Talk:Acid rock

Difference between Acid rock and Psychedelic rock

Will someone explain the difference between Acid rock and Psychedelic rock?

G'day, User:Iwakura42. I'd never heard the term psychedelic rock used formally to describe a genre before, but acid rock is both a subgenre of psychedelic music and its forefunner, as the article on psychedelic music already makes plain IMO. So the redirect I found here to acid (disambiguation) didn't IMO do the term any justice at all, although the redirect from psychedelic rock to psychedelic music is probably fair enough.

So you're right, it's confusing and inaccurate. You end up going in circles. That may be authentic in a sense considering the subject matter, but this sort of cyberpoetry is not what we seek to create as an encyclopedia! I'll fix it. Andrewa 21:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Psychedelic Rock IS a genre of music & is still on going. Acid Rock is significant to Psychedelic Rock only as it's forerunner like Proto-punk to punk.

...but Psychedelic music is a better label than psychedelic rock because many seminal psychedelic releases fall into different larger genres. Example would be The Chambers Bros. "Time Has Come Today" which is simultaneously psychedelia & soul.

further...I fell this whole article should be folded into the comprehensive list of psychedelic artists because "Acid Rock" was a term proscribed by the media & it didn't last very long once "The Psychedelic Sounds of..." the 13th Floor Elevators came out & the culture at large adopted 'Psychedelic'

pink floyd never used drugs, therefore thay can't be considred acid rock.

• You've GOT to be kidding me. The Chief 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Syd Barret used drugs. Imadofus 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Coined by the media or not - "Acid Rock" is a term commonly used to describe a style of music. I think it belongs here as a Wikipedia article. Whether or not the artist utilized drugs in the writing and recording process is not necessarily a condition. Many recordings commonly associated with the tag "acid rock" may have nothing to do with drugs - however, listeners at large may perceive or associate an artist or song with LSD or drugs or the use there of - and thus the work may be associated with the genre. For example, "Journey To The Center Of The Mind" by the Amboy Dukes might be considered "acid rock" or "Psychedelic", however the lead guitarist Ted Nugent claims to have never done drugs. Still the track was chosen for Rhino's psychedelic anthology "Nuggets". Finally, I'd ultimately argue that "Acid Rock" is a subgenre of "Psychedelic rock" - the more avant-garde, strung out, jams: Pink Floyd's "Interstellar Overdrive" rather than "Arnold Layne", The Doors "The End" rather than "Break On Through", Jimi Hendrix’s "Third Stone From The Sun" rather than "Purple Haze". DannyRay 03:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • You should include that in the article or something Imadofus 03:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I wrote the german article about Psychedelic Rock, and still continue working on it. There is no difference between Psychedelic Rock and Acid Rock, neither musically nor cultural. Acid Rock is not the forerunner of Psychedelic Rock because The 13th Floor Elevators were described as a Psychedelic Rock Band years before Tom Wolfe (in his book from 1968!) popularized the term Acid Rock. Assigning Acid Rock to the Avantgarde tracks (not bands!?) is a personal point of view which is impossible to confirm with any serious sources. Search the web and you will find out that some people prefer the term Acid Rock while others use Psychedelic Rock for the same bands, tracks, music or whatever.--90.187.102.169 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Are you sure there is no difference between Acid and Psychedelic? If that is true, why are there two different articles?? I am having the same discussion in the french page, http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Discussion:Acid_rock , if you don't speak french you can just read the lists of examples for acid rock. Colombiano54 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• IMHO acid rock is just psychedelic rock on hippie's slang. Bands mentioned in article (The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Pink Floyd, The Doors, Iron Butterfly, Big Brother & The Holding Company, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Ultimate Spinach, New Riders of the Purple Sage, Blue Cheer, Quicksilver Messenger Service, The Great Society, Stone Garden and the Grateful Dead) are classic bands of psychedelic rock. Definition "Acid rock is a form of psychedelic rock, which is characterized by long instrumental solos, few (if any) lyrics and musical improvisation" is weird to start with because a lot of space rock bands (Hidria Spacefolk, Ozric Tentacles, Øresund Space Collective, Quantum Fantay etc) also play long, often instrumental, psychedelic jams/solos without being labelled with "acid rock". Perhaps only argument for separate genre is that some bands (Cream, Blue Cheer and The Jimi Hendrix Experience) are known for excessive use of wah-wah which produces distinct "acid"(LSD) sound though most psychedelic bands used that pedal as well. Anyway I'm voting for merge. PS sorry for my bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.39.81.126 (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Improvement.

This subject deserves a much better article. I'll try to improve it and expand as much as I can. Anyone with me? --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Acid rock is a form of psychedelic rock, which is characterized with long instrumental solos, few (if any) lyrics and musical improvisation."

This is the worst description of anything I've ever heard. Few lyrics? How many of the "Notable acid rock tracks and singles" have few lyrics? fuckin' A fix this shit!

The so-called "acid rocks tracks" listed at the bottom of the article are not acid rock at all... (The Beatles? 13th Floor Elevators? clearly, it was written by a newbie). Just listen to actual acid rock bands (live shows of the Grateful Dead, Quicksilver Messenger Service an so on) before you start bashing, because you obviously have no idea what acid rock is. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition of acid rock is currently something like "ya boi you know what I'm talking about" can someone check the source Caseycjc (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wheres the goddamn Acid punk

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ACID PUNK PAGE? It was useful! Now it redirects to this garbage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.38.102 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, total vandalism that is. Even on the redirect page, the old content seems to be deleted from the history. *why do that?* 121.45.247.36 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Psychedelic Rock

Acid Rock isn't a real Genre, it's just a term that people would use for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerpyMcDerp (talk • contribs) 16:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree, but some reliable sources state that it is a sub-genre of psychedelic rock, and that is quite hard to argue against.--SabreBD (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I came of awareness late in the game say 1969 and 1970 and my memory of it differs in someways and is the same in someways from the reliable sources of today. Yes it was an adult coined catchall term and was a subgenre of psychedelic rock. While the "Trippy" elements were up front in most psychedelic rock the LOUD and "grating" elements that drove parents crazy were upfront in Acid Rock songs while "druggy" stuff was more in the background. Hendrix and Joplin were the two defining figures of acid rock. Joplins "screaming" vocals style made her acid rock. Psychedelic but not acid Donovan too mellow, Strawberry Alarm Clock vocals a little to trippy a little too many keyboards. Steppenwolf definitely Acid rock, "Ride Captain Ride" (guitar solo), "Spirit in the Sky" and vaguely the first "Venus" (she screamed) was the watered down pop hooked up version of the acid rock (nobody would say "acid pop" or "psychedelic pop") that was acceptable for Top 40 AM radio. Remember in pre multitasking 1970 what was loud and grating in middle America is tame by today's standards. Edkollin (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Black Sabbath & The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test

I haven't read the book but it strikes me odd that Black Sabbath is supposedly mentioned in it. The book was published in 1968 and Black Sabbath released their first single in 1970 (changed their name in 1969). So either Tom Wolfe had an epihany while enjoying some kool-aid, Black Sabbath figured a way to travel back in time or a different band with the same name was around while Wolfe wrote the book?!

I think Sabbath turn up more in apocalyptic visions than LSD prompted ones. A classic case of list creep. I have restored an older version of the sentence. Thanks for pointing it out.--SabreBD (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Form of psychedelic rock"

Almost every single time I read "psychedelic rock" in print, I see it followed by "also known as acid rock", or vice versa. Historically, it has certainly been used more as a synonym than it has been used to describe a substyle of psyche rock. And there is no need to write "harder, heavier, faster, stronger, intense, rawer, energetic..." over and over again. Look at the MOS for leads:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. ... It should also establish the boundaries of the topic.

Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. ... Many definitions of triangle center are used in Euclidean geometry, which coincide only in the special case of equilateral triangles. The article lists a dozen of these, and also gives a validity criterion applicable to various definitions of "center".

This is a loosely defined style. You absolutely need to acknowledge this in the first sentence as concisely as possible, otherwise people (me included) are going to wonder what the hell "Good Vibrations" has to do with Black Sabbath. Furthermore, contradictions are presented by your edit

1. If acid rock is loosely defined, and sources don't agree on whether it's a subgenre of psyche rock or rock in general, then it would be disingenuous to definitively state "...is a form of psychedelic rock" (WP:BALASPS) (WP:CHERRYPICKING).
2. If acid rock is a synonym for psychedelic rock, it can't also be a subgenre of psychedelic rock. It's either all psyche rock or some psyche rock. It can't be both.

The only way you can consolidate this is by deriving the lowest common denominator between acid rock and psychedelic rock, which is that they're both rock music.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted this edit for the following reasons:

1. As per WP:BEGIN, it is better not to get so specific about so-called "acid rock" in the first paragraph. It must only identify the scope and boundaries of the term. Additional paragraphs can elucidate on more specific, distinct characteristics. The fact that acid rock can be a "heavier, harder, tougher, stronger, faster, meatier, tastier" variant of psyche rock is not worth getting into any more than it is worth getting into other equally valid, specific descriptions like "garagey psychedelia". It already says "more musically intense", why the need for more adjectives?
2. As a stylistic derivative, "psychedelic rock" can't be listed because, according to some people, "acid rock" is "psychedelic rock".
3. You copy and pasted identical sentences from "Definitions" back where they were under "Development and characteristics" - this was totally unnecessary. Just list how "acid rock" relates to the musical traits and history of "psychedelic rock", "hard rock", etc. The reader should already be familiar with the definitions of "acid rock" by the time they get to musical specifics.
4. Adding words like "often used", "specifically", and "however" that do not appear in the sources is WP:EDITORIALIZING. It's already apparent that "acid rock" is a broad concept. There is no reason to clarify to the reader when certain statements appear to contradict others (WP:SYNTH). Let them figure it out for themselves (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS).
5. "The term 'acid rock'' is a statement that really doesn't need to be used so many times. It's obvious that "acid rock" refers to the term and acid rock is the subject.

When an author makes a statement that seems to be at odds with what numerous others have said, attribution is helpful in acknowledging that it is an outlier opinion. This article should NOT treat "acid rock" primarily as "a heavier subgenre of psyche rock". I understand that it is preferable to think of "acid rock" in that light, but that's not how most academia appear to use the term (WP:BALASPS). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: if there's a source that says something like "acid rock derived from psychedelic music", I don't believe it would be inappropriate to include it in the infobox.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Acid rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 22:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Been interested in this genre for a long time, although I admittedly know a lot less about it than I should. I'll give this a try.

• Quick comment as I was invited here to take part in the discussion about a possible merge with Psychedelic rock. While reading this article, I got so distracted by the number of tags, mostly appearing in the references. (From memory, there are 4 or 5 in the Definitions section alone.) This needs fixing, obviously – but I'm surprised someone nominates an article with "page needed", "by whom?", "verification needed", "repetition" tags, etc. (I mean, I thought the whole idea was, expand an article, ensure it's fully sourced, then it qualifies for a B rating, then perhaps it's worthy of GA nomination?) Anyway … JG66 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's 4 or 5 in the article total. The issues are trivial; GA articles don't need to be perfect, just enough that whatever issues it has could be fixed in five minutes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Rubbish. Per WP:GA?#Immediate failures, but also GA criteria point 2a and potentially 2c & d. Anyway, I count 7 tags. JG66 (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note that it says a "large" number of tags is an immediate failure. Is 7 a large figure? 3 of those are asking for specific page numbers, which can't be fixed unless someone has a physical copy of the cited books. "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Of course you need to have page numbers – don't be so stupid. JG66 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Don't know if you noticed but Google Books previews don't always show the page number.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• In which case the reference should carry a link to the preview. Some GA reviewers are tougher than others, or focus on certain aspects of article quality more than on other areas, but overall, the standard of GAs has risen hugely since 2012/13, from my experience. It's a case – well, it should be so if "Good Article" is to mean anything – of approaching each nomination with a view to satisfying each and every concern that any GA reviewer might bring. And from all I've seen, many would not consider an article adequately sourced even with just a single ref in need of a page number (or alternatively, linked to a preview), nor would they think it's acceptable to have any tags ("by whom?", "verification needed", "repetition", etc) appearing at all. JG66 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

llywrch writes

Sorry for disappearing right after I took on the review, but demands of Real Life kept my time for Wikipedia to a minimum. But I'm here & I do have some concerns:

• The article does not appear to be stable. For one thing, there have been a lot of edits since I took on this review. Another is the proposal to merge this article with psychedelic rock. Lack of stability is a major reason to decline this article for GA.
• Another issue is, as JG66 pointed out, the number of tags. This directly affects the qualification that a GA article be well-written. There should be no tags.
• I haven't dug into the references yet, but I will note that, no matter their form, they should have sufficient detail that someone who does not know the literature can find the reference. By "have sufficient detail", I would expect in this instance page number in every instance -- even one-page articles.
• Returning to the proposal to merge with article, I believe this touches on an important issue (although as that discussion now stands, the proposal is likely to fail): the article does not make a sufficiently strong argument that acid rock & psychedelic rock are two distinct genres. (For the record, I think they are two different genres.) In order to clinch this argument, IMHO there needs to be a recognized example of a band/song that can be considered psychedelic, yet is not acid rock. I'm not sure what example that could be, though -- Strawberry Alarm Clock, "Incense and Peppermints"?)
• Another issue I have is that the article states acid rock arose from "garage punk". That is a term I found confusing: I associate the musical use of "punk" with the 70s movement (e.g., Sex Pistols, The Ramones, etc.), & I suspect this would confuse many non-experts; even garage punk is primarily about the music of the 70s & later. Regardless of the accuracy of this label, wouldn't it be more clear to use the label "garage bands"? Parents' garages have been the birth place of countless rock bands, so there is nothing to be ashamed of in these words.
• One detail that needs to be kept in mind is that musicians' styles often change. For example, early Grateful Dead (IMHO, one of the best known acid rock bands -- consider "Anthem of the Sun" & "Aoxomoxoa") is very different from their later work. The same can be said for Pink Floyd: "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" is a very different album from either "Dark Side of the Moon" or "The Wall".
• One major omission I noticed -- & it may also apply to psychedelic rock -- is the absence of any mention of light shows & other theatrics. Originally, rock-n-roll bands would simply stand in front of the audience & play their instruments. With the rise of these genres, bands would add light shows (e.g., the rock band in the movie Point Blank), which would be considered now very crude & unimpressive but at the time evoked the altered mental state of being stoned. And then there is Jimi Hendricks' famous response to The Who trashing their instruments on stage at Woodstock Monterey: setting his own guitar on fire then playing it.

I don't mean to be harsh in my criticism; there is a lot of good things in this article, such as the selection of music snippets to illustrate the genre. But unless the merge proposal is rapidly resolved, & all of the tags cleaned up, I'll need to fail this nomination regardless of what I think of the article content. -- llywrch (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the criticism. These are all fair points, for the most part.

Re: merge Nobody has presented an argument for why the article should be merged except that the terms may be synonymous and cover some of the same ground - based on that reasoning alone, I don't see anyone suggesting a merge between New wave and Synthpop, Hypnagogic pop and Chillwave, or Art rock and Progressive rock.

Re: punk Most punk rock-related articles (including Garage punk and Punk rock) make it clear that "punk" existed in the '60s, but that the music did not coalesce into a readily-distinguishable style until the mid '70s. We can't really write that acid rock grew from "garage bands" because it would misrepresent the source's use of specific terminology - it would be like writing "doom metal evolved from guitar bands" instead of "heavy metal bands".

I absolutely agree that both articles are missing big chunks of content. One thing lost on Psychedelic rock is a more comprehensive "Characteristics" section. I recall a book - can't remember which - that discusses what makes sounds "psychedelic" while highlighting both 1960s psychedelic rock and 1980s acid house. I intended on citing it in the article someday; the only reason I haven't yet is because it's very complicated to summarize. I'd also need to grab some other sources, but it's rare that anybody writes about the subject beyond "distorted guitars and weird tape effects".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: My remarks here are intended to help move the GA process forward. I agree 100% with Ilovetoaint that punk music existed in the 1960s--in what would now be regarded as "prototypical" form (in the early 1970s it was thought of as the form--certain rock critics then used the term "punk" to designate 60s garage).

• The problem is that the terms of early 70s critics never caught on in the larger public mind and that, in the mid-to-late 70s, the term "punk" shifted to the music coming out of the New York and London scenes, so in the public mind, "punk rock" was thought of as a new thing and came to be associated with post-1975 music. Personally, I think this was a mistake, and, as a result, most people know very little about the actual roots of punk--but that is what became the reality. In light of this, by the late 70s, new terms had to be to be found for the earlier punk music of the 1960s, so garage rock and proto-punk became the preferred terms (even though 60s garage fans and many of its commentators still use "punk" and "garage punk" to refer to 60s groups). Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia we have to live with the larger public perception, and so our categories for genres (and references to them) must be tailored reflect prevailing views--to avoid confusion.
• It would be best to use the term "garage rock" in this article (rather than "garage punk) when speaking of garage influence on acid rock. That is perfectly OK--the sources will allow it. The sources cited here mentioning garage punk's influence on acid rock mean that as garage rock influence. When used to designate 60s music, the two terms "garage punk" and "garage rock" are interchangeable. So, the term "garage rock" can be substituted here (for what the sources called "garage punk")--it is OK. If we change it to the term "garage rock", it will be blue-linked to the garage rock article, and there readers there can learn about how the background and etymology and how term "garage punk" and "60s punk" can be used alternately for garage rock, etc. But, here, we don't want to pre-suppose/assume that kind of prior knowledge on the readers' part.
• However, when the term "garage punk" is used to designate a separate subgenre (distinct from the rest of garage rock), it refers to bands from the later 80s and beyond who did a louder, updated form of garage that also incorporated 70s punk influences--that was what the garage punk article traditionally focused on as a subgenre (before recent changes). It is simple:

• When the term "garage punk" is used by commentators to refer to 60s bands, it almost automatically and invariably refers to garage rock. The term "garage punk" is also used by commentators to refer to garage rock as a whole (new and old). While these usages are OK in colloquial terms, at Wikipedia we have to be careful not to pass off "garage punk" as a separate subgenre of 60s garage (it is not) or use it as the official category term for 60s garage rock (and risk confusion).
• When the term "garage punk" is used by commentators to represent an actual subgenre (distinct from garage rock), it refers to the post-80s bands. It can be used at Wikipedia as an official category when referring to the post-80s subgere.

• The sentences at the end of the first paragraph treat "60s punk" and "garage rock" as something not only different from each other and different from the use of "garage punk" at the beginning of the opening paragraph. Terms such as "60s punk", ""garage punk", and "garage rock" are all interchangeable with each other when referring to 60s bands--they are not three separate subgenres.
• These issues might seem "nitpicky", but they have to be addressed in order to to prevent confusion for readers (for additional discussion on the topic, see the talk page to Garage punk, as well as Dispute resolution).
• Incidentally, I agree with Ilovetopaint that Acid rock should have its own article here, and most editors now agree--I think that debate is settled, so it should not inhibit the GA from going forward on that count.

So, if we can just get the "garage punk" terminology issue resolved, then the article should move closer to GA. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

.tl;dr "When they say garage punk, my opinion is that they should have written garage rock." Once again, I'll restate: "We can't really write that acid rock grew from "garage bands" because it would misrepresent the source's use of specific terminology - it would be like writing "doom metal evolved from guitar bands" instead of "heavy metal bands"."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest simply removing reference to punk in the opening paragraph unless an editor later in the article fleshes out why the Ramones sound has its roots in the acid rock of Yardbirds/Zeppelin & MC5 & Stooges & VU. But then, one would never say Led Zep I is a punk record or that early Ramones was acid rock, though they may have sound like bad acid rock at some of the early practices. It's so much simpler just to remove "1960s punk" and let "garage rock" suffice, especially considering (I assume) the reference is to garage bands such as ? and the Mysterians (the band first described as "punk") and the Chocolate Watch Band, etc. Morgan johndavid (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to recommend Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, the first collected works of Lester Bangs, edited by Greil Marcus. Bangs and Marsh were compadres in their garage punk - skronk sensibility, though Marsh not so into it as Bangs. I think it would clear up a lot of the issues r.e. punk and garage rock. Bangs would agree, fairly certain, that acid rock is something else, pharmaceutically speaking and otherwise. Morgan johndavid (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The way they use the term "garage punk" is as garage rock. If we fail to make this necessary transposition of terms, then the readership will get confused. I can guarantee that I have enough experience covering the garage rock topic to say that almost all of the time, if a source uses the term "garage punk" regarding 60s music, it means garage rock. When referring to a whole genre or subgenre of music, we must take a lot of things into account and look beyond just a few sources. Incidentally, this is why I applaud you for correctly pointing out the over-emphasis on the influence of Sgt. Pepper on acid rock. Just because one or two sources exaggerated its influence, you correctly pointed out that Pet Sounds and Revolver had greater musical influence on the form. You know that from extensive experience reading and writing about pre-Sgt. Pepper albums, you know that Sgt. Pepper was more of a culmination than an inception. I know that you are eminently knowledgeable about acid rock--that is beyond debate. But, pardon me if I think you could re-think your position on the "garage punk" thing here and elsewhere. So, my debate on the "garage punk" issue is in no way meant to be negative, but just to help readers not get confused. Incidentally, I'd like readers to know more about the 60s roots of punk, but I know the best way to do that is, rather than try to re-frame the way Wikipedia categorizes the genres, to just give the background int the articles--and, of course, to refer them to the Garage rock article where they will get the most thorough briefing on the matter. It is all just meant for the best. Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:OVERSIMPLIFY and Wikipedia:Oversimplification.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but to use the term "garage rock" would not be oversimplifying at all, but rather just using the established Wikipedia genre terminology. We don't need to simplify, but rather use the prescribed categories to avoid unnecessary confusion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no "established Wikipedia genre terminology". Editors are instructed to use the same specific terminology that the sources use, as is so clearly outlined in WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Basically:

You.

Can't.

Write.

"Rock"

If.

They.

Wrote.

"Punk".

I'm done going around in these circles. Read WP:DEADHORSE.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Now please. No one could ever say that terms rock and punk are the same thing, whereas when sources speak of "garage punk" in the 60s, they invariably mean "garage punk" and "garage rock" as interchangeable terms, and you know that--we have ample sources such as Aaron to demonstrate that. So, it would be better to say "garage rock" and blue-link it to that article, which explains how both of those terms can be used, rather that directing everyone to the garage punk article, whose primary reason is to describe the post-80s subgenre. Furthermore, you can't just go by what one or two sources say, when you are dealing whole genres. You have to take into account the larger prevailing view, expressed in a multiplicity of sources and over a course of time--in a historical perspective. Editors should also de-emphasize sources that are not reflective of the prevailing view. You simply do not have enough sources to justify changing the way Wikipedia defines garage punk--and the way you use it here is causing problems for this particular article. I realize that genre definitions are not set in stone. But, it takes a change in public perception, reflected by a lot of evidence from a plethora of sources, before we re-orient the defining context of a genre at Wikipedia. Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Status query

Llywrch, where does this review stand? It appears there are major disagreements between the nominator and a commenter, and I can't tell whether the issues you raised in your review have been addressed in the four weeks since you wrote them above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in conversation with the nominator on his Talk page. I hope to get this to the next step in a day or two. -- llywrch (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Llywrch, it's been another couple of months, and there have since been two outside opinions added below per your request for a second opinion. It is time and past for you to make a decision regarding this nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Your GA nomination of Acid rock

(The following section, except for the last two paragraphs, has been moved from User talk:Ilovetopaint.) I know I haven't been very active about this review, but I haven't seen any edits in response to my GA review from a month ago. Are you still interested in getting this article promoted to GA? Or should I just fail this, & you can resubmit it at another time? -- llywrch (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You talked about merging (6 of 7 were opposed), cleanup tags (which were resolved), the use of "garage punk" (this is done per WP:STICKTOSOURCES), mentioning specific bands' styles changing (superfluous, borders on WP:COATRACK), and the omission of the genre's visual aspects (the article does need this). So basically, I've agreed with only 2 of the concerns you've presented so far.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

In your initial response, you only touched on the merge issue, the use of the word "punk", & your agreement that it needed more content. I pointed out that the merge proposal was open, & presented a barrier to GA status; I also solicited a third party to close that proposal, so that point was moot. However, you & Garagepunk66 then engaged in an argument over "garage punk", which suggested to me that the article might not be as stable as it might appear, & I waited to see how that played out, since it touches on a point I brought up.

While I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, I remain unconvinced that "garage punk" as punk & not garage rock influenced acid rock. I don't care that you have a source that uses the word -- it's just one source, & arrogates acid rock as part of an unrelated genre. To prove that statement is true, you will need to find more reliable sources that support it. (BTW, I was there when punk rock burst on the scene: "punk" brought forth fresh ideas & attitudes that hadn't been present in rock for a while, if ever; the acid/psychedelic rock genre embraced a very distinct & dissimilar vibe. I may not know all of the story, but I know enough to have a sense what the story is about.)

Nevertheless, we both agreed this article needed more content; I specifically pointed out "the absence of any mention of light shows & other theatrics". None of this has been added in the weeks since I took this review on. If you intend on adding this material, I feel the review can proceed regardless whether we agree on the other points; it is possible that the article can even achieve GA. Otherwise, I can only conclude you aren't interested in getting the article to GA at this time. (PS, you are always empowered to prod a GA reviewer if she/he is not active enough.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Llywrch: Light shows: I'm in the process of adding more detail about the subject - only have one sentence so far. I'm not sure there's really much to say beyond a couple sentences. Garage rock/punk It's not just one source - numerous authors use the term "garage punk" over "garage rock". Read Garage punk#Etymology and usage. "Punk" was a term invented for '60s groups. When true punk came on the scene in the mid '70s, some writers who remembered that "punk" had already existed for several years opted to classify the newer groups under "avant-punk". And I believe the garage "punk" v. "rock" issue has been more or less resolved - I'm waiting for Garagepunk66 to propose an RfC that would move Garage punk to Garage punk (1980s genre) and redirect Garage punk to Garage rock. Historically, "garage punk" and "garage rock" have almost always been interchangeable, and it's not improper or unusual at all for somebody to locate garage punk to the '60s.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint has a point about punk’s 60s foundations. Of course, I recognize that the prevailing public view sees punk as a post-1975 thing--people are generally unaware of the earlier musical background. With this in mind, I understand some people’s concerns about using the term “Garage punk” in the Acid rock article and their preference for saying “Garage rock” (both terms are interchangeable when used for 60s bands). While their prescription is still my preference (for the sake of avoiding confusion), Ilovetopaint has come up a possible alternative solution--i.e. to retain saying “garage punk” in the acid rock article, but redirect (via disambiguation) the term to the garage rock article. He has an interesting idea about re-naming the current Garage punk article to more clearly reflect the post-1980s subgenre. It is not for me to decide what terminology ends up getting used in the acid rock article, but apart from that, the re-directs are an interesting thought.

• I could consider the idea of redirecting the title “Garage punk” to the Garage rock article.

…that is, under the condition that it would only be a re-direct for the title (via disambiguation), not a merge. A merge would necessitate moving large chunks of text to the Garage rock article (which is already discusses a lot of the same issues and is admittedly quite long). Furthermore, I would not want to see any changes happen in the garage rock article that might knock it off its current balance. The GR article currently treats the term “garage punk” as an alternate term for 60s garage rock, not as something distinct or separate (until it gets to the Revivals section in the 1980s). For 60s bands (and garage in sum total), "garage rock" is the official Wikipedia category and "garage punk" (along with "60s punk", etc.) are the unofficial/alternate terms that fans (such as me) and commentators often use.

• We know that in the late 1980s a new wave of bands got tagged “garage punk” and the term got christened to designate a new and distinct subgenre apart from the rest of garage rock (with certain 60s bands such as the Sonics being invoked as forefathers of that later movement, but not necessary implying any separate subgenre within the 60s).
• I would be open to the possibility of re-naming current Garage punk article something along the lines of what Ilovetpaint has proposed. It could perhaps be re-named as "Garage punk (post-1980s genre)" being that the subgenre reached its peak in the 1990s and stretched into the millennium.

So, I could consider what Ilovetopaint recommended--just as long as those procedures don't involve any additions or changes to the Garage rock article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been giving this a lot of thought, & I simply can't approve this article as a GA. Part of the reason, of course, is that the citations just don't convince me of some of the points. Part of it is that the language about garage punk/garage rock is part of a dialogue that has no relevance to me: either I need to learn much, much more about rock, or it's simply someone's hobby horse that has no value to the rest of us. But the most important part is that I offered some honest criticism & as far as I can see, nothing was done with it. Beyond what I wrote being lightly dismissed after I pushed for a response.

However I do not feel comfortable rejecting this outright. So I am going to ask for a second review, & if one is provided within 30 days, I'll consent to the outcome of the second review; if none is forthcoming, then it will be failed. -- llywrch (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Nothing was done" — ??? Did you not notice these edits? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw the request for a 2nd opinion at wp:ga nominations. I can give it a more thorough look if desired, but at the moment I'll just reflect on two of the most discussed questions.

• Genres inevitably overlap, and genre articles inevitably need to be also about the genre name itself. And the latter is unique. So I don't consider overlap with other genres to be even the slightest minus for the existence or GA suitabiity of this article.
• Statements about where the genre evolved from are central to the article. And IMO statements that "garage punk" (or even punk) significantly existed as a genre in the 60's and that acid rock evolved form it are both patently false. In non-Wikipedia terms, this is from a fossil that was immersed in that music at that time. Or, in Wikipedia terms, these statements are implausible and not solidly sourced or sourcable. But this is a fix that would only take a minute to do.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A few details

• I wouldn't wish to intrude here, but there are some points that seem clear enough to an outsider.

• Changes to other articles do not form any part of a GA process, and should not be considered further.

• Remaining tags such as [repetition] (near ref 27) and [page needed] (refs 17, 22) need to be sorted out before GA can be awarded.

• Refs 41 and 43 give Harv[ard] errors, they do not point to any citation, while in the bibliography, Lucky 2003 is not used by any ref; these need to be fixed.

• The garage rock / punk issue should not be an obstruction to GA for this article. As an outsider, I'd not heard anything in the 1960s called "punk", so I'd have believed the term arose later, but the exact etymology is a matter for experts with reliable sources, not me.

• The main difficulty with the article is that the subject is "loosely defined" and "fairly meaningless" (I quote from the article, both quotes are cited), overlapping largely with other categories. Editors more familiar with the genre may need to take a view on whether the topic is sufficiently well defined to permit Good Article status, or whether it should be merged. If this issue cannot be resolved then the GA must be failed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Final review

I looked at the second opinions, changes made to the article since my last review, & none contradicted the opinions I offered above; I am failing this article. Further, two separate persons offered suggestions that were not acted upon. IMHO, this article suffers from a case of WP:OWNERSHIP, preventing any meaningful criticism from being acted upon. -- llywrch (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge into psychedelic rock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It is clear that there is no consensus to merge. Also, in the future, when you open a merge discussion, it is best to tag the target and source pages to get more input. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The article asserts that acid rock has been defined either as synonymous with psychedelic rock, or as a more intense subgenre. Neither case requires a separate article. Personally, I find the separation extremely confusing; if there is no agreeable definition of the difference between the two, how can certain artists be labelled as one over the other, or certain later styles as influenced by one over the other? How is a reader to make sense of this?--MASHAUNIX 11:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose — "How is a reader to make sense of this?"

By reading the article. Acid rock is loosely defined - it says so right in the first sentence of the lead. The fact that sources cannot agree on whether acid rock is different from psychedelic rock is one of the best reasons why they warrant independent coverage. It's up to you to decide whether the Byrds and the Zombies played in the same genre as Iron Butterfly and Deep Purple.

The reason why sources often disagree is because — from its inception — psychedelic music has always been more of a marketing label than a real genre. In that respect, the relationship between Psychedelic rock and Acid rock is almost totally identical to Progressive rock and Art rock. It would be many years before historians and musicologists would look back on these terms and try to make sense of their applications.

Personally, I've found that acid rock is best reserved for bands like Jefferson Airplane and the Jimi Hendrix Experience, garage punk for Count Five ("Psychotic Reaction"), psychedelic rock for Pink Floyd and the Beatles (Piper, "Rain"), and psychedelic pop for the campy Beach Boys-soundalikes ("The Rain, the Park & Other Things"). Historically, this seems to be how those musical styles have been most consistently (and logically) defined. Andy Partridge's quote about psyche rock is very illuminating:

"They use exactly the same techniques—sped-up bits, slowed-down bits, too much echo, too much reverb, that bit goes backwards. When the generation that grew up on kids' novelty records began making records for themselves, it came out as psychedelia. That genre is just grown-up novelty songs! ... There was no transition to be made. You go from things like 'Flying Purple People Eater' to 'I Am the Walrus'. They go hand-in-hand."

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

How does the lack of a clear distinction warrant separate articles? The opposite is logical; since there is confusion, it would be better to deal with it in one place. From my reading of the sources, the terms have been used interchangeably, with psychedelic rock the prevalent expression and acid rock sometimes seen as its subset (so that songs and bands considered acid rock could always also be called psych rock but not vice-versa). If the two articles are kept separated, the distinction between them must be explained very clearly, especially in the lead sections. It should also be addressed in articles that refer to them. Overall, I feel like the separation creates unnecessary confusions and complications for both editors and readers.--MASHAUNIX 14:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"The lack of a clear distinction" — in other words, nobody can say for sure that they're the same thing. So why would they be the same article? Wouldn't be a good idea to merge Art rock with Progressive rock. This article is almost 100% devoted to sources that use the term acid rock, the other is for sources that use psychedelic rock. We can see that there isn't a terrible amount of overlap. Acid rock is more often related to garage rock and heavy metal — genres not covered on Psychedelic rock. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Ilovetopaint. The fact that the two terms can overlap, and can be both be used to cover some of the same bands, is no reason not to have two separate articles, with links between them to give as much clarity to the reader as possible. My perception is that "acid rock" is a subset of "psychedelic rock". (Interesting quote - of course, the producer of "I Am The Walrus" started off producing children's novelty records.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Acid rock is a hard-edged version of psychedelia with many notable bands that can fall into its range like Iron Butterfly, Country Joe and the Fish, and Jefferson Airplane. Of course there will be overlap, but there is enough of a distinction between the two to warrant seperate articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

In reply to you as well as Ghmyrtle, that is not what the article asserts. It describes acid rock generally speaking as a synonym of psychedelic rock. If this stays, your arguments have no weight and the separation of the articles cannot be justified.--MASHAUNIX 16:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I read. I see: ".... is sometimes deployed as a synonym of "psychedelic rock", but it may also refer to a more musically intense or hard subcategory or variation....." (my emphasis). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mashaunix did you also notice the whole section devoted to the distinction between acid rock and psychedelia? There are plenty of sources that focus exclusively on acid rock; it would be a mistake to merge a topic that, alone, encompasses numerous major artists.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose

Well, yes, the terms have been deployed interchangeably at times; overlap and confusion between labels tend to happen when one attempts to categorize music. However, there are more than enough sources that differentiate between "acid rock" and "psychedelic rock" or regard "acid rock" as a distinct subset, variation, or subgenre of the the more expansive and more general "psychedelic rock" label. I will agree that, in regards to the second sentence in the lead, perhaps the emphasis should first and foremost be placed on how acid rock has been regarded as a subgenre or variation of the psychedelic rock style, and then it should be mentioned that "acid rock" is sometimes also deployed as a synonym for "psychedelic rock." I suggest this change mostly just to avoid the type of confusion that Mashaunix is experiencing; rather than beginning the second sentence of the lead by talking about how "acid rock" is sometimes synonymous with "psychedelic rock", perhaps the article should start right away as mentioning how acid rock has instead been distinguished from psychedelic rock as a distinct style or subgenre. That way, the reader understands right off the bat that the article is not just a rehash of the "psychedelic rock" article, while mention is still made of the fact that the term "acid rock" is often loosely defined and isn't always used to refer to a specific subgenre or variation.

However, with that said ... all of that is just nitpicking. Regardless of how the second sentence is structured, anyone who actually reads the article beyond the first half of the second sentence will see exactly how "acid rock" has been used in a distinct manner from "psychedelic rock," often being used to refer specifically to a more intense, heavy, or harder subset or subgenre of psychedelic rock evolving from garage rock and, in some cases, evolving into heavy metal. Apart from a few warranted and rightful mentions of the fact that, yes, the term has sometimes been used interchangeably with "psychedelic rock," nearly the entire article discusses acid rock as a distinct movement or label, with an evolution closely tied to yet different from the more general "psychedelic rock" label. At the end of the day, the article speaks for itself. It is fairly clear by reading the article that, despite frequent overlap, acid rock has often been differentiated from general psychedelic rock, whether as a heavier or more intense subgenre/sub-style or as its own movement or label. Madreterra (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Strongly Opposed to Merge, but that isn't the only thing wrong here: Acid rock has always been a high profile-enough subgenre to merit its own article. But, one other issue: It is interesting the way we have this whole new thing here about "garage punk". While the term "garage punk" is indeed used by fans of garage rock to refer to 60s garage (and has always been used as an alternate term for it along with "60s punk"), it is not intended to be replacement for the term "garage rock"--garage rock is still the official name of the 60s genre. Whereas, when the term "garage punk" used as to designate an actual subgenre (distinct from the rest of garage rock) it refers to a later garage movement starting in the 1980s, which was influenced by 60s garage but combined with later influences such as 70s punk. The garage punk article has been radically re-defined and re-formulated in similar fashion (in direct opposition to how it has been for over ten years), and it ties in with new problems here. Then notice, here, lead sentence--and a whole section is now based on a nomenclatural misunderstanding of how the term "garage punk" is supposed to be used at Wikipedia. I don't mean badly in pointing this out, but we need to fix the problem. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I went in and made the necessary corrections to the problem mentioned above. When we speak of 60s garage at Wikipedia, we say "garage rock". Furthermore in the lead sentence, we need to say something about British influence, etc. Jimi Hendrix spent time in London, where he was influenced by the Who and others from the harder wing of British beat (as well as the burgeoning psychedelic rock there). Right now the lead statements make garage rock appear to be too much of a singular influence on acid rock. The 13th Floor Elevators' acid rock came directly out of garage, true, but that was not necessarily the case with all other artists. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see that my corrections just got undone, but that will only lead to confusion on the part of readers, even bewilderment. I'm not sure if most music editors are going to approve of the way the whole "garage punk" statements are framed right now. Actually to think that Hann at the Guardian is trying to define "garage punk" as a genre separate from 60s-derived garage rock is to misrepresent the intent of his writing. When he refers to "garage punk" as 60s genre, what he means is garage rock--he is using "garage punk" as an alternate term for the garage rock genre. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Invited here by Mashaunix.) Shaun, I do see a reason for separate articles – not a very strong reason, but that could be because I found this article pretty confusing. The problem with most articles on musical genres, imo, is that the sources are so subjective, and grand statements can be made about the first, the most influential, the best example, etc. of each genre based on what happens to register on an author's personal radar. Then these claims gain traction and snowball (per Garagepunk66, who makes some good points above). In a lot of cases, it can depend on the nationality of the author also.
• What I'm surprised about, once again, is the way all roads seem to lead to Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys. We get that folksy, "S'a funny thang" recollection from a former music industry exec regarding "Good Vibrations", and in the end note that follows: "Writer Vernon Joyson observed flirtations with acid rock in the Beach Boys' albums Pet Sounds (1966) and the unfinished Smile." Well, Robert Sheffield terms the Beatles' "She Said She Said" as acid rock (not a flirtation-with). And although Browne & Browne 2001 is used fairly extensively in this article, their point about Sgt. Pepper being "a major influence on American acid rock groups" is completely absent. And if we're going back into influences on these acid rock/San Francisco Sound bands, Rubber Soul, from 1965, should be mentioned, surely – per James Decker in The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles, pp. 88–89, for example. I'm not sure of the page number right now, but in John Kruth's book This Bird Has Flown, a San Fran musician recalls Rubber Soul being on rotation at parties, from one house to another, in Haight Ashbury; and I remember seeing an interview with Phil Lesh who talked about Garcia dragging him into a shop on the Haight as "Tomorrow Never Knows" was playing, and just being delighted at what they were hearing for the first time. I could go on ("It's All Too Much" come to mind) … but it's not like I'm wanting to inflate the Beatles' standing and influence, here or anywhere on Wikipedia (as if they need it). I'm just surprised at the sidestep around the Beatles' contribution to the genre, directly in the case of "She Said" and as a major inspiration with Rubber Soul, certainly Pepper. JG66 (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, credit for >80% of the article goes to Madreterra, who did a great job expanding it from where it was two years ago. If you think the article is missing signficiant content pertaining to the Beatles, nobody is stopping you from adding it.

However, Kenneth Nagelberg's claim about Sgt. Pepper influencing American acid rock groups is a weird one, because right after saying that, he suggests that Pepper was what drove the Beach Boys to be experimental in the recording studio. Which is a bizarre, easily disprovable claim. It's even weirder that he cites Sunflower and Surf's Up as evidence - almost like he lives in an alternate timeline where Pet Sounds and Smiley Smile never happened. This is the only strange claim I can see on that page, so I'm not surprised that it was looked over, per WP:FRINGE. If he knew what he was talking about, he would have written that Revolver was the album that influenced American acid rock groups, not Pepper.

The difference between Nagelberg and the Phillip Rauls quote is that Rauls was actually there as an insider when this music was coming out and is simply recalling his experiences from that time (i.e. "back then, we thought the Beach Boys were acid rock; we also thought that acid rock was the same thing as progressive rock"), whereas Nagelberg is just postulating bad info.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree it's "bad info", and it certainly shouldn't be dismissed because the author fails to mention Revolver or because his reference to Sunflower or Surf's Up might seem puzzling. As the Sgt. Pepper article demonstrates, under Release and especially Legacy, that Beatles album resonated with pretty much every Westerner under the age of 30 and provided the soundtrack for the Summer of Love. (It marked the start of the Summer of Love, according to some.) Paul Kantner of Jefferson Airplane is quoted (in Robert Rodriguez's Revolver: How the Beatles Reimagined Rock 'n' Roll, p. 213) about the release of Pepper: "Something enveloped the whole world at that time, and it just exploded into a renaissance." I think it's no exaggeration to say that, certainly over 1964–67, there wasn't a rock/pop act who was not in some way influenced or inspired by the Beatles. So, to read in Browne & Browne 2001 that Sgt. Pepper was "a major influence on American acid rock groups" – that's more than plausible. It inspired a whole generation, musicians and otherwise. The statement belongs in this article, as does mention of "She Said", and perhaps also the inspiration provided by Rubber Soul. JG66 (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Acid rock is harder-edged while psychedelic rock can be lighter, with themes of love and peace. No need to merge, as literature for both abounds. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sgt. Pepper

(Continued from above)

Of course everybody everywhere was influenced by Pepper. No question about that. But in the context of "American acid rock groups", Pepper's effect had more to do with culture and ideology than music - Nagelberg (not Browne) is specific on "recording studio techniques". That's a contribution better credited to Revolver and Pet Sounds, not Pepper.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ilovetopaint on this. By the time Sgt. Pepper was released, psychedelic had been going on for quite a while and acid rock was already underway. Albums such as Revolver and Pet Sounds had far more to do in influencing what was happening musically speaking. All of the recording techniques used on Pepper were already employed on Revolver. Pepper was just a more elaborate form of what the Beatles and others had already been doing. It was a great extravaganza and signified an incredible moment--it was a culmination of so much that had been building up, no doubt, but it was not as influential, musically, as certain things that preceded it. It was more of a summative than formative event in that regard. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just passing through, yet isn't "A Day in the Life" the acid rock statement on "Pepper"? As such, the music would be of interest to keyboard players in the acid rock genre, and to the musical concepts, such as "the longest recorded note", perhaps the most acid rock thing about the song. I agree with you, Garagepunk66, about the elaborate form of Pepper, as it's just not something the average musician can think about recreating, not having unlimited studio time and an arranger on hand to write things. Given that much acid rock is synonymous with guitar noise, extended all the way to bands like Sonic Youth, "A Day in the Life" does offer a keyboard player an "in" to the acid rock genre. And the Beatles are a band wherein their psychedelic rock is usually synonymous with acid rock. Morgan johndavid (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Differences with heavy psych

Bands like Grateful Dead, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Country Joe & The Fish, Big Brother and The Holding Company, Jefferson Airplane and others never sounded like hard rock, heavy psych bands like Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, Vanilla Fudge, Early Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Sir Lord Baltimore, Early Grand Funk Railroad, Josefus, Frijid Pink etc. Were distinct to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Texas and Boston that were softer. I Think that heavy psych needs to have other article. --189.216.112.3 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't heavy psych basically "early heavy metal"? - so the "other" article would be the "early days" section of the heavy metal article. Led Zeppelin was a heavy psych/acid rock band, "Dazed and Confused" one of the ultimate acid rock statements. It's also an early example of metal. The same can be said about "Happenings Ten Years Time Ago" and "Think About It" by the Yardbirds. And the same can be said of early Black Sabbath, such as "Black Sabbath" - they are all three things at once. Heavy psych rock = acid rock = early heavy metal, all the same thing basically -- so the psychedelic rock page should talk about acid rock and heavy metal, and visa versa. Morgan johndavid (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem is that this is the only article out there that even acknowledges "heavy psych" as a thing --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)