Talk:Electronic art music

Per talk page guidelines Layout, please post new topics at the bottom

Important : This article may include some copyrighted material
Note as of August 25, 2007: The copyright status of the article has changed, due to changes in content.

See this section below for further discussion. --Parsifal Hello 20:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the article, under Footnotes you will come to an unreferenced link : http://www.subliminal.org/flute/dissertation/ch02.html. Following the link will bring you to a Chapter 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ELECTROACOUSTIC MUSIC of a Doctoral Dissertation titled Electroacoustic Music for the Flute. The entire content is Copyrighted 2002 by Sarah Louise Bassingthwaighte with all rights reserved. How could this slip through the cracks?

It seems that the original copy and paste of the entire article occurred on December 17th 2005 by 143.117.78.169 (more than a year ago!?!). See first occurance of the copy and paste. Upon reviewing the history of edits, there was only one warning from an editor letting the original poster know that this is copyrighted material. The rest was just wikified and updated by numerous users - again this went on for over a year, yet still, today, the entire content is a basic copy and paste of the above mentioned dissertation.

This needs to be addressed at our earliest convenience! -asmadeus 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which presumably means reverting to the edit from before that, and then reinstating any salvageable material added since then...? –Unint 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless the author actually gave explicit permission or posted the article herself (doubtful) - I'll attempt to contact the author so that this issue can be resolved, but otherwise, all this "great" content is copied word for word. -asmadeus 14:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be better to delete and start again if the article is mostly a copyvio. --kingboyk 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be a shame to delete it - even if it's against the rules. Hang on. Contacting the original author for permisison. -asmadeus 00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In continental Europe, we have just the term "Electronic music" that refers to the classical avantgarde movements and forms, the term "electronic art music" is used only in (some) US based universities, or am I wrong? We used (before Wikipedia era) electronic rock, synthpop or technopop, to refer to the use of electronics in popular music forms.Doktor Who 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted the author and obtained the required permissions in writing:

To: sarahbas [at] u.washington.edu Subject: Your Dissertation on Electroacoustic Music for the Flute Sarah, It appears that the entire Chapter 2 of your dissertation, a Brief History to Electroacoustic Music, has been copied by someone into Wikipedia back in December 2005, under the Electronic Art Music article. It is definitely against Wikipedia's policy to publish copyrighted material - which in this case is yours, unless prior permission is obtained. I am simply a moderator and monitor articles related to electronic music, and wanted to  contact you and let you know, as well as obtain your permission (if possible) to use your dissertation on wikipedia - otherwise, the entire article will be removed shortly. --- From: sarahbas [at] u.washington.edu Subject: Re:Your Dissertation on Electroacoustic Music for the Flute If you use it, is there a way of acknowledging it, or providing a link to the original source? thanks for contacting me, Sarah Bassingthwaighte

See added note as Electronic_art_music. Please keep it within the article.

Proposal for creation of History of Electronic Music (1)
Now that written permission has been obtained to repost the chapter on History of Electronic Music (see above), I propose that we move out this very well written section into its own article titled History of Electronic Music, allowing separate article for Electronic Art Music as well as other articles related to electronic music to link into the history section. -asmadeus 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds good.--Doktor Who 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So...what is it?
As someone who's not really familiar with the musical world, I must say that by browsing through the article, I can't really understand what electronic art music is, or how it's different from electronic music. Look at the first paragraph:
 * Electronic music has existed, in various forms, for more than a century. Between the time that recording sounds was first made possible and the computer technology of today, a vast amount of change has occurred. Technology has been developed for creating sounds, for recording sounds, composing, and for altering sounds. Some technology involved electronics, but some important conceptual changes that did not depend on electronics still had a profound impact on the advent of electronic music.

So what makes it "art music"? Why isn't the phrase "art music" even wikilinked from anywhere in the article? Etc. --zenohockey 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. There is a difference though.  I've edited the first paragraph to begin the explanation, but more is needed.  At least now, Art music is wikilinked here, as well as Electronic music.


 * We are currently doing a pretty large upgrade of the way the Music genre articles are organized. The main structure at Music genres now refers to Art music, Traditional music and Popular music as the overall categories.  But electronic music exists in more than one of those categories, so there is a difference between the basis of how the music is made, ie using electronic instruments, and the genre of the music itself, for example whether it is a form of art music such as academic or serious experimental electgronic music, or a form of popular music, such as dance music that focuses on electronic sounds.


 * There is a discussion at Talk:Electronica about simplifying, merging, organizing and interconnecting the following articles to create a more clear and informative structure:


 * Electronic music
 * Electronic dance music
 * Electronica
 * Electronic popular music (possible new article to help organize the structure)
 * Electronic art music
 * Experimental music
 * Ambient music
 * Minimalist music

These articles overlap extensively as they are now, so a lot of work is still needed. You're most welcome if you'd like to participate. --Parsifal Hello 06:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for creation of History of Electronic Music (2)
I moved it today. Someone brought it back. Really, there is no basis for electronic art music. This article is the history of electronic music. Sorry some wiki problems. Who will help me? The word is Electronic Music not Electronic art music definitely 100%--Susume-eat 05:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not move this article without a very clear discussion and agreement first. If you are not sure about the Wiki procedures, then you need to be extra careful.  A lot of people have worked on this article and if you just move it without taking the time to discuss it nicely and clearly, then lots of work will be lost.  So please, take your time and do not be in a hurry about this.  We need to let the discussion happen for a while.


 * Also, Electronic art music is not the same thing as History of electronic music. There are some similarities and overlap, but there is also an article on Electronic music and an article onElectronica.  These three articles need to be worked on carefully so they fit together and don't cause confusion.


 * Please write your ideas here on the talk page first, and wait for other editors to discuss with you, before trying to move the page.


 * When you enter your comments, please be careful to format them so they are readable, or example use the correct number of colons at the beginning of the line to indent the right amount.  You can read about that here:  WP:TALK.


 * Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 05:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as Electronic art music. This article talk about Electronic Music from the beginning until 1990. It is the history of electronic music. 3 people support name change of article. These other article, Electronica etc is another issue which I will offer my full support to you. The only issue is change name to History of Electronic Music. Only thing will be lost is the word ART. Anything else will be lost? Please tell me, I will stop anything with my hard work. --Susume-eat 05:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is original research. Zero tolerance. --Susume-eat 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's original research. Doktor Who 08:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph definition
The dictionary term definition of classical Electronic Music originating in 1930 is "electronically produced sounds recorded on tape and arranged by the composer to form a musical composition."

reference: electronic music. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electronic music (accessed: August 18, 2007

I try to work this into the article but it was remove twice. It was remove because it is wrong? How is wrong? The source is very good dictionary definition... How to can I write so you happy with it? Please someone help me write better English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susume-eat (talk • contribs)


 * OK, I've added it in to the history section at the correct year, you can see it at this link: at its place in the article, and you can see the diff here, where I made the edit. It fits there because that section is about when tape recorders started being used and when synthesizers were invented.


 * Also, look at how I formatted the reference so it appears in the footnotes section effectively.


 * I noticed you changed the first paragraph again and lost valuable information. Please stop doing that.  I helped you include your text as you requested, now please help the rest of us by respecting our work.    --Parsifal Hello 07:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright, follow-up
Have the copyright issues above with Bassingthwaighte's dissertation been resolved satisfactorily?

Most importantly, the original text still states "all rights reserved"; the request for permission to use the text doesn't seem to have been filed with the OTRS; and, what's more, the author never actually gives permission in the email quoted.

I guess the most straightforward thing to do would be to write the author again, ask for an explicit statement, and do the routine OTRS procedure; however, I don't know how much of this Asmadeus, who sent the email, actually did. And he hasn't been active recently. –Unint 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

More retitling discussion
Resuming here the discussion that started on my User talk page, Parsifal had some good points:
 * I don't think we should use the title Electronic music (classical and experimental), because there exists Experimental music that is not electronic. Also, there is erudite or serious electronic music that's not "classical," and as you mentioned there is also "classical studio technique" that has a different meaning.

I have long maintained that electronic music is not a genre, but rather that various genres may utilize electronic means. From this point of view, there is nothing wrong with speaking of Experimental Electronic Music, just as we may speak of Postmodernist Electronic Music, Neoclassical Electronic Music, etc. The problem is with that word "classical", which tends to imply "art" music that has a long pedigree, and there is not much electronic music that has been around long enough to make such a claim (Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge, Badings's Capriccio for Violin and Two Soundtracks, and perhaps a handful of other pieces from the 1950s?). Parsifal also asked:
 * What do you think of the prior title, Electronic art music?

I don't especially like it, mainly for the reason that has been brought up by others: it's not a familiar term, and sounds like it was specially made up for the purpose. The qualifier "serious" has long been objected to by jazz and other musicians who contend that their art is just as serious as those who describe their work as "serious music", so that won't do, either. Besides, the Art music disambiguation page redirects "Contemporary serious music" to "Contemporary classical music" (another title that makes me squirm). I agree that "the main article at Electronic music . . . needs to be enough of an overview to lead to articles both in the serious/erudite side and the popular areas such as Electronic dance music and others." I also concur with:
 * whatever title is chosen should not be based on the way the electronic popular music genres are organized currently. They have a different kind of hierarchy, and also, those article titles may not be settled at this time, so they should not be used as a template.

Then Doktor Who chimed in and made an excellent point:
 * the contents of electronic music in the academic/classical tradition and the electronic pop, rock and techno scenes and styles must be kept fully distinct and separate even in their historical sections. An article regarding the history and development of music technology should keep both the "sides" together.

In fact, one thing that I am becoming increasingly aware of in the article under discussion here is how much of it wanders away from composers and their music into the realm of technology—even if sometimes it is necessary to mention it in order to discuss how and why a certain style or piece was enabled by new developments in the machinery. I would like to end here by repeating my question to Doktor Who, when he mooted changing this article's title to just plain "Electronic music": In this case, what should the article now titled "Electronic music" be changed to?--Jerome Kohl 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article Electronic music, another issue with that title is that is seems to attract casual editors who stop by just to add their favorite band or genre or record label, so it needs monitoring and can easily get messy or off-track. So I was thinking that Electronic music should be a sparse overview, like a hub... more than a simple disambiguation page, but not in depth.  It could be based in Summary style, with short sections including summaries of each main sub-topic  linking to various more focused "main articles."  That way if it gets messy it can easily be fixed and no important work would need to be guarded.  Also, by doing it that way, we can have forks for technology articles like Electronic musical instrument (which seems to be more like the beginning of a historical article at this point), or Digital audio workstation or Synthesizer, etc... plus this current article we're discussing (which needs a new title), and then the various popular electronic genres or "scenes".


 * For this current article, I don't have a clear idea of the title, but the word "classical" seems to be a problem; and "erudite" is just too, well... erudite! --Parsifal Hello 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Parsifal's proposal, electronic music should become the current Electronic music (disambiguation), but with very, very short explanatory sections. Much of the content of these articles could be easily moved to either History of music technology, or History of electronic musical instruments, or istory of electronics in music. With regard to a proposed synonim for "classical", I'd suggest either the word "traditional" or "canonical".--Doktor Who 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there needs to be some sort of "hub" article to redirect folks to appropriate articles, and Parsifal is certainly correct about the "casual editors who stop by just to add their favorite band or genre or record label". And have you seen List of electronic music genres? I mean, there are 15 "genres" and around 150 subgenres, with nary a peep about what we are discussing here—except that "Electroacoustic music" (which ought to be the category that subsumes all the others) is listed as a subgenre (together with the decidedly pop classification of "Berlin School") of "Electronic Music", which turns out to be a redirect to "Electronic music (classical)!!! What a mess!


 * Come to think of it, our subject (made to look so teeny-weeny in face of the "enormous plurality" of Glitch, Merenhouse, Hardstyle, and all the rest that I have never heard of, but suspect are all but indistinguishable to any but the most fanatical devotees), really ought to be similarly differentiated, starting from categories mooted in the past, such as "Cologne School" (unfortunately a term also used for a group of composers who broke away from the original after 1970), "Berlin School" (meaning Boris Blacher and crew, quite a different thing from the "Berlin School" of the pop subgenre, but of course there is also the East Berlin School), Music for Magnetic Tape Project, Columbia-Princeton School, NHK School, Iowa School (I notice that Ken Gaburo is not yet mentioned in this article), Illinois School, San Francisco School, RAI School, Amsterdam School, Stockholm School, Munich School, and so on, and so forth.


 * Now, as to the words "traditional" and "canonical", there is absolutely nothing at all traditional about the electronic music of Ligeti, Boehmer, Koenig, Stockhausen, Davidovsky, Mayuzumi, Moroi, Nillson, and so on, and the word "canonical" seems to demand an answer to the question, "which canon?"


 * I'm beginning to think that whoever came up with the formulation "Electronic art music" may have had the right idea all along.--Jerome Kohl 05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right,traditional is not appropriate, canonical, just in my own opinion, would refer to the use of the "electronic language" as a main part of the "meaning" of such music, not being just its "form".
 * With regard to electronic art music, I never heard of it before.
 * The list of "electronic music" genres is just a mess. Most of them are just different styles of techno.
 * The Berlin school mentioned there, as well the Dusseldorf one, also respectively known as kosmische musik and krautrock, belong to the broader scene of progressive rock, so not strictly pop as in pop music, but for academic criteria, they are still popular music; or something has changed recently?.Doktor Who 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I had never heard the expression "electronic art music" before coming across this article, though the term "art music" is familiar enough, so figuring out the intended meaning was no problem. This use of "canonical", I'm afraid, is more obscure. If you need to explain it to me, then I think most people would require the same explanation.
 * Mind you, when you tell me that "pop music" is not just short for "popular music", I don't understand that, either, even after reading the Wikipedia article on pop music, which seems to divide the entirety of music into three categories: classical, popular, and folk. (For my money, folk music is a variety of popular music, but I suppose there are a lot of different ways of slicing up the pie.)--Jerome Kohl 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Modern folk music could be considered popular music, but the folk music article describes it as synonymous with "traditional music" (which I guess would include songs such as Auld Lang Syne and Greensleeves) and World Music. I guess because western classical music is associated with high culture, but in some parts of the world music was practiced by everyone regardless of their social order, world music isn't necessarily classical. - Zeibura (Talk) 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's forget those words, I was just enjoying the effort to find un-used words. This article is just electronic music, in the same sense that such topic is found on many Western encyclopedias (I can speak for France, UK, and Italy).
 * The pop forms can go to electronic music (popular and dance). Electronic rock, and so on.
 * After reading both the articles popular music and pop music, we see that pop is one of the popular music genres, along with rock and other ones. Just read the heading of pop music. Doktor Who 01:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really have much to add to this discussion, but I believe we should be trying to find a healthy balance between WP:OFFICIAL and unambiguity. I would have no problem with this article being renamed electronic music and then having electronic dance music linked at the top of it. To give another example where this formulation works fine, R&B is a redirect to rhythm and blues, which links at the top of the page to contemporary R&B - not quite the most common name, but clear and unambiguous.
 * I'm not really sure "electronic music" is a commonly used name for what we describe as electronic dance music - and to be honest, neither is "electronic dance music". You don't really hear people using these terms to refer to the genre in every day conversation. The only people I really hear call EDM "electronic music" are the producers and hardcore followers, the rest will either say "dance music", "electronica" or *spits* "techno". These, particularly the last two, are ambiguous, so electronic dance music works as the only title which could not imply anything else. Electronic music in its current state should be split into several articles, which would leave it solely with the dicdef "music created with electronic devices", and would be fine for a disambiguation page. - Zeibura (Talk) 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

step by step process; making a map; working title
I'm glad to see such a positive conversation about a difficult challenge. The current state of the many electronic music articles came about in an ad-hoc manner over a long time, resulting in unclear distinctions and overlapping topics. We'll have to accept it's going to take a while to figure out the best way to organize them, especially because the content of some of them is so jumbled and intertwined. The text can't just be moved, it will need to be split and merged between different articles to get each section into the right places. And much of it is repeated in the different articles now, especially in the electronic pop, rock, and dance areas, though not all versions are the same so they'll need to be conformed.

In the list of "see also" at Electronic music there are even articles more we haven't mentioned yet. I wonder if the best way to proceed would be to make a map or tree of the electronic genres, on the talk page first, and then once we have plan, then we can check the articles to see which sections need to be moved from one to another, or which sections need to be merged into other sections, including deleting duplicate info that might not exactly match.

In the meantime, the title Electronic music (classical) is not appropriate for many reasons as discussed above. Also, it looks like a disambiguation page title, and that's not needed and doesn't look like any of the other Electronic music titles. So for now, based on the conversation above, I'm returning this page to its prior name of Electronic art music.

I'm not attached to keeping that title, but it's better than the other. If anyone would prefer something else, I'm amenable to any good ideas. The move to Electronic music (classical) though, was done by one person without discussion, and it's not a good title. Electronic art music is better, even if we just consider it a working title for now.

Also, there was a problem with the redirect page, so I had to use Electronic Art Music. The capitalization per WP:MOS should be Electronic art music, but the software would not accept the redirect because the redirect page history was not empty. I'm pretty sure a robot will correct this within a couple days. If not, we can request administrative help later, or who knows, we might still come up with a better title by then. --Parsifal Hello 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've requested a speedy to make way for a move on the electronic art music redirect. This should be done within a day or two. I agree that this way is better than (classical) - it might not be the WP:OFFICIAL name, but at least it's one people can understand. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you pretending to ignore everything that Jerome Kohl and I have written above? Doktor Who 01:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, what makes you think I am? - Zeibura (Talk) 02:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such "electronic art music", anywhere, it's almost an hoax. This article's name is electronic music.Over. We wrote that above, and now someone pretends that nothing has been said, and recreated this electronic art shit.Hypocrisy.
 * We need to make ONE article encompassing popular and dance (with wide sections), with the aim to reach a balance with the subtle fanatic beliefs of each genre's supporters. That's it. Doktor Who 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please calm down, I am not pretending that nothing has been said. Even though it wasn't me who made the move, there is quite a clear incentive in Jerome's comments to restore the electronic art music title rather than keep it how it was. Furthermore, all I was saying was that electronic art music is preferable to electronic music (classical), which is no more an official name than what we have now, but as Jerome points out, is easy enough to work out what it means. We also established in the above discussion why (classical) was not suitable. Furthermore, if you read my comments you'll see I'd be quite happy to work towards moving this article to electronic music, but as Parsifal just said, we'll need to sort out the current electronic music article before we can do this. - Zeibura (Talk) 02:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you dont need to tell me to calm down. When I said "you", I meant "you both", "all you". Anw, it's ok, your plans now seem good.Doktor Who 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Article title
An editor (I won't name him here, so it's clear that this is not personal) moved the page again today,without discussing the change on the talk page. This time he moved it to Electronic music (art).

I revert the change and moved it back to Electronic art music based on the above discussions. Also, this page is a separate topic and not a disambiguation of Electronic music, so it should not be titled as if it were a disambiguation.

There are changes in progress that will move some of the content of Electronic music into this article and some of it into Electronic dance music. This process is under discussion and page titles should not be changed until we've agreed on the plan, because it's disruptive and confusing for pages to be moved multiple times.

Based on past events, I have to assume that the non-consensus change may be repeated, so I don't know what the page name will be when you read this. Help maintaining the original title by reverting changes, or maintaining any proper name that has agreement among editors, would be appreciated.

Further comments are welcome. --Parsifal Hello 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've now looked into this a bit and have located some references that confirm the use of the term electronic art music. I don't have time to add them now, and will do so when I can. --Parsifal Hello 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica writes as the Electronic Music. Rather, before coming to Wikipedia, I did not heard this term Electronic art music. Look to google, it appears as 13,000. When was Electronic art music article add to wikipedia? 5 years before. Some website last.fm, myspace, some recent web site.

I think not one person will revert this before, only Mr Parsifal, maybe now there is more people revert from him, really I believe there is subtle "poison the well" sometimes, not mean-spirited, but accident. Whoever read Parsifal post will hate me, but I love Electronic music, study it, want to become that, enjoy Tod Dockstader, so thrill!! I like Wikipedia also, be friends is best ^-^

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electronic%20music dictionary is no electronic art music, only electronic music for this...

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title.

For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to several different things, including: an element, a planet, an automobile brand, a record label, a NASA manned-spaceflight project, a plant, and a Roman god. Since only one Wikipedia page can have the generic name "Mercury", unambiguous article titles must be used for each of these topics: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), Mercury Records, Project Mercury, Mercury (plant), Mercury (mythology). There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation.

Please read this if you have free time " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation

One support is Dr Who, he will support it already. Then, I will feel frustration, defeat, if Electronic art music survives. It will be a dark day. --Susume-eat 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Parsifal, I hope you are not going to embrace an attitude that could be described as "ownership" (WP:OWN. Now there are 2 editors that support such move. There is no need to discuss it, do you discuss with us every change you make at various articles? No, right? Please also do not forget WP:BITE and WP:BOLD. cheers.--Doktor Who 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you, i believe in my heart Electronic music (disambiguation) is the most beautiful, elegant, truthful, accurate, outstanding --Susume-eat 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Doktor Who, your accusation that I exhibit WP:OWN about this article is way out of line. Of the most recent 500 edits, I have edited the article less than 15 times. If you would like to discuss the article content or title, you are welcome to do so. But stop discussing me personally, that does not belong here.

There are at least a couple other editors who concensed with keeping the title as Electronic art music. There are two of you, and three of the opposite. That's not a vote, and it's also not consensus for either choice. But it's certainly not a consensus to change the article title. I work collaboratively, and there was progress being made in organizing this group of articles by several editors. That now has come to a stop again due to disruptive page moves without allowing time for the other editors to comment. --Parsifal Hello 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Parsifal, I wrote "I hope you are not going to embrace an attitude that could be described as "ownership" (WP:OWN. ". I'm not accusing you that you are doing that way. Just that you seem oriented to go in such direction. Anw, Jerome Kohl disliked the term Electronic music (classical), and also stated that he never heard "Electronic art music" elsewhere; anw, he endede up with admitting that such "eam" term is not really a bad idea. Now we have a sort of hybrid, and we must say "HOORAY", because it is a remarkable achievemt, thanks to Susume-eat.Doktor Who 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that you are not accusing me of WP:OWN. However, no thanks that you then say I seem "oriented" towards that.  You have no basis for that comment.  It's not fair to me; it's not accurate; and it's insulting.  There have been hundreds of edits to this article I have not complained about or tried to change.  I simply do not agree with the change to the page title that was made today.


 * That title change is not a "remarkable achievement", it's confusing and doesn't help readers find or understand the article or understand the topic it covers. --Parsifal Hello 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with you, Parsifal. Putting "art" in parentheses after "Electronic Music" does not say (to me) "Art music tht happens to be in an electronic media". In fact, it suggests some sort of hybrid between electronic music and visual art. As Doktor Who accurately points out, I am in favor of "Electronic art music", in preference to "Electronic music (classical)", but in case there is any ambiguity here, I also prefer "Electronic art music" to "Electronic music (art)" or "Electronic art {music)" or "Art music (electronic)".--Jerome Kohl 05:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I want Electronic music (disambiguation), because this article concern the Electronic music. This article cannot be name Electronic music because there is another article of that name exist. For the content of (disambiguation), I do not care. Jerome Kohl, thank you. Encyclopaedia britannica writes of this article under Electronic music. I think it is very important of change Electronic music, the true name, then for Wikipedia the (disambiguation), anyone else can make the disambiguation? It is like Water (molecule), there is another page of Water, but this page limits to chemistry. The problem is, how define Tod Dockstader and Stockhausen's electronic music for the inside of the bracket? For the content of the article, each mention is Electronic music, not Electronic art music, that is my ideas. Have a nice day. Hope to recieve your reply ^-^ --Susume-eat 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jerome Kohl, thanks, have you got idea what to go inside the ? Anyone in? I am nobu have a good day, im depressing right now--Susume-eat 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I thought this was the Talk Page for what is at the moment titled "Electronic music (art)", not the main Electronic music article. However, since you ask what I think should go inside parentheses, my opinion is nothing at all—the title should revert to "Electronic art music". From a hierarchical point of view, the correct progression would be: Music > Art > Electronic, which would imply "Art Music (electronic)", and, therefore, a change to the popular-music article to "Popular music (electronic)" but, however "logical", I don't think this is a good idea—for one thing, it would put the phrase "Electronic music" entirely outside of the domain. (In fact, it sould be even more "logical" to used nested parens: "Music (electronic), "Music (art (electronic))" and "Music (popular (electronic))", with more extreme cases like "Music (popular (electronic (Electro (music) (Synthpop))))", but I hope no one is foolish enough to take this seriously.) My reasoning on this is that people are more likely to be looking for the word "Electronic" at the head of the article, and logic must bow to usage.--Jerome Kohl 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This article refers to "electronic music", its whole contect refers to that, and likely every music faculty describes this subject in the same way. The so called "main" electronic music article, as it is now, is useless, indeed, much of its content is similar to this one. Electronic art music is a term that none uses (unless tonight someone is going to hack and trick Google). So why not Art musci (electronic) and Popular music (electronic)?
 * One more chances: Electronic music (history and composers) and Electronic music (popular styles). Both chances may seem suitable. --Doktor Who 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article at Electronic music that needs to be improved. Much of it duplicates or overlaps content here and should be merged into this article.  Some if it duplicates and should be merged into Electronica, and some of it moved into Electronic dance music or other related articles.  That will leave Electronic music as a "hub" article, using WP:Summary style, with a main intro describing an overview of the historical and contemporary contexts of electronic music, and mentioning that while the equipment may be similar, many forms of electronic music evolved independently, from different branches of the "genre tree".  (For example, electronic dance music may be closer to folk dance music than to Stockhausen - I'm not saying it is, I'm just illustrating the difficulty in combining all of electronic music into one container).  Then, Electronic music would include sections with short descriptions of other main topics (with "main article" links), including this article Electronic art music or whatever it is titled, and the other forms of electronic music that I mentioned.  There could be a short history section overview, also with a link to this article, and with a link to Electronic musical instrument, and a current technology section with links to Music technology, and other related topics.


 * However, even though Electronic music needs improvement and some of its content should be merged into this article, that does not make it a disambiguation page. Parenthetical forms of titles are not suitable for establishing topic hierarchies in Wikipedia and are not used that way.  The folly of that method is seen in Jerome Kohl's comment above; it leads to nested topics, and is in opposition to the basic principle of linked hypertext.  (see Naming conventions).


 * The parenthetical form is used for disambiguating terms that are not related but use the same words, for example, (from WP:Disambiguation): the article about Alexander the Great and the 1956 film Alexander the Great (1956 film):


 * Electronic music is a separate yet related topic to Electronic art music (or whatever other name it might be called, for example Electronic academic music or Electronic serious music or Electronic erudite music, etc). Wikipedia already has an article on Art music; that term is well known and well understood.  If someone views the new and improved Electronic music overview article and what they really wanted was Stockhausen, they will quickly see the link to Electronic art music in the first paragraph and click on it, or may find that section of the main page first and then click through from there.  Either way, it's not problem; they don't get shunted to something they are not looking for as in the Alexander the Great example above.


 * It doesn't matter to me if this article is titled Electronic art music or something else equally as effective and clear; the title itself is not the issue. What does matter is that the organization of this group of articles does not become confused.  The use of parenthesis is a disambiguation tool and does not apply to this kind of topic relationship, and especially if it's mis-applied to imply a hierarchy of concepts that can't be and should not be reduced to a flat tree structure.  These are not ambiguous words, they are topics that inter-relate in a partially but not fully hierarchical way across several dimensions.  They need separate article titles without parentheses and a WP:Summary style article to provide an overview and allow readers to navigate to the topic they want to read more deeply.   --Parsifal Hello 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

article intro confusion resulting from page move
After the changes made by the two editors arguing above for the page move to Electronic music (art), the introductory sentence of the article is circular and unclear. It also no longer refers to the main article at Electronic music, creating additional confusion. At the time I write this, the edited version I am referring to is at this link. The more effective version prior to those edits is here. (There are a few unrelated changes that are OK, but the basic intro is confusing now. Aside from this issue, there is certainly plenty of room for improving the intro further).

If someone would like to fix it, that would be great. It would also be good if someone would like to fix the title of the article, which as it is now, Electronic music (art), makes no sense.

As we have been discussing above, prior to this disruption, this article and the main article at Electronic music need improvement and organization, and there are a variety of issues that affect how that will be done.

Meanwhile, the working title for this page, Electronic art music, was pretty good, as was agreed by three editors around a week ago. Maybe not perfect, but good as an interim title until we figure out the best way to organize the various related topics. Electronic music covers a wide range of genres, styles, scenes or whatever word one wishes to use... but it is not synonymous with the topic of this article - which describes "serious" or "erudite" or "art music" forms of electronic music, and so should not have a disambiguation title as it is not an "alternate" form of the same words. Electronic music includes various "popular" forms as well.

This is not a "genre" hierarchy, because "art" or "serious" music is in a separate genre branch from "popular music"; rather "electronic music" is a definition based on what kind of equipment or instruments are used to make the music. This is a multiple dimension question, not a simple tree. There is a genre tree, but the use of electronic instruments cuts across the tree and subsumes multiple genres that otherwise would not be related. That's why this article needs a separate title, not a disambiguation title.

It is clear that my point is valid in the way that the intro to this article became confused by simply removing the word "art" from the bold words naming the article title in the first sentence. It went from being a good description of the topic to a confusing circular definition that doesn't orient the reader at all.

I know how to fix the problems here, but I'm not going to do it without support. I'm not interested in guarding the article. I am going to leave this be and await comments by other editors.

I strongly encourage interested editors to revert the messy changes and continue the electronic music organization discussions that were in progress. After a while, the improvements to this page and Electronic music we've been discussing can be made. But if there is not enough interest, then we'll lose this article and I won't try to save it by myself. --Parsifal Hello 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * hey Parsifal, sorry for my almost abrasive tone, but you should admit that things could/can not be left as they were/are, and that discussions are taking too much time. There is no way out of here: "common" usage of the term refers to almost anything today, while its encyclopedia meaning is ONLY the academic tradition. This is taught in every serious book, and in any university.


 * Analogy: the pop forms of music made with electronics are "electronic music" <=> Chess is a "logical" game, and are also a topic in game theory, hence its players are mathematicians. Doktor Who 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming and reading this - I had to follow the links to get a good idea of what this article was about. Is there any sense of consensous from professionals who write about this topic?  (PS - if you say there are can you quote them for me?) I think the concept of this article is good - why don't we leave it here for now, but change the start to encompas several different phrases (Electronic Art Music (or Electrical Classical Music, +any other terms deemed appropriate).  In general though - I would advise not to move pages without discussion, page moves can cause redirects that redirect to more redirects and so forth. Denaar 03:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110137/electronic-music --Susume-eat 06:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting that most interesting reference. We can use it for this and other electronic music-related articles.
 * That reference is excellent example of how Wikipedia succeeds in certain areas beyond Britannica. In the Britannica article, the most recent date that's mentioned is 1984, and on the page of "additional reading", the most recent text listed is dated 1981.  There's nothing in that article that mentions any form of electronic music in popular genres.  As far as Britannica's article on electronic music is concerned, euro-trance, techno or any other electronic dance music, or ambient, or any other more recent forms of electronic music (whether academic/serious, or popular) simply do not exist.  I suppose I could have missed where they mentioned those, if so, please point it out.
 * I respect Britannica, of course, but in this case, apparently they have not updated their electronic music article since 1984. Or, perhaps they made an editorial choice to exclude the huge diversity of contemporary popular music that has been created using and inspired by electronic musical instruments and computers.  Either way, Wikipedia is not Britannica and does not need to conform all its articles to the way Britannica approaches them.  --Parsifal Hello 07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article refer to Electronic Music origin from the classical composer like Stockhausen, that what this article here is the for. The pop music is mention in http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9099948/techno . Who said every article must conform britainica? I did not say. Britainica article is the very excellence of music encyclopaedia about Electronic Music. Its excellence can influence us all. Electronic art music is exposed as fake, it is dead, no room left for it in the inn. Electronic Music is the only acceptable title of this article . Please, it is exposed, now it is time to move on... nobu --Susume-eat 14:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that article covers electronic music in general, and not just the topic at hand? It does talk about a "Classical" period of tape music. I went ahead and changed the lead to incoporate the idea that this page is not meant to be identical to the electronic music page. Denaar 13:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Denaar that the Britannica article is not focused just on the topic of this article and is more general, like the WP article Electronic music. However, the Britannica article is out of date, even just within the art music area of electronic music, nothing is mentioned about contemporary projects using personal computers for example (and I'm not referring to popular music usage here).
 * In addition, the additional Britannica article noted by Susume above is not about pop forms of electronic music, it is about "techno", and is another example of Britannica falling short of its reputation. Even that article apparently has not been updated since 2000 or so, and some of it is just wrong. For example it lists a variety of other popular electronic styles as subgenres of techno, whereas techno is actually a fairly specific type of electronic dance music, with certain types of beats, tempos and sounds and not a category that includes popular electronic music forms outside of those parameters.  That was the case even when they wrote that article seven years ago, now seven years later, the range of popular electronic music forms has expanded even further beyond the limits of techno.
 * As I said previously, I don't care about the particular words in the title of this article, but the information needs to be presented clearly. If everything were combined into  one mammoth electronic music article,  that would be mammoth and confusing indeed with the many popular electronic genres included in one article with Stockhausen and the other pioneers and contemporary explorers of electronic music within the realm of art music or "academic/serious" music.
 * And the parenthesis method doesn't work, for the reasons both Jermoe Kohl and I explained above, including that it is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines to create titles that express topic hierarchies. --Parsifal Hello 16:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bulls !!! Rubbish!! --Susume-eat 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

references added
I found several references for the term "electronic art music" and added them to the page, also moved the page back to the consensed version of the title. Those references also fit into some of the historical sections of the article, so they provided value in mutliple ways.

The several electronic music top level articles still need to be better organized, but at least this title has support now from sources. We should consider that the main electronic music article overlaps with this one and with several of the "popular" electronic music articles pages, and also that there is lack of clarity regarding the evolution of the electronic musical instruments vs the composers' history. On one hand, it seems those should be separate articles, then again, because the equipment was evolving along with the composers, and their work arose out of the new equipment available, it's hard to separate the two. Yet we have separate articles with parallel tracks currently, so this still needs thought and improved organization. Also, one more point, none of these articles clearly address recent developments in electronic equipment, that might be in the computer music article or other places, but also, there is contemporary electronic art music happening today, breaking new ground; and so far we don't have anything about that as far as I can see.

Plenty more to do, that's for sure! --Parsifal Hello 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bastard!! --Susume-eat 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Parsifal! I'm sure that Suseme-eat meant to congratulate you, as well, only his tenuous grasp of English may have resulted in the opposite impression. As Père Ubu would have said, Merdre!--Jerome Kohl 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your positive perspective. I didn't realize the name of that band was from a play, that was an interesting read! --Parsifal Hello 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a band called Merdre? I guess I can't say I'm surprised. There are so many bands out there, it must be hard to find a name that isn't already taken. As for a positive perspective, I am simply following some good advice found on another editor's talk page: "Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project."--Jerome Kohl 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi - Yes, that is good advice indeed!  The band name I was referring to isn't Merdre, though I could see someone using that.  I was referring to this group: Pere Ubu (band). They're mainly a rock band, but they're influenced by  experimental and musique concrète, so I thought that was a good fit with the topic of this article, even though they're in the rock realm.  --Parsifal Hello 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Though I freely admit to being a complete nincompoop where pop bands are concerned, I have actually heard of the one called Père Ubu. Never heard a single note of their actual music, so far as I am aware, but anything is possible, I suppose. If there actually is a band called "Merdre", I imagine it would have to be a punk band with a sense of irony—I mean, to call yourself "sounds like 'shit'"?--Jerome Kohl 06:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Père Ubu's music either, just recognized the name. Merdre would definitely be a punk band - with a sense of humor!  --Parsifal Hello 06:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs SYNTHESIS METHODS section
The invention of FM synthesis doesn't belong in the section on MIDI. It belongs in the missing -- equally important to art music -- section of this article which briefly the development and role of various sound synthesis methods. FM would fit into that, along with additive, subtractive, granular, et.al. and links to the respective articles. Twang 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

untitled section
I will give up, there is too much of the vandalism and ugliness of editing of this man. To researchers of the future I beg you, please look into this man's crank vandalisms. I am so angry Bastard--Susume-eat 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion none in the real world cares very much of this site; otherwise, how would you explain why it is such a big crap and why there is just one strange wording style that i've never read before. (in this case, I mean that the heading of this article doesnt sound enciclopedic at all: it should begin with "electronic art music is" not refers to. It is meant to be an enciclopedic entry or a dictionary one?). Anw, I'll be away for a very long time, I'm too busy, sorry. Goodbye.--Doktor Who 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)