Talk:Click track

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nszypulinski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

SMPTE?
I think the paragraph on SMPTE time code is rather extraneous, or at least misworded. Time code is important for synchronizing sequencers, but really not a replacement for click tracks, which synchronize live musicians. Any objections to me removing it? Dropframe (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BEBOLD. In backwater articles like this it can be unlikely edits will get reverted or even noticed at all so, if you are unsure, you can always leave a note on the talk page as you've done. Thanks. Radiodef (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

References?
This article only has one reference. I personally don't have time to find references to the entire thing, but if anyone makes edits, additions, etc, make sure to include your references. --Timmo13 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I should've visited the talk page before editing the article. I noticed that it's a bit low on citations too, but just now I added a small amount of text to the Criticism section without any citations.  The truth is, I'm not sure how to add a citation yet, but I'm sure I can figure it out by looking at citations and the wikicode that makes them.


 * I'll go see if I can find some a source or two. Since I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia, I'll have to re-consult the guideline page on verifiability, since there are a lot of websites and anyone can make a website, and I don't have the time to go to a library at the moment (though I do plan to start making use of the library more often soon, in conjunction with my use of Wikipedia).


 * Of course, anyone can publish a book, pretty much, too. Still, Wikipedia treats books as truthful as secondary/tertiary sources until proven guilty, so to speak, from my observations thus far.


 * Sorry, that was a little TL;DR-ish. tehmikuji (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a citation, to the claim tagged as citation needed. It was the one about click tracks being often used in music, especially in drummers, where they wear headphones feeding them a metronomic click track used to keep the whole band in overall "perfect" time.
 * I used an article that made the appropriate claims, which I surely believe strongly to be true, from Sound on Sound regarding click tracks for drummers. I based this partially off the fact that it seemed like what Wikipedia might consider a reputable resource, and secondarily on the fact that an article from it had been used as one of the citations for the Bohemian Rhapsody article.  I hope it's authoritative enough for Smyth (the guy who added CN there) and/or the Wikipedia community.


 * Regarding the material I added (below the quote that made up the entirety of what was the Criticism section) may very well be outright OR. Let me know what you guys think... if you think that the information has any truth unlikely to be disputed (and might perhaps remain as is for the moment, due to the article "being short and lacking in the amount of content in its Criticism section"), or that it might have any truth that can ultimately be potentially referenced, OR if you guys think it's total OR AND total BS or at least totally unverifiable and questionable.
 * If that's the case, we can delete it and/or replace it with something new, something to beef up, or at least round out the Criticism section, i.e. make it more than just a quote, ideally, as the article does merit a (good) criticism section (as the use of click tracks ARE often criticized). The reasons for criticism, as has occurred, should be somewhat thoroughly and very concisely discussed, ideally, and any responses to criticism or alternate views that exist to any notable extent should ideally be mentioned.


 * A big problem with all of it is finding citations for claims, many of which feel like public knowledge that's too trivial to be mentioned much in the press... We'll just have to do our collective best.


 * tehmikuji (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "A big problem with all of it is finding citations for claims, many of which feel like public knowledge..."
 * Yes, that's often a basic problem here. I feel that sometimes it's OK to add uncited information like this to low profile articles that are already missing citations (like here at Click track). Take a look at WP:CHALLENGE for why this can be justifiable. On the other hand, always keep in mind that policy and culture are generally not to. Try to keep uncited statements as clear and unlikely to be challenged as possible. Radiodef (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Critic
Worth removing the criticism section? It doesn't seem to fit with article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahid1618 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I'm more on the "click tracks are A-OK" side, I think a brief section for criticism is merited for this article, as there definitely does exist criticism of click tracks.


 * The section just needs to be fleshed out a bit over time, rather than just consisting of one book quote. tehmikuji (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Metronome may have some useful stuff. Radiodef (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

article lacks citations, but what about the first tagged one, really?
Does the sentence:

"The click track may also be used as a form of metronome directly by musicians in the studio or on stage, particularly by drummers, who would listen via headphones to maintain a consistent beat."

really need a citation? Is it, oh, I was about to ask if it's likely to be questioned, but I just realized that the fact that it's tagged means that someone did in fact question its validity.

I mean, if there's something reliable to cite somewhere, all the better. My point is just that, of the various things in the article, what is it about that particular sentence that it especially needs a citation? It's currently the first claim with a citation needed tag in the article, with plenty of non-cited text before it (most of which probably also need citations). --tehmikuji (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "I mean, if there's something reliable to cite somewhere, all the better." -me, earlier.


 * I gave that one a citation, with a reference that's hopefully considered reliable enough. tehmikuji (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding citation needed tagging
Is it considered at all common or proper practice to add CN tags to bits of information you yourself recently added to an article?

I'm asking because I'm thinking I wouldn't mind going quickly through the article in the soon-as-possible meantime, tagging what I think are some of the most crucial things that should be provided with an in-line citation. (I didn't add all the claims needing citations, just some of them, recently.) I came upon this article recently and can see that it needs help. And we all know that the article needs more references. I did provide one for the one and only thing that was 'CN'-tagged, but the article still has a whopping 2 in-line citations, and what I'm presuming to be the sort of.. generalized references "From the glossaries: BBC and about.com" (I'm still learning about WP, but I am a quick learner. I did make a citation didn't I? Well, it wasn't that hard.. but I'm proud of it anyway).

Sorry I digress. I'll be on the look-out for more references, but I/we could definitely use your guys' help with deciding which references I or someone else might suggest (or insert into the article) are good enough, and which aren't.

tehmikuji (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize: As you can all see I added a butt load of OR to the article. Many of the claims may be dubious, but I believe they are all truthful. The problem is verifiability, of course. One shouldn't go around just adding crap to articles out the a**es... though I kinda did.

Like I said, I feel there is at least some truth to some of the claims I added. Most of the claims already existent in the article already lacked references, so that's not so much of an excuse as it is all the more reason I should be keeping up my referencing up to speed with my content addition.

Like I said, I did reference a few things. I cited a Sound on Sound article to support about five claims in the article, at least for the time being until we can find more (and reliable) sources, and I also mentioned the concept of a 'rhythm section', both linking to the Wikipedia article and referencing a book I have in possession, which is actually the some-odd edition of a paperback reduction of two separate music encyclopedias (can encyclopedias be used as sources?).

So at least, now, instead of having one source (specific for a claim or quote, in this case quote) for the whole article, at least it has three now. And I hope they're verifiable enough. Anyway I'm doing what I can to try to help. I appreciate any constructive feedback and help fixing / maintaining this article and Wikipedia as a whole.

tehmikuji (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See my comment about material likely to be challenged under the "References?" topic. Radiodef (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

it's a little lonely here
Sorry; I hope this isn't considered as off topic or wrong to type on this discussion page.. but,

Where is everyone? I've been alone on this article for a few days now and it feels like a ghost article. I am new-ish to Wikipedia, so maybe this is common and I'm just being silly.

Either way though, I could use some help. As you can all see, I added a lot of content to the article, but only few references.

If nothing else, I'd appreciate it if someone added CN tags to what they felt were the claims most needing verification, and/or fixed up the article a bit from its current state (I added a lot to it as it turns out).

I'd also appreciate feedback on the talk page. If what you have to say directly regards something from my section(s?) above, please feel free to reply, indented, below that. Or here, wherever. I'll see it wherever you put it (even if you put it on my talk page instead of here, for any particular reason...).

So.. one question is:

In retrospect, I realize that my addition/inclusion of the Harvard Concise Dict on Music reference for the term "rhythm section" is not really all that necessary, and is more serving to, almost kind of, artificially pad-out the reference list, but I've added it also to the Rhythm section article, which was (and is) lacking just as much as this article is on references.

So basically, I need to know if Wikipedia believes it is a good enough reference to use on Wikipedia. For reference, the definition found in the book states the following:

"Rhythm section. The chord-playing, bass, and percussion instruments in a jazz group; the players of those instruments. A standard rhythm section comprises keyboard and or guitar, double bass (played pizzicato) or electronic bass, and drums."

The ISBN can be found in this article, and the Rhythm section article.

tehmikuji (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed a statement in parentheses about the rhythm section that I assume must have been yours. I removed it because it just seemed off-topic. Radiodef (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've been working on Wikipedia since mid-2004, and it is rare to find an article with such positively awful writing quality as this one. For example:"This is because drums (often along with the bass, guitar and/or piano when present, together making up what is often called the rhythm section) tend to provide the rhythmic fulcrum in small ensembles, not just because drums are loud, but also because drummers very often go through the most advanced rhythmic training compared to many other instrumentalists." Who speaks like that, much less writes unintelligible crap like that? I've already taken steps to clean up the lead, but there are passages in this article that just leave me dumbfounded. I came here hoping to learn something about click tracks, but instead of finding something informative, there is just paragraph after paragraph of vague, unsourced POV statements and opinions. Nine-tenths of what is there could easily be discarded with no harm to the information content. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 07:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are lots of articles in the WP:PSP scope like this. I removed the statement that you quoted for being off-topic. Radiodef (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Complete lack of cohesion--a joke
This is easily one of the most flawed WP articles I've read. It sounds like a modernist and a traditionalist arguing, trading off after each sentence. The silly criticisms from the golden agers should be relegated to the Criticism section so as not to totally ruin the objectivity and cohesion of the more informative parts of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.156.19 (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's great. Thanks. Radiodef (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

When did the click track come into common usage? When was it first used?
I came here for answers to these questions after listening to "In Time" by Sly and the Family Stone from 1967 and noting its uncanny adherence to 96 BPM over the course of almost 6 minutes. I've studied hundreds of tracks featuring universally acclaimed rhythm sections (Stax, Motown, the Wrecking Crew, Earl Palmer, James Brown, et al) and found that they all have a certain lilting ebb and flow to their tempos (with the notable exception of tracks with Bootsy Collins, which, like the afore-mentioned Sly track, are suspiciously perfect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevintimba (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)