Talk:Electronics in rock music/Archive 1

Archive 1

Improve page

Please improve this page if you can. And do not delete that page. Thanks. Have a nice day. Reorgart, 12.6.2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Electro rock → Electronic rock —(Discuss)— Commonly used name. Most articles that link here seem to use electronic rock over electro rock. --Zazaban (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Early History

Did electronic rock and Computer Music REALLY start as early the 1940's? Umma Kynes 11:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Method electro rock?

I know they incorporate rock elements, but I really don't think they're seen as electro rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.80.245 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

POV

The following is just pov: However, it was not until the invention of MIDI, enabling many electronic instruments to be able to communicate with each other and letting instruments to be played and recorded much more easily and efficiently, that electronic music and electronic rock were fully integrated into the music scene. - --Doktor Who (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

This is quite and important article but pretty clearly a very low quality one. I am putting on my list for a major clean-up, and I think in this case a rewrite, taking into consideration some of the points made above. However, before I do I would welcome views on how this should be organised, is a chronological list by decade the only or best way? Suggestions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This now done. As I didn't get any input on the organisation I just pretty much went with what was there.--SabreBD (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Genre

In reference to the recently added OR tag: I don't know if this is a genre. Before the late 1970s probably not, anymore than we would think that bass guitar or drum rock were genres. The issue is complicated by the fact that from the late 1970s there are clear sub-genres, like synthrock. Can this issue just be resolved by removing the genre box? I have no objection to that.--SabreBD (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to note: as I did not get a reply I removed the genre box and the tag and I hope that this resolves the problem.--SabreBD (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a genre. It's a rock subgenre. I think a genre box should be added. WhatGuy 18:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Its is by no means clear that it is a genre and having the genre box tends to encourage complaints about the cohesiveness of article and accusations of OR.--SabreBD (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

No argument on the removal of House music, but now I have no idea what the alleged synthesis is. Is this the same problem as in the section above? I removed the genre box, but it was added back. Having the genre box implies a unity for which there is little evidence. Without the box it looks much more like the impact of electronic instruments in making rock, for which there is lots of reliable evidence.--SabreBD (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another example, Big Beat movement as "electronic rock." Most of that music uses syncopated rhythms that were derived/sampled from funk and soul, it's a break-beat aesthetic, in the case of Prodigy etc. there may be a "punk" ethos, but Prodigy originate in the UK breakbeat hardcore scene. The term appears to be an anachronism, and via the editorial narrative it is now retroactively applied to music/acts that appear never to have been defined as electronic rock (at least not in the source I see listed). If there are sources that reflect the analysis presented in the article i would be happy to look at them. I also see material that has been lifted, verbatim, from other articles. --Semitransgenic (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a case over big beat, although there is, as you say more of a punk influence. A surprisingly large number of terms used to describe music are anachronisms in the sense that they were not used at the time (for example Garage rock, Surf rock), but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be the subject of articles as they are used now. Sections are composed of summaries of other articles, as per WP:summary style and I see nothing wrong with that as long as they are reliably sourced and relevant. I also didn't get to the heart of the claim of synthesis, what conclusion is being drawn here that goes beyond the sources? Certainly some progressive rock, synthpop and industrial music have all been called "electronic rock" - and probably others genres as well, although perhaps not on the same page, but again most articles pretty much fit this description. That said, I do wonder if this would all be better served at something like "Synthesizers in rock music", which would resolve some of these issues.--SabreBD (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

it seems the conclusion is that there is a genre called "electronic rock" and that all of the acts/types of music listed are electronic rock. When I say anachronistic I mean there was a point in time when the term synthrock or whatever, had relevance, and was used to try and categorise certain rock music that had incorporated synthesisers, then things moved on and the term was dropped in favour of a label for the next latest trend in music, which probably would have been synthpop. It is an outmoded definition, by perhaps as many as 30 years, everything that happened since then has its own label, they are not all simply outgrowths of electronic rock. If it was simply an historical analysis of the incorporation of synthesisers by rock acts, it would work, but all this other stuff that is lumped in under the unmbrella of electronic rock i think is a bit problematic from a musicological perspective. My overall view on articles that are trying to survey the history of a genre, or similar, is that they should reflect the consensus of existing RS publications on what a particular subject's history is, and then draw upon those sources, instead of conducting the research ourselves. --Semitransgenic (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think they all had different terms and electronic rock as well, but that is not to say that it means they were the same genre. Why don't I alert a few of the interested parties on this and see if there is any interest in a name change? I would suggest that the subject is notable, but the danger of confusing all this as one genre is going to remain while this information (or anything like it) exists under the title electronic rock.--SabreBD (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

sure lots of labels, that's what we are dealing with, but surely the purpose of any musicological endeavour is to represent an accurate picture of a genre's development. I mean how long were we telling people house music is electronic rock? ; ) sure let's get input on this. --Semitransgenic (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We didn't get any response to this, so I am going to remove the genre infobox, which had been agreed above, as I think this contributes to the impression of OR.--SabreBD (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to sort out whether this is an article about a genre, or one about the role of electronic instruments in rock music. Because right now it's both and as a result it's a mess. It's hard to figure out what the core of the topic is supposed to be, and I find I can't really do cleanup because items that look very tenuous in relation to one focus is prudent for the other. Part of me suggests tearing the article down and rebuilding it from the ground up wholesale. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a major problems here is that editors tend to treat this as a genre, when it pretty clearly is not one. I am going to look through for some core reliable sources on electronic rock. Failing that an option is to redirect this to something like Synthesisers in rock music or Use of electronic instruments in rock music, although unfortunately any usable title will probably be problematic.--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree something like "Synthesizers in rock music" might be a more apt title. We can hash out the most suitable title once you get back to us on what the core refs say about this topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Having looked through a relatively large number of books and magazines, it is fair to say that the term "electronic rock" is extensively used. However, there is very little evidence that it is a genre (no genre article in Allmusic for example). Things called electronic rock include (particularly) 1970s Krautrock, but it seems to be used generically to refer to any rock that uses synthesisers. What I have not found it anything significant that ties, say, 1970s synthesiser-based progressive rock to contemporary indietronica. I think it might be best to opt for the "synthesisers in rock music" option (or similar). My only reservation is that there may be an issue over whether that would include things like the Mellotron, and laptop.--SabreBD (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Electronic rock → Synthesizers in rock music – The main reasons are given above: the current title suggests a cohesive genre, but the literature does not support this. The new title would help avoid the synthesis tag and better focus the article. SabreBD (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: keep Electronic Rock. It sounds much better and it's shorter. Deepblue1 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I see where you're coming from (most people wouldn't consider the Mellotron or Mike Pinder to be "electronic" musicians) Shorter title is easier to discover and consistent with the many other "xxx Rock" articles. Also, "Synthesizers in rock music" to me sounds like a list article of which synthesizers were used. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Infobox

Add infobox to article! --XXN (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We tried that, but it just promoted arguments about whether the subject is a genre. The consensus is not to have an infobox.--SabreBD (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)