Jump to content

Talk:Minimal wave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problems

[edit]

Besides the noted problem of questionable notability, this article seems to want to be about three things at the same time: a kind of music, a record label, and even a radio show (in one sentence). Drmies (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for a speedy, because though the record label may be notable, the type of music and radio show are almost not. This needs to be three articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should definitely be split, at the least. It's not an actual genre in itself so much as a catch-all term used to cover several distinct genres. Nearly everything in this article is inaccurate or misleading... 208.103.230.243 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.230.243 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to this below. But claims that there is no such genre and that it's not notable are contradicted, to a degree, by the cited sources. I've made a number of edits to help address the issue. The label needs to be mentioned because the genre is cited in multiple places as having been named because of it. However, I do agree that the label probably needs its own article. —mjb (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....the label is 100% absolutely not the origin of the term. I'll check the links, but they are incorrect if this is what they assert. The label can largely be credited with popularizing the term, though, so maybe that's a more accurate edit that can be easily agreed upon.208.103.230.243 (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm just concerned that we have so little to go on. One source is penned by the label founder, the other is partly a review of the label's first compilation. They make some pretty straightforward and plausible statements, though, so I don't feel uncomfortable with citing them. I did try to be careful when I rephrased things today to make it more clear that the definition of the genre and its association with the label is an "according to these recent, not-entirely-disinterested sources" kind of situation. I'm looking forward to seeing what you can dig up about prior use of the term. —mjb (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wave

[edit]

I think I've been seeing this genre referred to as just 'Wave':

Both of those links are for the same site, which isn't a citable source. I've seen it listed as such in people's private collections as well. It's something to keep an eye out for. If you see it in print, add it to the article.

In the meantime, this FACT magazine article/blog post by the Minimal Wave label owner might be of some use. (I can't tell if FACT is still a print magazine or just an online one now. Anyone know?) —mjb (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a widely used term for any genre related to the one focused on in this article.208.103.230.243 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from this FACT magazine article: "The Minimal Wave genre actually formed only several years ago, as a result of a resurgence of interest in the roots of pre-MIDI electronic New Wave (1978-1985)" couldn't describe it better (E-Kartoffel (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Music Genre

[edit]

There is no proof to be found Minimal Wave is a genre. It is a record label and a radio show and so should be 2 articles. The term Minimal Wave to describe the music genre wasn't known in the era the music itself was created (end 70's, beginning 80's) and is an invention of the creator of the label and radio show in an attempt to claim the music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.146.118 (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only half-agree. Music is still being created in this style even today, so you're wrong that it was only created in the late '70s/early '80s. And it doesn't matter that it didn't have a name at the time most of the music was being created. All genres exist namelessly for a while before they get a name. Some are basically dead by the time they get one. Even if they're given a name at the time, often it's only known regionally until much later (examples: IDM, boogie, techno). And most genre names, even well-known ones, have origins more arbitrary and ridiculous than this one. So I can't take seriously those aspects of your argument.
However, the need for better sources is undeniable. If using the term Minimal Wave to refer to a type of music has caught on and been referenced in print anywhere (aside from articles tied to the label's own publicity), then we have to accept it as a notable genre. But if no such reference can be found, then I agree, the article should be restructured. The radio show probably isn't notable enough for its own article, but the label is. The radio show and the attempt to name a genre probably should be acknowledged, but are secondary to the info about the label itself. —mjb (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a genre, it's just a catch-all term used to reference several different genres. Also the origin of the term is incorrect as it was in use prior to the existence of the record label of the same name. The name of the radio program was also re-named "Minimal Wave" several years after the label was formed, it used a different name before hand, so citing the usage of the term "Minimal Wave" to a radio show in 2003 is erroneous.208.103.230.243 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.230.243 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits to the article and some of the claims you're making here are in direct conflict with the cited sources, which you shouldn't have removed the references to. Those sources say it is a genre and they acknowledge that it's a recently fabricated term for a range of styles that didn't have a name before, even though they were typically considered to belong in other genres (synthpop, for example).
If you have evidence that the term was used prior to Veronica Vasicka's projects, then you need to provide it in order to substantiate what you say about its existence in the past. But such evidence wouldn't justify removing things we say about the new, retroactively named genre, based on the sources we have. It would only give you a basis for representing the prior use of the term as meaning whatever it did, in context.
I'm happy to entertain calling it a genre that overlaps/consists of music that also belongs in several others, but Minimal Wave does not, as you suggest, refer to the entire repertoire of the synthpop, cold wave, minimal electronic, and darkwave genres. It's only a select subset of each of those. So your proposed lead sentence/definition of Minimal Wave cannot stand.
Thanks for pointing out that the name of the radio program was changed. Do you know the previous name, and when the change occurred? In what published source can we verify this information? The article didn't actually say the genre was named for the radio show. —mjb (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.........I doubt there would be anything published about the usage of the term "minimal wave" in this context prior to the articles mentioned. Hardly anything has been published using the term before 2009, when the label itself was formed in 2005. The term was being used by at least 2003. It was used primarily in correspondences and discussions, internet postings and the like, as mentioned as a catchall shorthand term to cover the various genres mentioned. As for the links provided, one is written by the label owner citing themselves as the origin, and one is from a few months ago and seems to be just regurgitating the other. However, saying that the label has been 'cited' as the origin is not factually incorrect. It definitely had a hand in popularizing the term, no question about that. I'd consider removing the citation link to the article written by the owner of the label though?

The genre question is always sticky. My primary contention is that the term 'minimal wave' refers to artists of from lot of very different styles. If someone can provide a definition of what 'minimal wave' is as a tangible genre, without describing one of the sub-genres mentioned (minimal electronic, coldwave, etc) and without there immediately being a hundred artists that have been referred to as 'minimal wave' that come to mind yet sound nothing alike, I would be interested in hearing it. The definition given in the articles tend to preclude a large portion of what has been referred to as 'minimal wave', and usually end up describing plain old minimal elektronik, or one of the other existing genres. See http://www.minimal-elektronik.de/. The other problem with labeling it as a tangible genre is that if it's being retroactively cited to the label of the same name, then is whatever music that particular label releases genre changed to 'minimal wave', and whatever it doesn't release remains synthpop, or minimal elektronik, or coldwave? I don't feel that it's clear or accepted enough to be stated as fact that it is a genre of its own.

The radio show used to be called Minimal Elektronik +. I am not certain when it was changed, maybe in 2008/2009. And the article did say that the show was called Minimal Wave since 2003, in a section explaining the origin of the term...so that would clearly be misleading to most readers.

I really was just trying to fix an article that had many glaring errors, but since most of my knowledge on the subject is first-hand which doesn't generally show up in 8-year-after-the-fact internet articles, there will probably be no citations incoming. I'll look around though.208.103.230.243 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I move that this Wikipedia entry should be removed, pending a more accurate and better sourced one, possibly about 'minimalism in electronic music' or 'minimal electronic (dance) music' or similar. See the 'Problems' section in this Talk page, and the remarks made some years ago. The title of this Wikipedia entry is the name of a commercial music company and nothing else. There is no evidence of the usage of the term 'minimal wave' to refer to any specific musical genre before Veronica Vasicka's use of the term to describe her own record label. The article contains nothing to differentiate a musical genre from any other from a structural point of view (i.e. rhythms, scales, progressions, speed, etc.) but only incomplete remarks about timbral choices (instrument type). The sole justification for this article would be a discussion about Minimal Wave, a record company business in New York. As it is, the article purports to show an actual musical genre which doesn't exist. Strike it until someone comes up with an article exclusively about the record label called Minimal Wave.--Birdtread (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i propose it should be retitled "minimal synth" and the advertising tone with reference to MW the record company should be toned down to make the entry more encyclopedic. the terms are used interchangeably online (for instance 35k instragram posts tagged "minimalsynth" vs 51k tagged "minimalwave") - an analogy would be frisbee and flying disk, people commonly refer to frisbee but it is a trademark. minimal wave the commercial entity has an entry on wikipedia, this entry should focus on the genre (and it IS indisputably a genre) K1angumwandler (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016

[edit]

I have come to this page seven years after some of the criticisms have been made and - to be honest - time has moved on a bit. There has certainly been a revival in the popularity of this type of music, with material dating back to the 1980's being re-released on both Vinyl and CD. Thus we can see artists who produced minimal wave material 35 years ago, referring to their material as minimal wave and companies who release that material now describing it as minimal wave even though it pre-dates Veronica Vasicka's involvement. I have included a section on noteworthy works, many of which meet that criteria.

With respect, to all contributers, I therefore make three suggestions to deal with the many points raised below:

We accept that Minimal Wave is a genre, because musicians who play that music use that term to decxribe their work. We therefore regard this page as being primarily concerned with Minimal Wave (The Musical Genre) We acknowledge that the record label "Minimal Wave" exists, leaving open the opportunity for a page of that name if anyone cares to write it.

Many thanks and kind regards to all previous contributors. Mursillis (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Minimal wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minimal_wave&oldid=1204014690"