Talk:Click track

message: I think the paragraph on SMPTE time code is rather extraneous, or at least misworded. Time code is important for synchronizing sequencers, but really not a replacement for click tracks, which synchronize live musicians. Any objections to me removing it? Dropframe (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BEBOLD. In backwater articles like this it can be unlikely edits will get reverted or even noticed at all so, if you are unsure, you can always leave a note on the talk page as you've done.  Thanks. Radiodef (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMPTE? 

message: Is it considered at all common or proper practice to add CN tags to bits of information you yourself recently added to an article?
I'm asking because I'm thinking I wouldn't mind going quickly through the article in the soon-as-possible meantime, tagging what I think are some of the most crucial things that should be provided with an in-line citation. (I didn't add all the claims needing citations, just some of them, recently.) I came upon this article recently and can see that it needs help. And we all know that the article needs more references. I did provide one for the one and only thing that was 'CN'-tagged, but the article still has a whopping 2 in-line citations, and what I'm presuming to be the sort of.. generalized references "From the glossaries: BBC and about.com" (I'm still learning about WP, but I am a quick learner. I did make a citation didn't I? Well, it wasn't that hard.. but I'm proud of it anyway).
Sorry I digress. I'll be on the look-out for more references, but I/we could definitely use your guys' help with deciding which references I or someone else might suggest (or insert into the article) are good enough, and which aren't.
tehmikuji (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment about material likely to be challenged under the "References?" topic. Radiodef (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding citation needed tagging

message: Sorry; I hope this isn't considered as off topic or wrong to type on this discussion page.. but,
Where is everyone? I've been alone on this article for a few days now and it feels like a ghost article. I am new-ish to Wikipedia, so maybe this is common and I'm just being silly.
Either way though, I could use some help.  As you can all see, I added a lot of content to the article, but only few references.
If nothing else, I'd appreciate it if someone added CN tags to what they felt were the claims most needing verification, and/or fixed up the article a bit from its current state (I added a lot to it as it turns out).
I'd also appreciate feedback on the talk page.  If what you have to say directly regards something from my section(s?) above, please feel free to reply, indented, below that. Or here, wherever. I'll see it wherever you put it (even if you put it on my talk page instead of here, for any particular reason...).
So.. one question is: 
In retrospect, I realize that my addition/inclusion of the Harvard Concise Dict on Music reference for the term "rhythm section" is not really all that necessary, and is more serving to, almost kind of, artificially pad-out the reference list, but I've added it also to the Rhythm section article, which was (and is) lacking just as much as this article is on references.
So basically, I need to know if Wikipedia believes it is a good enough reference to use on Wikipedia.  For reference, the definition found in the book states the following:
"Rhythm section. The chord-playing, bass, and percussion instruments in a jazz group; the players of those instruments. A standard rhythm section comprises keyboard and or guitar, double bass (played pizzicato) or electronic bass, and drums."
The ISBN can be found in this article, and the Rhythm section article.
tehmikuji (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a statement in parentheses about the rhythm section that I assume must have been yours. I removed it because it just seemed off-topic. Radiodef (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's a little lonely here 

message: I've been working on Wikipedia since mid-2004, and it is rare to find an article with such positively awful writing quality as this one.  For example:This is because drums (often along with the bass, guitar and/or piano when present, together making up what is often called the rhythm section) tend to provide the rhythmic fulcrum in small ensembles, not just because drums are loud, but also because drummers very often go through the most advanced rhythmic training compared to many other instrumentalists.
Who speaks like that, much less writes unintelligible crap like that?  I've already taken steps to clean up the lead, but there are passages in this article that just leave me dumbfounded.  I came here hoping to learn something about click tracks, but instead of finding something informative, there is just paragraph after paragraph of vague, unsourced POV statements and opinions.  Nine-tenths of what is there could easily be discarded with no harm to the information content. — QuicksilverT @ 07:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of articles in the WP:PSP scope like this. I removed the statement that you quoted for being off-topic. Radiodef (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: This is easily one of the most flawed WP articles I've read.  It sounds like a modernist and a traditionalist arguing, trading off after each sentence.  The silly criticisms from the golden agers should be relegated to the Criticism section so as not to totally ruin the objectivity and cohesion of the more informative parts of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.156.19 (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. Thanks. Radiodef (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete lack of cohesion--a joke

message: My native langage is French and I would prefer not to write a part of this article. Also, I don’t know how to insert a reference on a page.
However, there is a chapter called « Synchronizing music to picture » in Roy Prendergast’s book « Film Music : A Neglected Art » from pages 263 to 273. A few pages talk about the click track. But it’s on page 183 that Prendergast mentions Bradley and Steiner as the founders of the click track concept. In his book « Reel Music: Exploring 100 years of Film Music », Roger Hickman, on page 116, mentions that Carl Stalling – who worked for Walt Disney – helped develop an early version of the click track in making the cartoon « The Skeleton Dance. »
These two references could be added to this article if anyone could double check them and insert them at the proper place. But Fred Karlin’s « On the Track », an exceptionnal detailed book about film scoring (probably one of the best reference in that matter), discusses the subject in a way that could clarify many questions raised about this article. Reviewing this article at the light of Karlin’s book would surely help. Franz.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranzGunther (talk • contribs) 13:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. These are indeed good potential sources. Radiodef (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I came here for answers to these questions after listening to "In Time" by Sly and the Family Stone from 1967 and noting its uncanny adherence to 96 BPM over the course of almost 6 minutes. I've studied hundreds of tracks featuring universally acclaimed rhythm sections (Stax, Motown, the Wrecking Crew, Earl Palmer, James Brown, et al) and found that they all have a certain lilting ebb and flow to their tempos (with the notable exception of tracks with Bootsy Collins, which, like the afore-mentioned Sly track, are suspiciously perfect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevintimba (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the click track come into common usage? When was it first used?