Talk:Electronic music/Archive 2

Languages

How come there is a French link in the external links on this page? Wouldn't this section of WikiPedia be dedicated to English speaking population only?

Link farm problem

The external links section here is turning into a farm. Wickipedia is not a subject portal or directory. (See Wikipedia:External links for guidelines) Links for the most part should be descriptive or educational. I will wait for responses before weeding out some links. --Blainster 13:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following links for the following reasons. I'll leave these here for a week at most before a (hopefully) finally farewell. Feel free to move any back, with justification. This list was/is completely out of control.

finished first round, whew. looks like the rest of this article could use some cleanup as well. onward! ;) These will all be removed in less than 5 days. If for some reason you do it, please leave a link to this version of the talk page for reference. ∴ here…♠ 08:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(24 links removed as inappropriate 10 days following removal from article, see [1] for reference.) ∴ here…♠ 09:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the following section as well:

==Online Radio==
* [http://www.edmradio.com/ EDM Radio - Electronic Dance Music]
* [http://www.protonradio.com Proton Radio] 
* [http://www.virginiabeats.net/ Virginia Nightclub]
* [http://www.spins.us/ Carolina Raves]
* [http://www.friskyradio.com/ Frisky Radio]
* [http://www.grooveradio.com Groove Radio]
* [http://www.bassdrive.com Bassdrive]
 

It's spamvertizing, and attracts more spam from people wanting to add "their" radio to the list. 62.147.113.15 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Readded link to virginiabeats.net thats the oldest and largest electronic music forum in virginia. Not spam --71.241.8.69 06:37, January 7 2006

Why would "the oldest and largest electronic music forum in virginia" be most especially a useful external source of references for the reader? Are we going to add "the oldest and largest electronic music forum" of each 50 states, too? And "the oldest and largest electronic music forum" of each country, too? Links should only go to direct urls of informative articles about the topic.

Plus, I've put back the <NOWIKI> tags, that were there for a reason: some marketing people try to add their urls anywhere on Wikipedia in order to augment their Google PageRank status, and this includes Talk pages. Spam/disabled urls shouldn't be kept active, or talk-pages spam will increase even more. 62.147.112.66 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand your point. I thought that since the following artist and fan EDM communities were listed that another resource of that type would be appropriate. Since communities are not really resources I went ahead and removed these to reduce spam. --71.241.13.140 07:32, January 10 2006

=== Communities ===
* [http://www.sectionz.com SectionZ Electronic Music Community] - Large artist focused community.
* [http://xltronic.com/ Xltronic community] - Large forum and artist discographies
* [http://www.samplecity.net Samplecity.net] - production discussion, samples, midi files
 

Electronic music WikiProject

There's a new WikiProject started for improving the Electronic music categories. If you're interested in helping, then take a look at WikiProject Electronic music. Hagbard Celine 18:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of Babbitt. What's up with that? 68.97.230.115 22:27, January 6 2006

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

i created Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music a few hours ago but it's already up for afd. is the site notable enough for the article to warrent existing? --MilkMiruku 00:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, people with different interests in music I met knew the guide, so it has some importance --LimoWreck 13:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All these articles need heavy re-editing. maybe you all are not realizing that another Wiki-entry (electronica) can better describe these House-IDM similar subgenres. This is not electronic music, because electronic music is always experimental; any genre played by mean of electronic instruments cannot be included here, otherwise we should even include all pop and dance music from 1978 - 1980 onward and the list would become longer. Worst, the links between jazz-fusion and synthesizers aren't mentioned at all. Again, a heavy re-editing is needed, dance music is not eletronic music in the sense of the definition supplied with this article. I suggest you to visit some universities' websites relevant to this subject. skysurfer 04:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Organisations and communities

What's the use of the links section Organisations and communities ?

• The history section extends the information in the article and also provides extra (copyrighted) material, so these are usefull links
• But the communities section ?
  • Why should we add some "communities" and organisations ... when we include these, there are many many more to add, we shouldn't discriminate other organisations, or make publicity for these organisations (even if they're non-profit; there are more than just one or two)
  • Wikipedia is not a start page or search engine... you can use dmoz.org for that, when I read Wikipedia:External_links is see no reason to add these communities ? If they do offer really unique interesting online information about the history of electronic music (that's what the article is about), they might go in the section above. If they're just another community, there's no reason to add them
  • It's an open invitation for linkspamming

--LimoWreck 10:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Splitting and merging issues

You are very confusing in this whole matter. I suggest to split the Electronic music article in two parts, the first can merge with Electronic art music and the second with the Electronica or Techno article. I hope that nightclubs and rave parties are not the centre of youngsters' music culture.

I've seen nothing confusing in this article. And it seems all users passing by agree these notices aren't needed. Since I've seen no reasonable explanation either (except some one-man POV), I restored the article to a clean state. --LimoWreck 15:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yours and MilkMiruku's are mere two persons' POV. I havent seen any users passing here over and agreeing with you. Listen, this is Wikipedia in English, NOT the US & UK Wikipedia. I am noticing that you are supporting "rave culture" related music beyond every reasonable limit. The world is not made as a copy of USA and UK, yet (very luckyly, I say). The only reason for none here complaining about your behaviour is that the listeners of real electronic music or whatever you call it "Electronic art music" are not wasting their time with DJs and their fans; maybe they are even scared becouse it's notorius that raves and nightclubs people are very often connected to mob. I forgot to mention that I am not scared; it's only a matter of time, and I will make all this faked information disappear from Wikipedia using every mean (legal means, not spamming, hacking...), such as asking contributions to serious music magazines and academic institutions. skysurfer 3:30 PM, 28 April 2006

Look, I'm not from the US, I'm not from the UK, I don't care about rave culture; whatever that may be. I even hardly notice anything about the subject in the article (only a small phrase, and there IS a template on that section). Fact is, this article is quite balanced, I have no idea what you are fighting against, it seems a personal war; and the idea the split a good overview article is a bad always. More overview articles are always welcomed. Oh, and personal threats are not welcomed on this wikipedia, nor is the entention to remove sections of information from the wikipedia because your POV. --LimoWreck 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact is that the article and its related ones, report a mistaken classification of electronic music as a genre. The adjective "electronic" near "music" has been used for many decades with the purpose to name a style, not only "any music genre that is played by mean of an electric or electronic circuit". Personal computers' music, Techno, idm, house, ambient techno, and so on, really deserve a very short quote inside the article, becouse they have their own pages. When and where did I state that whole section of information have to be removed? It is not a personal war, actually I enjoy any kind of music, including pop radio music and "commercial dance". Maybe an example will help us: if I am talking with a friend or writing my blog I feel free to use any slang terms I want, but I guess that such online encyclopedia is trying to become a recognized and valuable reference standard for EVERY context, including academic ones. skysurfer 6:00 PM, 28 April 2006

Every classification of music in genres can be called a mistake, since there are no boundaries actually. The concept electronic music made an evolution, and that evolution is expressed in the article. Like you said, those new genres have their own articles, so there's nothing to split anyway. --LimoWreck 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"The only reason for none here complaining about your behaviour is that the listeners of real electronic music or whatever you call it "Electronic art music" are not wasting their time with DJs and their fans; maybe they are even scared becouse it's notorius that raves and nightclubs people are very often connected to mob." Real rave goers are usually much different than those that go to nightclubs for house, jungle, or other such music and we are NOT associated with the mob. If you assume that's true, you must also assume that all italian restaurants are owned by the mob as well. On another note, I think the article reads well and should not be split. There is no way to easily include or disinclude all the possible genres related to electronic music.Fuzzypeaches 15:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In Italy only Communists and true "left-ists" (about the 25-35% of population) are not associated with the mob. Italian restaurants outside Italy are very likely not managed by communists, then I let you imagine... This is due to the UK & USA wrong policies over Italy during last 120 years: Italy was just a set of many little countries before the Brits decided to help them joining in one bigger country (the current form of Italy).

Wikipedia in English is US Wikipedia? If so, I don't really care about improving americans' IQ or "intelligence" , they have surely enough of it and of course don't need me. If someone still believe that English is the first language in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, UK, that is a somewhat near-europe way of thinking (in) English, then some of my contributions regarding classification of musical genres will not be a waste of time. Music is music, there is no reason to say that there is Art-Music on one side and "other forms of"-Music on the other (Electronic Music vs Electronic Art Music). Just to mention one of the many examples of the mess that I've found about music genres here, I see that Heavy Metal and Punk are not regarded as Rock's subgenres: that's very weird , noone in Europe would say that. Anyway, I am not sure I will ever contribute on this matter anymore; I can't believe you are talking seriously, it sounds me like a big well-orchestrated joke. Good Luck. skysurfer 7:30 pm, 30 April 2006

Stop talking about each other and start talking about the article. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on the content, not the contributor". Hyacinth 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking anyone "personally". I disagree with all the Wikipedians that are contributing to any music genre related article: they lack consistency, and logic. I would suggest to you all to compare Set Theory and your "classification(s)". Anyway, for now:

Electronic Music is:

[Electroacoustic music]

[Musique concréte]

[AAmbient Music]

[Synthesiser music]

[Electronic soundtrack music]

[Kosmische musik]

sub/crossover-genres are

[Synth Jazz-Fusion]

[Electronic rock] (very often used in 1977-81 years for Ultravox, G Numan and the German bands)

[Synth-pop]

[Electronic dance Music]--------->>

[Dub]

[Techno]

All the other "sub-genres" (that's ridicolous) of Electronic Music that are mentioned in the infamous and annoying box are only Techno - derivative forms, including the Ambient Techno. Ambient Techno is an Ambient Music-influenced form of techno. (Oh and I regret to inform you that Aphex Twins are NOT Ambient, they are an Ambient Techno duo that created some real ambient tracks, but nothing more than this).

Oh and I forgot to mention that I am neutral, I like the Aphex Twins, I like radio commercial music and going to (good) nightclubs. I love classical, jazz, rock in other words all music, even psychedelic rock such as the Doors, Jimi Hendrix, the Grateful Dead, though I am not a drug supporter, so, please dont tell me that I am just an Italo-German Communist that can only listen to "Elektronische Musik". Sorry for this last personal note, but I hope that will help you to remove any doubts you may have about my neutrality.

Skysurfer 3:33 AM, 1 may 2006

Aphex Twin is singular, since it's just one person (Richard D. James). And he most definetely made true ambient music, no matter what other styles he produced. Motormind 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Editors

It seems that most of music-related articles are edited by some people aged about 20-25 that are used to get information only from very old or very recent sources, maybe their 60 y/o parents and their college friends. So, in the definitions of facts, the experience and the knowledge of late 1970s, 1980s, 1990s are missing at all. This is worst than a sort of POV, this is a very self-destructive behaviour, maybe this project (Wikipedia) is just a game for some of you, but I am sure that many web users would be happy to see the knowledge-that they got in many years of study, work and experience- all organized in just one place.

Brian, your points about the quality of contributions to this project are valid, especially with the number of sourceless non-verifiable edits that are added. However, I fail to see why the age of the contributor has anything to do with this and it would seem that you are implying that a 25 year old lacks the experience to write coherently on the topic in question, which would be a personal attack. A 20-25 year old is perfectly capable of contributing as fully as anyone else because all sources should be verifiable - the fact that they were not present when the music was first released is irrelevant as Wikipedia has a policy of disallowing original research/experience. So while I sympathise with your criticisms of the article and sub-articles I feel that there are better ways to improve it than to attack the authors of the offending edits. Martin Hinks 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to attack or offend anyone, just they need to compare many sources, including witnesses and magazines of a given decade, before overstating the sub-sub-sub-sub-fusion-crossover-subgenres of modern dance music, and without misleading-inconsistent cross-linkingsBrian Wilson 12:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, one of the agreed reference styles needs to be implemented and adhered to. Martin Hinks 13:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Disco Music

Club music (or disco music) has been "electronic" almost since its early beginning, and those guys, artists, producers and sound engineers, just for market purposes, are being inventing "something new" since then. In other words I mean, Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement or promoting. If press tomorrow invents the n-th word for just selling their magazines, or becouse they have cognitive problems, we can't let them to have a large space even here in Wikipedia. Brian Wilson 11:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The context, the content, the style, the techniques

I want to explain better my starements and removals of inconsistent information: most of modern dance music is produced, written, played with the purpose of make us enjoy clubs and even daily life.

Electronic music, since its beginning was "Electronic" not only becouse of its means, but MAINLY becouse of its content and context. 'The medium is the message' (Im quoting whom? I dont remember now). It was a sort of revolution against academic approach, first; eventually, electronic music become a bit more popular, but those musicians never forgot that their music was a sort of experimentalism. Now, modern synths make us available a large number of editing possibilities, but does that mean that we all are experimenting? It depends on the musician's will and statements.Brian Wilson 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

please read my contribution at the WikiProject Music genres page. Thank you. Brian Wilson 14:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I was sure that M. Jackson has never aimed to produce electronic music or experimenting new sounds as his main purpose. He plays and sings Soul music, his personal and peculiar style of SOUL Music that is very popular to millions of listeners. If he wanted to make just electronic music, he would have told us. Brian Wilson 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what is "type of SOUL music"- he does pop and R&B, rock and even hip hop. He has that universal appeal. He first was Motown soul before he became immersed in 80s synths.

Overview

What the heck is going on with the article? The "Overview" section is just a copy and paste of the "History" section. Is there a reason for this? --24.205.251.41 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dance music article needs writing

Hello, someone needs to (properly) write the article over at Dance music!! as it now refers to the modern music rather than the traditional. hopefully someone here can get us off to a good start... i'd think it should include a nod to non-electronic club music too (such as 'party' hiphop/rnb), as many songs/artists/albums which aren't 'ecetronic music' link dance as their genre. also stuff like the billboard dance chart features many non-electronic arists.... anyway, something needs doing, and i don't think i'm the person for it.. Bungalowbill 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

accentuation of information

This is one of those articles where you can study a typical problem of wikipedia - the missing accentuation of information! There is no structure which emphasizes the important facts! When you read this article you can hardly see what was a significant innovation ( or an influential movement ) in electronic music and what was just an interesting episode. Certain parts of the article look like pure name-dropping and it seems like some users just wanted to place their favorite bands here. ( “Hey, band xy had a synth and used it sometimes – they’re great and must be featured…” ) On the other hand artists such as Kraftwerk for instance got mentioned in two sentences (.. and one of it is wrong ) and some remarkable information are completely missing: there’s no “Suicide” ( A. Vega ), no “DAF”, no “Sheffield Scene”, no Conny Plank - even the MIDI-Interface is missing. Note: This is meant as constructive criticism, I don’t want to offend anybody and I respect all who spend their time to contribute here! Sushi Leone 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I`ve seen that the MIDI-Interface is mentioned in this article - in the "genres" section. What at the same time confirms what i have written above: this article is not well accentuated and therefore indistinct --Sushi Leone 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of (often anonymous) users spamming their favorite pet bands indeed. Solution: simply revert those additions. --LimoWreck 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke?

Seems like someone has editied the article in the History section and called someone a fag and when I try to fix it I can still see it there on different computers. How do you fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.254.190.205 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC).