Talk:Acid house

Contentious "first acid house"
this edit is dubious at best one small Guardian item and a blog post are weak, and demonstrate undue weight, more verifiable secondary sources need to be found to support the claim of "first acid house record." An early example of TB-303 usage, yes, claims of "first" are debatable and need to be discussed. There are dozens of Italo Disco tracks etc. that sound acid houseish, and which pre-date this record. Acid house is acid house, records that sound like acid house because they feature similarly filter cut-off and resonance effects are not necessarily acid house. If cites exist to demonstrate otherwise no worries, let's use them. --Semitransgenic (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually listened to it ? If it is not fake it is ridiculously ahead of its time and deserves better than to be relegated to the trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.168.24 (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not "one small Guardian item", but it's two seperate Guardian articles that both clearly state "first acid house" record. Maybe we could add a "possibly" next to it, but other than that, there's nothing dubious about it. As for the other blog source (or rather, two articles from the same source), it's written by an author who has written articles for many publications, and it's only used to provide more information on the record rather than to support the "first" claim. Either way, the record is notable enough to warrant a mention in the article. If you need more sources describing it as, or comparing it to, acid house, then there's plenty, such as this, this, and this. Anyway, I'll try have a second go at it and word it more carefully this time. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (sorry was writing this as Mjb was posting) it reads more accurately now, thanks, have modified slightly. Have looked through the legitimate cites presented, cannot find a statement that says conclusively that "this is the first acid house record," there is speculation, based upon the fact that a TB-303 and 808 was utilised in the creation of disco-like music, in a similar fashion to Acid House. But, in a wider sense, both Singh and Jefferson were influenced by other artists, so what I find problematic, generally, about this kind of approach to creating a historical context, is that it ignores other examples that predate Singh's record, they should be highlighted. Record reviews are less than ideal as sources. --Semitransgenic (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither of the Guardian articles provides any evidence that anyone (except maybe the Guardian's music editor) considers it to be an acid house record. The first article only asks in an attention-grabbing headline whether it could be, and the body of the article essentially answers that no, it's only an obscure acid-house-like disco record entirely unconnected to actual acid house. The second uses the weasel-worded link text "some have labelled the first ever acid house record" with a link pointing back to the first article, so that's not really any better. The SPIN link you cited only says it sounds like acid house. Likewise the Hub link says Singh's record only "mirrored" the first acid house record, which it acknowledges was still "Acid Trax", implying that Singh's music is similar but does not qualify as a new "first acid house record" or even acid house at all.


 * Following on from the discussion above (did you see the previous section?), I would much rather see this record acknowledged in the way we did it in the article on techno music: by having a separate, low-importance section for techno-like (or in this case, acid house-like) antecedents. This keeps the uncontentious, very definite and widely agreed-upon examples and historical info up front, separate from the different points of view of how far back one should reach for examples and how dissimilar from the established genre such "precursors" can be. To this end, I've moved your revised text to its own section, and edited it slightly to avoid overstating the relationship to acid house; e.g. even the word "precursor" implies it influenced/led to acid house, whereas by all accounts it was not influential at all. —mjb (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the article seems fine now. However, one thing I do find surprising is your claim that record reviews are unreliable sources? Do you have any references (like, for example, a page from Wikiproject Music) to support this claim? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If the article seems fine now, then you won't mind making similar edits to your work at Charanjit Singh (musician)? :)


 * While we await Semitransgenic's reply, I would say they are reliable sources for what particular reviewers have written, and if it's important to mention the fact that at least n reviewers said such-and-such, then sure, mention it. But be really careful how you characterize it. As someone who has written (even professionally) reviews without fully knowing what I was talking about at the time, I want to stress that if someone has written something dubious or contentious in a review, we can't present their questionable impressions as fact, only as their perceptions. And since we can't know what all reviews say, we have to be careful not to imply that even a set of concurring reviews are representative of a majority point of view. —mjb (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's pretty much what I just recently did at the Charanjit Singh article, presenting it as the opinions of reviewers. I was just surprised when one of Semitransgenic's edit summaries mentioned record reviews as not reliable. If he just meant it in the sense that they should be presented as opinions rather than facts, then I don't have a problem with it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk)


 * @Jagged, I view album reviews etc. as very weak sources of information but if, in the absence of scholarly secondary sources, they are used, certain questions need to asked, this should be clear from issues highlighted in WP:NMUSIC WP:NALBUMS: does the source meet WP:RS requirements? is it notable? is the reviewer a notable music expert, music journalist etc.? Additionally, reviews supplied by record resellers are useless, and should not be used. Boomkat for example is not a reliable source, nor is any source that has a commercial stake, however, you supply this as a cite, the website this links to is a distributor of the album discussed in the article, so is therefore not independent of the article's subject, plus, the list of endorsements, in the form of review out-takes, are mostly from record resellers, blog reviews, etc. for the latter WP:WEB & WP:SPS are concerns. I would dispute the acceptability of this cite, or any cite that has similar problems. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever about the style, there's no mention of the fact that Psychic TV's "Superman" single is generally regarded to be the first record in the UK to use Acid House as a term (they continued to use it on the following Jack the Tab and Tekno Acid Beat albums, though whether the music is actually acid house is debatable). They also introduced the term rave, advertising shows in the late 80s with a Record Mirror cutout from the 60s. Furthermore, they made the drug connection very explicit with samples of Timothy Leary on the Superman single talking about LSD. --Donnacha (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Assessment and tags
Hello and Happy New Year. This article has a contentious Etymology section. It is written using wording like "Some accounts say", "Some accounts disavow", "Several accounts" (tagged with which) and the sentence includes a CN tag, as well as "By other accounts". These types of wording, lacking content to back it up, certainly beg questions that require sourcing, meaning the tag is justified. The end result is that the B-class article assessment, per the three projects, is questioned.

I have not been involved with the article but the section is certainly in need of correcting or, depending on the importance, removed. If someone would take a look at this I would appreciate it. Otr500 (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I took a look at this. In fact, the sources given in the problem paragraph have nothing to do with the etymology at all - I assume the editor who wrote that stuff was confused. I just ripped it out. The rest of the section could still do with rewriting and better sourcing, but at least that stuff's gone. Popcornduff (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Otr500 (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --  Otr500 (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

HUMANOID and D-MOB
I do not know why Humanoid has been singled out as the only Acid House tune that broke through into the mainstream when you had D-Mob and Gary Haisman getting into the Top Ten weeks before Humanoid charted (with D-mob going down to #28 on the chart of 20 November 1988 - 26 November 1988 ) and causing a moral panic in the process. Even though some would say "We Call It Acieed" is as much a cash-in as "Love House" by Samantha Fox (#39 on the chart of 20 November 1988 - 26 November 1988) and not Acid House at all, it still was important part of the story of Acid House in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.75 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well is it actually acid house or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.174 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Association with MDMA
Is its link with Extasy not an essential part of the story? Rustygecko (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Not just Moroder's productions for Donna Summer!
The work by Moroder which has actual "acid" sounds is "Chase" from 78 (12 inch version). The extended version of this piece has a couple of sections with Acid sound. I Feel Love didn't have this kind of Acid sound, despite how influential that song proved to be otherwise. 212.97.250.18 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)