Talk:Origins of rock and roll

First rock and roll record
Could we talk about this article please? I had a lot of input into the shape of the article some years ago when I was a newbie here - it certainly needs review and changes, but can we agree a way forward at an early stage? Personally, I favour a timeline approach, perhaps a change of title, and a constructive approach that does not simply delete refs to 1916 recordings because they are not "rock and roll". Happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to talk, and collaboration is my favourite way of working on articles as it is better to have several views. As I'm working on the article I am wondering if it should be merged with Origins of rock and roll - the two cover the same territory, and it might be appropriate to have one as a section inside the other. I would think that First rock and roll record would be appropriate as a section inside Origins of rock and roll, and the section could then concentrate on listing those records which have been claimed as "the first" rather than having to deal with matters that probably belong more to the origin of rock and roll, such as general discussion of the origin of roll and roll. Having it all in the same article would make it easier to distinguish between those records which were part of the origin of rock and rock and contributed toward "the first", such as "The Camp Meeting Jubilee", and "My Man Rocks Me (with One Steady Roll)", but which are not actually claimed by reliable sources to be "the first".  SilkTork  *YES! 11:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion in one place here for the moment, but it may be better to move it to the article talk page to get others involved. What I favour is a massive improvement to the Origins of rock and roll article (it's essentially pretty crap at the moment) supported by a timeline, probably as a standalone article (though I haven't checked the guidance as to whether that is supported).  An article on what people have verifiably suggested as "the first R&R record" would be pretty short and also fairly random - as well as the usual contenders you have more off-the-wall ideas like Wardlow's suggestion of Blind Roosevelt Graves from 1929.  It seems to me that what is needed, to inform readers, is a timeline and article that combine those ideas with refs to other relevant recordings that "bridge the gaps", without necessarily themselves ever being defined as "the first rock and roll record".  That would be much more informative than an approach that solely refers to those recordings referenced in WP:RS as "the first".  Actually, thinking about it, if we can link the Origins article with a timeline (title to be agreed, or possibly incorporated within that article), we might not need an article titled "The first..." at all.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Just a warning that I'm going to be busy in the real world over the next week or so, so my time here is going to be very fragmented. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS: Would it be better to concentrate on the Origins article, to improve that, and then see what we have "left over", as it were? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with pretty much everything you've said above. I would like to keep the title "first rock and roll record", though perhaps more as a redirect to the appropriate section within Origins. The title is both useful and a likely search term. I agree with moving this discussion to the talk page of one of the articles. I think the Origins article, as that is the one we intend to work on. And provide a link to it from the talkpage of First.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest, then, that the priority is to improve the "Origins" article, using material from the "First" article and elsewhere. When that is done, we can review what needs to happen to the "First" article - either total incorporation into "Origins" as either text or timeline, or a separate linked article as either text or timeline (or combination of the two).  (I'd be sorry to see it go, but I acknowledge there is too much WP:OR in there.)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging First rock and roll record
I agree that initially some content should be merged in from First rock and roll record, and then we can look at what to do with First rock and roll record as an article and title. I think the title is an important one, and if all the contents are merged, should be kept as a redirect to this article.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of the merger on the grounds suggested above. It may mean that examples have a bit more focus. At the moment it is occasionally difficult to keep speculative records out of the First record article.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've started work on this - not a complete rewrite, but a partial rewrite, and merging in relevant material from other articles. I've had a go at the "terminology" section, and will do further work on the development of the musical style, influences, etc. At some point (hopefully, after I've done what I'm going to do), we can take another look at the "First" article - I envisage that, if the work here goes well, there might not be that much left in the other article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey ho. Right, I've been bold and done it.  (Well, done something.)  Don't know if anyone will like it, and there's a lot of work still needed to bring the refs up to scratch.  The "Origins" article could also use some good images, and maybe sound files if we can find free ones.  I am now going to retreat from the world (?!) for a couple of days, and prepare myself to take any flak when I get back.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Well done. I've not had a close look, but bringing in First rock and roll record as a section, and keeping the timeline as a separate section is, I think, the right way to go. I keep meaning to help out on this, but haven't got round to it yet.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Source
Just putting this here for now - - says Joe Liggins Sugar Lump was described by Billboard in 1946 as "right, rhythmic, rock and roll music" and claims that was the first time "rock and roll" had been used in print.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Yale book of quotations supports the usage, though qualifies it as an isolated description rather than a label for the genre.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good spot, but this comes up with an even earlier Billboard citation - 21 April 1945, referring to Erskine Hawkins' version of Caldonia. (Discussed, with the Liggins citation, here.)  Original magazine here, page 66.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's awesome work there young Ghmyrtle! Though we have to be careful how we use it. The reliable secondary sources cite 1946, and what we have is a blog citing a primary source for an earlier use of 1945. We are close to original research here. Be good to see if a reliable source can be dug up. If not, it might be worth getting advice from someone with good knowledge of Original Research.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't thank me, thank the blogger. It's interesting that both use identical (alliterative) wording - "right rhythmic rock and roll music".  We can say (I assume) that citations say 1946, and that there is also a 1945 use of the words in Billboard (online - why is citing that any different to citing a current news site?)  It would be up to the reader to make the inference that the 1945 ref was earlier, if not necessarily (we don't know) the earliest.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking that it might be acceptable to cite the RS on 1946, and make a note of the 1945 example in neutral wording. The reason why it is difficult for us to use the Billboard directly is that it is a primary source that a reliable source has not yet written about. It's not that we can't use it, but that we have to be careful not to be making any judgements about the implications of that source. As the context in which we'd be using it would be to record the first use of the phrase "rock and rock" to describe the rock and roll music form, we have to be careful that we are not presenting the 1945 Billboard as the first use of the phrase to describe the rock and roll music form, as nobody reliable has said it is. It shouldn't be Wikipedia or a blogger who says that the 1945 Billboard was the first instance - it should be a reliable source. Using the Billboard 1945 source and implying, even indirectly, that this is the first time that the phrase rock and roll had been applied to music, would be roughly the same as us listening to a recording and saying that was the first rock and roll record. This might be acceptable:

Maurice Orodenker's June 1946 Billboard review of Joe Liggin's Sugar Lump, which used the phrase "right rhythmic rock and roll music", has been noted as the earliest use of the phrase "rock and roll" in print, though qualified by the Yale Book of Quotations as an "isolated description rather than a label for a musical genre"; Maurice Orodenker had also used the phrase in an April 1945 review of Eskine Hawkin's Caldonia." 


 * I'll ask something to look it over.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Something like that, yes. More interestingly (to me!) is that it tends towards giving Maurie Orodenker ( who? 1908-1993 ??) the credit for first using the term to describe a style of music, over, say, Alan Freed or even Leo Mintz.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lionel Hampton's 1939 Flying Home
This source talks of Lionel Hampton's 1939 recording of Flying Home as being considered the first rock and roll record - a comment that seems to have some credibility. Some of the sources explain why they feel Hampton is rock and roll - I don't hear it myself - - but my opinion don't count.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who - apart from the authors of one book - would consider it "the first...", but it was clearly influential. So were hundreds of other recordings!  I really, really, hope we don't get hung up on simply finding sources that claim one particular record as "the first".  That is the absolute antithesis of the approach in the current "First..." article, and I would very strongly resist that approach.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: This gives some interesting leads as well (I'm not suggesting it's reliable in itself, and I'm not suggesting any WP:OR!). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Dave Macon
Macon had two songs which appear to relate to this discussion:
 * 1) the 1927 track "Sail Away Ladies" has a chorus which appears to be: "Don't you rock 'im die-dy-0" see http://www3.telus.net/On-LineMusicWorldofWendy/Music/SailAwayLadies.txt. Some interpreters seem to think that this is a variant of "Don't you rock me daddy-oh" ."Uncle Dave Macon also included a chorus which went, "Don't she rock, Die‑Dee‑Oh?” but Paley notes that other old recordings have variants like "Don't she rock, Darneo?" and even "Don't she rock 'em, Daddy‑O?" (http://www.ibiblio.org/fiddlers/SAIL_SALLO.htm) Whatever is the case, this was re-imagined (or simply ripped) in 1957 by Lonnie Donegan. Macon did not write this song, this source suggests that it is related to "The Girl I Left Behind", which can be dated to the late 18C.
 * 2) "Rock About My Saro Jane" (also 1927), is even more interesting. Macon claimed to have learned the song "Rock About My Saro Jane" from black stevedores working along the Cumberland River in the 1880s; this is referenced in Dave Macon).

Clearly the meaning of "rock" in these songs is related to boats - (Saro Jane is a ship, on which the singer has nothing to do, but "rock")

This might be worth a mention.--TonyFleet (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course - and I don't quite know how we managed to miss him out previously. Thanks for the reminder!  I've added a brief para on Macon to the 1920s section, but feel free to edit it further.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Orodenker
Per Billboard Oct 9, 1943 - This quote from M. H. Orodenker's review of the 78 rpm record, BEACON 7005 by DERYCK SAMPSON: "...Sounds more like the aimless ramblings thur a book of exercises. Just as meaningless and far short of the rock and roll spirit characterizing the city's music, is 'Kansas City Boogie woogie'..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.45.35.235 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good spot! It would be great to have the time to go through all these online old Billboards - no doubt someone will do it one day.  Anyway, the article text needs amending re Orodenker - about whom it would be good to know a little more, as well.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even earlier! Back to 1942, and Rosetta Tharpe..... .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: See Maurie Orodenker. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In doing an online search for early uses of "rock and roll", I came across the term in Vernon and Irene Castle's ragtime revolution By Eve Golden. It appears to be a 1939 dance called "The Castle Rock and Roll", devised as an alternative to the Jitterbug. It is described as "..an easy swing step", as " Jitterbug dancing may be enyoyed by youngsters, but it is neither graceful or beautiful, certainly not dignified for anyone past their teens". Although this is not referring either to the music or a recognised R & R dance step, it is still probably worth a mention. There is also an implication here that "rock and roll" as a term must have been in circulation in 1939, but had not yet found a consistent meaning --TonyFleet (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Verrrry interesting........ Do you want to add something to the article or shall I?  I'd suggest putting something in para 5 of "The term..." section, before the Marx Bros. ref.  Good work!!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's another potentially very important one from The Musician, vols 44-45, 1939 (exact citation is difficult to find). It is a review of "Yodellin' Jive" by the Andrews sisters. The quote I have found (and I can't paste the text, as it is an image) is as follows:  "The Andrews sisters join the devilman Bing Cosby and Joe Venuti's Orchestra for twin specialities [somthing I can't quite make out - looks like Ciriliden] and 'Yodellin' Jive', that rock and roll with unleased enthusiasm tempered to strict four-four time". I have tracked the release of Yodelln' Jive down to December 4th 1939. This now pushes the use of the phrase 'rock and roll' in a musical context back into the 1930s.--TonyFleet (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ciribiribin", apparently - here. (And I think the word is "unleashed".)  It would be good to know who wrote that review.  Excellent!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the Irene Castle and "Musician" refs to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Early musical reference to "rocking"
Here is a very early reference to "rocking" in a musical context: David Guion is one of the younger school of American composers who has chosen to devote his talent to the use of Negro melodies. In this charming little song, with its rocking rhythm and its distinctly Negro melodic scale, the com-poser describes the various miracles of God...

reference is from: WHAT WE HEAR IN MUSIC A Course of Study in Music History and Appreciation by ANNE SHAW FAULKNER The Copyrights are: 1913, 1916, 1917, 1921 by the VICTOR TALKING MACHINE COMPANY, Camden. New Jersey, U. S. A. It is conceivable that the 1913 version contains these words, but we cannot be sure. It is certain that the 1921 version does.--TonyFleet (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It takes a rocking chair to rock, a rubber ball to roll
I have been doing a bit of research on the origin and uses of this phrase. In the article the phrase appears to be attributed to Jim Jackson, and was later incorporated into a song by Bill Haley. However I think that there are at least two musical references which precede Jackson's Kansas City Blues No. 1. Ma Rainey (1924) and Charley Lincoln (1927). This website claims the following: "Charley Lincoln probably got his version from Ma Rainey's 1924 "Jealous Hearted Blues." The song was copyrighted by Lovie Austin but the verses except for the first are traditional. Later the song was a rewrite hit with the title, "Evil Hearted Me." Still more lyrics to "Jealous Hearted Me" come from recordings by Minnie Pearl, who squawked out this tune regularly". In addition, the route to Bill Haley was rather more circuitous than is suggested in the article.

Original Research is as follows, to back up this claim:
 * 1924 Ma Rainey: “Jealous Hearted Blues”: recorded October 16th 1924. “ It takes a rocking chair to rock : a rubber ball to roll, Takes a man I love : to satisfy my soul” http://www.blueslyrics.com.ar/Ma-Rainey/JealousH.html
 * 1927 Charlie Lincoln & Barbecue Bob: “Jealous Hearted Blues”;  November 1927 . this seems to be a version of the Ma Rainey number, but contains an interesting guitar lick underlying the words  “It takes a rocking chair to rock, a rubber ball to roll”
 * 1928 Jim Jackson: “Kansas City no. 1” October 10th, 1927. “It takes a rockin' chair to rock, rubber ball to roll, It takes a brown-skin [wo]man to satisfy my soul.” http://bluesdust.freehostia.com/component/content/article/11-k/70-kansas-city-blues-jim-jackson.html
 * 1936 Carter Family: “Jealous Hearted Me”. “Takes a rocking chair to rock takes a rubber tire to roll, Takes the man I love to satisfy my soul”. This  is obviously based on the Charlie Lincoln version, which was recorded in Atlanta for Columbia on November 4, 1927, mx 145103-2, released on Columbia 14305-D. “Clearly this is a song the Carter's borrowed.”
 * 1946 Bob Wills & The McKinney Sisters “Jealous Hearted Me”. Recorded  1946, possibly 1947 but definitely based on the  Carter Family version - includes their guitar licks.  [I have included this, as in 1946 Bill Haley was playing in a Western Swing Band- The Down Homers.  Bob Wills was advertised as the King of Western Swing; there is a great likelihood that Bill would have heard this version.]
 * 1952 Bill Haley: “Sundown Boogie” February 1952 (http://www.rocky-52.net/chanteursh/haley_b.htm ) This was reputedly penned by Haley (His popular-song compositions include "Green Tree Boogie", "Sundown Boogie", "Crazy Man Crazy" and "Rock-a-beatin' Boogie" http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006426/bio) This is a completley different song, but just happens to begin with the lyrics: “Takes a rocking chair to rock takes and a rubber ball takes the girl I love to satisfy my soul”.

Jim Jackson's song certainly deserves its place in the list, but I think that "Jealous Hearted Me" by Ma Rainey - on the B side of "See See Rider", should be cited as the origin of the phrase. --TonyFleet (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I could be over-interpreting this, but it seems to me that "..rocking chair to rock, a rubber ball to roll" together with the line which follows expects the listener to have prior knowledge of the pairing of 'rock' with 'roll' within a sexual connotation. In 1924, "Rock and Roll" did not exist as an established musical term; however, this song was composed less than two years after Trixie Smith's 1922 "My man rocks me with one steady roll". It might be therefore that this song is a kind of 'answer' to Trixie Smith, and the first verse of the song means something like: "I can rock (on a rocking chair), and I can roll (a rubber ball), but if I want to do both together, I need the man I love". --TonyFleet (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rocking and rolling" was a long established term, originally from sailing but with well-known allusions to sex by the early C20 - the article makes that clear. All interesting stuff - haven't had time to look through your other points yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

New CD set
Anyone seen the liner notes of this CD compilation yet? I'm hoping it gives editors of this article a nice big juicy credit....... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: To be fair, they do.... "As soon as I read the Wikipedia entry about the first rock n roll record and came across the list created by Jim Dawson and Steve Propes for their book What Was The First Rock n Roll Record? I wanted to piece together all the tracks, to do a mind map of the various links and find out how the sound of rock n roll actually evolved....." -  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing
This blatant POV pushing is undermining my efforts to clean this section up. Stick to what the sources explicitly say. There's a reason I provided external links to these book sources; Ruhlmann's quote says nothing about "followed": "...there is no dispute about what the first really successful rock 'n' roll record was. Yet 'Rock Around the Clock' was not alone in 1955, as a number of records led the way to the new style." . After he says "Though...", Warner then says "many feel it was Brown's..."; doesn't quite match up to "Others have taken the view that ". The last paragraph in does not equate to "many writers recognise that the way in which the genre developed make it impossible to name a single record as the first". Dan56 (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please be more constructive and collaborative over this. I am not "POV pushing" in any way, and it would be good if you were to withdraw any such allegation and change the sub-heading.  There is a whole vast mass of literature about the origins of rock and roll.  What I am trying to do, in the introduction, is to summarise that wide variety of sources, in preference to simply reproducing the language used in a single (not especially authoritative) book.  The suggestion that "Rock Around The Clock" was, chronologically, followed by other records that developed the genre is utterly uncontentious.  I think you are relying too much on a single source.  I have a high regard for your editing on articles about single albums and the like, but on a subject as diffuse and hard to define as this, language needs to be used which summarises information from many (possibly even "innumerable") sources, rather than closely paraphrasing one single source.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Apart from using a more appropriate to synonym, stick to the source and don't use that expertise cop-out excuse. The lead is simple; summarize what is cited in the article. Dan56 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand some of that. There is not "the source" - there are "innumerable" (sic) sources, and we should avoid using identical words to any one source (which is by no means the most reliable source anyway - Dawson/Propes, for one, is far more authoritative and influential).  What "expertise cop-out excuse"?  And how is "many" less appropriate language than "innumerable"?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Incidentally, I'm more than happy to collaborate in improving (or splitting) this article, and incorporate additional sources. But, that would require a lengthy process involving (I hope) other editors as well - and, it would require constructive engagement and consensus-building.  The sort of scorched earth approach that requires the removal of uncontentious and valuable information - even if imperfectly sourced - is unlikely to lead to a better article.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "...on a subject as diffuse and hard to define..."? And is that why there's an entire paragraph giving undue weight to one book? And how is "innumerable" anymore more unencyclopedic than "impossible"? The statement "many writers recognise that the way in which the genre developed make it impossible to name a single record as the first" is clearly not written "fairly, proportionately, and ... without bias" (WP:NPOV). "Recognise" assumes it to be fact rather than opinion, and the "evolutionary process" is only used by Vera as a reason for why he thinks it's foolish. Tosches only uses the word "impossible", and I cant seem to find a source for Hepcat, whose difficulty comes from defining the genre, but he cites a record anyway. Not only was your summary challengeable (a source that explicitly says that statement would be a cure-all), but it didn't even match up to what the "views on..." section originally had, so I accurately revised the lead. Dan56 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to defend every word in this article. I don't accept that the mention of Dawson/Propes is "undue weight" - it is regarded as an influential and authoritative book, but, again, if a case can be made for presenting other opinions as well, that's fine by me.  Re "impossible" - it simply is, just as it's "impossible" to be certain over what was the first jazz record, or hip-hop record.  Again. it's uncontentious wording.  Musical genres develop organically over time - they do not have absolute start points.  Many writers have made specific suggestions about "the first...", and one of the things this article does (or should do) is to itemise those (reliably sourced) suggestions - but none of them are individually authoritative.  It is our job as editors to summarise the information from all those sources - not from a single source.  I don't intend making a case for Hepcat.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And my section heading stands. Dan56 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. It's irritating though.  What "POV" do you imagine I have?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You've been summarizing a minority viewpoint in this article as a commonly held viewpoint, either because you agree with it (WP:TRUTH) or because you're drawing from personal knowledge or analysis of what has been written and published on the topic (WP:NOR). In your previous comment, you admitted to sharing that opinion. The lead shouldn't include what you think is right, but what is verified in the article and in proportion to what is prominent. Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've absolutely no idea what "minority viewpoint" that might be, or why you think it's a "minority viewpoint"...?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Which/how many writers cited in this article say what you summarized them as saying? (2 =//= "many", 2 = "some", no?) Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is simply not possible or desirable to namecheck, in the article, every writer who has commented on this matter. If you want additional opinions mentioned in the article, that's fine in principle, but will generate an even longer article which is undesirable.  There comes a point, in an article like this that deals with a large subject, when there needs to be some recognition that editors should summarise material that is not specifically sourced, so long as the material is neutral and uncontroversial, as I believe my edits to this article are.  See WP:FACTS.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's easier to find a citation than to argue over why it is not needed. Dan56 (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * PS: Just a thought - are you confusing "the first rock'n'roll record" with "the first really successful rock'n'roll record"? They are by no means the same thing.  A much clearer case can be made for "RATC" being the second of those than the first.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * How did I give off that impression? Dan56 (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By appearing to give great weight to the Ruhlmann book. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for verifying what I write. Dan56 (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The question is not whether readers can or can not be expected to have knowledge of a certain fact, but whether the fact in question is a relevant point of debate in the expert literature on the article topic. If there is any doubt about the claim addressed in the relevant literature, you should cite it. If the relevant expert literature does not bother to address a point (e.g. because it falls under WP:FRINGE, and its mere mention, if only to debunk it, would lend it WP:UNDUE relevance), it is likely that the corresponding Wikipedia article shouldn't, either." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, here, you are using one source - a newspaper obituary of Ike Turner - to justify your wording. Indeed, it says that "most historians" consider "Rocket 88" to be "the first rock and roll record".  But, that's simply not true.  Most rock historians would never say that any record is "the first rock'n'roll record", without very heavy caveats.  Most (perhaps - certainly many) rock historians would say that "Rocket 88" is a strong contender, or similar, but any serious rock historian would balk at making such an unequivocal claim.  You are again giving undue weight to a single source, of no great reliability on that specific point.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you should stop putting words in rock historians' mouths. Dan56 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should stop claiming that a line written by one journalist, with no specific expertise in the matter that I'm aware of, should be referenced here. If you wrote: "One journalist has stated that most historians believe that...", it would be accurate.  But not notable enough to be mentioned.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. So we can cite blogs and such around here, but if it's backing up something you personally don't agree with... Maybe I should tag even "...although some have felt it is too difficult to name one record", since it's not actually stated in the article? Perhaps that would motivate you to actually find a source to support these views of yours about what rock historians would or wouldn't say. If you have a better source that writes about rock historians' position on "Rocket 88", I encourage you to find/use it. Dan56 (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, please, try to stop being so antagonistic towards me - WP:NPA is becoming increasingly relevant. It's really not worthy of you, and it's making a collaborative approach increasingly difficult.  As I've said, I do not defend every word of this article.  The article would not meet GA or FA criteria as it stands, and I would never suggest it should, unless there were to be a major effort at rewriting by a number of editors in collaboration.  Parts have been added by many editors over the years, some better referenced than others, and some wholly unreferenced.  I've monitored those changes to some extent, and removed those ones that are wholly unjustified while accepting some flexibility over sourcing and style.  I had thought that it might be easier to persuade you to be somewhat more flexible - if that's not the case, and if you remove uncontentious and relevant information, I will indeed cite more sources, in my own time.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Rocket 88"
I've replaced the claim that "most" historians consider "Rocket 88" to be the first rock & roll record - which was sourced from this newspaper commentary about Ike Turner - with a claim that "many" historians take that view. The sources are simply better - Allmusic and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. The same view is expressed in these books -, , , - all of which are more authoritative than a journalist's passing comment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Rocket 88" doesn't even have a backbeat. Besides, this whole article is about the impossibility of stating an unequivocal "first"Ortolan88 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. But, see the thread above....  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reverted that guy a half-dozen times in recent weeks, always with the comment "Innocuous statements supported by the article sources and the article itself are not POV". Ortolan88 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not to sat that Ike Turner is not truly an "unsung hero of rock and roll".Ortolan88 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course they're better for the two of youse. They support your point of view (which is becoming more glaring with your opinions on the song), although neither sources dispute the "innocuous" statement "most rock historians consider...". None of your sources say anything about rock historians; these are all efforts to keep this article in your preferred state--poorly-written, OR-filled, and biased. How convenient to not speculate over credentials when citing a blog post by an unknown author, but to do so when you don't agree with something like here. And how convenient to argue that my addition is a "claim", while some POV BS about the opinion that there cant be above ("Re 'impossible' - it simply is") being a common fact that doesn't need to be cited. How convenient! Like I said in this edit summary, an unknown author in a blog post, and a critic from a music website, who say "often cited"/"many" and "many experts", respectively, neither addressing who or expertise in what, and you're gonna question the reliability of a writer from The Boston Globe? I wonder how this would have been received had she written otherwise. You wanted a reference to rock historians' overall stance and I provided it. And you're not being accurate; which of your book sources actually make reference to rock historians or what group of people are the "many" you've been rewording this article with? Or are they just ambiguous, passing references to an unclear "many"? Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And stop calling your original, POV-written lead "innocuous"; they were NOT cited anywhere in the article and were being challenged by me reasonably, and you (like the other editor originally) refused to cite a source for those statements (WP:CHALLENGE), instead opting to revert my improvement of this article. You know what's really "innocuous"? Anderman from The Boston Globe saying that most rock historians consider it to be the first, considering Christopher John Farley saying that "innumerable sources" have called "Rocket 88" the first. Dubious statements like these reek of someone's opinion and cannot possibly be attributed as fact ("an exercise in narrowing things down farther than they can reasonably be narrowed"?????) ("But that has not stopped many people from asserting one song or another as the first"???) It's ludicrous to believe these aren't biased and verifiable. I suppose something innocuous when the two editors that police this article agree with it. Pardon me for the tone, but this resistance to improving this article is suspicious to me. I guess this comment illustrates why; someone's original research on something off-topic and not a majority viewpoint; the article's called "Origins of rock and roll". You CANT state "no single record can be..." as fact when there's a section filled with one record or another having been cited as such, which clearly shows the former opinion being contrasted by prevailing references to the latter. They're both opinions, and you cant side with either. Get over it, please. Dan56 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since historians disagree, why not state that "Rocket88" is considered one of the first rock songs, and then go into some detail about why its considered as such? Its my understanding that this distinction relates to Turner's use of a damaged guitar amplifier whose speaker cone had been torn en route to Memphis from Clarskville. To my knowledge, its the distorted guitar, not the beat that prompts musicologists to attribute this distinction to "R88". Hope this helps, cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * State that ("Rocket 88 is considered...") in the lead? Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Revised the lead, although it cant be disputed: this "impossible" claim as fact is egregious, LOL. Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe something like "'Rocket 88' is considered by some (or many) musicologists as the first rock and roll song due to the recording's prominent use of a distorted guitar tone." Or similar. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Is that verifiable? My attempt to name the group who is considering or citing it as such (i.e. rock historians) was contested by the other editor because they didn't agree with it for personal reasons rather than anything provable . Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Numerous sources come up on a Google search, here, here, here and here. There are many others. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the editing and the above conversations, and noting the two editors - Dan56 and Ghmyrtle, both of whom I have worked with and respect, I would say that both are well intentioned and are aiming for the same thing, but that communication has broken down slightly. I haven't picked up where it has broken down, but both are getting a little over-heated and impolite in their comments. This does happen. This is Wikipedia after all! It happens because we care about this stuff. It's difficult when emotions get aroused to back off, calm down, take a break, and look at things in perspective. But that's what is needed here for both editors are actually making good points, and together can improve the article. Dan - you're being too critical of Ghmyrtle; he has said that he knows the article is not perfect and wants editors like yourself to help improve. Stop being so hard on him. And Ghmyrtle, Dan is making some good points that need to be taken on board. I think you both need to work on compromising, and on working together to find appropriate solutions. I think both of you know that already and will do that as you are both good editors and good people. But it does sometimes help to have an outsider tell you the obvious. Ping me if you continue having difficulties, and if you need me to moderate a discussion on the best way forward.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The tension is a result of being constantly reverted with poorly explained edit summaries and arguments that constantly draw on personal point of view and knowledge of the topic. RE to GabeMC: Same issue I asked above--Graham Bennett says "many pundits" (expertise in what?), Tom Larson uses the ambiguous "regarded by many" (many what?), and Miller (a writer on how-to books and technical explanation) says "other music historians". But what does this have to do with the other editor contesting what I had cited here in the body? Dan56 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to source all the specifics in the article body and add the condensed/summarized version to the lead, where you won't need to mention everybody by name. Besides, if its not properly sourced in the article body, then it shouldn't be in the lead anyway. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * From here to here, that's been my aim, although sadly no one (other than me) has contested the unverifiable claim here that "most historians of the genre have felt it is impossible...". Seems like a double standard. Dan56 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest a neutral presentation of both sides of the debate. I.e., explain why some think "Rocket 88" might be the first rock song and why some disagree. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by User:GabeMc and User:SilkTork and I'm grateful for their involvement. Again, I see insufficient justification for the claim that "most" historians claim "Rocket 88" as "the first" rock'n'roll record - but ample justification for the claim that "many" historians (or writers, or critics, or experts - I'm not fussy about the terminology) see it as such. Below are some further quotes from books that bear out that approach. Not one of them (not even Sam Phillips, directly), makes the claim that the record was unambiguously "the first". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What do Vera's personal opinion, "some folks", and "some listeners" have to do with the claim you are trying to dispute with great effort? How does "often referred to" dispute what is currently cited in the article? Palmer and Vera's conflicting opinions are already duly noted in the section in question. A bunch of ambiguously related quotes aren't ample justification to remove a sentiment that is echoed in several other sources--"usually recognised as the first", "considered the first rock 'n' roll hit by most experts."--not too mention Farley's article. Stringing along your own research doesn't dispute the claim; is there anything written explicitly disputing the claim, that some other record is the most cited, or that most historians do not cite a first?, etc. Otherwise, your efforts can be exerted in ways other than to make a concerted effort to dispute one innoxious sentence in this article. That was a diligent job stringing along those quotes from book sources with useful information, but why did it take disapproval to motivate? (BTW, I did reach out to the both of them for an impartial 3rd opinion, and neither shared your disapproval). Dan56 (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With your edit here, the introduction is now no problem. The problem now is the statement in the article text that: "Most rock historians consider the first to be "Rocket 88"..."  It's sourced - to a journalist with no particular expertise in this field so far as I can see, writing a comment piece on a tangential matter (Ike Turner's career).  But it's not true - and we should try to provide truth where we can verify it.  Several of the (more) expert sources  I've cited above (all of them, including Vera, are "rock historians" if we're using that terminology), as well as the online sources I've cited previously, explicitly state that though some or many people claim it to be "the first rock'n'roll record", that cannot be stated authoritatively or definitively to be the truth.  We can make the case, strongly, that it was a highly influential record that has been called "the first rock'n'roll record", but we can't say either that it was that, or that most historians/experts/writers say that it was - even if we accept that one source states that, other sources state otherwise.  Most of the historians that I've cited explicitly state that it wasn't (e.g. Tosches - "certainly not the case"), or that the question is too difficult to determine.  I don't see how you can argue that User:GabeMc's comments here, here, here and here support your argument rather than mine - I don't disagree with them in the slightest.  By the way, I've also checked other reputable sources like Dave Marsh, Peter Guralnick, Gayle Dean Wardlow and Elijah Wald, but haven't (yet) tracked down any comments they've made about the record.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * None of his suggestions addressed the statement you're obsessed with. His suggestion reiterated my position throughout improving this article, i.e. summarizing what is explicitly stated and sourced in the body. Continuing to state your personal opinion ("But it's no true") does not make you look neutral in any of this. You know what would be appropriate and simpler to actually prove your case and force me to concede? If you cite a source that explicitly says "rock historians say [such and such]". You're mistaken use of critic and historian notwithstanding, you are using an individual opinion on "the first rock and roll record" by Vera, and ambiguous quotes like "some folks" (what folks?), "some listeners" (me included?), and "often referred..." (by whom?) to advance a position not directly/explicitly stated by the source; none of them say anything about what rock historians and what their views have been on this topic. Nothing you've cited justifies what you're pushing for. Dan56 (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But, for the "most rock historians..." statement you are relying on just one (not very good} source when the sources I've provided present a different view. The best solution would to be rewrite that part of the first para of the section on "Views on the first rock and roll record" that refers to "Rocket 88", to draw on additional sources.  If you agree that is the best approach, I can draft something - or, if you prefer, you draft something, bring it to this page, and we can discuss it further.  That's an approach I've always been happy to follow.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop attacking a source you don't agree with; I find it petty. And stop saying they present a different view; they don't address rock historians and they hardly address any group, journalists/critics or music historians ("some folks"?, "some listeners"???, "often referred to" / " has been echoed by others"; by whom????). The best solution would be for you to let this concerted effort to undermine something you don't agree with go. It's getting more and more difficult to take you seriously when you've dug up all those book sources, only to find out it was to improve your proposal to remove one little statement rather than make much needed improvements to an OR-filled article, not to mention that you cited an anonymous blogger from rockhall.com. I already provided other sources that make a similar sentiment, but that's not the point--neither of us may not agree with what most rock historians have viewed, but there's nothing suggesting The Boston Globe source is wrong. Dan56 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not "attacking" the source - I'm just saying it's not the only one and there are others that are at least as reliable that present a different position. I don't understand why you think it's my personal view that I'm defending.  It's not.  What I'm trying to do is to improve an article that currently contains a fallacious (but referenced) statement that "most rock historians consider the first...".  We could either state "most rock historians consider one of the first..." - which I'm sure you'd argue is unacceptable because it's not what that source says - or we could rewrite that section to give a more balanced picture, quoting, if you like, authorities like Palmer, Tosches, Unterberger, etc. etc. I suggest the latter approach would be better.  Regarding the "Rock & Roll Hall of Fame" quote - yes, it's not ideal that it's anonymous, but the body that authorised it under its own name is certainly authoritative.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "fallacious", I rest my case. Maybe you're mistaking Tosches and Unterberger for historians? You seem to be using critic and historian interchangeably. Neither SilkTork nor GabeMc supposed your proposal to remove this statement, and this crusade to remove it is fatiguing. You'll prove that it's "fallacious" if you find something reliable saying otherwise about what most rock historians feel about the first rock and roll record. All the circumstantial OR, vague quotes, and qualifying remarks about the sources you find will not convince me and shouldn't convince anyone else. Dan56 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding the Guardian and New York Sun articles in support of the existing statement would certainly help. I don't think they're right, but that's not important.  What is important is that the statement is balanced by sources that refer to the difficulty of defining "the first", and that refer explicitly to the ways in which "Rocket 88" was important and influential.
 * BTW, who do you consider to be "reliable" rock historians? Tosches and Unterberger are both highly respected in their own ways for their writings about rock history.  Of course there are others, but if they don't comment on a record they can't be used as sources about it.  It's in the nature of the subject matter - an artistic genre that has developed within the last 60 years or so - that, to some extent, "critic" and "historian" are indeed interchangeable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you quoting "reliable"? BTW, you're drawing on your own point of view to characterize the writers (check the about page at those book sources at GoogleBooks, where they have a brief line or two about the author, such as here on Tosches). And what does the statement verified by the Boston Globe source have to do with those "difficulty" viewpoints, i.e. that last paragraph in the section? How would that require removing that statement? Dan56 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:RS. The Guardian says that it "is usually recognised as the first true rock'n'roller" - it doesn't say who by.  The NY Sun says it was "considered the first rock 'n' roll hit by most experts" - hit, not record.  Those sources could be added, but they don't make precisely the same claim as the Boston Globe, so the wording would need to be modified.  The next sentence could also be improved.  Which critics/historians, out of those I've cited, or others that you can cite, would you consider sufficiently authoritative to be quoted?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: What User:GabeMc said was "My suggestion is to source all the specifics in the article body and add the condensed/summarized version to the lead, where you won't need to mention everybody by name. Besides, if its not properly sourced in the article body, then it shouldn't be in the lead anyway." Absolutely right.  Regarding the matter in hand, "all the specifics" are sourced in the article body already.  "If its not properly sourced in the article body, then it shouldn't be in the lead anyway."  Of course - but they are sourced in the article body, in the very last paragraph of the article.  The lead summarises article text - it does not need to use identical words.  If you want to add those sources to the lead (quite unnecessarily), then please do so, rather than adding tags.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find any source that made that observation. Dan56 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By contrast, musician and writer Billy Vera argued that because rock and roll was "an evolutionary process", to name "any one record as the first would make any of us look a fool." Writer Nick Tosches similarly felt that, "It is impossible to discern the first modern rock record, just as it is impossible to discern where blue becomes indigo in the spectrum." Music writer Rob Bowman remarked that the long-debated question is useless and cannot be answered because "criteria vary depending upon who is making the selection." 
 * Summary: "...although some have felt it is too difficult to name one record."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What's your point? I'm not going to synthesize those three sources to make a conclusion that's not supported by any of them (WP:SYNTH). Dan56 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you not accept that the wording in the lead is an accurate summary of that, sourced, paragraph? What is wrong with it?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, we did go back and forth a few days ago "tweaking" it without actually having one reliable source attributing such a summation or broad statement about writers on the other end of the spectrum. It was challenged by you before, so wouldn't it be appropriate per WP:CHALLENGE? Dan56 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That argument was over using the word "difficult" rather than "impossible", I think. I'll accept "difficult" now, which is supported by the sources - though it's a pretty weaselly summary of "fool[ish]", "impossible", and "useless"..  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had already quoted Tosches, Vera and Palmer (which Cohodas summarizes as well) in the section. Dawson's "some folks tell"? Clarke's remark about the automobile reference is already a point of view made by Palmer as quoted in the section. Williamson does not say by whom his question is "under debate" before remarking on Phillips' confidence. Unterberger's point about why it's cited--guitar and sax--are already noted in the section as well. Dan56 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's true. So, we're back to the "Most rock historians.." point, which is not supported by anything other than a single source.  Why don't we just take that claim out, and say: "Numerous sources have named "Rocket 88", which was recorded in 1951 by Ike Turner and his band, but credited to his saxophonist and the song's vocalist Jackie Brenston, as the first rock and roll record. The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll and the website of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame said that it is "frequently cited" and "widely considered the first", respectively.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And we're back to condescending remarks like "not supported by anything other than a single source." OK, so is "numerous sources". Why don't we just leave the "claim"? Dan56 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not "condescending", just true. "Most" means more than half - presumably, based on some accurate totting up of everything any "rock historian" has ever said on the subject.  "Numerous" means many - it could be almost any number, and any proportion of the total.  It's a much looser term.  My argument is over including the words "most" and "historians" - which are contained in a single source.  "Many sources" and "numerous sources" are fine, but to say that "most rock historians" take a certain position is - whatever that source says - unverified and unverifiable, and, crucially, creates a false impression to our readers.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is verified. You certainly weren't too worried about creating a false impression when you wrote "many writers recognise ...", so excuse me if I've been questioning your motives here. Dan56 (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A single source making a claim not made elsewhere does not mean that we must include it as fact. I've accepted your change in the lead from "impossible" to "difficult" - obviously, it's not as though I'm opposed to any changes to article wording, just incorrect or (at best) misleading ones.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * **POV** "Rocket 88" isn't worth all this attention (TL;DR). The whole article is about the dozens of songs that moved things along toward rock and roll, of which "Rocket 88" is one.  The most important thing about "Rocket 88" is that Bill Haley covered it and then white people bought it.   It has an excellent piano introduction later lifted by Little Richard (and played better to boot), some great sax playing by Raymond Hill, an exceptionally ordinary vocal performance, and that distorted guitar (with the usual BS about damaging the speaker on the way to the gig (See "Rumble"). The lyrics are a commonplace mish-mash of cars and romance that dates back to Robert Johnson's first single, "Terraplane Blues", the backbeat is mushy and the Delta Cats are pretty ragged.  If you want to ignore all the genuine hard rocking that went on before World War II, that's fine, but the leap from jump-band music to rock and roll is best encapsulated in the differences between Roy Brown's finely controlled jumping on his "Good Rockin' Tonight" and Wynonie Harris's disorganized, hand-clapping rocking frenzy on the song later the same year (1947). Besides, "Roll 'Em Pete"! /**POV** Just say "Rocket 88" is "frequently cited" and move on.  Ortolan88 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I compromised on that in the lead; Ghmyrtle wont move on. Who published this song review you posted? Dan56 (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My goodness! I wrote that "song review" myself. I said it was POV and stated in the comment that it was original research.  Just me.  Ortolan88 (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We have both compromised on the lead (I've accepted "difficult" rather than "impossible"). But, you (Dan56) seem to be unwilling to remove a completely unnecessary tag from it (as I've said more than once, that text is simply a summary of the fully sourced final paragraph of the article text) - and you are refusing to accept any changes to the text (justified from one newspaper source) which makes an incorrect (countered by other sources) statement that "most rock historians believe.." that "Rocket 88" was "the first rock'n'roll record".  Again, I've suggested that the claim should simply be removed as at best misleading, per WP:TRUTH - "The stance of Wikipedia on such things is to avoid giving undue weight to such minority ideas, and represent instead the current state of understanding of a topic. If there's indeed an accuracy dispute between scholars, it is described without taking part. If there's a universally accepted viewpoint and a tiny minority one, this last one may be ignored."  In this case, the universally accepted viewpoint is that "Rocket 88" is a very influential and important record but it is at best a gross oversimplification of a complex story to describe it unequivocally as "the first".  Your move.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice tone, bro ("universally accepted", "your move", cute). "Impossible" wasn't the issue BTW; it was "many writers" and "recognize", things that cant be verified by any source. And which source "counters" it? Dan56 (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No sources other than the single one you cite make that claim. Changing "many writers" and "recognize" wasn't any problem for me at all.  Btw I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ,, . And if it wasn't a problem, why'd you revert me twice for it? Instead of Wikiproject talk pages, there are main resources for that (WP:CON) Dan56 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do any of your sources refer to rock historians' stance on the record or not? Dan56 (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I set out the comments of nine rock historians in the box above. Not one claims that it was unequivocally "the first" rock'n'roll record.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked. Dan56 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because one source uses one set of words ("most rock historians"), it does not require me to find an opposing view using precisely the same words. It requires me to count up to nine.  So far, you haven't found ten rock historians that do make that claim.  As I said a few days ago: "If you wrote: 'One journalist has stated that most historians believe that...', it would be accurate. But not notable enough to be mentioned." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the authors you've cited (as imposing as that illustrated box is) states what critics, writers, historians etc. have said of the record, so how can they counter the source that does say what that group of ppl have said?--Palmer ("some listeners"), Unterberger ("often referred to"; by whom?), Tosches ("echoed by others"), Clarke ("often described as"), Gillett ("people in the music business"?) ... How is any of this buffering your position? Dan56 (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this argument is going in diminishing circles. The best compromise solution is to modify the form of words in the text, rather than sticking precisely to the wording used in a single source.  If you were to accept a simple wording change to "many" rather than "most", I'd go with that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked a question. Dan56 (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a relevant question, for the reasons I've given, and I've provided my response. Do you agree that "If the dispute is over a specific point of editing the entry itself; in other words, the controversy is not focused on any issue described by the entry, but rather relates to the form, phrasing, structure or any aspect of the editing process itself, then compromise often means finding some editing technique which can incorporate both of the proposed styles or techniques."? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this source - though, again, it doesn't make precisely the same claim as the Globe article -"...the first recording that can be clearly identified as the musical innovation that eventually came to be known as rock and roll..." is a more nuanced statement than the existing text.  But if you absolutely insist on using the word "most" (..somethings believe something...), and can come up with a better form of words based on those four sources, we might be able to agree something as a compromise, especially if you also remove the unnecessary tag in the lead.  I didn't revert you over those words, I reverted you over other words, not helped by the extremely antagonistic edit summaries you were leaving (referring to my "POV", etc.).  Re the Wikiproject, I don't hold out great hopes but I thought we should try that approach before going to RfC, etc.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I note that in this edit you yourself have used the wording "Many experts have claimed it was the first rock and roll record", sourced to Allmusic. Why can the same wording not be used in this article, rather than the current wording?  It's both accurate, and reliably sourced.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So's this. And it clarifies which experts/in what field, instead of unclearly attributed "experts" (WP:WEASEL). Dan56 (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The wording ("Most...") is sourced from one journalist, and there is no other evidence that it's correct. Can you please cite a single rock historian who claims it as "the first..."?  (Actually, ten sources would be helpful, as I've cited nine who either say that it isn't, or make different claims for it.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: A few more sources below, supporting my case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey ho. I've made clear my own willingness to compromise further on the wording of the article - with no positive response so far on the two outstanding points I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music.  If other editors would like to chip in with their views, I think now would be a good time to do so.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to trace the history of "Rocket 88 is the first R&R record" from Gillett's 1971 "one of the several records that people in the music business cite as 'the first rock 'n' roll record'" to newer statements that ignore the complexities. Call it "Evolution of a Factoid". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This recent and authoritative book sheds light on that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Then how about something like "Although many writers echo 'Rocket 88 is the first R&R record', serious researchers approach the idea more cautiously.  While it contains elements that have come to define R&R, it is one of several early songs to do so..."  If a distorted guitar is a key factor, then Howlin' Wolf's early records with Willie Johnson (recorded about the same time at Phillip's studio) would be R&R, which nobody argues.  Likewise for John Lee Hooker 1949–1951 recordings for Modern Records. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with any (reliably sourced) form of words that removes the claim that "Most rock historians consider the first [r'n'r record] to be "Rocket 88"...". If those words were simply removed - as I've suggested before - or if "most" was changed to "many", there would be no problem.  So far, both those suggestions have been rejected by Dan56.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything supports the removal of "Most historians..." Even "many historians" is going too far — historians gives the impression of scholarly research.  R88 is one of many considered, but does not warrant further distinction, except for becoming a convenient sound bite.  This is clearly supported by the refs. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about:"many[1][2][3] or most[4][5][6] historians consider Rocket 88 blah blah blah"&mdash; goethean 16:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What's in the article right now seems just about right, minus the [citation needed] since once again the entire article and all its sources (not to mention this interminable conversation here) all support the statement:


 * Various recordings that date back to the 1940s have been named as the first rock and roll record, including the frequently cited 1951 song "Rocket 88", although some have felt it is too difficult to name one record.[citation needed]


 * I also don't know what that pink markup is contributing.  Ortolan88 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Larry Birnbaum has written for periodicals ranging from Down Beat to the New York Times and edited books and magazines about music.", "Harrington has written for the Boston Globe, Boston Phoenix, New York Press, and more. He has also written for numerous fanzines.", "Michael Campbell is a writer and pianist.", it'd be nice if you could mention who these people are instead of assuming they're music historians. Again, since Ghmyrtle didn't answer it the first time, None of the authors you've cited (as imposing as that illustrated box is) states what critics, writers, historians etc. have said of the record, so how can they counter the source that does say what that group of ppl have said?--Palmer ("some listeners"), Unterberger ("often referred to"; by whom?), Tosches ("echoed by others"), Clarke ("often described as"), Gillett ("people in the music business"?) ... How is any of this buffering your position? Dan56 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been asked to make an independent review of this dispute. My opinion is that there is a way to write this that avoids the points of controversy raised above. Even if the persons quoted are not "historians" in the scholarly sense, they can certainly be described as experts. However, so far as I know, there is no university offering degrees specifically in the field of "rock history" (although perhaps some music history majors can be shown to have focused on rock), so I'm not sure how we draw the line in determining who is an "historian", other than by reference to the fact that they write about "rock history". As for the language stating that "most" rock historians hold a particular view, I agree with the comment above that this is supported by the opinion of a single journalist. I do not find this journalist's opinion to be unworthy of mention, since her own biography indicates a decade of experience in writing about "music and culture" at the time this piece was written. Why not just quote the piece directly, and write something along the lines of: According to music writer Joan Anderman, Ike Turner "wrote and recorded what most historians consider the first rock and roll record".

Then we can leave it up to the reader to weigh the value of that opinion. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ghmyrtle actually shot down that option even before I could bring it up. Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Taking Joan Anderman's biography at face value, I disagree with that notability assessment. The claim is put forth by someone with enough expertise to credibly put forth the claim. bd2412  T 03:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for today's edits by BD2412 and Dan56, which have improved the text and qualified the claim of it being "the first", and I'm happy to accept that Anderman is a respected writer. I think there is still a problem though, and that is the weight still given to the claim.  Anderman and other sources are cited in support of a claim that many people regard it as "the first...", while  downplaying (in particular, not quoting) the points made by other respected and expert writers that it should not be so regarded.  This could be addressed in several ways - either by removing Anderman's claim entirely (my original suggestion); or by giving greater weight in this paragraph to the views of other writers (which might again be seen as unbalancing the text); or by adding material to the section of article text (under "1950s") about the song; or by improving the "Rocket 88" article itself with some of the additional sources I've found, and others.  My preference, I think, would be to leave this article as it now is (in respect of "Rocket 88" - obviously it could be improved in other ways), but to develop the article on "Rocket 88" itself (perhaps even to GA standard, given the sources we now have on the song).  But, I'd be interested to know others' thoughts.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The clarification of "most historians" is an improvement, but it is not sufficiently balanced by other view points. Two statements are also problematic: First, Gillett's quote "one of the several records that people in the music business cite as 'the first rock 'n' roll record'" is rendered as "People in the music industry have also called it the first" — not the same thing, the lack of the qualifying "one of the several" changes the meaning.  Additionally, Gillett's statement can be seen as ironic: "people in the music business" (Phillips, Chess?) = self-serving; and the use of quotes around "the first rock and roll record" = an improbable idea.  Second, "cited for its forceful backbeat" — the ref uses "driving backbeat", but this is supplied almost entirely by the guitar and piano.  A strong drum backbeat is missing, one of the reasons cited as R88's shortcoming.  The distorted guitar has been previously mentioned.  These two sentences should be dropped and the particulars more appropriately expanded upon in the R88 article. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please drop your POV ("improbable idea", "...supplied almost entirely..."). There are no view points that dispute this statement about rock historians. Stop sandbagging material you don't agree with and move on please. Dan56 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, quote as many "historians" and "critics" as you like, you cannot squeeze a "forcible backbeat" out of the Delta Cats' version of "Rocket 88". Bill Haley's version has a backbeat, but the Delta Cats play a double shuffle.  While it is possible to play a double shuffle with a forcible backbeat, it is not happening here.  Listen, listen, listen, before you quote some guy with a publishing contract who did not bother to listen, but simply assumed that the "first" rock and roll record must have a forcible backbeat, even though it does not. A backbeat means a hard hit on every second and fourth beat.  Haley's Saddlemen, whose version is not "western swing", regardless of what somebody might have said in a book some time, clearly demonstrate the difference.  Listen, listen, listen.


 * I won't dispute it with you, but it is also impossible and a waste of time to try to dub one record as the first when it took fifty years for it to happen, not on one afternoon in Memphis. Ortolan88 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Where did I say I agree with them? Our opinion on this is irrelevant, so all this personal analysis and amateur song reviewing amounts to this talk page being used a forum. Dan56 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Too bad my few words disagreeing with your many, many words have caused you to suffer. Why don't you go figure out from your books what the First blues song was and get back to us? Ortolan88 (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was referring to rock historians (i.e. where did I say I agree with them that "Rocket 88" is the first rock and roll record?). What's with the attitude? How was your personal essay on the topic going to help resolve anything here? (WP:NOT). Dan56 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My "personal essay", even tho clearly labelled *POV* and original research, seems to have fooled you until I 'fessed up. My purpose in writing it was clear, to debunk the whole "Rocket 88" myth.  Tell me, is there a single college professor or other Dan56-approved source from 1951 to 1961 that makes this silly assertion about the "first"?  Ortolan88 (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My response on 00:32, 15 August 2013 was sarcastic, genius. You're not an expert; you're an editor on Wikipedia. We don't debunk viewpoints, we summarize them fairly, without bias, and in proportion to their prominence. Do you have anything to add to this article that isnt simply rooted in your point of view on the subject (as your conversations here and at the other editors' talk pages clearly indicate)? Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, can you explain why so much prominence is given to the views of a single newspaper journalist, which appear to differ from the views expressed by all other sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: To elaborate... The current text starts off with the (sourced) assertions that "Rocket 88" has been claimed by "numerous sources" and "most historians" to be "the first" - and then other sources are brought in to argue that on the one hand..(x) and on the other hand..(y).  The impression given to the reader is that a strong case exists for "Rocket 88" to be, in fact, "the first".  That is a misleading and unbalanced impression to give readers.  A more accurately balanced and unbiased text - weighing up all the sources equally - would state that it has been claimed by many historians / writers / critics to be one of the first, with other sources stating on the one hand..(x) and on the other hand..(y).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PPS: I've changed the wording to reflect what I think is a more appropriate balance.  I accept that some of the sourcing may need to be tweaked a little (and will address that if and when the overall approach is accepted) - my purpose is to set out a more balanced and readable summary than the previous version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Anderman remark can be removed entirely. A highly contentious section like this should rely on the best sources, and an obituary of Ike Turner is not one of the best sources for this article. &mdash; goethean 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I hope we can also agree on which sources are "the best".  That's proved quite difficult so far.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving further discussion to Talk:Origins of rock and roll below. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Michael Campbell's credentials
I'm not questioning Michael Campbell's credentials as a reputable authority, but if we need to describe him, we must do so accurately. This profile suggests that he is a writer and pianist, formerly taught at Western Illinois University and currently has a role at Arizona State University - but there's no mention there of the University of Colorado, as has been suggested. Incidentally, describing someone as a "professor" is generally unhelpful because the status of someone using that title varies so much between countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no need to describe him at all. Any such description is off topic for this article and should be removed. This article is about the origins of rock and roll and Michael Campbell's PhD has no bearing on the subject. &mdash; goethean 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the whole section has become unbalanced as a result of one editor's insistence on giving wholly undue prominence to one particular recording, and to what different sources say about it. Given that, it seems unlikely that the section can be rewritten as it should be - that is, without having to explain the credentials of every writer whose views are cited.  For the time being, the arguments over credentials will probably have to continue, unfortunate and off topic as that may be.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you editors insist on adding off-topic material to the article, this conversation can be escalated. &mdash; goethean 15:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm.... what "off-topic" material have I added?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry; struck out "you". &mdash; goethean 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Note my last comment above: "These two sentences [about 'people in the music business and the 'backbeat'] should be dropped and the particulars more appropriately expanded upon in the R88 article". With no action taken, simple qualifiers were added (neither Campbell nor his credentials were included).  However, this was reverted with the edit summary "Attribute Campbell's personal opinion ('from our perspective') or dont include it at all".  So here we are.  Same time tomorrow? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources
...Continued from earlier thread on "Rocket 88"

I haven't really followed the entire debate here, but academic journal articles are the gold standard, followed by books published by university presses. &mdash; goethean 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. The problem here, I think, is that as the study of rock history didn't start until the late 1960s at the very earliest, and is still in its infancy (and widely considered inappropriate for serious study), there are very few sources that both refer to individual recordings and are academic in nature.  The Campbell book is, I believe, used in university courses - a perusal of academic course reading lists may be instructive and useful.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Ha! The first book I find as recommended course reading is this, which helpfully (or perhaps not) has an entire section on "Rocket 88" - "...considered by many to be the first rock and roll song".  Most of the section is blanked out for me - others may be able to access more of the text.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Google scholar "Analysing the breakthrough of rock ‘n’ roll (1930–1970)": "Some of these black R&B songs lay claim to being the first rock 'n' roll songs, for instance 'Rocket 88' by the Ike Turner band, a number one R&B hit in 1951" (need to gain access to discover what "these" refers to...) &mdash; goethean 18:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, this doesn't refer to the Brenston recording at all, and only in passing to Haley's recording. This book (also prominent at Google scholar) doesn't mention the song at all.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This paper was presented in 1996 at the American Culture Association / Popular Culture Association annual convention, Las Vegas, NV. Does that count? &mdash; goethean 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like that guy hasnt published his findings, only released them via an interview and a university press release. &mdash; goethean 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * he goes with Arthur Crudup's That's All Right, September 1946 &mdash; goethean 18:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice link! I certainly think that analyses like that should have a place in this article.  Re Crudup, there are certainly sources that say that that recording was a straightforward country blues, and nothing special - it's only remembered because Presley recorded it later.  Still, anything that wins press coverage for the university....  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Incidentally, I'm damn sure that words extremely similar to: “It started as a nautical phrase meaning the movement of the boat up and down and back and forth,” he said. “Sometime in the late 1800s to early 1900s, gospel and jubilee music co-opted the term and used it to mean being rocked and rolled in the arms of the Lord. In fact, the first recorded use of the term in a song was ‘Camp Meeting Jubilee’ in 1916.”.... appeared in this WP article, before he started quoting them....  “Buddy Jones was an early popular singer in the genre with his song “Rockin’ Rollin’ Mama.”... - jeez, I "discovered" that record!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Burns, J.E. (2013). What Was the First Rock and Roll Record? In Edmonson, J (Ed.), Music in American Life: An Encyclopedia of the Songs, Stars, Styles, and Stories that Shaped Our Culture. (Currently in print. Expected spring of 2013). &mdash; goethean 20:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Where I have heard that title before? Oh yes...  Jim Dawson and Steve Propes, in What Was the First Rock'n'Roll Record (Faber & Faber, 1992), describe "That's All Right" as "...an ordinary but catchy blues song..." which became popular (and was presumably heard by Presley) because RCA happened to reissue the original 1946 recording as part of its new 45rpm series in 1949.  But the point, I think, is that because someone is labeled as an academic, it doesn't necessarily make them more authoritative than some other writers.  We need to find the right balance.  Burns' 2003 paper references many of the same books (Dawson & Propes, Charlie Gillett, Robert Palmer) as the ones I've referenced throughout this discussion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And "Rocket 88" is an ordinary R&B song. I'm pretty sure it was never called out as noteworthy by anyone before the mid-60s, 15 years after it's release.  I think it's hilarious in the context of this orgy of professor worship here that the professor should be paraphrasing someone who is "just a Wikipedia editor". Ortolan88 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that this article (semi-credited) formed the basis of a CD compilation (see earlier thread). Anyway...  the fact is that, although stylistically "Rocket 88" was in many ways a typical R&B record of the time (though a very popular one - an R&B no.1), it did have fairly novel features both musically (distorted guitar) and lyrically (the combination of cars = freedom, booze, and girls) that foreshadowed important elements of R&R.  It's also important that it was covered quickly by a white musician (Haley), though of course it wasn't the first R&B song to be covered in that way.  We do need to recognise that a lot of reliable published sources do (rightly or wrongly) use terminology like "..often considered to be the first R&R record...", while also noting the lack of a prominent backbeat (on Brenston's version) and clearly stating that no-one with any serious credibility makes a definitive claim that it was "the first...".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Removal of sourced content and addition of original research
I received the message below on my user talk page, so am moving it to its correct place, here. I doubt if anyone is surprised by it, but others may wish to note it and/or comment. I gave my explanation for my changes in a previous thread (at 15:59 and 16:50, 23 August 2013). Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

''Your edits to Origins of rock and roll have been reverted. Your edit with the summary "?!" was reverted because it removed one of the credited authors of this book. Your subsequent edit, which you explained as a "wording" change, was reverted because you removed sourced material and reworded the text that changed the meaning of what the source said. Unless there is a source that has published this thought and this is not your novel analysis of previously published material, statements like "Since the late 1960s, many writers have emphasized the importance of ..." and "...has often been called 'the first rock 'n' roll record, while others have questioned this description" go beyond what any source actually says; the second synthesis combines two ideas, which if a published source had, would be acceptable. If it has, please cite it. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)''
 * Re Robert Plant, he is not an "author" of the book. The book is in front of me.  Google may credit him as an "author", but it is completely wrong.  The contributor to the book is Robert Plant, who contributed a very brief (about 60 words) foreword.  He is not the same person as "Dr Robert Plant [who] obtained his PhD in Computer Science at the University of Liverpool, England, in 1987 [and] is currently an associate professor at the School of Business Administration, at the University of Miami" - who is this person.  Funny. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * An edit summary such as this would have made more sense than "?!". Your comments on 15:59 and 16:50 give the impression that you're analyzing the sources you've found and forming a conclusion not advanced by the sources themselves. The statements you added (and I quoted above) need to be a source's, not yours. Removing verified material in place of original research didn't seem like an improvement, so I reverted it. Dan56 (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't checked your Google source on Plant when I made that specific change - had I done so I would have understood why you had added it and explained my change more fully at the time. Re the other changes - they are covered in my comments on the earlier thread. Basically, it is misleading to readers to start the discussion with the (sourced) statements that "Rocket 88" is called "the first" by "most" sources, when most reliable sources (and I hope we can agree on the need to prioritise the use of academic or academically-approved sources like those in another interesting thread here) take a different view.  The most reliable sources say that "many" (rather than "most") consider it to be "the first", and set out reasons for that view.  We should use them - and, we should also identify dissenting views (for example, the comments that the song is not R&R at all).  I'm happy to continue this discussion, so long as we all recognise that all the editors in recent discussions here are acting in good faith, and the discussion isn't derailed by accusations of "POV editing", etc., on either side.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I'll basically be offline for most of the next 48 hours, so carry on without me... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you said that already, but those comments don't justify removing sourced material in favor of your own analysis (my message addressed that already), at least a bit of which is POV (You removed a verified observation/summary with "Since the late 1960s, many writers have emphasized the importance of...", which echoes your comment here). The dissenting views are duly noted (in fact you removed one of them, Williamson's, in the aforementioned revision), and I hope that, if any of those academic sources mentioned in that earlier thread addressed the "first rock and roll record" claim among historians or others, it could be cited. Dan56 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sound clips
Various song clips, mostly added in these edits in 2012 by (now-banned) User:Jagged 85, were removed from the article a few days ago in these edits by User:Werieth, and the explanation "See WP:NFC" and the further explanation that "Those sound clips are already being used in their primary article (WP:NFCC#3]]), and its basically being used to list samples which fails WP:NFLIST. There are other issues but thats the main points."  What do others think? Is there a good case - within the constraints of WP:NFCCP - for retaining a "minimal number of items", where their "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding."? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These nine short sound clips are very useful and informative for a better understanding and they are not redundant in this excellent synthesis feature. I'm ready to revert their removal... unless u do it. --Bibliorock (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And you will be reverted and warned for violating WP:NFCC. See the discussion on my talk page. When someone removed a file for failing to meet WP:NFCC you dont revert it. Werieth (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, I give up, but copyright rules are equally tricky to understand and strict. And it's rather odd that those nine sound clips have remained unremoved for some two years. Would it mean any and every other sound clip should be removed all thru wp ?--Bibliorock (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, in this case there is a combination of issues, (large number of files, list like section where they are being used, lack of critical commentary, most clips are already used on their own article, links to the associated articles can provide both more information and the clip, and other issues ). Just because something goes under the radar for a long period doesn't mean that it is acceptable. I think the record for complete hoax article is 6 years if Im not mistaken. Given that factor and that most users are not familiar with NFCC its easy for something to slip past them for a while. Werieth (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On this page, we should talk about this article, not more generally. So, the position as outlined by Werieth seems to be that it might be possible to include one or two clips "if the page had reliable sourced content attesting to their specific importance to the origins of rock and roll."  I would welcome other views.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Origins of rock and roll. 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/20070723170059/http://www.countrymusichalloffame.com/site/inductees.aspx?cid=113# to http://www.countrymusichalloffame.com/site/inductees.aspx?cid=113#
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614015637/http://www.musicweb-international.com/encyclopaedia/p/P20.HTM to http://www.musicweb-international.com/encyclopaedia/p/P20.HTM

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Rock Awhile"
In relation to this edit and this edit...   Goree Carter's "Rock Awhile" is mentioned in the article, notably in the section headed "Views on the first rock and roll record". Personally, I don't mind if it's also mentioned in the opening section alongside "Rocket 88", as a sometimes-cited "first rock and roll record" - although there are others that could also be mentioned there. However, it should not replace the mention of "Rocket 88" in the introductory section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * At minimum, Rock Awhile/Goree Carter should be included at the very front of this discussion (because it came out in 1949 and is absolutely the best candidate for the first 'pure form' rock and roll song). Its probably fine to keep some passing mention of Rocket 88 given that older, weaker scholarship often called that the 'first rock and roll song' and thus, that 'answer' gets parroted in other publications, just like if you go even further back, even weaker-yet scholarship claimed the first Rock and Roll song to be "Rock Around the Clock" Bill Haley... much like how older, weaker but otherwise credible scholarship on dinosaurs didn't acknowledge the asteroid until Walter Alvarez came along. The rediscovery of Goree Carter's early stuff has changed the game in this discussion and there are iron-clad, 100% reliable sources a-plenty who acknowledge Carter's role as seminal originator of the Rock and Roll genre. Just in case anyone reading along is interested in making their own judgement, here ya go. Goree Carter, four years after World War 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3FNLnFg6Ck Of course, 'our own ears' would be original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia but thankfully, there are reliable sources that have documented this in publication form, too. Cantor19 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What you seem to be trying to do is to prioritise the views of one critic, Robert Palmer, and your own personal opinion that "Rock Awhile" is "absolutely the best candidate", over others. That is not acceptable.  The opening section of the article is intended to summarise the whole article, and, as later paragraphs make clear, many different critics have suggested many different songs as "the first...".  What is important here is not your opinion, or mine - it is what verifiable, reliable sources have said about the question.  Further up this page there are many quotes from authors who have commented about "Rocket 88", and the discussion at that time was along the lines of to what extent "Rocket 88" could be described as "the first..." or "one of the first...".  Where are the "iron-clad, 100% reliable sources a-plenty who acknowledge Carter's role as seminal originator of the Rock and Roll genre" - and, in particular, mention "Rock Awhile" as "the first..."?  You have so far not provided any sources other than Palmer and one journalist.  Where are the others?   On what basis do you describe other authors as "older, weaker scholarship"?  Is that simply your opinion? - in which case it is of no relevance here and must be dismissed.   Until we sort this out, it's best not to refer to any specific songs in the lead.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather annoying that you seem to have assigned yourself 'article captain' given the level of knowledge expressed. Your assertion that "Rock Awhile" hinges on the opinion of "one critic" means you're either lying or just completely uninformed on this topic. I'm going to presume good faith and assume the latter. Anthony DeCurtis talked about Carter's candidacy for "First Rock and Roll Song" as early as 1992. . The basis for calling your position being based on 'older, weaker scholarship' is indeed opinion, but here we get into a rather tricky logic trap given that you're basing your position on two formal fallacies- (Appeal to Authority and Argument from Popularity) - that are ingrained as core tenets of Wikipedia editorial policy and indeed, those fallacies work pretty well to source mostly accurate information a majority of the time. Here, though, we're in the minority of the times where those fallacies fail, which is where our disagreement stems. You, personally, cannot substantiate the case that "Rocket 88" is the first Rock and Roll song by any means other than blindly and mindlessly appealing to popularity, yet the reasons cited by that same popular opinion for 1951's Rocket 88 being the earliest R&R song are all negated by those same factors present in Goree Carter's earlier 1949 release. This is why the scholarship of people like Lomax, Robert Palmer, DeCurtis, etc is wildly superior to whatever you're presenting. Decurtis, Palmer, Lomax, etc make their case by presenting facts and logic that nobody can refute (nor has refuted). You make your case with literal fallacies, which were the same fallacies that once had "Rock Around the Clock" tagged as first Rock and Roll song. Or, to put it another way, an AP Poll showed that 8 in 10 Americans believe in Angels . Your position on Rocket 88 being the first Rock and Roll song would also hold that angels must be real because here... here's proof from a credible source that says many people agree. It's just weak. No amount of Wiki-Lawyering or narration assuages this. To be clear, I have absolutely no problem noting that "Rock Around the Clock" and "Rocket 88" have been called by some people as the first Rock and Roll song, just like how for a long while, many people claimed that Elvis Presley 'invented Rock and Roll'. If Wikipedia is to be credible, it has to include credible opinions that may be less popular but are more informed. Cantor19 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A lead provides a summary or overview of the article and should only contain the most important points as discussed in the article (see MOS:LEAD). Detailing what music writers consider to be the first r&r record places more emphasis than that given in the body. Are  and  (and any others) being used by the same editor? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It is not up to Wikipedia to seek to determine the "truth".  The main article has a well-established couple of sentences quoting Palmer and DeCurtis's views about "Rock Awhile" - with which I have no problem.  It is mentioned in context of other claimants as "the first...", including "Rocket 88".   The problem comes when the lead is changed to delete the reference to "Rocket 88" but add one to "Rock Awhile".  That is unbalanced, and in my view - given there are many views on this, and none have an unequivocal claim to precedence over others - neither song should be mentioned in the lead.  If they are both mentioned in the lead we may as well list several others (T-Bone Walker, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Wynonie Harris, Roy Brown, Fats Domino..... Blind Roosevelt Graves...) which would just be a recipe for further edit-warring.    seems to claim a remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia practice, given that he/she has apparently only made 26 edits, of which 11 are to this talk page and article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is putting "Rocket 88" in the lead as the first Rock song, because it's not the first rock song and a noted, there are sources aplenty to support that. Wikipedia isn't here to 'determine truth', however Wikipedia does not strive to be willfully incorrect with inaccurate but popular narrations. This is no different than how "Rapper's Delight" is absolutely the most widely sourced "First Hip Song" even though more recent scholarship on that has shown that King Tim III (Personality Jock) came out 3 months earlier and is the objectively more appropriate candidate... and it doesn't matter how many people up until now cited "Rapper's Delight". Understanding has evolved. If you're going to apply an absolute label (like "first") to a deeply subjective and non-absolute question (like "what is the first (genre) song..."), you must be open to shades of gray and not mindlessly appealing to the authority of sources who might publish in accepted wp:rs entities, but have shallow (or outdated) knowledge of a particular topic. I'd propose that it's reasonable to leave a citation of Rocket 88 as first rock and roll song in the lead for this article given that it's a 'popular answer', but it should be clearly contextualized with notation of artists like Goree Carter and songs like 'Rock Awhile'. Cantor19 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The version of the lead that existed before your involvement here certainly did not state that "Rocket 88" was "the first...". It said, quote: "Various recordings that date back to the 1940s have been named as the first rock and roll record, including the frequently cited 1951 song "Rocket 88", although some have felt it is too difficult to name one record."  Your insistence on mentioning "Rock Awhile" in the lead in place of "Rocket 88" does not meet the criteria for what is appropriate in the lead section - it is prioritising one set of opinions over another set of opinions, on the basis of your own personal assessment of which sources should predominate.   That is unacceptable, and there seems to be no support on this page for your view.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your strawman that this is just 'my opinion' is as bizarre and factually off base as your claim that I insisted "Rock Awhile" replace any mention of Rocket 88. Nowhere did I suggest that "Rock Awhile" be noted  in place of Rocket 88 (which is indeed a popular, albeit inaccurate, answer to this question) and indeed, the last edit reflected that. Also, don't be delusional. This is not a 'consensus discussion' with an array of objective and informed participants. It's a three party discussion between the self-appointed article captain advocating for bad information, me and apparently you making a procedural case, rather than a factual one. "Rock Awhile" meets all criteria for lead inclusion without any consideration whatsoever for my own opinions and indeed, I've externally sourced wp:rs aplenty for what I'm saying here. You can wiki-lawyer all the procedure you please to come up with some contorted, perverted reason for why the first rock and roll song (per reliable sources) shouldn't be included in the lead for the Origins of Rock and Roll article, but you're making a case against fact. So, presuming good faith and maybe we can avoid mediation (unlikely), what is your proposal? Cantor19 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Most if not all reliable sources refuse to specify what is "the first rock and roll record" as it is a pointless and valueless endeavor. Replacing the mention of "Rocket 88" by a mention of "Rock Awhile" is exactly what you did - here and here.  As a result, and in an effort to prevent any further edit-warring, I removed the mention of "Rocket 88" here.   That remains my proposal, though the efforts to make you stop edit-warring and trying to reinstate a mention of "Rock Awhile" have obviously failed.   Have you actually bothered to read the extensive discussions further up this page?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources I cited do indeed make the case for Goree Carter being the most reliable candidate. Here, you've moved the goalposts from advocating from a stock- but incorrect- answer, to now, saying "yeah, well, we can never know anyway". Unless you can make a case that my sources are not 1) multiple and 2) reliable, you pretty much have nothing here other than continually talking in circles. Cantor19 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you call "moving the goalposts" is what I call "making a compromise". As you will see from further up this page, other editors have in the past been far more committed to naming "Rocket 88" as "the first..." than I ever have.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this needs some additional action (WP:RFC, etc.). Once again, are  and  (and any others) being used by the same editor? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, one was a throwaway alt, I switched to this account when the article captain decided to dig in and advocate against reality, however do carefully note how I have no problem confirming that and consider how that point is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, so it's a pointless aside to what is being discussed here. Cantor19 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the way the article is currently configured, not going into the "First rock song" issue in the lead and then dealing with it in as much detail as can be supported in the "Views on the first rock and roll record" section works just fine. Carptrash (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. Cantor19 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So can I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That would work. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something?   That is what we have had for the last two-and-a-half weeks.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Origins of rock and roll. 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/20120425122215/http://www.blueslyrics.com.ar/Ma-Rainey/JealousH.html to http://www.blueslyrics.com.ar/Ma-Rainey/JealousH.html
 * Added tag to http://www.visitmississippi.org/press_news/20081014-RootsRockRoll.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091206043746/http://www.lib.usm.edu/~archives/blind.htm to http://www.lib.usm.edu/~archives/blind.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007161643/http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/39/jimmie-rodgers-the-father-of-country-music to http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/39/jimmie-rodgers-the-father-of-country-music
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.countrymusichalloffame.com/site/inductees.aspx?cid=113

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) 08:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Bowker
Does the line "Oh do, my Johnny Bowker, come rock and roll me over" in the sea shanty really have a sexual connotation, as the article claims? I'm not sure that the first cited source really states this, and the second one is just the lyrics themselves. The notion that the sailors, while hoisting a sail, would routinely entreat a fictional Johnny Bowker to perform the active role in a homosexual intercourse with them strikes me as a bit too odd.--94.155.68.202 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Tiny Grimes
Just to note this SPS blog source says: "Tiny Grimes is the inventor of Rock and Roll, and 'Tiny's Boogie', recorded at WOR studios in NYC on August 14, 1946, is the very first Rock and Roll recording." The source hardly looks very reliable, but just for info, here it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That particular recording was from 1951, I think (on United Records), not 1946 - I haven't been able to find a better source for the 1946 radio recording claim. Another site making the claim is here -  I suspect it may have originated from a Screamin' Jay Hawkins biography.  If a better source can be found, of course it could be mentioned.  The 1951 recording is mentioned by Birnbaum here, but without any excessive claims for it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. The 1946 version seems to be this one, apparently on a re-issue label. Tiny Grimes discography lists only albums and there is no mention of it at (the remarkably brief) Tiny Grimes. But it seems to be included on Blue Notes's 1998 "The Blue Note Swingtets" (John Hardee on tenor sax it turns out). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Best explanation about how rock evolved
Bill Wyman article:

The music didn’t evolve in a linear fashion; it’s never been clear who invented it, The best thing you can do, as the scholar Ed Ward does in the first volume of his just-released History of Rock & Roll, is to go back and track down all the folks who were doing those weird things It was, he said, “like four or five avenues rolling toward one another.” https://www.vulture.com/2016/12/chuck-berry-invented-the-idea-of-rock-and-roll.html

Your thoughts on this, Ghmyrtle?

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Origins of rock and roll → History of rock and roll – It is more common to have history of than origins of articles. While we have Category:Origins of music genres it has just three entries, all of which likely need to same rename. Conceptually this would allow this article to expand beyond early history, and anyway, it is not clear who and why defines where the origins end. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Having an article that only focuses on the "origins" of rock and roll makes no sense when we can have an article that covers the full history, including its origins. Sillypilled (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The origins of rock and roll cover sufficient breadth to support a separate article; there should be a freestanding article on the History of rock and roll that gives a summary account of the origins and proceeds to cover everything up to the present day. BD2412  T 15:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Until an abundance of content requires us to split the origins from the history, it is best to use the more generic title: history.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 08:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the origins of rock and roll are now an important stand-alone historical topic, covered in many works and educational studies. Similar to Origins of the blues and Origins of opera. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - reasons in the thread below, but I'll restate them here.  The article does not, never has, and never should, cover the "History of rock and roll".  That raises all sorts of issues about the term itself, and the period to be covered - it could extend until the present day, and into the future.   The Origins of rock and roll are fairly obscure, complex, and have been covered in a very large number of published sources - specifically about its origins.  The idea that the Origins can simply and solely be covered in a single article about the History of the genre is, frankly, ludicrous - such an article would become preposterously long, given the wide range and lengthy period it would need to cover.  This article is very specifically about the Origins of the genre as it emerged in the 1950s, and the previous decades - most definitely not about its later history, since the 1950s.  The title "History of rock and roll" is quite simply wrong or at best highly misleading, and the existing title and content of "Origins..." should be retained.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all the reasons above. Sillypilled seems to be suggesting a wholly new article, but probably one that would be too large and complicated to ever work? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please reverse this move
Please reverse this edit, for further consideration. OK, as a major contributor to the article I should have been aware of the move request - but, I wasn't, I've been busy, and as a general point it has been moved on the basis of a very small number of !votes (2 to 1) after a short (one week) opportunity for discussion. The article does not, never has, and never should, cover the "History of rock and roll". That raises all sorts of issues about the term itself, and the period to be covered - it could extend until the present day, and into the future. No, the article is very specifically about the Origins of the genre as it emerged in the 1950s, and the previous decades. The article is most definitely not about its later history, since the 1950s. The title "History of rock and roll" is quite simply wrong or at best highly misleading, and I would like that opinion to be expressed on the article talk page before any final decision is taken. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC) PS: The Origins of rock and roll are fairly obscure, complex, and have been covered in a very large number of published sources - specifically about its origins. The idea that the Origins can simply and solely be covered in a single article about the History of the genre is, frankly, ludicrous - such an article would become preposterously long, given the wide range and lengthy period it would need to cover. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the sparsely attended discussion should be reopened (and likely should have been a relisting). I too would have commented 'Oppose' if I'd run across this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For accuracy in language, I did notice this RM the first day it opened and intended to both follow the discussion and analyze the replies and the question, then forgot about it, missed the three replies, and next noticed when the close appeared. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree, for all the reasons listed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, though I fail to grasp how the three of you didn't see the RM when it was open, yet managed to show up to complain about the close only minutes after I closed it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I blame my large watchlist, where not everything edited catches my attention. Thanks for the reopening. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The same. On some days I have other priorities... on other days, I don't.  Simple.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (Some) people have real lives? This does not excuse the very hasty close. I thought there were rules abut this process?? I suppose it was 8 days, as opposed to the minimum number of 7, but it's possible to judge whether or not all main contributors have !voted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)