Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic rock songs

List of classic rock songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for User:Piriczki. Prod with "Propose deletion based on WP:DEL-REASON #6, #8 and #14. List is dubious and unverifiable, and appears to be the opinion of one anonymous IP editor." Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this deeper, this was a redirect for many years before being restored recently by an editor with no reason given. It should just be redirected with no reason to delete the title. I've done that and will Withdraw this nom. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since AfD nomination, the original unsourced list of songs was replaced by a sourced list on 24 Jan 2016. --Tsavage (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Classic" to whom? Also, a redirect to Classic rock doesn't make any sense, as there's no list there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The nominator has removed the AfD template twice from the article, and has blanked and redirected it to
    WP:SKCRIT #1. North America1000 13:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
NorthAmerica's comment was made AFTER the close. The withdraw was BEFORE any other comments and well within policy., I just could not do the archive on my phone. NorthAmerica is welcome to nominate the redirect for deletion if they like. Legacypac (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:WITHDRAWN. North America1000 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
So you support leaving it as a redirect (as it was for 10 years, until about 2 weeks ago). Cause now the list of random songs a been restored. Legacypac (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Was a redirect" - There's no snow here either ... There's disruption I'll give you that, Let the AFD run it's course and lets all move on... –Davey2010Talk 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I'm very happy with a delete or a redirect. The list is ponitlessLegacypac (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 7&6=thirteen and Andrew D. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and recreate it to a redirect, list is opinionated and worthless. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable topic. an useful list of songs. No need to be merged or deleted.BabbaQ (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I nominated this list because it has no references and, as defined, is unverifiable and in its present form represents the questionable opinion of one anonymous editor. That is not to say that the article couldn't be improved, but I see few possibilities for that. Just to give everyone an idea of what they may be getting into with a list like this, Joel Whitburn's book Rock Tracks, which could be cited as a reliable source, has a section titled "Classic Rock Tracks" containing songs "played regularly on today's classic rock stations." It lists about 1,400 songs and only goes up to the year 1980 and there are thousands more charted songs from 1981 onward listed in the Mainstream Rock (chart) portion of the book. In this article, "Why Classic Rock Isn't What It Used to Be", the author monitored 25 classic rock radio stations for one week and identified 2,230 unique songs by 475 unique artists. That is potentially where this list is heading and I suspect the result will be an article that is unwieldy and unencyclopedic. Piriczki (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per
    WP:NOTESAL Notability guidelines apply to stand alone lists: [a list is] considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This list has no references or anything to back it up really--Savonneux (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Savonneux: Note that the article has been updated with sources, and sources are also provided below in the discussion. North America1000 01:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as list of songs - May seem to some, at first glance, to be an indiscriminate, unverfiable collection, but in fact it appears to be quite the opposite, and solidly supported by policies and guidelines.
  • meets notability per
    WP:LISTN (Standalone lists) with a clearly defined group topic, "Classic rock" (e.g. "Classic rock is a radio format which developed from the album-oriented rock (AOR) format in the early 1980s. In the United States, the classic rock format features music ranging generally from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, primarily focusing on commercially successful hard rock popularized in the 1970s.[1]" from Classic rock
    )
Numerous sources discuss the classic rock music genre/category - sources with significant coverage of classic rock radio specifically include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
  • comprising extremely popular, well-documented songs, can be reasonably expected to meet
    WP:CSC
     (Stand-alone lists > Common selection criteria) #1: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia"
  • verifiable from radio playlists, media tracking services, books, and other sources (web searches indicate numerous RS candidates)
  • passes the
    WP:LSC
     selection criteria test, When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if the following are true:
  • If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
  • Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
  • Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?
Also note that one of the cited sources states:
"Classic rock stations do a massive amount of market research to understand who their listeners are and to figure out what songs to play" - according to Eric Wellman, classic rock brand manager for Clear Channel[11]
This speaks to the specificity of the group. added to original comment --Tsavage (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can override the wider consensus of core policy and guidelines, which this list apparently meets.
This list also seems quite useful, as an adjunct to the Classic rock article, for research into music history and radio formats, and for personal interest (nostalgic) browsing, the kind of thing that Wikipedia can, quite uniquely, do well. --Tsavage (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tsavage. I am not, and never have been denying the existence of "classic rock" and one of your references just proves that somebody is trying to sell a book which contains a reference to "Classick rock" and the other actually lists a top 25 of classic rock songs. Now, where, how and why do the 374 songs in this list come from other than from editor's opinions? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Richhoncho I'm going by letter and spirit of policy, and not for argument's sake - opinions often appear to be expressed without fully considering the situation as we should, as I believe is the case here. Our core policy holds that editing is incremental, articles do not have to be immediately perfect, there is no rush, material should be presumed unverifiable before deleting, or else given a reasonable chance to be referenced, and we should look at things case by case.
In this case, who knows where the editor got the 374 songs, since no references were provided, but common sense examination (by those familiar with classic rock) tells us that they probably are all classic rock tracks per the definition in the lead, and they can probably be verified as such, from the sources provided, or from other sources which appear to be available. So you could go ahead and immediately delete every song that is not in one of the sources already there (in which case, WP:V suggests that you note in your edit summary that you believe verification is unlikely) OR, the article could be tagged to pinpoint any problems, discussion started in Talk regarding sourcing and citation style, and so forth, the normal improvement steps.
The bottom line is, the article does seem to squarely meet notability standards for a standalone list, and beyond even a minimum level, so we should not be deleting it. --Tsavage (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIVE which says WP is NOT a indiscriminate collection of information, a core guideline. This is a list of songs that might, from time to time, be played on radio stations that define themselves as "classic rock." What is there to love about this list even if we like most of the music listed? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As stated in one of the sources for this article, what defines classic rock "changes depending on where you live." Different radio stations in different markets each have their own flavor, and when they are all combined together it produces a giant stew with no discernible taste. Looking at the list of 2,230 songs linked to in the article, it does have the appearance of an indiscriminate list. Based on my experiences with other lists in music related articles, I strongly suspect this article will become a battleground for editors debating what classic rock means in the first place as well as endless fan-based arguments over which songs to include or exclude. The article classic rock has already had a rash of vandalism in recent days, something I hoped to avoid by deleting what will likely become a highly contentious list. Piriczki (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE has already been explicitly addressed, and I don't believe you're applying it properly. It states: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." It provides examples of indiscriminate data, including entire software changelogs, reams of raw statistics, and so forth. Here, the context of the list members is a clearly defined group, "classic rock
," a well-recognized radio format, with dedicated research and analysis, job titles, marketing campaigns, media coverage, and, of course, playlists. We cannot indiscriminately add songs to this list, songs must meet well-defined criteria that gives them a clear context. And if we found a list of all classic rock songs every playlisted, that also would not be indiscriminate, it would be all members of a clearly defined group that discriminates between those songs and all other songs with similar release dates, sales, popularity, and so forth.
Piriczki: "'changes depending on where you live'"' is not equivalent to "indiscriminate." Regional preferences form subsets of a larger whole. We wouldn't find a List of jazz standards indiscriminate because preferences for individual members of those lists vary by region, or by individual person. And the classic rock regional variations do not represent largely different song selections, they're more about frequency of play - there is a core set of classic rock songs, preferences among those may vary by region. We're concerned with the complete list.
As for the battleground concern, as previously addressed, future editing environment does not seem like a solid, policy-based reason for deleting an article. The practical concern can and should be dealt with by discussion, not deletion. In practical terms, based on sources, the inclusion period can be limited - 1960s-1980s or whatever - and clearly stated in the lead (as is the case now), that addresses what seems to be the main potentially contentious issue. This article provides a quite in-depth, up-to-date and authoritative examination of the classic rock format that can be used for focusing the list: "Classic Rock Radio at 30: The Songs Change, So Does the Vibe Remain the Same?" - Billboard, 14 Dec 2015. --Tsavage (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very good analysis, but I disagree with a few of your points. In particular I think the Clear Channel quote you added is the best indicator for this group's lack of specificity - the definition changes based on the station's listening market, geographic area, marketing intent, and simply day-to-day as different people listen. The problem is not that the list is too large (it would be quite large) but that the bounds of the list are undefinable. There's no common musical element in these songs (I guess they all feature guitars, oh wait,
    independent
    for this purpose, so this leaves us without a consistent way to identify and group classic rock songs.
In preparing this comment, I found only one song (Tom Sawyer) which has any reference to classic rock in its article at all, not as a style or genre but as a mention that it is commonly played on classic rock stations. That's as close as we would be able to come up with for an inclusion standard for this list, and it would be open to a lot of creative interpretation, which is the sort of thing Wikipedia shouldn't do at all.
That might not be much of an issue for many topic areas here, but warring over music genres is probably one of this project's most persistent issues, to the point that genre warriors have their own
independent reliable source do we have to back that up? That's what I mean by undefinable and indiscriminate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Ivanvector: I fully understand your argument, and I might guess that, beyond the explicit point, there is also an underlying, for-the-greater-good reasoning (the latter perhaps hinted at by your reference to POV pushing), but I will only reply to the explicit one, that an inclusion standard for classic rock is practically undefinable.
The well-supported facts are simple and straightforward (assuming a radio format/radio play-related standard):
1. Classic rock exists as a well-discussed definition and concept, and it follows that some subset of all songs are considered classic rock.
2. There are multiple reliable sources that list classic rock songs.
So we have a clearly defined group, and we have reliable sources, and that is all that Wikipedia requires for a standalone list; in fact, to remain neutral, we can't normally override that.
Comparison with musical genres is not necessary, but it's natural. In fact, there are endless genres and subgenres, and no objective way of determining what fits where (except if we get into some sort of song-recognition, spectrum analysis type of thing); at least in contemporary popular music, placing genre tags is largely subjective, based on opinion (which is at times conflicting, especially at the edges), which makes adequate sourcing a potential issue.
With classic rock, given even the most inclusive parameters, like, the playlist of every radio station identified as classic rock, all decades, all other sources, combined, it is still a strictly defined group: a song either appears on a qualifying list, or it doesn't. It is up to us to settle on working limits for inclusion. If a dispute breaks out over whether to include the 1980s, ultimately we can have a "List of classic rock songs (1960 to 1980)" or whatever. This is our process, often unruly, but it is what our widest consensus via policy tells us to do, and, well-done, it seems to work out. --Tsavage (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I posted here about this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced and synthesised. How anybody could suggest it is useful, I have no idea. Which classic stations? According to who? Why aren't all the songs "rock songs?" With no references there is nothing to save. It fails on
    WP:OR. If somebody wants to take this to draft and work on it, by all means do, but as it stands, I repeat, delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as listcruft and highly subjective. The listings also aren't based on any credible sources as Richhoncho notes, and even if they were, "notable classic rock songs" is puffery that is not based on any definitive or objective criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete –
    WP:Source list
    includes:
When an item meets the requirements of the Verifiability policy, people reading or editing the list can check an item's reference to see that the information comes from a reliable source... Even if you're sure that an item is relevant to the list's topic, you must find a good source that verifies this knowledge before you add it to the list (although you can suggest it on the talk page), and add that source in a reference next to the item.(emphasis added)
Each item on List of blues standards and the lists of jazz standards by decade (WP: Featured lists – List of 1920s jazz standards, etc.) has a citation to a reliable source. The same should apply here. BTW, I have never heard the listed Elvis songs (from the 1950s) on classic rock radio ("oldies" stations, yes, but are there any left?). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Due to the excessive number of disambiguation links, which are likely to disrupt the regular work of disambiguators, this article has been moved to the draft namespace until such time as all disambiguation links are fixed. This should not prevent a determination, however, of whether this article should be deleted for other reasons.
    T
    20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The disambiguation links having been resolved, the article has been restored to article space. Cheers!
      T
      00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hickey, Walt (7 Jul 2014). "Why Classic Rock Isn't What It Used To Be". FiveThirtyEight (ESPN Internet Ventures). "To see what the current state of classic rock in the United States looks like, I monitored 25 classic rock radio stations1 operating in 30 of the country’s largest metropolitan areas for a week in June.2 The result, after some substantial data cleaning, was a list of 2,230 unique songs by 475 unique artists, with a total record of 37,665 coded song plays across the stations." 2,230 song list (WebCite archive)
  2. ISBN 0898201535
    .
  3. ISBN 978-1-909396-88-3
    . Retrieved January 25, 2016.
  4. ISBN 978-1-4803-4059-6
    .
  5. ISBN 978-1-4299-3750-4
    .
  6. ISBN 978-0-634-03648-4
    .
  7. ^ Caldwell, Christina (September 14, 2015). "10 Classic Rock Songs that Would Still Be Hits Today". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
  8. ^ McPadden, Mike (July 27, 2015). "Rock's Dirty Mouth Dozen: 13 Classic Songs Allowed To Swear On The Radio". VH1. Retrieved January 25, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)
  9. ^ McPadden, Mike (August 11, 2015). "Decoding 8 Classic Songs With Lyrics That Have Baffled Fans For Decades". VH1 News. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
  10. ^ "7 Miley Cyrus Covers Of Classic Rock Songs That The Pop Star Tackled With Aplomb". Bustle. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
  • Comment – There are serious
    500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll and various "Greatest" lists by Rolling Stone have all been deleted as copyright violations. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Ojorojo: Thanks for being thorough!
1. ...cherry picked ... partial regurgitation - This is a subset of songs, taken from a source list, for use in an article list: that's no more cherry picking or regurgitation than selecting any subset of material from any source, i.e. as a non-specific statement, it is clearly neither of those things.
According to
WP:LEADFORALIST
,
The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.
The lead does not specify that the list is only a subset of classic rock songs nor what criteria is used for inclusion. Without this, it appears to be a random selection or
original research. ("A Saturday Club Xmas/Crimble Medley" - The Beatles
(1963) is classic rock radio song?)
The lead clearly describes exactly what the list presents: songs played on classic rock radio, released in a specific time period. No tracks were removed that are in the source in that time period. The Beatles track is an interesting inclusion example, but that's not relevant here, as it is sourced and within the time period (and it would be OR to exclude that track only because we feel it doesn't fit, without source-based reason - if you want to discuss that Beatles example: Talk:List of classic rock songs). --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. The rest of the references mention 50, 25, 63, 10, 13, 8, and 7 songs and do not support the hundreds listed Sources discuss various specific aspects of a subject, in varying depth. We know that classic rock radio plays more than 50 or so different songs; the Hickey source gives us a more comprehensive set.
So, the remainder of the references are not really used and Hickey is the only source for the vast majority of the items (he is the only one cited for the items).
Yes, Hickey appears to be a definitively reliable source for these songs, what more do we need? There are additional sources listed, and over time, they can be cross-checked, tracks can be added, existing tracks can be additionally cited - by
policy, articles are not expected to be immediately perfect, improvement is incremental, there is no rush. --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
3. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's
500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll and various "Greatest" lists by Rolling Stone have all been deleted as copyright violations Hickey is raw data aggregating radio play, there is no interpretation, no IP value added by the author. Furthermore, what it is and open access to it is made explicit in the article, and the data, along with the monitoring software, is under an all-use (MIT) open source license, published and freely available at GitHub. There is no apparent copyvio here. --Tsavage (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hickey states "The result [after his monitoring], after some substantial data cleaning, was a list of ..." (emphasis added). At the bottom of the linked GitHub page, it clearly shows "© 2016 GitHub, Inc."[12] If an editor created a "List of the songs the shaped rock and roll" and used half of the songs from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll" with the R&R HOF as the sole source, it would be deleted in a heartbeat. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Data cleaning refers to removing cruft, like gibberish characters, not to editing. GitHub hosts millions of individual software developer repositories, the GitHub copyright applies to the site, not them; the Hickey open source license is in a so-named file in that repository. So, no, it is not copvio, and no, it is not a creative work, it is an unedited multiple station radio playlist for a set period, and using only parts of it is fine. --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment All of them referenced to a list that includes but is not limited to every single charting single by Metallica, Rush, The Beatles all the way up to Radioactive by Imagine Dragons which came out... 3 years ago? So essentially... every single charting song in the last 40 years.--Savonneux (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf:: I believe I understand the distinction you're making, between the specific classic rock radio/media format, and the general idea of "classic" anything, classic cars, classic horror movies, and so forth - could you explain how that applies here? --Tsavage (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Many of the sources being cited above as evidence of coverage of these songs as a group are actually about the second kind that are using the term "classic" as an evaluative adjective, and the keep !voters are failing to distinguish between those and sources that are about songs played on classic rock format radio stations. That's also true of at least one delete !voter above (the rhetorical question "'Classic' to whom?" clearly indicates they're addressing the evaluative sense of the term classic). This confusion has rendered much of this discussion meaningless as applied to this list. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:LISTN
notability requirement, ...discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, because all of the sources are referring to the same group of songs with the common label, "classic rock". What can differ is a source's basis for inclusion, commonly, author's authoritative opinion, author's synthesis of the opinion of certain others (e.g. music critics and scholars), or chart/playlist/market research data (surveys of public opinion), and from which time period, 1960s-70s, -80s, -90s, -00s?
Sorting through reliable sources and adjusting definitions and inclusion criteria are separate concerns, what is relevant here is that in all cases, it is the same group of "classic rock" songs, based on a categorization of music by specific musical sensibilities, refined by timeframe, enduring popularity, and broad rock genre
classification, which is well-discussed as such in many independent, reliable sources, and reflected by classic rock radio.
This is all a great basis for ongoing discussion to develop the article and list. As for AfD, all of the comments and sources are referring to the same classic rock category, and the LISTN argument appears to be squarely on-point. --Tsavage (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How can a song release d 3 years ago be 'classic'? Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (2): Added citations to songs from an additional source. --Tsavage (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (3): Expanded lead to provide context for the song period (1960s-1980s) and address newer "classic" tracks. --Tsavage (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (4): Post-1989 songs have been removed (there may be a couple of strays), the list now conforms to the lead with songs released in the 1960s-1980s (release year 1960-1989). --Tsavage (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:SPLIT. In this instance, page splits could be performed alphabetically for some entries. North America1000 11:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I still think a category is the way to go, though - that can accommodate hundreds of entries. My concern is that I'm sure if we gathered up every song that a reliable source classed as "classic rock", the server would choke on the page size. Best to nip the problem in the bud, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Thanks for the reply. The problem with a category-only situation is that it could be deleted, because people may assume that the category is arbitrary or subjective despite the content in the article being backed with reliable sources. Category pages cannot be sourced. Also, since the page can be split, it's size is not particularly a "problem" in my view. North America1000 11:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333: The list is not likely to get significantly larger. It is based on a recent, one week radio play log of 25 CR stations representatively spread across the US (some 37,000 unique song plays), which should include the vast majority of CR songs. For example, a second source for around 60 songs, included no new additions to the list. --Tsavage (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on context: Relevant to sources and inclusion standards, at the related Talk: Classic rock, there has been a recurring push since 2007 to cover the subject as both a radio format and a broad style of music, which so far has not been done.
It is hard to argue that "classic rock" is no more than a "radio format," when, for example, we define the diverse, period-based Alternative rock as a genre of rock music and a broad umbrella term consisting of music that differs greatly in terms of its sound, its social context, and its regional roots.
The term "classic rock" is unarguably a distinct category/genre of music,[13] reflected by classic rock radio, but not exclusively defined by it - ALL references to classic rock are considering the same set of music for the same, ultimately esthetic reasons. (The main article should reflect this.) --Tsavage (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Classic Rock" is NOT a genre of music. It is/was a marketing term used by radio stations to sell themselves. Until, probably, the 70s "genre" meant the arrangement of the song, ie Jazz, blues, Rock n Roll, easy listening, reggae and all but the tone-deaf could hear a piece of music and know what style or genre it was in. Now "genre" is used as a marketing term. Therefore there may be no musical connection between the songs (Do American Pie and Brown Sugar have any musical connection?) on the list other than they will possibly appear on a classic rock radio station. There is a reasonable article at Classic rock and probably could by expanded by a few of the names of the bands regularly played on such formats, but a blow by blow list of songs which have no musical connection? I have already voted delete, but would be happy if it returned to a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not suggesting the notion of a music genre called "classic rock" should be incorporated into an article about a radio format. Although related, those are two different subjects requiring two different articles, see progressive rock (radio format) and progressive rock (music genre) or modern rock (radio format) and alternative rock (music genre). Piriczki (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a discussion for Talk: Classic rock, and I will participate there. Here, I mention this aspect to make clear (as sourced) that there are not two in-any-way-different types of classic rock, and all sources discussing the mainstream notion of classic rock are talking about exactly the same thing (specifically re the LISTN notability requirement). --Tsavage (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mention this here, though, it should be noted for the discussion, that the
New York Times article noted, the "so-called modern format"). With classic rock, the situation is different: radio format, genre, body of music, and enduring popularity all co-evolved and co-exist under one popular term, classic rock. --Tsavage (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I heard one of the classic rock stations near me playing
Age of Electric over the weekend. I mean, I guess they fit this definition. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bearcat:: I hear what you're saying about how the inclusion standard might seem to be ridiculously broad, such that it encompasses EVERYTHING, however, that would only be a problem if editors could add their own personal picks. In fact, each song has to be sourced. The current inclusion standard uses radio play and a 1960-1989 release date. Since classic rock radio is highly motivated (by economics) to play every last track that fits the general style/sensibility, we can assume that a comprehensive classic rock radio playlist is also comprehensive for the genre. That's what we're dealing with here at AfD: well-discussed subject (LISTN), and a well-sourced, comprehensive list, with well-defined inclusion criteria. --Tsavage (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does "classic rock" end in 1989? Somebody should maybe tell that to the classic rock station in my city, which has verifiably played
The Headstones just within the past eight hours. And if I go back to yesterday's playlist, I can push you right to the edge of the 2000s: Tal Bachman's "She's So High", The Tragically Hip's "Poets", The Wallflowers' cover of "Heroes", Foo Fighters' "Learn to Fly". I wish classic rock ended in 1989, so I wouldn't have to feel bloody old every time I hear a classic rock station play a song that came out when I was already in university, but unfortunately for my middle-aged bones it doesn't end in 1989. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Nice manifesto! :) Still, neither the genre nor the list are actually chaotic and indiscriminate in the way you make out. The original classic rock set is popular songs from the 1960s and 70s, that fit a certain hard rock sensibility. Radio didn't make up the genre, radio just played it for folks who didn't like the 80s. Time went by and new songs were added. The new additions are only there because enough classic rock listeners accept them into the fold. The core songs remain the same, the endless staple rotation of Led Zeppelin and Eagles is still what defines it - after around 1980, the cutoff dates are arbitrary. For context, one academic describes Pearl Jam as combining "elements of punk, classic rock, and blues." It all does make perfect sense! --Tsavage (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classic rock is a radio format and a category/genre - This is supported in sources. Wikipedia music categorization of genres is by cultural definition, not a particular, strict academic definition, and in the same way we classify Alternative rock as a genre, classic rock is a genre.
  • Classic rock refers to a canon of albums and singles, usually produced through the mid-1960s through to the late 1970s. These provided the playlist for a radio format, became a loosely defined genre, and, more recently, a general marketing category. Popular Music Culture: The Key Concepts (Routlege; 2012)
We can argue over what is or isn't a genre, but for content, we should rely on sources, not personal opinion. Besides, common sense tells us that (if you're familiar with the term and the music), you don't think only or mainly of radio when you hear someone say "classic rock," you think of a general style of music - if we hear a song, we can tell whether it might be considered "classic rock," in the same way we would categorize music as alternative, or prog rock, or grindcore, or acid house...it is a category of music, and a genre is a category is a genre. --Tsavage (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a marketing category, applied only after a song is at least ten years old, to music that doesn't necessarily have any overriding cultural or stylistic similarity besides the word "old". A genre is the category that a song is created in and belongs to when it's new and current, not a label that gets retroactively applied ten years after the fact as an age marker — "classic rock" is no more a genre, per se, than "retro" is. Unless maybe you've got some amazing new insight, which has never occurred to anybody else in human history, about what common musical aesthetic besides "songs that were popular 20 or 30 or 40 years ago", could possibly be deemed to unify
Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young with Eurythmics or ZZ Top with R.E.M.. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The arbitrary date cutoff makes this a radio format more than a genre. For example: Classical music as a genre isn't delimited by dates as much as by its compositional nature. Most of the song's listed here already belong to genres, picking a random one here: Animal - Def Leppard is already rightly defined as Glam metal. This is just an arbitrary list of songs-played-on-the-radio-in-the-united-states-in-the-2010s-as-classic-rock. Which is a far more fitting name for this list. There are bands now which fit the description of "mid 1970s hard rock" which will never be on the list as currently defined simply because of it's arbitrary nature (Witchcraft and The Sword come to mind).--Savonneux (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The topic still passses
WP:SPLIT per size concerns. North America1000 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_classic_rock_songs&oldid=1138007008"