Talk:Electronic dance music/Archive 2

"the last 15 years"
I've reverted this edit, which inserted "Electronic dance music has been increasing extremely rapidly in the past 15 years because there are endless possibilities of different beats, and sounds that can be made.", citing an article titled The State of Electronic Music by a source identified as "College Music Society". The sourcing on that seemed a bit vague, so I looked around to see whether I might be able to improve it, keying on the "past 15 years" point. What I came up with was an article saying, "The field of electronic music grew so rapidly during the last fifteen years that composers and listeners came to expect that its role in our musical culture, like our economy, could only expand." However, that statement comes from That raised a question in my mind whether the vaguely identified article cited without a date speaks of a 15 year period 15 year previous to whatever date this WP article is being read (even if that is 5 or ten years hence -- see WP:DATED), of a 15 year period from 2000 to 2015, of a 15 year period from 1957 to 1972, or of some other 15 year period. Perhaps I have been too bold here; if so, feel free to add this back with clearer sourcing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's an interesting historical snapshot, but placed right before a sentence about the mid-2000s it's way too confusing. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Americentric and '21st Centric'
I don't really know where to begin with this article, but I sincerely hope its not the start page for dance music, because then someone has deleted a much more mature article that was written by someone who actually had the first idea what dance music is.

Like I say, don't really know where to start, but when I read an article that references dance music as becoming popular in 2009 or 1998, due to 'Madonna' or 'Tiesto at the 2004 Olympics' that's just bizarre, as in England we've had the current form of dance music since the mid 80s with house, certainly by 1987 with rebranded 'Acid House'. Manchester is said to be the epicenter.

In England electronic dance music has been in the mainstream since at least 1994, if not 1992, so Im pretty confused what all this 'Deadmouse' talk is about. I hope others who know about the music can contribute to this article -or preferably its deletion and rewriting- in future. Very America-centric - a bit like saying 'The origin of Rock was Nirvana'...er...no guys... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.239.227 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree here. I just came to read this article and am stunned by the unabashed US-Centricness of it. It's so far from "world view" it's not even funny. Just look at the changes that have happened over the past 5 years. It's a constant battle between other countries adding things, and US-based people deleting or changing what has been written; seemingly to re-write electronic dance music's history so that it pushes everyone who isn't US-based out of the picture. Renaming the article to "EDM in the US" and you have a fair article, but as it is, this is a joke to wikipedias standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.159.117.222 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I came to this article from the more general Dance Music article, and I knew it would be extremely US-centric, given that there was a brief introduction to 'Electronic Dance Music' on that page, linking here. Madonna's 'Ray of Light' bringing electronic music to the US mainstream is very questionable, when e.g. Snap!'s 'Rhythm Is a Dancer' was a top 5 US hit in January 1993.  The term 'electronic dance music' itself is very US-centric, as it has always just been 'dance music' elsewhere (even in Australia, where I am from) until the last 5 or so years when it became the main form of chart music in the US.Nqr9 (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * i think it would be better to clarify that Madonna's adoption of the whole club culture thing, in her effort to stay relevant, demonstrated that the mainstream music industry in the US was finally ready to embrace that sound. Prodigy's Fat of the Land was a number one both sides of the Atlantic the year before, but also in the same year Daft Punk's Homework was in the top of the charts in Europe, but nowhere near in the US. Yes, there were a handful of dance singles that charted in the US in the early to mid 90s, but it's the contrast between Europe and US in this period that should probably be emphasised, trance acts like BT, Sasha etc. were charting in the UK but doing nothing in the US, and there were a whole host of dance acts in the same boat. Club culture simply didn't make the same mainstream impact in the US during the 90s, that needs to be elaborated upon. Arguably, it was the Ray of Light release that changed industry minds in the US. Semitransgenic  talk. 12:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember, we would need sources implying this specific association or else it would be original research. ViperSnake151   Talk  04:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

sources failing
The cited sources at [128] and [129] both are cited to empty pages so they do not hold any significance

Ghost Producing
I added the concept of ghost producing to the criticism section of the page because this is something that is being talked about a lot lately. Artists are joining the debate by posting on social media and even creating videos and merchandise to bring more attention to this controversial topic. I feel that this is extremely important to cover on the EDM page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnrearick (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Florida Origin of Popularity in US
Beacham Theater

Additional sources from VICE/THUMP:

Florida History *in 5 parts

Johnvr4 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. https://thump.vice.com/en_us/topic/miami-bass
 * 2. ?
 * 3. https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/the-essential-rave-nightclubs-of-floridian-history
 * 4. https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/trippy-chems-and-strange-moogs-schematic-idm-and-the-beginning-of-miamis-downtown-music-scene
 * 5. https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/setting-the-bar-how-florida-music-festivals-became-the-standard-of-the-american-dance-experience
 * ? https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/florida-breaks-in-the-1990s-beats-get-sleazy-in-the-weirdo-armpit-of-america
 * ? https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/90s-djs-where-are-they-now

What is this crap?
Was this article written by a stupid 19 year old American who thinks electronic music didn't exist before 2000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.115.95 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes its a weird marketing term. If you could list some specific grievances, others might be able to address them.  The article doesn't account for the huge trend towards house music in the late 80s and early 90s.  It comes across as a new form of innovative dance music when its not.  Thankfully the article does include some of these aspects. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
The lead states that EDM is "a broad range of percussive electronic music genres". Then in the Genre section it states "Like other music genres, EDM...". Which is it, a collection of genres or a genre? The wording should be improved to remove this inconsistency. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * For consistency, "EDM" is a collection of genres. See also: Rave music.  Johnvr4 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Electronic dance music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529084448/http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/is-edm-killing-the-art-of-djing to http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/is-edm-killing-the-art-of-djing
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140425040816/http://www.mixmag.net/music/the-blog/deadmau5/man-who-trolled-the-world to http://www.mixmag.net/music/the-blog/deadmau5/man-who-trolled-the-world
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429064218/http://vote.worldmusicawards.com:80/index.asp to http://vote.worldmusicawards.com/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221234900/http://vote.worldmusicawards.com:80/selectnomination.asp?cat=8 to http://vote.worldmusicawards.com/selectnomination.asp?cat=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't Let Me Down
You added the statement "However, being downtempo (arguably a ballad), it's not a dance recording.", but you provided no reliable source. Please add back a reliable source to support the statement or remove it. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Being used as a genre
Articles for various musicians, songs, and albums are using EDM as a genre and not listing a specific subgenre. This is a problem because this article defines EDM as:

"Electronic dance music [...] is a broad range of percussive electronic music genres made largely for nightclubs, raves, and festivals. [...] Despite the industry's attempt to create a specific EDM brand, the initialism remains in use as an umbrella term for multiple genres, including house, techno, trance, drum and bass, dubstep, and their respective subgenres."

So I think we should be able to find sources that define a specific genre instead of listing EDM as a genre, which is an umbrella term for actual subgenres and not a real genre.

Tjdrum2000 (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If in fact EDM in common usage is an umbrella term and not a genre, then all of those various articles should be corrected. Changing the correct usage here in order to accommodate hundreds of mistakes elsewhere doesn't sound like the right way of going about things to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Correcting those articles is what I meant. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, good. I had misunderstood you. We are on the same page, then.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Electronic dance music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://news.beatport.com/black-history-jesse-saunders-and-house-music/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040214105200/http://www.techno.de/mixmag/interviews/DerrickMay1.html to http://www.techno.de/mixmag/interviews/DerrickMay1.html
 * Added tag to http://www.technoton-magazin.com/veranstaltung26_technotonontour_electriclove2014.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
As EDM describes an enormously wide range of genres, does it really make sense for it to have an infobox? It's such a broad category that it isn't feasible to point to any specific genres or years as "origins" or to any specific instruments as "typical". It's even more absurd when electro, house, trance, and techno, generally agreed to be genres of EDM, are listed as "fusion genres" or under "other topics". I would opt to have the infobox removed. '''[[User:Life of Tau|Life ]][[User talk:Life of Tau|of ]]Tau''' 08:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems too drastic. If you have problem with the genre info then remove that bit and leave the rest intact (not all tidbits in the infobox are a "must have"). What you have now done is use a sledgehammer to kill an ant. Besides, you have already reinstated the image bit so even you inadvertently agree you went too far --Loginnigol 23:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. My point was that the music genre infobox as a whole was incompatible with an article about a category of music genres, and as such I pointed to all but one parameter as being problematic. I would like to know what you consider the ant to be in your metaphor, as the beginning and closing lines of my first comment make it clear that I took issue with the infobox as a whole. One last thing — the image and caption were added to the infobox after I made my comment; other than being placed there, they had nothing to do with the infobox itself and as such were the only elements that could reasonably be isolated from it. '''[[User:Life of Tau|Life ]][[User talk:Life of Tau|of ]]Tau''' 23:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Electronic dance music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118085704/http://www.mixmag.net/music/the-blog/edm-will-eat-itself-big-room-stars-are-getting-bored to http://www.mixmag.net/music/the-blog/edm-will-eat-itself-big-room-stars-are-getting-bored
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201234411/http://www.mixmag.net/words/news/afrojack-and-deadmau5-argue-over-whats-good-music to http://www.mixmag.net/words/news/afrojack-and-deadmau5-argue-over-whats-good-music
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605130014/http://www.mixmag.net/news/watch-saturday-night-live-sketch-mock-big-room-dj-culture to http://www.mixmag.net/news/watch-saturday-night-live-sketch-mock-big-room-dj-culture
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vote.worldmusicawards.com/index.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vote.worldmusicawards.com/selectnomination.asp?cat=8

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2017
Hello! Please add this important information to 'Criticism' section of Electronic dance music article. Thank you in advance!

Many DJs do not write their own music and use the services of the so-called "ghost producers". It happens when unknown musician makes a record and share his credits with a DJ, or even making non-disclosure agreement and not getting into track's title. There is a stigma about ghost production in EDM industry. It's been critisied a lot on internet that it's not fare to buy music and say that it's your own. But still then most of successful DJ's are using ghost producers in order to deliver fresh tracks every week and do active touring. Alexlarichev (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌: not a wp:reliable source. There are no Wikipedia articles Ghost producers or Ghost production and we don't link to external websites this way—see wp:WIKILINK. Actually, both links would be just spam. - DVdm (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please...
...remove Electronic Body Music from the Disco section. EBM is an outgrowth of Industrial music and Synth-Punk. What in God's name has it to do with Disco music? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.223.212 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_dance_music&diff=next&oldid=701594221


 * And it clearly was not part of the Disco section until User:Semitransgenic changed it two years ago. So please, remove it. EBM ist not Disco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.223.212 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove image?
Image being currently used showing an EDM carnival may be confusing to use as that particular event portrays EDM as a music genre which conflicts with Electronic dance music as an umbrella term (the main focus of the article)? Henryofh (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's true! Besides, I'm not sure how to handle this particular image, as it has the festival logo in one corner and could be considered as advertisement. It's beautiful, though... You decide! WilhelmSchneider (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Change it please Young money vibes (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflation of terms. There was no such thing as "EDM" before the 2000s
This Wiki entry begins with a history of electronic dance music (EDM) beginning in the ~70s. It goes on to describe how US business interests then invented the term EDM in the 2010s. Wiki entries for house / techno / rave / club culture existed well before this rebranding and yet all have been subsumed. Is this how Wikipedia is? Rewriting history in common with the largest, loudest mouths? A once counter culture destroyed by cultural hegemony and wilful amnesia. "The tragedy of the commons" writ large". Electronic dance music is fine as an umbrella term . We oldies can live with that but this entry confuses a US zeitgeist with a global history. This entry needs to be reorganised with that in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.37.131 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my undoing of your edit was hasty; I didn't read this discussion before. Anyway, we should solve this here before changing the article in such a severe way. Any ideas by anyone? I'm not sure about it, as I can only talk about the use of the term in Germany: electronic dance music, or "elektronische Tanzmusik", was first used as an umbrella term and in use long before 2010 and EDM in the narrow sense. There's even a Westbam track of that name from 1998 (see here). But I don't know how the term was used in the US. Who knows more, preferrably backed up by facts and sources? Best regards, WilhelmSchneider (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To follow up: Maybe we should differenciate between "electronic dance music" (umbrella term) and "EDM" (specific genre)? I can't decide this, though, as I don't know much about the usage of these terms in the US. Is no one here who does? WilhelmSchneider (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This article has used the term EDM as an abbreviation of electronic dance music since before the US business interests used (not invented) the term to try and rebrand rave culture. The term EDM was used in musicology before that. Americans just love using acronyms to refer to stuff so whereas we used to make dance music in production software we now make EDM in DAWs and other capitalised gibberish.
 * Since this is an encyclopedia, doing what musicologists do and treating EDM as an abbreviation of electronic dance music, which is a self-explanatory term and clearly includes house, techno, drum and bass etc as well as big room house, brostep, electro-swing and that awful trancey electro house garbage (i.e. the many distinct genres that "EDM" popularly refers to on account of when the term became trendy), is completely acceptable. We should not cave into the US music journalists' rebranding efforts - it is actually them who are trying to give off the impression that what happened in the 2010s is something brand new when it isn't. And neither is it "a specific genre". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, for an example of early use of "EDM" outside academic writing see this source – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds totally convincing, thanks for clearing this up! Let's keep everything as it is, then. WilhelmSchneider (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * per filelakeshoe, sums it up, there is no issue here. Plus, "EDM", as a specific genre, it's over, it was a bubble, it has burst, the term "electronic dance music" weathered the storm, let's move on. Acousmana (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe... We should not keep everything as it is. What you have just said is an argument against what you are advocating. EDM and Electronic Dance Music are very different things, and EDM has very specific links to a particular style of Dance music. It is therefore wrong to call dance music EDM. I have just edited the page to this effect and had it reverted 37 mins later (longer than I expected actually!). This is despite clear sources which show the consensus outside the US that EDM is not dance music and indeed it is offensive to refer to it as such. Also, you must remember that wikipedia is an international website, not just meant to reflect American opinions and your need for acronyms. You cannot just keep things written therefore, from an American perspective, particularly when that perspective is ridiculous or makes no sense. You say that EDM was used as a term before the 2010s to refer to dance music. Where? Whats your source for that? And even if it was, it certainly wasn't widely used. Any such use was far greatly superceeded by the view that EDM refers to a specific style of genre. If you look at my revision earlier today I made before it was reverted, you will see I source VICE and DJ Mag, and that to quote the writer of one of the articles she sums it up nicely when recalling how she was at a meeting where EDM was described accurately like this...

"In Europe, we class EDM as a sub-genre of dance music. EDM is that big room Martin Garrix crap that’s suitable only for the Disney Channel!"

The articles go on to describe in detail the history and how we arrived at this misconception by the Americans. Bare in mind that if this is going to be a Europe vs US perception battle, there are 320 Million of you and 750 Million of us, so if we are going to go by the majority opinion, then the European view should take precedence. Also, given EDM is pretty much dead, all the more reason to change article otherwise, millions of people may be going round thinking dance music is also dead! Have a read of the edit I made at 17:43 today BST please, and if you can't find a flaw with it, then let it be the new version and reinstate it if you (or anyone else reading) has the power to do so. I don't wanna get in to an edit war on my own. Also, in typical edit reverter style, they have used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and reverted everything, including other valuable edits, which were not entirely relevant to the EDM phrase argument, showing no sense of nuance in the process. Please also consider reading the articles I cited to before forming a view. I will link them here again to save time. I have included a 3rd one too, which is relevant from the last time I tried to get this changed a few months ago which I didn't use this time but should have done.

Also just to add, the reason the reverter (acousmana) gave for undoing my edit was flawed. They said....

"Electronic dance music' is an established term in academic literature on the subject and it precedes usage as "genre," raise issue on talk before making blanket hcanges"

...to which I replied on their talk page....

"EDM article Edit - You just reverted my edit which corrected the mis-use of the term EDM. You said... "Electronic dance music' is an established term in academic literature on the subject and it precedes usage as "genre,". This is irrelevant. I was not questioning the use of the term "electronic dance music", I was talking about the incorrect use of the term EDM. Therefore, how is acedemic literature on "electronic dance music" relevant in any way or any reason for you to revert the edit? The articles make it clear that EDM and Electronic dance music are very different things, and this is the widespread belief amoungst the educated in the dance music scene. Therefore, what reason ws there to revert the edit? Did you read the sources in full? Please re-instate my edit if you cannot come up with a valid explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)"

Thank you

Links.... https://djmag.com/content/can-we-please-stop-calling-all-dance-music-genres-%E2%80%98edm%E2%80%99

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/4x8q9b/stop-confusing-edm-with-all-electronic-music-already

Link from last time.... https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/ez7n77/heres-what-10-old-school-djs-think-about-edm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s. I have looked at your history of music book guide link. The reference to EDM was from 2013, and the only other reference I could see to it was someone .ust talking about how it was the serial number to a record release. Hardly a significant example of the use of the phrase EDM before 2010 or the late 2000s! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your Musicmag reference is a violation of WP:CIRCULAR as they cite Wikipedia. Your Vice source is just a collection of quotes, not a careful analysis of musical elements making up a genre. I think we need much better sources if we're going to say that everybody is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * there's reams of published material on the subject of electronic dance music, across a range of academic sources (journals and texts), and they universally use the abbreviation EDM - in reference to "electronic dance music" - which is the subject of this article. Scholarly usage of the abbreviation EDM would seem to predate music industry usage of the term. Without a consensus to change it, we are sticking to the current scheme. Acousmana (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I agree with Truth-Purificashine. Its's simply true when he or she writes: "You say that EDM was used as a term before the 2010s to refer to dance music. [...] even if it was, it certainly wasn't widely used. Any such use was far greatly superceeded by the view that EDM refers to a specific style of genre." It's also true that there might be a difference in usage between US and Europe (and probably the rest of the world), where "EDM" is a specific term for the "Martin Garrix type of music" (while "electronic dance music" is the umbrella term). And it's also true that we should find an international consensus. Now, I personally don't have super big problems with this article, especially if it explains its usage of the term. But when the article on Techno calls techno a subgenre of EDM, it's clearly a problem for me. See here on the actual conflict. WilhelmSchneider (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement concerning the use of the abbreviated version of 'electronic dance music' has existed in this article for 12 years now (since 2008), the source is Butler (2006), and there are earlier incidences of this abbreviation in academic writing stretching back to the early 00s. Since at least 2006 this has been the norm in musicological research dealing with dance music. The actual term "electronic dance music" has been around much longer and a simple search for usage prior to 2010 will demonstrate this. The other aspect to this is that 'EDM' - as per its genre usage by fans in the US - is also an umbrella term, it's not one 'style' which is what folk appear to be suggesting. So, at the end of the day, it's a futile discussion, the abbreviation exists, and it means 'electronic dance music,' that various fans bicker about the styles this umbrella covers (be they US,UK,international, whatever) is not the encyclopedia's concern, it's all just EDM. Acousmana (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely not "just all EDM!" As has been pointed out many times, using EDM as the umbrella term for electronic dance music is not correct, it's widely viewed as a more pop-influenced commercial sub-genre of dance music. The term EDM belongs in a list among other sub-genres such as House, Techno, Drum & Bass, etc; NOT the genre itself. If Carl Cox, one of the most influential and household names in DJing since the 1980s (who has DJ'ed all over the world, including North America) classes EDM as a sub-genre in dance music (among many others) then there is clearly a problem with the classification and needs to be urgently reviewed. 85.255.237.19 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * when you have done your doctorate on the subject of EDM v EDM, and written a thesis that spawns a published text, or range of journal articles, then we can cite you, but right now extant musicological sources take precedence over personal opinions. Acousmana (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Acousmana, you are are behaving quite rude, stubborn, and arrogant. The other user just gave you a valid source from a (famous) third person, additionally to the many sources given by Truth-Purificashine above. Please stop behaving so extremely biased and assuming your point of view is the one and only truth out there. This is not good team work. (And your talk page shows that you have been criticized by others before for starting edit wars and behaving uncooperative. A lot, actually.) WilhelmSchneider (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * listen Vilhelm, I've nothing to hide on my talk page, it is what it is, try to address content issues intead. If someone has strong WP:SECOND sources on this subject, present them, then we can has a proper discussion, until then, check WP:FORUM. Acousmana (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Acousmana, Have you actually looked in to the source of these so called credible academic sources? As in what country they are from? If they are American in origin, then the authors will be publishing from and AMERICAN perspective based on the majority of (ill informed) opinion in the US that they have encountered. That does not equate to the majority of opinion globally, so by just referring to 'academic sources' you are not paying attention to the nuances involved in this and the bigger picture. Also, on many subjects liek this, you could have 10 academic sources saying one thing, and 20 saying something different. What will you do then? Go with the highest number? At the very least the opening paragraph should be changed to clearly state a dispute in the definition. I think there is sufficient evidence for that. And also general references throughout the article to EDM should be changed to 'dance music' as that term is not in dispute. It's not like Americans are saying 'dance music' is actually a sub genre of EDM is it? So why not use that term as there is no disagreement on it? We could change the title to "electronic dance music" and then introduce it as "also known as EDM by some" and then talk about the dispute. It seems a fair compromise for now. Also, have you self appointed yourself as 'in charge' of this article or have you been voted as 'in charge'? If so by who and under what authority or process? And by the way, just because someone you deem as 'credible' publishes something, it doesn't actually make it credible or correct as academics make mistakes all the time. How many academics do you think are deeply involved in the dance music scene? Not many, they are outsiders looking in for the most part. Therefore, those best placed to know the truth are those who work in the dance music scene day in day out as DJs and Producers. How can academia know better than them? How can you possibly have a career in both fields?! So your logic of academic articles being the most trustworthy authority, in this particular instance, is flawed, and you are thinking too simplistically and without enough nuance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 08:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * there are no "self-appointed" editors "in charge" here, state your case using WP:RS and follow WP:CON, it's that simple. Acousmana (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Here it is November and I too just had an edit reverted about this issue by Acousmana. "Electronic Dance Music" as an umbrella is indeed a different animal than the "EDM" genre that appeared around 2006. The previous comments here by others about the difference between the two and the need for clarity are spot on. My edit even linked to existing discussion about this in the "Terminology" section of the article. If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia it is incumbent on it to be helpful and to explain the difference between a shared or similar term within the same music domain. Reviewing this section of the Talk page I observe a surprising amount of territorial defense instead of constructive discussion to reach a consensus for a simple disambiguation (not to be confused with a typical Wiki article disambiguation notice) that will improve the article and fix the deficiency. 76.81.20.51 (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution, please take a look at the various guidelines concerning article writing, you also might find WP:RS and WP:CON useful when it comes to understanding why certain articles are the way they are. Acousmana (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Acousmana, that was not helpful in the least. Wikipedia articles are not written in stone. Instead of defending "your" ground here, I think some of us would appreciate your working with us to craft a way to explain the difference between the two uses of the phrase and acronym. Anything short of that here is noise and doesn't help resolve the concern.
 * 76.81.20.51 (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * we need to see WP:RS refs that support a case for change, thus far, nothing meaningful has been offereed, it is, like you say, "noise." Do your research and state a good case, after that it's down to WP:CON to see if the article needs to change. Acousmana (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Conflation of terms. There was no such thing as "EDM" before the 2000s
This Wiki entry begins with a history of electronic dance music (EDM) beginning in the ~70s. It goes on to describe how US business interests then invented the term EDM in the 2010s. Wiki entries for house / techno / rave / club culture existed well before this rebranding and yet all have been subsumed. Is this how Wikipedia is? Rewriting history in common with the largest, loudest mouths? A once counter culture destroyed by cultural hegemony and wilful amnesia. "The tragedy of the commons" writ large". Electronic dance music is fine as an umbrella term . We oldies can live with that but this entry confuses a US zeitgeist with a global history. This entry needs to be reorganised with that in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.37.131 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my undoing of your edit was hasty; I didn't read this discussion before. Anyway, we should solve this here before changing the article in such a severe way. Any ideas by anyone? I'm not sure about it, as I can only talk about the use of the term in Germany: electronic dance music, or "elektronische Tanzmusik", was first used as an umbrella term and in use long before 2010 and EDM in the narrow sense. There's even a Westbam track of that name from 1998 (see here). But I don't know how the term was used in the US. Who knows more, preferrably backed up by facts and sources? Best regards, WilhelmSchneider (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To follow up: Maybe we should differenciate between "electronic dance music" (umbrella term) and "EDM" (specific genre)? I can't decide this, though, as I don't know much about the usage of these terms in the US. Is no one here who does? WilhelmSchneider (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This article has used the term EDM as an abbreviation of electronic dance music since before the US business interests used (not invented) the term to try and rebrand rave culture. The term EDM was used in musicology before that. Americans just love using acronyms to refer to stuff so whereas we used to make dance music in production software we now make EDM in DAWs and other capitalised gibberish.
 * Since this is an encyclopedia, doing what musicologists do and treating EDM as an abbreviation of electronic dance music, which is a self-explanatory term and clearly includes house, techno, drum and bass etc as well as big room house, brostep, electro-swing and that awful trancey electro house garbage (i.e. the many distinct genres that "EDM" popularly refers to on account of when the term became trendy), is completely acceptable. We should not cave into the US music journalists' rebranding efforts - it is actually them who are trying to give off the impression that what happened in the 2010s is something brand new when it isn't. And neither is it "a specific genre". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, for an example of early use of "EDM" outside academic writing see this source – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds totally convincing, thanks for clearing this up! Let's keep everything as it is, then. WilhelmSchneider (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * per filelakeshoe, sums it up, there is no issue here. Plus, "EDM", as a specific genre, it's over, it was a bubble, it has burst, the term "electronic dance music" weathered the storm, let's move on. Acousmana (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe... We should not keep everything as it is. What you have just said is an argument against what you are advocating. EDM and Electronic Dance Music are very different things, and EDM has very specific links to a particular style of Dance music. It is therefore wrong to call dance music EDM. I have just edited the page to this effect and had it reverted 37 mins later (longer than I expected actually!). This is despite clear sources which show the consensus outside the US that EDM is not dance music and indeed it is offensive to refer to it as such. Also, you must remember that wikipedia is an international website, not just meant to reflect American opinions and your need for acronyms. You cannot just keep things written therefore, from an American perspective, particularly when that perspective is ridiculous or makes no sense. You say that EDM was used as a term before the 2010s to refer to dance music. Where? Whats your source for that? And even if it was, it certainly wasn't widely used. Any such use was far greatly superceeded by the view that EDM refers to a specific style of genre. If you look at my revision earlier today I made before it was reverted, you will see I source VICE and DJ Mag, and that to quote the writer of one of the articles she sums it up nicely when recalling how she was at a meeting where EDM was described accurately like this...

"In Europe, we class EDM as a sub-genre of dance music. EDM is that big room Martin Garrix crap that’s suitable only for the Disney Channel!"

The articles go on to describe in detail the history and how we arrived at this misconception by the Americans. Bare in mind that if this is going to be a Europe vs US perception battle, there are 320 Million of you and 750 Million of us, so if we are going to go by the majority opinion, then the European view should take precedence. Also, given EDM is pretty much dead, all the more reason to change article otherwise, millions of people may be going round thinking dance music is also dead! Have a read of the edit I made at 17:43 today BST please, and if you can't find a flaw with it, then let it be the new version and reinstate it if you (or anyone else reading) has the power to do so. I don't wanna get in to an edit war on my own. Also, in typical edit reverter style, they have used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and reverted everything, including other valuable edits, which were not entirely relevant to the EDM phrase argument, showing no sense of nuance in the process. Please also consider reading the articles I cited to before forming a view. I will link them here again to save time. I have included a 3rd one too, which is relevant from the last time I tried to get this changed a few months ago which I didn't use this time but should have done.

Also just to add, the reason the reverter (acousmana) gave for undoing my edit was flawed. They said....

"Electronic dance music' is an established term in academic literature on the subject and it precedes usage as "genre," raise issue on talk before making blanket hcanges"

...to which I replied on their talk page....

"EDM article Edit - You just reverted my edit which corrected the mis-use of the term EDM. You said... "Electronic dance music' is an established term in academic literature on the subject and it precedes usage as "genre,". This is irrelevant. I was not questioning the use of the term "electronic dance music", I was talking about the incorrect use of the term EDM. Therefore, how is acedemic literature on "electronic dance music" relevant in any way or any reason for you to revert the edit? The articles make it clear that EDM and Electronic dance music are very different things, and this is the widespread belief amoungst the educated in the dance music scene. Therefore, what reason ws there to revert the edit? Did you read the sources in full? Please re-instate my edit if you cannot come up with a valid explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)"

Thank you

Links.... https://djmag.com/content/can-we-please-stop-calling-all-dance-music-genres-%E2%80%98edm%E2%80%99

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/4x8q9b/stop-confusing-edm-with-all-electronic-music-already

Link from last time.... https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/ez7n77/heres-what-10-old-school-djs-think-about-edm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s. I have looked at your history of music book guide link. The reference to EDM was from 2013, and the only other reference I could see to it was someone .ust talking about how it was the serial number to a record release. Hardly a significant example of the use of the phrase EDM before 2010 or the late 2000s! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your Musicmag reference is a violation of WP:CIRCULAR as they cite Wikipedia. Your Vice source is just a collection of quotes, not a careful analysis of musical elements making up a genre. I think we need much better sources if we're going to say that everybody is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * there's reams of published material on the subject of electronic dance music, across a range of academic sources (journals and texts), and they universally use the abbreviation EDM - in reference to "electronic dance music" - which is the subject of this article. Scholarly usage of the abbreviation EDM would seem to predate music industry usage of the term. Without a consensus to change it, we are sticking to the current scheme. Acousmana (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I agree with Truth-Purificashine. Its's simply true when he or she writes: "You say that EDM was used as a term before the 2010s to refer to dance music. [...] even if it was, it certainly wasn't widely used. Any such use was far greatly superceeded by the view that EDM refers to a specific style of genre." It's also true that there might be a difference in usage between US and Europe (and probably the rest of the world), where "EDM" is a specific term for the "Martin Garrix type of music" (while "electronic dance music" is the umbrella term). And it's also true that we should find an international consensus. Now, I personally don't have super big problems with this article, especially if it explains its usage of the term. But when the article on Techno calls techno a subgenre of EDM, it's clearly a problem for me. See here on the actual conflict. WilhelmSchneider (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement concerning the use of the abbreviated version of 'electronic dance music' has existed in this article for 12 years now (since 2008), the source is Butler (2006), and there are earlier incidences of this abbreviation in academic writing stretching back to the early 00s. Since at least 2006 this has been the norm in musicological research dealing with dance music. The actual term "electronic dance music" has been around much longer and a simple search for usage prior to 2010 will demonstrate this. The other aspect to this is that 'EDM' - as per its genre usage by fans in the US - is also an umbrella term, it's not one 'style' which is what folk appear to be suggesting. So, at the end of the day, it's a futile discussion, the abbreviation exists, and it means 'electronic dance music,' that various fans bicker about the styles this umbrella covers (be they US,UK,international, whatever) is not the encyclopedia's concern, it's all just EDM. Acousmana (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely not "just all EDM!" As has been pointed out many times, using EDM as the umbrella term for electronic dance music is not correct, it's widely viewed as a more pop-influenced commercial sub-genre of dance music. The term EDM belongs in a list among other sub-genres such as House, Techno, Drum & Bass, etc; NOT the genre itself. If Carl Cox, one of the most influential and household names in DJing since the 1980s (who has DJ'ed all over the world, including North America) classes EDM as a sub-genre in dance music (among many others) then there is clearly a problem with the classification and needs to be urgently reviewed. 85.255.237.19 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * when you have done your doctorate on the subject of EDM v EDM, and written a thesis that spawns a published text, or range of journal articles, then we can cite you, but right now extant musicological sources take precedence over personal opinions. Acousmana (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Acousmana, you are are behaving quite rude, stubborn, and arrogant. The other user just gave you a valid source from a (famous) third person, additionally to the many sources given by Truth-Purificashine above. Please stop behaving so extremely biased and assuming your point of view is the one and only truth out there. This is not good team work. (And your talk page shows that you have been criticized by others before for starting edit wars and behaving uncooperative. A lot, actually.) WilhelmSchneider (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * listen Vilhelm, I've nothing to hide on my talk page, it is what it is, try to address content issues intead. If someone has strong WP:SECOND sources on this subject, present them, then we can has a proper discussion, until then, check WP:FORUM. Acousmana (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Acousmana, Have you actually looked in to the source of these so called credible academic sources? As in what country they are from? If they are American in origin, then the authors will be publishing from and AMERICAN perspective based on the majority of (ill informed) opinion in the US that they have encountered. That does not equate to the majority of opinion globally, so by just referring to 'academic sources' you are not paying attention to the nuances involved in this and the bigger picture. Also, on many subjects liek this, you could have 10 academic sources saying one thing, and 20 saying something different. What will you do then? Go with the highest number? At the very least the opening paragraph should be changed to clearly state a dispute in the definition. I think there is sufficient evidence for that. And also general references throughout the article to EDM should be changed to 'dance music' as that term is not in dispute. It's not like Americans are saying 'dance music' is actually a sub genre of EDM is it? So why not use that term as there is no disagreement on it? We could change the title to "electronic dance music" and then introduce it as "also known as EDM by some" and then talk about the dispute. It seems a fair compromise for now. Also, have you self appointed yourself as 'in charge' of this article or have you been voted as 'in charge'? If so by who and under what authority or process? And by the way, just because someone you deem as 'credible' publishes something, it doesn't actually make it credible or correct as academics make mistakes all the time. How many academics do you think are deeply involved in the dance music scene? Not many, they are outsiders looking in for the most part. Therefore, those best placed to know the truth are those who work in the dance music scene day in day out as DJs and Producers. How can academia know better than them? How can you possibly have a career in both fields?! So your logic of academic articles being the most trustworthy authority, in this particular instance, is flawed, and you are thinking too simplistically and without enough nuance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 08:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * there are no "self-appointed" editors "in charge" here, state your case using WP:RS and follow WP:CON, it's that simple. Acousmana (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Here it is November and I too just had an edit reverted about this issue by Acousmana. "Electronic Dance Music" as an umbrella is indeed a different animal than the "EDM" genre that appeared around 2006. The previous comments here by others about the difference between the two and the need for clarity are spot on. My edit even linked to existing discussion about this in the "Terminology" section of the article. If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia it is incumbent on it to be helpful and to explain the difference between a shared or similar term within the same music domain. Reviewing this section of the Talk page I observe a surprising amount of territorial defense instead of constructive discussion to reach a consensus for a simple disambiguation (not to be confused with a typical Wiki article disambiguation notice) that will improve the article and fix the deficiency. 76.81.20.51 (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution, please take a look at the various guidelines concerning article writing, you also might find WP:RS and WP:CON useful when it comes to understanding why certain articles are the way they are. Acousmana (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Acousmana, that was not helpful in the least. Wikipedia articles are not written in stone. Instead of defending "your" ground here, I think some of us would appreciate your working with us to craft a way to explain the difference between the two uses of the phrase and acronym. Anything short of that here is noise and doesn't help resolve the concern.
 * 76.81.20.51 (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * we need to see WP:RS refs that support a case for change, thus far, nothing meaningful has been offereed, it is, like you say, "noise." Do your research and state a good case, after that it's down to WP:CON to see if the article needs to change. Acousmana (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Foxccon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Watch the International section for incoming spam
A sock farm is behind. Before I realized that I put a note on the talk page (since reverted) recommending the page be merged into the "International" section of this page. Sorry about that. In any case, look for the addition of Pakistani musicians and DJs, and check against the names and IP addresses you see here and here. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  23:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing Spring 2022 M1
This very poorly received, Americo-centric article on a made up term is the subject of something important????? Oh dear! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6393:B201:816E:7067:AFCF:CAB1 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brendaturcios. Peer reviewers: Kcataudella.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)