Talk:Electronic music/Archive 2

message: i created Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music a few hours ago but it's already up for afd. is the site notable enough for the article to warrent existing? --MilkMiruku 00:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, people with different interests in music I met knew the guide, so it has some importance --LimoWreck 13:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music 

message: What's the use of the links section Organisations and communities ?
* The history section extends the information in the article and also provides extra (copyrighted) material, so these are usefull links
* But the communities section ?
** Why should we add some "communities" and organisations ... when we include these, there are many many more to add, we shouldn't discriminate other organisations, or make publicity for these organisations (even if they're non-profit; there are more than just one or two)
** Wikipedia is not a start page or search engine... you can use dmoz.org for that, when I read Wikipedia:External_links is see no reason to add these communities ? If they do offer really unique interesting online information about the history of electronic music (that's what the article is about), they might go in the section above. If they're just another community, there's no reason to add them 
** It's an open invitation for linkspamming
--LimoWreck 10:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisations and communities 

message: It seems that most of music-related articles are edited by some people aged about 20-25 that are used to get information only from very old or very recent sources, maybe their 60 y/o parents and their college friends. So, in the definitions of facts, the experience and the knowledge of late 1970s, 1980s, 1990s are missing at all. This is worst than a sort of POV, this is a very self-destructive behaviour, maybe this project (Wikipedia) is just a game for some of you, but I am sure that many web users would be happy to see the knowledge-that they got in many years of study, work and experience- all organized in just one place.
::Brian, your points about the quality of contributions to this project are valid, especially with the number of sourceless non-verifiable edits that are added. However, I fail to see why the age of the contributor has anything to do with this and it would seem that you are implying that a 25 year old lacks the experience to write coherently on the topic in question, which would be a personal attack. A 20-25 year old is perfectly capable of contributing as fully as anyone else because all sources should be verifiable - the fact that they were not present when the music was first released is irrelevant as Wikipedia has a policy of disallowing original research/experience. So while I sympathise with your criticisms of the article and sub-articles I feel that there are better ways to improve it than to attack the authors of the offending edits. Martin Hinks 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, one of the agreed reference styles needs to be implemented and adhered to. Martin Hinks 13:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors

message: Club music (or disco music) has been "electronic" almost since its early beginning, and those guys, artists, producers and sound engineers, just for market purposes, are being inventing "something new" since then. In other words I mean, Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement or promoting. If press tomorrow invents the n-th word for just selling their magazines, or becouse they have cognitive problems, we can't let them to have a large space even here in Wikipedia. Brian Wilson 11:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disco Music

message: I want to explain better my starements and removals of inconsistent information: most of modern dance music is produced, written, played with the purpose of make us enjoy clubs and even daily life.
Electronic music, since its beginning was "Electronic" not only becouse of its means, but MAINLY becouse of its content and context. 'The medium is the message' (Im quoting whom? I dont remember now). It was a sort of revolution against academic approach, first; eventually, electronic music become a bit more popular, but those musicians never forgot that their music was a sort of experimentalism. Now, modern synths make us available a large number of editing possibilities, but does that mean that we all are experimenting? It depends on the musician's will and statements.Brian Wilson 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please read my contribution at the WikiProject Music genres page. Thank you. Brian Wilson 14:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The context, the content, the style, the techniques 

message: I was sure that M. Jackson has never aimed to produce electronic music or experimenting new sounds as his main purpose. He plays and sings Soul music, his personal and peculiar style of SOUL Music that is very popular to  millions of listeners. If he wanted to make just electronic music, he would have told us. Brian Wilson 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Jackson

message: What the heck is going on with the article? The "Overview" section is just a copy and paste of the "History" section. Is there a reason for this? --24.205.251.41 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: Hello, someone needs to (properly) write the article over at Dance music!! as it now refers to the modern music rather than the traditional. hopefully someone here can get us off to a good start... i'd think it should include a nod to non-electronic club music too (such as 'party' hiphop/rnb), as many songs/artists/albums which aren't 'ecetronic music' link dance as their genre. also stuff like the billboard dance chart features many non-electronic arists.... anyway, something needs doing, and i don't think i'm the person for it.. Bungalowbill 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dance music]] article needs writing

message: This is one of those articles where you can study a typical problem of wikipedia - the missing accentuation of information! There is no structure which emphasizes the important facts! When you read this article you can hardly see what was a significant innovation ( or an influential movement ) in electronic music and what was just an interesting episode. Certain parts of the article look like pure name-dropping and it seems like some users just wanted to place their favorite bands here. ( “Hey, band xy had a synth and used it sometimes – they’re great and must be featured…” ) On the other hand artists such as Kraftwerk for instance got mentioned in two sentences (.. and one of it is wrong ) and some remarkable information are completely missing: there’s no “Suicide” ( A. Vega ), no “DAF”, no “Sheffield Scene”, no Conny Plank - even the MIDI-Interface is missing. Note: This is meant as constructive criticism, I don’t want to offend anybody and I respect all who spend their time to contribute here! Sushi Leone 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of (often anonymous) users spamming their favorite pet bands indeed. Solution: simply revert those additions. --LimoWreck 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: accentuation of information

message: Seems like someone has editied the article in the History section and called someone a fag and when I try to fix it I can still see it there on different computers. How do you fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.254.190.205 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this some kind of joke?