Talk:Boards of Canada

message: what´s with the constantly appearing then disappearing IDM tag? is it possible to get some thoughts as to whether they should or shouldn´t have it attached to them? --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDM 

message: Okay, I've created seperate album-style articles for all the Old Tunes cassettes, however, I am unsure as to whether or not I should add them to the discography, and if so, where? Thanks. - Nö†$®åM  00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Tunes 

message: I think that their psychadelia 
should be adressed
69.234.145.16 06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed in what way? - Nö†$®åM  22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: "Some critics refuse to listen to their music on account that they are positive the band is trying to brainwash their listeners for unknown motivations, citing references to David Koresh and occult symbols as proof." Can anyone provide eveidence for this claim? The link referred to doesn't say that the author refuses to listen to BoC, and anyway, one person hardly makes it worth a mention. I think the comment should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.249.35 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching Google for  "boards of canada" + "subliminal messages" returns quite a few results which refer to critics/critics themselves claming that they won't listen to Boards of Canada due to subliminal messages contained on a few albums (namely Geogaddi). Personally, I think the comment should be kept. - Nö†$®åM  22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any, can you link to some specific examples? Hellinterface 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's really a big deal to you, feel free to rephrase it. - Nö†$®åM 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a big deal, no. But it's inaccurate, so I'll go one better and remove it completely. Thanks for granting me permission though. Hellinterface 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for posting on this talk page instead of just removing the line. :) - Nö†$®åM 23:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subliminal Messages 

message: Re this diff - someone obviously thinks BoC are not IDM.  I would say that they're on the borderline of this genre.  Didn't want to revert this before getting consensus. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IDM as a descriptor is dead. It's fallen apart at the seams and the first wave won't touch it with a barge pole. Psychedelic, ambient, and downtempo describe BoC well. IDM is an embarrassment. Even Mike Paradinas has come out and said in public that it was only used in America and that British artists don't recognise it. Some geek called Alan Parry invented it on the web. It's so silly. My opinion is that it's a joke. Rainbowabc (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Intelligent Dance Music|IDM]]? 

message: I'd like to note that Boards of Canada music, including songs like "Pete standing alone" have been featured in many Top Gear episodes. I suspect the producer to be a big fan of IDM as a lot of music I listen to has been featured. I do not have any references, so I only leave this as a note in the discussion. If somebody can verify this with an external reliable reference this may be added to the main page.84.104.158.81 (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The music isn't chosen by the producer - they have people to chose the music specially. Electronica is often used as background music on TV because it doesn't have vocals, and is repetitive, so it's easy to 'tune out' somewhat and listen to the show's presenter. --82.26.178.32 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Gear 

message: This band's article, along with the discography and album articles, are riddled with nonnotable and unreferenced information. the level of detail makes these essentially fan sites. I really wish that contributors to these articles could at least see that this is true, and consider not adding trivial information. this is an encyclopedia, which is designed to give a balanced overview of subjects to spur further study or help someone gain basic familiarity. reading these articles, i have absolutely no idea how popular or influential this band really is. I dont mean to single them out, lots of band articles are like this. and i dont have a problem with noncontroversial, notable, potentially referenceable facts in articles. WP doesnt have a deadline for completion. if everyone who was a fan of this band took the time to either reference a fact, or remove a nonnotable comment, the article could be vastly improved. as long as fans (fanatics) govern the content of WP articles, WP will never become respectable for the bulk of its articles. i will try to improve the articles if i have time. of course, i will post on talk page any proposed edits which i suspect would be reasonably contested.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i definitely agree. i looked at this page recently and there is so much unreferenced information and heresay on the page. i´m particularly interested in BOC´s purported early works. there is very little credible evidence to say they actually existed and i´m not too keen on hammering the issue as it seems to be some sort of religion among fans but at the very least the page should be riddled with "citation needed"s. if this doesn´t ignite a storm i may also add a few edits although given the tone of some earlier posts i suspect anything short of reverence will not be tolerated. Lotsofmagnets (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not that difficult to figure out, there were tracks on the older works that were later re-released with nominally different mixes, perhaps a different drum track, but it is all but common knowledge that a majority of the works (all of which are listed) are legitimate releases. The same could be said about most old jazz and soul musicians, for all any of us know none of those albums ever existed because they are now out of print and rare as hell, and yet they're still on wikipedia? --24.79.75.84 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: common knowledge does not constitute justification for encyclopedic knowledge and on top of that it is far from common knowledge that these releases existed. current references are: a website that has been taken down 10 years ago with less than adequate soundbites and an article that doesn´t explain a single connection to the band. The band themselves do not acknowledge any eary material other than the old tunes series. i would argue the wording could be even stronger about the myth surrounding these releases if not they be completely removed from BOC´s wiki pages as mere heresay. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When the artist isn't willing to deny/acknowledge the provenance of recordings (and it is SO similar to official releases,) one can reasonably assume it to be the work of the artist in question.  That's my take.  I really think we're overthinking this, and disclaimers on the page can take care of any concerns.  My comments only refer to BoC Maxima and the Old Tapes.  If you want to argue about the provenance of the rest, be my guest, but I think it's a useless exercise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.190.231 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, i completely agree. there is enough evidence that the old tunes are legit and boc maxima is acknowledged by boc so that´s beyond question but the other material is on unbelieveably shaky ground. i´m of the suspicion that they did fabricate the albums for their website to look like they have an established back catalogue and just grabbed a few random soundbites they had and threw them up claiming them to be from the songs, but then that´s just my opinion in lieu of any evidence.--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  content notability and references 

message: The article doesn't mention anything about Christ. although he supposedly used to be a third member of BoC. Is this true?
--80.220.59.149 (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ. 

message: Mur-Écran, The Windscreen on the CBC. Their music is played throughout the podcast, and mentions them by name in the last few minutes. But I can't identify just what songs.174.137.237.65 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs to be better sourced than that at the moment its on WP:OR. Murry1975 (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The entire media usage section is un-refed. Needs to be cut or cited. Murry1975 (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 52 min:42-44 sec into the 53 min:59 sec podcast, Paul Kennedy says "Music was by Boards of Canada."174.137.237.65 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, its not working for me. Any luck with the rest of the section? Murry1975 (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have yet to check. Not to condenscend, but if you click the "listen" you should get it.174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Wildlife Analysis" appears towards the beginning of the podcast. "Open the Light" from the same album is also featured in the last minute of the podcast. Both those songs are from their masterpiece album Music Has the Right to Children. Hia10 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hia10 for the info. I'll check out where Wildlife Analysis is later, but I checked Youtube, and yes, one can hear Open the Light in both the end and but also the beginning of the podcast. (Thanks too for your response in the Reference Desk. I now realise that I'm already past the point in thinking that BoC beats N.I.N. thanks to you.  :)    ).174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mur-Écran, The Windscreen

message: Hello. I'm reverting the birth dates on this article to the following: Mike 14/07/71 and Marcus 27/05/73. These were the dates given on the EHX website - they were on this article at its inception and were also clarified by [User:KToiBalToi] who is a friend of the band. The citation to some random biography around the web is a case of citogenesis and has unfortunately propagated way too far. This ends now! Isopropylalcohol (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi IPA, thanks for the link here, some times having an encyclopedia that everyone can edit has its draw-backs. Murry1975 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, one of the IP warrers has a valid point -  is an official source of the 70/71 dates. Clearly their birthdays have changed since they started releasing music. Either way, Youtube is a more reliable and irrefutable citation than Allmusic so I'm updating that. (Edit - I can't - would be good if someone else did.) Isopropylalcohol (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is protected for only auto-confirmed users. Youtube isnt a good source, it may be a fan up loading info from wiki and videos off thier hard drive, 3 videos for a band around aslong as BOC seems a bit odd, and they where upload on the same day. We have a week to trash out the facts and find decent citations for the dobs. Murry1975 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of lazily guessing that a fan is uploading info and videos from their hard drive and somehow squatting a band's Youtube channel, why don't you check your sources before breaking the data on this wiki. The Boards of Canada Youtube account hosts BoC's unique videos from the promotional campaign around the release of Tomorrow's Harvest, and the video single for the song 'Reach for the Dead', and is the only youtube account hosting this video, posted prior to the album's release. The BoC Facebook and Soundcloud accounts linked below were involved in the official promotion in the lead up to Tomorrow's Harvest. If you weren't aware of this you should not be making edits to BoC's wiki. Most people would consider official sites run by a band or their label to be a competent source. This is not cytogenesis, the EHX page that you are having to quote from a fossilised web archive is the only (erroneous) source existing for the birth dates you are inserting, however there are numerous sources including official channels of the band using the correct birth dates that you insist on deleting. The user KTBalToi claiming to know BoC is no more a citable source than any other unverified stranger. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, can you stop vandalising the data on this page? Please also stop removing one of the artist's stage names, every artist repertoire database and all records published by Boards of Canada are credited to 'Marcus Eoin', if you want to record his birth name do it as any other person with a stage name is recorded in Wikipedia, by quoting both names.
http://www.youtube.com/boardsofcanada/about   https://www.facebook.com/boardsofcanada/info   http://vimeo.com/boardsofcanada   https://soundcloud.com/boardsofcanada   https://itunes.apple.com/gb/artist/boards-of-canada/id2989314   http://m.vh1.com/music/bio.rbml?artist=boards_of_canada   https://myspace.com/abeautifulplace/bio   http://www.last.fm/music/Boards+of+Canada   http://www.nndb.com/people/658/000165163/   http://www.nndb.com/people/666/000113327/   http://www.discogs.com/artist/307-Boards-Of-Canada   http://www.residentadvisor.net/dj/boardsofcanada/biography  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.107.54 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is plenty of citations, thank you, although you seem for some reason to be pretty angry about this whole thing - next time we get something wrong and you want to put it right just comment in here in the first place and you won't have to enter "edit warring".  Isopropylalcohol (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: People periodically come in here to change “Scottish” back to “British”, and vice versa. 
Boards of Canada are from Scotland, most people in Scotland prefer “Scottish” to “British” because it’s more specific to their identity. 
Scotland is in Britain geographically, but it’s also a country of it’s own. It becomes a game of politics to keep asserting the less specific “British” identity on people from there. TrueSpoke (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally specify the country within the UK where there is no ambiguity anyway. See Radiohead, who are described as English, not British. Popcornfud (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish/British