Talk:List of rock genres

[Untitled]

I would suggest using the List of popular music genres page as a guide for restructuring this page, as well as any other genre pages that are not yet structured like it. - K1darkknight 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

is speedrock not a other rock genre?

this list is pretty good but it would be very useful if it could be more orgainized, by genre's that are related or that have influenced each other etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.125.123 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur, we could base it off the system used on the russian wikipedia. Zazaban (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Synthpop

Is Synthpop really a style of rock? It really doesn't sound at all rock-ish... Sure, its origins are in new wave and post-punk, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's rock. So, what exactly makes it rock...? 121.220.40.70 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Synthpop is technically a "derivative" of rock, not a subgenre.

it's a form of new wave ,so yeah it is a form of rock music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerdude101 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

--Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Synth-pop is more electronic music than rock. --Rivet138 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Just a note to say that entries should, pretty obviously, be rock music and genres, not other forms of music, terms or national subdivisions of wider genres. Links should also not go to a band or be a redirect to an article that does not mention the genre, in these cases there is no evidence of notability.--SabreBD (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of the genres listed here are more national or regional variations than properly different rock genres. Brazilian Thrash may be Thrash played in Brazil, but it is still Thrash. Neue Deutsche Welle is basically New Wave in Germany. Or, why not include Anatolian rock as simply folk rock, for instance. --Rivet138 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Progessive bluegrass ,Alternative country and wonky pop

--Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)hello ,might I say adding these said genres into the list of rock genres ,because all of which in some way have elemnts of rock music in them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerdude101 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

yes ,all of these genres do have elements of rock music in them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manda96 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC) — Manda96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I already set out my position above. Some of the genres you have added are good work, they are clearly rock genres, but others are clearly not. The point of an article like this is not to add as many links as possible, but to provide a list of notable links that fit the title of the article. The use of bands is particularly problematic as these links risk becoming circular.--SabreBD (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the links that liked to band because they where gen're that did not have there own sperate page ,I think I ,or someone else (I can't remember) has now taken them down ,I would maybe surggest that ,some of thegenre's that link to the same page (most of the subgenres to grindcore) ,that they have some kind of infomation of the page ,they are on the page (in the box that say's subgenres at the top in grindcore for example) ,however there is no infomation on the genre at all ,not on the page ,or on a different page ,I have aid this o nthe talk page on grindcore as well I think --Rockerdude101 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement, although to be honest I find this extremely difficult to read. So, to summarise, only genres that link to pages, and only redirects where the target pages have some information on a subgenre. Linking to individual bands is really not acceptable.--SabreBD (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

yes, I fully agree with that --Rockerdude101 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Pungle

Hello, can pungle be added to the list of rock genre? It's a mix punk and jungle, it's on the page Digital hardcore too --Rockerdude101 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerdude101 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You have repeatedly added it after I removed it. Thank you for finally bringing it up here instead of continuing to edit war. I removed it because the Pungle article likely will be deleted, if not by PROD then by AfD. If it is not deleted after these processes, then feel free to add it back. For readers interested in this non-genre, see the discussion at Talk:Pungle. Cresix (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2012

It's not deleted yet though --Rockerdude101 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to rush to put something in an article. It can wait for the outcome of the deletion process, or consensus here. Otherwise, please don't edit war and continue to add it. Read WP:BRD. Cresix (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there was no rush to remove it either, it could of been left there and removed after the conclusion of the pages status on getting delteted or not to be completed, also might I add in this 'edit war' you are in the wrong as much as I am--Rockerdude101 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please respect the WP:BRD process. Once article content has been challenged (as is the case here), that's standard operating procedure on Wikipedia. I don't intend to pander to your continued pushing against that procedure by repeating the same thing over and over here. So discuss to your heart's content here, but leave the item out of the article until the process finishes. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that --Rockerdude101 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Deathcountry&Red Dirt

Does Deathcountry and Red Dirt count as a sub-genres of rock? --Rockerdude101 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Deathcountry, Red Dirst, Gothenburg metal, Swedecore, Ambient pop, Gothic Americana, Speedcore

I would like these genres to be added to the list, Deathcountry,Speedcore and RedDirt I'm not 100% sure on if they are but, Gothenburg metalis a rather big scene in Swedish metal, Swedecore is a genre of rock music, very much related to Gothenburg metal, Ambient pop is a Derivative form od Dream pop, as is Shoegazing, it is also on a list of hardcore punk sub-genres, so by definiion if it's a subgenre of hardcore punk it will be one of rock as well, since hardcore punk itself is a sub-genre of rock, and Gothic americana is a sub-genre of rock music --Rockerdude101 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gothenburg Metal and Swedecore are linked to redirects that go to a paragraph in an article that has one weak source. I don't consider that enough at this point. Create articles on those genres with appropriate sourcing, then add them to the list. Gothic Americana has been proposed for deletion because it has been completely unsourced for five years. Wait for the deletion process to finish; if the article survives PROD and AfD, then add it here. I'm not sure about the other genres you mention; I'll have to look into them before offering an opinion. Cresix (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gothenburg metal is mentioned in a documtary I've watched before called Metal Evolution(or something along those lines), I'll try and find something I can use as a source, and ok, I'm not 100% sure if they would be classed as rock music or not mabye speedcore might be classed as a Derivative form of electronic rock, I don't know --Rockerdude101 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we need enough sourcing for an entire article for each genre. Cresix (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New Romanticism, Psychedelic folk, Psychedelic soul, Psychedelic pop

New Romanticism, Psychedelic folk, Psychedelic soul and Psychedelic pop are all sub-genres of rock music, New Romanticism is a sub-genre of new wave, Psychedelic folk, Psychedelic soul and Psychedelic pop are all subgenres of Psychedelic rock, Psychedelic folk being a fusion of Psychedelic rock and folk(or folk rock), Psychedelic soul is a fusion of Psychedelic rock and soul, being very influenced by Jimi Hendrix. And finaly Psychedelic pop is a mix of Psychedelic rock and pop music, so all of the genres that have been removed resently are all sub-genres of rock. --Rockerdude101 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A fusion genre and a sub-genre are not the same thing. Even if a genre borrows from another that is rock that does not make it rock. Pop constantly borrows from rock, but by definition, what is pop is not rock. Please note that psychedelic folk pre-dates psychedelic rock, but we wouldn't say that psychedelic rock is a sub-genre of folk. New Romanticism was a fashion and youth movement, synthpop was the genre, just as Mod was a movement and R&B was the major genre associated with it.--SabreBD (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SabreBd. Every "movement" that happens to involve a particular style of music is not a "genre". Cresix (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Then by the combine logic of SabreBd we should also remove rap rock, pop rock, synthpop etc. and if you lookon the page for New Romantics it has( or at least did) have the page set up like a music page, that's why I added it Contrary to popular belief I am not a total idiot, I know the difference between a movement and a genre, however Psychedelic soul is a sub-genre of rock, it's even sometimes call 'black rock' and Psychedelic pop is to Psychedelic rock, what pop rock is to just rock, and the same with Psychedelic folk but with folk not pop, and as a side note I would say Beat music is more connected with the mod sub-culture rather than R&B I know they both where but I'd just say Beat music was more universally mod in my opinion --Rockerdude101 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

anyone can sit here and make up theories about music evolution all day long. Ridernyc (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Rockerdude, no one has even hinted that you are "a total idiot." People can discuss and disagree on an issue without those kinds of personal attacks, which has been the case completely here. You need to take a few breaths and stop personalizing this issue or you will have no credibility in this discussion. Cresix (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is wrong in so many ways

Is it just me or does this page looks like some 15-18 year old overly-enthusiastic person wanted to impress its readers? It's true that throughout the years, the term "genre" has been basically raped into its current ambiguous, useless definition. However, I believe it's common sense to know that cultural movements are not genres. Listen to Venom. Then listen to Iron Maiden. Then listen to Def Leppard. All three of them are part of the NWOBHM. They don't sound the same. This page is extremely stupid and full of flaws. I'll edit it when I have some free time. In what universe could something entitled "C86" be considered a genre? Pagan Metal is, for example a term that people use to describe any Folk Metal song with Black Metal vocals, even if its lyrics have nothing to do with paganism. Impressive page, but wrong. ScindoLuna (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs a serious revision, as it mentions some genres whose existence is not even proven. I was also thinking of editing it, to make it look better and make it meet Wikipedia's standards. Anyway, thank you for your potential efforts. --Bright Darkness (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of us have chipped away at removing some of the useless cruft and non-genre entries. My basic strategy is to remove a genre that does not link to a reasonably well sourced article that identifies it as a genre. If you think there should be other criteria for removal, feel free to express them here. I also encourage you to cull through the entries for candidates for removal. Be prepared for a battle, however, from the 15-18 year olds who don't want their favorites removed. Cresix (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As Cresix observes, some of us spend a lot of time trying to maintain some sort of validity on this page. I don't think we have every discussed it but my strategy is much the same: if an entry does not have some reasonably sourced evidence of being a genre at the target then it tends to get removed. Generally I also remove entries that are clearly not rock music. I am very happy to have more eyes on the page, but be careful not to just delete entries you do not like being here. We could of course discuss some criteria that might help the process.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also suggest that they be organized in categories and subcategories much like other genres lists do. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it, given all the problems it causes at List of electronic music genres, with disagreements about which category sub-genres belong to and the issue of where hybrid genres go. That page is far more high maintenance than this one.--SabreBD (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is Arena rock not listed here?

Seems like a straightforward answer. It was treated as a genre my the media. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.allmusic.com/subgenre/arena-rock-ma0000012329
• http://80music.about.com/od/genresmovements/p/arenarock.htm
• https://itunes.apple.com/ca/genre/music-rock-arena-rock/id1146

Just three examples. I'm sure if I searched further on AllMusic, Billboard, Spin or other trade magazines it would be apparent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because the media uses the term doesn't mean it's a genre. The phrase is, like cock rock, used as a broad, ill-defined term–a blanket statement basically–that covers artists from a multitude of genres. What musical qualities makes a song or album "arena rock"? What about hearing a song on the radio makes you say, "That's an arena rock song"? Is it because the band has reached heights in their popularity that enables them to play in large venues with pyrotechnics and lighting systems? Is it because they make anthemic or grandiose music? If so, then you can't honestly call "arena rock" a genre. A performance style, maybe. A way to denote the level of success a band has attained, sure. A radio format? Why not. But I can't see any reason to call it anything but a buzzword or way for journalists to lazily refer to musicians. Would you honestly call "classic rock" a genre? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So rock isn't a genre either because the media uses the term? Who defines genres then, you?

Personally, I have never heard of crock rock and unless you can find a reference to support it as a genre, it should be excluded.

It's not a buzzword, as was shown by the three references, and yes, I would call classic rock a genre, but I'm no more of a reliable source than you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4. It's not a genre; it's a description of venue that can include acts as diverse as The Beatles and punk rock groups, spanning every decade since the 60s. It's so broad and inclusive that it has no meaning as a descriptor of type of music, just it's location. Even the article Arena rock doesn't describe it as a genre. List of rock genres has a long history of being loaded up with a bunch of unverifiable favorites of particular editors; we don't need another one. And by the way, please notice that "rock" is not listed as a genre in the article because every genre on the list is subsumed under "rock". Cresix (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Walter, you kind of just proved my point for me. Classic rock isn't a genre... it's a radio station format that plays older music. There are no distinct musical qualities by which you can categorically qualify classic rock. The same applies to "arena rock" or "cock rock", or any other journalistic phrases you want to throw out there. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Y2kcrazyjoker4 and Cresix, sorry, do you have anything that isn't WP:OR to support your good faith statements?

While an arena is a location, the bands you mention do not fit the stylistic format described by the sub-genre of arena rock. And while there are classic rock stations, if you say to a kid "do you want to listen to some rock music" and the kid responds in the affirmative and you trudge out Bread or any other "classic rock" they will immediately label it as such. All words get their start somewhere. Just because classic rock got its start as a radio format doesn't mean that the term doesn't define some specific elements common to a style of music. That is what genres are. The same goes for the term "arena rock". Just because no one has used your magic word (genre) or it's been expunged from the article, doesn't mean it's not a genre. Besides, you two should both be aware of this: wikipedia is not a reference.

I could just as easily state that about 75% of the "genres" listed on this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, Template:Rock music does list it as a genre, but it's just as good a reference as the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Another source that calls it a genre: http://www.musicstack.com/genre/arena-rock Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If the term does not simply describe venue, then what exactly is the "stylistic format" that distinguishes your version of arena rock from, let's say, The Beatles, or the many other groups that perform in arenas? If some sources describe certain bands as "arena rock" and you disagree that they don't fit the "stylistic format" as you understand it, then I think your answer will take us back to personal opinion.

The one area where I might be close to agreeing with you on is that many of the genres listed in the article should not be there. I've tried removing the most glaring ones that don't have articles describing them as genres, but I don't have the time to fight the battles with the 12-year-olds who want their favorites in the article. Cresix (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why are you asking me to support my opinion? I'm not a RS. Find a RS that says something to support your opinion instead of trying to argue that you are right and I am wrong. I tried to offer sources, four of them, that states arena rock is a genre. It offers bands that fall into the genre as well. No arguments required other than determining if the sources are reliable or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If you'll reread my comments, you'll see that I never asked you for a source. I just asked you to explain your comments. You stated that "the bands you mention do not fit the stylistic format described by the sub-genre of arena rock". I'm simply asking you to describe that "sytlistic format" that distinguishes some groups who have been described as "arena rock" but that you don't consider fitting that "stylistic format". Cresix (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Walter. This discussion needs to be rooted in basic Wikipedia policy, not in editors' opinions. The key policy here is WP:RS. If reliable sources call it a genre, then we call it a genre. Cresix, Y2Kcrazyjoker4, can you phrase your counter-argument with respect to basic policy? Bondegezou (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

From the book This Ain't the Summer of Love: Conflict and Crossover in Heavy Metal and Punk: "Nonetheless, there seemed to be a distinctive degree of interconnection between the emergent genre of heavy metal and the emerging concert form of arena rock." Notice the very precise language used to identify the term "arena rock". From the book The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Rock History: From arenas to the underground, 1974-1980: "Similarly, rock concerts grew out of theaters and smaller arenas they played in the 1960s into large sports arenas and stadiums in the 1970s. These massive concerts came to be known as "arena rock"-an ironic development that led to a return to the one-way-street style of performance (in which the audience members were passive recipients) rather than the audience being part of the show as in the mid-1960s San Francisco festival scene..." These sources identify the term to refer to the development of popular music concert tours into larger spaces, and not to any musical division with common musical characteristics (which would define a traditional genre). Arena rock has little to do with describing the music itself and more to do with describing the artist's performance style. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Y2k has removed the term "arena rock" and also the term "AOR" from a large number of article info boxes. We have been discussing one case at Talk:Asia_(band)#Genres_vs._non-genres, but it seemed sensible to me to bring that discussion here as his/her objection is to the use of these terms as genres generally, not specifically their application to Asia.

In that discussion, Y2k has made a similar argument to AOR as he has here to arena rock, by offering citations that describe AOR as something else (a radio format). In response to both, I would say the same thing: terms can mean more than one thing - that they are used differently in one context does not prove they are not also used as genre terms.

Walter has provided cites for arena rock above. For AOR, I shall point out that there was a magazine called AOR [1], which was about a genre of music. That ran for at least 7 issues, so there's at least 7 cites for AOR as a genre.

I'm not saying these are or are not sensible names for genres; I'm saying that reliable sources use them as names for genres, and Wikipedia must reflect that, not the opinions of individual editors. Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. The sources provided by Y2kcrazyjoker4 are simply mentions of how they began but do not reflect current use of the terms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

How does the existence of a magazine called AOR certify that AOR or arena rock are genres? Does the existence of a magazine called "top 40" mean that top 40 is now a genre? You have to come up with something better than that. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the argument, but I'd argue that Top 40 is a genre to some. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Disco, Funk., Soul and Hip Hop

These are all subgenres of Rock.

Rock and roll music was started by Blacks. In the 60s they took rock in a different direction than the white guitar oriented rock acts did. They combined the influence of gospel music with rock and roll to create soul, then later funk and disco, and then hip hop. These are all forms of rock just as prog and punk and metal are. In fact much of hip hop sounds closer to the origins of rock (Bo Didddley) than does prog or metal. Why woulod an act that combined clasical and rock and roll like the Moody Blues be any more viable as "rock" as an act ;like James Brown that combined rock and roll with gospel?

The Rock amd Roll Hall of Fame includes many sopul acts, several fubnk acts, a couple of disco acts and several hip hop acts with many more to come.

Why Rap Is Rock:

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/why-rap-is-rock.html

Walter, don;t you touch my changes.

SavoyBG — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavoyBG (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll touch what I want and your research needs a reliable source. Digital dream door is not a RS: "My name is Lew and this website is my hobby. I tried to make a site that is fun, entertaining, and educational. A place you could spend an hour browsing, reading and leaving your opinion for others to learn from. If you have any suggestions for how I can improve it, email me at webmaster@digitaldreamdoor.com". Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the genres you added (funk, soul music, disco and hip hop) descend from rhythm and blues not rock, which had a parallel growth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to endorse Walter Görlitz's points. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not a reliable source for this and if we start including every genre of modern popular music then it becomes rather pointless.--SabreBD (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So if the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame is not a reliable source for what genres are part of rock, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.227.221 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Rock is rhythm and blues. They are one and the same. Alan Freed coined the term "rock and roll" as a new name for the rhythm and blues music that he was playing. He thought it would be a better name for the music in order to make it easier to market it to white teenagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.227.221 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Rock is rock and comes for rockabilly. R&B is a completely other line of music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Walter, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SavoyBG (talk • contribs) 05:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I know what I'm talking about. First, check the correct links (not the ones you keep adding) to the articles in question. They all indicate that they're related to R&B. There's no question that there is cross-polination of the two strains of music, but to state that they are rock is like saying jazz is classical music because several prominent performers used material from classical music and that Gershwin wrote music for both. Might as well say that punk is a dance music genre.

Just find some reliable sources that say that funk, soul music, disco and hip hop are a form of rock music--not your opinion, not hall of fame entries, reliable sources--and we'll have a starting point. I'm very open to discussion. In the meantime, I've requested that the article be locked to avoid the useless edit war.

Also, Please sign-in for all of your edits and sign your comments on talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Who gets to decide which sources are reliable?

I say the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which is voted on by the artists themselves, industry people and music critics is as reliable as you're gonna get. It's certainly WAY more reliable than Wikipedia. I could spend 24 hours a day correcting errors on Wikipedia and never finish in 100 years.

+++not your opinion+++

ANY source is going to be SOMEBODY'S opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavoyBG (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't delete the comments (and signature) of other editors.

If you want to know what constitutes a reliable source read WP:RS. It's not me. It's not you either (thankfully!). It's been set for a while. If you think the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a reliable source, and I could be wrong but as a business its job is to attract visitors, while two of us don't take it to the reliable source noticeboard and whatever is decided there I will abide by. I can't speak for SabreBD. And while you're there, add a section to see what they think about digitaldreamdoor.com and the essay on why rap is rock. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

On second though, I added digitaldreamdoor.com and it's on its way to being blacklisted as a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)