Talk:Space music/Archive 1

message: This page was archived on July 28, 2007  to /Archive 1, due to the page exceeding 200 KB. All comments prior to June 2007 were archived.  There were no comments here between the end of March 2007 and the entries below, however the archived page contains earlier comments directly relating to the current debates. Interested editors are welcome to review the archived pages for complete context.  --Parzival418 Hello 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Please post any other Audio Stream links for SpaceMusic specific stations.
[ 157.130.35.50 17:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio Streams

message: If space music isn't ambient music, why is Brian Eno listed as a key artist? [ 206.124.150.239 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian Eno is a crossover artist. Eno first appeared in HOS #004 (public radio network, 1983). Eno is credited with coining the phrase "Ambient music", (Brian Eno:Solo work) with his 1978 album "Ambient #1 / Music for Airports", but he had become well known in the USA long after MFTHOS (Music From The Hearts of Space) debuted on KPFA, Berkeley in 1973. Unknown is whether Eno, an Englishman, ever heard a tape of the original San Francisco Bay Area MFTHOS. ≈ Stephen Hill does use the word ambient twice in his web page's opening descriptive paragraph.  HOS show music is also described as contemplative, and therefore by definition is never irritating. Yet among other examples, Ambient music broadly includes irritating industrial machine noises (Metal Machine Music, Lou Reed, 1975, 1998, 2000) that would probably never be heard on HOS (or anywhere else in its entirety). ≈ Furthermore, Space music is not a subgenre of Ambient because, for just one example, traditionally rooted music such as whistle Celtic is regularly played on HOS. Whistle Celtic is also played on public radio's Thistle and Shamrock, a show apparently not claimed to be Ambient. ≈ Space music is therefore a fusion music, where fusion is understood as a blending process, not a genre or style (see Jazz fusion). Milo 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I recall pondering whether to include that line... Since you have stated the Roxy facts, I'll cut that reference from my edited answer comment above. My reporting error of late vs. early 1970's aside, who cofounded Roxy is elsewhere (mis)reported as including Eno (see Wikipedia Brian Eno:Roxy Music), history page for this date --> Milo 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I had added Popul Vuh to the Notable artists list on 2006-05-15. They were on a list of artists who were featured on my favorite HOS shows, artists who's popularity I verified with the HOS playlist server. ≈ I've previously skimmed Kosmische Musik, and I'll put a heavy read of it on my to-do list. Milo 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Ambient? 

message: Anyone care to shed some light onto why two of the audio streams have this written beside them? Both webpages seem to work fine, so if there's no real reason for this, it should be removed. DezSP 01:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do both streams play music for you? Milo 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Server Error? 

message: I've re-written this article to conform with Wiki NPOV and verifiability policies. This has necessitated the wholesale removal of the "what it is" and "what it isn't" sections, as they were basically one person's highly eccentric and subjective POV, unsupported by any reference sources. I don't believe the deleted content has any intrinsic value that isn't already covered by other more appropriate articles - but if anyone thinks otherwise please feel free to restore anything considered an essential inclusion. --Gene_poole 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always a shame to delete so much from an article, particularly when you think that it meant so much to whoever wrote it in the first place ...... but I, for one, agree with the deletions in this case. It most definitely was all very point-of-view; not encyclopaedic at all. Perhaps - I say perhaps - some of it could be carefully reinserted in the future if it could be substantiated with references. All that's left to do now is to go through the Notable artists material, some of which is, quite frankly, daft. Yes. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I removed Mike Oldfield from the list as the most gobsmackingly strange inclusion, but there are plenty more to cull, and some to add. --Gene_poole 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrting this article

message: This classic edition for the public is now history. For future editors' consideration of its notably different content, here is the link to see how it  read: 
2006-10-23 classic edition of Wikipedia:Space music. Milo 08:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The classic edition? I know this is the spacemusic article, but it's not necessary to be a card carrying space cadet to post contributions here, you know. --Gene_poole 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You do not "own" this - or any other - article. It is the responsibility of all editors to correct errors or expunge POV opinion pieces unsupported by reliable third party references sources from any articles whose content is muddied by their presence. This was most certainly one such article. It was appallingly written, full of bizarre unverified statements and was totally misleading - until I took the long-overdue step of re-writing it. --Gene_poole 11:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to classic 2006 Wikipedia:Space music 

message: I merged the two versions, and I reworked the heading so that now it has some sense in musicology. --Dr. Who 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either stop inserting your eccentric personal opinions into this article or else provide third party references to support your position. What part of this very simple concept do you not understand? --Gene_poole 11:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not post incoherent nonsense on talk pages. It is disrespectful to other editors. If you do not possess sufficient proficiency in written English to communicate with other editors in a clear, concise, rational manner, you may be better served by contributing to the version of Wikipedia in your native language. --Gene_poole 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: I've just had a look through the article's history, which throws an interesting light on things. The individual who keeps reverting to the "old", POV, pretentiously-written, original-research article (and who keeps deleting the line which equates Space to Ambient) has said, and I quote, "It has been edited by a dozen of editors in 3 years, and none complained". Let's see.
The first, very short entry, in July 1 2005, says "A sub-genre of ambient music with space or astronomy as a theme, originally intended as soundtrack music for planetarium shows."
From September 6 2005, it was changed to "Sometimes associated as a sub-category of Ambient music, space music itself offers interpretations of other popular genres, among them: Electronic, Sacred/Choral, Piano, Trance, Celtic, Native American, World Fusion, and Arctic."
This version lasted until user Milomedes, on May 15 2006, rewrote the article to the infamous version (POV; original research; Space not Ambient) which lasted up to February 1 2007, when it began to be stripped of its unencyclopaedic content.
(As early as June 5 2006, User Brian G. Wilson stated that the 'Milomedes' version was "original research", and slapped a warning on it). Yes.
The upshot is, the article should NOT be restored to any version which contains material from the article mentioned above, unless references to the opinions can be found.
I'm going to try a rewrite in the very near future which will hopefully satisfy everyone. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 12:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent revision of discredited article 

message: Thank you for documenting my role in expanding the space music article. As analysis, it's probably one of my lifetime best pieces. I don't accept that the classic version is discredited. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. However, we may be comparing apples to oranges. 
There are a couple of points that seem most important. First is the issue of Hill-Turner space music versus other kinds, and second is the controversy about the relationship between ambient and space music. 
The article that I wrote is specifically about Hill-Turner space music, since it was the original type. What I wrote is much closer to being categorically correct than are other music articles, because it's a genre of music more or less defined by only one or two living persons, notably Stephen Hill. Hill and Turner's musical vision was so powerful that it created a fancult among public radio listeners. Those who haven't listened to many episodes of Hearts of Space probably can't "get it", and even many who have listened aren't fans (as with any other genre). Editors who can't or don't relate to a particular genre have only a limited role to play in documenting it.  
I can't cite the exact Wikiguide, but somewhere there is (or was last year) a guide that says that art and music articles are allowed to contain much more opinion than other articles, because art and music are by nature much more subjective than science or history. In other words, art and music articles are of necessity going to contain some opinions, as well as some original research, which is essentially a well-supported opinion. 
I may have listened to more episodes of HOS than anyone else at Wikipedia, but merely because what I wrote about Hill-Turner SpM is factual, doesn't make it reliable source verifiable. Indeed, it may be impossible to WP:RS verify the musicology of Hill-Turner space music, since it is such a small genre. However, using the HOS playlist server, I did verify much of the list of notable artists with which you took issue. 
What I decided to do, given the slack provided by the art and music Wikiguide, was accept the general Wikipedia invitation to tell Wikipedia what I knew about Hill-Turner space music. When there is controversy, the Wikipedia NPOV way is to tell the POVs of each of the sides. If there is one opinion that space music is a subgenre of amibient, and another that it's not, then list the reasons supporting each position, and so on through each of the controversies. Milo 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm ..... yes. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to write an article entitled "Hill-Turner space music". Perhaps subtitled "The classic version", and you could even pepper it with constant reminders to yourself that it's "one of my lifetime best pieces". Hey - you could even write it while listening to more episodes of HOS than anyone else at Wikipedia! Yes! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll consider your suggestion. :) Milo 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And while you're at it, maybe you could review Wikipedia's policy concerning the use of sockpuppets. --Gene_poole 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem — I Milo, have no sockpuppets. Why would any self-confident talk page editor want to do that, anyway? I want full credit for everything I write without the credit dilution caused by socks. :) Milo 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hill-Turner space music

message: There is a section on Talk:Ambient music discussing this same issue, so I thought I'd mention that here so we can all be "on the same page" so to speak...
I edited the intro tonight, to bring it into harmony with the mention of Space music on Ambient music.  Both talk pages are discussing all the same points, so no need to repeat it all here.
Regarding Gardner of Gedas's Tentative New Article - I like the structure and recommend we use it.  I like the idea of following the intro with a list of varying viewpoints, since this topic seems not to have consensus on one NPOV approach.
In the intro though, I would prefer to see a third point added (iii) that indicates some people find that space music is not always ambient.  If Gardner of Geda is willing to accept this, I'd like to see the article take on more of the form he has proposed.  Without that third option though, then we come back to the same issue we've not found consensus on yet...
Parzival418 08:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Music is related to, but not the same as, Ambient Music 

message: Please note that this does not qualify as a reliable reference source as defined in WP:V. It appears to be the personal opinion of a music fan dating from 13 years ago. It is not an authoritative source. --Gene_poole 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in a University's domain, http://www.fiu.edu/ so, it is something more than  the personal opinion of a music fan dating from 13 years ago; anyway it includes some personal opinions and some obvious neutral opinions.--Doktor Who 11:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the unreferenced personal web page of a student. It does not conform with Wikipedia requirements for reliable third party sources. --Gene_poole 11:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References