Draft talk:Outline of rock music

Brian Eno

He is listed as a musician, I would argue that he was more influential as a producer, any objections to changing categories? J04n(talk page) 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections to anything! This is entirely subjective and you are free to modify it any way you see fit, I do not WP:OWN this article. References from reliable sources help, but looking at other outlines I don't see too many, this is more like a list than an article. That change makes sense to me, although Eno probably belongs in both: I don't think that's allowed as this is an outline. As long as you make sound judgments and don't add marginal figures to these lists and the outline in general, I am not going to bat an eye. That goes for anyone reading this. I have trouble wondering whether Alice Cooper belongs, so be bold and lets try to make this work. Sswonk (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Move issue

I am working with two others to develop Outline of rock music. We agree that the article should be sandboxed first before continuing. I created the page Talk:Outline of rock music/Sandbox and emailed the original editor asking him to CSD the main page, just checking but if that is done the sandbox page created will still exist, right? The sandbox was moved to Outline of rock music/Sandbox so it can have its own talk page. Sswonk (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean whether the sandbox will be affected if Outline of rock music is deleted? Answer to that: It won't be. But the sandbox you created falls under Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses because it is treated as its own article. I suggest you move the page to your userspace for development instead (e.g. at User:Sswonk/Outline of rock music) and request R2-speedy deletion of Outline of rock music/Sandbox. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind hosting the sandbox page as suggested but would rather it be hosted under the WP:ROCK somewhere. Questioning sysop for guidance. Sswonk (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Response from sysop: you gotta move

Well, I think I would rather have it under WP:ROCK somewhere, is that within guidelines? Sswonk (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually the WikiProject subpages are reserved for pages that are needed to administrate the project (see Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses). Drafts should be placed in userspace only usually to avoid cluttering up the other namespaces with them (see also the essay Wikipedia:Workpages). Is there a reason why you don't want to have it in your (or someone else's) userspace? Regards SoWhy 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

None other than modesty, and wanting to avoid the perception that I WP:OWN the thing. I'll suggest it to the others, thanks for the responses. Sswonk (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So, I'm about to move the page to where it will soon redirect, and then request deletion of the redirect as required. Sswonk (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Who was influential the band or the artist?

Something that should be addressed and decided on sooner than later is influential bands. I just added Joey Ramone but I would say that the Ramones as an entity are more appropriate, the same with Bob Weir vs Grateful Dead, Joe Strummer vs The Clash, Tony Iommi vs Black Sabbath, etc. Then there is the issue of say John Lennon who should be included as a musician and The Beatles as a band. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

True, that crossed my mind as well. I would also suggest something like "Progenitors" to make room for the obvious, Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Etta James, Link Wray – maybe they aren't so obvious, Wray could be under "Musicians". Re: your question, I think Lennon can live both places, maybe create another level 2 header like "Influential bands of rock music" for the ones you listed and several others and keep the current section about influential individuals. Where does Bill Haley fit? Sswonk (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you (we) talking about the influences on rock & roll as it existed in the 1950s - so, the influences going back to Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, Louis Jordan, Bob Wills, Count Basie, Cab Calloway and so on - or on the influences on "rock music" as it developed from the early/mid 60s - which would include Muddy Waters, Ray Charles, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Lonnie Donegan, as well as all the 50s rock'n'rollers themselves? That is, is 50s "rock and roll" itself part of this thing called "rock music", or is it one (the biggest) of a number of influences on it, including folk music and R&B? Did "rock music" start in 1954(ish), or 1964(ish)? Discuss! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The categories and index list Rock and Roll as a part of Rock, and TTH (The Transhumanist (talk · contribs), WP:OOK coordinator) actually expressed a desire to call this "Outline of rock and roll" prior to the page creation. My theory is Rock will be 1962 (Stones/Beatles/Four Seasons/Beach Boys), with Rock and Roll being the biggest influence. I am copying this to the scope section below, let's continue there. Sswonk (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Section was copied below for continuation

Another thought (or two)

From a UK perspective, what strikes me most about the list so far is how white it is. Is this a US thing, that differentiates clearly between "rock" and "black music" in a way that really doesn't happen in the UK so much? Do you see "rock" music as something obviously different from, say "soul" or "hiphop" - apart from a few originators like Chuck Berry, and the odd exception like Hendrix? If you don't, then clearly there's a whole world of soul, Motown, R&B, hiphop etc. that needs to be recognised. Another thought - why not just start this Outline from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame lists, and work from there? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, the answer to your question is yes, although I never saw it as a US thing. The problem I see is that if this is part of an outline, a kind of tree with branches, we can't have James Brown and Aretha Franklin over here even though they belong here as well. That would be a duplication of effort, maybe I am wrong but that is how I perceive it: they would be in Outline of R&B music or whatever the title ends up being. Rap is definitely not rock, they are distinct in my mind. We don't have to finish this today, so let's take a while to discuss the topics both of you have brought up. I'm starting a thread below this one called "Scope of the outline" where we can continue. So far, we have three bright and level headed participants which I think is a good sign. Sswonk (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - so we're starting from this list of genres, based on Allmusic categories, right? Not sure I'm too happy (it will certainly limit my personal involvement - that's a good thing!), but if that's the consensus so be it. Where would Prince fit, or Bo Diddley, or Dr. John? Not trying to start any arguments, just trying to establish the parameters! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Scope of the outline

(copied from above) Something that should be addressed and decided on sooner than later is influential bands. I just added Joey Ramone but I would say that the Ramones as an entity are more appropriate, the same with Bob Weir vs Grateful Dead, Joe Strummer vs The Clash, Tony Iommi vs Black Sabbath, etc. Then there is the issue of say John Lennon who should be included as a musician and The Beatles as a band. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

True, that crossed my mind as well. I would also suggest something like "Progenitors" to make room for the obvious, Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Etta James, Link Wray – maybe they aren't so obvious, Wray could be under "Musicians". Re: your question, I think Lennon can live both places, maybe create another level 2 header like "Influential bands of rock music" for the ones you listed and several others and keep the current section about influential individuals. Where does Bill Haley fit? Sswonk (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you (we) talking about the influences on rock & roll as it existed in the 1950s - so, the influences going back to Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, Louis Jordan, Bob Wills, Count Basie, Cab Calloway and so on - or on the influences on "rock music" as it developed from the early/mid 60s - which would include Muddy Waters, Ray Charles, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Lonnie Donegan, as well as all the 50s rock'n'rollers themselves? That is, is 50s "rock and roll" itself part of this thing called "rock music", or is it one (the biggest) of a number of influences on it, including folk music and R&B? Did "rock music" start in 1954(ish), or 1964(ish)? Discuss! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The categories and index list Rock and Roll as a part of Rock, and TTH (The Transhumanist (talk · contribs), WP:OOK coordinator) actually expressed a desire to call this "Outline of rock and roll" prior to the page creation. My theory is Rock will be 1962 (Stones/Beatles/Four Seasons/Beach Boys), with Rock and Roll being the biggest influence. I am copying this to the scope section below, let's continue there. Sswonk (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that approach is quite radical (histories of "rock" conventionally start with Haley, Berry, Presley etc.), and it will be contentious - for one thing, there are always debates at Rock and roll over whether that article should just cover the period through to the early 60s (as it does now) or whether "rock and roll" also describes all the subsequent developments in "rock". More important than that, I think that starting it with the Beatles etc. will bring accusations of implicit racism - which I'm sure is not what you intend but which is inevitable given that approach. It will tend to sideline the black precursors of "rock" - not just Ray Charles, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Bo Diddley, but going back further to Louis Jordan, Robert Johnson and so on - and it will also sideline the R&B and soul (and later rap) musicians - James Brown, Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson etc etc - who you see as being on a separate branch of the tree. Is that the approach that WP should be taking to "rock music"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know by now, you should that I absolutely, totally agree with you. What is the problem with going back to the article you help with, first rock and roll record? I see none whatsoever. I probably need to be clearer, my theory is that what people call "rock", without the "and roll", probably started in 1962. I suggested above that a "Progenitor" (better titles available, no doubt – change it!) part of the influential people be created, and I'm doing it now with the single entry Robert Johnson to get the ball rolling. Please fill in. I think the progenitors stop right before Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino and Jerry Lee Lewis, who go into the mainstream heading of "musicians". I just saw an essay that I don't remember seeing before, WP:DEADLINE and I feel like that should be our approach. Don't worry about race at all, it's probably the biggest influence of all anyway you look at it. Air travel, the Model T and Rock and Roll all from the same time sound right to me. Better to cater to the truth than to what seems convenient to the term. As a side question, serious: what do you think Led Zeppelin were thinking with the way they published their derivative works in the first two albums, was it satirical of other groups, ironic, mockery, laziness, was there a point at all to the lack of credits? As an American who dived in completely around the time LZ IV was released, I am very curious about what you feel or have come to think about that little corner of the subject. Sswonk (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from a "Best of", I have never in my life owned a Led Zeppelin album, so I'm not the best person to ask! I didn't actively dislike them at all, just that I never engaged with them. On the wider question, I guess I'm not comfortable with the idea that Chuck Berry is "in", as it were, but James Brown and Stevie Wonder seem to be "out". I know there is a school of thought that (for want of a better term) "black music" post-1962(ish) is not "rock", but I don't think it's a shared consensus - is it? I just don't feel comfortable with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one want them, and George Clinton and Michael Jackson and others "in", too, so let's just use the scope discussion to declare that. Rock in this scope is not limited to what is sold in the "rock" section at stores. I do think however that only a limited part of hip-hop/rap belongs, i.e. crossover hits. It's its own game. I could see N.W.A. and KRS-One belonging along with the obvious Run D.M.C.. Then so too do elements of modern country music, but we can keep the discussion to your concerns of appearing racist until those are allayed. Sswonk (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See my comments below. I think US editors should be aware that this concept of "crossover" between "black" and "white" music just has not applied in the rest of the world, to anything like the same extent, at least since the 1950s (indeed, if ever). The project should not start from that perspective, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to get organized

Reading all of the posts since my last entry I am struck by one thought: we need to organize this discussion. This discussion is only 12 hours old and I already can't follow it (which is probably more a reflection on me than anything else). I'm going to make subheadings on the points previously made (and offer my 2 cents). I think it is important that we reach consensus on each point and not allow discussions to fade away. Let's attempt to keep discussions under each heading on point and start new headings for new subjects, if I missed one please add it in. BTW: my opinion on Led Zeppelin I & II, it was Peter Grant ripping off the original artists. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rock or Rock and Roll

The question here is do we start with 50s rock and roll or 60s rock? I could go either way but if we go back to the 50s I would hope that at least one of the contributers is fairly expert in that era, I am not. If we do start with 60s rock I would strongly be in favor of a progenitors section. Either way would make the outline less white and more historically accurate. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe myself as an "expert" on the pre-50s, but I've made major contributions at First rock and roll record and elsewhere (see my user page), and have plenty of references, so am happy to help there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bands or just Artists

In favor of including influential bands and being very judicious about having someone represented on both lists (for example John Lennon and the Beatles "yes", Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull "no"). J04n(talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this principle - there will be contentious issues arising, but we can deal with them one at a time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Motown

Depends on the Rock vs Rock and Roll argument above, if rock and roll Motown should be included if rock I would say no. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree. One danger with defining "rock" as post-1962 is that - by separating out soul etc. as something "different" - we would appear to some to be taking a racist line. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hip Hop

My opinion is only acts that have significant cross-over success certainly Run-DMC, I would say Ice-T over NWA but that is a future discussion. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This idea of "crossover success", and "barriers" between "rock" and "rap" is a US thing. Elsewhere, eg in the UK (and I'd suggest elsewhere in the world), this idea of separate "white" and "black" music just does not exist to anything like the same extent (though of course people's individual tastes may reflect one genre over another). In WP we need to make sure, so far as we can, that we are not US-centred. I think that is a good argument for not taking a post-1962 perspective (see my comments above). Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add an entire section about where I stand regarding your statement, Ghmyrtle. First and most, it is hoped you will see it as an attempt to collaborate with you and not chide you, but I disagree with what you have said here. Look below for a section called "Rock as a distinct form and US bias". Sswonk (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Diverse contributors

We should attempt to have contributers that edit pages from as a wide range of musical tastes as possible. If we are deficient in an era or subgenre we should attempt to recruit. Myself, I normally edit hard rock/heavy metal and early punk bands and consider myself very knowledgeable about most rock from the 70s. I'm most ignorant of any bands that came out after 1994. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. My areas of interest are mostly pre-50s through to mid 70s, particularly R&B and 60s folk/psychedelic rock, plus a bit of punk, folk rock, UK music generally, some "world music"... etc. etc. Not "rawwk"... Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This falls under the NPOV pillar and is a great statement to make. I have elements of what both of you have described in my area of interest. I know much more about music before the mid-eighties than after, and most of what I am interested in and have studied involves British Invasion, American rock, New Wave and punk with interest in a lot of other styles of music including from traditional country (Loretta Lynn, George Jones, Hank Williams) to dance and funk. Sswonk (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When to debate an entry

Once we decide on a scope I say we don't discuss individual entries until we are nearly finished, then if there is contention we can reach consensus before the rollout. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious problems

Aside from the fact that I think this list is completely unnecessary, there are some serious problems with its development. Firstly, the list of "persons influential in rock music" is inherently subjective and can never be completed. It's just a disaster waiting to happen. Secondly, the genre hierarchy is wrong in many places (post-grunge isn't a subgenre of grunge, indie pop isn't a subgenre of indie rock, New Wave is a subgenre of punk). Thirdly, the same problem that lies with the list of "persons influential in rock music" list also lies with the examples of artists representative of a particular subgenre. Fourthly, some of them are just plain wrong (despite what Blender says, The Velvet Underground is not an indie rock band, primarily because they existed nearly two decades before alternative rock was created; this is why we rely on a consensus of sources, in case one is wrong). Fifthly, and mostly importantly, who here working on this list is deeply familiar with rock music? Because I get the distinct impression that information and links are simply being pulled from articles (I see the sentence about Britpop comes from that article; I know, because I wrote it) or infoboxes. This is a big problem, as there are a number of poor quality articles floating around, particularly the Pop rock article, which revels in incorrect assumptions and original research (by the way, the whole list of "pop rock subgenres" listed here is highly suspect). If you really want to make this list, you need to do some in-depth research. After all, using Wikipedia itself as a reference is highly discouraged. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, if this is an exercise in futility I'm sure that no one wants to waste their time. However I think the judgement may be premature (it may turn out to be correct, but IMO it's still to early to make that call). To address your second and fourth points: this is a draft, feel free to fix, that was one of the reasons for moving it from a main page. The first and third points are a problem but I don't think a fatal flaw, particularly if/when criteria is established. Your fifth point about the need for research beyond Wikipedia is an excellent one but again this is a draft that is less than a day old. A defined scope and a skeletal framework is needed before the meat can be added on. WesleyDodds you seem to have passion for rock and looking at your userpage you have an impressive body of work on Wikipedia, I hope that you consider contributing to this project. J04n(talk page) 04:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with lists of "influential people" is that no matter how tightly you try to define the scope, it is still subjective and people are going to want to add their favourite - I can think of quite a few editors who would cause problems here. How do you propose to define a scope to prevent such edit warring? By the way, aren't these outline of scope articles just the same as a category tree? --JD554 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, you're not supposed to put Wikilinks in bold. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do artists belong in this outline

I just looked at other outlines and we should re-consider adding individuals/groups/examples. The subjectivity problem brought up by WesleyDodds can be avoided if we follow the lead of other outlines. The Outline of film does not list one actor or film, Outline of sports lists no athletes or teams. Provide explanations of genres, list the professions (producer, promoter, etc) just don't give examples, keep Pandora's box closed. J04n(talk page) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about the "Persons influential" lists, I was skeptical from the start, see my initial request for assistance at the Rock project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#But seriously, folks: Help! Outline of rock music started. I was attempting to use humor there to demonstrate what has been expressed here by WesleyDodds and others, the Debbie Harry comment being an example of how I ironically envisioned the edit warring that might ensue. I was given the task of organizing this by The Transhumanist (talk · contribs · logs) (TT), who is the WP:OOK coordinator. However, when that happened I did not make the initial edits, TT did, and he has made several since. The "Persons influential" section was there, and I started to fill it in with the thoughts expressed in my request for assistance already forming. I agree that the names should not be provided as they stand, it is a potential train wreck we can put the brakes on now.

I would like to see some input from TT, as he is responsible for the outline structure. I would also note that we don't have to do everything the way other outlines do them in every instance, but the Film and Sports examples given are done the way we should do this, that is without listing names. I also have comments to put in above in those sections, especially answering assertions that race is a motivating factor somehow in what I am writing on this page. I will respond above, please wait before making any assumptions about what those responses will be. I just need to take care of some other things first so the responses will not be there right away.

To clarify the question asked in this section, are we also talking about the example artists that TT started putting in at the genres? Sswonk (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am including the example artists at the genres. J04n(talk page) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We will have to bear in mind that many of the most important artists who will need to be covered don't confine themselves to single genres - they move between and across them, blend them, subvert them, or create new ones. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Section removed I have removed the "Persons influential in rock music" section as it is too contentious and prone to POV and OR. The list is obviously still available as part of the draft history through this diff. Sswonk (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rock as a distinct form and US bias

I am writing this as a separated section to address several comments made by Ghmyrtle regarding race, rock as an all inclusive form, and the perceived US bias that has been asserted. G, I am using that abbreviation from here on, G, you may be black. I am not. If you are making these comments from the perspective of being a black man, then they have more import than if not, I would think. Nevertheless, I want to make it very clear: saying an act is "crossover" is not US shorthand for "black". I don't know where you got that idea, and I don't like it.

There are many forms of popular music, called genres, and the broadest are broken down into groups that are fundamentally based on race. There is no disputing that. Blues, Soul, R&B, and Funk are primarily within the purview of, and primarily started in, African-American communities. To suggest that we must include those genres here in an effort to not appear racist, is in my view, silly. Mind-numbingly silly. It is not how we want to appear, but whether the encyclopedia is factual, that should motivate us. Rock, and it is now mostly called by that shorthand name but is meant to mean Rock and Roll, is deeply rooted within the African-American culture. From my perspective, the assumption of Rock and Roll as a unique genre of music, inherently separate from the others and also from major genres Jazz, Country, Folk and Dance, began with the acceptance of black culture by white Americans in the mid 1950s. It was called by some at the time "race music", but the phenomenon was not illustrated by multicultural, multi-ethnic groups congregating together, it was primarily white young people listening to and enjoying black music by some of the acts we have mentioned, Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, Little Richard and so on. It was demonstrated by the meteoric rise of Elvis, a man of disputed racial makeup who nevertheless appealed to white listeners with a reputed white version of southern blues and gospel influenced styles of singing and stagecraft.

That period was followed by the watershed of what is now defined by most publications that do what we are doing, categorize, as the British Invasion and the parallel surf music of the early sixties. From that time on, whether it is fair or not, Rock and Roll has been dominated by white acts. Yes, the Rolling Stones toured with great opening acts like Stevie Wonder and Peter Tosh. Yes Jimi Hendrix and Richie Havens and Sly and the Family Stone were prominent at Woodstock. Those acts and others can be considered here, no doubt. But isn't Peter Tosh a Reggae artist? Isn't Stevie Wonder both a R & B and a Rock artist? I find it disingenuous to say that we must include all of the Motown soul catalog artists, all of the Def Jam hip-hop catalog artists here. Prince is rock, Luther Vandross was not. The Neville Brothers are not regularly played on any station that calls itself Rock and Roll, Rock, Adult Alternative and so on here in the US. Neither are Notorious B.I.G., or Tupac Shakur. It's just a fact, not an attempt to exclude anyone at all.

Which leads me to my final response: what you are talking about regarding "crossover" and "black" and "white" with regard to differences between US culture and the UK appears to be a personal experience you have. I recognize the type of colorblind, racially diverse music catalog you might think we don't enjoy here as what is termed Pop, Top 40 or Jammin' music. Radio and TV routinely play this mix in many formats here. But what is known as Rock, shorthand for Rock and Roll, is distinct. I think that holds true everywhere. Music charts, categories at the Grammys, the index here at Wikipedia, sites like allmusic.com and amazon.com, all recognize the distinction and we should not dilute our outline against a common sense presentation of the truth. This is not the ranting of a thick, racist white American you are reading. This is a presentation of what the realities are, and for all of your knowledge of the subject I am suggesting that you stop making these statements without taking into account the existence of a separate musical style that, like it or not, is dominated by white performers. I don't imagine the creators of the Soul or Hip-Hop outlines being eager to avoid an appearance of racialism either. They will want to present the musical form as it has always existed, without needing to dilute it by gratuitously including obvious Rock and Roll acts into their lists. Sswonk (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm white and English. If you define rock music post-1962 in the way you do, and the way in it appears to me that most Americans do (as shown by the Grammys, Billboard charts, Allmusic, etc), so be it. But there is a different view, which is the view which I believe is more prevalent in the UK, and perhaps elsewhere. That view is that rock music encompasses those other genres you have mentioned, including soul, reggae, hiphop, rap, etc. The divide between what you see as "rock" and the genres or sub-genres I've mentioned is simply not universally seen as clear-cut. Outside the USA, there is no such thing as "crossover" music - there is (generally - I'm simplifying to make the point) no divide or barrier to cross over. I'm not accusing you, or anyone else, of being racist, far from it. I know that racism (historic and current) has been, like it or not, an integral part of both US and UK culture, and that those perspectives have influenced popular music for the last 200 or so years. It's just a question of whether we are looking at the whole tree (as I think we must, if we're looking at the roots as well as The Leaves), or just one of the branches which happens to be predominantly populated by white artists. No hard feelings, but if your view prevails (and I'll hang around to see what others think) I won't be contributing much. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(blank stare)(mouth agape)(furrowed brow) No shit. Whoa, I have to digest that for a while, but I respect it. It would be great if you can point to an online essay or magazine article, the like, that reinforces the idea that rock encompasses all the others. Don't leave based on any general disagreement on that, however. You can still have a minority view if that's what it is and be a significant contributor. But at first glance it appears like you are going against convention. Unfortunately, we have to be a compendium of, and not a producer of, original research. Yours is a radical view in my experience, so again I am just letting you know that I am still pondering it. I appreciate that you appear to be backing off from your view that "crossover" was a racial distinction in America, rather than a genre distinction that happened to include racial histories. But, I still disagree that I am saying rock is post-1962. I am saying what has been categorized as rock and roll, which started in earnest in the fifties and shifted into its current makeup in the early sixties, is what I have described as distinct from the others and is factually dominated by white acts. Sswonk (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Two nations divided by a common language." There is certainly a view in existence over here that "rock" means, basically, "heavy metal" - hairy white men with guitars - but I don't believe it's the critical consensus. Unfortunately, it is one of those terms (like "rock'n'roll") which can basically be as wide or narrow as you want it to mean. But I think careful thought needs to be given before steps are taken which assume that the US view of "rock", as you set it out, is the appropriate consensus. One thing to recognise is that, so far as I know, the US is the only country that has ever had (or taken seriously) separate charts for different genres. That is looked on by others as just plain weird - "it's all music", and all music which ultimately derives, to a greater or lesser extent, from the Presley/Berry/Haley fusion of the 50s and the various threads that led to or linked into that - even reaching as far as, say, Tinariwen, King Tubby, and Beyoncé. But it would be good to hear some other voices in this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am waiting for other voices too. But regarding the charts being weird, I am sure it is because of the different methods of regulation of radio bandwidth and licensing. We have the FCC and then they issue licenses, which created multiple independent stations in every major market. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is vastly different from the UK which was dominated by the BBC and stations that were completely legal and setting their own formats here would be considered pirate stations in the UK and hence not considered in charting of trends. Sswonk (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Historically, the UK charts have always been based solely on retail sales, without taking into account airplay (whether on the BBC or pirate stations), jukebox plays, or the like; and based on a cross-section of all retail outlets in the country (although there have been inaccuracies in the past). So, the charts have always shown a cross-section of the music that was sold at the time, regardless of whether that was Engelbert Humperdinck or Jimi Hendrix - and the radio stations tended to play "the hits" without too much discrimination between genres, encouraging a sort of cross-fertilisation. Another point of interest is that, when the Beatles listened to the Shirelles and Smokey Robinson, and the Stones listened to Muddy Waters and Jimmy Reed, they paid no attention to what you would consider "genre" (let alone skin colour), and simply played back and modified what they heard. It seems to me that what then hit middle America in the "British Invasion" was the shock of seeing these cute English kids playing music that many of them didn't even know existed - even though it originated from just down the road, in Chicago or Detroit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. See Billboard charts: while it doesn't say explicitly that the various charts are a result of the dispersion of radio formats among several stations in each market, I am confident that played a huge role in the charts' creation. I will look into it a bit more, hoping to make it seem less "weird". Sswonk (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a white American and I no more consider Country Music rock than I do Hip Hop. I consider Lenny Kravitz a rock star but I don't consider Michael Bolten or Vanilla Ice rock stars. If rock music means something else in the UK than it does in the US this is the first time that I've heard about it but I've never left the US before so what do I know. Wikipedia should not be US-centric so if other English-speaking countries treat the term differently then we should too. By the way Ravi Shankar was also featured at Woodstock, is he rock? I would classify all of these genres under the general Pop umbrella. BTW I'm still in favor of listing NO artists. J04n(talk page) 23:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweden here (there's a lively rock/pop scene up north too) and I think G (Ghmyrtle) has a point that's broadly valid across Europe. Genres such as soul, funk, hiphop, electronica or techno are not seen as utterly separate from rock, or defined by coming out of a certain race or age group. In the same way "classic rock" and "AOR rock" are North American labels to me (I follow English music papers too). Nobody in Europe uses "classic rock" as a generic term of beefy late-60s to early 80s rock and excluding the turgid parts of heavy metal and prog rock; that term just doesn't exist, so the idea that this kind of music clearly identifies a generation isn't up front either. By the same token, "crossover" doesn't relate to rock/funk or rock/hiphop - if the term is used, it's really about rock vs some brand of local acoustic, folksy music, so the emphasis is on mixing electric and acoustic rather than on traditions from different races.

So I think I can vouch for what G. said: you don't find too many rock/pop critiss or radio mc's, club managers or people generally interested in rock music here who would deny that rock has picked up decisive influences from soul, disco, reggae, modern city r'n'b, even hiphop and many other kinds of "ethnic" styles - at some points all along the way. Most record stores here have long since stopped relegating rock and soul artists to different shelves (with pop/rock many of them still do keep it separated but the limit is a bit flimsy). There's very few here who'd imagine that rock has just grown into a tree from Elvis and the Beatles to Led Zeppelin, heavy metal, glam and prog rock etc etc without being transformed again and again by its black cousins and other traditions. In 1980 there were probably some around who would have seen it like that, but not anymore. /Strausszek (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think you and G have presented a distorted view of what J04n and I are saying, insomuch as you appear to portray the American or maybe North American perception of rock as limited to arena guitar bands with little tolerance for anything else, and you appear to ignore our disagreement with that portrayal. If that's it, frankly to avoid embarrassment you should keep it to yourselves. If there are going to be outlines of rock, soul, country and jazz, each will categorize primarily distinct genres without apologizing to the other for doing so. I refuse to waste time defending against arguments by someone who hasn't bothered to comprehend a bloody word I've written in favor of their own malformed prejudices against Americans, especially when they are writing about forms whose worldwide popularity began in the United States. All you have said was written before above. Read it. Somewhere, your glasses got fogged. Sswonk (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMHO if we're going to try to get some reasonable defintions of rock that stay close to how the word has been used, at least after 1977, and will remain valid five or ten years from now, then it can't just cover in, like, "music ultimately based in rock'n'roll, blues, boogie and 60s British pop etc" (and I mean the tracks being rooted in those styles, it's not about whether the bands and musicians grew up on rock'n'roll, heavy metal, punk rock or whatever). It's both too vague and too narrow. A LOT of what people like Neil Young, Yes, Simple Minds, Santana, Metallica and David Bowie have produced falls outside it - but those are all rock acts to me (even if David Bowie has been huge in pop terms he is both pop and rock himself). I don't know what a musical definition that were to include both Heart of the Sunrise, Speed of Life, Rockin' in the Free World, Watcher of the Skies, Total Eclipse of the Heart and Pride (In the Name of Love) but not James Brown, The Prodigy or The Fugees would look like. All I feel sure of is it would not be useful, it would say next to nothing about rock the way it's grown since the 60s and 70s.

Lots and lots of pop and rock singers today are influenced by funk and soul styles of singing. It's become part of a common vocabulary, or a set of vocabularies. So what point is there in treating people like Isaac Hayes, James Brown, Chaka Khan or Amy Winehouse as "honorary aliens" to the rock family? /Strausszek (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sex, drugs, and rock and roll?

What's the difference between "rock and roll" and "rock music"?

I always thought they were synonomous!

The Transhumanist 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Brief explanation of Wikipedia outlines

Outlines on Wikipedia are a type of list article. Each outline is about the subject identified after "Outline of" in the title. "Outline" refers to the format of the article...

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). In Wikipedia outlines, the hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets.

Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure). They also serve as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 13:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)