Talk:Electronic music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Electronic music is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Electronic music (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Gershon Kingsley[edit]

I miss Gershon Kingsley on this page. I hope someone with enough knowledge will give him a mention later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.173.214 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hugh LeCaine[edit]

Why doesn't this article have a single mention of Hugh Lecaine? He's an important figure int he history of electronic music and now considered to be the inventor of the first true synthesizer, yet he doesn't get a mention?Revmagpie (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1961 Josef Tal established the Centre for Electronic Music in Israel at The Hebrew University, and in 1962 Hugh Le Caine arrived in Jerusalem to install his Creative Tape Recorder in the centre.[46] In the 1990s Tal conducted, together with Dr Shlomo Markel, in cooperation with the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, and VolkswagenStiftung a research project (Talmark) aimed at the development of a novel musical notation system for electronic music.[47]Etan J. Tal 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Scott[edit]

Doesn't Raymond Scott's Circle Machine pre-date the RCA Mark II Sound Synthesizer as the first sequencer? Also, doesn't Manhattan Research Inc (est. 1946) deserve a mention (Didn't Bob Moog get his start there?), along with the Clavivox, which Moog credited as an engineering blueprint for his first synth? (Not being snarky with the questions...I'm just learning about the history of electronic music - pre-Kraftwerk and Walter/Wendy Carlos that is :P ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.16.136 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Halim El-Dabh[edit]

The Wire magazine claims this Egyptian as the founder of purely electronic music, based on a (now lost) 1944 piece called Ta'abir al-Zaar. Should this be mentioned? Totnesmartin 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

how very convenient for that particular clique of know-it-alls that the piece is "lost". instead of making things up to seem clever, they should be lamenting the lack of content on the wikipedia electronic music page about raymond scott & manhattan project, & perhaps honourable mentions for paul beaver & bernie krause.

Names, terms, and words[edit]

This article could be more properly renamed Electronics and popular music; the term Electronic art music is not largely used as it is believed here at Wikipedia, indeed, that article's main source (see Talk:Electronic art music) refers to its subject as electronic music; this is blatantly true. Oh, soon the mastodonts will shout, poor creatures....--Doktor Who 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the content in Electronic art music should be moved out into History of Electronic Music. Even everywhere I read, there is really no such thing as "electronic art music". Electronic music in itself summarizes everything that we talk about. -asmadeus 11:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, but the it is true that both academical and experimental forms are still produced nowadays (not mentioning that several "giants" such as Stockhausen, Boulez and others, are living persons); there is too much confusion and overlapping of meanings among Electronic music, Electronic dance music, and Electronica, so I think that we need to co-ordinate the work of many editors and maybe create some sort of disambig pages. --Doktor Who 11:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I moved electronic art music to History of Electronic Music. I redirect Electronica to Electronic Music. Someone reput Electronica back, reason is "lost material", it is full of OR, no sources, no lost material. Please support me. I believe some OR opinions are defending their OR with ownership --Susume-eat 07:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language links[edit]

Foreign language links are usually inappropriate for the english language wikipedia. An inter-wiki link to the french article is fine. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Foreign-language_sites and Wikipedia:External links. here 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote from your link: when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables; explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can still interpret them. The sonhors site offers a rather extensive collection of history on those old electronic instruments. I have used it more than a year ago as one of the primary sources for articles here and on other wikipedias. At least, it offers extensive historical information on the subject, something other external links like [1] really fail to do. (I'm glad most of the spam to all sorts of modern music forums has been removed the last couple of months anyway) --LimoWreck 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Here's comments about the foreign language links. Most readers of the English Wikipedia cannot use that informtion, and it's distracting. That said, if the link is strongly relevant and there are not English resources that can be used, then it would be OK. But in this case there's lots of information available in English on this topic. Also as Here noted, an interwiki link to the the French article would be appropriate, but in this case I visited the French Wikipedia and could not find a link to that website even there. I don't read much French, but enough that I could review the related articles to look for it.

So, I concur with Here's removal of the re-added link.

On the other hand, I also agree with Limowreck that spam links have been a problem in this article. And in particular, I agree that the synthtopia link is a commercial website and does not provide valuable information for Wikipedia, so I have deleted that link. --Parzival418 Hello 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I still think it's a shame you guys keep removing the really on-topic (albeit french) link, but as I found the same link on the middle of the screen of one of the English links that is kept, I hope interested readers will find their way to the article ;-)
Bu the way: although I personally find the link very relevant (and french is not my native language ;-) ), I'm glad to see people actually pay more attention to cleaning up those huge dumps of links in the English wikipedia. Those were (and still are) almost a plague on the English WP. Other language wikipedia's have been keeping the external links to a minimum for a long time, and I'm glad more people on the English wikipedia keep an eye on those now. Regards --LimoWreck 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Someone has been through this article and rather over-zealously added 'citation required' links to almost everything that could be factually inaccurate. Unfortunately, most of it is widely accepted (E.g. Delia Derbyshire's involvement in the Doctor Who theme and Keith Emerson's use of synthesizers on tour) and consequently the links are a nuisance. Whilst it makes sense to back up doubtful statements with a citation, the same does not apply to every single fact. I should be able to write 'The moon orbits the earth' without having to cite Galileo or NASA! Electricdruid 13:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are probably talking about me, since I know I have put quite a few such calls into this article. The problem about "widely accepted" is, who is doing the accepting. To take the two cases you cite, I personally do know about Delia Derbyshire, for example, and from where the Radiophonic Workshop got most of its knowhow in the 1960s, but if someone were to ask me for more details, I would have no idea where to start looking. (Neither the linked article on Delia Derbyshire nor the one on BBC Radiophonic Workshop furnishes this information and, if memory serves, Ron Grainer never set foot in the Radiophonic Workshop, as the article currently suggests, but merely jotted down his theme and turned it over to the BBC folks to realise, much as he was accustomed to turning over tunes to arrangers for conventional instruments, like Albert W. Elms, who scored his themes for Man in a Suitcase and The Prisoner, for example.) Keith Emerson, on the other hand, is not a person known to me at all, let alone his use of synthesizers on tour. (I would guess from your handle, Electricdruid, that you are into electronica and such; I on the other hand know almost nothing about pop music and the makers of it. Consequently, I need pointers that you may regard as unnecessary.) As the Wikipedia guidelines on Citing sources say, "Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable." Of course this is most important where there is contention, but drawing a line between "everybody knows" and "original research" is not as simple as you suggest. For me, at least, both the Derbyshire and the Emerson statements fall into the latter category. The question of the moon orbiting the earth is not an appropriate comparison.
The real issue, however, is not with this or that particular detail, but with the enormous number of unsourced statements throughout this article. As it stands, it reads like original research, but by an unknown hand. Doubtless not every specific fact needs a separate citation, as I suspect that whole paragraphs may well stem from Bogdanov et al. 2001, Kettlewell 2001, Prendergast 2001, or other items in the References list (e.g., the section "Post-war years: 1940s to 1950s" is full of bland inaccuracies typical of popular books of this type—such as "The tape recorder was invented in Germany during World War II"—and I have been trying to root some of these out, which would be easier if I knew where they actually came from). As I understand it, the only reason for keeping this list separate from "Further reading" is that material actually in the article stems from the former, but not the latter. This is not, however, a license to omit citations in the text altogether.--Jerome Kohl 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Explaining your request on the talk page as you have just done is a much better method of alerting other editors to the need for specific edits, rather than peppering the article with so many cite requests as to hinder its readability. However, I also agree about the need for better sourcing of the article. The tape recorder, for instance, was invented in Germany but not during World War II. It was developed jointly, the machine by AEG and the tape BASF during 1934 and 1935. See the articles on Bing Crosby (an early backer in the US) and Magnetophon for details. --Blainster 03:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite so, though even this was a development of tape technology dating back to 1930 or a few years earlier, still in Germany; the technology was dramatically improved by German engineers during the war, and it was the unsuspected high quality of these machines that astounded the Allies at the war's end that led to this legend of a "secret invention". As the Magnetophon article states, AEG had tape-recorded a Mozart symphony conducted by Sir Thomas Beecham in 1936, so the technology was hardly unkown outside Germany before the war. I mentioned this only as one instance amongst many in an entire paragraph (or, indeed, the whole article) that I suspect may be based on a single source or very small number of sources—and not very credible ones, at that. The very next sentence describes musique concrète just as inaccurately, and is followed by the preposterous assertion that Pierre Henry was a colleague of Boulez and Stockhausen.
I am reluctant to correct these statements until I have found reliable sources to cite myself, after having fixed the next sentence (which originally claimed that Stockhausen only ever used electronics in combination with the symphony orchestra), only to have someone tag it for citation, presumably to prove that Mixtur and Hymnen, dritte Region mit Orchester actually use an orchestra (or that the orchestra is a relatively conventional one), or that they are the only two works by Stockhausen that do so.
This leaves just the final sentence, with the dubious assertion about the Barrons being the first in America to compose music on tape. I won't go on to the remaining two paragraphs in the section, which are even worse, though I was much lighter-handed in marking them for verification.
Although I take your point about using the Talk Page, I have been dismayed in several other cases to discover that people are ready enough to complain on a Talk Page, but no-one ever seems to actually do anything to correct the problems. The Talk Page is cosily out of site, whereas specific calls within the article are harder to ignore.--Jerome Kohl 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merging/redirecting Electronic Music articles (closed)[edit]

Currently, there is a discussion about the content of the Electronica article on its talk page, here. Comments invited. --Parsifal Hello 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

New merger proposal[edit]

  • The suggestion is to merge Electronic art music with Electronic music. In academic literature on the subject there is no distinction made, so why is Wikipedia taking it upon itself to establish this category when there is a significant body of academic work on electronic music that does not fit with this view. It is in some sense suggesting that other types of non-art electronic music cannot be considered art, this is elitist, especially when various so called vernacular electronic music varieties are now receiving serious academic attention . In actuality, Electronic music and Computer music should probably be merged, and then both of these merged with Electroacoustic music, but I don't see that happening. Yes, there is some dispute with regard to the use of the term electroacoustic music, but it is, all things being equal, a very useful term, and one that has established itself in the serious music world (so called).I simply question the wisdom of inventing terminology or of using Wikipedia to question established modes of use. Many of these efforts to redefine subject matter might technically be considered WP:SYN or even WP:OR and are therefore questionable in the context of encyclopaedic use.Semitransgenic (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I trust you have read the long and sometimes acrimonious debate on Talk:Electronic art music concerning the title Electronic art music and the changes it has had. IIRC, this merger was proposed somewhere in that discussion, and the consensus was to keep the articles separate. As to the question of "no distinction" being made in the academic literture, you may wish to consult Talk:Electronic_art_music#references_added, where editor Parsifal mentions providing references to this distinction, which are to be found in footnotes 1–4 of that article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
gotta agree totally with semitrangenic here on the points. EAM should be written into EM. BUT i know i dont want to do it personally 'cos it's annoying to merge articles. the argument is right but it will never get done due to our inherent lazyness as editors rofl. ps the discussians of parcifal and susume eat cranks on electronica is beyond belief............ get a life Ceasefire joanne (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • indeed I have seen the discussion, but I don't see any genuinely good reasons to avoid a merger. The referenced items you mention do not support the notion of there being a clear demarcation between EAM and EM, one (Allen) supports the view raised above. Ben Neal (2002) in Leonardo Music Journal adds further support to this. There are many references to electronic art music in various notable sources dating back some time but from what I see it is used to distinguish art music (the acoustic tradition) from EAM, not EM from EAM. Simon Emmerson (2007) also discusses EM, electronica, etc. in the same light as EM that some might want to call EAM. On the whole the trend seems to be towards inclusivity. The other reference, from Wilson, on the EAM page, deals with the relevance of historic EAM music in this day and age, it is not setting out to distinguish EAM from EM.Semitransgenic (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Emmerson (2001): The relationship between “art” musics and vernacular (or “popular”) musics in Western society is complex and has a long history. From engagement and synthesis to incomprehension and antagonism, this relationship has reflected larger social trends—themselves the product of economic and technological change. Within this continuity, there are periods of intensified exchange. In the 1920s, for example, it centered on jazz, but in the 1990s the picture was not so clear. There is a cautious consensus that in the 1990s, there was a profound difference: art music itself appeared to be increasingly isolated as a minority interest (an old argument to be sure, but increasingly highlighted). Another major contribution to this polemic has been the ever-increasing access to sophisticated tools for music production that computer technology has enabled.
  • Chadabe (2000): Aristocratic culture, traditionally based on exclusive knowledge and skill, is now changing, and computer music is changing with it. It is well understood that by providing universal access to knowledge that earlier was available only to an educated few, technology is having a democratizing effect in the world. What is less well understood is that technology can allow a member of the public to interact in a sophisticated and creative way with a musical process, even without previously acquired musical knowledge or skill...Computers, in other words, are not surrogate violins. They are interactive devices. Consistent with general technology-driven changes in the world, computers give us an opportunity to democratize high-art music by making it participatory, and, as a normal consequence of participation, to expand the aristocratic culture so that it is no longer aristocratic.
  • Neal (2002) quoting Chadabe: Indeed, the protective parapet that has long kept high art and popular art mutually exclusive seems to be showing signs of vulnerability. It seems that we are about to enter a new cultural architecture that we cannot yet describe; yet we are aware that technology is changing the world and that it will also change the world of computer music.
  • Travis (2007), referenced on the EAM page: Both electronic dance music (EDM) and electronic art music (EAM) draw from a similar lineage and trace their history to the early pioneers of electronic music such as Pierre Schaeffer, Edgar Varese, Karlheinz Stockhausen, and Morton Subotnik. Scholarship has recognized this legacy by linking both EDM and EAM to these early innovators.
  • Neal (2002): The division between high-art electronic music and pop electronic music is best defined in terms of rhythmic content. Pop electronic music uses repetitive beats, primarily in 4/4 time, but a new generation of composers is working within that structure to create what is essentially the new art music. This phenomenon is an out-growth of such historical currents as minimalism and postmodernism, along with the continuing development of a global technoculture, it is part of a larger cultural shift in which art is becoming more connected with society rather than being created by and for specialists. This positive development is being accelerated by the rapid evolution of new technologies for producing and reproducing music today, as well as by new possibilities for distribution and dissemination of music electronically.
  • Cascone (2000), discussing post-digital aesthetics: Most of the work in this area is released on labels peripherally associated with the dance music market, and is therefore removed from the contexts of academic consideration and acceptability that it might otherwise earn. Still, in spite of this odd pairing of fashion and art music, the composers of glitch often draw their inspiration from the masters of 20th century music who they feel best describe its lineage.
  • Emmerson (2001):All artists have a point of view and cannot feign objectivity. It is paradoxically by understanding history, stripping it away, and reconfiguring the argument in contemporary terms that we may stop “defending” art and move to a clearer advocacy of its contribution to society: “Art is dead! Long live Art!” Semitransgenic (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semitransgenic (talkcontribs) 19:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that it states on the EAM page: Much of the above text was originally published as part of Doctoral Dissertation titled Electroacoustic Music for the Flute. Nowhere in this dissertation is the term electronic art music used.Semitransgenic (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Electronic Art Music is the best name. Everyone's entitled to their opinion after all. The "Art" part makes it more elegent. Only us brighties can enjoy Stockhausen, while the lamers of the world can only enjoy Trance Hits. We need to mark the difference, between us elites and the lowers such as the working class. Bring out as many quotes as you please, we all know what is truly best for the music. I would have thought Electronic Music could describe everything, but we need to show the difference between the elite and the proles. This is the best compromise. Please don't push this any further. I would hate to see the art removed, wherever it originated from, it's too gorgeous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaha303 (talkcontribs) 12:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your comments do not help the position you are presenting. Please refrain from deleting discussion entries. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Only a pleb would even dream of ruining the article's name. How are you going to merge the articles? It would take so much of our hard work and time. What a waste. Bad idea - no merge. Art is artJane Breasts (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you friends with Susume Eat? Jane Breasts (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am friends with no one. Please do not confuse this action with petty tribalism. And please stick to real discussion. Also please comment using correct chronology. The merger is easy. Much of the content is poor and has more in common with the Electronic musical instrument article. There is significant overlap across the three aforementioned articles. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I like your writing style. It's pithy, piercing, and straight to the point. Where did you pick it up? If you're willing to do the merge yourself, I suggest preparing the merge, posting it as your user page, and then showing it to us. I think the quality of the merge could be good, yet I'm still not convinced about dropping the name art. I like it too much. Perhaps it is a bit snobby though. This is website for everyone, not just arty farty types like myself. Jane Breasts (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The following comment was posted on my user page, it should have been directed here Semitransgenic (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC): Don't you dare merge Electronic Art Music with Electronic Music. We came up with the "art" name fair and square. Now real life books and articles are starting to use EAM because of our work here on this page. We are using wikipedia to change the world and revise history to a better view. Please don't interfere or question us. Who cares if people and the media only use phrases like Electronic Music or Dance Music? This is our encyclopaedia, written by us. As long as we can find a written article in a publication to back us up, there's no problem! Electronic Dance Music and Electronic Art Music - we invented it and we're proud. Please don't turn this into another Space Music or Alice Bailey. Thank you for stepping down and stopping from pursuing this move any further, it will be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaha303 (talkcontribs) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The terms Electronic dance music and electronic art music were not invented by wikipedia editors. Please keep the discussion directed at the issue of demarcation, as outlined above. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. Mansour Said (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Computer music merge[edit]

throwing this out there for the sake of getting opinions. Is CM an anachronistic term, isn't electronic and computer music essentially one in the same at this stage? Is computer music simply a historic sub-category of electronic music? In academia the distinction is clearer, but the use of computer technology in music creation is now almost ubiquitous in the popular music domain so what distinctions should be made here? From a practical stand point the Computer music article has not been expanded or improved greatly over time so it may function more effectively as a sub-section within the electronic music article. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

merge imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.215.53.124 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
no merJ. Computer music is strictly dijital, that is through fingers and scripts. IOW, sampling devices and analog transforms (recording your sound card's mix of a digi-wave with radio, for instance) are excluded. BrewJay (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BrewJay; Computer Music implies something akin to Ableton Live, while Electronic Music is much more broad. --TMC1221 (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
But isn't a computer an electronic device? Computer music strictly digital? But how can you have digital processing without electronic hardware? (CPU, motherboard, RAM, etc.) and once it leaves a DAC, and is routed to a loudspeaker, isn't the net result the same? Semitransgenic (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Electronic Music is a much broader term than computer music, it includes computer music but is not exclusive to it. Electronic music predates the invention of the personal home computer and music applications. The invention of the computer has had unquestionable impact in the expansion and growth of electronic music which only justifies and strengthens the existence of a distinct computer music article.Elmedio (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I must disagree, to the extent that electronic music does not include all computer music. For example, the pioneering work of Lejaren Hiller includes works composed by computer, but for performance by human players. The Illiac Suite for string quartet is the best-known example. Another case is Trimpin, who uses computers to control entirely acoustic sound sculptures. It would be absurd to discuss computer music like this in an article on electronic music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
But isn't the Hiller work an example of computer assisted composition? When academics use the term computer music are they referring to digital music or just any type of music that incorporates some element of computer technology in its production? Trimpin can do what he does - and maybe at one time he did - using a hardware based MIDI sequencer; a computerised MIDI sequencer simply takes some of the labour out of the task. But this leads into the issue of popular music, the majority of it is created using computers, but I don't hear any academics calling it computer music. Also, there is a mainstream magazine called Computer Music which deals entirely with popular music production techniques. So really, I'm just curious if it's any longer valid to call it (that is essentially electronic, or electro-acoustic) computer music, it seems somewhat anachronistic to me. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If you like, you could call the Illiac Suite a computer-assisted composition but, to answer your second question, in my experience academics do commonly refer to it (and other pieces composed using computers, with or without digital or analogue electronic sound generation) as "computer music". I don't understand your question about Trimpin, and I would like to see some data justifying your claim that the majority of popular music is created using computers (you may be right—I'm just a little taken aback). As far as I am aware, academics do in fact include popular-music genres in their discussions of computer music, so long as computers are involved. Skimming through the tables of contents for recent issues of the Computer Music Journal, for example, turns up some articles specifically focussed on jazz or pop (vol. 32/2, 32/1, 29/3, 28/3, etc.), though the great majority are technique-oriented and do not point at any particular style or genre. Reviews in nearly every issue include popular-music genres. It sounds to me as if you may be confusing means of sound production with compositional genre.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Trimpin could accomplish the same results with something like a Roland MC-50, if it's simply a matter of MIDI sequencing, a computer is not necessary, that's really all I was pointing out. The majority of commercial recording studios use a DAW, once material is recorded, editing, and in many cases audio manipulation, happens in the digital domain, technically it may be computer assisted composition, but the entire production regime, from recording through to mastering, is now computer dependent. I'm not confused regarding means of sound production and genre naming, that confusion exists, and is part of the problem associated with deciding what to call this, that, or the other. The term "Electronic music" once related specifically to means of production, now it largely refers to a genre of music, yet that is not clear either because many genres of electronic music exist. So is computer music a genre or a term that relates to means of production? Semitransgenic (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how Trimpin could manipulate his sound-sculptures with a Roland MC-50, but perhaps you are right. This does not change the fact that he uses computers, however. There is also the issue, I suppose, of where to draw the line between a digital synthesizer and a computer, but I will leave that to more expert minds. It may be true that there is now a genre called Electronic Music but, if so, I am not aware of it. On the other hand, I am quite familiar with a vast quantity of music in many genres that employ electronics, and which people conventionally describe as "electronic music". Consequently, I would have to say that the term applies chiefly to the means of production. The same is true of computer music, perhaps even more emphatically.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but I also get the impression confusion still exists, particularly in the popular domain. Regarding Trimpin, from what I've read here, he has used standard MIDI sequencing software for a number of his works; an MC-50 can do basically the same but is obviously extremely limited in comparison. How would you feel about possibly renaming the article 'Electronic and computer music', after Manning, that way any confusion that might exist can be put to rest. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is always confusion. It seems to me that one purpose of any reference, including Wikipedia, is to help remedy confusion and clarify distinctions. I don't think that renaming or combining these articles is a good idea at all, for reasons I have already stated. At some point, distinctions have got to be made, and I think the present distinction is a good one. Otherwise, where do we stop? Merge all music topics into a single article titled "Music"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
a single article entitled music? hardly. However, in relation to the following items: Computer generated music, Computer-Aided Algorithmic Composition, Computer assisted composition, all are simply subsections of Computer music and in my opinion should be contained in one complete article, rather than having multiple stubs, or otherwise incomplete articles. Such entires currently serve specialist audiences only. At least if everything is in one place when a reader goes to computer music they will be exposed to other relevant information without having to click through three pages to get a complete overview.This is simply an ideological difference with regard to the use of mergers. Semitransgenic (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea that these three articles existed, and I would support the merger of them into the main Computer music article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Electronic music article needs to be fixed[edit]

Who messed this article up? Somebody needs to fix it. And, redirect electronica and electronic dance music to electronic music. It's all the same thing. Auto Racing Fan (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott's Device?[edit]

In the first part of the article, it compares Edison's invention with Raymond Scott's in the use of cylinders. If anyone knows which one it is, please put in the necessary explanation/hyperlink, I'm curious. --JDitto (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! It looks like a preceding sentence must have been deleted, but can't find the missing information anywhere in the edit archive back as far as January 2007, so it has been gone a long time. It is doubly confusing because of the mention later in the article of Raymond Scott, and a photograph of his 1971 Electronium. The Scott meant here is Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville, who invented a machine for visually recording sounds in 1857. I will se what I can do to repair this one small blotch in a blotch-ridden article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

The following is largely erroneous and not supported by the citation provided: Today, the term electronic music serves to differentiate music that uses electronics as its focal point or inspiration, from music that uses electronics mainly in service of creating an intended production that may have some electronic elements in the sound but does not focus upon them. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. I would suggest replacing the dodgy claim with the quotation now in the footnote. Either that, or just eliminate the sentence and its non-supporting citation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just reduced the material in the lede to the bare essentials for the time being, to avoid potential confusion, can be adjusted to reflect the rest of the article, as it develops. Is the electromechanical/electronic instrument distinction really required? Semitransgenic (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Paring down the lede sounds like a good plan to me (though there is still a lot of the clutter in the footnotes—my rule of thumb is, "if it is important enough to keep, it is important enough to have in the main text"). I personally would like to keep the distinction between electromechanical instruments and instruments which actually generate sound with electronic circuitry.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. The distinction will ideally need to be outlined more clearly in the main body of text if it is touched upon in the lede. Right now it's not overtly stated, electromechanical instruments are featured as precursors to the first electronic instruments but the issue of distinction is not raised, and it is not something non specialist readers will be clear about. This may also be an issue when covering musique concrete. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Electronium.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Electronium.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image problem[edit]

I contest vividly the image used by the paragraph "The 2000s" and labelled as "a performance using electronic instruments"; although the labelling is vague enough, the image clearly depicts a deejay mixing MP3s with his laptop and also CDs using a simple audio mixing board and 2 Pioneer CD players, so it cannot be representative of anything in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.177.141 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Electronic music regional national scenes[edit]

Currently, the article, and Wikipedia in general, doesn't say much about this matter. The only exceptions I've come across are these pages: German electronic music, Suomisaundi. Since the '80s there have emerged many regional scenes (especially in Europe) of various forms of electronic music, so "localized" info describing them is needed. If this is thought to be far beyond the scope of this article, I'd propose to create a template called "Electronic music around the world" (compare with {{World punk}}: "Punk music around the world") and articles on each notable scene be created as part of the a "providing content to the template" project. Omnipedian (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Written by grandpa?[edit]

Is this article written by senior citizens? 'Electronic music is so popular today that it is even played in nightclubs', by god, this happened in the 70's! Almost all music in nightclubs is completely electronic apart form the vocals. Also, 'advances in microprocessor technology increased viability of digital music production', what? 'advances in microprocessor technology', another sentence from the 80's, this stuff is laughably out of date and supplies us with no real information.

I'm also very much in favor of a page or section dedicated to 'electronic music around the world' as the above commenter suggests; I'm personally from Europe and there's indeed many, very interesting and potent regional sounds that deserve attention. A lot of stuff now going strong in Europe has it's roots in the US; techno, hiphop, house all emerged from there, so I presume there's still something interesting going on Statesside as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.144.73 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


Electro by Autopilot[edit]

Is there a page for the following music:

-Elctro by Autopilot
-Helium Disco by -Unknown-

Darkened wiki (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Italians[edit]

This article is totally misleading and poor. Where are Luciano Berio, Bruno Maderna, Luigi Nono, the experience of the Studio di Fonologia Musicale, in Milan, in the fifties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.161.28 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that all of the current content of the article should be deleted in favour of just Italian composers of the 1950s, I believe you will meet with a certain amount of resistance. On the other hand, if the article is so "totally misleading", surely there must be a lot more wrong with it than just this one tiny detail which can, after all, easily be remedied. Apart from Italy (though Nono's electronic music was largely produced in Germany), it seems there is almost nothing on the very important activities in Stockholm, and not one Swedish composer is named. Poland is also conspicuous by its absence, and yet the Warsaw studio was as important in the 1950s and 60s as the Studio di Fonologia. This should be enough to be getting on with, so far as omissions are concerned. Now, in what way do you find what is here "poor"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

2000s?[edit]

Er... Why are "chiptunes" listed in the 2000s? This is something we did in the 80s and 90s; it has just recently gone through a retro-trend phase, to be sure, but it is certainly not a new innovation of the 2000s. 174.53.187.118 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Popcorn was a huge early electronic hit song and should be mentioned in the article[edit]

http://www.popcorn-song.com/origin.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.172.56 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it rock music?--SabreBD (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's 100% electronic music. If you follow the link above you can hear the original version from 1969 and all the many many remakes of it that were made, because it was very influential. That link also has tons of history on it. It was a very important piece in the history of electronic music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.172.56 (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

To make it even more clear, there are literally like 100 remakes of this song that've been made over every decade since it was originally released in 1969, including new versions that modern electronic artists are still making today in the 2010s! This includes remakes of it by electronica superstars like Aphex Twin, and pop music superstars like Ben Folds. If that's not massively influential, then *nothing* can be considered influential. This song is as influential as it gets.

http://www.popcorn-song.com/versions.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.172.56 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Popcorn was the first primarily electronic-based music to ever get on the American popular music charts, peaking at #9 on the Billboard Pop Singles and #4 on the Adult Contemporary Chart.

In France, "Popcorn" is the 131st best-selling single of all time, with about 900,000 sales.

Popcorn hit number #1 on the charts in Germany, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands, and it hit #5 in the UK, and #15 in Canada.

... clearly and obviously this was and is a very influential song in the history of electronic music. But if you need even more evidence on top of the mountain I already provided, then just let me know and I'd be happy to make this huge mountain of evidence into a Mount Everest of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.172.56 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubstep?[edit]

Should dubstep be added to the list? as I understand that it usually uses synthetic instruments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.206.170 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Audio clip[edit]

I really think we should have an audio example in here somewhere of what electric music sounds like. (That's what I came here looking for.) Is it just an issue of finding electronic music that isn't copyrighted already? -TeragR (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That would not be very different from putting one audio clip on the Music article to illustrate what music sounds like! Perhaps it would be useful to put in a number of different sound clips to illustrate the variety of different musics that have used electronic generation. This might run into the copyright issue you ask about, but in many important areas it would also come up against the problem of finding any examples at all. To take one instance from near the beginning of the article, there are no recordings so far as I am aware of a Telharmonium (though if I am wrong about this, someone please correct me, because I would love to know what that behemoth actually sounded like). On the other hand, assuming the copyright problem could be averted it would probably require close to a hundred different examples to represent fairly the different kinds of electronic music just from the second half of the 20th century. Indeed, the "Electroacoustic tape music" and "Musique concrète" sections would need at least half a dozen examples each, just to give a rough idea of the different genres and styles found using these techniques in the 1950s alone.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Electronic music phylogeny (genealogy)[edit]

Hi,
I've made this comprehensive "phylogeny" of electronic music genres and sub-genres.
By creating an image map, every genre box could link to a wiki article and "play" buttons would be links to a song example of each genre.
What do you think? Would it be useful in this article?
Arthurpeace (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)