Talk:American popular music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleAmerican popular music was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
September 18, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
October 1, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 30, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 14, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


"British bands like the Sex Pistols and The Clash found short-lived fame at home and, to a lesser degree, in the United States" "Short-lived fame" please. You can't deny that these bands assumed their legendary status in music, and are still INCREDIBLY famous. Even if you don't like them. Please change this.

Also this article could use heaps of pictures from other articles, one picture to describe each scene/era would be enough.

new opening?[edit]

Hi Tuf-Kat I'd like to suggest simply one paragraph at the opening:

From its roots in West African and European folk traditions, American popular music has developed into a rich variety of styles over the last 200 years, which have had a profound effect on music across the world, particularly since the introduction of recorded music and broadcasting. These styles include ragtime, blues, jazz, rock, R & B, doo wop, gospel, soul, funk, heavy metal, punk, disco, house, techno, salsa, grunge and hip hop, and numerous, less familiar regional styles, such as zydeco, klezmer and slack-key. The genius of these styles lies in their supple, energetic rhythms, their appealing vocal lines, and in many cases their symbolic associations with the plight of the underprivileged.

Tony 05:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Lead section recommends three paragraphs for an article of this size. If you really think the second paragraph should be removed, I could live with that, but the lead should be a concise summary of the rest of the article. So I think it's important to give a broad introduction to the field. Tuf-Kat 05:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but I'd recommend chucking the second and third. Let me read the article again. Is the last sentence of the proposed first para OK (I just conjured it up, wondering whether it's correct).Tony 06:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I squished together the last two paragraphs into one, removed the second and added a slightly revised sentence -- I thought it was POV, but decided it works if "genius" is switched to "appeal". Tuf-Kat 06:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first sentence doesn`t make sense..American popular music " had " influenced ... ? It may just be a typo but if it`s not it needs to be backed up with a timeframe related to exactly when American music started and stopped being influential..this seems like an obvious mistake..the word should be changed to has shouldn`t it? (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian contemporary[edit]

"Grant would later produce CCM's first #1 pop hit ("Baby Baby"), and CCM's best-selling album (Heart In Motion)."

I remember that when "Baby Baby" came out, there was quite a stink in the CCM community. Is this really considered a CCM song? There are no lyrics that refer to anything religious. On a related note, the new additions to the article need to be sourced; this is a FA candidate, and it can't stand for just random additions at this point. BrianSmithson 11:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC) --Tuf-Kat 02:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article suffers from being based on the premise that "the roots of popular American music lie in the early 20th century." In fact, American popular music of the 20th century derives in a straight line from that of the 19th century. I've tried to tweak things here and there, but the article is so unbalanced and shows such a lack of awareness of many major trends in American popular music that mere tweaking doesn't help much. A secondary problem is that the article is almost exclusively concerned with recorded music.


The last subject says Present day, but doesn't reference much at all about like 2002-2007, which has different popular music than grunge. mostly rap/hip-hop i would say but someone more educated on the subject should add in stuff about how rap has been the favorite of most people followed by like emo/power pop/punk (fall out boy, panic at the disco, cute is what we aim for, motion city soundtrack)

GA On hold[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps. In reviewing the article against the Good article criteria, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I am giving seven days for improvements to be made.

  • The Paul Whiteman photo has no fair use rationale.

If issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it will be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, T Rex | talk 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image was removed by me, so the article keeps its GA status. T Rex | talk 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smaller font for references[edit]

Is it possible to put smaller font for references?--Vojvodaen (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Because the Night - Patti Smith.ogg[edit]

The image File:Because the Night - Patti Smith.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References/notes need cleanup[edit]

The References and Notes are poorly formatted, often do not have page numbers, and are not numbered. They do not follow WP:RS and WP:CITE, as it is not possible for the reader to consult the page of the reference source to check the veracity of the citation. I can't figure out the citation method(s) being used here. The numbers that are there do not seem to match and are not in order. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward T. "Eddie" King[edit]

Contrary to statements introduced in several 25 October 2010 edits of the article for which this is the discussion page, Edward T. King and Eddie King are indeed one and the same person. Furthermore, King left The Victor Talking Machine Company in 1926, two years before it became RCA Victor, so he was not an "RCA Victor" A&R executive.

According to Gracyk[1], after having been with Columbia, King joined Zon-o-phone in 1905 and became Zon-o-phone's A&R manager and musical director of performances and then "began to work regularly in Victor's New York studio after Victor stopped the operation of its Zon-o-phone subsidiary in 1912."

About mid-1915, King, manager of Victor's Foreign Department at the time, hired Nathaniel Shilkret to work for him as conductor and arranger at Victor, and, in his autobiography, Shilkret[2] lists the Victor Talking Machine A&R committee as consisting of Harry MacDonugh (chairman), Eddie King, Shilkret, R. P. Wielage, Porter, and Davis. Shilkret cites King as the A&R man responsible for bringing Kate Smith to Victor.

King left Victor at the end of 1926 to go back to Columbia, and his position as Victor's Director of Light Music was filled by Shilkret.Niel Shell (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC), grandson and archivist of Nathaniel ShilkretReply[reply]


  1. ^ Gracyk, Tim with Frank Hoffman, Popular American Recording Pioneers: 1895--1925, Haworth Press, New York, 2000, pp. 153, 227--229, 299, 349.
  2. ^ Shilkret, Nathaniel, ed. Shell, Niel and Barbara Shilkret, Nathaniel Shilkret: Sixty Years in the Music Business, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, Maryland, 2005, p.36, 47 and 95. ISBN 0810851288

File:Old folks at home sample.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Old folks at home sample.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American popular music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:American popular music/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
This the first time I've ever commented on a Wiki article. I'm a non-technical person interested in greater appreciation of the popular music that I listen to. Although it is over my head I'm happy with both the names of artists and the technical description of the various styles. What is missing for me, which really weakens the article examples of songs which I can listen to which illustrate musically in sound what Wiki says in words. A typical example of the section "1950s and 60s" my way would devote as much space to names of songs that best illustrate the topic as is now done for names of articles and description of music technical devices. Three pronged, not two. This song addition could either be within the section, or better still in a list of songs for all the sections as a section of its own at the end. That way I could listen to each song in turn while reading the section again. Briefly annoted would be nice as to why pick this song, what is in the song that makes it fit the section description.

Last edited at 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American popular music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article[edit]

This article does an excellent job of treating a complex subject in a reasonable amount of space, hitting a lot of important points, and without getting bogged down in endless minutiae (like the 100 different varieties of Metal, for example...).

It also illustrates the arch-like progression of the history of popular music over the 20th century: simple roots with a few predominant styles; innovation and new developments every 10-15 years or so; the explosion of innovation in the 1950s-1970s; and the tapering off back to a few predominant styles in recent decades.

Might be worth mentioning something about this progression in the article. Surely by now someone has written on the topic, so as to avoid the "original research" bugaboo? (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American popular music[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted -- Clear consensus the article is far from meeting the GA criteria. Femke (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

43 citation needed tags by my count. Needs a lot of improvement to sourcing to stay a good article. (t · c) buidhe 13:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It has been proposed that American pop be merged into this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. There is nothing at American pop that cannot be covered better in this, much longer, article. The two cover the same topic - the shorter article should redirect here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]