Talk:Post-dubstep

Earliest posts

This whole page is questionable. What kind of source is mog anyway? There is no citation for the original quotation

- well post-dubstep is new, it's not being talked about much yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.5.231 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's emergence is approaching the two year mark according to this article, it is not particularly new. All references to artists that produce music that is part of this shaky genre should be backed with citations.

I suspect that the page is created in related to this tumblr, http://postdubstep.tumblr.com/ , the tumblr site links to this page but this assertion is otherwise unfounded. I have read the term in articles though, it is limited in reference and specificity. The point of the article seems to be to create a genre out of people who make similarly influenced music. Considering how many people could potentially read the page, they shouldn't be mislead.

I'm deleting poorly worded sentences that don't directly relate or have no published evidence clearly available. If this article remains, it should be reduced, probably to one paragraph which does not focus on various artists' successes, but on what "post-dubstep" is and how artists have been documented to contribute to the subject. --76.170.78.141 (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Potential sources

I'm reposting these reliable sources from the AfD for reference. Most are brief mentions, but some have more extensive coverage: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
I also added the find sources template above to make searching additional sources easier. Siawase (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Another good source... Pitchfork just did a write up about it (http://pitchfork.com/features/grime-dubstep/7965-grime-dubstep/) and I'm going to see if I can cite some things proper if I find some time in the next few days. Immortal Z (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete this entire thing

It's a genre coined by Hipsters, it doesn't actually exist. "Post-dubstep" is just what Dubstep originally was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.79.224 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. It's a distinct progression from dubstep, with a different style of bass and a slower tempo. 10 BPM less means a lot in electronic music. It's also important to remember that it's really more of a sub-genre of dubstep, having spawned directly from it (and it hasn't had much time to really become an individual yet). Plus, a discussion was just held a bit ago on whether to delete it or not and it was decided to keep it around. Immortal Z (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the notion of the original poster, but not about taking this down. I don't believe the article should be taken down because it is a word that's used and should be defined, but somewhere it should be mentioned (stressed) that there are large segments of the population (myself included), who believe that it is a subgenre that does not accurately describe anything. Deviant, a contributor at the review site http://www.sputnikmusic.com (profile: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/profile.php?memberid=426967), is a reputable source that would agree with me. However, if it's existence is in question, there should not be a link to post-dubstep from the dubstep page, as it demeans the primary genre. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Keep the page. It is useful and informative. Mahrooq (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this isn't a genre, there isn't anything mentioned that separates it from being called dubstep, the bass isn't different nor is the tempo. A lot of the musicians mentioned are artists that helped with the development of dubstep, let the genre grow before you try to pigeonhole it with new terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.132.67.105 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the forum for deleting articles for issues like notability or legitimacy. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and case a legit case. Otherwise, do not remove "post-dubstep" from sourced content, or unexplained removals in general, on other articles. Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

we could propose deletion, currently a stub, notability not established, but why bother, we can develop the content using available RS cites; but let's be clear that as with other "post" this or that music articles (post-rock, post-disco etc.) most usable sources are generally not referring to a genre of music, they outline particular eras in which stylistic developments took place. We can avoid any suggestion of this being a "genre" of music at the out-set and avoid mindless debates about what dub-step, post-dubstep, bass music, bass, is or isn't. It's all music, unfortunately people insist on categorising, for all the wrong reasons, but this is an encyclopedia, so if the entry is warranted, let's just keep it on track so things don't get silly. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a genre

I argee with earlier postings about the invalidity of stating that Post-dubstep is a subgenre of dubstep. Reading the cited Pitchfork article it clearly states:

"As the sprawling list [of artists] above shows, well-meaning attempts to loosely define the ground we're covering here are somewhat futile and almost certainly flawed. This is not one genre."

I would propose redefining it as a umbrella term used to categorise artists whose work is directly influenced by dubstep. This should remove a lot of the ambiguity that is currently inherent in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftyshades (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)