Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:52, 13 May 2012

WikiProject Music/Music genres task force Discussion - Guidelines - Stubs - Infobox - Footers - Lists - Portal

Archives

March 2004 – February 2006 2004 – 2007 February 2007 – September 2008 2009 –

Time to make this into a Music Project task force?

This project has never been very active. Is it time to make it into a Music Project task force? --Kleinzach 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right it is not very active, but, forgive my ignorance, what exacatly would that involve?--SabreBD (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page by page moves. For example the project page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music genres would become Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force. (This would give it a measure of protection from being deleted.) --Kleinzach 07:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I'll go ahead and implement this. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that making it a task force is an acceptable move. I will not object to it. Backtable _{Speak to me} 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Please let me know if there are any stray links left. --Kleinzach 07:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Does {{WikiProject Music genres}} need to be re-worded, re-named etc.? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing this. Please tell me if it is incomplete. (The Music project doesn't use a banner, so the normal redirect from the Music genres project banner to the Music project one is not possible in this case.) --Kleinzach 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks all good to me - - no need to fix anything else - redirects in-place and template has been reworded to reflect its a task force - good job.Moxy (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Intelligent drum and bass

The article Intelligent drum and bass has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable genre, lacks reliable sources.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Λeternus 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Retroactive neologisms

I've seen this issue addressed in the archive and I'm reviving it because I'd like a consensus from you guys on a general issue before I create a separate genre article.

What is Misplaced Pages's sense of the general weight we give a genre label that has entered common parlance but was never used to describe the music it's now describing at the time that music arose, vs. other objective issues like linguistic incoherence? If we can clearly source a more precise label historically, is it appropriate to create an article for the music the more precise term referred to and link it to the main article with the more ambiguous label?

I'd like to create an article for "jazz-rock fusion" which talks specifically about the jazz musicians, most of them alumnae of Miles Davis, who played music on electric instruments in the early 70s, and link that to the "jazz fusion" page. While the term is current among sources today, "jazz fusion" is ambiguous to the point of incoherence, refers to an extreme diversity of music and most significantly, wasn't used by any sources to describe "jazz-rock fusion" during its heyday. What's the relative weight of historical accuracy vs common parlance?

Thanks for your feedback. I'm going to check with the Jazz Project now.

Snardbafulator (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the concept of a "jazz-rock fusion" page. It seems notable enough, with Miles Davis as a forerunner of the movement, for instance. Backtable _{Speak to me} 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh he's not merely the forerunner, Miles is the universally recognized founder of jazz-rock fusion. Weather Report's first album, for instance, is considered by AllMusic to be a direct continuation of In A Silent Way. I'm going to wait until I hear back from some of "jazz fusion" page contributors, since I would be lifting a lot of their info and sources.

Snardbafulator (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

With genre definitions being variable and in the eye-of-the beholder, and then classification of music and performers within them often being the same (plus any one often gets put under multiple genres) the challenge of doing so often seems like herding cats. So I think that the common-sense thinking and questioning (factoring in prevalence and acceptance) such as you are doing has to come into play. My 2 cents is that I concur with the thoughts of both of you. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. Establishing unambiguous music genres is kind of impossible by definition. Even Misplaced Pages's meta-categorizations can lack cogency, e.g., putting the entire category of "jazz" under "art music" as opposed to "popular music" — which wouldn't make any sense at all to, say, Louis Armstrong. This is the core ambiguity I'm trying to address.

But attempting to clean up genres as best as can be done (the reason for this task force's existence) is nonetheless a worthy enterprise. I fully recognize that the central goals aren't linguistic cogency or even historical accuracy per se, but rather to make it easier on the music fan by giving them a rule of thumb when they're searching out a particular kind of music. Heavy metal fans, e.g., needn't waste time looking in New Age used CD bins. That's a useful distinction.

"Jazz fusion" is a particularly bad category not primarily because the name most likely came from rock critics, or that it arose some 20 years after the emergence of "jazz-rock fusion" which the term currently includes, or even that it chauvanistically slights the signficant fusions of jazz with classical, Indian, world and other musics in favor of merely implying jazz fused with rock. It's an egregious category because it's broad enough to include both music that verges on avant-garde and music that verges on easy listening. Consequently, it's not a very good guide for the consumer.

Notice we don't have this problem so much with rock, because there's the broad category (crawling with subgenres, of course) of progressive rock. What's needed is a "progressive fusion" category, but we'd have to make it up by fiat, which of course we don't do here. The next best thing to do is to disambiguate "jazz-rock fusion" because that can clearly be sourced. The "jazz fusion" article writers somehow missed that one of their chief sources, Julie (wife of Larry) Coryell, calls her book "Jazz Rock Fusion." A new article on that specific era focusing on the jazz musicians who played rock instruments (as apart from "jazz rock" which is a whole 'nother animal) would naturally disambiguate some of the more adventurous and noncommercial strains of this music. There appears to be a consensus on the jazz fusion Talk page among two of the principal authors that "the music changed" in the 80s and that most of the earlier practitioners "don't play fusion anymore." Sadly enough, they do; it's kind of impossible to disambiguate "jazz fusion" from "smooth jazz" considering that the players themselves often coexist in both these worlds and share a strong background in jazz. This has left some of the most currently lauded exemplars of the more adventurous strains of "jazz fusion" (cf. Allan Holdsworth) orphaned; it's a term they've grown to loathe, as the newer connotations of "jazz fusion" suggest something closer to "smooth jazz." This isn't a problem Misplaced Pages can solve — but we can do right by history. Thanks both for your comments and support.

Snardbafulator (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion for Death Cab for Cutie

I was hoping to elicit some outside opinions regarding an issue at Death Cab for Cutie. Some editors have had some genre edit warring regarding the genre of the band in the lead sentence of the article. If anyone wants to add their two cents, head on over to Talk:Death Cab for Cutie#RfC: What genre should the band be called in the lead of the article?. Angryapathy (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment request

This may be the wrong place for me to put it (if it is, just tell me where I should make the request), but I was wondering if someone could do a quality and importance assessment for Virtual band, please? --JB Adder | Talk 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion requested on Folk/Traditional?Roots/World music project consolidation / expansion proposal

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Roots music#Expand the project?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Is noise music a genre

Input at Talk:Noise (music genre)#Requested move would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Witch house

Hi folks, the Witch house (music genre) community is not happy, at all, with the way its genre's Misplaced Pages page is being handled. We want an accurate history and portrayal of the genre and we want the page protected. It's being badly abused. I'm the owner of one of the main indie labels in the genre and represent a large grouping of involved artists and other labels that would like to set the record straight on what defines our genre and what its history is. There have been numerous erroneous articles surrounding its history and its definition, we would like this corrected. Can you help? Baku Shad-do (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have COI and appear to be engaged it a very long drawn out edit war. Also a warning about using the term we. First it's not polite to talk for others. Second, edit as a group is strongly discouraged. Work it out on the talk page and stop edit warring. Also be careful of a WP:Boomerang. Ridernyc (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do speak for the bulk of labels and with the encouragement of the bulk of the lead artists in the scene on this matter, there is a consensus that wikipedians are mishandling the genre terribly. Why would a group of contributors acting in an unbiased manner, strictly attempting to define their genre properly, be a bad thing? It appears that the current contributors can't manage to do it successfully, as instead their work has managed to insult the majority of artists and labels involved by a biased and incorrect representation. To the majority of the genre and yes, the labels and musicians do feel like this, we feel that[REDACTED] editors are treating our genre like a joke. Lots of people put lots of hard work into it (the genre). It needs to be corrected. If I need to bring a petition in here I will. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you were acting unbiased it would not be a problem. Again I highly recommend you read WP:Boomerang. You are not going to get any help here and forum shopping is just making things much much worse for you. Ridernyc (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am acting in an unbiased manner, the problem is that none of the people contributing to the page show any knowledge of the workings of the genre on any real level. Is Misplaced Pages, as a community, really so idiotic that it considers people who actually have a real knowledge of their topic to be automatically slanted or biased? How curiously backward. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC) I'll make sure to post these conversations in the forum for our scene, along with the other comments I've gotten whilst trying to correct a flagrantly incorrect definition. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)