Talk:Origins of rock and roll/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Academic sources

...Continued from earlier thread on "Rocket 88"

I haven't really followed the entire debate here, but academic journal articles are the gold standard, followed by books published by university presses. — goethean 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The problem here, I think, is that as the study of rock history didn't start until the late 1960s at the very earliest, and is still in its infancy (and widely considered inappropriate for serious study), there are very few sources that both refer to individual recordings and are academic in nature. The Campbell book is, I believe, used in university courses - a perusal of academic course reading lists may be instructive and useful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Ha! The first book I find as recommended course reading is this, which helpfully (or perhaps not) has an entire section on "Rocket 88" - "...considered by many to be the first rock and roll song". Most of the section is blanked out for me - others may be able to access more of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Google scholar "Analysing the breakthrough of rock ‘n’ roll (1930–1970)": "Some of these black R&B songs lay claim to being the first rock 'n' roll songs, for instance 'Rocket 88' by the Ike Turner band, a number one R&B hit in 1951" (need to gain access to discover what "these" refers to...) — goethean 18:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, this doesn't refer to the Brenston recording at all, and only in passing to Haley's recording. This book (also prominent at Google scholar) doesn't mention the song at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This paper was presented in 1996 at the American Culture Association / Popular Culture Association annual convention, Las Vegas, NV. [1] Does that count? — goethean 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that guy hasnt published his findings, only released them via an interview and a university press release.[2] — goethean 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

he goes with Arthur Crudup's That's All Right, September 1946 — goethean 18:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice link! I certainly think that analyses like that should have a place in this article. Re Crudup, there are certainly sources that say that that recording was a straightforward country blues, and nothing special - it's only remembered because Presley recorded it later. Still, anything that wins press coverage for the university.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Incidentally, I'm damn sure that words extremely similar to: “It started as a nautical phrase meaning the movement of the boat up and down and back and forth,” he said. “Sometime in the late 1800s to early 1900s, gospel and jubilee music co-opted the term and used it to mean being rocked and rolled in the arms of the Lord. In fact, the first recorded use of the term in a song was ‘Camp Meeting Jubilee’ in 1916.”.... appeared in this WP article, before he started quoting them.... “Buddy Jones was an early popular singer in the genre with his song “Rockin’ Rollin’ Mama.”... - jeez, I "discovered" that record! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Burns, J.E. (2013). What Was the First Rock and Roll Record? In Edmonson, J (Ed.), Music in American Life: An Encyclopedia of the Songs, Stars, Styles, and Stories that Shaped Our Culture. (Currently in print. Expected spring of 2013).[3] — goethean 20:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Where I have heard that title before? Oh yes... Jim Dawson and Steve Propes, in What Was the First Rock'n'Roll Record (Faber & Faber, 1992), describe "That's All Right" as "...an ordinary but catchy blues song..." which became popular (and was presumably heard by Presley) because RCA happened to reissue the original 1946 recording as part of its new 45rpm series in 1949. But the point, I think, is that because someone is labeled as an academic, it doesn't necessarily make them more authoritative than some other writers. We need to find the right balance. Burns' 2003 paper references many of the same books (Dawson & Propes, Charlie Gillett, Robert Palmer) as the ones I've referenced throughout this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And "Rocket 88" is an ordinary R&B song. I'm pretty sure it was never called out as noteworthy by anyone before the mid-60s, 15 years after it's release. I think it's hilarious in the context of this orgy of professor worship here that the professor should be paraphrasing someone who is "just a Wikipedia editor". Ortolan88 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that this article (semi-credited) formed the basis of a CD compilation (see earlier thread). Anyway... the fact is that, although stylistically "Rocket 88" was in many ways a typical R&B record of the time (though a very popular one - an R&B no.1), it did have fairly novel features both musically (distorted guitar) and lyrically (the combination of cars = freedom, booze, and girls) that foreshadowed important elements of R&R. It's also important that it was covered quickly by a white musician (Haley), though of course it wasn't the first R&B song to be covered in that way. We do need to recognise that a lot of reliable published sources do (rightly or wrongly) use terminology like "..often considered to be the first R&R record...", while also noting the lack of a prominent backbeat (on Brenston's version) and clearly stating that no-one with any serious credibility makes a definitive claim that it was "the first...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Removal of sourced content and addition of original research

I received the message below on my user talk page, so am moving it to its correct place, here. I doubt if anyone is surprised by it, but others may wish to note it and/or comment. I gave my explanation for my changes in a previous thread (at 15:59 and 16:50, 23 August 2013). Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Origins of rock and roll have been reverted. Your edit with the summary "?!" was reverted because it removed one of the credited authors of this book. Your subsequent edit, which you explained as a "wording" change, was reverted because you removed sourced material and reworded the text that changed the meaning of what the source said. Unless there is a source that has published this thought and this is not your novel analysis of previously published material, statements like "Since the late 1960s, many writers have emphasized the importance of ..." and "...has often been called 'the first rock 'n' roll record, while others have questioned this description" go beyond what any source actually says; the second synthesis combines two ideas, which if a published source had, would be acceptable. If it has, please cite it. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Re Robert Plant, he is not an "author" of the book. The book is in front of me. Google may credit him as an "author", but it is completely wrong. The contributor to the book is Robert Plant, who contributed a very brief (about 60 words) foreword. He is not the same person as "Dr Robert Plant [who] obtained his PhD in Computer Science at the University of Liverpool, England, in 1987 [and] is currently an associate professor at the School of Business Administration, at the University of Miami" - who is this person. Funny. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

An edit summary such as this would have made more sense than "?!". Your comments on 15:59 and 16:50 give the impression that you're analyzing the sources you've found and forming a conclusion not advanced by the sources themselves. The statements you added (and I quoted above) need to be a source's, not yours. Removing verified material in place of original research didn't seem like an improvement, so I reverted it. Dan56 (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't checked your Google source on Plant when I made that specific change - had I done so I would have understood why you had added it and explained my change more fully at the time. Re the other changes - they are covered in my comments on the earlier thread. Basically, it is misleading to readers to start the discussion with the (sourced) statements that "Rocket 88" is called "the first" by "most" sources, when most reliable sources (and I hope we can agree on the need to prioritise the use of academic or academically-approved sources like those in another interesting thread here) take a different view. The most reliable sources say that "many" (rather than "most") consider it to be "the first", and set out reasons for that view. We should use them - and, we should also identify dissenting views (for example, the comments that the song is not R&R at all). I'm happy to continue this discussion, so long as we all recognise that all the editors in recent discussions here are acting in good faith, and the discussion isn't derailed by accusations of "POV editing", etc., on either side. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I'll basically be offline for most of the next 48 hours, so carry on without me... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you said that already, but those comments don't justify removing sourced material in favor of your own analysis (my message addressed that already), at least a bit of which is POV (You removed a verified observation/summary with "Since the late 1960s, many writers have emphasized the importance of...", which echoes your comment here). The dissenting views are duly noted (in fact you removed one of them, Williamson's, in the aforementioned revision), and I hope that, if any of those academic sources mentioned in that earlier thread addressed the "first rock and roll record" claim among historians or others, it could be cited. Dan56 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sound clips

Various song clips, mostly added in these edits in 2012 by (now-banned) User:Jagged 85, were removed from the article a few days ago in these edits by User:Werieth, and the explanation "See WP:NFC" and the further explanation that "Those sound clips are already being used in their primary article (WP:NFCC#3]]), and its basically being used to list samples which fails WP:NFLIST. There are other issues but thats the main points." What do others think? Is there a good case - within the constraints of WP:NFCCP - for retaining a "minimal number of items", where their "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding."? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

These nine short sound clips are very useful and informative for a better understanding and they are not redundant in this excellent synthesis feature. I'm ready to revert their removal... unless u do it. --Bibliorock (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And you will be reverted and warned for violating WP:NFCC. See the discussion on my talk page. When someone removed a file for failing to meet WP:NFCC you dont revert it. Werieth (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

ok, I give up, but copyright rules are equally tricky to understand and strict. And it's rather odd that those nine sound clips have remained unremoved for some two years. Would it mean any and every other sound clip should be removed all thru wp ?--Bibliorock (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, in this case there is a combination of issues, (large number of files, list like section where they are being used, lack of critical commentary, most clips are already used on their own article, links to the associated articles can provide both more information and the clip, and other issues ). Just because something goes under the radar for a long period doesn't mean that it is acceptable. I think the record for complete hoax article is 6 years if Im not mistaken. Given that factor and that most users are not familiar with NFCC its easy for something to slip past them for a while. Werieth (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On this page, we should talk about this article, not more generally. So, the position as outlined by Werieth seems to be that it might be possible to include one or two clips "if the page had reliable sourced content attesting to their specific importance to the origins of rock and roll." I would welcome other views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Rock Awhile"

In relation to this edit and this edit... Goree Carter's "Rock Awhile" is mentioned in the article, notably in the section headed "Views on the first rock and roll record". Personally, I don't mind if it's also mentioned in the opening section alongside "Rocket 88", as a sometimes-cited "first rock and roll record" - although there are others that could also be mentioned there. However, it should not replace the mention of "Rocket 88" in the introductory section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

At minimum, Rock Awhile/Goree Carter should be included at the very front of this discussion (because it came out in 1949 and is absolutely the best candidate for the first 'pure form' rock and roll song). Its probably fine to keep some passing mention of Rocket 88 given that older, weaker scholarship often called that the 'first rock and roll song' and thus, that 'answer' gets parroted in other publications, just like if you go even further back, even weaker-yet scholarship claimed the first Rock and Roll song to be "Rock Around the Clock" Bill Haley... much like how older, weaker but otherwise credible scholarship on dinosaurs didn't acknowledge the asteroid until Walter Alvarez came along. The rediscovery of Goree Carter's early stuff has changed the game in this discussion and there are iron-clad, 100% reliable sources a-plenty who acknowledge Carter's role as seminal originator of the Rock and Roll genre. Just in case anyone reading along is interested in making their own judgement, here ya go. Goree Carter, four years after World War 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3FNLnFg6Ck Of course, 'our own ears' would be original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia but thankfully, there are reliable sources that have documented this in publication form, too. Cantor19 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What you seem to be trying to do is to prioritise the views of one critic, Robert Palmer, and your own personal opinion that "Rock Awhile" is "absolutely the best candidate", over others. That is not acceptable. The opening section of the article is intended to summarise the whole article, and, as later paragraphs make clear, many different critics have suggested many different songs as "the first...". What is important here is not your opinion, or mine - it is what verifiable, reliable sources have said about the question. Further up this page there are many quotes from authors who have commented about "Rocket 88", and the discussion at that time was along the lines of to what extent "Rocket 88" could be described as "the first..." or "one of the first...". Where are the "iron-clad, 100% reliable sources a-plenty who acknowledge Carter's role as seminal originator of the Rock and Roll genre" - and, in particular, mention "Rock Awhile" as "the first..."? You have so far not provided any sources other than Palmer and one journalist. Where are the others? On what basis do you describe other authors as "older, weaker scholarship"? Is that simply your opinion? - in which case it is of no relevance here and must be dismissed. Until we sort this out, it's best not to refer to any specific songs in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather annoying that you seem to have assigned yourself 'article captain' given the level of knowledge expressed. Your assertion that "Rock Awhile" hinges on the opinion of "one critic" means you're either lying or just completely uninformed on this topic. I'm going to presume good faith and assume the latter. Anthony DeCurtis talked about Carter's candidacy for "First Rock and Roll Song" as early as 1992. . The basis for calling your position being based on 'older, weaker scholarship' is indeed opinion, but here we get into a rather tricky logic trap given that you're basing your position on two formal fallacies- (Appeal to Authority and Argument from Popularity) - that are ingrained as core tenets of Wikipedia editorial policy and indeed, those fallacies work pretty well to source mostly accurate information a majority of the time. Here, though, we're in the minority of the times where those fallacies fail, which is where our disagreement stems. You, personally, cannot substantiate the case that "Rocket 88" is the first Rock and Roll song by any means other than blindly and mindlessly appealing to popularity, yet the reasons cited by that same popular opinion for 1951's Rocket 88 being the earliest R&R song are all negated by those same factors present in Goree Carter's earlier 1949 release. This is why the scholarship of people like Lomax, Robert Palmer, DeCurtis, etc is wildly superior to whatever you're presenting. Decurtis, Palmer, Lomax, etc make their case by presenting facts and logic that nobody can refute (nor has refuted). You make your case with literal fallacies, which were the same fallacies that once had "Rock Around the Clock" tagged as first Rock and Roll song. Or, to put it another way, an AP Poll showed that 8 in 10 Americans believe in Angels . Your position on Rocket 88 being the first Rock and Roll song would also hold that angels must be real because here... here's proof from a credible source that says many people agree. It's just weak. No amount of Wiki-Lawyering or narration assuages this. To be clear, I have absolutely no problem noting that "Rock Around the Clock" and "Rocket 88" have been called by some people as the first Rock and Roll song, just like how for a long while, many people claimed that Elvis Presley 'invented Rock and Roll'. If Wikipedia is to be credible, it has to include credible opinions that may be less popular but are more informed. Cantor19 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A lead provides a summary or overview of the article and should only contain the most important points as discussed in the article (see MOS:LEAD). Detailing what music writers consider to be the first r&r record places more emphasis than that given in the body. Are Cantor19 and Knowledge451 (and any others) being used by the same editor? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It is not up to Wikipedia to seek to determine the "truth". The main article has a well-established couple of sentences quoting Palmer and DeCurtis's views about "Rock Awhile" - with which I have no problem. It is mentioned in context of other claimants as "the first...", including "Rocket 88". The problem comes when the lead is changed to delete the reference to "Rocket 88" but add one to "Rock Awhile". That is unbalanced, and in my view - given there are many views on this, and none have an unequivocal claim to precedence over others - neither song should be mentioned in the lead. If they are both mentioned in the lead we may as well list several others (T-Bone Walker, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Wynonie Harris, Roy Brown, Fats Domino..... Blind Roosevelt Graves...) which would just be a recipe for further edit-warring. Cantor19 seems to claim a remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia practice, given that he/she has apparently only made 26 edits, of which 11 are to this talk page and article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is putting "Rocket 88" in the lead as the first Rock song, because it's not the first rock song and a noted, there are sources aplenty to support that. Wikipedia isn't here to 'determine truth', however Wikipedia does not strive to be willfully incorrect with inaccurate but popular narrations. This is no different than how "Rapper's Delight" is absolutely the most widely sourced "First Hip Song" even though more recent scholarship on that has shown that King Tim III (Personality Jock) came out 3 months earlier and is the objectively more appropriate candidate... and it doesn't matter how many people up until now cited "Rapper's Delight". Understanding has evolved. If you're going to apply an absolute label (like "first") to a deeply subjective and non-absolute question (like "what is the first (genre) song..."), you must be open to shades of gray and not mindlessly appealing to the authority of sources who might publish in accepted wp:rs entities, but have shallow (or outdated) knowledge of a particular topic. I'd propose that it's reasonable to leave a citation of Rocket 88 as first rock and roll song in the lead for this article given that it's a 'popular answer', but it should be clearly contextualized with notation of artists like Goree Carter and songs like 'Rock Awhile'. Cantor19 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The version of the lead that existed before your involvement here certainly did not state that "Rocket 88" was "the first...". It said, quote: "Various recordings that date back to the 1940s have been named as the first rock and roll record, including the frequently cited 1951 song "Rocket 88", although some have felt it is too difficult to name one record." Your insistence on mentioning "Rock Awhile" in the lead in place of "Rocket 88" does not meet the criteria for what is appropriate in the lead section - it is prioritising one set of opinions over another set of opinions, on the basis of your own personal assessment of which sources should predominate. That is unacceptable, and there seems to be no support on this page for your view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your strawman that this is just 'my opinion' is as bizarre and factually off base as your claim that I insisted "Rock Awhile" replace any mention of Rocket 88. Nowhere did I suggest that "Rock Awhile" be noted in place of Rocket 88 (which is indeed a popular, albeit inaccurate, answer to this question) and indeed, the last edit reflected that. Also, don't be delusional. This is not a 'consensus discussion' with an array of objective and informed participants. It's a three party discussion between the self-appointed article captain advocating for bad information, me and apparently you making a procedural case, rather than a factual one. "Rock Awhile" meets all criteria for lead inclusion without any consideration whatsoever for my own opinions and indeed, I've externally sourced wp:rs aplenty for what I'm saying here. You can wiki-lawyer all the procedure you please to come up with some contorted, perverted reason for why the first rock and roll song (per reliable sources) shouldn't be included in the lead for the Origins of Rock and Roll article, but you're making a case against fact. So, presuming good faith and maybe we can avoid mediation (unlikely), what is your proposal? Cantor19 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Most if not all reliable sources refuse to specify what is "the first rock and roll record" as it is a pointless and valueless endeavor. Replacing the mention of "Rocket 88" by a mention of "Rock Awhile" is exactly what you did - here and here. As a result, and in an effort to prevent any further edit-warring, I removed the mention of "Rocket 88" here. That remains my proposal, though the efforts to make you stop edit-warring and trying to reinstate a mention of "Rock Awhile" have obviously failed. Have you actually bothered to read the extensive discussions further up this page? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources I cited do indeed make the case for Goree Carter being the most reliable candidate. Here, you've moved the goalposts from advocating from a stock- but incorrect- answer, to now, saying "yeah, well, we can never know anyway". Unless you can make a case that my sources are not 1) multiple and 2) reliable, you pretty much have nothing here other than continually talking in circles. Cantor19 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What you call "moving the goalposts" is what I call "making a compromise". As you will see from further up this page, other editors have in the past been far more committed to naming "Rocket 88" as "the first..." than I ever have. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, this needs some additional action (WP:RFC, etc.). Once again, are Cantor19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Knowledge451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and any others) being used by the same editor? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one was a throwaway alt, I switched to this account when the article captain decided to dig in and advocate against reality, however do carefully note how I have no problem confirming that and consider how that point is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, so it's a pointless aside to what is being discussed here. Cantor19 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the way the article is currently configured, not going into the "First rock song" issue in the lead and then dealing with it in as much detail as can be supported in the "Views on the first rock and roll record" section works just fine. Carptrash (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Cantor19 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So can I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That would work. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something? That is what we have had for the last two-and-a-half weeks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

References