Talk:Experimental music/Archives/2016

Too Difficult to Understand
The main article needs to be simplified, as the current edition is too hard to understand. 114.76.153.103 (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a difficult term, because too many people have used the word "experimental" in mutually contradictory ways, and on radically different levels. If you have some ideas on how to make the article clearer, they would be very much appreciated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A citation style would surely help. As well as trimming the fat from copy-and-pasted quotes written by people whose namedrops aren't really necessary (WP:INTEXT). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the citation style; parenthetical referencing is superior in every way, in particular because it is simpler and easier to understand than SFNs, which merely introduce one more click between the reader and the reference. However, I agree with the rest. This article has accumulated a lot of clutter over the past five years, and it was already cluttered before then. Thank you for taking the initiative here today.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:INTEXT says "normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution". Parenthetical referencing maybe works in formal dissertations, but not on Wikipedia. Here, they're obstructive. I don't see why the reader must know that this fact:


 * "The Groupe de Recherches de Musique Concrète (GRMC), under the leadership of Pierre Schaeffer, organized the First International Decade of Experimental Music between 8 and 18 June 1953.


 * ...was written by a virtually unidentifiable "Palombini" in 1993. And what difference does it make? Text like "According to Cage", "Michael Nyman describes", and "David Cope distinguishes" are used throughout the text anyway. The article is totally inaccessible in this state. A lot of the clutter comes from its citation style and its use of quotes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That does seem in direct conflict with Verifiability, but I will leave that to you to sort out. If you mean by "virtually unidentifiable 'Palombini'" that a full biography should be inserted at that point, I must respectfully disagree. Palombini's two articles are what matter, and whether they are published in reputable sources. There seems no question about this, since the Computer Music Journal and Music and Letters are beyond reproach. Perhaps there are too many direct quotations, though I have just come from supplying such direct quotations in response to challenges to summary comments on another article. If loose references like "According to Cage", "Michael Nyman describes", and "David Cope distinguishes" are making the article "totally inaccessible", then it sounds to me as if you are calling for more inline citations, not fewer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Experimental 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/20080205063748/http://www.gearwire.com:80/neptune-jason-001.html to http://www.gearwire.com/neptune-jason-001.html

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) 06:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)