This is an archive of past discussions about Electronica. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yes, good idea - I forgot about that article, that would be just right for the other fork of the topic. But what about other forms of electronic popular music such as chillout, downtempo etc? Would you include those in electronic dance music too even though they are not so much used for dance? I think there is a close relation, though the relationship is not completely obvious.
I wonder what the best way to handle this discussion is. Several pages are involved - if the conversation is in all of those places it could get confusing. What if we post a note on various talk pages with a link to the one talk page where we focus the discussion? Perhaps the best place for that would be at Talk:Electronic music since it's the main topic. We could post the links here, on Talk:Electronic dance music, Talk:Electronic art music, Music genres, WikiProjects music genres, and WikiProjects electronic music so interested editors can join the conversation. It seems to me it would be best to combine the talks in one place. Does that sound like a good plan? --Parzival418Hello09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The ambient music article expresses, and I agree, that ambient music isn't necessarily electronic. Meanwhile, the chillout article (which seems a bit mixed up) suggests that "chillout" is a term used to encompass all laid back electronic music, which certainly makes a lot of sense, as I'd say its the most widely used definition of that (more so than "downtempo"). The downtempo article contradicts the chillout article all over the place, as each assert that they encompass a wider variety of styles than the other, and to be honest I'm not convinced there's a difference between "downtempo" and "chillout".
The only problem we have there is where would "electronica" redirect to? Chillout or EDM, or to the top level article? I've always been convinced "electronica" is just a term used by the media to describe electronic music which doesn't immediately fit into any other genre, but obviously this idea needs referencing. It is undoubtedly a common name, but what for? - Zeibura S. Kathau(Info | Talk)15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
(undent) As a temporary initial move, I've created a page for Electronic popular music - currently it re-directs to Electronica. That's not intended as a permanent setup but is the beginning of creating some structure for these multiple inter-related articles that duplicate or overlap their info. --Parzival418Hello06:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's Electronic Music then that's where it belongs. You can't make up a new name for it or use some geeky messageboard/discussion list's neologisms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.26.215 (talk) 15:07, July 2, 2007 (UTC)
You can't rename Electronic Music into other things. That is Original Research. Even consensus is not the defence of OR. --Susume-eat06:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You talk about unsourced, but you haven't come up with any sources to suggest electronica is a synonym for electronic music. If you read the above discussions, you'll see the most of us recognise it as a synonym, we're just not sure what for. We should establish this before merging anything, and definitely should not redirect and lose the content. Yes, in its present state, the article is unsourced, but most of it seems like it might be verifiable, and it's better practice to source it on merging. - Zeibura(Talk)07:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. I agree. ^-^. I tried two minutes ago to find the source. I found all music. It is not good, but the only thing. It list many electronic music genres, maybe 50 at the least. They are all Electronic Music genres but all music calls it Electronica.[1] Jaaa, the problem, am I doing OR by choosing this? Yes...... ^-^ Your point is good, thank you.
It was 1 year ago the suggestion was made. The word is "fence sitting"... I don't like this. "Let's a go!" is what I would like to do... If there is someone "fence sitting" please hurry...
As for the lost content, it is not sourced content, it's easy to say "goodbye!" to that. Keep a link to the old page in talk page of electronic music... anyone wants to use that.. please do... Don't worry too much about it if it is unsourced and "fence sitting"... that's my opinions... I think I need to take some holiday from wikipedia fufu nobu --Susume-eat09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Zeibura. These articles can be improved but we need to do it in an organized way. Tonight Susume-eat (talk·contribs) redirected two articles without consensus, causing information to disappear. It's been restored now, but needs to be handled more carefully. This is not about article ownership (as Susme-eat has written on the other talk pages), it's just about having some respect for the other editors working on these pages and discussing big changes first.
The other articles involved are Electronic music and Electronic art music. We should choose one talk page, either here or one of the others, and invite editors from all those pages plus Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres to collaborate on choosing the best organization for these articles. When we have a plan, then we can merge and reorganize the content into the new page structure, whatever that it. There is no reason for this to be in a hurry, but it's a good idea to get organized an start the improvements. --ParsifalHello07:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Please stop quoting Allmusic, it is a great, wonderful, useful and almost complete database of records, but it is not a musicology website. Music genres belong to musicology, and should, MUST, be dealed with musicological methods; is there anyone that can go to the nearest university library?
"Music scenes" is a topic that belongs to the "sociology of popular culture" and can be dealed also with journalistic methods.
Electronica is a useless word, it has no real meaning. Just my 1 cent.--Doktor Who10:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have access to my university library at present, but I'd like to scratch the surface of your agenda. Would I be right that musicology only defines "electronic (art) music" and "electronic popular music" as actual genres? This would mean that house, techno, drum & bass and so forth are all subgenres, or as you put it, "music scenes". - Zeibura(Talk)16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Request for Comments: Redirect Electronica to Electronic Music (closed as "keep title")
Resolved
– clear consensus to keep this article title "Electronica"; disucssion for improvement follows in the new linked section below
Note: since the RFC was listed, many references have been added to the article. Many more are on the way, along with copyediting for clarity. This article clearly is about a topic separate from, though related to, other electronic music genres. This is supported by multiple sources, including many books (more than 650 in an initial Google book search. More discussion on this follows in several talk page sections.
In particular, see the section below at this link:
Electronica is the synonym of Electronic Music. Redirect Electronica into Electronic Music. --Susume-eat 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Also the Electronica article is pure OR without one good source, defending it on loss of content baseless. It has been 1 year, how much discussion do you need? The word for this action in America is "being a pussy". They will say "get some balls" and just do it. End the "fence sitting". --Susume-eat07:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"Electronic popular music" is not the term from the magazine... that would be the "synthesis", the original research, like "electronic art music"... some wikipedia man invent a new main genre... Actually the real name is Electronic Music. The problem is maybe 3 versions of electronic music... that's why Electronic Music (disambugiation) Popular/Dance/Historical is the only way... Not Electronic Dance Music - it does barely exist in the media - Electronic Music (Dance) is not creating something new but state our opinions as editor that we seperating the dance of Electronic Music. Do not create a new genre name, that is NOT acceptable ^-^ --Susume-eat23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking long and hard about this, and I do not believe electronica is a seperate subgenre of electronic music. However I would rather do what Doktor Who suggests, create a new article called electronic popular music and have electronica redirect to that. If the distinction we're making is between electronic art music and electronic popular music as genres, then electronica should redirect to the latter. - Zeibura(Talk)16:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to say something about original research, as which I have seen Susume and Dr. Who labelling a lot of articles. Original research is not synonymous with "unsourced material", what it means is personal analysis, or "opinion masquerading as fact". It's not merely unverified, but also unverifiable. A good example of original research I remember is this section that was removed from house music, which is personal analysis masquerading as fact by prefixing each statement with "many believe". Unsourced material may still be potentially sourcable, as a lot of the content here is - it may contain OR, but it's not entirely. - Zeibura(Talk)17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I would like to say, the content in this article can be nuclear bombed easily and it won't matter... There is no sources... It's not so good an article... Nuclear bomb it...--Susume-eat23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Zeibura on both of his points above, and especially the differentiation of WP:OR from WP:VERIFIABLE.
I also concur with Dr. Who's suggestion of combining Electronica with Electronic popular music. Electronic music should remain separate because it involves music that is not part of popular music genres. Electronics in popular music is also a good idea, but not instead, rather in addition. It's a different topic in that it would be about the use of electronics rather than the genres of the music. --ParsifalHello19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Mark it as a genre Outside View: I think the suggestion to move the content of Electronic music to the History of Electronic Music is a good idea. I think the debate stems from this: From "outside" people (such as myself) electronica is a good descriptive word of a an over-all style of music - like rock or pop. From those "inside" the scene, they don't feel it describes their music at all. Genre is always controversial, so I think it is ok for an article and wikipedia to reflect that - mark it as a genre, then note that there is conflict over if it is a valid genre, and quote sources from both sides. People WILL be able to find multiple sources that say electronica is a genre, and multiple sources that say it is not. If there isn't a concensous in the music world that is difinitive, it isn't wiki's place to make a difinitive decision - leave that up to time and the music critics - 20 years from now all the genre terminology may change. I do think we should consider the fact that it is considered a genre (as long as we have sources that back that up) in popular use, at least in the United States. Many record stores have "Electronica" sections. Denaar21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would like to preserve the content of this article and similar ones, but in a different context. Let's see things under a different perspective: this term is used by music industry and music press as a "label", a useful umbrella term, with the purpose to use a short term instead of many words when a broader description of an artist's work would be the most appropriate behaviour. I do not think it is meant to refer to any peculiar musical forms, there are no well defined sonic features that fits only with the word "electronica", so it is maybe something similar to a music scene? I dont know, maybe. Well, the same applies to IDM, too. My 1 cent.
How is the Electronica different to Electronic Music? Please tell me this. I will say how is difference. Electronic Music shorten by many to Electronic. Someone add -a suffix. Electronic Music, Electronic, Electronica. Is too close in meaning. Too very close. Agree this issue? Please agree this issue, redirect to Electronic Music soon, then finally the issue is content. The seperate issue is lost content. Then when that is solve we redirect. Later create disambiguaton is an issue for Electronic Music article not here (another issue for the another day). "No fence sitting, please!!" ^-^ Hope to read more opinions soon ^-^--Susume-eat02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
"No fence sitting, please!!" What's wrong with a little fence sitting? Wikipedia is not in a hurry. While we sit on the fence, we can look for references so that the articles are not a result of the original research you have complained about.
The issue is, this is not about making a redirect, it's about writing the articles. You have made some very strong statements about your thoughts, but you have not added any useful content or references to the articles yet.
You are clearly intelligent and knowledgable. You say there is original research, but you have not shown us any references. I would be interested in seeing how you would write the articles, not just moving things around with Wikipedia tools.
If you believe that Electronica should be merged with Electronic Music, how would you merge the content from this article into the other one? What WP:Reliable sources can you share with us so we can see that you are not doing original research?
I am not arguing that you are wrong, I am just pointing out that it's not an easy question and there is not an obvious answer.
That's why I said please don't be in a hurry. We are willing to discuss this and we will find a solution. But using the "redirect" tool, while it's fun and fast, is not a solution. Different people mean different things by these words. We need to find WP:Verifiable references to support the information we present.
Electronic art music is original research. Wikipedia editors create this name. The true name is electronic music, as mentioned in every source in that article. Agree?
Redirecting Electronica to Electronic Music is not the Original Research. Does a redirect need source? Only common sense is require. Agree?
One user will type Electronica in wikipedia, then redirect to Electronic Music article. Really such a simple thing. Who will care? Not many I believe. Agree?
What is wrong with "fence sitting", is the opposite of "BE BOLD!", is the opposite of, "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!", is the enemy of "let me edit", is the cowardly approach, is not good, I hate it, you are delay, delay, delay, wait, wait, wait. Is so simple this thing, stop sitting on the "fence", or all of our bums will hurt. Zeron tolerance - no fence sitting. Agree?
What I can do is "bust it back to stub" base on no source. Then is no content. Then my common senses tells me, hmm Electronica, Electronic, Electronic Music, hmm, I dont need source only the common sense to redirect this poor Electronica article to Electronic Music. Thank you!
How is the Electronica different to Electronic Music? Please answer me this
This is an additional NO vote. "Electronic music" is simply the use of electronic equipment to make music. This covers an extremely broad range of equipment, technique, and musical genres spanning well over a century (refer to the Telharmonium of 1897). It includes abstract experiments in sound such as musique concrete, developed in the 1940's as an implementation of avant-garde philosophy. It also includes the use of nonrealtime as well as realtime analog and digital synthesis, including the works of Bell Labs researcher Max Matthews (http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/software/index.html) whose work was originally justified as potentially useful in optimizing coding of speech sounds to improve the telephone system. Electronic music includes W. Carlos's work such as "Switched-On Bach," which was a faithful rendition of centuries old scores written by Bach, using equipment clearly not available to the average person. Electronic music includes Leon Theramin's instrument, used in so many styles of music. All digital music synthesis is a subset of electronic music, including the modern classical, jazz, and rock & roll compositions realized using the Synclavier by artists including Frank Zappa. Electronic music includes Ray Kurzweil's response to Stevie Wonder's challenge to provide a better sounding and more versatile type of synthesizer than was currently available, which Stevie then used in his soul music. Electronic music includes ongoing research published in the MIT Computer Music Journal, whose latest issue (Summer 2007) includes an original paper on "A Camera-Based Music-Making Tool for Physical Rehabilitation." (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/comj/31/2) Electronic music includes John Chowning's frequency modulation algorithms which Stanford University licensed to Yamaha, and the use of Yamaha's instruments in the film scores of Vangelis, numerous pop ballads of the 1980's, and the rock songs of Mr. Mister. Depending on the interpretation of the term, electronic music might include Robert Fripp's use of delays to create "soundscapes" of abstract tonality, which critics called "modern classical music." (http://disciplineglobalmobile.com/archive.htm?artist=14&show=1193)
Now, can you tell the difference between this century old, extremely versatile range of research, instrument design, composition, recording technique, and performance history, on the one hand ("electronic music"), and a particular subgenre of popular dance music production - with a limited repertoire of instrumentation, philosophies, musical structure, and sociological relevance - on the other hand ("electronica")?
Concur - do not merge. That's an excellent summary of the reasons not to merge, and excellent references too. You might consider visiting Electronic music and adding that info and references to the article. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. --ParsifalHello09:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
May, June, July, August - still no source
I want to "bust this back to stub" today. Who doesn't want that? Please add source. I cannot find sources for any. I will wait. Next weekend, all unsourced writing on this page will be challenge. No "fence sitting", no delay. No! Only acceptable answer is third party source. Thank you! --Susume-eat04:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I cannot find one source for this article and I will challenge all unsource material on this page in one week time. Today it should be done, I am waiting the week ^-^ thanks!... --Susume-eat07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There are over 3000 books on Amazon [2] about Electronica and there are no resources? Even Rolling Stone uses the term "electronica" to describe musical acts. (Go to there website and plop the word into a search [3]). Here's Rolling Stone using "Electronica" as a genre: [4]. Like I said, I bet we can find 300 resources that call Electronica a genre, and another ??? that don't, or say its not a genre. If the music experts don't have a strong position on it, Wikipedia shouldn't either. Denaar07:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please the source is for the writing of our article... Long article no source - I cannot find none sources to prove none of this writing. If you find 1 I will try harder... Really amazon have many books of Electronica - it's Spanish books also Ars Electronics - something else... (a prize), not for this article ^-^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susume-eat (talk • contribs)
Susume-eat, the happy faces you added here are cute, but they don't make up for the uncivil and insulting comments you've written elsewhere. I'm not going to repeat the words you wrote, but they are available for reference if needed.
If you want to collaborate with people here, you need to treat us as people and not video game characters. The words editors have written here that you are so quick to remove and rename without consensus are not game points. Yes, WP:BOLD is one of our policies, but the most important are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CONSENSUS. So far, you fail on all of those.
You might get what you want for a while, stir up some trouble, get your way with a few articles, but if you continue in the way you've been going, eventually it won't work any more. The only way for you to really get your ideas into the encyclopedia is to cooperate with people. I hope you choose that path, but of course, you'll do whatever you do.
I'm not interested in arguing with you, I just wanted to say that stuff after I saw the happy faces, because they do not match the words you wrote. It doesn't help to smile at someone while you disrespect them at the same time.
OK, I'm done with that stuff. The name of the article is not a big issue to me, whatever happens with that, even if you change it for a while, it will return, because the references are real and reliable. The process is more important than the article name. I'm curious to find out how you fit in at Wikipedia once you gain more experience. I think you're smart, but smart without respect doesn't go far. I hope things work out well for you and the community. --ParsifalHello08:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
←Good work Denaar. Let's also take a look at Google Book search. At this link: [5] I used the search term "+electronica +music". The result is 650 books mentioning electronica as a music genre, including, for example:
Music and Technoculture By René T. A. Lysloff, Leslie C. Gay, a section about Electronica beginning on page 185
Madonna: An Intimate Biography By J. Randy Taraborrelli, page 327
This Business of Music Marketing & Promotion By Tad Lathrop, page 37
Popular Music in France from Chanson to Techno: Culture, Identity and Society By Steve Cannon, Hugh Dauncey, page 242
The Techno Primer: The Essential Reference for Loop-Based Music Styles By Tony Verderosa, page 28
All Music Guide to Hip-Hop: The Definitive Guide to Rap and Hip-Hop By Vladimir Bogdanov, page 75 and others
So, Susume-eat, here's a question - instead of trying to rename articles and delete information by claiming there are not references, why don't you instead do some research and find the references, add them to the article, and make it more accurate? That's not as much fun as fast disruptive page moves and redirects, but research is what makes Wikipedia better, not playing games with page moves according to your personal preference for what word is used for something. You've complained about Wikipedia, so why not do something productive to make it better?
You say you want to eliminate original research, but then you claim from your own "common sense" that Electronica is not a real word... and it turns out that you are the one with the original research, the very thing you've been complaining about. In 3 minutes I found 650 books that mention the word you say does not exist. Plus there are more that Denaar found, and plenty of magazine articles discussing this genre.
And, you might not like that All Music Guide is a corporate giant, but they have a staff of hundreds of music editors, and they have chosen to name their Electronic music genre section "Electronica", not "Electronic music". It's listed on their home page as a main top-level genre. They are not an academic source, but they are absolutely a reliable source. Here's what they say about Electronica:
Reaching back to grab the grooves of '70s disco/funk and the gadgets of electronic composition, Electronica soon became a whole new entity in and of itself, spinning off new sounds and subgenres with no end in sight two decades down the pike. Its beginnings came in the post-disco environment of Chicago/New York and Detroit, the cities who spawned house and techno (respectively) during the 1980s. Later that decade, club-goers in Britain latched onto the fusion of mechanical and sensual, and returned the favor to hungry Americans with new styles like jungle/drum'n'bass and trip-hop. Though most all early electronica was danceable, by the beginning of the '90s, producers were also making music for the headphones and chill-out areas as well, resulting in dozens of stylistic fusions like ambient-house, experimental techno, tech-house, electro-techno, etc. Typical for the many styles gathered under the umbrella was a focus on danceable grooves, very loose song structure (if any), and, in many producers, a relentless desire to find a new sound no matter how tepid the results.
That's not exactly a positive review, but it is a completely solid reference. All Music Guide is used by every major chain music retailer and online music retailer in the USA as their main source of music metadata. Here's the link if you'd like to check it out: Electronica Genre at All Music Guide. There is no way that Wikipedia should not have an article about one of the top level genres at all those mainstream retailers. --ParsifalHello08:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Parsifal, the sorces that you listewd are NOT reliable third party sources, they are not academic sources, journalists have no idea of what musicology is, they have their own limited POV, that can be summarized as follows: music genres=music scenes. THIS IS BLATANTLYWRONG! Can you understand this ? WROOONG! How long do you want to discuss it? Allmusic is owned by the music industry,and they invented that stupid electronica word to serve as commercial slogan (maybe trying to mime the suiccess of Metallica, arguably), they are NOT QUALIFIED to tell the world what the music genres are.Doktor Who09:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, you're saying two points here. One is that "musicologists" are the ones who define genres and that they do not recognize "electronica" as a genre. Where did you get that information? Please show me some musicology book citations with page numbers and quotations. That would be very helpful. If you don't have any references, then what is it you mean when you say that it is "wrong" to call Electronica a genre? What is your definition of "music scene?" Where does that definition come from? What book? On what page?
Regarding your other point, that All Music Guide is part of the "music industry"", how does that make them unreliable? They have a staff of music reviewers, just like Rolling Stone or any other music magazine does. Those reviewers write their genre descriptions, and those descriptions are used by mainstream retailers. That's a reliable source, according to WP:RS, which states:
Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand
Thousands of retail stores and online music websites in the USA regard All Music Guide as trustworthy and authoritative, so even though it's not an academic source, it can't be just ignored, at least not by Wikipedia. If you have academic sources that say All Music Guide is wrong, we can include both sources in the article, but we can't just pretend that thousands of retailers who specialize in music don't know anything about the music they sell. That's what WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiable are all about.
Please stop trying to fool me: You have to prove that there is a serious academic essay that states that electronica is a genre, not me. I'm personally in touch with a notable journalist in my current homecountry, as well as notable musicians, and academic staff. Universities and libraries are closed these days. --Doktor Who10:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to prove anything to you. WP:RS does not require academic essays, just reliable third-party sources showing notability. Since you're in touch with those notable people, why don't you ask them for the names of some books to support your point? Why are libraries closed? Is it holiday? In that case, just wait until they open, then you can tell us the references. Best Wishes... --ParsifalHello10:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Doktor, it seems that there is no point in us coming up with sources of any kind, since, by your logic, only those sources that meet certain standards will count. You are the one mandating these standards. And if that's the case, then it falls upon you to provide those sources that support your viewpoint and meet your standards, since the only ones I can find do support "electronica" as a valid term. –Unint13:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, there are serious academic sources that state electronica is a genre, I found this source on the musicology page, it is a peer reviewed journal: [6] On Google Scholar there are these gems: K McLeod - Journal of Popular Music Studies, 2001 - Taylor & Francis "Unfortunately for the record companies, as a mass money-making genre, electronica fell on its face be- cause the primary music promotional machinery within the..." (Have to pay to see the article). "This is not very surprising since the genre Electronica contains many artists that may also be classified as Acid Jazz." [7], now please note this was a very quick search, and I wasn't looking for the "best" articles - electronica genre pulled up about 1600 hits so there may be 1 - 2 really good sources there. But really - a reliable source depends on the subject matter. If we are doing a biography, and someone says in their blog "I am Latino" it is ok to use that as a source to state their race. Music magazines are acceptable for music topics like information on bands. Peer reviewed journals are needed for controversial science and history topics, but regular books and textbooks can be used for most data. Denaar18:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
^-^ f electronica in Perry Kingsley’s “Cosmic Ballad, - very famous man who make synthesizer music, electronic music. very good music! now here is the example to say Electronica is a genre, the same as Electronic Music or Electronic... Now with common senses and Dr Who's source below it is time to redirect or merge Electronica into Electronic Music (popular & dance) - I will not to do it - please - whoever will do it - let's a go! ^-^--Susume-eat00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Electrons
Let's seek at Amazon.com the word electronica;
results:
1) All Music Guide to Electronica: The Definitive Guide to Electronic Music (All Music Guides) by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, and John Bush (Paperback - May 18, 2001)
......
So, according to a famous allmusicguide book, electronica = electronic music
Many, really many of subsequent results refer to "electronics" handbook, textboooks and so on in Spanish language, indeed in Spanish electronica means electronics, a similar word in Italian, elettronica.. Does it suffice?--Doktor Who23:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Be Bold! BE Happy![8] <- List of Electronic Music genres, yet allmusic chose the synonym word "Electronica" as the master. Common senses here together with the Dr Who's source (thank you) says "Electronica - Electronic Music - Electronic - too much the same". Now I suggest the redirect of electronica go to Electronic Music (popular & dance) (because common senses say it the same music/same artist). If more sources really collect together in future (common senses say probably not very soon), then they can remake the Electronica page (be bold! - i like)...... That my idea - I will not do it - I just say my idea - whoever will do it - thank you! --Susume-eat00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Doktor, if you're willing to accept All Music Guide as a credible source, so are we. However, a book's intent should probably be judged by its contents (whatever they may be; I don't have a copy either), not just its title. And as for your second point, if foreign languages prescribed the everyday use of English words all the time, we would have a lot of trouble on our hands.
I offer one source:
“
The glitch genre arrived on the back of the electronica movement, an umbrella term for alternative, largely dance-based electronic music... that has come into vogue in the last five years.
Computer Music Journal is an MIT Press publication; the theme of this particular issue was "Encounters with Electronica". The key phrase is "alternative... electronic music", which is an explicit restriction to a specific subcategory of electronic music. –Unint00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Unint, that's a good source. Sometime soon, we should start adding the sources we're finding to the article. I don't have time much time to work on it right now, but I will help when I can; and I invite others to proceed with improving the definitions, history and references as well.
It looks like the complaints about the article's title is having the unintended effect of spurring on the creation of a much improved article. So that's a good thing. --ParsifalHello00:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I took this from | Iskur's Guide to Electronic Music. I agree with what he has to say and suggest that a section be added to include this viewpoint on the term: "Electronica does not exist. Not as a genre or a description. It was coined by the North American music press to refer to the second wave of electronic music's explosion in the late 90s, and exists purely as a marketing buzzword, not any actual quantifiable branch of music (the first wave of electronic music, incidentally, they called 'techno', and, having driven the word into the ground beyond all sense of meaning, they couldn't keep using it if they wished to re-market the music). Daft Punk, Fatboy Slim, Prodigy's 'Fat of the Land', Chemical Brothers and other big-time stars of that period were all called "electronica" at one point or another, but the person who really popularized it in the public consciousness was Madonna and her shallow, William Orbit-produced piss-poor attempt at appropriating trance music as something she invented (Ray of Light). She used that word all the damn time in interviews. God I hate her. So yeah: There is no such thing as electronica. I want each and every one of you to stop calling it that, because it makes you sound like a god damn retard. If you want to talk about the music as a whole, simply call it what it is: "electronic music" (or EDM--Electronic Dance Music--for the club/rave stuff). This is a PSA from the Official Electronic Music Genre Standards and Classifications Consortium." Milk05:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
That's really funny, and I agree with it too. Did he say anything about IDM? Another bullshit name to group artists good and bad.Joyrex20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
[Note: The above struck-through comments were inserted here by Susume-eat without his signature. I replied assuming they were by other editors, without checking the dates; I'll be more careful next time. I have removed my reply, because it does not apply to the current discussion. If someone wants to quote archived comments, that's fine. But they are not to be added back into the discussion, out of sequence, without a signature by the person who adds them. Good catch by Unint to figure out what happened.] --ParsifalHello05:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Those were comments from 2005, copied from further up the page (now archived). Not sure what they're doing here, but since you've replied (and archived the originals) I'm crossing them out rather than deleting them outright. –Unint04:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello sorry my forgot to sign my name. I will leave it here. It must be kept for history of the talk . Thank you. --Susume-eat06:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will leave the comments you added from the archive. However, my reply stays deleted because I thought I was replying to someone who had today added those words. Since that was not true, the reply was not in context and does not apply.
Susume-eat, I removed my comment from the user sub-page you created. It is not acceptable to use the comments of other users from talk pages in your user space in that way. Articles are different - whatever someone writes in an article can be copied anywhere in Wikipedia. But talk page comments of others should not be changed or moved around for your own purposes. Especially, placing a page in your user space with the name of another user on it is simply not OK.
However, if you want to refer to the comment I removed, it is in the page history. The way you do that is to use a "diff". Here is an example, and it includes my comment you want to reference: [10]. About my comment: I am not trying to hide it. It's in the history for anyone to look at. But it does not apply to the current discussion, as I explained above. --ParsifalHello07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
electronic music
–noun
electronically produced sounds recorded on tape and arranged by the composer
to form a musical composition.
[Origin: 1930–35]
Main Entry: electronic music
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a genre of music in which sounds are created and modified
with electronic instruments, synthesizers, computers, etc.
Main Entry: electronica
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any of various forms of dance music featuring electronic instruments and synthesizers;
also, collective term for electronic instruments used in making music
Etymology: electronic + -a
From the dictionary.com
Iskur's Guide to Electronic Music: "Electronica does not exist. Not as a genre or a description. It was coined by the North American music press to refer to the second wave of electronic music's explosion in the late 90s, and exists purely as a marketing buzzword, not any actual quantifiable branch of music (the first wave of electronic music, incidentally, they called 'techno', and, having driven the word into the ground beyond all sense of meaning, they couldn't keep using it if they wished to re-market the music). Daft Punk, Fatboy Slim, Prodigy's 'Fat of the Land', Chemical Brothers and other big-time stars of that period were all called "electronica" at one point or another, but the person who really popularized it in the public consciousness was Madonna and her shallow, William Orbit-produced piss-poor attempt at appropriating trance music as something she invented (Ray of Light). She used that word all the damn time in interviews. God I hate her. So yeah: There is no such thing as electronica. I want each and every one of you to stop calling it that, because it makes you sound like a god damn retard. If you want to talk about the music as a whole, simply call it what it is: "electronic music" (or EDM--Electronic Dance Music--for the club/rave stuff). This is a PSA from the Official Electronic Music Genre Standards and Classifications Consortium."
Parsifal/lancelot, please stop fooling me. Please stop trying to show to the world that i'm an idiot. As usual, you are able to offer only online sources. -Doktor Who01:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Lancelot, that's a good one Dok... but Parsifal is a different guy...
About the references, I'm adding books as well. Those are available in the library if you'd like to read them.
Also, the reference you describe as online is from the MIT press, it was published in a paper in 2002, now available online but originally in print. You can probably find that in a university library if you want to. --ParsifalHello02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop fooling me, So, you want that we believe that it took just 2 hours in a sunday evening for you? You found the books in less 2 hours? That's really funny--Doktor Who02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It may be funny, but I know how to do research. Also, I've been working on this for while, since the debate started, not just today.
I'm sure they say the opposite of what you are stating. Listen, I dont believe you, whatever you say.I've fully lost my trust in this site, you are sockpuippets.Doktor Who02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
From [Wikipedia:About] "The process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out, with articles more fluid or changeable for a long time compared while they find their "neutral approach" that all sides can agree on." I suggest letting Parsifal go ahead and make updates to this page over the next week (Parisfal - if you need more time due to work/study, please set some time frame here). Then at that time, lets re-review the article, and we can move information to the talk page if we want to discuss it (instead of deleting it). We have an editor who wants to put in good work here - adding reliable sources. That takes a lot a time, and over time the article will be changed anyways. Even in afd they allow time for editors to find and add sources. Remember that information should be imediately deleted if it is libel about a living person. Denaar04:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Doktor Who: You are seriously stepping over the line with respect to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please make sure that you're familiar with those policies, cool off and come back when you're ready to discuss the content without attacking other editors. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And who has decided that Parsifal is the only editor allowed to edit this article? he asked me to provide sources just 1 dayu ago, he's tricking and fooling me, I dont have to apologize. You all have.dont fool me. I dont care anymore about -this site, i will never support anything here anymore.I am considering to leave you all, so, parsifal/gene poole you can write everything you want, forever, I will never read you. Liars.Liars, liars.If i could meeet anyone of you in the real life, I would kbeat you all.Doktor Who05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that Parsifal owns this article. WP:OWN applies equally to everyone. But you really need to lay off the drama, man - your accusations of "tricking and fooling" are quickly getting old. What is wrong with actually discussing the content issues here? Nobody has said you can't or shouldn't do that - what we have said is for you to stop attacking people, stop accusing everyone of conspiring against you, and start actually discussing the issue. If all you want to do is attack other people, I'm sure there's a nice admin out there who'd be happy to block you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont care, anyone can understand that this time im joking. But you are in bad faith, I was supporting Susume-eat's work here, but 2 guys don't let us edit. thats all. And Im leaving this site. I dont care anymore. site that tend to loose ppl that work for free, is a LOSER site.Doktor Who05:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
4000 byte anonymous message - deleted by user Parsifal but now readded January 2007
After reading the many discussions, I have come to the following
conclusions about Susume-eat and other comments
Susume-eat is a good faith contributor who has driven everyone to work
harder at the articles.
Susume-eat is not a natural English speaker and therefore there may be
nuances of meaning that he was trying to express that don't come across very
well to native English speakers. I think there have been some
misunderstandings that have been taken as threats. Rememeber guys, please
assume good faith.
Susume-eat may not actually understand foul language well enough to realise
that it would be offensive. I have seen his IP, it is from Japan, in Japan
you may not know that there aren't swear words there. You can say a word
like kuso which means shit and it's not really offensive to anyone. So
please don't judge him on his language.
I have noticed that Parsifal replies to every Susume-eat post criticising
him, assuming bad faith every time (even over silly little mistakes), a lot
and throwing pages of wiki rules at him. Well obviously if you're reading
Susume-eat's posts and there's someone criticising everything he does then
it will influence other editors to look down on him.
It seems to me Susume-eat thinks the genre name "electronic dance music"
is original research. He's saying that we as editors are inventing a new
name for dance music. As I can see it, all Susume-eat has done is made a
disambiguation page for Electronic music, and added all the necessary
articles to it. Brilliant work, people have been crying out for that on the
talk pages for a year at least. Nobody is trying to prove that Electronica
as a name doesn't exist apart from a certain lovable time travelling BBC
doctor.
Susume-eat's two references were fine. Webster's dictionary is an
absolutely excellent reference. Ishkur's guide to electronic music is
notable enough to have its own wikipedia article plus despite the fact that
Ishkur admits his bias, it is no concern to us, as it doesnt matter what he
thinks of his own work, the guide has become notable enough on its own. I
would love to see these references worked into the articles, however the
articles may turn out, along with academic sources, and various sources from
many different kinds of publications.
Susume-eat appears to hold the deeply held view that electronica is the
same as electronic dance music and the same as electronic music (dance and
pop). I'm not saying Susume-eat is perfect, and I don't agree with every
single thing he's done, but after seeing Parsifal attack him so often I
think Parsifal has been going too far. I would encourage Parsifal to back
off and ignore Susume-eat instead of replying to everything he says to make
him look bad. Susume-eat is one of us: a fellow good faith contributor. He's
from Japan (awesome!), a different culture to ours, and he seems cool imho.
If you reply to this trying to criticise this post or Susume-eat, don't
even bother, we'll just know that there's a character assassination going
on. I suggest people reply to this only if they have something purely nice
to say about Susume-eat, and to encourage him, with no sarky remarks.
Susume-eat, danke, for your very hard work. we would like to change your
work a little. Do remember we can all work together and have a great time as
well.
Everyone, let's get the bad blood out of the way. Please say something
nice to Susume-eat, and to each other. I'll start: KieferSkunk, thank you
for your dilligence. Parsifal, thank you for caring so much about the
electronic music articles and for adding sources and for your hard work.
DrWho, your views are unique and interesting, thank you! Unint and Denaar,
thank you for your contributions! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.16.162 (talk) 08:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
New discussion on article content issues
Okay, so we hope that the above dispute is resolved and we can move on at this point. I'd like to invite everyone involved to start a new discussion on current content issues for this article. Since right now, it appears to be User:Doktor Who who disagrees with current consensus, I'd like to ask him to start off the discussion by stating what he feels is wrong about this article's content and subject. (From what I could see, he asserts that Electronica is not properly considered a music genre by musicologists, but I'll let him speak for himself on this.)
I'd like to advise everyone here that if you have difficulty understanding someone because of their writing style or their command of the English language, do NOT violate WP:SKILL, but rather ask for clarification, perhaps by trying to restate what you think they said. Also, remember that anything that goes into the article must be verifiable, so in making your arguments (especially to change current consensus), you should cite the references that you intend to use in the article to back up your assertions.
I'm offering to help mediate this discussion to keep tempers in check and to keep people focused on the article content. I'll keep an eye on the discussion as time allows - in the meantime, if tempers start to flare, step back and think twice before you post. This applies to everyone. Keep in mind the following policies and guidelines: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:AAGF, WP:COOL and WP:POT.
I'd like to thank KieferSkunk for organizing this discussion area and offering to mediate if needed. I added some more references to the article, rearranged some of the sections for clarity and added a section on global influences. Much of the writing in the article still needs work, but it's already improved. I put my wiki-time on the research and edits today, so I'll keep this short. Further discussion is welcome. --ParsifalHello06:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have checked recent changes of the article, and i feel that now it begins to go towards more appriate terminology and wording. Apologies if I cant help much for now. Doktor Who23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you feel better about the direction of this article now. I think the references make a big difference. I've found some more good ones but haven't read them yet and add that info when I can. There are also improvements happening at several other electronic music articles. As part of that it seems like some content from those might fit better here. We just need to make sure whatever is added is verifiable. --ParsifalHello18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
May, June, July, August - still no source 
