Talk:Tape loop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vanity Entry[edit]

Seems an obscure indie band is hardly "Noteworthy." To me, this passage smacks of vanity and most likely should be deleted. Mywhitedevil 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagerism?[edit]

How do we report plagerism? This article is identical to this article on answers.com ([1] -St. Jimmy

It's not plagerism. As you can clearly see, Answers.com provides information from Wikipedia through some sort of agreement I suppose. Shiranweber

Radio and samplers[edit]

the HHGG radio series used tape loops for effects -- we could mention the BBC Radiophonic Workshop here. Also, early samplers were tape loops, weren't they -- wasn't the Mellotron tape loops? -- Tarquin 16:52, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Definition of Tape-Loops[edit]

The definition of tape loops being "rhythmic, musical" patterns is way too restrictive! Could someone come up with a better definition, please? Think noise loops, drone tones etc... Sawatzki

Comparison to sequencers?[edit]

I just wonder if there could be a section about how the idea of repeated sounds (loops) inspired the whole sequencer technique? I mean, basically, on a modern sequencer software, you can easily recreate and come up with very similar music to all those early minimalism music. --M1ck1 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this machine is called a "Loop pedal"[edit]

Right? French jazz singer Cyrille Aimee probably performing using a loop pedal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

@Jerome Kohl: I think you're being a dick here, and if you hadn't such a fine musical taste, I might take it against you. While I agree that ideally everything should be sourced, you've just threw a whole slew of unsourced babies with the bathwater; I restored one paragraph, sourced (with great pains, as I noticed in the summary) one half of it (OK, I AGF that you didn't notice) and promised to source the rest soon: it's easily verifiable that e.g. Beatles were noted for using loops in several songs. Sure, put {cn}s where they lack, but if the statement is likely true and relevant, please don't remove it and make me search the dustbin for pearls. There is no deadline, is there? No such user (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, those templates weren't created for no purpose. When a citation has been specifically requested as long as eight months ago, there has been ample time to find a source if one exists. I think your attitude toward Wikipedia sourcing policy is a bit casual, and a little reading on the subject is in order. I suggest you start with Wikipedia:Verifiability. While you are at it, you might also read Wikipedia:Civility. I do not take kindly to being called names, nor, I imagine, would you if I were to respond in kind. I looked very carefully at that paragraph before I removed it for the second time, and could see no reference in it. I will check the edit history and, if I was wrong, I will restore that portion of it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There was in fact a cited source, though it misleadingly looked like a fake, because the author's name did not appear in the list of sources. I use my eyeballs to verify sources, not hidden texts that can only be searched electronically. I apologize for being a human being. I have now fixed this malformed entry, and restored the sourced claim. This article uses author-only parenthetical citations (with short titles where an author has more than one entry), and the obscurity is compounded by listing references without the customary inversion of the authors' names.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I do take sourcing seriously, but that material was not originally added by me. In my opinion, your removal of 4.5 kB of material, containing several obviously on-topic and true statements was quite destructive, (since you insist on civil discourse). Many sources already exist in Terry Riley, Steve Reich, It's Gonna Rain and Come Out (Reich), for example. The material you removed was quite easily, if not immediately, verifiable. If you don't want to insert citations yourself, fine, do put the tags, but removal of the material is not a solution, as it destroys the years of (admittedly imperfect) work of other authors. Do you seriously doubt the veracity of that material, or you are just not satisfied with its state of perfect sourcing? For my part, I would also suggest reading WP:There is no deadline and m:Eventualism. No such user (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
am not satisfied with the state of the sourcing (not perfectionism, but lack of any sourcing whatever). You must be a lot younger than I am, if you are willing to wait for years, or even decades, for someone to find a reliable source for claims I believe are dubious, even if you believe them to be "obviously true". If these things are so easy to find, why hasn't anyone inserted them in over eight months' time? It doesn't matter whether material was added by you or someone else, you still have the authority to add needed citations. It is your failure to do so—together with the complaint that a "references needed" tags being "ugly" is sufficient grounds for is removal—that I find to be evidence of a cavalier attitude toward sourcing. It is reassuring to hear you say you take sourcing seriously, but actions speak louder than words. Removal of unsourced material destroys nothing, not even misleading or malicious writing. It all remains in the edit history (unless, of course, it is so vile or contrary to law as to require permanent expunging by an administrator), from where it can be recovered and restored when sources have been found. Thank you for the links, I found this section (of what I must point out is merely an opinion essay) especially pertinent in the present case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. I plan to restore and source paragraph by paragraph, although I'm short on time lately. It would be much easier for everyone to have the material you contest in plain sight rather than buried in the edit history. And do you honestly find dubious that, for example, It's Gonna Rain and Come Out (Reich) are noted for using tape loops? It takes about two clicks to get to their YouTube videos to hear for yourself, and a couple more to find numerous GBooks hits about their notability. Oh well, I'll deliver you the {{shrubbery}} eventually. No such user (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I welcome the return of this material, with proper sources. As I have already pointed out, this material was out in plain sight for at least eight months. How long do you think is a reasonable amount of time for editors to find reliable sources? To answer your specific question: I am personally aware of the fact that the two Reich works you mention were made from tape loops; I am not so sure that they are noted for this feature (as opposed to their use of "phasing" techniques), any more than other compositions using looping, both earlier and later. If you intend getting into a contest to see who can list the most tape pieces using loops, I think I am equal to the challenge, but let's make it into an independent list because it is going to take up a lot of space. If, on the other hand, you want to convince me that Reich's pieces are better-known than anybody else's, then I suggest you find a source that says this is the case. I don't think this is impossible, but it might not be as "obvious" as you seem to believe.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Selection of works[edit]

Jerome, can we bury the hatchets, shall we? As you noted above, selection of authors and works to be outlined in the History and Discography sections is not obvious. Since, as far as I'm aware, there are not many (or none at all) authoritative sources that deal exclusively with tape loop pieces, whose selection we could mimic, we are more or less left to an editorial consensus. Of course, only the most notable, innovative and representative authors and works should be included, but that still presents a rather vague inclusion criteria. Livelooping.org could be a useful resource to look at, but is an enthusiast website much like Wikipedia, not a reliable source. No such user (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were any hatchets that needed burying but, if I have given that impression, let me reassure you that we are on the same page here. There are some features (we don't call them "bugs", do we?) of the referencing format used for this article that we both find annoying, though perhaps for different reasons, and we have got different degrees of patience, perhaps, where unreferenced claims are concerned. I don't see why a lack of one global source on the topic of looping should be a problem at all. Few article on Wikipedia have the option of relying on a single source, and the ones that do may be criticized for it, under Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. I think we agree, too, that "enthusiast websites"—which are by definition self-published and/or blogs—are not reliable sources and must therefore be used only with extreme caution, if at all.
I don't think we are going to have any serious differences over inclusion criteria, either—at least, not to judge from our discussion so far. For what it is worth, I encourage you to restore any names that I have deleted, just so long as there reasonably suitable sources are provided (verifying their notability is not an issue so much as verifying specific claims made about them). To err on the side of caution, I suppose it might be a good idea to discuss any doubtful additions here before adding them to the article. As far as undoubtedly notable practitioners are concerned, I notice a huge hole in the history section, which jumps from Pierre Schaeffer in the 1940s to Hugh Le Caine, the BBC, and Terry Riley at the end of the 1950s. This gives at least two false impressions: first, that loop technology lay dormant through the first half of the 1950s and, second, that Riley's work sprang fully formed from his brow. In fact, there were important developments in California in the early 1950s, of which Riley (certainly) and Le Caine (probably) were keenly aware, and which need to be added, as soon as I can find a source to verify my memory. Are there any other obvious gaps that need filling?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll try to fill in some more gaps on the progressive/psychedelic/electronic acts (Fripp, Eno, Pink Floyd) from the 1970s, but I'd rather leave the 1950s to your (or anybody else's) expertise. It also seems that San Francisco Tape Music Center and Morton Subotnick are worth mentioning, but I haven't yet conducted a proper research whether their work is noted in the narrower context of tape loops. No such user (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good division of labour. I am not particularly well-informed or even interested in the 1970s popular-music scene, but the 1950s and 60s are more up my street. I would expect the San Francisco Tape Music Center has got quite a lot to do with tape loops, but would be somewhat surprised to learn that they were vwery important for Subotnik. Still, it's a good suggestion and I shall follow it up.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)