Talk:Old Tunes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Old Tunes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mark?

Could you (NotsraM) explain who "Mark" from the two quotations is? Would it be possible to elaborate in the article on this person's connection with Boards of Canada? Thanks. Wowbobwow12 02:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll field that. Some background; WATMM is an electronic music website and forum that hosted one of the preeminent Boards of Canada websites, as well as prominent sites on other Warp Records artists Aphex Twin, Autechre and Squarepusher. Because of this, he had some contacts with Warp and some of the artists he covered, including contacts with Boards of Canada's elusive Hexagon Sun collective. Joyrex maintained a special account on the forum to allow the band to monitor discussions and remove sensitive information or slanderous material regarding the bad. It was from this account ("Hexagon Sun") that this rare post was made, signed "-mark, hs". Because of Joyrex's known contacts with the band (he hosted a fan video contest in which BoC judged the entries), this post is widely considered to be a legitimate communication from an official representative of the band. Pimlottc 14:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article with basically the above information. Pimlottc 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Nö$®åM 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins and Authenticity

The tapes were indeed never intended for release and were only handed out to several of Mike and Marcus's friends. They were just a small compilation of tracks that Mike and Marcus had done as teenagers and were trying to group them together. They did have a lot of stuff.

To be honest, I've rarely, if ever, listened to my copy so I have no idea if the tracks ripped onto mp3 are genuine or not. I guess they probably are, going by the comments I've heard on the wattm board. I certainly remember the Colonel Abrams track.

I do know that the artwork sleeve shown in the " A few old tunes" pictures is correct. It's the same as my copy, however my cassette is different. They were just copied onto whatever cassette was free to record on. I don't have copies of the other stuff but they look genuine too.

The girl on the cover of "a few old tunes" is Louise Campbell, the younger sister of (Peter) Iain Campbell who has worked with them on other art projects. I think it was taken as a still from an old family video.

I'm rather intrigued to find out who the Prince Murat person is, as I know very few copies were given out, and only to close friends. A traitor in the midst. :) lol

Hope this clears a couple of things up. I'm pretty knew to wiki editing so I'll wait untill someone else fills in what they think the relevant parts are. KToiBalToi (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... - Nö$®åM 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they would just get the negotiations (with Warp) over with and release this most-excellent set of tracks. I own nearly all of BoC's albums on vinyl, and if it's royalties they're concerned with... I'd buy Old Tunes as soon as it was available (especially if it were on vinyl), and I'm sure hundreds of other fans would, as well (and hopefully it wouldn't be a limited pressing...it would sell out within a day or two). It would also be nice to know who originally leaked the tracks... but I doubt that that will ever be brought to light. In any case... we're all waiting for something "official". Fuzzform (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they'll actually release this stuff without them making remixes or updates because Mike and Marcus are perfectionists. As I've said, it was just a collection of fun stuff, I don't think they were too bothered with quality control and probably never thought it'd see the light of day. The time it takes for them to write new material and whittle it down, I honestly don't think they have the time to go over old ground. Time will tell. KToiBalToi (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

What the hell is this? Someone put half the article in a large banner titled "WIKIPEDIA IS A DANGEROUS CULT", with a red background. Keshidragon (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldtunes2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Oldtunes2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011

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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ot2-back1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ot2-back1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ot2-back2.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ot2-back2.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposals

Proposing that three articles be merged into this one:

The authenticity is not settled (these are not official releases) so there's no precedent to break them out into separate articles. I'm frankly pessimistic that the whole bunch would survive AfD with the current sourcing. Extensive coverage of the goings-on at a message board, fan speculation, original research, mention of what the artists and labels have not said, and more or less complete lack of reliable secondary sources. ...But this is not a PROD or AfD, it's a merger proposal. If these articles are to be kept, combining them makes them more robust both in content and appearance. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done (see below) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cover art

There was an html comment in the article about the girl on the [supposed] cover (who I recognize from another of their releases, but can't remember which).

As it wouldn't be appropriate to include information about a living person without a source, I just went ahead and removed it until someone can verify. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rewrite

Ok so after several months I started merging, and in the process rewriting the article. The first thing that's clear is the sources are pretty bad all around: wikis, forums, etc. I've removed a lot of the unsourced detail like "one time someone posted x to a forum", as well as original research, etc. I did keep most of the references, though, even if they're broken and less than desirable -- we can replace them as we can. Given the explanation from the Hexagon Sun representative (as well as everything else), I'm reframing the article from being about disputed albums to being about unreleased albums. We can talk about the controversy, but it doesn't make sense to make it the focal point. Making some other organizational, formatting, etc. changes... --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there's not anything to take from merging the other articles other than a couple external links. E.g. Old Tunes Vol. 1 (album) is entirely unsourced in its explanation, relying on apparent original research for everything. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Old Tunes/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.

=== B-Class === I think we've formed a raw, somewhat useful article here, however, the article lacks hard facts/solid information. Additionally, the article needs some minor cleanup; creating sub-pages or even new pages for the actual cassette tracklistings may be beneficial, on the other hand, they may not be important enough to warrant their own pages. - Nö$®åM 19:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Old Tunes. 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) 06:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]