Talk:Electronica/Archive 1

Indietronica
what happened to the indietronica page? was it deleted?

Big Beat
I think big-beat should be dropped as a subgenre, since all the other pages indicate it is part of breakbeat. Reubot 09:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree It is quite cleary distinct from breakbeat, although there are similarities. Maybe this should be clarified on the respective pages. Martin Hinks 10:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dis-disagree First of all, big beat almost always has a "broken" beat (not oompf oompf oompf oompf like trance or techno). Secondly, how many subgenres can you name for big beat? Not many, because big beat already is a subgenre of breakbeat. Thirdly, big beat's origins are in funky breaks, acid breaks and chemical breaks, which all are subgenres of breakbeat. In conclusion: All big beat is breakbeat, but not all breakbeat is big beat. I recommend you pay a visit on The Ishkur's Guide ( http://di.fm/edmguide/edmguide.html ). Although it might not be the absolute truth or the bible of edm, it is rather accurate. --Thykka 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't knwo what you guys are talking about Electronica was a form of music started in the late 1960s with the advent of early synthesizers. Geroge Harrison being one of the largest such artists. Many Late 60s and early 70s electronica was instrumental songs entirely written on moogs, organs, and other synthesizers. This form of music was the basis of much of the early synth bands such as pink floyd in the 70s and techno in the late 70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlbyrum (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 July 2006

comment about External links
I was just browsing and I visited the 'External links'. Most sites listed aren't quite to the point I think. Perhaps a more thorough description should be added about what their relation is or they should be removed. example: uk trance alliance: most of it is trance, doesn't match the given electronica definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.131  (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 March 2006

Splitting and merging issues
You are very confusing in this whole matter. I suggest to split the Electronic music article in two parts, the first can merge with Electronic art music and the second with the Electronica article. I hope that nightclubs and rave parties are not the centre of youngsters' music culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky-surfer (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 April 2006

Electronic-a
This article must be deleted, as this word to me seems just an attempt of "pseudo-diplomacy" towards Spanish speakers. The definition is very confusing, and after all it seems to have been taken staight from that inconsistent site, www.allmusic.com Brian Wilson 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I distinctly recall the term "electronica" being applied to bands such as Midnight Star back in 1983 or so. If that's the case, then Brian is correct and this entire article is factually flawed. Sofa King Thursday, 2007-03-01 T 21:58 UTC

This not an electronical music style
Yes, as others said, it used for some mainstream media for describing electronic music. But it didn't went for all of the styles, just mostly for big beat artists, some house artist, and for every electronic influenced pop music (I mean that everything which was mainstream, and commercially successful. and yes, Madonna in the first place). Also some artists like Aphex Twin had some success in mainstream, so media started to describe them as electronica. So the correct definition is: "Electronica is not a genre, the word used by the media in UK & US mostly, for describe some of the commercially successed electronic music artists, except hip-hop." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaZaR (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 August 2006

What is Electronica?
Harmonica? Electric car? Sub Urbia? Electric Tonica? What the bar? Delete and merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.43.70 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 April 2007

Is this really a more common term in the US than elsewhere? I hear it here in the UK quite often. --Camembert


 * I first heard it in the US circa mid-1990s, but I have heard it in the UK, albeit less so. In Australia, techno, house or dance is more common (judging by those labels you see for sections in record stores).  I think it originated in the US, to describe a lot of the mid-1990s emerging artists from the UK like the Chemical Brothers, Leftfield, Fatboy Slim etc. and the US record companies wanted a marketing term to hang it on, because it wasn't strictly "pump your body" house music for the dancefloor and there was also the rock crossover thing going with Johnny Lydon/Leftfield and Chemical Bros/Oasis.  Since that time I think that the term has been reimported back into the UK.


 * It might be better to just drop the qualification, I was actually modifying an update from an anonymous user who labelled it as an "American term" without qualification. --Lexor 14:26, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, judging from what you say, it probably is more common in the US, but not to such an extent that it's worth commenting on (I mean, commenting on it gives the impression it's vastly more common in the US, which I'm not sure is really correct). Anyway, I'll leave it in there for now and let you or somebody else take it out if you like. --Camembert


 * I am 99% certain that the term originated in the UK in August 1996, and was coined by 'Melody Maker' to describe Republica! For some reason MM really liked the band a lot, and had been recently trying to invent some new genres (they had just failed to make 'Nw Wave of New Wave' and 'Romo' popular). Republica went nowhere, but the term itself quickly became used to describe slightly arty dance bands such such as Orbital and Leftfield, and thenceforth it has entered much wider use. Ashley Pomeroy 18:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I took this from | Iskur's Guide to Electronic Music. I agree with what he has to say and suggest that a section be added to include this viewpoint on the term: "Electronica does not exist. Not as a genre or a description. It was coined by the North American music press to refer to the second wave of electronic music's explosion in the late 90s, and exists purely as a marketing buzzword, not any actual quantifiable branch of music (the first wave of electronic music, incidentally, they called 'techno', and, having driven the word into the ground beyond all sense of meaning, they couldn't keep using it if they wished to re-market the music). Daft Punk, Fatboy Slim, Prodigy's 'Fat of the Land', Chemical Brothers and other big-time stars of that period were all called "electronica" at one point or another, but the person who really popularized it in the public consciousness was Madonna and her shallow, William Orbit-produced piss-poor attempt at appropriating trance music as something she invented (Ray of Light). She used that word all the damn time in interviews. God I hate her. So yeah: There is no such thing as electronica. I want each and every one of you to stop calling it that, because it makes you sound like a god damn retard. If you want to talk about the music as a whole, simply call it what it is: "electronic music" (or EDM--Electronic Dance Music--for the club/rave stuff). This is a PSA from the Official Electronic Music Genre Standards and Classifications Consortium." Milk 05:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's really funny, and I agree with it too. Did he say anything about IDM? Another bullshit name to group artists good and bad.Joyrex 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that both of you are completely off the mark. Every "musical genre" derives from a buzzword, whether it comes from industry people trying to promote something or a DJ crew trying to sum up their sound.  If you take it apart with this kind of judgement, then there is no point in having any classification of genres.  What you consider "legit" genres of electronic music (as if such a thing really exists), are undoubtably nothing more than "buzzwords" to the people that were there before the genres came around.  IMNSHO, electronica is a more naturally occuring, naturally defining genre of music than drum'n'bass or house.  Drum'n'bass, at this point, has degraded itself to the point of an ultra-lame marketing tool, thanks to the people that were so devoted to "keeping it real."  Electronica is great because it's vague and it has been very well infused into the American mainstream.  I will agree with the comment about "techno," though, it's pretty stupid how so many Americans use that to broadly cover all of electronic music.  If anything, a broader genre classification like electronica creates less confusion. Accipio Mitis Frux 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Ishkur's assesment (and Milk's and Joyrex's). He really knows the scene well (even though his bit on post-jungle is rather scanty and dated). "Electronica" is just used synonymously with "Electronic Music" or "Pop Electronic Music", and is generally not used by the electronic musicians. Like "techno" in the US (grr... this is always so irritating. They'll say, "Oh, you write techno! Cool! Are you a DJ?", and then I'll say, "Err, no. I don't write techno--don't really care for it much, honestly. And no, I'm not a DJ either...". And then it just gets very confusing. But--sorry--that's beside the point...), it's used to mean any sort of music sequenced on a computer that isn't hip hop or rap. Really, it should just redirect to Electronic Music. Accipio, however, does have a good point. Words are defined by their usage, so we must consider at what point a "media buzzword" becomes an acceptable musical term. I personally think that "Electronica" is too sporadically used to be properly considered a unique term/genre. Accipio, isn't the "broader genre classification" you refered to just called "electronic music"? Or do you usually don't include Dance in with Electronic Music (I know some people don't)? michaelb Talk to this user 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)