Talk:Nerdcore

I cross-linked this and the "Geek Rock" article as they're related... Perhaps there should be a catagory for geek music?

I consider Deltron3030's album prior art and definetely Del's lyrics have been about technology and its culture since long time ago (before Nerdcore) but I dunno about classifing it as "nerdcore" since the genre is mostly about college kids playing. Dan The Automator, Kid Koala and DEL are pretty big names, more after the whole Gorillaz project. Will edit and write a bit about Deltron. - Wyz

Would you consider some of Del Tha Funkee Homosapien's music nerdcore? I'm thinking specifically "Proto Culture" (which is about Sega, arcades, and video games) and lots of the songs of "Deltron 3030", which are all kind of fantasy-ish and resemble the plotline of a video game. Anyone know what I'm talking about? -Rob

a buh? what do you mean nerdcore? how do you define nerd? i want answers please

Nerd has (and deserves) its own article; it is a complicated concept, and can mean vastly different things depending on the context. "Nerdcore" is a genre of hip hop written by people who define themselves (or, in some cases, are defined by others) as nerds. Does the article not explain this adequately? 129.2.211.72 07:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It reads pretty crystal to me. —RaD Man (talk) 15:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NER*D

Just wondering if N*E*R*D are considered nerd rap?

Nope, not really. —RaD Man (talk) 01:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that 2 Skinee Js are NerdCore. They should be removed from the article entirely. Nerdcore has a necessary element that the music be produced in your bedroom on your PC (or MAC.) Now this does not have to be LITERALLY true, but the music has to embrace this ethos in order to qualify for the genre. (small world RaD Man, I followed a link from here: [1] PHiZ 06:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frontalot founded the genre, so if he says somebody belongs to it, I'm happy to take his word on it. Now, he also mentions Deltron 3030, as I recall, and people seem to have decided they don't belong in the main list, so if you want to remove them from the list and give your reasons for doing so, that's fine. But they certainly shouldn't be removed from the article entirely, as you suggest; they are, perhaps, an example of "proto-nerdcore". The roots of the nerdcore movement could really be explored in quite a lot of depth, in fact. One could even make a case for tracing things back to the Beastie Boys, if one were so inclined. 129.2.253.240 00:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say Frontalot FOUNDED the genre. He gave it a name, and brought it to a new level of visibility. And my Kangol is off to him for that. Jason Gortician 04:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People can be nerdy and still not be nerdcore. The artists approved on this page focus on their nerdiness and utilize it.

Vette link

I changed the "Vette" link in "Fett's Vette" from Chevrolet Corvette to Corvette. It was reverted. This seems odd - the corvette article describes "a small, maneuverable, lightly armed warship," and while it is referring to a naval ship, not spaceship, this seems significantly closer to the meaning of "corvette" in star wars than a sports car manufactured by GM. Perhaps the reasoning for the revert can be explained? —Ethan0 09:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed that he was refering the the car - although your explaination does make sense. It seemed that mc chris gave him a GM Corvette but on lease - hense needing to finance his 'vette through bounties. Craig Sniffen 17:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he has a delorian.. why would he need two cars? It's fairly obvious he's talking about a Corellian Corvette. -User:GURT

Corvette is a term used in Star Wars for a number of ships, including Corellian Corvette (first ship we see in Star Wars). It seems quite unlikely to me that mc chris refers to GM's.

I more recently found the Slave I article - this seems like a more appropriate thing to link to than either of the other two. -Ethan0 05:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MC Chmod

Keep poor Chmod out of this. He's me, and he's never recorded a damn thing fit for public consumption, trust me. When I first wrote this article, I put him in the list as a joke for friends, which I know was pretty silly, but what the hell. Unfortunately, he keeps popping up in the list, and he most definitely doesn't belong there. I apologize. 129.2.253.240 00:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Green

He is a nerd and he raps.

Optimus Rhyme

I changed the link from Optimus Rhyme's webpage to the Optimus Rhyme wikipedia-entry.

Greets,
-Styx 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Lookin' Chain

These are a lot more than nerdcore but kind of verge on it in places - especially with the 80s home computer obssesion. Morwen - Talk 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High-C - Nerdcore Since 1995

That was a pretty ill edit, taking High-C off. A rapper since 1988, his first track 'Godzilla' was recorded using an Amiga 500 in 1995. High-C first became known via Usenet text battles in alt.rap and rec.music.hip-hop around 1997.

It's hard to deny the geek value of lyrics like "You're just a smurfer on a co-located server, and I serve my active pages with fervor", or an entire verse centered around 'Lord of the Rings'. "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand" contains the lyric "I pull out the guide and it says 'Don't Panic'". Another snippet from Usenet (Nov 7 1996) said:

"When it comes to flamin' lamers
You know I'm the master
But profanity's a crutch for inarticlate bastards
I'm like Telnet - i'm here but I'm there
Travel around the world never leavin my chair
It's just another hit from the bayou blaster
When I grip the mic like a Jedi master
Hardwired like a neuromancer
Funky as a mothafuckin' Soul Train dancer
I got rhymes that I ain't even said yet
I'm engineerin' shit just like Lew Eggebrecht
Cuz I been hackin and crackin
2600 phrackin
Phone phreakin and tweakin
Electronically jackin
Snuff rhymes I wrote 'em
So that you can quote 'em
To all the cypherpunks I communicate by modem".

50 Quatloos if you know who Lew Eggebrecht is.

Jason Gortician 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unjust omissions

When the hell did this start? Apparantly if a nerdcore artist doesn't have their own article, they aren't allowed to be included in a list. This makes no sense at all. Just because someone hasn't taken the time to do an article on a nerdcore artist doesn't mean they're not noteable, and it doesn't mean they don't belong on the list. The worst part about it is that at least one of the wikipedians responsible for the rampant deletions is (allegedly) a nerdcore artist himself. To me, this smacks of bias. An easy way to take a poke at the competition is by repeatedly remove them from this article, at the same time inflating his own article (and possibly other artists he supports). This sort of bullying needs to stop. Instead of saying that they don't belong on the list if they don't have an article, we should put them on the list if external links show that their inclusion is appropriate, then allow people to start articles on them by clicking their names on the list. I don't know how many more ways I have to say this, but there is absolutely no sane and acceptable reason to keep taking Beefy and Jesse Dangerously off the list. I don't know a lot about Beefy, but Jesse D has been doing this for awhile, he has a few CDs out there, he's currently touring, and he appeared on MC Frontalot's "Nerdcore Rising" as a featured vocalist. What more do you need? - Ugliness Man 12:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An external links list would be a great solution. There needs to be a good reason to take an MC off of this list. Internecine rivalries are silly, in this case. If you're an MC, your rhymes are the deciding factor, not what some over-zealous editor considers nerdcore. If it is an MC removing other nerdcore artists, how weak is that? - Jason Gortician 12:40, 03 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a list at all, but if there must, at least move it to list of nerdcore hip hop performers or something. Limiting it to entries with Wikipedia articles seems reasonable to me, but then, as noted, I'd rather not have a list at all -- seems redundant with a category. Tuf-Kat 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there should absolutely not be anyone on the list with an external link to their homepage. Tuf-Kat 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That makes no sense. If they don't have a Wikipedia article, but they are a NC.HH artist, and their page (the external link) is the verification, what's the problem? If someone puts them on the list without a link, someone else steps in and deletes it saying it's "not noteable" or something like that. If an artist isn't linked, they're deemed unworthy, but if an artist is linked, it's spam? Am I the only one who sees the problem here? - Ugliness Man 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is supposed to be a self-contained unit. If they're notable enough to be mentioned they should be linked and have an article onsite. If they don't yet have an article, it should be a redlink. Tuf-Kat 06:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is supposed to be a self-contained unit." <---- This is the opposite of true. 128.12.110.50 19:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the last comment as per WP:NPA Intinn 11:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you condone (or support) Ytcracker's bullying and tactics? Pretty sad. This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a pissing contest where a hack can screw around with the competition and go unchallenged. I guess NC.HH rappers are too polite to get into a beef war with that chump and take him down, but eventually the real geeks will win the battle. This is far from over. - Ugliness Man 16:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's never posted to the hip-hop newsgroups under his own name, that I can see. I've been the alpha geek there for nearly ten years. If he has anything to say, he knows where to find me. Jason Gortician 08:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed one paragraph from this talk page which was full of personal attacks. Of course everyone is free to dig it up from history and revert it if they disagree with me removing it. Intinn 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bullying? i didnt put that note there about having referenced articles, someone else did - for example, i think beefy actually deserves an article - hes been featured on radio broadcasts and the like. i just think its stupid to have a shitton of artists in there who have no genuine credibility. it wouldnt walk on any other form of music and i dont think examples of dirty south artists or old school artists, etc. have a huge list of people getting added and readded who arent prominent members of the genre. i guess i am biased because i have over 160 tracks available and have absolute, undeniable credibility in this genre. some of these artists who have started their articles have been VfDed successfully so why would they belong here? Ytcracker 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and as a postscript, calling me a chump, inciting a beef war, and talking about real geeks winning the battle or whatever else is really retarded. ill collaborate with anyone, have always released my music for free, and dont even see this as a matter of competition. dont get it twisted up. as i said before, would you cloud any other form of musics wiki article with a ton of external links of mainly one-offs? probably not. im a godfather - recognize. Ytcracker 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to "incite" anything, I don't start beefs, I'm just calling it like I see it. And I'm having a real problem accepting such a holier than thou attitude from someone who uses such idiotic cliches and seems to be afraid of apostrophes and the Shift key. Bragging about how many tracks you have is nothing, since quantity is not the same as quality. Pointing out that you'll "collaborate with anyone" is also nothing since nobody of consequence would bother collaborating with you. There's no basis for claiming that the acts you keep deleting are "one offs", but your idiotic comment on "clouding" is a moot point, since this is a specific enough sub-genre that the list is justified. And just what the hell are you a "godfather" of? If anything, you're a bandwagonner, and that "recognize" bullshit just shows you for the chump you are. Here's the bottom line: you are not an impartial or disinterested third party, so your constant removal of other artists from this article just reeks of bias. You do not own Wikipedia, stop treating it like it's your bitch. - Ugliness Man 20:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im incredibly ecstatic that the grammar police has shown up to criticize my usage of the apostrophe and shift key. frankly, if you really want to pollute this entry with whatever external links to whatever artists you like, ill quit editing them out and let some admin do it like Tuf-Kat, who i believe posted the rule in the first place. you dont know a fucking thing about me, who ive performed with, who ive collaborated with, how long ive been doing what ive been doing - i dont even think my own article has ALL of the specifics. anyway, if it hurts your ass so much that i am editing people out as per the rule posted, ill quit just for you, honeybear. kisses and hugs. love, the godfather aka the silicon don nerd life forever Ytcracker 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are violating Wikipedia policy by using personal attacks. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a potentially blockable offense. Please be aware of the WP:3RR, because both of you can be blocked for breaking it. No agreement or consensus can occur on this page unless an honest and fruitful discussion begins. Tuf-Kat 06:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've been trying to avoid performing any revisions myself, for just that reason. I've only been objecting to what I saw as bad behaviour. I feel that none of this will ever be "honest and fruitful" as long as a (somewhat self-proclaimed) NC.HH artist is involved in the editing process. If we do go with the earlier suggestion of moving the list of artists to a separate article, that way artists who don't yet have articles can be listed with only external links, as long as those external links are sufficient proof that the artists are noteworthy. And by the way, your comment from earlier, "If they don't yet have an article, it should be a redlink", doesn't take into account the fact that crackerboy here, and his sock puppets, remove redlinks almost as soon as their added, so most people don't even get a chance to see those redlinks. - Ugliness Man 08:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

crackerboy and the sock puppets? you're such a sweetheart and i love you. just bury the hatchet - i already said if you are going to get all riled up over it because i'm involved in the genre, i won't bother touching the artists in the article. i don't have any problem refraining from edits, but should the scene grow to any level of true significance, i am positive you are going to see a 100+ person list of people who really did jump on the bandwagon. i voted keep in FSRs VfD, would love to see Beefy on here, and would love to research others in the genre who are actually active and productive. again, i have ZERO problems with not touching this article and letting you decide who is worthy and who isn't. cheers. Ytcracker 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Beefy here. I know what could fix this! Just let me have a wiki article! No? Ok, fine. Let the madness continue. For the record, I have no beef with yt or any other artist. And I do think that some artists don't belong on the list if they really only have a handful of songs. I only have a few myself but the collection grows and I like to think I'm gaining a bit of respect in the nerdcore community. Some artists who come up with a couple catchy nerd songs may not deserve to be on the list. But I honestly don't know how you'd judge that kind of thing. And any nerdcore guy or gal who says they wouldn't want to collaborate with yt is a fool! Beefy 01:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So which of you removed the High-C link, and why? Be a man and tell us, if you dare. - Jason Gortician 04:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, it's not about anyone being just or unjust, and Wikipedia is not a place for people to argue. Any nerdcore artist who isn't verifiable is likely to be removed. That's how it goes; this is an encyclopedia, we do not include just anything. Friday (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable as nerdcore would involve...reading their lyrics and listening to their music. Jason Gortician 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, looking into it, LOTR and a few others don't seem to meet Wikipedia's specious criteria for inclusion. Why haven't you deleted them? Jason Gortician 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability has nothing at all to do with reading their lyrics or listening to their music. Verifiability is about finding reliable sources- your own interpretations of the music belong on another site, not Wikipedia. The page at WP:V I keep referrring you to explains all of this. Anyway, thanks for the tip- I do see some others who have no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. If you want to help, you can do a proposed deletion on those articles by inserting things like {{prod|this band fails [[WP:MUSIC]]}} at the top of them. You can give whatever reason you think is appropriate. As a general rule, bands that fail the music guideline are likely to be deleted. No sure why you call the music guideline specious- have you read it? It's pretty clear, and we try to apply it to the band articles we find. I believe that guideline came about because we get tons of articles on bands, and a large precentage of them are things we don't want. This being an encyclopedia, we can't have things that are unverifiable, and we don't want to cover every local bar band in the world. Friday (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content is not my style. "Some create, while others destroy..." If this is a nerdcore page, and Frontalot is the acknowledged founder of that movement, his whole point was being indy, unpopular, obscure, unknown. And the impact a band has can't always be measured by mainstream sources.

For example, my grind band, Gortician was one of the biggest unsigned metal bands of all time. We outcharted Cannibal Corpse and Six Feet Under (major label metal acts) on MP3.com with BOOM BOX TAPES. Guntgrutcher and Cannibal Crave wrote songs about us. Benalto credited us with influencing them to write two different songs. Space War online has a race of people named after us. We were at the spearhead of the entire underground metal scene online. Napalm Death, At The Gates, Brutal Truth and others still wear our t-shirts. For those in the know, Gortician is legendary. Unsung Hero Records released several of our CDs.

But I have a feeling that you'd still delete us if I wrote it up. You're applying mainstream criteria to underground acts. For that matter, High-C regularly outcharted Bushwick Bill on the Lafayette, LA MP3.com charts, and dominated the keystyle battle scene on Usenet for the duration it lasted. I'll get a CD to AMG if that will appease you. But this article is about nerdcore artists. Not nerdcore artists with major and indy label releases. Do you police all groups/genres (less than an hour after I posted the article), or just the nerdcore scene? Jason Gortician 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tuf-Kat: We shouldn't be linking to people's personal homepages here. We're not here to publicize unknown artist- the encyclopedia should mention only those who are well documented in reliable sources. I'll probably continue removing external links from the list. Friday (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links and personal pages aren't the same thing. If the only link provided for an artist is a myspace with one song and a bunch of insipid "OMG eye am sooooooooo nerd!!!" blog entries, than I understand the removal. But if someone adds an artist to the list, and provides an external link, and the fact that it's an external link is the only justification for removing them, that's not quality control, that's tyranny. If you don't want to take the time to check the link and see if the artist in question is noteworthy, and you simply remove the artist based only on the fact that it's an external link, that's the opposite of verification. It's a bit of a contradiction, IMO, for someone to put so much effort into constantly removing these artists from the list, yet "doesn't have the time" to see whether or not that artist should be removed. Wikipedia doesn't need indiscriminate lazy janitors, it needs editors who care enough about the articles to take a moment to check things out before they make these decisions. In other words, if you don't care about NC.HH enough to actually look at the pages, then you should just ignore the NC.HH article altogether. - Ugliness Man 06:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging them on whether their websites are insipid or not is the exact sort of thing we do not do here- that would amount to original research. If you disagree with WP:V, take it up on that talk page if you must. But please don't argue that point on individual article talk pages. For those who think that only nerdcore artists or fans are qualified to edit this article, please see WP:OWN. Any competant editor is capable of helping to ensure our articles are verifiable- it's what's expected of every editor. If some artists are "underground" and inherently unverifiable, we can't include them here. WP:V is non-negotiable. If you want to write whatever you like without regard for Wikipedia's editorial policies, you're free to do so on your own web site. Friday (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a page "List of obscure nerdcore artists" and moved all the obscure(or deleted, from the history) people to there. Hopefully that will be a solution acceptible to all. There are not many good nerdcore references on the net and without these links it is impossible to discover many of these worthy songs, even if they aren't Notable or Verifiable or any of those important sounding terms. Perle 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nothing, Friday. Perle 14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content forking provides a good overview on content forking. There are good reasons and bad reasons to do it. Trying to avoid verifiability concerns is bad reason. I've turned List of obscure nerdcore artists into a redirect here. If the genre is verifiable, it's good to have an article on it. It's not good to take a bunch of unverifiable stuff and stick it into a list. If people disagree, it can be discussed, but please: If what you disagree with is the verifiability policy itself, don't argue that here. Friday (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not good to take a bunch of unverifiable stuff and stick it into a list." Why not? And if it is a list of links, isn't it verified by its very nature? A link's verification is the fact that it exists on the internet. The page doesn't include research about the artists or anything, just a statement that such links exist for those who are interested, and subsumes them under the weakest useful categorization possible. Perle 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gortician take a look at my edits; is that an acceptable solution to you? (clearly not to Friday or YT) Perle 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 24/7 remover Friday already took your changes down. I say we do the nerdcore page, and link it externally. As for High-C, Unsung Hero Records is going to release 'Bootleg' from Meter Vs. Yard, and a High-C e.p. That's two indy releases. From there, I'll get copies to AMG, and a few reviews under my belt. Altrap.com will probably be the first. Then I guess I'll pay for my 12" on my own, since my DJ seems to be under the weather of late. If my article gets deleted after that, I'm picking up metal. YT seems to have run! away! Jason Gortician 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i told you guys i'd stay out of this and let everyone else play it out. i've been following the discussion but i simply won't edit the artists section anymore, and was only doing so per the rule posted. again, i don't see anyone else in the genre as "competition", nor have i ever removed anyone out of malice, etc. Ytcracker 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and i hope you're kidding about the "is friday ytcracker?" comment - as i said before i don't give a shit - i'll link any nerdcore artist from my own frontpage on my own website if it will clear the air that i deleted anyone because i have something against them. Ytcracker 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be very big of you. Perle and I are working on a definitive page, and we wouldn't dream of excluding you. You've received national press coverage, after all. Want to just throw in on one big nerdcore site with us? I'll even spring for the domain and hosting. You might provide balance to the force. I see no point in there being rifts in this tiny, burgeoning scene. Jokey beefs aside.

Rapped at Player's Ball? Damn, G. If only Friday had your sensibility. P.S. [BeDoper's Portal] has links to High-C, Meter Versus Yard, Old Scratch and Andrew Octopus. As much as I'd love a link, I'm much more interested in other nerdcore artists listening to some of my tracks. Jason Gortician 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In more sensible mode, I'd say the Sebutones qualify for nerdcore (Buck 65 and Sixtoo get spacey and futuristic). Is Buck 65 nerdcore? How about every MC to ever come out of Canada? Governor Bolts may well qualify, too. This labeling thing sort of suxors. But, food for thought, anyway. Jason Gortician 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, we're saying that I'm not a verifiable nerdcore artist? I'm 98% my songs say otherwise. This genre is new and it is small and I don't think it can grow easily by people saying, "These guys who have been in a bunch magazine articles can be on the list, but this kid who's only been on the radio can't be." At this point I don't want to be on the list, but it is pretty upsetting that what I put out isn't good enough to be documented by wikipedia, the end all and be all of verification. I'm good enough to be on these documentaries and whatnot, but since I haven't been on G4 I suck?Beefy 10:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, Captain Beefyheart, Friday is the only over-zealous editor who thinks that. The rest of us wish he would piss off and make positive contributions, preferably elsewhere. It's abundantly clear that you are nerdcore as hell. Jason Gortician 21:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that you are. what i *think* may be going on is WP:MUSIC has certain guidelines as far as significance goes - just because a band would get a writeup in a local paper kind of thing doesn't necessarily qualify them for wikipedia - at a cursory glance. however, the section in WP:MUSIC starting with "For performers outside of mass media traditions:" (cntl-f for it), i think most of us qualify, especially as the scene grows and the primary originators receive recognition. Ytcracker 08:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I'd say Meester Beefy qualifies on the basis of his appearance in the upcoming Nerdcore documentary. I wonder if he used that sample from Little Nicky yet? "Say my name: Mr. Beefy!". At any rate, I plan on writing him up next. Peace. Jason Gortician 23:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friday is at it again. Now he's listed the page for deletion, and gotten several other people to support him, even though I've provided two indy releases that High-C appeared on. And they say the lyrics are a copyright violation? I'm getting sick of this cocksucker. Jason Gortician 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]