Talk:Rhythm and blues

Contemporary and Regular

Is there a difference between this and Contemporary R&B? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary "R&B" is a smooth, syrupy type of electronic pop that isn't bluesy at all. I don't know how it came to be called R&B, because there seems to be no relationship between the two styles. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Should Jewish Influence section be deleted?

Someone did so today... does everyone agree?

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Some drive-by editor dropping in out of the blue and flinging accusations of "antisemitism" (in edit summary left on Doo-wop page) and white supremacism is no reason to remove well-sourced information that cites mostly Jewish academics. I'm sure all my Jewish clients would be astonished to learn that I and the American Jewish Committee are accused (however incoherently) of antisemitism. There seems to be some projection going on with this person, as what black performers themselves thought of the Jewish record company owners they dealt with seems to be of no account to them, and it was Jewish writers describing these matters. Carlstak (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it should not be deleted. But, it does take up over 10% of the article (I haven't measured exactly) - which may be overstating its significance. I don't think that expanding the rest of the article - to make an even longer article - would be the right solution. Also, I'm not sure about the section heading - the section deals with the production and selling of R&B music, but most of the rest of the article is about the musical style itself, and its development. They don't seem to knit together very well - but part of the reason for that is that the rest of the article is not really very good - there's perhaps an undue emphasis on chart performance, for example. I'm not necessarily making any suggestions - just throwing those thoughts out for discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify things, the IP editor who deleted the section has left a gracious note on my talk page thanking me for letting their final revision stand and withdrawing their objection to the material. They did ask me to consider how a layperson might engage with that content and the impact of those words on the audience reading them, which I think is a completely reasonable request. Sometimes one needs to stand back from his work and try to imagine how others could perceive it, as the IP suggests.

I wrote this section for the Doo-wop article initially because it seemed unconscionable that the very important role that Jewish people played in the production and distribution of the music wasn't mentioned. After all, most white people probably would never have heard doo-wop if the Jewish-owned labels hadn't recorded and distributed it nationally and regionally. I announced my intention to write the section on the doo-wop talk page months in advance, and never heard a peep from other editors. So I read up on the subject and wrote about it, becoming aware in the process that it was mostly Jewish academics writing about it, which seemed appropriate to me, and I thought this would help defuse potential objections.

The fact is that Jewish-owned record labels made an essential contribution to the development of rhythm and blues (of which doo-wop is a part) as well, and it seems neglectful not to discuss it. I don't think it's antisemitic or undue emphasis to acknowledge that Jews specifically had a huge role in rhythm and blues, anymore than it's such to admit that they, considered as a people, have had an outsize role in literature, the arts, the sciences, and entertainment relative to their numbers in the general population. I also think it's disgraceful not to give them credit for all they've done for the human race, which is the only real race, anyway.

I intend to spin this section off as a separate article, unless someone has a better idea. I don't want to shorten it, because it seems the explication is necessary to avoid its being misinterpreted. Carlstak (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Soul music 2

Isn't soul music a subgenre of R&B? GogoLion (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YourGuyJY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emevangelisto.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kalebbscott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

British bands in the lead paragraphs

I've removed mentions in the lead paragraphs of UK bands like Jimmy James and the Vagabonds, Geno Washington, Carl Douglas, and Hot Chocolate - although they all had some importance in the UK, it was relatively minor in the overall scheme of things, and Douglas and Hot Chocolate were primarily seen as pop musicians rather than R&B in any case. I've also removed mention of how the Who were promoted as "Maximum R&B" - again, it's an almost trivial fact in the context of R&B music as a whole. I'm still uncomfortable about the only bands being named in the lead being (white) British ones - they could and probably should be removed as well, but I'll wait and see if there are any more comments here first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article. If we mention musicians in the lead, it should be the ones who get the most coverage in the article. That would be Louis Jordan, Fats Domino, maybe Bo Diddley, Johnny Otis, Ruth Brown, Little Richard and some of the others who get at least a paragraph in the History section. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Re-reading that paragraph, it seemed bizarre (and arguably racist) that we should be naming any of those 60s British bands in the lead, when we do not give similar prominence there to any of the US performers who created and defined the genre. I've removed them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In the lede we find

"It referred to music styles that developed from and incorporated electric blues, as well as gospel and soul music." and I am not really comfortable with Soul music being here. R&B was pretty well going along when soul arrives and although there is a lot of overlap to state that R&R "developed from" soul is, in my opinion, misleading. Carptrash (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Afrikaans

R&b music when it first began 41.116.44.251 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ESL Workshop

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2023 and 31 October 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Memiiky (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zzuochengw (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Claratin.nondrowsy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Isha0323 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is best to maybe only allow this genre to be called R'n'B and Rhythm and blues.

This is especially crucial for Wikipedia as there are thousands of articles that say R&B and they are mostly Contemporary R&B. This makes it confusing to then call Rhythm and blues also R&B. It just seems like the simple solution is to not use that abbreviation. Even a global hitmaker like Usher is often cited as "King of R&B" and he is known for Contemporary R&B NOT Rhythm and blues but then again as "Essence" makes it out to be just a modern version if the genre but it still is the same use of the word "R&B" despite both genres sounding completely different so it becomes confusing. At the end of the day Contemporary R&B is more often called R&B than the other genre. Yes we can not change any articles that already use that abbreviation but this just helps avoid confusion to readers especially who might confuse Rhythm and blues with Contemporary R&B as they are both called "R&B" in articles. Just a suggestion. I will also be willing to edit those articles to say "Rhythm and blues" or even "R'n'B" if that helps. This0k (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)