Talk:The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll

Stones

The Rolling Stones get credit for their pallid cover of "Time is On My Side"? If any version of this song "shaped" rock and roll, it was probably Irma Thomas's original. For example, it led to a big hit for the Stones.Jfitzg

Ever since that Denzel Washington movie where a body-shifting demon sings that song as he moves from person to person, "Time Is On My Side" has terrified me. Tuf-Kat

Who in the world would pick "Time Is On My Side" and leave out "You Can't Always Get What You Want"? -- goatasaur

Or "Under My Thumb". Jfitzg

A-ha! The movie is Fallen. Tuf-Kat

Opinions

What a mouthful of an entry title. Nothing links here yet. I'll admire the energy of the wwikipedian who links all 500 songs to this site. Wetman 04:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Pt. 2 is not even close to influential. If anything, it's one of the worst rock songs ever recorded. -Michael

Dr. Dre - "Nuthin' But a "G" Thang" is in no way a rock song. Is it correct that it should be here?

You'll have to bring that up with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. We don't select the songs. Tuf-Kat 21:59, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think by "rock and roll", the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame means songs made during the rock era and modern popular music in general. --FuriousFreddy 05:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A song doesn't have to be rock and roll to shape rock and roll. It might be a good idea to mention this in the article. --24.5.178.21 07:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They need mor Motown Songs, if it weren't for Motown most black today would be as uccelful as they are now plus even those who never heard of motown hum motowns songs all the time.Saimaroimaru (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

I see songs that i wouldnt classify as rock, but i do not see christian rock songs. do u?

Mahalia Jackson's "Move On Up A Little Higher" is a gospel song. Some others, like Etta James and Dinah Washington, did some gospel and some soul (though not really rock), though I don't know about the specific songs listed. Tuf-Kat 22:37, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Needs a date

When did the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame publish this list? 172.145.202.224 17:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Source

What is the source for this list? Seems like POV unless there is a source. Lets get one up.--Gephart 03:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The source is in the title and the lead. It's the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Tuf-Kat 05:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a link with this list to the offical rock and roll hall of fame site. Anyone could produce a list like this and say its from the rock and roll hall of fame.Gephart 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Stub

I am proposing the deletion of this page. There is no source for this imformation, and unless one is posted i move that this stub be deleted. I won't put a tag up yet, as i will wait and see if anyone can present a source with this list, otherwise this is going to be deleted. Thanks.--Gephart 07:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gephart, here is the original source: http://www.rockhall.com/exhibitions/permanent.asp?id=658 This is a permanent collection at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum. It should not be deleted. --Happylobster 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the link! Just wanted to make sure this was verified! Wont delete it then!--Gephart 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different format?

A few weeks back, some good soul went through and changed the numbers to bullets. I'm wondering if an equally good improvement would be to put the list in chronological order.

It seems wrong to delete the alphabetical listing, and I don't think the Wiki syntax allows for dynamic re-ordering. How does a separate page sound?

The dates have to be all filled out first (which itself introduces problems of definition), even if only approximately. I'm thinking a table-based format would help, and make it easier to read.

Thoughts?

DanielVonEhren 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put the entries under A in a table format. Tried not to make any changes, except I pointed the dates at a 'Year in Music' entry.

DanielVonEhren 17:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think its an improvement. Paulmeisel 18:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too, though I also note that songs should be in quotes, not italics. Tuf-Kat 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone working on converting this to tables right now? I'm busy at the moment but I'll come back later and if no-one's doing it I'll get started on it. (this is User:alexforcefive not signed in) 82.41.100.131 21:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting notes

When in doubt about a title or spelling, I'm using Amazon as the arbitrar. For example, there are several variations on the title for "We've Gotta Get Out Of This Place" by The Animals. I used the one on Amazon.
The date formatting requires some explanation. I usually use the standard formatting such as [[Month Day, Year]]. However, I like the 19xx in music wiki pages (although they need a lot of work). I don't know how to have a link within a link, so I've just used the word.
For the date, it seems best to record the first day that the music (as recorded by the listed performer) went on sale. Some songs appeared first in an album, some first as a single, some re-working of traditional melodies, etc. Presumably the links capture the exact details in each case.

List itself

In a couple of other list pages I helped out with back in the day when I was an anon there was an argument about whter to include the list. It was eventually decided that the list itself was the newsworthy event, and could be reported and listed, so long as nothing about the presentation of the list (tv shows, or in this case, the actual exhibits) or details about how it was picked, beyond something like "A poll" or "A panel of experts". Anyway, at one point, there was an actual lawyer who popped in, and in his opinion that so long as we limited our reporting to the list itself, it was fine. The rational was that it was indeed noteworthy, akin to how all media outlets report on Time selecting a man of the year, including who it was, but can't print the time article detailing why and how they picked him. If there aren't any major objections, I'll add the list here in a day or two. -M^ask 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the list is copyrighted, and, newsworthy or not, it's a copyright violation to reproduce the list in its entirety. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of things that already exist isn't a solid copyright. I could name a list of 200 songs I think makade rock and roll what it is today, without looking at their list, and possibly come up with the same one without violating their copyright. A list like that is only copyrightable in its presentation, not in its form, especially since it itself is newsworthy. The Oscars are copyrighted, but the winners lis is reproduced in all media, because it's A.) newsworthy, and B.) a list of things that allready exist. -M^ask 17:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that U.S. courts have routinely ruled that lists are copyrighted, so long as the list contains "creative content". That includes form as well as presentation. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. In this case, Rural was claiming copyright on a list of all people in a region, and the Supreme Court said that list was not copyrightable, since it contained only factual information. (The Oscars are the same.) But when someone lists 500 songs that in that person's opinion are the most influential, that list contains "creative content" and is copyrightable. The Feist vs. Rural ruled states that "A compilation. . . is copyrightable if its facts have been selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." That's why this list is copyrighted, and can't be reproduced. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pretty similer to the Oscars to me. A recognized body of experts selects what is their opinion of the most influential pieces of work in their field for a given timeframe is. Longer time frame here, but same idea. And if this is how you say it is, why is the same standard not applied to other big lists we have, such as the List of VH1's greatest artists of rock and roll, 100 Greatest Britons, The Greatest American or The Greatest Canadian. -M^ask 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone think to ask the copyright holders for permission to reproduce the list? As it stands, this article is completely pointless. TheMadBaron 12:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The page serves to advertise the Hall of Fame's website. It should be removed.

Article restored

I have restored this article, describing the list but not reproducing it (only ext linking to it). It is valuable to have an article for this because it is a prestigous list and numerous song, album, and artist articles wlink to it (check "What links here"). The article can talk about the list without giving the list, in the same manner as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and similar articles do. Wasted Time R 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Clapton

The foot note says that E.C. was given credit for 1 Yardbirds song. The Yardbirds song in the list is "Shapes of Things", which he did not play on. Jeff Beck should receive credit for that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.82.107 (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change made to Clapton's total. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Diddley

My man, where is Bo Diddley? --84.226.240.37 (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]