Jump to content

Talk:Reggae/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Reggae in other countries

I have issue with the lack of mention of reggae in and around the world. Reggae is very prominent in America and in some places in some Latin American countries such as Guatemala and Costa Rica. I have not been to Europe but I'm sure it must be important there as well. In the reggae box to the right of the article under regional scenes there is an almost total lack of countries that have a decent sized population that listens to reggae. I am unsure as of yet how to change this. If someone has the time and know how they might consider adding some appropriate countries. Many things should be added to the article to properly show reggae's influence on the non African/Caribbean world. --Migglesworth 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Ah, I see I was in error about my last discussion post above. I did not realize that the regional scenes encompassed something that could be the equivalent to a genre of reggae. As the reggae that is in the U.S. and Latin America couldn't be classified as it's own regional genre of reggae I sort of revoke my last post. I do still believe that more mention needs be input to reggae in other countries though. I will contribute as much as I am able to this. --Migglesworth 23:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I deleted the edit involving U.S. Virgin Island reggae as it was simply copied and pasted from the Music of the Virgin Islands page. There are proper links in the reggae box about reggae in other countries. including the US Virgin Islands. The reggae page is relatively concise and this seemed very out of place. --Migglesworth 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


I've added as much as I can about world reggae, especially the New Zealand scene, which is very active and distinct, but also several in Africa. I think this section should be expanded to incorporate all the links which are currently in the right hand side but not in the main text (to UK, US, Virgin reggae etc) and say a little about them as a 'modern subgenre'. The Spanish reggae section seems to me to really be 'Latin American' rather than actually from Spain so should perhaps be relabelled as such and incorporated into the World links within a proper World section. (Note: there are also 3 Putumayo compilations on world reggae, which might give more insights into the breadth that should be represented). Simon.raistrick (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

--update:my edits seem to have disappeared from under Spanish Reggae :( Simon.raistrick (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I deleted the new section because there were no references at all, and there was almost no content at all either, other a few links to other Wikipedia articles (which I have now moved to the See Also section).Spylab (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful to have a summary of Reggae around the world - how it has evolved etc. This was not supposed to be a content heavy section, but a summary overview, which is what is needed on such a top level page, and I think it did that well and would be useful to people wanting an overview of reggae. Not perfect of course. What we have now does not properly represent reggae as a global form of music. What do you suyggest to remedy this? Simon.raistrick (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that if you want a section about that topic you find references so you can write paragraphs with footnotes.Spylab (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added references to those parts which require it. I've also reworded other parts so that they do not require references, and used Wikipedia text from other pages to summarise the other parts. I think this solves the requriement for references. Simon.raistrick (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the edits Spylab. Think the section's looking good now, v useful. Happy? Simon.raistrick (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are all the articles connected to reggae ruined by what I guess are clueless Americans putting in references to appalling rock bands (for example in the case of Tenor Saw shite like Sublime/Fugazi being referenced - WTF?!). No real reggae gives a shit about these talentess arseholes and they have about as much relevance to an article on reggae as putting a load of stuff about Spaghetti Westerns because there was a reggae artist called Clint Eastwood...

I suppose its the usual problem with Wikipedia and its domination by the kind of neurotic slightly autistic geeks who obsess over the minutiae of rock music and are the only people who have the time and inclination to sit in their rooms adding to it whilst the fans of other non-rock musics actually have lives and therefore cant be arsed to correct them when these sad cases even interfere with articles on dance music, reggae etc.

Audio

The guy who reads the audio about Reggae is unbearable. I can't stand him any more.... I mean the way he speaks. It's not formal at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elchafa (talk • contribs)

I think he's trying to be funny. But I guess you can't complain unless you record a better version... #29 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, his exasperation and sarcasm and off-key singing are too much and unprofessional, I agree it has to go. But if I ever happen to win $100, I will buy some good microphone equipment for my computer and make a new one myself! By the way, I have selected this article for a "quality drive" competition, so I will be working hard to try and raise the quality rating significantly over the next few days... --Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Good Article

I just read this through the for the first time. It reads like a good article to me. Only nitpick might be the see also section. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Endgame

The 'See also' and 'External links' sections, with the exception of the Jammin Reggae Archive, are essentially linkspam. I believe linking to some appropriate categories might be of more value. They could be added to the Reggae Template that appears at the bottom, and the 'See Also' dispensed with altogether. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I personally don't know a lot of the different categories on Wikipedia, other than the obvious ones. Spylab (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

==Audio samples== some say that reggae music first started in trinidad with the rythum in the late 1959 and then the low class Jamaicans took over the neat, which the trinidians cont with the soca>>>calypso>>

Buffalo Soldier is a particularly poor audio example to be the only one in the article. There is some quite detailed discussion of aspects of the music above. Surely audio examples could be found to illustrate that? Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • There should probably be a few samples or none at all, because one song cannot represent the various styles of reggae music. If you, or someone else knows the policies and procedures for posting song samples in Wikipedia articles, I encourage you to find samples that represent various time periods and styles of reggae. Spylab (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Examples for early reggae (e.g. one of the handful of songs that lay claim to being the first reggae song), (70's) roots reggae (but not Marley - he wasn't really representative), late 70s/early 80s dancehall, and digital reggae ("Under Me Sleng Teng" seems an obvious choice) would represent the important phases.--Michig (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines are on Wikipedia:Music_samples. For fair-use to apply the songs must specifically illustrate points in the article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This could be a problem with the article as it stands, as it's a bit weak in terms of discussing the progression of reggae from early reggae through to the slower-paced roots era, the change to dancehall, then the digital revolution and ragga.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

List of reggae music festivals

The list of Reggae#Reggae music festivals continues to be damaged (in good faith) by Spylab (talk · contribs), under the auspices of Wikipedia guidelines. The guidelines relevant to list organization are here. This list makes no sense and is useless when it is alphabetized by festival name, because reggae festivals are not uniformly named - some start with the word Reggae, some start with the location, and some have an unrelated name. The list should be grouped by location (for example, by country, as I have done), the location sections should be alphabetized, and the festivals within each section should be alphabetized. EAE (Holla!) 03:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffalo Soldier.ogg

Image:Buffalo Soldier.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These links fail the following criteria from WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided:

In light of this, I removed all of them and the External links section to boot. I don't think this article needs external links at all. EAE (Holla!) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over para split

I originally wrote the two paragraphs in question and I knew what I was doing. One paragraph is about the derivation assuming ot comes from streggae and includes the quote. It may look like only one sentence, because the embedded quote is in a block quote, but keep looking.

The derivations pointing to Latin rex and derived forms should be kept separate from the paragraph on streggae. This has got to be one of the contenders for lamest edit war, but I see no improvement to the readability by lumping these two distinct paragraphs. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, i'm making this suggestion for someone to add an external link section on the reggae page, with the linkhttp://www.reggae-auction.com, i really think that the reggae auction website has it's place under the links of this page as it represents not only buying / selling activity wich can be useless for many, but a lot of long lost recordings and usefull informations as also the possibility to hear those rare and hard to find reggae records. The Website provides a wide aperture on the reggae music scene from all eras with concrete content and extensive media representation. Please take that into consideration as clearly the site provides usefull content on long lost reggae materials?

Beeing affiliated with the site as it's owner, i can't add myself the link as it is a conflict of interest to do so.

Best Regards, Renaud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggae auction (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I looked at the site and all I see is buying and selling, so that does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for outside sources. That link would probably be considered spam.Spylab (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

JAH Throne music

The article intro currently includes this line: "The music style is sometimes referred to as JAH Throne music in Rastafari contexts. In the Caribbean, the heavier forms of reggae are also sometimes known as Rockers music."

I've never heard reggae being referred to as "JAH Throne music", and a quick Google search reveals only 451 hits. Rockers refers to a "sound" or a sub-genre that was popular in the later 70s in Jamaica, but it is not something that merits a mention in the introduction of a whole music genre. If no one objects, I'm going to remove it. Gaaarg (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So, now you're deleting information on the basis that there are 451 google hits, and you've never heard of it? Gee, if there are only 451 google hits and you've never heard of it, I guess that means it must not really exist then, right? Sorry, but I DO object, especially part of what you deleted included a reference. This ref was not always in the intro and might not need to be there, but please do not undo the hard work others have done in complying with all the references and citations requests, just because in your perception of experience you are not familiar with something. Thankyou. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go with Gaaarg on this one. This page is intended to be a general introduction to reggae. I do not feel that having the term JAH THRONE (although it may be a perfectly valid term in reggae), in the page would lead folks in the right direction. I think we should keep it out for now. With all due respect, please post your motivation for including this term along with the term "rockers". Regarding the comment on citations and the amount of work involved, sometimes it is hard work conforming to the standards of this encyclopedia and sometimes it gets erased outright. Just because something is difficult doesn't give it precedence to stay in the page. After your motivation is posted and it seems that the page would be lacking without term JAH THRONE, then it should be reinstated.--Migglesworth (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The info that was Reliably Sourced should not have ben blanked just because some have a low opinion of it. There has to be a very good reason for blanking out information from Reliable Sources, and "because I / we don't think it's important" usually doesn't cut it, being of course a POV. You are free to look for contradictory references if there are any, but do not blank the ones that are there. This is an encyclopedia that aims to be comprehensive, so we are trying to include MORE reliable information about the subject, not less. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've looked a bit for sources that would say reggae music is known as "JAH Throne music" and I can't find any. The term is not mentioned in the introductory chapter of [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Reggae-Music-Guides/dp/1843533294/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212180835&sr=1-1 The Rough Guide to Reggae (3rd edition)], and it's not in the index. Personally, I can't recall seeing it used anywhere and I've read several books on reggae. Unless someone can dig up a reliable source, it should be removed.
Regarding the rockers part; the source that is used does in fact not state that "in the Caribbean, the heavier forms of reggae are also sometimes known as Rockers music" or anything to that effect IMO. "In rockers, the bass was as heavily amplified as ever and continued to provide the basic background throb—reggae's heartbeat. [...] In some types of heavy reggae (especially in instrumental or "dub" music) the bass takes over the prominent role [...]" (Cut 'n' Mix: Culture, Identity and Caribbean Music p.67). Nothing in that text about "rockers" being a term used in the Caribbean (as in, outside Jamaica), and the heavy part seems to be mostly about dub music. —Gaaarg (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
So, I take it that since you can't find it on Google, therefore you do not believe this is true, and think that someone made it up out of thin air just to confuse you...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not really what I said in my message above... :-) Anyways, see WP:VERIFY: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.". —Gaaarg (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And this is why wikipedia has the reputation it has, because of armchair experts who delete anything they can't find on google. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep assuming Google is my only source. I gave you another source above, but here's more [http://www.amazon.com/Bass-Culture-When-Reggae-King/dp/0670855634/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212201250&sr=8-1] [http://www.amazon.com/Solid-Foundation-Oral-History-Reggae/dp/1582341435/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212201281&sr=8-2] [http://www.amazon.com/People-Funny-Boy-Scratch-Revised/dp/1846094437/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212201281&sr=8-1]. I just think it stands to reason that since several books on the subject reggae don't mention the term, it's simply not in common use and hence not notable enough to be mentioned in this article; and I know Google "hit counts" aren't a reliable source, but it can give at least a little indication of if something is used often or not. Have you seen "JAH Throne music" used anywhere? Don't feel like I'm attacking you, I just think the information is false, and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. —Gaaarg (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if you had ever spent time in the Caribbean, you wouldn't think this "information is false". But now, thanks to Google, anyone from anywhere in the world can find 400 hits for a phrase and claim to be an expert from their armchair and say therefore it doesn't exist and that somebody made it up. Guess ya gotta love 'em. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. Still there, still in BOLD for some reason. The same logic used to insult armchair experts can be used to infer that just because someone has lived in the Caribbean and heard the term JAH THRONE in reference to reggae from 400 people, doesn't make them an expert on reggae either. Like Gaarg said, there is no attacking just trying to get the most reliable and well known facts together.Is this an edit war? If so this is my first. I don't like the feeling.--Migglesworth (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence in question. The use of this "JAH Throne" should not be included, much less in bold (sheesh!), unless specific citation can be given for it. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include the term, not those asking for it to be removed. This is basic people. You have to prove something exists, not prove its non-existence. I will stand by this edit. --Cziltang Brone (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. Rockers music. I understand that it is cited and all that. It is in the wrong place. One recommendation would be to create a section for other names of reggae across the world. That would give a good opportunity to include rockers and many other names like "boom-boom music" and the locations they come from like "Jeret's parents house". Joking aside, seriously, if you want something in there like other names for reggae across the world, create the category and add it to it. Don't just shove it in the second introductory paragraph.--Migglesworth (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Migglesworth on this. The introductory paragraph should be just that -- introductory. It should be of a summary nature for a topic as broad as Reggae. It is not appropriate to include synonyms or culturally/geographically equivalent terms. --Cziltang Brone (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Disputed tag

I've removed the Accuracy Dispute tag from the article as it is extremely misleading to any outsiders referencing the article, which as a whole has a high degree of accuracy and consensus. The tag should be used when there exist inaccurate statements in the article; not when there is a dispute over omission. The phrase "the factual accuracy of this article is disputed" appearing over, presumably, the omission of a dubious synonym is highly disingenuous. Please discuss the use of the tag here first.--Cziltang Brone (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure why Gaarg added the tag, nor for that matter, why Spylab moved the sentence about "rockers music" up to the intro. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
just to clarify; when I added the tag, the disputed content was in the article, not omitted. Gaaarg (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved the sentence about rockers and Jah Throne Music out of the Etymology section because, by definition, that section is about the origins and history of the word reggae, not about alleged synonyms. It is common to have synonyms of a term in the lead section (if they are backed up by reliable sources) and in bold. Since nobody has come up with references about Jah Throne Music, then it is appropriate to leave it out of the article. As for the suggestion about a separate section about alleged synonyms, I doubt there is enough referenced information to make a section like that.Spylab (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Movement of intro sentence "rockers..."

There is a section in on this page about different forms of reggae and the names they are known by. I think this is a much more appropriate place to put "In the Caribbean, heavier forms of reggae are known as rockers music". If not than stating that "Bass heavy instrumental versions of reggae are known as 'Dub' reggae" would be appropriately placed in the intro too, which it obviously is not. I am going to move the sentence in question to the reggae genres page. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject can elaborate on it there. --Migglesworth (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So I tried to move it to the Reggae Genres page where there is already a statement on it. Basically all that is needed is to add the sweet citation by Til Eulenspiegel but I don't know how to do it. If one of you more experienced editors can help a brother out, it would be much appreciated.--Migglesworth (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gaarg--Migglesworth (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gaarg for what? He did not resolve the problem, he simply tried to blank it out, which is unacceptable as any kind of compromise. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thanking him/her for doing something I thought would benefit the community, yet was unable to do. This is fast becoming a ridiculous point of contention. Rockers is a genre of reggae marked by heavy use of bass and complicated drumming as stated in the book you have cited. It makes no mention of it being known as rockers mainly in the Caribbean as you have stated. In addition it is quite clear that rockers is a genre of reggae and as with the 13 other genres of reggae, belongs in the reggae genres page. You yourself have stated that you do not know why this disputed statement is even in the intro. Instead of using your time in an effort to have a genre of reggae named in the introductory statement, perhaps use the time to enhance the public understanding of rockers by adding your knowledge to the pre-existing topic of rockers located in the reggae genres page. The citation is great and I feel that it is an adequate compromise by adding it to the rockers section in the reggae genres page. "Run-on sentence advocate since they invented the term" --Migglesworth (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockers Debate

I look upon this debate with disappointment as it highlights an inherent problem with Wikipedia, people who are not actually familiar with a subject are debating the validity of claims/facts. As someone living in the Caribbean (Trinidad and Tobago), I have heard the "Rockers" term before used in billing. HOWEVER, I do not think it belongs in the introductory paragraph of the article. To establish consensus, approach people familiar with the subject (ie actual people living in the Caribbean) rather than trying to out Google each other. There is the WikiProject Caribbean portal where you can pitch your questions at some persons living in the region. Rasadam (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well frankly I think we have consensus that "Rockers" is a valid synonym for Reggae, used primarily in the Caribbean. If anyone debates that, please note it here. Also, we seem to have consensus that this factual information does not belong in the intro paragraph. So, let's all try to be constructive and move towards the goal of finding a better place for it in the article. --Cziltang Brone (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In light of what you said here, I just removed the "dubious" claim on the reference again. There is no explanation of why the reference would be dubious or doubted by anyone. Perhaps the sentence could be moved back where it was, if the objection was that this isn't covered by the section header "Etymology", then just expand the header to "Etymology and nomenclature". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the Caribbean is a big place, Rasadam, and the great majority of whose inhabitants, like where I am, do not speak English. Rockers as a sourced alternative name for reggae does not sound dubious to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reggae Culture Section?

Hello, I'm thinking about adding a section on Reggae culture. I have a reference book which deals heavily with that topic, and I think it could be interesting to add some information about the culture that surrounds reggae music to the article. Any opinions on that? The pitfall I see right away might be trying to differentiate reggae culture from Rastafarianism. Is this a worthwhile endeavor? I think our Reggae page is looking pretty good as it is, but I'm still surprised that it's so short considering the size of the topic "Reggae". --Cziltang Brone (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia again

See WP:NPOV, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Criticism for policies and discussions regarding negative evaluations.

There seems to be an issue with mentioning the issue of homophobia in the article - an anonymous user keeps reverting anything related to it without discussion. However, this issue is widely discussed (see for example the Time reference in the section I added, or do a simple Google search), and clearly needs to be mentioned in an unbiased WP article IMO. Of course, the point is to mention this ongoing discussion/issue, not to label all reggae music as homophobic (which the section absolutely does not do). To be sure, comments/discussion/suggestions for improvements are welcome. Tomixdf (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you will read the previous consensus Talk:Reggae/Archive_1#Homophobia_2 the last time this came up, around a year ago, it was agreed then by consensus to be WP:UNDUE weight to devote so much attention and space to critical minority (but disproportionately vocal) POV-pushing, among all the other issues addressed by reggae music, while minimizing the other themes more representative of reggae including: social justice, politics, religion, and African language. There also seems to be a sort of anti-reggae, and anti-African, attitude particularly on the rise now, that has more to do with current political sour grapes and resentment, than anything else. It is also significant that your main "source" for this POV seems to be "Time Magazine" and similar. 70.105.53.253 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that you balance the section by adding sources that state that the homophobia claims are due to an "anti-reggae, and anti-African, attitude". If this is just your personal opinion, it is utterly irrelevant (as is mine) and does not belong in WP. I agree that one Time article is a bit meager - I'll add more references soon. Plenty out there. I again point out that we can't just not mention this issue. The discussion is out there - we need to mention it. This does not mean suggesting/stating that "all reggae is homophobic" or any such nonsense. Tomixdf (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the previous editors who have expressed any opinion, as evident from the above archive link, seem to agree that this issue is undue weight and does not deserve so much disproportionate attention in this article to the exclusion of so many other aspects. If the consensus has changed since a year ago, we need to have a discussion here to establish that first. The same tiny minority that complains about "homophobia" in Reggae, also sees "homophobia" in hip-hop and many other forms of music, religion, and cultures around the world, and will use that label for just about anything that they themselves hate and fear -- but we don't prominently paste their POV sources all over their articles. It is widely considered that the agenda of these tiny minorities is to turn centuries, even millennia, of established mainstream moral values on their head by any deception possible; that, however, should not be wikipedia's agenda or purpose. If anything is "POV pushing", that would be, and it is not at all "neutral". 70.105.53.253 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion you refer to is apparantly about homophobia _in dancehall_; indeed a rather specialized topic that belongs in an article on dancehall. Also, there is no real discussion - just one person (which might be you, for that matter) saying he/she is moving the section. From another discussion on homophobia: " By all means write something up about this - either start a new page, or add to existing ones where appropriate. There is a less positive side of Jamaican music which should be acknowledged - homophobia, misogyny, gun culture have all been features of some artists' work, and how many jamaican artists have been murdered?". I point out again that your personal opinions (or anyone's) are irrelevant. The discussion/issue is there; it needs to be discussed (from all relevant points of view). Tomixdf (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The Time article is in my view more about the prevailing attitudes in Jamaica rather than about reggae - remember that Jamaica isn't the only country in the world that produces reggae music. Also that article is about a handful of ragga artists, and ragga isn't really representative of reggae as a whole. I don't think it's wrong to include mention of homophobia in the article but looking at reggae as a whole it is not one of the most common lyrical themes - maybe the article on Jamaica or ragga would be more appropriate for including this.--Michig (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Reggae and homophobia are increasingly being linked in many newspaper articles, websites etc. (just Google for it). That's a fact (ie. that it is a topic of discussion, not that reggae is inherently homophobic), and IMO we should mention it. However, if it can be documented that many consider homophobia in reggae atypical, or that it is confined to a certain limited subset of artists/genres etc., then we should mention these things too, to have a balanced discussion. Tomixdf (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Using one source really wasn't good from a balance point of view - I've added more detail, including the moves to ban homophobic lyrics within the industry, and moved it under the dancehall section, since there are no sources in the article suggesting this is a major issue outside this subgenre (a subgenre which often has little in common, musically and lyrically, with earlier reggae). I do think this would be better covered in detail in the dancehall article rather than giving the impression that a genre that has been around for 40 years is largely concerned with homophobia, which I feel was the case with the sentence that was in the lead section before.--Michig (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Two things: (a) one could point out in the intro that the widespread homophobia accusations targeted to reggae in general really only apply to a specific subgenre and (b) I guess the "undue weight" tag can go. Tomixdf (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Link: United Reggae

Hello,

I read this:

" These links fail the following criteria from WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided: Jammin Reggae Archives: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12 Reggae Vibes: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12 The Reggae Train: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, United Reggae: 1, 4, 5, 6

In light of this, I removed all of them and the External links section to boot. I don't think this article needs external links at all. EAE (Holla!) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "

You dont think what? When you type "reggae" in google, you are the first result with this article, and you think people can be interested by reggae music with only this article? Perhaps they need more information and external link (good website) to have a better opinion

Jammin Reggae Archives / Reggae Vibes / Reggae Train / United Reggae are the best reggae website in the world... please take the time to visit each and explain why you remove links.

Drums and other percussion section

I found this article with a very interesting, although unsourced, note about Horsemouth Wallace's view on the half-time/doubletime counting of one drop beats. So I incorporated the material into the adjacent sentences and added a citation needed note. As part of that process, I moved the part about how an average listener will hear the beat (i.e., main beat on 3 vs. main beat on 2 and 4). I added the statement that this is related to whether or not the listener has musical training/experience of his own. It should be noted that this is pure speculation, so I added a citation needed tag to that as well. It seems to me that musical training will be the primary factor influencing whether the listener will hear one drop riddims as two slow measures or one fast one. However, it could just as well be cultural or psychological. Would anyone care to discuss and/or make changes based on verifiable sources? Someone should also really cite that Horsemouth Wallace quote posthaste as well. R0m23 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you listen to Bob Marley's Waiting in Vain, you can clearly hear Barrett counting off as "one, two, one, two, three". If you count further in that tempo, you'll find that the off-beat is on the eighth notes of that tempo, and not on the two and four counts. So if the alleged pioneer of this rhythm counts it that way, who are we to question that? 213.148.243.41 (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily - Waiting in Vain is quite an up-tempo song. If the drummer does the count in the other way, it gives the band half as much time to prepare and a quick count-in of "1,2,3,4" sounds rather too insistent for a laid back love song even if it is a fairly up-tempo one. That doesn't mean that Carlton feels the one drop on the 2 and 4, only that a slow count-in sets a good mood for a gentle love song and gives time for everyone to prepare. It also serves as a count-in on tape for overdubs which again might be easier given the longer count. A count-in is often more like the "on your marks..." thing they say in athletics than a formal indication of the actual time signature. For what it's worth, as a reggae drummer myself for nearly 30 years, I "feel" the one drop on the 3 but would also have done the count-in for Waiting in Vain as Carlton did it. Shoebill2 (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the beat on 3- and the beats on 2 and 4-issue, i personally guess it depends on which time signature is "officially" used in a given piece. When counting with the main beat on 3, you are actually counting in 4/8 time, while you're counting in 4/4 time when counting with the main beats on 2 and four. In the Bob Marley-song "Sun is shining," one may assume that the main beats are on beats 2 and 4, because of the rythm guitar playing two sixteenth-note chords on beats 1,5, 2,5, 3,5 and 4,5 (common time, 70-ish bpm).
One could also, just as correctly as above, assume that the main beat is on 3, counting 4/8 (140-ish bpm). The rythm guitar is, counting like this, playing two sixteenth-note chords on beats 2 and 4, while the main beat from the drummer is on beat three. The only(?) difference is a doubled tempo (from 4/4 to 4/8), and a division of all bars by two.
If you listen to Bob Marley's Waiting in Vain, you can clearly hear Barrett counting off as "one, two, one, two, three". If you count further in that tempo, you'll find that the off-beat is on the eighth notes of that tempo, and not on the two and four counts. So if the alleged pioneer of this rhythm counts it that way, who are we to question that? 213.148.243.41 (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It may still be counted as 4/4. Put in a somewhat arrogant way from my side: the guitar parts not being on beats two and four is irrelevant, considering the examples provided above.
I believe that officially, there is only one time signature that should be used while playing a given piece. I believe this is generally decided by the composer(s) alone. Informally, both time signatures may be used. 4/4 and 4/8 is exactly the same, as long as one increase the tempo with two while counting 4/8, and as long as one divide all bars by two.
Kind regards from Norway,
Øyvind Berg
O.Berg (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a matter of personal taste and opinion. But the fact is, that Reggae was inspired by R&B amongst others, which, like any pop genre, has a snare drum on the second and fourth count. Some songs can even be put/felt/read in a fast 12/8 beat, dividing each count in 3 eighths, effectively putting the afterbeat on the 2nd and 4th count, for instance Bob Marley's Is this Love. 213.148.243.41 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sections: Drums and percussion and Lyrical themes

ONE OF TWO:
In section 'Drums and Percussion' the phrase 'There is some controversy about whether reggae should be counted so that this beat falls on three, or whether it should be counted half as fast, so it falls on two and four.' suggests there is 'controversy'...

However, there is none...

From music-theory perspective you can double or half the tempo of any song as long as you do the opposite in time to the actual played notes (and shift accents/syncopes with it), from the notation-perspective, the most readable will do as 'right one'...

Here comes such a 'controversy', when I write music-notation for a classic-orchstra, I could take 'normal tempi' for the tubas-partiture, and half the tempo for the piccolo-partiture, since the latter plays way more notes, as seen per bar...

Adding it all up to one, as seen per song, read 'per song-feel' it might be very well truth, the guitarist plays 140bpm(Kick3) and the drummer takes 70bpm(Kick2&4) for the same song... However, a drummer-bar then hold 2 guitarist-bars, which one is right?

The guitarist is right! One-Steppers are really One-Beat, the One-Drop riddim really is count 1 silent, count 3 kick.
You can also deliver yourself more proof, taking existing reggae-songs and see the chord-schematic, you'll notice the (relative-)'length' of the bar as explained above is related to 140bpm(Kick3).
This to say: A reggae-songwriter(+lyrics) uses 140bpm(Kick3). And yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't change the rule: Kick on Three

TWO OF TWO:
In the section 'Lyrical themes' the phrase 'or simply giving praise to the Rastafari God Jah.' suggests that there is a separate 'god' called 'Jah' for 'Rastifarians'... What ya say?

If you take for example the '1965 Basic Bible in English', you see 'Jah' is a short-term for Jahwe used in the Psalms, for example PSA 86:4,77:11,89:8,etc.
Besides this, I am aware of the fact I know little to nothing of 'Rastifarian-faith/religion', however I do know they use the book commonly known as the bible for fundament, if that isn't the case, it called: plagiary, and since I did hear Bob, I don't believe it is plagiary, and as I recall rightly he(Bob) didn't start as 'rastafarian'. Beware I left my personal professional opinion out.


Greetings from Holland,
Niels

Supplement

If you need some form of proof of expertise please see/hear; http://www.myspace.com/miwords Niels

Greetings from Holland,
Niels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.11.72 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== For the record... ==Reggae music was origin from the caribbean Islands of triidad and Tobago 10//09//59.

Excuse me,
I noticed I wrote 'half the tempo for the piccolo-partiture', but should be 'double the tempo', to make the notation 'slower' and more readable.

Niels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.11.72 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Best Reggae concerts filmed for television?

What are some of the best Reggae concerts ever filmed for television?

Here is a preview of a recent HD television recording of the Reggae Giants concert. This Reggae Giants television concert preview features Marcia Griffiths (of Bob Marley's I-Three's), John Holt and Ken Boothe in concert on August 23, 2009 at Sound Academy in Toronto. Setting a fresh new standard for reggae concert broadcasts, this HD television special presentation was filmed with the highest video standard available at 1080i HD with a crisp 24 channel audio mix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-VqUOeVFw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.172.36 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What About Desmond Dekker?

Shouldn't Desmond Dekker be mentioned in the History section of the reggae article? He had one of the first world wide reggae hits with 'The Israelites'. And that was before Jimmy Cliff burst onto the scene. Just read the Wikipedia article of Dekker. That says it all.

reggae musical definition

hi, I totally don't agree with the reggae musical definition a the top of the aticle:

reggae is slower than rocksteady and ska but the pattern are exactly the same: drum is accentuating second and fourth beat (called one drop) and piano/guitar are playing the offbeats

ther is a big confusion about this in every book i saw but ask any reggae musician he will tell you the same, Aston barret says so and Horsemouth too!Ehjammy (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

edit: it's obvious for everyone that in ska music one drop is the 2 and 4 isn't it?

sojust consider than reggae is a slowed down rocksteady, and rocksteady a slowed down ska

they simply slowed the tempo but the patterns stay the same .. (do you seriously think someone decided: "we are going to play in a double tempo and in the same time change the placing of each instrument" ???) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehjammy (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Reggae is slower than rocksteady" - really? Listen to some of the early reggae tracks from the late 60s and then tell us that it's slower than rocksteady. Drum patterns vary in reggae, but I can think of plenty where the emphasis is on the third beat. E.g. just browsing through my iTunes a few random reggae tracks that all follow this pattern are Aston Barrett's "Deep River", Augustus Pablo's "Above Rocks", "Java", Barrington Levy's "Jah Black", etc., etc., etc. It certainly seems to be the most common pattern. Piano/guitar is generally on 2 and 4, with the main bass drum emphasis on 3. Basically the same from ska through to reggae, though. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


well let take few examples, a typical rocksteady would be "rocksteady" by Alton ellis: the tempo is more than 90 bpm, and let take some reggae like "sattamasagana" by the abyssinians: the tempo is under 80.. with exactly the same guitar/piano/drum parts weither you count it "double" or not (personally i think carlton barrett and horsemouth gave the RIGHT counting, and i even don't know how can someone know better than 2 of the best reggae drummers of history...) so??Ehjammy

Early reggae increased the tempo after rocksteady and then it slowed again in the early 1970s. In the late 1970s a lot of rocksteady rhythms were recycled as reggae rhythms. Can you provide a source for Carlie or Horsemouth stating that the drums in reggae are on the second and fourth beat? See these: [1], [2], [3], [4].--Michig (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Roots Reggae Subheading

"Musically, on the song "Roots, Rock, Reggae" Marley devised a new style of "off beat" music where a bar of six beats is played, with the guitar skanking on the fourth and sixth beat."

I didn't want to change the article in case I'm mistaken, but that can't be right, Roots Rock Reggae is in 4/4.... Willjazz1 (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reggae/Archive_2&oldid=816950754"