Talk:Psychedelic rock/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Factual errors - events of 1966, timeline of early psych 1965, misplaced focus and weight on Beach Boys, Beatles

This article has a number of sections need reworking, beginning with the 1960-65: Precursors and Influences section. I can live with the overview paragraphs but beginning with the third paragraph, the tone toward Unterberger is argumentative, certainly not neutral encyclopedic. It doesn't take much more than a quick check to realize that neither the Beatles or the Beach Boys were first in the psychedelic genre. This is an article on psychedelic rock, where both the Byrds and the Yardbirds were ahead of the Beatles in early 1966, and The Stones even had the first No. 1 pscyh rock hit with "Paint it Black" in May of 1966, before the Beatles had ever released a single psychedelic rock track. To suggest that Unterberger's "opinion" is unique, or that it's just an opinion has the effect of arguing with the source material. He's not alone by any means, as many critics agree that the Yardbirds were first and foremost of the British bands and certainly with the most fully formed psychedelia in 1966 with the Feb. release of "Shapes of Things"/"Mr. You're a Better Man than I". Upon further review, I realized that the entire citation is mishandled. The paraphrase "sounding the psychedelic siren ... With their ominous minor key melodies, hyperactive instrumental breaks (called rave-ups), and use of Gregorian chants"[14] refers specifically to the Yardbirds who in 1965 used an ominous & nasty minor key noise guitar on "Evil Hearted You", their signature Rave-Up on "I'm A Man" and Gregorian chants on "Still I'm Sad." All of these were top 10 singles in 1965 in the UK but for the US-only "I'm a Man", a top 20 hit there, where the Yardbirds toured incessantly. The Yardbirds even implemented raga-rock prior to the Byrds, on "Mister You're a better Man than I" and introduced the Eastern mode on "Heart Full of Soul" prior to the sitar on Norwegian Wood.

In any case, it's a misapplied quote. I would propose removing reference from the Byrds in the sentence, stating Unterberger's statement as fact - The Beatles weren't first in British psychedelia, that distinction goes to the Yardbirds ... beginning in Feb. 1965 with the harpsichord on "For Your Love" - pop with one element of psych, but it's a start. They brought something new to each of their six consecutive top 10 hits in the UK, from 1965 to July 1966. The Byrds information is fine but I would deal with the Yardbirds first. It would not hurt to mention Jefferson Airplane as one "California-based folk act who followed the Byrds into folk-rock, bringing psychedelic influences with them to create the San Francisco sound.

Paragraph 4 of the section: To mention Beck and the Yardbirds in paragraph 4 and then introduce four sentences of information about the Beatles is not only argumentative or neutral, it's simply not honest history. The hum in "Ticket to Ride" is a minor contribution, far less overt than the harpsichord in "For Your Love," released a good month ahead of "ticket." Also: "The essence of the sitar" was introduced by Beck and the Yardbirds on "Heart Full of Soul" after the sitar player hired had failed to get the 4/4 time right and was sent home. As mentioned, Norwegian Wood is not a psych rock song, to suggest that the folk-tinged, Dylan inspired Rubber Soul "sowed the seeds" is a stretch. Rubber Soul is a great album, but in the context of psychedelia, only one song is discussed - "Norwegian Wood", which is correctly described on wiki and most other places as influenced by the folk writing of Dylan. The seeds of psychedelic rock were being sowed already by others.

And to mention the one second of feedback in "I Feel Fine" in the context of Jeff Beck is a really very quaint, don't you think? I'm sure it would amuse Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page, who seem to think the "Shapes of Things" solo is the landmark use of feedback in a chart-topping hit (it was No. 3 in UK). Beck feeds back here and there on earlier Yardbirds tracks and on "I'm a Man" in particular THAT's worth mentioning, and perhaps the fuzzbox/tonebender on "Heart Full of Soul" is worth making note of. I propose "a use of the sitar" paragraph added to the article, where noted are The Yardbirds rejected attempt on "HFOS", the Kinks first usage on a hit single, "See My Friends" (July 1965, No. 10 in UK), "Norwegian Wood" (Dec. 1965), the Byrds "Eight Miles High" (March 1966) and Brian Jones' playing on "Paint it Black" (May 1966), the first No. 1 hit. George's devotion to the instrument and continued usage in psychedelic rock by Jones and Jimmy Page's sitar-mode guitar work etc. etc. "Kashmir" worth a mention? Also note that the Beatles wiki on "Norwegian Wood" has it wrong. In all, the Yardbirds have three "Eastern essence" noteworthy tracks where sitar is not used but emulated in various ways: "Heart Full of Soul", "Evil Hearted You" and "Mister You're a Better Man than I" (the "shapes" b-side) initally released in Nov. 1965 in the US on the album Having a Rave-Up.

In any case, Lester Bangs wrote that the Yardbirds "came along and knocked everybody off the tracks" with "I'm a Man" in 1965 and "everybody lost their wads" over the feedback driven rave-up and began copying it. That includes The Count Five and "Psychotic Reaction", an obvious Yardbirds rip. The article states that "Psychotic Reaction" was "The first acid (or psychedelic) rock single to break into the top 10 in popular music charts[not in citation given] ... in (June 1966)." That's patently false as "Shapes of Things"/"Mister You're a Better Man Than I" was a top 10 hit on both sides of the Atlantic and No. 3 in the UK, No. 7 in Canada and No. 10 on Cashbox in the US. It stayed on the charts from February 1966 into May. Of course the trick of the statement is that "Eight Miles High" never broke the Top 10, but someone forgot about "Shapes" and The Rolling Stones' "Paint it Black" released in mid-May of 1966, rocketing to No. 1 in the US, UK and everywhere else that kept charts.

The following statement in the "Growth and Popularity" section, it follows, is then also false: By the end of the year, the Beatles and the Beach Boys ("Good Vibrations") were the only acts to have high-charting psychedelic rock songs.[52] As psychedelia gained prominence, Beach Boys-style harmonies would be ingrained into the newer psychedelic pop.[56]." THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE BEACH BOYS nor about psychedelic pop. The Beatles had all of 0 - zero - high charting psych rock songs in the US. "Rain" was a B-side, and its A-side was "son of Day Tripper" - Paperback Writer, more pop rock by McCartney that the Monkees would soon imitate. "Eleanor Rigby" is not considered psych rock, apparently, more experimental baroque? that's perhaps another issue. However, the Yardbirds, the Stones, the Byrds, The Count Five and ? Mark and the Mysterians all had psych rock hits. Here's the Billboard 100 for 1966 "96 Tears" (5). "Paint it Black" (21), "Good Vibrations" (33), "Psychotic Reaction" (64) and "Shapes of Things" (99). "Rain" doesn't make the list. Maybe in UK it's considered an A side, but in the largest world rock market it was not. In any case, "Shapes of things" No. 3 in Uk, 7 in Canada; "Paint it Black" No 1 everywhere. The statement in the article is false.

No, the Birds "Eight Miles High" doesn't hit the top 10, making it to 14 in the US and 24 in the UK (not bad for a banned single). But it's obviously a monumentally important psych-rock song considering the countless times it has been covered. Even so, the Yardbirds were first with the raga-rock on "Mister". Same raga beat. The Byrds play it on an E minor chord, the Yardbirds on F#m. "Mister" was recorded in Memphis w/ Sam Phillips at Phillips studios in September of 1965, released as the first track on the US-only album Having a Rave-Up with the Yardbirds in November of 1965, which surely the Byrds had a copy of. They recorded "Eight Miles High" in late January 1966. Interestingly enough, the Yardbirds were in the same LA studio earlier in January 1966 recording the vocals and mixing "Shapes of Things".

More problems in the "Growth and Early Popularity" section. If the Stones' "Paint it Black" was released on May 6 in the US and rockets straight to No. 1, how does the Beach Boys record "Pet Sounds" help it emerge? Do the Yardbirds and the Count Five and the Beatles also owe a debt to Pet Sounds? I'm pretty sure the Count five were ripping off the Yardbirds, not the Beach Boys. The following section is problematic:

"Contributing to psychedelia's emergence into the pop mainstream was the release of Beach Boys' Pet Sounds (May 1966)[55] and the Beatles' Revolver (August 1966).[56] Often considered one of the earliest albums in the canon of psychedelic rock,[57][nb 9] Pet Sounds contained many elements that would be incorporated into psychedelia, with its artful experiments, psychedelic lyrics based on emotional longings and self-doubts, elaborate sound effects and new sounds on both conventional and unconventional instruments.[59][60] Scholar Philip Auslander says that even though psychedelic music is not normally associated with the Beach Boys, the "odd directions" and experiments in Pet Sounds "put it all on the map. ... basically that sort of opened the door — not for groups to be formed or to start to make music, but certainly to become as visible as say Jefferson Airplane or somebody like that."[27] Like Pet Sounds, Revolver explored musical soundscapes that could not be replicated in concert, even with the addition of an orchestra.[61]"

If the source (Auslander) is saying the Beach Boys are usually not considered psychedelic rock, the source shouldn't be in the article, and much of this section should be removed. Again, this is not an article about the Beach Boys, who began 1966 with the hit "Barbara Ann" a cover that breaks no new ground while the Birds and the Yardbirds are making "Shapes of Things" and "Eight Miles High" and moving to the forefront of psych rock. The Stones add 'Paint it Black", the Count Five have their hit, the Yardbirds have another hit with "Over Under Sideways Down", the Beatles "Rain" is their first full fledged psych rock effort and on it goes to the release of Revolver and the Elevators put out "Psychedelic Sounds" etc. etc. Pink Floyd gets going, the UFO club opens in London. It's very straightforward. The article should be improved to the point where it is about psych (acid) rock, and not used to argue the Beach Boys into the psychedelic rock genre. To that point, "Good Vibrations" stands out as a big hit psychedelic rock single, though not released until November of 1966, on the heels of a lot of other early psych. I would add studio wizardry was not the defining character of the psych era - it was only part of it, and it's an error in weight made often in the article as it stands. The Beach Boys themselves played hardly at all on Pet Sounds (the Wrecking Crew was the band) while The Doors, Love and Buffalo Springfield and the Seeds were in different parts of the city working out their own pieces like "The End" and 'Seven and Seven Is", "Pushing too Hard", "Up in Her Room", and playing them live.

The article should be improved and expanded to talk less about things that aren't psych rock and more about the bands that are - which the note on the article also suggests. A lot happens in 1966 but in that section we have three paragraphs mostly about the Beach Boys. The history of psych is too interesting to just leave this article as is. I have not made any changes as yet, waiting for feedback. I think the factual errors should just be corrected or deleted, and I hope those will be considered by the editors who added the content in question. I look forward to the feedback. Morgan johndavid (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional note (s): There are plenty of other bands to talk about, such as The Seeds who endured quite a saga making a hit out of "Pushing Too Hard", which was first released in fall of 1965, got some radio play in LA in spring of 1966 after they released their album, The Seeds, re-released the single in November and finally pushed it up the charts to No. 36 in 1967, a year-and-a-half after its initial release. It was included on the song was included Nuggets: Original Artifacts from the First Psychedelic Era, 1965–1968, a compilation double album of American garage rock singles and is one of Rolling Stones "500 songs that shaped rock and roll". The Seeds struggle was much like that of the 13th Floor Elevators from Austin, Texas - how do you translate a regional hit "You're Gonna Miss Me" into national success. The "music industry" as we know it did not yet exist, and the network of clubs for bands to tour wasn't in place quite yet. The Jefferson Airplane was still a local band through 1966, playing at their own club, the Matrix. In LA, the Doors and Love also stayed local until Elektra records broke the Doors out. While the yardbirds and the stones toured the world, and Hendrix and Cream would soon join them in 1966-67, many British psychedelic bands, such as The Pretty Things, never broke out of England and didn't receive much support from EMI at home (a recurring problem for many EMI bands not named the Beatles). The Who didn't play in the US until 1967. The Stones and Yardbirds were regular touring attractions in the US, and over time the gradual development of a network of clubs and scenes and FM radio finally made experimental music viable in the US. Just some thoughts to consider. Morgan johndavid (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down. I'm sure you make some good points, but it's hard to see what's the gospel according to Morgan johndavid and what's truly worth including in this article based on reliable sources. JG66 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

All of it can be sourced out, if that's the concern. I've highlighted sections to make it clearer where in the article the problems can be found. I overwrote, but certainly wouldn't do that if making the changes in the article, which I'm not going to do right away or maybe not at all. How did this article manage to achieve good article status? Seems very strange to me. It has misapplied quotes, obvious factual errors based on the release data compiled by wikipedia and other sources, and a non-neutral presentation of factual information not serving the legacy of the Beach Boys and the Beatles. Much of the sourcing is pretty easy to find. So what do you think I'm inventing as gospel? Morgan johndavid (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Morgan johndavid I would ask you not to radically alter your statements after you've received a reply to your original message. It's counterproductive to the discussion here – for the record, I replied (above) to the thread as it stood originally. (There's a guideline on this somewhere, as regards talk page etiquette.) This is meant to be a collaborative project. JG66 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't realize anyone had responded until I scrolled down to save those edits. Sorry about that. Anyway, I think "a use of the sitar" paragraph is important, which occurred to me as I was copy editing through. -- "I propose "a use of the sitar" paragraph added to the article, where noted are The Yardbirds rejected attempt on "HFOS"; the Kinks first usage on a hit single, "See My Friends" (July 1965, No. 10 in UK); George Harrison the first pop artist to play it on a record w/ "Norwegian Wood" (Dec. 1965); the Byrds "Eight Miles High" (March 1966) and Brian Jones playing on "Paint it Black" (May 1966), the first No. 1 hit. George's devotion to the instrument and continued usage in psychedelic rock by Jones and Jimmy Page's policy to never use a sitar on a record, preferring to use guitars in sitar-like tunings. (It all leads to "Kashmir" eventually.) worth a mention? Also note that the Beatles wiki on "Norwegian Wood" has it wrong, but the "sitar in popular music" page gets it right." Given how identifiable w/ psychedelic rock the sitar became in 1966, it would be a good addition. 20:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan johndavid (talk • contribs)

The recently published Psychedelic Popular Music: A History through Musical Topic Theory (written by a Canadian university music professor) focuses a lot on the Yardbirds in the early development of the genre, with musical analyses, etc.[1] I've only read what's available in the online preview, but it seems that it would make a good addition to the sources for the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I only skimmed through most of your text because much of it seems to be "I want more things mentioned in the article", and nobody is stopping you from doing that -- so long as the content is sourced to reliable authors and that there is an explicitly-written connection to "psychedelic rock" (as opposed to "acid rock" or "rock music in the 1960s" -- see also WP:NAMEDROP). Still, a couple specific things to address:

"If the source (Auslander) is saying the Beach Boys are usually not considered psychedelic rock, the source shouldn't be in the article, and much of this section should be removed."

He is not saying that. The point is that Pet Sounds was massively influential to psychedelic rock in the way it showcased a particularly idiosyncratic production style and disjunctive song structures. Obviously the Beach Boys and the Beatles technically weren't innovators in these respects, but they were very popular and helped established a market for the music. (Yes, they were only one of many acts where this applied.) That, combined with the fact that the album is considered a psychedelic milestone by many (even if some disagree), is what solidifies its importance and encyclopedic relevance. Most of your other arguments are centered around the use of Eastern modes and sitars, which has little to do with psyche-rock. You're thinking of raga rock.

I'm thinking the Beach Boys are a pop band that didn't even play on Pet Sounds. Psychedelic pop is where you can make these points. Eastern modes are fairly significant on many of the early psychedelic rock statements. I'm concerned about editing this article because I suspect changes will just be reverted, etc. etc. I encourage you to take some time and think about the actual context of what I've said here. Also, please see the comparison of the handling of the Unterberger quotes and the actual text Unterberger wrote in the All Music Guide Psychedelic Rock entry below. Morgan johndavid (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, let me put it another way: Revolver and Pet Sounds are indisputably some of the biggest reasons why many psychedelic acts metamorphosed into prog or similar experimental ventures. Why would it matter if Brian Wilson played glockenspiel on "Sloop John B', or if McCartney was playing flugelhorn on "For No One"? Can't recall which famous British psyche-rock guitarist said this, but in his words, it was considered very "progressive" to work a song like "Here Today" into a band's repertoire at the time. The way you distinguish between "psychedelic pop" and "psychedelic rock" is totally arbitrary -- these things overlap and informed each other in exactly the same way as raga rock and folk rock. And in 1965-69, I think most of the psyche-rock east of San Fran could be (and was) characterized as pop music.

If you're suggesting that the majority of rock-and-rollers at the time were writing off the Beach Boys/Beatles as vapid pop, then that's revisionist BS. The whole "rock vs. pop" attitude did not take hold until a little while after the bedrock of psyche music was cemented. Virtually everybody in psychedelia loved those bands in some capacity, and anyone who didn't likely wasn't part of the scene to begin with.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I made no points about rock and roller attitudes of the day, and this is getting silly. All of those fine points about the Beach Boys can be made on the Psychedelic Pop page, where someone wanting to add in a bunch of Yardbirds content should defer. In fact I see that many of those points are already in the Psychedelic Pop article. The Beach Boys and Pet Sounds are worth a mention, and Good Vibrations also. But in the early stages the timeline shows that much of the key psychedelic rock records of 1966 had already been recorded or released or both by the time Pet Sounds came out. To repeat the Psych Pop Beach Boys' content here is redundant, and it's a substantial paragraph, most of which doesn't need to be there and shouldn't. The Psychedelic Rock and Psych Pop pages were not merged, so a line of separation should maintained. Editorially, you're creating clarity problems for this article. And it sounds like, if I removed it and fixed the contextual and other problems this article has, you would revert it.

Also note that the paragraph that follows "the big Beach Boys paragraph" contradicts itself and has factual problems. How did this article manage a "GA" rating? I look forward your readings r.e. the Yardbirds. Morgan johndavid (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, judging from this statement:

"The Beatles weren't first in British psychedelia, that distinction goes to the Yardbirds ... beginning in Feb. 1965 with the harpsichord on "For Your Love" - pop with one element of psych, but it's a start."

You've taken this out of context, weirdly. This was in relation to the importance of mentioning the hum on "Ticket to Ride", as in, if the hum on "Ticket to Ride" is relevant, the harpsichord and bongos on "For Your Live" is relevant, as is the vibe. It has one or two elements of psych and is as good a place as any to start thinking about the first psych single. But "Heart Full of Soul" has the better early claim, imo.

As for the Eastern focus, it is mentioned because the paragraph in the article has problems that should be fixed, and the argumentative clause, but, actually appearing to argue with Jeff Beck's importance to guitar players. Morgan johndavid (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I see now - I agree.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

...Harpsichords? You have a strange idea of what "psychedelic" music is.

please read below.Morgan johndavid (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And you do realize that the Beach Boys were using the instrument a year before "For Your Love"? I don't think we need to mention "I Get Around" or "When I Grow Up (To Be a Man)". Or how about "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'? Instead of focusing on the genre's history, it seems more helpful to expand the "Definition" section, so that readers can stop conflating hard/garage rock with psyche-rock. Personally, I don't believe there's anything more in the article to be said about Indian music or sitars, except maybe for the mysticism connotations. But first we need published material to work from.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I recommend a full reading of what I wrote. If the definition is more flushed out, the Beach Boys content would be more appropriate on the Pyschedelic Pop page instead of here, agreed? As far as sources, let's start with the Unterberger quote that is mangled in the article. This is what you (or someone) currently has in the article:

"In Unterberger's opinion, the Byrds, emerging from the Californian folk scene, and the Yardbirds, from England's blues scene, were more responsible than the Beatles for "sounding the psychedelic siren ... With their ominous minor key melodies, hyperactive instrumental breaks (called rave-ups), and use of Gregorian chants".[14] Drug use and attempts at psychedelic music moved out of acoustic folk-based music towards rock soon after the Byrds "plugged in" to electric guitars to produce a chart topping version of Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man" in the summer of 1965, which became a folk rock standard.[32][33] In the song's lyric, the narrator requests: "Take me on a trip upon your magic swirling ship".[17][nb 3] A number of Californian-based folk acts followed the Byrds into folk-rock, bringing their psychedelic influences with them, to produce the 'San Francisco Sound'.[14][35][nb 4]"

On the Yardbirds, Unterberger identifies lead guitarist Jeff Beck as having "laid the blueprint for psychedelic guitar", and the band for defining psychedelic rock's "manic eclecticism".[22] The Beatles introduced guitar feedback with "I Feel Fine" (1964)[14] and incorporated drug-inspired drone on "Ticket to Ride" (1965).[37] The Kinks and the Yardbirds also incorporated droning guitars to mimic the qualities of the sitar,[38] but the Beatles' "Norwegian Wood" (from the December 1965 album Rubber Soul) marked the first released recording on which a member of a Western rock group played an Indian instrument.[39] The song is generally credited for sparking a musical craze for the sound of the sitar in the mid-1960s – a trend which would later be associated with the growth of the essence of psychedelic rock.[38][nb 5] According to music journalist Mark Ellen, Rubber Soul "sow[ed] the seeds of psychedelia",[40] while author George Case recognises Rubber Soul as one of two Beatles albums that "marked the authentic beginning of the psychedelic era".[41][nb 6]"

Here is the full written text from the "psychedelic rock" page in the All Music Guide to Rock, identified in citation 14 above:

"Trying to pin down the first psychedelic record is nearly as elusive as trying to name the first rock and roll record. Far fetched claims have been advanced for songs running from the Tornado's futuristic 1962 No.1 single 'Telstar' to Dave Clark Five's massively reverb-laden 'Any Way You Want It'. In 1964 the Beatles introduced guitar feedback on 'I Feel Fine'; a year later they introduced the sitar to rock on 'Norweigan Wood'.[It was actually the Kinks five months earlier on 'See My Friends' a top 1 UK-only hit, but moving right along] But two groups from different sides of the Atlantic with somewhat similar names, The Yardbirds and the Birds, were really the most responsible for sounding the psychedelic siren."

"With their ominous minor key melodies, hyperactive instrumental breaks (called rave-ups), unpredictable tempo changes and the use of Gregorian chants, the Yardbirds helped define the manic eclecticism that would characterize early psychedelic rock. Jeff Beck's fuzzy, distorted guitar sustain laid the blueprint for psychedelic guitar.

"Their early 1966 hit 'Shapes of Things' was arguable the first out-and-out psychedelic rock song, with its blistering feedback breaks, it's veering tempos and stream of conscious lyrics that owed nothing to traditional romantic themes. The Yardbirds' psychedelic peak was brief but subsequent 1966 recordings -- Over Under Sideways Down (aka Roger the Engineer) and 'Happenings Ten Years Time Ago' especially -- found them approximating speed-of-light trips, drug-induced or not, with nervy but taut daring."

Jst [sic] a couple of months after 'Shapes of Things', the Birds flew into uncharted territory with 'Eight Miles High'. ... The single's B-side ('Why') and many of their songs on the 1966 album Fifth Dimension crashed through similar sonic frontiers. Although the Byrds would trade in their spacesuits for cowboy threads in just a couple of years, they continued to produce exciting psychedelic music through the end of 1967."

As you can see by comparing the two, the wiki article as it stands mishandles the Unterberger quote by ascribing it to the Byrds in a paragraph about the Byrds. The quote is about the Yardbirds, who "characterize" psychedelic rock. The wikipedia paragraph explores drug use, folk rock and the Byrds influence on the San Francisco sound -- all forgetting to mention "Eight Miles High", the Byrds biggest contribution to psych rock. Is this article about psych rock or not? In wikipedia world, what you have there is a Contextual IQ issue.

We then get back to the Yardbirds, of whom the Unterberger quote was about, and we have a quote about Beck "laying the blueprint for psychedelic guitar" - but instead of the ensuing history of psych rock or more info on the guitar player who laid the blueprint, we have four sentences that go back in the timeline to talk about things the Beatles did before the advent of psychedelic rock, including an argumentative "but" clause r.e. use of the sitar in 1965 (WP:NPOV) - the wiki article as it stands argues with the known history of psychedelic rock. Why not just write the early years in the order they happened, the way Unterberger did? Part of the Contextual Information Quality standard is Timeliness. What more can I say?

There are many problems with this page, obviously, and I don't know whether I want to get into the entire rigmarole of correcting the problems only to have them reverted, etc etc., given its current condition and the defense of it. This may be a definition issue, where you feel the studio wizardry and the drug use are more important than the "rock" or music content aspect. Whatever it is, the source material says that in the spring of 1966 -- before the release of Pet Sounds, Revolver, "Paint it Black" or even Yesterday and Today in the US, before the San Fran bands did much of anything recording-wise, the Yardbirds and the Byrds were psychedelic rock. Ostensibly, this is an article about psychedelic rock, isn't it?

Apologies to fans of The Seeds if it appears I'm forgetting "Pushing Too Hard" - but don't worry, I know Morgan johndavid (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"It was actually the Kinks [who introduced the sitar to rock] five months earlier on 'See My Friends' a top 1 UK-only hit, but moving right along." Rubbish – there's no sitar on See My Friends. JG66 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, right you are. Yet it is more eastern sounding than "HFOS" or "NW". Great song. I would break into the "early days" discussion there in the summer of 1965 with those two singles. Something like ... "after studio experiments on singles by the Beatles, Yardbirds, Beach Boys, two singles in the summer of 1965 suggested the psychedelic era to come: "Heart Full of Soul" by the Yardbirds and "See My Friends" by the Kinks -- both replete with Eastern overtones and guitars imitating the sound of a sitar. .." There's the place to talk about "NW" and "Paint it Black", use of sitar. Then right into the proper contextual usage of the Unterberger passages, and the rest of 1966 is pretty straightforward from there.Morgan johndavid (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Unterberger again, online Yardbirds bio:

"With the arguable exception of the Byrds, they did more than any other outfit to pioneer psychedelia, with an eclectic, risk-taking approach that laid the groundwork for much of the hard rock and progressive rock from the late '60s to the present." (Source: Yardbirds bio, All Music Guide)

And later in the bio, Unterberger fleshes out this idea further in his description of "Shapes of Things":

"Beck's guitar pyrotechnics came to fruition with "Shapes of Things," which (along with the Byrds' "Eight Miles High") can justifiably be classified as the first psychedelic rock classic.

Martin Power, from Hot-Wired Guitar: The Life of Jeff Beck ("The Devil Rides Out")

"If the Yardbirds had invented or at least heavily contributed to the birth of psychedelic music, they had come to define it with "Happenings Ten Years Time Ago" (Oct. 1966 release).

Bob Gulla, from Guitar Gods: The 25 Players Who Made Rock History (Pg. 153):

The Beck-Page Yardbirds lineup recorded only three songs together, "one of them, a towering masterpiece of psychedelic pop called "Happenings Ten Years Time Ago", occupies the pinnacle of the entire psychedelic genre."

Morgan johndavid (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for writing out the full Unterberger quote. I placed that sentence in originally, but obviously I misread the "their" to mean both the Byrds and the Yardbirds. And I skipped out on "Shapes of Things" because I could not think of where and how to incorporate Unterberger's opinion (whatever was the first psyche-rock song is just an opinion) since it demands more context and I'm not particularly knowledgeable of the Yardbirds (I have listened to all the music they made between '64-'66, but nothing left an impression). The source that was linked appears to have a lot of info, so I'll try to read through it sometime and see what I can do. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that. When writing on psychedelic rock, it really does happen in the Beck period of the Yardbirds, March 1965 to Oct. 1966. And if there is any difference between acid rock and psychedelic rock, it is illustrated in the Yardbirds, who become something of an avant garde acid rock troupe in the Jimmy Page era, 1966-68 (ultimately leading to "Dazed and Confused". Anyway, the google books preview of the Martin Power book on Beck, Hot Wired Guitar, gives you the nearly the entire Yardbirds period. Here's that link again. Morgan johndavid (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: The source that was linked by ojorojo. Interesting - the analysis begins with "Heart Full of Soul", which, as I described above, has a number of psychedelic elements. As far as the timeline of the history of Psychedelic Rock, starting with "HFOS" is very helpful, because it opens up the context for the Kinks contribution of "See My Friends" and a couple of other things in fall-winter 1965, such as "NW". From there, this article shouldn't be a matter of all this discussion -- the timeline about when everything was recorded and released presents a very clear picture, and that's all Unterberger is doing - responding to the timeline of the recordings. Morgan johndavid (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Expanding/improving the "definition" section

This is a very tough subject for me to articulate, but the information is readily available in Echard's book and Halligan's chapter in Resonances: Noise and Contemporary Music. Currently, the article's cookbook of "psychedelic rock characteristics" makes it seem like psyche-rock can be reduced to backwards tape loops, Mellotrons, and Farfisa solos. This is not what makes the music "psychedelic", per se - they're some of the tools needed to achieve psychedelic moods, but there is nothing inherently psychedelic about the sound of a Hammond organ playing an Oriental scale. Echard uses the phrase "topical signifier" -- I'll just copy and paste his relevant text

Psychedelic music could be broken up into subtypes in many different ways. In terms of historical development, one of the more important distinctions has to do with the difference between psychedelia as a decoration applied to conventional song forms and the slightly later appearance of new formal strategies cognate with psychedelia. [...] In terms of the relationship between psychedelia and its base styles, we could say that in [garage rock songs] the base styles dominate the form, and psychedelic signifiers are used more as decoration. This arrangement foregrounds topical aspects of the psychedelic elements, because it highlights that they have been removed from their original contexts. It also encourages troping of topics by borrowing from diverse sources and highlighting contrasts between materials. [...] The result is not unlike the visual effect of a Persian carpet, mandala, or kaleidoscope, all of which were strongly influential on psychedelic design. [...] concise songs forms with ornate psychedelic decoration are clean-lined and simple on a higher formal level but reveal considerable complexity on more local scales.

No idea how to condense this sentiment, but it's vital in forming an organic understanding of the genre... More text by Halligan that should be included in some fashion:

These five tendencies [volume, positioning, playing, repetition, and drone] evidence a moving beyond the ways in which pop or rock music was previously accepted and comprehended - that is, here, a movement beyond that former music's musicality. And these five tendencies fed into, or generated, psychedelic music, and came to represent an aspect of the unfettered, 'expanded' nature of psychedelic art forms. [...] Indeed, those five tendencies listed above, all of which could be described as straight 'errors', inscribing noise into music, only work to further denote the invitation extended to bypass lucid cognition (as reasoning and aesthetic judgments) in favour of vague ideas of the self, or soul, or Id: the 'psyche'.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Echard is really interesting, isn't he? I think the broadest way to put it, to take an example from Echard and talk about taking existing things and putting them in a different context. There's nothing inherently psych about the Kaleidoscope, which had been around since the 19th century, or an oriental rug. But when you put those things in the room with the sitar, and the drugs and the book of Ginsberg poetry, it becomes part of this new psychedelic scene that's happening. Musically, there's nothing psychedelic about the "round-up" theme from "Bonanza" western TV show but when you put it to rock with a fuzzy-reverb guitar and that crazy keyboard, you've got something brand new and incredibly exciting to young people. There's nothing psych about a military drum beat but when you put it with some green anti-war lyricisms and an abrupt rave-up guitar solo break that sounds like a plane on a bombing run in Vietnam, you've got a psychedelic hit ("Shapes of things"). I was reading DeRogotis' book on psych rock, and was interested in John Paul Jones' take on "finding the psychedelia in Led Zeppelin". He mentioned the "eclecticism" in regard to "world music" that was important to psych (and Zep), and you didn't have to be stoned to get that with the music (though he sometimes was). I thought adding "eclecticism in musical style with an ear toward world music and creating new contexts" or something like that would be a good addition. morganj 17:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint I truly appreciate the additions you made r.e. "Heart Full of Soul" and adding the music files - excellent! It has been pointed out also that it was the first use of a fuzztone on a hit record in the UK -The key moving forward is to let the source material tell the story, to maintain the timeline of events, and to make sure the source material is high quality and presented in context here while jiving with the root publication. I have some ideas for the 1965 "Psychedelic scenes AND sounds" (sounds right) and also for the definition (eclecticism, synaesthesia, section. We'll see what happens, time allowing. morganj9000 12:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan johndavid (talk • contribs)

Shapes of Things

There are several RS for the Yardbirds' "Shapes of Things" being the first psychedelic rock songs (or at least preceding "Eight Miles High", "Psychotic Reaction", etc.):

• Mitchell K. Hall: "The Yardbirds March [sic] 1966 single 'Shapes of Things,' with its blending of feedback, sudden rhythmic changes, exotic melody, and random lyrics about the predicament of humanity, is often noted as the first psychedelic rock song."[52]
• Graham Bennett: "By December [1965] the Yardbirds had progressed to the point where they could record the first uncompromising psychedelic rock song, 'Shapes of Things', which became a hit single in both the UK and the US in early 1966."[53]
• Robin Bell: "During Beck's time in the Yardbirds, their sound evolved dramatically [into] what can easily be called one of the first psychedelic rock songs 'Shapes of Things'".[54]
• James E. Perone: "The 1966 song 'Shapes of Things,' [is] a performance that generally is considered one of, if not the first psychedelic rock record".[55]
• Frank Reddon: "The Yardbirds are also noted for fusing psychedelia and rock ... 'Shapes of Things' had a noticeably psychedelic feel both instrumentally and lyrically."[56]
• Richie Unterberger: "Their [the Yardbirds'] ealy '66 hit 'Shapes of Things' was arguably the first out-and-out psychedelic rock song, with its blistering feedback, veering tempos, anf stream-of-conscienceness lyrics that owed nothing to traditional romantic themes."[57] "'Shapes of Things,' which (along with the Byrds' 'Eight Miles High') can justifiably be classified as the first psychedelic rock classic".[13]
• David Simonelli: "The Yardbirds 'Shapes of Things', released a month earlier [than the Byrd's 'Eight Miles High'], achieved the same status [as the first 'psychedelic' hit and became] the first British band to have the term applied to one of its songs."[58] "'Shapes of Things' (1966) included a wild guitar solo by Beck, a long [feedback] drone that gave the song a psychedelic feel well before such a sound was popular in rock music."[59]

It also meets several of points under "Definition":

• "Critics and biographers have called the solo "monumental[ly] fuzz-drenched",[13] "explosively warped",[25] and "climaxed with a solitary, gigantic burst of feedback".[19] "
• "Beck uses a musical scale and bent notes variously described as Eastern, Indian, or raga sounding.[24][25][9]"
• "For the middle section guitar solo, the beat shifts into double-time and the instrumentation heightens the tension.[19] This rhythmic device, originally used in jazz improvisation, was the Yardbirds' signature arrangement.[13]"
• "random lyrics about the predicament of humanity"[52]
• "stream-of-conscienceness lyrics that owed nothing to traditional romantic themes"[57]"

(see "Shapes of Things" for the refs)

Also, "The first acid (or psychedelic) rock single to break into the top 10 in popular music charts[not in citation given] was Count Five's "Psychotic Reaction" (June 1966)" is incorrect. "Shapes" (February 1966) reached #3 in the UK, #7 in Canada, and #10 & #11 in US. (Not sure that "Top Ten" is important to mention – most charts are based on Top 40)

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks fairly incontrovertible to me. I would add that the top 10 appears to be noted because "Eight Miles High" rather famously did not crack the Top 10, so there's an inherent slyness to that inclusion. But then both "Shapes of Things" and "Paint it Black" are overlooked, and it doesn't appear that this is what the citation actually said. As for "Psychotic Reaction" -- in addition to Lester Bangs pointing it out in his "Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung: A Tale of These Times" essay, Derogatis describes "Psychotic Reaction" as a "shameless ripoff of the Yardbirds." Turn on Your Mind: Four decades of Psychedelic Rock, Jim DeRogatis. Hal Leonard Corp. 2003

In the "1966: Growth and early Popularity" section Derogatis is quoted in the wiki article as saying the beginning of psychedelia "is best listed as 1966" and the citation given is page 9. However, pages 7-8 are missing from the Amazon preview of Derogatis' book. I don't doubt that pgs. 7-8 are where the Yardbirds and other early contributions are discussed, but they're not there so we don't know. It follows that the citation probably should not be used unless someone has the book - the context is lost. There are many references to the Yardbirds in Derogatis' book that are in the preview, one listing "Shapes of Things" as one of his Top 10 British Psychedelic rock songs (pg. 162), and we know when it came out, Feb. 1966.

Derogatis has a lot more to say about the Yardbirds - The inability of young rockers to play Yardbirds songs is cited as the prime motivator behind "psychedelic punk" -- The Seeds, the Troggs, Music Machine, ? and the Mysterians, the Count 5 -- bands that could only make "rackety imitations" of "the Yardbirds brilliant innovations (pg. 59)." On pg. 64 he describes their 1966 album Over Under Sideways Down as "the yardbirds most psychedelic album." Yet the Yardbirds receive not even a mention in the 1966:Growth section. Neither do those bandwagon-jumping Rolling Stones "Paint it Black", and there's still a weighty paragraph on the Beach Boys that could be trimmed.

The 1966 section could certainly use an upgrade & expansion with better contextual use of sourcing. There have been some improvements made this week, and thanks for that, @ilovetopaint. morganj 10:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan johndavid (talk • contribs)

The Yardbirds are often overlooked because their catalogue has been grossly mishandled by management and record companies. In the UK, only one album with Beck was released (1966, with only one well-known song "Over Under Sideways Down") – the rest were only on 45s. In the US, it was better, but the first two albums were hampered by a lot of Clapton-era material (which is like mixing the Beatles' "Love Me Do" with songs from Revolver). Except for the early US The Yardbirds Greatest Hits (1967), nearly all of the dozens (hundreds?) of "best of" collections have a weird mix of Beck and Clapton, live and demo recordings, that don't represent the band at any one time, style, or guitarist. Based on these alone, their legacy is confusing.

That said, the singles with Beck – "Heart Full of Soul", "Evil Hearted You"/"Still I'm Sad", and "I'm a Man" show the progression to psychedelic rock, which is clearly seen in "Shapes" and perhaps culminating in "Happenings Ten Years Time Ago". The Yardbirds straddle the more studio-created psychedelia of the Beach Boys and Beatles and the garage psychedelia of the groups you mentioned (strings vs. guitars). The 1966 section should clarify their role.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. As the article is currently, the Yardbirds are corralled in 1965 by Rubber Soul, and the Unterberger quote on the Yardbirds and the Byrds "sounding the siren of psychedelic rock" is still used out of context in relation to the Byrds - (he wasn't talking about "Mr. Tambourine Man"). And somehow "Eight Miles High" got the label "first psychedelic rock song". There is unlimited space, and I have it on very reliable, wiki-proof sources that February comes before March, and probably did in 1966 as well. Someone's just going to open this up and start fixing it, and checking the citations also. There's gotta be a way to do this without getting into an edit war, maybe. morganj 21:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan johndavid (talk • contribs)

I'll work up a short bit on "Shapes" for the first paragraph of the 1966 section and remove the inconsistencies (I have most of the sources for the "Shapes" article). The rest will probably need some work, but I don't have the refs. From the changes Ilovetopaint has already made, this should be OK. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! I would just be using those sources gathered anyway. (clicking imaginary thumbs up button we don't have).morganj9000 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

All sound great. But when one gets to the fine points, we have to remember that (like any genre) "Psychedelic rock" is just a word that people apply to music, and classification is often in the eye of / created by the beholder, it's not some fundamental reality that sources are covering. It certainly wasn't distinct at the time, all of the above-discussed music was also called other things at the time. So IMHO what authors are saying should be covered with attribution. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, BUT - we have a subject here on which an entire library of rock writing and even academic study has been done, where the practitioners are on record. There's no reason ever to resort to a source like mic.com WP:SOURCE on an arguable point. So there's some critical thinking regarding source material needed, or we're just going to keep falling down rabbit holes. I'm wondering whether a GA reassessment should be requested during the period the article is being expanded and upgraded?? I really don't know whether that's the usual practice, but I think removal of GA might invite others to participate in the editing work. morganj9000 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agree wholeheartedly with North8000's point. In most cases, hopefully (because it can become tiresome to read), attribution isn't necessary, but it is when sources appear to disagree or give conflicting statements. For instance, the entry on Psychedelic rock in The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll gives a very different picture of the genre relative to how it's presented here – mention of hits by Small Faces, Hendrix, Moody Blues, but otherwise focusing on the San Fran Sound. The origins of raga rock, particularly, are slightly problematic in that sources don't agree on the "first" song in that style. Part of the reason (and this echoes what North8000 says about the highly subjective/"eye of the beholder" nature of identifying genres) is that there's no one clear, infallible definition for psychedelic rock or raga rock. I confess I'm not really interested enough in engaging too heavily on the subject – I find the walls of history lesson, above, pretty hard going (and perhaps more appropriate as a pitch for a feature at PopMatters). But so long as we're representing a decent range of sources and not just adhering to a narrative that a couple of editors consider "correct", and as long as we're acknowledging where a statement reflects the view of a particular writer (as opposed to fact), then fine. For example, the text accompanying the "Heart of Soul" sample: "Excerpt from 'Heart Full of Soul', which ... initiated the raga rock craze". JG66 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

According to Template:Listen, the description or caption is for "a description of the audio file", i.e., what it contains (guitar solo, intro, etc.). It is not for miscellaneous commentary – that should be in the body of the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Not all sources are created equal, and there is general consensus on the birth of raga rock -- it's just not in this wiki article, where Ravi Shankar, the sitar player who did "the craze" initiating isn't even mentioned. The Dawn of Indian Music in the West by Peter Lavezolli lines it out in great detail (pgs. 153-156) and credits first use of the term "raga rock" in relation to "Why" by the Birds, the "Eight Miles High" B-side. So the term didn't exist when the Yardbirds, Kinks and Beatles were "dabbling with the sitar and drone" to color their 1965 songs, which makes the construction in the wiki article that "raga rock originated" interest in Indian classical music awkward and backwards sounding, as thought the genre influenced the music, rather than the other way around. One could say this is a Modern Studies genre-root problem, or a sign of these times, but it's really just poor source management and double-standards in contextual quality. It's a shame, really, but I suppose that's the nature of the beast. morganj9000 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

There is not "general consensus on the birth of raga rock" by any means. Lavezolli identifies the Byrds with their March '66 single, but others argue for the Kinks ("See My Friends") or perhaps the Yardbirds, others still says it's the Beatles with "Norwegian Wood". And that's despite the fact that the term didn't come into being until a Byrds publicist thought of it. I'm sorry but since you came to this page, I've become concerned about the way you pontificate and declare what is and what is not. (As mentioned above, perhaps you should first pitch an article idea on psyche rock to someone like PopMatters.) I'm all for ensuring we do the subject justice, here and throughout the encyclopaedia, but we follow what reliable sources say, with all their contradictions and apparent myopia. JG66 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I will replace the extra commentary in the Listen boxes with descriptions of the files as per the template documentation, which will eliminate one problem identified by JG66 (tried earlier for the other two boxes, but they were re-added without explanation/justification). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I would just delete the Beatles "sowed the seeds" quote and let Ravi Shankar and Beck and Ray Davies sow the seeds in the sitar paragraph, and mention the Byrds inspiring George's interest in Ravi in August 1965 when they were tripping in California. It's confirmed in George Harrison, Behind the Locked Door, Chapter 6: The Rising Sun. Same old story, retold by Roger McGuinn. Any problem with deleting the "sow the seeds" quote by Ellen? I would leave in the George Case quote, though he did stretch a John Lennon comment to get there, if only to note Rubber Soul and move on. Or would that just be undone? morganj9000 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

re: "I would just delete the Beatles "sowed the seeds" quote" I wouldn't. WP:BALANCE.

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit made the section look especially crude and out of place compared to the rest of the article. I don't understand why, given that the only real difference seems to be the addition of two or three sentences (discounting the wrongful deletion of the "Rain" ref). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed is some weird passing remarks like "despite exploring new sounds, both songs proved to be popular" - yeah because everybody knows how "new sounds" ruined the chart success of so many '60s singles... not really. There is also a lot of focus on specific quirks about the recording. We should not be devoting so much detail to the fact that, say, Beck used fuzz tone on his guitar, unless there is something objectively exceptional about it. When factoids like these are noted, they mislead the reader into believing that Beck was inventing or popularizing fuzz tone. He did not (according to George Harrison, that credit goes to "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah"). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mistaking distortion due to tube overdrive for a fuzz effect unit is just another example of the careless lack of attention to details that are found in the article. "As in most early acid rock music, the song's most characteristic element was its replacement of the melodic electric guitar with howling feedback and distortion" was included in the earlier version of the article, which incorrectly noted "Psychotic Reaction" (essentially a copy of the Yardbirds) as "The first acid (or psychedelic) rock single to break into the top 10". However, when "Shapes of Things" was added, including the single sentence "By overdubbing guitar parts, Beck layered multiple takes for his solo,[64] which included extensive use of fuzz tone and harmonic feedback.[65][62]", it was quickly removed because "We should not be devoting so much detail to the fact that, say, Beck used fuzz tone on his guitar, unless there is something objectively exceptional about it." It was OK for "Psychotic Reaction", but not "Shapes". Echard (a ref used often in the article) devotes a couple of pages to Beck's use of fuzz, including a paragraph specifically about "Shapes" and many song and album reviews specifically mention his use of the effect (then still quite new). Similarly, a Beatles' song description includes "'Rain' makes full use of an assortment of studio tricks such as varispeed and backwards taping, combining them with a droning melody". OK to mention studio techniques for "Rain", but not for "Shapes" (probably the first time feedback was overdubbed). Also, there is no reason given for removing a single sentence about the lyrics: "The Yardbirds' lyrics, described as 'stream-of-consciousness',[59] have been interpreted as pro-environmental or anti-war.[66]" "Eight Miles High", Pet Sounds ("psychedelic lyrics based on emotional longings and self-doubts"), etc., mention the lyrics, yet a brief mention about those for "Shapes" was removed.

Comments like these show a real lack of understanding of the subject and how WP works. Articles should address topics comprehensively and without bias. With all the available sources on the subject, it should be easy. However, only details about some artists are included, while others are ignored. One of the most glaring omissions is any detail about Jimi Hendrix, easily one of the 1960s musicians most associated with psychedelic rock. His Are You Experienced is called "One of the most stunning debuts in rock history, and one of the definitive albums of the psychedelic era". But he is only listed as an act at Monterey, etc.

It's odd that a GA includes several cleanup tags, like [citation needed] [dubious – discuss] [contradictory] [verification needed] [according to whom?], etc. Also attempts to clean up the Listen templates as per the documentation was reverted without explanation – there may be an WP:OWNERSHIP issue here. With the problems that have been noted (and five years since the review), it may be time for a reassessment. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, ojorojo. There's no reason for edits to be undone unless there are sourcing or copy-editing problems. The WP:CONTEXTUAL and other sourcing problems that have been in the article for a while will just be a major hassle to deal with, every step of the way. My sense of it is that, in the very least, the GA should be reassessed. In the meantime, we have "The 2000-lb Bee" by the Ventures in 1962,the inspiration for two Brit guitar players, Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page, to recreate the fuzz sound, and they certainly led the way. For anyone interested, there's a full history of the development of fuzztone HERE. morganj9000 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

re: "no reason for edits to be undone ..." Uh, yes there is: see WP:ONUS, WP:BALASPS, and WP:COATRACK.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You've missed the point. It was OK for "Psychotic Reaction" because "Psychotic Reaction" was (erroneously) stated to be the first top 10-charting psyche-rock song. "Rain" was the first popular song to use backwards tapes. Was "Shapes" the first song to use fuzz tone? Did it popularize fuzz tone? No? Then why are we mentioning it? To appease Yardbirds fans? I can't imagine how many utterly minor aspects associated with psyche-rock we could bloat this article with: "Psyche-rock may use harpsichords, let's mention how 'I Get Around' went to No. 1; psyche-rock may use artificial reverb, let's mention 'Be My Baby' and go into meticulous detail about the Wall of Sound", and the list goes on... --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Further to my post above, one could take that really far ....that the article is both about a type of music but is also a term, and the various meanings and usages of the term. By that lens, the promulgation of definitions by writers would be something to be covered, not sources. But going that far would not be useful. Mainly we need to recognize that when you get to the fine points and music that is somewhat "borderline" we just need to recognize that, on the fine points, there is no one "right" definition. I think that when you get to definitions, simply including attribution of the writer is a nice compromise. E.G. "John Smith defines psychodelic rock as xxxxxxx". North8000 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not sure how this would work for the four sentence "Shapes of Things" addition:

"Shapes of Things" continued the Yardbirds' exploration of guitar effects, Eastern-sounding scales,[nb 9] and shifting rhythms that began with their 1965 singles.[56] By overdubbing guitar parts, Beck layered multiple takes for his solo,[64] which included extensive use of fuzz tone and harmonic feedback.[65][62] The Yardbirds' lyrics, described as "stream-of-consciousness",[59] have been interpreted as pro-environmental or anti-war.[66]

Should the sources that describe it as psychedelic rock (at the top of this section) be named in the text (currently just cited)? Or include more description of the song itself and the points it meets in the "Definition" section of the article (also noted above)? Any suggestions for wording?

—Ojorojo (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a source that does a good job speaking to the points North8000 has made: Sixties Rock: Garage, Pschedelia and other Satisfactions by Michael Hicks (pgs. 59-63). The section goes into the usage history of the word "psychedelic" in reference to new music beginning first in 1964, when nobody knew what the heck it meant, to its broader application by the end of the summer of 1966 by the Elevators and the Yardbirds (in promotion of "Happenings Ten Years Time Ago"). The workaround, it seems to me, is to just point out that the word was not necessarily in broad usage until the latter half of 1966, when you have the Elevators album and albums by the Blues Magoos (Psychedelic Lollipop), the Deep (psychedelic moods) and the promotion of the Yardbirds, "fittingly", Hicks points out, because they had been using elements of psych since early in 1965. And of course Revolver's acid inspirations were dominating the market by late summer 1966 and by early 1967 the multi-media shows by Pink Floyd and the Move were given the "psychedelic" label in the British press. Hope that helps. morganj9000 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ojorojo, the particular text that you quoted above does not make any definition claims and so my comment would not be applicable to it and I would not see it as a problem. Morganj9000's post does reflect on the use of the term in an attributed way. So IMHO think both are fine but/and the latter covers more ground.North8000 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think comments regarding "Expanding/improving the "definition" section" (the preceding section) carried over to here (which is really about the song). But I do appreciate Morganj9000's links! —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing and NPOV

Just a suggestion, but can we stop adding WP:SYNTH and WP:PUFFERY with arbitrary remarks like "perhaps the most groundbreaking" or "despite exploring new sounds"? Thanks. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

Ghmyrtle has suggested I raise my concerns and explain any major changes I've been making to the article, here on the talk page, rather than in my edit summaries. As I explained in my reply, I haven't really got to a place where I've got a constructive argument to put forward yet, just a fair bit of confusion.

If any of the changes need some explanation, then fair enough. I don't consider I've made anything too major, but (working backwards) perhaps this, this, this and this might be construed as such or require some discussion.

I'd always intended to flag it (here) with everyone that was part of the lengthy 2017 discussions, to suggest they step in and ensure I don't take the article in any new, unwelcome direction. I do think the article's fairly confusing and confused in places. I think this has something to do with the quality of sources in some cases, and I've been trying to address that. In other cases, it's more about whether the source is American or British, their definition of psychedelic rock/psychedelia, and their description of what was taking place on the other side of the Atlantic. On this last point, I'm talking about US writers attempting to describe the UK scene, and then us presenting it as fact (there's an example among those four diffs above). It's quite easily fixed – it's about using authoritative sources, and we can afford to be discerning given the coverage that's out there – it's just that I'm moaning about it in my edit summaries ...

The thing that's more difficult, and I've seen this raised here in the past, in part, is that the article appears to be concerned with the San Fran scene first and foremost, and the UK underground gets squeezed in. That aspect has/had got me thinking that Psychedelic music might be the place for the sort of expansion I've got in mind regarding psychedelia's rise in the UK in 1966. This has all come about through trying to justify including an IT ad for the UFO Club, btw – or something suitably underground/avant-garde – at Revolver (Beatles album)#Development of popular music and 1960s counterculture. In looking into that, I've come across commentary linking Revolver, Miles, IT, UFO and Pink Floyd, etc, which brought me here. But anyway, I'd long thought Psychedelic music needed something else, some description of the '66 UK activities, the use of the word "psychedelia" in the contemporary music press, R.D. Laing's controversial stance with regard to LSD and psychiatry.

I don't know if any of the above constitutes a genuine discussion. I hope others weigh in anyway. JG66 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, we've got an article on the San Francisco sound (and quite right too – I'm not saying the 1960s San Fran scene doesn't deserve significant attention). We've got articles titled Psychedelic rock, Psychedelic music, Acid rock, Psychedelic pop, Psychedelic era and Drug use in music. (I know there was a proposal to merge Psyche rock and Acid rock, and that didn't go through.) So, what I've long found confusing is how to balance psychedelia-related information across the encyclopedia.

But within that, there's also the issue of how writers (I'd say US writers, but that is a huge simplification) have retrospectively lumped all things musically psychedelic into the term "psychedelic rock". The latter (aka acid rock) was the contemporaneous term for the San Francisco scene, but in the UK at the time "psychedelia" was preferred, as I understand it. What it means in terms of our coverage is that Steve Turner, say, is historically accurate in saying that Revolver "opened the doors to psychedelic rock (or acid rock)" – because that style and that scene was developing but had yet to break through to the mainstream. On the other hand, there are writers like Jim DeRogatis that state that Revolver was itself an early psychedelic rock album. We end up with this illogical, contradictory position within a matter of sentences.

Writers like Jon Savage, Rob Chapman, Ian MacDonald and Turner consistently refer to "psychedelia", not "psychedelic rock", for pre-Summer of Love music. (Savage and Chapman have written books and articles dedicated to the genre.) From what I can access of Nick Bromell's Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s, he only talks about psychedelic music and psychedelia. JG66 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

On dislike or opposition of user ILIL to british neo-psychedelic rock genres and artists

I have been following the edits of user ILIL on musical genres related to psychedelia and it sees he has an opposition towards the inclusion of the british genre of Madchester in it as well as of related bands of that style from Britain. This arguably extends to wider neo-psychedelic rock. Could he explain himself on why he thinks like this? That genre and those artists were as psychedelic as any 60s psychedelic band and I have even added good references on that. Some of those bands even did covers of 60s psychedelic songs and that particular band Candy Flip is so psychedelic that it is named after the combination of ingestion of LSD and ecstasy. The difference is the new context in which that was born which was the birth of Rave culture but those genres and bands were still rock music. In Britain the summers of 1988 and 1989 are even called the "second summer of love" and clearly that is due to similarity to the late 60s psychedelic and hippie scene with early rave culture. There are even documentaries on that which anyone can check if uninformed about this.--Eduen (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

On another related issue I tend to agree with non inclusion of the whole genre of shoegaze since it cannot be seen as a psychedelic genre. This even though some bands in it like Loop , The Telescopes or the US band Bardo Pond are also psychedelic rock bands.--Eduen (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure ILIL would be following what reliable sources have to say, and how they treat Madchester and the like. To my mind, Madchester is more relevant to the Psychedelic music article. But a) it's not down to me or any of us to decide (it's down to the sources); and b) this is relevant to what I've outlined in the previous section here, regarding the confusion in the terms psychedelic rock and psychedelia, and therefore the inconsistency and contradictory statements across the sources about the whole development of the genre(s). "Psychedelia" was/is strongly preferred when it comes to the late '80s/early '90s psyche revival in the UK; there, "psychedelic rock" was seen as a very '60s US West Coast style, Hendrix being an exception in the UK – I've got articles relating to Madchester and neo-psychedelia that reflect this. On the other hand, a couple of writers I've come across (I think Mark Prendergast might be one, in the book currently used in this article) do discuss that UK revival in the same light as psychedelic rock. I think the Rolling Stone New Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll might be another that does.

For a week or two, I've been meaning to post here again with a list of core sources and suggest they should be the foundation of our article. These would be books dedicated to either psychedelia/psychedelic rock or to 1960s rock music generally. The aim is to cut out statements made by sources who focus only on a particular album or band and perhaps seek to elevate that album/band (or just make their article more interesting) in a way that's not recognised by the core psyche and rock historians. Someone please tell if I'm wrong, but I believe this is in keeping with guidelines on writing Wikipedia articles – that we primarily use authoritative sources on the subject of the article. I've been working towards that approach in practice anyway when expanding the article. There are a few more psychedelia-focused sources I've come across at the relevant album articles just recently, which is good because we can use them instead of the partisan sources – meaning that the content and claims might change slightly, but the album/band still gets recognition in this article.

So I suggest, if you can hang on a while, I'll compile that list of sources, and then it should be easy to see how most writers locate Madchester and neo-psychedelia. I'll look in the Rock's Backpages archive too. Or if you want to compile your own list purely on Madchester, etc., then go for it. But, as I say, I think the sources have got to be primarily focused on psyche rock/psychedelia, not on Madchester/neo-psychedelia, and not on a particular band or album. JG66 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Eduen and JG66 you both know the topic far better than me and so I'll not to attempt to weigh in. And I think that your processes for going forward exhibited in in this discussion are sound. JG66, on your question, the norm is the expertise and objectivity of the sources with respect to the topic at hand, and the degree that the source trappings establish such certainly have weight in editor decisions even though policy does not give firm guidance on that.North8000 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Genres are particularly tricky because to some extent they exist in the minds of the classifier or by common meanings of the terms rather than being some 100% objective reality that experts or writers are merely discovering. The prominent sources are creators as much as coverers. North8000 (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

North8000, that's spot on about music genres – "The prominent sources are creators as much as coverers." They're the ones who discern what is psychedelic rock/psychedelia (even if members of Pink Floyd, for instance, denied that they were a psychedelic band in interviews in 1966–67). This adds to the need to ensure we choose the right (= most prominent, more authoritative) creator/coverers over the more ring-in variety (such as writers of an article about a particular album), no?

I appreciate your point that "the norm is the expertise and objectivity of the sources with respect to the topic at hand", also that there might a lack of policy-based guidance on how to approach it. I see WP:WEIGHT as relevant here, particularly: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

Also WP:BESTSOURCES: Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements ...

And perhaps especially WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content ... Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. JG66 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @JG66:. I was aware of those. When I said "even though policy does not give firm guidance on that." I should have clarified: "of the type to resolve such a dispute". The second two are excellent guidance, worded in a way to make them ignorable when someone cares to do so. Wp:weight has real operative wording and again is good guidance, but the operative wording is not practically implementable. Just wanted to let you know what was in my brain when I wrote that.  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

To user North I will respond that Madchester and the Primal Scream Screamadelica album was rock music. Particularly indie rock music. It was mostly played with guitars and drums even though it could also include electronic keyboards and some additional latin or funky percussion.--Eduen (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Madchester is very clearly dealt with in Echard, William (2017). Psychedelic Popular Music: A History through Musical Topic Theory. Indiana University Press. pp. 244–246. As such it is a book focused on psychedelic music. Anyone can check that reference here as it says that it is a "Rock Rave crossover". That means it sees Madchester and the related neo-psychedelic british scene as rock music.--Eduen (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• The reason I removed the content was because the claims were not supported by the sources and because the information had no relevance to psychedelic rock. I stated this in the rationale. Essentially, you have a lot of sources discussing the Madchester movement that say absolutely nothing about the psychedelic rock genre. If you're going to say that it's relevant because Madchester was rock music that had psychedelic influences, well then great, then that's what should be noted in the article, not a paragraph about how many copies Screamadelica sold. (WP:BECONCISE) ili (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the text that was removed, I'd say the problem was it didn't approach Madchester in the context of psychedelic rock – it was focused on Madchester for Madchester's sake. So, much of it (particularly sales of Screamadelica) has no place here. But ... Echard, writing in a book dedicated to psychedelia and its history, does identify the late '80s UK revival, including Madchester, as a latter-day version of psyche rock/psyche, so there's no reason why we shouldn't. I can only see p 244 in this preview, but he locates the crossover between UK rave culture and laddish rock within "the thread of 1980s psychedelic rock". He mentions that this rock-rave crossover was short-lived and any lasting influence it might've had on psychedelia was minimal, but it still "represented a new way to combine the rock and dance streams into which psychedelia had otherwise stratified", and he highlights the Madchester scene when making these points. So there's no question that it merits a place in the article, as long as we stick to how this (authoritative) source recognises its place in the context of latter-day psychedelia.
• As far as anything from the 1980s onwards that should appear, Prendergast (p 227) closes his section titled "Psychedelic rock" (ie, jumps from the late '60s to the '80s) with a few sentences mentioning the UK acts the Soft Boys, the Dukes of Stratosphear and Alisha, and solo albums by Robyn Hitchcock. The Psychedelic Rock entry in The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (1995) similarly includes very little coverage of post-'60s music. This is it in its entirety: 1) "Three decades later, the Grateful Dead remains one of the few major bands still playing extended psychedelic jams in concert." 2) "Many of psychedelic music's innovations persisted through such subsequent genres as progressive rock and some forms of fusion. In the Eighties, psychedelic music inspired the sound of such alternative bands as the Dream Syndicate, Rain Parade, and the Fuzztones." So, again, that information we can include in the article, and part of it is there already via Rough Guide Music USA or whatever it's called. AllMusic's "Psychedelic/Garage" article (if you can it an article) ends by saying, "there continued to be revivals of psychedelia in the decades that followed, most notably in the American underground of the mid-'80s." There was another, fairly long AllMusic piece on psychedelia, but I can't find it now; I'd seen it used via archive.org (it's not on the AM site now). From memory, that piece discussed late '80s scenes in the US and UK in a bit more detail ... would be good to track it down – I'm pretty sure it mentioned the Stone Roses.
• It's all those sort of sources that we should follow when it comes to whether to or how to handle coverage of neopsychedelia in this article. And obviously, also the books on psychedelia and/or music history by DeRogatis, Philo, Rob Chapman, etc. JG66 (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Following the arguments and support of this comment I proceeded to restore content in this article related to Madchester.--Eduen (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What you did was ignore the arguments presented here, and you misinterpreted what little support there is for including any mention of Madchester at all. The only psychedelia/psychedelic rock-focused source that recognises Madchester (so far) is Echard. His comments therefore do belong, but not the other ring-in stuff – at least not until sufficiently authoritative sources are found that approach Madchester within the context of the subject of this particular Wikipedia article, rather than the subject of the Madchester scene itself or the scene's individual artists or albums.

This goes for other bands and albums, way before the Madchester era. For example, in line with the policies I cited above, we shouldn't be relying on sources dedicated to the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Pink Floyd and others (or particular works by them), as we currently do; those sources should come a long way second, at best, to genuine psychedelia-related sources. I'll write more on this soon – I know months back I promised some sort of list of key sources for the article ... JG66 (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm wiki-experienced but no expert on the topic, nor have I reviewed this in depth. Here's my impressions from a quick look. Regarding Madchester, if there is one solid source that refers to them as Psychedelic rock, and such looks plausible, IMO there should be a few sentences on it. Maybe a bit more on the stated connection (with attribution) might be good. Getting into a particular Madchester band and the numerical success of one of their albums might be a bit much for this article, particularly since it is not super-solid that the Madchester genre itself belongs here. Maybe that is an outline for a compromise solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I see user North8000 and me as supporting a mention of Madchester in this article. User JG66also supports a mention of Madchester in the following text: "So there's no question that it merits a place in the article, as long as we stick to how this (authoritative) source recognises its place in the context of latter-day psychedelia." That suggests us it should be in the section "Neo-psychedelia" with support from the book by Echard. I am fine with not incluiding "particularly sales of Screamadelica"--Eduen (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I just want to chime in, User:Eduen has a history of copypasting content from other wiki articles and leaving to the others the burden of fixing all the references, among other things, and generally leaving the article in a bad, broken state, as you can see from their whole discussion page. I've been trying to contact them for weeks to fix the multiple errors they introduced in Neocolonialism, to no avail. Keep this in mind and please check their work thoroughly. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)