Talk:Neurofunk/Archive 1

message: why are you doing one edit every five freaking minutes....  none of them with any edit summary.  it makes it impossible to meaningfully look through the edit history here.
for example you have removed my addition "By and large, however, neurofunk is an instrumental form of music, and does not generally rely on lyrical content" without explanation.  Why?  Was it wrong?  I don't think so.  Even if it was wrong, and you had a good reason for removing it, and perpetuating the erroneous implication that Rymetyme's lyrical content is somehow a defining a feature of neurofunk, why I must go back 150 edits to even find where it was removed?  Jesus christ, is it too difficult to roll multiple microscopic edits into one, and/or fill in the 'edit summary' box?  It makes it very, very difficult for anyone except you to even follow your changes to this article, let alone join in with their own edits and improvements.
:but DAMN!! get in touch with me then and lets figure things out because im beyond stressed with this talk page that doesnt go anywhere. its quite evedident that neuro is an instrumental form of music when you read: "juxtaposed elements of heavier and darker forms of funk with consecutive stabs over the bassline and rhythmically structred by razor sharp back beats where overall dark ambient atmospherics are prominent." doesnt this state quite clear that neuro is in fact an instrumental form of music?? did i write on the definition itself that "vocals" are prominent?? then why should you a over exagerate and claim it twice?? why repeat yourself?? lyrical content means: "the exclusive lyrical side of neurofunk" which relates mainly with rymytyme adding his vocals in 2 or 3 tunes and on live sets. why dont you make a positive contribution and write about the beats which i couldnt do?? blend in with my writing man, i wrote all this definition on my own without any help from the community who confuses stakka tunes with neurofunk and who still wish to interfere without a drop of knowledge and skill. im writing in a neutral way without my personal vision involved, without repeating myself because wikipedia is for the general public and it requires accuracy rather than to just write things because you love techfunk or something. 
:I got an overwhelming response - a thread on trace´s dsci4 forum - by major neurofunk headz and experts in the music. the thread had over a 1000 views and responses. there are producers now in the scene already checking this definition and adding the neuro tag to their name because finally someone wrote correctly about this style. i had to give up my own personal view of heavy dark funk (this is what i call neuro) and even include thoughts that i disagreee with - C4C did neuro for an example - but i added this because this is what is regardless of my personal view. 
:click on "discussion" and lets sort things out but lets get this ugly sign out of the way because at the end this is all about the music and not about religion and politics which are very complex issues. neurofunk is all about IF you got the FUNK or not and any artist willing to make neuro has got to make the funk EVIDENT: 
:on the stabs over a funk influenced bassline and sampling. 
:artist PHACE renovated neuro by taking a minimal techno approach because he looks back to techstep´s KONFLICT but his HARD DARK FUNK influnced bassline (on "hot rock", subtitles tune) made him part of 2nd or 3rd wave of true neurofunksters. look back to simon reynolds´definition of neuro because he damn knows it. disagreements are not about knowledge but about disagreements. i even think that silent witness and break did not do too much neuro but progressive techstep, but who am i to argue with the strong neuro community?? they approved what i wrote and this is the end i guess. but anyone can come and add just about anything but if they add CALYX or SPOR as neuro artists then its better to delete this whole article. personally i love calyx since i have too many of his records but neuro is TECHFUNK: a blending or progression of techstep (dark) and (dark) heavy funk, not light funk (liquid funk, funky drummer sounds, or drumfunk). it all comes from miles davis and parliament funkadelic along with no-u-turn style of techstep: the breeding grounds for neuro. 
:pls check techstep talk page: whoever wrote the techstep definition didnt include no u turn as pioneers of techstep along with others 
:but i chose instead to join the discussion and placing my doubts there 
:rather than to put an ugly dispute sign which is a drag for the community. i added no u turn there but somebody took it off and im not creating a fuzz about it since i believe the article to be accurate 
:anyway. better without no u turn mentioned there rather than with dillinja included as a techstep artist.    
:thanks. (robert)
::first i apologise for being rude in that previous message, i was drunk, it wasnt really necessarily to be quite so aggressive ;)
::second, "juxtaposed elements of heavier and darker forms of funk with consecutive stabs..." -- if I'm going to be pedantic, no that sentence actually doesnt make it clear at all that it is usually instrumental.  in fact to the uneducated it could give completely the wrong impression since "funk" as a genre in itself (James Brown, The Meters, Ohio Players, etc) is very often vocal based.
::"why dont you make a positive contribution and write about the beats which i couldnt do?? blend in with my writing man" ... well... I can't blend in with your writing because I have a fundamentally different opinion!  "neurofunk is all about IF you got the FUNK or not"... as someone who was into funk music years before I got into dnb, my view of funk is that it is defined by the human, never-the-same-twice, imprecise, nowhere-near-quantised interaction between the rhythm section, drummer and bassist falling ahead and/or behind of the beat, and the tempo varying quite widely, in a completely live fashion.  (See  for more detail on exactly what I'm getting at here).  Since neurofunk patently doesn't do this, I personally don't see it as being inherently "having the FUNK".  It might be good dancefloor stuff but fundamentally it is sequenced and the precise rhythms used are exact, programmed, non-spontaenous and repeated/looped, therefore no matter how "funky" it is, it doesn't have anything much genuinely in common with funk music at a musicological level.
::Besides this I am also one of those people who can't understand the difference between neuro and techstep, I find the way you people say optical is one thing but stakka is completely different quite baffling, when I was listening to both artists in the late 90s they were both just techstep to me.
::Finally I see no point in looking back to simon reynolds' definition because I think simon reynolds is a pretensious douche who likes the sound of his own voice an awful lot but certainly doesn't speak for any of the dnb heads I have ever met.  the paragraph of his book that spawned the word "neurofunk" also claims weed is hallucinogenic and other such idiotic things.  Having written pretensious books about dance culture in the 90s when dance culture was big, he's now writing pretensious books about "post-punk" now that post punk is the fashionable thing.  He's a talking head who spouts a lot of long words about whatever form of music is current popular, I really don't take his writings seriously as a genuine description of dnb culture, tbpfh.
::Anyway that's all completely irrelevant.  I am not really interested in arguing with you on this, I went through this debate at length before, and got nowhere, being overwhelmed by dsci4 members whose views tally with yours, so I'm perfectly happy to let you guys write your article according to your own definitions as you know more about it than I do.
::My main point was nothing to do with the content as such but just why you have to make 1 microscopic edit every 3 minutes instead of a grouping things into more substantial edits and adding an edit summary so that it is a little bit easier to follow.
::peace, Stevekeiretsu 16:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 84.44.* get a grip?!

message: the only problem here is that im the sole writer while bakemono keeps on adding kemal tech dubs to funk driven dnb. it would be best to delete ALL OF MY SOLE WRITINGS and you guys come up with your own definition of neuro. music expert?? what is that?? im only the sole writer!! i wish that someone responsible - not a vandal wanna be - would just do slick pro editing over me. pls make a contrib otherwise this is article will be gone - i will delete this - and no more bumbs editing shit. civilized?? i have a dub with paradox and herbie hancock in my pocket with goldie and fabio wishing to rinse it out. being civil is writing correctly and acting correctly: its about knowing music and WORKING with music and NOT editing nonsense over articles about JESUS, ISRAEL, and NEUROFUNK which is happening here at wiki. maybe, wiki is not a good thing since they cannot control offensive bumbs like bakemono. 
bakemono is a kid into vandalism. check his contributions: not one orig article but only editing over other people´s writings. FLAT...hey, bakemono: WRITE!!!!!!!!!!! turn people on and dont bring your friends here. they cant write anyway. i will bring matrix here idiot.
84.*, please note:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. 
Also: Please sign all correspondances with four tildes (i.e., 'WormwoodJagger 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subgenre?

message: I have added citation and cleanup tags, to invite other members of the wiki community along to help out with this page.  Please do not remove these tags until a consensus emerges that they are no longer necessary.  All best, WormwoodJagger 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations & Cleanup

message: To all concerned with this page: After two weeks of watching, and countless revert wars, I am now calling in help from someone who specializes in Abuse cases on wiki.  My primary concern is with 84.44*.  Someone should be here to investigate shortly.  All best, WormwoodJagger 11:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling In Abuse Investigators

message: Since wiki Admin seems to have a massive backlog at this point in time, would anyone object to requesting semi-protection for this page such that only registered users could edit?  This would hopefully avoid the endless revert war which seems to be going on right now?
All best, WormwoodJagger 23:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."
If you feel tht you cannot allow your writing " to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others," as the edit page notes, it would indeed be better if you did not participate, in my humble opinion.
I am going to treat any more discussion edits not on point as Internet trolling.
All best, WormwoodJagger 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protection?

message: Bakemono -- you cannot simply erase an article without building consensus.  You must discuss this on the talk pages here and wait for consensus to emerge.  What you are doing is considered vandalism.
WormwoodJagger 10:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop The Redirect