Talk:Instant Replay (The Monkees album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock?[edit]

I'm sure that many musicologists with perfect 20/20 hindsight have now decreed that everything recorded in the swinging 60s should be classified as 'rock' but it's just plain stupid. I lived right though the era and this album, just like all the Monkees other recordings, was pure and simple 'Pop'. It was recorded by a popular group for the purpose of being popular, and popular it was.

Maybe you could get away with calling it rock'n'roll but rock? Someone needs to get real.--213.208.117.47 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they were mostly pop but Mickey Dolenz is quoted in the booklet of The Definitive Monkees cd set re being criticized as an "contrived rock n' roll group" & the tv show being "a television ABOUT a rock'n'roll group" The booklet/cd is dated 2001 but when the interview quote is from (except after The Monkees ended). 109.224.137.121 (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Instant Replay (The Monkees album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

seems like a fine article to me. Nothing factually incorrect, and is on the cutting edge of current research on the group.

Last edited at 15:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 18:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)