Talk:Rock and roll/Archive 1

Some might question the discussion of racial politics here, but I think it's an important part of the story of rock's popularity in the 1950s, so I would argue for its retention. Also, it was noted that there was some resisatance to listing a lot of bands; I don't know that I agree with that restriction. I suppose one option would be to follow the precedent given in The novel and Novelists. Also, in large part, the medium is defined by who was playing it (and when). This is the logic behind some of my edits today. RjLesch

My view is that in listing too many bands one loses the focus of the article and doesn't give the opportunity for the truly outstanding (in terms of popular and/or critical acclaim, or influence on future work) to be recognised. Perhaps we need some list articles for rock/pop groups. --Robert Merkel

Point taken. See Rock and roll performers. -- RjLesch.

I have removed:

Significantly, too, many early white rock and roll performers came from the South. Elvis Presley, who was described as "a white man who sings like a black man", came from Memphis, Tennessee. Buddy Holly was from Lubbock, Texas and Roy Orbison was from Vernon, Texas. Jerry Lee Lewis was from Ferriday, Louisiana.

Why is this significant? I can kind of guess what the author meant, but it really needs an explanation.
Who characterized Elvis that way? Who cares?

This could be a useful paragraph, but as it is I believe it is distracting and confusing, and doesn't mean anything. All the reader can take away is that someone thinks the fact that many early rock and rollers were southern whites is a significant fact (significant to who/what?). Somebody, possibly the same person, believes Elvis was white but sang like he was black. Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison were Texan, and Jerry Lee Lewis was Louisianian (a Louisianer?).

I'll let this gestate in my mind, and maybe I'll come up with a point and find some sources. Anybody else who wants to give it a shot, feel free. Tokerboy 05:54 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

I was a white southern teenager in the 50s and this paragraph or some version of its message definitely belongs in this article. The story of the birth of rock and roll is the story of the transformation of rhythm and blues into rock and roll, and that is the story of the transformation of a music performed by and for African Americans to a music performed by and for everyone. In the current climate of razor-thin genres, it is perhaps hard to remember or imagine that rock and roll actually brought black and white people into the same tent.

I was one of the first white people to get into the tent. Despite segregation, white southerners had much more contact with black people than white northerners did, and much, much more contact with black mus ic. When I went to college in 1959, I was astonished to find that Jimmy Reed and Muddy Waters were not gigantic superstars as I had thought them. On the other hand, Chuck Berry was not some apostate to me, but just another R&B star alongside Jimmy and Muddy and James Brown. They used to show up on the hit parade between Perry Como and Teresa Brewer and nobody thought anything of it.

When I was fifteen, we used to ride out in the country, way out in the country, to go to black "night clubs" (concrete-block shacks with tin roofs) where we were the ones behind the ropes and black people held the floor dancing to black bands. At about the same time, or a little earlier, Elvis Presley was hiding behind the piano in a Memphis night club (a real one) watching Ike Turner work it out for the crowd. Hank Williams was tutored by a black man named Tee-Tot. Carl Perkins worked alongside black people in the fields and learned to play from black people on the weekends.

We loved this music, me and Carl and Hank and Jerry Lee. We weren't thinking of how much easier it is to market black music if it is played by white people and we didn't think we were taking anyone else's heritage. It was our heritage too. We didn't know any better. This all really happened, it really happened to me and thousands of others. We were years ahead of the yankees on this. Then, many years later, the same thing happened in New York, when Italians like Dion and the Belmonts emulated black groups like the Orioles. It happened decades earlier when the white Jack Teagarden came out of Texas with his trombone and his blues singing. It happened a century earlier when blackface minstrels emulated black performers.

It is really counter-productive and counter-factual to pretend this did not happen. Virtually the whole story of American music is the story of the encounter of white people with black people. It is also incorrect to think that white people did not bring anything to the table. Al Jolson, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, Mick Jagger, Teagarden, Bix Beiderbecke were all great performers and great artists who performed their own transformation on what they found.

Incidentally, the quotation about Elvis --"a white man who sings like a black man"-- was not really about Elvis. Sam Phillips, who gave a break to many black and white performers, described this as his quest before he ever met Elvis.

I think its also worth quoting Phillips in full: "If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a million dollars". There is no denying loved the music, and that he signed and produced black and white performers, but he knew where the money was: in the white northern markets and that -- at that time -- they would more far more readily accept a white man. And this wasn't a grand integrationist scheme to promote racial tolerance by introducing Yankees to R'n'B -- his aim was to make $1,000,000 (pretty much the same as Chuck Berry's has always been)" -- User:GWO

Likewise, Frankie Laine told an interviewer in the late 40s, after his "That's My Desire" was a hit, said, "All I was trying to do, all I ever wanted to do, was to sing like a spade." (Pardon the rudeness, but the word is essential to understanding the remark.)

I'll be getting back to this subject. It's important to me and it's important to accurate history. Rock and roll and jazz would not have happened without both black and white performers. Ortolan88

You misunderstand me. I agree the idea behind this quote is relevant, just not as it was worded--because the wording didn't seem to mean anything except by unclear implication. Something to the effect of what you wrote above (except not as personally about you) would be great. Tokerboy 13:58 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

The first thing I did after writing the above was to get out the Bo Diddley box set and play it all the way through (it's on the second disk now). I haven't heard any pandering to white people or trying to sound "pop".

There's a big difference between record producers like Phillips and performers. Performers mostly just want to perform. Elvis wanted to sing like a black man, to be sure, but he wanted to sing like an Italian tenor too, and a pop star, and every other kind of singing you can think of (some pretty awful).

Of course, I'm planning to add all this stuff to the article. It won't be about me, but you can bet those white teenagers in pegged pants and blue suede shoes will be in there. I bought my first blue suede shoes well before the song (and it is a bitch to keep those things looking good). My mom thought I was gay since no one but homosexuals wore blue suede shoes in her experience. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but back then ...). It was not the only way my mother suffered from my teenagedness.Ortolan88

Just two quick points:

1. The Stanley Brothers the article is linked to at the moment are the bluegrass act.
2. I can think of a lot of things that Bill Haley could have brought to "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" that Joe Turner didn't, but it would help if the "something" he brought were specified in the article. I can't myself think of anything he brought to the song which was superior to the original, but am willing to be edified. If the point is that many of the covers weren't simply copies, then maybe that could be stated explicitly. Trontonian 13:05, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I added a bit about how the covers weren't necessarily copies. If that wasn't what was intended please add what was. I happen to think myself that some covers were superior to the originals. Trontonian 22:31, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I like the table with new articles and such here, but I don't think I like the format. It looks too much like the main page -- surely we can think of some better way to do this. Tuf-Kat

That's because I copied the table code from the main page. I agree it would be better in a different format. I would love to see it as a "sidebar" or in a frame next to the Table of Contents. I messed around a bit with it and couldn't figure out how to make text flow around it or move it next to the TOC. But I'm no table guru; perhaps someone else is. Jgm 13:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey, this article badly needs a mention of Bob Dylan. Maybe a new section on how he brought folk influences over, but not ignoring the big moment when he "plugged in". JDG 19:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the "new articles" and other line items in the table: when updating, I've been following what seems to be the same protocol as the main page -- add new items on the left, remove the rightmost item (unless as it reaches the cliff it is still, say, "in the news" in which case it also goes back to the leftmost rather than disappearing off the right -- Michael Jackson is a current case in point). Jgm 01:04, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another rule followed on the main page is that the article must explain why it is "in the news" before it is listed... What did I miss about Mystikal? Tuf-Kat 02:43, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

See [1] . You are correct about the rule, I had edited an update of the article but it was sacrificed to the slow server gods; I've now put a one-line add, perhaps someone else can flesh it out. Jgm 04:26, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Suggested new table

I was gonna convert this to the new wikimarkup, but then I decided to change it a bit. Opinions? Tuf-Kat 08:18, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Can we add more space between categories? And is the item seperation by commas rather than dashes the new standard? The only thing that's more difficult about that is when items are related (compare

The Beatles, Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, MTV, Meat Loaf

with

The Beatles - Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, and MTV - Meat Loaf

for example).

Also, does this now float to the side of the main text? That would be very nice and allow for more flexibility in the number of items in each category. Jgm 16:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to dashes, because I agree that looks better. This is supposed to float to the right around the text, but for some reason this conversation isn't wrapping around it, so maybe I did something wrong. I'm not sure how to add more space between categories, but I'll fiddle with it tonight. Tuf-Kat 17:58, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Looks nice, thanks. Can it be a bit wider? And, are we going to settle on three entries per category, or is there some other rule of thumb that would work better with this format table? Jgm 23:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Three's a good number, but it's not really important -- the size of the box is the issue. Ten links would be fine as long as they don't make the box huge. I made it a little bigger (270 to 300) but I'm not sure it could get much wider without making the TOC difficult to read (that could be a reason to simplify section headings), but you can fool around if you wish. Just change width="300" to some higher number in the first line of the box code, and it will get correspondingly wider. Tuf-Kat 23:29, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Justified? (In the orange box next to the TOC) What's that got to do with rock'n'roll? -- Stw 18:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should have been Justified (album). Looks like something got lost in the transition to the new table format. Fixed now, thanks. Jgm 00:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

____

In the 1995- present section: it mentions the extremely dire state of things in the late 90s but nothing about the White Stripes

Boxes and Tables

I see a genrebox has been added. This isn't a bad thing, but the current layout, with the genrebox, TOC, and "related articles" table (all in conflicting colors) is hideous; I cannot stand it and it cannot stand. Question: Is it time for "related articles" to go? It was an experiment to begin with, and I did almost all of the updating (which I haven't had the time or inclination to do much lately). Alternatively, can some or all of the "related articles" categories be merged into the genrebox? Jgm 22:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To answer my own question - yes, it seems to be time for the table to go - it has not been edited in some time and has become obsolete.

One more thing -- the listing of "Jump Blues" as the precursor to RnR is pretty lame, in my opinion. The whole first part of the article talks about precursors; do we really want to oversimplify it so in the box? Jgm 22:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rock/Rock and Roll

Rock and Roll, also called Rock...

Rock and Roll and Rock are two separate but related genres... I'd edit it myself but dont want to incur anyone's wrath. DryGrain 19:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hm. I don't disagree with this in principle but the boundaries are so fuzzy and subject to personal opinion that I think it is better covered in one well-written article. Perhaps you can add some discussion on the branching of Rock from RnR (I think it is mentioned briefly in the article). Alternatively, I think it'd be acceptable to start a Rock music/temp article (leaving the RnR article untouched for now) and see if a natural and consensus break point develops. Jgm 22:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree that Rock and Rock and Roll have different connotations, but I don't think they're different genres. Perhaps, Rock is a super-genre of Rock and Roll which includes things that couldn't possibly be described as rock and roll. Don't know what the plan on this is as of now, though. —siro χ o 10:02, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents in, I strongly disagree with the equation of rock and rock and roll. I don't know many people who consider them the same and it is a very misleading comment for someone doing research. I'm afraid I'l have to do some editing.

Current (1995-present)

In 1995, Canadian pop star Alanis Morissette released Jagged Little Pill, a major hit that featured blunt, personally-revealing lyrics, and spawning a wave of late 90s confessional female rock releases by artists including Jewel, Tori Amos, Fiona Apple, and Liz Phair.

Tori Amos (Little Earthquakes 1992) and Liz Phair (Exile in Guyville 1993) were putting out "confessional female rock releases" before anyone had heard of Alanis Morrissette. Perhaps they got more exposure from the chick rock fad, but their work was not "spawned" by Alanis Morrissette.. --65.147.0.75 11:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Red table

I know how you removed the red table and switched it back to orange. I am changing colors to go in line with different genres. Is it okay if I use white text on a red background?

Currently I am experimenting with a darker crimson red.

Today's edits by user at ip 64.222.226.14

It looks like this editor did add a few things but also removed a lot -- I'm not going to sort through it all and have simply reverted but I'd encourage the editor to add your new material without deleting others'. If you think something is wrong or doesn't belong, please discuss it here. Jgm 19:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This user seems to have a history of innocent-looking vandalism (removal of info/alteration of info), I might report him soon, but good revert, and we should be careful. —siro χ o 22:27, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

External links

The external links provided on the rock and roll article seem to belong on other pages. I'll wait a little while to move them though, in case anyone else has an opinion. —siro χ o 22:37, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Splitting the article

With the article now 42k (preferred maximum is 32k I believe) perhaps it's time to split it into two sections: The main part and a new Social impact of rock or Social impact of rock and roll.

Though the social impact is very important I think it could easily be moved into a different article. The Social impact of rock title would be the best imo as that term is more commonly used today. Perhaps Social impact of rock and roll could redirect to it.

I would do this myself but it's quite a big change and I'd rather have some opinions before I mess around with it. violet/riga 10:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a posibility; however, the social impact of rock and roll is so inherently connected to it, that some good summaries should be left here of each "piece" of impact discussed. We should be cautious in how we break this article up. —siro χ o 04:23, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Differences between my version and Jgm's

I placed text under the heading to highlight the difference in modern use of Rock and Roll and Rock. As mentioned by somebody previously these two are rather different and, while I agree Rocks roots are in Rock and Roll and that they could share an article, with the high number of links to "Rock" I reckon it would be confusing for some to be redirected to Rock and Roll without any obvious reasoning. While they could read the article and find out what is going it I really think that having an explanation at the top is the best option.

My version (at the top of the page):

The term "Rock" as used today is a very broad description and can differ greatly from what people see as "Rock and Roll". All modern musical genres are difficult to define and many bands do not like being placed in only one particular category - they see themselves as a crossover between many different types of music. The subgenres of rock help to disambiguate to a large degree and it is usual to describe acts using a number of different terms.

Jgm's version (in "Origins of Rock and Roll"):

As simmple rock and roll evolved into more sophisticated forms, often bearing little resemblance to the simple, dancable rock and roll of the past, some critics differentiated this form by referring to it simply as "rock" music. The term "rock" as used today encompasses a very wide variety of musical styles and rock is often divided into many overlapping sub-genres (see also list of rock genres.

Perhaps I'm biased but I prefer my description too. Don't mean any offence Jgm. violet/riga 16:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

None taken. My thought is this: the article is primarily about the music, not the etymology. The introductory summary (pre-TOC) should reflect the primary focus of the article. There is (has been for a long time) a section dealing with the *term* "rock and roll"; the discussion of the meanings and differences of the terms "rock" and "rock and roll" seems naturally to belong there. I have no problems if you want to expand upon or re-focus the discussion there, but I don't think it belongs in the intro. Jgm 16:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. Hmm, it's a tough one tbh - "Rock and Roll" as I see the term pretty much died out at the end of the 60s, though Oasis are quite "Rock and Roll" too and they're modern. "Rock" makes me think of Van Halen and Bon Jovi, but that's also classified as "Hair Metal". This confusion is what leads to me think that the pre-TOC bit should contain some mention of the difficulties of the terminology used. I'm off to read AllMusic's version of things! :) violet/riga 17:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.allmusic.com have both terms merged together: "...rock & roll had a specific sound and image for only a handful of years. For most of its life, rock has been fragmented, spinning off new styles and variations every few years... ...and that's only natural for a genre that began its life as a fusion of styles." Does that help? Not sure really. Oh, and they have about 200 subgenres! violet/riga 17:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep the new intro, personally I like it. It'll set things straight at the start. This should also be discussed in more depth in the places Jgm pointed out. —siro χ o 23:04, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Precursors and Origins

The article says:

Going back even further, Rock and Roll can trace a foundational lineage to the old Five Points district of mid-19th century New York City, the scene of the first fusion of heavily rhythmic African shuffles and sand dances with melody driven European genres, particularly the Irish jig

Wasn't New Orleans the site of a similar fusion between musical styles, albeit perhaps a bit later than Five Points, in the 1860s or 1870s? I recall a PBS documentary about the city a year or so ago...in the years immediately following the end of the Civil War, there was a lot of interaction between different groups, including transmission of music. After all, the Mississippi from Memphis down to New Orleans seems to have been the birthplace of practically every other American musical tradition... --Sewing 15:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Major reorg needed

Hmm, this article is at more than 40k right now, and needs to be made smaller. I've been trying to organize it more, but I think I added more than I removed.

The term rock music is exceedingly vague -- this is part of the problem. Even hip hop is sometimes considered a kind of rock, which makes this article very redudant with music of the United States, music of the United Kingdom etc. I suggest being strict -- I removed the section (which was empty) devoted to Motown and soul, because they are not varieties of rock. Influenced by it, yes, and soul is mentioned in several locations already, but we have an article on soul music, so there's no need for it here. I'd like to remove the bit about disco as well for the same reason.

There was a brief section on heavy metal's "resurgence" in the 80s (when was the first "surgence"?), which I expanded to be about hair metal. This should perhaps be removed, since hair metal is a kind of heavy metal, which has its own article (I know, heavy metal is a kind of rock (historically at least), but its often treated as distinct).

This would leave as a basic outline:

Birth in the 30s and 40s
First popularization, covers and rockabilly
American diversification into surf and such, and spread to UK
British Invasion, psychedelia and folk- and country-rock
Birth of heavy metal and progressive
Singer-songwriters, glam, hard rock, power pop and punk
Alternative rock, jangle pop and grunge
Britpop and the garage rock revival

It has also occurred to me that the bulk of this article could be moved to rock music, leaving rock and roll to specifically discuss the origins in the early part of the century to about the time of British Invasion. This wouldn't help a whole lot, though, since most of the article takes place after the mid-60s, and it would leave probably hundreds of articles pointed to the wrong location. Still, its worth considering.

Another problem I have with the article is its Americo-centricity. Obviously, there is mention of British musicians, but after the 60s, it seems to be included as an afterthough (the The Smiths are not mentioned anywhere, but then neither is R.E.M.). This should be more closely entangled with the central history.

It may be better to have this be an overview of rock in all its incarnations and aspects, and have a separate article for the history of rock and roll... I dunno if I really like that idea, since the topic is so vaguely-defined...

Anyway, I'm rambling and will stop now. Any opinions? Tuf-Kat 21:41, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

The birth of heavy metal is somewhere before 1969 with the formation of Led Zeppelin, certainly before 1970 with Black Sabbath, hence the "resurgence" in the 1980s. The birth probably belongs about where you put it, between British invasion and Punk. THere should definately be at least a small bit about Hair Metal in this article, because it dominated mainstream rock and roll for a few years. [[User:Siroxo|Here is a schmancy new signature and a line of text that is long enough to show how it might look when there is some stuff coming before it. Please take a look at it to bask it in all of its radiant glory

—siro χ o

#627562

#7b967b

#4d6c94]] 22:51, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Please also see Splitting the article section (above) re:relocating the social impact section. violet/riga (t) 22:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've have ruthlessly cut stuff away. Except for a little bit of trimming of verbiage, all material has been moved to samples of music from the United States, Hair metal, Indie rock, Garage rock, British rock and American rock. The last two need a lot of work, as they are basically just a few paragraphs from here and there thrown together, but the gaps in each show how much material was missing from this article before. I'm inclined to think that the history should be kept very brief, because it's very much unique to countries and subgenres -- rock and roll is so vague, much of the history that was here could and should be better covered at articles like punk rock. The only part that can't be moved anywhere is the basic stuff about how the subgenres appeared and the social impacts of the whole rock shebang. Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm making since, but... 21:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a little note further down about why I changed the history section back. Basically the deletions removed way too much important information from the article, including several entire sections. Certainly the details should be kept at specific pages, but I was worried the entire page had suffored from overzealous cutting. —siro χ o 03:59, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I can dig it

Can anyone tell me what group did "I can dig it"? Thank you Rich

This really isn't the place for such a query (the Wikipedia:reference desk might be). But since you're here, try the All-Music Guide.

Semirevert of history section

I just changed the history section back to the one of this version, without changing the rest of the article.

I know this article is very long, but just cutting and cutting is not the way to fix it. Much of this information is valuable, and should be carefully preserved in proper articles. Very importantly, major sections should not be removed without good reasons. (Shortening an article is not a good reason for blatant removal of information and sections). Take it one step at a time, and make sure all the information that needs to be here is, and that the info removed is placed at proper articles, and linked to in an obvious way (eg, the Main article: blah) way.

Lastly, I know that none of the edits to cut the article down in size were done in bad faith, I just wanted to preserve the information that could have been lost.

—siro χ o 03:55, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

No information was lost, and everything was moved to different articles, all of which are fairly prominently linked in just the manner you describe. Which information that was moved away from the old version do you want to keep here? Tuf-Kat 07:54, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to not give specifics. Much of the vital information was removed, instead of just being pared down, including much about rock and roll's origins, Surf rock, Garage rock, and (especially) Folk. NWOBHM (the most influential metal movement since its creation, which hasn't yet ceased) was removed of its very short mention. New Wave was given but a sentence, mislabeling it "electronic pop", and misrepresenting its period of popularity. Also, Nirvana was not the first (or even one of the first) bands to emerge from the Seattle grunge scene. Lastly, the sections were treated more as distinct, yet the goal is to represent this as the history of Rock and Roll as one supergenre, and explain (even if only shortly) where each movement grew from, instead of treaching each as a its own entity (for example, the two first paragraphs in the "Current" section differ only slightly, yet the one linking to curt cobain and the grunge movement provides more insight into the flow of the history of rock and roll. —siro χ o 16:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

What do you think of the current version? The only major change was the removal of the entire disco section, since disco isn't rock and hasn't had much influence on it. This gets the size down to 38 kb, only 6 kb short of the maximum desirable article size. Tuf-Kat 22:19, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah Disco is very hazy as a true part of rock and roll, and is not a requisite part of the article. It might be worth a short mention somewhere though. —siro χ o 03:15, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Social impact removal

In reading through the social impact area, I spotted this paragraph, which I am removing. I'm not really sure what the point of it is -- is it to prove that "unclassifiable, non-commercial music forms have always played"? In what way unclassifiable? The Canterbury Sound is generally considered a kind of progressive and psychedelic fusion, I think. No music is unclassifiable, thought very little of it fits into any neat hierarchy. Anyway, this paragraph seems out-of-place and overly long. Tuf-Kat 07:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Unclassifiable, non-commercial music forms have always played an important part in the evolution of rock music. An ever-expanding group of British musicians known collectively as the Canterbury Scene, largely because there is no other way to classify them, are an example of a relatively unknown, cultish trend in music that is very influential but flies below the cultural radar of all but the most adventurous music fans. A combination of jazz, psychedelia, Dada, John Cage, and other art and literary references, fused reluctantly into a 60s and 70s rock framework, is characterized by bands such as the early Soft Machine and Gong, who, in retrospect, can be said to have pioneered trends such as World Music and experimental music. Audiences for this type of cross-genre experimentation, both live and in recordings, are larger in Europe than the U.S., although in recent years, the popularization of Punk and Rap have opened traditionally mainstream minds to new forms of expression within the rock idiom.

I removed the social impact section

I didn't want to, but I removed the social impact section, placing it at social impact of rock and roll (there is, perhaps, a better title). One of the reasons is because the article showed no sign of getting smaller, and still dealt exclusively with American and British rock, barely mentioning any other country, including our likely audience, English-speaking areas like Australia. So, it's at 30k with no social impacts, and adding some info on non-US/UK rock may bring it back over the edge... Thus negating the value of the last few dozen edits.

I don't really have a point, just felt like I should leave a note on talk. Gonna go write a summary of Aussie rock and such now. Tuf-Kat 05:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

This seems fine, others had suggested it before as well. We should include a very prominent link to that article, perhaps right in the introductory section. —siro χ o 05:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I put a link in the first para. The article is at 33k now. Tuf-Kat 07:32, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)