Talk:Doo-wop

Black artists?

The article says it was an Afro-American genre. Why are all the photos old white guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C602:9FA1:81E3:A5B7:FE24:F3F (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Doo-wop/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is being written to generate more Wikiproject "African diaspora" content. Like many other similar invented articles, it has one purpose: filling Wikiproject "African diaspora" with pages. HeyYallYo (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Stray Cats?

Would their hits in the early 80's be considered a Doo-wop influenced revival? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.81.70 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Stray Cats were a rockabilly outfit. Doo Wop is characterised by close harmony; The Stray Cats had a single lead singer. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doo-wop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130128150806/http://miamitimesonline.com/street-corner-renaissance-takes-%E2%80%98doo-wop%E2%80%99-to-new-levels/ to http://miamitimesonline.com/street-corner-renaissance-takes-%E2%80%98doo-wop%E2%80%99-to-new-levels/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

the "Etymology" section

contains the following claim:

• "the scat backing vocal "doo-wop" is heard in The Delta Rhythm Boys' 1945 recording of "Just A-Sittin' And A-Rockin",

and I don't know the song but would be surprised if it contained scat singing back -up vocals. Some folks think that all nonsense lyrics are scat singing and that is not so. Our definition of scat singing is that it is 'improvisational" and very rarely, if ever, is back-up singing that. I am inclined to remove the word but since I am new to this article I want to give you a chance to discuss it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the term 'scat backing vocal' is a contradiction in terms. Looks like that was added here [1], which was way back in 2011. I suggest you delete the term 'scat'. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove

this sentence
" Other important groups, including The Coasters, The Drifters, The Midnighters, "
because I don't think that any of them are good examples of Doo-wop. This is your chance to convince me otherwise. Carptrash (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the Midnighters. I do agree that it's a stretch to classify the Drifters as doo-wop; but I think they are sometimes classified that way. As far as the Coasters are concerned, Poison Ivy and (especially) Yakety Yak are generally classified as doo-wop numbers.

The 'sentence' you have proposed to remove is not a sentence. The full sentence in the article includes mention of the Platters. Are you proposing to remove that reference too?

Well, I don't think mention of the Drifters, the Platters or the Coasters should be removed. There is some development and change during the history of doo-wop, and I think this article should reflect that.

When I was a kid, I asked someone what 'soul' music was (I was unfamiliar with most black music at that time). He told me that it was like the music of the band Free. This helped me a lot, and I think mention of the Drifters, the Platters and the Coasters is likely also to be helpful, even if their close-harmony music might not be strictly doo-wop, defined in terms of using meaningless vocal sounds to stand in for musical instruments. I disapprove of genre fascism :-) MrDemeanour (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The full sentence is: "Other important groups, including The Coasters, The Drifters, The Midnighters, and The Platters, helped link the doo-wop style to the mainstream, and to the future sound of soul music." It doesn't claim that they were strictly doo-wop themselves, but that they were links or bridges between classic doo-wop and mainstream pop and soul music. I think that is both fair, and a reasonable summary of sources, and therefore I don't see any need for it to be removed or indeed changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I asked for some opinions and I got not just one but two opinions that I can respect. Certainly (another of the words that mean "in my opinion") the Drifters in their early years could be considered to be Doo-wop but by the time they were charting, no, they were not. What are their big doo-wop songs? Some of Hank Ballard and the Midnighters early stuff is (another opinion, actually this is all opinion) doo-wop but they are best known for doing the original The Twist (song), which is virtually undetectable from the Chubby Checker version. Doo-wop? It is making these sorts of tenuous connections that leads to lots of people misunderstanding what doo-wop is. Because the Rolling Stones do a country song or two does not make them a country band. Carl Gardner, one of the Coaster’s lead singers said, “Don’t call us a ‘doo-wop’ group,” and I think we should take him at his word despite our desire to avoid 1st person sources. But I am not going to remove any of that text. Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Strengthening prose and logic

@Wordwright: You have made an edit to this article that is too extensive to review easily; I am reverting it. (Actually I have also reverted two minor changes, because they were preventing a simple revert). I ask that you please re-do the edit in relatively small pieces, to make it easier to see what you are changing.

I think that at least some of what you are doing is rewriting the article to match your personal stylistic preferences. But in the process, you seem to be deleting cited material. Unfortunately, with a big diff showing changes in many parts of the article, it's hard to be sure. Something that might help would be if moves of large chunks of material were kept strictly separate from changes to phrasing and language. Combining moves with substantial textual changes seems to be particularly problematic.

The phrase "strengthen prose and logic" is unhelpful in an edit summary, because it seems to be in the edit summary of most of your edits; and because others might not agree that your change has "strengthened" either the prose of the logic (what does that mean anyway?). If you were to stick to a summary that actually says what change you made, it would be easier to review your edits.

Thanks. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour and MrDemeanour:

Thanks for explaining the reason for your revert. I always try to improve an article, and it always puzzles me when someone reverts as though the version as I found it did not need any improvements.

You're right, I did too much. When I moved that first paragraph to the new section, I found myself in a dilemma: either publish and let the new macro-mess I had created provisionally stand or do the micro-editing in the introduction and in the new section. I opted for the latter and then found, to my dismay, that I kept creating more macro-messes that I felt obliged to clean up. So I just got carried away. I will re-do my edit one section at a time. For now, I'd like to answer your question.

When I speak of strengthening the logic, I mean in general that a paragraph should unfold according to the standard point of composition that it should open with a statement of the topic or the thesis, and then it should be developed by introducing and completing one sub-topic or theme before proceeding to another. Look at this paragraph from the introductory section:

The first hit record to use the syllables "doo-wop" was probably "When You Dance" by The Turbans in 1955.[2] The term "doo-wop" first appeared in print in 1961. During the late 1950s many Italian-American groups contributed a significant part in the doo-wop scene. The peak of doo-wop was in 1961. Doo-wop's influence continued in soul, pop, and rock groups of the 1960s. At various times in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the genre has seen revivals. Doo-wop was a precursor to many of the African-American musical styles seen today. Evolved from pop, jazz and blues, doo-wop also influenced many of the major rock and roll groups that defined the later decades of the 20th century. Doo-wop is iconic for its swing-like beats and using the off-beat to keep time. Doo-wop laid the foundation for many musical innovations.

The first sentence is about the use of the expression in a song in 1955; the next is about its use in print in 1961; the third changes the topic altogether, and then every successive sentence changes the topic. If the article is really to be informative, so that a reader gets a concrete sense of the musical style itself, its social origins, its rise in popularity, and its influence on other musical styles, you cannot let this paragraph stand, but must put each sentence in a paragraph where it can function as a topic or thesis statement, or as a development of a topic or thesis that flows from a preceding sentence and prepares the reader for the succeeding sentence. In general, major topics come before minor ones, general statements come before particular ones, either abstraction or illustration may precede the other but the order must be most useful to the reader, chronological order helps one make sense of a historical account, etc.

As for strengthening prose, I don't follow my personal preferences, but basic rules concerning the desirability of conciseness, of variation in sentence structure, of proper use of subordination and coordination, of placement of the strongest or most informative elements at the beginning and end of sentences, of plain English over jargon, and the like. When the topic is American, I follow American rules of punctuation—periods and commas go inside the closing quotation mark; I use commas, colons, semi-colons, and dashes properly: commas separate items in a list, semi-colons separate clauses, dashes introduce a a clause topically or thematically continuous but syntactically discontinuous with the preceding one, and colons introduce a clause syntactically discontinuous with the preceding one but that elaborates or develops its topic or theme—so colons should not be used to introduce lists, and semi-colons should not be used to separate items in a list.

To see my point, consider two paragraphs from the version of the article "Bowl" as I found them:

A bowl is an open-top container used in many cultures to serve hot and cold food. Bowls are normally round but can be any shape including square or rectangular. Bowls are also used for drinking, as in the case of caffe latte. Bowls used for storing non-food items range from small bowls used for holding tips at a coffee shop to large bowls used for storing DVDs or CDs. Bowls are typically small and shallow, as in the case of bowls used for single servings of soup or cereal. Some bowls, such as punch bowls, serving bowls, fruit bowls, and serving bowls, are larger and often intended to serve many people.

Modern bowls can be made of ceramic, metal, wood, plastic, and other materials. Their appearance can range from very simple designs of a single color to designs sophisticated art work.

The second paragraph was separated from the first by a short paragraph on the standard British/American measure for a soup bowl; together they come to 141 words. As I noted on the talk page, in the first paragraph there are six sentences that begin with the word "bowl"; I also noted that no square or rectangular container can be a bowl because we cannot stir and do other things in them. So here is my version:

A bowl is a half spherical open-top container used primarily either to knead, stir, whip, or whisk raw ingredients for some dish or to serve cooked or otherwise ready-to-eat-or-drink foods and liquids; sometimes they may be used to store non-food items (e.g. tips or DVDs or CDs). Made of wood, ceramic, metal, glass, plastic, and other materials in various sizes ranging from small and shallow (for single servings of soup or cereal) to large and deep (for many servings of punch, soup, or salad to many people), bowls may have simple designs and a single color or may be so ornately designed and beautifully colored as to be works of art.

My version comes to 111 words; I added a little information, and eliminated irrelevant details—can we reasonably expect readers not to know that you serve hot and cold food in bowls? Or that peoples in different societies and cultures use them? Do they really need to be told that bowls for tips can be found in coffee shops? Or that people drink caffe latte from bowls? Do you really need to know what the British/American measure for a soup bowl is?

I think anyone can see that the prose of my version is stronger because of the way I have dealt the information out in just two sentences. In the first sentence, I use the standard SVO order in a first clause to give the basic physical characterization and function of a bowl; in the second I identify a secondary use. I open the second sentence with a subordinate clause about the materials out of which bowls can be made and their sizes according to function, using parallel syntax for information of parallel significance, to introduce a main clause that completes the theme of materials with the theme of their artful use.

So I didn't follow my preferences; I considered the needs of readers who are well-served when they get the most information with the least labor in the shortest time with the greatest possible pleasure. The standard test for good writing is to read a passage aloud; I don't imagine that people who review edits will supply that test, but I do expect that even in silent reading they will hear the difference between sentences that just drone on in hitting the same note over and over and sputter to a conclusion in which the syntax breaks down, and sentences that vary in rhythm in their inner structure and in their succession, each beginning and ending with different types of emphasis, and none containing any syntactic traps.

It isn't easy to describe my changes precisely because I find so many problems in passages, so I opted for the formula. From now on I think it will be best to discuss problems of strength and logic in the "Talk" section so that my changes will make more sense.

I hope the explanation satisfies you. Thanks again!

TL;DR. The explanation doesn't satisfy me. The wall-of-text character of your comment here does not inspire me with confidence in the reliability of your taste in prose style (and I'm afraid your handle suggests that you think differently). But I'm not too fussed about the way you compose comments; we should stick to the article. To review your changes to the article, I need to be able to work out what you did.

I take your point about the sample of text beginning "The first hit record"; it's all over the place. There's a tendency for drive-by editors who want to add a sentence to an article to just insert it into an existing paragraph, regardless of whether it makes sense in that context. This is particularly prevalent in articles about which everyone reckons they know what they're talking about, such as pop culture. I agree that such passages need attention.

This article isn't about bowls; or jars, for that matter. But in the article on Jar, you did the same thing; a huge diff that mushes together section-moves, content changes and copy-editing for style. And you used the same copy-paste phrase in your edit summary. In fact I only looked at 'Jar' to see whether you were making a habit of these monster diffs. I found that most of your edit summaries amount to "strengthen prose and logic".

Please make edits with diffs that can be summarised accurately in a short edit summary. If you think you need to copy-paste an edit summary, the chances are your edit summary does not adequately describe the edit (you see, ideally I should not have to study the diffs; reading the edit summaries should be enough for me to know what you've done). If the diff requires significant scrolling to read it, there's a good chance that you've changed too much in a single edit.

Failing to give a decent edit summary could be seen as arrogant: "My changes are correct, why should anyone want to review them, or worse, revert them?" You have an obligation to make it easy for other editors to review your work.

Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is only one of me; addressing me as 'MrDemeanour and MrDemeanour' suggests that you think I may be socking. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour:

I took your criticisms graciously and your questions seriously, and did you the courtesy of really trying to satisfy you, but then you turn around and give me that "too long, didn't read" sign, even though that is not just rude, but commits you to a contradiction: if you didn't read the whole thing, how can you say it didn't satisfy you? Nevertheless, I take your new criticisms seriously, and will respond in a way to do them justice.

Again, I take your general point: I have edited articles in ways that make it hard for people to review, and I will stop doing that.

But the question of the objectionable mechanics of the process I have used is very different from the question of the principles I have used. You seem to take the mechanics of my response (I wrote a lot) as a reason to call my "taste" into question; but I didn't explain my "tastes," just the principles that can be found in any guide to writing. I didn't give you an example from the article on bowl to change the subject, but just to make it clear what I meant by strength of prose style—if the same information can be given in 111 words rather than 141 words, then the 111-word version is stronger, and helps the reader. Do you think I'm wrong? Is it your belief that there just are no objective principles of composition?

As for my edit summaries, I adopted my formula because, frankly, I found so many messes, whether by made by poor writers or drive-by editors or not, that it seemed to me nobody really cared.

So take the person who created the duplication of info about the first use of the phrase "doo-wop"—what justification can they have given? "Thought that information present in the 'Etymology' section needed to appear also in the intro"? How do drive-by editors in general justify their changes? Suppose that the paragraph about the first hit record was produced by several different drivers-by who added a single sentence; are you telling me that each one thought, Wow! I've really helped the reader!, and in the edit summary said something to the effect that they added info the reader couldn't do without? It seems to me that a lot of editors just aren't reading the result of their changes.

I don't intend to be personal, but if you are watching this page, why let drivers-by vandalize it? Forgive me if I have wrongly presupposed that you've had it on your watch list for some time, but I hope you can see my point: it is really hard to imagine that writers or editors who produce chronological muddles or who let repetitions stand are really thinking of the reader; it is really hard to imagine that page-watchers who let muddles and information bloat stand really care about the page.

I did not use your name twice on purpose. This is only the second time, in about ten years I think, that I've corresponded with another editor, so I just copied your salutation and then copied what I found in your signature after "User:" and pasted it. I'm not familiar with all the tricks or subtle types of communication that made you think I might have thought you were "socking," a verb I have never heard before, though I know what it means, but to which I call attention just to let you know that I'm an outsider, so please forgive me if I have done other things that strike you as untoward. I don't write in bad faith.

So please accept my thanks again for your observations—I sincerely wish to improve articles, and it helps to know how to help page-watchers who want to be able to see just what I have done.Wordwright (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Look, do your worst. I'm not interested in reading lengthy screeds on talk pages. You appear to have a high opinion of your language skills, judging by the length of your comments and your choice of handle.

Your claim to be a newbie is disingenuous; you've been editing since 2008. And you didn't just copy-paste my handle; you inserted 'and'.

I'm outa here. MrDemeanour (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour:

I didn't claim to be a "newbie," but said that I am an outsider because I don't understand the lingo or all the technical niceties, and that in ten years I have only had one conversation before, quite recently in fact, about the proper mechanism for editing. So in adding "and," I just made a mistake—that's all.

You appear to have some animus against me, personally, and not to have any understanding of objective principles of composition, or else you wouldn't keep making an issue of my choice of name. I am justified in my opinion of my mastery of English: I am sixty years old, I have read extensively in all sorts of English literature, and I speak several languages. I'm not sure why you tell me "to do my worst," as if I were out to sabotage articles. So I'm sorry you are so sour about something I don't understand that you won't accept my expressions of good will, but I will continue to try to make improvements. Wordwright (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Problems in the introductory section and proposed improvements.

Here is the first paragraph of the introductory section as I found it:

Doo-wop is a genre of rhythm and blues music that was developed in African-American communities in the East Coast of the United States in the 1940s, achieving mainstream popularity in the 1950s and early 1960s. Built upon vocal harmony, doo-wop was one of the most mainstream, pop-oriented styles of the time. Singer Bill Kenny is often called the "Godfather of Doo-wop" for his introducing the "top and bottom" format which featured a high tenor singing the lead and a bass singer reciting the lyrics in the middle of the song. Doo-wop features vocal group harmony, nonsense syllables, a simple beat, sometimes little or no instrumentation, and simple music and lyrics.

Problems. Since doo-wop is a genre of music, shouldn't its musical characteristics have pride of place? Statements about its origins and eventual popularity come before any indication of its musical character; we get a historical detail about one specific feature before any mention of its most general features. And what does "most mainstream, pop-oriented styles of the time" mean? If something is in the mainstream, it can't be more in the mainstream than other things in the mainstream; and again, if something is oriented towards X, it can't be more oriented towards X than other things oriented towards X—that would be like saying that, although you and I are standing across from the White House, I'm standing more across from it than you. Finally, I'm not sure what "pop-oriented" means, what other styles are being referred to, what other "orientations" there are, and why it should be significant that doo-wop was so oriented.

The statement that doo-wop was "developed in African-American communities in the East Coast of the United States in the 1940s" suffers from several problems. It was black American youths who developed the style; the style didn't just develop on its own everywhere in some "community." The term "community" is overused now: it does not refer to a specific physical location, but an immaterial moral entity in which there are no individual agents. "East Coast" refers to all states from Maine to Florida, so it is too general, and "large cities like New York" would be preferable. "African-American" is politically correct; I am black, born in 1957, and it sounds quite strange to use this phrase, which Jesse Jackson proposed in the early 1980s to try to give black people more ethnic dignity even though not all blacks thought such enhancement was necessary, to denote black people who called themselves either "black" or "Negro." More problematically still, with the great increase in numbers of black African immigrants, it is strictly speaking illogical to use the phrase to denote black Americans who were not born in any African country.

Proposals. I think that a reader is best served by a simple accurate indication of doo-wop's basic origins, and then an itemization of its basic musical features. The statement about Kenny belongs in the section on origins. The statement about the mainstream and orientation makes no sense, so I will remove it. If its author would like to make the point clearer, it should be explained what is significant about the fact that doo-wop entered the mainstream (which I presume has something to do with the fact that black youth invented it); this statement belongs in a paragraph about popularity. A revised statement about orientation belongs in the section on the development of the genre.

Here is the second paragraph:

The first hit record to use the syllables "doo-wop" was probably "When You Dance" by The Turbans in 1955.[2] The term "doo-wop" first appeared in print in 1961. During the late 1950s many Italian-American groups contributed a significant part in the doo-wop scene. The peak of doo-wop was in 1961. Doo-wop's influence continued in soul, pop, and rock groups of the 1960s. At various times in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the genre has seen revivals. Doo-wop was a precursor to many of the African-American musical styles seen today. Evolved from pop, jazz and blues, doo-wop also influenced many of the major rock and roll groups that defined the later decades of the 20th century. Doo-wop is iconic for its swing-like beats and using the off-beat to keep time. Doo-wop laid the foundation for many musical innovations.

Problems. The first two sentences of this paragraph are about the term "doo-wop," but each of the other seven sentences introduces a new topic. The paragraph therefore has no focus, no coherence, and no development, and so has no logical order at all. No reader could find it informative.

Proposals The paragraph does not belong in the introductory section at all, nor should it be kept as it is and placed elsewhere. Since some of the information repeats or contradicts information in other sentences elsewhere, only such information as is pertinent to a topic and develops it should be incorporated in a logical place in an appropriate paragraph in an appropriate section. For the moment, I will merely dump the paragraph in the section on origins.Wordwright (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Structural problems in the section on origins

The title "Origins" makes the reader expect the section to explain from what sources the musical genre emerged; why, then, is the last paragraph about groups' names? What do the names tell us about the origins of the style?

I think that question can be answered implicitly if the section is divided into sub-sections devoted to the four types of information in the section: (i) indications of the musical precedents; (ii) characterization of the style itself; (iii) street performance; (iv) groups' choice of a class of names that would function as indications of their shared musical style.

Problem in "Musical Precedents" (I).

That first paragraph of the section currently reads as follows:

During the years around World War II, hit records by African-American vocal groups such as The Delta Rhythm Boys, The Cats and the Fiddle, the Ink Spots, The Mills Brothers, along with Negro spiritual groups, set important precedents for the genre. The Ink Spots had a string of record successes in the 1930s and 1940s, both in the United States and in Britain, with "If I Didn't Care", one of the best selling singles worldwide of all time, and "Address Unknown", with The Mills Brothers following suit in the 1940s until the mid 1950s with songs such as "Paper Doll", "You Always Hurt The One You Love" and "Glow Worm."

Problem. Doo-wop is mentioned only obliquely, and no precedents are identified at all. Why mention Negro spiritual groups at all if you aren't going to identify the precedents only to be found in their work? Why mention the hits? Do they contain musical devices that were particularly influential? This just seems to be a random list of groups and songs who had hits. And what does "the years around WWII" mean? Since the writer mentions the period from the 1930s to the 1950s, and in the next paragraph a song from 1934 is mentioned, WWII has nothing to do with the music's history. Finally, since the two crucial musical innovations identified in the next paragraph derive from white composers, it is inaccurate simply to speak of "hit records" as the source of precedents without identifying the composers of the songs. The fact that the vocal groups were black is irrelevant; the question is who composed the music.

Proposal. Make "doo-wop" the first word of the section, and then identify, in order of importance, the musical precedents; race should not be a criterion of order. A transfer of info from the second to the first paragraph will be necessary. Clean up the chronology.

Here is the second paragraph:

These were generally slow songs in swing time with simple instrumentation and close four-part harmony reminiscent of the barbershop quartet from which The Mills Brothers evolved. The subject of the lyrics was generally love and relationships. The typical doo-wop chord progression I–VI–IV–V was a slight but significant variation of the I-VI-II-V-loop that generated several American 1930s hits such as the Rodgers and Hart penned "Blue Moon" (1934), and Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser's single "Heart and Soul" (1938); it would later become closely associated with doo-wop such that it is sometimes referred to as the 50s progression. This characteristic harmonic layout was combined with the AABA chorus form typical for Tin Pan Alley pop. A second stream of doo-wop oriented itself to the harmonic, formal and melodic means of jump blues.

Problems. There are three basic topics: composition, orchestration, and vocals, which should come in that order, since the first is the condition for the second, and the second for the third. They all belong in the first paragraph. If the chord progression was closely associated with doo-wop, then why wasn't it called "the doo-wop progression"? The name "the 50s progression" suggests that, though it may have originated with doo-wop, it became so pervasive in all 50s music that, etc.

The sentence about the subject is irrelevant and unnecessary—most popular songs are about love and relationships. The last sentence is mysterious: what is the first stream of doo-wop, and what is jump blues?

Proposals. I will move the relevant information to the first paragraph, and eliminate the irrelevant sentences. The writer who knows about the two streams should identify groups or songs that exemplify both, and discuss the musical characteristics of jump blues.Wordwright (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Falsehoods in "Doo-Wop's Enrichment"

Here are the statements about Hispanics in doo-wop:

The contribution of Hispanics is often overlooked. Early, especially in U.S. East Coast cities, Puerto Ricans were lead singers in some groups with black and white members, including The Crests, Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers, the Five Discs and the Tune Weavers.

To contribute to something is to perform an act that makes it possible or that makes it what it is. If you write songs, you contribute to the genre; if you introduce a new element to the style, you make a big contribution; but if all you do is sing lead, you don't make a contribution, you just participate. But the lead singer of the Crests was Johnny Maestro, who was not Puerto Rican—Chico Torres was a member of the group; Frankie Lymon was black, not Puerto Rican—Herman Santiago had been lead singer of the Coupe De Villes, and he helped write "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?", but he was not the lead singer on that record. There is no indication on the WP article for the Five Discs that their lead singer was PR. Margo Sylvia was the lead singer of the Tune Weavers, and though it isn't stated in the WP article that she was PR, but since her maiden name was "Lopez," I will give the statement the benefit of the doubt.

[NB: MrDemeanour pointed out to me that my original opening justification to introduce my proposed changes was rather uncivil, and I agree, so here follows a new version Wordwright (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)] While I certainly believe that, when anybody of any race, ethnic group, class, religion, and so on, has created or had a hand in creating something important, that should be noted, I also believe that it is important not to inflate anybody's role in any activity, because that is not just unfair to those who had a more significant role, it also implies that the persons whose role one inflates can't be judged by the same standards as others. This may not have been the intent of the person who wrote the first line, but I find it a little troubling that the writer did not notice that Frankie Lymon, who everybody must know is black if they know about FL&TT, is not Puerto Rican, and that the lead singer of the Crests wasn't PR, either. Charity dictates that I take that as the result of a misunderstanding, but still, false statements are false statements, however they came to be made. [Here ends he new version.Wordwright (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)] So I am going to re-write this passage to acknowledge that Santiago helped to write—"helped" because he didn't write the thing by himself—FL&TT's hit song, and to identify the other PR singers, but the claim that Hispanics in general contributed to the genre is false, and I will eliminate it.

According to Why Do Fools Fall In Love (song), the song was written by Herman Santiago (a puerto-rican), based on a line from a love letter. That article mentions nobody else as songwriter, although it does say that it has been attributed to various others from time to time. The claim that Santiago wrote the song appears to be cited (although I am unable to check the citation).

Accusing other editors of lying ('vile' lying, no less) is WP:uncivil. You should substantiate with a citation your claim that the song was written by Lymon, or and strike that accusation from your comment. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I found in the WP article "The Teenagers":

The same year Lymon joined the group, he helped Santiago and Merchant rewrite a song they had composed to create "Why Do Fools Fall In Love". The song got the Teenagers an audition with George Goldner's Gee Records, but Santiago was too sick to sing lead on the day of the audition. Lymon sang the lead on "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" instead, and the group was signed to Gee as The Teenagers, with Lymon as lead singer.

The line in bold implies that the song Santiago and Merchant wrote was something other than WDFFIL, and that with his help it became that hit. Here is what you find in the article "'Why Do Fools Fall In Love?'":

Herman Santiago, tenor of the group, had written the song based on a line from some love letters given to the guys by a tenant in bassist Sherman Garnes' apartment building. One of them featured the words "Why do birds sing so gay?," which fit in with lyrics of other songs that Herman had been writing based on a 1-6-2-5 chord pattern. So Herman worked with it, creating a song for Herman Santiago to lead, and adjusting the harmony to take advantage of Frankie Lymon's high tenor/soprano. Along the way, Herman changed some of the lyrics. During the audition Frankie's voice stood out and, at Goldner's suggestion, the lead in subsequent recording sessions was given to Frankie. Frankie did some improvising and re-created the melody to match his own style. According to Jimmy Merchant, what happened at the recording session was a combination of "Frankie's singing ability coupled with George Goldner's special ability to bring out the best in Frankie.

The first two lines in bold clearly state that Santiago wrote a version of WDFFIL that he brought to the studio audition with him, but that at some point Lymon changed the melody, changing the Santiago version, which was never recorded, into the FL&TT hit that we know today. Here is what we find in "Herman Santiago":

The following day the group was supposed to meet with Goldner in the studio for a recording session. Santiago had a sore throat and could not sing the lead vocal of the song he had written, "Why Do Fools Fall in Love," and therefore, gave Negroni the music sheet with the words to the song. Frankie Lymon filled in for Santiago, however according to Jimmy Merchant, once the precocious Lymon became an established member of the group, his vocal talent and instinctive stage presence made him the obvious choice to be the group's lead vocalist, and Santiago graciously stepped aside.

This version states simply that HS wrote the song.

Clearly, these three articles disagree about just what state the song was in when the group auditioned; they also disagree about why HS did not sing lead. It also seems clear that I was wrong to have written, on the basis of the paragraph from the article on the Teenagers, that HS "was one of the composers of" the song; in light of the other passages, that line should go, "was the composer of the melody and lyrics of the original version of."

You're quite right, though—my statement about lying was intemperate, and I am happy to amend it.Wordwright (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wordwright Out of the three articles, only one cites a source. That article is quite clear that HS wrote the song, and also adapted it to Lymon's singing style. If you know better, please show your sources.

Please stop going on about my 'animus'. You know nothing about my psychological make-up. I know nothing about yours either, which is why I haven't mentioned that you seem to have a problem with the idea that non-black people might have contributed to the development of doo-wop. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for swapping psychological tips. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Rhino Doo Wop Box lists "Lyman, Santiago and Goldner" as the authors of the song. Carptrash (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Come on man. You've been around since 2008. You know that this is not a general forum; it's for discussing improvements to the article. Please propose a specific improvement. MrDemeanour (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour:

I did not write as if this were a general forum; I pointed out a problem, and I did in fact propose a specific improvement: I said that I would re-write the passage. You seem to have let your animus against me cloud your judgement.

I haven't looked at your history, because I'm not trying to find reasons to attack you, but if you were the original author of the article, or wrote many of the passages I have found problems with, and you take my criticisms as directed against you, personally, as an indictment of your skills as a writer, I am truly sorry. Believe me, I have no desire to attack you or anyone else. I took your admonitions seriously because I found them quite helpful; I have restricted the scope of my changes and have given, in the ES, a clear justification for them. If you think my reasons are wrong, and that there was no problem with the distribution of statements related by topic (logic) or with repetitions and number of words (prose strength) or even with punctuation, then you should abide by your own strictures and, in any revert, explain why.

But since you think I have no claim at all to having substantial skills as a writer, I will do this: after I finish with improvements to the section on enrichment, I will make no further changes—I only do this as exercise preparatory to my own scholarly work. I have enjoyed working on this, because I really like doo-wop, but in the final analysis, I have nothing at stake, and there are plenty of articles to work on. It would be wrong of me to keep doing something that pains you; that would be cruel. Peace!Wordwright (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think you lack skills as a writer, although you evidently have tendencies to verbosity and pomposity. The problem for me is precisely that you are so conscious of your 'mastery of English' and 'scholarly work'. Your remarks make it clear that you regard most of Wikipedia as standing in need of rewriting by you. I think that attitude is likely to impair your ability to collaborate with other editors.

This leads you to make remarks such as "I did in fact propose a specific improvement: I said that I would re-write the passage." That is not what the word 'specific' means. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour:

Again, it seems that your animus against me really clouds your thinking. Here is what I wrote:

So I am going to re-write this passage to acknowledge that Santiago helped to write—"helped" because he didn't write the thing by himself—FL&TT's hit song, and to identify the other PR singers, but the claim that Hispanics in general contributed to the genre is false, and I will eliminate it.

That seems pretty specific to me.

You know, the main thing is to improve the article. You seem fixated on what appears to you to be my vanity, and at every turn you feel it necessary to try to wound my vanity—now call me verbose and pompous. Methinks I hear the hills laughing! But I will say it again: you were perfectly right to criticize me for my practice of editing so much that it was hard for anyone else to review. You were also right to point out that, if I could describe my changes in the limited space given, then I was probably doing to much. That really helped. But all your complaints are really irrelevant.

You talk about collaborating with other editors as if there were a definite number of editors assigned to each article, and as if I had a duty to contact everybody and get their opinions about whether an article needed improvements, and what improvements need to be made. But whoever edited the opening sentence of the article after me made an improvement—they didn't need to consult me, and somebody who comes after me to improve a line I wrote that didn't serve the reader isn't collaborating with me, but just improving the article. Notice: they are improving the article, period—they don't have a relation to me at all, period. I don't have any attitude towards Wikipedia as a whole—when I find an article that could use improvements that I have time to make, I set to work. That's all.

But since you acknowledge that lots of drive-by editors introduce problems into articles, where are the more conscientious editors who repair the damage? As I said before, if you've got this article on your watch list, why was it in such bad state when I showed up. Where was all that collaboration you want me to think exists? You're all up in arms against me because I call myself "Wordwright," and you want to let me know that you don't think I'm such hot stuff, but you don't appear to want to do any work. Take your ego out of this—you're incensed over nothing, and are wasting time writing me when you could put your energies to making improvements.Wordwright (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

One of the many problems with Wordwright's edits is that they do not conform, in many respects, with Wikipedia's manual of style. An obvious example is the Excessive Use of Capital Letters in Sub-headings. Other examples are the unacceptable degree of commentary with words like "remarkably" and "of course" - which should not be used unless specifically derived from reliable sources. The suggested opening sentence contains 77 words, including three uses of "simple" - not, I think, an example of good writing. Whether the changes made represent an overall improvement is something I haven't yet decided, but the editor's over-lengthy explanations and expositions, and blatant disregard for the usual collegiate approach which we try to adopt here, do not inspire confidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I just found this, and by a strange coincidence my last edit was to remove an "of course" from somewhere in here. So while waiting for a repairman to come and fix my garage door I decided to read through this talk page and improve the article. What I found was half a dozen problems and proposals and as I sifted through them I found my self throwing in tons of "yeah, buts" and finally thought, "How do we proceed?" I guess just pick one and go for it, or maybe use the so-called "Sound of Music" approach, "Start at the very beginning, the very best place to start." What should we do? What ever it is it needs (opinion) to be done in very small bites. Carptrash (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

a problem for me

This recent edit, "Puerto Rican Herman Santiago, originally slated to be the lead singer of the Teenagers, " while I understand the intent, is not accurate. By the time the group was named the "Teenagers" Frankie Lyman was already the lead singer. I also think the whole bit about who wrote what that follows is misplaced. It has what to do with the racial issue. If in fact there is a racial issue because I am not sure that Santiago was not an Afro-Puerto Rican. Carptrash (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking a renentish interviews with Santiago and he does not look Afro, so that's okay.Carptrash (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I just removed

the bit about Bill Kenney being "called the "Godfather of Doo-Wop" " because a google search for the title, besides bringing up Kenny, mostly word-for-word what we have also reveals that

• Wally Roker = The Godfather of Doo Wop
• Wayne Stierle - The Godfather of Doo Wop
• Tom DeSantis, "The Godfather of Doo Wop"
• Frankie Lymon, the Godfather of Doo-Wop.
• Godfather of Doo Wop , Ken Held
• Joseph Ulto, Godfather of Doo Wop
• Harvey (Fuqua) was the Godfather of Doo Wop,
• Tommy (DeSantis) who is also known as The Godfather of Doo Wop
  

One more just seemed silly. Carptrash (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Four Seasons (band)

I am inclined to remove, " The Four Seasons had a string of hits with "Sherry," "Big Girls Don't Cry," "Walk Like A Man," "Rag Doll," and many others" unless someone comes up with a compelling reason to keep it. Although the section is about Italian-American groups the article is about doo-wop and the Four Seasons (opinion) are not that. Carptrash (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we have been using a fairly elastic view of what doo-wop was in the early sixties. I agree that TFS are not strictly doo-wop, but then nor are Dion and the Belmonts. If we're going to be strict we should be consistent about it. I favour keeping both. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I favour keeping mentions of both, as being strongly influenced, at least, by the R&B doo-wop scene, and transitioning it into mainstream white pop culture. I'm sure there are sources saying something along those lines. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just to be clear, you guys (@MrDemeanour: & @Ghmyrtle:) are comfortable as characterizing "Sherry," "Big Girls Don't Cry," "Walk Like A Man," "Rag Doll," as doo-wop? And from the same part of the article keeping the phrase, "and with the Beach Boys the only other American band who enjoyed success both before, during, and after the British invasion," in because . . ..because it has what to do with doo-wop? Carptrash (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Not me. I'm a pedant. But if we are going to kick out those numbers, then we have to draw a line that might be hard to defend. For example, suppose there are no nonsense words? Suppose there are nonsense words, but they don't imitate musical instruments? Basically we'd need a new article for 'early sixties bands that are like doo-wop but aren't really, if you're pedantic like me'. MrDemeanour (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Did Italian-American groups gain their experience by singing in church, or by singing on street corners the songs performed by the R&B vocal groups? I thought it was the latter. I would change that paragraph, along the lines of: "Particularly successful in the pop market were groups of young Italian-American men who gained experience in the new style through imitating the R&B doo-wop groups and singing on street corners. By the late 1950s and early 60s, many Italian-American groups had national and international hits:....." etc. If sources emphasise that they came from "rough neighborhoods", that could be included as well. I really don't like the excessive division of pop music into genres, but it's necessary to produce an encyclopedia. Short of a new article on "Pop music in the early 1960s" - which would probably not be a bad idea - I think there's ample scope in this article for using a wide rather than narrow (R&B) definition, while clarifying that there existed a process and a chronology that led from, say, the Penguins to the Four Seasons, and they did not all perform strictly the same sort of music. The Beach Boys were more influenced by white harmony groups like the Four Freshmen than the R&B doo-wop groups, and could well be omitted from the article. Does that make sense? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@User:Ghmyrtle I don't know; the singing in (especially) black churches is obviously related to soul music and R&B, the singing that goes on in Roman Catholic churches does not seem be related to soul & R&B at all. We're taslking about the section 'Development', right? That's a substantial section with justg one citation, for a statement about Lilian Leach.

I'm in favour of being brutal when dealing with claims for which no citation can be found. I think the section should go on a diet.

No, I don't think the Beach Boys music is doo-wop, or even like doo-wop. It's vocal harmony, is all. MrDemeanour (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to be brutal, so long as the section retains some mention of the causal connections between 50s R&B doo-wop and early 60s mainstream white pop - which the Four Seasons and Dion and the Belmonts exemplified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I'd like to see a reference that says it, I have no problem saying that the Four Ss arose out of the doo-wop tradition. However, to me, listing particular songs in this article suggests that those songs are doo-wop. I think we agree that there is no razor cut that can be made between genres, that there are large areas of overlap, but let us not compound the issue. Carptrash (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need to list many pop examples in this article, but one or two showing the connection between R&B doo-wop and white doo-wop-influenced pop would be informative. "A Teenager In Love" springs to mind. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well Teenager in Love probably is considered to be doo-wop though I think I Wonder Why is a better example of white doo-wop, having the bass line and more"nonsense" lyrics. Or whatever that stuff is called. Carptrash (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fools

There was a lot of discussion of the history of Why Do Fools Fall In Love. I deleted most of it. It's interesting, but that song has its own article. Arguably the material belongs there. Here it is:

In late 1955, The Teenagers (at that time calling themselves The Premiers) auditioned a song called "Why do Birds Sing So Gay?" for George Goldner, recording producer and owner of Gee Records. Herman Santiago, tenor of the group, had written the song based on a line from some love letters given to the group by a tenant in bassist Sherman Garnes' apartment building. One of them featured the words "Why do birds sing so gay?," which fit in with lyrics of other songs that Herman had been writing based on a 1-6-2-5 chord pattern. So Herman worked with it, creating a song for Herman Santiago to lead, and adjusting the harmony to take advantage of Frankie Lymon's high tenor/soprano. Along the way, Herman changed some of the lyrics. During the audition Frankie's voice stood out and, at Goldner's suggestion, the lead in subsequent recording sessions was given to Frankie. Frankie did some improvising and re-created the melody to match his own style.</ref>

In the fullness of time I will see if this stuff can be merged into the Fools article. Note that the authorship of the song is no longer disputed; there was a series of court cases and appeals in the '90s, finding in favour of Merchant and Santiago, and against Lymon's copyright assignees Goldner and Levy, a couple of tin-pan-alley scoundrels. I believe the courts found that Lymon was a co-author, even though all he did was to adjust the melody to suit his style (he was 12 years old at the time). This can be cited, but the cites belong in the Fools article. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I may have been wrong. This court report [2] says that the second circuit appeal court rejected the claim of Merchant and Santiago to be joint authors. Not on the merits of the case, mind; because they were out of time.

To my mind, they were obviously bilked, and the law seems to be an ass. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References

the lede picture

featuring the Mills Brothers is a great shot but not really representative of a Doo-wop group. I am not quite sure what the picture should be, but I know what it should not be. And that is the Mills Brothers. Any ideas? Carptrash (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I brought this up 6 months ago, since there is no discussion I am going to remove the picture. Carptrash (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked at vocal groups in Commons, and there's nothing that leaps out to me as being a good illustration. Most of the pictures are of reunions or later groups, or not doo-wop in any way. I would have thought that there must be pictures of 1950s groups that would be good to use in the article, but I'm not sure of their licensing rights. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a picture of Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs that claims to be free. I was thinking of using it. Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That looks the part! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone beat us to it with a fine shot. Carptrash (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits (Feb. 2020)

I reverted these changes to the opening sentence. There is no dispute, as the article makes clear, that the style developed in the 1950s (and early 1960s) as a sub-genre of popular music (not "pop music") with the involvement of Italian-American and other singers. However, the opening sentence refers to its origins, and there is equally no doubt that the style originated in the 1940s in African-American communities - as is also made clear in the text. The question arises as to whether, for clarity, the word "developed" in the opening sentence should be changed to "originated". I would be happy for that change to be made if other editors agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll be bold and make that change. OK with everyone? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I think "originated" is more precisely correct. I'm reading up on the subject now, as I would like to add some clarifying content to the lede and make some other changes to the article's text, all supported by reliable sources, of course. The user InBoxed seems to think editors can make substantial, unsupported changes to the lede by arbitrary decree, and that these changes should stand because, as he says of himself, "I have studied the history and science of music for over 16 year." [sic] That is not the case. Carlstak (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Racial stuff

There seems to be a lot of reverting, almost warring going on right now about racial issues in this article. I think we need to put a freeze on that section of the article and discuss what we want the article to say. I made one of the reverts and when I was undone, was going to come here and talk about it and then discovered that a bunch of other edits had been made and I wanted to make clear that it was not me who did them. So, where do we begin? Carptrash (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the non-neutral editing is coming from the IP range Special:Contributions/2806:104E:D:524:0:0:0:0/64 which is removing the fact that the genre came from Black singers. That's the material Carlstak was adding a half year ago. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I had wanted to talk about some of that but now it is a mess. Do you know how to set everything back prior to that editing? Carptrash (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the material Carlstak was adding in February and March. It looks okay to me, with high quality sources. I wouldn't remove it, but you are welcome to discuss how it is presented. Right now, I rolled the text back to mid-August, getting rid of the recent edit warring. And I asked for page protection from IPs.

If you want to discuss the racial aspects you are welcome to start right here. Read the first three sources and see what they say about racial aspects. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

When I began editing the article it seemed to me that it lacked coverage of the contributions of black people to doo-wop, and of the fact that they were the primary originators and developers of the style, to the point that their role in its history was diminished. That would appear to be the point of the IP's edits, one more example of destructive attempts to devalue the accomplishments of blacks. I believe that their formative role should be emphasized, not just mentioned in passing, as if they were merely co-creators with Italians. Also, I believe it's important to show that there was some cooperation between black and white groups, and even racially mixed ones, including those groups of tough guys who stood on inner city street corners and sang doo-wop songs together. I would say as well that cultural appropriation isn't necessarily a negative term, since it can lead to positive outcomes such as bringing "together audiences and artists who shared an interest in the music", as I mentioned in the article text. Carlstak (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A much needed correction! I found more sources on the topic, listed below. The Melnick piece was called "one of the first to bring critical scholarly attention to this music" especially with regard to race and gender. If a source is praised in other sources, that proves its importance, and we should represent it here. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Runocwiz, John Michael (2010). Forever Doo-wop: Race, Nostalgia, and Vocal Harmony. University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 9781558498242.
• Melnick, Jeffrey (1997). "'Story Untold': The Black Men and White Sounds of Doo-Wop". In Mike Hill (ed.). Whiteness: A Critical Reader. NYU Press. pp. 134–150. ISBN 9780814735459.

I will just point out that the article begins with "Doo-wop is a genre of rhythm and blues music that originated among African-American youth in the 1940s" and that to continually repeat that is just redundant. I am not sure why Elvis is mentioned at all but I don't thionk I'll go there either. The article is better after the roll back. Carptrash (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice finds, Binksternet, I'm still reading them and other sources they lead to. It's possible to access more of the texts on Google books than they seem to allow with a few tricks and a Google account (no hacking); the entirety of all those texts they digitized are still on their servers, even if the courts said they couldn't make them entirely free access. I agree that we should include Melnick's essay "The Black Men and White Sounds of Doo-Wop". Carlstak (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Carptrash, I strongly disagree that giving more weight in the article to the contributions of black artists "is just redundant", as if the erasure of their leading role in the evolution of doo-wop is a minor detail. I get what you say about Elvis being mentioned, but I needed an introductory statement to segue into a mention of racially mixed groups. My intended point was that when Elvis recorded covers of rhythm and blues songs that were marketed to a white audience, that made it easier for black doo-wop artists to "crossover" to a white market. So that dumb white Southern boy's "cultural appropriation" actually helped audiences and artists of different races, who shared an appreciation of that teenage music, come together. And naturally that pissed off white supremacists (I mean, that might be their daughter out there swooning over some black singer).

As a white Southerner I may tend to overcompensate in racial matters, but I don't see how we can discuss the development of doo-wop music honestly and ignore the racial aspects. One of the problems in writing an article about doo-wop is that, as Melnick says: "...it never named itself as a separate genre in its own moment. Even the term itself gained popularity only in the early 1970s. It is easy to recognize the general characteristics of doo-wop, even if it is rather difficult to determine whether particular groups and songs belong to it." So there was no self-referential use of the term by the artists themselves in its heyday. Which brings up another thing that bothers me about all our sources—as far as I can see, they're written by white intellectuals deconstructing *doo-wop* and interpreting it for their white readership. Where are the essays by black scholars or memoires by the black artists themselves, who are the subjects of all that white intellectualizing after all? Carlstak (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This is fine. Perhaps it is just because I am so familiar with the music and who is making it that I find these reminders to be redundant. By all means insert them where you feel they are needed. Carptrash (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant to say that I haven't come across any essays by self-identified black scholars or memoires by the black artists themselves in my reading. Maybe someone out there knows of some? Carlstak (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

In the memoir category there's Confessions of a Radical Chicano Doo-Wop Singer by Rubén Funkahuatl Guevara. Not black but brown... the guy is a scream! Hilarious writing style.

A new documentary came out earlier this year, one that talks about the racial aspects: Streetlight Harmonies. It also mentions Deborah Chessler, a woman manager and songwriter who wrote "It's Too Soon to Know".

The Pruter book down in "Further reading" should be brought up into the article, because it focuses largely on Black singers. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet. I'll have time to do some some reading the next few days, and maybe can work up a text, unless you already have something you want to develop. I'm sure we can collaborate on this. I agree about Pruter's "Doowop: the Chicago Scene"; there's such a rich history to be mined—for example, there was a doo-wop scene in LA. The article could stand to have some more coverage of Latin doo-wop singers, male and female, as well.

I want to know more about Rubén Guevara's middle name, Funkahuatl. It sounds like a melding of Funkadelic-style wordplay with native Nahuatl.;-) Also, I think the article should cover Jewish contributions to doo-wop, mainly in song writing and the business end, but there were Jewish guys standing on some of those street corners, too. Just as an aside, I ran away from home when I was 16 to live in a hippie commune. The founder was from Queens and grew up as a teenager with doo-wop. So this old acid head heard plenty of it as retro music in the 70s, even though I was more of an early Pink Floyd man. Carlstak (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that, outside the US, racial categorisation was less important than it was to listeners within the US. In the UK, for example, listeners who heard a record on the radio would (in general - I'm simplifying) neither know nor care about the colour of the singer's skin - they were all "American". (Obviously there was racial discrimination and prejudice, but that was aimed at the visible groups within the UK itself.) Essentially that is why black singers (of blues, R&B, doo-wop etc.) in many cases became better known and respected in the UK and Europe than in the US - which in turn was a factor behind the US's shock at the "British invasion" later. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Ghmyrtle. What you say about racial categorization outside the US may be true, but as I understand it, doo-wop music rose from the streets in various cities of the US as an outgrowth of the music that the record companies of the time called "race music", i.e., rhythm and blues. I don't see how it's possible to cover the history of doo-wop without reference to its racial aspects in a country where legally-enforced racial segregation still existed. As far as I know, it was strictly a US phenomenon—there were no doo-wop groups being formed, or any development of doo-wop occurring in the UK or the Continent—so its history is necessarily going to be US-centric.

I don't think it's so much categorizing the music as it is acknowledging that doo-wop was of "multifarious racial and ethnic provenance". As Jeffrey Melnick writes in his essay, "Story Untold": The Black Men and White Sounds of Doo-Wop: "Despite its multifarious racial and ethnic provenance, doo-wop's emergence onto the national scene is generally understood only in terms of "crossover"—the movement of an "authentic," previously segregated black music into a wider and whiter market. The year 1954 has become fairly well fixed in standard music histories as the year that doo-wop went national, mostly because it was when two black vocal group numbers—"Sh-Boom" by The Chords and "Gee" by The Crows—became pop hits." Carlstak (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I care about this article; I reverted a bunch of edits by an IP the other day, and the next day found that my revert had been reverted. I don't care for conflict, so I do not edit-war. My revert was done with a tool that doesn't provide for edit comments; my bad. The revert on my edit said something about "cultural appropriation"; I never mentioned cultural appropriation. I was just reverting some bad edits by an IP editor.

I know a lot of doo-wop artists were not black. For example, I enjoyed The Jersey Boys (Franki Valli and The Four Seasons musical) when I saw it a few years ago (I love "Big Girls Don't Cry"). But it's not right to try to submerge the black acapella street-corner origins of the doo-wop style. I'm standing back from this article; there are clearly some people editing here with an axe to grind, so I think I'll just wait until they've gone - I can't be doing with axe-grinders. But I'll leave it on my watchlist. Some day I may come back and try to improve it again. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

MrDemeanour, the work you performed two years ago was good, a proper pruning. You are a valuable contributor. I wouldn't say that Carlstak or myself has an axe to grind; it's just that the topic has not yet been adequately described, covering all the literature. New books are being written, and we don't even have them all summarized. The Pruter book down in the "Further reading" section should have been summarized. It's that kind of broader coverage I'm after. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think MrDemeanour was referring to you or me as having "an axe to grind", Binksternet.;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm reading Pruter's Doowop: The Chicago Scene and it is superb, Binksternet. The introduction alone is full of revelations (at least to me) like this about Bo Diddley: "... a large body of his recorded work involved the use of doowop harmonies." Not that I know that much about Bo Diddley—I only saw him play once, on the beach, of all places. Pruter talks about the song battles of the 1950s in which the doo-wop groups tried to outdo each other, decades before the hip hop MC battles. His coverage of the Chicago scene is beyond extensive, it's all-encompassing. I very much agree that material from his book should be worked into the article.

I'm thinking that a useful way to organize new material introduced into the article would be to summarize information about the doo-wop scene in the big cities where it developed with a separate subsection for each city, so coverage of information from Pruter's book would go into the Chicago section, and so on. Carlstak (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

While acknowledging the racial origins of doo-wop is essential, I think to say that 70s punk artists "racially appropriated" doo-wop is opinionated and not as objective as saying that they were influenced by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:1500:E02:88DF:24A9:C41:851F:AB72 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

And then there is the “Doo-wop's influence” section.

Are we really comfortable with, “The style is also heard in the early days of The Famous Flames, led by James Brown; the group recorded several doo-wop hits, including "Please, Please, Please”…. and their hit cover of The "5" Royales' "Think”.? Those are doo-wop recordings? What I find about the latter is “James Brown, whose cover of the Royales classic tune “Think” in 1960 is often cited as the first ever funk release.” So doo-wop or…… funk. Or both? Then there is the Beach Boys “Surfer Girl.” I really need to see a reference for that one. Carptrash (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Carptrash, I didn't write that section, but I've reworded it for accuracy and added sources. Do you find it acceptable now? Carlstak (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not really, better, I suppose. What I find in the source is, “could easily have exerted” and “it’s possible.” But you are okay with " James Brown; the group recorded several doo-wop hits," ? James Brown recorded several doo-wop hits? Carptrash (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "could easily have exerted" and "it's possible." Who said that? Lambert says in Inside the Music: "The chord progressions in "Surfer Girl", however, are straight out of doo-wop...", and in Good Vibrations he says "Brian's lifelong devotion to this progression began with one of his earliest songs, "Surfer Girl". It seems reasonable to me to say in a section called "Doo-wop's influence" that the songs mentioned in it were influenced by doo-wop, without calling them "doo-wop". Also, no, I'm not okay with the bit about James Brown as it was, I missed that, so I've edited it. Carlstak (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This is how you edit stuff like this. You take it out. So I removed, "Echoes of the doo-wop style are also heard in early releases by The Famous Flames, led by James Brown; the group recorded several doo-wop influenced hits, including "Please, Please, Please", "Oh Baby Don't You Weep", "Bewildered", "I Don't Mind", and their hit cover of The "5" Royales' "Think" all entering the Top 10, as well as R&B Number #1 Try Me." No problem. Find a reference and put it back.Carptrash (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

And I removed this section too: " and in albums recorded during their psychedelic era, in which the group experimented and innovated with the human voice as an instrument in a self-described effort to "expand modern vocal harmony"." The reference I could check (Melody Maker) makes no mention of Doo-wop" but Brian talks about “when I worshiped the Four Freshmen” - who what ever they are, are NOT doo-wop. Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to get presumptuous and try to order people around, Carptrash. I don't have any special attachment to the stuff in this section—I agree with the removals you've made. Since I couldn't corroborate all the claims being made about their being influenced by doo-wop, I was searching to see if I could find any sources that supported them before I removed them myself. I just listened to "Oh Baby Don't You Weep", and it's definitely doo-wop influenced, it's even got a "doo doop doop de doop" refrain, but I can't find a source that supports it, so that's fine. Carlstak (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Go listen to Aretha singing "Oh Mary Don't You Weep" and I think you'll realize that James is coming from gospel and not doo-wop on "Oh Baby." Carptrash (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why James Brown's version of the song can't be "coming from gospel" and still have doo-wop influence. Saying that music has doo-wop influence isn't the same as saying it is doo-wop. There's definitely some fusion going on there—what else should we expect from the man who originated funk?;-) Carlstak (talk)

References

Part of Four Seasons hits removed

I just cut this out, feel free to support why it should go back in.

• "The Four Seasons had pop hits with "Rag Doll", "Come on Marianne" and many others. They and the Beach Boys were among only a very few American bands who enjoyed success both before, during, and after the British invasion."

"Rag Doll" and "Come On Marianne" are not doo-wop songs and including them here like this only confuses things. The "British Invasion" stuff has nothing to do with doo-wop. Carptrash (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"...nothing to do with..." is too harsh. The British bands clearly drew from what they heard from doo-wop and other sources, in terms of harmonies in particular. Here's the first source I found at random... "...After all, much of their repertoire consisted of covers by rock, R&B, and doo-wop acts (their harmonies were often inspired by the latter). ...". And here... "The Del-Vikings – “Come Go With Me”... This doo-wop hit from ’57 was the song John was singing with The Quarrymen at the Woolton church fête the first time Paul set eyes on him." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Well if you would like to add a section on doo-wop in the British Invasion that would be fine. I am curious to see what you come up with, I have a fairly good grasp of that music and nothing is coming to mind. However what I removed was, "They and the Beach Boys were among only a very few American bands who enjoyed success both before, during, and after the British invasion" which has nothing to do with doo-wop anywhere.Carptrash (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the text you removed, I was commenting on your comment about the "British Invasion". Of course, that was a uniquely US cultural phenomenon - but what I might do (not in the next week, but eventually, I hope) is find sources to expand the text on the role of R&B music including doo-wop in the article on beat music (which is the genre that the "BI" groups were performing). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have that article watchlisted from the past as well as British rhythm and blues. I was a reader of Melody Maker back then so got a lot of the discussions about who was and who was not . . . ........... whatever. Carptrash (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I'm glad you're pruning this stuff. Four Seasons, Four Schmeasons. Frankie Valli's falsetto was like fingernails dragged on chalkboard to my ears when I was a kid. Carlstak (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

References

"Jewish influence" section

This section was added in these recent edits by Carlstak. It's well-written, well-referenced, and altogether an improvement to Wikipedia. But, why include it in this article? There clearly needs to be text, somewhere, on the role of Jewish business owners in the development of R&B music and rock and roll. There are plenty of books and other reliable sources attesting to this crucial role. But, "doo-wop" is just one, relatively small and specific, part of that much wider sphere of music. I suggest it be, largely or substantially, removed from this article, and placed elsewhere - either in the article on Rhythm and blues, or in a new article devoted to it, perhaps as wide-ranging as Jewish businesses in popular music. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, Ghmyrtle, but I vehemently disagree. The information belongs in this article because Jews played a very important part in the history of doo-wop, and have got short shrift not just in previous versions of this article, but in the culture of the US generally. Just as the overwhelming contribution of African Americans to the creation of doo-wop was mostly ignored in this article and effectively erased from the zeitgeist of white America, doo-wop as we know it would not have come to be without the agency of Jewish entrepreneurs, and doo-wop's history cannot be told without coverage of their formative role. I anticipated that some editors might object to inclusion of this material, but I think such objections are misguided, and if implemented would misinform readers regarding the history of the music. I must say, though, that I'm rather surprised that you are one of those who wants to censor the article. Carlstak (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not denying in any way that Jews played a very important part in the history of doo-wop. What I'm saying is that their role was much wider. They played a very important part in the spread of blues music, and of American popular music in general, as songwriters, musicians, promoters, record company owners, etc. etc. So, why restrict the discussion of their involvement to this article, rather than other articles? Much of the text you have added - and I am not denying it's correct and well-referenced - is about the role of Jews in R&B music as a whole, not specifically about that part of R&B music that is characterized as "doo-wop". Virtually all of your text - as it says itself - is about R&B music, and "R&B music" and "doo-wop" are not the same things - one is much wider than the other. As the opening sentence says, doo-wop is "a genre of rhythm and blues music"... it is not the entirety of R&B. I'm confused as to why you included your text in this article, rather than, say, at the article on Rhythm and blues (which is an article that needs serious attention, by the way). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me about what doo-wop is or isn't. We both know that the term "doo-wop" wasn't used to describe the music that this article is about until the 1960s, even though it had its origins in the late 1940s–early 1950s, and that it wasn't dignified as a genre until even later. So when a commentator of the period wrote or spoke of this variant, they were necessarily constrained to use the term "rhythm and blues", but the context established by the groups or songs they mentioned makes it clear they were talking about what we now call "doo-wop", or at least an early iteration of it.

We know that even the appellation "rhythm and blues" itself didn't appear in print until 1949, the term "race music" being used previously, and I think that we can safely say that most references to "race music" were referring to R&B, which subsumed early incarnations of doo-wop music. If a Billboard writer wrote in 1948 about "It's Too Soon To Know" performed by the Orioles, he didn't call it either "doo-wop" or "rhythm and blues", but we certainly may. Plenty of the Jewish record company owners recorded other kinds of music, including straight blues or jazz, besides doo-wop, but that fact doesn't preclude us from discussing their roles in the evolution of doo-wop. For instance, when a given source such as Jonathan Karp mentions Syd Nathan, Hy Weiss, Florence Greenburg, or Herman Lubinsky in the context of the economics of R&B, it's not over-reaching to apply his conclusions about the general business practices of those entrepreneurs to their dealings in doo-wop music. Carlstak (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "lecturing" you, but you seem to misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. Most R&B music is not covered by this article. There was Jewish influence across the whole of R&B music (and indeed, in different ways, across all American popular music). But you have written a section about Jewish influence on R&B, and put it in this article about doo-wop. Most of the labels you mention in your second paragraph were not primarily known as doo-wop labels - so why include that paragraph in this article? Would it not be better to have it in a different, more overarching, article, and link to it from this article? There's nothing wrong with the text - but it seems to me it's in the wrong article. Anyway, let's see if anyone else shares my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

PS: Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps we have different understandings of Wikipedia. If we were writing a book about doo-wop, your text would be perfect. But we're not - we are writing an encyclopedia, in which each article links to multiple other articles. That's why, in my view, there may be a better place for your text - accurate and excellent as it is - than in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention of trying to turn this discussion into an epic argument, but funnily enough I think "you seem to misunderstand the point [I'm] trying to make." ;-) Anyway, I know you're commenting in good faith, and I would be delighted to see other editors chime in. Of course I will defer to the consensus of the community, if there is one. Putting all that aside for the moment, I would ask are you suggesting that we not explain in this article how Jewish people had an essential role in the development of doo-wop, and that we shouldn't cover that history? If you are, I would suggest that doing so would send the article off course and render it misinformative. Carlstak (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Jews had an incredibly important role in making music of black origin palatable and saleable to a white audience, and your text addresses that. All I'm saying is that I think that most of your text would fit better in an article like Rhythm and blues, with a summary and suitable links to it from this article - because the R&B article is the one that covers the wider topic area to which your text relates. (Or, alternatively, to have an article on Jewish influence on American popular music, again linked from this article.) But I'm not going to pursue it any further unless other editors agree with my point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I still think this article has to tell something about the essential role Jews played in the history of doo-wop, or else it amounts to "white-washing", just as it would if we failed to show how the creative genius of African Americans gave us this music, their gift to the world. There is always a contingent in social commentary that wants to minimize the accomplishments of racial (or religious) minorities, and their presence is even more pervasive in this time of the rise of fascist cults. Carlstak (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

My take on the issue is that creating a separate article is a fine idea, but even if the separate article existed, this article would still have a (smaller) section about Jewish influence in doo-wop, with a link to the main article about wider Jewish influence in R&B, jazz and American music in general. Since the other article doesn't exist yet, I don't wish to remove useful knowledge from the encyclopedia. There are some bits that are too specific for this general doo-wop topic, for instance, we don't need a whole paragraph about Deborah Chessler who was connected only to the Orioles. We could instead list her in passing along with other Jewish managers and songwriters in doo-wop. So I can see the fairness in trimming the material somewhat, and also in creating the larger article. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, Binksternet; I suppose I'm a bit defensive of the section, not just because I wrote it, but because I know there are racist editors out there who go after content like this. I've had death threats already for writing content I thought was non-controversial (nothing to do with this article). Carlstak (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the death threats you have received. I have had a ton of them myself, mostly because my editing style includes lots of reversion and removals, and folks get very confrontational. I told my wife that if I die, the first thing she should tell the police is please investigate the possibility that someone angry from Wikipedia did it. There are places I probably should not travel to for my safety, like Copenhagen and Ravenna. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Binksternet. I laughed when I first read what you told your wife, but it's not really funny—sadly. If we decide to follow though and move content to start the new article, I ask that editors allow me the courtesy of creating the article, and rewriting what's left here as necessary. Of course, I would be open to hearing feedback from other editors in that case. I would not be able to start until Monday, as I have a real-life (I don't know how else to say it, WP is real-life as far as I'm concerned) project to finish up. Carlstak (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else has commented, I will start working on this today. I've been getting by on 5 hours sleep nightly, so not quite up to full speed yet. I'll work on it in my own text editor, please allow me a couple days or so to get things together. It feels as if I'm sending my own flesh and blood to the gulag in farthest WP Siberia where maybe 11 readers a month will see it. ,-)

I have trimmed much of the content in this section of the article per Ghmyrtle's expressed concerns. When I first came to the article, it was an unholy mess with almost no historiography and a great deal of rote listing of groups, their hit songs, and the ranking those songs reached on the music charts. A certain amount of such mechanical writing is necessary and inevitable in an article about a music genre that had so many "one-hit-wonders", and that circumstance is reflected in many of WP's articles about doo-wop groups, often sourced to Marv Goldberg's personal, chatty website "Unca Marvy" and editorial content written by AllMusic's non-academic staff.

This article must cover the influence of Jewish composers, musicians, promoters, and record company entrepreneurs; removing it entirely would be a kind of ethnic cleansing. I bought several books about doo-wop, and requested several others through the interlibrary loan system. One of those I bought was Forever Doo-wop: Race, Nostalgia, and Vocal Harmony by John Michael Runowicz, who has a PhD in Ethnomusicology. On page 4 he says, "Difficulties of genre definition have facilitated music historians' overlooking doo-wop or folding it into a larger category such as rhythm and blues, which itself, has caused confusion in the discussion of American popular music history." This passage eloquently sums up the difficulty of writing about "doo-wop", a facile categorization that didn't exist when much of the music was created. I intend to expand this section with material I've been assembling, with an eye to satisfying the concerns of editors of goodwill such as Ghmyrtle and Binksternet.

At some point I also want to introduce material describing the connection between punk and doo-wop. I can only wonder if there will be "howls of outrage" from other quarters about that.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That was some pretty drastic pruning. I hope you see fit to put some of the removed material into a larger article. Thanks for getting in there up to your elbows. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet, I appreciate the moral support. I have a good bit more material into which the text I trimmed can be incorporated. Please see below. Carlstak (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes, and for all the work that you've done. I'm not going to quibble about details, but I'd just make the point that Allmusic, like it or not, is generally considered a WP:RS (I'm very well aware that it is sometimes very wrong), and that Marv Goldberg's site is usually very well-informed (based on a host of interviews and in-depth knowledge), so shouldn't be denigrated as "personal" or "chatty". I have no idea whether a book by someone with a PhD in Ethnomusicology is, in reality, more or less reliable, but we should be able to make use of all good sources to construct a WP-appropriate text. I hope that a wider article on Jewish influence on R&B music, or similar, can be constructed - or, if not, that much of the material now removed, particularly on the role of Jewish-led businesses in making black music accessible to a wider audience, can be added into the Rhythm and blues article. @Carlstak: - are you intending to do that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

First, Ghmyrtle, I beg to disagree with you about "Unca Marvy's" website. It's his website, so describing it as "personal" is not "denigrating" it, and his writing style is certainly casual and chatty. For comparison, would we use Larry King, who interviewed thousands of people, as a source for a political WP article? We would not, and Marv Goldberg should not be used as a source for info in this article. AllMusic's editorial content is written by amateurs who have no expert bona fides as far as we know, and where does it it say in WP's guidelines that it or Goldberg are reliable sources? Then you imply that they might be better sources than an actual expert with academic credentials, which is absurd, and contradictory to WP's policies. By the way, Runowicz was also an actual member of a doo-wop group, the Cadillacs, which by "Unca Marvy" standards, should trump the reminiscences of a mere loquacious interviewer.

Regarding my intentions with the content I removed, I have reams of other material and sources that I've assembled in three different text documents. It needs to be edited into a coherent whole incorporating the content removed from here and then I'll have a better idea where it should be placed. Please give me some time to work this up.

I would like to say also that the one essential fact about what we call "doo-wop" is that it would not exist if there had been no Great Migration of hundreds of thousands of black laborers from the American South to other parts of the country. Without knowledge of that story, there is no understanding how this music came to be. African Americans, and that land still somewhat foreign to the rest of the United States, the South, are the wellspring of all that can be called truly "American" music from the US, not forgetting that there are other peoples who have been here for thousands of years with their own music. It's a shame we can't tell that story, but I wouldn't insult my native ancestors by calling theirs an "American" story, any more than I would insult my Celtic ancestors by calling them "English", as if they were descended from a Germanic people who were invaded and occupied by their cousins, a horde of Frenchified Vikings. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My experience is that improvements to articles are best done in small increments, one step at a time. It would take almost no time to move the material you removed, and place it into other articles such as Rhythm and blues, where it would improve the article. I don't understand why that shouldn't be done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I can do that, but I will leave the revised content here. For what it's worth,, there is no WP policy that changes have to be done in small increments, and this fact applies especially when an article is in as sad shape as this one was previously, when it gave a very distorted, disorganized "overview" of the subject with no explication of its history, and offered instead a superabundance of robotic lists often as not lifted from other WP articles, themselves often badly sourced start-class texts that read like blurbs written by semi-literate PR persons. Carlstak (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a big difference between "WP policy" and what is helpful to other editors, who may also want to make inputs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The amazing thing to me is that the article in its previous horrible state, with some well-written, coherent, reliably sourced parts, was the result of all the prolific editorializing and wrangling performance art shown above in earlier, now archaeological, discussions. That's what "incremental" changes begat. Shudder. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, gentlemen (addressing Ghmyrtle and Binksternet), I've moved the content on the Jewish influence in doo-wop to the Rhythm and blues article as suggested. It does fit there nicely, but now there is so much more to be written about the subject with its expanded purview. I have applicable material that I couldn't use in the doo-wop article that will go there, but I have a lot more reading to do. I've almost got a short section on doo-wop in Detroit ready for this article; it was surprisingly hard to find sources for doo-wop in Detroit, as the literature overwhelmingly talks about Detroit soul, and most mentions of doo-wop are only cursory.

Heh, I've rediscovered a mother lode of stuff about r&b, and doo-wop in particular, in a book by music scholars that I'd forgotten about, and just ordered it from a bookseller—got to have it. I was resistant to the suggestion to move the content at first, and was having a hard time switching gears to revisit the subject, but now I'm glad I did, and my enthusiasm is rekindled. So I suppose I should thank you guys for prodding me to do this. Speaking as a dilettante who plays old doo-wop rarities to keep the flame alive while I edit, plus massive amounts of weed, supplemented by some shiraz at night, may I say that this music puts me in an ecstatic place, almost as much as reggae does. And there's something really haunting about the old Jamaican doo-wop, of which there's much more on vinyl (I listen to a collector's doo-wop uploads) than I knew. Ah, bliss. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ten years ago in San Francisco I saw the museum exhibit "Black Sabbath: The Secret Musical History of Black–Jewish Relations" by the Idelsohn Society. It was amazing. Most of it was kiosks with headphones where you listened to snippets of the music and people talking about the Jewish connections to Black music while reading stories and looking at photos. Jweekly.com reported "While it’s tempting to view this musical alliance as a 'Kumbaya' moment between two victimized peoples, [musicologist Josh] Kun says the history of blacks and Jews, musically and otherwise, is 'super messy'. The two dueling narratives come down on clichéd lines: Jews marching arm-in-arm with Martin Luther King Jr., or the wicked Jewish slumlord preying on poor ghetto dwellers."[3] SFGate mentioned more of this type of music combining cultures such as the 1959 album Bagels and Bongos by Irving Fields.[4] Great stuff. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You come up with the best stuff, Binksternet, thank you so much for this. What Josh Kun says about the history of relationships between blacks and Jews being "super messy" certainly rings true with sources I've found; there's surely more to be said about the subject in our article. I've added these links to my doo-wop "collection" as they call it in Zotero, which I use to keep track of sources and my notes on them.

I used to go to the black sock hops in my town when I was a teenager, back in the days when African Americans wore foot-high Afros. It was so cool to see the black kids feeling pride in being black in our racist Southern community. I was one of the very few white kids who went, just me and and a couple of Jewish kids who dug the music. Those were great days to be young—I really believed in the "revolution" and the dawning of a new age of world-wide enlightenment and brotherhood, but that didn't happen, dammit. I even had a black girlfriend for a while.

PS: I just realized that it was you who pointed me to Runowicz's book, and I forgot to thank you for that, not to mention Pruter's work. And, how perfect—"Midnight Love " by the Jamaican doo-wop group the Downbeats just came on. I'm in ecstasy.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not ashamed to dance by myself, either. I can still go. Carlstak (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason for a capella.

There's a reason that barbershop quartets sing a capella, and I suspect it applies to Doo-Wop as well. To achieve the "ringing chords" of a barbershop group, they have to sing in just intonation, whereas most accompanying instruments are played with equal temperament. I leave it to someone with musical scholarship to hopefully enter this into the article. BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

§ Doo-wop and racial relations

The inclusion of a quote regarding Elvis Presley is crudely included and not preceded by any sort of introduction to Presley/how he relates to the topic. Reading through this section is difficult; there is no sense of flow. I opine that the section need be rewritten or that the quotes discussing Presley be axed. Additionally, the successive sentences discuss cultural appropriation—this is a very poor inclusion of this idea, and I think it deserves a section of its own.

Overall, please review the "Doo-wop and racial relations" section, particularly the Taruskin quote. Zyploc (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Your complaint is hauntingly familiar, but I agree, so I've removed that bit in spite of your saying elsewhere that you are "perfect most of the time" (where have I heard that before?).;-) Carlstak (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)