Talk:On the Corner

This bit bugs me
"These techniques, refined via the use of computers and digital audio equipment, are now standard amongst producers of electronically-based music."

I've put a 'citation needed' tag after it. If it was worded: "This approach is in principal very similar to modern-day sampling, via the use of computers and digital instruments, a process so widespread that it is now used frequently in production of all kinds of music," it would be fine.

The way it's currently worded implies that this album influenced sampling. I'm not saying that it didn't, just that someone needs to find a good reliable quote that says it did, or else reword it so that it's merely highlighting the similarities. It's mainly the "are now standard" part - producers of "electronically-based music" actually don't often sample from live sessions at all. It does happen, but the main point here should be that the process on this record was essentially what we today call sampling. I hope that makes sense... 82.11.194.227 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Masterpiece!
That's all I wanted to say. SmokeyTheFatCat 21:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Duration
The duration of the separate tracks only adds up to 49:45 minutes, yet the entire duration of the album says 54:54. I've searched on other websites such as RateYourMusic (https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/miles-davis/on-the-corner/) or Discogs (https://www.discogs.com/es/Miles-Davis-On-The-Corner/master/51303) and the runtime is credited generally as 49:41 minutes (in both the track "Black Satin" appearing at 5:16 minutes instead of 5:20). Thought I should point that out. 201.212.149.170 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Miles Davis on the corner.png
Image:Miles Davis on the corner.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes in review links
I have removed the followings links: Yahoo! Music (favorable) link and *Alternative Press link. I doubt very much they meet WP:SOURCES. Cdl obelix (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Revisions to paragraph attributed to Gluck's book
Should the current revision of this paragraph be revised to something closer to 's recent revision? Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Votes

 * No - per comments below. Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Current/original paragraph:
 * Dan56 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

IMO, my original addition is more faithful to what Gluck outlined in his book (copied below). There's also no mention of Buckmaster, who Acousmana mentioned as a source in his revision. Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (Gluck, pp. 107-8) Dan56 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Accusation of OR/synthesis is false.For an in dept comparison between Stockhausen and Davis's process approach see p.511 in Bergstein, Barry 1992, "Miles Davis and Karlheinz Stockhausen: A Reciprocal Relationship" (The Musical Quarterly 76, no. 4). For Buckmaster comment, see Gluck p222, footnote 32, clearly states Davis credited Buckmaster with introducing him to Stockhausen's work. See also here (which we cite): “It was Stockhausen which so totally caught his attention...He obtained a cassette copy of Stockhausen’s Hymnen and found that piece most intriguing. I saw, in fact, that he had that cassette in his Lamborghini Miura…” Re: Stockhausen's "process music" - Plus-Minus is a "polyvalent process composition" (Kurtz 1992, 133), see also Griffiths, Paul. 2001 under the entry "Aleatory." See again Gluck p222, where is he states "process approach." For more on Stockhausen and his process music see Nyman, Michael 1999 p.22, Landy, Leigh 2013 p.87 etc. We have an entry on process music so we should link to it so our readers can better understand what's being discussed. Acousmana (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see how any of this contradicts the above or what was written; like you're not making any sense brahhhh. I also don't see how you cited any of this in your edits; "process music" is already linked in this paragraph; there's nothing in Gluck's book about Buckmaster explaining what concepts of Stockhausen's that Davis was drawn to (which is what you wrote in your revision). Also, please read up on how to conduct yourself as a Wikipedian. You can't just force changes down everyone's throats and trying to justify them with nothing but declarative statements in your edit summaries reverting to your preferred revision, as I've seen in the edit history you do before . Your changes to existing content were disputed; at the very least you could've of started a discussion, since it's you challenging it, instead of reverting again and again (WP:BRD). And don't lie; you can see clearly that I provided a citation for what you irrationally keep challenging in the lead (even when material already verified in the body doesn't need to be cited again in the lead, leaving me with no such burden, no matter what you may think) Why don't you find a citation to prove Davis didn't play his trumpet scarcely on this album, since you seem so hell bent on disputing the idea that he did... Dan56 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * tip, limit your grievance to content, not editors, accusations of OR and lying distract and are pointless when it's clear you've not examined sources closely. As for trumpet use, read Teo Macero in Jarret, Michael 2016 p143-144, the trumpet is there, he used three mics to record it, it was amplified, wah-wahed, processed, and extra edits were dropped-in in post. Black Satin is entirely trumpet driven so to say Davis abandoned the trumpet on this album is false. There's trumpet allover the album, processed, used rhythmically, imitating percussive timbres, to claim otherwise is ignorance and misses the point of what Davis and Macero were doing and especially misses the influence of Stockhausen. Acousmana (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, so fucking cite it?? if you seem to already have the information, instead of adding a pointless verification tag :)))) Dan56 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it's evident - what with you listing a vote based RFC for a two editor content dispute - that this suggestion is disingenuous. Acousmana (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: it looks like you have enough sources and information already to produce an improved paragraph together for the benefit of readers. Why not do that on the talk page, then transfer it to the article when it's been done? EddieHugh (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have been pinged as "resident Stockhausen expert" to comment on this discussion. It does not seem to me that the differences between these two versions has anything to do with Stockhausen as such, but rather on either (1) interpretation of the wording found in sources or (2) failure to cite sources for specific claims (e.g., Buckmaster's role). I do wonder what work or works Gluck may have had in mind when he gives 1974 as the end-point for Stockhausen's "rules-based expanding and subtracting processes", but his footnote is not included in the GoogleBooks preview. Nevertheless, that year is the one given in the source, whether it is meant to refer (inaccurately, for this purpose) to Atmen gibt das Leben or Tierkreis. I have taken the liberty of removing the link to Digital signal processing, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the transformational techniques Stockhausen used in either Telemusik (1966) or Hymnen (1966–67). Apart from this small quibble, I agree with EddieHugh: work out the differences on the talk page. I do not understand what is generating the degree of heat displayed in the above discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks, had spotted the incorrect digital signal processing link and forgotten to change it. Acousmana (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)