Talk:Snowflakes Are Dancing

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

"Golliwog" vs. "golliwogg"

I've just had to revert an edit of 16 January 2012, when the reference to the title of "Golliwogg's Cakewalk" being misspelled as "Golliwog's" was removed. The edit summary given was:

'Golliwog' isn't really a misspelling, current (and 1976) usage would make it perfectly acceptable

The fallacy in the above is that we're talking here about Claude Debussy's Children's Corner, which wasn't written in the present, nor in 1976, but in the early 20th century; furthermore, the title explicitly referenced the Golliwogg novels of ~~Florence Foster Jenkins~~ Florence Kate Upton(corrected reference, 10:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)). Thus we know that the correct spelling in this context is "Golliwogg", even though later usage (probably started by Enid Blyton) dropped the second final "g". — 188.29.241.246 (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have had to revert this again. Honestly, why do some editors fail to understand that "Golliwogg" is the only correct spelling as of the time that Debussy wrote this piece, and that "golliwog" is a later spelling? — Korax1214 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable item

I find the following dubious:

A particularly significant achievement was its polyphonic sound, which was created without the use of any polyphonic synthesizers (which were not yet commercially released). Tomita created the album's polyphonic sounds by recording selections one part at a time, taking 14 months to produce the album.

Surely Perrey and Kingsley got there first with The In Sound from Way Out! (1966), which likewise included polyphonic tracks, done the same way (multitrack layering)? I haven't heard Morton Subotnik's Silver Apples of the Moon (1967), but I would assume that this album also included this technique; as did Wendy Carlos' Switched-on Bach (1968), and other synthesiser and non-synthesiser albums predating 1973, such as several Beatles tracks. What's so "significant" about a technique which was already well-established long before Tomita came along? — Korax1214 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you listen to the clockwork orange theme you can hear techniques that are said here to be introduced by Isao Tomita. In fact I would say almost everything is present there, from reververtation to flanging etc. I'm betting there are other early songs that use them. What's funny is that the wording in the page suggests some form of pioneering but if you go to the source it reads more like he was a master of the techniques. Mirad1000 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synthpop?

Is it really?? Mirad1000 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]