Talk:British rhythm and blues/Archive 1

Archive 1

Personnel of later bands

I removed a good faith addition on bands formed out of diversification section, which mentioned the later creation of Led Zep from the Yardbirds and Fleetwood Mac from the Bluesbreakers. That is certainly true, but these are included in the British blues article, since both new bands and the Bluesbreakers played more purist blues (to start with). The Yardbirds were much more a R&B outfit and, if sourced this is, I think, a legitimate observation here, or just above, where psychedelic rock, hard rock and progressive are mentioned. It strikes me there were other bands that fall into this category, so I will think about perhaps giving an example of each while I look for sources.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this issue, I think that perhaps there should be a whole paragraph in the section above, which parallels the solo artists. Obviously the Yardbirds are particularly productive in terms of later bands, producing Renaissance, the Jeff Beck group and Zeppelin (among others). If anyone can suggest more rock bands formed out of the ashes of R&B groups perhaps they could post here and I will start putting something together.--SabreBD (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for expansion

Origins: Needs a bit more about 50's rock n roll as a precursor to both beat and R n B. Early (late fifties) tours by balck performers on the folk circuit. The bit about deriving from folk, skiffle and jazz is correct but needs more illustration. Explanation of Alexis Korner's role could be expanded, he woeked with chris Baraber. alexis brought many legendary bluies artists over to Britian. I am not talking about padding, but developing and researching the artcile to give a better, fuller coverage. Currently the whole reads like an executive summary. Hope this helps.

Thanks. It gives us something to look at. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking this over I think there be may some confusion. Most of these issues are dealt with on the British blues article, where they are rather more appropriate. Most of those things are relevant to the blues purists. This article has a rather different and specific focus.--SabreBD (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there will always be overlap, but the article your refer to is not very complete either. Take a look at some possible sources accessible via Google Books. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

Can we please slow down on the rapid changes of order and re-organisation? A lot of the subheadings and new text are very useful, but the scale and nature of changes has moved a lot of text out of its context, sometimes changing its meaning, away from its citations and has created a lot of typos and linking issues. Can we please discuss any more major moves here first? I don't want to have to do some massive revert and then have to start working forward again.--SabreBD (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Am fishing for a structure that deals with history and stylistic input. The latter is getting bigger, can we put it BELOW the history, as I think that is making it awkward and the history already mentions folk, jazz etc. Had to include the modern jazz strain close to the "trad" and "folk" as the GBO and Manfreds, for example, came straight out of that - it collides with the perception of "guitar-driven" Brit RnB expressed in some citations and I had to highlight that. I am bothered about a couple of things; a) the text here is very similar to British blues and will lead to POV and redundancy (ie someone bothering to study both to find differences and new info) b) there's a lot of data about groups like the Stones, who have just about a page to every song they ever did on wikipedia, and not so much tying together less-knowns, clubs and other ancillary data, which is important as perceptions have been coloured enough already by later things like the fame of Stones, Cream. So the text of The Sound of '65, for instance, till yesterday, was about Cream! I started the pages Graham Bond Organisation, Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames, several Manfred Mann discog pages, Beat Instrumental (check the links there for great resources!!), Lyn Dobson and a couple of others maybe. Redheylin (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are aiming for. As it happens I was already thinking that a more sub-headings and smaller sections were needed. I have no problems at all with most of the edits and some of it has prompted me to think about how we might improve the coverage of aspects like the folk blues and jazz strain. It has struck me that there is no reason not to talk about the jazz influenced strain in the characteristics, and then give more detail in another section later on. This bit could certainly do with more detail and its good work digging out the GBO, Blue Flame and MM discog pages. Reading my NME Book of Rock II (1977), I find it distinguishes four strains of British R&B after the split of Blues Inc, led by the Davies which focused on Muddy Water's electric Chicago blues, a more Jazz strain pursued by Korner with Bond and then in the GBO, the Stones who prioritised Berry and Bo Diddley and Fame and the Blue Flames, who had a unique style pulling in other influences. I wonder if that kind of typology might help redress the balance. Personally I don't think there is too much Stones, in fact I went out of my way to keep that bit too a minimum, rather it is that there is not enough on the other acts who are only known today among the enthusiasts, but were highly influential.

I would also argue that it is important to keep the significance section at the end, in fact the more I look at that, the more I think the significance of the movement is a bit understated here. The issue with crossover with British Blues is a tricky problem. Before we went to GA review, the object was to keep as much as possible of the content of the two articles distinct, but the review indicated the problem with that is that critical information on the development of R&B has to be sought elsewhere. I have been thinking that instead there should be some crossover, with a short summary of the other article in each one. I don't believe they can be merged as the major sources are pretty unanimous that they are two related but distinct phenomenon.

For the moment I would like to focus on filling in some of the underdeveloped areas and then see how the article looks. Ultimately I would like to have another crack at GA status. I expect that some of the detail can be used to flow out into artists and recording articles, which is no bad thing at all.--SabreBD (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Started Zoot Money's Big Roll Band and Klooks Kleek, added discog for Money, Cliff Bennett and Sounds Incorporated. I think the division you quote is much better than Unterberger, who is looking backwards through Cream and the Stones and discarding the keyboard-based stuff that is jazzy/proto-psychedelic/progressive as "not proper rock", I think. Also agree with above suggestions for expansion. Would suggest separate lists of bands from chronology. Suggest "British Blues" is most important 1967-70ish when a "boom" is accepted, mostly after the style of Cream, Jimi, Fleetwood Mac and Stones. I think Chicken Shack really belong there. Redheylin (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Its all good work and we can hopefully import some of that back into here. I will take a look into the typology. I would like to see if it is reflected in other sources. I think you are right about Unterberger, who is looking back from a rock perspective (though the wrong end of the telescope as it were). Not quite sure what you mean by separate list of bands from chronology - do you mean within the article or a list article? Chicken Shack are problematic. They were largely a blues act, but their big hit was R&B. I will dig out a source and reflect that in the article. I also need to find a way to fit them into the blues boom section, which they don't at the moment, but the problem is solvable.--SabreBD (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Chicken Shack are problematic... but the problem is solvable. Leave that to you, then. I think "British rhythm and blues" has strong associations with the pre-psychedelic 60s and "British blues" with the post-psychedelic 60s that rather transcends many of the niceties, because I want clear chronology. I am sure you can get around it by finding a nice cite that says "I'd Rather Go Blind" was not the usual 12-bar but more soul-structured or something. And in the early 60s it is also hard to separate rnB from soul, when so many Stax and Tamla and Atco hits were rocky 12-bars covered by your Stones and that. I think over-rigid genre-alisation is kind of alien to the spirit of, say, Davy Graham playing a Mingus raga in a blues bar. I hope you'll also build that NME structure in - it even allows a mention of ska. As for my suggestion - please allow me one little shuffle, and if you do not like it, revert first and discuss later, I shall not see it as hostile. Redheylin (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Pop charts

I'd like to know what other editors think about the section on the UK pop charts. Having included it, I'm not that comfortable with it, but I think that at least some elements of it need to be included in the article in some way. In particular, I think the timing is important - there was a big influx of US R&B songs recorded by British musicians into the UK pop charts in 1963-64, and I think it is important to acknowledge that. However, some of the artists who successfully recorded those songs - Freddie and the Dreamers, Dave Berry, The Hollies, etc. - would certainly not now be considered "R&B bands". Would it be best to turn the list into a separate section, say "Influence of R&B on the UK pop charts"....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I quite liked the table, but perhaps things are too complex for the format and maybe a prose section would be able to express some of subtleties a bit better. I was looking at it the other day and thinking that most of the bands were not really R&B and show more of its influence on the pop side of music. Most of these bands had far more hits that were another form of music, but that cannot really be expressed in a table. So if you want to turn it into a prose section I would support that.--SabreBD (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Me, too. It's a really worthwhile addition and prose would allow extra information - that the other side of "Come On" is a Willie Dixon song, that Freddie and the Hollies are from Manchester or whatever else brings out similarities and distinctions without the rigidity of columns. And it could maybe merge with some of the other discussions of sources and inspirations. Redheylin (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Working towards GA status

Since the last attempt at GA, which was failed over issues of coverage, the article has expanded a great deal. I would like to put it in for another review. To that end I am busy running through and trying to fill and obvious gaps and correct any issues. I would also appreciate help from anyone interested, if only to spot typos.--SabreBD (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)