Talk:Kraftwerk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial text

Concise informative page of great value. Thanks to all who contributed to it. I heard these guys perform late last century at the UEA and was amazed that they got an audience from 15 to 55 dancing ! --The Norwikian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norwikian (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 September 2003 (UTC)

Article Clean-up

A few problems still exist. One is that someone started a chronology of Kraftwerk singles but never finished. Unless someone has the time to write an article for every single then I suggest we delete it. Of course we should still leave Wiki articles for the non album singles and important songs such as The Model.

21:52, 14 Nov 2007

I think rather than have a number of stubs, the text for them could be grouped into one long article "Kraftwerk singles". The contents panel that gets automatically generated by 'alpha' subheadings would be ideal for accessing the desired song. If entries are ordered simply by song title then it would also allow for different versions (languages, edits, remixes) to be mentioned in the same subsection. Suplementray data (release date[s], chart position, etc) could be in smalltype below the song title alpha head and before the start of the chinwag regarding the song. Ricadus 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I made some corrections to the punctuation in the article, along with editing and adding some new quotes, and updating the tour sections. I wanted to show more of an authentic article; I felt that the added information would also provide a clearer picture what the group is, so that those who are new to Kraftwerk will have a glimpse into how awesome this group is! Good timing, since the 2008 Coachella gig is coming soon.Electrokinesis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Post 1981" section

This section has no refrences. I deleted some material in line with Wikipedia:

"All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel."

This has been reverted to the original unsourced material!--Bumfloof (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"2000 - Present" section

Somewhere in this period, during 2008 (although when exactly needs to be researched), Kraftwerk produced the track 'Aero Dynamik' for the PSP game 'WipEout Pulse', as one of it's 16 unique tracks. Obviously, this needs adding, but being a complete and utter novice I haven't a clue how, so I leave this in the capable hands of the Wiki Crawlers and hope it will be added soon! 86.141.8.229 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Aerodynamik certainly wasn't produced for the video game. It was released on the album Tour De France Soundtracks in 2003. I haven't played the game myself, but I'm under the impression the version in the game is a remix. The track could have been remixed specifically for the game, but definitely not by Kraftwerk themselves, in which case it wouldn't deserve a mention in the article, since Kraftwerk has been remixed countless times. (Vehement (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

"Videography" section

I removed the videography because Kraftwerk doesn't have one. Yes they made promotional vidoes but they were never released commercially. Linking to youtube clips of these videos is an infringment of copyright.

The videography was deleted during a tidy up of this article. Also because linking to youtube clips of these videos is an infringment of copyright.--Bumfloof (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the only official Kraftwerk video/DVD release is Minimum-Maximum.--Bumfloof (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Live Shows" section

I'm not very happy with today's new "stage shows" additions - far too much POV stuff (eg Robots being the "highlight" of a show?! It's not an enclyclopedia's job to tell people what their favourite bit of the show was - personally I far prefer to watch the human band members on stage. Also there is far too much waffle and speculation about who plays what. Firstly, there is nothing whatsoever remarkable in the modern day and age about pop bands playing to backing tracks or sequences! Why remark on Kraftwerk's use of it? Secondly, having been to Kraftwerk shows recently, it was fairly easy to spot who was playing what, by watching their hands on the controllers and hearing what was coming out of the speaker. I don't see what the mystery is. They've also explained in interviews how they sequence things live (choosing different sequences on the fly) - perfectly commonplace and ordinary with today's equipment. ..... in short, this should be an encyclopedia article with an objective, comparative view of what Kraftwerk do, not parroting fan-babble discourse.--feline1 12:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I finally got off my ass and re-wrote the live section. Help with tidying appreciated!--feline1 17:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

where would one find this updated live section that feline wrote?

it forms the "live shows" section of the Kraftwerk page! --feline1 23:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help to improve this article by adding reliable references.--Bumfloof (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We should also come up with some rules about what live shows are important. Now the article mentions their performance at the Flow Festival in Helsinki, but I don't see why this would be more important than the other festival dates they played in 2009. Now the article gives the impression that these are the only live dates they played. Also, do you think we should add info about their planned tours, as soon as I find the sources? There were live dates planned in 1978/79 in support of Man-Machine, 1983 for Tour De France, 1987 for Electric Cafe, US tour in 1991, tour dates in 1994 and 1996, a concert to open Expo 2000 and maybe others.(Vehement (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

"Music" section

I think this section should be incorporated into the main article.--Bumfloof (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable dates in info boxes

The cover credits of the three early albums give the recording dates/periods for the music, but after Ralf & Florian the dates in the wiki articles are pretty conjectural, based on the assumption that activity always begins the year after the previous album has been released and lasts until the year of the next release. This might be correct in some cases, but unless it is citable, or Kraftwerk's work processes become public knowledge, the dates given for Trans Europe Express onwards are unreliable as factual information and shouldn't be in a so-called info box. Autobahn and Radioactivity correctly ignore the recording dates and subsequent albums should do the same unless precise dates can be proven. Ricadus (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

live photos

currently the article has 4 live photos from 2004 ... any chance of having one from pre-Autobahn, one from the classic line-up, and one from the modern incarnation, as per the live section of the article?--feline1 16:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

'unnice' reference to Krautrock

Although Kraftwerk are a very important part of the German Music scene, I do not like the idea of them being a part of Krautrock. Very often Krautrock is associated with 'stupid', 'imitation' or 'unemotional'. And Kraftwerk were innovators. Maybe we should change that reference. --mac_c 15:18, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen Krautrock described as stupid or imitative - if it has been, that's just the opinion of those so-describing it, and shouldn't be taken as The Absolute Truth Of The Matter. In any case, I do believe that Kraftwerk's stuff at least prior to Autobahn is frequently associated with Krautrock (they were produced by Conny Plank, after all). The "See also: Krautrock" which is in the article right now is the bare minimum mention we could have of Krautrock; there should be more, eventually. --Camembert

Full ACK! I have not seen it like that before. Thank you! --mac_c 15:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discography format

I contest formal parts of the recent edits (diff here) to the discography by User:Snow1215. I prefer to warn and talk about it first instead of starting a revert war:

• I had put the English titles first, with mention of the original German titles; this was reverted. This is an English article, the articles titles/URLs are in English: the discog should list English titles first. (Isn't there already an official policy on that?)

• All added singles have been predefined as wikilinks to non-existing pages, which seems crazy to me. Wikipedia isn't an exhaustive database for every single in existence, and most or all of them don't need/deserve their own page, yet the red links just invite anyone to do just that.

• I had reformated all entries with the (year) in front of titles; this was reverted. But the years first is a clearer format (all years in a column), as well as allowing to better see a band's activity at a glance.

• The change from album title Kraftwerk to Kraftwerk 1 is apocryphal and revisionist.

• The change from "Tone Float - by then Organisation (band)" to simply "Tone Float - Organisation" is uninformative because only fans will understand it's not a double name or an alternative album name.

I intend to fix/revert the above points, which I currently see as problems or lesser versions. Comments or suggestions?

Also, on another level, I object to the edit's deceptive summary "added images and singles", when it was more like "added images and singles, reworked discog format (German title first, years last)".

←^#6  _{talk 21:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)}

I have no problem with reverting back to the old way. My apologies. Note: I will Wikify the song "Autobahn" as I do think it is worthy of its own page, since it is such a landmark song in music history (i.e. It is #16 on Q Magazine's "100 Songs That Changed The World") Snow1215 12:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

== Kraftwerk comparable to Beatles?

Yes they are comparable to the Beatles, the Kraftwerk influence in electronic music is enormous, impressive, you can talk to any genre based electronic subject, band or organization, from house to trance, from psycho to drum and bass, from pop to industrial, Kraftwerk is widely respected by the electronic scene, the Beatles were a group that defined popular music, and thats what they were supposed to do, sell, sell a lot, they are the band that symbolise the word "mainstream" they got into everbodys home, and they were heard by almost every person in the world, thats why they are the greatest pop group ever, Kraftwerk was not designed for that, they are the pioneers of electronic music, the creators, they made a revolution in the way of making music, they contributed hugely in the development of electronic musical equipment, they developed the use of perfect time sequencing in musical forms, they are the perfeccionism in the expression of music, they are pure art, and their influence is enormous, many of the electronic musicians today havent heard about Kraftwerk but they owe them everything, Hutters and Schneiders genius is equal or greater than Mccartneys or Lennons, i love the Beatles they are great, i really really really love them, but its real and coherent to put Kraftwerk and them in the same plane, we musicians owe them a lot.

In what imaginable way? The line in the intro compares to them to the Beatles in terms of influence in the second half of the 20th century. In simple terms, they clearly had no appreciable influence over music before they were founded.

Beyond this confusion, I don't see how Kraftwerk influencing electronic music's extension into more of the mainstream is anywhere close to the influence the Beatles had. There are several bands listed that note Kraftwerk's influence on them - most of which are in the broad electronic/techno category. The Beatles influenced a much wider variety of musicians - and ones which are much better known. Sampling of Beatles songs and covering is also significantly greater than for Kraftwerk. None of this is designed to detract from the real influence and talent of Kraftwerk. Rkevins82 23:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - in terms of their influence on musical/sonic/timbral form, I find Kraftwerk's influence much greater than that of The Beatles - the Beatles fundamentally always used the traditional 'beat group' line up of vocals/guitar/bass/drums/piano. They experimented in the studio in their later years, dubbing on the odd cello or sitar, but since string sections and Indian music already existed, this was more cultural appropriation than anything new... Between 'Autobahn' and 'Computerwelt' Kraftwerk devised an entirely new musical sound and form, which never existed before, and is now ubiquitous.--feline1 01:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL. How anyone can say that Kraftwerk are not influential is completely beyond me!

That's not at all what I said. Read my post and see that I was simply commenting that I did not believe them to be as influential as the Beatles. Rkevins82 07:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And I, for one, think Rkevins82 is right on. The Beatles influence was far broader in all aspects of culture. In any event, the statement is an opnion, not a fact, and since it's not coming from a notable music or pop-culture expert, it's original research. I've revised the article accordingly. Skyraider 16:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's arguable just how much influece each band had, but it's pretty solid that KW had a lot of influence in a lot of unexpected places. Hiphop owes a debt to Kraftwerk, certainly, and not just because "Planet Rock" sampled the heck out of TEE. That fact may be of some relevance. --Nulldevice 15:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"After all, Kraftwerk are one of the few bands in history who genuinely bear comparison to the Beatles. Not because of their sound or their image, but because, like the Beatles, it is impossible to overstate their influence on modern music." - The Guardian [1]

"‘The Beatles and Kraftwerk’ may not have the ring of ‘The Beatles and the Stones’, but, nonetheless, these are the two most important bands in music history." - NME [2]

I reverted your edits, you've got your evidence right here. ;) --Andylkl ^(talk) 16:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You've documented that the opinion has been expressed in notable publications. That does not change the opinion into a fact. If you want to quote those citations in the article, that's fine, but the article itself should not be endorsing an opinion.Skyraider 01:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added back the mention with reference (and reworded it a bit so that it's stating that the opinion came from The Guardian and NME). That should be fine now. --Andylkl ^(talk) 08:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Skyraider, to be blunt, I think you're talking rubbish! ;-) It *is* a widely documented FACT that countless musicians have testified to the influence Kraftwerk had on them. It's nothing to do with the "opinions" of stupid music journalists. --feline1 13:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. If you paid any attention to my edits you would have seen that I never disputed that Kraftwerk was influential (my edits preserved that fact). But "influence" in and of itself is not objectively quantifiable. As such, any statement that "A's influence is comparable to B's" is an opinion. I'ts perfectly okay to include the FACT that a particular opinion has been expressed by one or more notable sources. (Andylkl's edit is fine, IMO) It is NOT okay for a Wikipedia article to embrace an opinion. (See Wikipedia:NPOV ) Skyraider 16:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

you're trying to tell me that all those thousands of musicians who testify that Kraftwerk were a big influence on them aren't actually sure about it? that they might be mistaken? that it's not a fact that they were influenced by them, but merely their own opinion that they were influenced by them?! I find your reasoning rather ahine. Anyways - I think it is a nice context setter for the start of the article - if someone who knew very little about pop music happened to read about Kraftwerk, it would be a useful piece of info for them, that, within popular culture, Kraftwerk and The Beatles are generally regarded by just about everyone as having been immensely influential. For anyone more familiar with pop music, it's just a truism anyways.--feline1 21:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the statement as it stands now. By adding the phrase "considered by some" (which they are, as is Reffed), wikipedia remains NPOV. Is this deigned ok by everyone? Jdcooper 15:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A-OK here. :) --Andylkl ^(talk) 15:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's rather likely that Kraftwerk's early use of synth and sequencing technology and their production techniques were influential in a way that could be compared to the Beatles' lyrical and melodic contributions to western pop music. For example, just as Lonnie Donegan and Buddy Holly inflenced the Beatles, Kraftwerk influenced thousands of bands and radio programmers. Sales and celebrity are not the only benchmarks of cultural influence. Anyway the notion isn't as farfetched as it seems. Also, the trajectory of pop music in Europe has at times been different than in North America. Editors may want to avoid being too protective of the cultural dominance of icons like the Beatles and Elvis Presley. Both had enormous impact and made music beloved of millions, but they weren't functioning in a cultural void, etc and their live/visual presentations and charisma as performers had something to do with it too. Wyss 14:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The statmetns to this effect in the opening hae been pared down some, I partially reverted them and added 3 more refrences (I found three more that I did not add though one of them is not usable since its in romanian and on a buliten board). From the looks of it there are any number more to be found with little effort. Infact it seems to me that it might be an intresting expirement to see if there has been an article written about them in the mainstream press or music press in the last 10 years that does not make the "as influential as the beatles" claim. Dalf | Talk 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is more that it's a rather vague, handwaving statement - what does it really mean in terms of tangible effects? We're in the realm of general aesthetic ideas, inspirations, respect for them as artists... Best not to make too much of a meal of it, really, I feel. The current couple of lines are fine. --feline1 09:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Read some of the articles I added (I have about 10 more I did not add Google is cool), most of them are not vague at all. The reason so many people object to this is they misread (and sometime people misstate the claim) to say "same cultural, popular influence" which is absolutely silly. The claim is specifically impact on the musical form something which not only objective. Most of the linked articles enumerate the musical genera which find their origins influenced in part of in majority from Kraftwerk. This can be supported with historical examples from the origins of the genera and as bands listing them as influential. The truth is that in terms of modern music within the last 10 years Kraftwerk probably have a recognizable impact which is considerably higher than the Beatles simply because of the popularity of electronic music in recent times, as well as the number of years diluting the Beatles impact. The Beatles impact on modern music is significant but a major part of it is by proxy. It is some what like saying "the music of the 60's and 70's influence modern music". Additionally the Beatles influence was primarily on Rock music which has been most of the mainstream until recently so the fact that Kraftwerk's music actually lead to a number of new musical forms was not as significant until the resulting new genera of music became more mainstream. Now of course all of this is just my opinion and would constitute original research if I put it in the article without linking the hell out of it. However, the claim in the article is that music critics and the mainstream press frequently make the claim, the article does not attempt to justify the claim as I have just done, as such the 5 references to press/music critics making and in some cases defending or explaining the claim should be more than enough to meet wikipedias verifiability standards. If not like I said I have about 10 more I could add but I got sick of sorting out the {{cite *}} templates, and did not want to have a long link of references at the end of the first paragraph. Dalf | Talk 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that I reverted it to your version, I did not revert your edit (here I was reverting the eidt after yours further equivicating on the topic (changed often to sometimes). though I admit that was and still am slightly thinking about reverting back to the older version since it is "widely acknowledged" and can be documented as such. Dalf | Talk 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't really disagree! If you read my comments on this subject above (from 2005) they basically say the same thing.--feline1 09:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My oh my. What a bother Can't we just agree that both the Beatles and Kraftwerk were influential in there own ways? because they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamesMaxter (talk • contribs) 00:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Kraftwerk is/Kraftwerk are?

Following on from edits made on July 5th and 6th, is there a policy as to how articles should refer to bands in general terms? In US English I think one would say "Kraftwerk is a German avant-garde musical group which has made significant contributions" while in UK English it would be "Kraftwerk are a German avant-garde musical group who have made significant contributions" - with the first example referring to the group as a distinct and impersonal item and the second as the people making up the group.

Are Americans really that bone-headed in their use of language?!? /shudders/ In proper English, band names are plural nouns. Any Americans who disagree, I shall poke them with a big pair of SCISSOR and then we'll see who's wearing the TROUSER. :-)--feline1 14:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet another uppity Brit commenting on American English. Don't get your PANTY up in a bunch about it. UK english is just as rife with ridiculous spellings and nonsensical grammar rules as US English. A pair of scissor?? Using 'pair' with a singular noun is just stupid. In terms of bands, the best way to deal with this situation would be to use "is" if the band name is singualar and "are" if it is plural. Anonymous. 10:30, 14 August, 2005 (UTC)

No, you eejit, we don't say "a pair of scissor" in the British Isles - it was employing some hilarious parody. And it's not pants, it's KNICKERS :0) --feline1 12:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Just don't say that word with a stuffy nose when you're in Harlem :( --I am not good at running 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Harlem? sorry, I don't travel to Holland much ;-) --feline1 12:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Like Queen, Black and Elbow? --194.131.108.2 08:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. Queen are doing a reunion tour. Elbow are releasing their new album etc. Propose that for American groups, the article obeys American grammar rules, British/European bands the article obeys British grammar rules. Thoughts? (jdcooper forgot to sign edit)

Sounds reasonable. If the group is American, the article should be US English. If British, the article should be in British English. It makes perfect sense. --Der Sporkmeister 13:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but Kraftwerk are German, so this doesn't help us much LOL --feline1 14:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think articles on European bands should obey British rules, Americans can have Japanese and South American... Jdcooper 23:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Was going to make a snarky comment about americans perhaps not getting the better end of that but, I suppose I am not that bothered about is/are distinctions and it looks like this wikipedia does not caire either as long as we are consistent. Dalf | Talk 08:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Are the Kraftwerk fascist eurocentric?

"So you see another group, like Tangerine Dream, although they are German they have an English name, so they create onstage an Anglo–American identity, which we completely deny. We want the whole world to know that we are from Germany, because the German mentality—which is more advanced—will always be part of our behavior. We create out of the German language, the mother language, which is very mechanical; we use it as the basic structure of our music." (Hütter)

Are the Kraftwerk fascist eurocentric?Brian W 03:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

No. They like German. Twinxor t 06:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite. "Fascist" means hating things different to yourself. This is not the same as liking/reclaiming your own culture.--feline1 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Man Machine was the first record album I've ever bought, in 1978-9. I wish I would have never done it. I wish I had bought a Tangerine Dream album. English is a Germanic language, so I can't see what's wrong with them. Being a half German, I'm very proud of my backgroung, but, luckily, I have no hatred against Anglo-American culture. Some of the greatest influences on modern music (all genres) come from Manfred Eicher's ECM, and (former) Peter Baumann's Private Music. But fanatic fans of Aphex Twin (if not himself or some of his friends) are invading the web trying to rewrite history, by inflating the importance of the so called Intelligent dance music and its roots,such as the Kratwerk and Klaus Schulze. Brian W

Hütter never said he "hated" Anglo-American culture. Also that quote comes from a famous interview that Lester Bangs did with them in Creem magazine on the 1975 US Autobahn tour. You can be your boots he, ahem, recontextualized the words slightly, to make it all "oooh! nazis!" and controversial. As you may well be aware, post world war II, German culture was in tatters from the Nazis and was getting replaced with bland americanisms - krautrock bands were naturally keen to redevelop a non-fascist German identity.--feline1 10:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But fanatic fans of Aphex Twin (if not himself or some of his friends) are invading the web trying to rewrite history
I got a chuckle out of that due to redundancy and content. I IZ IN UR INTERTUBEZ REWRITIN HISTOREEZ!

I've never heard this stupid word -Krautrock- before 2004. In 1978-81, before the New Wave boom, in Europe we used the term "electronic rock" to refer to Kraftwerk, Neu, La Dusseldorf, Tubeway Army, Ultravox, Brian Eno's non -Ambient albums, Peter Gabriel's 2nd, 3rd and 4th albums, and even some ZZTop's albums in 82-84, Neil Young's work Trans of that era and the now forgotten french band the Rockets

I forgot to tell that the term "Electronica" is the nth stupid faked-diplomatic attempt to describe "electronic rock and pop" with a spanish sounding word. Brian W 10:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are beginning to descend into barely intelligable pigeon English. Which tends to make native speakers suspect that your concerns arise more out of your lack of understanding of what you are reading, rather than any actual real problem! --feline1 11:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are ridicolous. Native speakers of English can understand me. Why you don't simply admit that I'm right? Brian W 11:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you sound to me like you are drunk whilst sitting in front of a computer. I suggest you log off and go sober up.--feline1 11:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're likely right. The user in question called me a Nazi, accused me of being Italian (how is that an insult? Really...), is attempting to combine all EDM related articles under a term that has no common usage ("Club music"), and then proceeds to tell people to learn English when they, as native speakers, can't understand his incoherent rants. He also has a funny idea of concensus, and some strange victimisation complex that makes him think that anything thats not championing his views is Eurocentric, or as he changed to overnight, UK centric.

Thinking you're right when everyone else disagrees with you also suggests a terrible, terrible problem with comprehension. --Kiand 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Julian Cope wrote Krautrocksampler in the 90's, and NME had used the term "Deutsch rock" as far back as 1972. Krautrock is certainly not a new term, although admittedly bit silly. Also, I might be beating the horse by now, but I really don't see what you're upset about. Much of German culture in the 60's and 70's was an attempt to recreate a German identity after the Nazis. Look at the New German Cinema, for example. I see

Hütter's comments as being squarely within that ideal. Perhaps a bit bombastic, but hardly fascist. Deleuze 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you are free to continue pretending, after all, who cares of youngsters' music genres? Bye.Brian W 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The music industry, who rely on them to stay in business. Who cares of your made up ones? You, and thats it. Additionally, you have no idea of what age I am nor any reason to call me a "youngster" --Kiand 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, please be reminded that the talk page is for discussion about the article itself, don't stray into personal attacks. Btw Brian, what point are you trying to prove here? --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 19:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A good question what is the point here? I will try a summary:

Hmmm, they are Germans and wearing ties - so, they must be fascists! Furthermore they are singing in different languages - so, they are obviously eurocentristic..oh...Japanese isn’t an European language...who cares! Now, here comes the interesting news: The user doesn’t like Kraftwerk but Richard David James ( alias “Aphex Twin” ) hangs around in Wikipedia and tries to re-write music history in favour of his pet band Kraftwerk! He writes that Kraftwerk had some real influence on electronic music. What a weirdo!

This is strange stuff indeed --Sushi Leone 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it is racist and bigoted of anyone to say Kraftwerk are fascists. This is the equivalent of someone asking "Is John Zorn a usurer?" etc. I am sick and tired of the discrimination against Germans, calling them fascists and so on, we must put an end to this Oriental despotism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Speak and spell

I corrected this page a little while ago, The Speak and Spell was not used for the artificial speech in Computerwelt, it was a TI Language Translator. I can quote a source. The entry has now reverted to saying Speak and Spell again! Would anyone object too much if I corrected the page again?

no-one will object if you quote your source! If you don't quote it, don't be surprised if you get reverted again - wikipedia has to be verifiable, you see.--feline1 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A sample of the Speak & Spell is used at the start of Heimcomputer/Home Computer, I believe — that distinctive/annoying bleepy melody that was some kind of audio cue device for the intended kiddie user. --Ricadus 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've included a couple of hyperlinks to external pages that mention this. --Shalroth

No mention of the influence on hip-hop?

Seems to me as a fan of hip-hop, their beats have been sampled admittedly (by memory) by huge hip-hop legends such as Afrika Bambaattaa (Trans-Europe Express and Planet Rock), and piece sampled by Dr. Dre. This is mentioned on Afrika Bambaattaa's page, but not mentioned as far as I can tell here. I don't contribute much to Wikipedia, but coming across this page, I found it kind of odd while listening to "Hall of Mirrors" and being amazed how much it sounds like one of Dr. Dre's samples.

I think it would be a nice tribute somewhere to mention some of the groups they specifically influence, if, of course, you can find sources from the artists themselves, or maybe some credits in hip-hop albums that point to this information. Good luck.

ERic 10:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Eric

I don't know which of Dr Dre's sample you're referring to. However, both Kraftwerk and Dr Dre use (often) rather simplistic rhythms and melodies, so it could very well be a coincident. "Hall of Mirrors" speed-up certainly sounds like a hip-hop beat nowadays but. in my opinion, that's simply because both use a fairly simple and repetitive structure. The "bleepy" sound resembles computer sounds from games of the 8-bit and 16-bit era albeit "Hall of Mirrors" predates these by a few years. Nonetheless, that's simply how early chip-music and sound-effects sounded. Music on a Gameboy still sounds this way. This was rather considered a disadvantage (before it became its own genre/style at least) and I doubt several home computers and videoconsoles were designed to have Kraftwerk-like sound. Also while Kraftwerk is certainly popular world-wide and has set milestones, most younger people have probably listened to more videogame sounds and music than Kraftwerk. Thus, whether modern music refers to Kraftwerk or rather chip-music or whether it rips of either, can't really be decided just by listening to it unless it's blatant obvious. --217.87.74.166 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please listen to Jay-Z's song "Sunshine" and tell me that beat is not Kraftwerk's Trans-Europa Express ? - Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.138.30 (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's not. It's from Kraftwerk's "Man Machine". See the article (Always_Be_My)_Sunshine. This is also a blatant obvious case. --217.87.86.35 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Rip it Up And Start Again, the book on Post-Punk by Simon Reynalds discusses their importance in Hip-Hop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.197.237 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mix is not a remix album!

It features digitally re-recorded versions of a selection of songs which had originally appeared on their earlier albums. I would remove the tag myself if I had access to the page.

I agree. It is nothing like any other ablum. CoolGuy 05:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Exceller 8

I blanked out the page for "Exceller 8" after I realized that there are numerous compilations that have been released by Philips, Vertigo and Fontana that have no bearing on the rest of the official discography.

If we're going to keep Exceller 8, then we might as well add the following compilations too:

Highrail
Autobahn (French comp)
Doppelalbum
Elektro Kinetik
Robots (Cassette comp)
Pop Lions
The Model (Cleopatra comp)
Concert Classics

As you can see, this would be a waste of space and time. There is nothing special about Exceller 8, and it is not a real album, per se. I request the have the entry taken out completely.

So following that logic, why add all the names of relatively minor associates to the navigation template, in a confusing non-alphabetical order, including many who have no wiki-article? It seems just pedantic completism to me; most of the pre-1974 ones only assisted with live performances and contributed little or nothing to the band's legacy.Ricadus 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as the other musicians go, they were still part of "the group" whether they performed on record or not. Why should we deny this? I did realize that it was confusing and off topic to put the "Kling Klang Associates" info there. So that can stay out. I didn't think that the members' names had to be in alpha order; I tried to list them chronologically as closely as possible. Also, why do you have to have an article in order to add a name to the navigation template? That shouldn't matter; I've seen plenty of other articles that have this same format. Electrokinesis 07:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I vote to put "The Mix" back into the albums list. Since the songs are re-recorded, can it really count as a compilation? A compilation is a group of recorded tracks from various artists or from various periods of time, as in a greatest hits/best of release. Electrokinesis 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The version of Concert Classics which I have is a live album rather than a compilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.193.214 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Brain to MIDI" removed

"Brian to MIDI" is a live bootleg; therefore, I removed it from the list of compilations.

If any of you feel that it should stay in, then we should add a Bootleg section to the article.Electrokinesis 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous Additions

It is personal opinion that "The Mix" was quote: "...brought up to the production standards of Electric Cafe."

Also, "Expo Remix" is not an album.

I will be erasing this section.68.4.219.17 (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Other edits

I also erased this sentence in regards to TdF Soundtracks:

"Remixes from this album were released in 2007."

The first Aero Dynamik remix single was released in 2004, and the article already makes mention of the 2007 Hot Chip remixes. 68.4.219.17 (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammy Note

What is wrong about noting that Kraftwerk is a Grammy award nominated group?Electrokinesis (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it´s not an important information - especially since Kraftwerk do not appreciate awards and don`t show up at those events ( except when they are performing there..) --88.70.46.71 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

illusion of classic quartet??

"they were employed to create the illusion of Kraftwerk as classic quartet" - they may have been hired (and apparently rather annoyed when they discovered how much more Ralf and Florian were making) but 'illusion' implies they did nothing other than stand there for photos/concerts (a bit like the current 'other two'). Karl has co-authorship credits on many of the songs, and Wolfgang also clearly had more than an 'illusionary' influence.

Is Ronnie Wood an illusionary Rolling Stone? He is - as I understand it - also on a wage rather than a partner. Lovingboth (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"It" or "They"?

The classic question of grammar when referring to musical groups has become an issue here in this article.

I read that using the word "it" is common with British English.

I think using "they" makes more sense.

What are your thoughts on this? Electrokinesis (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, since "band" is a collective noun, it is technically ungrammatical to refer to a band as "they". I think that "it" should be used, unless of course there's something like "the members of the band", in which case we'd use "they". --Kakofonous (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote for a music encyclopedia, and much to my chagrin at the time, the editor told me I had to use "it" instead of "they" when referring to each of the bands I was writing about, unless talking about multiple members explicitly. I thought it sounded too formal at first, but I did eventually come around. You wouldn't say "The band named Kraftwerk were known for their electronic sound" but rather "The band named Kraftwerk was known for its electronic sound." I made some copy edits today to bring the first half of the article more in line with the second, in this regard. When referring to Kraftwerk as Kraftwerk or as the band or the group, always treat it as singular. When referring to the band members, plural. —mjb (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Band Template

Can we leave the band list as is?

I know some people don't think that it looks correct, but it shows the proper structure of the group.

For example, look at the entry for Nine Inch Nails, and you'll see what I mean.

Ralf and Florian are Kraftwerk; Fritz, Henning and Stefan are not members in the traditional sense. Electrokinesis (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this comment, but my undestanding is that Micahel Rother did actually record some material for the second Kraftwerk album, although these were never released. (Source http://www.michaelrother.de/en/bio.php) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.193.214 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Florian left band?

I believe this should be removed from the article due to it's lack of reliable references. There is no mention on official website (no surprise in itself as they rarely put any news on their site) neither is there any word of him leaving on the official fan site. Unless there are reliable resources, i do not believe the site provided can be relied upon due to it's basic nature. Possibly created as a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.62.226 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The email from EMI to AP reported 2009-1-6 sources from the web site of a Brazilian fan. The fan site is described official. However, it is not recognised as such by the group. There has been no statement made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guntherkk (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On 11 May 2009, the main image on Kraftwerk's MySpace page was updated. The new image includes Pfaffe in place of Schneider. This is the first official indication that Schneider has left the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guntherkk (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Pfaffe

Is Pfaffe member of Kraftwerk or just standing on the stage because there must be vier personen? --85.23.112.35 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He is touring member. It was FS wish to keep the lineup 4 in his absence and opportunity to do the visuals live.

Sorry for wasting time and space

I decided to change a lot of my older edits, as I now feel that they were wrong.

1) Edited group list again - No more separation between Ralf and Florian and the others.

2) Florian is still in the group as far as I'm concerned, despite what Dirk Matten says.

3) I was wrong about touring with Radiohead - the South American dates have been confirmed on Radiohead's web site.

SORRY! Electrokinesis (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

---

2) Florian is still in the group as far as I'm concerned, despite what Dirk Matten says.

Your personal view will not change reality. --87.182.63.47 (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice werk

I've added a couple of citations from the editorial of a British newspaper. Please note the obvious pun in the source and ensure that werk doesn't get spell-checked out to 'work'. CheersAstral highway (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are a good person

D —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamesMaxter (talk • contribs) 00:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

instruments/synthesizers

The page could use more information on specific instruments and synths, like what was home made and what was used. I understand a mini-moog was an integral part of their sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nustran (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See seperate article - Kling Klang Studio --Bumfloof (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No thanks

I was going to try to fix one of the messed up citations when my wife pointed it out to me this morning, but instead I see that someone has decided to sprinkle citation needed tags across every single mention of anything in the article. Since this is vaguely a current event, and I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of reverts going on, I think I'll just not waste my time first finding, then fixing a typo that will probably be obliterated in revert and edit wars to follow. Oh well. Zaphraud (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (

Well yeah, it's impressive, I'd never seen an article with so many citation needed tags, 65% of them aren't required at all! It would be great if they could be easily removed, but I guess no one has the time to do so. ≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Being in desperate need of a life, I do have the time. Started removing the most ridiculous ones.  Channel R   12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As soon as have more time I will help Channel_R - I`m also considering to re-structure the article slightly. I`m thinking about shortening and merging the "Band Formations" and "Live Shows" chapters (to get rid of the "clean up" template) and adding a new section "(technical) inventions" or something like that.. BTW: Those inflationary citation needed tags are close to vandalism..... --Sushi Leone (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New Album 2010

Kraftwerk are releasing a new album by 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.19 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Midnight Special

Kraftwerk did play Autobahn on the Midnight Special tv show in the Us in 1975 in Los Angeles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.19 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Velvet underground/Stooges/etc influences

I will remove the "influenced by sundry American artists" in the next few weeks if no-one comes up with any references. The citation needed tag has been there for quite a while with no changes to the text. I personally find the reference to those artists a bit odd, the supposed stooges influence in particular, since Kraftwerk is if anything older than they are and the music of early Krarfwerk about as far removed from it as it could at the time. I have been reading and re-reading a few books on the band over Christmas and simply cannot find any hint of these influences, most interviews with the band point to classical music and so does the educational history of messers Hutter/Schneider, in fact the only American pop group I could find mentioned is the Beach Boys and that is a one song reference. All net references point back to Wikipedia. reiknir (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've definitely read interviews where the Stooges have been cited as an influence. Partly this is the connection between Dusseldorf and Detroit as industrial motor cities, and the raw 'kling klang' beat of the factory. Similarly, the stripped back urban sound of the Velvet Underground could be easily argued as being a precedent. But I've looked everywhere and so far haven't found a citable reference except the Sept 2005 issue of Mojo where Ralf mentions listening in the car to The Ramones and "from Detroit the MC5 and The Stooges' sound." Interestingly, he goes on to confirm that "Ein, zwei, drei, vier" is a pastiche of the Ramones "onetwothreefour". I'll keep looking for better confirmation of the Stooges/MC5/Velvets influence, at which point this reference could be reinstated. Footnote73 (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

BBC Radio 2

BBc Radio 2 will show the story of Kraftwerk on 16 Jan 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.19 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Influences on other musicians" section

This section is filling up with unsourced stuff. We should have a go at removing the unsourced. --TS 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I made this suggestion nearly three weeks ago the article has visibly acquired more cruft in the influences section. It seems to me that the purpose of such a section is to establish the extent to which the artists have influenced major developments in their field and related fields. Kraftwerk's lasting and broadening influence on electronic music is easily established by the most prominent artists. Where it breaks down, I think, is where the article turns into a list of citations. This is where (and why) it needs trimming. I would particularly question the relevance of covers. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the user Tasty monster. It doens`t make sense to list all Bands / Artists which have been influenced by Kraftwerk - this could be a very very long list. I mean "the influence of Kraftwerk on modern music" is the topic of extensive essays of music critics and pop writers - it could almost be an own wikipedia-article. Apropos "long list": There a lot of cover versions of Kraftwerk`s songs around. Is it useful to list them all? I would suggest to remove the "influence" and "cover versions" chapters of the article. It is no problem simply to mention within the main text that Kraftwerk has been often covered and sampled. And the "influence" aspect should be placed at the beginning of the article (what is to some extend already the case) "in a nutshell" to give the wikipedia-reader a brief orientation. --Sushi Leone (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A serious problem with article structure

It's really weird that first subsection covers their entire career and the second one is about The Catalogue. Does someone really think the boxset of remastered material is as important as everything else they've ever done? I propose the info about The Catalogue and the hypothetic second box set be integrated to the biography. However, I want to give it a day or two in case someone can justify this weird recentism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vehement (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Other problems with the article: -The intro 1. Kraftwerk has up until 2008 been fronted by Ralf Hutter and Florian Schneider. All other articles contain some info about the group members in the lead. 2. They started as a krautrock/experimental rock group and their first three albums were instrumental rock music with limited use of electronics. 3. We should mention that their albums from Autobahn to Computerworld were highly influential for the development of electronic music. 4. Maybe mention how they slowed down after that, only releasing two albums of new material and one non-album single and the occasional tours. (Vehement (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Supposedly objective overviews like this one become contaminated with ephemeral information, added by fans eager to be first to contribute the latest "news". Now that the dust has settled a bit since the Catalogue appeared and we can perhaps see it's true worth relative to the earlier releases, these paragraphs could be rewritten and put further down the article. Is it an important release? Personally I don't think so, but it belongs to the trend for long-lasting bands to re-release remastered catalogue-like sets of their work.Ricadus (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

kraftwerk is to germany as beach boys are to california

I removed a section quoting Hutter as saying that Kraftwerk wanted to be to Germany what the Beach Boys were to California, because I think it's a misinterpretation from a quote in this interview:

http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/7727-kraftwerk/

Luvcraft (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In an interview for New Zealand magazine Real Groove (Nov 2008, p.41) the interviewer refers to an earlier quote where "Hutter had stated that he wanted Kraftwerk to be to Germany what the Beach Boys were to California...", although the origin isn't cited. Nevertheless, Ralf agrees: "That was a quote from the '70s where music or art is a product of people and society. So we are very... the German word is alltag. Alltag music. That's everyday music in the way of everyday culture so it's about cars, computers, relations, media and whatever..." Footnote73 (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The section 2000-present under Biography reads: "Kraftwerk won a lawsuit in Germany's high court on November 20, 2008...", while the first source for that statement [25] says exactly the opposite. So did they win or lose the lawsuit? Apparently they lost. Vinnylima (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The second source sais they won... --OpenFuture (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why all of this revisionism?

I've been noticing a lot of revisionist edits lately that deny true Kraftwerk history; erasing members, recordings, labels and side projects. These items are real pieces of Kraftwerk's existence regardless of personal opinion or whether they look good on screen or not. I also notice that people are leaving some bits alone in the Info box, but they erased elsewhere in the article. If you are going to erase something, then erase all traces of it. Otherwise, the article appears sloppy and confusing to new readers. Electrokinesis (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Power station?

Does anyone else think that here on the English Wikipedia it should be mentioned at the beginning of the lead section that "Kraftwerk" translates to "Power station"/"Power plant"? For example, the French version of this article has the French translation right at the beginning. Just strikes me as something that's missing here (unless I've missed it, which is quite possible). Of course I could add it myself, but this article seems quite well developed to me. Just wondering if there's a reason why this isn't mentioned? Thanks. Green Lane (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, this info was part of most of the older versions of this article (I have edited it). I don`t know who has erased it - and why! I will put it in again. --Sushi Leone (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the reply, regards Green Lane (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kohoutek-Kometenmelodie

The article Kohoutek-Kometenmelodie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Munich

Kraftwerk did played a concert in Munich in Oct 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.140.30 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kraftwerk - Neon Suits.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kraftwerk - Neon Suits.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kraftwerk - Neon Suits.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Falk Grieffenbacher

At the Düsseldorf concerts this year (well, at least at the Autobahn concert yesterday), Stefan Pfaffe was replaced by Falk Grieffenhagen. How should that be mentioned in the article, since it is not sure if he stays on stage and there is also no official statement by Kraftwerk themselves? -- 84.163.136.146 (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Dearth of early images

In the absence of any early images of the band (even at Commons) would it be appropriate to re-use some of the images at Commons of individual band members? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Florian not on 2008 tour--how to cite

I'm not sure how to cite the fact that Florian Schneider is not on the 2008 US tour, or at the very least failed to appear on its first date. I have submitted the fact to the usual news sources (Pitchfork), but it has yet to appear in a citable source. As for how I know, I was standing 8 feet from the stage, and in Florian's place was a guy in his late twenties. I've been a fan for twenty-five years, and can certainly tell Florian from a man half his age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.132.179 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 April 2008‎

UPDATE: FOUND IT. IGNORE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.132.179 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 April 2008

Live shows 1975

There is a Concert Classics live album made in 1998. It is recorded in the US in 1975. I think it is Ebbets Field in Denver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.19 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 September 2009

Blind Lemon Kraftwerk

Reading the following surprised me.

Kraftwerk won a lawsuit in Germany's high court on 20 November determining whether artists should have the right to sample other bands' music without infringing on copyright. Kraftwerk sued rap producer Moses Pelham for sampling two seconds of their 1977 song "Metal On Metal" in the track "Nur Mir" by Sabrina Setlur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 October 2009

Kraftwerk soundtrack query

I seem to recall a Kraftwerk track being used on a children's drama/mystery serial screened on BBC1 in 1978/79. Does anyone know the piece of music used and the name of the programme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 February 2010‎

Grammar

Needs fixing in article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement Band are European, so above should apply. Should read, "are an electronic music band from Düsseldorf, Germany" and not, "is an electronic music band from Düsseldorf, Germany." Should also read, "The band are notoriously reclusive" and not, "The band is notoriously reclusive" &c... Article perhaps largely written by Americans. Please read wiki guidelines above carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.230 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 August 2011

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kraftwerk/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

High importance, as much contemporary music is influenced quite heavily by them. Lunakeet 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Also High for WPGermany; they must be the first/only German band English-speakers can name. Yorkist (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain me this, please? (Karl, roman salute, no communist album?)

Hello, I love KW.

I have seen this on youtube video: bp6yZoMZ_Uk (starting at 3m 56s)

What's the "non communist album"? (look at top right in superimpression)

What's doing Karl with his hand? A roman salute? Adjusting the clock? Both?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.169.58 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 April 2012

Dear KW fan, he was adjusting the microphone 129.31.244.84 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Inappropriate section titles

Some of the section titles don't seem to actually describe the contents of the section, but are more or less vaguely related to the titles of the albums mentioned in the section. For example, the section "Trains, robots and computers" has nothing to do with trains or robots or computers, but refers to various album titles. Similarly for "In the mix" and to a lesser extent "Cycling non-stop" which does refer to cycling although I'm not sure what "non-stop" refers to. Other titles like "International breakthrough" and "Touring the globe" are more appropriate since they do refer to the section contents. Mnudelman (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's journalese. (The 'non-stop' is a reference to the lyric 'musique non-stop, techno-pop'.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Schult's influence, retro-futurism, and disco

During the last few days, I've been intensively reading up on Kraftwerk's history on the internet in German and English, but I'm notoriously bad at remembering where I've come upon a thing. Thus, it'd be great if somebody could find a source for the following relevant information: Ralf left the band in the early 1970s not only because he wanted to finish his university studies, but also because of creative differences with Florian. Ralf wanted to go entirely electronic, whereas Florian wanted to stay more or less of a Krautrock band and still use traditional instruments.

The turning point came when Emil Schult appeared in the band. He brought Ralf back and supported his wholly-electronic approach, leading to the split that also gave birth to Neu! and, eventually, their Autobahn (1974) album. A former student of Joseph Beuys's, Schult became sort of the "fifth member" of Kraftwerk, a lot like how Brian Epstein was the 'fifth Beatle', and just like Brian put the moptoppers into suits, Schult steered Kraftwerk into a highly stylized, minimalist direction visually and acoustically, and designed a pointedly retro-futuristic image and visual language for their 1970s concept albums, starting with Radio-activity (1975).

All of which went well with Ralf's intention of creating a new post-war genuine voice for Germany by referencing past world-renowned, urban and modernist German art movements associated more or less with an Art Deco and Streamline Moderne aesthetic of 1920s Weimar Germany, such as (on 1977's Trans-Europe Express, during the height of a 1970s Jazz Age revival that had been spawned by the 1972 film Cabaret) Bauhaus, Futurism, Fritz Lang, Neue Sachlichkeit, and (on Radio-activity) those "radio stars" of musique concrète from Marconi, Léon Theremin and Pierre Schaeffer to Stockhausen who during the first half of the 20th century had been the first generation of electronic music pioneers by inventing radio and tape machines (Kraftwerk thought of themselves as the more danceable second generation). All the "elegance and decadence" of a technological and artistic avantgarde destroyed in Germany and Europe by Hitler's Brain Drain and World War II, as Ralf keeps pounding home in interviews.

This 1920s-referencing retro-futurism continued with The Man-Machine (1978), where they referenced the constructivism of El Lissitzky, Alexander Rodchenko, and László Moholy-Nagy. Around the time of The Man-Machine, the press began noticing their "androgynous" make-up, which was in fact partly in order to make them look more waxen like robots and showroom dummies, and partly in reference to the heavy make-up worn by actors in 1920s silent German expressionist films, and you can already see them wear this make-up in the Bauhaus/Art Deco-styled cover art and promo material for Trans-Europe Express. In short, Radio-activity was the album in hommage to early electronic/radio pioneers, Trans-Europe Express was pretty much the sleak, streamlined Functionalism album (with its references to Fritz Lang, Bauhaus, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, etc.), and The Man-Machine was the blocky, cubist Constructivism album (El Lissitzky, etc.). The cover art/sleeve design and promo material of both TEE and TMM also share some affinity to the Neues Sehen movement in 1920s photography, where low or high angle shots and Dutch angles, much like constructivism, put an emphasis on dynamic diagonals rather than static horizontals and verticals. See for instance the one TEE promo shot of the band standing on a train platform in front of the Düsseldorf station sign, where the photographer was obviously standing on the rails below and looking up at the platform, where the image composition becomes dominated by two diagonals formed by signs that point towards the upper right and left corner, and two band member heads are lined up with one diagonal, and two other band member heads are lined up with the other diagonal. Another instance is the cover of TMM, where the band members are positioned such on a staircase that their heads line up not into a horizontal line, but into a diagonal.

Bottom line: During the 1970s, Kraftwerk didn't pretend to do just one-dimensional sci-fi optimism, but in fact subscribed to a more layed, more ambivalent nostalgic retro-futurism, which is more like a nostalgic hommage to what the past thought the future would look like. You can also see it in their wardrobe and hairstyles ever since Radio-activity that they were adopting a 1920s style, and also notice how most of their album design and promo material from Radio-activity and TEE, and also to a degree The Man-Machine is either in black-and-white or noticeably hand-colored like old postcards. It's sort of an artistic reflection of their ambigious and layered attitude towards progress and technology that Ralf described in a 1977 interview with the British magazine Sounds, where he pretty much said that progress and technology always come with great progress *AND* great dangers, but it's important to embrace and safeguard against both, rather than go to either extreme of either fetishizing progress and technology, or denouncing all progress altogether. Machines can be our friends, but only if we fully understand them and ourselves, and (as he's said in a 1990s or later interview) it's peaceful co-existence between man, machine, and ecology that we should strive for.

This ambiguity shows in Radio-activity, which is at once about deadly nuclear radiation (which Ralf has called the "nightmarish" side of the album) and about the great promises and possibilities brought by modern communication technologies. This ambiguity of not falling for either extreme entirely also seems to inform Kraftwerk's thematic obsession for kinetic movement, dynamism, travel, and journey rather than arrival, for the trip rather than where to go, for the fluid process of becoming rather than a fixed state of being, and with hybrid creatures such as primarily the iconic Man-Machine that are neither fully one or the other.

Regarding this ambigious approach where art should fairly reflect both the promises as well as the dangers of progress by emphasizing ambiguity, dynamic, and processes rather than fixed states, I also think it's notable than in 1981, Ralf told Melody Maker (article Electronic Zeitgeist, Melody Maker, July 4, 1981) that Kraftwerk's music and style were influenced by Theodor W. Adorno's aesthetic theory, particularly his book Dissonanzen - Musik in der verwalteten Welt (rendered by its English title Music in the bureaucratic world in MM, but it looks like MM either botchered Adorno's name in print, or it's the OCR that was at fault). Although Ralf never uses the word, Adorno would have called this ambigious approach (that could fully comprehend as well as tolerate the enormous ambiguity without falling for one out of the two extremes) dialectical. (I just think Ralf has never read much about Adorno's post-war works on German Ideology, or else he wouldn't have gone on in interviews about how he, as being born after 1945, doesn't wish to be bothered about Hitler when he says he wants to do very German things in his work with Kraftwerk that Germany can be proud of.) And in a 1987 interview with The Face, he even talks about Marx's ideological superstructure (a phrase which The Face admits it has trouble properly translating into English, as Ralf says it in German in the mostly English interview) as opposed to material reality, calling the first generation of eletronic musicians from the first half of the century all caught up in the superstructure, whereas Kraftwerk made songs about their own Lebenswirklichkeit within the industrial center that is the Ruhr area. (However, he makes little mention of whether he's ever pre-occupied himself with dialectical materialism, aka the insight that our first nature is always mediated via our second, an insight that keeps us from naively confusing one for the other.)

Curiously enough, Kraftwerk entirely abandoned this layered, ambiguous, pointedly retro-futuristic style and design with 1981's Computer World, now appearing as a blunt, single-minded sci-fi band (they've pretty much stayed that way with The Mix, Tour de France, and the new line-ups), and soon found themselves not the avantgarde any longer, but rather that with such a primitive, purely affirmative approach (which is how they are seen at least nowadays), they couldn't keep up within the newly emerged 1980s synthpop universe where electronic music began technologically and creatively developing much too fast for them. Yes, the title track to Computer World and the updated version of Radioactivity contain some harsh critiques on the dangers of technology in the lyrics, but stylistically, Kraftwerk has never been the same ever since 1981's Computer World, whereas with the three albums from Radio-activity (1975) up to The Man-Machine (1978), they were sort of a stylistic precursor to Terry Gilliam's retro-futurist Brazil (1985) as well as the Dieselpunk aka Decodence genre which has electro swing (that musically is not that much like Kraftwerk, though) as its typical soundtrack nowadays.

Anyways, regarding all the aforementioned, I think an own section on the band's Style and philosophy should be in order, in order to write some about their retro-futuristic rather than just sci-fi approach during the time of their 1970s concept albums.

Lastly, what's also missing from the article is how their music didn't come from nowhere, but pretty much took the formulaic, minimalist, and extremely danceable beat-driven approach of 1970s disco music and brought it to its extreme by literally turning it into machine music (particularly the Euro disco of Giorgio Moroder and Frank Farian's Boney M. relied heavily on electronic instruments and programmed monotonous drum machines). Especially the Trans-Europe Express album has over the years gotten many reviews that have compared it to something that's "sort-of disco, and yet it's not" (see also the official disco award that's already mentioned in the article). In other words, Kraftwerk's musical approach that they popularized and had their breakthrougn with was to bring disco's pre-existing formulaic, beat-driven repetitive patterns to the extreme, and thus not only stands as the one true ancestor to 80s-style synthpop but is also the missing link between disco and techno, while Kraftwerk's tendency towards avantgarde elitism, long songs, and concept albums are their only lasting heritage from their early Krautrock days, particularly that section of Krautrock that was a German version of progrock. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's two reliable English-language sources for Kraftwerk's distinctive retro-futurism with their 1970s concept albums that could act as a source for such a Style and philosophy section in the article:

• Uwe Schütte, Dr. phil., literary critic, arts writer and music journalist, reader at Aston University of Birmingham, and organisor of the first international conference on Kraftwerk in 2015: "At the same time, their visual representation – album covers and videos, website – is in a clear retro-style. [...] Why Kraftwerk create that tension between the nostalgic, technologically outdated and the futuristic so often is a puzzling question, and there are so many answers."[3]

• Mark J. Prendergast, music journalist/scholar, among other books author of The Ambient Century[4] [5]. He was interviewed at length for the three-hour documentary Kraftwerk and the Electronic Revolution, where he mentions their retro-futuristic style clearly referencing "an interwar Germany that never was but could've been, and now [due to their influence as a band] hopefully could happen again". Either he or David Stubbs of The Wire also talks in the same documentary about the weird "nostalgia for the future" that can be heard in their song Tanzmusik on one of their three early albums. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline's colors

Colors in timeline are not so useful if there is no legend that explains which instruments they stand for. I'm not able to fix it. --Almicione (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Almicione:  Fixed, thusly. (I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not "Ralf" and "Florian" are appropriate labels.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Genres

• Electronic
• synthpop
• avant-garde
• electropop
• krautrock
• art pop
• progressive pop

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.83.16 (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2016‎

References

Why have you deleted the above citations from the article and pasted them on the talk page?[6][7] If you look at Wikipedia:Citing sources it says: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." The citations need to be in the "article space", not the article talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well Toddy1, considering the infobox was overly crowded with citations and therefore difficult to even read, and considering consensus decisions for the inclusion of certain kinds of material (especially genres) in the article often takes place on the talk page, where users are often directed to see those justifications, it seemed wholly appropriate. I fail to see, however, why you reverted my recent change without even so much as acknowledging my reasoning—the infobox included too many genres according to Wiki guidelines, several of which only had one source and therefore weren't based on any overarching consensus—and proceeded to post an editing war tag on my talk page despite my having only made one reversion and explained myself according to guidelines.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1's edit warring tag was perfectly appropriate, as you made four reversion in quick succession. First was this one removing the genres that had recently been added, along with all the genre refs. Second was this same thing again. Third was this edit removing the recently added genres while keeping some refs but ditching others. Fourth was this same thing, with you finally logging in with your registered account rather than your IP from Cranford, New Jersey. So please don't continue to revert as it will be a violation of 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We should not shy from a page that is crowded with citations, if those citations are needed. But let's talk instead about which four genres to list in the infobox, as that number is the suggested maximum at Template:Infobox musical artist. Certainly we must include electronic music for their electronic soundscape experiments, and electro-pop seems quite appropriate for their tunes aimed for a pop audience. Only in their earliest phase were they seen as krautrock, using standard rock drums for just a short while. Hmmm, looks like three genres would be enough. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Crowded citations in something as menial and shorthand-intended as the infobox genre list seems ridiculous. And I'm frankly not interested in your personal opinion on which genres apply to their work, I'm interested in what genres are reflected by source consensus. The five I listed are all supported by more than one source, with "electronic" and "pop" being the two most common. Not sure why you've arbitrarily decided to leave out "avant-garde," either. The guidelines suggest 2-4, but 5 isn't exactly breaking the bank or filling the infobox with anything superfluous. 100.1.83.16 (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If the infobox says something, there needs to be a citation for it somewhere in the article space. It can be in the infobox, or it can be in the article. But unless there is a change in Wikipedia policy, "citations are in the talk page" is not acceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@GentleCollapse16:, I have looked at your recent talk page history, and the only edit-warring notice I could find was 16:43, 8 August 2016 which was posted by someone else and concerned a different page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the warning under discussion. Same person editing logged out. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

German for Power Factory

It would improve this article if somewhere it said that this band got their name from the German for "Power Factory". Vorbee (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Variants and subgenres in the infobox

I don't think we should include genre variants, subvariants and subgenres in the infobox. Specifically, electropop is a variant of synth-pop, which is already in the infobox. Pinging recent editors SummerPhDv2.0 — Gentlecollapse6 — Deblinis — Martinevans123: for their opinions.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If only we had a clear genre roadmap - a bit like the way parent and child Categories are expressed? I've never seen one. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. I think User:Synthwave.94 might also be interested in this discussion.

Yeah, genres are not my forte. Maybe Binksternet could provide some guidance.- MrX 🖋 16:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the infobox instructions tell us that the genre parameter should stay general, and that the purpose of the infobox is to quickly tell the reader what are the main points of a topic. Let's put further detail into the article body in the form of prose. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GWAR, again

With all of the previous discussion on this, we're still looking for consensus, rather than unexplained changes.

The most recent stable version said: "...electropop, hip hop, post-punk, techno, ambient, and club music, and inspired a wide and diverse range of artists."

An unexplained change replaced electropop with synthpop. A revert of that as an unsourced/unexplained genre change was reverted, saying it is sourced. Here's what the sources say:

• Guardian, "Why..." - "hip-hop, synth-pop, techno and house"
• Guardian, "Desperately..." - "House, techno, hip-hop, trip-hop, synthpop, trance, electroclash..."
• NME - "'robot pop'", "house"
• Washington Post - "electronic pop", "pop musicians", "'industrial folk music'"

That gives us hip-hop (x2), synthpop (x2), techno (x2), house (x3), trip-hop, trance, electroclash, "robot pop", electropop ("electronic pop"), and whatever the hell "industrial folk music" is.

Boiling that down, killing off the pseudo-genres and leaning heavily on the repeats, I come up with house, hip-hop, synthpop, techno. Trip-hop, trance and electropop are single mentions I leave open for discussion.

Failing any discussion, I will change the section to list those four in several days. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

After several days without discussion, I have made the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you just seriously try to describe Kraftwerk as a hip-hop and house group? Every one of those sources is clearly describing styles they INFLUENCED. The infobox genres are all sourced in the musical style section. Electropop was switched to synthpop to avoid redundancy. I’m assuming you’re completely unfamiliar with the group, and I’ll give it a pass. Please keep your absurd, disruptive editing to yourself. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the "Talk page". I'll give you some time to look around and familurize yourself before troubling you with discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

NME says they invented house. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

203.78.152.69 (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

203.78.152.69 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done as you have not requested any change. You are welcome to reactive this request and, below all of the text I have added, request a specific change, preferably in the form of "change XXX to YYY", "add QQQ between PPP and RRR", or "remove ZZZ", and provide one or more reliable sources if appropriate. LifeofTau 17:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources

I'm opening this section so that Deblinis can explain why they are removing multiple sources and so that they can obtain consensus for doing so.- MrX 🖋 19:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

See discussion below.- MrX 🖋 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts regarding useless multiple sources added in a row for each fact

1) user Mr X lazily reverts the entirety of the edits without paying attention to the edits summaries.

• Instance. In August 2013 for the "Influence and legacy" section, I included the Neil McCormick source, "Kraftwerk: the most influential group in pop history?" from The Daily Telegraph, under the <ref name="Neil">. As I saw today that someone else had put since the exactly same source 3 years later in 2016 in the article under another ref name, <ref name="Tele"> in the "Style" section without checking first if the source was already present in the article, I corrected this, withdrawing <ref name="Tele"> to only let appearing <ref name="Neil"> and I wrote in my edit summary "I had already included this Neil McCormick source in 2013" [8]. Mr X royally ignored this and reverted it.

2) Another huge problem from this user. He reverts without including an [[wp: ] rule and write arbitrary things like "Notability does not apply to references.". Where is the Wp rule to check this ? Deblinis (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing sources that are actual duplicates. Here is the policy on notability: WP:N. It says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Perhaps you are thinking about reliability, which is this policy: WP:RS.

You also made edits based on "One source per fact". There are valid reasons for citing several sources. For example, when using lesser sources, having several aids verifiability. multiple sources can also demonstrate WP:DUEWEIGHT, which is important when discussing styles and genres.

At this point, I support fixing the duplicate Daily Telegraph source. I think that any other removals should be discussed here first, with policy based reasoning. It doesn't hurt to have multiple source, but it can hurt to remove sources that are there for good reason.- MrX 🖋 20:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no point including 5 sources or more in a row for the sake of reinforcing a fact. Doing this may devalue what it is advanced in the wiki article. If contributors only chose good sources from well known critics, there won't be any use for a row of sources after each fact. Deblinis (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to the first sentence of the second paragraph? If we remove any sources, then we need to make sure that the remaining sources support the corresponding text. - MrX 🖋 00:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"The Stranger" source in the Influence section: lack of wp:notability and original POV: it is not shared by any established journalist

This sentence <<The Stranger called them "electronic music's Beatles and Velvet Underground: They both popularized it and inspired thousands of people to create their own unconventional sounds with synths and computers>>[9] is poor. The wp:notability of both the author and the website, is inexistent next to well known journalists such as Neil McCormick, and famous websites/magazines like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Observer, NME. Putting a marginal POV of an unknown author (who namedropped the VelVet Underground whne talking about Kraftwerk) on the same level as an important quote of a famous writer like Neil McCormick is not encyclopedic. Deblinis (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Pinging Martinevans123, SummerPhDv2.0, Binksternet, Ilovetopaint, Donnowin1. Deblinis (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Vote Yes (if you want to let this quote of the Stranger in the Style section) or NO (if you don't think it has its place in an encyclopedia)

• No it doesn't have its place, see above. Deblinis (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe - If the opinion is attributed, I don't see any problem including it. It is very common to compare music from that era to the Beatles and Velvet Underground. The point that the author seems to be making is that Kraftwerk's music is groundbreaking and influential. The Stranger seems to be an acceptable source, albeit not on par with some of the others. - MrX 🖋 20:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. Kraftwerk was contrasted against the Velvet Underground by journalist-producer Pascal Bussy in his book Kraftwerk: Man, Machine and Music.[10] However, we can still say that Kraftwerk has been compared to the Beatles, in that they both popularized the music genre they played. It would benefit the reader to have some other positive comparisons, such as the Beach Boys[11] and Devo.[12]
• No Very debatable comparison. There are sources that state Kraftwerk were influenced by the Velvet Underground but there are few direct comparisons between the two, especially in the manner stated above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe / no if replaceable – The basic sentiment is "Kraftwerk's influence is comparable to the Beatles and Velvet Underground". Nothing questionable about that. However, the comparison to TVU is not necessary, and if a similar message was conveyed by a more "established" RS, then it should replace The Stranger quote. There's other things in the "Influence and legacy" section that I'd be more concerned about removing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Associating Kraftwerk to the Velvet Underground is a first, there ain't any Kratfwerk specialist who has ever made that connection. This author is unknown; he is not recognized as an important journalist by peers. To make it short, he is not a reference in the world of journalism. This quote doesn't add anything. Including a sentence comparing Kraftwerk's music to the beauty of the Beach Boys's would have been far more relevant, as many critics have made that comparison...

In the present case, associating Kraftwerk with the Velvet Underground is wp:UNDUE in music journalism; one doesn't include views from the margins in an encyclopedia.Deblinis (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with removing it.- MrX 🖋 00:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Result

There's a clear wp:consensus. So, I removed it.Deblinis (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello! When was the founding date?

The article conflicts itself: the page says that they formed in 1970, but the infobox says that they formed in 1969. Then again, I suppose it could mean that the band was active in 1969, but only began performing as "Kraftwerk" in 1970. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tangerine dream?

It is puzzling that neither this article nor the article on Tangerine Dream refer to each other. Both are characterized as early, influential German electronic music. And there is no connection between them? Neither came "first"? What is the truth here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.97.85 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)