Talk:Rock music

Thanks for unintentionally making the article worse. Much gratitude. (AlbertMond 17:26, November 19, 2009 (UTC))

Do you honestly think the current article is worse than before (or are you just being ironic)? If you really think it was better before, I don't think I'm alone in disagreeing. It was full of cruft, bad random humor, and incoherence. Maybe it isn't feature material now, but at least it's coherent and mildly amusing. Maybe. Do you have ideas to improve it? I'd be happy to take time to work it into something better. That's what this open wiki community is all about. I can see that your beginning here is pretty positive all in all. I mean to say, the few things you have done here look like minor improvements at least. So, really, I'm open to working with you to improve this if you have good ideas. Thanks. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 19:20, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Ha! like the thing about Jimmy Page not knowing musical theory - he claims to be unable to play a scale.

--- This is a pretty good article. I expected to see something about how its the greatest genre in the world or some bullshit crap, but I love this. Too bad all the 13 year old kids keep rating it down. Again, great job.

Who wrote this? I'm ready to help

• Who wrote this? I was planning to help out, but looking at the history is confusing. Did any of the writers see Spinal Tap? THAT is how you spoof rock stars. Not by saying they're dog shit. That's just nerd's 'sour grapes'. The only way a dweeb can feel cool is to bad mouth a bone fide talent. Mark David Chapman took that to its ultimate conclusion. No musician would find this even remotely funny now. Pathetic, like lighting farts. It's like, "Shit, look at Jimmy Page up there, earing millions, doing exactly the opposite of what Uncyclopedia's writers can do, he's doing SOMETHING NOTABLE". 'Somewhere' is always better than 'nowheresville'. And 'somebodies' are superior to 'nobodies'. If you don't believe me then just call a press conference and see who comes. Or try to have your own article in Wikipedia. Otherwise, what the heck is funny about a nobody calling a somebody bad names? It's crap. And its worthless. Just ask Wikipedia for notability guidelines. Rock and Roll should be such a good article that if you show to any musician they would laugh. I wrote an article on The Yardbirds that made them and their fans laugh. But this article is most certainly NOT written by experts on the subject. I'm ready to help if we change from childish insults to spoof. And make it as good as the Wikipedia version. Please reply to my talk page if you want my help on this subject. Cheers!--Funnybony    22:57, Nov 27

The first thing I thought after reading the Jimmy Page caption is that the differences between him and the writers of this piece are they ALL know who he is, but he hasn't a fucking clue who they are. He's worth a fortune and they're not worth a plug-nickel.--Funnybony    18:13, Nov 28

It's that shit Rock and Roll article? We could always write a rock 'n roll article and show how good that might be. Sog1970 23:26, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I call R&R article shit is because the writers are talking shit. What else? Sure we could do a spoof on R&R - but we can't be acting like jealous nobodies. Lille people are only qualified to judge little people, and great people are qualified to judge great people. What's so cool when an ant tosses grains of sand on an elephant? It's pathetic. And I lost some respect for our top most writer because of the R&R travesty - as funny as dead babies. For a start any article on R&R should start with a pic of Presley. It doesn't have to be a history of rock, and we should not tell readers what to think. I'm game.--Funnybony    00:14, Nov 29

Let's do it then, it sounds like fun. Can't see why it can't be done in a more subtle way than the other one and still be funny. Did the Dr Seuss thing make any sense? --Sog1970 08:31, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sog, Sure, lets do it. But it can't be a childish envious pathetic rant like now. So childishly negative. I'm not going to remain quiet when my world-renowned friends are being bad mouthed by little people who aren't notable enough to shine their shoes. Bad mouthing is never funny, and depending on who is doing the name calling it is pathetic more or less. The right way to make fun of R&R is like your sentence here from Yogi, "He played out almost all of a hugely successful baseball career at the New York Yankees and became one of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers despite quitting school in the eighth grade." Like this, by praising them, followed by introducing a stupid fact that contradicts what was just said. We should not tell the readers what to think. We should do like you did with Yogi. Spinal Tap didn't have some talentless dweeb come up and say, "Rock stars are stupid! Rock stars are stupid!" That's pathetic. But it showed the stupidity, it didn't tell us. Also, calling hugely successful talent with bad names is likewise not friggin funny. So to do justice we have to avoid bad mouthing totally successful people. We also need Aleister's help because he knows the music scene. Question is what is the definition of R&R, when a single genre, like Psychedelic music, has 20 subgenres? R&R is hardly a "Type of music" - it's 200 types of music. Its a life style, it came from the blues, and spread in all directions, with Presley really giving meaning to the name R&R. So - kind Soggy, please start her up. How about we make it a lecture by John Peel on BBC Radio? Like I did with Lord Monckton? Let John tell the article in a lecture on R&R. Yeah--Funnybony    17:05, Nov 29

Rock and Roll

Your comments on the Rock and roll article indicate that you don't understand the satire, which can happen. Multiliteralist describes it well, if impatiently, in the VFH nomination page for the article. We are satirizing the pompous elitist asshole who takes for granted that his low opinion of this great historical musical style matters. I am a huge and if I say so myself very knowledgeable fan of rock and roll, and I find people who hate it to be right imbeciles, generally.

I often have written in the Unreliable Narrator style, where the author-character is the one being satirized (rather than the actual subject) and it is very often too subtle for some readers. It is similar to Michael Jackson, though a different apporach. Please try to re-read it with that understanding, but I hope having to have the joke exlained to you won't spoil the humor for you... -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 00:03, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Globe, thanks for the explanation. But lets start with the Jimmy Page caption. It's as funny as a dead baby. Have you guys actually met Jimmy? Or is your music expertise confined to the audience? Name one rock star on Jimmy's level who is your friend. Jimmy and most are not Pompous dicks any more than Kirk Douglas is Spartacus or Bobby De Niro is a taxi driver. The thing many people miss about R&R is that its "show business". What you are trying to explain was done perfectly by Spinal Tap, and musicians all laughed. But Uncyclopedia's R&R article is not funny. Simply your article needs a name change.--Funnybony    08:24, Nov 30

BTW: This is not about R&R. I had the same objection to the Sam Worthington article, and I know nothing about acting. But I know that what it took for him to land and achieve his goals is a global success of no small measure. I just don't like sniping articles because they sound envious. Call the article Rock and roll snobs, or some such, and then you wont have to change anything except the Jimmy Page picture, who, I assure you, is not a snob. Would the audience rather Jimmy comes on stage appearing like St Thomas Kempis and recite the Lord's Prayer? No. Then why snipe a genuine talent for being extra-ordinarily good? I loved Spinal Tap, and no one had to explain it to me. But current R&R article is unshowable to anyone in music. It sounds like the snobs are the authors. Cheers!--Funnybony    20:28, Nov 30

And this you have written is fine: We are satirizing the pompous elitist asshole who takes for granted that his low opinion of this great historical musical style matters, so, why call it "Rock and Roll"? And what of the talent with a HIGH opinion? And what if it's the world that says something matters? Call your snipe "pompous elitist assholes" and leave R&R to be spoofed correctly. So that musicians will also laugh.--Funnybony    20:36, Nov 30

The dynamic here seems to be an author who had a vision for a page and wrote it up, and someone who loves the subject and wants a page which will do it justice. Both are valuable. As Sog and Funnybony and maybe myself and others have discussed doing a very good R&R page would you be willing to change the name, and then help on the new page? That may be a good solution, although I'd say Funnybony and Sog should take the lead for sure. I would suggest if people like the two mentioned want to do a R&R page (maybe in a user space?) it may be nice to sit back and watch the show unfold! Aleister 20:40 30 11

The Jimmy Page joke is actually very funny - it says so on the article talk page. As you can see, humor is subjective. I am 100% certain your blanket statement that musicians would not laugh at this is incorrect. I bet as high a percentage of musicians - even the highly paid ones you think I'm somehow jealous of (huh?)- would laugh as non-musicians. This is not envious sniping at all. It's just a style of article that you don't relate to and it happens to be attached to a subject you are emotional about. There are innumerable articles on this site where the subject is not the target of satire this way, and many of them are highly regarded. Whether or not this one is a funny article is not a function of its chosen style - it is funny if it makes you laugh, and it clearly makes some people laugh. The worst thing to do would be to try to re-hash the success of Spinal Tap (which I consider great satire). No, I would personally object to ruining the subtlety of the humor here by changing the article title to focus on the author's attitude. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 06:40, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Globe,

Sorry, I failed to note on the talk page that the joke is funny. It's good to know. Hehe!

Well, there is no sense in arguing about what is or is not funny, because that will always vary. One time I met this guy and we were talking, I told him, “Hey, you want to hear a good Jewish joke?” He replied, “Fuck no! I’m Jewish” And I really respected his reply.

The question is the title. You say everyone will laugh at your insults, but the article got voted out of VFH and I only get one vote. So you can’t argue with that. You have misappropriated a subject name that you have filled with petty-minded sniping and insults. And the majority of people didn’t like it. Some felt it was misnamed. So that was the verdict. Cheers!--Funnybony    11:27, Dec 1

What was the Jewish joke? And I don't really dislike the page, it seems fine for what people were getting at. Just that maybe there's room for something else too. Aleister 19:44 1 12

I don't argue with that at all. I actually don't believe this is a feature-worthy article, and I didn't vote for it. But it is at least amusing. Not everything that fails VFH is categorically unfunny. Someone nominated it, after all. That said, I disagree that there is a "verdict" that the title should change. I don't see that anywhere. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 07:23, December 3, 2010 (UTC)