Talk:Soft rock

Untitled talk page discussion by 76.28.243.251

Why does Piano Metal redirect to this? How does it have literally anything to do with soft rock? metal of any format is the antithesis of 'soft rock' this is common knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.243.251 (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Too many artists listed

I removed a bunch of artists from the article, but they got re-inserted. Some of these make no sense. The Beatles? Simon & Garfunkel? The Supremes? They stopped recording before soft rock was even invented. Others just don't fit the category. Not everything that's "easy listening" is soft rock. R&B like Boyz II Men and New Age like Enya are their own genres. Korny O'Near 08:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm..

The Beatles' "If I Fell" does seem to sound very 'soft-rocky'. Dave Clark Five also had a hit with "Because". Don't forget about the Bee Gees' 1960's material with songs such as 'Spicks and Specks' (a poppy yet soft-rock sound), 'Could It Be' or 'Three Kisses of Love'. Don't know why 98 Degrees or All 4 One were thrown in there by that user. This genre does indeed confuse alot of people.

My idea is to erase the list altogether and simply put artist/singers in alphabetical order with an example of a song or songs, so we know why they were thrown into the soft rock category in the first place.

Example:

---

• "Air Supply - Here I Am
• "Aerosmith - I Don't Want To Miss A Thing
• "Billy Vera and The Beaters - At This Moment
• "Chicago - I Don't Want To Live Without Your Love
• "The Eagles - Take It To The Limit
• "Smokey Robinson - Just To See Her
• "Steve Perry - Foolish Heart

---

etc etc

I'll go ahead and do that now.

--ResurgamII 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. The article already looks a lot better, and is more informative. Korny O'Near 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks.

--ResurgamII 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Soft Rock vs. Adult Contemporary

Soft Rock is just a slogan for an Adult Contemporary format. There is no "soft rock" industry classification. Thus, this article should be combined with the Adult Contemporary article. Does a Wikipedian know how to add that tag, so it can be discussed? Goeverywhere 05:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I felt like the description was very accurate. Soft Rock is a single style of music within the many in adult contemporary.

the term soft rock was first used in the 60s

for groups like the Association, Fifth Dimension, Free Design, Simon & Garfunkel & hundreds of others! Go and buy the japanese book 'Soft Rock' from Vanda! The Artikel is WRONG! it's rubbish to say that Soft Rock startet in the 70s!

The list is getting longer

The examples of soft rock songs/singers is overly long. When I sorted it into a list I only expected a short sample, but I guess some editors decided to put every soft rock song/singer out there. I'm putting a clean up tag and a note not to add further more. It's bloated as it is. ResurgamII 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any need for the George Carlin quote?

Does the quote by comedian George Carlin serve any purpose other than to express an editor's distaste for soft rock? Does anyone mind if I remove it?

1337wesm 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cliff Richard, Olivia Newton John, Dione Warwick, the Carpenters...come on if the term is to have any validity at all these defintely aren't soft rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.35 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should probably be expanded

Indeed, it should. (Albert Mond (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Pop Rock?

Couldn't soft rock be a form of pop rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.120.62 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes soft rock can copy pop rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.153.109 (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing original research with nonsupporting citation

Looking through the history, I see this article is much better than it was a few years ago when most of the comments on this talk page were relevant... But the middle paragraph in the "History" section contains significant original research which is mostly incorrect (Spector's orchestration on "The Long and Winding Road" is not a 'remix,' 'acid rock' was not the dominant form of music in the 60s or the Beatles' sound, Spector did not operate without the Beatles' knowledge, and they certainly did not break up because of it). The single citation given does not support any of this information, but because it's cited, I'm leaving this explanation as to why I removed it.--Drasil (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that removed, because I believe these are all acknowledged facts, but any references will tell you the same thing. Start by reading The Long and Winding Road which should verify that the orchestration is Spector's remix, he did operate without the Beatles' knowledge, and this was given as the major reason for their breakup, as further alluded to at Break-up of the Beatles. As for what kind of music dominated the charts in the 1960s, have you ever looked at the Billboard Charts of number one hits for the years 1966-1969? You can see them beginning at List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1966 (U.S.) and following years. Practically every other number one song was psychedelic, AKA acid rock in those years, and almost all the rest were hard rock. This is undeniably what was at the top of the charts. How can you possibly say these things are false or suggest that I fabricated them? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, most importantly, I'm very familiar with the Sounes bio of McCartney; I have it right here. I didn't look to see if it was you who added it as a citation to support the information in question about LaWR, but if it was, you should know that this book is not held in particularly high regard among Beatles scholars due to Sounes' palpable prejudices against McCartney and some remarkable inaccuracies. (But don't take my weasel words for it--on the very page cited, Sounes dismisses Linda McCartney as a "schoolgirl," says "Instant Karma!" "outclassed" McCartney's work, misuses the term 'remix,' claims that Spector intentionally made alterations to LaWR on April Fool's Day, repeats the apocryphal story of McCartney throwing Starr out of his house screaming "you'll pay" re: the release of the McCartney record and suddenly refers to Starr as "Ritchie" to emphasize sympathy toward him... this is not an unbiased source.) But the accuracy of the text aside, the page cited does not support most of the statements you added to the article. It mentions nothing about Spector operating without the Beatles' knowledge. (This is untrue; for example, Starr was at the LaWR overdub session!) It mentions nothing about 'acid rock' (This is a contentious term in and of itself; I would need to see citations to support a comparison between it and the Beatles' work.) It mentions nothing about the Beatles' breakup at all--much less it having anything to do with Spector's changes to LaWR. (There is some veracity to the Beatles' disenfranchisement with the Get Back project as contributing to their breakup, but it is impossible to be so specific as to point to Spector's work on Let it Be or particularly his work on one song as directly causing it. We do know McCartney hated it, but that's another story.) As for the accuracy of WP articles on the Beatles, I have edited none by design, so I can't speak to that, but as someone who has much more experience around here than do I, I'm sure you're familiar with the pitfalls of WP:CW in your arguments.--Drasil (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, yes the Beatles' created several psychedelic albums during those years, and the following are their US number one psychedelic pop hits that topped the charts: "Penny Lane" "All You Need Is Love" "Hello Goodbye" "Hey Jude", as well as a psychedelic blues Number-one hit, "Come Together". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That is an accurate list of some of the Beatles' top-five singles in the US from 1967-1970. I'm not sure what that has to do with our discussion.--Drasil (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I can give you some resources for well-researched, sound scholarship on the Beatles on your talk page if you'd like to read up on some of this, but I think this discussion is getting dangerously off-topic for an article on soft rock. I don't want to think I think you made these changes in bad faith or anything of that nature, only that they are inaccurate and so needed to be excised.--Drasil (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I listed the Beatles' psychedelic #1 hits in response to your statement that acid rock was not the Beatles' sound. I look on psychedelic rock, and read that the term 'acid rock' is widely used interchangeably, while some purists prefer to use acid rock for a stricter subgenre of psychedelic music. If the term "acid rock" is therefore too "contentious", what if it were stricken and replaced with "psychedelic"? Other than that, I don't think anything at all about my addition could be said to be "inaccurate" when the two referenced wikipedia articles I linked above tell exactly the same story. (I didn't contribute to either of them). None of the Beatles' hits before LaWR were soft rock - rather, they were all "hard rock".

The "softest" hit by anyone that came out in the late 60s -- and now I'm going on a limb here on the talkpage, but would fully expect references to say the same -- would probably be "Love is Blue" by Paul Mauriat, but that was more "easy listening" and not so much "rock". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Terms like "psychedelic" and "acid rock" are highly subjective, in my opinion, and I wouldn't necessarily make changes to their presence in WP unless something was glaringly inaccurate. Your use of this terminology was not my impetus for removing the info in question from the article. I excised inaccurate information about the Beatles that that was cited with a nonsupporting citation. Because it seems like you're insisting, here are three examples of widely-respected print Beatles references that each indicate that one or more statements about the Beatles contained in the info I removed are incorrect: (I expect you'll have to edit this section to see them). Finally, although I already mentioned how dubious I am of the extremely unreliable practice of citing Wikipedia within Wikipedia, even the article on The Long and Winding Road itself indicates that the Beatles were both aware of Spector's involvement in producing (not 'remixing') the Get Back tapes and that it was principally McCartney who took issue with his production, not the group as a whole. I am happy to discuss the Beatles and their history as much as you like on my talk page, but this article isn't about the Beatles, Spector, or LaWR, so I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with clogging up the talk page with this off-topic discussion. --Drasil (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Since LaWR charted very shortly before Carpenters and Bread in 1970, surely it deserves to be mentioned in the article as the first forerunner example of this new genre? Or are you disputing that it qualifies as a soft rock song at all? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere have I said that. My issue here is with the insertion of inaccurate information concerning the Beatles and its nonsupporting citation. If LaWR was indeed the first song of the soft rock genre, I'm sure it would be in a reference somewhere, maybe about the history of soft rock? Do you have a citation for this? I would love to read such a book. --Drasil (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'd love to find an explicit history of soft rock detailing this question too, but unfortunately so far I've found only a few passing mentions describing LaWR and that album as "soft", and also as "rock", and one even calling it "light metal" (?!) but it looks like the Carpenters, shortly thereafter, may get the credit for the very first "soft rock" per se. Of course it's often hard for sources to agree exactly where a new genre begins, perhaps it might be fair to say the Let it Be album certainly predated and paved the way for the Carpenters' contribution. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This idea sounds plausible to me. I mean, I hear what you're suggesting in the song, but our ears are original research. Pointing to the very first example of soft rock here is a great idea; given the current state of the article, doing so would probably be contributing its most important factoid. It would need a citation. Also possible: multiple roughly simultaneous 'first' releases? Someone must have written about this somewhere, but all I know for sure is that it's not mentioned (as LaWR or otherwise) in Beatles literature. I don't know any experts in soft rock, but I'll poke around as well; I'd like to find out. --Drasil (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw everyone knows you can't cite wikipedia on a wikipedia article. Pointing at fully referenced articles in a talkpage discussion is done all the time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, all I had to do was look at the LaWR page to see examples of two of the points I was making above, so very well. I tend to religiously avoid pop culture articles in WP and will not use them as sources when making a point--this issue is an example of why.--Drasil (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Alleged spam

@Lustiger seth: Could you please explain why the text you removed is "spam"? It was simply a reference helping to verify what is stated in the accompanying text. LifeofTau 13:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Life of Tau: I don’t see the reasoning for it to be spam, but the person then said it is a unreliable source. ~SML • TP 15:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Soft Rock for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Soft Rock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Soft Rock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted edits

I've been working to improve this article by adding info on some significant artists and songs, notably in the mid-60s The Byrds and The Turtles. Also added mention of Neil Young's "Heart of Gold" from 1972, as well as a paragraph on Charlie Rich's 1973 hits "Behind Closed Doors" and "The Most Beautiful Girl". I had even included a quote about Charlie Rich by Greil Marcus in Mystery Train. The removal of my edits is seeming to be malicious, as though someone is claiming ownership of this article. BlueMesa171 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The last removal was of content either not referenced or the songs you mentioned were not sourced as soft rock in their respective articles. Thanks for your good faith edits nonetheless. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

So many instruments missing

Soft rock utilizes more than just acoustic guitar; just an acoustic guitar and nothing else would be folk. There's also your typical rock instruments like electric guitar, bass, drums, and then also pianos and usually stringed instruments as well. Dpm12 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, soft rock is not just acoustic guitar. All soft rock singer-songwriters and bands have used to a varying degree some or most, if not all those other instruments in specific songs of theirs. Bands which come to mind that use all those instruments are Air Supply, Chicago, Eagles, Toto, America, the Hollies, the Alan Parsons Project, Dr. Hook, Fleetwood Mac etc. Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no guideline for the instruments parameter of Template:Infobox music genre. We are not instructed to be all-inclusive, listing all the instruments that have ever appeared in soft rock, or very restrictive, listing only the instruments that are common to all soft rock. Apparently, it's up to local consensus.

I would say that we should stick to the reliable sources discussing soft rock. If a source lists typical instruments of the genre, then we can include those. On the other hand, if instruments are not discussed by the reliable sources then we should err on the side of restriction, listing few or no instruments.

The infobox is a terrible place to explain subtle points to the reader. If the instruments of soft rock require some explanation then we should be putting that explanation in the article body in the form of prose, leaving the infobox blank or minimal. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)