Talk:Livetronica

Livetronica is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Rock music

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles

Electronic music

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles

This page was proposed for deletion by Gyrofrog (talk · contribs) on 14 November 2012.
It was contested by Cavarrone (talk · contribs) on 2012-11-19

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 October 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Untitled

Yeesh. There's short articles on Livetronica, Jamtronica and Trance fusion. I don't think there's any difference between these. Is there anybody who cares to distinguish between these as genres, rather than different terms for the same thing? As there's no consensus on what this genre is called, I don't think we can just redirect the other two terms to a single article. Or can we? I'm going to add a mention of the competing terms to each article.

For what it's worth, it feels to me like trance fusion is almost exclusively a Disco Biscuits thing (i.e., STS9 et al. would more likely be called livetronica/jamtronica). Any cites out there for other bands labelling themselves as trance fusion? Any cites for any bands labelling themselves as livetronica/jamtronica?

Looking around at self labelling on band websites and myspace pages: STS9: Electronica/rock/crunk Particle: Electronica/funk/jam band The New Deal: Live Progressive Breakbeat House Disco Biscuits: Electronica jam fusion & jam band electronica experimental 192.104.39.2 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Origins in Infobox

The infobox said the cultural origins of the genre were "early 1990s in the UK". I don't think this is true, and changed it to "late 1990s in the USA". I realize there hasn't been much written in the way of reliable sources on Livetronica, so references either way (US/UK, early/late 90s) are hard to come by. However, I am not aware of any artists that would be classified as "livetronica" from the UK. All of the major livetronica groups are from the US or Canada, and I don't think any of them started their careers before 1995 (if they did, they didn't achieve prominence until the late 1990s, and I don't think "livetronica" existed as even an embryonic genre label until well into the 2000s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A TERRIBLE NON_GENRE, GUYS...and an example of just the sort of thing Wikipedia does badly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particle NOT a Founding Father

Particle is in no way, shape, or form a "founding father" of livetronica. I have flyers with "livetronica" from 2000, before Particle was even formed. When they came out, both the Disco Biscuits and the New Deal were firmly established national acts. To try to insert Particle among those two bands is simply wrong. Sorry. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Lake Trout

Though Lake Trout went on to more vocally emphasized styles in the early '00s, in 1998 they were probably the first band to get consistent press on a live electronic band, then suggesting the title would ultimately be "organica." The Biscuits shortly followed suit, and the New Deal also formed at this time and instantly became the first established "jamband" to play livetronica exclusively.

It would take a little digging, but I have plenty of old articles buried somewhere that puts these bands as the originators if a source turns out to be necessary. Not that anyone is disputing it. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prod and the notability of the term

One 2005 article from the Oakland Tribune does say "(Sound Tribe Sector 9) is perhaps the dominant figure in livetronica, a term used to describe jam bands that incorporate elements of electronic dance music. (...) Although rooted in the underground club scene, livetronica is growing to such an extent that the uber-mainstream magazine Entertainment Weekly recently did a feature on the genre. (...) "It's a really vague term to describe a lot of bands," Brown says. "In the long run, (our musical mix is) just right for us. We want to do what we want to do, and it's hard to do that when you are pigeonholed. We just try to keep it open." (Harrington, Jim (14 April 2005). "Be it tie-dye or techno, STS9 has a good time". Oakland Tribune – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Retrieved 14 November 2012.) See also articles like this from Miami New Music Times. AllyD (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article mentions an Entertainment Weekly piece about livetronica, which in turn is probably sufficient to establish notability, and at the very least provides a reliable definition. I'm currently making an attempt at a re-write, based on these new(ly found) sources. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've re-written this based on how the EW and Oakland Tribune articles describe the genre. I've also pared down the list of bands (and re-written as prose) to those specifically named in the sources. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Is one of the sources you added mentioning "trance fusion" as an alternate term? If there's no reference for it, either add "jamtronica" in as another unreferenced "also known as", or stick with what the sources can confirm and remove "trance fusion". Jamtronica is another word used to describe various bands in this genre, while trance fusion is, as far as I can tell, only used by one band (Disco Biscuits) to describe their own music.Plantdrew (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! No, neither source mentions "trance," much less "trance fusion." Furthermore "trance fusion" does not actually seem to be a well-attested usage for this musical style (Google: "trance+fusion"+-zappa). However, someone had specified the trance fusion redirect as the reason for removing {{Prod}}, so I took it on good faith (at least for the time being) that this was a common name for the same style. (FWIW, Disco Biscuits was not mentioned among the band names in either article.) As for "jamtronica," based on this (scroll down to "jamtronica"), the term appears to be synonymous, as you've suggested. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've added "jamtronica" (plus cite) to the article, but I've flagged "trance fusion." If anything, I'd suggest we change "trance fusion" so it redirects to Disco Biscuits instead of here, but I didn't see attested usage in that context, either (other than on WP talk pages). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few sources that indicate the "trance fusion" style is associated with Disco Biscuits. Thus, I've changed trance fusion so that it now redirects to Disco Biscuits. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre or scene?

Seeing how "jam band" is a cultural phenomenon and not a musical genre per se, "electronic music with jam band elements" really needs further elaboration. This article currently hardly makes any other claim than "this is a term that has been used of some bands that use synths and play live". Seems rather buzzword-ish tbh. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Entertainment Weekly is being cited as a "reliable source" on this topic. Look more closely at this self-described "Sixty second lesson on Livetronica," that is the mian cite here, it's a press release for a website called livetronica.net. This is essentially an advert, it is not WP:RS. The article for the neologism livetronica exists for SEO purposes alone, it should be deleted. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the source again, yet, but please realize that {{One source}} is not the template for this issue. Having two sources, and one of them is questionable, is different from having only one source. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had attempted to delete this article via WP:PROD back in November 2012 but this was contested. The EW source was a good-faith attempt to salvage the article; see #Prod and the notability of the term on this page (ping AllyD). How do you know that this EW article was a press release? The author's name brings up 195 other results at EW, so it does not appear to have been a guest post. Furthermore, the Oakland Tribune saw fit to cite the EW article (which is how we found it). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK so you accept that the entire article essentially hangs on this very weak EW opinion-editorial? Can I ask where the musicological sources that discuss this "genre" are? Even two or three mainstream music press items would do. I simply don;t see sufficient evidence of notability here for this term. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said nor what I meant. I believe the EW article is sufficient. Again, I don't see how you think it was a press release; to put it another way I believe it's a reliable source. If you're not willing to take this to WP:AFD (I PRODded it once then you tried to do so again) then I'd suggest taking it up at WP:RSN. I think you're expecting a lot to find this subject mentioned in musicological resources; by that measure I think any number of Wikipedia articles might be threatened. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That you find this EW source reliable surprises me, to say the least, overall the sourcing is simply not thorough, and it's because of such low quality sourcing that so much crap continues to exist on Wikipedia. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it another way. I'm not sure if it helps but I think we are on the same page concerning the subject matter (as distinct from this article about the subject matter). Personally, I think the subject is bullshit, and it didn't help that the article was in a more problematic state when I found it. It's still possible to improve the article, regardless of personal feelings about the subject, and at least two editors believed that those two sources pushed it just over this side of WP:GNG. Thus I disagree with your placement of {{unreliable sources}}. I will grant you that WP:GNG doesn't have any bearing on the article's quality (or lack thereof), and since November 2012, no one more knowledgeable about (or sympathetic toward) the subject has seen fit to come along and improve it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input on this, but personally speaking, I'm not sure how the editors you mention were able to justify this under "notable topics - those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." I simply don't see enough evidence of notability here, and the lack of quality sources serves to underline this. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, "two editors" meant AllyD and myself (AllyD found the references and I rewrote the text using them), although a third editor evidently concurred (again see #Prod and the notability of the term). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]