Talk:Origins of rock and roll

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Origins of rock and roll article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 12 months

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Music/Music genres task force

Origins of rock and roll is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 29 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to History of rock and roll. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Johnny Bowker

Does the line "Oh do, my Johnny Bowker, come rock and roll me over" in the sea shanty really have a sexual connotation, as the article claims? I'm not sure that the first cited source really states this, and the second one is just the lyrics themselves. The notion that the sailors, while hoisting a sail, would routinely entreat a fictional Johnny Bowker to perform the active role in a homosexual intercourse with them strikes me as a bit too odd.--94.155.68.202 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Grimes

Just to note this SPS blog source says: "Tiny Grimes is the inventor of Rock and Roll, and 'Tiny's Boogie', recorded at WOR studios in NYC on August 14, 1946, is the very first Rock and Roll recording." The source hardly looks very reliable, but just for info, here it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That particular recording was from 1951, I think (on United Records), not 1946 - I haven't been able to find a better source for the 1946 radio recording claim. Another site making the claim is here - I suspect it may have originated from a Screamin' Jay Hawkins biography. If a better source can be found, of course it could be mentioned. The 1951 recording is mentioned by Birnbaum here, but without any excessive claims for it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. The 1946 version seems to be this one, apparently on a re-issue label. Tiny Grimes discography lists only albums and there is no mention of it at (the remarkably brief) Tiny Grimes. But it seems to be included on Blue Notes's 1998 "The Blue Note Swingtets" (John Hardee on tenor sax it turns out). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best explanation about how rock evolved

Bill Wyman article:

   The music didn’t evolve in a linear fashion; it’s never been clear who invented it,  The best thing you can do, as the scholar Ed Ward does in the first volume of his just-released History of Rock & Roll, is to go back and track down all the folks who were doing those weird things It was, he said, “like four or five avenues rolling toward one another.” https://www.vulture.com/2016/12/chuck-berry-invented-the-idea-of-rock-and-roll.html

Your thoughts on this, Ghmyrtle?

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of rock and roll → History of rock and roll – It is more common to have history of than origins of articles. While we have Category:Origins of music genres it has just three entries, all of which likely need to same rename. Conceptually this would allow this article to expand beyond early history, and anyway, it is not clear who and why defines where the origins end. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Having an article that only focuses on the "origins" of rock and roll makes no sense when we can have an article that covers the full history, including its origins. Sillypilled (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The origins of rock and roll cover sufficient breadth to support a separate article; there should be a freestanding article on the History of rock and roll that gives a summary account of the origins and proceeds to cover everything up to the present day. BD2412 T 15:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Until an abundance of content requires us to split the origins from the history, it is best to use the more generic title: history. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the origins of rock and roll are now an important stand-alone historical topic, covered in many works and educational studies. Similar to Origins of the blues and Origins of opera. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - reasons in the thread below, but I'll restate them here. The article does not, never has, and never should, cover the "History of rock and roll". That raises all sorts of issues about the term itself, and the period to be covered - it could extend until the present day, and into the future. The Origins of rock and roll are fairly obscure, complex, and have been covered in a very large number of published sources - specifically about its origins. The idea that the Origins can simply and solely be covered in a single article about the History of the genre is, frankly, ludicrous - such an article would become preposterously long, given the wide range and lengthy period it would need to cover. This article is very specifically about the Origins of the genre as it emerged in the 1950s, and the previous decades - most definitely not about its later history, since the 1950s. The title "History of rock and roll" is quite simply wrong or at best highly misleading, and the existing title and content of "Origins..." should be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the reasons above. Sillypilled seems to be suggesting a wholly new article, but probably one that would be too large and complicated to ever work? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please reverse this move

Please reverse this edit, for further consideration. OK, as a major contributor to the article I should have been aware of the move request - but, I wasn't, I've been busy, and as a general point it has been moved on the basis of a very small number of !votes (2 to 1) after a short (one week) opportunity for discussion. The article does not, never has, and never should, cover the "History of rock and roll". That raises all sorts of issues about the term itself, and the period to be covered - it could extend until the present day, and into the future. No, the article is very specifically about the Origins of the genre as it emerged in the 1950s, and the previous decades. The article is most definitely not about its later history, since the 1950s. The title "History of rock and roll" is quite simply wrong or at best highly misleading, and I would like that opinion to be expressed on the article talk page before any final decision is taken. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The Origins of rock and roll are fairly obscure, complex, and have been covered in a very large number of published sources - specifically about its origins. The idea that the Origins can simply and solely be covered in a single article about the History of the genre is, frankly, ludicrous - such an article would become preposterously long, given the wide range and lengthy period it would need to cover. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the sparsely attended discussion should be reopened (and likely should have been a relisting). I too would have commented 'Oppose' if I'd run across this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For accuracy in language, I did notice this RM the first day it opened and intended to both follow the discussion and analyze the replies and the question, then forgot about it, missed the three replies, and next noticed when the close appeared. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly agree, for all the reasons listed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though I fail to grasp how the three of you didn't see the RM when it was open, yet managed to show up to complain about the close only minutes after I closed it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blame my large watchlist, where not everything edited catches my attention. Thanks for the reopening. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same. On some days I have other priorities... on other days, I don't. Simple. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Some) people have real lives? This does not excuse the very hasty close. ~~I thought there were rules abut this process??~~ I suppose it was 8 days, as opposed to the minimum number of 7, but it's possible to judge whether or not all main contributors have !voted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]