Talk:PC Music

A fact from PC Music appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 October 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that record label PC Music has never produced a physical release?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/PC Music.

Wikipedia

Record Labels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels 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.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Different artists or just different artist names?

I have seen no proof that the various 'artists' were actual different individual people, and not just the work of a couple of producers under different names. One of the sources cited mentions this too (I thought it was The Guardian but I can't see it there now). User:Hinnk, I had kept the wording of the article ambiguous with regard to this, until there was proof, but you have started to move it away from this, treating the artists as individual people. Have you an opinion on this please? Thanks -Lopifalko (talk)

Yeah, I've been struggling with how to approach that. I think it's useful to note the way in which the artists work together (Cook producing songs, Diamond doing art design, acts featuring on each other's tracks), which makes it a bit like a pop label. But some of the sources treat the acts as separate entities, others treat them as pseudonyms (e.g. QT being either the singer on "Hey QT" or Cook and SOPHIE), and you're right that the current phrasing leans more toward the first option.

I think you might be referring to this Fact article where it suggests a bunch of the acts may just be Cook himself. Pitchfork finally got around to doing a feature on PC Music today. I'll go ahead and expand on the use of pseudonymity and work in any useful info from the Pitchfork piece. Feel free to be WP:BOLD afterward, and if anything doesn't seem clear I'll come pester you here on the talk page. hinnk (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds like a good working relationship, thanks. And thanks for the Pitchfork link, their opinion had seemed notable by its absence so far. -Lopifalko (talk)

The use of Comic Sans alludes to the typography of early web sites.

I'm sorry, but what is this nonsense? In what way does Comic Sans "allude to the typography" of early web sites? Most early websites were rendered in browser default fonts, which in most cases were something a lot closer to Times New Roman and Courier. 2601:4:1003:A895:F8CC:56F3:6091:B566 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference calls Comic Sans an "early Web trope". I assume they're referring to people using it for small, self-made sites that weren't professionally done. hinnk (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpop section

The Hyperpop section really doesn't fit with this article. As it is written it's way more general than just a PC Music thing. It looks like it should be forked off into its own article, or made part of the Synth Pop or Dance Pop articles. If someone with a keener eye could make a suggestion I'd appreciate it. IrishStephen (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art used in the article

The art used doesn't match up to the glossier digital PC Music aesthetics seen in single covers and artwork by Hannah Diamond and GFOTY. I suggest we keep one of the images and replace the other one with one of those images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by me, I forgot to sign in lol User:funnylittleman

Huge agree, especially considering how important Hannah Diamond's photography & photo-manipulation were to the PC aesthetic during the time in which they were most active. (Also Kim Laughton, who I'm surprised to see does not have a page on here, and Timothy Luke.) What covers might be better exemplary? Pink and Blue, Palette, Vol. 1 & 2, Deep Trouble? — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]