Talk:Future bass

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about a new, and massively growing genre that is not well documented. That is because it's very new, and back in 2013-ish it was not known at all, whereas today it is to be seen anywhere, usually not what would be called POP though.
 * Hello, in response I have to point out several problems with the article. First of all, it's poorly sourced, and that's extremely important when asserting significance. Out of the sources that are there, it's not reliable, you may not use a reference from a Facebook page as a reliable source. Finally, the article is not structured correctly, and has barely any content. So in summary, it's poorly sourced, not structured correctly, and needs more content, as it is a stub. If you want to improve your article, I suggest you make a draft before you create the article; here's how Help:Userspace draft. Also sign your posts so we know who it is; this is how Signatures. Good luck! -- Bobtinin  (talk)  22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I only posted it to start something, hoping that others would build ontop of it. Would be nice if I knew how to let a oage have an "incomplete article" note or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpectralKH (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Future Bass. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160216035715/https://thump.vice.com/en_us/video/what-is-future-bass-anyways to https://thump.vice.com/en_us/video/what-is-future-bass-anyways

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No mention of maltine records
it's a bit dumb bc they pretty much originated the movement from at least 2012. future bass p much started in the japanese scene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.114.174.75 (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states that future bass began in 2006, and Maltine Records has had no significant impact on the genre as a whole. GenericGuy10 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you have to be truly dense to say that "Maltine Records has had no significant impact on the genre as a whole" yet advocating some snail dude as originator of ""kawaii"" future bass. Maltine was on this type of sound years before and it influenced people like porter robinson or cashmere cat directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.214.231.249 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for this claim and it can be added to the article. Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  06:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Snail's House
Why was he removed from the notables list? There is plenty of evidence that alludes to his role in shaping the "kawaii" subset of future bass. GenericGuy10 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition
Hey everybody! I have several problems with the definition of Future Bass in the introduction. If you can agree to these suggestions, I'd be happy to do the work (but I'm also happy if someone else wants to do it, as I'm not that much into the genre). Best regards, WilhelmSchneider (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Why is it an "umbrella term" and not a genre? An umbrella term should be really wide, like "electronic dance music", or "bass music", containing quite different genres. I don't see this being the case with Future Bass; at least not more than with any other genre. Just remember, even house music is (and should be) listed as a genre, and it certainly contains way more variety than Future Bass, which is defined quite precise in the first sentence. Also, the Rolling Stone article in footnote 1 as well as the interview in footnote 2 speak explicitly of "genre", while there is no source cited using "umbrella term". So, suggestion 1: Let's say "genre".
 * 2) The intro defines Future Bass through being "less" of something. Compared to what? Without a reference, the sentence makes no sense at all. Suggestion 2: Find an "autonomous" definition or clarify the reference. I'd suggest to quote or paraphrase from the Rolling Stone article: "...future bass takes the ecstatic drops of dubstep or trap, but provides a warm bounce rather than a lumbering bruteness. Basslines are provided by harsh, detuned synths that buzz and purr instead of gulp and whomp."
 * 3) Suggestion 3: I think the influence of trap and dubstep (see the quote above) should be stated more prominently, both in the introductory sentence and in the box. Right now, it's hard to imagine the genre for a reader who's not familiar with it already.
 * 4) The first sentence has three footnotes, but only one (the Rolling Stone article) seems apt, while the other is an interview with an artist (also using the word "genre", by the way), and the other's just not a very serious source. Suggestion 4: Discard the two inferior footnotes, or at least the interview.
 * I agree and support all the suggestions. Initially, the article stated that FB is a subgenre of EDM, but on 03:56, February 5, 2020 it was changed to umbrella term by IP-user, and still no one reverted it. Solidest (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy we agree! I'll do the changes then. WilhelmSchneider (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)