Talk:Music technology (electronic and digital)

message: I believe that Music Production Technology is one of the topiccs you should have up here!!! I'm doing a project for school...and barely found any information. Luckily i did...but of course by my-self!!! So just think about it and Music Technology and Music Technology Production are not hte same!!! Thank You and Have A Nice Day!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.49.242 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  music technology production  

message: I believe that there should be mention of the Fairlight CMI (Computer Music Instrument) as it was quite revolutionary music technology with sampling, sequencing etc all in one "workstation" box.
So much so that it seems to be having a bit of a revival thanks to Peter Vogel making a new version of the classic CMI machine.
Tannoy K3838 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairlight CMI 

message: Right now the article is mostly about electronic musical instruments, but the timeline has a bunch of electric musical instruments and a bunch of electric sound recording gear. Should the article go back to mechanical technology used in instruments? (e.g., piano actions). There could also be coverage of rotary valves on brass instruments, bass drum pedals in the 1930s, etc...OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Music technology infobox is much broader than this article. It also includes analog and digital recording technology, amplifiers, etc. One idea I have is to create 3 articles: Music technology (mechanical) (this would discuss the development of organ stop mechanisms, piano action, rotary valves in brass instruments, keys on woodwind instruments, bass and hi-hat pedals, etc....all mechanical aids and technologies for playing instruments); Music technology (electric) (this would cover electric musical instruments from the 20th century: electric guitar, electric bass, electric piano, Hammond organ...one caveat is that elec piano and Hammond are electro-mechanical, in that they also incorporate mechanical parts); and Music technology (electronic and digital) for post 1970s transistorized, electronic gear, electronic keyboards, synthesizers, 1980s MIDI, 1990s-2000 digital audio gear and audio software, software synths, etc.). If all three are in this one article it will be too big, over 100 kb in size, easily. Thoughts?OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't working well for me. I suggest it all go into one WP:SUMMARY article. If it is too big, the summaries simply need to be edited down and material moved to the  articles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far back should this article go and how broadly should "music technology" be defined? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Music technology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Werner":
From Music of the United States: Werner
From History of music in the biblical period: Werner, Eric. The Sacred Bridge, Columbia Univ. Press (1984)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Music technology]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Music technology (electronic and digital). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factmag.com/2014/02/28/the-14-synthesizers-that-shaped-modern-music/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928230435/http://www.emusician.com/gear/0769/the-electronic-century-part-iv-the-seeds-of-the-future/145415 to http://www.emusician.com/gear/0769/the-electronic-century-part-iv-the-seeds-of-the-future/145415
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.synrise.de/docs/types/f/firstman.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jul02/articles/retrozone0702.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Having skimmed it for half a minute, here's some problems with this.
* The way that page is presently structured and written, it comes across as a recruiting brochure for some vo-tech "production arts" program. The "education" fluff can be minimized then buried near the end.
* Continuing the "rah rah" theme, sections throughout are far overstuffed. For example, yammering about MIDI is silly seeing as MIDI exists.
* It is so poorly written (and curated) that (for instance) it runs on about the wonders of the drum machine while blithely looking past the existence of Drum machines… even though prose usage links there repeatedly.
** In the subsection, which is really not very long, the term drum machine appears THIRTEEN times (plus the subsection heading AND the section heading). Again, only two possibilities: either outright ineptitude, or crass padding to fake some "importance" for the page.
* There is tech geekery throughout that delights in spewing trivia lists of brands, model numbers, and the typical "notable examples" fancruft. A yellow flag, at least, though I'm beginning to see such nonsense on WP as the other sort of yellow flag.
I suspect that paring away some of this abundant lard will reveal there's really not much article left, and it could to better effect be rolled into Sound recording and reproductionWeeb Dingle (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  not great, and not very good 

message: Through reading this article, some sections seemed too biased towards particular brands or positions in music. As noted, this article can be seen to written semi-promotional in areas of the text. As an informational and factual reading, this should be corrected. This will be an area of focus. 
Reading through the technology and history, terms should be neutral completely through. Tuj62385 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Cen1917 (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture