Talk:Video jockey

Two distinct articles
"Although less known by mainstream America"... does this qoute seem to suggest a need for two distinct articles? Hiberniantears 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an experienced veejay and in my oppinion the MTV article must be placed in to the "Vj as Video performance artist" article. Information about MTV it's too poor to have enough relevance. Otherwise, we will see in short time definitions like "Red is the CocaCola color" :) --Rezponze 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for joining in conversation. Please bear with me, because I guess I'm as little confused. I had thought that Vj as Video performance artist was more of an artist, compared to an MTV VJ which seems more like just a pretty face not requiring any kind of skill. The difference between, say, Terminator X and Casey Kasem. Now, I've been to some dance clubs and seen the video art -- I had assumed they were just using MilkDrop -- but now that I've read your article I think maybe it was a VJ. But are you saying that there's no difference between what they do and what e.g. Carson Daly does? Ewlyahoocom 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely vj is a contempary term used worldwide to represent visual jockey's. I agree with the last person.

So whats wrong with having the contempary, worldwide, commonly used vj definition and whats wrong with haveing a link to the vj performance artist wikipedia definition. I get the feeling that some MTV person is related to this page, its not just America that uses this term to represent visual jockey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrdsisterz (talk • contribs)

Of course. I'm totally sure about MTV people has interest on this article. I think is a very dangerous interference in wikipedia objectivity. I have relation with hundreds of veejays, personaly and by forums, and NOBODY likes the MTV article and everybody perceives a suspicious intention behind. RESUME: In my oppinion, the main article must be "VJ as live video artist" with a "see also MTV vj" meaning. It's so obvious that this situation make me laugh. --Rezponze 14:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me make sure I understand you: it's not that you think MTV-style VJs and video performance artists should be on the same page; but rather that you think VJ should be moved to something like VJ (music video show), and that the article VJ (Video performance artist) article should be moved to VJ. Is this correct? Ewlyahoocom 15:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think VJ (Video performance artist) must be placed on VJ. And VJ (MTV-sytle-vj) in other page like MTV or MTV VJ. In my oppinion it's an easy, objective and non-interseted action. --Rezponze 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi from Canada. We have a couple of music channels, Much Music and Much More Music, so a generic page should be made for VJ (music video show).  They would still be considere MTV-style, but it would be more encompassing if the article was general. MatthewWilder 15:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a definite lack of objectivity if you say "see also VJ (Music show type)". I think there should be disambiguation, because when I hear VJ, I think of the MTV type.  I think 99% of people would agree.  To people within "visual jockey" circles, I can see why you would want it to be the way you are suggesting it.  However, that would not be consistent with Wikipedia's goal of objectivity.  MatthewWilder 16:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * VJ → MTV VJ and VJ (Video performance artist) → VJ … Rationale: In my oppinion, the main article must be "VJ as live video artist" with a "see also MTV vj" meaning. It's so obvious that this situation make me laugh. -- Move requested on behalf of Rezponze by Ewlyahoocom 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Oppose I believe that the primary meaning of VJ is someone who introduces music videos on music video shows. Ewlyahoocom 22:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose VJ is most commonly understood as someone who introduces music videos on music channels. The most significant change that would be reasonable would be disambiguation, but it would be wrong to follow the proposed change. MatthewWilder 16:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support In digital and art culture VJ is understood as someone who makes a live video performance. You can read specialized reports in press, magazzines, talking about VJ with this meaning. Please, search in Google "vj", "videojockey" or "video jockey" and let me know what you find: VJ Central, software for vj's, international events for live video artist... --Rezponze 19:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What Ewlyahoocom said. Original and most common meaning (at least in general use). And while I'm here, can someone (probably best after discussion concludes) move the neo-neologism to the properly capped VJ (video performance artist). 24.18.215.132 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support There's absolute no doubt! Vj is an person who create, mix or play motion pictures in an active contest. That's the actual meanig of the word VJ. It's a profession and it's a great cultural gap that it still have to be related to an sort of a Mtv anchorman. There MUST be one page for VJ containing first the definition of Vj as performer then a definition of Mtvs professional figure. I agree to make to subpages MTV VJ and VJ (visual performer) as already up now -- Mikkel.orgRezponze 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose I had honestly never even heard of the other type of VJ until now.138.88.205.233 03:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Opose Even though this is what most people would think of I still think there is no primary meaning just like 'DJ' can be a radio DJ similar to an MTV presenter or a live mixer. The former are becoming more commonly known as presenters though.Jp246 08:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Rezponze has mentioned that "in digital and art culture VJ is understood as..." There isn't even a claim that all people understand the VJ to be something. While that culture (which is essentially a special interest group) may be familiar with a certain meaning to the term, it is not even a majority understanding, and certainly not universal. So, it doesn't make sense to appease one minority group at the expense of all others. And this is not a matter of talent, but a matter of understanding. While it might take considerably more effort and capability to be an artist, it would not be consistent with Wikipedia policies to abandon the more vast understanding of what VJ means. At the most, the topic should begin with disambiguation, branching to VJ (Music video show host) and VJ (Video performance artist). That should be an acceptable compromise. MatthewWilder 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that there are two parallel realities. One is that in which VJ is a video introducer in the MTV channel, and the other is the one of the thousands of artists, publications and not specialized public "" who use word VJ to talk about themselves and their art. We can be long time speaking if one reality is more important that the other one, or if MTV VJ aception is more extended (and extended error). So, we (vj's) will still using VJ for speak about us and our art, we don't recognize MTV VJ as a real VJ, and modern art history will write the definitive article. Thanks a lot for this chance to show mi ideas. --Rezponze 00:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

SO then we can discuss what and how we want to define a VJ intended as a performer... user Mikkel 20:43, 28 May 2006


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright mess
Well the copyright violation by didn't turn out to be the copyright violation that it was tagged as being. But it was still a violation, as it copied and pasted VJ (video performance artist) (the displayed text, not even the wikitext) over the top of this one, without a proper backlink in the edit summary. I've cleaned up some of the mess. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)