Talk:Robot Rock (song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robot Rock (song) 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

Sub Focus Sample

Sub Focus samples this tune in his song "Rock It". He uses the main guitar chord and then chops up the lead to create a new tune. Should this information be added to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.174.154 (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

I edited this one to remove some weasling POV - it insinuated that Daft Punk had somehow been deceitful/plagaristic in their use of the Breakwater sample ("borderline theft"). This is daft (ahem), since Breakwater's Kae Williams is given a songwriting credit on the record sleeve, and also the sample acknowledgement is printed - thus the whole thing is cleary done through the normal industry publishing and sample-clearing channels, with nothing underhand or deceptive about it.--feline1 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. I clarified the issue by adding info on the clearance mentioned in the liner notes. Just64helpin 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscillator sync

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to say that noting the Breakwater riff uses an "oscillator sync" sound constitutes "original research". It's quite unambiguous to anyone familiar with analogue synths - no "research" needs to be done, any more than we can all say that Derek and the Domino's "Layla" features a guitar solo, or that Beethoven's 5th was played by an orchestra! There is no possible other plausible type of analogue synth sound which could be making that noise! (You do accept it is umambiguously an analogue synth, yes? And not a clarinet, harpichord, or set of bagpipes?) Please do not revert this again.--feline1 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to entertain this. I've made changes that more specifically state that it sounds like (not certifiably is) whatever instrument you happen to think it is. Just64helpin 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due disrespect, you clearly have little clue what you're writing about. Your replacement phrase is badly written and inaccurate - the phrase "sounds like an oscillating synth" barely makes sense and isn't a proper description. The timbre feature is a classic analogue synth sound, which employs two VCOs, once "synced" to the other, but modulated to give that searing timbre. It's standard terminology on pretty much every synth that employed the technique (eg ARP Odyssey)

It remains uncited from a reliable publication either way. Since you claim to be expert on the subject, why not report the information on "Release The Beast" to a reputable source of information? You certainly seem to have the time to do so. Just64helpin 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require citation, as it is clearly audible. There is not one single credible alternative for what it could be, and you, I imagine, are certainly not about to suggest one (timpani? glockenspiel? Spanish guitar and introducing acoustic guitar? kazoo??). There are no publications from "reliable experts" who list what type of synth sounds are used in pop records anyways!? Please just accept your own ignorance in the matter! "Oscillator sync" is a well known analogue synth technique (which is why there is even a wikipedia page on it) and it sounds distinctive enough to recognise when one hears it. Your other use of terminology is also rather eccentric. Why use the term "ensemble" to describe the riff? And "interpolation" is a mathematical term, quite an odd choice of word when what you mean is "they used a sample". The sleeve notes don't "document the clearance of the sample" - they give a songwriter credit, and copyright credit for the inclusion of the sample.--feline1 20:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact publications and articles such as this which attempt to break down and analyze elements in popular music. What I asked isn't as nonsensical as you might think. Just64helpin 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, and other magazines such as http://www.soundonsound.com sometimes do a whole article on a particular track. But it's not like I have declared what model of synth Breakwater original used (obviously, we could not know that for sure without an interview with them). I am just noting the generic type of analogue synth patch employed. It's as unambiguous as the article's use of the phrase "guitar power chords" (unless you'd like a citation for that as well?)--feline1 10:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - had to laugh at the quote from Stylus magazine - "a plastic guitar riff" - so much for citing professionals - it's not a guitar riff, it's a synth riff (using oscillator sync).

In case anyone is wondering, I moved the Breakwater-specific info to the Breakwater (band) article, which now exists. Just64helpin 13:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from ramming irrelevant information into the article. This article is about a Daft Punk song, not the Breakwater one. Just64helpin 16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just64Vandalising, we've been through all this crap last year. Now stop it.--feline1 14:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. As I said previously, the Breakwater (band) page now exists, so all Breakwater-specific info should be noted there. The sources currently used in the article (liner notes, discogs link) do not state the song "is based on a sampled riff", so it is misleading to document it that way. If you aren't willing to discuss this properly, there is no point in reverting. Just64helpin 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to remain civil, because your editing is so persistently and willfully egregious. The song is based on a sampled riff. To say that it is cannot be, because it doesn't say so on the record sleeve, is quite frankly moronic. Ditto for your removal of the link to power chord. The fact that riff is played on a synth set to an oscillator sync sound is also central to the song, so belongs in the article about the song, and not in an article about another band (the fact that a particular band used a particular synth sound on a particular recording is irrelevant trivia in an article about band).--feline1 10:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point from the very beginning was to attribute information to reliable sources. The article fails to adhere to WP:V and WP:NOR, which is a shame. There is no chance of this becoming a good article if contributions continue to be implemented this way. I suppose I shouldn't bother trying to expand it, as I did by adding the "Reception" section. It's really a wasted effort on my part. Just64helpin 09:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk box? Not vocoder?

Any sources that the vocals are made with a talk box? It sounds a lot more like a vocoder to me. 84.217.142.11 21:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one note is sung, which makes it hard to discern. Feel free to change the info if you find a source. Just64helpin 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RobotRock.DaftPunk.single.jpg

Image:RobotRock.DaftPunk.single.jpg 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RobotRock.DaftPunk.single.jpg

Image:RobotRock.DaftPunk.single.jpg 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) 04:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion closed. It appears that this discussion was cut from somewhere and pasted here. I'm not sure why and I don't see a need to dig around. Please open a new discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Rock (song) → Rolling Rock – Relisted. I think this is a request to replace the dab page. That really needs more discussion.Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC) The most common use of "Robot Rock" is the Daft Punk song--a simple Google search will bear this out. If Robot Rock is about the song and Robot Rock (song) redirects there, then we can simply use {{for}} as a hatnote to direct readers to Robot Rock (album). As for its third usage, that is so obscure as to be deleteable and there is no article on the topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Clearly the primary topic. Marcus Qwertyus 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A disambiguation page for two entries is unneeded. I also edited the Robot Rock disambiguation page to clarify the nonexistence of a third article. jhsounds (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Techno track criticised for being too repetitive

Why is "many critics found the song overly repetitive" in the first encyclopedic sentence regarding a techno TRACK (song..?? Duhhh)

From there, the article gets worse, but others have already commented about that above, only to be rebukked by farcical arguments defending the sentences.

(Ideal World Request: Can someone who knows Daft Punk get them to edit at least some of the article to add technical details and remove foolish sentences, please?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.250.110.197 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]