to verify that.  So, right now I feel frustrated.  I don't know what else to do.  If we remove any of the songs in the section, then it will be inadequate.  My feeling is that we shouldn't have to say anything more about these songs now--if we can find additional things, fine, but there shouldn't be any further obligation.  These songs are the biggest hits in the garage rock and everybody knows it.  Is the section acceptable now?  I'm asking for some understanding. This section is suffocating me.  I'm trying to find solutions, but I can't seem to satisfy.  If you think the section needs more, would you like to take a hand at helping write this section? Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this is frustrating. I think it likely stems from the accretionary approach taken to building this article to the point where it is.  It's better—particularly with a large article like this—to start with a birdseye view of the topic and flesh out the details only where necessary.  There's always more that you'd want to say—like you say, about guitars and stuff—but these kinds of details are most often left best to sub-articles.  When you start with the details, you'll find the article quickly ballooning out of control—and the result is often much more difficult for the reader to follow.
 * I've been leaving these points as I've come across them, but probably it'd be better if I stopped that and started focusing more on the overall approach of the article. Unfortunately, that'll take me more time than I've had to spare recently—it's easy to go around fixing the formatting on lots of articles, but it's time-consuming to go over a large article with the aim of refocussing it.
 * For now, maybe you should do like I said before—find a more manageable, less stressful article to work on, and come back when you feel less frustrated. That's especially true if you plan to bring it to FAC.  It'd be best to get a couple smaller articles through there, so you get a feel for what the folk there are expecting.  Are there any band, album, or song articles you've had your eye on? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be patient. I realize that an article of this kind needs time to evolve and cannot be rushed.  I'm sure that we can get fixed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that I now have the problems of the section fixed. I found a few pages (which I had overlooked!) in Markesich's book that discuss hits, and they mention a lot of the songs here.  So, I cited the statements to those pages, giving the section some connective glue.  I also enhanced the discussion of some of the songs.  Hopefully, we've now got it just right.  Let me know if there is anything else needed there. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Garage rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024022732/http://www.rockinboston.com/themezz.htm to http://www.rockinboston.com/themezz.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nabilechchaibi.com/resources/latinos%20in%20the%20garage.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16098-el-camino/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/song/little-girl-mt0018053312
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockfeedback.com/feature/1321/in-the-red-records-larry-hardy-interview-january-2010/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rebeatmag.com/one-and-done-1965s-top-10-songs-by-one-hit-wonders/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)