Talk:Rock and roll/Archive 1

Old discussion
Wouldn't it be more acurate to say that Modern Rock and Classic Rock and Roll are two different genres. The Rock of the 80s, 90s, and 70s, is generally pretty distinct from pre-60s Rock and Roll I'd say. Does anyone else see things this way? And what in the world is 'Tight Music'? ~Jack Daily 11:21UTC

Born in the United Kingdom? The rest of the article doesn't seem to agree.

Some might question the discussion of racial politics here, but I think it's an important part of the story of rock's popularity in the 1950s, so I would argue for its retention. Also, it was noted that there was some resisatance to listing a lot of bands; I don't know that I agree with that restriction. I suppose one option would be to follow the precedent given in The novel and Novelists. Also, in large part, the medium is defined by who was playing it (and when). This is the logic behind some of my edits today. RjLesch

-

My view is that in listing too many bands one loses the focus of the article and doesn't give the opportunity for the truly outstanding (in terms of popular and/or critical acclaim, or influence on future work) to be recognised. Perhaps we need some list articles for rock/pop groups. --Robert Merkel

-

Point taken. See Rock and roll performers. -- RjLesch.

I have removed:


 * Significantly, too, many early white rock and roll performers came from the South.  Elvis Presley, who was described as "a white man who sings like a black man", came from Memphis, Tennessee.  Buddy Holly was from Lubbock, Texas and Roy Orbison was from Vernon, Texas.  Jerry Lee Lewis was from Ferriday, Louisiana.


 * Why is this significant? I can kind of guess what the author meant, but it really needs an explanation.
 * Who characterized Elvis that way? Who cares?

This could be a useful paragraph, but as it is I believe it is distracting and confusing, and doesn't mean anything. All the reader can take away is that someone thinks the fact that many early rock and rollers were southern whites is a significant fact (significant to who/what?). Somebody, possibly the same person, believes Elvis was white but sang like he was black. Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison were Texan, and Jerry Lee Lewis was Louisianian (a Louisianer?).

I'll let this gestate in my mind, and maybe I'll come up with a point and find some sources. Anybody else who wants to give it a shot, feel free. Tokerboy 05:54 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

I was a white southern teenager in the 50s and this paragraph or some version of its message definitely belongs in this article. The story of the birth of rock and roll is the story of the transformation of rhythm and blues into rock and roll, and that is the story of the transformation of a music performed by and for African Americans to a music performed by and for everyone. In the current climate of razor-thin genres, it is perhaps hard to remember or imagine that rock and roll actually brought black and white people into the same tent.

I was one of the first white people to get into the tent. Despite segregation, white southerners had much more contact with black people than white northerners did, and much, much more contact with black mus ic. When I went to college in 1959, I was astonished to find that Jimmy Reed and Muddy Waters were not gigantic superstars as I had thought them. On the other hand, Chuck Berry was not some apostate to me, but just another R&B star alongside Jimmy and Muddy and James Brown. They used to show up on the hit parade between Perry Como and Teresa Brewer and nobody thought anything of it.

When I was fifteen, we used to ride out in the country, way out in the country, to go to black "night clubs" (concrete-block shacks with tin roofs) where we were the ones behind the ropes and black people held the floor dancing to black bands. At about the same time, or a little earlier, Elvis Presley was hiding behind the piano in a Memphis night club (a real one) watching Ike Turner work it out for the crowd. Hank Williams was tutored by a black man named Tee-Tot. Carl Perkins worked alongside black people in the fields and learned to play from black people on the weekends.

We loved this music, me and Carl and Hank and Jerry Lee. We weren't thinking of how much easier it is to market black music if it is played by white people and we didn't think we were taking anyone else's heritage. It was our heritage too. We didn't know any better. This all really happened, it really happened to me and thousands of others. We were years ahead of the yankees on this. Then, many years later, the same thing happened in New York, when Italians like Dion and the Belmonts emulated black groups like the Orioles. It happened decades earlier when the white Jack Teagarden came out of Texas with his trombone and his blues singing. It happened a century earlier when blackface minstrels emulated black performers.

It is really counter-productive and counter-factual to pretend this did not happen. Virtually the whole story of American music is the story of the encounter of white people with black people. It is also incorrect to think that white people did not bring anything to the table. Al Jolson, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, Mick Jagger, Teagarden, Bix Beiderbecke were all great performers and great artists who performed their own transformation on what they found.

Incidentally, the quotation about Elvis --"a white man who sings like a black man"-- was not really about Elvis. Sam Phillips, who gave a break to many black and white performers, described this as his quest before he ever met Elvis.


 * I think its also worth quoting Phillips in full: "If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a million dollars". There is no denying loved the music, and that he signed and produced black and white performers, but he knew where the money was: in the white northern markets and that -- at that time -- they would more far more readily accept a white man. And this wasn't a grand integrationist scheme to promote racial tolerance by introducing Yankees to R'n'B -- his aim was to make $1,000,000 (pretty much the same as Chuck Berry's has always been)" -- User:GWO

Likewise, Frankie Laine told an interviewer in the late 40s, after his "That's My Desire" was a hit, said, "All I was trying to do, all I ever wanted to do, was to sing like a spade." (Pardon the rudeness, but the word is essential to understanding the remark.)

I'll be getting back to this subject. It's important to me and it's important to accurate history. Rock and roll and jazz would not have happened without both black and white performers. Ortolan88


 * You misunderstand me. I agree the idea behind this quote is relevant, just not as it was worded--because the wording didn't seem to mean anything except by unclear implication.  Something to the effect of what you wrote above (except not as personally about you) would be great. Tokerboy 13:58 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

The first thing I did after writing the above was to get out the Bo Diddley box set and play it all the way through (it's on the second disk now). I haven't heard any pandering to white people or trying to sound "pop".

There's a big difference between record producers like Phillips and performers. Performers mostly just want to perform. Elvis wanted to sing like a black man, to be sure, but he wanted to sing like an Italian tenor too, and a pop star, and every other kind of singing you can think of (some pretty awful).

Of course, I'm planning to add all this stuff to the article. It won't be about me, but you can bet those white teenagers in pegged pants and blue suede shoes will be in there. I bought my first blue suede shoes well before the song (and it is a bitch to keep those things looking good). My mom thought I was gay since no one but homosexuals wore blue suede shoes in her experience. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but back then ...). It was not the only way my mother suffered from my teenagedness.Ortolan88

Just two quick points:

1. The Stanley Brothers the article is linked to at the moment are the bluegrass act. 2. I can think of a lot of things that Bill Haley could have brought to "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" that Joe Turner didn't, but it would help if the "something" he brought were specified in the article. I can't myself think of anything he brought to the song which was superior to the original, but am willing to be edified. If the point is that many of the covers weren't simply copies, then maybe that could be stated explicitly. Trontonian 13:05, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I added a bit about how the covers weren't necessarily copies. If that wasn't what was intended please add what was. I happen to think myself that some covers were superior to the originals. Trontonian 22:31, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I like the table with new articles and such here, but I don't think I like the format. It looks too much like the main page -- surely we can think of some better way to do this. Tuf-Kat


 * That's because I copied the table code from the main page. I agree it would be better in a different format.  I would love to see it as a "sidebar" or in a frame next to the Table of Contents.  I messed around a bit with it and couldn't figure out how to make text flow around it or move it next to the TOC.  But I'm no table guru; perhaps someone else is. Jgm 13:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey, this article badly needs a mention of Bob Dylan. Maybe a new section on how he brought folk influences over, but not ignoring the big moment when he "plugged in". JDG 19:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the "new articles" and other line items in the table: when updating, I've been following what seems to be the same protocol as the main page -- add new items on the left, remove the rightmost item (unless as it reaches the cliff it is still, say, "in the news" in which case it also goes back to the leftmost rather than disappearing off the right -- Michael Jackson is a current case in point). Jgm 01:04, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Another rule followed on the main page is that the article must explain why it is "in the news" before it is listed... What did I miss about Mystikal? Tuf-Kat 02:43, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * See .  You are correct about the rule, I had edited an update of the article but it was sacrificed to the slow server gods; I've now put a one-line add, perhaps someone else can flesh it out.  Jgm 04:26, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Suggested new table
I was gonna convert this to the new wikimarkup, but then I decided to change it a bit. Opinions? Tuf-Kat 08:18, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Can we add more space between categories?  And is the item seperation by commas rather than dashes the new standard?  The only thing that's more difficult about that is when items are related (compare

The Beatles, Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, MTV, Meat Loaf

with

The Beatles - Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, and MTV - Meat Loaf

for example).


 * Also, does this now float to the side of the main text? That would be very nice and allow for more flexibility in the number of items in each category. Jgm 16:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to dashes, because I agree that looks better. This is supposed to float to the right around the text, but for some reason this conversation isn't wrapping around it, so maybe I did something wrong.  I'm not sure how to add more space between categories, but I'll fiddle with it tonight. Tuf-Kat 17:58, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks nice, thanks. Can it be a bit wider?  And, are we going to settle on three entries per category, or is there some other rule of thumb that would work better with this format table?  Jgm 23:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Three's a good number, but it's not really important -- the size of the box is the issue. Ten links would be fine as long as they don't make the box huge.  I made it a little bigger (270 to 300) but I'm not sure it could get much wider without making the TOC difficult to read (that could be a reason to simplify section headings), but you can fool around if you wish.  Just change width="300" to some higher number in the first line of the box code, and it will get correspondingly wider.  Tuf-Kat 23:29, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Justified? (In the orange box next to the TOC) What's that got to do with rock'n'roll? -- Stw 18:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Should have been Justified (album). Looks like something got lost in the transition to the new table format.  Fixed now, thanks. Jgm 00:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

____

In the 1995- present section: it mentions the extremely dire state of things in the late 90s but nothing about the White Stripes

Boxes and Tables
I see a genrebox has been added. This isn't a bad thing, but the current layout, with the genrebox, TOC, and "related articles" table (all in conflicting colors) is hideous; I cannot stand it and it cannot stand. Question: Is it time for "related articles" to go? It was an experiment to begin with, and I did almost all of the updating (which I haven't had the time or inclination to do much lately). Alternatively, can some or all of the "related articles" categories be merged into the genrebox? Jgm 22:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * To answer my own question - yes, it seems to be time for the table to go - it has not been edited in some time and has become obsolete.


 * One more thing -- the listing of "Jump Blues" as the precursor to RnR is pretty lame, in my opinion. The whole first part of the article talks about precursors; do we really want to oversimplify it so in the box?   Jgm 22:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rock/Rock and Roll

 * Rock and Roll, also called Rock...

Rock and Roll and Rock are two separate but related genres... I'd edit it myself but dont want to incur anyone's wrath. DryGrain 19:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hm. I don't disagree with this in principle but the boundaries are so fuzzy and subject to personal opinion that I think it is better covered in one well-written article.  Perhaps you can add some discussion on the branching of Rock from RnR (I think it is mentioned briefly in the article).  Alternatively, I think it'd be acceptable to start a Rock music/temp article (leaving the RnR article untouched for now) and see if a natural and consensus break point develops.  Jgm 22:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that Rock and Rock and Roll have different connotations, but I don't think they're different genres. Perhaps, Rock is a super-genre of Rock and Roll which includes things that couldn't possibly be described as rock and roll. Don't know what the plan on this is as of now, though.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 10:02, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to add my two cents in, I strongly disagree with the equation of rock and rock and roll. I don't know many people who consider them the same and it is a very misleading comment for someone doing research.  I'm afraid I'l have to do some editing.

We've had that one in the German wikipedia as well and found the following facts and conclusions: Maybe this will help you?! I don't have an account with the English wikipedia, you can contact me here:
 * rock is a super genre to rock 'n' roll and is NOT an abbreviation or a synonyme for rock'n'roll
 * rock 'n' roll is a very "narrow" genre including only jazzy songs that feature a strong offbeat and fast upbeat tempos - e.g. Bill Haley (offbeat!) but not Avril Lavigne (no offbeat!)
 * in fact NO actual chartbreaker can be considered rock 'n' roll music (too slow, no offbeat!)
 * rock as a name has been invented later in history
 * rock covers nearly every style of music which is mostly driven by electric guitars.
 * many bands are mis-genre-ized as rock 'n' roll by music industry because of promotional reasons or marketing strategies
 * it is IMPOSSIBLE to clearly distinguish rock from rock'n'roll because there are no official definitions


 * I also believe that a separate "Rock" article should be written.  &#1090;&#601; z&#1108; &#1090;&#1110;  16:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. --Army1987 13:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree. As I use these terms, Rock & Roll refers to the 1950s-1960s thing, whereas rock can refer to anything, from ska punk to death metal, even if I personally regard calling these "rock" as an over-broad generalization and usually reserve the word "Rock" for Led Zeppelin, Queen and similar.

Current (1995-present)

 * In 1995, Canadian pop star Alanis Morissette released Jagged Little Pill, a major hit that featured blunt, personally-revealing lyrics, and spawning a wave of late 90s confessional female rock releases by artists including Jewel, Tori Amos, Fiona Apple, and Liz Phair.

Tori Amos (Little Earthquakes 1992) and Liz Phair (Exile in Guyville 1993) were putting out "confessional female rock releases" before anyone had heard of Alanis Morrissette. Perhaps they got more exposure from the chick rock fad, but their work was not "spawned" by Alanis Morrissette.. --65.147.0.75 11:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Red table
I know how you removed the red table and switched it back to orange. I am changing colors to go in line with different genres. Is it okay if I use white text on a red background?

Currently I am experimenting with a darker crimson red.

Today's edits by user at ip 64.222.226.14
It looks like this editor did add a few things but also removed a lot -- I'm not going to sort through it all and have simply reverted but I'd encourage the editor to add your new material without deleting others'. If you think something is wrong or doesn't belong, please discuss it here. Jgm 19:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This user seems to have a history of innocent-looking vandalism (removal of info/alteration of info), I might report him soon, but good revert, and we should be careful. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  22:27, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Splitting the article
With the article now 42k (preferred maximum is 32k I believe) perhaps it's time to split it into two sections: The main part and a new Social impact of rock or Social impact of rock and roll.

Though the social impact is very important I think it could easily be moved into a different article. The Social impact of rock title would be the best imo as that term is more commonly used today. Perhaps Social impact of rock and roll could redirect to it.

I would do this myself but it's quite a big change and I'd rather have some opinions before I mess around with it. violet/riga 10:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a posibility; however, the social impact of rock and roll is so inherently connected to it, that some good summaries should be left here of each "piece" of impact discussed. We should be cautious in how we break this article up.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  04:23, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Differences between my version and Jgm's
I placed text under the heading to highlight the difference in modern use of Rock and Roll and Rock. As mentioned by somebody previously these two are rather different and, while I agree Rocks roots are in Rock and Roll and that they could share an article, with the high number of links to "Rock" I reckon it would be confusing for some to be redirected to Rock and Roll without any obvious reasoning. While they could read the article and find out what is going it I really think that having an explanation at the top is the best option.

My version (at the top of the page):
 * The term "Rock" as used today is a very broad description and can differ greatly from what people see as "Rock and Roll". All modern musical genres are difficult to define and many bands do not like being placed in only one particular category - they see themselves as a crossover between many different types of music. The subgenres of rock help to disambiguate to a large degree and it is usual to describe acts using a number of different terms.

Jgm's version (in "Origins of Rock and Roll"):
 * As simmple rock and roll evolved into more sophisticated forms, often bearing little resemblance to the simple, dancable rock and roll of the past, some critics differentiated this form by referring to it simply as "rock" music. The term "rock" as used today encompasses a very wide variety of musical styles and rock is often divided into many overlapping sub-genres (see also list of rock genres.

Perhaps I'm biased but I prefer my description too. Don't mean any offence Jgm. violet/riga 16:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * None taken. My thought is this: the article is primarily about the music, not the etymology. The introductory summary (pre-TOC) should reflect the primary focus of the article.  There is (has been for a long time) a section dealing with the *term* "rock and roll"; the discussion of the meanings and differences of the terms "rock" and "rock and roll" seems naturally to belong there.  I have no problems if you want to expand upon or re-focus the discussion there, but I don't think it belongs in the intro. Jgm 16:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you're saying. Hmm, it's a tough one tbh - "Rock and Roll" as I see the term pretty much died out at the end of the 60s, though Oasis are quite "Rock and Roll" too and they're modern.  "Rock" makes me think of Van Halen and Bon Jovi, but that's also classified as "Hair Metal".  This confusion is what leads to me think that the pre-TOC bit should contain some mention of the difficulties of the terminology used.  I'm off to read AllMusic's version of things! :) violet/riga 17:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * http://www.allmusic.com have both terms merged together: "...rock & roll had a specific sound and image for only a handful of years. For most of its life, rock has been fragmented, spinning off new styles and variations every few years... ...and that's only natural for a genre that began its life as a fusion of styles." Does that help?  Not sure really.  Oh, and they have about 200 subgenres! violet/riga 17:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep the new intro, personally I like it. It'll set things straight at the start.  This should also be discussed in more depth in the places Jgm pointed out.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  23:04, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Precursors and Origins
The article says:


 * Going back even further, Rock and Roll can trace a foundational lineage to the old Five Points district of mid-19th century New York City, the scene of the first fusion of heavily rhythmic African shuffles and sand dances with melody driven European genres, particularly the Irish jig

Wasn't New Orleans the site of a similar fusion between musical styles, albeit perhaps a bit later than Five Points, in the 1860s or 1870s? I recall a PBS documentary about the city a year or so ago...in the years immediately following the end of the Civil War, there was a lot of interaction between different groups, including transmission of music. After all, the Mississippi from Memphis down to New Orleans seems to have been the birthplace of practically every other American musical tradition... --Sewing 15:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Major reorg needed
Hmm, this article is at more than 40k right now, and needs to be made smaller. I've been trying to organize it more, but I think I added more than I removed.

The term rock music is exceedingly vague -- this is part of the problem. Even hip hop is sometimes considered a kind of rock, which makes this article very redudant with music of the United States, music of the United Kingdom etc. I suggest being strict -- I removed the section (which was empty) devoted to Motown and soul, because they are not varieties of rock. Influenced by it, yes, and soul is mentioned in several locations already, but we have an article on soul music, so there's no need for it here. I'd like to remove the bit about disco as well for the same reason.

There was a brief section on heavy metal's "resurgence" in the 80s (when was the first "surgence"?), which I expanded to be about hair metal. This should perhaps be removed, since hair metal is a kind of heavy metal, which has its own article (I know, heavy metal is a kind of rock (historically at least), but its often treated as distinct).

This would leave as a basic outline:
 * Birth in the 30s and 40s
 * First popularization, covers and rockabilly
 * American diversification into surf and such, and spread to UK
 * British Invasion, psychedelia and folk- and country-rock
 * Birth of heavy metal and progressive
 * Singer-songwriters, glam, hard rock, power pop and punk
 * Alternative rock, jangle pop and grunge
 * Britpop and the garage rock revival

It has also occurred to me that the bulk of this article could be moved to rock music, leaving rock and roll to specifically discuss the origins in the early part of the century to about the time of British Invasion. This wouldn't help a whole lot, though, since most of the article takes place after the mid-60s, and it would leave probably hundreds of articles pointed to the wrong location. Still, its worth considering.

Another problem I have with the article is its Americo-centricity. Obviously, there is mention of British musicians, but after the 60s, it seems to be included as an afterthough (the The Smiths are not mentioned anywhere, but then neither is R.E.M.). This should be more closely entangled with the central history.

It may be better to have this be an overview of rock in all its incarnations and aspects, and have a separate article for the history of rock and roll... I dunno if I really like that idea, since the topic is so vaguely-defined...

Anyway, I'm rambling and will stop now. Any opinions? Tuf-Kat 21:41, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * The birth of heavy metal is somewhere before 1969 with the formation of Led Zeppelin, certainly before 1970 with Black Sabbath, hence the "resurgence" in the 1980s. The birth probably belongs about where you put it, between British invasion and Punk. THere should definately be at least a small bit about Hair Metal in this article, because it dominated mainstream rock and roll for a few years. &mdash;[[User:Siroxo| siro  &chi;  o

&mdash;siro&chi;o]] 22:51, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please also see Splitting the article section (above) re:relocating the social impact section. violet/riga (t) 22:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've have ruthlessly cut stuff away. Except for a little bit of trimming of verbiage, all material has been moved to samples of music from the United States, Hair metal, Indie rock, Garage rock, British rock and American rock. The last two need a lot of work, as they are basically just a few paragraphs from here and there thrown together, but the gaps in each show how much material was missing from this article before. I'm inclined to think that the history should be kept very brief, because it's very much unique to countries and subgenres -- rock and roll is so vague, much of the history that was here could and should be better covered at articles like punk rock. The only part that can't be moved anywhere is the basic stuff about how the subgenres appeared and the social impacts of the whole rock shebang. Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm making since, but... 21:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I wrote a little note further down about why I changed the history section back. Basically the deletions removed way too much important information from the article, including several entire sections.  Certainly the details should be kept at specific pages, but I was worried the entire page had suffored from overzealous cutting.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  03:59, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I can dig it
Can anyone tell me what group did "I can dig it"? Thank you Rich


 * This really isn't the place for such a query (the reference desk might be). But since you're here, try the All-Music Guide.

Semirevert of history section
I just changed the history section back to the one of this version, without changing the rest of the article.

I know this article is very long, but just cutting and cutting is not the way to fix it. Much of this information is valuable, and should be carefully preserved in proper articles. Very importantly, major sections should not be removed without good reasons. (Shortening an article is not a good reason for blatant removal of information and sections). Take it one step at a time, and make sure all the information that needs to be here is, and that the info removed is placed at proper articles, and linked to in an obvious way (eg, the Main article: blah) way.

Lastly, I know that none of the edits to cut the article down in size were done in bad faith, I just wanted to preserve the information that could have been lost.

&mdash; siro &chi;  o  03:55, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * No information was lost, and everything was moved to different articles, all of which are fairly prominently linked in just the manner you describe. Which information that was moved away from the old version do you want to keep here? Tuf-Kat 07:54, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to not give specifics. Much of the vital information was removed, instead of just being pared down, including much about rock and roll's origins, Surf rock, Garage rock, and (especially) Folk. NWOBHM (the most influential metal movement since its creation, which hasn't yet ceased) was removed of its very short mention. New Wave was given but a sentence, mislabeling it "electronic pop", and misrepresenting its period of popularity. Also, Nirvana was not the first (or even one of the first) bands to emerge from the Seattle grunge scene. Lastly, the sections were treated more as distinct, yet the goal is to represent this as the history of Rock and Roll as one supergenre, and explain (even if only shortly) where each movement grew from, instead of treaching each as a its own entity (for example, the two first paragraphs in the "Current" section differ only slightly, yet the one linking to curt cobain and the grunge movement provides more insight into the flow of the history of rock and roll. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  16:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the current version? The only major change was the removal of the entire disco section, since disco isn't rock and hasn't had much influence on it.  This gets the size down to 38 kb, only 6 kb short of the maximum desirable article size. Tuf-Kat 22:19, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah Disco is very hazy as a true part of rock and roll, and is not a requisite part of the article. It might be worth a short mention somewhere though. &mdash; siro &chi;  o  03:15, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Social impact removal
In reading through the social impact area, I spotted this paragraph, which I am removing. I'm not really sure what the point of it is -- is it to prove that "unclassifiable, non-commercial music forms have always played"? In what way unclassifiable? The Canterbury Sound is generally considered a kind of progressive and psychedelic fusion, I think. No music is unclassifiable, thought very little of it fits into any neat hierarchy. Anyway, this paragraph seems out-of-place and overly long. Tuf-Kat 07:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Unclassifiable, non-commercial music forms have always played an important part in the evolution of rock music. An ever-expanding group of British musicians known collectively as the Canterbury Scene, largely because there is no other way to classify them, are an example of a relatively unknown, cultish trend in music that is very influential but flies below the cultural radar of all but the most adventurous music fans. A combination of jazz, psychedelia, Dada, John Cage, and other art and literary references, fused reluctantly into a 60s and 70s rock framework, is characterized by bands such as the early Soft Machine and Gong, who, in retrospect, can be said to have pioneered trends such as World Music and experimental music. Audiences for this type of cross-genre experimentation, both live and in recordings, are larger in Europe than the U.S., although in recent years, the popularization of Punk and Rap have opened traditionally mainstream minds to new forms of expression within the rock idiom.

I removed the social impact section
I didn't want to, but I removed the social impact section, placing it at social impact of rock and roll (there is, perhaps, a better title). One of the reasons is because the article showed no sign of getting smaller, and still dealt exclusively with American and British rock, barely mentioning any other country, including our likely audience, English-speaking areas like Australia. So, it's at 30k with no social impacts, and adding some info on non-US/UK rock may bring it back over the edge... Thus negating the value of the last few dozen edits.

I don't really have a point, just felt like I should leave a note on talk. Gonna go write a summary of Aussie rock and such now. Tuf-Kat 05:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * This seems fine, others had suggested it before as well. We should include a very prominent link to that article, perhaps right in the introductory section.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  05:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I put a link in the first para. The article is at 33k now. Tuf-Kat 07:32, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

i wonder if the introduction is entirely accurate; soul and hip hop are basically seperate genres of music that have ties to rock, but i think that heavy metal is pretty definitely a form of rock music.... any thoughts?

Disco Sucks Revolt
The article says this:


 * But by the end of the 1970s, new, hard-edged formats would begin to develop, forcing Disco on the back burner. One night in 1979, at Yankee Stadium, thousands of fans staged "Disco sucks" protests by crushing and burning their disco vinyl records.

Before I go and change the article, I wanted to get some feedback on the following facts...

The event in question is the culmination of the disco backlash, which happened at Comiskey Park in Chicago, not in New York. Furthermore, it didn't happen because hard-edged formats were beginning to develop. Disco was simply too popular for its own good. The event was the organized by Steve Dahl, then a DJ for WLUP. He staged Disco Demolition Night on July 12, 1979, to occur in the middle of a double header between the White Sox and the Detroit Tigers. Fans were supposed to bring disco records to be blown up. Instead a riot ensued, the ballpark was trashed, and White Sox were forced to forfeit the second game. Fans of rock were attacking what they thought was vapid, sugar coated, and commercial. Their critics argued that they were simply racists and homophobes. In any case, disco was never quite the same.

--Trweiss 05:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Glam rock
There is no mention of glam rock. There are also other names for it, but it is disputed if it is one and the same thing, like: Hairspray rock, Spandex rock, Glam (short for Glam rock). So what would be the difference between, for example, Hairspray rock and Spandex rock? Maby bands that put spray on their hair but not wear spandex are called Hairspray rock and those that wear spandex but no spray on their hair are Spandex rock? However, I doubt that such bands exist, since they all were wearing spandex and had sprayed hair. Can anyone suggest a "Hairspray rock only" or "Spandex rock only" band? Also, it is disputed if Glam rock and Hair metal are not one and the same things. Maby someone could clarify that once and for all. Few examples by how some bands sound and look: Poison (spandex + hairspray = glam rock ?, Motley Crue (spandex + hairspray + hair metal = glam rock or hair metal ?), Def Leppard (spandex + hairspray = glam rock ?, Europe (spandex + hairspray = glam rock ?) ..so bands that are "spandex only" or "hairspray only" are VERY rare or even don't exist. One + another can thus be called Glam rock or short just Glam. And those who have little stronger riffs but still wear spandex and have sprayed hairs are then called Hair metal. So basically, the rock ends where metal begins. The softest metal bands are also on the border with the hardest rock bands. It would be however interesting to discuss if there was a band that never sprayed their hairs but wore spandex and played metal. How would be they called then, Spandex metal :-) ?

Hair metal covers metal bands such as Pantera et al where as glam rock (IMHO) would be Gary Glitter and suchlike. Selphie 13:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) *talk*

uh...rock n' roll is cool.

Why "rock 'n' roll" instead of "rock'n'roll"? What about Salsa?
I have two questions: Comments on: de:Benutzer Diskussion:Thetawave
 * 1) Why is it "rock 'n' roll" and not "rock'n'roll"? Whenever apostrophes are involved, words are fused into one: "that's", "shouldn't", "isn't" and so on. Comparable items I found within the wikipedia are "jump'n'run", Wash'n'Roll and Bump 'n' Jump. Non-conform examples are Rock n' Roll Nights, Pac 'n Roll, Suburban Rock 'N' Roll - they seem to be misspelled.
 * 2) Is Salsa a kind of rock music? In Germany, we have found an article in the "Duden" - Germany's official orthographical dictionary - that claims salsa was "a kind of rock music". We doubt that. Can anyone comment on that?


 * That link appears to be to a talk for a de article that doesn't exist, so I'm responding here. Regarding the rock 'n' roll vs rock'n'roll question -- I'm not sure what you're asking.  Do you want to move this article?  I don't really care (rock and roll, rock 'n' roll and rock'n'roll are all fine by me).  Regarding salsa, it is most certainly not a kind of rock and roll by any reasonable definition.  However, many people use rock and roll with an unreasonable definition, basically meaning it as a synonym for Western popular music.  Rock had an influence on salsa, but it would be very misleading to call salsa a kind of rock. Tuf-Kat 21:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry I messed up that link. I have fixed it: de:Benutzer Diskussion:Thetawave. No, I don't want to move this article, "rock and roll" is fine. It seems somebody in Germany once chose "Rock 'n' Roll" was the real deal - a strange combination of apostrophes, spaces and capital letters that keeps on confusing even the officials such as the German r'n'r confederation http://www.drbv.de. Since even the world rock'n'roll confederation http://www.wrrc.org use "rock'n'roll" without spaces we started wondering how come someone added spaces at all.


 * Please Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 23:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-Org should be reversed
I don't have a lot of time to go into it, but I feel the radical re-org and breaking up of this article into hard-to-find sub-articles is a disaster. I know it was done with the best of intentions but it ended up as the worst of results... This groveling at the feet of the silly "40k limit" is becoming very destructive to Wikipedia and a counter-movement is very much needed. All other top-notch compendiums, from the Encyclopedia Brtiannica to the Talmud, understand that major topics need to be treated thoroughly in one place without sending the reader on endless trinket hunts to get a full discussion of the topic... I will be reversing the re-org in a few days barring compelling counter-reasons given here in that time. JDG 04:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about what you want to change, and why? Which articles would you merge here? Tuf-Kat 00:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

decline and rebirth of rock and roll
Concerning the "Decline and rebirth" of rock and roll: By the end of the 1950s, Elvis Presley was in the Army, Buddy Holly was dead, Chuck Berry was in jail, Alan Freed was a man broken by the payola scandal (he died soon after), and Dick Clark was exerting his "whitening" (or anti-Alan Freed, anyway)influence on the business through "American Bandstand". So, I think that these events need to be considered in any discussion of the decline of the first wave of rock music.

Concerning the origins of rock and roll, I'd like to point out that Lieber and Stoller were writing and producing rhythm and blues (race) music for black acts in the early 1950s in Los Angeles, and then in the mid-to-late 1950s were writing music for Elvis Presley. I point this out because I think that, because their song-writing style really did not change across this time span, they need to be seen as a link or conduit from rhythm and blues to rock and roll, and that rock and rock developed over time in a transitional manner, i.e., it did not just start on, say, June 30, 1955.


 * The aftermath of the decline may have begun with the late 60s tendency to talk about groups as "rock and roll bands". By the punk era there was a bit of a UK revival with Matchbox (named after Matchbox (song) having some success, and Shakin' Stevens following on. As for the early and prehistory, The Church of Rock and Roll A Brief History of Rock and Roll gives an alternative view which looks pretty credible to me, and doesn't look out of line with points in the article. ....dave souza 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Polka music fell away, too. Hillbilly music became practically nonexistent, falling from the most-favored common music in the United States. Hillbilly music had been on jukeboxes in public places everywhere.  Rock and roll music was not the only type of music to falter in the later 1950s.  As the entire nation changed, several popular genres fell into disuse.  Perhaps Motown music displaced them, I do not know for sure.  The peoples' taste in music changed as the mature people became old and those born at the fabulous baby boom replaced them.  The young people were not attracted to Rock and roll, Polka, and Hillbilly music.

Superslum 12:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

More major artists
Hey, I'm fairly new here, but learning... however, I am a large fan of rock, and though I don't mean to be a pain and sound like an affronted fan, I just think that Bruce Springsteen should absolutely not be left out. I was trying to find a place to add him to the article, but I realized that partly since he has been popular from the 1960s all the way through the 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, and partly because he doesn't fit into any of the titles or subtitles in the article, I can't find a place to put him. Perhaps we should add a new one, maybe "Artists who were consistently popular" or "Rock Gods" or something of the sort... After all, most rock aficianados will rank him one of their top five or so. This could turn into a fairly large addition, considering the fact that he is obviously not the only one in that category. Please help! Mike


 * I agree; certain bands (not just springsteen and the e street band) have been erroneously left out. However, it would be a good idea to get a list here of bands that are odd-man-out and don't fit into the current categories, so we can decide on a correct title or subtitle.  -Job, 2/21/06

rock'n'rRoll...
...and other mispellings such as rock n roll and rock n'roll :-)~ Nothing about Bobby Lee Trammell? (You mostest girl/Uh oh) FABOR FA 002, 1958 and many others... Stephan KŒNIG 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

rock is an abbreviation of rock and roll
i don't feel like going into some lengthy argument here, but it is unnacceptable to categorize "rock" and "rock and roll" as two different genres simply due to what it was called in it's day. the early beatles without a doubt recognized themselves as a rock and roll band, even though they are not included in this article. into the late seventies the term "rock and roll" was still in frequent use, and "rock" was simply an abbreviation. it's as if this was a musical genre that flourished for a few years but died in the sixties, to be replaced by "rock" music. if this were true, elvis and buddy holly would not have been venerated as demigods, but rather the leaders of a brief musical fad. i don't disagree with maybe (MAYBE) having an article contrasting the rock and roll of the 1950s' with later styles, but rock (and roll) was still too young to be divided into subgenres. ever heard of the phrase "sex drugs and rock and roll"? or did you all forget that the original "rockers" listened to what this article calls "rock and roll"? just imagine asking any rock star if he was in a rock and roll band, would he correct you to say "rock"? throughout the progression of popular music, the phrase "rock" did not replace "rock and roll" at the same time as jimi hendrix replaced elvis, the phrase emerged as an abbreviation, with nothing necessarily synchronous with the development of music, it is merely a coincidence (they even share the same infobox as "rock music"). for the love of god, could the split of this article be reconsidered? Joeyramoney 02:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, rock (and roll) was still too young to be divided into subgenres? Rockabilly, Doowop, Louisiana whatever you call Fats Domino? It was a label plastered over a lot of musical styles, and was devalued by '63. By early Beatles guess you mean the Hamburg days, but about then it was/became beat music. No-one here was calling surf or the twist rockn'roll, but they're equally ancestral to the rock group stuff that became rock. Ever heard of the phrase "sex drugs and rock and roll"- as in Iain Dury late '70s pubrock? By the end of the '60s we were nostalgic enough to ask "do you believe in rock n' roll?", and to admit it's only rock n' roll but I like it, but in '63 Elvis was a fat ballad singer (if wooden doll is rock n' roll, you can keep it), we were much more likely to venerate Gene Vincent, and Hendrix was about four years in the future. The label is best kept for the original, while acknowledging its later reincarnations....dave souza, talk 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the subject is still highly problematic, largely within the very conventions of wikipedia- "british rock and roll", i.e. the british invasion and so forth (which is a rather poor organization for an article itself, as it discusses many highly varied genres}redirects to "british rock", clouding the issue further. the article(s) make it seem as if rock and roll was some brief musical movement of relatively little importance, when those bands of the late fifties are today remembered not as the leaders of a brief fad, but the originators of a musical legacy. imagine you had never heard of rock (and roll) in your life, would it make more sense to start with elvis and chuck berry, or the beatles and the rolling stones? i'm not asking for an entire merge of the articles, but perhaps this could be called "The first Wave of Rock and Roll" and a general "Rock and Roll" page for "Rock", with a bit more emphasis on what is called here "rock and roll". not to mention how many bands (motorhead, the ramones etc) have explicitly identified themselves as 'rock and roll'. it just makes a lot more sense in a lot of ways. hopefully, we can all reach some kind of consensus and make these articles a bit more logical. Joeyramoney 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

once again,
i really want to hear some opinions on this. to me, this is a major error and makes absolutely no sense. this is not a different movement than rock music, heck, they're eveb lumped together in the infobox. it would make sense to acknowledge the first generation of rock and roll as a section on one page for both styles, but this is ridiculous. as per "It later evolved into the various sub-genres of what is now called simply 'rock'", there is not enough recognition to justify rock and roll as a specific genre. this seems to be merely a creation of wikipedia. Joeyramoney 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Yes, "rock" is synonymous with "rock n roll" I think the articles should be merged.Smiloid 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Rock and roll Protests
Dallas is leading the new Post-Bands or Global music that protests rock and says it has become all it started out opposing; plus the new music promotes numerous other changes: no 3 guitars and drums, no electrical instruments, back to basics style, lyrics and melody count, and more. I am a major part of this so have posted here and wait for others to see present relevance if any. Musea
 * that's called folk music. Joeyramoney 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Buttrock (and cock rock)
Hi. Patrolling recent changes, I came across Buttrock. As you can see on the Talk: Buttrock it seems be a reasonably common term, but I know too little about the various sub-genre relationships to know what should be kept, merged, etc. Could some folks with subject matter expertise take a look? Thanks, --William Pietri 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Authenticity Section
This entire section may need to be either deleted or completely re-written, primarily because it is difficult to follow the argument due to unclear phrasing, and poor punctuation, spelling & grammar. For example: "Over the years, Rock and Roll has evolved into subgenres with different characteristics. Many of these characteristics have affected the believe of the genre's authenticity depending on portions of Rock and roll's timeframe of existance."

This makes very little sense, as written. Is the author questioning the sub-genre's authenticity as a form of Rock and Roll, and if so, in what ways? Also, the use of the word "authenticity" itself is not clearly defined in relation to the connection between the sub-genre & Rock and Roll.

--Bomber55 23:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Bomber55

Excessive verbiage
The overuse of the words "black" and "white" is astonishing. This is an article that should be cleansed of those two words to make it factual. At this moment, the article conveys bullshit. Superslum 22:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I had accessed this page in hopes of seeing some notations of a particular song: "Dance with me Henry" which had been (perhaps) the single most popular song in the heyday of Rock and roll music. Instead of containing notations on music, the article discusses "blacks" and "whites" minutely.  Here are some parts from the wildly popular song which was recorded by Pat Boone and various other singers.  The song is of "Henry" and his dance partner.


 * (Henry) Hey, baby. What do I got to do?
 * To make sweet love to you.
 * (Her) You got to dance with me Henry.
 * (Him) Allright, baby.
 * (Her) Rock with me, Henry.
 * (Him) Don't mean maybe.
 * (Her) Roll with me Henry. Whew! Let's get it while the getting is good.
 * (Chorus) So good, so good, so good.

There were other lyrics as the song progressed, such as: (Her) "It's intermission in a minute so you better get with it" that was a lyric, too. The song made extensive use of the words "rock" and "roll" as it progressed, therefore, it should be included in every portrayal of Rock and roll music, including the portrayal in Wikipedia which, unsurprisingly for a Wikipedia article, discusses "blacks" and "whites" instead of the subject of the article. Superslum 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the Phrase
How did the phrase "Rock and Roll" come to be? Though I don't particularly know it, there should be an added section about how the phrase came about. It would be a good addition to the article. Smileman66 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More History
How come this article only covers Rock and Roll up to the 1960s? -mmace91

Because "Rock and Roll" (as distinguished from the more general "Rock") ended in the late 1950s with the combined effect of Elvis joining the army, Little Richard retiring to serve God, Chuck Berry getting arrested, Johnny Cashy turning total country, Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his child cousin, Carl Perkins/Bill Haley/Gene Vincent becoming angry bitter exiles, and THE BIG PLANE-CRASH. At the same time came the onset of the "teen-idol" craze, etc. Surf-Rock is it's own thing and whatever The Beatles resurrected (while certainly in the same vein) wasn't quite "rock'n'roll" by the old standard; so, we call it "Rock" and keep the original phrase for the originals.Atsab 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)]]
 * Good explanation. Unfortunately lots of folks still use "R&R" when WE KNOW they should be saying "Rock". I think the article goes into this issue a bit. Sfahey 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not have a brief description of the various forms it has taken since the end of the 60's. Have brief paragraphs on punk, metal, and alternative rock.Hoponpop69 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

why "African-American?" how about just "American"
Just as there is debate what the first rock'n'roll record is, there are A LOT of differing opinions on where "rock" originally came from - it's invention by black urban youth is NOT the only theory. For instance, Elvis' first recordings sound literally like nothing else, a NEW sound - is that new sound rock'n'roll? What about Bill Haley's early contributions, or the truly "rocking" sounds of Hank Williams' late-'40s recordings? The african-american "Jump" style (aka "R&B") that became rock was, even in the '50s, hardly different then low-level big-band from the '30s. Therefore, is Count Basie or Benny Goodman early examples of "rock and roll"? NO! I'm not saying that black people should get no credit, I'm just saying that the music form was also HEAVILY reliant on white country and folk music, so classifying it as a subgenre of Afrian-American music is erroneous. Even if you disagree with me, the fact that there's so much room for debate proves that a statement like that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It's not objective; you think black people started rock, I don't, so at best we can say "some people think" and "many scholars contend that" rather than stating subjective conjecture as fact. I made changes along these lines but within an hour someone changed it back exactly how it was before. This is the kind of absurdly racially-concious revisionism that creates the "US vs THEM" mentality that we are striving to move away from. Think about it: even BLUES isn't entirely a black thing - it's AMERICAN, that's what counts. For anyone who needs me to elaborate, blues came from (post-slavery) poor black Americans blending their muddled African heritage with traditional white instruments and dance steps, as well as European-American melodies and musical qualities. Therefore, BLUES comes from Black + White. JAZZ (old fashioned marching band music introduced by the French in the 19th century) comes from Black + White. And (it follows, like I said) ROCK comes from Black + White. It's obvious you can't put all the credit in one place, so spread it all over! Part of RnR's amazing cultural value is that it was never unique to one race or ANY single cultural group, but that ALL forms of popular music (country/doowop/folk/blues/jazz/pop) rapidly gravitated towards the same thing: ROCK&ROLL! African-American, European-American, it all happened at the same time and it's all the same thing! Atsab Atsab 09:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)]]


 * I'll agree with that 100%. That was what was so great about it.  Maybe you had to be there, but this was the first time that black and white music had mixed so that no one (Who was into the music) even noticed what colour the performer was.  I was only a kid, but I'd say the fact that I was into people like Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard simply because they both kicked s#!t out of the piano had a lot to do with the fact that when I finally came across racism years later it seemed completely idiotic to me. --Deke42 13:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to look at Big Mama Thorton's "Hound Dog". I'm sorry but a lot of the reason for the early white rock 'n' roller's success was the fact that they were more marketable than blacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.235.101 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Stone Issue
Jerry Lee Lewis was once the subject of an article In the Rolling Stone. It was in the 1970'S methinks. If anybody remembers the year and month of such an article please post it. Utah Smith 08:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image
Are we allowed to add a image to this just wondering.(Sparrowman980 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

British Rock n Roll section deleted
I deleted the British Rock n Roll section since there is no need for it, especially since there is a separate article in wiki under "British Rock n Roll". Wiki writers (who, apparently, are a large percentage British, based on the articles in wiki) are already giving Britain far too much credit for American innovations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidosdad (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Haley not Rockabilly
The extended discussion of "Rock around the Clock" shouldn't be in the rockabilly section. The Comets were not a rockabilly act, and that particular track was released as a "novelty foxtrot". 74.64.105.235 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again