Talk:Rhythm and blues/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WTH?!

First of all, no, I am not spreading around Mariah Carey/JLO fancruft. They are both R&B musicians and they were not mentioned in the article at all. They didn't fit into any other section in the article and we needed a section noting the mainstream acceptance of R&B in the mid/late 90s that has helped transform mainstream music into practically meaning R&B nowdays. JLO and Mariah Carey fit in there, so I created

{I DRIVE}}

Rather than describing a recognizable musical genre, rhythm and blues has come to be used to indicate whatever contemporary music is popular with African-Americans.

Surely not? Hip hop is popular with African-Americans. but is distinct from R&B. Andy G 20:59 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

This article is quite unsatisfying. "Rhythm and blues (or R & B) is a musical marketing term ... attached to ... whatever form of contemporary music is popular with African-American pop musicians and audiences." So it's not a genre as such but just a marketing term for different genres over time?!

"In its first manifestation, rhythm and blues was a black version of a predecessor to rock and roll." So what is the (white?) predecessor to rock and roll which is referred to here?

Is modern R&B (pop "influenced by hip-hop, funk, and soul music") sufficiently different from the "first manifestation" to warrant separate articles? There's a separate article for soul music which says it "is fundamentally rhythm and blues". I'm not very knowledgable about this and trying to learn. Nurg 09:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nurg wants to know:

"In its first manifestation, rhythm and blues was a black version of a predecessor to rock and roll." So what is the (white?) predecessor to rock and roll which is referred to here?

The "white" predecessor to rock and roll was country music. In the early 50's country music artists like the Delmore Brothers were writing country songs using R&B's 12 bar blues format. At the same time, black artists like Chuck Berry were being influenced by "hot" country - take a listen to Chuck's "Maybelline". Like gasoline and oxygen, all that was missing was the spark. The explosion happened when Sun Records owner Sam Philips heard Elvis Presley singing Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup's R&B tune "That's Alright Mama" in the Sun studio in Memphis.

Nizerca

---

In the United Kingdom (and I suspect most of the rest of Europe) R&B continues to mean Rhythm & Blues. Look at the bands listed here: http://www.bluesfestival.co.uk/ - Dom

Split?

RHYTHM AND BLUES IS A MUSIC OF THE EARLIER HALF OF THE LAST CANTURY. WHY CANT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS? THE MUSIC PEOPLE NOW REFER TO AS "R&B" IS ACTUALLY EITHER HIP HOP MUSIC LEAD BY SUNG VOCALS AND NOT RAPPED, OR SOUL MUSIC IN SOME FORM, BE IT "CONTEMPORARY R&B" OR EARLIER STYLES. ~Jack D. 4:24UTC 8/1/05

I think that the R&B article should be split into two, because it describes two completely different meanings of the same word as if the two were apart of the same music genre. Rhythm and Blues needs to lead to a multi meaning disambiguation page rather than a music genre formated page.~ Jack D. 8:53UTC

I don't think the page needs a split. There is some connection between classical and modern R&B and that is both are strongly related to soul and African-Americans and have a wide poplarity.--Fenice 07:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

But so is disco, blues, gospel, and jazz, amongst other forms of music which are not included under the name R&B, and are remotely related to either genre just the same as modern or original R&B are related to each other. People have just become so used to realting both genres under R&B.~Jack D. 12:00AM 8/21/05(UTC)

Freddy, you gotta calm down wit these fits, bruh. There's no need ta' attack people on talk pages. We're here to discuss Rhythm and Blues and its associated wikipedia article, not people who make Freddy angry.

Nobody is having "fits" here and nobody attacked you. We are all just pointing out that the article needs to be improved and not split. Jazz has changed since its earliest days, and so has R&B, but there are still some fundamental similarites between old and new. Coverage of R&b in Wikipedia is already shaky (something that only a handful of people here are actually actively trying to fix), and there isn't really any time for such debates. "Soul music" has not been in wide use to describe black music since the 1980s, excepting its use in R&B/hip-hop fusion genres such as neo soul. Also, even though there are elements of hip-hop music in it, neo soul is not hip-hop music, and neither is R&B. Hip-hop music does not have singing vocals. And, finally, you need to sign your posts properly by typing "--~~~~" at the end of each one to get this --->--FuriousFreddy 00:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no valid reason to split this article, at least until it reaches enough length to call for the split. The problem here is that "R&B" is used both incorrectly and too frequently. Also contemporary R&B sounds almost nothing like previous incarnations of R&B. These things will make it hard to expand this article (in addition to the fact that very few people here have an exhaustive knowledge of the history of the (two) genres). Volatile 21:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that I'm about second-most-knowledgable about R&B (BrothaTimothy being first), but there are large gaps in my R&B history - I know very little of the 1940s rhythm and blues, and my 80s R&B knowleged is shaky. I do know plenty about 50s, 60s, 70s, 90s, and 2000s R&B, though. As far as the date for new jack swing, I'm inclined to put it as having started in 1987 (about the time of Keith Sweat's "Make It Last Forever", produced by Teddy Riley). --FuriousFreddy 20:01, 20 August 2005

==WTH?!==JKUST SAY THE DAMN THING First of all, no, I am not spreading around Mariah Carey/JLO fancruft. They are both R&B musicians and they were not mentioned in the article at all. They didn't fit into any other section in the article and we needed a section noting the mainstream acceptance of R&B in the mid/late 90s that has helped transform mainstream music into practically meaning R&B nowdays. JLO and Mariah Carey fit in there, so I created a paragraph there. I suppose if I had included Toni Braxton, you wouldn't have ranted. This article on the other hand is full of biased writing, such as "With sultry, sexually charged vocals". Sexy to WHO?

And why the heck were Ciara, Mya, and Amerie removed? Lumidee, Rihanna, and Kelis should still be included although I can see where you're coming from for those 3, but the first three should definitely be included.

And why are we not including hip-pop? I hope you didn't remove them for the reason I might be thinking, which if you did, would be a bit low of you. If anything the inclusion of hip-pop proves just what a powerful force R&B music has become. Unless you'd like me to move that section to hip-hop.

And no, the section of "We Belong Together" is not fancruft either. However, the paragraph made mention of quiet storm dying, but still being around selectively. One of those instances in which it is around today is in "We Belong Together".

Freddy, just because you have issues with people on Wikipedia not working on R&B projects, as much as the Mariah Carey project does not give you the excuse to lash out at other people as "fancruft". If I really wanted to make this fancruft, Mariah would be all over the place, but she is only mentioned for her work in the mid 1990s and the quiet storm reference. If Mariah Carey or any artist needs to be put in an article, they need to be put in it, (even if you hate their music). OmegaWikipedia 17:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Listen to me slowly and carefully. We will not tolerate the addition of entire paragraphs on Mariah Carey or any other artist to this article. This is an article on a music genre, Mariah Carey has a multitude of her own articles. The other editors and I have dredged this article up out of a confusing mess into something actually credible, and it would be appreciated if your edits were in support of the article itself and not of your own personal tastes.

The following edits have been made, because the way they were included they are either (a) fancruft (sorry, because that is what is is) or (b) incorrect:

1. The paragraph detailing highlights of Mariah Carey's career. Since similar parragraphs are not included for all other ttop-selling R&B artists of the 1990s, and since they should also 'not be included, it is being removed.
2. The paragraph on "hip-pop"/"urban pop" is incorrect. "Hip-pop" has been used to define pop rappers like Will Smith and MC Hammer, not to define pop stars with R&B influences. You'll need a reliable source for the use of that name before adding such information back in again.
3. A rundown of popular modenr R&B aritsts should stop at about 5 or so. This is not the list of R&B musicians, and adding three more solo females makes the list very solo female heavy. Lumidee has one hit record; as such, she is not an example of a major R&B act. Kelis, reguardless of the fact that I like her music, does als onot belong there, as she isn't the first example of a modenr R&B artist. It doesn't matter whether I like her music or anyone else's; she isn't to be listed here as an example of a major modern R&B act; there's at least a dozen other teen singers I could name off the top of my head (Omarion and B2K, B5, and Mario, for starts) that should be named long before we get to Lumidee. My personal tastes don't matter; I'm not a fan of any of the artists I just named, but I am aware of their level of relevance to this article. I don't really like the idea of including both Ashanti and Ciara; one or the other should really go.
4. Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together" is not a quiet storm record. It is a mid-tempo contemporary R&B record with 80s R&B influences. It might possibly be influenced by quiet storm, but a listen to the work of the quiet storm artists listed in that section should make it plain to a listener that "We Belong Together" has a faster tempo, strong hip-hop influences, and (if I recall correctly) either the original mix or the remix has a rapper on it. Note that quiet storm music lacks promient hip-hop influences.

Do not take any of this as a personal attack. I don't know you in person; for all I know, you could be a great person. But I do know that you're a problematic editor, something that not only I would attest to. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a fan site, and it is not an indiscrininate collection of information. Do not add information to articles that you would not read in an encyclopedia. Do nto add paragraphs on your favorite singer ot an article on their music genre. If you want to actually help make the page better, support it with balanced facts. If you revert the page, we will just have to go one ot the next step. --FuriousFreddy 20:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S: the "sultry, sexually charged vocals" part I copied over from soul music and placed here where it belongs after skimming through it. Thank you for catching that. --FuriousFreddy 20:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's everyone try to stay calm and stick with discussing specific elements of the article that we want to fix. And remember if we want to, we can always split out a more detailed article on the history of rhythm and blues that can get into all the nitty gritty. Tuf-Kat 20:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Things that we need to fix in the article:

1. We need to find an online reference, if a reliable (and correct) one exists. I've resorted to asking information from R&B musicians and DJs that I know both on and offline, which is going OK. Finding a book at the library wouldn't hurt either.
2. finishing the stuff in that "To do" box up there
3. Copyediting the article as a whole. I took parts of the article from all sorts of odd places where they did not belong (some from soul music, some from hip-hop soul, some from what was once at urban contemporary. THere may be POV errors in that information, such has the one OmegaWikipedia found.
4. We need to make plain who took R&B into soul teriotory (primarily Sam Cooke and James Brown. I beleive the mention of who took soul into contemporary R&B territory (Luther, Michael Jackson ,adn Prince) is sufficient for now. I've been begging (begging, I tell you) some true R&B scholars to please come over and edit aritcles. One registered, but did not edit anything. --FuriousFreddy 21:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm very much for a split, because what's called contemporary R&B here, 1) sucks and 2) hasn't got anything to do with the 'old' style. As long as it's actually "Rythm and Blues" it's okay, but some overproduced hip-hop whore singing something about sex should not be included in that. maybe a separate R&B (Urban) or similar page should be made for that NJlo 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly in favor of a split. "Rhythm & Blues" and "R&B" are two entirely different genres of music. If you look at, for example heavy metal, there are a huge amount of sub-genres and sub-sub-genres. Similar to rock. Original rhythm & blues was much closer to rock music, and often featured guitars and live instruments. Modern R&B normally features none of these. The term has unfortunately stuck to the newer genre, but it seems most articles about the subject cannot pinpoint exactly how the new evolved out of the old. If direct connections or evolutions can't be provided, they should be separate articles. 74.70.171.36 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh

Ok, Freddy, I prepared this long reply to you in which I adressed your points. But it got erased. Will reply later OmegaWikipedia 22:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

...so you're going to slide your link inwithout putting Carey's name by it, "just to make me happy?" Ugh. Put the woman's name like you're supposed to, and mention that the record's been a number one hit for the last four months. As far as these two "genres" you're bringing in, most of them appear very much made up or stretched ("Crunk & B" is used to describe the work of one artist, and..."Urban Latino"?). You need reliable and verifiable sources for those, or they need to be removed. The article should not provide false information.

The "hip-pop" thing also needs a reference because, again, it is otherwise providing false information. And "urban pop" or whatever they want ot call it is not R&B music--that needs to go to the pop music page, where it belongs.

Also, we do not seperate genres by "current" and "extinct". Furthermore, as anyone who listens to R&B radio would tell you, quiet storm is stil lalive, not as popular as it once was, but still alive. In addition, some artists still record tracks classifiable as hip-hop soul - Amerie being a prime example.

--FuriousFreddy 00:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise on the ordering of the 90s paragraphs by splitting the late 90s neo soul stuff out. I have left in the reference to 98 Degrees since Freddy hasn't mentioned it yet, and some casual googling seems to confirm it. On the dirty pop/urban pop/"modern definition of pop hop", I have removed the reference to "pop hop" because googling does not reveal any evidence that the term is frequently used with that meaning -- please cite a source otherwise. Googling also does not reveal any evidence of the term "urban Latino", so I have removed it. I have left "Crunk & B" because googling indicates it has some use, even to people other than Ciara. I have removed "Reggaeton/Dancehall Influenced R&B" because I don't see any evidence that is a discrete genre -- if there are some people who sing R&B with elements of reggaeton and/or dancehall, then that development really ought to be in the prose; while editing, I see that Freddy has invited me to incorporate that bit into the prose, but I won't because what it says doesn't make much sense (reggaeton and dancehall are very different, and both are quite far removed from reggae -- that'd be like saying something is current contemporary gangsta rap with heavy metal and/or progressive rock (or other jump blues related) influences.). I have removed the distinction between "extinct" and "current" subgenres, because that really isn't a way I've ever seen anyone look at it, and none of those genres are "extinct" (at least not in the sense that T. rexes are extinct, and I don't know of any other sense). I have left the genre section formerly entitled "hip pop (urban pop/dirty pop)", but have retitled it "dirty pop", since that's the only one of those three terms that google indicates has a clear usage. I have left the reference to "We Belong Together", and added Mariah Carey's name (since the song without the name is silly), since googling indicates this may be relevant. Is this an acceptable compromise to both parties? Tuf-Kat 01:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

1. Something about reggaeton and dancehall influenced (or we could just say "Carribean influenced") R&B could possibly be mentioned somewhere in the "current R&B" section, with mentions of Lumidee, Akon, and others.

• • I added Some R&B singers have used elements of Caribbean music in their work, especially dancehall and reggaeton.

1. I've never heard anyone other than Lil' Jon use the term "Crunk & B", and then only to define either his artist Ciara or tracks produced by him. We may as well include "Timbaland sound" as a genre if we're going to include "Crunk & B" (an additio nthat I also would think is not necessary). I would say that it shouldn't be identified as an actual subgenre until, maybe a year from now, several other producers are using it on many other artists. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

• • Googling indicates you are correct, though I'll wait for Omega to respond before doing anything.

1. "Dirty pop" is the only one of those I've heard used as well, so it works best, although "urban pop" isn't inherently incorrect. "Hip-pop", however, is incorrectly used to define anything associated with sung music.

• • I've never heard of any of them. "Urban pop" doesn't get many clear hits, and the ones there are include 525 with "Justin Timberlake", 519 with 2pac, 2000 with "50 Cent", 677 with "Mary J. Blige", 748 with "James Brown" and 1590 with "Britney Spears". So I don't think that really has much of a set meaning. "Hip pop" comes up similarly without any clear meaning, though I would have assumed it meant what you claim (the likes of Will Smith and his ilk). Tuf-Kat
    • That's the only use of "hip-pop" I've ever heard, after being in a hip-hop college club and working with several artists for the last few years. --FuriousFreddy 03:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Perhaps we can ad short sections on soul music and funk to the middle of the article (with "See details" links) to help bridge the gap between 1963 and 1983? --FuriousFreddy 02:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I think that would just confuse the distinction currently made between the old stuff and contemporary. Seeing stuff on funk in an article on R&B would be surprising, I think. Tuf-Kat
    • I'd say just to mention the shift, because we've got that big gap in-between. It's not neccessary, though. --FuriousFreddy 03:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess the gap should be explicitly explained. I added the following (off the top of my head, feel free to suggest revisions):
        • It was not until the 1980s that the term R&B regained ordinary usage. During that time, the soul music of James Brown and Sly Stone had adapted elements from psychedelic music and other styles through the work of performers like George Clinton. Funk also became a major part of disco, a kind of dance pop electronic music. By the early 1980s, however, funk and soul had become sultry and sexually-charged with the work of Prince and others. At that time, the modern style of contemporary R&B came to be a major part of American popular music.

additional suggestions:

Can we get the genres in alphabetical order, and properly formatted (no proper case ,as per Manual of Style)? --FuriousFreddy 02:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

They were supposed to be in alphabetical order, but I guess I missed hip hop soul. Capitalization fixed too (didn't change "Crunk & B", because I suppose the "B" should be capitalized just as in R&B. Were you referring to that too, or just "Dirty Pop"?). Tuf-Kat 02:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just "Dirty pop". --FuriousFreddy 04:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Replies

Thanks for the compromise, TUF-KAT. Talking to you is much easier than Freddy ranting.

• Agreed with the edit on the Carribean influenced R&B section. I wasn't really sure if there was an exact term for it.
• "Extinct" was probably not the right term for it, but can we please seperate the subgenres that are used more today from the genres that are not used as much? It is a bit jarring to see new jack swing with more contemporary subgenres.
• Urban Latino - Can you please restore it? Evidence of its usage can be seen [1]. Another link [2]
• Hip-Pop - Can we please restore Dirty Pop as "Hip-Pop" or include both terms? I'm aware of Freddy's usage of the word, but pop rap is a more accurate description of that term nowdays I think. Here is a link that described Justin Timberlake as hip-pop, [3]. Here is a link that describes the Black Eyes Peas as hip-pop. [4] OmegaWikipedia 04:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've put the subgenres in roughly chronological order. Can you live with that? Regarding urban latino and hip pop, I remain unconvinced. Your sources are hardly authoritative and are mostly marketing, which doesn't mean the terms are really meaningful. I'd much, much rather see a website that actually says "Urban Latino is a style of Latin R&B" or whatever, rather than trying to divine what is meant by the names of music festivals and record labels and blurbs about Timberlake's clothing line. I'm not saying those terms won't or can't be reinserted, but let's wait until some more concrete evidence for their meaning can be found -- there's a RfC on this page, so hopefully some more people will come by and maybe they'll have something productive to say. Also, do you have any sources that aren't Little John-related about Crunk & B? Tuf-Kat 04:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

No one is ranting; I am just trying to make sure that accurate and factual information is presneted in this, and any other, article. "Hip-pop" is, again, not used to properly describe singers; the reason the Black Eyes Peas as are described as "hip-pop" is because they are a hip-hop group with strong mainstream pop influences; i.e. a "pop rap" group. As such, they really shouldn't be on this page; they're rappers, not singers (Fergie excluded, although Lauryn Hill singing doesn't warrant a mention of The Fugees here either).--FuriousFreddy 04:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Odd "Contemporary R&B Subgenres"

I was surprised to come here and find that "Urban Pop" (?) and "Crunk & B" had their own sections of this page. Though I don't claim to know much of R&B (esp. contemporary R&B), these "genres" seem dubious. I mean, Justin Timberlake is still very much a pop artist, I don't care how many songs of his Timbaland produces. Many of Gwen Stefani's songs are more dance/ska/new-wave influenced than "urban." I can think of only one GS song ("Rich Girl") that I would classify as anywhere near "urban," and that's just because a rapper appears. It seems to me that these two (just two!) examples are more appropriate in their respective pop genres.

"Crunk & B" is also every bit as dubious, at least from my p.o.v. It's only been established for about a year, and there are only two examples (one of whom I've never heard of). I'd say "Crunk & B" is more of a fad than a real R&B subgenre. Maybe five years down the line, once there's about twenty or so established artists, then we can consider it a subgenre.

Anyway, just my two cents. This article should be encyclopedic. Rarely does an encyclopedia depend on unestablished, shaky trends to define a genre. Sorry for not being more involved in the article, if there is any improvements I can make I will try to do so this weekend when I have more time. Other than these "subgenres," the article is shaping up well so far. Volatile 23:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a heated discussion above on various topics, including those two terms. I asked Omega Wikipedia for some more evidence that they had consistent use, but the conversation abruptly stopped, so as far I'm concerned they could both be removed. Tuf-Kat 23:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Tuf Kat, sorry for the late reply, when I was about to respond to the thread, but Freddy left, so I thought responding would be moot. Anyway, Volatile, the issue is not about whether you care if Justin's music is produced by Timbaland or not. Justin is an artist with undeniable R&B influences...his album charted on the R&B album charts, and he's had several singles chart on the R&B singles chart too. Don't get hung up on his past to label him as pop just because of Nsync.

As for Gwen, I think you need to update your knowledge about her, as her ska/new wave sound are more from No Doubt, and even No Doubt doesnt even doesnt really do that type of music anymore! Don't forget, Gwen had a huge R&B hit this year with "Hollaback Girl"

There are plenty of Crunk N B songs out there like "Goodies" from Ciara, "Red Light" from Usher, "Girlfight" from Brooke Valentine, just to name a few. If you feel Crunk & B shouldnt be here, then why is there a page on Crunk? OmegaWikipedia 05:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be technical about this, we could say Justin Timberlake has roots in aboriginal music which utilized simple beat structures, or classical music utilizing elegant chord transitions, etc. Does that mean he deserves to be included in an article about Aboriginal Music or Classical Music? Hollaback Girl is more reminiscent of Toni Basil's new-wave/dance music ("Mickey") than hip-hop or "urban." Just because a song has a dominant beat does not mean it is hip-hop, and even less so R&B. If you're going to resort to the fact that JT/GS have had songs played on urban radio, then that contains empty logic as well. Any number of non-R&B songs get played on R&B radio. Another example, some rap groups (N.W.A., The Roots, and Run DMC) have been played on rock radio.

Crunk has an article for the same reason that many obscure anime productions have articles here. A certain percentage of contributors think it's worthy of an article, not necessarily that it's encyclopedic. And no one bothers with these dubious topics because it would cause too much fighting.

Anyway, it just seems silly that some recent (and imo dubious) music and radio industry trends should be included in article about the history and characteristics of a genre that is 100+ years old. Volatile 20:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What? I'm sorry, but that is a very weak argument against Justin Timberlake. If that's the case, then everyone can be placed in this so called aboriginal music/classical musical analogy. However, not everyone can be placed in R&B. How in the world does Justin's being played on R&B not count? That is far from empty logic. So Toni Braxton is not an R&B artist anymore because she gets played on R&B radio? The majority of Justin's singles that he have been released have gotten R&B play. Even one song that wasnt really a single got played! I think that shows something if the R&B community is willing to play a song that wasnt even a soliicated single. It's not like Timberlake had 1 R&B influenced single and charted.

HG may sound like "Mickey" to you, but it doesnt matter. The song recieved high amounts of R&B play and has been recognized by those in the urban community. And considering who Gwen is, that shows a lot to show that the song has been embraced by them, because that format wont just play any artist.

Your analogy comparing the rap groups to being played on rock radio makes no sense. They have gottten some rock play, but not a whole lot. Just the same way, if Mariah Carey got play on Latin stations, I wouldnt consider her a Latin artist, because thats just now and then. However, in the case of Gwen and Justin, many of those singles in their solo career have charted on R&B. I wouldnt add them to this list if they were a fluke and got like 1 song played.

Well, music is always changing, and if a new subgenre comes up, I dont see why it cant be included if the parent article is included. OmegaWikipedia 21:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My point has clearly flown over your head and out the window. If you can come up with at least 5 known artists (and not just artists with a few songs you think are "Crunk n B" or one-shot singers) who fit into "Crunk & B," then by all means keep it, because one major and one relatively obscure artist representing one "genre" is really not enough to justify keeping it. The "Urban Pop" thing is just a case of one radio format playing music typically at home in another. That phenomenon happens all the time between almost all the formats. It has also happened numerous times in the past. A radio industry phenomenon doesn't constitute a genre, no matter how you slice it. I'll keep the Crunk & B for two weeks until you can justify its placement here, but the Urban Pop section needs to go. Both subgenres seem undermine a developing (and thereby unstable) article.

Gimme a break. The thing is you had no point, only a weak case with 0 logic. Don't be trying to act all smart just because you have no substance. Um, no, radio typically music typically home at another is when rock stations started playing Outkast, or when Latin stations played Celine Dion. Justin Timberlake IS an R&B artist. I hope you're not dimissimg just because he's white. Why is that so hard to believe? Who are you to give some orders that you're going to keep this for 2 weeks or not? Let me turn the tables on you, why don't you try to justify urban pop and crunk&B besides your own bias opinons? OmegaWikipedia 22:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Text from "Urban Pop": Urban Pop

Urban Pop blends the current elements and characteristics of contemporary R&B with pop music. Justin Timberlake is most known for his work in this genre, along with performers like Gwen Stefani

Volatile 17:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim to be knowledgeable here, nor to be able to grasp the Jesuitical distinctions between what sound to me to be identical slices of pop-pap (with as much to do with real R&B as smooth jazz has to with jazz), but the section itself doesn't claim that urban pop is a sub-genre of R&B, only that it uses some of the elements of R&B. That might be worth a mention (though I'm dubious), but not a separate section. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Mel that seems like an illogical move. You claim to be clueless abotu R&B, yet you changed the article, and made it inaccurate! If you want to edit the article (considering you admitted yourself that you know nothing about it), can you please discuss this first? OmegaWikipedia 09:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem not to have read what I wrote; you certainly haven't responded to it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I see what's going on here, OW has taken it upon himself to change my logical (and well explained) edits. Thank you Mel for handling this. OW, if you don't have anything relevant to add to this article, please stay out of here. Your fancruft is not wanted! Volatile 00:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Delisted GA

There are no references or images. slambo 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"African-American music"

There's a sentence in the contemporary R&B section that runs, "R&B today defines a style of African-American music..." So let me get this straight, R&B can only be performed by black people from the United States? --Lairor 05:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what it says. R&B is a style of African-American music; lots of people perform it, just like there are black people that play klezmer, which is clearly Jewish music, there are Sri Lankans who play calypso, which is clearly Trinidadian, and Italians who play Irish folk music. Tuf-Kat 05:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though as you say Tuf-Kat, there are lots of people who perform R&B music, let's face it, R&B music is best when black african-americans perform it! Doesn't everyone agree?

Maximum R&B

In early '60s UK R&B was a term for electric blues, for example Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed and John Lee Hooker. Enthusiasm for this music led to Blues-rock and development of British rock, with both The Rolling Stones and The Who using the label. This usage should be covered in the article. ..dave souza, talk 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhythm and blues=Rock

Remember, rock and roll IS rhythm and blues. Alan Freed gave it a new name so the music could seek mass acceptance (i.e. white mainstream America). Rock was first a piano and sax-based genre before the guitar became dominant around Berry's and Elvis's time. LaVern Baker, Ruth Brown, Clovers, Big Joe Turner, etc., the doo-wop vocal groups, etc., were the first rock and roll (i.e. rhythm and blues) stars as Alan Freed played their records and guested these artists at his rock concerts, all this before Elvis broke out into the scene in 1954-1955.

Louis Jordan

Louis Jordan should be mentioned as an important influence on the development of this genre, shouldn't he? Badagnani 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

TODO

• Add some pictures, of famous r&b artists to give the article some colour. THE KING 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit Links messed up

I don't know what's causing it, and don't have time to figure it out, but the EDIT links are messed up on this page ... clicking the link next to "original rhythm and blues" opened the "history" section for editing. Twang 01:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sound sample section needs improvement

It seems odd that there are only sound samples of more recent songs that have been classified as R&B, but no samples of the original style of music that defined the genre. This gives a very distorted view of what R&B is, expecially if people don't bother to read the years that the songs were recorded. One of the experts here should dig up sound samples from the 1950s and 1960s to balance it out.Spylab 00:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1940s?

I have a CD with some clearly identifiable R&B tracks on it from the 1920s. What the article seems to have missed out is that R&B in it's earliest years was simply solo blues artists with other rhythm players sitting in. Blues and rhythm. Geddit? :)

As for the 'R&B/Contemporary R&B' debate, of course they're completely different things. There is no link between the two any more than there is a link between today's rap and the rapping of Isaac Hayes and Millie Jackson. Heavy Metal owes more to R&B than Contemporary R&B does. Deke42 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Links

Are those links really necessary? I don't think they add much to the content..

• I agree. I think that under Wikipedia guidelines, they are considered spamlinks. I will delete them. I will also look at the See Also list to see if there's anything that doesn't need to be there. Spylab 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Idea for Split

It is clear that there needs to be two seperate articles for these genres... there shouldn't be two genre boxes in one article.

My idea is; turning R&B into a disambiguation page, and then...

Rhythm and blues, as the original rock 'n' roll related form.

R&B (pop) as the pop related genre, which is not related to the original, and not refered to by the full "Rhythm and blues" phrase. Anyone let me know what you think about this... I'll give it a week before doing it. - Deathrocker 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK.. I'm doing the split now. - Deathrocker 09:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• There should probably still be a stub section for contemporary R&B, with a "main article" link.Spylab 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I had my doubts but that's a great improvement all 'round. I still think it concentrates too much on the 'City' development of rhythm and blues to the detriment of the 'Country' artists though. Howlin' Wolf's first album clearly demonstrates that it wasn't all happening in the city. Deke42 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct, at all. Contemporary R&B is not some mere subset of pop music. What should be done with this article is that someone should write a middle section for it to discuss soul and funk briefly, to link 50's R&B with modern R&B. Before you attempt to split anything, you have to realize that thousands of articles redirect to this one, and whoever decides to split any of the articles is responsible for making sure each and every link redirects to the correct page. Furthermore, a proper split should be at contemporary R&B, and no place else - formatting is important.--FuriousFreddy 06:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is why people should not do splits like this unless they go out of their way to alert others and get a consensus first (using talk pages, as I have found, does not work with topics not of immediate interest to Wikipedia's primary user group). Now, let us discuss logic:
  1. "Rhythm and blues" is a term that has been used to define African-American music for over six decades. The term is a blanket term. It is not that there are two distinct styles, because there are at least four major styles: traditional rhythm and blues, soul music, funk music, and contemporary R&B.
  2. All articles about R&B, traditional or contemporary, were made to link to this page. Therefore, this page, and this page alone, should be made into a disambiguation page, not R&B, not R&B music, or anything else.
  3. Before anything is split anywhere, temp articles should be drawn up and approved first. Then, someone with access to a robot will be needed to disambiguate the thousands of articles linking to rhythm and blues. Page moves and splits such as this cannot be done without redirecting.
  4. Now, let us discuss structure. This article has needed to be re-written for quite some time now. A general encyclopedia article on "rhythm and blues" should briefly cover its four subsections (traditional rhythm and blues, soul music, funk music, and contemporary R&B), with "More info" links in each of those four sections. Therefore, what needs to be done is this, and in this order:
  • 1. Research (print resources are next-to-essential for this) and write three more or less new articles: rhythm and blues, traditional rhythm and blues, and contemporary R&B, at those exact name spaces.
    2. Apply each article, but only after we have an administrator assign someone with a bot to disambiguate all of the links.
    3. "R&B", "R&B music", etc. should all still redirect to this page. If this page is rewritten well enough, one could very well get away with not redirecting, but that will have to be determine at a later date.

I will start collecting research to facilitate this. I am starting the rewrite at Rhythm and blues/rewrite.

--FuriousFreddy 07:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FuriousFreddy's assesment of the situation. There doesn't seem to have been much warning, discussion or consensus before the split was made. I attempted to solve one of the problems mentioned in your post by reinstating a short stub section for contemporary R&B, with a link to the associated main article. However, the editor responsible for the split reversed that edit and I couldn't be bothered to get into an edit war over it. Spylab 11:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm with Deathrocker. Contemporary R&B has no direct connection with R&B, it's just a subset of contemporary pop. For some reason around the time of the introduction of sampling and computer generated music artists started describing their music as what they wanted it to be rather than what it was. Just because you've sampled 'Funky drummer' doesn't mean you've created an R&B masterpiece, and just because the default setting on your Dr. Rhythm pedal sounds a bit like Prince that doesn't mean you're funky. Not that R&B is is the only genre to suffer in this way. Rap, swing, Hip-hop, they're all musical styles that bear no resemblance to their original incarnation.

I'm not opposed to music developing, but if I can't trace a line from A to B to C then I don't accept it as being a progression. I can see the connection between mainstream pop and contempory R&B, but there's nothing but a great big void between it and the real thing. Deke42 12:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. I can trace a direct line in R&B from its 1940s origins, through the days of soul, funk, and disco, right up to the 1980s and the arrival of "contemporary R&B". Maybe you can't, but that's probably because you're just not familiar with the music. Just because you have personal opinions about the quality of a type of music doesn't mean you have a right to provide visitors to Wikipedia with false information. Information on Wikipedia about R&B music of all types is horrible, and only a small handful of people even care. So why should I? --FuriousFreddy 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The break between the original Rhythm and Blues and what is now more commonly referred to as R&B came in the 1960s when black artists/industry people broke away from rock 'n' roll to rename what they were doing soul music. I'll be added referenced text in the future. Although the music was continually changing, it has been relabeled several times. I do think that continuing to lump everything together does nothing to educate people about what actually happened. If words mean anything we want them to mean, they are worth less as a way to communicate. That justifies a split. I have mixed feelings about how it's been handled. Steve Pastor 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Soul music" was still very much still R&B. R&B was, and is still, used as a blanket term for soul, funk, and even disco (before white artists got into it, that is). A proper article on this subject should be the way I explained above: a general "rhythm and blues" article which branches out into subarticles on traditional rhythm and blues, soul, funk, disco, and contemporary R&B. Everything wouldn't be "lumped" together: it would be a natural organization. However, this is Wikipedia, and I've learned the hard way that hard work on topics not involving current events or things of interest to fanboys goes wholly unnoticed. So if someone else wants to do it, at least they'll have an outline to do so with.--FuriousFreddy 05:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC) this is cool that you can change stuff when you don't even know anything about the subject...I think u shuld check where you're getting your information from.

Sources

This page is seriously lacking sources. Can someone please make it a broken page or whatever? There aren't any sources past the introduction, and there are no evidence at all for what is being said.

The page as a whole is just broken. It needs ALOT of work.

And BTW. This page is mainly referring to early 1940's/50's R&B, which is the basis of Rock n' Roll. It is very different than modern R&B. Though this is a problem. The main R&B page should be just a history of the term, and then branching off into different categories to define its meaning at different points in time.

I dont know how to use Wikipedia well though, I may post some stuff on here if i can figure it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.247.76.181 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Do add relevant, referenced, verifiable text. Regarding sources, you are right about the lack of them. For instance, this broad category of music was not created to be a precursor of rock n roll. It stood on its own. Finding suitable material to add, or replace unreferenced text, requires a fair amount of effort, however. Rhythm and Blues was the name of this music starting in the late 1940s, and that is what we decided to address here - the period through the time "soul music" replaced it. Steve Pastor 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

History

I think you are over-reacting by starting from scratch, but that's just me.

Here, for reference, is the removed passage:

In its first manifestation in the late 1940s, rhythm and blues was played by small combos of four or five musicians; usually a bass, drums, one or two saxophones, and possibly a rhythm guitar or piano. Louis Jordan is generally credited with being the first jazz crossover artist to be considered "R&B". In 1951 it was also being called rock and roll. It was strongly influenced by jazz, jump blues and black gospel music. It also influenced jazz in return. Rhythm and blues, blues, and gospel combined with bebop to create hard bop.

Several musicians recorded both jazz and R&B, such as the swing bands of Jay McShann, Tiny Bradshaw and Johnny Otis. Count Basie had a weekly live rhythm and blues broadcast from Harlem. Bebop icon Tadd Dameron arranged music for Bull Moose Jackson and spent two years as Jackson's pianist after establishing himself in bebop. Most of the R&B studio musicians were jazz musicians, and many of the musicians on Charlie Mingus' breakthrough jazz recordings were R&B veterans. Lionel Hampton's big band of the early 1940s — which produced the classic recording Flying Home (tenor sax solo by Illinois Jacquet) — was the breeding ground for many of the bebop legends of the 1950s. Eddie "Cleanhead" Vinson was a bebop saxophonist and a blues shouter.

In the 1950s, overlapping with other genres such as jazz and rock and roll, R&B developed regional variations. A strong, distinct style straddling the border with blues came out of New Orleans, and was based on a rolling piano style first made famous by Professor Longhair. In the late 1950s, Fats Domino hit the national charts with the songs "Blueberry Hill" and "Ain't That a Shame". Other artists who popularized this Louisiana flavor of R&B included Clarence "Frogman" Henry, Frankie Ford, Irma Thomas, The Neville Brothers and Dr. John. The first rock and roll hits consisted of R&B songs such as "Rocket 88" and "Shake, Rattle and Roll", which appeared on popular music charts as well as R&B charts. The song "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin On", the first hit by Jerry Lee Lewis, was an R&B cover song that reached number one on the pop, R&B and country and western charts.

By the early 1960s, rhythm and blues had taken on more gospel-influenced elements, as pioneered by artists such as Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, James Brown and Aretha Franklin. This newer style was given the name soul music. A little more than a decade later, however, rhythm and blues made a comeback." The early and mid 1960s saw the rise of young white bands whose music was labelled R&B or blue-eyed soul; such as The Yardbirds, The Rolling Stones, The Pretty Things, The Small Faces, The Animals, Dr. Feelgood, Deep Purple, The Spencer Davis Group and The Who. Those bands all played covers of songs by established black performers, in addition to their own material. The Who were once considered Maximum R&B by their mod fans. Around the same time in Jamaica, a local variation of R&B was emerging, called ska. Like soul music, it was also popular with mods and their offshoots: the skinheads, suedeheads, casuals and scooterboys.

I would, myself, remove Deep Purple & Dr Feelgood & Small Faces from the above list, but include "UK-based" and "Them" and "The Beatles, in their early days".

Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I spent a fair number of hours running down the references that you see in the introduction of the article, dealing with the stuff that was there before, trying to make it fit, etc. I don't want that tarnished by tags that have nothing to do with that material. Spylab insisted, on my talk page, that tags always go at the top, and would not accept the compromise that I offered, which was to have the tags below the referenced section. All unreferenced material is subject to removal, as a stated policy of wikipedia, as you probably know. I have been watching this article for a long time, and I agree it needs a lot of work. And it would be really nice to do it right.

I would appreciate help putting this article make together. But I would like someone else to put as much time as me into authoritative, verifiable sources. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some more sources can be found on Google books] Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Team Work

I am thrilled with how well this is shaping up. I have been researching this subject, and related items for at least a year. I was reluctant to mess with what was here before, but now... I hope those of you who are helping with the more sophisticated formating are satisfied with how things have been going. Thanks a bunch. Sometime soon, the article will need sections. Right now I'm thinking in terms of Setting the Stage, which would be WWII / early 40s, then start of the R&B period, early to mid fifties, mid to late 50s, etc. Alternatives? Comments? Steve Pastor (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's looking good, with the new information and references to back it up.Spylab (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Charts

The article mentions the Billboard R&B chart in 1947, and then, in the next paragraph, mentions that that name was only used as a category starting from 1949. Should be reworded? Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting delema...Billboard has all these years listed under one heading...Rhythm and blues and Hip Hop, or something like that. And the listings are continuous even through the Soul Music years. The pre R&B term for music made for and purchased by African Ameicans was "Race Records". But I'm not sure they called it the "Race charts". So, I don't know, maybe something about the record buying public made it a hit ??? Steve Pastor (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the source say, quite specifically, that it was the Harlem Hit Parade prior to '49. A simple rewrite should suffice. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Still on the topic of charts, it seems that the article is starting to focus a bit too much on the placement of songs in the charts, instead of on what R&B actually is, and how it developed and evolved. Spylab (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, I had a section on the instrumentation in Jordan's Tymphany Five, and it was removed. And of course if you want to talk about "style" or "sound", you have to talk about what instruments were used. I am seeing a pattern of evolving from jazz based blues with big band like playing and blues shouters, to the softer sound of vocal and doo wop groups. The other thing that will happen is the rise of "rock", then the "soul" sound. Do you think it would be better to try to work it into each section, or break it out into separate sections like instrumentation or over all style? The charts, of course, tell us what was most popular as each year goes by, and tastes change. I am thinking about a section on record labels, too, since most of them are now mostly forgotten. If anyone else has anything to contribute...Steve Pastor (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Racism and Music

SpyLab just deleted this paragraph: In April of 1956 three white men rushed the stage as Nat "King" Cole was performing in Birmingham, AL. One man reached Cole and hit him with a flying tackle, and then attempted to drag him off stage. Police officers swarmed over the three men, beating them with fists and nightsticks, and took them away in handcuffs. A shaken Cole, recovering in his dressing room, received an apology from the mayor of Birminghan and other officals, and was encouraged to continue his performance. Cole received a five minute long standing ovation when he returned to the stage. Although he did not resume the show, he did perform a second show for an all black audience. The attack was condemned from one end of the country to the other, and even the most ardent and diehard segregationists found the incident more than a little hard to swallow.[5]

In MAY be off topic, but I put it in the article because Carl Perkins was very worried, as was his brother, when they showed up to play what appeared to be an all black venue. And he was touring with a bunch of black performers. Perkins was worried that he would become the next Nat King Cole, or be shot by someone in the audience. He had been confronted in the past for making "black" music. I know that I have often rolled my eyes when someone brought race into a discussion of music, but these issues were clearly important to the people who made and performed the music. I think it would be a mistake to ignore it completely. Go Cat Go is due at the library soon, and I don;t want to waste time wrting text that will be deleted. Comments, please? Steve Pastor (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• What does the paragraph specifically have to do with Rhythm and Blues? Make that clear and maybe there's a place for that information in the article (but not with every minor detail). The way it's presented now, it just looks like something that belongs in the Nat King Cole article, not a broad article about one music genre.Spylab (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Technical problem with citations section

There's a broken section at the bottom of the page: citations are scrambled... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.75.222.116 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Soul music

Soul music was invented as a crossover of R&B and gospel, so I suggest moving Soul music from sub-genres to fusion genres. Netrat_msk (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It may have come out of those, but now it's very distinct from both, which seems to indicate maybe it is it's own distinct sub-genre. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

dire dire dire article - who will catch that teardrop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.112.144 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, one thing is missing in this article. That is Little Richard.. You can't write an article on Rhythm and Blues history and then leave him out. His influence is profound, not only on contemporary music, but also on later musicians and all the way forward till today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.53.94.148 (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

SpyLab, What is it that is in the article that leads you to write that rhythm and blues was influenced by jazz, etc, rather than being those things. Obviously, there is a common usage, but where in the article is that stated and supported by a referenced source? In fact, all of the referenced statements in the Etylmology section indicate that they were all included under the term invented form marketing purposes. Your stated reason for the revert was not very helpful. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted the disputed uncited statement.Spylab (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead should define what rhythm and blues actually is, not just what the word originally meant as a marketing term. At some point the term rhythm and blues started being used to describe a distinct style of music, and stopped being used as an umbrella term for all African American popular music, such as jazz and gospel.Spylab (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But, how do we capture that, and what do we use as a reference, while a the same time making it clear that the common use meaning changed? One possibility would be from a British dance book I have that equates rock n roll with rhythm and blues. And, that could actually sort of fit with that name being adopted by British rockers while the American market turned to soul music. Could we use the film "The Commitments" as a referenece? Steve Pastor (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a proposal, to replace the existing introduction with the following:-

Rhythm and blues (also known as R&B, R'n'B or RnB) is the name given to a wide-ranging genre of popular music, originally created by African Americans in the 1940s but which has subsequently had a number of shifts of meaning. The term was originally used by record companies to refer to recordings bought predominantly by African Americans, at a time when blues recordings were increasingly using rhythms derived from jazz, amplified instrumention (especially electric guitar), and sophisticated vocal stylings and harmonies. After this style of music contributed substantially to the development of rock and roll, the term "R&B" was then used from the 1960s particularly by white groups to refer to musical styles which developed from and incorporated electric blues, as well as gospel and soul music. By the 1970s, the term "rhythm and blues" was being used as a blanket term to describe soul and funk. Since the 1990s, the term "R&B" is now mainly used to refer to a modern version of soul and funk-influenced pop music.

A reference for the first 3 sentences would be Peter Gammond, The Oxford Companion to Popular Music, Oxford University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-19-311323-6, p.488. Rather than making this change myself, it would be good to get a degree of consensus first. What do people think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's all good information to include, but as a lead paragraph it seems too long and complex.Spylab (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good - The term was originally used by record companies to refer to recordings of blacks bought predominantly by blacks (African Americans OK, too) in the late 1940s but which has subsequently had a number of shifts of meaning. By the 1970s, the term "rhythm and blues" was being used as a blanket term to describe soul and funk. Since the 1990s, the term "R&B" is now mainly used to refer to a modern version of soul and funk-influenced pop music.Steve Pastor (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good - the term "R&B" was then used from the 1960s particularly by white groups to refer to musical styles which developed from and incorporated electric blues, as well as gospel and soul music. By the 1970s, the term "rhythm and blues" was being used as a blanket term to describe soul and funk. Since the 1990s, the term "R&B" is now mainly used to refer to a modern version of soul and funk-influenced pop music. comment This is all good, but maybe it should be at the end of the article where we move into soul, etc.Steve Pastor (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad? Or, I don't entirely agree with these: at a time when blues recordings were increasingly using rhythms derived from jazz, amplified instrumention (especially electric guitar) Really, it's more like the jazz players were playing blues, as they always had, and got big "playing for the people". Most "rural blues" players adopted a harder sound, and it was jump that "became rock n roll". Check out the recent additions and edits I made to the jump blues article. comment Note that although electric guitars were used, and there were prominent guitar players, the tenor sax was the predominant instrument. Electric guitar was far more prominent in country/rockabilly in this era. After this style of music contributed substantially to the development of rock and roll, comment Nothing changed substantially in the music. People just called it something different. See all the rock n roll movies from the 50s. Sure, Chuck Berry is an exception. All of this is too complex to be in an intro, but would be good to explore in the body of the article. But then would it be too much about styles of blues? Guess so.Steve Pastor (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we leave out the "controversial" stuff - ie the stuff I have labeled as "Bad?", and go with the then shortened version.

Thanks for putting this up! Steve Pastor (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Re length and complexity of intro - it's a complex topic, and I think it's important that the intro provides an overview of the whole of the subject matter covered. It can highlight the original 1940s meaning, but in my view also needs to summarise, succinctly, the later meanings. If paragraph length is a problem (personally I don't think it is) it can be split into two paras. On the detailed points, I'm happy not to mention guitar (or sax). The line about blues players playing jazz rhythms came specifically from the Gammond reference - if we can get a more appropriate (and referenced) phrase from the body of the article text it would be much better. Re the move into R&R - I thought "contributed substantially" was about as neutral as I could get, given there will be an argument that R&R also drew on Hank Williams, Bob Wills, etc etc, and it would be better to give a (relatively) uncontentious overview in the intro and explore the details in the article itself. Happy to hear other views - I think it's important to get a neutral and stable introduction to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking into whre Lindy Hop came from, and there's another case where people were doing something, and it was given a name "Lindy", but the name was the only thing that was new. It ocntinued to change, however, just like R&B/jump blues did. I think it's important that people understand that names for things, in this case a "genre" of music, are just words that the industry makes up, "rhythm and blues", or Alan Freed's use of "rock n roll". (Course, doo wop is considered to be "rock n roll" within the context of the 50s.)Steve Pastor (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I just just prefer words that don't confuse people into thinking, oh, it was something new, right? Then we have endless arguments about what was the first ???? Also, Electric blues - Bad. Note the weak nature of the article that was created for it.Steve Pastor (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaving out the parts I suggested would address SpyLab's concern about the intro being too long. Considering the length of the article at this point, the intro should be fairly brief. If someone wants to address these, and other issues, within the article itself, go for it. Most of it currently sticks to the facs and avoids the hysterical "SO and SO was the GREATEST R&B artist type stuff. But, it could be filled out considerably. It DOES nead a longer intro, which is why I tried one. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the intro which hopefully take on board most of these points. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

sign up

how do you sign up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.254.226.237 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Info Box

These things are problematic. Editors come along and put stuff in them with no justification, and they are often things that can't be found in the article itself. I support removal of ANY item in the INFO BOX that: isn't in the article, and/or doesn't have a reference. Is anyone aware of, and can share, guidelines for the Info Box? Steve Pastor (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:IBX. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Snow is a-falling. Article titles are not capitalized in Wikipedia unless the title is almost always capitalized in English. Jafeluv (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Rhythm and blues → Rhythm and Blues — To me, it 'looks wrong'. Google and Google image search both seem to have a lot more cases of the two-caps version; I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)  Chzz  ►  04:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is covered explicitly at WP:TITLE#Lowercase: "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English (for example, as in proper names and book titles). Thus, capitalize the second word in John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not in Video game." etc...
  — V = I * R (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose until Wikipedia's bizarre capitalization rules are overthrown altogether. Having one title "look right" on a site where the policy is for titles to "look wrong" would be too unsettling. Boogie woogie. Rock and roll. Blue-eyed soul. Hip hop. And so on. Sssoul (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Why not start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)? If you think that a change should be made (even if that change is limited to being an exception for specific articles), then the place to generate consensus for that view is on the policy/guidelintalk page.
  — V = I * R (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

... if you're addressing me: what i wrote was meant as a sort of humourous way of pointing out that Wikipedia's capitalization conventions often "look wrong", but they are Wikipedia's capitalization conventions anyway. of course anyone is free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) if they want to. Sssoul (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, in accordance with WP:MOSCAPS, as it is not a proper noun. --DAJF (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Rhythm and blues" may look wrong but Wikipedia's in-house style manual on the subject, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), calls for such Romance/Slavic-style capitalisation rules. As User:Ohms law suggests, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). — AjaxSmack 06:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per style guide section mentioned above. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per style guide section mentioned above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clear up the genre table

Someone who has a good knowledge on the topic, clear up the genre table at the beginning of the article, especially section about "derivative forms", "subgenres" etc. It's obviously a nonsense to claim, for instance, "hip hop" is a derivative of rhythm and blues. -- 217.21.43.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

In "New Blue Music", rock and roll is defined as a derivative of R&B, though "Icons of R&B and Soul" specifically underlines rock and roll wasn't a distinct musical form from R&B. Those two seem to be polar opposite opinions -- Appletangerine un (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)