Jump to content

Talk:Alternative dance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alternative dance/rock artists

[edit]

add by Sard112 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Rock and electronic!!

[edit]

It is not rock mixed with electronic thats electronic rock it is Alternative rock mixed with EDM. Thats it!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronallknowingone (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your hair on. I'll stick the "dance" bit if it makes you happy. The main electronic music article covers it anyway, but don't want you having a coronary. The "rock subgenres" is correct as it is alternative AND/OR indie rock. Hence, two subgenres. Naming just one would be incorrect based on the sources of the article. But of course, you probably didn't go as far as that and got blinded by a one-issue campaign. Order of the day on Wikipedia it seems. RB88 (T) 06:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from indie dance

[edit]

Indie dance should be merged into this article, as it is actually a synonym for this genre, one that seems to be favored in the UK. For example, John Harris' book Britpop: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of English Guitar Rock refers to the British alternative dance acts that briefly invaded the US prior to the grunge breakthrough (the Madchester bands plus Jesus Jones, Soup Dragons, et al) as "indie dance" consistenly. I've seen other sources that use the terminology in this way. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair dos. I was gonna add a 2000s section but realised it was pretty much the same as the indie article article. RB88 (T) 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, we doing this or not? RB88 (T) 15:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre?

[edit]

Like post-disco, dance-pop, it seems alternative dance is a another "made-in-AMG" term. There are a-lot of misinterpretations in this article. See this source nydailynews.com - it seems they mentioned it like "[ alternative ] 'extraordinery' music". Problem of that is, that AMG "genreise" every other English word, so "sources" (or random mentioning if you want) are literally everywhere. I've tried to reduce the word "genre" in this article, because of its possible WP:SYNTHESIS. By the way, AMG puts "alternative dance" in relation with genre only in headlines, how ironic. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please sum up your points concisely? I can't make any sense of what is being argued. Also, please read the dead tree sources before reverting considered and researched work. As it stands, I vote no for merge, although I'm impartial to it the other way round. Indie dance came after New Order started alternative dance. PRB88 (T) 22:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see Allmusic (bolded for blind people): "[blah blah...]alternative dance was most heavily influenced by synth-pop, acid house, and trip-hop + madchester/rave parties have impact on alternative dance" [1], also there's nothing about "house", "techno" - stop pushing your POV version to this article. Alternative dance is not a genre, it is a AMG fabricated pseudo-genre, "alternative dance" oh, come on! Well okay, you vote no, but you shouldn't remove "merge" template just because you said no, there are a lot of other editors, that are not sharing your vote. "Indie dance came after New Order" well so what? Just because it is illogical it doesn't mean it is untrue; also alternative dance could be in Indie dance history section. Articles on Wikipedia are based (primarily) on facts and references - if reliable source says: "back in the days, Jesus was riding a dinosaur" we can say "that's complete bullshit!", but you know source said that. Back to alternative dance, another source said it is influenced by new wave (you reverted it), what source saying "dance-pop" or "electro" influenced alternative dance? Unfortunately, it seems "popularity" is also WP:OR. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alternative dance is genre of electronica why added trip hop and acid house

trip hop are hip hop music origins in bristol 1991 started in album Blue Lines 1991 not associated with style of alternative dance, acid house are a house music mainly used Roland TB-303 and Roland TR-808 Synth and alternative may refer to Big beat Electronic rock and Madchester

alternative dance started with new order in 1983 on album Power, Corruption & Lies this album is are origins of alternative dance is strongly influenced by elements of alternative rock, style of alternative dance early often is electropop/synthpop later influenced from house music techno music and pop music from EMF, Pop Will Eat Itself, The Shamen, Primal Scream, The Soup Dragons, and Jesus Jones is the band early of alternative dance, and for popular song of alternative dance include Right Here, Right Now and Unbelievable album Box Frenzy, Liquidizer, Technique, Schubert Dip and The Globe is album of alternative dance genre --Sard112 (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, alternative dance is some kind of characteristic music, but there is a question, if it is a genre or not. Piero Scaruffi in is book A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000 said: "The 'electronic body music' of these bands from Belgium and Canada laid the foundations for the alternative dance-music of the 1990s" - there are no doubts that alternative dance is a genre. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, Pierro Scaruffi's writing is interesting, but largely unreferenced. He seems to try too hard to include topics he doesn't seem to know much about, resulting in very uneven writing; he'll go on at length about music he's very familiar with, but barely musters a vague paragraph or two for anything else. So for those topics he more-or-less glosses over, I'm inclined to be skeptical of his expertise.
I think more importantly for Wikipedia, his books are in fact published by vanity presses, which means they have no more value than a fanzine or printouts of a personal blog. Libraries and bookstores generally don't carry books published by vanity presses because the books are unreviewed & unedited. Basically, Scaruffi paid a printing press to print up a copy of his writings each time someone orders one. So, I don't think his "published" works are very useful as sources here. —mjb (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha you're right! Also he's not mentioning alternative dance as a form of genre or music, he just puts "alternative" to the "dance" - same 'addition' as "post + disco", "post + punk" or "dance + pop", etc. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic states that Alternative rock mixed Acid house, Trip hop and New Wave? This explanation about of style music but i think not influenced from style Acid house and Trip hop or you think that is music style big beat is breakbeat genre style from acid house and electronic rock influenced by synthpop--Sard112 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're confirming ItsAlwaysLupus's original point, which (if I read correctly) is this: Allmusic (AMG) is a terrible source for genre info. The information in this article needs to not just repeat AllMusic's point of view. —mjb (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's maybe a terrible source for genre info, however still it is a RS (that's why we've still have dance-pop and post-disco articles here). Seems like bad luck for dance-pop/post-disco "enemies". ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Genre" issues.

[edit]

To sum up:

  1. I've simplified the infobox based on the scholarship.
  2. Piero Scaruffi does not qualify as vanity press. While self-published, he's revered as "a music and film historian, software consultant, cognitive scientist, political commentator, poet and possibly much more" by The Times.[2] He's also a Caltech lecturer on many things including pop culture and has been published and cited in peer reviewed journals as an expert on the above areas. As I've said countless times, please check the dead-tree sources including databases such as JSTOR before making widely inaccurate and often smearing remarks about the WP:RS material used.
  3. Following on, please state in simple bullet point format HOW what is being stated is different from what is stated in the sources.
  4. Allmusic "is a terrible source for genre info" is ridiculously WP:POV. Again, the source is revered for its quality, research, and has published many an encyclopedia on music. In fact, the actual alternative dance web page is cited by Oxford University Press' American popular music: from minstrelsy to MP3, Volume 1.

Also, Sard, relax. There is no need to get worked up as there is no case being made here, just pure speculation and hearsay.

PRB88 (T) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I'm wasting my time here, as you don't seem interested in assuming good faith or understanding where others are coming from, but I'll try anyway.
First, I didn't say Scaruffi isn't a reputable commentator or an expert in certain subject matter, or that he and Allmusic are without exception unreliable. I also didn't say that other sources used in the article, be they JSTOR-indexed dead-tree publications or otherwise, are in any way invalid. I also don't have a problem with the article; my comment was a response to ItsAlwaysLupus.
Re: Scaruffi, I'm merely refuting the notion, implied by ItsAlwaysLupus above, that Scaruffi's self-published works are reliable sources for any topic he chooses to write about, when in fact the content of those works is rather uneven and shouldn't be automatically regarded as being above scrutiny. At best, some of it is worth citing, some of it isn't. Some of Wikipedia's more bureaucratic senior editors would dismiss his self-published works out of hand, but I'm more inclined to at least read what he has to say first. More specifically, whatever peer-reviewed material Scaruffi has produced just doesn't make his unedited material a persuasive source for any implied claim that "alternative dance is a genre", only for the claim that Scaruffi says as much. As the article is currently phrased, however, it's not an issue; his comments are quite well attributed and are not presented as fact. ItsAlwaysLupus should give that his consideration.
Re: Allmusic, two things:
1. ItsAlwaysLupus seems to be motivated by criticism he's received from me & others over his defense of "post-disco" as a genre, when all other sources he's found so far just refer to it as an era, which (along with the content @ Allmusic itself) indicate it's purely an Allmusic fabrication, just glue in their genre hierarchy and a dumping ground for otherwise difficult-to-categorize artists & releases in the no-man's land between disco & house. Now, if you consider this questioning of Allmusic's authority "ridiculous" "POV" and can find some sources to prove it's a legitimate genre or you have any persuasive reasoning for why Allmusic should be taken seriously as a source for that particular "genre", then your contributions would be more than welcome on that article and its talk page. But your blind faith and generalizations about Allmusic's reputation aren't going to cut it there. Why should they?
Anyway "the beginnings of Alternative Dance" are part of post-disco, according to Allmusic, which is probably why this article has now attracted ItsAlwaysLupus's attention. He also has a bit of an obsession with infoboxes, where Allmusic-based genre info has been a point of contention among other Wikipedians in the past. If I interpret his post here correctly, he seems to raise the specific concern that Alternative Dance may be, at least to some degree, as much an Allmusic-invented genre as post-disco, so content using Allmusic as a source for referring to Alternative Dance as a genre should, in his opinion, be pruned. However, since you've got dead-tree, JSTOR-indexed sources which support Allmusic's point of view, that's great, and ItsAlwaysLupus needs to acknowledge them and be more cautious with his edits.
2. Post-disco isn't the only Allmusic genre that Wikipedians have a problem with, and the topic of Allmusic's inconsistent treatment of genres has come up multiple times, generally without resolution – except for heavy metal genres, for which the 'resolution' was not to blacklist Allmusic as a heavy metal genre reference, but rather to just encourage careful attribution to multiple sources ("Allmusic says this, and these other 5 sources say this other thing"). I trust you are capable of doing the requisite searches of the archives of WP:RS Noticeboard, WikiProject Music, and Infobox musical artist if you don't believe me when I say that I'm not the only one who thinks Allmusic's genre coverage has wide variations in quality and should be treated with skepticism. —mjb (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"he's received from me & others" you forget to write something like "and the whole world" or other blatant phrases– WP:POV, WP:PA and personal discrediting, lol. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ItsAlwaysLupus said "alternative dance" is a genre? When? I don't even remember this. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, guys

[edit]

It seems to me there's a wider argument with its own issues here and not related to the alternative dance article. Unless you have issues with this particular article, its research, and wording (issues which should be stated plainly), then I suggest taking the above discussions to the relevant templates and talk pages. This is NOT a general forum about Allmusic etc. Thank you. PRB88 (T) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ok as you want. to be as electronic dance music genre not other more from music style in alternative dance article you provide for correct in this article

i will be rest from english wikipedia work to thai wikipedia --Sard112 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


sorry but there are very specific article related issues here which it is appropriate to discuss on this talk page, please do some real research instead of repeating verbatim what Allmusic has to say, the article is notable for the number of glaring omissions it contains; for example no mention of the Happy Mondays or the Stone Roses, yet their influence on the indie-dance sound is widely cited.
Overall the article is not representative of the body of knowledge available on the subject. A quick search on Goggle books demonstrates this, for example: [3][4][5][6][7][8].
Also, there is quite apparently confusion with regard to the terms indie-dance, alternative dance, and underground dance music that should to clarified - if possible - as they are not interchangeable in the way this article suggests they are.
Alternative dance was a description given to us by the American music industry in the 90s as a catch all for the stuff they couldn't already pigeon hole using terms like house, techno, electronica, R'n'B etc. Again, try a simple search on g-books for the terms "alternative dance" or "alternative dance music", the terms are used in a wide range of contexts, it really is not clear that "alternative dance" is a "genre" of music. I have also searched JSTOR, and in specific, the journal Popular Music, published by Oxford University Press, and can find nothing that presents "alternative dance" as a genre of music.
It seems that usage of the term 'Indie-dance' precedes 'alternative dance', and was originally concocted by the UK music media to describe the dance/indie crossover scene that developed in post acid house Britain.
Underground dance music is still largely used to refer to electronic dance music that exists on the fringes of mainstream dance culture.
I would strongly suggest that the primary editor take more time in teasing out what the best sources have to offer on this rather than hanging everything on the small anonymous paragraph provided by Allmusic. 188.223.6.168 (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a former US college radio DJ who has been a fan of this music for decades (back to 1984 or so, when it was a component of the College Rock concept and no one was using the "alternative" word yet), I find this article to be a mess. I've already been overridden on the "New Order without Gillian photo-shopped beyond recognition" illustration, and I can't say i care much for the rest of the article either. I may wade in and try to improve it, or may throw up my hands and walk away; I haven't decided yet -- Foetusized (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the information is researched, sourced, and cited properly to one of the highest standards for genres. If you have any issues, apart from "It doesn't conform to my personal views", please list them here. PRB88 (T) 18:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"to one of the highest standards for genres" gosh, you do think highly of your research, sorry, but I beg to differ, I don't think wilful ignorance is becoming of any wikipeidan.
can you maybe address the "personal views" demonstrated in the small sample of sources here: [9][10][11][12][13][14].
there are many more items to draw upon, and more still that demonstrate how inaccurate this article is.
your stubbornness and arrogance regarding this matter does not serve the community interest. 188.223.6.168 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR tag

[edit]

I've tagged a part of the lead's first sentence. No where in the article cited does it say "alternative dance" is "referred to as underground dance in the US". Merely one writer's choice to throw in the phrase "alternative dance" a few times in an article that's about "underground dance music". Dan56 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_dance&oldid=1197475465"