Talk:Mashup (music)

Pop Will Eat Itself

CB,

I don't remember the issue date (sometime in late 1984 or the year 1985) of the Melody Maker. It's the issue with Bronski Beat on the cover. That quote has always stuck in my head, even before PWEI existed. If someone else can please substansiate this, I would appreciate it. Two Halves, who is at the job right now...

Hi, Two Halves.

Fair enough if someone can provide a scan, or if Mr Quantick himself feels like weighing in :-), but all the references seem to suggest he was an NME staffer at the time.

Best wishes, chocolateboy 19:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Double Dee

I thought Steinski collaborated with Double Dee on those "Lesson" EP's.

 ~phr

Cheers. Fixed! chocolateboy 11:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The central european side...

Besides finding the 'bastard pop' entry both educational end enjoyable, I couldn't help but feeling that the central european angle is missing.

I am mainly speaking of German/Dutch DJ, producer, remixer, etc. Ben Liebrand, and remix services such as DMC, Ultimix, Disconet etc. For more info I suggest to follow the link to www.mixfreaks.org.

This community, active since early 1980's uses a different jargon, were mash-ups are called "Minimixes", and Glitch is reffered to as "Extreme Edits".

thanks, Modium

Hi, Modium.

Well, I mentioned JPL, who namechecks the hell out of Monsieur Liebrand... I've discussed this elsewhere, and the fond reminiscing often ends up embracing sampling and "samplism" generally (hiphop, R'n'B, "pop" &c.), which is fascinating (to me), but ain't Bastard Pop. I guess Liebrand was overlooked because his "edits" are usually authorized rather than illegitimate, but I'm keenly looking forward to checking your link, and would love it if you or someone as knowledgeable as you improved the article.

It would make a refreshing change from the usual stream of vanity spam :-) Be bold!

chocolateboy 02:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edits

GNU and all, I wouldn't dream of editing without your consent...

So, I will include two issues here for you to include in any way you see fit:

- Jargon: 'Edits' (also known as 'Acetates') usually mean the way used by late 70's - early 80's DJ's to extend breaks in 7" singles. Instead of cutting between two copies of the same 7" (while one copy plays the break the other is spun back to the beginning of the break, to be faded in at the right time), the 7" would have been recorded onto a 1/4" tape recorder several times, the breaks would have been cut out of the tape and pasted one next to the other. Very few deejays played the tapes themselves. Most of them printed several vinyl copies at special stores. Thus the term 'White Label' was born - those records would have nothing on them but the shop's serial number and meybe a few notes scribbled by the editor for himself. People do edit nowadays but the technology today lets them produce a full remix. No one is content with just extending breaks. This scene by the way, gave birth to the break-dancing scene, but that's another story.

'Extreme Edits' (also known as 'Shotgun Edits') came by after the appearance of samplers and wave-based synthesizers. The first samplers were very limited in memory, enough for one phrase, so the deejays and producers used it to rep-rep-rep-rep-rep-repeat 1 or 2-beat samples. Those who couldn't afford the high priced samplers, toiled in cutting tapes into countless small pieces and putting them together into pasted tapes that bearly hold. As time went by, those sound snippets grew smaller, were played out of order, and went through all kinds of sound processing effects -- as far as the technology of that time could allow. And glitch was born.

'Minimixes' is the European name for A vs B mashups, and also up to about 10 minutes mix sets.

- Legitimacy You got one thing wrong: A lot Ben Liebrand's and other DJ's (latin rascals for example) remixes were approved by the industry. Later they were hired or commissioned by the industry to remix tracks. But at least at first, those versions were bootlegs given or sold from one DJ to another, and it took a long time for them to be cleared, if ever. The situation was this: The DJ bought the original track, and thus paid for the right to play it. The DJ used to play the track in a certain way: extended breaks, layed over another track, etc. (the industry supported that by releasing DJ versions containing instrumentals and acapellas). The DJ is tired of having to manipulate the track in every set, records the manipulation and creates an acetate for personal use. The audience or other DJ's like version and want to listen to it at home / play it during their sets. The DJ can't sell (or even give away) his version since he doesn't have the copyrights (this starts to sound like GNU-GPL and open code). He can still play it since it is a substitute to the manipulation of the original track. So, in the time before the Internet and GYBO Ben Liebrand and his Fellow DJ's had an Idea: They would extend the 'Personal use' term from one person to a group by forming a club called Disco Mix Club (DMC for short). They would make money from the club membership fees, giving the versions away (along with a nice club magazine) for free, and forbidding the members to pass them along to non-members. Other similar remix-services were formed in the same manner, like 'Hot Tracks' and 'DiscoNet' offering a steady flow of special versions for a monthly fee. Some of them accepted home-made versions from club members and incorporated those in their following issues.

I know all this by word of mouth. You must have noticed that Names, Dates and examples are almost completly missing. I guess some googling of the terms mentioned above might fill in the blanks, but I fear that writing this lengthy artice came on the expense of something else I should return to... I hope someone will find the time for it...

thanks, Modium

Hi, Modium. Thanks for your informative post. It certainly looks like there's a lot of material there. Have you thought of putting it into a separate article?

Oh, and by the way: please do edit mercilessly without my consent. I'd be delighted if you did, and offended if you didn't :-)

chocolateboy 14:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MTV Mash

Where would you place MTV Mash, and shouldn't we have some comments concerning that. That Mash-Ups have been part of the mainstream, and such. (Although personally, I think most of the MTV Mashes neither are very original, nor particularly good musical compositions.)

Worth a mention, methinks. Get an account and have at it! :-)

chocolateboy 20:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

"Cutup" has multiple meanings. Should it really be redirected to this article?

I agree. A dab page would be better. Go for it!

chocolateboy 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emergency Broadcast Network

CB,

why drop EBN?

soobrosa

Hi, soobrosa.

Looks like they're worth a shout if you could expand on their role as precursors. Or merge them into cut-ups. The original sentence was a bizarro non-sequitur that didn't merit its own section.

chocolateboy 00:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CB,

check my attempt, perhaps it's not the best position.

Very nice!

chocolateboy 21:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mastermix.org

CB,

should include http://www.richcolour.com/mastermix/

soobrosa

Nah.

chocolateboy 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CB,

qouting Wikipedia:Spam, "be open. be polite."

check the site, this guy is doing an awesome job digitizing mastermixes, dj cut-up special of cassette tapes from the eighties. goldmine.

---

"be open. be polite."

Fair point. But if you look at the history of the article, you'll see why I was skeptical. As the bootleggers section clearly states:

This is a collection of links to bootleggers mentioned in the article. This article is not a link farm. Please do not add vanity links here: they will be speedily removed.

---

this guy is doing an awesome job

I'm sure he is, but he's not a notable figure in the history of bootlegs and therefore doesn't belong in the article. Bear in mind that there are plenty of much better known 'leggers (such as Kurtis Rush and Braces Tower) who aren't even mentioned.

goldmine

Cheers. I'll check him out.

chocolateboy 21:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grey Album

The article says of The Black Album acappellas that, "Jay-Z... presumably, sanctioned, if not actively encouraged the release of the acapellas." I think, but I am not sure, that Jay-Z not only intended the acappellas to be released, but explicitly authorised it. My copy of the Black Album acappellas CD looks a lot like an authorised release. Tim Ivorson 10:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. I'm sure you're right. I was just hedging because I couldn't find a reference to Jay-Z or his attack lawyers explicitly endorsing them. FWIW, I think it's become pretty much de rigeur for all but the most clueless of pop and rock players to tacitly endorse mashups (nothing radical about it: it's just good marketing). But the rules of the game seem to require them to keep it on ye olde down low. Be nice if someone actually went the whole hog and slapped a Creative Commons license on their dark raw materials... [1]

chocolateboy 23:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Tim Ivorson 10:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chemicalbrothersremixed.com - Not spam

How is the Bootleg album at Chemicalbrothersremixed.com a 'spamlet', as one edit describes it? As far as I'm aware, it's one of the most notable bastard pop albums out there.KeithD 07:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi.

Well, I said "spamlet" rather than "spam" :-) The problem is that, until recently, that section contained six albums (the other sections contain just one, two or three "highlights"); and there are strict injuctions against that kind of wanton linkery. I did Google for that album a while back, and, indeed, there were plenty of hits, but please replace one of the other albums (preferably not A Night At The Hip-Hopera, which is probably the most famous one after the Grey Album) if you feel Chemical Brothers Remixed is worthy of inclusion. That section isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of bootleg albums, which is what it was in danger of turning into.

chocolateboy 21:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the explanation. Having checked the links, I'm going to delete both the Clash and Blur albums from the article: the Blur link is broken, and the Clash album is no longer available. KeithD 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambaataa

Why are Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambatta missing from the influences section? This is straight up racism, and this "mash-up" is just another case of "Elvis Presley." It's just more "white power" to erase the facts of history. These two giants of hip hop aren't obscure or unknown. They took records and played parts of them, in sequence, to create new songs. They did mash-ups, without computers. Grandmaster Flash invented contemporary DJing. He even built his own equipment, taking apart old stereos for parts to build new machines. Grandmaster Flash was a hardware hacker.

Afrika Bambatta did roughly the same thing, creating the roots of American techno music. He took American funk and melded it with German kraut-rock giants Kraftwerk. Fast forward 25 years into the future, and people are praising mash-ups for bridging the gulf between "black" and "white" musics. Bambatta cut a record with Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols and PiL in the mid 1980s. He bridged the gap. The racial/racist divide is created by the record industry for marketing purposes; they segregate, divide, and conquer. Rappers and DJs were mixing styles between disco, funk, latin music, and rock back in the 1970s.

Moreover, this postmoderm mixing culture is a Black invention. Everyone does it, but the contemporary form is fundamentally rooted in Black working-class invention of Hip Hop. High Art forms tended to eschew collages of popular music, or created works to maximize the juxtaposition, and is often hotile to the audience's listening pleasure. Hip Hop used popular music, melding it with underground funk, with the specific intent to make listenable, danceable music.

That is the ethos of the mash-up.

Also, the Beat or Surrealist cutup isn't related to the mash-up. Cut-ups, as practiced by Burroughs, was intended to remove the author from the production, to create accidental works of art. The mash-up aesthetic is intentional.

66.245.212.226

---

Why are Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambatta missing from the influences section?

There is no influences section.

I suspect that most people who've contributed to this article are as passionate about Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambaataa as you are, but bastard pop and hip-hop ain't the same thing:

the fond reminiscing often ends up embracing sampling and "samplism" generally (hiphop, R'n'B, "pop" &c.), which is fascinating (to me), but ain't Bastard Pop. [2]

Take a look at the illegal art site for some background info on exactly how, where, when and why hiphop (and r'n'b and "pop") took a different tack to bastard pop when it came to accommodating "the man"'s onerous sample clearance requirements.

As for "cutup": go for it.

chocolateboy 20:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Boulevard of Broken Songs

Party Ben's mashup of Green Day, Oasis, and Aerosmith, originally produced for his LIVE 105 (San Francisco) radio show, was one of the first major mashup radio hits in the US in late 2004 and 2005, eventually receiving airplay around the world. See San Francisco Chronicle article here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/03/DDGTCCHQP41.DTL .

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.212.129 (talk • contribs) .

It's a notable enough track, but:

• the article isn't a link farm (as the Bootleggers section clearly states, links to bootleggers not mentioned in the article are not welcome)
• the track doesn't (technically) belong in A vs B, otherwise it would make sense to add it to that list
• it's not historically significant (i.e. it's not a landmark)

Rather than trying to shoehorn a reference to "Boulevard of Broken Songs" into the article, I've added a reference to Party Ben alongside GHP, Soundhog and Lionel Vinyl.

chocolateboy 16:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is totally biased against American producers and entirely Euro-centric. This snobbery is a disservice to readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.20.96.116 (talk • contribs) .

... and bandying lurid and unfounded accusations is somehow a "service"?

1. Negativland (US)
2. DJ Lance Lockarm (US)
3. Frank Zappa (US)
4. DJ Dangermouse (US)
5. Emergency Broadcast Network (US)
6. Evolution Control Committee (US)
7. Goodman & Buchanan (US)
8. Double Dee and Steinski (US)
9. DJ Z-Trip (US)
10. Party Ben (US)
11. DJ Shadow (US)
12. John Oswald (Canada)
13. Kid 606 (Venezuela/US)
14. Dsico (Australia)
15. The Avalanches (Australia)
16. Morning Musume (Japan)

And, lest we forget:

1. Eminem (US)
2. Missy Elliott (US)
3. Britney Spears (US)
4. Madonna (US)
5. The Strokes (US)
6. Jay-Z (US)
7. Christina Aguilera (US)
8. Adina Howard (US)
9. Beyoncé (US)
10. 'N Sync (US)
11. The Neptunes (US) &c.

And, lest we forget even more:

1. The New Yorker (US)
2. Slashdot (US)
3. Salon (US)
4. Illegal Art (US)
5. Waxy (US)
6. The Village Voice (US)
7. Goldmine (US)

chocolateboy 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Omission of Coldcut/Solid Steel section?

I would add quite a bit of info if I had the time, but I think alot info about mashups is missing without delving into the world of ninjatune. At least 3-4 times a week a new mash up is featurd on the solidsteel radio show. Hexstatic has illicit albums that are nothing but mashups, and Coldcuts mid 80's works arecomposed of other peoples works (though not mashups). next362 00:05, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

regional nomenclature

Whence did this article originate? I ask because I've never heard the terminology cited therein either used before or used in this particular context; in particular, glitch pop is rather dramatically different from the usual sense I've heard in the SF area, and the overarching genre is usually referred to as mashups or bootlegs.

I suspect that this all might be UK in origin, given that the "bootleg of the year" was won by somebody in England - although there's no telling who or what actually bestowed that honor; similarly, the '"blog of record"' is UK-based (and also defunct, according to its headline article.)

--moof 09:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

glitch pop is rather dramatically different from the usual sense I've heard in the SF area

"Glitch" has a couple of meanings. I've seen it applied to:

• The Postal Service
• Oval, Vladislav Delay &c.
• Kid 606, Dsico, Skkatter, Poj Masta &c.

There's also "glitch hop" (e.g. Kraddy). Only one of those 8 artists is British, so it's certainly not a regional word. It's used in SF [3] (as, of course, is "bastard pop" [4]), New York [5], Minneapolis [6], Australia [7] [8] &c., and is the standard term for the five tracks listed in the Glitch pop section.

the overarching genre is usually referred to as mashups or bootlegs

The songs are "mashups" or "bootlegs" (cf. "rap"). The genre is "bastard pop" (cf. "hip hop"). [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] &c.

similarly, the '"blog of record"' is UK-based

So?

and also defunct, according to its headline article

Well, so are Napster and Audiogalaxy (sorta), as well as The Björk Remix Web. That doesn't change their role in the history of bastard pop. The "Without Me" challenge single-handedly kickstarted the first wave of bedroom bootleggers in 2001. [14] [15]

although there's no telling who or what actually bestowed that honor

Get Your Bootleg On (GYBO). [16]

For more background, I recommend the New Yorker and Salon articles, and Strictly Kev's aural history of the genre, Raiding the 20th Century.

chocolateboy 19:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

bootleg

" The Grey Album effectively launched a new bastard pop subgenre: the bootleg album"

9th Wonder's God's Stepson, a take on Nas' God's Son, came out before the grey album. granted it wasnt based on mashing up a particular album with an acapella, but i think it is given credit as being the first to put the idea into the hip hop genre. and i believe it was a bootlegg too.--Jaysscholar 07:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro-Inspection

Is there a source for this edit? The New Yorker (it's not the definitive article on the subject, but it is a reliable and fact checked source) disagrees:

"Frontin' on Debra" is an example of a "mashup," in which, generally, the vocal from one song is laid over the music from another. [17]

As does Salon:

Typically consisting of a vocal track from one song digitally superimposed on the instrumental track of another... [18]

And Wired:

Inspired by the cannibalistic craft of bands like Negativland, bastard-pop artists are laying the vocals of one song over the music of another. [19]

Of course there are exceptions and variations on this theme, and, of course, they are elaborated in the body of the article, rather than the intro.

chocolateboy 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Daz - Overlooking the fact that this is an evolving musical form and that The New Yorker, as stated above, can hardly be identified as a reliable source for new media and pop culture, the fact remains that there is no need to place specific limitations on the music. The vast majority of emerging mashup and bastard pop artitst do not conform to a simple lyrics over music formula anymore. It's not a question of 'is this an accurate description' - sure it is, but the definition needs to be inclusive of the big picture of what bastard pop is, not limited to something lesser. "generally" they are no longer just lyrics over foreign music. That's some of them, but "generally" they're much more complext mixes than that. Music from both, beats from both, breaks from both, vocals from both (and sometimes even more than two). My edits serve to broaden the scope of the definition as well as accurately describe the form as it exists today.

Why reverse my edit? Correct it if it's inaccurate but don't put it back to a more limited definition. Since I have broadened the scope of the definition for the purposes of a more accurate definition, it doesn't make sense to reverse it to a more limited one. Unless you're saying that bastard pop does not refer to what I am describing.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daz902 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, Daz. Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section for the rationale.

chocolateboy 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"break-in" records a "flash in the pan?"

Well, *my* first exposure to "break-in" records was Dickie Goodman's "Mr. Jaws", which my Billboard Top 40 book says made it to #4 on the charts in 1975, considerably later than the cited "The Flying Saucer Parts 1 & 2"'s #3 in 1956, so it wasn't exactly a flash in the pan... but I don't really have enough other information to write about it authoritatively. B&G had 2 other top 40 "break-in" hits ("Flying Saucer The 2nd", #18 in 1957 and "Santa And The Satellite (Parts I & II)", #32 in 1957) among many others released, and Goodman solo had one other top 40 "break-in" hit before "Mr. Jaws, "Energy Crisis '74" (#33 in 1974). I seem to recall there was also an "Energy Crisis '78" (possibly not by Goodman), and Dr. Demento played break-in records by a couple of other artists (one was a Chicago DJ, the other was I think an unknown) in the late 1970s. (Looks like more or less the everything Dickie Goodman ever did is now available on CD, though; see Amazon.)

Also... only slightly off-topic... I'm looking for any information about a particular mashup done of George H.W. Bush's speeches. There are at least two of them, but there's a particular one I'm looking for to which I haven't been able to find any references anywhere. Rather than cluttering this page, I'll put a more complete description here.

--Woozle 15:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam or Not Spam.

There seems to be some very arbitrary definitions (hi, Chocolateboy!) of what links are spam and what isn't. Not that I have any intentions of violating WP:3RR, but I think it would be good idea for any in-line list of links (i.e. not in External links) to have at least some short blurb as to why they're significant, rather than just blandly keeping some and dismissing others as spam. --moof 06:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi :-)

Google is the arbiter. I've removed Oorsmeer as (these days) it gets less than a thousand hits. Radio Clash gets 65,000 hits and is therefore more notable and linkworthy than many things on the page, though, you're right, someone should expand the reference to avoid the aroma of spam. I've removed it as well for the time being, though I think it's worth a shout (as is MTV Mash).

The links in that section made a bit more sense when Culture Deluxe and bastardpop.co.uk were among the main bastard pop portals, but the former seems to be legit these days, and the latter is beastly dead.

By the way, the criteria are:

• 5 hits: spam [20]
• 1000 hits: discretion (edit summary, discussion &c.)
• 65,000 hits: not spam

- bearing in mind that Goodman and Buchanan are never going to get as many hits as Collision Course, but play a much more significant role in the history of bastard pop.

chocolateboy 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rename "Mash-up"?

some people who like the concept of "Mash-ups" might not appreciate the term "bastard" applied to their music. wouldn't it be better to move / rename and/or split up the article? --Nerd42 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The sensibilities of an unsourced minority do not determine Wikipedia naming conventions. "Funk" means "stink"; "punk" means "prostitute"; "geek" means "circus freak"; "impressionism" and "queer" are insults; and no-one who produces cinematic, cannabolic or instrumental hip hop has much love for the "trip hop" label. None of these articles will be renamed on the grounds that "some people" might allegedly "not appreciate" them. The various names are prominently mentioned at the top of the article, and "mashup" is a dab, that isn't going anywhere anytime soon, for reasons outlined here.

chocolateboy 23:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should moved to "mash-up," but not because "bastard" is offensive, but because it is the more-used term: http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=bastard+pop&word2=mash+up. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd name for an article. All friends, plus online and media references I've seen call these mixes mash-ups. Never heard of "bastard pop" until I took a look at this article. 66.235.18.41 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bootleg" is more popular than both. [21] [22] [23] The name is not going to change to either on the basis of flawed Googling.

See above and here for the rationale. Or, if you want the executive summary: this article is never going to be called "mashup(s)" or "mash-up(s)" because the web usage outnumbers the musical usage. What you're actually advocating is Mashup (music) which a) already exists as a redirect and b) is not the name of the genre and not the first thing someone would type into Wikipedia or Google when searching for an article on mashups. [24] [25]

chocolateboy 06:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

why not a link farm?

just wondering why not link to every bootleg/mashup artist? unless there is some central site with links to every artist (and not some private forum post)... maybe a section about GYBO and artists who've played there would be wise too. also you should change the bootleg section to 'bootlegs mentioned in this article' to keep down 'outside links' Compn 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. chocolateboy 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well honestly, most of wikipedia is a link farm. Even pages that have won awards for having a NPOV still have a link to fan sites etc. When people look up mashups, they are more or less restricted to ones that are considered "groundbreaking." Then the mashup artists that aren't "groundbreaking" are left in the water. In this type of page, it should be a linkfarm, or else it isnt really complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJKingpin (talk • contribs)

"A link" doth not a link farm make. Most of dmoz is a link farm. Most of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you're hellbent on being disagreed with by a large number of people, please take your position up on the WP:NOT talk page.

chocolateboy 06:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image twice

Image:Bootie_1-YearAnniversary.jpg seems to be linked in twice. AnonMoos 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Who Boys

Hi,

Great article ... good overview!

Can I ask, did you have a link to The Who Boys before? We were told by someone there was one but maybe not? We were going to point people to this page. Sorry if you don't want it up there...

Brian The Who Boys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnormal (talk • contribs) 13:43, July 25, 2006 (UTC)

There was a link, but it was removed by someone. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a link farm, you aren't mentioned in the article, and no one has any idea who you are in general. DJKingpin 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, by the same thought process, Team9 and DJ Metalix should also be removed? Except I have heard of Team9, my understanding is that it's really one guy who helped create American Edit. But DJ Metalix is not mentioned in the article, if no one speaks up, then I'll remove that external link. And then I'll go through the rest of the external links and see if they were mentioned in the article too. OK? Just trying to make the article better by using the standard you, DJKingpin, have set forth. Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

DJKingpin, sorry wasn't addressing the question to you but to the writer... thanks for your input though. I must say that I assume Rolling Stone magazine and the Toronto Star, who have both reviewed The Who Boys, are not "no one". Just because you don't know about us, does not necessarily equate to being "unknown" (although that may be an epistemological discussion for another time). Do a Google search for "The Who Boys" and there will be plenty of hits of varying relevance. Also, check us out on MySpace to see all of the people who apparently have never heard of us. I see you are on there as well... liking your sound, actually. Anyway, I digress. There are many mashup acts that aren't mentioned in the article, but because the topic is "bastard pop" and is the main topic covering mashup etc on Wikipedia, not allowing legitimate links to other artists who have received some recognition seems a bit unfair, unless the article itself is never going to be updated to reflect more recent artists? Anyway, not really that bothered about it, just wanted to know what the situation was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnormal (talk • contribs) 12:39, July 26, 2006 (UTC)

Well, if thats the case, put an article in there about The Who Boys and then add a link again. After I made that last comment, I went to your myspace page and listened to some of your music, sounds like really good stuff. To Eric Jack Nash: if Team9 or DJ Metalix aren't in there, either erase them, or add something in the article about them. I know for sure that Team9 not only helped Partyben with Dean Grey, but Party Ben has said several times that they did most of the work. Now I only wish I could put myself in the article somewhere....:( DJKingpin 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

DJKingpin, thanks for the comment on the music... just a simple misunderstanding re the propriety of the article. I suppose we could add a bit about us on the page, but assumed that would be looked at as a bit too self-aggrandizing for people. We've got our bio info etc up on Jon Nelson's "Some Assembly Required" blog this week and general info on our website, so I suppose if chocolateboy or someone else wants to incorporate us into the article whenever it's updated, that would be great. Really just wanted to clarify what the protocol was for the page... thanks for the input. Brian

Holletronix

It seems that this page is lacking mention of Hollertronix's "Never Scared"

Requested move

Bastard pop → Mashup (music) … Rationale: Mashup (music) redirects to Bastard pop now, even though mashup is the more commonly-used term … Recury 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, at least 5 people (if you include me and the others at Talk:Mashup) have stumbled on this article and said "Oh, he means mashup. Why isn't it there, I wonder?" That is about 5 too many. Recury 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, i've been to this article a few times and I've always kinda thought the name was questionable. Crumbsucker 12:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. I think there was a time when mash-up wasn't yet widely known but that time has passed. --Dhartung | Talk 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Bastard pop, mashups, and bootlegs. They are known by all three names. Obviously the article can't have all three titles, but as long as the two that aren't used are mentioned in the article, its not that big of a deal. Although Recury has a goood point, if it does get moved, there will be a group of people wondering why it isn't in bastard pop. 16:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support "Mashup" is preferable to "Bastard pop". TacoDeposit 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Mashup is the term I've heard most often (including radio DJs who make over $100,000 a year). I've never heard anyone say "Bastard pop". Twang 8 August 2006

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Moved Ashibaka tock 01:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Yay!! --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for delisting

Hi all,

I have delisted this article because its lead is too short, its references are insufficient for its size, its inline citations are non-existent and the move from bastard pop to mashup is incomplete (i.e. the article is unstable). There also appears to be some structural issues with the article. The Subgenres and External links sections could use trimming. And it is unusual for the bulk of an article on a musical genre to be under the heading History. The featured grunge music article may be helpful in developing this article. If you disagree with this delisting you can seek a review or if you feel the article has changed significantly to address these issues you can seek to renominate it.

Cedars 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Promotional links

This article is quickly turning into a page of promotional links - the bottom of the article is probably unneeded with all those links. The notable albums section should also be cut down and more strictly watched - I'm not sure of the popularity of most of the albums there and therefore have no idea which ones to remove? Can anyone help? Jack 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed a lot of the links, but there are still way too many. The "External links" section should be redone in inline WP:FN format; that would make it a lot easier to keep spam out. Demiurge 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Zappa

As long as you're going to mention in the the cut-up section, the "remixing" of political speeches, you should probably put in a section about "Porn Wars" in which Zappa basically did the same thing.

Clayton Counts / The Beachles

I am adding "Sgt. Petsound's" to the list of notable bootlegs. This is sure to upset some of you, which is why I am taking the time to explain why this is being done.

• It is a bootleg.
• It is notable, in accordance with WP:MUSIC. Recently, Clayton Counts' article was proposed for deletion. The overwhelming consensus was to keep the article, as it is well within Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.
• Other bootlegs in the list fail WP:MUSIC.

Whether Counts considers himself a member of this scene is irrelevant. The Wikipedia standards for notability are clear: multiple, independent references from reliable sources. If we aren't going to adhere objectively to these guidelines, then we may as well rename the subheading "bootlegs that the authors of this page believe to be notable." Lists such as these need to be NPOV. There are many bootlegs I enjoy more than the Beachles record, but I could say the same about others in the existing list. This is not about whose bootlegs I like better. I'm not proposing that anybody be dropped from the list for lack of notability, but if you ask me it could still use a little cleaning up. According to WP:MUSIC, Counts' record is clearly more notable than some of the entries here, and that is all that is needed to warrant its inclusion. Even if the entire world hates the Beachles, it has been determined to be notable, and no one can deny that it is a bootleg. TrevorPearce 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Box

The entry about Black Box isn't quite right, the Ride On Time single was already in the UK charts before the lawyers got involved. The Ride on Time single was pulled from the shelves, the vocal was replaced with a soundalike and it was re-issued as Ride On Time(Remix). Stx 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)