Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano rock (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The majority of the keep votes are quite underwhelming to me, and not convincing. None of the sources presented prove the existence of a "Piano rock" genre, as distinct from music that is part of the "Rock" genre that happens to be played on the piano (or where the piano plays a leading role). A genre is a style of music, which is largely independent of the instrument on which it is played. This is why there is not one other subgenre of rock that is defined by a specific instrument. You can play rock songs on a ukulele, but that doesn't make it "Ukulele Rock". It's just rock played on a ukulele. Gwalla's comments were the most convincing to me in this AfD. The sources presented do not convincingly prove that this article is not original research. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 01:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piano rock

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous version of this article was deleted at AfD. Article has had a notability tag on it since February 2014 and the article was PRODed and declined during the last week. Seems like a good time to settle the notability issue once and for all, so taking it back into AfD. Safiel (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is notable as there are multiple books devoted to it including Improvising Rock Piano and The Everything Rock and Blues Piano Book. Andrew (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are those sources on piano rock as it is described in the article (a particular genre of rock music centered around the piano), or are they about rock piano (playing piano in the context of rock music)? The titles imply the latter. — Gwalla | Talk 17:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is one of those articles on Wikipedia that falls into a grey area with regard to notability. However, there are no sources in the article that actually describe the genre or style itself, but merely list the artists that fall under it. While I'm sure there may be one or two reliable sources out there that may mention it as a genre briefly, I don't think that's enough to necessarily warrant its own separate article. The sources mentioned above seem, as Gwalla said, to be more about playing rock songs with the piano. We don't have articles titled "saxophone rock" or "horn rock" either. I'd say this could easily be merged into the Rock, Soft rock, or any other rock related article. Having it as a separate article seems to make it doomed to being a stub for good. Of course, articles all have a chance of expansion into good articles, but I don't see much potential with this one. Johnny338 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Gwalla seem to be guessing rather than having any actual knowledge of the topic and its sources. The source The Everything Rock and Blues Piano Book is an excellent one for this topic as it discusses the genre and its artists in detail. Andrew (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if you quoted some passages from the book that makes it a notable topic. That may help us reach a consensus. Johnny338 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading the prefious AfD was enlightening. Frankly, the problems that resulted in the previous deletion have not been addressed. While I have no doubt the term is in use, with its self-evident meaning of "rock music in which a piano is prominent", there does not appear to be significant coverage of it as a topic in and of itself. The use of piano in rock music has of course received coverage (in instructional books and others), but that is a related yet distinct topic. Incidentally, I thought I had found something supporting this (albeit not an actual source), an album titled "35 Rock Piano Classics", but it turned out to just be a collection of piano covers of rock tunes. — Gwalla | Talk 21:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Category:Piano rock songs. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – For starters, I find User:Uncle G's comments in the previous AfD to be rather strong, and he identifies specific sources. Doing my own research, I see a number of newspaper articles (even without the availability of Google News archives) that do appear to take "piano rock" seriously as a genre, even if the discussion of the genre is fairly short within each article: this in the LA Times, this in the Orlando Sentinel, this in the Deseret News. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first of those uses the term "piano rock" once: it's an article about Ben Folds and refers to his music as "piano-driven power pop", and goes on to talk about how the piano has been important throughout rock & roll history, namedropping various artists who had piano on their songs (many of whom aren't pianists or primarily known as pianists, like Chuck Berry and Lennon/McCartney), which doesn't really make a case for it as a distinct topic. The second, similarly, is about Ben Folds and only uses the term once to introduce a list of rock & roll pianists he likes. The third is about a tour teaming up Elton John & Billy Joel, and only includes those two words in sequence in the passage "With the exception of Bruce Hornsby's one-year dethroning attempt, the two have ruled piano rock 'n' roll since the early '70s." All of these are the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that the term was in use with its self-evident meaning, but IMO none of them constitute significant coverage. — Gwalla | Talk 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletors would like you to believe that their arguments are reductio ad absurdum, but they really are just straw men. We do not have articles on saxophone rock because there is no such thing. There are enough experts that say that there is piano rock for us to establish its existence, and a pretty darn good idea what it is, because of the scores of examples that sources say are guitar rock. This is not "name-dropping", this is evidence. And finally, a simple explanation: Guitar rock is not a category because it is a tautology. That rock is led by the guitar line is understood. So every Category:Rock song is a guitar rock song, except for those that are led by the piano line, which should be Category:Piano rock song. Capiche? Anarchangel (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keyboard Presents Classic Rock, edited by Ernie Rideout. Ernie Rideout, Preface, pg 11 Anarchangel (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since this book revolves around the piano, you will also lean about pop pianists/songwriters such as Elton John, Billy Joel, Randy Newman, and to a lesser extend newer faces like Tori Amos, Ben Folds, Rufus Wainwright, and others. Grouped together you could call this "piano rock" or "piano pop". Differentiating between those terms is something to explore as well and distinctions will be made about the sometimes hazy discrepancy betweeen pop and rock in chapter 12.
    — Eric Starr, The Everything Rock & Blues Piano Book, pp. 9 (ISBN 9781598692600)
  - The subject is covered in detail on pages 213, 214, and 215 of the above book. Anarchangel (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several issues. The existence of a piano score book does NOT confirm a genre exists, there might well be a book "Classic Rock for Dobro" but it doesn't mean the song was recorded with a dobro. Nor does calling Elton John a piano player create the genre. The omission of some very significant piano-players confirms that this is WP:OR. Grabbing artists together because they employ a keyboard player is not illuminating, not significant or encyclopedic. What could be encyclopedic is the development of piano in rock music. There's plenty of references for that. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source Anarchangel mentioned above on pg 11 is merely an interview with Al Kooper, specifically detailing lessons he received from Muddy Waters and his joining the Blues Project. A keyboard player joining a rock band is not enough to establish the notability of a genre. With regard to the second source, Amazon offers a description of the book: "Written by an experienced musician, recording artist, and music journalist, 'The Everything[registered] Rock & Blues Piano Book with CD' offers the basics of rock and blues piano playing in a fun, easy-to-follow manner. This practical guide is packed with advice on playing in this exciting style, including how to: play with soul; learn basic and advanced techniques for playing rock and roll; and perform 12 Bar Blues, Shuffle, and Boogie-Woogie. The accompanying audio CD includes over 50 examples of rock and blues piano, played by the author. Music lovers and students will enjoy learning the rich history and development of blues and rock music while mastering the art and science of piano playing." This sounds an awful lot like a book teaching students how to play rock songs on a piano. I'll admit I don't possess the book myself, but this doesn't sound like a reliable source to sustain a separate genre article. Again, if someone could quote some passages from the book that say that it is a genre, (and by that I mean more than just a vague grouping of artists under one term in passing) that would be helpful. And with regard to the sources Paul Erik brought up above: all three really do little more than group certain artists under a vague label of "piano rock and roll" and the like. Better than nothing, but a genre article needs to be more than a simple list of artists. It needs to detail history, as well as unique characteristics that make it a genre. A rock song played with a piano does not (IMHO) constitute a genre by itself. It would appear that The Everything Rock & Blues Piano Book is the best source provided so far (again, I'm judging purely on what others have said, as I do not have the book myself). However, three pages in one book isn't enough to sustain notability on its own. Now if there are other, better sources out there that describe the genre "piano rock" in detail with perhaps a detailing of the characteristics of piano rock songs as well as maybe some history of the genre, then I will gladly accept this genre article on its own. For now, I'd say: Delete. Johnny338 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While sourcing is sparse, what's there does seem to indicate that the terminology for the genre exists. There may well be sub-genres which could provide opportunities for expanding the article in the future. The previously deleted article was unsourced. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 00:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nobody is disputing that the term exists. The question is whether it is a distinct subject: is it used to mean something more than simply "rock music featuring piano", which is self-evident from the term itself? Is it more than the sum of its parts? — Gwalla | Talk 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely nothing in google scholar. Barely a genre. But a genre, barely. Some stuff in google scholar. We have space to fit it. Esoteric? That's OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could you post the links you found in Google Scholar? I couldn't find anything. The only link I came across that unambiguously lists "piano rock" as a genre (in a bio on Ben Folds) turns out to be a bunch of excerpts from Wikipedia. — Gwalla | Talk 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.