Talk:Rock music/Archive 7

/* Social impact */
This section needs more information on Social Impact. When Rock music became popular, a lot of things happened!There were new rebels and it was an escape out of the uptight world for teens. The music usually appealed to teens since they were the ones who would buy the music and listen to it. Mostly adults and other singers of different styles didn't accept it because of its "fake" attitude and rock's message to the teens in their songs. Rock music DID influence styles, but that picture represents more of an 80's look. Teens wore whatever the song made them feel, whether it was a tricked out cool suit or a laid back sweatshirt/sweatpants. One example of people disliking the music is in an article published in the New York Times. The information about the singers saying its "Written for the part by cretinous goons." Some people did not like this music when it was still developing. All in all the teens liked it for the best chance to connect with the rockers and let them sing music that the audience can listen to, and let them live their life in the world of music, not politics. But overall pretty good information.


 * Probably the best place to start if you want to add sourced information is the Social effects of rock music article, of which this is largely a summary. Since this article is so long only a brief version can be provided here and a lot of what you seem to be pointing to looks like it is a bit too detailed to get into here. Ofcourse the usually guidelines on WP:RS and WP:OR apply there as they would here.-- SabreBD  (talk)  14:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks finally an article I can contribute to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmarce2973 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Rock & roll and rock music are not different genres
Why is this article treating rock music and rock and roll as if they are two different genres? The vast majority of music experts and recording artists I've seen often use the terms interchangeably, and the few that don't at most use rock & roll to refer to the early phase of rock music. On the other hand, this Wikipedia article is the only place I've seen that actually tries to classify them as two distinct genres, as if 50s rock & roll is only some kind of proto-rock and 60s rock is true rock. I haven't seen any adequate justification for this either, whether in the article or here in the talk page, since it clearly goes against the consensus of experts in the field (and there are countless reliable sources out there to prove it). Am I suggesting a complete re-write of the article? No, not at all, as most of the article is fine as it is, but the problem is how a very few places in the article are worded, like how the lead sentence completely bypasses the 50s but instead starts off by claiming rock music "developed during and after the 1960s", which is completely wrong, or with the headings below that refer to the 50s as merely a "Background" and the 60s as the true "Emergence", which is again completely wrong, but those headings should instead have been labelled with terms like "Origins" for the 50s and "Development" for the 60s (or similar terms). I know this issue has been discussed before, but the last time was some some 2-3 years ago, and I didn't see any adequate justification for it then either. I'm not suggesting a radical change to the article as what some previous editors may have suggested, but I think it's pretty important that this misconception that the article is promoting (whether intentional of not) is corrected and explained. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As previous discussions have shown, this is a complex issue, but I think that the current split resolves the difficulty in the least unsatisfactory manner. Most sources would identify, say, Bill Haley as "rock and roll", and, say, Pink Floyd as "rock".  A lot of "rock bands" describe what they do as "rock and roll", but a lot don't.  I don't agree that the articles describe "rock and roll" and "rock" as different genres, though they can each be described as genres.  There is no clear dividing point between one and the other - but that is a long way from saying that the articles should be merged.  The type of music played in the 1950s as "rock and roll" deserves its own article in the same way as "Dixieland" deserves its own article, separate from "jazz".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I have no issue with rock & roll having a separate article dealing with the 50s era, but the issue is that the way that the current article is written makes it look as if rock & roll (or rather, 50s rock & roll) is not actual rock music, but is merely a precursor to it like R&B is to rock & roll, which of course is not true at all. By claiming that rock music did not "emerge" or "develop" until the 1960s would be implying that 50s rock & roll musicians like Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bill Haley, etc. are not doing actual rock music, when in reality their work is just as much 'rock music' as 60s rock musicians likes The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Frank Zappa, etc. If the term 'rock & roll' is being used to refer to the 50s era (though most musicians simply use it as a synonym for rock music), then the article should make it clear that it's an early style of rock music, not just a mere precursor like it's currently suggesting, which is highly incorrect. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A fundamental point is that the term "rock music" was not used in the 1950s. "Rock and roll" existed then, and as the genre diversified in the 1960s the term "rock music" came into use.  So in one sense it is as untrue to state that there was "rock music" in the 1950s, as it is to state that there was "rock and roll" in the 1930s.  If you are proposing modest changes to wording, for clarification, I have no objection in principle.  But, we need to see what those changes are, and consider them carefully.  You could either suggest changes here, or be bold, make the changes, and see whether others revert or improve them.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the term "rock music" was used in the 1950s as a synonym for rock & roll. On Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar, there are plenty of sources from the 1950s that use the term "rock music". In addition, numerous 50s rock & roll songs (and movies) simply refer to the genre as "rock". The term "rock music" was not invented in the 60s, but only became more popular during that decade.


 * Anyway, my main concern is that the way the lead sentence is worded (that rock music "developed during and after the 1960s"), and the headings used for the first two sections ("Background (1950s–early 1960s)" and "Emergence (mid- to late 1960s)"), seem like original research and contradict what standard rock music history books say. For example, A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000 describes the early 20th century as the "Background" (not the 50s, like this article claims), then starts with 50s rock & roll as the beginning and proceeds through to the early British Invasion era up until the mid-60s along the same lines, all part of the "Beginnings" section, before proceeding to a "Golden Age" section for the late 60s. Another book, The Classic Rock and Roll Reader: Rock Music from Its Beginnings to the Mid-1970s, begins with the 50s as the "Emergence of Rock Music" (not the 60s, like this article claims) and the 60s as "Classic Rock". Likewise, Allmusic also treats pop/rock and rock & roll as more or less the same thing, though occasionally using the latter term to refer to early rock music of the 50s and 60s.


 * With these sources in mind, my proposal would be to rename the "Background (1950s–early 1960s)" section to "Emergence (1950s–early 1960s)" and the "Emergence (mid- to late 1960s)" section to "Classic era (mid- to late 1960s)", which would far more accurately reflect what standard rock music history books say. The other issue, of course, is the lead sentence, which claims that rock music "developed during and after the 1960s", which, like I said is original research and contradicts standard history books on the topic. The way I worded it before it was reverted is "Rock music, also known as rock & roll, is a genre of popular music that originated in 1950s America and then developed into a range of different styles during and after the 1960s, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States." You can feel free to make any alternative suggestions though. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is that, though some sources claim that "rock music" and "rock and roll" are synonymous, others differentiate between them (while fully recognising that one is a development of the other). How about: "Rock music is a genre of popular music that originated, as "rock and roll", in 1950s America, and developed into a range of different styles in the 1960s and later, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good enough to me. I'll go ahead and re-word the lead as you've written it. As for the headings below, I think it might be best to rename them to "Origins (1950s–early 1960s)" and "Golden Age (mid- to late 1960s)", if that's fine with you. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not too sure whether to go with "Golden age" (used in A History of Rock Music) or "Classic rock" (used in The Classic Rock and Roll Reader) for the "(mid- to late 1960s)" heading. For now, I've gone with "Classic rock" (feels more descriptive), though you can feel free to disagree. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I much prefer "golden age" to "classic rock", mainly as it saves any confusion with the radio format.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. "Classic rock" could be confused for 70s-80s rock as well, so I'll probably go with "golden age" instead. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my personal view is that we should avoid editorialising in sub-headings and simply use the encompassing dates. What is one person's (and for that matter one "reliable source"'s) "golden age" is another person's irrelevant prehistory!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalizing the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the project. Mlpearc Phone ( Powwow ) 14:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully others will agree with me that the current community consensus is: WE.  DON'T.  CARE.  Life.  Get a. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please try and WP:AGF and WP:BITEY, you're not personally being asked to comment or get involved. Cheers  Mlpearc Phone  ( Powwow ) 14:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The interminable and trivial nature of this "dispute" makes WP a laughing stock. Look at the bigger picture, and improve articles rather than wasting everyone's time, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't have time. Cheers ( off to ACC  )   Mlpearc Phone  ( Powwow ) 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See you there then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The more !votes, the more clear and lasting the eventual result. Therefore, not !voting does not contribute to the consensus building or the solution, whereas !voting helps Wikipedia and its editors put this embarrasing episode behind us once and for all. ~ GabeMc  (talk 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)