Talk:Neurofunk/Archive 1

Neurofunk origins and artists
There are two different points of view about the neurofunk subgenre of drum'n'bass. The first is that neurofunk was originated by the Audio Blueprint label. According to this point of view, neurofunk artists are Stakka & Skynet, Teebee, Photek, Black Sun Empire, Gridlok, etc. The second is that neurofunk was originated by Ed Rush and Optical (Virus Recordings label), and that other artists are Cause 4 Concern, Mayhem, Noisia, Phace, Matrix, etc. Please cite sources to support any arguments. — Anrie Nord 2006-01-31 15:05Z


 * Stakka and skynet have certainly made neurofunk in the past... but they certainly didnt originate the style. The first neurofunk I heard was Medicine/Punchbag (1998), audio blueprint's most "neuro" release would be logistics (2000) or star trails (also 2000)... after 2000 most of audio blueprints releases were definitely neurofunk, but before that they were jus techstep.


 * Uh..... I dunno who is editing the correct information out of this article, I cant be bothered to go thru the history... But I am about to edit this article with information as agreed upon by a large selection of the Neurofunk community... pls refer to . Please if you have anything to add, discuss here or on said forum. If this article gets more out of hand I will have to take further action or have the entire article removed. --Staticau 10:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK just spotted the notes on the history from annie... I am calling respected members of the neurofunk community to present their case here. But you can refer to the forum I mentioned above. --Static 11:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Staticau, please call members of neurofunk community to cite more sources. — Anrie Nord 2006-01-31 15:08Z


 * any further action in getting this article removed will only bring further action to get any other future article removed. it´s good if you can check the history of sound dating back to 1998 when ed rush and optical remixed the highly pure funk orientated: "bluesy baby - feat speech" by ram jam world on the higher education label. this makes ed rush & optical the founders of neurofunk since most producers at that time were still working on techstep. neurofunk is a style delivered from funk - the style´s name makes it clear - while stakka and skynet were originally tech step orientated and later developed a highly techno sound with absolutely no pure funk elements clearly visible in their music except for a single tune: a cover of an afrika bambaattaa song on their quite obvious, techno sounding clockwork lp. if you cant bother to either listen or read about the history of funk and neuro than you´re not qualified to write about a style delivered from funk.


 * I would prefer no article, to an incorrect one. --Static 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we must be aware of the differences between "neurofunk" as a musical style and "neurofunk" as a term. I'd say the style has it's origin in Audio Blueprint, but the defining term comes from newer drum & bass, among them; Ed Rush & Co (also Nico has something to say about this). NuclearFunk 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, audio blueprint = neurofunk. underfire is generally more techstep.... but these virus/metro recordings we are talking about, were a long time before blueprint came about and started releasing neuro. --Static 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have asked me to provide my input here. Well, for what it's worth, my view is as I stated in this article -- although this has long since been replaced -- namely, that "neurofunk" and "techstep" are "broadly synonymous, although the precise relationship between the two styles is not agreed upon".


 * Much as some people will swear to the death that neurofunk and techstep are "completely" different, I have yet to see a single clear-cut argument to support this. Almost every tune that is labelled neurofunk, could in my opinion be equally labelled techstep -- indeed, most of them frequently ARE labelled techstep by other people.


 * its quite simple... Techstep sounds more like techno, with hard stabbing and off key melodies (raiden, propaganda etc = current techstep).. while neurofunk sounds more like funk, with smooth/evolving (progressive) moods, hardly any 'stabs', + everything is usually more in key and follows classical theory closer. The beats are also quite different, with neurofunk employing sampled funk loops alot more than tech step, which generally jus has a standard doom cssh, doom cssh :) --Static 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me I have seen this come up time and time and time again on forums such as dogsonacid.com (DOA), which for those who don't know, has membership of over 40,000 drumnbass fans worldwide. "What is the definition of neurofunk", "what is the difference between neurofunk and techstep"... In all these threads, I have never once seen anything remotely approaching a consensus.  Nobody has given a clear and simple definition -- or indeed any definition -- which multiple others did not immediately disagree with.  Some say the two are identical, others swear they're as different as night and day.  If the busiest dnb community in the world cannot reach the slightest agreement on this, I fail to see how Wikipedia can reach a genuine 'true' viewpoint, with (as far as I can see), all of a dozen active contributors to drumnbass articles.


 * I posted in most of those threads with both a link to this article, and a link to my website, which has alot of neurofunk on it. DOA may be a drum n bass forum, but there is a serious lack of "neuro-heads" on there, we tend to hate the place :) --Static 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why my original sentence opted for the assertion that they definitely overlap a lot, but with the NPOV disclaimer that nobody really agrees on this. Personally, I don't think this can be much improved upon, because any attempt to make a more specific statement will bring out people who disagree.


 * The way I see it, we have the people who actually make and release neurofunk wanting to have this article represent their style correctly, and then we have a few ppl (whose names I see on all dnb article historys) who have nothing to do with neurofunk, who are trying to say they know more about the origins of the genre. Pretty silly dont ya think? --Static 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also as for the relationship with funk... I have been into 70s funk and rare groove for far longer than I have been into dnb, collecting vinyl and DJing in that style, and I simply fail to see any major influence from funk (the genre) in neurofunk. Some tracks may be "funky" in the common English adjective sense ("it makes you want to dance") - but the same could be said for many techstep tracks and many drumnbass tracks like jump up, liquid, etc.  Beyond them being funky I am completely unconvinced where this supposed strong link to funk (the genre) comes from.


 * read the article... the first neurofunk was envisaged after listening to Miles Davis' experiments with darker sounds in jazz. If you actually take a track from "In a silent way" and put a dnb beat over it, you have REAL neurofunk (not what everyone else says is neurofunk). As for funk influences, all the breaks used in dnb come from funk, so in theory you could say that all dnb has funk influences.


 * As for whether Audio Blueprint / Stakka and Skynet or Virus / Ed & Opt were the originators of neurofunk... blah. I think this is a pretty ridiculous argument to get into, as it purely depends on your definition of what is and isn't neurofunk / techstep, and as I've discussed above, this definition seems completely different from one person to the next.


 * Thats coz most people know the word, but not the meaning. The whole point of us editing this article was so that this could stop. We (as neurofunk artists and label owners) are sick of people mislabelling everything even mildly 'dark' as neurofunk, and would like to do something about it. --Static 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly I find this whole debate a bit ridiculous. In my view it is worth remembering that Wikipedia is a GENERAL resource for the GENERAL public.  Obsessive techstep/neurofunk fans may insist they are completely different, but anyone not obsessive about drum'n'bass will probably fail to distinguish techstep from liquid, let alone identify the ultimately miniscule differences supposedly separating techstep from neurofunk.  Given this, I think we would be better served consolidating all the information from neurofunk and techstep into a single high-quality article, with the other redirecting there, and a section at the top briefly covering the semantic controversy, as opposed to squabbling over semantics, and filling articles with meaningless idiocy such as "The breakbeats rotate in a waveform" (I am a signed drumnbass producer and this means literally nothing).
 * I agree with this.. should be re-worded.


 * Oh well... my two cents... Stevekeiretsu 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Given this, I think we would be better served consolidating all the information from neurofunk and techstep into a single high-quality article, with the other redirecting there, and a section at the top briefly covering the semantic controversy"
 * Agreed --Frantik 20:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * NOT AGREED Techstep != Neurofunk. they are very different. --Static 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you say they are very different, but as I said above, other people don't really think so. Including me.  I can appreciate the vague distinction that techstep is techier and neurofunk is funkier, but I can't honestly say I consider the two completely and obviously separable.  I think there is an enormous amount of overlap and which you classify something as is a very inexact science.  Can you honestly say there isn't a single tune or artist which blurs the boundaries?  That every tune is clearly and obviously one or the other, and definitely not remotely the other?  Lets take just one example: the Wormhole LP.  What would you call that?  Most people I know consider it a classic techstep LP.  But it uses funk breaks extensively, which by your definition makes it neurofunk?


 * I invite you to step back from your personal techstep/neurofunk obsessiveness and bear in mind once again my point above-- whatever difference that may exist between the two is miniscule to anybody except the most dedicated neurofunk fan, whereas Wikipedia is for general users. Think of it this way: how similar are neurofunk and polka?  Not remotely.  Now bearing that in mind - how about neurofunk and ragga jungle?  Not very similar really, but somewhat - they're both dnb at least so compared to polka there is a medium-high level of similarility.  Now -- how about neurofunk and techstep?  Very very similar -- even compared to ragga jungle let alone compared to polka!  This is the sort of context normal people will consider.  They may be different to people listening to them constantly, but to the average reader, in the grand scheme of things alongside country, classical, or even house or trance, they are very similar.


 * By the way, a word on my background. Although I freely admit I was not around for the real birth of techstep years (95-97) I have been into techstep/neurofunk since about 98.  My favourite artists in the whole of drumnbass are Teebee, Stakka and Skynet, Ed Rush & Optical, Break, and so forth... So it's not that I don't really know much about the area; it's my favourite stuff, but I still "just don't get it" when it comes to the division.  And I've tried!  Hence reading (and participating in) many threads on the subject.  Now you may write off DOA as not having any neurofunk fans on there, but I find that a bit silly to be honest, considering the general stereotype (on, say, the Arena) is that DOA is full of "neuronerds"!  If DOA is not neuro enough for you, this just demonstrates to me that you are viewing this debate from the POV of an extremely niche-within-a-niche, hardcore obsessive neurofunk fan.  This obviously adds to your knowledge of the style but I think it distorts your perspective as to the degree of difference (as per polka/ragga/techstep comparison above).


 * [On a side note - I am very close personal friends with some Offkey artists (Raiden's label), and I can say that camp do not consider their style to be techstep, they consider it a techno-dnb fusion that goes well beyond techstep in terms of the influence taken from techno. Techstep in their eyes was always something of a misnomer because it usually isn't all that techno flavoured - in other words they have generally labelled not-that-techno, not-that-stabby stuff which you might call neurofunk, as techstep, even whilst considering that name to be misleading...]


 * I say all this not to suggest "I'm an expert so I'm clearly right" -- far from it -- but just to suggest that I'm not completely clueless in this department, and most of all to show that people have different opinions on what genre names mean. When you're talking about music it all becomes completely subjective so no matter how much you personally think they're "completely different", this is not an indisputable fact, it's just your personal point of view.  Which is no more inherently valid than mine (and vice versa).  The only way to resolve this, usually, is to turn to citing sources, but seeing as the only book with major discussion of the subject is that Simon Reynolds' effort, which I consider to be a steaming pile of pretensious, half-baked, pseudo-academic journo claptrap bearing practically no relation to the opinions of any of the drumnbass heads I have ever met - that doesn't help us much!


 * I suspect ultimately this issue will be resolved in your favour, because you will obviously continue swearing blind that techstep and neurofunk are "completely different" until hell freezes over, whereas to me they're basically interchangeable and therefore I don't really care! Stevekeiretsu 11:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way I apologise if I have been come across as aggressive or rude in this discussion, I am posting at work as a break from my office stress ;) Can I ask you (Static) if you would agree with the following statement or not?  "All neurofunk is techstep, but not all techstep is neurofunk" That's the shortest way of summarising my personal view of how they are somewhat different yet strongly related. Stevekeiretsu 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Stevekeiretsu. We need a single high-quality article about both techstep and neurofunk. Please help to write it. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-01 17:21Z

Ed Rush, Optical and Matrix

 * DSCI4 Forum Topic #7151

Stakka, Skynet, Photek and Teebee

 * Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

Source Direct
I guess I'd agree with neither of the original points of view! According to the book Energy Flash, which is, to the best of my knowledge, the source of the term neurofunk, it's mentioned as originating in conjunction with Source Direct. Their 1997 album Controlled Developments is, to me, the first neurofunk album although they had ~1996 vinyls on the Metalheadz label (tracks like Stonekiller and The Cult), so you could say it started there. Naar 12:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

i agree with the source direct thing there but that sound was more of a techstep thing rather than dark funk music. but neuro is indeed an extention, perhaps even a fusion of tech+funk. i was the one who wrote the neurofunk article. im a member of material/bill laswell´s crew and i happened to work very closely with recordings featuring bernie worrell, bootsy collins and george clinton from parliament funkadelic and i happen to know them as well. I´ve been into jazz breaks, funk breaks and african breakbeat music since 1973 - into techstep and neurofunk since its creation from doc scott in 1995 to phace in 2005. regardless of all arguments, in reality, neuro = brainy = clinical vs pure funk (and not just funky) can be found on the MYSTERIES OF FUNK lp which defined slick, brainy (neuro = neurons) production which many people call it ill/sick (ed rush & optical´s sicknote as an example). and this is all coming from miles davis switching his trumpet to wah wah pedals and marshall amps and giving it a ill/sick effect, as if the sound was wrong = twisted. AUDIO BLUEPRINT never, ever, did that and the founder of the neuro sound was actually MATRIX. but i agree that the article can be re-written since "the breaks rotate in a waveform" is not very precise. but i felt like starting something so people could continue and i had to replace the earlier definition because it was all wrong. no dark sick clinical funk in audio blueprint sorry, with the exception of one tune perhaps.


 * you wrote the bit about rotating waveforms? good grief.  I can't believe I told somebody who works with the likes of Bootsy and Bill Laswell that they "spout idiocy"!! *laughs* - (although I would still say I have no idea what that sentence means).  Once again, I find what you say here less of answer than just prompting more of the same old questions, in that I always considered Mysteries of Funk a seminal techstep album - albeit one with a higher than average funk content.  I could accept calling it a neurofunk album -- however I would be happy simultaenously label it a techstep album.  So I guess what I would ask you, is the same as above with regard to wormhole.  Would you say Mysteries of Funk IS neurofunk and ISN'T techstep, or vice versa, or is it both?


 * good grief?? i agree. look up the definition of WAVEFORM and how a wave builds, rolls and breaks. also do some research on music in a waveformat when it relates to drummers such as max roach and the rolling breaks of ed rush and optical on the creeps lp. read about early be bop and the connection between 1946 and 1996. you keep laughing and i keep smiling.


 * I do not need to look up the definition of a waveform or research music in wave formats; I work with electronic music (including both live instruments recorded to DAWs and sampled/synthesised sources) and hence sound-represented-as-waves on a daily basis, and I have done for years. And I know that speaking of a waveform "rotating" doesn't mean anything.  And, even if it did, there is no way in which the waveform representing a max roach or optical drum break "rotates", while waveforms representing lars ulrich or twisted individual drum breaks, do not "rotate".  Wave shapes "build", yes, in terms of increasing amplitude. But they do not "roll".  The conversion of sound to a visual waveform is pure mathematics.  It is just FFT.  The frequency along the X axis represents frequency (as in hz, pitch); the amplitude up the Y axis represents amplitude (as in db, volume).  There is nothing inherently different to a waveform representing a clarinet to a waveform representing a drum break: let alone an inherent difference between the waveforms found in a jungle track compared to the waveforms found in a neurofunk track.  It is just FFT!  Do you really think the equations behind FFT work differently when max roach is the drummer being recorded, to create an all-new, previously unheard-of category of "rotating waveforms"??


 * Or - actually let's try and reword the above to be a little more polite and neutral. Saying "it means nothing" suggests I consider myself categorically correct and all knowing.  Let us say instead: "It doesn't mean anything to me" - maybe it does mean something, but as it stands at the moment, I personally do not understand what.  I would be genuinely intrigued to know what this is actually supposed to mean, because it way well be that you are ultimately getting at something which is a very valid point.  But as it is currently worded, it is pure pseudo-science. This is why I have asked for clarification.  Vague hand-waving about 1940s bebop, without making any connection back from 1940s bebop to these mystical "rotating waveforms", or actually doing anything to explain what it is supposed to actually mean in scientific terms, is not going to convince me it is anything other than pseudo-science.  If you or anybody wishes to clarify I will quite happily say "Oh, OK, I see", and even help to reword the article accordingly.  But it seems you're not interested in clarifying.  Instead, it seems the sole purpose of this paragraph was to cast aspersions on my knowledge compared to your own by telling me to look things up (with the false implication I don't already know what waveforms or bebop are), and smiling at my supposed ignorance.


 * So, you keep vaguely hand-waving, I'll keep not adding things to Wikipedia unless they actually make sense. Stevekeiretsu 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed that Matrix is an excellent example of early(ish) neurofunk -- certainly fitting the description of "more progressive and less stabby" -- but Sleepwalk was 2000 and some of the other stuff mentioned here predates that...?


 * metro001 by matrix (forgot the tune name): release date 1997 - the perfect combination or better wording it, perfect transition between techstep and neurofunk. i can go back to my shelve later on and get the tune name.

LOST ONCE/LICK A DEMON by the upbeats (forthcoming on virus) is the extention and perfect example of what simon reynold wrote about techstep and neurofunk and the dark side of funk music as in early funkadelic, electric miles davis, dark, melancholic trumpet modes vs no u turn, virus and metro recordings. and this is neuro: clinical and dark. that is why its called neuro. but funk is everywhere, in fabio´s liquid funk sessions to roni size´s reprezent to teebee.

i personally think that we should agree upon simon reynold´s definition of tech step and the artists which he mentioned who helped shape it and write his whole article down with his permission. then when it reaches the point when he starts speaking about neurofunk as source direct and their cult tune we should expand it slightly with agreed upon the foundations of neurofunk as being in the hands of matrix and his metro label sound, expanding it to early virus and so on. i would leave what i wrote about rymetyme and his involvement with early no u turn as a mc/producer and the one to take the sound of neuro to the spoken word level because this is correct. also the roots and history of neurofunk dating back to electric miles davis and funkadelic is correct.


 * There's a very simple definition of neurofunk versus techstep. I don't know why no one has mentioned this, it's so blatantly obvious.  The TB-303.  Acid.  Neurofunk is, put simply, acid jungle.  Techstep is techno-jungle.  I don't really understand how anyone could think Optical and the like are neurofunk, they sound nothing like the later Audio Blueprint stuff.  Neurofunk is actually comparable to really angry psytrance with spastic jungle breaks.  Techstep, on the other hand is hard (maybe Swedish?) techno jungle.  Psytrance and hard techno are VERY different! --Darktremor

Article improvement
Please help to improve the neurofunk (and techstep) article. See to-do list on top of the page. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-01 17:21Z

Combined Article techstep + neurofunk!?
I am fine with making an all-eoncompassing article, as long as "neurofunk" redirects there (as it is the number one google result for neurofunk), and that there are two main sections, clearly seperated... "Techstep".. and "Neurofunk".... discuss... --Static 03:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, although it was my suggestion to combine articles, I am not incredibly bothered by whether this is done or not. I am perfectly happy to have two separate articles.  All I am saying is that this entire talk page debate is really missing the point.  It seems like people are acting as if we should use this talk page to decide "the truth" about (a) what neurofunk means (b) where neurofunk began (c) which artists are or are not neurofunk.  This is contrary to the entire ethos of Wikipedia.  Given that music is so subjective, in general, and that this page has proved that the terminology under specific debate here is also highly subjective, it is clearly not possible to reach "the truth".


 * All that needs to happen is that the techstep and/or neurofunk articles are reworded to discuss all competing theories in a neutral fashion, attributing the viewpoints if possible. For example "Exactly who iniated the neurofunk movement is a matter of debate.  Some claim it was Matrix.... Others say it was Underfire.... blah blah".  A little bit of "it is said", "it is claimed" can go a long way in smoothing disputes!


 * It just seems to me that, given Wikipedia currently has no articles on major labels like Underfire, Valve, Cert 18, no articles for the likes of Digital and Spirit, T Power, Doc Scott, Marcus Intalex.... The dnb community would be better served on filling these huge gaps instead of an endless semantic debate on a talk page of a sub-sub-genre. Stop trying to work out who's right, and just detail both/all points of view in the article, and get on with writing quality articles!  :)  Stevekeiretsu 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some very valid points. I have been meaning to expand those articles for a long time, and will one day, but this article recently came to major attention within the neuro community... a long time after I created it and there was no arguments about its content.


 * But what I dont understand is this.. Noone seems to disagree about the 'musicology' of neurofunk right? How it sounds.. And from what I can see, there isnt alot of disagreement that neurofunk is only BROADLY synonymous with techstep, not entirely. So therefore how can anyone state that Underfire/Blueprint formed the sound, when these releases were a good 2 years after the sound was heard and identified on tracks by Source Direct, Ed Rush, Optical & Matrix? This isnt opinion... this is pure fact.


 * To quote Simon Reynolds... "'It is defeat that you must learn to prepare for', runs the martial arts movie sample in Source Direct's 'the Cult', a track that pioneered the post-techstep style I call 'neurofunk' (clinical and obsessively nuanced production, foreboding ambient drones, blips 'n' blurts of electronic noise, and chugging, curiously inhibited two-step beats that don't even sound like breakbeats any more). Neurofunk is the fun-free culmination of jungle's strategy of 'cultural resistance': the eroticization of anxiety. Immerse yourself in the phobic, and you make dread your element.".... This text was written and published in 1998 (PICADOR ISBN 0-330-35056-0). Still 2 years before anyone other than the artists I mentioned above started using the sound. -Static 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

what i see here is some people labeling photek and audio blueprint as neuro without realizing that neurofunk comes mainly from dark funk music. i cant hear dark funk music in audio blueprint or photek, jeez!! rupert parks worked mainly with jazz breaks back in 1995: him and peshay were close with a similar mentality. audio blueprint was clearly tech-step orientated moving towards an almost pure minimal techno approach towards the end. but if you listen to "bluesy baby - feat speech" (edrush+optical rmx) released in 1998 (same year as the voyager lp on audio blueprint) on the higher education label and compare to a tune off "lets take it to the stage" lp by funkadelic or "rated x" off "get up with it" lp by miles davis you will hear almost the same music but in different tempos. never mind neuro, i would call it dark, sinister, mysterious funk music. neuro was born from a fusion of no u turn style of techstep ideas and heavy dark funk music from the likes of miles and funkadelic when the virus/metro crews were formed from their previous relationship with no u turn. and the dark, heavy funk, tech step elements on their music back in 1998 was only too clear. nobody else was doing this at that time except for grooverider on his mysteries of funk lp enginnered by optical. and simon reynold was correct on his article: no u turn helped to originate neuro. the combination of tech step and neurofunk articles is a good idea (robert).


 * Although I do agree with what you are saying, rob.. Photek's "UFO" is still very sci-fi inspired, and the funk elements are still present for me. To me that = Neurofunk. --Static 10:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * yo static: you´re doing well. its hard for me to continue. ufo had elements of funk but

all of dnb had elements of funk and sci-fi. but im talking about neurofunk: either you have the funk or you´re dont, period. otherwise, call it something else. unfortunately, a lot of people tried having the funk but they failed so they sound "funky"?? i laugh at that. call fabio neuro because he had the funk before everybody...but he comes from quincy jones, ligthweight funk = liquid = watered down.

neuro = clinical = brainy perhaps = agressive = heavy.

neurofunk is almost like pure funk driven dnb with tech elements!! like p-funk (parliament) was slang for "pure funk" and thats what they did. the creeps is pure dnb driven funk music. otherwise call it neurotech.


 * points taken... I invite you to make a copy of the below "discography of neuro" and edit it how you see fit. Then whoever wants can comment on it and eventually we might be able to get everyone to agree. seen? --Static 11:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * static: i wrote down my vision of a pure realistic neuro discography which reads on the

official neuro definition. i think that perhaps "beats in a waveform" is flat and lots of things could be re-written because i just started something in order to be better expanded. but theres no neuro in source direct or polar for me yet funk is indeed everywhere in dnb. pure neuro is "lightsleeper" by matrix, fierce and rymetyme. there was a movement in jazz called fusion. you can name perhaps 5 to 10 groups which defined fusion and thats about it since it was a small movement anyway. but in jazz, theres hundreds of groups using elements of fusion, with a track or two done in fusion style. maybe some even did a fusion record in order to jump into the bandwagon or because they like the style yet the true fusion groups were very few. thats the way i worked on this article and dioscography: to describe true neuro and the tunes made by true neuro artists and not someone who spent all their lives doing tech and suddenly decided to do a neuro tune like the forthcoming dom+roland. get it??


 * seen --Static 09:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pending Tasks..
* General definition ** Techstep is a subgenre of drum'n'bass, sometimes referred as neurofunk

no... techstep is a subgenre of drum and bass, neurofunk is also. some people refer to techstep as neurofunk as it is currently a "buzz-word" in the dnb scene... just like when Hardstep was referred to as Jump-Up back in the day, when it was clearly different. --Static 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's agree with broadly synonymous  statement. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-03 14:20Z

* Relationship between techstep and neurofunk ** Techstep is broadly synonymous with neurofunk, although the prcise relationship between the two terms is not agreed upon

I guess I could agree with this statement. --Static 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-03 14:20Z

* Describe different POVs about the techstep and neurofunk history ** Stakka & Skynet, Photek, Source Direct, Dom and Roland, Ed Rush, Optical and Matrix

I dont even know where this opposing point of view is coming from, as far as I can tell Anrie Nord is the only one who believes that audio blueprint formed neurofunk.... as Ive said... audio blueprint's first neurofunk release was in 2000, 2 years after "wormhole" and others... --Static 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Audio Blueprint not formed the neurofunk. This label is simply the part of neurofunk history. See neurofunk timeline below, but don't take it very much to heart :) — Anrie Nord 2006-02-03 14:20Z

* Describe the musicology ** Dark, sci-fi and futuristic themes, obsessively precise, etc.

+ the funk... dont forget the funk (the same thing we say to all the people who label techstep as neurofunk) :) --Static 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. One could observe the funk influences. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-03 14:20Z

* Explain neurofunk term origins ** Energy Flash by Simon Reynolds

agreed --Static 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

* Provide a list of both techstep and neurofunk artists

Yes but if the article is combined, the artists should be seperated into their appropriate genres, but some may cross over as they have done tunes in both styles.. --Static 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Partially agreed. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-03 14:20Z

* Propose the merge of techstep and neurofunk articles

see above... --Static 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, merging techstep and neurofunk was somewhat radical. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-03 14:20Z

History of (possibly) neurofunk releases
This timeline is just for fun. It's not an evidence of something. Release dates are based on Discogs.com info. Feel free to edit it. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-03 14:05Z


 * 1995
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Source Direct — A Made Up Sound / The Cult 12"
 * First neurofunk release as mentioned by Simon Reynolds.
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Photek — UFO / Rings Around Saturn 12"
 * In my opinion Photek's UFO is one of the first neurofunk releases. — Anrie Nord 2006-02-03 14:01Z
 * Yeh ok fair enuff.. forgot about this one :) --Static 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1996
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Source Direct — Two Masks / Black Domina 12"
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Lexis — Criminal Elements / Hypontise 12"
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Matrix - The Message / Seabreeze 12"
 * Co-Produced by Optical


 * 1997
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Optical - To Shape The Future / Raging Calm 12"
 * [[Image:CD autolev crop.jpg|15px]]  Photek — Modus Operandi CD
 * [[Image:CD autolev crop.jpg|15px]]  Source Direct — Controlled Developments CD
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Matrix — Double Vision / Sedation 12"
 * First Metro Recordings release.
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Psion (aka Stakka & Skynet) — Black Dawn / S4 12"
 * First Audio Blueprint release.


 * 1998
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Ram Jam World - Bluesy Baby (Ed Rush & Optical Remix)
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Ed Rush & Optical — Funktion / Naked Lunch 12"
 * Not sure which of these were Ed Rush/Op's first release together --Static 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Ed Rush & Optical — The Medicine / Punchbag 12"
 * First Virus Recordings release.
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Grooverider — Mysteries of Funk LP"
 * Produced by Grooverider and Optical
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Black Science Labs (aka Teebee) — Son Of Silence / Exogenesis 12"
 * [[Image:CD autolev crop.jpg|15px]]  Ed Rush & Optical — Wormhole CD
 * [[Image:CD autolev crop.jpg|15px]]  Stakka & Skynet — Voyager CD


 * 1999
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Various Artists — Hidden Rooms 02 CD
 * [[Image:CD autolev crop.jpg|15px]]  Ed Rush & Optical — Watermelon / Sick Note 12 "


 * 2000
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Ed Rush & Optical - Creeps LP
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Polar — Mind Of A Killer 12"
 * [[Image:CD autolev crop.jpg|15px]]  Matrix — Sleepwalk CD
 * [[Image:CD autolev crop.jpg|15px]]  Teebee — Black Science Labs CD
 * [[Image:Romanian pickup2.jpg|15px]]  Ryme Tyme & DJ Trace - Move VIP / Frogger 12"


 * Looks good. I have added some more. If everyone else agrees we can work this into the article --Static 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a very different take on this. Here are some releases (which I don't have codes or anything for, although I may add them later when there's time) which I believe define neurofunk as very different from techstep:

Black Sun Empire - Firing Squad (or any of their tracks, for that matter) Psion - Reverse Engineering Stakka, Skynet & Friction - Altitude Wrisk - Diced Turkey Teebee - Meteron Synthetix - Lockdown Stakka & Skynet - Molecular Arkane - Implant

Techstep examples: Ed Rush & Optical & Fierce - Alien Girl Bad Company - The Nine Ganja Kru - Polytrix Dom & Roland - Parasite Diesel Boy - Substance --Darktremor

dispute and edits from 80.134.*
a) is the content of the article still disputed?

b) could the user with the ip that starts 80.134 please start using the preview function? the last 250 edits on the article have been from them alone and that kind of behaviour raises suspicions of creeping revisionism within the article. can someone with more neurofunk knowledge than i confirm that nothing is awry with the article? thanks. --MilkMiruku 14:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the content is still disputed. — Anrie Nord 2006-03-28 16:25Z
 * A valid question: Who besides yourself is disputing it's content? --Static 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, it's just there hasn't been activity for a month. what's holding things up? it seemed good work was being done getting everything sorted out -MilkMiruku 18:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump in like this.


 * But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that yes they are both sub-genres of drum and bass but perhaps:


 * Neurofunk is a subgenre/subset of Techstep. Though only in a kind of parent child relationship, not that Techstep is bigger than Neurofunk or anything. Because it may be the case that "most of them frequently ARE labelled techstep by other people" but a lot of Techstep tunes are cleraly not Neurofunk, i.e early No-u-turn and SOUR recordings Techstep releases to name just a couple.


 * If one looks at the progression of the sound it would probably be fair to say that in many ways the Techstep sound evolved into Neurofunk when more elements were added to what was a generally a minimalist sound. (Though of course Techstep also evolved into other dnb genres around today but thats for another page).


 * agreed with you there. neuro stands on its own 2 feet now as

a progression of techstep, mainly because of the additional FUNK elements. neuro still mainstains the heavy and dark aspects of techstep though. any neuro tune which does not maintain the heavy dark roots of techstep and without the twisted/ill funk element in it then it´s not neuro anymore but something else. pls check the misanthrop´s new tune on SLR: BULLSHEAD (forthcoming 2006). this tune is the prototype of neurofunk. it matches the description which was written accurately. i think that the problem now is to agree upon signature recordings, who fits and who doesn´t. also, the breakbeat or 2 step beat of techstep is not evident on neuro since most neuro tunes with few exceptions are driven by solid back beats (off beats). so the difference now between the 2 styles stands with the heavier darker side of funk because from 2002 foward, the dark jazz element disapeared. (robert).


 * So personally I believe the best 'clear cut' definition would be that Techstep evolved into Neurofunk.


 * They are different genres, just because lots of people are confused and often think techstep tunes are neurofunk doesn't mean that they are the same thing. You could probably equate it to a mini version of the transition from Jungle to Drum and Bass, for ages the terms were interchangeable but for the past few years now Drum and Bass has definitely been the most used term and not many people would call tunes coming out today 'jungle' - Mag|42 11:15, 30 March 2006

so when do we delete this dispute?? the concept of neuro is not complex: its heavy dark FUNK driven dnb with its roots in techstep, replacing the tramen break/2 step beat with rock solid back beats and with an injection of dark funk. thats it. anyone moving or should we just delete this dispute next week?? c´mon, lets finish this and take this dispute sign off.

84.44.* get a grip?!
why are you doing one edit every five freaking minutes.... none of them with any edit summary. it makes it impossible to meaningfully look through the edit history here.

for example you have removed my addition "By and large, however, neurofunk is an instrumental form of music, and does not generally rely on lyrical content" without explanation. Why? Was it wrong? I don't think so. Even if it was wrong, and you had a good reason for removing it, and perpetuating the erroneous implication that Rymetyme's lyrical content is somehow a defining a feature of neurofunk, why I must go back 150 edits to even find where it was removed? Jesus christ, is it too difficult to roll multiple microscopic edits into one, and/or fill in the 'edit summary' box? It makes it very, very difficult for anyone except you to even follow your changes to this article, let alone join in with their own edits and improvements.


 * but DAMN!! get in touch with me then and lets figure things out because im beyond stressed with this talk page that doesnt go anywhere. its quite evedident that neuro is an instrumental form of music when you read: "juxtaposed elements of heavier and darker forms of funk with consecutive stabs over the bassline and rhythmically structred by razor sharp back beats where overall dark ambient atmospherics are prominent." doesnt this state quite clear that neuro is in fact an instrumental form of music?? did i write on the definition itself that "vocals" are prominent?? then why should you a over exagerate and claim it twice?? why repeat yourself?? lyrical content means: "the exclusive lyrical side of neurofunk" which relates mainly with rymytyme adding his vocals in 2 or 3 tunes and on live sets. why dont you make a positive contribution and write about the beats which i couldnt do?? blend in with my writing man, i wrote all this definition on my own without any help from the community who confuses stakka tunes with neurofunk and who still wish to interfere without a drop of knowledge and skill. im writing in a neutral way without my personal vision involved, without repeating myself because wikipedia is for the general public and it requires accuracy rather than to just write things because you love techfunk or something.


 * I got an overwhelming response - a thread on trace´s dsci4 forum - by major neurofunk headz and experts in the music. the thread had over a 1000 views and responses. there are producers now in the scene already checking this definition and adding the neuro tag to their name because finally someone wrote correctly about this style. i had to give up my own personal view of heavy dark funk (this is what i call neuro) and even include thoughts that i disagreee with - C4C did neuro for an example - but i added this because this is what is regardless of my personal view.


 * click on "discussion" and lets sort things out but lets get this ugly sign out of the way because at the end this is all about the music and not about religion and politics which are very complex issues. neurofunk is all about IF you got the FUNK or not and any artist willing to make neuro has got to make the funk EVIDENT:


 * on the stabs over a funk influenced bassline and sampling.


 * artist PHACE renovated neuro by taking a minimal techno approach because he looks back to techstep´s KONFLICT but his HARD DARK FUNK influnced bassline (on "hot rock", subtitles tune) made him part of 2nd or 3rd wave of true neurofunksters. look back to simon reynolds´definition of neuro because he damn knows it. disagreements are not about knowledge but about disagreements. i even think that silent witness and break did not do too much neuro but progressive techstep, but who am i to argue with the strong neuro community?? they approved what i wrote and this is the end i guess. but anyone can come and add just about anything but if they add CALYX or SPOR as neuro artists then its better to delete this whole article. personally i love calyx since i have too many of his records but neuro is TECHFUNK: a blending or progression of techstep (dark) and (dark) heavy funk, not light funk (liquid funk, funky drummer sounds, or drumfunk). it all comes from miles davis and parliament funkadelic along with no-u-turn style of techstep: the breeding grounds for neuro.


 * pls check techstep talk page: whoever wrote the techstep definition didnt include no u turn as pioneers of techstep along with others
 * but i chose instead to join the discussion and placing my doubts there
 * rather than to put an ugly dispute sign which is a drag for the community. i added no u turn there but somebody took it off and im not creating a fuzz about it since i believe the article to be accurate
 * anyway. better without no u turn mentioned there rather than with dillinja included as a techstep artist.


 * thanks. (robert)


 * first i apologise for being rude in that previous message, i was drunk, it wasnt really necessarily to be quite so aggressive ;)


 * second, "juxtaposed elements of heavier and darker forms of funk with consecutive stabs..." -- if I'm going to be pedantic, no that sentence actually doesnt make it clear at all that it is usually instrumental. in fact to the uneducated it could give completely the wrong impression since "funk" as a genre in itself (James Brown, The Meters, Ohio Players, etc) is very often vocal based.


 * "why dont you make a positive contribution and write about the beats which i couldnt do?? blend in with my writing man" ... well... I can't blend in with your writing because I have a fundamentally different opinion! "neurofunk is all about IF you got the FUNK or not"... as someone who was into funk music years before I got into dnb, my view of funk is that it is defined by the human, never-the-same-twice, imprecise, nowhere-near-quantised interaction between the rhythm section, drummer and bassist falling ahead and/or behind of the beat, and the tempo varying quite widely, in a completely live fashion.  (See  for more detail on exactly what I'm getting at here).  Since neurofunk patently doesn't do this, I personally don't see it as being inherently "having the FUNK".  It might be good dancefloor stuff but fundamentally it is sequenced and the precise rhythms used are exact, programmed, non-spontaenous and repeated/looped, therefore no matter how "funky" it is, it doesn't have anything much genuinely in common with funk music at a musicological level.


 * Besides this I am also one of those people who can't understand the difference between neuro and techstep, I find the way you people say optical is one thing but stakka is completely different quite baffling, when I was listening to both artists in the late 90s they were both just techstep to me.


 * Finally I see no point in looking back to simon reynolds' definition because I think simon reynolds is a pretensious douche who likes the sound of his own voice an awful lot but certainly doesn't speak for any of the dnb heads I have ever met. the paragraph of his book that spawned the word "neurofunk" also claims weed is hallucinogenic and other such idiotic things.  Having written pretensious books about dance culture in the 90s when dance culture was big, he's now writing pretensious books about "post-punk" now that post punk is the fashionable thing.  He's a talking head who spouts a lot of long words about whatever form of music is current popular, I really don't take his writings seriously as a genuine description of dnb culture, tbpfh.


 * Anyway that's all completely irrelevant. I am not really interested in arguing with you on this, I went through this debate at length before, and got nowhere, being overwhelmed by dsci4 members whose views tally with yours, so I'm perfectly happy to let you guys write your article according to your own definitions as you know more about it than I do.


 * My main point was nothing to do with the content as such but just why you have to make 1 microscopic edit every 3 minutes instead of a grouping things into more substantial edits and adding an edit summary so that it is a little bit easier to follow.


 * peace, Stevekeiretsu 16:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

understood. first theres no such thing as dsci4 headz since nobody there thinks the same but quite the opposite: everyone disagrees about most common concepts. but when they are hit with accuracy they bow down just like everyone else. many pioneers of techstep agree and praise simon reinolds´literature mainly on no u turn´s techstep period since no one else wrote anything substantial and abstract about such a great label. matter of taste. i dont read simon. i just read his story on no u turn.

in regards to your editng "mostly instrumental": this is already clear on definition of neuro. on lyrical content, its clear that rymetyme made a contribution as an MC and producer, on instrumentals (without vocals) and by adding his vocals. but this is common in dnb. most people know that 95% to 98% of post ragga jungle dnb dropped the vocals. but i still made it clear that neuro is mostly (98%) instrumental music on its definition. all you did was to repeat what i just wrote previously. i asked you to get in touch with me not in order to discuss music but to avoid repeating the same concept with different settings. if theres a way that you can help to expand man, pls do!! nothing deep was written about the beats in neurofunk, how they are sampled and made. just writing "back beats" as the rhythmic strucure is not enough but this was all i could do...

the way i write and edit is the way i work: by flow. not writing about science here but about an abstract form of music which continuously changes so i write and edit with the flow of the music, yet im accurate because of the music research i do since my job is A&R and concept production.

the meters did too many instrumentals without vocals. i had a double cd of all their instrumentals. miles davis only did instrumental dark funk music. if neurofunk was vocal music i would have stated so by claiming and writing down the vocalists. check definition of dnb, techstep and other subgenres of jungle to see if they mention "instrumental music". its not necessary.

"it rains today".

quite a clear statement. i wont add "and we all got wet" to it. its foolish. the reader already knows that most things are wet under the rain!!

stakka never did neuro but techstep. theres a huge difference between techstep and neurofunk: heavy dark funk elements, absent on techstep. also the reece drop in techstep: thats absent on neurofunk. too many differences to mention now. this talk page should vanish until somebody else writes this definition with more transparency than i did because the previous definition was a big mess. quite horrible really.

but "instrumental" in relation to rymetyme´s lyrical flow now added even though most people know this already. but in case somebody doesnt know that dnb is indeed, mostly, instrumental music with an MC on some live sets, now its there. i dont see anyone doing crazy editing on rock, jazz, folk, and classical. so why dnb?? crazy editing can mean, claiming that edith piaf did great classical music. now c´mon...(laughs).

peace...rob.

hey bakemono. write something of your own. dont write over my sole writing "clearly not" ´cause you cant write. war. idiot. write your own thing. kemal didnt do neuro but tech. idiot. im hitting bakemono badly. im getting him out. write about jap cartoon man ´cause you know about this. you know shit about funk. kemal+rob data fan. mutantionz rmx. thats tech idiot.


 * my train ride with you is until the end of time idiot. stick to japan and leave dnb. vandal.

All aboard, then, Kraut. Someone likes Noisia & Mayhem a lot, though, eh? Suck their sacks, too? It wouldn't surprise me if you were Nosia and/or Mayhem, truth be told =P. Well, you're in Germany according to your IP, so it's understandable -- Sieg Heil! Someone like you would like minimalist, low-quality Logic productions with no innovation. But since you probably came into DnB after all the innovation & true Neurofunk artistry left it, it's doubly understandable. That's cool, 'cause I can revert till the end of time, too. But I won't have to much longer, since if you keep it up, noname, I'll simply have an admin come and lock the article. And in the process of learning about true Neurofunk, sign up for an account and learn how to edit properly while you're at it -- wiki-n00b 101.

Funk... Noisia?!?! HAHAH! Well if fart-bass is funk, then I suppose it partially is. How about this... I DEFY you to point out the specific funk elements within a Noisia track that are somehow "lacking" in a Kemal track. Here's a question: define Neurofunk and the specific differential element that separates it from Tech. Then, after doing that, prove how the tracks I listed have none of those, and the tracks you CLAIM are neuro do. Okay? Until then, STFU and go back to getting gangbanged by the Noisia fags -- that's about what their tracks sound like, anyway. And, uh, they DEFINITELY aren't neuro. So, sorry, you're the one who knows shit about Neuro. Now run along to the SLR forums, kiddy.

I'm not the first person who has had a problem with your page-long nameless edits. And if you keep it up, I'll get your IP banned. You've been warned... vandal.

P.S. I didn't modify the "clearly not" part. I suggest you look deeper into things before you start randomly pointing fingers.

P.P.S. Also, since you're German, why are you modifying an English page? You shouldn't be, as it's obvious from your Primary-school-level-grammar and punctuation that you're not fluent in this language. Go start your own misinforming, incorrect Neurofunk page under your corresponding language's wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/. Laterz, Fritz.

–Bakemono Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:59 (UTC)

you stupid bakemono idiot:

1) im an american from nyc living in germany idiot.

2) i wrote this definition by myself. all you do is incorrectly edit my writing. who will be banned?? you, idiot.

3) im a member of bill laswell´s record production crew for 14 years. i was a&r for celluloid records in the 80´s, i created an ambient dub label with laswell in the 90´s which became popular in europe, nyc, san francisco and japan. this label was called subharmonic/strata. its being re-issued for the 2nd time in tokyo, idiot. check my credit if you dare: my name is robert soares.

4) i created the idea of drum&bass fusions - musicans vs dnb producers - along with bill laswell and WE are getting signed by SRD,IDIOT!! you think i lack knowledge of dnb - since i released the first proto dnb record in america by the name of AKASHA in 1995!! i´ve been collecting dnb: techstep, neurofunk, and tech itch hardcore, shadow dom+roland, all of virus, metro since its birth!! and i happen to be working at this moment - with a finished recording already in my pocket:

paradox, amit, corrupt souls (ex-sinthetix - neuro), outrage, black sun empire, fanu, evol intent, SPL, submerged (ohm resistance)and dstar - they deliver pure unproduced breaks and we interact the breaks with musicans playing over the top who happen to be: herbie hancock, pharoah sanders (ex-john coltrane quartet), toshinori kondo (i think you know who he might be), graham haynes (best trumpet player in the u.s., son of roy haynes. he hanged with goldie and carl craig in 1996 at metalheadz blue note sessions and now hes our trumpet player for dnb), craig taborne (carl craig´s keyboard player, detroit techno), byard lancaster (ex-hassam roland kirk sideman), john zorn and the masada string trio (hes a friend of mine), dave liebman (ex-electric - dark funk phase of miles davis - alto sax player and also on clarinet), bill laswell on bass (hes my partner), and nils peter molvaer (trumpet - best player in europe whos doing a record with teebee and working with our dnb productions at the same time), BERNIE WORRELL from PARLIAMENT FUNKADELIC (hes a friend of ours for fucking 20 years my friend) and wiz kid BUCKETHEAD (a friend of ours since he was truly a kid): check on my space the "method of defiance" dnb fusion concept. it was a name that i created for a concept that we created for dnb for live performences and full length albums - not just 12 inches - and SRD (best dnb distro in the uk and europe - are giving me, and bill laswell and our partner PARADOX a PND (manufacturing deal) for all of europe so we can release our concepts with dnb on cds and vinyls.

next people on line are: silent witness and break, matrix, dom+roland (hopefully), ed rush & optical (hopefully), danny breaks (he already agreed), fanu, digital, gein, nucleous, sonar circle, maybe source direct (to re-group once for a shot and split up again quickly) vs all those musicans above mentioned but this time we will include CARL CRAIG. we also just finished remixing all the eelectronic FUNK works of herbie for sony and i included amit and laswell included submerged. goldie wants to spin our FINISHED dubs with herbie hancock on keys with: amit on 1 tune, paradox on another tune. but we cant give these dubs out yet because of the risk of piracy and vandals. but we will cut a deal with goldie and bailey so they can spin it out exclusively.

what are you trying to say when you claim that i dont know anything about:

1) dnb - i work with those artists above. they told me they want more work to do so i promised them that this will happen but only with SRD´s help. SRD agreed.

2) funk: i worked with bernie worrell fron FUNKadelic (also from talking heads) on laswell related creations such as: praxis. i released praxis in japan. check my credentials on subharmonic.

3) i created on my own, the concept of bringing real drum&bass producers to interact with qualified musicans because i was bored with just paper thin techno dnb without a substantial bassline, no lows, and techno bleeps everywher. and they have the balls to call this dnb?? where the bassline?? so i got bored and decided to get the best producers and laswell got the best instrumentalists and we fused them. record is finished and it will be released in nov with the title:

method of defiance - inamorada - both cd and wax (45 rpm vinyls in a box set).

4) knowledge wants to interview me, paradox, amit, and bill laswell for the fall edition. they want this article to be front cover because this idea was never ever done before. and theres a line of great dnb producers to rmx our work: dom, tech itch, matrix and fierce, maybe calyx because i like him. read rinse magazine - issue of 6 months ago, cant remember - and our story is front page. they interviewed: me, laswell, submerged, evol intent, corrupt souls - impulse, ex-sinthetix (a friend), and SPL (signed to tech itch recordings and dylan´s freak recordings). go and read my words on rinse and soon on knowledge - uk dnb magazine - bakemono!! but they wont allow YOU to alter my words because its going to be printed. you can buy a copy and alter my word in you flat: i dont care (laughs).

i worked on over 50 full lenght recordings in my life and im bringing drum&bass - along with my production partner bill laswell and another new partner of ours, dev PARADOX - to herbie "funk jazz master" hancock (he already agreed to work further with out dnb fusion ideas) and bernie "P-FUNK" worrell who loved the drum&bass INTERPLAY.

we are creating a group by the name of METHOD OF DEFIANCE for the road which consists of: paradox on laptop breaks, bill laswell on bass, bernie worrell on keys, guy licata (a real dnb drummer doing techstep beats), graham haynes (trumpet) with guest toshinori kondo (trumpet). kondo is a friend of mine and he agreed that dnb will bring vitality to jazz, rock and punk because THIS IS INDEED MY INTENTION.

now, bekemono: when will you stop adding nonsense to my writings which were already excepted by techstep writers here and funksters all over?? people who didnt except it are people who think that stakka + skynet did neurounk. stakka and skynet spent their lives doing great techstep you idiot. i dont care about those who might think that kemal, skynet and the audio blueprint label were neuro driven because first:

1) they didnt write anything to make a positive contribution. they just add on signature recordings. and complain about whatever.

2) they lack knowledge like most people lack knowledge on music in general.

3) noisia are not homosexuals but 3 brilliant kids signed to moving shadow and renegade hardware. yes, the innovated neuro according to the entire drum&bass community and people like calyx confirmed this ´cause calyx backed noisia and corrupt souls with moving shadow. but if they were homosexuals, it wouldnt be appropriate for YOU MF IDIOT to call him fags here. im banning you MF.

4) mayhem is a prominent neurofunk - drum&bass artist in general - producer who helped shape noisia for shadow and ram records. andy c is a big man who signed the noisia neuro "facade" tune claiming that theres no competition for their mixdowns. teebee agreed since he signed noisia to his subtitles label. did anyone sign you, idiot!!

kemal is pure tech you idiot, mutationz rmx is pure dark tech not neuro. i know duncan (trace) and he asked me to continue on dsci4 forum because i was planning to quit. i didnt have the time anymore because these projects are keeping me too busy. but, i decided to continue on dsci4 (i´ve been there since 2002) because trace - duncan is his name - did me the favor of helping to shape TORQUE: my fave dnb album. so im returning the favor.

you need dark FUNK elements - at least - on the bassline in order to include the funk tag on any music.

so tell me now you´re involvement with drum&bass. tell me what you did because you can read about me as far as drum&bass goes but can i read about you in relation to anything?? all im reading is your great vandalism on my literature. at least you cant vandalize my recordings. thats impossible motherfucker!! english?? i learned my english in school - NEW YORK CITY - because im a native new yorker. where are you from?? no man, i ban you now.

im here now having to write for you, saying who i am and what i do instead of writing the projects for srd and my deadline is tomorrow morning. so if i forget a coma, or mispell anything here its because I CREATE and YOU DESTROY so you´re stressing me out motherfucker!!

im banning you from:

1) drum&bass 2) wikipedia

your name will be everywhere from now on. i already denounced you to wiki org. how dare you call noisia fags in a public forum. you´re banned MF MONO!!

o0o, I'm scarrrred.

So, of all the above BS you're spouting, what among it makes you the first and foremost expert on neurofunk; the sole voice that knows all? Do you have a degree in this area? May I see it? And no, what you create is misinformation, all I'm doing is correcting that misinformation -- hence, it doesn't qualify as destruction but editing out stupidity written by someone who thinks they know everything in the world about neurofunk, when they don't.

Thanks for telling me your life's story, though... guess what: I don't really care, as anyone can make up shit about themselves online, and the fact that you continually post under an IP address only further contradicts you actually being who you say you are. Anyone can name names, anyone can drop the titles of oldschool records and artists. That doesn't mean anything, nor do you. And even if you are who you say you are, it seems pretty obvious you have no ear for quality production, so your tracks are probably as laughable on the production end as are those minimalistic dorks you're a fan of.

I can say I know Kemal Okan or Rob Rodgers or Mark Caro or Duncan Hutchinson or Darren White or Dan Stein or Michael Wojcick or Matt Quinn or Nathqn Vinall or Daniel Burke too -- personally. Wow, that's hard. That doesn't mean I do, though.

Once again, you never answered my question -- the one of paramount importance here in this whole debate, I might add. WHAT dark funk elements ARE in a "neuro" track that aren't in tracks you claim are "Tech" instead of neuro. So since you lick the cocks of Noisia, we'll use them as an example in this case, okay? You say they're talented, I say they're garbage as is Mayhem -- a guy who networked online for years and basically bought his way into the scene via mIRC, his own label funded by his rich father and brown nosing/collaborating with producers with more talent than him -- and neither are Neuro, but rather utter crap (but that's another argument for another time).

So... back to the issue at hand: what specific samples or "funk basslines" do their tracks contain that a Kemal track doesn't? Seems sort of stupid to say it's a single sound that "defines" the neurofunk sound, as every artist defines their own sound with their own basslines, their own samples tweaked to originality which subsequently defines them.

Next, let's define "funk," shall we? Seems there's quite a slant on different "funk" sounds, and all the funk I know has very little transfer to what people proclaim is "neurofunk" and defined by some sort of funk sound that's no longer truly a funk sound at that point. Brothers Johnson are funk, Delegation is funk, Plush is funk, Rockwell is funk, Shalamar is funk, even Luther Vandross did funk (e.g. Never Too Much), and many were different in both sound and musical composition respectively. Even funk itself is a fusion of sounds -- jazz, blues and soul, so it's natural there will be variants in every track. So then, how can there be a single "funk" sound that makes neurofunk if funk itself isn't a signle sound? Is it the plucked bass guitar sound -- because I've never heard that in a Noisia track? What is it? But because those incorporated elements (soul, jazz, blues) comprise funk, by your rationale, then a DnB song that had one of those elements would therefore qualify to be labeled as "funk." A tech song that had a bluesy sample, jazzy sample or soul sample in it (at any point) would therefore become Neurofunk.

First, please kindly point any one of those blatant/recognizable elements out in a Noisia track. Second, show how they aren't present at all in all of Kemal's tracks. Until you can do that, go back to sucking Mayhem's bratwurst and leave this article alone before I have it locked. Cya, Kraut.

P.S. I hope I made you miss your "deadline," since that means the DnB-listening-world's ears are safe for at least another day or two =P.

–Bakemono Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:54 (UTC)

i wont engage in musical disputes with you because i dont speak about music with idiots. the main problem here man, is that you dont have any credentials. if you did, you would write down what you do and i would check you out. check me out: rinse magazine interview with bill laswell and me and its guaranteed that it will wipe out you all of your doubts about me because i dont have anything to hide. i just wrote this definition which people only do absurd edting - vandalism - but i dont see anyone re-shaping it for a better cause. you iknow that you´re nothing but another kemal fan: obsessive, mentally ill to the point of adding and reversing the pg which claiming hostile as neuro. kemal and hostile and lost souls dubs were tech, IDIOT!! but kemal signed neuro to his cryptic audio label: ultraviolet - the funk elements over the bassline along with the stabs makes it quite future funk (neuro). kemal´s hostile neuro?? mutationz kemal rmx neuro?? IDIOT!! you´re nothing but a fan who interferes with somebody´s elses wrting yet you cant deliver:

1) your own article about something. 2) credentials.

for everything you wrote - if you got balls - then YOU and I will engage directly and sort this out. its not about neuro anymore, its about you and i now. everything that i wrote down i can prove it to you but not online. how can i meet you?? where are you from?? i will not rest until we talk face to face. you dont know me but you will. but i dont know you, i dont know what you do because you never wrote anything, you just "contribute" to other people´s writings and create a reputation for yourself. i did research on you name my friend. do research on mine: ROBERT SOARES. you didnt make me loose my deadline because nothing does for many yrs. ive got bigger obstacles than a small time vandal crook WHO CANT WRITE HIS OWN ARTICLES yet ADDS TO OTHER PEOPLE`S ARTICLES. go to www.dsci4.com, register, log in because i wrote AN ARTICLE ABOUT YOU. create a thread about me - if you got balls - and ask EVERYONE if what i wrote above about myself is not true. but you dont have the balls. i would respect you if you would register at trace´s forum and confront me outside the wiki world. KRAUT?? you are nothing but a little MF. pls, come to DSCI4 and register. i wrote about you big time. you will not like what i wrote. confront me!! you are scared indeed. its easy to call yourself bakemono. whats you name?? dont you have a real name?? my name is robert soares. check me out. place your full name here my friend. are you a lady??

i already wrote to the wiki admn about you. will continue. im not disputing with you. i want you out.

Just as I anticipated (thanks for proving me right, that always feels good): no response to any sort of logical, technical question that challenges the validity of what you define as "Neurofunk." You know why? 1) Because you're an ad hominem arguer, and don't have mental capacity for logical argument, and 2) because you can't answer, as there is no clear-cut answer, because your definition is baseless bullshit that you made up along with the hoarde of other DnB forum kiddies trying their damnedest to separate Neurofunk from Techstep and failing miserably to do so. And if you have more important things to do, then go do them, Kraut; mister "big shot producer." STFU and stop posting on a wikipedia article; stop vandalizing it, rather. Go make the minimalistic crap you consider "Neurofunk" and leave the real Neurofunk to decent producers that have been in the game since its inception. Robert Soares is who you say you are, though, eh? See, genius, the issue here is that's what you "proclaim" your name is online under an anonymous IP address (which is really convenient, I might add), but there's no proof that's actually who you are. As I said before, even if you are whoever you claim to be, who gives a fu*k? Screw "Robert Soares," whether you're him or not. In the end, you're just a nobody, and will probably always be a nobody in life and DnB -- and poor, at that, if you intend to make DnB your lifelong career. But how am I the scared party in this dispute when you're the one posting anonymously under a lone IP and some fake name? Anyone can post on forums anonymously, anyone can modify wikipedia under an IP address -- that's about as nutless as you can get.

Next, don't call me your friend, 'cause I definitely ain't your friend -- figure of speech or not.

Between me and you now, huh? That's fine with me; in fact, it's preferable. What, are you gonna assault me over the internet, tough guy? Fly from Germany to come meet me? Just another 'internet gangsta,' aren't you? Tough talk behind a lot of white text, plain and simple. Believe me, though, Kraut, you don't want to know me in real life, because if settling this with something other than words is the route you wanna go, I can assure you I've had bigger and badder than you -- that wouldn't be a wise direction (remember the outcome of WWII). I'll tell you what, though... you fly here from Germany, I'll personally meet you at the airport, okay? Since I'm not stupid enough to post my real address online in public, email me at bakemonodesu@hushmail.com and we'll go from there, okay Hun?

You wrote an article on me, though, huh? Well, I think that just about seals it. I think I can safely say that fact, and the fact that you'd admit that fact, shows unequivocally what a no-life loser you are, since I'd never waste my time typing up a fanciful article online to post to a bunch of strangers about some other moronic stranger (that moronic stranger being you, in this case) due to a wikipedia argument. What, you can't handle it on your own so you're hoping some more online kids on your side will come and get your "binary-back." Who's the one with no balls again? You aren't worth the effort, which is why I never even bothered to message you on wikipedia prior to reverting -- and gee, I'm surprised you can even find the time to do all this, what, with all your "big choons" currently in the works; you know, all your "deadlines." Seems I've already wasted five minutes typing this, though, and that's five minutes too long on the likes of you... so, I guess I'll see you when you arrive on your flight from Germany (laugh). Give all your online friends at the DSCI4 board my warmest regards, okay?

Sincerely, Your Father, Robert Soares Sr.

–Bakemono Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:35 (UTC)

i will settle this thing with you off wiki and as the american which i am. WWII?? apparently the states helped germany to get rid of hitler for their own sake. im proud that my father paid taxes and helped built the marshall plan. leave my father out of this because - have no doubt - i will settle this thing with you. first step is to mail you directly to your email account. mine is: innerfunktion@yahoo.com

i never mentioned your father here because i wouldnt dare mention your father who went through hell to have an idiot bastard son like you. stop reverting my writings but add substantial literature to it.

It was a joke, retard... pointing to the fact that I can say I'm your father just like you can say you're "Robert Soares." Get it now, bright boy?

The motives aren't actually what I was pointing at when citing WWII, though, but rather the outcome -- guess you aren't too quick on the uptake, huh, Fritz?

That's very noble of you to leave my father out of it, then right afterwards (likely inadvertantly) bringing my mother into it -- noting inadvertantly, since you're probably so stupid you don't know the definition of "bastard." (Which, btw, I can't technically be in any sense, due to the fact that I wasn't born out of wedlock. So, that insult is void.) Are you really dumb enough that you contradict yourself within a single paragraph? If so, that's pretty pathetic, guy.

In any event, I'm going to keep reverting your writings as long as your writings contain utter falsehoods and misinformation without the foundation to back them up. Christ, you can't even address a single point I made, and that was the crux of your whole "Neurofunk" argument. Get a clue, then get back to me.

–Bakemono Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:06 (UTC)

im so pathetic that im the only one to actually write the definition of neuro without any help - which i requested - from the community except for static. perhaps i am pathetic to write about what jamie quinn - matrix - personally told me in his flat in london when i was visiting him in regards to some projects which we are building: that the music of electric miles was very influential on his experimental building of early neuro which took off. optical - the other quinn - said the same in regards to parliament funkadelic and the building of early neuro but to a writer of knowledge magazine around the time the creeps came out.

i didnt address you in regards to neuro - or music in general - because i didnt think it was worth it. if you had the balls, you would take info off my writing which are indeed correct and add more and better info to it and create a even better article which would inspire someone else to even upgrade it better in the future. instead, you REVERT and VANDALISE my sole writing without adding anything substantial except for kemal dubs and tunes on signature recordings. your info is false because kemal never produced neuro but pure advanced tech while being inspired mostly by jeff mills. kemal should be added to the techstep article which links to neurofunk. then i would address you and thank you for being advanced because this is how i see dnb and dnb heads: adavanced music for advanced people. i happen to work and relate with very advanced people so i thjought that i would get the same vibes and reaction here. but i was wrong: creeps are everywhere to destroy everything in sight from the music industry to politics, religion, and science.

you are one of them.

instead of being creative you offend me and call prominent artists FAGS. why did you delete and changed FAGS from this page?? well i will register just to protect my writings from you and later on you will see what i will do.

i will get you out bakemono. you only edit, i write. i will run after you by all means necessary. you didnt mail me back to yahoo...you are afraid. i can have a representive meet you in peace!!

by the way mono, you´re an IDIOT...bastard?? no...i dont think so. but you cant prove it.

you are a kemal whore. i checked you contrib to wiki on kemal+rob data. you are a lady. they are not neuro and im at war with you 4ever. i will get you anyway wheter you like it or not. even if you stop i will be at war with you. i will meet you face to face because you cant hide from a screen man. thanks for mailing me. you´re proving yourself a bit. i will take you to a ride beyond music fag...

fuck your "typecell" contrib. anyway...youz´re wrong fuckface. i will be your enemy here believe me...just for fun..i will register to chase you.

I'm going to reply to you (and everyone who reads this in the future) one final time for the sake of the Wiki-admin -- who will be getting involved shortly -- so that there are no misconceptions as to why you are vandalizing this page. (FYI: This is why warning templates, the ones you're inappropriately and swiftly deleting, are showing up on your talk page -- it's the start of the process.)

1) It's good and well you claim to have stayed at the Quinn brother's flats in London, and whatever other unfounded tale that you probably just conjured up in your German noggin. You can keep living in your own little fantasy world, where you actually know prominent producers in the UK, and are a known producer yourself. Schizophrenia is a disease, so I know that part isn't your fault. My problem is when those delusions turn into what your highly messed up mind mistakenly interprets as fact -- hence, this nonexistent, self-proclaimed "definition of Neurofunk" for which you can't back up either comparatively or analytically -- and you then go and write those fantasies down as such on Wikipedia. They aren't fact, they're opinion, and an opinion that's both subjective and incorrect. (And, from what I've seen above on the discussion page, you're in the minority POV.)

From your discussion with Steve, it seems you swear up and down by Reynolds and his writing (and coining of the term Neurofunk), which is rather interesting to me since doing so goes against your very own definition. Here's why:

Reynold's wrote as a description of Neurofunk, "clinical and obsessively nuanced production, foreboding ambient drones, blips 'n' blurts of electronic noise, and chugging, curiously inhibited two-step beats that don't even sound like breakbeats anymore." Now, within that description, I see NO nod to any sort of "funk" or "dark funk" element being the backbone of a 'neuro sound,' according to Reynolds. But hey, guess where he DOES note 'funk elements?' At the beginning of the article, regarding Techstep... "In 1996, a new sub-genre of jungle began to coalesce called 'techstep,' a dirge-like death-FUNK characterized by harsh industrial timbres and bludgeoning 'butcher's block' beats."

So by all accounts, going by the Reynold's literature (which apparently you are, at least in part), Techstep has the "dark funk" elements, not Neurofunk. Once again, one of the primary foundations of your already flimsy argument pulls a 'U-Turn.' (Pun intended.)

The problem is this: there's no definition of "Neurofunk" in Webster's, and nothing on dictionary.com. For all intents and purposes, within the English lexicon, Neurofunk doesn't exist. As a result, nobody has any clue as to what encompasses the supposed style or term. But apparently that doesn't matter, because we have you... the human English dictionary (despite being German) and chief authority on any and everything that deals with Neurofunk, so never mind all this bookish, educational written stuff. Who needs it, right? You're the end all, be all when it comes to knowledge about Neurofunk, and sole source whose incorrect opinion is automatically fact when placed online under an anonymous IP address. Sarcasm aside, no it isn't, and no you aren't. You're a DSCI4 forum kiddy, who probably just got into DnB two years ago.

In fact, I know you are. Since if you had been around back in the day, when Mayhem was even less of a nobody (just another failed Logic-producer and local DJ in the States), you would've certainly heard him playing out every single Konflict, Kemal and Stakka & Skynet track being released. You would've known that Kemal Okan was one of his primary idols in the Neurofunk production scene, a template for developing his own sound, and someone he admired above all others, because he went on record in interviews stating so. (Matter of fact, ask him about it. He won't deny truth.) Now obviously he doesn't come close to touching Kemal's level of production, but that's not the point I'm trying to make here. My point is, if someone you vehemently flag as a Neuro producer worshipped and did their best to model themselves after Kemal, how can Kemal too, then, not be Neuro?

Enter this new wave of non-UK producers (e.g. Noisia, Mayhem, et al) finally getting heard because many of the decent producers in the true, original Neuro genre have stopped producing, and the new wave fans (like you), trying to find their own little niche away from normal Techstep and Neurofunk, invent stuff in an attempt to segregate your minimalistic (under-produced crap) sound.

As you (or whoever) put it perfectly above, though, when 'slapped in the face' with a technical argument, in which comparative examples must be given to support such baseless claims, you bow down and make up a quaint excuse as to why you're not responding. That's the problem with making stuff up: it falls a bit short when put to the test in an argument where facts are a necessity.

2) What you claim is Neurofunk (Noisia), I fail to spot any "funk" elements (aside from the occasional chopped, funk-originated breaks used many times before in thousands of DnB tracks that aren’t Tech or Neuro) in their tracks -- dark or otherwise -- and apparently you fail to spot any too, because you've yet to point out not only any specific, heavy "funk" elements in their tracks, but also how their tracks have that funk “something” that Kemal tracks don't.

Now, are some of their tracks "funky," as Steve said before (AKA 'danceable')? Sure, a few are definitely 'funky' in that sense of the word. Conversely, compare that to, say, the opening of Kemal & Rob Data's "Possession RMX," and their blatant use of a Funkesque drum line, as well as an obvious background Funk-guitar riff in the song's intro. That's not only funky, but also obviously funk influenced. So funk influenced that you can mix it with funk songs -- which I've actually done before, and will be glad to do again and post on here in mp3 format as proof. THAT's a paradigm example of blatant funk elements in an actual Neurofunk track -- something you won't find in any Noisia track, 84.*.

Are Ed Rush, Optical, Ryme Tyme and Matrix's sounds influenced by funk? Absolutely. Do I consider them Neurofunk? Yes, because in their case the influences are not only noted by them personally, on record, but also tend to bleed through in the music they make (using funkier, more experimental breaks and samples), as they do in Kemal's tracks, and also like Kemal's tracks, they're nearly always danceable. Nonetheless, they aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, the epitome of the 'Neurofunk style' as the Neurofunk style spans far and wide, and according to your buddy Reynolds, they didn't start or pioneer it. Moreover, Neurofunk -- whether you like it or not -- is still nothing more than a slight variant of the Techstep sound. Indeed so slight that, in many (actually most) cases, it's indistinguishable and the lines are blurred resulting in the present debate.

Drum 'N' Bass, like Funk itself, is an amalgam of different musical styles. And as I (as well as someone else above) said before, even in Hardstep and Darkstep there are technically "funk" elements, because many samples and cropped breaks used in Hardstep, Darkstep, Jazz-step, Intelligent, etc., come from funk songs (as an “experienced producer,” 84.*.*.*, you should already know this). However, not all of those tracks are "funky," despite using funk-derived, chopped breaks in the tracks.

Thus, Neurofunk, IMO, is funky -- highly danceable -- Techstep which may or may not have been directly influenced by funk and may or may not contain heavy funk elements in the track. Usually, though, most genuine Neurofunk noticeably has a bit of everything -- heavily danceable and obvious funk-derived samples and/or producer-created breaks and sounds that were aimed at achieving a funkier sonance. As Reyonolds said, Techstep is hard, ominous, derived from late-night ganja sessions and "dark thoughts," and certainly not "fun." It lacks the funky danceability of Neurofunk, and that's what truly separates Neurofunk from hard-ass Techstep. There is lots of Techstep that's just impossible to dance to (e.g. lots of Mark Caro's stuff, and older Trace & Ed Rush stuff), because it's too out there; too nasty for dancing. Neurofunk = Techstep with a funky, dance-friendly edge, that still maintains a heavy techno & hardcore influence (acid, arpeg, etc).

Is it dance-friendly because of direct funk influences? Some tracks are -- especially those done by Ed Rush & Optical -- but not all. Just because it's dance-friendly and funky, doesn't mean it has a direct, compositional funk influence. I've heard many tracks that contain no funk influences at all, like "Block Control," what you, 84.*, would claim is Neurofunk (and I would argue is more Tech-hardstep), that are certainly more influenced by Hip Hop, but nonetheless still dance-friendly. Kemal's solo tracks, while retaining both heavy funk and techno elements, also had, especially towards the latter half of his solo career, heavy Arabesque influences too. Once again, it's an amalgam, and many times defined by the artist's own elements and trademark sound, which subsequently defines them.

This is why, like many others above who had the right idea, we should've (and still should) make Neurofunk a subsection in the Techstep article along with notes about the two sides in the debate, and the disagreement over what really is the "Neurofunk" sound. Until the term 'Neurofunk' can be clearly defined and agreed upon mutually by not only linguistics researchers, but also by respected, established artists who have produced past Neurofunk anthems alike, I see this as the only suitable 'middle-of-the-road' solution.

However, if you look at it as a whole, if you look at Reynold's article and the past of DnB, even you, 84.*.*.*, can't deny, metaphorically speaking, that Techstep is the father (or mother), and Neurofunk is the child. And like a parent's influence on a child's physical appearance and demeanor, so too did Techstep have a huge influence on what can be/is dubbed 'Neurofunk' (which is why so many elements in Neurofunk are presently interchangeable with Techstep).

So admin, the aforementioned is my own, and many other wiki-user's, factually sound proposal (if this goes into arbitration, as I suspect it probably will).

3) Specifically addressing 84.*.*.*/the all-knowing Neurofunk Diety/the guy who says he's 'Robert Soares' (whoever that is).

...Yes, it is and you are pathetic -- so utterly pathetic that because you get proven wrong, and don't have the means to retort with any sort of factual/logical argument, you then go blatantly vandalize Kouta Hirano and Cryptic Audio, two completely unrelated articles on Wikipedia I had prior involvement with (admin, please note edit history on Kouta Hirano and Cryptic Audio as reference), as some sort of presumed retaliation against me. However it isn't retaliation against me, because the article isn't on me. It's actually retaliation against Wikipedia and those who would eventually read the articles you vandalized in the future, because you're compromising the content of a page due to some silly, personal vendetta. How mature is that?

As far as the exchange of insults is concerned, I didn’t do so until you started insulting me. I replied in kind -- as most people would after being verbally assaulted for no reason. Actually, your first post addressing me on the discussion page was an insult, saying I know “shit about funk,” calling me “idiot” more than once and declaring “war.”

I had no problem with you, really, until you anonymously started removing Signature Recordings that are, undoubtedly, Neurofunk tracks -- back then you were just a gnat, easily swatted away it seemed. Some tracks I listed could be considered Techstep as well (obviously, because of the parent-child relationship), but they all still fall under the Neurofunk subcategory. A long-time, educated DnB-head/producer/DJ would know this. Removing factual information and purposefully, maliciously replacing it with misinformation (a bunch of Noisia tracks) and your own personal opinion about what you feel Neurofunk should be, is vandalism. This is why I reverted as such, and will continue to revert as such until I can procure administrator involvement.

The mere fact that you'd rag on Kemal and place -- of all Neurofunk producers out there you could've listed, that are good examples of quality Neurofunk production -- Noisia above Kemal's production skill and track depth, is absolute blasphemy. (I think even Noisia themselves would side with me on this argument.) It shows you have no ear for quality Drum & Bass production (or music in general), zero taste and intelligence (already established), no clue about what Neurofunk is, and no appreciation for music theory or composition -- yet you're a producer (HAH, yeah, right... thanks, I needed a laugh). Think about it this way, if you can: Kemal made, as one person, more layered and musically complex and diverse DnB tracks than three people working conjointly (Noisia) ever have. (In laymen's terms, for mongoloids like you, that means that Kemal had more talent in the peanuts of his turds than Noisia does combined.)

Vandalism and lack of taste in music aside, the way you edit (in novice, page-long fashion under an IP address) shows how little you frequent Wikipedia, and how this is the only article you've had anything to do with or care about -- because you want your own little "Robert-definition" of Neurofunk to stand for all time.

I've contributed (positively) to numerous articles on Wikipedia (aside from just the Typecell article). You, on the other hand, have written factually incorrect parts of a single article, and severely vandalized the same article along with two others, then coming here to the talk page and, instead of typing anything to support your vandalizing edits or your point of view from a logical standpoint, you do nothing but insult me and shout veiled threats behind a computer. Therefore, I honestly can’t see how you've done anything good or worthwhile during your sporadic stint on Wikipedia -- especially when juxtaposed to me. Contributing lots of useless, incorrect rubbish to an article is basically the same as contributing nothing at all. Anyway, I'll let you go off on your pointless, groundless tangent now. Have fun ;).

P.S. I emailed you about three days ago and you're just now getting back to me. Once again, I'm not the scared party here, as you're certainly nothing to be scared of -- unless you're taking a test or doing anything that might require abstract thought.

P.P.S. So you're going to "sign up just to chase me?" Wow, I feel kind of special. I have an internet stalker -- FINALLY! Thanks, Kraut. You, on the other hand, should feel like an even bigger, no-life loser than you already are (yes, it is possible, as it just happened when you admitted you were going to sign up on Wikipedia just to stalk me online). Cheers.

–Bakemono Tue, 25 Jul 2006 2:51 (UTC)

idiot. im an american - a native new yorker. theres no mental illness in me idiot. theres only one thing: you are editing my writing and adding kemal dubs to signature recordings which is wrong. otherwise, i really have no problem with you. im busy with projects idiot. why dont you delete my writings and write your own version of neurofunk?? i already got a mail from wiki and they told me they dont want to get involved in this dispute. idiot.

Advocacy Request
I have been contacted by Bakemono with an advocacy request for this page. From my review of the discussion page here, and the edit history, it would seem that the two primary disputants are Bakemono and 84.44*. I have already noted a lack of civility. If possible, I would ask those involved to maintain civility and clearly state, below, what the nature of their dispute is solely with regards to this page's content (this is the purpose of a discussion page, not to list credentials nor to question credentials. If you are looking to assert authority beyond wikiguidelines, I would suggest one of the many phD programs in popular music studies which are now active in both NA and Europe, and which do not consider wikipedia a scholarly -- which is to say legitimate -- source of information). Please remember the nature of the wiki project, refrain from personal attacks, and let bygones be bygones. I await your responses. Please also remember to sign responses with 3 or 4 tildes. Best, WormwoodJagger 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, WormwoodJagger. I would say that your assessment of the situation is correct. At present, we're the only active disputants. However, if you check back a little ways -- actually, under the exact same subsection which this whole argument originated, with 84.* saying, in his first ever post to me, "I know shit about funk" and calling me and "idiot" -- you'll see I'm not the only person to have had issues with 84's improper edits the content which he adds/removes in said edits and his overall mannerism (specifically, Stevekeiretsu).

Firstly, I apologize for my own lack of civility in this manner (I realize I was also in the wrong there, and no, two wrongs don't make a right), but I tend to take being called an "idiot" for no reason whatsoever, along with being told "I know shit" about a musical style (which I apparently know more about than the person claiming such a thing does), a bit personally. (Oh, and lest I forget: the 'declaration of war' bit, too.) Had it stopped there, though, I would've gladly followed in suit and backed off and taken the hospitable path. But, it merely worsened.

Now, regarding the general/my own issues with the article's current state, the (mis)information contained therein, and the user posting it...

I definitely don’t claim to be a “musical expert” in any way, but I have had my share of classical music training throughout my life and have been spinning drum & bass since around 1998. Therefore, I can at least do what he evidently can’t and back up my arguments with extensive, fact-based/audible proof before I spout them off.

I’ll reiterate for you my stance on the article, my own viewpoints about Neurofunk, and the two split sides in this debate.

It seems one side (the side he’s apparently on far to the extreme side) feels this ‘new generation’ of producers, following what’s, generally, a more minimalist sound (e.g. Phace, Noisia, Mayhem, et al) with supposed “heavy/dark funk influences,” are what now epitomizes the Neurofunk genre -- which is utter nonsense. This whole article is rhetorical. It lays out a bunch of unnecessary, unrelated artist references and nods (nods = complete biographies of) to other oldschool “funk” producers to say, in a roundabout way, the exact same thing (this is obviously his personal influence entirely). The main problem I have there -- rhetoric notwithstanding -- is that it’s all a bunch of fabrication with no basis of factual support whatsoever. The only proclaimed Neurofunk artists who have admittedly stated (on record) they were directly inspired by and include heavy “funk” influences in their productions are Ed Rush, Optical and Matrix (and certainly not to the extent that he’s implied in the article) -- he’s then taking this and applying it to the whole of Neurofunk. This is absolutely ridiculous, since every artist has their own style, and every artist has their own pool of varied musical inspirations to draw from.

And moreover, I hear no deliberate or obvious attempts to emphasize any heavy/dark funk elements within any of the tracks of the producers he’s marked/listed as paradigms of Neurofunk -- especially Noisia & Mayhem, two artists I asked for proof of some standout/obvious funk ingredient in their music contrasted against that of Kemal (or any other artist I listed under Signature Records that he swiftly removed), and he hasn’t yet addressed why or given examples to show I’m wrong, instead giving me excuses. There are no more “funk” ingredients in a Noisia or Mayhem track than there is in any other drum & bass track -- to the contrary, I actually see less emphasis on a funky sound in their music. I say “no more than any other DnB track” because, as has been mentioned, nearly ALL breaks used in drum & bass are sampled from funk songs (please see Amen Break). Now, there are tons of “Amen tracks” in DnB (within several genres, too: Darkstep, Hardstep and Techstep), but are all of those tracks Neurofunk? No, of course they aren’t. But if one were to follow 84’s flawed logic about what defines Neurofunk, then that would be true. So if “funk influence” is his/their basis for defining Neurofunk, then technically about 90% of all DnB would qualify. Plus, “funk” itself is a combination of jazz, soul and gospel… so exactly which “funk element” is he referring to? Dark jazz samples, dark soul samples, dark plucked bass-lines, what is it? He can’t answer, and won’t answer, because there is no answer as that could be a plethora of things.

This -- the "heavy Funk ingredient" point -- is the crux of his entire argument about Neurofunk, and one he fails to lend any credence to via any manner of substantial evidence. You can see why this is nothing but an article full of subjective opinions now, can’t you? For all his hollow words, he’s offered zero proof to support them. No audio comparisons, no artist interviews, no specific sample examples, nothing – only an old article by Reynolds that further proves him wrong (more on this below). Conversely, I can show with both comparative examples and audio that, within the tracks I’ve listed (or, rather, attempted to list before he edited them out), there are more “funk-like” influences than any Signature Recording he ever listed -- I already noted one in my last reply to him.

Nonetheless, I don’t feel, and a lot of others don’t feel, that “heavy funk” influences are what truly defines the Neurofunk sound. So, I guess this is the “other side” of the argument. What makes a Techstep track Neurofunk is, put quite simply, its core funkiness and dance-friendliness. It has heavy Tech influences, the usual funk influences (sometimes slightly more emphasized than others) and results in an extremely funky end sound that gets your head bobbin’ & body moving. There are buttloads of Techstep tracks that can’t be danced to, and this is where the actual separation between Techstep and Neurofunk occurs.

However, despite the fact that I’m happy to offer proof to support my opinions/claims, he keeps deleting the Signature Recordings of artists I list. This is absolutely unwarranted and is, to me, therefore vandalism. Kemal/Konflict and others are as much a part of the Neurofunk sound -- in my humble opinion, a whole lot more -- as are the ones he’d listed. This is yet another example of him trying to, in effect, “own” the article and subsequently prevent it from being what Wikipedia is all about: editable by everyone with something appropriate to add.

In addition to that, he’s posting wholly unrelated and inappropriate links (according to Wikipedia guidelines) that direct to the personal internet forums of a record label HE considers a Neurofunk label. Well, even if it is a “Neurofunk label,” it really has no true value when it comes to the content contained within the article -- it’s just a forum (one which you have to sign up for to even view anything), not a website dealing specifically with Neurofunk.

One thing I think nobody can contest, though, irrespective of their side in this debacle, is the fact that the Neurofunk sound is derived directly from Techstep, and shares vast amount of similar compositional elements with it. My take above was that Techstep was the father (or mother) and Neurofunk is the offspring that shares identical traits with their parent. Which is why I -- as have countless other posters -- said before, this whole article needs to be completely revamped. In my logical opinion, given its nearly indistinguishable tie to Techstep, it needs to be moved and rewritten as a subsection of the Techstep article. And within it, in the interest of fairness to both sides, we should detail that there are these two primary opposing views about what Neurofunk really is.

(And yes, I’d be happy to volunteer in helping to rewriting the entire article, as I’m sure Stevekeiretsu would, too.)

The almost humorous thing in this case is that 84.*. truly doesn't even know what his own viewpoints are, because they continually contradict each other. On one hand, if you'll note his previous discussions with Stevekeiretsu, he's citing Reynold's article/literature as being a solid source for the definition of Neurofunk. However, on the other hand, if this is indeed the case and Reynolds is the true source (albeit a vague one) of the term "Neurofunk" and the authority that first defined the sound, then it clearly isn't supportive of what 84.44* proposes it is -- Reynolds says nothing about "funk" as a requisite component that defines the Neurofunk sound in his writing/the article linked; to the contrary, he mentions Funk in regards to Techstep in the very first paragraph. Why? Techstep has funk influences, too -- and in some cases, it’s a heavy/dark influence. Thus, if that’s so, how then can a “funk” influence be the definitive element in defining Neurofunk? I see that alone as a factor which completely renders his whole argument and definition of “Neurofunk” void.

In brief, this is my content dispute: the article is fanciful and full of wholly erroneous information that’s subjective opinion at best and completely wrong in other parts. My dispute with him, 84.*., is he was being verbally abusive off the bat, on the discussion page, when he had no reason to be -- I was simply reverting his vandalism to an article already in question. Then he threatens me (which I’m not worried about, but still) and subsequently goes and purposefully outright vandalizes the Kouta Hirano & Cryptic Audio articles in an attempt to retaliate against me correcting his inappropriate edits on Neurofunk. Now, I may have retorted in kind against his verbal assault, but I’d never stoop as low as to compromise the content of other Wikipedia articles that the opposing party was involved in sometime in the past over some stupid argument. A thinking man would see that doesn’t hurt the person, but the people looking to Wikipedia for factually sound information (and the other editors who have spent lots of time getting it that way).


 * the article is fanciful and full of ... subjective opinion at best I agree with this. My fundamental position here is not to argue the specific cases as to whether Kemal/Noisia/etc are or are not neurofunk.  To me that is really quite pointless - as per my comments elsewhere in the talk page, techstep/neurofunk are pretty much indistinguishable to anyone who isn't obsessively interested in a techy dnb.  Someone not into dnb at all would not even be able to tell any meaningful difference.  Even people into dnb have no fixed consensus on what the difference is.  This this thread on the largest dnb forum, over 100 replies and scarcely any two people agreeing with other.  You will notice that some correspondents in that thread broadly agree with 84.*'s views.  Some don't.  Now I'm sure he will start trying to dismiss this source by saying that DOA users know nothing about neurofunk, but I think that is misplaced because it clearly shows that even within dedicated fans of techy dnb (DOA being started by Bad Company) there is no widely agreed consensus on the techstep/neurofunk issue.


 * So, what I would really like, is if he 1 - stopped presenting his opinions as cast iron fact, 2 - stopped automatically removing other people's edits, 3 - stopped flooding with so many small, un-summarised edits that other editors can't really keep up anyway, 4 - stopped haranging people on the talk page and actually considering bringing their input into the article, even if he doesnt agree with it, by 5 - learnt to use an encyclopaedic tone to cover different viewpoints neutrally ("some believe... while others...")


 * I'm not really bothered, if neurofunk stays in this state, well there's always techstep.


 * Stevekeiretsu 13:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I’m still willing to compromise and take the aforementioned “middle-of-the-road” approach. But I also think since he isn’t willing to bend on some of the tracks he considers Neurofunk, despite having no provable heavy “funk” samples or being “funky,” in the dance-friendly sense of the word, in any way, I suggest we divide the Signature Recordings into their own respective sections, too. However, I’m not willing to compromise and let him have carte blanche on this article, filling it with paragraphs of misinformation. I can’t and won’t stand for that.

Truthfully, while I honestly appreciate you helping me out here and being an advocate on Wikipedia period (highly admirable), I think this is probably a big waste of time for me and you -- I don’t think he’ll accept any of this and it’s futile trying to reason with him, because he wants the article his way or no way since he considers it “his” article.

So, I guess what I’m saying is: just be prepared to hear nothing back from 84.*. And if we do hear something, it’ll likely be more of the same ad hominem drabble, not addressing any of the key points. From him, a cogent response is the furthest thing from his mind, because he doesn't want to take a civil route. In his eyes, this is his page to do with as he wishes; he’s God of this page, and if anyone dares to add content he disagrees with... well, you see the result. I suppose all we can do is wait and see.

Unfortunately, here's the scenario I see playing out: now that you're here and someone affiliated with Wikipedia has gotten involved, he won’t reply but he's also going to back off a week or two, and maybe even a month or more. But eventually, he's going to come back and start up all over again. Thanks again, though, Jagger.

Bakemono 02:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bakemono,

Thanks very much for your prompt and civil reply. I have had time now to go over the actual edit history, and you seem to be correct in noting that 84.* has a prediliction for sometimes abusive language, and I note that he has engaged in what I take to be more than one personal threat over the course of your exchanges. I will monitor this page for the next little while, and have placed a watch on 84.*. Should I see anything which qualifies as destructive editing on his part, I will get in touch with those responsible for Abuse reports, and bring in a wikiAdmin who specializes in these matters. For the time being, I'd recommend continuing on with what you consider to be proper edits, but avoid POV assertions, and do reference your contributions. It may, in fact, be time to work for a while on the reference section of this article, as wiki policy has it that non-referenced, non-commonsense assertions qualify as POV -- anything which is not referenced can be edited out and placed on talk pages for discussion until references are made. I realize this can be a difficult matter given the non-mainstream situation of neurofunk, but it is wiki policy. If a consensus builds that Neurofunk should be a sub-genre of any other broader genre (and electronic music is so factional, it's difficult to fully counter this claim except on academic grounds) I'd recommend doing so -- but, again, only if there is consensus. As such, I've added a heading below specifically for discussion of this matter to begin further discussion. If you need more, please feel free to contact me, and best of luck with this. All best, WormwoodJagger 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Subgenre?
the only problem here is that im the sole writer while bakemono keeps on adding kemal tech dubs to funk driven dnb. it would be best to delete ALL OF MY SOLE WRITINGS and you guys come up with your own definition of neuro. music expert?? what is that?? im only the sole writer!! i wish that someone responsible - not a vandal wanna be - would just do slick pro editing over me. pls make a contrib otherwise this is article will be gone - i will delete this - and no more bumbs editing shit. civilized?? i have a dub with paradox and herbie hancock in my pocket with goldie and fabio wishing to rinse it out. being civil is writing correctly and acting correctly: its about knowing music and WORKING with music and NOT editing nonsense over articles about JESUS, ISRAEL, and NEUROFUNK which is happening here at wiki. maybe, wiki is not a good thing since they cannot control offensive bumbs like bakemono.

bakemono is a kid into vandalism. check his contributions: not one orig article but only editing over other people´s writings. FLAT...hey, bakemono: WRITE!!!!!!!!!!! turn people on and dont bring your friends here. they cant write anyway. i will bring matrix here idiot.

84.*, please note:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Also: Please sign all correspondances with four tildes (i.e., 'WormwoodJagger 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)').

WormwoodJagger 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations & Cleanup
I have added citation and cleanup tags, to invite other members of the wiki community along to help out with this page. Please do not remove these tags until a consensus emerges that they are no longer necessary. All best, WormwoodJagger 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

good work wormwood jagger. so now lets take these kemal tunes off signature recordings because kemal never ever did funk driven dnb. the rest seems ok. - robert soares.

Calling In Abuse Investigators
To all concerned with this page: After two weeks of watching, and countless revert wars, I am now calling in help from someone who specializes in Abuse cases on wiki. My primary concern is with 84.44*. Someone should be here to investigate shortly. All best, WormwoodJagger 11:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help/involvement, Jagger. Hopefully this situation/dispute can get swiftly resolved so that I (and others) can go forth with an evenhanded, constructive rewrite of the article without fear of it being continually changed by an anonymous vandal.

Bakemono 21:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?
Since wiki Admin seems to have a massive backlog at this point in time, would anyone object to requesting semi-protection for this page such that only registered users could edit? This would hopefully avoid the endless revert war which seems to be going on right now?

All best, WormwoodJagger 23:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That works for me, Jagger. However, something tells me he'll probably then (finally) register a name on here just so that he can continue vandalizing the article. I suppose if it's the best we can do at present, though, something's better than nothing.

Bakemono 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

attention: i will delete ALL OF MY SOLE NEUROFUNK WRITINGS because BAKEMONO and perhaps JAGGER only edited my writings while:

1) never adding anything substantial to it in terms of literature. 2) adding non neuro producers such as stakka, skynet and kemal to signature recordings when the community knows that what they did in terms of style was TECHSTEP. 3)deleting prominent neuro producers such as mayhem (and his forum link), the upbeats, misanthrop and noisia.

i already got what i wanted so i see no need in making further contributions to wiki if the price is falling into a war - disputes - with mainly 2 guys because i dont see a high number of people here reverting my page or making any accurate and substantial contributions.

now its up to bakemono and jagger to write their own definition of neuro - not over mine - but who knows if other people will create chaos for them by reverting their pages, editing nonsense as a consequence of an incredible lack of knowledge and a total, complete, fanatism for KEMAL (laughs).

REGISTER?? i can register in a split second but what difference will it make?? bakemono and jagger are registered indeed but they didnt write anything. they complain about a vandal or un-registered writer - mos def about me - when DE FACTO, I CONTINUE TO BE THE SOLE WRITER. pls, what a joke!!

now you both - apparently only 2 guys - will have to pick up where techstep took off and start from there..."neurofunk: a style which borrows from funk". neuroloans anyone??

User 84.44*/Anon User,

Please review this: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point As for this comment -- "REGISTER?? i can register in a split second but what difference will it make?? bakemono and jagger are registered indeed but they didnt write anything. they complain about a vandal or un-registered writer - mos def about me - when DE FACTO, I CONTINUE TO BE THE SOLE WRITER. pls, what a joke!!" -- I was called in to advocate. Were I to become involved in editing, I would be engaging in seriously unethical activities, giving myself a vested interest in the ongoings of this page, thus compromising my impartiality.

ALSO PLEASE NOTE: at the bottom of the edit page, there is this note:


 * "Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

If you feel tht you cannot allow your writing " to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others," as the edit page notes, it would indeed be better if you did not participate, in my humble opinion.

I am going to treat any more discussion edits not on point as Internet trolling.

All best, WormwoodJagger 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

att jagger: i know the rules here. i dont mind the edting over my sole writings since i wrote this definition in order to have someone else re-define it and to add substantial tunes to signature recordings which im not aware of. i was also expecting for someone to write a bit more about the beats - the way people wrote correctly about the beats on the techstep article - but no contributions were made (i requested a contribution from neuro fans and collectors but they didnt take interest) except for adding kemal, stakka+skynet, bc´s nitrous (feat trace), typecell and others who dont fit neuro since what they did was TECHSTEP or a FURTHER PROGRESSION OF TECHSTEP. contemporary neuro is in the hands of phace, noisia, misanthrop, decimal (r.i.p.), the upbeats while bakemono deleted these names. so maybe he should delete my article and write his own and not write nonsense over mine. inteligent editing yes, this is what i want but dumb editing, without a slight vision of what neuro is, mixing tech artists with neuro ones!! better to delete the whole thing, i dont mind.

i spoke to jamie quinn (matrix) because i will be working on a project with him and again he was quite clear - as one of the early pioneers of neuro - that in a silent way by miles davis was a huge influence on his early tunes, yet bakemono edits my writing - or whoever did it - claiming that miles davis was not an influence on the early build up of neuro circa 97/98. im reverting what was badly written until someone writes - over my wrtings - the right thing. then ill be glad to just lay back and enjoy a good contribution to wiki.

NOW, ATT: BAKEMONO CLAIMS THAT I AM A VANDAL WHICH MEANS THAT IM VANDALIZING MY OWN WRITINGS. BUT WHAT A JOKE!! HE´S REVERTING MY PAGE WITH MY WRITINGS BACK TO HIS PAGE WITH MY WRITINGS. SURREAL!! BAKEMONO SHOULD WRITE HIS OWN ARTICLE AND THEN REVERT BACK TO HIS PAGE WITH HIS OWN WRITINGS WHILE PERHAPS SEEKING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION PAGE AND I WILL BE GLAD TO "NOT REVERT" BACK TO MY PAGE. BUT NOW JAGGER, BE REALISTIC: WHO IS THE VANDAL HERE?? IF YOU CAN SHOW ME HOW I CAN DELETE MY SOLE LITERATURE - EVERY SINGLE WORD I WROTE - THEN YOU GUYS ARE FREE TO WRITE YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF DARK FUNK DRIVEN DNB ADDING DARK TECHNO DRIVEN ARTISTS WHO NEVER EVER ADDED FUNK ELEMENTS TO THEIR MUSIC LIKE KEMAL, STAKKA&SKYNET, TYPECELL, ETC. BUT I AGREE THAT KEMAL SIGNED A NEURO TUNE TO HIS CRYPTIC AUDIO LABEL BY FUNKTERS SINTHETIX AND GERMAN PRODUCER TYPECELL HAD FUNKSTER ROB F (EX-SINTHETIX) RMX ONE OF HIS PURE TECH TUNES INTO A NEURO SOUNDING TUNE, SO YES, THIS TUNE BY TYPECELL (ROB F RMX) CAN BE ADDED TO THE LIST BECAUSE ITS LOGICAL TO DO SO.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT A SUBJECT IN ORDER TO WRITE ABOUT IT. ITS NOT YOUR LITTLE PERSONAL VISION THAT COUNTS BUT ITS YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE THEME THAT WINS, WHETHER YOU LIKE THE THEME OR NOT. WIKI IS A GOOD IDEA BUT IT CAN TURN INTO A MESS IF JUST ABOUT ANYONE STARTS "CONTRIBUTING". SURFERS WILL START READING WRONG INFO AND THEY WILL START BELIEVING THAT NIGHT IS DAY. THIS IS ALREADY  HAPPENING HERE. THE TECHSTEP ARTICLE IS WELL WRITTEN BUT "MARCUS INTALEX" WAS NEVER, EVER, A TECHSTEP ARTIST BUT FROM HIS VERY BEGINNING, A SOUL MUSIC, HOUSE DRIVEN, DNB PRODUCER. BUT HIS NAME IS THERE ON PROMINENT TECHSTEP PRODUCERS WHILE DJ TRACE´S NAME IS NOT: TRACE, ONE OF THE CREATORS, PIONEERS OF TECHSTEP: WHAT A JOKE!! WRONG INFO!!

robert soares

Attn: Robert Soares,

OK -- I actually agree with the Miles Davis claim, and can hear it. Let's talk with Bakemono more about this on the discussion page.

As for this, though:

"WIKI IS A GOOD IDEA BUT IT CAN TURN INTO A MESS IF JUST ABOUT ANYONE STARTS "CONTRIBUTING". SURFERS WILL START READING WRONG INFO AND THEY WILL START BELIEVING THAT NIGHT IS DAY. "

This is the problem with wiki. I contribute to music encyclopedias, record, etc., as well (I'm more on the mastering end, actually), and this is why wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information. It's more of a hobby. If you take this seriously, you might consider some of the following journals:

Popular Music and Society (Blackwell) American Music etc.

If you'd like, you can call in another advocate. It might be helpful.

All best, WormwoodJagger 16:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... this has certainly gone nowhere fast.

First and foremost:

Jagger, you really need to read this thread (please, for me): http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread.php?threadid=358453&highlight=techstep+neurofunk. Now, DOA is the most highly frequented internet forum pertinent to Drum & Bass in the entire world -- hundreds of thousands of DnB DJs, fans, and well known producers (unlike Mr. Soares) alike all post there on a daily basis. Basically, the deal is this: Neurofunk is an invented term originally coined by Simon Reynolds in his book (which is linked on the page) which was subsequently liked, coined and promoted by the old neurofunk.com website (which hosted a variety of Techstep tracks it considered "Neurofunk," and was taken down quite a while ago) that people like our friend Robert have turned into a net-term to separate well-produced Techstep (usually by UK producers) from underproduced, crap Techstep which usually -- funnily enough -- almost never has its origins in the UK (it's either the US, Canada or various parts of Europe... imagine that) -- Mayhem, Noisia, et al. This is why in the aforementioned forum thread someone humorously (and correctly) stated the difference was "about 7 years and the Atlantic Ocean."

In essence, because a lot of the production value in Techstep DnB has dropped as of late (because a lot of the better Techstep producers have stopped producing), this cleared the way for those "minimalist," non-UK Techstep producers to step up.

But because it's an invented term, no one in their right mind has any idea what's correctly classified as ‘Neuro’ and what isn't -- there's no line to define it; there are only people like Robert who come up with their own ideas/lines as to what it is and claim it as irrefutable fact. However, among the jumble of subjective opinions involved, admittedly, two main arguments seem to arise more than any other: 1) Is that it's this minimalist stuff (AKA Techstep with no balls) -- usually spouted by those who are fans of it and/or produce it (in Roberts case, try to produce it) -- and 2) It's funky, highly danceable Techstep (AKA funky Techstep), which, judging by DOA and most of the prior responses on here, is the majority view.

Truthfully, as I noted numerous times before, this really should not be its own article, because it isn't a valid subgenre. To be a genuine, credible subgenre there has to be a clear definition that gets a consensus view among those who listen to and work in the main musical style (Drum & Bass) -- there's neither in this case. While it still deserves a mention, it should be under the main Techstep article because its significance is not that profound. Techstep is an established, definable style of DnB whereas Neurofunk isn't... bottom line.

Robbie can sit here and spout his opinionative definition of Neurofunk as canon until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it anymore correct. Funny thing: if you look back, a ways up, he, more or less, changes the crux of his argument the whole time (down to the present one) to conform to his current point. At first Simon Reynolds was a credible source in his opinion, but when I pointed out the flaws of him citing that as going against what he feels defines “Neurofunk,” he suddenly stopped mentioning it -- how odd. It's all BS. He conveniently hasn't responded to any of my initial technical questions posed to him about funk elements, etc.... why? Simple: he can't and never will. Why? He doesn't know and therefore doesn't have the capacity to answer. Instead, he goes on an endless tangent about Miles Davis and Matrix... what’s that? He “spoke to him about it?” Well, umm, did he record any of these conversations? Videotape them? Print them in a magazine article, by chance? No? Well then, it isn’t a valid cite, is it? (LOL, btw, count how many times he’s mentioned Mile Davis above, just for the record... you’ll get a kick out of it. I guess he’s a fan -- or he’s watched Collateral one too many times?) Either way, I already gave credence to his claim that Ed Rush, Optical, Matrix and RymeTyme (the whole Virus crew) claimed to have drawn inspiration from older funk records (as have hundreds of other DnB producers), because I though maybe it would shut him up and he’d go away. Thus, that was wholly redundant... he needn’t continue mentioning it anymore. Moreover, no, it wasn’t me who made that change.

Also, here's something very, very interesting I found. He said above "stakka+skynet, bc´s nitrous (feat trace), typecell and others who dont fit neuro since what they did was TECHSTEP or a FURTHER PROGRESSION Of TECHSTEP." Well, according to his favorite Neurofunk producer, Mayhem, who Robbie considers the end all be all of Neurofunk, in the following DOA post, he’s wrong. Have a gander at who he himself (Mayhem) considers Neurofunk: http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread.php?s=a5bb656eb09a4528c877c113a8356a9a&threadid=125510&perpage=20&pagenumber=1 I sure see Stakka & Skynet in that list, don't you? And this was in 2003, a year Kemal wasn't doing anything. If he had been, rest assured Mayhem would've included his admitted idol in that list as well. This only furthers my point that Robert doesn't know what the bleeding f*** he's talking about. He's going contrary to the definition of a producer he loves and considers the paradigm example of 'true Neurofunk. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit... off? See what I'm saying?

That all aside, what happened to the page protection we had in the works?

Bakemono 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

bakemono: you are only going to war with me, thats all. easy on the net, isnt it? i never claimed to be a producer but a conceptual one. i helped put together paradox with herbie hancock on a record soon to be released by the name of enamorada. i dont lie about my contributions to music and if you want, anytime, i can prove it to you personally. second, neurofunk has no "reece drops" as on nitrous by techsteppers bc and trace. i didnt answer your questions because i didnt want a good relationship with you. i dont think you´re qualified for music in general. answer me this bakemono: PAGE PROTECTION FOR MY SOLE WRITINGS?? YOU CLAIM THAT IM VANDALIZING MY OWN WRITINGS?? YOU REVERT A PAGE WHICH I WROTE AND YOUR ONLY CONTRIBUTION WAS ON SIGNATURE RECORDINGS - FALSE INFO WHICH LEADS TO WIKI BEING AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE - AND YOU`RE SEEKING PG PROTECTION FOR MY WRITINGS?? ARE YOU A THIEF, A CRIMINAL, A HACKER, A UK DNB FANATIC OR JUST PLAIN CRAZY?? YOU WILL NEVER SHUT ME OFF. JAGGER IS CIVILZED, HE SEEKS PEACE AND HE WRITES ELSEWHERE IN RELATION TO MASTERING. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT NEURO OR DNB IN GENERAL. TECHSTEP AND NEURO ARE SMALL, SUBGENRES OF DNB - DNB IN GENERAL IN QUITE UNKNOWN WORLDWIDE. ONLY GOLDIE CAN CLAIM TO BE KNOWN IN A LARGER SCALE ACROSS THE U.S. AND EUROPE BECAUSE OF HIS TIMELESS LP.

READ THIS: WRITE YOU OWN DEFINITION AND DELETE MINE. THEN I´LL RESPECT YOU. BUT AS LONG AS YOU KEEP REVERTING PGS WHEN IM BASICALLY THE SOLE WRITER ON "ALL OF THEM" THEN NO RESPECT FOR YOU AT ALL. BY THE WAY, DOGS ON ACID IS A BULLSHIT FORUM - I DONT NEED THAT PLACE - BUT THAT LINK THAT YOU PLACED IN RELATION TO NEURO, EVERYTHING THAT WAS WRITTEN DOWN BY SOME OF THE HEADZ WAS CORRECT. MAYHEM´S LIST IS CORRECT. BY THE WAY, IM NOT A MAYHEM FAN BUT I RESPECT HIS WORK. WHAT DO YOU DO FOR DNB MAY I ASK?? YOU JUST VANDALIZE OTHER PEOPLE´S WRITINGS??

I'm not writing anything because it's pointless while you have access to the article. You've displayed nothing but your inability to compromise on things being your way or no way. The problem there is, your way is utter fiction -- made up by you. Besides, as I just said, this article needs to be completely deleted and Neurofunk needs to be made a subsection in the Techstep article. Therefore, writing anything else at this point would be an exercise in futlity.

You don't lie, yet you continually change your position and those you say are Neurofunk artists, making up things as you go to support your arguments -- lest we not forget the continued 1-on-1 contact you have with Matrix (yeah, right... prove it)? No offense (since your English obviously isn't up to par) but we native speakers would classify that as "lying." I don't really care who you are or who you claim to be, but I do care about your useless contributions to an article that's 99% crap. By the way, speaking of that: my contributions, as a whole, far exceed the minor (and subjective/non-NPOV following) contributions you've made to this single, fanciful article.

I'll be more than happy to write an entire Neurofunk section in Techstep as soon as you go away and stop touching this article. But as long as you're around, I know you'll continue with this insistence that Neurofunk is what YOU alone proclaim it to be, and that's just not acceptable and goes against the whole essence of Wikipedia -- case-in-point, this claim that Reese/Hoover basslines never appear in Neurofunk (what a joke). That shows you're not a producer right there. Since when was the inclusion of a Reese bassline contingent for making or breaking a Neurofunk track?! Oh, I know, it must be since YOU said it was so, therefore it automatically is -- another one of those "lines" you're making up, eh? You know, it's really almost sad, German guy. So as long as you're around (hence, touching this article) I'll be here to revert said vandalizing edits.

Jagger, if you're not going to request protection, let me know and I'll do it.

Bakemono 05:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

att bakemono: if you write your own version of neuro i will revert back to my page. whatever you write as bakemono or by your real name, i will revert back. NO, you will not be the boss of this article because YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED. you can go around offending me but you only can do this through the net - its easy - otherwise, you havent made a contribution to music whatsover. NO, the only way for us to solve this dispute - in reality - would be for US BOTH to meet FACE TO FACE. then im sure that we would both solve this problem. otherwise through the net, your offenses and TOTAL LACK OF KNOWLEDGE will continue to flow and you know why?? because you´re protected by a screen, the wiki administration does not seem to care at all and it seems that wiki - as jagger put it - is not a reliable source of info but mainly a spot for hobby style of writing - and vandalism. wiki is a great idea but its not working so well - until reliable heads from the wiki administration starts taking charge of all articles and by researching the themes, they might come to the conclusion of what is right and wrong. this takes work and time and time is money. this will probably not happen. NO, i will have control over you and not you over me. i can easily get registered and seek a protection page against you which i will do so believe me. native english speaking writer?? but you cant write, you havent written anything for wiki except for a sentence here and there: over other peoples articles!! you dont have any knowledge about dnb, period.

ATT JAGGER: thank you for your very civilized manner. for you to know a bit more about me, pls check www.innerhythmic.com - click on CONTACT - and you see see my name - robert soares - as representative for germany but no, im not german but from nyc. i just happen to live here and my job is a&r/concept & label production. i had to expand my work from nyc to europe because it was necessary. this is a label which im a member of (i own a percentage). im a member of material productions for the last 14 years. material today is mainly bill laswell solo when it used to be a crew of 20 different people: musicans and producers.

yes, i happen to know jamie quinn for about 2 yrs already and im right in the middle of a project fusing dnb artists with jazz musicans. if you do write about mastering for reliable sources, i would be glad to mail you promos of our label - if you wish to further write about mastering - because we work with one of the best mastering plants in nyc with mastering boss MICHAEL FOSSENKEMPER from turtletone studio. this does not relate with this dispute but the fact that you write about mastering - post production/final mixdowns.

tell me if you´re interested in receiving them and you can mail me at: innerfunktion@yahoo.com

with pleasure, robert soares

Stop The Redirect
Bakemono -- you cannot simply erase an article without building consensus. You must discuss this on the talk pages here and wait for consensus to emerge. What you are doing is considered vandalism. WormwoodJagger 10:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been months; no consensus is building. However, if you look above, judging by previous comments, the majority consensus is for building a single article. And given the fact that what he's doing -- removing clean-up tags without satisfying anything, writing nonsense, etc. -- is considered vandalism too and nobody's lifted a finger yet, I'll take my chances.

Bakemono 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

removing an article is nonsense unless you replace it with better literature. this is indeed vandalism - you took your chances and became a vandal - but as far as taking chances are concerned, anyone can just do that: vandals do take chances when certain enviorements lack protection. specially, when german producer typecell leaves you a clear message on your talk page to not add wrong info about his recordings but to take accurate info from his web page and you delete his message because it doesnt serve your interests to keep it visible there. what other wrong info are you adding to other articles?? its really bad when a dnb producer claims that you´re writing false info about his work.

Kridian 15:30, 25 August 2006.

Bakemono:

I've called in another advocate to help. Your initial advocacy request stated that you had no issue with keeping the Neurofunk page as is until the issue of 84.44* was dealt with. I have also put in a internet sock puppet check.

WormwoodJagger 19:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole point is that he isn't being dealt with in any way, shape or form. And lest I forget, let's not overlook the fact that, prior to this, he was constantly editing out every Signature Artist I put within the article and has trenchantly stated above that anything I contribute to the article he's going to edit out anyway. Therefore, is that not blatant vandalism -- or in the latter case, preemptive vandalism -- (leaving out the fact that the article is his sole point of view and made up BS)? I'm sorry, but there's no technical separation between Neurofunk and Techstep, he can't specifically name anything that hasn't already been disproved, and when challenged to point out specific technical aspects, 84.44*/Kridian has conveniently dodged the questions and failed to answer every single time -- hence, it deserves to be redirected and isn't vandalism. This article is one big load of misinformation and subjective opinion, not a contribution to Wikipedia or its readers. I'm helping, not destroying. Thus, it doesn't qualify as the act of a vandal.

Second, I don't remember stating that in my initial request, but if I did it's because I assumed advocates had some sort of extra pull on Wikipedia and the issue advocacy was being requested for would be expeditiously handled. Truthfully, I figured everything would be completely resolved by now. Instead, it's only stayed the same if not gotten worse. That said, I can't really see what another advocate can do if this experience is any indication of your capacity (power-wise) for dispute resolution/handling malicious, anonymous editors who play God and control articles as they see fit. However, I certainly welcome you bringing another one in. I think you've done everything you can, and I appreciate you taking the time to continue watching this article when I'm sure you have more important things to do. It's just, nothing is being resolved.

Moreover, I'm not sure who the sock puppet check was for (I'm assuming 84.44*) or who that comment was directed at (again, I'm assuming 84.44*), but I can assure you that you don't have to worry about that from me =).

Bakemono 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

i would work with you jagger, anytime, but theres not a chance that i can even answer 1 single question from the likes of bakemono. perhaps, some advocates from the community can help which would only make sense. i appreciate your concern. otherwise, no one has to worry about anyone: we all know what we want and how to achieve our goals. Kridian