Talk:Garage rock

Current size of article

I thought I'd ask everyone (Fylbecatulous, Curly Turkey, Ilovetopaint, Ghmyrtle, Sabrebd, Ian Rose, Laser brain, Softlavender, Binksternet, Carptrash, TheGracefulSlick, Montanabw, George Ho, and anyone else interested) to let me know how you feel about where the article currently stands in terms of size. Do you feel that the article is now at a point of manageable size? I realize that there are some who would like to see it smaller, others who would have wished it kept larger. With everyone's wishes in mind, I have attempted to help reduce it to a size that hopefully we (as a team of editors) can embrace. Since November, I (along with the help of Ilovetopaint and others) have reduced approx. 172,00 bytes from the article's previous size (370,000 bytes)[1] down to 197,000 (almost half its previous size). We have greatly reduced the number of bands and songs mentioned in the Regions and International sections--down to a select handful of the most notable acts in each region and nationality. I hope that the article is now near its ideal size and scope. That is not to say it is yet perfect, but I hope it is something we can all embrace. Please let me know what you think. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It definitely looks mor reader-friendly and navigable. It's still at 60kb of readable prose, though, which might cause trouble at FAC (it's the readable prose size they'll care about, not the overall number of bytes). Try giving it a thorough copyedit to tighten the prose. You can cut a lot of fat by reducing things such as "In the period between 1969 and 1974" to "Between 1969 and 1974". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Curly Turkey. I just made a few trims like you suggested, and tonight I will go in and make some more. Let me ask, would 50kbs be the right amount of readable prose? I'll try to get it to the magic number. Gobble gobble. Garagepunk66 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's User:Dr pda/prosesize, a tool that can help you detect prose size. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks George Ho. When I tried to set up the Dr. Prosesize, the edit box gave me warning saying that installing it might make my pages unsecure, so maybe I should let some of the editors more experienced with this type of thing (who already have it installed) check for me.

• But, let me ask everyone, do we now have the article at or near what most would deem to be acceptable size? Montanabw showed me some articles above such as California Chrome (which has a text size of 57kbs--very close to where this one is now) and Richard Nixon (which has s slightly longer text at 72Kbs). Obviously the punk rock article's textis longer than those two, but he noted it may now be too large.
• I'm definitely glad that we have trimmed this article way down from where it was in November, but I worry that it may now be on the verge of becoming incomplete--the coverage in Regions may now a bit too scanty (though I admit that the section used to be way too large).
• Do you think we are now at the point where we could submit the article to FAC? If the consensus then is it that the Regions sections are slightly too small, I could restore a few previous elements (without returning to the previous bloat). If FAC reviewers feel the article could be slightly smaller, I could make a few more trims.

Do you think it is ready to go to FAC? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm... Right now, the article is undergoing heavy edits. Maybe hold off the FAC for now until the editing has slowed down. George Ho (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be my feeling too. Luckily I think the article is approaching the point where it can finally go into "cool-down period". I'll still look for any improvements I can make. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Responding to Garagepunk's ping on my talk page, I just skimmed the article now. The basic layout seems fine to me, and length at approx. 9,500 words doesn't seem excessive. For comparison, two recent FAs, Viking Metal and New wave of British heavy metal, are currently between 6,000 and 7,000 words, and neither topic has as long a history as garage rock. Was there a complaint about the density of referencing before? If so that seems to have been addressed to a reasonable extent, while still ensuring that every statement is cited. In those respects it may well be ready for FAC but I haven't spotchecked prose yet. I realise you're getting a default Peer Review here but it may still be worth submitting to another formal PR before FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would address the tags in Early 1960s, that will not pass in a FAC. Size is not the direct concern, just what is used within that space. I'll try to read over the article when I can.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Ian said. The article looks solid and I don't see any obvious red flags (other than the tag). Be prepared to face questions about the length and citations, even though a lot of it has been worked out here. It will be helpful if you can refer reviewers to existing discussions that resulted in consensus/agreement. I have not done a detailed read-through so I can't speak to the quality of the writing, nor have I looked closely at the bibliography to see if the major literature on the subject is represented. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll address the tags. I'm trying to track down the source. If I can't find one, we can take it out. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

They are really essential statements in the article. I don't think simply removing them is a very wise secondary option.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think that they're essential (that is why I left them there). Any prospect of removal would only come about as a result of consensus. I'll try to track down the source that was originally intended, or I could find a new one to (as best as possible) confirm the statement, which I think is fundamentally true and necessary. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle showed me some helpful things. I have certain parts of the statement cited now, and I'll try to get the rest of it covered. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a peak at the prose and cites. The article's certainly getting there, but still needs some work on the prose and on MOS compliance. The refs will need to be checked through—I could see at least on AllMusic cite that didn't actually name AllMusic, page ranges need to MOS:ENDASHes, etc. The prose could still be tightened and tidied up quite a bit, and should avoid phrasing such as "scored a hit" or "of AC/DC fame". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You should also avoid setting the pixel size of images, as it (a) overrdies user settings, and (b) will look different on different screens regardless (don't trust your own screen). If you absolutely need to have a larger or smaller image, use |upright=, as it scales along with user settings, but don't use it unless you really need to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. After I merged two of the sections a couple of days ago, I took out one of the pictures, so I wanted to go back and restore the diagonal composition that had been there--but when I switched the pictures, I noticed that they looked different in terms of size, so I tried to compensate. But, I'll try to avoid that in the future (or try the formula you recommended). I'll admit that I'm not an expert when it comes to pictures. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

All the more reason not to fiddle with them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

True. I'm sorry--I was just trying to make it look really nice. You'll be glad that I removed the "scored a hit" phrases, but I'll go in an do some more "tightening up" with other things. To help me, perhaps you could point out a few of remaining statements and places that need attention. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I could give it a copyedit, but it won't happen today. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, I could handle the technical things relatively quickly, but to copyedit for readability etc will take time that I don't have today. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It'd be a good idea to throw in a bit on what the word "punk" meant back them—today it's pretty tough to disassociate it from punk-rock tropes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I could try to go into more detail about that. Between 1971-1974 (and even later), when the term "punk rock" was used for music, it was primarily intended to designate the what we now call garage rock, particularly when used by the garage-oriented circle of writers and critics at Creem and Rolling Stone(Dave Marsh, Robert Cristgau, Greg Shaw, Lester Bangs, Lenny Kaye, etc.), and at associated 60s garage fanzines of the era (many of which had some of the same writers involved, such as Shaw). Most of the musical references were used to refer to what we now call 1960s garage rock (and for artists that were perceived as following in their tradition, such as obviously the Stooges, but even the Guess Who and Grad Funk Railroad--both of whom grew out of 60s garage). Jon Savage used to have a website devoted to etymology of punk[2] with a lot early references (it is by no means exhaustive--the are a bunch of other uses of "punk" for garage the appear in Lester Bangs' anthology Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung and statements by other authors of the time). Writers in the early 1970s also used "punk" for certain music after the 60s. And, there are instances when the term "punk" was used to refer to other examples of primitive music. The outer parameters of the genre were not yet strictly defined as far as post-60s acts were concerned--but there was a general consensus that 60s garage formed the core of what was then called "punk rock". When the word "punk" was used to designate an actual genre, it was primarily for 60s garage rock (and whatever was deemed to be connected):

• On pg. 21-23 of his book One Chord Wonders (2013), Dave Lang discusses the 60s garage bands: "The arrival of the punk concept, then arrived in about 1972-1973., well after the disappearance of most of those bands to whom the term was then applied. In part, the role of the punk genre was to rehabilitate some of the lost legions of past popular music." On pg. 23 he states, "Punk rock in those days was a quaint fanzine term for a transient form of mid '1960s music..."
• Greg Shaw wrote about "what [he had] chosen to call 'punkrock' bands—white teenage hard rock of '64–66".
• Robert Christgau writing for the Village Voice in October 1971 referred to "mid-1960s punk" as a historical period of rock-and-roll.
• Lenny Kaye in liner notes to Nuggets: "The name that has been unofficially coined for them—'punk rock'—seems particularly fitting in this case ..." In the track-by-track notes, he uses the term, "garage punk" to describe a song by the Shadows of Knight as "classic garage punk".
• In 1973 Greg Shaw commented, "Punk rock at its best is the closest we came in the 1960s to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll..."

The text of our Garage rock article used to have a lot more statements about it (the Etymology section was near the bottom--it used to be called Critical identification). [3] However, all of those references are still in the article, but have been moved into notes. The Etymology section of the punk rock article says a lot about it too. But, I could figure out how to make the matter more clear to the readers. Perhaps we could put some of what is now in notes back into the text. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I've made some tweaks to the etymology section that I hope make matters more clear to reader. If you see anything there that could be improved, just make whatever changes or let me know what you'd like to see changed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "punk"—I meant something about why the word "punk" was used (as in "punk kids, get off my lawn!"). People today normally associate the word with mohicans and safety pins or whatever, and many people may not realize it had a somewhat different connotations once upon a time. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I've actually been looking to find this kind of thing for a few years, but have not yet found a suitable explanation in the sources. I can certainly hypothesize, but I'd like to find confirmation. I know that the older generation didn't like how the people in bands often grew theier hair long for the times (it was not uncommon for band members to get kicked out of school--I have sources about that), and they probably thought that being in a band was a waste of time that could be better used in sports and school-sponsored activities. I'd imagine that they saw the bands as a certain kind of rebellion against suburban "bourgeois" mentality. I know that in Hicks' book he discusses how, though many bands had aristocratic names such as "the ...Kinghts" (as had been the case for awhile), after 1964 (perhaps as a result of Rolling Stones' influence) a lot of bands started having names like "the Barbarians", "the Savages", "the Misfits", etc., perhaps an indication an anti-bourgeois sentiment and/or primitivism. I'd imagine that the bands just mainly wanted to have fun. The problem is that we may not be able to find sources to indicate exactly what the critics meant by the term "punk" (other than as just music). I could try to look further and see if I could find some. If we can't find such sources, then could we perhaps take the word "etymology" out of the section title? That might free us up just to discuss the terminology in strictly music-related terms. The first paragraph of what is now called "Etymology and classification" used to be in the Milieu section (at the top of it), and the Milieu section came before what is now Etymology. Perhaps we could move that paragraph back into Milieu and move Milieu above Etymology, and change the name of Etymology back to "Identification and Classification"(?). Just a thought. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I've looked back through the various early 1970s sources and can still not find a single statement that sufficiently expresses the underlying meaning of why term "punk" was used (for 60s garage music) beyond being a "tag". One reason is that I doubt that the term was actually coined by the rock critics themselves. I have a hunch that the name may have been floating around in certain circles (in the very late 60s) before the rock critics got their hands on it, but I can't prove that. As far as the music was concerned, the writers were quite clear that there was a certain identifiable genre of 60s music they called "punk" (which, to a much smaller extent, they saw the remnants as being still present in the early 1970s--with artists such as the Stooges and others). But, as far as why the name "punk rock" was emplyed, there was apparently not much conscious deliberation about it--they just used it but never explained their rationale. In his book, Teenbeat Mayhem, Mike Markesich quotes Lenny Kaye years later:

Descriptions were called forth rather than chosen. There was no searching or even discussion about "garage" or "punk"...like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin, they jus' grew. ...we were referring to an instinct that transcended age and went right to the core of the music.

So, I don't think that it is possible to say exactly what the critics meant by the term, beyond being a tag for the music. But, it might be best to take the word "etymology" out of title the section (that might relieve pressure on us to come up with an explanation that will probably never be found). We could call the section "Identification and classification". I could ask you, Ilovetopaint and everyone else if that would be the best solution? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, but keep an eye out, as it'll certainly be confusing to at least some readers. For instance, the Wiktionary entry notes that in the UK, the spiked-hair-and-safety-pins "punk rock" sense of the term is "the only common usage". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, Ilovetopaint, and everyone. I just made a few changes. I removed the word "etymology" from the title of the section about classification--that takes the pressure off us to uncover etymological understructures that are unlikely be found (I can keep looking, though). I moved the section about milieu up above the one about categories. It is probably best that we introduce the subject in terms of sociological background and stylistic features first before we try to address how it came to be classified and recognized. That not only gives readers a richer and more meaningful first contact, but also follows the chronology better. The sociological/stylistic attributes preceded categorization in chronological time. Also, I moved the statement about bands in suburbs out of the classification section and back into Milieu, where it was originally intended to be--the statement, despite mentioning the terms "garage rock" and "garege bands" was originally intended to underscore the social milieu, not terminology--it makes a good introduction to the socio-background. Both of the terms "garage rock" and "garage band" are addressed in further detail (terminologically speaking) in the Recognition/classification section. It is my hope that now the readers can have the best possible first introduction to the genre. I also simplified the wording a bit here and there, making things more concise. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh by the way Curly Turkey, I just noticed your changes, and I like them a lot. They definitely make things look tidier. Thanks. Gobble Gobble! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The article's definitely getting there. I can't speak to how well it adheres to sources, but the prose is nearly there. I'll try to find the time to give it a couple thorough run-throughs, and not just the jumping around I've been doing. The next big thing is to clean up the refs—some have surnames first, others surnames last, and that'll never get through FAC. Endashes etc need to be fixed, too. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey and Ilovetopaint, I thought I'd ask about the statement in parenthesis in the lead sentence. I know that Curley Turkey removed it and Ilovetopaint put it back in. So, I just want to ask how you both feel about the statement being there. Personally I don't mind whether it's there or not. But, if we do keep it there, shouldn't it say "sometimes called" or "sometimes referred to as"? What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It's redundant—both are already in the lead, and it's not like the other two terms are anywhere near as common as the main one. It was better the way I put it—more readable and placing the terms in context, rather than cluttering up the opening sentence. Read both versions out loud. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey and Ilovetopaint: At Curly Turkey's advice I removed the parenthetical statement in lead sentence. Personally I'm fine with either way, but since Curly Turkey has done a lot of FA reviews (an he pointed out that the terms are already mentioned elsewhere in the lead section), I feel that it would be best to go with his advice. However, I appreciate Ilovetopaint's many undeniable improvements to the article, so in no way is that meant to be a negative. I'm very thankful to you both. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"it's not like the other two terms are anywhere near as common as the main one" Um... Historically, "garage punk" is as common a term as "garage rock". I know that goes against conventional wisdom, but it's an obvious fact to anyone who goes looking through Google Books for a few minutes. I'm strongly opposed to not including "garage punk" in the opening sentence. I'm not sure if "'60s punk" is a "real" term or if it's OR (I could never find a source that says "Garage rock is also known as '60s punk").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Garage rock is usually listed as the "official" term/category (i.e. AllMusic, etc.), and the other two are common alternates (but not treated as quite on the same level). Curly Turkey indicated that we don't need the parenthetical statement there, and he gave several legitimate reasons. I'm leaning in his direction. However, if you insist that we need to keep the parenthetical statement, then we would have to word it a better way. For instance, we should also mention "60s punk"--it is also very commonly used. We should include "...sometimes called..." or "...sometimes referred to as...". If all we say is "sometimes garage punk", it implies that, the genre somehow changes it spots like a leopard and becomes a different thing on certain occasions. We need to use more precise terminology. I'm not necessarily opposed to having a parenthetical statement there, but if we're going to have it, let's word it a better way. Ilovetopaint, let's see if Curley Turkey would be willing to change his mind and go along with having such a statement. If he remains opposed to the statement's inclusion, then I think we should heed his wishes and take it out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint: you can't be serious, and you're ignoring the readability and redundancy concerns. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That statistic may as well be including "books" like these. The fact stands that "garage punk" (or "punk") is still a very common term to describe garage rock by. The only "readability" concern is in WP:SURPRISE, which is a greater issue than so-called "redundancy"

WP:LEADSENTENCE: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. ... use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

If acknowledging synonyms in the opening sentence is redundant, what about "flourished in the mid-1960s"? Isn't that "redundant" of the next paragraph, which states that surf rock "motivated thousands of young people to form bands between 1963 and 1968"?

Also, I found a source for "'60s punk".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"That statistic may as well be including "books" like ..."—even if it did, it would apply to all terms—and even if it it applied only to "garage rock", the gap in usage is gaping. Imagine if such books made up 50% of all cites to "garage rock"—it would still make no difference.

"If acknowledging synonyms in the opening sentence is redundant"—"acknowledging synonyms" isn't what I said, is it? They're by far lesser used terms that are put in context further in the lead. That's sufficient, and bolding them makes sure they don't get ignored.

"Isn't that 'redundant' of the next paragraph, which states that surf rock 'motivated thousands of young people to form bands between 1963 and 1968'?"—you're capable of answering this silly question yourself. I'm here to improve the article, not play games. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: your source for "'60s punk": I don't know why you brought this up, but if it were to "prove" the pedigree of "'60s punk", it's both irrelevant and incorrect. Irrelevant, because all that matters is what terms are used now. Hardcore punk was once called "thrash", but that fact doesn't even find its way into that article's lead today. Incorrect, because, as the NGRAM shows, "garage rock" has been used since the 1970s (and there were no reprints of Wikpedia articles back then). But since the lead includes the term "'60s punk"—and bolds it—just what is the issue? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

[re: '60s punk] I was responding to Garagepunk66

[re: "thrash"] Just because somebody overlooked a really significant detail in another article doesn't mean we should too

[re: "what terms are used now"] It's been demonstrated over and over again that garage punk and garage rock have always been common synonyms, and to downplay that hugely important chunk of this music's history is a huge disservice to readers with no prior knowledge of what those terms mean. And this is not a case of word usage changing over time, it's still common for people to call garage rock by punk or garage punk in the 2010s. That fact is so crucial in establishing the article's scope and such an obvious thing to cover in the first sentence. Why would you hide it in the second-to-last sentence of the third paragraph?

[re: "As NGRAM shows"] ... that "garage rock" is 10x more frequently used than "garage punk", but how many magazines and books does NGRAM trawl? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000?" If there are 10,000 publications using "garage punk" in place of "garage rock", that's extremely significant.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And it's still in the lead, and bolded. Why gunk up the lead sentence? Too many ugly articles like that. What do you have against readability and context? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Peer Review by Curly Turkey

I'm going to go through this paragraph-by-paragraph and do a thorough copyedit or two, and leave comments below. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Again, about setting image sizes: this should be generally avoded, as (a) it overrides user settings (b) what looks good on one screen will not on others (c) "upright" is preferred, as it doesn't override user settings, but "upright=.73" is micromanaging and should be avoided (per (b)).
• Some reviewers may object to using "they" to refer to bands in AmEng. "They" is used more or less consistently in BrEng, but in NAmEng it depends on context—most often groups are referred to in the singular, but in some contexts plural is more appropriate. At FAC, you'll find reviewers insisting on "consistency", and since the plural cannot be used in the plural in many contexts in NAmEng ("Metallica have a new album out" is totally unacceptable in NAmEng), reviewers will insist on the foolish consistency of using only the singular. You should either settle on that, or get ready to defend the use of plurals. It's completely idiotic, but there you go.

•  Pending: I'll get to the pictures, but I was thinking that we could get everything else done first, so that we can then adjust the pictures to fit into the overall spacial context in the finished form--that way we can achieve the best graphic composition for the whole look of the article. I was thinking about going to a bunch of different computers and seeing how the sizes and shapes look. I tend to prefer the pictures small (but not too small)--that way it can allow for us to fit more without it getting crowded. I like using a diagonal arrangement for the same reason--and we want to let the readers get to see pictures of a lot of bands. I interrupted the diagonal flow in a couple places, because one editor told me that when the people in the picture are not facing forward, then their bodies should point to where the text is. I don't know if that it true or not, but that editor was pretty adamant about it, so I went along.
•  PendingLet's try to see what we can do about "they"--depending on the contexts of course. By, all means make any changes you think are best. We can also see what the other editors think during the FAC process. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Social milieu and stylistic features

• "according to Mark Nobles, it is estimated that over 180,000 bands formed in the Unites States"---is this Nobles' estimate, or his reporting of an estimate? If the former, I'd like to reword it to "Mark Nobles has estimated that over 180,000 bands formed in the Unites States".
• "amongst which several thousand"---there are those at FAC who will object to "amongst" rather than "among", claiming it's un-American, too many characters, or some other bull. I'm not one of them, but if you intend to retain it, you should get an alibi ready.
• "bars, nightclubs, and college fraternity socials", "locally, regionally and nationally", "amateurish, naïve or intentionally raw", "nasal, growled, or shouted vocals", etc: you have to settle on either the serial comma or non-serial---the MoS requires consistency
• "Tea Council of the U.S.A."---worthy of a WP:REDLINK?
• "bar chord riffs, sometimes referred to as power chords"---power chords are not "riffs". This'll need a better explanation, and a brief explanation of what a power chord is ("easily-fingered root-fifth chord" or somesuch). Do you play guitar?
• "mouth harmonicas"---are there harmonicas not used with the mouth? Was this once worded "mouth harp" or something?
• "ranging from crude two- and three-chord music to near-studio musician quality"---not the best contrast---plenty of pro rock was three-chord (think Hendrix on "All Along the Watchtower")

Thanks, I'll fix/address each concern listed above.

• Nobles: On pg. 21 Nobles writes "It is estimated that from 1964-1968 more than 180,000 teen garage bands formed in the United States..." I don't know where he got that estimate (he does not lest his sources), but he is clearly referring to something he has read. Should we keep the wording the same or change it? Curly Turkey, what you recommend to do in this situation? Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep it. I was just double-checking. Editors often use generalized wording like this when stating a claim made by a single source, and I wanted to make sure that wasn't happening. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed Changed "amongst" to "among". Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed I prefer to use the Oxford comma and I'd imagine that it would be the consensus of most editors. The Oxford comma is logical when there is a compound noun consisting of more than three words. So I went in and made sure that the Oxford comma is consistently applied. However, if you see any places that I overlooked, then go ahead and insert an Oxford comma. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed(?): I put red link for Tea Council--predicated article on title "Tea Association..." because that is the main term now used, but book says "Tea Council..." Here is a link that establishes both terms can be used. [4] Normally, I'm not a fan of red links--I find that they look unsightly and make an article look unfinished. If you think it would be better not to have red links for the Tea Council, you are welcome to remove them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed I took out "...riffs". It now says just "bar chords". Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed I took out "mouth..." It now just says "harmonicas". Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed I changed "ranging from crude two- and three-chord music to near-studio musician quality" to "ranging from crude and amateurish to near-studio level musicianship". Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Recognition and classification

• "applied to groups emerging after 1974"---this is ambiguous. Garage acts that emerged after 1974? No.

•  Fixed I changed "emerging" to "that emerged" as you recommended. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Emergence of the garage rock style

• "After the demise of Blue Notes"---who? We haven't been introduced.
• "which became an unofficial anthem"---"unofficial anthem" is not really encyclopaedic wording
• "that took off"---ditto
• "The Sonics, who formed in Tacoma in 1960, later recorded a rendition of Berry's "Have Love, Will Travel"."---is this of special significance? Why is it mentioned?
• "Elsewhere, regional scenes of teenage bands playing R&B-oriented rock were particularly well established several years before the British Invasion, in Texas and the Midwest."---is this limited to Texas and the Midwest?
• "(not the Milwaukee band)"---the Milwaukee band is mentioned in a footnote, so this seems to jump out of nowhere.

•  Fixed: I restored the statement about the Blue Notes (which had been relegated to side notes) back into the regular text, making more clear their past. I moved the statement about Rockin' Roberts stint in the Wailers further down in order to properly introduce the Wailers first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I changed "unofficial anthem" to "standard". Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I replaced "took off" with "had the greatest impact". Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I took out the statement about the Sonics. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I clarified the statement about Texas and the Midwest, by adding "places such as...". Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I removed the whole mention of the California Nomads (where it said "not the Milwaukee band). I looked in Lester Bangs' article in R.S. R&R History and his mention of "the Nomads" seems hypothetical and case-in-point and does not single them out as being important. The whole mention of them was causing confusion w/ the Milwaukee band. At first I was going to look up the town they came from and put that in parenthesis. But, I couldn't find mention of them in Markesich's book. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Impact of the Beatles and the British Invasion

• "Much of this new excitement was expressed in music, sometimes much to the chagrin of parents and elders"---something of a non sequitur. Surely elders and parents had nothing against music.

Comment: I added "rock..." before "music". There was tons of resistance to rock music by the older generation. Not always, of course, but sometimes. Parent's and elders hated it and considered it a bad influence. Many of the older generation were taken aback when the Beatles landed on our shores. Spitz goes into this in his article--he quotes Cronkite admitting to being "offended" when he saw the Beatles' hairstyles. Even Andy Griffith didn't look so amused when Opie joined a neighborhood garage band. Hey Curly Turkey, check this out--see that worried look on Andy Griffith's face! [5] Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If you'd like me to take out the thing about skeptical elders, I can. Either way is fine with me. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Female garage bands

• "it fostered the emergence of all-female bands whose members played their own instruments"---shuld we be surprised that they would play their own instruments? Was that unusual for either females or garage rock?

• Comment: Most readers are aware of the famous girl groups in the 60s who just sang, such as the Ronettes, etc. The (singing) girl groups are much better-known than those that played instruments. I'd imagine that the phrase there may be necessary to avoid confusion. I'd guess that many readers would be surprised that all-female bands playing their own instruments existed in the 60s--there is a popular misconception that the whole girl band thing started with the Runaways and the Slits in the 70s. Even those who are aware that girl bands existed in the 60s may have no idea how many there were or know about the whole garage rock component. Even garage rock fans and compilations tend to overlook the all-female bands. In terms of the amount of acts that played, the 60s was the golden age of female rock bands by a country mile. There were probably several hundred of them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: However, if you want me to take that part out, I will. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest

• "the highly overdriven "The Witch""---I assume this means the guitars were distorted, but that may not be obvious

•  Fixed: I simply removed "overdriven". Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

New England and Mid-Atlantic

• "which Rob Fitzpatrick of The Guardian called"---it's not immediately clear this is not a contemporary comment. The fact that it was in The Guardian is probably not relevant. Mentioning the Ramones here will take some readers by surprise---a Wikipedia article is aimed at a general audience, and we shouldn't make assumptions about what they know.
• "on the 1972 edition of Nuggets"---at this point, the reader is aware of only the 1972 edition

• Comment/Question: I removed "The Guardian" and added the helping verb "has" to make it more clear that this is a modern reference ( Fixed). Would it be OK to keep the quote with the Ramones? I added the quote because everyone asked me to include more examples of things that show why certain songs/bands are important and worthy of inclusion here. I think that the Ramones connection is absolutely key for this song. The Ramones connection came straight to my head the first time I heard the song, and I think that most people would have the same first impression. The song's anticipation of the Ramones is what makes it so standout, influential and important. I think that the Ramones are well-enough known that most people will know who they are (if not there is a Blue Link). But, most people are not aware of the degree to which garage rock anticipated later punk. One of the imperatives of any good garage rock overview is to inform people about those influences, and this is song prime sourced example. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed: I removed "the 1972 edition of..." for Nuggets.

California

• "later played in Quicksilver Messenger Service"---same issue---the reader shouldn't be expected to know QMS, and might assume it's a garage band

•  Fixed: I took out mention of QMS. I see your point. Unlike the Ramones (as we discussed above), QMS is not nearly as well known, and unlike the Ramones there, QMS is not key in this context. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Midwest

• "featuring Jim Sohns on lead vocals"---is there a reason to single out the singer in this band?
• "whose ranks included lead vocalist Ron Stults and guitarist Rory Mack"---ditto
• "what later became Grand Funk Railroad"---need some context
• "a song which Michael Hann of The Guardian described as"---same issue as above
• "also from Cleveland"---meaning the Outsiders were from Cleveland?

• Comment: Regarding the Shadows of Knight, Sohns was always their leader and front man, but after all of the original members left in 1967, he became the de facto sole proprietor. In the late 60s, the Shadows of Knight were just he and a bunch of hired hands, basically, and it remained that way in most of their reunions, until the last few years, where they have brought back some of the original members. It is probably best to mention Sohns because of his extra-prominent role in the band's history. However, I realize that his not a household name, so if you want me to remove his name, I can. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  If he's going to be named in this context and scope, the reader should be given some explanation why. Noting the name raises reader expectations, and then leaves them up in the air. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed you have a good point. I removed mention of Sohns. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed: I removed "whose ranks included lead vocalist Ron Stults and guitarist Rory Mack". Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I added " the successful 1970s group ..." before Grand Funk Railroad, to provide more context.
•  Fixed: I removed "The Guarian".
• Comment: The Outsiders were from Cleveland. I had already put that in Success and airplay, so I didn't want to sound repetitive. I put a brief mention of the Outsiders here, but quickly have it move on to the other groups. If you wish me to change the wording, that's fine--I can do it however you recommend. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

South

• "whose album Impact has become one of the most collectable LPs of the era"---is this an empirical fact, or hyperbole in the source? Regardless, is it relevant?
• "the proto-punk "1523 Blair" which Jason Ankeny described as "Texas psychedelia at its finest""---it's proto-punk? or psychedelia? and I thought proto-punk wasn't actually a genre, per se?
• "which has been mentioned as a garage rock classic"---requires attribution, but we'd assume as much if it's worthy being mentioned at all
• "which Mojo included in their top 100 psychedelic songs of all time"---when? At the time?

• I've stepped in and added the year. Didn't want to interfere but I also replaced one of the refs with a link to the article at Rock's Backpages. Thinking about it, though, maybe I'm wrong – CT, is a page at wordpress acceptable after all? JG66 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• ", which Jacob Berger referred to as "an instant garage band classic""---who? And why should we care? We already know it went to No. 1.

•  Fixed(?): Richie Untergerger said the thing about the album Impact being big with collectors in the AllMusic piece that's cited, but I toned down the wording. If you'd like me to take the statement about collectors out entirely, I can. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed(?)/Comment: While proto-punk is not a exactly genre (it is music of different genres that anticipates the sounds and sometimes attitudes of 70s punk--garage rock makes up a big part of it, but not all of it). For that reason, it can be used to describe music that simultaneously falls into various established genres. I realize that most genres are not set in stone and sometimes there is sometimes overlapping. Many garage psychedelic songs of the 60s have elements recognizable in later 70s punk. "1523 Blair" is a prominent example--it almost sounds hardcore, but is also psychedelic.[6] Jason Arkeny in the AllMusic piece, described the Outcasts as "psych-punk" (I'd also add "blues..." in there for some of their songs). That's why I had put "proto-punk before the song. I took "proto-punk" out, but if you'd want me to put it back in, let me know. Curly Turkey, I think that we should describe the punk characteristics of the song--just saying "psychedelic", alone, may no be enough. A hardcore-sounding song in late '66/early'67 is a pretty incredible thing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  I don't disagree, but we want to avoid ambiguity as much as possible, too, and "hardcore punk" can refer to a movement and lifestyle, and not just a sound (think Minutemen—classed as "hardcore" for reasons other than their sound). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You have a good point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed: For the Gentlemen's "It's a Cry'n Shame, I modified the statement to be more specific in attribution. I added mention of Mike Markesich's book. There is also a footnote that explains that the song was ranked by the panel of writers/collectors/experts as the #2 garage record of all time, just behind the 13th Floor Elevators' "You're Gonna Miss Me", which is #1. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I took out the "instant classic" phrase for the Paragons. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Great Plains and Southwest

• "now considered a garage classic"---again, one would assume if it's being brought up in this article. Is there nothing more descriptive or contextualizing that can be said?

•  Fixed I removed the phrase "now considered a garage classic". Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Canada, islands, and territories

• "The Painted Ship were known"---if they're worth mentioning, are they worth redlinking?
• "which was later covered by the Who"---is there some reason for mentioning the Who's version?
• "which has been re-issued in the Pebbles compilation series"---is there some reason for mentioning this here? I imagine a lot of the songs in this article were included in Pebbles, and mention of the series just jumps out without any real context.
• ""The World Ain't Round It's Square", a song of youthful defiance that has been mentioned as a garage rock classic"---again, we would assume so by its inclusion

•  Fixed: I put "The Painted Ship" in red links. They are definitely worth mentioning--they are one of the better known bands to come out of the Vancouver scene, and some of their songs (esp. "Frustration") anticipate the sound of the Stooges. TheGracefulSlick had expressed an intention of doing an article on them. I could see if he'd still like to do it. If he doesn't want to write it, then I could, but I need to ask him first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I removed mention of the Who's version of "Shakin' all Over". Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I removed the reference to Pebbles.
•  Fixed: I took the "garage rock classic" statement our of the part about the Savages' song.

United Kingdom

• "adopted new forms of amplification"---curious as to what new forms of amplification this refers to. Different kinds of amps?
• "even more brazen in their approach"---meaning?
• "Rhino Records' 2001 box-set compilation Nuggets II: Original Artyfacts from the British Empire and Beyond, 1964–1969 contains many of the better-known songs performed by obscure British beat and freakbeat acts of this era."---this probably belongs elsewhere in the article

•  Fixed: I replaced the line "new forms of amplification" with "adopted the more powerful amplification becoming available". I did not write the original line, but I think that is what it meant. We're all aware that at the turn of the 60s amplifiers started becoming more powerful. While there had been powerful guitar amps for quite a while, there was a challenge in finding heavy-duty drivers/cones that could handle heavy bass. Around 1960, Fender started equipping certain amps with really heavy-duty drivers, that could really handle bass--suddenly bassists traded in their old doghouses and, with the new equipment, could really crank it up! Once bassists had these new powerful aps, the guitarists started cranking up their amps even louder to compete in this new "space race". So, in the early 60s you start hearing this new "supersonic" sound in a lot of rock--such as surf and beat. Fender amps were hard to get in England, but Vox made great equipment and it became really popular with beat groups. Jim Mashall started making his amps too. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: By "even more brazen in their approach", what I meant was "rawer", "louder", and "more bold". According to Richie Unterberger: "Of all the British R&B bands to follow the Rolling Stones' footsteps, the Downliners Sect were arguably the rawest. The Sect didn't as much interpret the sound of Chess Records as attack it, with a finesse that made the Pretty Things seem positively suave in comparison". I was trying to find a shorter, more understated way of saying that. But, Curly Turkey would you like me to change the wording? I could if need be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  I'd go with "louder" or whatever; "more brazen" could mean pretty much anything—such as "more controversial in their lyrics" or something. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed: I took out "brazen..." and substituted it with "raw..." That comes closest to Unterberger's characterization. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed: Rhino Box Set issue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Continental Europe

• The Trans World Punk Rave-Up series is devoted to covering 1960s garage rock and primitive beat music in continental Europe.—I'm thinking these things should probably be put into a section on compilations or whatever. Regardless, the way these things are introduced gives no indication that they were not contemporary releases.

•  Fixed: Trans World issue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Latin America

• The Uruguayan Invasion gets two sentences, and then Los Saicos gets three long ones. Were they really more significant than an entire "invasion"? Is this balanced?
• The Los Nuggetz compilation series covers Latin American beat and garage rock of the 1960s.—same issue.

•  Pending: I could see if there is more info on the Uruguayan Invasion to add. Another writer added the info. about Los Saicos (originally in another section--what used to be Peak of popularity, if I remember)--I tidied it up and put it here. I realize that Los Saicos have been getting a lot of press in recent years, so there is some notoriety there. But, I could see if the sources could yield about Uruguay. I know that Los Mockers and Los Shakers were really big. I could add some info about them. Thanks for the advice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed Los Nuggetzissue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Asia

• The far East was not immune to the beat bug—an encyclopaedia should avoid this style of writing.
• The Simla Beat 70/71 compilation includes recordings of some of the bands who competed in 1970 and 1971.—was it a contemporary release?

•  Fixed: I replaced "...bug" with "...craze". I hope that this works better. I was trying to capture the madness and mayhem of the whole beat/garage thing--I hope that "...craze" works better. Let me know if I could say it better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: Simla Beat issue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand

• The garage boom in those countries has been the subject of compilations such as Down Under Nuggets: Original Australian Artyfacts 1965–1967.—same issue, as well as with the primary sourcing.
• an historic—ugh. Sorry, personal pet peeve. You don't have to actually do anything about it.
• expressionistic use of guitar feedback—I'm having trouble picturing what feedback has to do with expressionism
• the intensely overdriven "I Want, Need, Love You"—keep in mind that many readers won't realize what "overdriven" refers to, especially if they don't play an instrument. It could be interpreted as, say, a performance style or attitude
• The Creatures were one of the more notorious groups of the period.—this is tantalizing
• [[The Bluestars (New Zealand band)|the Blue Stars]]—why is this piped to "Blue Stars" rather than "Bluestars"? The band's article doesn't make it clear.

•  Fixed: Down Under Nuggets issue--now in new Comp section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I took your advice and removed "historic".
• Comment: When I put in the phrase "expressionistic use of guitar feedback", I was trying to distill Ian Marks' remarks about the song "Black" into something more concise. About the song, on pg. 53 Marks writes "...at the end of the third verse - as if 'Black' had not been dark and tumultuous enough - the band explodes into an earsplitting sonic purge. Feedback-drenched guitars wail like air-raid sirens against reverb-shrouded cries and harmonic rumbling bass. Wow! What a festival of melodrama and angst! And how uncommercial to boot! Alongside the Purple Hearts' 'Early in the Morning', 'Black' was the most adventurous pop recording made in Australia during 1966." Here is a recoding of the song. [7] Curly Turkey, should I leave the wording the same or would there be a better way to say it? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  Let's think on this ... "expressionistic use of guitar feedback" simply sums up no sort of mental picture in me, and in encyclopaedic writing words that don't clearly communicate an idea are wasted. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed: I replaced "highly overdriven" with a less ambiguous reference to the guitar sound and a direct quote from Marks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I added a little quote from McIntyre further elaborating on the Creatures' notoriety. I'm sure you'll find it amusing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I changed "Blue Stars" to "Bluestars". A little typo. Thanks for pointing it out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Historical and cultural associations

• sometimes employing eastern scales---is there anything good to link to here?
• the Byrds had a huge hit with the musically innovative "Eight Miles High"---it failed to reach the top ten. Is that "huge"?
• The members of garage bands, like so many musicians of the 1960s, were part of a generation that was largely born into the paradigm and customs of an older time, but that with the advent of television, nuclear weapons, civil rights, the Cold War, and space exploration began to conceive of a higher order of human relations and to reach for a set of transcendent ideals, sometimes experimenting with drugs, in a process that, while set to a backdrop of events that ultimately proved disillusioning, held for a time great promise in the minds of many.---that's one motherfucker of a sentence. It'd be more readable if cut into two or more.
• While testing the frontiers of what the new world had to offer, 1960s youth ultimately had to accept the limitations of living in the new reality which was for some a painful "crash course" in history, yet often did so while experiencing the ecstasy of a difficult but apparently exalted moment when the realm of the infinite seemed somehow possible and within reach.---this veers into mystical babble. Could we get something more simmple and to the point?

•  Fixed: For the statement about Eastern scales, I added reference from pg. 266-267 in Schinder and Schwartz's Icons of Rock. Here is the link.[8] Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I removed "huge" from description of Byrds' hit.
•  Fixed: I broke up the sentence beginning with "The members of garage bands, like so many musicians of the 1960s..." into three sentences. So much for James Joyce... Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I simplified the last part of the section and "de-mystified" the language a bit. I was trying to capture the whole psychedelic 60s experience in a few sentences, but I think I have now struck the just-right balance. Curly Turkey, I hope I now have it just right. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Garage-based psychedelic/acid rock

• written by Manny Feiser---do we need to know this here?
• praised by many record collectors as one of the greatest psychedelic/garage songs---double checking: does the source say this, or does the source merely praise it?

•  Fixed: I removed the statement about Manny Freiser. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: Concerning the opinion of collectors, the source does say this. But, I added an attribution to Richie Unterberger. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Primitivist avant-garde acts

• whose members were American and former US servicemen who chose to remain in Germany---not sure of the exact meaning of "American and former US servicemen"

•  Fixed: That was just a typo. I meant to say "former US servicemen". I changed it to the correct wording. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline

• Teen clubs that had served as reliable and steady venues for young groups began to close their doors.---it'd be nice to know why.

• Comment: The reasons for the demise of teen clubs were complex and have not been fully-enough explained in any of the sources I've read, but I would imagine that it was all tied up in the other things happening simultaneously: the switch from AM to FM, the shift from 45s to big elaborate concept albums, the move from mono to stereo, increasingly sophisticated rock more suited to headphones than dance floors, all of which was really cool at first (in the late 60s), but then in the 1970s it became self-indulgent and hypeded/commercialized. Then of course there were all of those graduations in May '68 that came just when everything began to fall apart: assassinations, Tet Offensive, riots, etc. And, then as the 70s dawned, came the breakup of the Beatles and the deaths of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison. The teen club scene was inexorably intertwined with the larger context. Berger and Coston's book laments the demise of teen clubs on pg. 152. While it does not give an exact time frame of the demise, it implies that it was a thing of the past that somehow disappeared along with 60s (but not necessarily all at once--so I was careful not to give an exact time frame). Berger comments "I would love to see the resurgence of the teen club culture. I feel that there are so many kids that don't have a venue to play when they should." Later on that page, he goes on to mention how everyone loved to dance at the clubs. On pg. 149 he laments the move away form AM radio--he notes how the music was racially integrated on AM, unlike FM, and how it challenged young people to see beyond the confines of race, and he also misses the stylistic variety on AM then--the way you could hear soul, rock, country, all on the same station. According to Berger, "I attribute the homogenization of pop music and because of that the homogenization of youth culture all due to the inception of FM as a format..." Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Garage-based proto-punk 1969–1974

• Rather than listing the Stooges' recordings, why not focus on their music and performance? We learn nothing from this other than that they existed and get no clue why they're even being mentioned.
• Same thing with Death---we get lots of details on an unreleased album, but no indication of why they're being listed.
• the Punks recorded a batch of songs, including "My Time's Comin'" and "Drop Dead",---is there a reason to highlight these two songs?
• The Real Kids were founded founded by former Modern Lover John Felice---is this part of the Rathskeller club scene?

•  Fixed: I added material about the Stooges' musical style.Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I made same kinds of additions for the Death.Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I made same kinds of additions for the Punks.Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I know that the Real Kids played at the Rathskeller.

Curly Turkey, I hope you like the changes I made to this section. If you see anything I still need to do or improve, let me know. Gobble gobble! Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Emergence of punk aesthetic and movement 1975–1978

• with the eventual arrival of the New York and London scenes---this assumes a greater familiarity with events than an encyclopaedia article should. The reader at this point may have no idea what the "New York and London scenes" refers to.
• Iggy and the Stooges and others of their generation carried garage rock and protopunk into the early 1970s.---isn't this both redundant and out of chronology?

•  Fixed: I added the word "punk" into the sentence New York and London scenes and made blue links to the sections on the New York and UK scenes discussed in the punk rock article. I hope that this makes things more clear to the reader. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I removed the statement about Iggy and the Stooges. It was a holdover that had been in the article for years. It used to say "Iggy and the Stooges, arguably the last garage band, carried protopunk into the early 1970s", which I thought was an overstatement. I always wanted to remove it, but I'm reluctant to remove what others have put in, so I modified it and toned it down. At that time, there was not a separate section about early 70s protopunk, so perhaps it had a reason to be there then, but now it is redundant and unecessary. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Revivalist and hybrid movements 1980–present

• Stooges-era protopunk---was there another era of protopunk?
• , christened by the media as the The bands, or "The saviours of rock 'n' roll"---the media in general did this? This sounds awfully hyperbolic.

• Comment: Yes, there was an earlier era of protopunk--in mid-1960s with garage rock (that is, viewing it from a post-1977 framework--obviously the music from the 60s was before that called "punk rock" prior to the late 70s--there was no "proto-" then, garage was "punk"). Lester Bangs' 1980 article about mid-60s garage rock in The Rolling Stone History of Rock & Roll used the terms "protopunk" and "garage rock" in its title (he had to make the transition from calling 60s garage "punk" to "protopunk" or "garage"). So, the term "protopunk" can be applied to both periods 1963-1968 and 1969-1974. Ironically, Greg Shaw, in the liner notes to the 1998 Nuggets box set, refers to music of 1958-1962 as "protpunk", and that wasn't unintentional. To his dying day, Shaw steadfastly refused to relinquish the label of "punk" for 60s garage--a sentiment most garage rock fans (such as myself) tend to concur with. It is a staple of "gospel truth" in "garage world" that "garage rock was the original form of punk rock". Garage rock fans generally do not like the term "protpunk" (maybe for pre-1962...). But, as a Wikipedian, I have to step out of my "garage world" shoes and put on Wiki-boots, so when I'm writing in articles, I always use the Wiki-prescribed terminologies for the prescribed time periods (and of course supply the historical background). Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I removed the hyperbolic language about the revival bands. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Refs

Lots of cleanup needed here. I suspect this'll be the most time-consuming job. There's still a lot of inconsistency in formatting—some refs are surname first, others last, and some refs are duplicated, appearing both in <ref> tags as well as in citation templates. Some missing ISBNs, etc ...

• "The Jets, who were active from 1964 to 1966, were perhaps the first beat group to become popular there." something's wrong with the page range here
• "[[The Syndicate of Sound]]'s "[[Little Girl (Syndicate of Sound song)|Little Girl]]" reached No. 8 on the ''Billboard'' charts.<ref name="Syndicate (Billboard)">{{cite web|title=The Syndicate of Sound: Chart History|website=Billboard|url=http://www.billboard.com/artist/419254/syndicate-sound/chart|accessdate=November 26, 2016}}</ref>"—I wonder how many sources like this are used. This is a primary source, and doesn't put the statement sourced in context. This is quite serious, and the article will have to be thoroughly checked for things like this before taking it to FAC.
• "[[Rhino Records]]' 2001 box-set compilation ''[[Nuggets II: Original Artyfacts from the British Empire and Beyond, 1964–1969]]'' contains many of the better-known songs performed by obscure British beat and freakbeat acts of this era.{{sfn|Thompson|2002|p=47}}<ref name="Phipps (Nuggets II: Brit.)">{{cite web|last1=Phipps|first1=Kieth|title=Various Artists: Nuggets II: Original Artyfacts From The British Empire And Beyond 1964–1969|url=http://www.avclub.com/review/various-artists-emnuggets-ii-original-artyfacts-fr-18362|website=A.V. Club|accessdate=July 11, 2015|date=April 19, 2002}}</ref>"---this is a primary source. If this statement cannot be sourced to a tertiary publication, it'll have to be dropped.

More to come ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed: Corrected Jets citation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed: For the Syndicate of Sound, I added additional references and information about their influence on later bands. I also went in and added tertiary refs. after all of the Billboard refs.Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)`

 Fixed: I replaced the primary sources w/ tertiary (for Nuggets). Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick look (so far)

@Garagepunk66: Okay, I've finished a first run of the article. Sorry it took so long—I've been doing other things than Wikipedia lately. I still have to fix up the refs, which'll take a while, and I want to do at least one more run through the article, but I'd like to see the above dealt with before I do. A couple of things:

Sometimes bands and recordings are introduced without really giving any indication about why they're included, other than that they fall under the genre. That's not really helpful to the reader for contextualizing the genre's development, and can make for dull reading (it's an article, not a list, remember). I'm going to want to do a closer reading to draw out more of this.

You've also finished up a bunch of subsections with pointers to comp ablums, but without really indicating why these albums are particularly significant, or whether the comps were contemporary or retrospective (I assume they're all retrospective). We can see the significance of Nuggets, but what is the significance of the others, other than that they happen to be complilations including works from those particular subsections? I also feel like a subsection on the landmark compilations might be worth thinking about—perhaps tagged onto the "Recognition and classification" section.

The article's well researched and everything, but it'll still need work to really get it to FA level—but it has a solid foundation and will certainly get there with the proper care. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I've got to say, it's been an educational read. I can't thank you enough for introducing me via this article to "7 and 7 is", which I've been listening to on repeat for days now and have taught myself to play. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, thanks so much for your advice. I'll try to make the kinds of enhancements and additions you mentioned. A compilations section sounds like an inviting idea--something to try. In some of the sections, I mentioned compilations that might be helpful to introducing the reader music of specific countries and regions, but I could try to better justify these inclusions or remove some of them. For the new Compilations section/subsection, we could focus on well-known general compilations--any remaining region-specific or nation-specific comps. could perhaps get mentioned elsewhere (if justified). I've thought about possibly adding a Legacy section at the end (at some point)--I'd have to research it.

• As for the citations--I'd imagine I can find good secondary sources for those statements. Also, I'm aware that a lot of the citations need to be standardized, so we could work on that. I'm thankful for the feedback and any more tips you have--they help a lot. And, of course, you can always go ahead change whatever citations you see fit.
• I've thought about adding more socio-cultural background in the Milieu section. I'm fascinated by the way the genre emerged out of suburbanization in the postwar era with the new mobile culture--the way the way garage rock rose out of the postwar spirit of optimism (somehow epitomizing American dream), yet was at the same time wrapped up in the turbulence of the 60s--that whole exciting, yet tragic, catharsis that ultimately led to disillusion. The music is a soundtrack to that interesting time in history--it takes you right into the neighborhoods and shows you how everyday people experienced the era firsthand.
• I've always been a fan of the group, Love. "7 and 7 Is" is one of my favorite songs (especially the mono mix! [9]). Arthur Lee and Love were so versatile--the way they could go from the hard punk sound of "7&7" to the eclectic folk/classical/mariachi/jazz/whatever else of Forever Changes. One song-mention I took out during my recent "reduction/extraction" (I should probably put it back in) is the "Voices Green and Purple" by the Bees.[10] It is a landmark song--even the artwork on the sleeve was way ahead of its time. I want so much for us to introduce people to this huge treasure trove of music--from a magical lost Atlantis buried in the sands of time. I want people to know that this music existed. There is an old saying "If it is too good to be true, it probably is." But, the garage thing really happened. It was too good to be true, but it really happened.
• I'm guessing you have a guitar. What kind of axe are you totin'? I play too--I've got a Mexican Strat (it actually sounds really nice--it's got that "clang" & "twang" that I seek). Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've got a BC Rich that I bought when I first moved to Japan. I was looking for an SG, and couldn't find one at any price, so I figured they didn't sell Gibsons in Japan. Of course, the next day I found an SG, and for $100 less than I'd paid for the BC Rich ... Today I wouldn't get an SG, though. I've been itching to get a Telecaster—more the sound I'm into these days. The problem is convincing "the boss" it's a sound investment ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I love Telies--I almost got one, but it was made in Corona and I couldn't quite afford it, but the Mexican Strat was easily the next best sounding guitar on the rack--it beat out a lot of the American made's. And, of course I love Gibsons too, especially the ES-325s and 335s. And, I dig SGs and Les Paul's. The best guitar I ever owned was a G&L Legacy. You probably know that G&L was the last company Leo Fender owned before he died (years after he sold Fender). The Legacy is their Strat style model (and I consider any guitar by them to be true Fender). My G&L Legacy was American made (made in Leo Fender's factory in Fullerton California) and was the best sounding/playing Strat I have ever played including vintage Strats from the 50s and 60s people have been kind to let me play. I couldn't put the darn thing down. I'd start playing it at 6:00pm and play it all night 'till 6:00am after the sun was coming up. Incidentally, I'll be making some of the improvements to the article, as you recommended. I could start in the Regions sections. I'll have some time this weekend to make some headway on it. I was thinking I'd go region by region and you could give me feedback as I work on each section. And, by all means, make any improvements you wish. Gobble gobble! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I'm focusing on the first few Regions sections right now: Pacific Northwest, New England, California, Mid Atlantic, and Midwest. I just made a few changes in there, but tell me if there are more things that should be changed in those sections. In the California section, I could remove the Flamin' Groovies. Though they formed in '65 and released an EP in '67, the majority of their body of recordings is mostly post-garage era. I could put back the Great Society with Grace Slick (?). Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I didn't realize that I was making a change from how you wanted the statement worded with the Shadows of Knight song--I thought I was editing my own previous wording. Sorry for the mistake. You have a good point about there not being a contrast. Let me know if you see anything in the first few Regions sections that needs to be changed. I removed the phrase "less successful" from the description of the Shadows of Knight's "I'm Gonna Make You Mine". I probably should have never put "less successful" in there. Even though it was not as big a hit as "Gloria" (which was really just a toned-down version of Them's version), "I'm Gonna Make You Mine" is now generally considered their most remarkable song. You'll notice that I'm going in and making some changes in the Regions sections--I think you'll like the changes. After we go thought the regions sections, then we could tackle the compilations, and finally work on the citations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Etc

• Why is "cultural icon" in quotes? Is it an unattributed quotation? "scare quotes"? is it even necessary, or just hyperbole? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey it is a quotation from the book I used. I thought the wording was perfect to describe the importance of the song, but I did not want to take credit for saying it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed the wording. I don't want to distract from more pressing concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TheGracefulSlick: All quotations are required to be attributed in the text (not merely cited), for a number of reasons, such as resolving ambiguity (as I pointed out above, quotation marks serve several purposes), and we have to be careful of WP:WEIGHT—is this merely one über-fan's opinion? What does "cultural icon" even mean? Encyclopaedic writing is straightforward, unambiguous, balanced, and unhyperbolic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Cultural icon is a common term but I have changed it already. The author, Robert Dimery, has written several respected musical publications so I wouldn't describe him as a mere "uber-fan". I hope the rewording is more straightforward for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Cultural icon is a common term"—in hyperbolic, promotional media, yes, just like "legend", which has just as little meaning. We don't use that kind of language here, and the pedigree of the source makes it no more acceptable. The article must be purged of such language if it hopes to stand a chance at FAC. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Curley Turkey as I have said twice already, I have changed the wording. It was a mistake that I have recognized without argument. I am excusing myself from editing this article any further.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

??? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting refs

I've started reformatting the refs, but I've already run into problems. The Bill Dahl stuff if from a blog—there's no way that kind of thing will get through FAC. You chould go through the refs for this kind of stuff and decide which stuff you want to hunt down better refs for and which stuff you should just ditch. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Are Laing 2012, Laing 2013, and Laing 2015 really three separate sources?
• Ditto Shuker 2002 & Shuker 2005
• Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed: I removed the citation of Dahl's piece written for the Ponderosa Stomp and replaced it with one from the Times Picayune (NOLA.com). I didn't realize that Ponderosa Stomp's site was a blog. The Ponderosa Stomp is a well-organized bi-annual festival that, in addition to hosting musical performances, holds seminars, lectures, panel discussions featuring noted music experts and writers. I notice that Dahl has written for AllMusic, so I'd imagine that he is notable writer (see the Buckinghams). But, I was able to find a better source. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I corrected the typos for the years in the Laing citations to all read 2015, which is the correct copyright year.
•  Fixed: I corrected the mistakes for the years in the Shuker citations to all read 2005, which was the copyright year for the second edition. There is a newer 2015 edition,[11] but it is not the one referenced here. All of the Shuker references here have been in the article for a long time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• What's going on with Lemlich 1992 and Lemlich 2001? They have the title, and the 2001 one says it's the first edition. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• A tip, for the future: when formatting refs, it's a really good idea to put the author's surname first out of all the fields. Otherwise, alphabetizing them will prove to be a massive time sink, as you have to slowly scan each ref to find out where to move them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• What is Rodel (2004)? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• We need publication details for Ravan Lollipop Lounge Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed: I changed 2001 to 1992 for Lemlich's book. It was a typo. The copyright date should read 1992. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I'll take your advice about putting the surname first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I replaced Rodel with better sources.Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Fixed: I replaced the Lollipop Lounge citations with better sources.Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• What Makes New York Night Train a WP:RS? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm thinking the endnotes should be reviewed for those that actually clear up potential ambiguities or whatever and those that just provide extra tidbits—the latter should probably be dropped. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced http://www.billboard.com/artist/396259/count-five/chart is an appropriate source for "Psychotic Reaction" going to No. 5. If this is so significant, it should be trivial to find a non-primary source, both to source the fact and to source the significance of the fact. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Same issue with http://www.billboard.com/artist/383731/beau-brummels/chart for "In 1965 the Beau Brummels broke into the charts with "Laugh, Laugh", followed by "Just a Little"." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And "In July, the Standells from Los Angeles almost made it into the top ten with "Dirty Water"." with http://www.billboard.com/artist/419182/standells/chart. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, it looks like there's an awful lot of this. Something will have to be done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• The biggest issues I'm running into right now are:
  • Dealing with AllMusic; their articles are undated, which causes a number of issues, including issues with WP:LINKROT. Even if a bot comes along and archives the link, we can't be sure the content of the archived version is the same as the version consulted. There's nothing to stop AllMusic articles from being updated without notice, introducing different and even contradictory content. A potential solution is to archive the links manually while double-checking the content (no point in doing it if the content's not going to be double-checked first), and then link only to the archive so we can be sure of the content.
    • (Another solution is to use more stable sources—if you have books with any of this info, it'd be awesome to swap in cites to them.)
  • Another is dealing with the bundled citations, or rather with the number of comments that accompany them. We could just leave them as they are, I suppose, but if we reformat them as I've been doing, we'll end up with a whole whack of inline citations & endnotes, which is one thing I was trying to avoid. As I commented above, though, most of the comments seem trivial or superfluous to me—if we could ditch them, I could reformat the cites pretty easily. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1966.htm—this is an online music store. Not an appropriate ref for "In April 1966, the Outsiders from Cleveland had a hit with "Time Won't Let Me"." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Could we get a better source for the Cashbox charts than http://www.tropicalglen.com? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm starting to archive some of the web sources as well at the Wayback Machine; it's a good habit to get into, as web sources can disappear without notice and without a trace. For example, http://www.60sgaragebands.com/pleasureseekers.html has gone dead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Pretty sure http://subrealities.waiting-forthe-sun.net/Pages/PhantasticLA/sunsetstrip_memories.html is not considered an WP:RS, so you'll need a better source for "The Sunset Strip was the center of L.A. nightlife, providing bands with high-profile venues to attract a larger following and the attention of record executives." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• I can't get access http://www.nabilechchaibi.com/resources/latinos%20in%20the%20garage.pdf. Is there something wrong with the url? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Turner Classic Movies http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/514200/Mondo-Mod/|website=TCM: Turner Classic Movies is not an appropriate source for the content cited. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• How is Elswhere an WP:RS? Isn't it just someone's blog? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Curly Turkey

• "Garage rock was a precursor to acid rock. With the advent of psychedelia ..." This seems to imply acid rock came before psychedelia, and that the two were unrelated? Also, ""Garage rock was a precursor to acid rock." seems to come out of nowhere, and then just disappear---it doesn't flow well.
• "which Bruce Eder called "a rock & roll tour de force""---rock critics typically throw this type of hyperbole into every other sentence. What make this quote relevant, or even meaningful?
• "and mentioned as a classic in the genre"---by whom? Greene? Wouldn't most of the songs named be considered "classics" by someone anyways?
• "which Bruce Eder singled out as a garage classic"---again, so what? What does this mean? Does saying so help the reader?

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)