Talk:Neurofunk

message: Is this article about Neurofunk or about mentioning as many producers as one can? There are whole paragraphs about certain people that make the article completely confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.172.102 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Piss-poor article

message: I checked back to see if anybody had agreed with a criticism I made of this article, and checking the revision history of this page demonstrates that user:Kridian has been attempting to remove critical paragraphs from this talk page. Is there any reason to do taht other than to discourage people from working on it?
What is the point on trying to work on this article?
87.244.104.15 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  subtle removal of criticism from this talk page 

message: Having discussed things with Bakemono, I think it would be best if both the Techstep an Neurofunk articles had a simple definition, with links to producers and record labels typical of the genres (which will overlap considerably no doubt).  We should add something to each article mentioning that the overlap between what people refer to as techstep and neurofunk is so great that in many cases they are indistinguishable from one another.
I think the Neurofunk entry needs to be a smaller definition, like the techstep one, rather than the essay which it is at the moment.  Please don't take offence Kridian, as you clearly know your stuff, but I quite like techy/funky DnB and I havent heard of half the artists your talking about.
A simple encyclopaedic entry would be best, perhaps linking to the article on Funk as a definition, and the techsteparticle for comparison.  Likewise in techstep we should link other musical styles like Techno and link Neurofunk for comparison.
Hope that all makes sense! Tom Michael - Mostly Zen  (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey guys 

message: ...I was simply dealing with more important stuff for a bit. However, I'm not going to immediately modify the article or redirect anything as a show of good faith -- because I'm still willing to go about this in a NPOV way with you as long as you're willing to do the same and stop making the article your own. I have a lot to add to it and a lot to change. And again, it should be a sub-section of the Techstep article until actual fact-based proof of a specific definition that defines the style can be found. Until then, it's up in the air and completely arbitrary. Get back to me ASAP.
Bakemono 13:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm Still Here, Kridian 

message: Neurofunk has developed out of Techstep type DnB and can only really be distinguished because it has a 'funky' feel to it.  I had a look at the article Funk to see if someone could describe what makes something musically funky in terms of proper musical desription:
The funk article currently says:
Funk is a distinct style of music originated by African Americans, e.g., James Brown and his band members (especially Maceo and Melvin Parker), and groups like Parliament-Funkadelic or The Meters.
Funk best can be recognized by its syncopated rhythms; thick bass line (often based on an "on the one" beat); razor-sharp rhythm guitars; chanted or hollered vocals (as that of Marva Whitney or the Bar-Kays); strong, rhythm-oriented horn sections; prominent percussion; an upbeat attitude; African tones; danceability; and strong jazz influences (e.g., as in the music of Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, George Duke, Eddie Harris and others).
The thick basslines and syncopated rhythms could describe DnB in general.  I think the difference is the funky feel and danceability (a lot of P-Funk was about dancing and not being 'too cool' to dance).  I quite like a lot of techstep, but some of it is too rapid and broken up to dance too, it lacks the funky feel.
Rather than arguing over specific examples of artists who typify one genre or another, or starting to get angry or insulting with each other consider this.  Most artists who produce neurofunk type music also produce some techstep as well, and vice versa.  For example, I really like most tunes by Teebee which I would describe as Neurofunk with an ambient feel (lots of long drawn out atmospheric sounds along side the bass and beats).  But some of Teebees tracks are pure techstep.
The other thing is that with so many artists and releases on Vinyl, how many of us have actually heard enough of their music to consider ourselves an expert.  If we talk about Noisia, Phace et al, how manyof us have heard ALL of their music?? most of their music is techy and some of it is funky - some of it is both.
Enough people on internet forums (e.g. Dogs on Acid) use the term Neurofunk for it to deserve its own article though.
Tom Michael - Mostly Zen  (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining the difference

message: I've placed a protection page in the hopes of attracting at least one admin to help resolve this dispute.  Basically, there has been a revert war ongoing for almost a month now, which is frustrating all parties involved.  Both have, at times, attempted good faith edits, and, at other times, have succumbed to frustration.  Let's please keep our heads and discuss the following issues until a consensus emerges.  I would suggest a one week time frame, with votes on these issues.  If at the end of the week, a majority (+3 at least) emerges on either, than the discussed edits should be made.  
Please discuss these edits -- this is wiki policy, and it may be a good way to become more accustomed to maintaining civility, avoiding revert wars, while making edits.  I realize this is time consuming, and appreciate your cooperation.  
WormwoodJagger 11:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: If Neurofunk is a subgenre, it deserves its own article.  If Neurofunk is Techstep, then, um, there should be no name for it.... or it deserves a special explanation in Techstep article.
Neurofunk is obviously a subgenre as much as Techstep is a subgenre of dnb otherwise the 
community wouldnt even mention it. The term "Funk" was added for a reason, the same way 
"Funk-metal" is a term used to describe a subgenre of rock/metal - a style of rock/metal 
heavily influenced by funk. now, which words can be used to define it, to describe it, 
and which tunes are pure techstep and which are neurofunk; which artists developed neuro 
and who continues to develop neuro; should a techstep, drumfunk, or liquid funk artist 
be included on signature recordings if he only did 1 neuro tune or only prominent neurofunk 
artists should be included? if simon reynolds coined the term neurofunk, well, so was an 
american journalist responsible for coining the term "jazz", irritating the likes of miles 
davis who claimed that there was no such thing as jazz but only black music; a group of 2 
artists from nyc coined the term "punk rock" in 1972. the fact that someone coined the neuro 
term must be irrelavant to the fact that neurofunk is prominent style of music. otherwise, 
its anarchy on wiki and reverting these pages becomes the only valuable solution.
If Simon Reynolds coined the term, the term should therefore be applicable to the track he originally dubbed as the primary example, right? That is to say, "The Cult" is what all other Neurofunk tracks should ideally resemble in every way, otherwise they aren't Neurofunk. "The Cult" is the template of Neurofunk, so to speak. And if he coined the term, then his definition is canon. It's what Neurofunk is -- if it's indeed a true subgenre (which I say is bullocks, because it isn't a subgenre at all given the current application of the term). Problem is, of all the artists you say are exclusively Neurofunk, funnily enough almost NONE of their tracks sound anything remotely like "The Cult." However, they do sound like Techstep. Also, "funk," by Reynold's definition, was never a requisite element for Neurofunk. However, it was for Techstep.
Neurofunk is not a legitimate subgenre of Drum & Bass.
Neurofunk is only a subgenre because non-UK, web-kiddy DnB heads like you, Robert/Kridian, have tried to separate themselves from the general, mainstream UK Techstep pack using a term started by Simon Reynolds to do so. Neurofunk.com, before it closed, only helped to spread this nonsense further. It's only semi-prominent because this new wave of DnB fan hears the term from someone else just as clueless and doesn't have the musical knowledge to know it's BS, so they just start calling things that are Techstep, Neurofunk. The plain and simple fact is there's no more "funk" in a Noisia track than there is in a Kemal track -- if anything, there's a lot less, along with a lot less compositional genius/talent. This is why you can talk the talk, but you can't back it up with any proof. You keep spouting the same rhetoric without any substantial foundation to your claims. Where are the articles? Where are you cites? So, I guess I'll do the same until you answer the questions or go away.
Yet again, you never answered my main question -- the one of sole importance here in this whole debate. WHAT dark funk elements ARE in a "neuro" track that aren't in tracks you claim are "Tech" instead of neuro. So, I suppose we'll use Noisia as an example one more time. 
What specific samples or "funk basslines" do their tracks contain that a Kemal track doesn't? Seems sort of stupid to say it's a single sound that "defines" the neurofunk sound, as every artist defines their own sound with their own basslines, their own samples tweaked to originality which subsequently defines them.
Next, let's define "funk," shall we? Seems there's quite a slant on different "funk" sounds, and all the funk I know has very little transfer to what people proclaim is "neurofunk" and defined by some sort of funk sound that's no longer truly a funk sound at that point. Brothers Johnson are funk, Delegation is funk, Plush is funk, Rockwell is funk, Shalamar is funk, even Luther Vandross did funk (e.g. Never Too Much), and many were different in both sound and musical composition respectively. Even funk itself is a fusion of sounds -- jazz, blues and soul, so it's natural there will be variants in every track. So then, how can there be a single "funk" sound that makes neurofunk if funk itself isn't a single sound? Is it the plucked bass guitar sound -- because I've never heard that in a Noisia track? What is it? But because those incorporated elements (soul, jazz, blues) comprise funk, by your rationale, then a DnB song that had one of those elements would therefore qualify to be labeled as "funk." A tech song that had a bluesy sample, jazzy sample or soul sample in it (at any point) would therefore become Neurofunk.
Citing again the Amen Break, which has its origins exclusively in funk. Almost all breaks chopped and used in DnB come from funk (Apache, etc.). The Amen Break is used in more Drum & Bass tracks than I can count, spanning every imaginable genre. So if "funk influence" is what solely defines Neurofunk, then you're only further showing there's no separation and countering yourself.
If there was any reason the word "funk" was added to the term Neurofunk -- which only Simon Reynolds knows for sure -- it was most certainly because the sound had a "funky" feel in his opinion, yet still maintaining the mind & body stimulating aspects of Techstep. It was driving, highly danceable, funky -- in total contrast to the grimey, impossible-to-dance-to Techstep tracks of his day. Why else might he have added funk? Well, possibly for the reason mentioned above: DnB of all genres has a massive funk influence vis-a-vis breaks, samples, et al. Another reason? It simply sounds cool.  
But first, before anything else, please kindly point out any one of those blatant/recognizable "funk" elements out in a Noisia track that doesn't exist in a Kemal, Stakka or Bad Company track (or others not in your list/those you deem non-Neurofunk). Let's get this logical debate rolling.
Bakemono 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neurofunk as a subgenre of Techstep/Neurofunk as Techstep

message: Let's list, one by one, and debate. 
rymetyme, ed rush and optical, matrix, fierce, silent witness and break, phace, noisia, 
mayhem, decimal, misanthrop, cause 4 concern, sinthetix, corrupt souls, kiko, optiv, 
rob f, telematrik, mindscape, the upbeats and gridlok. i consider these artists to be 
exclusively neuro in contrast to some prominent artists from other genres who step into 
neuro, produce a tune, and steps out a.s.a.p. - the bandwagon syndrome - so lets debate.
Techstep artists: Ryme Tyme (his name isn't single word -- I figured someone who knew Matrix personally would know that much), Matrix, Ed Rush, Optical, Fierce, Kemal & Rob Data (AKA Konflict), Source Direct, Cause 4 Concern, Black Sun Empire, Masheen, Typecell, Kemal, Klute, Decimal, Corrupt Souls, Stakka & Skynet, Friction, Silent Witness, Break, Hydro, )EIB(, Trace, J Majik, EBK, Prolix, Chris Su, SKC, Future Prophecies, John B, Bulletproof, Kryptic Minds, Teebee, Concord Dawn, Dom & Roland, State of Mind, Polar, Skinny, Stratus, Technical Itch, Hive, Gridlok, Optiv, The Militia, Drum Kru, Usual Suspects, Moving Fusion, Adam F, Aquasky, Raiden, D-Bridge, Future Forces, Subphonics, Keaton, etc., etc. -- the list goes on and on, including everyone else you've listed above. 
Neurofunk Artists: The exact same list as the Techstep list I wrote above. Why? There's no difference, only this pretend difference which you can't lend any technical credence or divergence to. Where's the separation? What makes one artist "exclusive" and another one who simply "dabbles?" Typify the Neurofunk sound and then show how you listed artist fit exclusively into that definition with every single track they make; every sample/sound they use in their tracks; whereas other you say merely "dabble" don't. 
TO BAKEMONO - from Kridian 
i disagree. BSE, masheen, typecell, kemal, klute, friction, stakka+skynet, hydro, trace, j magik (??!!),ebk, prolix, future prophecies, john b (??!!), bulletproof, kryptic minds (??!!), teebee, 
concord dawn, dom+roland, state of mind, polar, skinny (??!!), stratus, technical itch (??!!), hive (??!!), the militia (??!!), usual suspects (??!!), moving fusion (??!!), adam f (??!!), aquasky (??!!), raiden (??!!), d-brisge, future forces, subphonics, keaton (??!!) ARE MOS DEF NOT NEURO ARTISTS BUT PURE TECH (STEP) ARTISTS. i agree that names which i didnt mention from your list could be open for a debate though. NEUROFUNK IS MOS DEF A LEGIT SUBGENRE OF DNB, REJECTED BY YOU AS A SOLE ADVOCATE HERE BUT CANNED BY THE COMMUNITY AND BY OTHER WRITERS OF DNB HERE ON WIKI. PERIOD. 
Kridian 
The point is, whether YOU agree or not is totally irrelevant. This isn't YOUR fake style, YOU didn't start it or originally define it and, based on your admitted credentials (or lack thereof), you really don't have general expertise or the musical knowledge to speak about it. You don't even produce. Having a background in/knowledge of funk music doesn't make you the foremost expert on a Drum & Bass style with "funk" in its name -- because that funk and this supposed "funk" are two completely different kinds of "funk." Now if you want to address some of my points logically, that's fine. But all I've seen you do now and forever is disregard everything I've said and claim everything you've said is truer than truth itself. Yet, you still won't technically (or musically) back up any of your claims, you just point and say "that's wrong!" Well, that may work in some 3rd grade German schoolyard, but in a logical argument it doesn't quite hold water. Once again, I'm fully open to a logical debate with you other than just spouting rhetoric about "funk music," name-dropping DnB Producers you claim to know (once again without proof) and stating facts that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. So, if you want to work together on this thing amicably, I'm game. But if you're not willing to bend, we'll just go the same route as before. 
Bakemono
Bakemono 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neurfounk Artists

message: what a great thing that you locked this article. a positive move - check out the jesus article
it was locked  - towards the true definition without vandalism. never to wipe out an article 
without any substantial reason; never ADD WRONG INFO!! 
thanks jagger. 
Kridian
Only a great thing because he locked the article with your latest edits in place. Had he locked them with my edits still intact, I get the feeling you'd be saying differently, am I right? Never fill an article with a page full of made-up, subjective, non-NPOV BS. 
Bakemono 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great idea

message: :Discussion continued from User talk:Kridian and User talk:Zeibura
Regarding the lists of tracks, it'd be cool if we could end up replacing them with a "notable productions" section similar to the one in the electro house article (but maybe a bit longer); that is, a list of tracks and albums with a short description as to why each one is a signature recording. If you can think of any such descriptions, then please add them!
For the "samples" section, something like the one in electronic body music would work fine. I have a few of the tracks in the list on my computer, but wikipedia needs them in an irregular file format which is gonna need a very particular software to convert to. Probably a good idea to do the lists first anyway, as then we could take, say, 6 tracks with good descriptions and get samples of them and upload.
The other thing this article is lacking is references, which I'm quite happy to help looking for.
Opinions? - Zeibura Talk 20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, those six tracks sound good. I have to admit I don't have any of the other five, so if you could get them that'd be brilliant. When you upload samples to Wiki they have to be less than 30 seconds, and encoded in Ogg Vorbis file format; the software Audacity (which is a free download on all platforms) will do this for you. - Zeibura(talk) 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists and samples 

message: Keep it up. 
The discussion over neurofunk vs techstep reminds me of jungle vs dnb. I've got plenty of records that could be qualified either as neurofunk or techstep, personally I don't see a difference but I'll leave this argument to other. --Dustek 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking Good

message: Why is this article different from Liquid Funk? Neurofunk is just another term for it, in my opinion. DubCrazy (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liquid Funk

message: All i want to know is, where is the list that WP had a while back that listed all the known Neurofunk artists. Also, if it has been moved/merged, why has it been done? There are many other genres and sub-genres of Drum & Bass that haven't been moved/merged. Also, the fact of the matter is that there are many pages on WP that detail other "sub-genres" of D&B that as far as i can see don't even deserve their own page and should be merged with others. Neurofunk is well established genre in its own right, and to merge the list of Neurofunk artists with anything other than itself is frankly absurd! thought-scorpion79.73.222.112 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Neurofunk artists; Where is it and/or why has it been moved/merged?

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]