# Talk:Noise in music

This user page contains material copied from noise (music genre), harsh noise, Talk:Noise (music genre), and aleatoric music, in either their current or previous versions. See the page histories there for attributions to specific contributors. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Now in the main namespace, but the above still applies and is now even more important. Andrewa (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Renamed (within my userspace still for the moment) from noise (music) to noise in music following an excellent suggestion [1] at Talk:Noise (music genre)#Requested move. Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/events-conferences/sssp2009/proceedings/07_SSSP09_Wolf.pdf Thinking about Noise by Motje Wolf: The genre noise music does not have a proper definition. and later A. Acoustic noise: In the field of acoustics the concept of noise is in principle purely physically defined. Noises are sounds that are impure and irregular, neither tones nor rhythm - roaring, pealing, blurry sounds with a lot of simultaneous frequencies, as opposed to a rounded sound with a basic frequency and its related overtones. To name different kinds of noise, synaesthetic metaphors are derived from the spectrum of color so that 'white noise' is a signal ideally containing all of the audible frequencies at the same time, like an untuned radio. A signal in which certain frequencies are preferred to others is thus called "colored noise," ranging from "violet noise" (a bias on the high frequencies) to "purple noise" (a bias on the low frequencies). The whole article well worth a read.
http://www.musicandmeaning.net/issues/showArticle.php?artID=2.11 Commentary on Torben Sangild’s Støjens æstetik (The Aesthetics of Noise)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=023E4DA488C27A88C9A5EC3F099564A3.journals?fromPage=online&aid=464979 Paper at a paid site, Abstract: The word ‘noise’ has taken on various meanings throughout the course of twentieth-century music. Technology has had direct influence on the presence of noise, as phenomenon and as concept, both through its newfound ubiquity in modernity and through its use directly in music production – in electroacoustics. The creative use of technologies has lead to new representation systems for music, and noise – considered as that outside of a given representation – was brought into meaning. This paper examines several moments in which a change in representation brought noise into musical consideration – leading to a ‘noise music’ for its time before simply becoming understood as music.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noise
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/014_03/870 review by Nicole Lanctot of Noise/Music: A History by Paul Hegarty, gives some interesting insights into the context of Hegarty's writing.
http://www.staticsignals.com/static/music-noise.shtml well written and thought-provoking but probably not a reliable secondary source
More to follow. Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

These are factoids which are IMO true but are currently unreferenced on both this page and on at least one other Wikipedia page. It would be good to provide a reference both on this page and on the other (which is generally but not always the source of the information here). Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Jimi Hendrix Experience is regarded as a pioneer of noise music. Also implicit in the lead of noise music.
More to follow. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice: I nominated this article for DYK. The review found that there need to be some more citations before the nomination can move forward. Basically, there should be a minimum of one citation per paragraph in the main content, unless cited elsewhere. I'm not familiar with most of the info on here, maybe those with more experience in this area know where to locate some sources. Review at Template:Did you know nominations/Noise in music.--¿3family6 contribs 00:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I had never considered the connection until reading the noise music article. But my (still) favourite Hendrix track 1983... (A Merman I Should Turn to Be) makes use of many levels of noise, distortion of course but also at levels of form and structure, in glorious hindsight. And of course he is a pioneer of distortion, and of tape phase compositions, such as ...And the Gods Made Love and Moon, Turn the Tides...Gently Gently Away both from the same album Electric Ladyland. Interesting. Still need a ref. Andrewa (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And of course, and perhaps ironically, line 4 of 1983... (A Merman I Should Turn to Be) reads Decided to take a last walk through the noise to the sea (my emphasis). I wonder would Hendrix himself consider his music noise? I rather doubt it. Andrewa (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See talk:noise (Music). It may not get many links, but it's a useful thing to have. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The liner notes of Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) (1966) contains a box (from memory, my copy is in storage) that starts This album is recorded... and goes on to specify the RIAA and some other standards, concluding if by any chance you do not agree with these standards... turn it up. 
Well, it was true... the first track on my copy of the album Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow? (track listings vary, this was Australia) sounded so noisy and distorted when I first played it that I almost took it back (as my mother, a trained opera singer, recommended). But as soon as there was nobody over twenty years of age at home, we tried it at the highest volume the home-built Mullard 10+10 valve amplifier would muster. It sounded great.
Questons: 1. How did they do it? I'm sure it was deliberate. 2. Does this qualify as musical use of noise? 3. Can we source it? Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll never forget the first time I played Rust Never Sleeps on vinyl and heard the opening notes of "Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black)"--I checked the needle to see if it had a bunch of dust on it. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm considering reverting this edit. 
1. Most important, it subtly but importantly changes the scope of the article. This is supposed to be an article about noise in music in general, includng noise as a type or form of music. 
2. It does not advertise the presence of the redirect Noise (Music). This is harmless to readers and helpful editors, who may wish to use the pipe trick. See talk:Noise (Music).
See [2] and note the previous comment there For just the general idea of noise in music, I think this warrants its own article with the title I just italicized (italics in the original replaced here by bold for formatting reasons).
We need an article on noise in music in general. If this is not a suitable title for it, then we need to move it back to noise (music), which was my original intention of course, and still the most logical place for it IMO.
My agenda here is simply to have a suitable target article for us to link to from articles such as unpitched percussion instrument. That's what started all this.
There is however a darker side to this. Paul Hegarty's book Noise/Music explores some socio-political themes, and it is fine to report his POV, while not giving it undue weight of course. But we must be careful not to promote what appears to be at best a minority view among music scholars, and noting that Hegarty himself is, academically speaking, a philosopher.
Comments? Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed the redirect because "noise (music)" in lowercase redirects to noise music, so I wanted to be consistent. Should both redirects go here instead?--¿3family6 contribs 19:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
That would be a far better solution than using the non-standard disambiguator (Music) in my opinion, but I think we will have a fight on our hands to do it. I could be wrong.
Logically noise (music) should of course redirect to the more general article at noise in music rather than to the more specific article at noise music. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Reverted your change to Noise (Music), please see Talk:Noise (Music). Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
See also Talk:Noise (music)#Redirect target... there is a lot of work involved. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Just thinking out loud... two possible moves:
Noise music -> Noise as music
Noise in music -> Noise (music)
might solve a lot of problems... noise music as an article title was objected to as it was claimed it's ambiguous and a synonym for Japanoise (although no evidence of this was ever presented), and it makes the scope of this article clearer. The lead to noise music could simply be expanded to front the shorter title noise, viz Noise or noise music is a term used to describe varieties of avant-garde music and contemporary musical practices that have dispensed with melody, harmony, and at times even rhythm or pulse.
(Actually, I have a problem with this... the article is about the topic, not the term. See Talk:Transient (acoustics)#Term or phenomenon. So I would actually say instead Noise or noise music is any form of music dominated by noise. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence.)

(And on reflection I've fixed it [3], we'll see how it goes. Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC))
Comments, now the dust is clearing a little? Or should we let the dust clear some more? Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I've had a go at a compromise [4], but not completely happy. Ideally, we'd go back to using Template:Redirect after pointing noise (music) here, but that's a lot of work.
Also interested in the phrase form of music rather than type of music... should that also be adopted in the headings within the article, one of which currently reads Noise as a type of music? Andrewa (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The latest edit [5] is by far the best version of the hatnote yet IMO... appropriate and constructive boldness indeed. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost 400,000 ghits for “harsh noise” music -Wikipedia [6] (your esults may vary) and they look relevant. Why not a separate article? One previously existed [7] and seemed a useful stub to me. Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've actually been gathering some sources on harsh noise. I can pass on the links if you want.--¿3family6 contribs 23:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggest add them to Talk:Harsh noise. Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm relocating unsourced paragraphs and sentences to here so that they can be resolved:--¿3family6 contribs 17:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


### Electronic music
"Vacuum tube circuits were used in some early electronic organs to imitate unpitched percussion by modulating coloured noise. These circuits were superseded by similar analogue circuits using transistors and then integrated circuits. In 1967, the Ace Tone FR-1 rhythm unit was adopted by Hammond organs as a built-in feature of their home organs, and similar units were a feature of most home organs until such instruments were superseded by low-cost electronic keyboards. In the 1960s, the Moog synthesizer included a white noise generator and provided an enormous variety of facilities for colouring and shaping its output and combining it with other waveforms.
With the development of sampling instruments, such as the mellotron and digital synthesizer, any sound including noise became available to electronic music. Digital techniques, and particularly sampling techniques, progressively replaced analogue ones; The 1983 Boss Doctor Rhythm DR-110 drum machine, for example, used analogue noise techniques extensively to generate its sounds, but was the last model from that manufacturer to do so. In some applications, such as electronic drums, sampling techniques are in turn being replaced by mathematical modelling techniques."


### Rock music
"These devices became available both as stand-alone effects pedals and as features such as an overdrive or distortion control built in to the amplifier, and have since received widespread adoption by players of other instruments, and in other styles of music." [Referring to distortion devices such as fuzzboxes].
"A particularly successful early effects pedal was the fuzz-wah pedal, which uses first distortion (fuzz) to render the sound noisy, and then a pedal-operated variable filter to re-introduce pattern."
"For example, the 1968 Jimi Hendrix album Electric Ladyland contains two pure tape phase compositions, ...And the Gods Made Love and Moon, Turn the Tides...Gently Gently Away."


### Image
From the fuzz-wah sentence:


### Unpitched percussion
Many instruments both pitched and unpitched use noise to produce a distinctive timbre, particularly but not only in the prefix of a note.


### Experimental and avant-garde music
In the late 1950s and early 1960s Karlheinz Stockhausen analysed music in terms of frequency spectra, with the lowest frequencies corresponding to form and dynamics, and higher frequencies then representing melody and harmony, rhythm and pulse, with the highest of all representing pitch and timbre.<!--This must be referring in part to "… How Time Passes …", which was published in 1957. So what is this "early 1960s" research?--> By the early 1970s he was speaking of "twenty-one octaves of musical time": seven "octaves" (i.e., the proportion of 2:1) in the realm of pitch, seven more below this in the realm of rhythmic durations, and finally about seven for formal proportioning. In terms of this analysis, aleatoric music is simply music --¿3family6 contribs 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)which incorporates noise at frequency levels other than pitch and timbre.

I have returned the cited sentence in this paragraph to the article, but left it here (now struck through) for reference. I assume it got caught up by mistake with the move of uncited material. Unfortunately, it now lacks this context, which is rather important to understanding what it means. The first sentence is certainly distorted but, with a suitable transposition from the late 50s and early 60s back to the early and mid 1950s can certainly be verified by the item noted editorially. I suspect that a similar adjustment to the final sentence will render it verifiable by a passage in Jonathan Cott's book, where Stockhausen discusses the form of his Klavierstück XI as a temporal extension of a noisy sound spectrum.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read the book, so I can't say. If it shows up on Google Books maybe I can check, but if you know where the supporting sentences are, you can probably just put them into the article.--¿3family6 contribs 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly so. I've been lazy on this front, in favour of shifting those references into reflist format, and expanding the section on traditions of noise-based music. A huge lacuna in this regard is Africa, which is apparently so well-known for its drum ensembles that no reference bothers to clearly describe their non-pitched character!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll help with shifting the references, right now I'm just busy trying to finish sourcing the list of pop punk bands. That sounds really interesting about Africa, I hope something turns up.--¿3family6 contribs 19:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph is now reinserted, with corrections and what should be enough inline citations to sing a battleship. Andrewa's original material was essentially correct, except the dates given were generally a decade too late.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


### Noise reduction
Recently available digital feedback reduction techniques have resulted in large headroom increases in live music amplification.


### Orchestras
In 1969 when the Sydney Symphony Orchestra performed Déserts (Varèse, 1950–1954), using unconventional percussion and a magnetic tape with noisy sounds, the audience responded with what is still the only slow handclap of disapproval that the orchestra has ever received during a performance.

In response to User:3family6's recent edit, partially changing the referencing format, it should be pointed out that this is technically in violation of WP:CITEVAR in that consensus was not first obtained to change the referencing style. However, I would like to support this change, only at the same time suggesting that it should be done for all of the references, in order to maintain a consistent referencing style, per WP:CITEVAR.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

One other thing: Reference lists for use with the inline-citation style now substituted ought to follow one of two or three standard formats (Chicago, APA, etc.), in which author names are inverted and the year of publication placed directly after the author's name, either parenthesised, bracketed, or not, and the publication information should not be enclosed in parentheses, as is standard for full references in footnotes. I do not want to charge in and change things until consensus has been reached on which format we are trying to achieve.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the violation, I wasn't aware of that policy (this is why I like WP:IAR, because of stupid mistakes like this). I split the reflist into notes and references because it seems to work better with separate pages that otherwise create a list of otherwise identical citations. I'm not sure which format to use at this point. I'm used to using the standard cite tag format that comes pre-built into the editing window, but I'm not sure which style this is (it looks like MLA). The format being used in this article I am unfamiliar with, but I don't necessarily think it should be changed. But I do think we need to establish a standard format here.--¿3family6 contribs 18:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I have already said, I support the change. The current format is full-reference footnote style, which has certain disadvantages, especially in online articles subject to continuous editing. Because of this state, it is inadvisable to use many of the shortcuts traditionally employed in the print medium, especially abbreviations such as "op. cit.", "loc. cit.", and "ibid.", since the antecedents are easily confused when new material is added. The use of shortened citations in footnotes subsequent to a first entry is also problematic, since that same source may be used for a new entry prior to the original first one, or the main entry may be deleted, leaving the shortened entries without an antecedent. This is why the full duplicated references have gotten into this article, with which you are trying to deal. My preference for reference lists is one of several recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style, which lists authors alphabetically by last name, and gives the year of publication without brackets. This is simpler and less cluttered than MLA or APA styles, one of which (I've forgotten which one) places the year of publication at the end of the entry instead of after the author's name. Since you seem not to have a strong preference, I propose using this Chicago variant. The cite tag format has a host of problems associated with it, not the least being that it lacks parameters for a number of standard bibliographical elements. It is widely used on Wikipedia, all too often for footnote entries despite the fact that it is plainly designed for reference lists. I strongly discourage its use here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Since a week has passed with no further comments, I presume that no one has any strong objections to the use of a reference-list style instead of full-footnote style, or to the style I have suggested. Consequently, I propose to get down to work on implementing this change.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not good with the terminology but I think I know what you mean: a bibliography with short footnotes? Sounds fine. The article is DYK-nominated, as I think you probably know, so consistent formatting of references is a good thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, bibliography with short footnotes is exactly the idea. The article grew rapidly after its creation a few weeks ago, and it soon became apparent that the full-footnote references were getting out of control. As you can see from the discussion above, User:3family6 began extracting the multiply referenced items and putting them into what you are calling a bibliography (actually my preferred term, as well, but don't tell the hordes of other Wikipedia editors who think this word should be reserved for books published by the subject of biographical articles). In order to achieve a consistent referencing format, I am now doing the same for the remaining references. It looks like being a long job.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
If you ask Jimbo nicely he'll assign you a research assistant. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced with the use of Dave Davies, plugging an amp into an amp. First of all, Davies is hardly known for his distortion; second, this reference, while interesting, is a school project, not exactly a reliable source. Much more notable for noise is Neil Young, who plugs a Fender Deluxe into a Magnatone to produce beautiful, ear-splitting noise--and produced an album with nothing but noise, Arc. Unfortunately I have yet to find a decent reference for that, but I'm working on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that Arc (album) was recorded and released in 1991, so it's a completely different part of musical history.
I heard Davies interviewed for radio and television at Sydney airport when You Really Got Me was on the charts in Sydney, so I guess that was late 1964 or early 1965. He was asked what guitar effects he used... fuzz boxes already existed at this stage, but they were rare, particularly in Britain, the Rolling Stones first used one on (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction almost a year after You Really Got Me, and distortion controls on amplifiers were even more unusual, the Marshall Bluesbreaker was one of the first amplifiers designed with distortion in mind but in 1964 it still just labelled its input pad Volume. Davies' reply was that he didn't use any effects. Asked how he got the sound on You Really Got Me, he said "You just turn up all the volume controls on your guitar and amplifier as far as they will go and it sounds like that. S'lovely." As a guitarist myself and having owned several amplifiers of the period, I suspect that he also used full treble "Boost" on both guitar and amplifier (I say "Boost" in quotes because many treble controls of those days provided only treble cut, but the pickups were so trebly that a mid setting was still perceived as "flat").
His use of tandem amplifiers in the studio is documented in many places, but I don't have another to hand just now. And either way he was a pioneer. Andrewa (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Noise in music/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: B137 (talk · contribs) 10:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Review The scope is broad, but without going off on tangents. The references I see have been done in a different format with all inline citations leading to simple book references and the references section structured as an external links section would be. I'm not well versed in all the variations of referencing that are accepted here beyond what I am used to seeing so I may need some third party input on that. Overall I feel this article exceeds the typical good article quality and even has potential to become a featured article.
B137 (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment The "different" format is described at WP:SFN. Since I am one of the editors involved in developing this article, it is not my place to judge it, but I am happy to answer any questions, and look forward to suggestions for improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Since you are not one of the editors involved in developing this article, it is exactly your place to judge it; thank you for illustrating that it is okay. B137 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you must have misread my comment. I was heavily involved in developing this article. And you are welcome for the reference.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that was my only qualm; I have passed the article. If you guys are still feeling zealous about it, I would suggesting continuing and adding it at FAR. B137 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic! I was expecting three weeks' hard work revising in order to correct a myriad of overlooked flaws (as my previous experience with GA reviews suggested). This could still happen, though, if it is taken to FAR. Thanks for your assistance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have seen some editors give overly stringent reviews, but when you look at the GAC, it really doesn't ask for that much. Honestly, what the GAC is is what every article that's not a stub should be. Broad, properly cited, on topic. It's featured articles where things usually have to go well above and beyond. And it's more a matter of luck than skilled editing. Some topics simply aren't broad enough to be taken that far. I've seen a featured article or two that I don't know how they passed. I think this is one of those articles that maybe with a little more content in each section could easily be a FA. It's one of those topics that, while somewhat obscure and even bohemian, has proven to be unique and broad. I think it's topics like these where some of the best work on the site is found. B137 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Ha-ha! "Obscure and even bohemian", yes, in the ordinary way of looking at things, I suppose that is true. I hope that the portions of this article I worked the hardest on (noise in world music and European music in the 18th century) demonstrate the ubiquity of noise in music generally, which I expect will come as a bit of a surprise to many readers who drop in out of idle curiosity. Thanks again for giving such a favorable judgment. I was not the person who nominated the article for GA status, but I may go ahead and put it up for FA, since you have been so encouraging.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I found a quite fascinating discussion of the Serato Scratch Live vinyl emulation software and how it uses a sub-audible noise signal to detect where the needle is on a vinyl record (pages 220-221). However, I do not know which section to put this information in the article. It isn't a form of noise reduction, so that section wouldn't work, and it's not really electronic music, or hip hop music.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me there is also the question of whether any sound that cannot be heard falls entirely outside the realm of music. This is certainly an interesting technology, and I can see its relevance to scratching, but even if randomized sub-sonic frequencies are the basis of the technology, there is no reason why the resulting music might not be free of noise entirely. An intriguing conundrum. BTW, I like very much your additions on hip-hop. It is amusing to read how seriously at least one musician takes the political implications of noise music, and note the year of the quotation: 2013, exactly a century since a very similar political position was espoused in the Futurist Manifesto and the infamous Paris concert of noise instruments. Nihil sub sole novum, eh?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
For me, the fascinating aspect of that technology is that it is a use of noise in music, but not as musical output but as an aid for the technology producing the music. I agree about the recurring political analysis of noise of over a century - there's a very long heritage of "noise" being a term use to define cultural structures, and thus noise is often used to break down those cultural structures. The whole point of jazz, rock, and hip hop are transgression and rebellion, and, interestingly enough, all of those styles originated as African-American music.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean that non-noise music defines cultural structures (harmoniousness, marching in step, etc.), and noise transgresses these structures. I'm not sure this is the whole point of jazz and rock—perhaps hip-hop is another matter—but I cannot help but notice that few of the Futurists were Afro-Americans, and the same is true of the declared anarchist John Cage and the European avant-garde of the 1950s.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Noise in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626212835/http://www2.kerrang.com/2007/06/gallows_become_the_worlds_loud.html to http://www2.kerrang.com/2007/06/gallows_become_the_worlds_loud.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As has been noted before, Africa is not well represented in this article. I found some sources that can be used. Most require JSTOR or other academic access.

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
That list probably won't get at everything, but it should do as a start.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)