# Talk:Psychedelic rock

@Woovee Please copy and paste direct quotes from the article's sources relevant to

Once that is done, please argue how the sources consider them relevant or important to psyche-rock (NOT neo-psychedelia; the phrase "psychedelic rock" doesn't even appear in AllMusic's bio). You already know which statements I take issue with based on this edit.

Shouldn't the Mothers of Invention, Freak Out! (1966) be included somewhere here? Just because Frank Zappa did not take LSD does not mean his music (and the cover art on the record) was irrelevant to psychedelia. WiLaFa (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, if a reliable source discussing psychedelic rock recognises Freak Out! as significant to the genre, then the answer's probably yes. JG66 (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the recent removal from the lead of mention that psychedelia is an alternative term for psyche rock, I think we need to find a source that does state that the terms are aligned – and quickly. I've certainly added loads to the article in years gone by based on the idea that psychedelia = psyche rock. As mentioned here, the solution would otherwise seem to be that any details where the source refers to psychedelia, rather than psychedelic rock, don't belong here, but at Psychedelic music or Acid rock.
This is all related to that issue of authors and journalists confusing the two terms. Eg, unlike most American writers, it seems, authors who are experts on the genre such as Jon Savage, Rob Chapman, Russell Reising, William Echard, have no issue in talking about the type of music discussed here as "psychedelia". And from what I read, that is the historically accurate word for the genre, too. JG66 (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock is a form of psychedelia.  But so is psychedelic art.  The terms are not equivalent.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are you American? Much of the music that's discussed in this article is described by the sources as psychedelia. That's what's pertinent here. Do these or other sources say that psyche rock is also know as psychedelia? – no, I don't believe they do. It just becomes apparent from reading the sources, as does the idea that each writer favours one of the two terms over the other. JG66 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
No, of course I'm not American !!  Most rock writers probably do describe the music as "psychedelia", because they are rock writers, so the context of their words is understood.  But that does not mean that "psychedelic rock" is the same thing as "psychedelia".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
1) Ha! Priceless.
2) OK, I do get your point for the most part. I don't know if you see mine: much of the information in this article comes from sources discussing "psychedelia", a term that in the context of Wikipedia's coverage of rock music, apparently applies to the articles on acid rock and psychedelic music, but not this one (because nowhere do we state that psychedelia is an alternative term for psychedelic rock). As boring and mundane as it is to observe, surely this is original research for us to decide that sources writing about psychedelia are really talking about psychedelic rock (and not acid rock or psychedelic music). JG66 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
My point is that "psychedelia" is a term that has a much broader definition than "psychedelic rock".  Some of the sources may refer to "psychedelic rock" in context as "psychedelia", but that does not mean we are obliged to sow confusion among readers by using the same term here, out of context.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I've always thought that the conflicting use of these terms would be a good reason to merge Psychedelic rock, Acid rock, and Psychedelic pop into Psychedelic music. Inconsistent sources that can't agree on whether to call something "psychedelic", "acid", "rock", or "pop" is why the coverage of psych-pop/rock on here is kind of a mess. We end up with a weird kind of WP:CFORK/WP:OVERLAP with four articles treating more or less the same subject. I don't know if anyone would support such a merge but I think it would make maintaining the articles so much easier. ili (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you could be on to something there. The fork and overlap aspects basically result from authors' preferences, mixed with a revisionist approach to what the contemporaneous music scenes became known as. It would be a massive undertaking to merge all of them, and it requires some serious thought. (At the same time, I think anything would be an improvement on the current, confused & confusing treatment across four articles. I don't believe I've ever come across even one source where the author recognises four [or even three] different strands in the way we do.) Perhaps there might be a case for continuing to treat acid rock separately, who knows. JG66 (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a sort of "50/50" on whether it is about the terms or about the music. Either way, they aren't 4 distinct strands of music, there are just different words that people choose to apply often to the same music.  IMO a merge would he good, and the resultant articles should cover all 4 terms as terms, as well as the involved music.  North8000 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Arnold Layne" is mentioned as a single from March '67. Surely "Purple Haze", released the same month, is a far more significant recording. 205.178.88.119 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This apple is much better than that orange. The Real Walrus (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)