Talk:Rock music/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

It's time to improve this page

I feel the articles Rock Music and Rock and Roll should be merged. They are the same thing. Any music scholar or historian would agree with this.

The article has shamelessly left out the contributions of black artists from James Brown to Otis Redding to Prince to Run DMC. All four of these artists are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why are they recognized as rock artists by the Hall of Fame, music scholars, and university professors and not by this article. Why is any mention of soul, hip hop, or disco erased. Any good book on rock and roll includes these genres.

I think a bunch of metal heads and reactionary classic rock fans have shaped this page unfortunately. The article does not reflect a scholarly look at the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Prince definately yes, Otis Redding, perhaps, James Brown, maybe, Run DMC, absolutely not. Prince is a genre-bender, and quite often was in the realm of Rock during the '80s. Soul is sort of a grey area. Hip Hop does not resemble rock, and funk is a similar, but different genre. I'm not saying they are good or bad, soul, hip hop, funk and disco are freaking awesome, but they are stylistically different genres. Well, disco might qualify as pop rock. The Rock and Roll hall of fame is heavily critizised from all around for many, many reasons. I don't think Run DMC would consider themselves rock and roll. Zazaban (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard their early guitar heavy work like King of Rock? They are defenitely rock and roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a rock band, their influence is minor to nil. Definatley not enough to warrent a mention here. Zazaban (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask the Beastie Boys, Rage Against the Machine, or Faith No More if there influence is minor to nil. Rap has had a huge impact on rock and rates a mention. Many rock bands have praised their music.

If we start including things like reggae as 'rock', there is a danger of having every form of popular music in the last fifty years qualifying as 'rock'. Zazaban (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marley is a rock artist and is in any rock history book (and I have many).

African Americans invented this music and yet they barely rate a mention--we'd all be listening to Stephen Foster without their work.

If you are proposing adding sections on hip hop, soul, funk, disco, reggae, and I suppose electronica and contemporary R&B, since those would qualify too, I suggest copying from their articles and not adding unsourced OR. Zazaban (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The reggae sections origin is from the Wikipedia article---and I do think soul hip hop etc etc are forms of rock and roll and should be included as it is in every text book about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you essentially believe that every form of popular music from the last fifty or sixty years is rock and roll? Zazaban (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be exactly how the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame views it. I've always looked at radio broadcasting as the rule. Rock stations don't play rap music, soul music, country music, jazz, etc. Rock does not comprise every genre of music, but is its own distinct genre, with several sub-genres. To say Britney Spears, Madonna, or Lady Gaga are rock artists is just plain wrong. Unless one is listening to Jack radio, you will never hear those artists on a ROCK station. If the The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is adamant about having artists like Madonna, then they should change their name to the Music Hall of Fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.238.246 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No---- but many of these forms shaped and influenced rock--think about Rage Against the Machine---great rock band---wouldn't exist without rap. I don't feel soul, rap etc. should be the focus but they rate a mention---rock in its present form wouldn't exist without them. African Americans invented rock music and they kept influencing it and it should be recognized. Just my opinion.

Wow---now I feel bad for being pushy---thank you --I appreciate it although I doubt it'll last long---thanks

Now that I think about it, it is impossible to include subjects as diverse as Doo-wop, Heavy metal music and Punk rock under the same label without including almost all of the music of the last sisty years. It's liberating actually, like a kind of unifying music for the world. Zazaban (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at it and I can't believe you did such a great job in that short time---it would have taken me days to do that! Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The sections on the 80s to present are looking very thin now, can you think of anything we could add there? I know Contemporary R&B and Electronica could fit under the 2000s, and electropop could get sections in the 80s and the 2000s, perhaps gangsta rap in the 90s. But they still will all be smaller than some of the eariler ones. Perhaps Hip Hop should be moved to the 80s? I'm not sure salsa belongs. Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's about all I can do for today. Zazaban (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Crunk/snap perhaps should have a section under 2000s, which should be split into early-mid and mid-late. Zazaban (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody think of anything more than could use a section? Zazaban (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is by no means the consensus on this article that these forms of music you are adding are rock music. The music clearly has a specific meaning used here which is outlined at the beginning of the lead. What you are doing is a very major change to the scope and direction of the article and needs to gain a consensus on this page before proceeding. Please allow some time for discussion before proceeding with such a major change.--Sabrebd (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources shall be found. I believe Fdog9 has quite a few. Zazaban (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not raise the issue of sources, but since you do, adding a lot of unsourced material to this article is the last thing it needs. However, the issue here is the inclusion of all these forms of music in an article about rock music. I think we should establish whether editors feel long sections on these belong in the article. ie., doo wop, funk, reggae, hip hop and disco. They are certainly all influences, but I think many readers will be puzzled to find sub-sections on them, in the way they might look for Progressive rock or Britpop. Lets give editors an opportunity to comments before radically adjusting the article and then we can aim for some kind of consensus.--Sabrebd (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue at the very very least, if nothing else is kept, there should be something on doo-wop, as the term 'rock and roll' was originally used to refer to it. Zazaban (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of it needs to be retained--if not in its own subsection--at least merged into other sections. African American contributions to rock should not be ignored. Fdog9 (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reading up on doo-wop as definitions, and its relationships to other forms of music, are complex. Some authorities suggest it was a 1960s phenomenon and others that it was part of rock and roll.--Sabrebd (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On this point, "doo-wop" was a term which was first used in the 1960s, as a convenient way to describe the predominantly black R&B group harmony vocal style of the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s - the music was clearly both a forerunner and a part of 1950s "rock and roll". There are multiple verifiable refs for that sort of definition. It should be mentioned here in that context, but more thoroughly, in my view, in the Rock and roll article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here, mirroring previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of rock music, and I'm sure elsewhere. There is one school of thought which argues that "rock and roll" and "rock" cover the same ground, and another that "rock" is a specific (but widespread) post-1960s ("noisy white men with guitars") development from the 1950s style. There is also a separate but related argument that the term "rock" is limited to that particular genre ("noisy white men with guitars"), and another school of thought which treats most modern rhythm-based popular music - including soul, funk, reggae, hip hop, disco, etc. etc. - as part of the overarching umbrella term "rock music". I'm sure that reliable refs can be found on either side. (There is an important side argument, which is that it is racist to exclude most black artists from "rock music".) What is important here is that the variations of definition are mentioned, and that articles are written which cover all the ground, with good solid links between articles and not too much overlap. In order to do that, some form of consensus needs to be reached. Is the best place for that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, rather than here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the school of thought that it is an umbrella term. But I can live with the over all theme of "noisy white men with guitars" if a bone is tossed to some African American acts here......please does anyone with ears really thinks Paul Simon (not erased) rocks harder than Prince (always erased)? Isn't Little Red Corvette a rock song? It does boil down to racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.179.2 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Prince should be included. But are we now going to list all rock bands? And the racism comment works both ways. Why won't black radio play rock music? Why is it that in most black neighborhoods, you can hear loud bass coming from cars, but not wailing guitars? Even the band Mothers Finest admitted this with their aptly titled album Black Radio Won't Play This Record. It is quite ironic that black radio won't play rock music considering not only the origins of rock music, but who was the first rock guitar wizard (Jimi Hendrix). With that said, most of what is considered rock music is comprised of white artists. Just because soul, funk, reggae, hip hop, anddisco have influenced rock music at times, this does not mean those genres ARE rock music. Electric guitar, bass guitar, and drums do not necessarily comprise what is a rock band, for those instruments can just as easily be found in a country music band. Yet with country music, there doesn't seem to be any argument as to whether country is a part of rock or not. And why aren't broadcast stations or record stores used as the standard for the definition? An album oriented rock station plays rock artists. A rap station does not. In a record store, certain artists are listed under "Rock." Those not in the rock category then would then NOT be rock. It really is that simple. These two industries have been categorizing music for decades. Why are so many here now insistent on changing the definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.238.246 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with the serious definitional issue that Ghmyrtle raises, I think it is a fair point that the article must deal with both definitions, if we can dig out appropriate sources - this would seem to imply we need a definitional section (at the beginning) and that it should be mentioned in the lead. There is a issue, increasingly reflected in modern musicology, that rock and roll itself can be seen as the marketing of a form of black music (rhythm and blues) for a white audience. Rock, as a genre that emerged in the mid 1960s (the sense taken in this article), was music largely performed by and for white males, with some very notable exceptions (both in race and gender). The problem is that rock is often defined in opposition to other forms of music (e.g. it is not pop, not classical, and for many it is not disco, soul, funk or hip hop - although only a very ignorant person could claim it was not influenced by all of those genres). These definitions were based on a social bias, among performers, fans and critics, but nevertheless, this distinction has dominated the genre, which had a clear sense that it had a separate history and identity. The distinction may be a false one (because objectively the "authenticity" of rock music is illusory), but it is one that has existed. I am not sure how we square that circle. Ghmyrtle may be right that the place for that discussion may be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, and given the ramifications for so many articles, I think it best to take the debate to there.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well put, Sabrebd - I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course rock is an umbrella term: show me a musical style definition that would include both The Who, Tom Waits, Bob Marley, Venom, The Pretenders, Yes and Styx, plus Music From Big Pink,Graceland and Tangerine Dream's Ricochet - all three of those are rock albums IMO. The only style/aesthetic unity that could be formulated would be at a given point in time and by reasoning around contrasts to what was not considered rock music at that time. Sounds like a good idea to say that rock music took shape and developed within several defining traits, so you get a number of "key characteristics"). In the early days it was supposed to be dangerous, punchy, with a powerful beat, harmonically blues/rock'n'roll-based, hot but not completely outspoken and graphic - but it didn't have to fit all those terms in every song.

It's probably a good idea to keep apart any definitions of the concept (as an art form) and the style of rock music, too. Hard rock and punk fans, expecially, like to think that it's the same, that the spirit of rock just gushes out into the music, but the idea of what one is doing to make it become rock - not amplified folk blues or shapeless musical therapy - and any style ideas are rather different things. /Strausszek (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Doo-wop

(Separated into new sub-heading for clarity)

On the more specific point of doo wop, I have had the chance to do a little more reading on this. Although there is some disagreement over what exactly it is, there is general agreement that it is not the origin of rock and roll (I think perhaps R&B was meant here), but a sub-form of rock and roll. There is a strong sense in recent writing that it has been unjustly neglected, but I think that the place it particularly needs a higher profile is in the rock and roll article and then here as part of the summary (in case anyone is puzzled, there is a link to later "rock" music as bands like the Beatles arguably took their harmonies from doo wop). I will do that if no-one else wants the job when I have the time.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree precisely with the argument that "it is not the origin of rock and roll...but a sub-form of rock and roll." As the doo wop article makes clear, the style has its roots in harmony vocal styles of the 1930s/40s (and earlier) but came to wider prominence in the 1950s - "In 1954, doo-wop groups played a significant role in ushering in the rock and roll era, when two big rhythm and blues hits by vocal harmony groups, "Gee" by The Crows and "Sh-Boom" by the The Chords crossed over onto the pop music charts. The success of these records was significant, and quickly other R&B vocal groups began entering the pop charts, particularly in 1955, the breakthrough year in the introduction of rock and roll." Although the ballad style of some doo-wop recordings was very different to the more upbeat aspects of r&r, the harmonies were a direct influence on groups who are generally regarded (I think!) as r&r such as the Coasters, Drifters, Danny & the Juniors, Dion & the Belmonts, etc. etc., and indeed later on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-free music files

Free files do, or could reasonably, exist which illustrate all of these subgenres, and so they should be used in favour of the non-free files. If we do not yet have a free example, then an effort should be made to find one, but, in the mean time, none should be used. Please see non-free content criterion 1. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A few possible replacements- File:Balkandji - Diavolska shterka.ogg (folk metal) and Pulse of the Earth (indie/trip hop) are featured sounds here. A quick look through Commons (not confirmed the copyright status on any of these, but it's a good place to start) File:08-rock-n-roll.ogg (rock and roll) File:01 Il lungo addio - Non sarà.ogg (punk), File:DetroitBlues.ogg (blues), File:Dr House.ogg, File:Stone Salad.ogg, File:Малыш.ogg and File:Тишина.ogg (subgenre not specified). It'd be great if we could get this article fully illustrated with free content. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting assumption that the files were there to represent a series of genres, I think they are really there to represent the history of rock music and I would argue that the free material simply does not to that. You may not believe this but I really am cautiously restricting what I say when I suggest that the possible replacements are actually quite hilarious. One sounds like it was played on a child's keyboard. Others do not seem to sound anything like the sub-genres in their descriptions. You cannot hope to replace classic material fundamental to the development of rock music with something that was recorded in the 21st century by second rate musicians. In one of the less obvious examples, an indie rock band from the year 2010 simply will not sound like an indie rock band from say 1980s when the genre developed. Even if they tried they could not do this. I have not reverted this, but if these bands are not significant enough to appear in the text why would we think them worthy of a free advert in the article? If we cannot have significant examples, I think it would be best to have none at all. Would we consider it appropriate to replace the images with some free ones of 60s and 70s tribute bands from the present day if the they were non free?--SabreBD (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally I have just noticed you have recordings from Pulse of the Earth on your user page. Can you please assure us that there is no WP:COI here?

I'm nothing to do with the band; I was merely in contact with them to help to secure the free release of the files. The question of whether these files are "good enough" is not really important; there really is no trade off. We do not use non-free content in favour of free content, no matter how much "better" the non-free content is. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is that is it not an alternative because it is not illustrative of the article. I think it is reasonable to give you, and anyone else who can help, a little time to find material that is illustrative of the article, but this simply will not do the job.--SabreBD (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the files I gave (which were just off-the-cuff examples) are not illustrative of the genres, that's fine, I'll leave that up to you to judge. However, I'm sure we can both agree that free samples could reasonably be found which would serve to illustrate the various genres, and so non-free samples should not be used. It's just a question of finding them, requesting them, producing them or, if worst comes to the worst, waiting for them. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that I can agree that free examples can be found that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, as I have not seen any yet. If you can produce some free samples that can do that, then that would be fine by me. I am not very familiar with searching for such files so I am sure you can do this much more easily than me.--SabreBD (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What is needed are examples of music from the specific genres. I admit that this is something which Wikipedia does not, as a whole, do well on; while we're starting to better than we did in terms of illustrating articles with free images, free sound files are still rather hard to come by. Some more quick searching has thrown up this page, which has a large number of songs released under various Creative Commons licenses, some of which may be excellent examples. It's funny I've only just come across this- there's a lot of potential for Wikipedia articles there. J Milburn (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In what sense would adding all these non-notable acts to Wikipedia articles enhance the project? It is possible to sign up as an artist on this site and in a few minutes, upload material and create an "album", chosing whatever tags the member decides. I know this as I have just tested it. We have no idea if these tags are correct, if the music copyright is owned by the uploader and this is certainly not evidence of notability by an act. We do not accept non-notable bands for articles, why would we accept music from these acts? I could easily do this with my own music, claim that it is of a certain genre and then edit it into the rock music article - the free publicity of a heavy use article like this would be great for my sales. This is no different to taking random tracks from myspace and we do not accept that as a reliable source. Seriously, you need to consider what you are proposing here very carefully and come up with some considered solutions that actually provide realistic alternatives to what was in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything I'm throwing out here is a suggestion. Sure, a lot of the acts on there will be non-notable, and maybe some of them misattribute their genres or even upload music that doesn't belong to them. This isn't the case with all of them; for instance, I just uploaded the tracks from Ashes (Josh Woodward album)- we already had articles on the guy and his albums. His official website confirms the free licensing. I understand your concerns about advertising, but, to repeat, we cannot use non-free content when free content is available or could be created. The point is that free music does exist, and, with a bit of searching, effort, luck and patience, it will come our way. You could use the same argument about advertising with photos- "why do these non-notable photographers get precedence over professionals?" Because the material is free. At the end of the day, that's our goal- a free encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The parallel with photographs does not really hold water, the photographers are not the subject, most are anonymous and even if they are not their names are not normally seen on the page. It is possible that we might be able find members of recent genres with free material on a site like the one you suggest, and if reliable sources can be found to back them up then there is a case for including them, but it will not be possible to find this for what are largely historic genres. You are mistaken on the primary aim here, it is not to produce a "free" encyclopedia, but to produce a high quality encyclopedia, preferably with as little non-free content as possible. The policy states that one of its aims is: "to facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." I am not suggesting anything else. You keep asserting that there is are free alternatives for this article, but so far you have not demonstrated that this is the case. I cannot see how you could produce, for example, samples of 60s surf rock or of music from the British Invasion. Contemporary music in the same style would not fulfil the same role of demonstrating the nature and context of musical development. If we can find such samples then well and good, but until that has been demonstrated I believe the existing samples should be restored. I suggest come back with examples on a case by case basis if you can find them so that they can be considered by editors here. The examples used in this article seem pretty clearly to fit within the criteria at WP:NFCC and WP:SAMPLE. If a consensus develops here that it is not the case then, as always, I will bow to that change.--SabreBD (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting discussion, and so far I endorse and support everything that Sabrebd has said. We surely do not want to create an encyclopedia which contains non-notable, non-illustrative, examples simply because someone offers them on a "free" basis. At some point, it seems to me that this debate needs to be broadened out in a wider forum, beyond this talk page - I'm not sure when that will become necessary, or where is the appropriate forum for discussion. Specifically, it's also relevant that "rock music" is not an abstract musical genre - it has also developed (maybe not currently, but over the decades) as a massive commercial industry, and the use of illustrations needs to reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you keep saying "when these free examples are found, we can stop using the non-free files"- that's not how it works. The NFCC do not allow non-free content to be used when they are replaceable, not when they are replaced, with free content. The photograph analogy does work; we are looking to illustrate this article with examples. If free examples are not available from the most obvious options, we must look to other options. This is just the same as, say, if we had no free picture of the pioneer of a subgenre, we would instead use a free picture of a band or musician who followed in their wake. If you don't want to name the band on this article, don't; the licenses are fulfilled by the file page. You could merely say "an example of [genre] music from [year]. Note the [style] that can be heard through the use of [instrument]" or something. In the same way, we will lead strong articles on instruments with files of them being played- often, no doubt, they will be being played by non-notable people. We have to be willing to make sacrifices in the name of free content, we have to "make do" with the free content we have. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC says: "As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion." The answer, in the case of this article, seems to me to be no in both cases. The existing samples are not simply "notable" - they illustrate the development of "rock music" in ways which neither text nor examples of supposedly "similar" music which is not, and never has been, significant in the development of the music can do. Where is the relevant definition of "replaceable"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

J Milburn, perhaps it would help if you could specify how this article (before your reversions) contravened the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not challenging it on MoS grounds, I'm challenging it on NFC grounds. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You might need to elaborate that a little for us "newbies" (only 28K edits, but hey...). To repeat, where is the relevant definition of "replaceable"? Forgive me, but what you seem to be suggesting is analogous to suggesting that a photo of a Picasso painting in, say, an article on Modern art, is "replaceable" by a picture by some kid in Nowheresville simply because it uses paint, canvas, straight lines, and "looks similar". Incidentally, it seems to me the only thing remotely "notable" about Josh Woodward seems to be that "He was an early pioneer of Creative Commons-licensed music." That's not a reason to make use of that music - it's a way he's thought up to publicise it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is somewhat analogous, yes. Basically, if we want examples of the style, we should be using free content, not non-free content. If, by comparison, we are wanting to specifically show Slayer's "Angel of Death" (and we have perfectly good NFCC#8 grounds for doing so, not just "oh, well, it's there to show itself, not as an example of the style") then, obviously, no free version of "Angel of Death" does, or reasonably could, exist. We're not here to argue about the notability of any of the artists who have released content under a free license- they may be notable, they may not be, it's not important. However, your claim that just because music is free is not an argument to use it is completely wrong. We should always prefer free content to non-free content; if the free content is not good enough, then we should use nothing. That would obviously be true in the case of non-free images, and it is no less true in the case of non-free sound files. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the argument here. If we want to show "examples of the style" (and I don't know if we do), we must use free content, yes? But, if we think it is necessary to use a particular sample of music as, in itself, a significant illustration of the history of the subject of the article (and I don't know if we do), it may be possible to use non-free content if the necessary justification is provided. Is that the gist of it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, very much so. If a piece is genuinely being used specifically to show that piece, then it would possibly be legitimate to use a sample of that piece, if we're certain that the article would be seriously lacking without it. Our question should always be "how little non-free content can we get away with?", not "how much can we get away with?". However, at the very least, to justify the use of specific songs, the song itself would have to be discussed at length in the article, not merely the style. It seemed fairly clear to me that the use of the NFC was, at the time of removal, to demonstrate the specific styles. However, for such a massively broad topic as "rock music", it's perhaps questionable how a single song could be important enough to the understanding of the article to justify its use under the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but reading the NFCC guidelines I cannot find anything about how "the song itself would have to be discussed at length". Is this perhaps somewhere else connected to the project or in other guidelines?--SabreBD (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're using the file to illustrate the song, as opposed to the style, you need to be able to demonstrate how illustration of that song meets NFCC#8. Without discussion of the song, it's pretty hard to see how it could. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I am at a loss to understand how you get from #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" to the concept that this only applies to a song. Is it because you feel the song is the topic? I do not see why this cannot apply to the topic of the article - that would seem a more logical interpretation to me. There is a still a debate to be had there, but this does not seem to suggest to me that the topic is the song of which the audio file is part.--SabreBD (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is "rock music". The question is "is it absolutely essential to reader understanding of rock music that they hear a sample of [song]?" The point I'm making is that it is hard to see how it could be; rock music is such a massively broad subject, it's hard to see how it could be essential that a specific song is heard. Following? I'm sorry, I'm clearly not being as clear as I think. J Milburn (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So, would you agree that the more specific the article, the more likely it is that a non-free use can be justified? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To a certain extent, yeah. A well-developed article on a single song, album or band could well justify non-free content, an article on a whole genre is less likely to do so. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I see a little better where you are coming from, but there still seems a big leap from #8 to the position you have adopted on use of audio outside of single song articles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) actually gets you closer to this, particularly the clause that states that samples should be near to paragraphs mentioning them. This could be taken to suggest that (free and non-free) samples should be mentioned in the text and I for one would be willing to accept that as a premise, I think it makes for a much better article and if they are non-free it might help justify use (although note below the album problem for rock). This article mentions several recordings, so they would be candidates for inclusion under this view (without prejudging the issue of whether there need to be samples at all - which we can - and should - come back to). This also implies that several samples can be used and this suggests that use of audio in general can illustrate different aspects of a topic. The next clause specifically states that there is no limit to the number of samples and then directs us back to the issue of minimal use for non-free samples.

So to summarise: it is legitimate to have several samples, those samples should probably be mentioned in the text, if they are non-free there should be minimum use - i.e. only used if there is no alternative (#1) and if they significantly enhance understanding and not having them would be "would be detrimental to that understanding" (#8). If we accept the concept that samples should be mentioned, then the issue of free alternatives is irrelevant in this case, as a free file will be of a different version and so cannot replace a non-free one. The two issues remain, does this article need audio at all and, if so, we should looking at each named song and consider whether it would enhance understanding to have it/be detrimental not to have it? I have point out that because of the nature of rock, for a lot of its history an album based genre, I would argue that what needs to be mentioned in the text could be a specific album from which a track could then be given in a sample, but that its relationship would need to be clearly stated (perhaps on the link to the sample).

I might add that this is not to simply justify the inclusion of large number of non-free samples, as I am not entirely convinced that the article needs samples at all. If that is settled in the positive I see absolutely no practicable way of deciding if not having a non-free sample would be detrimental. In one sense all samples are additional enhancements, but then if we take that view then we have to delete them from all articles, even song articles and if that were the case there would be no policy on non-free use. All I can suggest is that in that sort of case we would have to argue out some reasonable criteria that fit minimum use.

So if editors follow all that there are two issues I would request editors to comment on:

Does the article need samples?
What criteria do we use to decide minimum use in this context?--SabreBD (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, there are a few points you raise here. First of all, there is the question of what "mentioned in the text" means. A sample could probably be considered "mentioned in the text" if the genre it belongs to is discussed; however, if that were the case, a non-free sample would almost certainly fail NFCC#1, as it would be replaceable with a free sample (be it from one of the few notable bands who has released content under free licenses right down to a piece deliberately created to illustrate this article by editors). Further, though you are right to point out the question of samples being "mentioned" as is discussed in the MoS, the fact that a song is mentioned does not suddenly justify the use of a sample under the NFCC. The MoS is, obviously, a lot less strict on content than the NFCC, as it was written (firstly) to refer to both free and non-free media and (secondly) was written knowing that the NFCC also existed, and had precedence with regard to judging whether NFC could be used. Moving on, in answer to your first question, I would argue that yes, ideally, this article would have samples to illustrate the various subgenres. However, there is no reason that free samples of the respective genres do not or could not exist, meaning that any use of non-free content in that role would fail NFCC#1. J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have made that jump again that I cannot follow. When I say a song is mentioned in the text I mean that the actual song is mentioned (and its significance is indicated with sources), not that its genre is mentioned. Lets take "Mr. Tambourine Man" from the folk rock section as an example: it is mentioned in the text specifically as a key recording in the development of folk rock. If we were giving more information with the link to the sample we might note that it is as a result a key recording in the history of subsequent rock in general. I am not claiming at all that this means that we are therefore obliged or entitled to include a sample of this, but clearly free content cannot replace it. If you feel it is valid to have illustrative samples, and if this were an important and contextualised sample I cannot see anything in the guidelines that precludes its inclusion.

On a side note, if we get as far as agreeing to include samples, free or unfree, this has at least clarified for me that these need to be in the text and that as well as a NF rationale, there needs to be some context in the description of the sample. I think this is clearly the implication of the MOS guidelines. This is done much better than we were doing it here at, for example, Heavy metal music and perhaps we should look to this for best practice.--SabreBD (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're focussing rather a lot on the manual of style; I'm not really fussed about the MoS, as it cannot override the NFCC. Our concern has to be whether the use of various files meets the NFCC, not whether it meets the MoS. If it does meet the NFCC, then we can argue about the MoS. My "discussed in the text" point regarding genre was that a song need not be in the article to illustrate that song (if the MoS says it must be, then, sorry, it's wrong). Think about it; it's perfectly conceivable that a song be used, not as a "here is song x", but as a "here is an example of genre y", which is what the non-free files in this article previously appeared to be. What the song is or who it is by is, in that case, irrelevant, providing it is of that genre. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "if the MoS says it must be, then, sorry, it's wrong". Well then I suggest you attempt to go get the MOS changed, because if we feel we can just ignore that when it doesn't suit us then we really are in difficult waters. Again, this article is largely developmental and historical and not simple a list of genres. I am fine with both NFCC and the MOS: you might see a contradiction, but I do not. It seems clear to me that we should go to the manual of style on samples in general and after that the NFCC policy, which obviously, is concerned with non-free material. Exactly how would a policy on non-free material affect the general guidlines on all material? That would be a very odd way of constructing policy.--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So you disagree with me that a music file could be used to illustrate a genre, rather than a specific song? You seemed to be implying that this was not possible- a music file could only be used to illustrate the song itself. And the NFCC do not influence the general media policies as such, but they do apply to all non-free content over and above the general media policies. I don't really see how any of what I am saying is controversial. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not implying that at all, I am stating that this is not the job that is appropriate to samples on this article. I am arguing that if samples are to be used they need to be appropriate to the article and its content, if the article (or section) is historical and developmental these need to be suited to that context. We have moved away from this point, but there are also key policies that are pertinent to this debate, particularly WP:notability and WP:verifiability. I feel you have been interpeting one policy as over-riding others, but these things have to be used in balance. The policy on NFCC certainly governs whether we can use non-free material. It certainly does not mean we can disregard other policies in regard to content. This has turned into a very long debate, and I am grateful that it has made me a lot clearer about how we use samples, but I think the general points need, as Ghmyrtle suggested early on, to be discussed on some wider forum. Perhaps we can draw a line under this one and turn back to the business of improving the article, considering the use of appropriate samples on a case by case basis (if the point on their existence has consensus), whether free or non-free and certainly bearing in mind the MOS and NFCC guidelines as well as the other key policies. I suggest we do this in a new section and with your experise you should certainly contribute to that discusion and the finding of appropriate material if you feel you can.--SabreBD (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You make an interesting point about verifiability, but (and I think you appreciate this, but it's worth saying anyway) I will make the point that just because none of the free files we have at the moment are suitable (if they are not) does not mean that non-free content would suddenly become usable again. I think reviewing this case by case is a good idea- essentially, we need to look to anywhere that needs a sample, and consider what that sample needs to be. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with any of that. We can start reviewing what is necessary now, but the policy means that we will need to keep this under review. If appropriate content becomes available it would potentially replace existing any non-free content. I appreciate you taking the points here onboard and think we have managed to come to a consensus on a way forward. Others may wish to comment on the suggestion, but I would like to basically close this part of the debate and move on to the next stage.--SabreBD (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections from me. I think it would be best that we err on the side of caution and leave the non-free content out of the article until we are certain exactly what can be included. It's better to have too little non-free content than too much. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Samples: case by case

Given that there were long-standing samples on this article and that the editor that removed the non-free ones did so over a copyright issue, not a principle that there should be no samples, I am going to take it that there is a consensus for including samples as illustrations of the development of the genre. If there are objections in general to samples or this way of discussion them now is a really good time to state them. For those that have not read the sub-section above, the relevant policies are WP:SAMPLE and WP:NFCC, which outline the nature of the files and also issues about use, particularly minimum use of non-free material. The intention of this section is to suggest sections for which samples would enhance understanding of the article and to try to come to a consensus on what should be included. As a note, there is clearly no reason to give every section a sample. I am not trying to impose anything here. Anyone can suggest or comment, or indeed comment on this process. To get the ball going I suggest looking at what, I hope, are the least controversial subjections:--SabreBD (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rock and Roll<Br.> This is the only section that currently has a copyright free sample: "Jesus Walked That Lonesome Valley" by the Million Dollar Quartet (actually Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis and Johnny Cash). There is no copyright because the recording is over 50 years old and the tune is traditional. It seems to me that if any section needs a sample this is one of them. On the plus side these are four major artists in the genre (Cash is a bit more marginal and not in the article) and the song is historical contextual and in a rock 'n' roll style. On the downside it is not one of the major tracks of the era and those mentioned in this section as significant ("Rocket 88" "Rock Around the Clock", "That's All Right (Mama)" and "Shake, Rattle & Roll") are all in their ways much greater influences and typical in sound. On balance, I would suggest this is one where we can accept that there is a free alternative. Its not perfect, but it ticks most of the boxes. Obviously, the significance needs to be stressed in the link. Please feel free to comment.--SabreBD (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems a clear example of the style of rock n' roll, and so adds to the article, regardless of the significance of the song/artists themselves. There are obviously no objections on NFC grounds. As far as I can see, this very much has a place in the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if that is the only free sample by recognised notable artists which is available, it would be better not to use it in this article at all. It would be appropriate at Rock and roll, where it is reasonably characteristic - but I think it would confuse the (much debated) issue over definitions, and unbalance the article, if the only free sample in the article on "Rock music" (which, it is argued, is essentially a post-1960s concept) were a piece of 1950s rockabilly. However, if we were able to find appropriate free samples of later rock music - which, personally, I doubt - we should use it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I perhaps wasn't clear, but I was planning to propose other samples that were more characteristic of rock. I just planned to do it gradually in order to focus debate. I do not know how many samples there might be as a result of that process, but would this problem arise if there were several more examples, that were more typical of rock?--SabreBD (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, that would be great - if they exist! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Much to my surprise creative commons appears to have a public domain version of Elvis singing "Blue Suede Shoes" at [1]. If anyone understands US copyright better than me (and that probably is anyone), could they just check into this, it seems too good to be true as Carl Perkins only died in 1998. If it is valid I would suggest this is a far more important and representative recording for rock and roll.--SabreBD (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That does sound a bit too good to be true. I've nominated the file for deletion at Commons. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good move I think. If it survives we can revisit the possibility.--SabreBD (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Elvis file was deleted as a copyvio. Well spotted. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

British Invasion<Br.> I suggest that this section would be particularly enhanced by a sample which would help demonstrate the nature of the new style and its connections to older forms. In fact is very difficult to understand the impact of bands like the Beatles without one. If there are suggestions for free use we should consider them, but I do not obviously see how this might be done given that material form this period will be in copyright. A number of candidates might be advanced but logically "I Want to Hold Your Hand", which was the breakthrough single for the Beatles, the first and most important bands to "invade" the US. I suggest this meets the criteria for NFCC as it would enhance understanding and the lack of it or a similar song makes the impact of the events and their origins difficult to understand.--SabreBD (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems possible; the period and style are important, and are difficult to understand without a sample. There is some discussion of the musical style itself (though a little more would be good), and that song is specifically mentioned as important, so it seems to be alright (though not perfect) on NFCC#8 grounds. There is no chance of a free sample being created; how certain are we that none exist? It's unlikely that any do, but they could... J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More text on the style certainly wouldn't hurt. I have spent some time looking at sources for copyright free material, but not specifically for this genre or period. I will do so and if anyone else has time and energy that would be appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a look around Archive.org for quarter of an hour, thinking there may be an freely released recording of an out of copyright song or something. Unsurprisingly, I didn't find anything! J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I spent a long time looking around, but to no avail. I have put this one up and carried out the other suggested changes since there seems no alternative and a bit of an imperative to start balancing up the rock and roll/rock in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Blues rock<br.> Arguably one of the two most important sub-genres in the creation of rock, so a sample would be a useful enhancement here. Obviously a lot of songs in this genre are in the public domain, but the problem here is finding a copyright free recording for the relevant period. I have spent some considerable time looking, but with no success so far. If interested editors take a look that would be helpful.--SabreBD (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have spent some time trying to get to grips with US copyright law, which is largley the relevant area for Wikipedia. To give a very brief summary: songs from before 1923 are (usually) in the public domain. This seems to include "traditional" songs (although there are of course exceptions). There is no federal law protecting individual recordings made before 15 February 1972. However, there is some dispute as to whether state law protects recordings and this situation is basically unclear as the only case law for protection is from New York state. So a traditional song recorded before 1972 is arguably in the public domain. Wikipedia has a licence that basically says this is a legitimate understanding, the same on used on "Jesus Walked...". I am pretty confident I can locate such a recording for this genre for a major US artist and possibly for other areas, but if someone spots a problem here please let me know and save me some pointless work. I should point out if I am wrong the "Jesus Walked" clip is probably also dubious.--SabreBD (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A sample now added for a key band mentioned in the article that falls in this "window of opportunity". I guess we will see how that goes.--SabreBD (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Folk rock and psychedelic rock<br.> Trying to think a little more broadly here, and cut down the potential number of non-free samples, there \are a number of sub-genres that cross over. If I was asked for seminal rock tracks that represent a style "Mr. Tambourine Man" by the Byrds would be pretty much at the top of my list, but perhaps we can kills two birds with one stone here by using something like their "Eight Miles High", which is both folk rock and psychedelic. However, that is just a possible example, and I retain some hope that the 60s ethos might have led someone significant to put their work in the public domain. On which topic, does anyone understand the status of the Grateful Dead's concerts at the Internet Arcive? Apparently they can be "shared", but not used commercially. That would seem to suggest that they could be used by not-for-profit Wikipedia. However, if that is so why doesn't every GD related article have them?--SabreBD (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Annoyingly, to be "free" by Wikipedia standards they need to be free to be used commercially as well. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, at least that is clear advice. I will spend some more time looking but the options for free material from this period appear very limited.--SabreBD (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking through lists of public domain songs I have realised that Hendrix's performance of "The Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock in 1969 is not protected by copyright (in the same way as other samples above). This is an iconic psychedelic performance, but it has to be said, not a folk rock one. If we have this I think that we probably don't have physical room for a folk rock sample (well not without doing something that dramatically departs from the current format). Does having a free sample like this outweigh the need to illustrate one of the most important genres in the development of rock? I am still looking so it is possible I may yet find something folk-rock and psychedelic that is free.--SabreBD (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If the object here is to demonstrate the "classic" folk rock sound then the Byrds version of "John Riley" would also be copyright free. Its considered a major example of a traditional track in the new style (the 12 string guitars are very audible). My main worry here is that the use of songs that are in the public domain may give a slightly odd view of what rock was at this time (e.g. it mean that US artists are used and might suggest that there are no original compositions, which there obviously were).--SabreBD (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hard rock/Heavy metal This is one of the three major sub-genres that rock has spawned and I would argue that all three need to represented even if free content cannot be found, as it is extremely difficult to argue that rock music can be understood without understanding these. Before embarking on a search for free material I would welcome thoughts on which sort of heavy metal this should cover. The first section dealing with this is a strong candidate, with something from the late 60s and early 70s as it moved from blues rock to the developing new sound. But a case could also be made for the extreme metal of the 80s and 90s, which is a significant turning point in the genre. It would be nice to have both if there is free content, but I would only make an argument for non-free on one, since this would probably be enough to distinguish the genre within the context of this article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "needs representation even if non-free" claim just doesn't hold water. This is a clear example of a genre which could be illustrated by free content, and so for which non-free content simply isn't an option. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the we had established the basic framework here, so forgive me for thinking I didnt need to go through it all again. My arguement here is that there is a need to illustrate the shift to a new style in context. If you are so confident that it can be illustrated, please come up with the goods and provide a viable alternative. I am literally spending hours each day looking for free material, so a few suggestions from elsewhere would be very welcome. It would also be helpful to get some feedback when I have suggested possible free examples so that this can actually move forward.--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this discussion, partly because I simply don't have the time to devote to this, and also because I've been confident that the discussions between SabreBD and J Milburn would reach a satisfactory conclusion without any suggestions from me. My view is that pre-1972 free versions of "folk" songs can only take us so far, and that ideally (from the reader's point of view) later non-free samples should be included - if they meet the legal requirements. If such samples simply can't be used in this article (which seems to be what JM is saying), it would be better for this article only to include, at most, one or two free samples in total. More than that would unbalance the article by giving undue weight to the "folk tradition" input. The idea of including other free samples, supposedly representative of the genre but in fact non-notable and probably of no great merit, seems to me to be a complete non-starter - it would diminish the overall quality of the article. It would be better, in fact, to have no samples in this article at all, but consider whether more and better samples could be used in articles on the so-called sub-genres. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to substantially agree with Ghmytrle's position. Non-free samples of generic (and probably non-notable and verifiable, music) is simply a non-starter. I engaged on this attempt thinking we were going through a process here where we would be evaluating sections for whether they needed and deciding if suitable non-free media could be found and then (and only if that was not possible) evaluating if the need is great enough for non-free media. But apparently that is not the case and much to my surprise we seem to have taken, what is from my point of view, a large step backwards. The result has been that we are likely to be left with an article whose audio profile is bizarrely skewed by the peculiarities of American copyright law. So far I have not managed to get anything on here that could actually said to be typical of the genre. It is, to say the least, frustrating that I may have made so much effort to actually make the article worse. I simply do not believe that this is what is intended by the policy, which seems to be applied in an idiosyncratic manner by some editors, but there comes a point where the effort of arguing is simply not worth it. If, as the comments above seem to indicate, we cannot have non-free media then it would be better simply to remove all of the samples rather than damage the quality of the article. We could then consider whether the work done so far has unearthed anything that could be used elsewhere (perhaps Rockabilly or Blues rock?) on those article's. A pity as I hoped this thread might serve as a model for resolving these kinds of issues, but you live and learn.--SabreBD (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Punk Clearly a key sub-genre and, in my opinion, a strong candidate for audio coverage even if no free content can be found. I would suggest that this needs to be something that marks the startling contrast between early mid-70s punk and what came before. The issue then being do we need an audio example from the early 70s that it can be contrasted with?--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As above, any example of punk would need to be free. If you cannot find free samples which you consider a satisfactory examples, then it is going to have to go without illustration. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As above, I dispute that "any example" of punk will do. Please provide a free suggestion that can demonstate the rapid shift in genres here which was fundamental to the developement of the genre as a whole.--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative rock The last of the major sub-genres that I would argue are so significant that it needs audio coverage even if it has to be non-free. I would also argue that either the early development in the 80s (in the R.E.M. or Smiths period) or the mainstream breakthrough with bands like Nirvana are likely to give a reader the best idea of what it is all about.--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, you simply can't say "it needs to have something, even if it's non-free". Free content could be created or found, and so, if none of the currently available free samples (if any) are satisfactory to your eyes, the section will have to go unillustrated. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am arguing for this in context. Please give some valid examples of what could be used here which demonstrate the different facets of the genre that developed in the 1980s and hit the mainstream in the 90s.--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital rock<br.> Just to get this one going. Personally, I think it would be useful for the article to have something here that demonstrates the very different sound of this type of rock, but I am not convinced that this is such and imperative that it justifies a non-free sample (others may, of course disagree and that I am underestimating this - and they may be right because I am really old). I would have thought that this would be the sort of music (current and already in a digital format) where there might have been likely to find something in the public domain if it can be found for any genre, but after hours of searching I begin to despair, as I can find nothing by any major artist named here. If anyone can restore my faith that all this effort is worth it and come up with something I would really appreciate it. Aside from that, a summary of my thoughts is: lets have this one if we can find a free sample, otherwise - probably not.--SabreBD (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't think a non-free sample would be appropriate here, as this is exactly the kind of thing (unlike with the British invasion sample) for which a free sample could reasonably be made. Your best bet if you really want to get hold of one would be to find an independent, Internet-savvy digital rock band (must be a lot out there) and ask if they would be willing to release a sample under a free CC license- CC-by-SA-3.0 is the usual. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think I have the enthusiasm for that, but if some editor in the future wants to do so it would no doubt enhance understanding of the section.--SabreBD (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the remaining sound files from the page as it does not appear to be possible to get consensus on this at this time (seen Folk rock above for details).--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Organising sub-sections

Having added a sub-section emphasised another issue about organisation. The "Golden Age" section is now considerably longer than any other in the article. I propose splitting this in half between the 60s and 70s after psychedelic rock and before roots rock. The chronology is a little difficult because the genres overlap here. I suggest titles of "Development (mid 1960s to late 1960s" and "New sub-genres (late 1960s to mid 1970s)", but other editors may have better suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

On a related point - do you have a reliable source for the term "Golden Age"? Those of a certain age may think so, but it comes across as a little non-neutral! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

From memory I think it was from Scaruffi and I was never very keen on it. As you say it seems rather a value judgement. To be honest, changing it would be another befit from my point of view. I think it best, as much as possible, that sub-headings describe the contents, but its difficult not to find some theme that suggests that the order is more than just random.--SabreBD (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

One division might be between "Emergence of rock music, 1964-68" - which could cover 2.1-2.6 - and "Progression, 1969-1975" - or something similar. Or, pre- and post-Woodstock, or pre- and post-Sgt. Pepper? Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer these description, but I think it may be best to keep the years a little vague, due to the overlap problem caused (unavoidably) by organisation around sub-genres. Personally I think that Sgt P., et al is the apogee of phase in rock, but Woodstock marks another sort of peak, but also the last gasp of an era in rock. Thematically, as a lot of commentors have noted, psychedelia unifies all sorts of music, but from about 1970 it all begins to fragment into new sub-genres. Also, to follow the MOS, we should avoid repeating the title of the article in sub-headings if possible. How about "Emergence" (mid-to late 1960s) and "Progression" (late 1960s to mid 1970s)?--SabreBD (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The only reason why I suggested the words "...of rock music" was to head off those who would claim that the music "emerged" around 1954. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely take the point on the rock/rock and roll issue, but it is a bit hard to get round the MOS problem. No one seems to be objecting so I will make the change. If we come up with something a bit clearer we can always change it.--SabreBD (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New sub-sections

Slightly dangerous perhaps as this article is still up for a good article nomination (but then it could be there for a very long time), but I want to propose two new subsections. The first is jazz rock, which would fit at the end of the "Golden age" section after psychedelic rock. The main prompt being that it is mentioned in the lead and does not have much of a presence. The second is probably more controversial and that is that I would like to return to the definitions problem. About a year and a half we had an abortive attempt to produce such a section and ended by putting material in the lead instead. On reflection I think this is rather unsatisfactory as the lead is supposed to reflect the article and this does not appear else where. It may also clarify the recurring debate over issues like the relationship between rock and roll and rock. I am proposing a section right at the start before the article embarks on the genre histories. It would reflect the musicological issues as well as the differing common definitions. I plan to start work on the jazz rock bit now, but will leave a bit of time before drafting the definition and give time for editors to comment on what is probably the more difficult topic.--SabreBD (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes to the jazz rock section. The other bit .... I'm not sure. Part of me thinks "if it ain't broke...." We need to go with what reliable sources say about the definitions and relationships, and that could be tricky - it's the sort of thing where "everyone knows" what happened, without being explicit about it in writing. Maybe flesh something out in a sandbox and we can see how it goes? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On the definitions section, I agree, if we get that far I will put something in a sandbox for us to take a look at before we start editing the article.--SabreBD (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As part of the responses to the GA review suggestions I have put together a new "Characteristics" section as discussed above and also a new lead, that more accurately summarises the article in a sandbox. Basically the characteristics section takes that part out of the lead and expands it with available sources. I would also like to get a version of this posted fairly soon so that we can complete the conditions of the GA review. It would be useful if editors could make any comments or suggestions here to that we can keep it all together.--SabreBD (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article works

While I would like to applaud the considerable efforts of the editors who have worked on this article, I am not sure its content and structure have been approached in the best fashion. In particular, the fact that this article is structured around the chronological study of rock sub-genres doesn't seem appropriate. In my opinion, somebody visiting this article is looking for basic information about rock music (defintion, musical elements, aesthetics, a brief history), not a detailed, subgenre-by-subgenre look at its history (I'm very surprised that mention of niche bands ranging from Iced Earth to Mudhoney—while important within their own scenes—have found their way into this article). As daunting as it seems, I think this article needs a complete rewrite (to something structured like pop music, which looks much better).—indopug (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

One possibility might be to have an overview section, in effect, after the introduction, and then to consider whether the history sections (and I also think the work that has been done on these recently is first-rate) should be placed in a new article, on History of rock music (or similar). However, I think that a summary section covering "definition, musical elements, aesthetics", etc., would be extremely difficult to write, given that we are reliant on outside reliable sources not opinions, we are dealing with both recent history and aesthetics, and issues like definition, musical elements, etc., have all changed and developed fairly radically over the last 60 years or so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not one summary section, but a multiple-paragraph section for each of those topics (the stuff in the current Social impact section of the article should form the backbone of the article, instead of being an afterthought). As for reliable sources, we should ideally use academic books that discuss the genre as a whole. It should be do-able—again, look at pop music for an article that seems to be going in the right direction. Even the under-referenced Social effects of rock music hits all the right notes. As for a 'history of rock' article, I agree, but still think that bands whose impact was within their own sub-genres (like Anthrax) be excluded, as opposed to those who influenced rock music on the whole (like Metallica).—indopug (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking for sometime, and have noted on this page, that what we have had become rather unwieldy and like Ghmyrtle's suggestion, I was thinking we could either take it to History of Rock music or into decade based article (rock music in the 1960s etc - perhaps), or a combination of the two. However, I could wish that the timing of the suggestion was different as this article has been waiting for quite a long time for someone brave to GA review it and we are in the middle of a pretty tough process of sorting out the samples, which has already, and will continue to take an immense amount of time and effort. If we do get agreement for that sort of change then we will just have to withdraw the GA nomination (damn it) and hope to move the sample discussions to where they are most appropriate. We already have a plan that I would draft a definitions section, but it really is going to be hard to get agreement on (not that it means we shouldn't try). The Pop music one (of which I wrote quite a lot) was also pretty hard work and has been contentious at times.--SabreBD (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm an experienced GA reviewer, and was actually welling up the courage to review it myself when I saw the issue with the sound files. I thought it would have been better to deal with them like this than it would be to deal with them through a GA review; I now fear that I may be a little too involved with the article. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any conviction to take this further or shall we leave the format as it is for the time being?--SabreBD (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rock music/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Citations need to be removed from the lead, which should be revised further to better capture the evolution of the genre and emergence of sub-genres. I would like to see a new section created at the very beginning of the article that discusses more of the points currently brought up in the lead, relating to the typical composition of a rock band, typical characteristics of the musical genre as a whole and identifying a few key evolutions or variations. It will serve more as a definition of the genre. With these changes it will be possible to alter the lead so that it more effectively takes on the role of a summary of the entire article. Great work here. Bravo! -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

I would prefer to see the citations here use a template, because as it is there is some inconsistency in the style and inclusion of complete reference information from one citation to the next. Ref 159 could be reformatted to be more informative (i.e. volume and issue number, page range for the article). For example, ISBN numbers have been left off of some of the books. Ref 172 should be split into two separate references. References to something like the All Music Guide to Rock should reference the names of the authors of the particular section, as well as the chapter/section title, in addition to the book's title and editors (such as by using the Encyclopedia template with "contribution" field). Also, it would be preferable to archive links to webpages using something like Webcite and the template fields archiveurl= and archivedate=. Given the interest in this topic and the frequency with which URLs go dead, it's especially important for this article to ensure its web references remain accessible in the long term. Excellent! Thank you. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

~~Ref 61 - is this the most reliable source for this information? Replace if possible. Otherwise, sources all look very reliable.~~ All good here. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

~~Refer to the suggestions above about a new intro section after revising lead.~~ Done. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

B. Focused:

I noticed that the Gothic Rock and Industrial Rock sub-genres are briefly mentioned in the article but have neither their own sub-categories here or prominent links to the main article beneath a related sub-category. There are probably others that didn't jump out at me. Every sub-genre mentioned in the article that has a well-developed article of its own really should be either represented by a sub-category or linked prominently at the top of a related sub-category. Good changes here. I suspect this is an aspect of the article that will continue to evolve as it moves toward FA. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is little mention of African Americans and their contributions to the music. Otis Redding and Donna Summer (both Rock Hall members)are not mentioned. Many are barely mentioned....Princes "When Doves Cry" not rock enough for you? The article is slanted towards white guys with guitars---it is not the standard accepted history of rock but a wikipedia creation. fdog9

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

* The image of "The Fifth Estate" appears to be in violation of copyright and needs to be replaced. * The image of the Beach Boys album is of questionable copyright status and may need to be replaced - I'm looking into this. * The David Bowie image should be re-uploaded to Commons correctly as a Flickr-sourced photo so its share-alike license can be independently verified. The photo of the Clash was not uploaded in accordance with Commons regulations, and appears to be a copyright violation - it should either be re-uploaded correctly with the authorization from the creator, or replaced. With my removal of the Clash and surf music flyer images due to noncompliance with Wikicommons copyright standards, this criterion is met. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

This is a huge article and much hard work has gone into it - a hearty congratulations to everyone who's contributed over the years. Because of the scope of the article and how many people's passion for the topic has made them into experts in their own right, I want to be sure we do the topic justice. I'll be reading over as much of the talk archives as I can over the next few days. In the meantime, let's try to get started on the changes I identified above, or discuss them here if there is disagreement. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments so far: here are a few thoughts on the major points. Lead There is already agreement on the talkpage to produce a "characteristics section", but I will expedite it for this review. I think that taking material out of the lead to put in that section (and creating a more summative lead) should resolve the citation problem. The issue here may be getting editors to reach a consensus over what might be contentious, so I will probably prioritise this. Citations I admit I am not a big fan of citation templates, not least they they tend to produce a format that is different to what most publishers would accept, and their use is not required by the MOS. I am a bit puzzled about the comments on missing ISBNs and consistency, since the books look very consistent to me and I cannot see any without ISBNs, but perhaps I may have missed some. I guess if a move to templates is insisted on I will do it, but I know that since there are over 300 citations here, it will take a very long time and a lot of work, for something that will then look pretty much the same. I take the points over encyclopedias and over archived webpages (although I will have to work out how to do that as this it is new to me). Coverage Bit of a surprise this one, as I thought the discussion I might be having would be to shorten the article and collapse some sub-sections. I am not sure a sub-genre having its own developed article is a good criteria for needing a sub-section here, but would rather place the emphasis on what it adds to knowledge of the topic here overall. Knowing the genre articles pretty well my guess is that this would probably add 30% to 40% to the length of what is already a very long article. There has been a conscious attempt to deal with some sub-genres collectively under wider headings here. This might also open the article up to the argument that not very significant sub-sections should be added on the grounds that they have a developed article (this would be a bit of a nightmare in the case of punk or heavy metal for example) no problem with adding more "see also" links under relevant headings, although there could be a lot of these in some sub-sections. Images I will hang fire on the Fifth Estate and Clash images until they have been investigated. The Bowie image was recently changed and frankly doesn't illustrate its section very well (I have a copyright free one in mind).--SabreBD (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Lead: Sounds great. Citations: I won't make the citation issue a reason not to award GA because you're right, it's not a must. There were only a couple of citations that were missing the ISBN - I'm sorry I didn't note the numbers at the time. I'll have a look myself. Regarding archiving urls, WebCite is very easy to use and I'd be happy to answer any questions that might come up as you're trying getting the hang of it. Coverage: I take your point about the length of the article. New sub-sections for every sub-genre is not what I had in mind. For most cases, it's preferable just to provide links to well-developed articles on sub-genres at the top of sub-sections as "Main article: ___". That would be in line with the MOS and be highly informative to readers looking to learn more about the topic. It's true this is a long article, but it's a massive subject too. This is the definitive resource page, the place where people will start when researching subgenres of rock, so helping readers to identify which sub-genres have well-developed articles by linking them prominently will help achieve its objective as a base reference. Well-developed is key - and only articles on sub-genres. Otherwise, you're absolutely right, the number of possible articles to link could become overwhelming. Images - The Clash one is in violation unless someone can contact the image owner and get her to upload an authorization. We can work together on that if you haven't done it before. For the Fifth Estate, the image needs the opinion of a copyright expert. Maybe the easiest/best way for you to proceed would be to flag it for possible copyright violation and see what the response is on Commons (since those weighing in do so regularly and are ideally better acquainted with the laws) then go from there. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Progress so far: Lead - In case it has been missed, I have posted a new version of the lead and characteristics section in my sandbox. If there are any minor changes (like punctuation) please just do them on the sandbox. If anything more major please comments at Talk:Rock music#New sub-sections. I would normally give this more time, but since it is part of a review I would like to post this into the article fairly soon. So silence will be taken as consent if editors don't post soon. Citations - This was (I hope) the largest task requested. I think we are now pretty close on this one. I have converted all of the online sources to a template that gives an archived version. I have given names of authors and sections in the encyclopedias where possible (sometimes there is no author given). In the process I checked and sorted a few minor problems. There is just an issue with a couple that won't easily archive (Billboard links are one of the issues), and I am still working on that. There are also some issues with the citations in the Metalcore, retro and contemporary heavy metal sub-section. Which lacks a couple of necessary citations and for which some do not actually lead to the necessary pages. I am doing a rewrite of this section that will deal with these issues, either by finding alternatives or removing content that cannot be provided with reliable sources. Coverage - I have started, but still working on this one. I am going to produce main links for articles with total coverage and then key sub-genres as see also articles - at the start of each section. That should make navigation easier. As already done at post punk. This may mean adding the odd sentence or two for clarification, but that is probably no bad thing. Illustrations - I replaced the Bowie image with what I think is a better (free) one. I am not particularly committed to the Clash picture if we can find an alternative (can anyone remember why the Sex Pistols image was deleted - it is still on the commons?). I have to say that I feel that checking into the licence of every illustration on the commons that asserts that it is free is not really my job here. If there are problems then I think it should be noted at the image, or they should be deleted in accordance with policy. I am happy to find alternatives where possible, but I have to take what others upload, and what is not challenged, in good faith. Sometimes the resources and time just run out. Other issues - Have I missed anything that we need to be considering or doing? If so please do point it out so it can start to be dealt with. Hopefully we are moving into the final stages of the process. Thanks to those concerned for the support so far.--SabreBD (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Close to finishing? Lead and Characteristics - this now posted and hopefully fulfills the suggestions and improves the article. Citations - this almost all done. I have rewritten the Metalcore, retro and contemporary heavy metal sub-section so that it can have reliable sources. Still cannot get the Billboard pages to archive, but this may just not be possible. On what was note 61, George Starostin's reviews. After exhaustive searching I cannot find any other reliable source that takes this view (that Pop rock is a sub-genre of pop), which is odd since it is a common popular view. I have adjusted this so that the status of the site is evident in the text (i.e. self published), if that is not acceptable we may just have to delete it. Coverage - the "see also" headings are added and hopefully that covers the issue, although I may have missed some major sub-genres. Illustrations - Of the remaining images. Is there any news on the Clash picture, or do we need an alternative? I replaced the Fifth Estate picture, with their incarnation as the D-men, but I am pretty sure the replacement is equally suspect. Sadly my resourcefulness has run out here. I cannot find any copyright free images of a garage band from the period, so I would really appreciate some help on this one. Other issues unless I have missed something I think all the requests are pretty much done once these minor issues are resolved. But if there are more issues please just let me know.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article now meets all criteria for GA status. Congratulations and thank you to everyone involved, and particularly Sabrebd for your tireless efforts throughout the GA review process. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I disagree about the GA status---I have always felt it is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It does not follow the standard definition of rock music (see Mojo Magazine, Rolling Stone, most critics and authors,The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Britannica and World Book, and the artists themselves). It is a slanted work that has a narrow definition of rock music and includes numerous bands that have achieved no real note (but obviously someone's favorite)---particularly in the heavy metal field. Article should be merged with the Rock and Roll article (they are the same thing) and include the enormous contribution of African Americans to the genre. Otis Redding is not in this artcle but Iced Earth is.....horrible article. fdog9

This article is a mess.

This article is awful and needs a clean up badly. It is very disappointing because it is a subject I love to read about. In addition, "rock" and "rock and roll" are the same thing. Rock and roll is not a sub genre of rock. Chuck Berry, Metallica, and Green Day are basically doing the same thing with different styles. No matter how much a fanboy might disagree, all acts from the British invasion to punk to heavy metal are rooted in the R n' B sounds of the mid 20th century. I saw a recent documentary about heavy metal and the guys in Black Sabbath said that the music was rooted in the blues. Just listen to the first Led Zeppelin album and you will hear two blues covers. The articles should be merged under the heading Rock and Roll!

To bring my point home.....I give you exhibit A (Songs):

Rock and Roll Music (Chuck Berry 1957)Rock and Roll Music (Beatles 1964) Rock and Roll (Velvet Underground 1970)Rock n' Roll (Led Zeppelin 1971) It's Only Rock n' Roll (Rolling Sones 1974) Rock and Roll All Nite (Kiss 1975)Rock and Roll Doctor (Black Sabbath 1976)Rock n' Roll Fantasy (Kinks 1978) Rock n' Roll High School (Ramones 1979) I Love Rock n'Roll (Joan Jett 1982) Rock n' Roll (Motorhead 1987)Rock n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake 1994) Rock and Roll Girlfriend (Green Day 2004)Rock n' Roll Jesus (Kid Rock 2007) Rock and Roll Train (AC/DC 2008)

exhibit B (Lyrics): "Will some cold woman in this desert land- Make me feel like a real man? Take this rock and roll refugee" (Pink Floyd-Young Lust 1979)"How death or glory becomes just another story 'N' every gimmick hungry yob digging gold from rock 'n' roll" (Clash-Death or Glory 1979)

exhibit C (a quote): While new details the Metallica's Death Magnetic begin to surface, frontman James Hetfield is giving fans a little more insight on the album title. "It started out as kind of a tribute to people that have fallen in our business, like Layne Stanley and a lot of the people that have died, basically — rock and roll martyrs of sorts. And then it kind of grew from there," Hetfield explained of the term Death Magnetic. In 2002 Stanley, the frontman of Alice in Chains, was found dead in his apartment from an apparent drug overdose. He was 34.

How can you deny its all called rock and roll when all the great bands still use the term to describe themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We know all that. But "rock and roll" also, specifically, means the sort of music that was created in the 1950s. This has been discussed here many times, with the same conclusion - the articles should not be merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When I think rock and roll, I think Elvis. They sort of blend-rock and roll being more dancy (In my view) and rock being harder. Yours is sort of a valid point, but the bands you've quoted would probably refer to themselves as rock-rock and roll fits they're songs better-eg. 'I want to rock and roll all night' instead of 'I want to rock all night'-The later sounds terrible! And there is a definite difference between Elvis and Guns N' Roses-a genre difference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.161.118 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 April 2011

Just because its been discussed many times doesn't make it true. Rock and roll predates the 50's, by the way, but the majority of people think it started then. I have a large collection of rock and roll records and many of them were released in the 40's. Just one of the many mistakes made when writing about this subject. The majority is wrong in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.179.2 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to simplify things. If you have "rock and roll" records released in the 1940s, please feel free to add them to the article on First rock and roll record. Again, I'd be surprised if we don't already know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are records from the 40s in that article; I also would say that it originated in the 1940s. I'm listening to That's All Right Mama from 1946 right now, and I'd say it is rock and roll. Heck, I've heard stuff from wartime that sounds rock-ish. We will, of course, need sources. Zazaban (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Im very unhappy with the Rock, Rock and Roll thing, every rockstar seems to think them the same. Could you find one source that proves rock and roll is different? If not, it seems wikipedia users are just deciding they are different. I understand the change in rock and roll in the early 60's from dancable stuff to what it is today, but that dosn't make it different kinds of music. 24.124.40.164 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original comment about rock vs. rock and roll. The terms are interchangeable and the articles should be merged. The rock and roll of today obviously has evolved but its roots are in the music of the 40's and 50's and it does share many traits that have never changed. I said my piece. I know that the majority rules here and I know that they will most likely remain two separate entries. I stand by my statement that this is innaccurate. "Its a Long Way to the Top If You Wanna Rock n' Roll" says AC/DC---unfortunately there own fans disagree with them about what kind of music they are playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 February 2009

The terms are not "interchangeable" because "rock music" was not a term used before the late 1960s - "rock and roll" was. Clearly, as explained in the article, modern rock music largely grew out of what happened in the 1950s - but you can equally well argue that "rock and roll" grew out of rhythm and blues, which evolved out of African rhythms and singing styles from the 19th century and earlier - it's all been a flowing river. But the encyclopedia needs to be clear about terminology and, although in many, many respects "rock music" and "rock and roll" are now used interchangeably, there are points of difference between the terms which it is the responsibility of the encyclopedia to point out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude--you have no idea what you are talking about. The term "rock music" was used before the 60's. Ever see the movie "Rock Rock Rock" or hear "Rock Around the Clock"? It is in countless lyrics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 February 2009

Yes, the word "rock" is, obviously, but not the generic term "rock music" before, let's say, 1964 or 65 at the earliest, when a new and wider genre emerged from what at the time was called "pop music" or "beat music". "Rock and roll", at that point in time, was perceived as something from a past era - the mid to late 1950s. Since then, the terminology has become very confused, largely because many later musicians who were inspired by the music of the 1950s (Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley etc.) have sought to associate themselves with it, in many cases by consciously playing similar forms of music and/or by using the term "rock and roll" in their songs. But all that doesn't change the point that the specific term "rock and roll" can be used for the then-new music of the 1950s (and, at a push, the early 1960s) in a way which differentiates it from the later, much broader, "rock music". And, PS, please remember to sign your messages with four of these: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you know more than the Clash, Metallica, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, Nirvana etc. etc. --they have all used rock and rock and roll to describe the music they produce. I think I'll take Joe Strummers opinion over the ones on this post. People who like rock are sometimes very tribal---they want to feel they are punks or heavy metal fans or whatever category they enjoy and they don't want to see the relationship the music shares.

“If it's illegal to rock and roll, throw my ass in jail!” Kurt Cobain

"We took country and rhythm and blues, mixed them together and made rock music" Bill Haley

Fdog9 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Frank H.

Quotes don't back up a claim unless there are references to back up the quotes. --JHP (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, could you answer me about having a source backing all this? You have a good explanation, but its your explanation, you seem to be deciding alot of it. Never heard it before and it dosn't seem to match the critera i understood when i was listening in the 50's. Rock and Roll and Rock are the same, its just been mentioned too many times. Differentiating between them seems really misleading to people who don't know much about rock and roll. Is there even a need for another article about the sound as it was in the 50s and 60s? Maybe we could explain in the 50s part of the summary how rock changed from the rockabilly dance stuff to its current band base form, and include this, but it seems very useless to have two articles. I think a merger is definetly necessary. 24.124.40.164 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, if people seriously want to pursue a merge, they first read the earlier discussions such as the ones here and here, and elsewhere on this page, and then think about raising the issue more formally by going through the process described here. Any attempts to merge the pages without going through the proper processes will be reverted, obviously. Oh, bop doo day... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article seriously lacks primary sources from the pre-Beatles era and is a revisionist piece. "Rock" and "rock and roll" are the same thing and have always been used interchangeably, even before this genre of music was created.There's a reason why bands such as the Rolling Stones are very close to '50s rock and roll and why bands such as the Who briefly called themselves "the greatest rock and roll band" and why the British Invasion rock groups in general were called "rock and roll bands." Again, history re-written by mostly white men to obscure the origins of rock music by creating these absurd distinctions of the same word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.42 (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if this had already been pointed out, but it seems the movement to distinctly separate "rock" and "rock and roll" is an attempt to assert a view that the British played a fundamental role in the foundation of the former. If one holds that they are indeed two different genres, and that the emergence of The Beatles is the primary point of demarcation, then this conclusion follows quite naturally. I suspect that attributing the United States with sole credit for the invention of a form of music so integral to the culture and identity of modern Britain may be a bitter pill to swallow. Hence, a need felt by some to distinguish the music before and after the arrival of well-known British acts. If, on the other hand, one holds that "rock" and "rock and roll" are but two terms employed to describe the same (albeit ever-evolving) genre, then it would be difficult to evidence a British hand in the foundations of this singular style.

While I agree that there is an implied difference between the terms (contemporary vs. nostalgic), it exists almost exclusively when the two are deliberately and directly contrasted, as is the case here. In other words, if you ask someone to draw a distinction, they can. That does not mean that there is a fundamental difference. It's akin to distinguishing between a "bunny" and "rabbit". The choice between the two terms reveals more in the way of the speaker's disposition and inclinations than of the subject under discussion. And let's be frank, clearly the term "rock" is merely shorthand for "rock and roll". Young people have long had a tendency to abbreviate.

Drawing attention to the characteristics of style during the era in which "rock and roll" was the preferred term is perfectly reasonable. So too is the preference for the umbrella term "rock" given its modern prevalence. Clearly we are not talking about different genres though, but rather different time periods. There's no such thing as a modern "rock and roll band" wholly distinguishable from a modern "rock band". 67.142.171.26 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't ascribe motives to editors without good reason. There may - perhaps, I'm not at all sure - be differences in interpretation between some editors on different sides of the Atlantic, but that is certainly not the reason for the existence of this article. Secondly, no-one doubts that there is a lot of truth in what you say - that much of what we most often now call "rock" was a linear development from what in the 1950s was called "rock & roll" (and, which itself, quite obviously, developed in the US and was itself a linear development from rhythm and blues with other influences like country thrown in). No-one questions any of that. But ask yourself, should there be an article on R&R as it existed in the 1950s? Should there be an article on progressive rock, or one on punk rock, etc etc. If so, don't we need an article that briefly summarises and brings together all those articles into a single overview article? That is what this article is - a summary overview of the subject, with many many links to other articles, including 50s style R&R. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my speculation was offensive. I didn't point to anyone, nor did I alter the article. Nonetheless, I couldn't help but notice that the cultural origins of "rock and roll" are listed as "1940s United States", whereas the cultural origins of "rock music" are "1950s and 1960s, United Kingdom, United States". Thus the consensus seems to be that "rock music" is a British/American hybrid invention inspired by a different American musical genre. While my view is colored by the belief that they are fundamentally the same, I don't think it's a stretch to sense a bit of injected nationalism in the two-genre perspective.

As to the question of whether there should be an article centering on the rock and roll of the 1950s, I say indeed there should be. However, the way you've framed the organization of the articles is not accurate. "Rock and roll" is not outlined as a sub-genre of "rock music" (as progressive and punk rock are), or even as a specific era of "rock music", but rather as a wholly different genre. The "cultural origins" make that clear. If "rock and roll" is part of "rock music" then, as the first expression of the overarching style, its origins would be the genre's origins. Just to make clear, I will state again that I personally think "rock" is just shorthand for "rock and roll". Still, I would be much more sympathetic to "rock and roll" being presented as the initial era of "rock music". As it is now, "rock and roll" is presented as being to "rock" what jazz was to rhythm and blues.BarqSimpson (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you're right to say that the article categorises "rock and roll" as a "quite different genre" to "rock music", although all of these "genres" are very difficult to pin down in terms of specific charactristics - and, it can be argued, Wikipedia's features like categories and infoboxes can tend to lead to confusion through over-categorisation. One of the problems, of course, is that "rock and roll" is only part of "rock music" in hindsight - there was no such thing as "rock music" at the time "rock and roll" was developed, so I think it's in many ways misleading to think of "rock and roll" as a "sub-genre" of rock music. Regarding what happened in the 1960s, in my experience many Americans tend to make a very big thing over what they call the "British invasion" (a term which is obviously meaningless in the UK except to describe what Americans say happened over there!). That event - Beatles, Stones, etc. - undoubtedly (I think we would all agree) contributed substantially towards the explosion of innovation and self-expression in what increasingly became called "rock music" over those next few years, and that is the basis for the judgement that the UK was a major contributor for what this article calls "rock music". At the same time, no-one seriously questions the influence of rock & roll, and the electric blues and R&B music coming out of African-American culture into Britain in the late 50s and early 60s - and also US bands like the Beach Boys and individuals like Dylan - on those so-called "British invasion" groups. It's a very complicated story to tell, and we need to make the story as clear as possible, without over-simplifying it. Personally I think the consensus of many editors is that the current way the articles are organised gets it about right, but there will always differences of views and approach, and always improvements that can be made. By the way, I'm interested in what you think the relationship between jazz and rhythm and blues was - that's an equally complicated story! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Guardian (British newspaper)is featuring an interactive timeline/collection of articles called "A History of Modern Music". The genres they analyze are pop, R&B & hip hop, indie, dance, world & folk, jazz, and rock. They use "rock" and "rock and roll" interchangeably. Their first entry for rock is titled "The first rock 'n' roll record is released" in reference to Jackie Brenston's "Rocket 88" which was released in 1951. Why does Wikipedia seem to be the place only where a distinction is drawn between "rock" and "rock and roll"? I've never known that to be the case in my experience, nor have I have heard of a musician or music historian making the distinction, or suggesting that rock music really began in the '60s. It stinks of original research. Part of the reason it gets under my skin is because, admittedly, it's a relatively trivial issue... and yet I can't help but let it bug me! It's a vicious cycle. BarqSimpson (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess Joan Jett doesn't know what kind of music she plays according to these guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdog9 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2011

Hey all. I just wanted to say a big well done to every one who edited this as it really is a fantastic article. Surprised it doesn't have a star. I'm quite young but have listened to a fair few of these rock genres but others like jazz rock and New Wave I have yet to give much listen so thanks for bringing them to my attention!!

I have edited the "Emo" section to have a little paragraph about "post-hardcore". Again it's a genre which started in the 80s, carried on into the 90s but wasn't made popular until 2000s with a slightly poppier, clearer sound. It's fair to say the bands listed though have been very popular and I'm sure influential in the future, but are not represented very well under the emo label (with MCR, Paramore etc) nor the metalcore label (with Killswitch or Bullet For My Valentine). Unfortunately citations are needed but there are some on the actual post-hardcore page and of course the paragraph might need edited. If people want it deleted however I'd like a vote as I do think it's valid.

I don't think we should be writing anymore until say 2013 at the earliest with concerns to 2010-2019 rock music (can't wait!) but I'd keep an eye on this indie folk scene. Led by Mumford & Sons who have just picked up 2 Brits but also featuring The Decemberists which got to No.1 in America, Fleet Foxes have a Platinum album here in the UK and them along with Beirut have new albums coming out. Bon Iver's worked with Kanye West. Theres Noah & The Whale and Iron & Wine too who I think have had big sellers too. Oh and Brit winner Laura Marling and American band Grizzly Bear. What I'm asking is do you think a part will need to be written for this new indie-folk scene? Poiuytre (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the complements Poiuytre. This article has just obtained GA status and may one day make it to featured article status and get its star. However, one of the criteria for a good or featured article is that text should be properly sourced. Unfortunately, your recent additon had no sources so I have removed it for the time being. I am afraid, at this time my knowledge of this area is not good enough for me to easily source or integrate this at this time. I also wonder what the relationship is to emo noticing that one of the key bands in both is Fugazi. Were they post-Hardcore and then moved on to develop emo, or are they classified as both? In other words are they parallel movements or does one follow on from the other? I think we can certainly have a paragraph on this, but it would probably be a good idea to develop a sourced version and think about how it related to existing text before reposting it. On the other issue I am not quite sure whether we should include indie-folk, as enthusiastic as I am about the style. The main problem being that it may be folk, rather than rock or folk rock.--SabreBD (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay I will look for sources. Does it have to be sources describing sound? Or sources describing ceertain bands as part of that genre/scene and being notable in it? Well unfortunately the relationship between genres is of course complicated. To cut a long story short you had hardcore punk, which was obviously developed from '77 punk rock but started off in America. Hardcore punk was well strong and quite manly (for want of a better word). A band called Rites Of Spring added emotional lyrics (http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/ritesofspring/forwantof.html) to their fast and furious hardcore punk and it was briefly called emocore. Amazingly it was not a very big genre at all with "normal" hardcore punk dwarfing it. In fact Rites Of Spring didn't expect it to be a separate genre they just saw their music as hardcore punk - so did many. In the early 90s indie bands in Midwest United States had a jangly almost minimalist sound but had their roots in punk. They especially loved the DIY part of punk and also the emotional lyrics. I think the genre was very preppy and quite collegeish, made by quite whiny boys singing about girls. It actually started quite punkish with bands like Sunny Day Real Estate and Jawbreaker but then the whole scene got very very melodic with bands like Mineral, Christie Front Drive and early Jimmy Eat World. The former two especially made incredibly sparse music with kind of whiny vocals and melodic jangly guitars. This scene is now known as MIDWEST EMO because all the bands where from Midwest and Central US. Unfortunately I know little else because the UK (and probably the US) enjoys ignoring this short-lived very underground scene. Weezer's Pinkerton had the same sort of mopey lyrics but was more poppy and so too was The Get Up Kids. This caused Jimmy Eat World to take their sound and make it more poppy releasing Bleed American and of course this sparked Dashboard Confessional, Brand New and stuff like this which was still very much INDIE music with emotional lyrics than PUNK music with emotional lyrics (as it was back in the 80s). My Chemical Romance and Paramore and Fall Out Boy probably found comfort in the lyrics and gave it a more beefier rock/pop-punk sound and are obviously the stars of the genre now. Yes it's strange but the only thing thats connects its whole history are the Emotional (ie negative, depressing, angst) lyrics! Post-hardcore is basically the more artistic aftermath of hardcore punk, very much like post-punk's relationship with '77-80 punk rock. IT NEED NOT HAVE EMOTIONAL LYRICS! Hardcore punk got to a point in the late 80s where it was "the faster you played, the better". Fugazi were the main band to step away from that and add some real creativity and artistic merit into the genre. I think the genres been quite consistent over the years but obviously underground. Bands like Thrice, Thursday and At The Drive-In have less of that "garage" sound that Fugazi had but it's still hardcore punk but with obviously depth. I think bands like The Used liked the sound but added in pop-punk/emo-pop style lyrics about secondary school and girls and parents etc and this filled the void left by nu-metal to millions of teenagers. I would say this indie-folk is at least 50% rock. I mean hey the great thing about rock is that is has merged with many different genres. In an article mentioning Jazz rock and Digital rock I think the genre deserves a paragraph should it become a little bigger than it is now. Poiuytre (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Image for surf rock section

Despite my best efforts at finding alternatives for the pictures of dubious status that were removed so that we could get GA status, I have hit a bit of a wall on finding a replacement here. I am down to a Fender amp or a Mosrite guitar at this point. If anyone can help I would be very grateful. Obviously the image needs to be copyright free and loaded to the commons. There are pictures of modern incarnations of surf bands, but it looks very odd seeing these bands aged 60 and doesnt really communicate the era. If we can't find one I guess I will post a guitar or an amp, rather than have this as the only subsection without an illustration.--SabreBD (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A section for new wave of surf is needed

This seems to be a wide genre now, but yet no section! (I don't know any sources to write, neither my English allows me to). Please, someone, do this work for the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.123.186.29 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this have a wikipedia article?--SabreBD (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, this music comes under various names; maybe I don't even know all of them. And I don't think I can create such article, because I'm not listening to this music much, sorry. But this genre should have at least some coverage in the press. -- 178.123.161.238 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Main image

I think the image of the Red Hot Chili Peppers should be replaced by one of the Rolling Stones, who are regarded by many rock journalists as the "greatest rock band in the world". Red Hot Chili Peppers don't even come close to defining rock.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not meant to be the main image, but is there to illustrate a classic quartet line-up in the "characteristics" section. I have no problem if it replaced by the Stones, but it needs to illustrate the point and they were a quintet for most of their history. Also there doesn't seem to be a suitable pic in their article page, but one may be available elsewhere.--SabreBD (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sabrebd - there's no need to replace the current image, which is fairly representative of the entire genre. We shouldn't get into competing claims of who was ever "best", just show what is representative. I'm far too gallant to suggest that only people of a certain age even remember the Stones from a time when they were any good .... ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the current selection of Rolling Stones pics are not exactly of great quality.I don't mind admitting to having seen the Stones live when Mick Taylor played with the band. And that is declaring that I am of a certain age, alas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

stop removing puddle of mudd and 3 doors down because they are a good example on post-grunge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.244.88 (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

what a shame no chuck berry photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.244.88 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)