Talk:Psychedelic rock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citation needed for what?

Why does this sentence need a citation?

"Bands such as The Smashing Pumpkins and Tool fused psychedelic rock sounds with heavy metal, becoming highly successful alternative rock acts in the 1990s."

I'm going to remove it since I don't think we need a citation to prove that Smashing Pumpkins and Tool both use tremendous amounts of production effects and employ extended or untraditional song structures for some of their songs. TorbenFrost 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Small, but loyal cult?

I really don't think the listeners of psychedelic rock are small or a cult =\ changing this.

Singles?

This section contains songs that were never singles. Should we change this section name to Songs instead?

Kurrgo master of planet x 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, Black Sabbath?

Their first album is hardly Psychedelicx... i'm removing it Steve

A few comments

Ok, 2 things...

about the beach boys, the page reads: "In 1966, responding to the Beatles' innovations, they produced their album Pet Sounds..." this isnt really true... in fact, pet sounds inspired the beatles more than it was inspired BY them. pet sounds came out before sgt peppers and was the main inspiration behind it, according to mccartney and george martin. mccartney says that pet sounds is his all time favorite album and "god only knows" is his favorite song. also, perhaps the page should discuss the similarities between the beach boys and the beatles, and what these traits meant for psychedelia (use of string/orchestra arrangements, extensive multitracking, lots of harmonies, etc).

Yes but the Beatles Rubber Soul influenced Pet Sounds first. Pet Sounds is not really a Psychedelic album anyway. Whereas Revolver uses psychedelic influences backward guitars, exotic Indian drones, tape loops as well as avant Influences like "Tomorrow Never Knows". Rubber Soul shows Psychedelic influences in Rubber Soul with tracks like the "The Word" and sitar driven "Norwegian Wood" which predates Pet Sounds. Pet Sounds is more known for it's arrangements but it's more related to Baroque pop which the Beatles flirted with "Yesterday" in 1965.

It's a moot point, and a good example of why we need citations. The competitiveness between Brian Wilson and the Beatles is well documented. To be fair, "Rubber Soul" had been out since Dec '65 and the Beatles had released 'Revolver' the month before 'Pet Sounds'. I guess I'd better find some quotes to back up my assertion that Wilson was trying to beat these two albums. Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

another thing.... "The psychedelic influence was also felt in black music" This paragraph only really discussses the influence on soul/r&b... psychedelia had a big impact on funk as well, as sly and the family stone were pretty much a part of the psychedelic movement (they were, after all, woodstock performers). psychedelic artists also had a big impact on reggae. bob marley and lee perry had been fans of psychedelic rock and their collaborations (prior to marley's signing to island records) show this influence. lee perry's later work in dub had lots of psychedelic influence, with the use of lots of multitracking, experimental recording/miking setups, samples, and hendrix-esque effects such as delay lines and phasers (lots of dub effects had been used a ton in psychedelic rock; the phaser pretty much came from psychedelia as it was derived from the ADT that ken townshend and john lennon came up with).

Sly and the Family Stone, yes. I think the influence on Reggae is really beyond scope. Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

should i edit some changes?

12-30-05

Changed "...and recently invented "trippy" electronic effects such as distortion..."

to

"...and "trippy" electronic effects such as distortion..."

because most trippy electronic effects have been around in one form or another since (at-least) the 1950s.

---

"which contains the track 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds', the initials of which spell out LSD" -- band members have specifically denied this is anything other than a coincidence --user:Daniel C. Boyer

ISTM that bands tend to propagate a lot of mythology that is geared more toward constructing an image than toward informing us about what was going on at the time. B.Bryant 16:02 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

---

Odd that someone picked "Pictures of Lily" as an example of The Who's psychedelia when much more familiar examples such as "I Can See for Miles And Miles", "Magic Bus", and the "Underture" from Tommy are ready to hand. B.Bryant 16:02 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Well, that got quick results, so now let's try the Rolling Stones. I'm admittedly not very familiar with their early material, but I'm surprised that nothing on Their Satanic Majesties Request is mentioned as a part of their psychedelic contribution. B.Bryant 16:37 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

---

In the USA the term psychotic is also attached to this style of pop music.

By whom? I have never heard psychotic used as the name of a musical style. This may be a joke. --- Ihcoyc

OTOH, there was an album and song called Psychotic Reaction by Count Five! Lee M 05:33, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I hope nobody minds my "Music Samples" bit. I'll (hopefully) develop it more in time and implement it into other genre pages. The samples are from Amazon.com - should I upload them to WikiMedia? Also, how do you align the graph with the top of the text? -Archagon 22:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but see Wikipedia:Sound samples. They need to be in ogg format and need to qualify as fair use (or be pd/freely licensed to begin with). Tuf-Kat 22:45, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Would it be legal, then, to download Amazon's samples, convert them to OGG, and upload them to WikiMedia? -Archagon 23:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so, provided they would be fair use from any other source. Amazon doesn't own a copyright on them, so the fact you downloaded them from there instead of some other site or from a CD you bought is irrelevant. About 20 seconds in length is generally agreed upon as acceptable, though there has been some dispute about this. Tuf-Kat 00:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Streamlining and cuts

You'll notice that I cut some details for consolidation, streamlining, and balance of detail. IMO there is still too much about the Beach Boys: though the material is relevant, it's far out of proportion to the brief mention everyone else gets. If we want more detail then IMO we should add some sections for them. For example, we could move the musical characteristics to its own section and then give a list of "classic" psychedelic songs that illustrate each one. As for band-specific details, we could add a section with per-band subsections, but IMO that is best left to the bands' own pages and the list of psychedelic music artists. — B.Bryant 23:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

psychedelic vs. acid rock

what is the difference between acid rock and psychedelic rock? the acid rock article itself only redirects to the psychedelic rock article.

I think acid rock is generally the darker stuff, more like The Doors than Grateful Dead, for example. It's a blurry a line, though -- the two terms are more or less synonymous. Tuf-Kat 20:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Psychedlic rock and acid rock are NOT the same thing. Acid rock is characterized by long jams sometimes without lyrics and by songs which sometimes lack a traditional pop song structure. It would later give way to progressive rock in the early seventies. Psychedelic rock had songs which still retain a traditional structure. Pink Floyd is a good example of a band that played both styles. Their early material is clearly Psychedlic rock but by 1970 they were an acid rock band.

I so think you're splitting hairs here. These are all more-or-less synonymous genre definitions. Acid Rock and Space Rock have their own pages. The music of the 1965-69 period can be reasonably described as 'Psychedelia'. The term 'Psychedelic Rock' (/pop) is only really useful to differentiate from other psychedelic styles such as the electronic dance music forms. Much of the psychedelic music of the '70's was actually promoted as 'Progressive Rock'. I think it's useful to bring it all together in one page like this. I think this is the best article on band-based psychedelic music on wikipedia, it has a really good scope and covers most of the bases. Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember this exact same debate back in 1967. My opinion is they were two names for the same music. Labels like these are usually concocted by the media and are purely arbitrary in nature.

Seems the debate itself is now rock history. Aimulti (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

""I remember this exact same debate back in 1967"" if you were there you are not supposed to remember it. I cannot find musicologists that distinguish acid rock from psychedlic rock. I agree that acid rock article should be merged into here, a redirection put in and a clear explanation added.--Sabrebd (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Floyd misrepresented

First a disclaimer: I'm a Pink Floyd fanatic so if this comes off as a little whiny, my apologies. For those of you maintaining this page, you should look into this a little more closely.

I'm somewhat taken aback at how Pink Floyd is presented on this page as an afterthought. In the UK, the psychedelic movement was an underground thing for several years before exploding into the mainstream, and Pink Floyd was often considered the most prominent band in that movement (this was long before they were famous.) They were sometimes thought of as the "house band of the psychedelic underground." Their shows contained many firsts that were later used by other bands, including the use of oil slide projections. They were also pioneers of stage lighting and augmenting on-stage performances with unusual audio effects. It's likely that a lot of famous bands like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones took a few cues from Pink Floyd (some of these band members were sighted in the audience of early Floyd shows.) In some respect, Pink Floyd got the ball rolling in terms of British psychedelic music and led the way. To see them tagged on to the end of a paragraph here as "also representative" is a massive discredit to what they did.

As to the previous comment about Pink Floyd, whoever you are I agree with you. Why don't you add some pink floyd info in?

Eh? quotes: intro "The psychedelic sound itself had been around at least a year earlier in the live music of the Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd, and Donovan's hit Sunshine Superman" and 60s Britain, "Pink Floyd had been developing psychedelic rock with light shows since 1965 in the underground culture scene, and in 1966 the Soft Machine formed" briefly covers it: Donovan beat them to it in getting a record out, they're there at the start of the British scene. Feel free to improve. ..dave souza 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely Pink Floyd are second only to (maybe) The Beatles in terms of popularity? Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tool

Tool is at the forefront of modern psychedelic rock experimentation. But oddly no one mentioned Tool, so I put a little sentence about them and a link. Most bands such as Grateful Dead aren't really psychedelic they were just over glorified pop idols from the 60's. Tool ar not at the forefront of anything except pretentious neu-metal. They have a lot of dork fans and therefore a large internet presence but nothing to do with psychedelia aside from the marijuana intake of their "cult". I'm no deadhead but to say they were just pop idols is ridiculous. Albums like "Anthem of the Sun" are surely psychedelic and live they were quite experimental and LSD-experience-oriented. If any band is over-glorified (while simultaneously laughed at by those outside the cult) it is the dour, monotonous Tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.245.212 (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all getting very silly! The Grateful Dead are one of the defining bands of the genre, with a 30 year history. Tool deserve mention alongside bands like Porcupine Tree, where you will find them in the 'progressive metal' section of any record shop. Perspective, gentle-folk, please! Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana?

First of all, Love Buzz was a cover. Secondly, is it really psychedelic? I wouldn't say so.

Sgt. Peppers Reference

If we are going to say that Sgt. Peppers was a poor example of 60s Psychadelic Music (which it was) why are we even mentioning it in the article.

I take your point. However, it has to be said that it isn't the best Beatles' album (Revolver is ;-) and it isn't better than 'Pet Sounds'; it *was* hugely successful and influential and is as important as 'Piper At The Gates Of Dawn' and 'Odessey and Oracle' in the development of Psychedelia. That's why it should be mentioned. Did I have to say that? Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

First Revolver was released in August of 1966 and "Tomorrow Never Knows" was recorded in April of 1966 when Pink Floyd released their first record in 1967. Jefferson Airplane Surrealistic Pillow was released in Feb of 1967 the same month the Beatles overtly Psychedelic "Strawberry Fields Forever". So the Beatles basically helped put Psychedelic Rock before Pink Floyd and Jefferson Airplane. Sgt Pepper was more influential to Progressive Rock and Art Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydfloyds12 (talk • Sydsfloyd12 (UTC)

sgt. peppers is not a very important psychedelic album. important, yes, but not for psychedelic rock. piper, surrealistic pillow, are you experienced?, easter everywhere... and many more albums are more notable psychedelic albums than sgt. peppers. --Violarulez (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I love this revisionist history of course Sgt Pepper was an important album for psychedelic rock as it only might be the most influential rock album. The structure, the experimentation with things not normally associated with rock and pop music was an influence on most bands at the time. [[--RigbyEleanor (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor]]

In order to write for wikipedia I had to learn to get my own opinions out of the way. Under wikipedia rules 'Sgt Pepper' IS notable. End of. Tim flatus (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on!

"While the first musicians to be influenced by psychedelic drugs were in the jazz and folk scenes" should presumably say "the first twentieth century musicians", as musicians have probably been finding ways to get out of it ever since music first happened. Anyway, late 19th century Ottoman music was heavily influenced by hashish, as was Rebetiko in the 20th Century... The Real Walrus 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the word 'contemporary'. Tim flatus (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions

This article states that sgt Peppers was the first psychedelic album. That is a common mistake; the first album, that could be call "psychedelic" (in rock music at least) is the beach boys "Pet sounds". The article even claims that the last one was influenced by the beatles, when it was released before sgt peppers, and Mc cartney himself acknowledge the influence of "pet sounds " on sgt peppers.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And Rubber Soul and Revolver pre-date that. Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

actually first album was by the 13th Floor Elevators was the first psychedellic album. It's even called "The Psychedellic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators".

How about The Deep? Pat Kilroy? The Byrds? Alan Watt's "This is It" from 1961 is considered by many the first psychedelic LP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.245.212 (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Deep are the first band to use the word 'Psychedelic' in an album title i Oct '66, closely follwed by 13th Floor Elevators and The Blues Magoos in Nov '66. Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rest of the world

Added information about the dutch band Group 1850. It is quite lonely right now, we should try to find other non-US/Britain Psychedelic bands. Reko 23:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Need more music samples

Just one sample is not representative of all psychedelic music. At least some Pink Floyd, Peppers-era Beatles, or Jefferson Airplane is essential. --68.107.44.241 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One group that seems missing here is Canada's Mahogany Rush, with Frank Marino who proclaims himself as a psychedelic rocker in a promo video:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.showvids&friendID=58451563&n=58451563&MyToken=8da829b4-ba27-43fa-8c93-d5b3e65eca58

The first two albums came out in 72 and 74 and Maxoom and Child of the Novelty fit the bill exactly, check out the cover of Child of the Novelty.

Dwaink 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a whole section on the Beatles?

Why is there a whole section on the Beatles and not one on bands that were probably more influential on psychedelia than them such as Pink Floyd and Jefferson Airplane.

First Revolver was released in August of 1966 and "Tomorrow Never Knows" was recorded in April of 1966 when Pink Floyd released their first record in 1967. Jefferson Airplane Surrealistic Pillow was released in Feb of 1967 the same month the Beatles overtly Psychedelic "Strawberry Fields Forever". So the Beatles basically helped put Psychedelic Rock before Pink Floyd and Jefferson Airplane. Sgt Pepper was more influential to Progressive Rock and Art Rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydfloyds12 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this sentiment, inasmuch as the latter two groups were contemporaries with The Beatles and they were essentially 100% psychedelic, where The Beatles only briefly courted with the genre. Another Beatle mistake in the article is Meet The Beatles was not recorded in a single day. The author must have been thinking about UK LP Please Please Me or the US counterpart Introducing The Beatles. This LP was recorded in a single day. I will fix this portion. ZincOrbie 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• I find it extremely, EXTREMELY inaccurate to give Sgt. Pepper's the credit for having the largest impact on psychedelic music. Though it was most likely their most influential to pop music in general, especially on studio production, the idea of concept albums, and progressive/art rock music. But every music historian knows that REVOLVER was that record that literally started psychedelic music, it was everything for psychedelic music, and Sgt. Pepper's was a continuation of the psychedelic experiments of Revolver, yet it was in itself a less psychedelic record. Wikipedia already states all of this information, and has stated it for a very long time, it CLEARLY supports Revolver as the beginning of psychedelic music. Wikipedia is contradicting itself at the moment!

Gees, boo hoo you guys >_> 99.240.217.191 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The bealtes are in NO way the most psychedelic or influential to psychedlic music. pink floyd, jefferson airplane, the byrds, 13th floor elevators... and much more are more psychedlic. and psychedelically influential --Violarulez (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if others might be more psychedelic. The Beatles are easily one of the most influential psychedelic bands as many will say Revovler is one of the first psychedelic albums. Many of the elements of psychedelic rock like the sitar, backward guitars and vocals, loops, feedback, and the psychedelic use of the studio instrument was introduced by the Beatles. --RigbyEleanor (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

Referencing

This article is verging on the edge of communal Original Research. It needs some references and sources to support and justify the whole thing. Are there any books or articles on this genre? SorrowD 17:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There probably is some good reference material out there, although I don't know of any. As far as "communal Original Research," it appears to me that most of the editing is being performed by people with a rounded knowledge of the genre, and with very little disagreement. If there was more contention then I'd agree that solid referencing would be necessary. ZincOrbie 18:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Album cover art

Would it be useful to discuss/add album cover art as an important section of this article?

http://www.tim-rose.co.uk/music.htm#bigthreelive is a possible early consideration(63') and there are tons of covers afterwards that might lend themselves to an understanding of what the genre was all about.

--Dwaink 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Focus on psychedelic "rock"

Parts of this article seem to focus on psychedelic music as a whole instead of psychedelic rock in particular. There are many occasions where the terms "psychedelic music", "pop music" or "psychedelia" are used instead of psychedelic rock. Therefore I suggest the article (most importantly the characteristics section) be trimmed and its focus narrowed. ...Superfopp 14:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's by far the best article on band-based psychedelia on wikipedia. Please don't trim it down too much. Some parts actually need expanding. And more citations, always more citations. Tim flatus (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson Airplane

They should be added somewhere in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.20.103 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Brian Jonestown Massacre

Definitely considered a major group in the 1990s Psychedelic Rock revival...they deserve a mention, especially since band member Rob Campanella's two other bands (Beachwood Sparks and The Tyde) are on there.

Notice the band's Wiki, they should be added by someone that's good with editing (not me). Also check out that list of "Descendents"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Jonestown_Massacre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.232.33 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I also think we should make a clear distinction between the shoegaze/stoner rock end of things and the Elephant 6 collective, who are more overtly psychedelic (IMO) and the UK Festival scene bands, such as Ozrics et al. Tim flatus (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody who is familiar with BJM needs to write this section. Tim flatus (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Brian Jonestown Massacre is overtly psychedelic andwcouldn't be considered shoegazer except on there first album. In addition to that, there are dozens of past band members, many of whom have gone on to other quite psychedelic bands all taking a little of BJM's influence. If Smashing Pumpkins and Tool get a mention along with all that electronica than the BJM, there affiliate's and I would like to add The Dandy Warhols should get at least a paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.31.2 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sign up for a wikipedia account, learn the rules and add the information. Don't include your personal opinion or any facts you can't back up with a reference. I don't know enough about BJM or Dandy Warhols to write anything myself, you clearly do. It's up to you! Tim flatus (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph Organisation

It makes sense to make five main sections - 60's; 70's; '80's; 90's; and '00's. The 'Australasia' para should be cut down and included in the rest of the world. I'd actually go futher and suggest that sub-paragraphs should deal with sub-genres rather than regions. The Gong Family of bands stretches over five continents, for example. I could add a decent overview of the '70's before the neo-psychedelia section, which is coherent with the '80's, of course. Tim flatus (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychedelic 70's

I added an overview. Open to comments. Tim flatus (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed some egregious news items. Tim flatus (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychedelic Rock In England

I found this section very poor and lacking in any knowledge of the topic other than citing the most famous albums and artists.

Omissions include: -

No discussion of how Folk Rock evolved into Psychedelic Rock. No reference to the clubs that initiated the Psychedelic revolution, namely Middle Earth, The Arts Lab, UFO and the Roundhouse. No reference to the artists and the lightshows like Marc Boyle. No reference to the major role disc jockey, John Peel played. (Almost single handed exposing the music) No reference to the pirate radio stations. No reference to the hard core Psychedelic bands like Hawkwind and Arthur Brown No reference to International Times (IT) and Oz magazine.

I would like to rewrite this section but it will require major work to fully reference.

Aimulti (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment generally, except that Fairport & Hawkwind are covered in later sections in this article. Neither band formed until 1969 (Late 1960s). I don't understand Wikipedia's 'Fair Use' policy. It seems ridiculous that we can't use any images of album covers in this article. There is quite a bit of additional information I could add, but I'll hold off until you're done. Tim flatus (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect. Fairport Convention and Crazy World of Arthur Brown both date back to 1967. Fire (CWAB) was a hit in 1968. I will be working on this section (more) soon. Look forward to your input. Best wishes. Aimulti (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Tim flatus (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Psychedelic rock in Britain, in common with its American counterpart had its roots in the Folk rock genre. In much the same way that The Great Society and the original Jefferson Airplane were electrified folk bands, the same was true of early psychedelic bands in the Britain such as Fairport Convention". - sorry to say there is a serious misunderstanding here. Fairport were not an electrified folk band, they were a folkified electric band, at most they flirted with Psychedelia. Much as I am a fan I have removed them and tried to put together a paragraph from the references to folk and folk rock. I will try to add more references when I can --Sabrebd (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of Fairport here. Apart from that I agree with what you've done. Fairport were a folkified blues band, true; primarily influenced by bands like Jefferson Airplane and other American country and Folk-Rock bands. I think they more than flirted with Psychedelia, they were just less overt about it - there is a precedent for coded references in British Folk music - many of their songs deal with magical & otherworldly themes. This may be an ear of the listener thing. Tim flatus (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I never really thought of Fairport as "psychedelic" - unlike, say, Pink Floyd - though initially they were grouped together as "underground". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, well Grateful Dead > Fairport > Oasis in terms of psychedelia IMHO. Actually, so long as Fairport get mentioned somewhere in the article, which they are - amongst the 70s Folk-rock bands - then I don't really have an issue. Tim flatus (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Psychedelia

I just did a major rewrite of this section: reorganised into a better date order, checked links and added a whole lot more information. I'm aware of its shortcomings, so please feel free to improve upon it. Tim flatus (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit was reverted as it violated numerous Wikipedia policies. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Trying again, line-by-line. I have started by re-arranging the paragraphs to give a better chronology and made a couple of corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim flatus (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And carefully adding a little extra info. Tim flatus (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed first sentence as I don't think he disclaimer is necessary. Please consider writing a new intro for this section rather than reverting. Tim flatus (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock in the United Kingdom

I have started on the re-write of this section. It is a work in progress and I will add more references over the next few days and expand it to fully cover the topic.

(Editors) Please allow me a little slack (a few days or so) as referencing all assertions takes considerable time.

Aimulti (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Criteria.

I've noticed lately a lot of people don't regard songs without drug references as psychedelic songs. This is completely wrong, lyrics and the band's use of drugs are not the only criteria to define a song as psychedelic (like when someone in the acid rock discussion page that Pink Floyd are not a psychedelic rock band because they don't use drugs (which is wrong too, but never mind). Another example is the song The Fool on the Hill, which is not considered here a psych rock song (I've added the genre to the list but it was removed, the rational being that it contains no drug references). --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally with you on this one Magnolia Fen. Tim flatus (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hesitation Blues

Quote: "...the first use of the term "psychedelic" in popular music was by the "acid-folk" group The Holy Modal Rounders in 1964, with the song "Hesitation Blues"...." Are you sure that this is a serious information and and not a widespread but wrong information by lysergia.com? I found the complete lyrics here: Holy Modal Rounders - Hesitation Blues and there is no "psychedelic" and there is also nothing like "...I got my psychedelic feet/In my psychedelic shoes/Oh lordy momma/I got the psychedelic blues..." as quoted at lysergia. I have only listen to a 30 sec. sample of "Hesitation Blues" and it seems the lysergia lyrics belong to a completely different track and/or artist. Does anyone have serious information about this (or much better heard the complete track)?--77.25.46.178 (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, The only way I can do that is to put it on my last.fm playlist and wait for it to come round. I'll check out 'Euphoria' while I'm at it. More information and more complete lyrics are available here:

• http://www.enter.net/~torve/songs/hesitation.html
• http://www.metafilter.com/42410/The-Moray-Eels-Eat-The-Holy-Modal-Rounders-and-Charlie-Poole-to-boot
• http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/westcoastpsychedeliaandacidrock/message/2611

Tim flatus (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just listened to it. The lyrics in that first link appear to be correct and complete. He does indeed mention psychodelic feet in psychodelic shoes towards the end of the version. Tim flatus (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the bluegrassmessengers confused me. :o) --77.24.187.177 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a reliable reference for this, which should put the issue to bed.--Sabrebd (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations and Cleanup

I'd really like to get rid of the Refimprove and Essay-like Flags at the top of the article. This page has changed considerably since Dec 2007. We have two unresolved facts:

1) "Roky Erickson, lead singer of The 13th Floor Elevators, coined the term 'psychedelic rock' in a 1966 interview." in History

2)"The Easybeats, who scored an international hit in late 1966 with their classic single "Friday On My Mind" (which was in fact recorded in the UK)." in Australasia.

Can we think about re-writing these if references can't be come by?

1) Could be replaced with a mention of 13th Floor Elevators in the body with reference to The Psychedelic sounds of ... and Easter Everywhere, which seems more relevant that the 'fact' that Roky coined the term in an unreferenceable interview.

Could 2) be resolved by simply removing the factoid in parenthesis?

Beyond that, it might be useful to get a more experienced editor to have a look over the page and point out what kinds of statements need cleaning up and places that additional citations would help at this point. Or indeed whether the flags can be regarded as out-of-date now. Do any of the other currently active editors need more time before we put out for more critical advice?

I'm up for trying to nail these references. Tim flatus (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Freakbeat vs Psyche? (+Jimmy Page with experimenting with Bow first!?)

Why is there's no mention of freakbeat in this article (I think that's important as it was the genre that bridged Beat and Psyche)? I would like to know what the difference is between Freak and Psyche. Atm I'm the only way i'm differing the 2 is that Freakbeat most of the time has stormy drums, The Who-like guitar chords and an R&B beat, feedback, fuzz, distortion, chaos and mayhem. But sometimes it can be really fuzzy if it's freak or psyche (or Garage Rock).

Also wasn't the guitarist from the archetype freakbeat band The Creation earlier with experimenting guitar with a bow?

Another question, the term freakbeat was conceived 20 years later before then, what they call it? I heard Mod Psychedelia, but I've got my doubts.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Loempiavreter (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1.) I think the term Freakbeat was the british counterpart to US-american Garagerock. The Archive International Productions ran a series of compilations called English Freak Beat in the early nineties. Here is an example. I own a vinyl version containing obscure Mod stuff but no psychedelic music. It is possible that the label created the term Freakbeat.

2.) The Creation released their debut Making Time in June 1966 with a guitar solo played with a violin bow. Their follow up Painter Man also contains guitar-bow-work but absolutely amazing is the US-version of their 1967 release How Does It Feel with overdubbed guitar-bow-noise. The UK-version omitted the overdubbed guitars. Also of interest: The pre Creation formation called Mark Four released I'm Leaving in August 1965 as a flip side. It includes some wonderful feedback. I do not know if they predates The Who.--77.25.102.44 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I like para 2.) I reckon that's worth including in the article. Change the word 'developed' in the Page reference to something more appropriate. Tim flatus (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that before though in an article I've read about Freakbeat, is that Freakbeat ain't an reaction on a reaction but a mere evolution. Garage Rock is an reaction on the Beat & R&B sounds of britain, but Freakbeat is an evolution on that. So I doubt it's the British equilivant of the US Garage Rock. An Top 30 Freakbeat Article also had songs listed from my country, The Netherlands, Iceland, Ireland and even an American band stationed in Germany.

Just let me take a few songs considerd Freakbeat: http://media.putfile.com/The-Buzz---Your-Holding-Me-Down---FREAKBEAT http://media.putfile.com/The-SyndicatsCrawdaddy-SimoneFreakbeat http://media.putfile.com/Wimple-Winch---Save-My-Soul---FREAKBEAT http://media.putfile.com/Mickey-Finn---Garden-Of-My-Mind---FREAKBEAT http://media.putfile.com/Alan-Pounds-Get-Rich---Searching-in-the-Wilderness---Freakbeat

VS the Garage Rock Sounds: http://media.putfile.com/The-Unrelated-Segments---The-Story-Of-My-Life---GARAGE-ROCK http://media.putfile.com/The-Magic-Mushroom---Im-Gone---GARAGE-ROCK http://media.putfile.com/The-Pleasure-Seekers---What-A-Way-To-Die---GARAGE-ROCK http://media.putfile.com/The-Ugly-Ducklings---Nothin---GARAGE-ROCK http://media.putfile.com/The-Castaways---Liar-Liar---GARAGE-ROCK

I find the sound to different to call it British Garage Rock. Freakbeat have storming wild drumming, more guitar experimentation and is overall more crazy (also I've heard a few Freakbeat songs experimenting with a horn section). Garage Rock on the other hand is more RAW (and most the time have some scream, which I will dub the Garage scream for now), amateurish.

Seems the Freakbeat songs follow a "My Generation" (by the Who) song structure, http://youtube.com/watch?v=YdRs1gKpeGg , or maybe the song itself is an mostly uncredited Freakbeat song but the wild storming drums and the song going crazy at the end, though Wiki states it as "Hard Rock, Rock, pop, R&B"?

Loempiavreter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loempiavreter (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for the lack of Freakbeat information is that no-one has bothered to write it yet. I've not heard of most of the bands you mention, so I'm sceptical about notability, but if you're confident that you can defend any challenges then go ahead. The distinction of genres is probably not important, neither is whether you or I like it or not. If they were notable psychedelic bands then they deserve a mention for sure. I would suggest avoiding any unnecessary description. Tim flatus (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

and 2000s?

I don't think this article should go there. George Harrison's death is a really good place for the History to stop. Surely both QotSA and Wolfmother are notable in heir own ways. I don't care who was the most successful, I want to know why they are relevant to psychedelia.

PS: If English isn't your first language please use a spell/grammar checker and try to write in the same tense as the rest of the section. I don't mind editing it when I get time, but I'm likely to be fairly ruthless. Some editors would simply revert it. (this comment particularly refers to some other recent edits) Tim flatus (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Animal Collective

is not part of the Elephant 6 Collective. (although I can see how the names are misleading). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.66.251 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if somebody could organize the '90s section in a way that makes sense. I don't know enough about the American bands to be able to do this. Tim flatus (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tim flatus (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin!

Where is Led Zeppelin in this article??? they were a major psychedelic band in their early years especially!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.206.40 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They were a heavy metal, hard rock, blues-rock and folk rock band who never played psychedelic rock at all??? Peter Fleet (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the 'major psychedelic band in their early years' that you're thinking of was called the Yardbirds. Led Zep were a great band, but I agree with Peter. Tim flatus (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Peter. Though I, personally, consider Dazed and Confused and Misty Mountain Hop to be acid rock (a psych sub-genre), not many other people do, and I can understand why, and as far as their other songs go, I have no idea how they could be considered psychedelic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.115.212 (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sleep

It is Impossilbe to go to sleep with this kind of music. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You have clearly never listened to enough Hawkwind. Tim flatus (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

listening to songs like 'saucerful of secrets' and 'interstellar overdrive' help me go to sleep. i really enjoy it. :) --Violarulez (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Syn

There's been a wave of editing activity around The Syn and Steve Nardelli, including a certain amount of dispute. Some 'third parties' with expertise in psychedelic music would be valuable if anyone would like to come on over. Bondegezou (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Floyd influencing Sgt. Pepper??

There's a mention that The Beatles and Floyd were influencing each other on Sgt. Pepper and Pipers @ the Gates. Is there any valid source that can be cited to back this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.116 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

they were recording right next to each other at the same time and i beleive that syd and floyd influenced the beatles as they were recording sgt. pepper's. [1] --Violarulez (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to object how you guys are a bit uninformed. The Beatles were in the studio recording Sgt Pepper starting November 1966 months before Pink Floyd ever got into the studio. The Beatles were already doing psychedelic music on Revolver in 1966. Syd Barrett was known to be influenced by the Beatles. [--RigbyEleanor (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor]

Guitar Solo

This is where the guitar solo came from maybe an Idea to mention it in the article? --84.85.201.54 (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I've heard guitar solos dating back to the 1940s. Zazaban (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say extended solos & improvisation? I'd start the bidding with the two Yardbirds tours involving Beck & Page. Any precursors? Tim flatus (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to object how you guys are a bit uninformed. The Beatles were in the studio recording Sgt Pepper starting November 1966 months before Pink Floyd ever got into the studio. The Beatles were already doing psychedelic music on Revolver in 1966. Syd Barrett was known to be influenced by the Beatles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RigbyEleanor (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I have added merge tags to the page. These articles are all over lapping and contradicting each other. I'm not sure I would classify either Neo-psychedelia or Psychedelic_pop as distinct and different genres from Psychedelic rock. This article needs massive amounts of clean up and work. I propose both sub categories be redirected here and this article be heavily edited and re-written. Ridernyc (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose I don't think neo-psychadelia should be merged. These are different topics with extensive information. They can easily be separate articles.George Pelltier (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose; I don't think Psychedelic pop and Psychedelic rock should be merged. The two are distinct and different genres; in essence they are as distinctly different as Pop and Rock are, it just happens to be the psychedelic aspect of those genres that we're talking about. As such, merging the two would be like saying that Black Sabbath operate in the same genre as Herman's Hermits. There's a world of difference between Psychedelic rock bands (like the Blue Cheer for example) and The World of Oz (who were Psychedelic pop) for example. I do, however, agree that there seems to be a lot of crossover and contradiction in this and other related articles, and that they all need a good clean up. Kohoutek1138 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for sources to back up the statements people keep making. Ridernyc (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure exactly what kind of sources you're looking for but I will say that allmusic.com lists "Psychedelic Rock", "Psychedelic Pop" and "Neo-Psychedelia" as three distinct and separate sub-genres of psychedelic music. I'd say that allmusic is a pretty reliable and well respected source for popular music and they obviously deem the three types of psychedelia to be different enough to warrant three separate titles. Sorry if I've misunderstood and this isn't quite what you meant by sources. Kohoutek1138 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, with vigor and determination. I admit that drawing the line in some cases will be tough, but it's got to be done. Would you call When the Music's Over by The Doors "Psychedelic Pop"? No way, it's "Psychedelic Rock". As for a tune like Itchycoo Park by the Small Faces, that's much more of a "Pop" tune with strong elements of the "Psychedelic" thrown in, both in the lyrics and the early phase-shifting sound. Both Wikipedia articles label them correctly; they are distinctly separate genres. Case closed, in my opinion. (Note: this is copied and pasted by the author from the request for discussion on this topic, we seem to have more than one discussion going.) Jusdafax (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, strongly. So much of the genre article space here is essentially original research. Everyone brings their own fine-line distinctions and personal biases (as Jusdafax exemplifies just above), but there is no consensus (internally or externally) about the distinction between genres or (especially) which genre labels should be applied to which group/album/song. Thus it's a recipe for article churn and dissent. At best we replicate the (often dubious and demonstrably inconsistent) over-categorization practiced at Allmusic; at worst we argue for our own internal music-maps and create Wikiality. Merging "Psychedelic Rock" and "Psychedelic Pop" is a good starting point for fixing this mess. Jgm (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and to directly answer Jusda's example above, I'd call each of those songs (along with dozens of others) rock music, period. Rock has a huge variety of styles and variations; trying to parse them all is counting angels on pinheads. Jgm (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rebuttal We will have to agree to disagree, then, Jgm. As I noted, both song examples are currently correctly labeled already in their respective Wikipedia articles. It's my view that what you advocate in effect "dumbs down" Wikipedia. The differences between 'pop' and 'rock' are reasonably clear cut, though I admit there is room for discussion, as I say, in some cases. An encyclopedia is designed to 'parse' distinctions. To take your argument a step further, are The Eagles rock music? I'd say yes, others say country-rock or folk-rock, and it says all three in their info box. Well then, is John Denver? Hmm, more like folk, eh? It says "Folk, Pop, Country" in his info box, but mentions "folk-rock" in the intro. Tricky! Denver indeed has rock elements, in my view. So, to extend your reasoning as I understand it, we should call it all just "music", to avoid "article churn and dissent"? Of course not. (My comment discussing "fool's game" deleted.) Jusdafax (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fool's game" was not meant to be personal, and I've changed it. And, I agree that the examples you give are indeed tricky, and in fact it's fun for music-geeks such as ourselves to bandy about the distinctions, but I still contend that your parsing and my parsing, and those of all our fellow geeks are going to be informed by different experiences, biases and exposures. In other words, categorization like this is an area where I don't fully trust my own instincts, and I'm surely not going to trust someone else's, without some sort of external validation. If the price of avoiding OR is perceived as "dumbing down", so be it.

I recognize that I'm arguing a point that is beyond this particular merge question; there may be a more central place to discuss genre-parsing, I'll let you know if I find it. Jgm (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Jgm, and your enhanced opinion and obliging moderation is noted. Thanks! Awaiting further opinion. Jusdafax (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No no no no no nooo! I strongly oppose merging. Pop is for those who wish they were rock but can't get close! Oasis & Pixie Lott are not the same thing. Oasis are rock, Pixie is pop. They are 2 completely different genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't look back in anger (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Flanging versus Phasing

The author states that Itchycoo Park is the first song that uses "flanging". My understanding is that a flange is a device the bends guitar strings. Phasing is where two identical tracks are played just slightly out of time from each other to create a kind of white noise sound. There is an American pop single called The Big Hurt by Miss Toni Fisher from about 1960 that uses the same effect so it couldn't have been invented in 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyMcNerdstein (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right about phasing. Flange is an electronic effect that mixes two signals. I think perhaps you are confusing this with a vibrato bar on a guitar (confusingly often called a trem or tremolo bar), which bends the strings. Such bars have been around since at least the 50s, but flange was new in the 60s, so the reference is probably correct.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Phasing and Flanging are similar effects. Phasing is where two identical tracks are played just slightly out of phase with each other, which involves an inaudible delay and results in that familar 'swooshing' sound. (Engineers particularly liked applying this to whole drum kits, bands like Hawkwind made notable use of it on rhythm guitar parts too.) Flanging is where two identical tracks are played with one signal being pitch-shifted against the other. The effect was originally achieved by applying friction to the flange of one or other of the tape reels, using a finger-tip to artificially slow the tape down fractionally. This also involves an equal amount of time-shift. Flanging became more popular in the 80s (particularly for guitar) with the advent of electronic foot-pedal effects boxes. That's my understanding, for a better definition, ask an engineer. Tim flatus (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Influences

Psychedelic Rock had a pretty heavy influence from soul. If you listen to Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Vanilla Fudge, there is a noticeable undertone of Soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.35.196 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Radical suggestion

It is very hard to get support I am about to suggest as editors tend to see their own work disapearing, but here goes anyway. This article has grown by the adding of large numbers of facts and examples and in places has become simply an indiscriminate list of records/artists, rather against WP:INDISCRIMINATE, many of which have no sources to support their appearence. There are so many of these that I cannot see anyone being able to find valid sources to support them all. It is frankly extremely difficult to read and rather unencyclopedic. What I suggest is a radical re-writing that reduces it to a some concise sections that outline the major trends, with a few key examples, for each major trend. The lists of bands could be removed to an article on "List of Psychedelic rock artists", for reference. I ask fellow editors to consider whether this would actually be a much better article than the one visible at present.--SabreBD (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this statement, this was part of my goal when I proposed the mergers of the various psychedelic articles. Not only do we have on article out of control we have multiple articles that all overlap out of control. There was a similar problem at Concept Album this is what that article looked like 2 years ago before I cleaned it up [2], still not perfect but at least you can read it. You need to realize these articles need to be prose and tell a story and only releveant parts of that story, not constant "Band x is also a psychedelic band" entries. Ridernyc (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems we cannot get a consensus for the merger proposal, I suggest that we focus on cleaning up this article. This will involve the removal of a great deal of unsourced material and the provision of citations for what remains. Editors should be aware that this is going to be a lot shorter article if this process if completed. I will wait a few days for comments before embarking on the project.--SabreBD (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, and have confidence (based on experience elsewhere) that you'll make a good job of cleaning the article up. Go for it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This now done. Honestly the hardest job I have ever done on Wikipedia. I reduced the POV and removed a lot of irrelevant material or things that simply could not be supported by citations.--SabreBD (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now redirected the Neo article to the section here, and removed the mess that was the neo section in the Psychedelic music article to here. I vote the article is moved to the Psychedelic music page and replace the current mess that is there. Ridernyc (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to grudgingly admit that it's a good rewrite. Thanks, that gives me an idea of Wikipedia style. I do feel that you've taken a really narrow definition of 'Psychedelic Rock' - in particular limiting the examples to major record company releases. However, that clues me in to the argument about tags. I guess my interest goes well beyond this rather limited genre. The linked pages - Psyche-folk, psychedelic soul and psychedelic pop are fairly terrible and as Ridernyc says the Psychedelic music page needs radical re-working. I feel that some of the information relating to the 70s, 80s and 90s you removed could be included on other pages if re-written to suitable standards. However, my primary interest may be described as the 'psychedelic underground', which may be better documented elsewhere. Tim flatus (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As suggested in the opening, I would like to see the article "List of Psychedelic rock artists" still to be created. It could go in the "see also" section. I'd work on it gladly, but I want to get the opinions about to eras. How to section? Elitropia (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as you put it in your watchlist and patrol it daily. I really don't want another list that I have to revert every 2 days. Ridernyc (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I could do that, too. Elitropia (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to do the list I think it is either all together in alphabetical order, or a straight split between the 1960s and the neopsychedelia that came after. Usually more of a problem are sources, some insist on citations for each band showing they were/are in the genre (Like List of baroque pop artists) and those that accept what is on the act's own article. A third category are those that just accept anything, which I really wouldn't recomend.--SabreBD (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions SabreBD. I started to work on it already, I'm adding wikilinks plus references, mostly from allmusic and related websites, it's taking more time than I imagined. But, now my concern is that it'll get deleted! I've noticed, there used to be exact titled article which was deleted. What to consider to make it live for sure? Already did proceed a lot, don't want to give up. Elitropia (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oasis

Under Neo-Psychedelia, we should add Oasis's last albums, because on albums like Be Here Now, Standing on the Shoulder of Giants and Dig Out Your Soul, there are quite many psychedelia influenced songs. For example:

Be Here Now has Magic Pie, D'You Know What I Mean? and All Around the World,

SotSoG has Who Feels Love?, Little James, I Can See A Liar and Gas Panic

Dig Out Your Soul has Falling Down and [Get Off Your] High Horse Lady.

And there are many more b-sides like Masterplan or their cover of The Beatles's I Am The Walrus.

I think we should definitely include Oasis as it is one of the few mainstream acts who embraced neo-psychedelia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.237.153 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We can put it in if there are some reliable sources to support this. Unfortunately, and this is a recurring issue for this article, we cannot just listen to some songs and decide that they are psychedelia. I will see what can be found.--SabreBD (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I know a few interviews where Noel Gallagher, the guitarist and main songwriter of Oasis says that he likes, listens and plays psychedelic rock.

For one here's a interview where he praises a psychedelic mix of his song "Falling Down" and tells that that is "his kinda thing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X97xCzMrxU (around 1:10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.237.153 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that really isn't enough, as that doesnt tell us which tracks/albums were psychedelic. I have done an initially trawl of sources but haven't managed to come up with anything suitable. I will keep looking.--SabreBD (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Earlier the band was added to the List of psychedelic rock artists without a reference. I went to look for a reference that shows it could be listed in Neo-Psychedelia but couldn't find any other than Rate Your Music which is not the best. If I can't find any other I'm going to remove it from the list. I don't think it's necessary that the band should be mentioned in the main article, unless we find a reliable source. Elitropia (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Krautrock

I think Krautrock deserves far greater prominance in this article, there is a wealth of artists and albums from the very late sixties to the near mid seventies that would have represented the cutting edge of psychedlic music after the american/british hippy movement had faded. artists like the cosmic jokers, walter wegmuellers album tarot, amon duul, can, very early tangerine dream, faust, guru guru, ash ra temple and popol vuh made seriously wigged out psychedlic music that far outstrips the non-kraut psychedlia being made over the same period and has been far more influential on alternative music since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.12.177 (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

According to its article Krautrock "is an eclectic and often very original mix of post-psychedelic jamming and moody progressive rock mixed with ideas from contemporary experimental classical music". It is really something that emerged out of psychedelic rock, like the broader progressive rock, rather than an integral part of it.--SabreBD (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Decline - Dylan?!?

The article says that "Bob Dylan spearheaded the back-to-basics roots revival when he went to Nashville to record the album Blonde on Blonde." I'd have to say that this is completely incorrect. The music on this album may seem, after a superficial listen, to be quite country-blues influenced. but the lyrics are anything but back to roots. Lines about jelly faced women, dancing children in chinese suits, men with twenty pounds of headlines stapled to their chests, geranium kisses, leopard skin pillbox hats, or fog, amphetamine, and pearls.... not to mention that the opening track plays with double-entendres in the bit about "Everybody must get stoned." Blonde on Blonde is not a back to roots album - it's probably Dylan's most psychedelic, and I'll remove this sentence unless anyone has any major objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchachos9 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to object since the comment is based on a reliable source. A good idea would be to see what a range of other reliable sources say about the context of the album.--SabreBD (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the offline source, but it seems to me that one of the features of Blonde On Blonde was the contrast - or stylistic transition - between the use of extreme lyrical imagery, which could be termed "psychedelic", and the use of orthodox country-style musicians. Dylan then (I'm not an expert on him, but I think) kept the same instrumentation but went lyrically more "back to basics" with John Wesley Harding. So, I'd say that Blonde On Blonde was in many ways a step along the path towards "back to basics" - and in that sense can be described as "spearheading" that movement. Does the offline source give any credence to that view, and should the wording then be slightly modified? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your memory is correct. The source doesnt say anything about lyrics, but it does indicate that the album used country musicians, and although "the song themselves didnt sound all that "country"' it was 'a signficant step in bridging the gap between country and rock'. Not sure if that necessitates rewording or not. Roots rock is not mentioned here by name, but I will add another source that directly does that.--SabreBD (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviving Neo-psychedelia

Please see the discussion at Talk:Neo-psychedelia#Reviving this article. The summary here would remain (largely) unaffected.--SabreBD (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Graham

How is that Bill Graham isn't mentioned? As the main promoter of SF's early psychedelic concerts and the impresario behind Fillmores on both coasts, he deserves at least two sentences, the sources for which abound. Allreet (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to something sourced and relevant. Perhaps we should think about adding Joe Boyd as well.--SabreBD (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It took me a long time, but I have now added something on both.--SabreBD (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Siouxsie and the Banshees

That Quietus article mentions psychedelic music as an impetus for their experimentation but never as as their actual genre. This quote from the gothic rock article sum it up best: "Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Cure tended to play the flanging guitar effect, producing a brittle, cold, and harsh sound that contrasted with their psychedelic rock predecessors" Simon Reynolds, 2005, page 426 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.207.92 (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You wrote : This article mentions psychedelic music as an impetus for their experimentation but never as as their actual genre.

One didn't know that the actual genre of the following bands, Cocteau Twins, Ride, Lush etc... was also psychedelic... Are you going to erase them too?. Your point of view is clearly partial. See below for more details. By the way, I added The Cure too : it is sourced. You can carry on distorting Reynolds'words : one can provide tons of sources for this band too.Woovee (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record in case of a future discussion - yep that's true. These sources do not support their inclusion.--SabreBD (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For these two users who don't take the time to read the sources, Siouxsie & The Banshees were one of the great British psychedelic bands : it is written in the lead of this article here. It is for their 1982's A Kiss In... lp.Woovee (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier if the issues do not become personalised. My comments here (which have now been interrupted by a reply) were in reference to the Reynolds cite, which does indicate that Siouxsie and the Banshees were doing something that contrasted with 60s psychedelia and had been misused in the article. On the Quietus reference, I remain sceptical as not only can I read, but I understand the concepts of hyperbole and satire. However, I have left the band in, although another reliable source would be useful for clarification and support of this point. Even more use would be something that indicates a link between psychedelic rock and gothic rock, rather than just individual references to bands, if anyone is aware of one. That would be quite and important point to make in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you stop vandalism right now, please, as you did here when you erased Siouxsie & the Banshees once again where as every one with a good culture knows they turned psychedelic in 1982. You wrote : On the Quietus reference, I remain sceptical as not only can I read, but I understand the concepts of hyperbole and satire. Well, you obviously don't because there was no satire in that quietus lead. If you read the whole review about these reissues of Dreamhouse and Hyaena, you would realize that the quietus' author praises these albums released by the band in 1982 and 1984. In the case you are still to lazy to read the article, the quietus hails these albums with these words: Listening back to 1982's A Kiss In The Dreamhouse is to re-discover music that was fundamentally pop yet unafraid to revel in a quirkiness born of altered states. Quietus also wrote seamless beauty... or Here was a band that dared to challenge itself as much as their listeners. Message received loud and clear, now ? Well, due your non knowledge about psychedelic rock in the eighties, you made people waste their time. Woovee (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What matters is what reliable sources call them psychedelic :

Source 1: Simon Reynolds from his book "Rip it up :Post punk". Page 428. He wrote : 1982's Dreamhouse marked the Banshees'plunge into full-on mordern psychedelia.

Source2 : Paul Morley wrote in the notes of 1984's Hyæna (universal 2009, Hyæna reissue) : a psychedelic vision of pop.

Source 3: The Quietus wrote about the reissue of A kiss in the Dreamhouse (1982) and Hyæna (1984) : Siouxsie & The Banshees were one of the great British psychedelic bands. link here. Woovee (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please be very careful about accusations of vandalism. Good faith edits, even if you disagree with them, are not vandalism. You should read the statement near the top of WP:Vandalism on this. What is more, if you check the edit to which you have linked you will find that the only adjustments I made in that edit to the Banshees were to move the reference to them further into the sentence because your edit had inserted them between another and the citation that supported their inclusion. I left them and the citation to them intact and raised my points here on the talkpage. I would also point out again that you are personalising this. I have done my best to remain detached, polite and courteous to you and I do not appreciate being called lazy or a vandal. If this continues I will seek external intervention. If you have not read it already you should read WP:PERSONAL.

On the substantive issue of the Banshees and psychedelic music, I remain sceptical about the Quietus article for the reasons already stated and all I have asked for here is some further confirmation. You supply three alternatives, which is fine. Of these the Reynolds looks to be the best and clearest source. However, I am genuinely puzzled as I am sitting with a copy of the book in front of me and I cannot see that quote on the page (426). Are we perhaps dealing with two different additions? Mine is the Faber and Faber paperback (2005), or could you just check that you have the right page number please.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake ; see page 428. However, Paul Morley's point of view on a subject is always better as he is older than Reynolds. And Reynolds often praises Morley's work. The Quietus is also good as it is a site as famous as Pitchfork : there are interviews of many important musicians on the quietus'site.Woovee (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes are not a problem, everybody makes them. I can see the quote on p. 428. I think we don't need to over-do the references. The existing one and Reynolds will be sufficient, although I have no real objection to having all three if you want to put them in. However, since I posted my last message I see you have reverted my edits and labelled them as vandalism and ownership. This really is a serious matter. I certainly do not feel that I own the article and wish more people would contribute to it - a characteristic behaviour of ownership would have been to totally revert your edits - I manifestly did not to that, but did my best to integrate them into the article. It is also clear the guidelines on citation templates that it is incumbent on an editor wishing to change the method of citation to gain consensus here first (as pointed out in the thread below) and this is another good reason to self revert. The other changes are also designed to make the additions fit with guidelines on WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources and have been explained in the edit summary and here, so should not be labelled as vandalism. If they are not clear, I am happy to discuss them again or in more detail. I politely suggest that you self-revert, which will effectively negate the accusation. If you do that then perhaps we can move back to a productive working relationship and sort out the issues here, the place designed for resolving content disagreements and get on with improving the article.--SabreBD (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Working toward GA status

I would like to be able to nominate this article for GA review and will be working on improving it over the next few weeks. If anyone can help with copy editing or pointing to any gaps in coverage or other issues, any help would be much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Only just noticed this message - I'll give it some thought. On first read through, the article looked very good to me. Are there any sections you are keen to expand? - I can see if I can dig out more sources if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if you could just take a look at the British acts in Psychedelic rock#Development in the UK and Psychedelic rock#Peak years and see if this makes sense as a narrative or whether anything or anyone vital has been left. It is much easier to construct the US elements of the story, largely because there is just so much more written about it. Apart from that, I cannot offhand think of any sections that may need expansion. The worldwide section could probably briefly incorporate more countries if anyone has knowledge, but in the context of this sort of article, I think this is a lot more balanced than is usually the case.--SabreBD (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just reminded myself to come back to this. One point hit me about the introduction. We mention the Beatles, Byrds and Yardbirds as "pioneers", which is fair enough (though I suppose Dylan could be added there), but are we giving those bands undue weight by not mentioning the leading overtly psychedelic bands themselves in the lede? I'm sure we have our own favourites, but would it not be fair to mention, say, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, and Pink Floyd as epitomising the genre? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those "now you said it, it seems obvious" suggestions. I decided to add these plus Cream and Hendrix, which cover the blues orientated side of things. Good call.--SabreBD (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Now we just wait until everyone wants to add their favo(u)rite bands to the lede. I vote for the United States of America and H.P. Lovecraft! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

True, "a list is an invitation" on Wikipedia, but five is on the upper limit of examples so I guess we will just have to keep and eye on it: notwithstanding that there may be better examples of course.--SabreBD (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"British Invasion"

How can the term British Invasion be used in relation to Britain - "Existing British Invasion acts" sic. ? Surely it could just read "Existing British acts..."?

What I mean is you wouldn't refer to the Doors or Jefferson's activities in Haight Ashbury as American Invasion acts so why refer to British acts activities on their home turf as British Invasion, an incredibly condescending term. 85.77.25.51 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree - this is a pet peeve of mine. Unfortunately, US editors often think that they are writing for a US-only audience, for whom the "British invasion" is a meaningful and often-used term. But, it's not really much of an issue in this article. Where I did find the term used, I've added a link to the "British invasion" article, and added "scare quotes" - deliberately, because in my view the term should not be used anywhere without drawing attention to the fact that it is a totally US-centred concept. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am all in favour of the scary quotes. It is very difficult using this. The term only makes sense in a US context and lumps together very distinct types of music and acts in an unhelpful way. On the other hand it is important to understand the concept in order to appreciate why British bands had such an impact on this genre and rock music in general. So we are probably stuck with it.--SabreBD (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks quite interesting. Kudos for your improvements so far!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

"also made to trip to London" - made to trip does not make sense; maybe "made a trip", but I don't know if they made several trips, so I won't change it.

 Done

Prose overall good

I think there should be an etymology section about the term "Psychedelic". See the German article.

I am working on this. I think I have sufficient sources.--SabreBD (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also no mention of Ken Kesey and Merry Pranksters with their psychedelic bus from June 1964. They might have influenced the culture with their strange trips. See also the German article.

 Done I have built them into the origins section and picked up references later in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The German article suggests psychedelic bands were influenced by the literature of the Beat Generation, Science Fiction and Fantasy.

I notice that the German article does not have a reference for that. The Beat Generation are in the article (now a bit more prominently). I cannot find a general reference to Sci-Fi and Fantasy being a major influence and only to two isolated songs (so putting that in would probably stray into OR). It is possible that there is some confusion here with progressive rock, which emphatically did use these literary genres. Some of the bands that started as psychedelic rock in the '60s, like Pink Floyd, moved on to this, but this was the '70s and outside of the scope of this article. Something similar could be said of heavy metal and bands like Blue Oyster Cult and Led Zeppelin. Thumbing through my cds I cannot see any many references to this on psychedelic rock records. If anyone else comes up with something I am happy to put it in, but I suspect I cannot find a clear reference for a reason.--SabreBD (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Soul/R&B artists such as The Temptations, The O’Jays, The Isley Brothers, Curtis Mayfield were also influenced by psychedelic rock

 Done I added a paragraph on this and pop.--SabreBD (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What about shoegazing, gothic rock and stoner rock?

 Done I added shoegazing and stoner rock to the neo-psych section. Gothic rock is more problematic as I not aware of any reliable source that connects them (see Gothic rock#Psychedelic rock:).--SabreBD (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I added a reference for gothic rock. Woovee (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In the German article, there is a "Psychedelic Trance Rock" section, but it is completely unreferenced. Maybe you find some information

I have never heard of this. I don't read German, but this looks like Psychedelic trance, but that is not rock music, so not really appropriate in this article. It is in the more general psychedelic music article.--SabreBD (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Will re-review later--GoP_T^C_N 10:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Per Checklinks, Ref 87, 88, 136 are dead; the Kyuss biography from musicmight does not load

Resolved these issues by replacing the lost websources with others or an archived version where available. I think that covers all those source issues.--SabreBD (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

1. To Woovee: You can either fill in the references with parameters, or you can let it as is. It is not a requirement to use the cite templates.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Leading to "unstable".

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

It appears at a glance that everything's been addressed. Should the article be passed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style : template citation

See the Wikipedia:Cite, templates and particularly what is explained for "Simple citation". This is for user Sabrebd who changed the sources here for the bands, The Cure and The Glove. This must be presented in correct manual of style. I always take time to edit the sources correctly in standard presentation. So, if you could not mess my contributions, that would be fine. Woovee (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to this assertion, please note the statement at the top of Wikipedia:Citation templates, that "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus". This article has not used citation templates and I adjusted those edits to fit in with the existing style, especially since consistency may be an issue in the GA review that the article is currently undergoing. If you want to change the style of the citations then please raise the issue here first.--SabreBD (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is written : Citation |last= |first= |year= |title= |publisher= |publication-place= |page= |url= |accessdate= and here on 23 march, you erased this for several sources like The Cure and returned to the non-standard form like "author, [title], work. date and retrieved". This is not good for a GA review. Short quotes are allowed inside the citations, expecially when previous users of this page didn't take time to read sources and against logics, erased the source where as it wasn't justified. Remember that for the band Siouxsie and the banshees, you undid the quietus'source here, asserting that it does not support their inclusion where as it clearly does. One can not waste our time with users that don't even read articles correctly. So, let the short quotes : this would prevent eventual mistakes like the one you did for the Banshees--Woovee (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Current scene ("neo"-psycedelia)

as I'm sure many of you are aware, the recent underground resurgence of psychedelic music is absolutely huge, with the past couple of years producing an astonishing amount of new psych rock. Is anyone qualified to add something to that effect here? 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

Mandelbrot animation

This is an article about psychedelic rock, not psychedelia in general. The Mandelbrot animation is not relevant here as it has not relationship to music. Its last two locations also go against the MOS guideline on sandwiching of text between images (see MOS:IMAGE). The fact is that this article has just about as many images at the text can hold.--SabreBD (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychedelic drugs

The lead says "Psychedelic rock ... attempts to replicate and enhance the mind-altering experiences of psychedelic drugs." Are there sources for this? I know that psychedelic drugs and psychedelic rock are closely linked, but given that a number of psychedelic musicians did not take drugs, I wonder how accurate and helpful that closely focused statement is. This is purely anecdotal - I have not researched (came here to do that!) - but I assumed that psychedelic rock/music was the same as psychedelic drugs in that both were impacting on the mind in a way to alter consciousness. Mantras, sense deprivation, and breathing techniques can be psychedelic, but none of these are attempts to recreate drug experiences. I would accept that not all musicians were aiming for true psychedelic music - a number would be just copying what they liked, or felt was popular, and would be linking in with the drug culture rather more than the psychedelic one, and so deliberate drug references would used. It would seem to me that psychedelic rock/music might be a little vaguer and more varied than the lead would suggest. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

These are some good points. I think it is a very unmusical and vague way to attempt to define the genre. My opinion is the sentence shouldn't be allowed to keep its position in the article without sources. Toshinoukyouko (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources are in the characteristics section. Before you start deleting this definition, please come up with an alternative reliably sourced definition. It is not as easy as it looks.--SabreBD (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If I intended to personally shear off parts of the page I didn't agree with or understand I wouldn't have bothered to come to the talk page. I still think the definition is vague and relies too heavily on personal interpretation after reviewing the sources, however I agree that a different definition would be difficult to source and create, and probably be very wordy. The cases SilkTork mentioned are a minority, and the opinion I hold is most likely a minority as well. Toshinoukyouko (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I came to this page to also comment that the use of the term "replicate" came from "straight" journalists who assumed that if they heard weird sounds, then the idea was to create music that would "replicate the experience" for sober people. This idea was just part of the perspective of "straight" journalists trying to understand the counterculture.

Actually, psychedelic music was simply the music created by musicians in altered states. As such, it made sense to listeners in altered states, and just sounded weird to sober people.

No musicians ever thought that having a weird vibrato could replicate an altered state of mind.

Thus, the use of "replicate" throughout this article is just perpetuating a myth.

Anyone who thinks this is not true, should come up with interviews of Psychedelic musicians stating that they were trying to "replicate" - but I don't think those exist. 64.161.57.66 (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the definition as a definition of the term (= of that aspect of the music). I think that folks taking issue with that are presuming a further reach that isn't there.....claim of states of musicians, statements of objectives of musicians when they made music. Also don't forget, any music under this moniker also went under several other monikers......acid rock, rock (in the more specific context of that time) hard rock.So a musician would not identify with just one and say that the name defines them and their goals when making the music. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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.

The result of the discussion was: articles not merged. There is rough consensus against this proposal. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

---

I propose that acid rock be merged into psychedelic rock. I think that the content in the acid rock article can easily be explained in the context of psychedelic rock, and the psychedelic rock article is of a reasonable size that the merging of acid rock will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think there is a pretty good argument that what was acid rock morphed into heavy metal. I could dig up the sources, but if you take a glance for yourselves I think you would agree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

!Vote

• Merge - As nom; acid rock is not a sub-genre that deserves its own article. Acid rock is psychedelic rock, and the minimal distinction between the two does not justify separate articles for both. After all, what acid rock album is not also psychedelic? Also, not that Wikipedia is a reliable source, but according to the acid rock article: "The term "acid rock" is generally equivalent to psychedelic rock." If they are generally equivalent, then they should be merged into one article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Allmusic says, "Acid Rock was the heaviest, loudest variation of psychedelic rock." All acid rock was psychedelic; but not all psychedelic rock was acid rock that "relied on distorted guitars, trippy lyrics, and long jams". Likewise, Britannica refers here to - in comparison with psychedelic music more generally - "the darker, more psychotic frenzy of acid rock—characterized by overdriven guitars, amplified feedback, and droning guitar motifs influenced by Eastern music". Also here - "The latter label [acid rock] was generally applied to a pounding, hard-rock variant [of psychedelia] that evolved out of the mid-1960s garage punk movement... Although generally devoid of the studio gimmickry typifying the Beatles school of psychedelia, acid rock provided its own form of mind expansion by means of guitar pyrotechnics." The two terms are not synonymous - the addition of the sentence "The term is generally equivalent to psychedelic rock" to the acid rock article here was unsourced commentary that should really be removed. Both articles are in need of improvement and clarification, but that does not mean that they should be merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose These are somewhat about the terms and term-based genre definitions, as genres inherently are. And for genres, overlap is the norm, not a "problem" I think that both terms / genre names should have articles. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see both sides of this debate, but on balance I think there is enough reliable secondary material to keep the acid rock article as a sub-genre.--SabreBD (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: In agreement with Ghmyrtle above. As well, it is factual that there were and are other psychedelic drug categories than acid (LSD). Acid rock was music to experience while on an acid trip. Moreover, this article 'Psychedelic rock' is a Good Article. Why merge a not-so-good article into it? Psychedelic music exists as an article. Why not put Acid rock there if it needs to be merged and no longer stand alone? Fylbecatulous talk 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Merge: if there really is a distinction, Acid Rock is a sub genre or at least an out growth of psychedelic rock. Ken Kesey and Jerry Garcia would agree with me ;) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately the original meaning and popularity of the term "acid rock" has been largely forgotten as has the term itself. If you go to Google Archive from the late 60's into the early '70s you will see hundreds of articles with the term. Why? Because at the time it was used more often then psychedelic rock. If you took a trip(pun not intended) back to 1967-1971 in the USA and asked people what acid rock is most people would know and have a strong opinion about it. To the "mainstream" world it was a catch all term for any loud ear splitting rock music. The connections to LSD, the counterculture, were very important contexts but not what defined it. So the solution is to improve the acid rock article to note it's catch all meaning and popularity at that time, not to merge it.Edkollin (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2014 (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.

Surf Rock - Wasn't it a vital inspiration to psychedelic rock?

I would argue that surf music and surf rock is one of the most important stylistic origins to psychedelic rock. The surf rock was probably the first genre where several different kinds of folk music, such as Middle Eastern, Arabic, Mexican and Hawaiian was incorporated into rock music, which arguably inspired the psychedelic rock music very much. Also I've heared some psychedelic musicians who say they were inspired by surf rock, in particular Dick Dale (who made a popular surf rock version of the Greek/Middle Eastern folk song Misirlou)

Am I right about this? I would have put surf music second to rock in the list of stylistic origins, in front of blues rock and jazz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WackoPsyco69orsomething (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Only if you have reliable sources that clearly indicate that.--SabreBD (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was.Dogru144 (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Last.fm as a source

I added the edit containing The Joker (Iran, early 1970s) to the International section. This adds to the article substantively. There were Asian bands that performed in the psychedelic style. Yet, User:Sabrebd removed the material, arguing that Lastfm was an illegitimate source. Can we get this mediated? This was the text: In Iran the Jokers were a pioneering psychedelic band, drawing influence from Cream and the MC5. These were the references I gave:

• http://www.last.fm/music/Jokers
• http://progressive.homestead.com/Jokers.html

Dogru144 (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--SabreBD (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources (which are limited) indicate that the band did not have a record label, were short-lived and little known, and their only album was recorded on tape in a garage in 1972 but not released until 2011. It was not released in Iran, but by the small Western label Fading Sunshine/Strawberry Rain with limited distribution. In the circumstances it is difficult to see how the band could have been pioneering.[3], [4], [5], [6]. When entering material on Wikipedia we need reliable sources, and we need editors who say what those sources say rather than add WP:Original research/subjective opinion in the form of phrasing such as "pioneering". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Galloping Coroners into the "International Expansion" or "Influences" section

I recommend to place a mention about Hungarian Galloping Coroners to the one of this section, as an interesting derivation of P.Rock. Galloping Coroners developed an own, unique "psychedelic hardcore" style, and as they admitted, they were deeply impressed by early Pink Floyd especially by The Piper at the Gates of Dawn and early krautrock bands like Amon Düül, Ash Ra Temple, Sun Ra. Dear Editors, please check GA, and share your opinion here! Thanks, --Harom65 (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know this Galloping Coroners but i'm sure they're more important than Beatles in developing psychedelic rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.234.228.28 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Musique Concrete?

Musique concrete was definitely an inspiration on later psychedelic rock bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:4100:692C:69B7:91D3:5654:F78E (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sitar/Norwegian Wood

Ilovetopaint, can we discuss the issue here. I was all ready to ask for a third opinion, but the instructions are clear there, about the need for a talk page discussion first. I'm astounded by your latest comment, from all I've read about the reaction to "Norwegian Wood" at the time, the influence the song had on other Western musicians, and the resulting popularity that came Ravi Shankar's way (as he freely acknowledged). Back to the article (and as mentioned in a couple of my edits/reverts), specifically under Characteristics: "Major features [of psychedelic rock] include … non-Western instruments, specifically those originally used in Indian classical music such as the sitar and tabla." So how, would you say, can a mention that the first released recording with an Indian sitar part, played by a Western rock musician (separate from the point that other bands had tried to imitate the sound) not merit inclusion? JG66 (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It does merit inclusion. What doesn't merit inclusion (in the body of the article) is that a Beatles film happened to have a sitar on it which then reappeared in a novelty track included on the American edition of Help!. You're overrating the importance of it being a real sitar. Psyche rock was never about using particular instruments, just the sounds of those instruments. If the Kinks and the Yardbirds had a rock record out that sounded like "Indian rock" with guitars that imitated and resembled sitars – and sitars had already been used in Western popular music for several years – what importance then does the sitar on Help! have? If the section is going to get that much into detail over sitars, then everything written in Sitar in popular music and Sitar in jazz that predates Help should also be acknowledged.

Here are the two things that made "Norwegian Wood" different from anything that preceded it:

1. It was a rock song that had a real sitar.
2. It led to an increased interest in Indian music.

There's nothing more to say about the Beatles' associations with the sitar (in reference to psyche rock). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I said, remove the mention of Ken Thorne/Help! – it was only there to qualify the point in the context of the Beatles discussion, that Indian instrumentation had appeared in their work beforehand.

But the rest of what you're saying sounds like your interpretation, and nothing more. You say the importance of a real sitar on "Norwegian Wood" is overrated; "Psyche rock was never about using particular instruments, just the sounds of those instruments." Again, compare that with the text where it says "Major features [of psychedelic rock] include … non-Western instruments, specifically those originally used in Indian classical music such as the sitar and tabla." No mention there that it's only the sounds of those instruments that matters.

I don't see what the likes of Sitar in jazz has got to do with this. The Beatles are afforded a presence in this article, under Emergence (Bud Shank, Tommy Scott aren't). In that discussion of the Beatles, guitar feedback on "I Feel Fine" is mentioned – no one would say it's a psychedelic rock song, but the relevance is that it contains feedback, consistent with the first characteristic of the genre. I added mention of "Ticket to Ride", which again, is not regarded as a psychedelic rock song, but it fits the context, and the genre characteristics, due to the drug influence and drone aspect. Backwards sounds on "Rain" also (the second characteristic in the bullet list). But sitar, real sitar, on "Norwegian Wood", why are you feeling the need to qualify that point with caveats about the Kinks and the Yardbirds? They've got nothing to do with an overview of the Beatles' role in the emergence of the genre, although they most certainly deserve some coverage along with the Byrds. When it comes to the importance of Indian instrumentation in psychedelic rock (per Characteristics), the Beatles also introduced tabla, swarmandal, shenhai, dilruba and more. I don't imagine you'd be seeing this as off-topic for a moment if it were the Beach Boys. JG66 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think the Help trivia must be mentioned then I have no idea what you're arguing for at this point. You're still talking about how important it is to mention "Norwegian Wood" as the first rock song to use sitar? Okay... I agree with that. So the current revision is fine, isn't it?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I confess I must've posted here having read the comment with your 18:48 edit but not the content of that edit. I apologise for that, but I was concerned about your interpretation of psyche rock when the genre's characteristics clearly include sitar and tabla (the real deal). JG66 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum – and this is a issue that was raised above almost 3 years ago – there must be a hell of a lot more to be added to this article about the influence of bands like the Ventures than there is to add little trivia like "Oh, by the way, some psychedelic rock has a sitar in it, and the Beatles happened to be in a movie that had a sitar in it. When they issued the soundtrack in America, George Martin included an idiosyncratic Indian arrangement of the title track to give a nod to that one scene. Isn't that a fun fact?" As if somebody is supposed to read that info and believe that British teenagers heard the track, took it seriously, and then kept it in mind when they went on to play in the London underground clubs of '66.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What? JG66 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Excessive tag bombing

I object to the tag bombing that disfigured the article. A section or overall article tag would be more appropriate. If the tagger has time to identify all the areas they find objectionable, they have time to fix the article to their liking, not just walk away, leaving an unencyclopedic mess. Jusdafax 09:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree, it is really over the top and unclear what on earth the problems are.--SabreBD (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto from me. The third para under 1967–69: Peak years is a joke – in that it turns Wikipedia into a joke. The tagging should be done with some attempt at discretion without bombarding the reader. If editors want to treat an article as their personal work-in-progress, they should work on it in their sandbox (and most editors do). JG66 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "unclear what on earth the problems are"
  "If the tagger has time to identify all the areas they find objectionable, they have time to fix the article to their liking"
  "The tagging should be done with some attempt at discretion without bombarding the reader."
  

You fellows are all aware that {{elucidate}} has a "reason" parameter, and that it has been used in this case? No, I don't have time to listen to every single one of those albums and Google the hell out of them to find if there is any one thing that it did for the genre. The section reads like a recommendations list of albums somebody thought was "cool" or important to mention. It fails to explain why any of them are important with regards to "psychedelic rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the significance is clear. Phrases like "introduced" are a clue here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That appears once. For the Small Faces. I left it alone.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify WP:UNDUE

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

The following albums are mentioned:

• Their Satanic Majesties Request
• The Piper at the Gates of Dawn.
• Fairport Convention
• S.F. Sorrow
• Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake

None of the text elaborates upon these examples other than to say "they exist". Thus, further explanation is needed. Did they actually develop the genre? I'm not sure. I don't think so. Some of these are nice albums, indeed, but what did they do that was different from their predecessors? I'd rather have left it up for someone else to figure out.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Piper is by far the most important album of british psychedelia. Some of the other mentioned are fairly important, but sure not milestones. The first Fairport Convention album is hardly noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.88.53.150 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Beatles

Beatles are irrilevant on this page, you should remove it. They didn't influence psychedelic music, they didn't make psychedelic music, let alone art/avant/prog music. They only influenced Coldplay and Oasis. --151.51.124.56 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an opinion that virtually nobody holds.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The Beatles, Lennon in particular, were as important in the creation of psychedelic rock/pop as any other players.Learner001 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dylan psychedelic?

It's irrelevant that I'm a "fan" of Dylan, but I take issue with putting any of his material into the "psychedelic" category, as it contains none of the key elements. I contend that nothing other than perhaps a passing mention in terms of "influence" is warranted. Whomever supports the concept that Dylan's music was in any way "psychedelic", I ask in GF that you substantially elaborate. Best wishes!Learner001 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it claim that Dylan was psychedelic.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dylan is relevant to the lyrical content of much psychedelic music, folk, rock, pop, skronk or otherwise. I'm also pretty sure every Dylan reference relates to his lyrical content, not to his music, though he did have a few near-psych moments. Morgan johndavid (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Beatles

pls remove beatles from this page5.88.53.150 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto from me: why? The Beatles did a huge amount to popularise psychedelic rock – their records sold millions. Not only that but many of their psyche rock songs (e.g. Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields, It's All Too Much, I Am the Walrus) were pretty groundbreaking. JG66 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Then it makes absolutely no sense to delete them.--SabreBD (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

While it may be overkill to delete the Beatles content, and I wouldn't want to trample on the edits and additions of others, I would certainly point out that the Yardbirds are easily ahead of the Beatles in the transformation of British beat music to psychedelic rock. It is a stretch to mention "the drone" of "Ticket to Ride" when "For Your Love" predates the Beatles single by two months in 1965 and was a No. 1 hit. "Heart Full of Soul" was a No 2. hit in summer of 1965 (both top 10 hits in the US.) While the drone on "Ticket to Ride" is a minor element of psychedelic rock as defined, and the harpsichord of "For Your Love" is one element, "Heart Full of Soul" has many of the elements listed at the head of the section: fuzztone guitar using the first fuzz box built by Roger Mayer (owned by Jimmy Page, played by Jeff Beck) a tone bender to augment the sitar like sound, tabla drums, and an inventive "round-up" bridge imitating the American West themes of the TV shows so popular in the 1960s. Psychedelia was in essence a world music, and the Yardbirds were certainly exemplifying and pioneering the genre. No, there is no sitar on the track, but that's because they told the sitar player to go home -- the Yardbirds had Jeff Beck. They kept the tabla player, obviously. It's fair to mention the sitar on "Norwegian Wood", but isn't NW better defined as "psychedelic British folk" song? And even at that it is only a "one element" psych song. This is the Psychedelic Rock article and the Beatles are being given too much credit in the "precursors and influences" section. I propose mentioning Rubber Soul but would be quick to add that the Yardbirds were well ahead of them in sowing those seeds, so I propose changes there to include other pioneers such as the Yardbirds, who certainly did more than the Beatles and had a string of top 10 hits doing it.

Yes, the Yardbirds are mentioned with the Ritchie Unterberger quote, yet editors here have then laid in a list of the Beatles accomplishments which appear argumentative, leaving Unterberger to stand as something of a lone wolf opinion. I'm sure you realize that Unterberger is not alone by any means - rock biographer Martin Power credits the Yardbirds with inventing psychedelic rock, then blasting it into the stratosphere by the fall of 1966. AllMusic's Bruce Eder calls the 1965 hit "Still I'm Sad" proto-pyschedelia. No less a writer than Lester Bangs credits the Yardbirds with "blowing everybody off the tracks" in 1965 with the single "I'm A Man", released in the U.S.-only and gloriously ripped off by the Count Five for "Psychotic Reaction". Of course by then the Grateful dead are already having acid shows in San Francisco. There are sources far more notable than mic.com that cite the Dead's drop-acid shows as being the first of their kind, when the Beach Boys and Beatles were still churning out bubblegum pop.

The Yardbirds had a string of six consecutive Top 10 psychedelic hits in the UK and in the US between March of 1965 and May of 1966. In October of 1965 we find the Yardbirds expanding the world music of psychedelic pop-rock by chanting like Gregorian monks on "Still I'm Sad" the double A-side w/ "Evil Hearted You"; and then comes the monumental "Shapes of Things" in February 1966 during those three months the Beatles were on their break. While the early British efforts probe into the realm of psychedelia and had some of the elements, "Shapes of Things" has them all, complete with anti-war pro-environment lyric and a guitar solo like nothing anybody had ever heard before, with Beck imitating the bombing runs of US fighter planes over Vietnam. The B-side, "Mister You're a Better Man Than I" has another social protest lyric and another searing proto-psych metal guitar solo, this time to a raga beat. So by the beginning of 1966, the Yardbirds have surpassed all psych efforts by British rock bands and had preceded the raga beat on the Byrds controversial "Eight Miles High" in March, which was delayed in UK until May (due to censorship r.e. the supposed drug reference lyrics). The Beatles response to all this was the decidedly NOT-psychedelic "Paperback Writer" and the B-side "Rain", the answer song to "Eight Miles High." With "Rain" the Beatles had finally planted both feet in the new psychedelic rock genre, but the song was recorded in April, two months after the Yardbirds single and a full month after "Eight Miles High" was released in the US. "Eight Miles High" was being pulled from the shelves of American record stores before the Beatles even went into the studio. In the UK, "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" hit the charts on 30 May 1966 one day after "Eight Miles High", presenting to British music fans an illusion that was already six weeks old in the US. The Stones had "Mother's little Helper" and "Paint it Black" on the UK charts before "Rain" and the radio stations were finally playing "Pushin' too Hard" by the Seeds, which spent 11 weeks on the charts in the spring of 1966. Unlike the Yardbirds Top 10 hits, Pushin' Too Hard is a minor hit despite its longevity on the charts.

Furthermore: To mention the feedback on "I Feel Fine" on record in relation to Jeff Beck is a bit quaint don't you think? It is argumentative and is the kind of thing that cracks people like Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page up - what is it, one second of feedback? There's no reason to give a nod to the Beatles there. The Yardbirds were producing feedback on a regular basis during their legendary rave-ups dating back to 1964, and after Beck joined they had the early experimental fuzz pedals on hand thanks to their pal Page (who also played on Beatles, Kinks, Who, Them and countless other British beat records during this transformational period of British rock). I haven't made additions or changes yet but when I do will certainly respect the content already here -- but first I look forward to hearing some feedback here. Morgan johndavid (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you talk about "argumentative" edits, but you seem to have quite an agenda there! By all means, there should be more on the Yardbirds if sources see it that way – I don't think any of us would argue with that. As far as coverage of the Beatles goes, Unterberger does credit them with introducing feedback and the sitar to rock, and they also came up with the first pop/rock recording with backwards tapes or sounds – all of which are important elements of what became psychedelic rock. Of course, feedback was being created on stage by the Who (which is where Lennon acknowledged he got the idea), the Yardbirds, and no doubt many other bands overloading their guitar amps at that time. Similarly, Indian-inspired drone was on almost everyone's mind from early '65, whether they were looking to achieve it through imitation, on guitar, or more authentically, by using sitar or tambura. But in this context, it's about what the sources recognise as significant. (e.g., who gives a crap what Beck and Page happen to crack up laughing about?)

I'm probably the one you're referring to with regard to adding Beatles-related content. I'm sure some of it could go, but a) my additions were really aimed at addressing what I saw as an imbalance (say, with coverage given to the Beach Boys, such as mention of Brian Wilson first taking LSD), and b) many sources do highlight the importance of the Beatles' recordings. If we're going to cut down the scope of "Precursors and influences", generally, then fine, but if it's some arbitrary removal of most-things-Beatles, I don't believe that's right at all. More than anything, we've got to adhere to what the majority of reliable sources say: if the arrows point towards the importance of the Beatles and the Beach Boys on the development of the genre, then we follow suit. To repeat, more on the Yardbirds would be welcome. But (and this applies to your posts below), where you're wanting to reduce the Beatles coverage, as a rule, you do seem to be wanting to introduce a narrative of "Yardbirds, Yardbirds, YARDBIRDS!" (rah-rah-rah) JG66 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Beatles contribution to psychedelic rock is significant, but they don't full jump into the genre until they release "Rain" on 30 May 1966, the day after "Eight Miles High" and 17 days after "Paint it Black". Quite the month for psychedelic rock in the UK! Broader discussion of Norwegian Wood would be better for the psychedelic folk page, imo. Revolver was the biggest selling psych album of 1966, hands down, that could be made clear. I think Eleanor Rigby is psych rock but on its wiki page it is identified as "baroque pop" or something. "Symphonic pop" maybe? I'm not anti-Beatles, just wanting their psych rock emphasis to occur on the right timeline.

My agenda on the talk page is to present as much information as possible so edits can be considered with all of the information. Of course I'm a Yardbirds freak, but I don't want to spin the article away from the neutral facts or turn it into the Yardbirds page. I do think Roger McGuin nicked Eight Miles High from Yardbirds' "Mister ..." but that isn't the kind of thing to add to the article. I do have a bigger issue with some of the Beach Boys content, which should be deleted, imo. We also have things in the article such as mentioning "Psychotic Reaction" as the first big psych hit and then a sentence later that says The Beach Boys and the Beatles had "the only psych hits of 1966". Neither of those statements are factual, and they contradict each other. Those are the kinds of things that I hope can be cleaned up. The Unterberger quote is misapplied - he's not talking about the Byrds at all in the quote, just the Yardbirds there. I think there's a way to talk about the Yardbirds and Beatles and other British bands beginning to experiment in 1965 with things like the harpsichord, the hum on "Ticket", the tabla and eastern vibe on "HFOS", the Kinks first use of the sitar etc. by being all-inclusive about it. The "psychedelic scenes" section could be expanded, etc. Morgan johndavid (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that they popularised psych rock, doesn't make them psych rock musicians. In Italy Giovanni Allevi popularized classical music, this doesn't make him a classical composer.

Most of that weren't psychedelic songs, in fact they were pop ditties with psychedelic studio effect, which is very different. Very few of them meets the requirements and anyway they didn't break new ground at all. Their contribution to the history of psych rock is very little, they contribution to it's development is inexistent. But it seems they are the band that is named more often in this page. Bands that have given much more considerable effort are not even mentioned.

Too bad most of the sources on which Wikipedia rely for rock music are written for the purpose of selling more records, not giving accurate informations. 5.88.53.150 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction: they were pop rock ditties. What specific bands gave "much more considerable effort"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Yardbirds, certainly. And the Byrds. See above note Morgan johndavid (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

...If you ask me, I would have said there were a ton of garage/surf/freak scenes between 1961–65 that set the stage for psyche rock. But nobody seems to ever trace psychedelia that far. I've looked. People who write about this topic do tend to skew it in favor of pop groups after '66. I believe this is because "psychedelic rock" is too loose of a term. Its scope is usually limited to jammy hard rock from 1967–69 rather than a style of rock music that evokes a kind of dissociation. This chapter is the most lucid piece of academia I've ever found on "psychedelic music". Of course, one way to evoke "dissociation" is to enact on tape what you can't in real life. For that, people like the Beatles and the Beach Boys were hugely important. But maybe not as important as Joe Meek, Les Paul, or Phil Spector.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

quoting: "...If you ask me, I would have said there were a ton of garage/surf/freak scenes between 1961–65 that set the stage for psyche rock. But nobody seems to ever trace psychedelia that far. I've looked. People who write about this topic do tend to skew it in favor of pop groups after '66. I believe this is because "psychedelic rock" is too loose of a term. Its scope is usually limited to jammy hard rock from 1967–69 rather than a style of rock music that evokes a kind of dissociation"

i agree "psychedelic rock" is too lose of a term, but i believe there are some certain key points in it's history that denote some specific innovations in playing and songwriting. Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Doors, 13th Floor Elevators, Red Crayola, Velvet Underground, Silver Apples and early Pink Floyd were really groundbreaking. The few Beatles songs that fit into the psychedelic rock genre pales in comparison with them and also with countless other not so groundbreaking musicians that were still able to cut real psychedelic records (Love, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Deviants, Hawkwind, etc.)

Beach Boys are even less relevant in this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.88.53.150 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that the Beach Boys and the Beatles' innovative recordings predate those by every single one of the bands you listed? lol. Be specific: what "playing and songwriting" are you talking about? None of those guys (with the exceptions of Elevators and Airplane) had a record out until 1967. And none of it was really "groundbreaking" as far as I can tell.

Again The Yardbirds are the band you're looking for. The harpsichord on "For Your Love" certainly fits the "one element of psych" mode that you have rightly identified. The hum on "Ticket to Ride" and the sitar on "Norwegian Wood" also falls into this "one element" mode. "For Your Love" came first - March 1965. "Ticket" is in April. Then comes the next big step on 4 June - "Heart Full of Soul", first British rock attempt with a sitar and tabla. The sitar was rejected in favor of Jeff Beck's fuzz box/tone bender guitar line. "Heart Full of Soul" also has an old American West "round-up" for the bridge for the third element. It was a No. 2 hit in UK and top 10 in US, introducing the masses to the Eastern sounds of psychedelia. All that's really missing are some truly psych lyrics.

Then in October 1965 comes "Still I'm Sad", the Yardbirds double-A side with "Evil Hearted You," which is hauntingly pscyh itself and hints at a noise aesthetic. But "Still I'm Sad" is undeniable psych, the first hit written by the Yardbirds themselves and featuring the band chanting like Gregorian monks over a hypnotic trance beat. We're still in 1965 and the Yardbirds have used a harpsichord, tabla drums, introduced the eastern sound, the "round-up" later turned into a hit by the Seeds, slammed echo-laden noise chords, introduced a new standard of guitar playing throughout and chanted like Gregorian monks to expand their world psychedelic pop. That's before we talk about "I'm A Man", the US-only single that set the world of mid-1960s garage rock on fire.

In the words of the late Lester Bangs, the cutting edge rock writer of the 1970s, "the Yardbirds came stampeding in and blew everybody off the tracks" and when they made the Top 10 with "I'm A Man", a mixture of Bo Diddley and feedback, 'everybody just blew their wads and flopped over ..." Of course, the Count Five ripped it off for their big hit "Psychotic Reaction" and that was just the beginning. All of this happened in 1965, so by the time we get to December of '65 and the sitar on "Norwegian Wood" a one-element-of-psych folk rock single, the gauntlet has already been written in the top 10 by the Yardbirds.

We get to 1966 and "The Sounds of Silence", "Shapes of Things" and "Eight Miles High are hits in the first three months of 1966 and the Seeds were trying real hard to establish "Pushing Too Hard," the single from 1965 that had been largely ignored outside of California. This is all happening before the Beatles go into the studio to respond to "Eight Miles High", a song not about drugs but the rainy English weather and the lousy welcome they received from Brit bands afraid of "losing their ground". We finally get to "Rain", released on May 30. By then Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page had already recorded "Beck's Bolero" and the Yardbirds had recorded the Roger the Engineer album and the Stones had "Paint it Black" at the top of the chartw and 'Eight Miles High" banned from record stores chains and radio because of its drug aura. That's a whole world of psychedelic rock before the Beatles plant both feet in the genre with "Rain" and the Revolver tracks "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "She Said". Some major additions and changes are warranted on this page, certainly in the 1965 and 1966 sections. Morgan johndavid (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

"Psychedelic" music was more or less fully formed in '65 and, apparently, it wouldn't be until '66 when anybody recorded anything that really fit the style. All you had was obscure garage rock and weirdly produced top 40 pop rock singles, like the #1 hit "This Diamond Ring" (issued January 1965, definitely would have been labelled "psychedelic pop" if it came out 2 years later). When psychedelic users started to produce top 40 pop rock songs about drugs is when the genre really came into its own.

How much farther out did anyone go "psychedelically" after 5th Dimension, Pet Sounds, Psychedelic Sounds, Revolver, and "Psychotic Reaction"? You can find one or more of every characteristic listed here in those works. Other bands recorded just as iconic songs or albums after 1966, but they can't be accounted for in the article unless somebody somewhere has actually written "[album(s) and/or song(s)] are considered significant to psyche rock". And if you're so confident that they were important, then it should be easy for you to Google a source. (WP:PROVEIT)

My opinion: all I can think of that made '67 a different year from '66 in psychedelic music was that all these former garage bands took a hint from Pet Sounds and Revolver and decided to go beyond 3 chords. And that's proto-prog influencing psychedelic rock, when you really think about it. Piper is art/avant rock fused with psyche rock. And weren't the Velvets anti-psychedelic?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously a waste of time talking to someone who believes that Beach Boys and Beatles were more groundbreaking than, for example, Silver Apples just because they cut their "innovative" records earlier. --5.88.53.150 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Beach Boys were recording and releasing psychedelic rock songs with electronic oscillators a year before the Silver Apples were even formed. Who is wasting their time here? Again, what "ground" did they break exactly? If you can't be specific, then maybe you don't know as much about the subject as you think you do? Just a thought.

I know what the Silver Apples did. But how does it relate to psych rock? Is it because of how they used electronics? In what way, exactly? Remember that The United States of America came out a few months earlier and charted higher. It also sounds way more like conventional psyche rock.

I think the Apples are more relevant to the subject of electronic music. Their debut has more in common with krautrock or "proto-acid house" than it does psychedelic rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You said that "psychedelic rock" is a loose term. Inclusion in a music genre also comes from the historical and cultural context. The United States of America is a good record, probably more "art" than "psych", but it would deserve a mention, more or less like it does Frank Zappa's debut which came much earlier. Actually the fact that it sounds more conventional makes it less interesing to me. I think that this page would be more exhaustive if it would mention those less conventional records that pushed forward the evolution of the genre, than those hundreds of conventional records that sounded more or less the same, or worse, a selection of those conventional records that happened to top the charts with very conservative and traditional songs plus a few utterly naive experiments like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and such. --5.88.53.150 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at it like this: did any of these people redefine the parameters of "psychedelic rock" as a perceptible genre? In other words, were they working in a unique, "groundbreaking" style that was subsequently picked up by a wave of psyche rock groups? If not, you can hardly say that they influenced the genre in any meaningful way. All they did was create a new type of music that merely contained influences from psychedelia. While those records may have very well been exciting, new, and influential in their own right, it doesn't mean that they influenced the psychedelic genre or were prominent within the movement.

A distinction is made when a significant number of psychedelic groups build upon those innovations. This is why Beach Boys/Beatles/Byrds are given so much attention, because so many psyche rock musicians heard what they did and proceeded to imitate them (or at least made recordings that otherwise would not have existed).

Being "different" or "unconventional" is not what psychedelic music is. If it were, then all avant-garde music would be "psychedelic". Unorthodox pop/rock records are relevant to experimental pop and experimental rock. Those are the articles where you'll find coverage on Floyd, Mothers, Velvets, Fugs, Doors, et. al.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure Byrds (and many others, included Beatles) were heavily influenced by Beach Boys, but i don't think this makes Beach Boys a psych band. Byrds took non-psych influences (Beach Boys, Bob Dylan) and turned them into a psychedelic form of music (Elevators were influenced by Howlin' Wolf, this doesn't make him a psych musician).

But which are the "so many" psyche rock musicians that imitated the Beatles? I probably can't name any of them. Psychedelic rock was already full of eastern-sounding music and drug-related lyrics way before the harmonic bungle of "Within You Without You" and the silly semi-explicit reference to hallucinogens of "Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds". Their relevance to the topic has much more with popularizing the genre to a wider audience, than influencing other artists.

You don't have to be a psych band to have at least one psychedelic-tinged single that made a big impact. Regarding Beatles imitators, (purely) rock musicians began taking the "studio as an instrument" approach only after the advent of Pet Sounds and Revolver. And how can "popularizing the genre" be less notable than "influencing other artists"? They mean almost the same thing. Take Sgt. Pepper for example: the album isn't prog rock, but if it wasn't the massive commercial success it was, prog rock as we know it would not have existed.

I can recall someone claiming that Syd Barrett's dream was to "be like John Lennon". I can't think of any others off the top of my head. But seeing as how much Pet Sounds and the Beatles' 1965–67 work were raved upon release, it is very hard to believe that they weren't a huge influence on many.

This is all besides the point anyway. The main point is: to what extent was [record] influential? In what respect was [record] innovative? To what degree was [record] popular? Those are the questions that need to asked before you can definitively state "[artist] was more important to psyche rock than the Beatles". According to most people, "Eight Miles High", Pet Sounds, and Psychedelic Sounds (March–August 1966) were among the earliest psyche rock recordings, period. "Psychotic Reaction" (July 1966) was the first commercially successful psyche rock recording. "Strawberry Fields Forever" (February 1967) unleashed a wave of "pastoral" or "nostalgic" psychedelia. "Itchycoo Park" (1967) was the first example of phasing on a psyche rock recording. Details like these are important. If you're unable to claim anything similar for other artists while providing a source, then neither can the article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant argument about the context of art/prog rock

Being popular and being influential are different things. Beatles popularized rock among that audience that eventually turned into Michael Jackson and Madonna, Frank Zappa's audience was the people who pioneered progressive rock. If Sgt. Peppers didn't got so much popular, prog rock would have sounded exactly the same, if anyone said it different it was just a marketing campaign. Go in a room with a mirror, start singing "When I'm 64" while watching yourself and after that try to convince yourself that it was influcential for prog rock. If you can't, i believe there is nothing wrong with you, probably the sources you are trusting are wrong.

George Martin used the studio like an instrument before he started working with the Beatles. Joe Meek did it even earlier. I doubt anyway this can be considered half as important to the development of prog rock as the Grateful Dead's jams, the Frank Zappa's operas, or the Procol Harum's arrangements. I doubt that music is less important than the studio technique that is used to achieve it. If the smartest studio technique of all time is used to produce "When I'm 64" or "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" i don't believe it was influential for prog rock.

I believe that the key innovations for the psyche and prog rock music are quite easy to hear, sources tells a different story, but this sources are as much reliable as tv commercials. --5.88.53.150 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If Sgt. Pepper's wasn't a commercial smash, record labels would not have funded any of the classic 1970s prog albums we know today. In Top 40 music, being popular means what kind of music labels would pay for, and ultimately, what most people get to hear. Thus, it's not necessarily a question of whether prog would have sounded the same, it's if it would have even existed. The Beatles have a similar (but significantly more involved) relationship with psychedelic rock. Also, when people talk about Sgt. Pepper's contributions to art/prog rock, they're clearly talking about tracks like "Reprise"/"A Day in the Life", "Lovely Rita", and "Within You Without You", not "When I'm 64".

"I believe that the key innovations for the psyche ... rock music are quite easy to hear"

Yes, it's so obvious, that's why nobody in the last 40 years seems to have written about it. Not in any journal, book, magazine, newspaper, or web article. The media is clearly bought by EMI and Capitol.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

1) How do you know that if Sgt. Pepper's wasn't a commercial success labels would not have founded any the 70's prog classics? To simple logic, i would draw that conclusion if Sgt. Pepper's somehow predated some of the prog rock music contents, which couldn't be more far from reality.

2) "Reprise/A Day in the Life", "Lovely Rita", "Within You Without You" doesn't belong to art-rock at all.

3) Did you read all journal, book, magazine, newspaper and web article in the world? --5.88.53.150 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

1. It is conventional wisdom. See Progressive rock#Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's. At the time, labels would fund artists hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds) to noodle around in a studio for several hours and try to create something amazing and "progressive". Sgt. Pepper was one out of only a handful that ever turned out a profit, and boy did it. Albums like Song Cycle, Begin, and Would You Believe failed miserably. You really think they were going to keep funding those types of artistic indulgences forever?

2. Okay, if you say so. You are definitely in the minority.

3. No, but Google has quite a few of them up for grabs. Allan Moore has recently published some things that are worthy for the article. He's much clearer about the subject than you have been. I trust his word.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

" You really think they were going to keep funding those types of artistic indulgences forever?" Labels kept funding musicians (like Michale Jackson or Madonna) a lot of money because they could make high profit with them. This is probably also thanks to Sgt. Pepper's, still don't see any relationship with progressive rock. Sgt. Pepper's is a huge example of faux-art (pretending to be art-rock while playing mellow pop music) while in the same years real artists were composing rock music with an inspiration and artistic consciousness that the Beatles weren't even able to immagine. Among those who crafted that songs, the man that comes closest to be an artist was George Martin. --93.66.143.166 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No more comments from me: this conversation stopped being about how the article can be improved and more about a millennial rockist attempting to discredit some of the most important and widely influential rock albums to ever incorporate avant-garde and experimental influences ("A Day in the Life"? "Mellow pop music"? lol).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)