Talk:Acid rock/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 22:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Been interested in this genre for a long time, although I admittedly know a lot less about it than I should. I'll give this a try.

Quick comment as I was invited here to take part in the discussion about a possible merge with Psychedelic rock. While reading this article, I got so distracted by the number of tags, mostly appearing in the references. (From memory, there are 4 or 5 in the Definitions section alone.) This needs fixing, obviously – but I'm surprised someone nominates an article with "page needed", "by whom?", "verification needed", "repetition" tags, etc. (I mean, I thought the whole idea was, expand an article, ensure it's fully sourced, then it qualifies for a B rating, then perhaps it's worthy of GA nomination?) Anyway … JG66 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's 4 or 5 in the article total. The issues are trivial; GA articles don't need to be perfect, just enough that whatever issues it has could be fixed in five minutes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Per WP:GA?#Immediate failures, but also GA criteria point 2a and potentially 2c & d. Anyway, I count 7 tags. JG66 (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it says a "large" number of tags is an immediate failure. Is 7 a large figure? 3 of those are asking for specific page numbers, which can't be fixed unless someone has a physical copy of the cited books. "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you need to have page numbers – don't be so stupid. JG66 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you noticed but Google Books previews don't always show the page number.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the reference should carry a link to the preview. Some GA reviewers are tougher than others, or focus on certain aspects of article quality more than on other areas, but overall, the standard of GAs has risen hugely since 2012/13, from my experience. It's a case – well, it should be so if "Good Article" is to mean anything – of approaching each nomination with a view to satisfying each and every concern that any GA reviewer might bring. And from all I've seen, many would not consider an article adequately sourced even with just a single ref in need of a page number (or alternatively, linked to a preview), nor would they think it's acceptable to have any tags ("by whom?", "verification needed", "repetition", etc) appearing at all. JG66 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch writes

Sorry for disappearing right after I took on the review, but demands of Real Life kept my time for Wikipedia to a minimum. But I'm here & I do have some concerns:

The article does not appear to be stable. For one thing, there have been a lot of edits since I took on this review. Another is the proposal to merge this article with psychedelic rock. Lack of stability is a major reason to decline this article for GA.
Another issue is, as JG66 pointed out, the number of tags. This directly affects the qualification that a GA article be well-written. There should be no tags.
I haven't dug into the references yet, but I will note that, no matter their form, they should have sufficient detail that someone who does not know the literature can find the reference. By "have sufficient detail", I would expect in this instance page number in every instance -- even one-page articles.
Returning to the proposal to merge with article, I believe this touches on an important issue (although as that discussion now stands, the proposal is likely to fail): the article does not make a sufficiently strong argument that acid rock & psychedelic rock are two distinct genres. (For the record, I think they are two different genres.) In order to clinch this argument, IMHO there needs to be a recognized example of a band/song that can be considered psychedelic, yet is not acid rock. I'm not sure what example that could be, though -- Strawberry Alarm Clock, "Incense and Peppermints"?)
Another issue I have is that the article states acid rock arose from "garage punk". That is a term I found confusing: I associate the musical use of "punk" with the 70s movement (e.g., Sex Pistols, The Ramones, etc.), & I suspect this would confuse many non-experts; even garage punk is primarily about the music of the 70s & later. Regardless of the accuracy of this label, wouldn't it be more clear to use the label "garage bands"? Parents' garages have been the birth place of countless rock bands, so there is nothing to be ashamed of in these words.
One detail that needs to be kept in mind is that musicians' styles often change. For example, early Grateful Dead (IMHO, one of the best known acid rock bands -- consider "Anthem of the Sun" & "Aoxomoxoa") is very different from their later work. The same can be said for Pink Floyd: "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" is a very different album from either "Dark Side of the Moon" or "The Wall".
One major omission I noticed -- & it may also apply to psychedelic rock -- is the absence of any mention of light shows & other theatrics. Originally, rock-n-roll bands would simply stand in front of the audience & play their instruments. With the rise of these genres, bands would add light shows (e.g., the rock band in the movie Point Blank), which would be considered now very crude & unimpressive but at the time evoked the altered mental state of being stoned. And then there is Jimi Hendricks' famous response to The Who trashing their instruments on stage at ~~Woodstock~~ Monterey: setting his own guitar on fire then playing it.

I don't mean to be harsh in my criticism; there is a lot of good things in this article, such as the selection of music snippets to illustrate the genre. But unless the merge proposal is rapidly resolved, & all of the tags cleaned up, I'll need to fail this nomination regardless of what I think of the article content. -- llywrch (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the criticism. These are all fair points, for the most part.

Re: merge Nobody has presented an argument for why the article should be merged except that the terms may be synonymous and cover some of the same ground - based on that reasoning alone, I don't see anyone suggesting a merge between New wave and Synthpop, Hypnagogic pop and Chillwave, or Art rock and Progressive rock.

Re: punk Most punk rock-related articles (including Garage punk and Punk rock) make it clear that "punk" existed in the '60s, but that the music did not coalesce into a readily-distinguishable style until the mid '70s. We can't really write that acid rock grew from "garage bands" because it would misrepresent the source's use of specific terminology - it would be like writing "doom metal evolved from guitar bands" instead of "heavy metal bands".

I absolutely agree that both articles are missing big chunks of content. One thing lost on Psychedelic rock is a more comprehensive "Characteristics" section. I recall a book - can't remember which - that discusses what makes sounds "psychedelic" while highlighting both 1960s psychedelic rock and 1980s acid house. I intended on citing it in the article someday; the only reason I haven't yet is because it's very complicated to summarize. I'd also need to grab some other sources, but it's rare that anybody writes about the subject beyond "distorted guitars and weird tape effects".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My remarks here are intended to help move the GA process forward. I agree 100% with Ilovetoaint that punk music existed in the 1960s--in what would now be regarded as "prototypical" form (in the early 1970s it was thought of as the form--certain rock critics then used the term "punk" to designate 60s garage).

The problem is that the terms of early 70s critics never caught on in the larger public mind and that, in the mid-to-late 70s, the term "punk" shifted to the music coming out of the New York and London scenes, so in the public mind, "punk rock" was thought of as a new thing and came to be associated with post-1975 music. Personally, I think this was a mistake, and, as a result, most people know very little about the actual roots of punk--but that is what became the reality. In light of this, by the late 70s, new terms had to be to be found for the earlier punk music of the 1960s, so garage rock and proto-punk became the preferred terms (even though 60s garage fans and many of its commentators still use "punk" and "garage punk" to refer to 60s groups). Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia we have to live with the larger public perception, and so our categories for genres (and references to them) must be tailored reflect prevailing views--to avoid confusion.
It would be best to use the term "garage rock" in this article (rather than "garage punk) when speaking of garage influence on acid rock. That is perfectly OK--the sources will allow it. The sources cited here mentioning garage punk's influence on acid rock mean that as garage rock influence. When used to designate 60s music, the two terms "garage punk" and "garage rock" are interchangeable. So, the term "garage rock" can be substituted here (for what the sources called "garage punk")--it is OK. If we change it to the term "garage rock", it will be blue-linked to the garage rock article, and there readers there can learn about how the background and etymology and how term "garage punk" and "60s punk" can be used alternately for garage rock, etc. But, here, we don't want to pre-suppose/assume that kind of prior knowledge on the readers' part.
However, when the term "garage punk" is used to designate a separate subgenre (distinct from the rest of garage rock), it refers to bands from the later 80s and beyond who did a louder, updated form of garage that also incorporated 70s punk influences--that was what the garage punk article traditionally focused on as a subgenre (before recent changes). It is simple:

When the term "garage punk" is used by commentators to refer to 60s bands, it almost automatically and invariably refers to garage rock. The term "garage punk" is also used by commentators to refer to garage rock as a whole (new and old). While these usages are OK in colloquial terms, at Wikipedia we have to be careful not to pass off "garage punk" as a separate subgenre of 60s garage (it is not) or use it as the official category term for 60s garage rock (and risk confusion).
When the term "garage punk" is used by commentators to represent an actual subgenre (distinct from garage rock), it refers to the post-80s bands. It can be used at Wikipedia as an official category when referring to the post-80s subgere.

The sentences at the end of the first paragraph treat "60s punk" and "garage rock" as something not only different from each other and different from the use of "garage punk" at the beginning of the opening paragraph. Terms such as "60s punk", ""garage punk", and "garage rock" are all interchangeable with each other when referring to 60s bands--they are not three separate subgenres.
These issues might seem "nitpicky", but they have to be addressed in order to to prevent confusion for readers (for additional discussion on the topic, see the talk page to Garage punk, as well as Dispute resolution).
Incidentally, I agree with Ilovetopaint that Acid rock should have its own article here, and most editors now agree--I think that debate is settled, so it should not inhibit the GA from going forward on that count.

So, if we can just get the "garage punk" terminology issue resolved, then the article should move closer to GA. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.tl;dr "When they say garage punk, my opinion is that they should have written garage rock." Once again, I'll restate: "We can't really write that acid rock grew from "garage bands" because it would misrepresent the source's use of specific terminology - it would be like writing "doom metal evolved from guitar bands" instead of "heavy metal bands"."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest simply removing reference to punk in the opening paragraph unless an editor later in the article fleshes out why the Ramones sound has its roots in the acid rock of Yardbirds/Zeppelin & MC5 & Stooges & VU. But then, one would never say Led Zep I is a punk record or that early Ramones was acid rock, though they may have sound like bad acid rock at some of the early practices. It's so much simpler just to remove "1960s punk" and let "garage rock" suffice, especially considering (I assume) the reference is to garage bands such as ? and the Mysterians (the band first described as "punk") and the Chocolate Watch Band, etc. Morgan johndavid (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to recommend Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, the first collected works of Lester Bangs, edited by Greil Marcus. Bangs and Marsh were compadres in their garage punk - skronk sensibility, though Marsh not so into it as Bangs. I think it would clear up a lot of the issues r.e. punk and garage rock. Bangs would agree, fairly certain, that acid rock is something else, pharmaceutically speaking and otherwise. Morgan johndavid (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way they use the term "garage punk" is as garage rock. If we fail to make this necessary transposition of terms, then the readership will get confused. I can guarantee that I have enough experience covering the garage rock topic to say that almost all of the time, if a source uses the term "garage punk" regarding 60s music, it means garage rock. When referring to a whole genre or subgenre of music, we must take a lot of things into account and look beyond just a few sources. Incidentally, this is why I applaud you for correctly pointing out the over-emphasis on the influence of Sgt. Pepper on acid rock. Just because one or two sources exaggerated its influence, you correctly pointed out that Pet Sounds and Revolver had greater musical influence on the form. You know that from extensive experience reading and writing about pre-Sgt. Pepper albums, you know that Sgt. Pepper was more of a culmination than an inception. I know that you are eminently knowledgeable about acid rock--that is beyond debate. But, pardon me if I think you could re-think your position on the "garage punk" thing here and elsewhere. So, my debate on the "garage punk" issue is in no way meant to be negative, but just to help readers not get confused. Incidentally, I'd like readers to know more about the 60s roots of punk, but I know the best way to do that is, rather than try to re-frame the way Wikipedia categorizes the genres, to just give the background int the articles--and, of course, to refer them to the Garage rock article where they will get the most thorough briefing on the matter. It is all just meant for the best. Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OVERSIMPLIFY and Wikipedia:Oversimplification.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to use the term "garage rock" would not be oversimplifying at all, but rather just using the established Wikipedia genre terminology. We don't need to simplify, but rather use the prescribed categories to avoid unnecessary confusion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "established Wikipedia genre terminology". Editors are instructed to use the same specific terminology that the sources use, as is so clearly outlined in WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Basically:

You.

Can't.

Write.

"Rock"

If.

They.

Wrote.

"Punk".

I'm done going around in these circles. Read WP:DEADHORSE.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now please. No one could ever say that terms rock and punk are the same thing, whereas when sources speak of "garage punk" in the 60s, they invariably mean "garage punk" and "garage rock" as interchangeable terms, and you know that--we have ample sources such as Aaron to demonstrate that. So, it would be better to say "garage rock" and blue-link it to that article, which explains how both of those terms can be used, rather that directing everyone to the garage punk article, whose primary reason is to describe the post-80s subgenre. Furthermore, you can't just go by what one or two sources say, when you are dealing whole genres. You have to take into account the larger prevailing view, expressed in a multiplicity of sources and over a course of time--in a historical perspective. Editors should also de-emphasize sources that are not reflective of the prevailing view. You simply do not have enough sources to justify changing the way Wikipedia defines garage punk--and the way you use it here is causing problems for this particular article. I realize that genre definitions are not set in stone. But, it takes a change in public perception, reflected by a lot of evidence from a plethora of sources, before we re-orient the defining context of a genre at Wikipedia. Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Llywrch, where does this review stand? It appears there are major disagreements between the nominator and a commenter, and I can't tell whether the issues you raised in your review have been addressed in the four weeks since you wrote them above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in conversation with the nominator on his Talk page. I hope to get this to the next step in a day or two. -- llywrch (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, it's been another couple of months, and there have since been two outside opinions added below per your request for a second opinion. It is time and past for you to make a decision regarding this nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your GA nomination of Acid rock

(The following section, except for the last two paragraphs, has been moved from User talk:Ilovetopaint.) I know I haven't been very active about this review, but I haven't seen any edits in response to my GA review from a month ago. Are you still interested in getting this article promoted to GA? Or should I just fail this, & you can resubmit it at another time? -- llywrch (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You talked about merging (6 of 7 were opposed), cleanup tags (which were resolved), the use of "garage punk" (this is done per WP:STICKTOSOURCES), mentioning specific bands' styles changing (superfluous, borders on WP:COATRACK), and the omission of the genre's visual aspects (the article does need this). So basically, I've agreed with only 2 of the concerns you've presented so far.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your initial response, you only touched on the merge issue, the use of the word "punk", & your agreement that it needed more content. I pointed out that the merge proposal was open, & presented a barrier to GA status; I also solicited a third party to close that proposal, so that point was moot. However, you & Garagepunk66 then engaged in an argument over "garage punk", which suggested to me that the article might not be as stable as it might appear, & I waited to see how that played out, since it touches on a point I brought up.

While I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, I remain unconvinced that "garage punk" as punk & not garage rock influenced acid rock. I don't care that you have a source that uses the word -- it's just one source, & arrogates acid rock as part of an unrelated genre. To prove that statement is true, you will need to find more reliable sources that support it. (BTW, I was there when punk rock burst on the scene: "punk" brought forth fresh ideas & attitudes that hadn't been present in rock for a while, if ever; the acid/psychedelic rock genre embraced a very distinct & dissimilar vibe. I may not know all of the story, but I know enough to have a sense what the story is about.)

Nevertheless, we both agreed this article needed more content; I specifically pointed out "the absence of any mention of light shows & other theatrics". None of this has been added in the weeks since I took this review on. If you intend on adding this material, I feel the review can proceed regardless whether we agree on the other points; it is possible that the article can even achieve GA. Otherwise, I can only conclude you aren't interested in getting the article to GA at this time. (PS, you are always empowered to prod a GA reviewer if she/he is not active enough.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: Light shows: I'm in the process of adding more detail about the subject - only have one sentence so far. I'm not sure there's really much to say beyond a couple sentences. Garage rock/punk It's not just one source - numerous authors use the term "garage punk" over "garage rock". Read Garage punk#Etymology and usage. "Punk" was a term invented for '60s groups. When true punk came on the scene in the mid '70s, some writers who remembered that "punk" had already existed for several years opted to classify the newer groups under "avant-punk". And I believe the garage "punk" v. "rock" issue has been more or less resolved - I'm waiting for Garagepunk66 to propose an RfC that would move Garage punk to Garage punk (1980s genre) and redirect Garage punk to Garage rock. Historically, "garage punk" and "garage rock" have almost always been interchangeable, and it's not improper or unusual at all for somebody to locate garage punk to the '60s.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovetopaint has a point about punk’s 60s foundations. Of course, I recognize that the prevailing public view sees punk as a post-1975 thing--people are generally unaware of the earlier musical background. With this in mind, I understand some people’s concerns about using the term “Garage punk” in the Acid rock article and their preference for saying “Garage rock” (both terms are interchangeable when used for 60s bands). While their prescription is still my preference (for the sake of avoiding confusion), Ilovetopaint has come up a possible alternative solution--i.e. to retain saying “garage punk” in the acid rock article, but redirect (via disambiguation) the term to the garage rock article. He has an interesting idea about re-naming the current Garage punk article to more clearly reflect the post-1980s subgenre. It is not for me to decide what terminology ends up getting used in the acid rock article, but apart from that, the re-directs are an interesting thought.

I could consider the idea of redirecting the title “Garage punk” to the Garage rock article.

…that is, under the condition that it would only be a re-direct for the title (via disambiguation), not a merge. A merge would necessitate moving large chunks of text to the Garage rock article (which is already discusses a lot of the same issues and is admittedly quite long). Furthermore, I would not want to see any changes happen in the garage rock article that might knock it off its current balance. The GR article currently treats the term “garage punk” as an alternate term for 60s garage rock, not as something distinct or separate (until it gets to the Revivals section in the 1980s). For 60s bands (and garage in sum total), "garage rock" is the official Wikipedia category and "garage punk" (along with "60s punk", etc.) are the unofficial/alternate terms that fans (such as me) and commentators often use.

We know that in the late 1980s a new wave of bands got tagged “garage punk” and the term got christened to designate a new and distinct subgenre apart from the rest of garage rock (with certain 60s bands such as the Sonics being invoked as forefathers of that later movement, but not necessary implying any separate subgenre within the 60s).
I would be open to the possibility of re-naming current Garage punk article something along the lines of what Ilovetpaint has proposed. It could perhaps be re-named as "Garage punk (post-1980s genre)" being that the subgenre reached its peak in the 1990s and stretched into the millennium.

So, I could consider what Ilovetopaint recommended--just as long as those procedures don't involve any additions or changes to the Garage rock article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been giving this a lot of thought, & I simply can't approve this article as a GA. Part of the reason, of course, is that the citations just don't convince me of some of the points. Part of it is that the language about garage punk/garage rock is part of a dialogue that has no relevance to me: either I need to learn much, much more about rock, or it's simply someone's hobby horse that has no value to the rest of us. But the most important part is that I offered some honest criticism & as far as I can see, nothing was done with it. Beyond what I wrote being lightly dismissed after I pushed for a response.

However I do not feel comfortable rejecting this outright. So I am going to ask for a second review, & if one is provided within 30 days, I'll consent to the outcome of the second review; if none is forthcoming, then it will be failed. -- llywrch (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing was done" — ??? Did you not notice these edits? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the request for a 2nd opinion at wp:ga nominations. I can give it a more thorough look if desired, but at the moment I'll just reflect on two of the most discussed questions.

Genres inevitably overlap, and genre articles inevitably need to be also about the genre name itself. And the latter is unique. So I don't consider overlap with other genres to be even the slightest minus for the existence or GA suitabiity of this article.
Statements about where the genre evolved from are central to the article. And IMO statements that "garage punk" (or even punk) significantly existed as a genre in the 60's and that acid rock evolved form it are both patently false. In non-Wikipedia terms, this is from a fossil that was immersed in that music at that time. Or, in Wikipedia terms, these statements are implausible and not solidly sourced or sourcable. But this is a fix that would only take a minute to do.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few details

I wouldn't wish to intrude here, but there are some points that seem clear enough to an outsider.

Changes to other articles do not form any part of a GA process, and should not be considered further.

Remaining tags such as [repetition] (near ref 27) and [page needed] (refs 17, 22) need to be sorted out before GA can be awarded.

Refs 41 and 43 give Harv[ard] errors, they do not point to any citation, while in the bibliography, Lucky 2003 is not used by any ref; these need to be fixed.

The garage rock / punk issue should not be an obstruction to GA for this article. As an outsider, I'd not heard anything in the 1960s called "punk", so I'd have believed the term arose later, but the exact etymology is a matter for experts with reliable sources, not me.

The main difficulty with the article is that the subject is "loosely defined" and "fairly meaningless" (I quote from the article, both quotes are cited), overlapping largely with other categories. Editors more familiar with the genre may need to take a view on whether the topic is sufficiently well defined to permit Good Article status, or whether it should be merged. If this issue cannot be resolved then the GA must be failed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

I looked at the second opinions, changes made to the article since my last review, & none contradicted the opinions I offered above; I am failing this article. Further, two separate persons offered suggestions that were not acted upon. IMHO, this article suffers from a case of WP:OWNERSHIP, preventing any meaningful criticism from being acted upon. -- llywrch (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]