Talk:Blutengel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article is originally a translation from the german wikipedia.

Spitze! I translated Blutengel too. Blut and Engel are obvious cognates to anyone who's taken German, but for those that haven't it might not be so 'klar'. Khirad 00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Compilations[edit]

I'll add tracks appearing on compilations as well, to make the discography complete --Shandris 08:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Related Projects[edit]

I think we can link together all Chris Pohl related projects (Terminal Choice, Tumor, etc). I can fill in all the missing ones - and also do (ex-)member projects.

Jonnyeol 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


"Cinderella Man" is listed as one of the Collaborators' Side Projects, but unless someone can support that, I'm pretty sure they meant Cinderella Effect, a side project by Constance Rudert. I'll edit it to reflect this. Plibit4 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

"Pop And Eurodance", what on earth??! >.< Blutengel is Darkwave! electronic music with a gothic "style"is called Darkwave and NOT eurodance! Kitten!meow 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Kiite!meow

Blutengel produce simply Techno music. There is no Dark Wave sound. --Diluvien 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I second the fact that they are definently NOT Eurodance or Futurepop for that matter. Though I might also add that Darkwave is a general term for a few different subgenre styles that goes beyond just electronic music (ie Black Tape) JanderVK
Dark Wave is guitar and electronic music, not a substyle of electronic music. The genre is connected to the 1980s, such as New Wave. It was an 1980s movement, including groups such as The Cure, Depeche Mode or Siouxsie & The Banshees. Blutengel isn't Dark Wave. Blutengel is modern and eurodance-inspired music.
Please provide references to them being "Eurodance". Something substantial, not youtube, and your personal biased opinion doesn't count (I'm guessing you're also not a fan). Although they are electronic dance music, they surely are not "techno" or "eurodance".JanderVK (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. They're electronic dance music, but definitely not dark wave. --Ada Kataki (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Clearly there is a difference of opinion here. Darkwave doesn't have just one sound; it's more of an evolving, umbrella term for electronic goth music. Blutengel is not Eurodance. Darkwave works (a modern variety), as would something like Gothic EBM. Futurepop might work for Cruxshadows, but Blutengel is much darker than most futurepop bands. As for the techno comment, techno music is nothing like this. As for a comment below, "dark electro pop" actually may suffice as well, as this band is a little further from traditional darkwave. It misses the variety of Blutengel's sound, but as a general label it's not entirely bad. The infobox, however, listing both darkwave and futurepop, seems to get it about right. MXVN (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Another note. On the Darkwave page, it explains how the term's meaning has shifted and even includes Diary of Dreams (a perfect example) in their list of newer darkwave bands, so maybe it really is an apt label, even if it should be preceded with a "modern" or an "electronic" to differentiate it from the older iterations of the sound. True, Blutengel sort of bridges the space between Diary of Dreams and some of the more overtly dance pop beats of other styles, but the dark, gothic vibes are a fundamental part of their sound. Perhaps just one term just isn't going to explain them perfectly. "Darkwave/Futurepop" or "Electro Darkwave" might do a little better, but using two terms like that seems a little clunky. LastFM shows Blutengel labeled as "gothic/futurepop/darkwave/EBM" on their site, which seems pretty good, but is very long. They're also tagged as things like "electro-goth." MXVN (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I would consider Blutengel somewhere in the dark electro category. The below website has them listed as Dark Electro Pop.

http://www.gothic.gr/news/545/BLUTENGEL+%22Winter+Of+My+Life%22/

Is this enough to warrant a change of anykind?? (216.109.255.7 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Last FM is not a source. It's a piece of shit.
It's kind of both, much like Wikipedia or Allmusic. But don't get me started on Allmusic. ;) MXVN (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

we call it 'gay tekkno'. it's just wannabe-goth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.20.203 (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Albums and EPs[edit]

With this band's extensive output, it might seem beneficial to break the discography apart, except the distinction between albums and EPs is not always clear with this band. "The Oxidising Angel," for instance, plays every bit like the album "Demon Kiss" was, but with a few alternate versions of other tracks filling up the end of the disc. This band does this sort of thing a lot, and the purpose of the timeline in a case like this is to show the relevant brand-new studio material in chronological order. When a band's EPs are just as relevant as the a full albums, it is important to show the chronology as a whole. The only way to do that was to combine the sections together. I did, however, leave the "EP" tags at the end of the albums which have these alternate tracks and were labeled as EPs before. This way, the reader can get all the information at once, without the confusion of having to look at separate sections, or the impression that the "EPs" are so considerably less important. Also, the album "Redempton," which has its own track listing (so is not a compilation or anything) and was released as a companion album to Schwarzes Eis, was missing, so I added it to the list. They also released an instrumental album at that same time (Behind the Mirror), so I've also added that one along with a tag to denote that it is an instrumental album and therefore different from the others.

Bonus discs such as 'Redemption' and 'Behind the Mirror' do NOT get included in the discography section. If you want to add the bonus discs somewhere, create a page for Schwarzes Eis and add them on there. Information about the bonus discs for the other releases and the re-release of Seelenschmerz are on the respective pages. Please do not clutter up the discography section. And reather than constantly edit and re-edit because you're learning how to update wikipedia, please use the sandbox. That's what it's for. And it's not for you to decide how important the EP's are. They're not albums, and so thay are ranked separately from them. Listing the EP's separately is not confusing. Listing everything together is. Please read through the wikipedia guidelines before making any further edits. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but please do so withing the allocated guidelines of wikipedia. Alinblack (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If they are available as completely separate albums all on their own, then yes, they should get their own mention. If not, then I cold see your point and a mention in the biography might be more appropriate or, as you mentioned, a page specifically for those albums could be created. It is my understanding, though, that they were actually released as separate albums. Discogs.com and several other sources show all of these as completely separate albums, not simply bonus discs. Also, Wikipedia editors tend to get weird about album pages which they don't think are really important. To address your next point, I re-edit because I find new ways to clarify things later on. Perhaps you have a different method. I can see how it might be preferred to do it another way, but I don't think of everything all at once. It's not like I'm brand new to Wikipedia, though. As for the EPs, in most cases EPs are listed with the albums. The purpose is to include major releases in one place. Perhaps you're not as familiar with this. What is confusing is to have to look through a whole list of singles to find what turns out to be only 2 EPs, but each which add a substantial number of new tracks. As for the singles, whey have separate chart numbers. If you can think of a better way to consolidate that information, then fair enough. I came on here and saw a lot of errors (in formatting, in things such as "Promised and" being listed as another EP, and in some things you mentioned as well, such as the Seelenschmerz info). My corrections might not have gone as far as you'd like. But *removing* information outright is not the way to go either. Let us discuss changes or refine the presentation, rather than deciding to simply delete useful information. It doesn't need to be a battle. MXVN (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Now ... Those 3 2009 albums, and the 2011 releases, all came out at about the same time. I remember in 2009 hearing that all 3 of those would come out on the same day. If this is not true, or if I have the chronology switched in any cases, feel free to let me know or make the correction. Thanks. :) MXVN (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not as familiar? I've been updating, editing and moderating wikipedia since August 2007. As you stated, you are new to this. So think about who is more familiar with the subject matter and context. If there's info about a bonus disc, add it to the page about the album. EPs, Albums and Singles are all separated. In most larger bands articles, the discography is limited to only studio albums (no live or compilations OR EPS!), and have everything else on a separate discography page. Look at the articles for bands such as Pendulum, Cradle of Filth, VNV Nation, P!nk, The Prodigy or Apoptygma Berzerk, you'll find the same thing with each, regardless of the band's genre, they're all formatted in the same way, with separate discography pages, in which Singles, Albums, and EPs are all separate. If you knew as much about the subject matter, you'd know that 'Redemption' and 'Behind the Mirror' were NOT physically released on their own but as part of Schwarzes Eis. On digital stores such as iTunes, they were separated. But have never officially been released as albums themselves, as they are bonus material. So if you wish to add the info about them, create the article for Schwarzes Eis, and add it there. And as I said previously... if you want to practice editing; use the sandbox! The information at the bottom stating about the bonus material is unnessicary. If you look at the articles for the album, it has all that information there, instead of clogging up the discography section. Like I said. Read the wikipedia guidelines before making edits. You didn't do that, you just went ahead and ignored it. If you continue editing without reading the guidelines, you will be reported for vandalism. Alinblack (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I said I'm not new, man, if you read my paragraph. As for the other points, bonus discs and separate albums are entirely different things. But if you insist that they're bonus discs and want separate album pages, then CREATE A PAGE FOR THEM YOURSELF instead of just removing information all together and lecturing someone else on how they should have done it differently. At least I made the information available somewhere. There's no need to handle the situation as you are. The formatting errors were things like the double apostrophes not being present for album titles, etcetera. As far as BtM and Redemption not being available elsewhere ... well, if you're right then you are, and in that case they shouldn't be separate listings. However, when I was first told about these album releases, it was that they were releasing 3 albums at the same time, and as I mentioned, Discogs.com and even Google images shows them as separate releases. It's be nice if you sourced the contrary (something this supposedly well-formatted article could use anyway) or at the very LEAST made a POSITIVE update to the biography section or album pages to mention their existence. When someone Googles the band and finds albums which have no Wikipedia mention, there's a problem. Wouldn't it be preferred if the biography said they even existed? You're right about other bands having separate discography pages; I never argued against any of that, man. Blutengel could use one as well, but for right now there isn't one. Would you like to make one? If I did, you'd probably just delete it (and accuse me of vandalism if I tried to recreate it) rather than improving it. As for the unnecessary information at the bottom, I only mentioned what wasn't mentioned elsewhere. The other stuff was there long before I came around to this article, and I've already agreed that it's not the most efficient way of presenting it.
Your accusations at the end are rather troubling. I've read the guidelines and I've already explained why the sandbox doesn't work for everyone. There's no point trying to hammer me on it. Things like this are the reason this article is so insufficient, and missing information. I tried to help, and instead of fixing things that I could have done better, you simply undid it (well, a lot of it). Maybe you should care more about improving the article, and less about trying to be some sort of authority. Yes, you may be right about the bonus albums, but everything else you're doing here is just being unreasonable. But fine, until I get extra time to make new pages, I guess people just won't be able to even trust the article for accurate information (and they'll think Promised Land is an EP like the others), since you don't seem excited to actually help out with it yourself. MXVN (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take your own advice on one thing. Instead of trying to add the information where it doesn't belong, create the pages. Put the effort in where it's needeed instead of trying to clutter up the main page. If you look here You'll see why 'Redemption' and 'BtM' both have artwork, because it was part of the Schwarzes Eis release, and that image is from the band's website. Discogs.com can be good for information, but it isn't always complete or accurate. Like wikipedia, it's user created, and is subject to human error.

If the sandbox doesn't work for you... then fine. Look at how the other album pages are structured, and base a new page from that. Start with the Schwarzes Eis page, and practice all you want making that. The information that I removed is still visable if you click the 'view history' tab at the top of the Blutengel page. So any information you want to move to the new pages, then get it from there. I've moved 'Promised Land' to the singles section now too. Also there's Tränenherz, Nachtbringer, The Oxidising Angel and I've also linked Soultaker now, so there's 5 including Schwarzes Eis to practice on. When starting a new page, I find it easier to copy an existing page as a template and then change all the info to make the page you want. Alinblack (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm....[edit]

Ironic, current members have no links, but all former are linked. Shandristhe azylean 15:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blutengel 02.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Blutengel 02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)