Talk:Aphex Twin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Tense

What's the advantage of this edit? Popcornfud (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The immediately preceding clause reads Darby and Middleton convinced him to release the record, so it makes sense to begin the subsequent sentence with the same subject. What is the point of this edit? The edit summary does not justify it and makes an unfounded assumption. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The argument you made for perf in your previous edit summary was this: Perf used for good reason; this account was given in a significantly different time frame. But the use of perf here doesn't help convey this, because it doesn't tell us anything about when the statements were made.

If anything, as perf focuses attention on the resulting situation rather than on the occurrence itself, it's potentially misleading - as a reader I assumed James said this later than the statement from Darby. I had to read the sources to see it was the other way around.

If it's that important to you to convey that these statements were made 20 years apart, why don't we just write that? Sequence them in chronological order and use "later" or write in 2018, Darby said, etc. Why fudge it? (And why do we care so much that the statements were made in different timeframes anyway? It doesn't color their reading.) Popcornfud (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The tense used in the status quo is sufficient to indicate that James' statement was made on a separate occasion to that of Darby. The exact circumstances are not relevant. You will note from Perfect (grammar), or from any textbook, that one use of perfect tense is to indicate events that occurred earlier than the time under consideration or to backshift an action or description; thus your claim that it doesn't tell us anything about when is inaccurate.

The version you introduced in this edit gives the impression Darby and James made these statements together in the same interview, or at least contemporaneously. This is not the case. Your edit summary: "no reason not to use simple past" does not justify your change, and that change leads to a misleading implication. What is it for? Cambial — foliar❧ 18:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's go along with your premise that it's really important to make clear in the prose that these statements were made on separate occasions, and in which order the statements were made. (It's not - it changes nothing about what the statements tell us - but let's pretend anyway.)

Now consider two options:

• A: James was initially resistant, but while he was tripping on acid backstage at a DJ gig, Darby and Middleton convinced him to release the record. Darby later said: "I think if he had not done that trip that night there may have never been any Aphex Twin." James has given a similar account: "...they made me sign the contract when I was off my face. I was tripping and they're waving this money and a pen at me. It's a bit clichéd but it's the way they got me to sign."
• B: James was initially resistant, but while he was tripping on acid backstage at a DJ gig, Darby and Middleton convinced him to release the record. James said in 1995: "They made me sign the contract when I was off my face. I was tripping and they're waving this money and a pen at me. It's a bit clichéd but it's the way they got me to sign." Darby said in 2021: "I think if he had not done that trip that night there may have never been any Aphex Twin."

You're arguing that A is clearer? Popcornfud (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We should not create a misleading impression when there is no reason to do so. Why do you want to alter this paragraph to use a different tense? It produces no perceptible improvement. If you have no answer to that question there is little to discuss here. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm arguing for the clearest, most concise presentation of information. I think I've made a good case for why B meets both our goals, I can see no advantage in A, and I'm baffled by your position. And I'll say it again: before we even got into this debate, I thought the statements were made in the other way round. Your version has already created a misleading impression in at least one reader, however much of a dummy you may suspect me to be. Popcornfud (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We agree on some goals, though I would add readable to the list of desirable attributes. "In 1974 Adam said A, in 1976 Bob said B, in 1979 Charlie said C, in 1980, someone died" etc is not fluent and readable. The version you suggest above, different again to either of those you proposed in edits, is certainly accurate, but is less readable and includes information I thought we both agreed is unimportant. If your aim is the most concise presentation of information, including irrelevant detail is not the way to achieve that. The status quo indicates concisely the relevant part (the two statements were made on different occasions) but not the irrelevant part (James' interview took place in 1995; Darby's interview took place in 2018). Are you now saying you believe it is important to be clear what year they made these statements? - Why?

This is unnecessary, in my view, because your claimed concern does not give me any concern. James has given a similar account communicates the relevant facts (1. what James said 2. He said it on a separate occasion to what Darby said). Despite your assertion to the contrary, I care not a jot about in which order the statements were made. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you now saying you believe it is important to be clear what year they made these statements?

No.

As I've said repeatedly, when these statements were made - simultaneously, 20 years apart, what order - doesn't matter.

You are the one who wants to indicate that these quotes come from different times, but your version does not actually convey this. In fact, the use of perf, and the placement of James's statement after Darby's, only makes it it sound like James has possibly issued some sort of follow-up response to Derby. This is, believe it or not, how I initially interpreted it. Which is wrong! Why fight for this ambiguity?

My proposal was an attempt at compromise by 1) simplifying the prose 2) satisfying your need to make clear that these were not simultaneous statements. Popcornfud (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I take your point about the Coogan-style roboticism, but it seemed to me the dates were the clearest way to achieve your goal of clarifying that the statements were not simultaneous. If I had my way, for what it's worth, this is how I would actually write this section:

James was resistant, but while he was tripping on acid backstage at a DJ gig, Darby and Middleton convinced him to release the record. According to James, "They made me sign the contract when I was off my face. I was tripping and they're waving this money and a pen at me. It's a bit clichéd but it's the way they got me to sign." Darby said later: "I think if he had not done that trip that night there may have never been any Aphex Twin."

I think this balances readability and conciseness, logically sequences events (statements) in the order they occurred, and eliminates avenues for misinterpretation. Is this really not the most clear, concise and readable solution? Popcornfud (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The slight miscommunication on one point is entirely my fault: in this edit summary I wrote "significantly different time frame" which is true but is not what I actually thought or think is relevant, which is: "separate occasions" or "separate interviews". Sorry for not being clearer.

You contradict yourself slightly above. You say I sought to indicate that these quotes come from different times, but [my] version does not actually convey this. You then go on the use of perf, and the placement of James's statement after Darby's, only makes it it sound like James has possibly issued some sort of follow-up response. This then would seem to be conveying the fact of separate occasions. If, as you make clear above, the particular chronology is of no concern (I hadn't even considered the dates before today tbh), then why seek to change it at all?

As I state above, I think it better to keep the first sentence and second, both sourced from the Darby interview, together. This is of greater priority than adhering to a chronology of statements that is immaterial to the text. To me, original version reads like James made his comments at some unspecified point in the past, but not the same as Darby's comment. You say it suggests otherwise - but you agree that the inference from your reading is of no consequence at all. So what's the value in altering it? Cambial — foliar❧ 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason I changed it was simply to avoid the use of perf, which is less concise and adds needless complexity to prose in 99% of cases on Wikipedia. I still don't believe it offers any advantage here, and I don't see why saying "later" instead doesn't make us both happy. For the purposes of telling a story, I don't get see any advantage in grouping claims that come from the same citation - never heard of that before. Popcornfud (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The aim simply to avoid the use of perf is not a reason to alter the text. The tenses are used to indicate two occasions. The “needless complexity” you write of consists of one word and a grand total of four characters. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Welsh parents.

Hello, Was reading through an article recently about Richard D. James sister Julies James who is his sister. The article confirms that both her parents are Welsh and she talks about her brothers birth, so logically both of his parents are Welsh too. I think the article should be updated to reflect that, any objections? Can be confirmed multiple other sources. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.161.99 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit

Concerns this edit by User:Cambial Yellowing. Per their edit summary (and WP:CE), it was basic copyediting. Their edit also removed an alias though, which I don't think is copy editing. Copy editing, as I understand it, is grammar, spelling, readability, layout, etc. From what I can tell, the alias is also valid, see references in Aphex Twin § Image and pseudonyms. Additionally, I'm not sure I agree with them removing the interwiki link for "idiosyncratic", because it is far from an every day word. Nor am I sure I agree with their removal of the comma in "In 2010, James said". Maybe the edit was sloppy? (Because they also removed the entire title from a reference, only to readd one soon after.) --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:12A1:8A87:91E6:6908 (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe your understanding of grammar is sloppy? In the English used on this article no comma should be placed after a short time phrase clause. “Idiosyncratic” is a normal English word. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Idiosyncratic" doesn't need to be linked. But regarding In the English used on this article no comma should be placed after a short time phrase clause, I've never heard of this — is this explained in any manual of style somewhere? Popcornfud (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Any grammar textbook on comma usage in English aka “British English”. Time phrase commas are used in American English. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a textbook or source? Popcornfud (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

see e.g. [1]. The Oxford University guide is more explicit: Do not use a comma after a time-based adverbial phrase.

After playing tennis all day she was tired. ✅

Whenever she went to the cinema she ate popcorn. ✅

In 2010 the most popular game among children was hopscotch ✅ Cambial — foliar❧ 10:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm surprised to hear of this as commas after time phrases are extremely common in the British sources I read. I suspect this rule will go the way of the dodo. Popcornfud (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of "jungle"

i don't believe it's accurate to include that he worked in the genre of jungle. out of thousands, i've heard only one song in the genre of jungle and one in the genre of gabber that sampled afx, in genres where sampling of other songs is quite prevalent. plus, very few of his tracks even include a breakbeat or jungle subbass. yes, he has experimented on the genre in things like hangable auto bulb and drukqs, but i would be hesitant to say his tracks are jungle... with perhaps the exception of what i would say are most notably s950tx16wasr10 and blackbox life recorder 21f. why is intelligent dance music not listed as a genre that he produces if he is listed on that article as a major contributor to it? Dracodrago1330 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This site is based on reliable secondary sources. Six reliable secondary sources report that he makes jungle. His is idiosyncratic jungle, just as his techno is also unique. There’s plenty of jungle on Richard d James LP and drukqs and on various projects like smojphace and the tuss. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

drukqs is primarily drill n bass but i would say it's a lot closer to jungle than smojphace, which is by no means jungle at all. the run the place red remix is raggacore and i'd like to see anyone play it at normal speed to a bunch of junglists. do also take note of afx's rym (https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/aphex-twin) which quotes jungle for none of the albums you mentioned (does it for any?) but it does list idm for almost all of his albums. Dracodrago1330 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not use rym here because it is User-generated content and is an unreliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

and yet discogs is referenced several times throughout the article to collate information on releases, even though it is explicitly referenced in WP:UGC Dracodrago1330 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)