Talk:Future house

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Future house is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize 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 article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Enough with removing the artists already

How should I rewrite this section then ? The genre has a characteristic sound, it is referred by 'future house' Beatport has a section that sells said genre. Numerous blogs and whatnot are dedicated to it. I don't want an edit war, but this is getting ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.15.124.117 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section with an artist list needs reliable sources which support the claim that these artists make music belonging to the the future house genre. Until that happens it cannot stay. This is our policy. No-one else is able to verify the claims without them. If reliable sources can't be found then it may not belong here. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article lacks reliable sources I am not convinced it exists. A genre doesn't exist because a couple of people label their releases as "future house" or because a few more imitate that sound. We call that a contemporary trend. We can be sure a genre exists when it is embraced by a much larger group of people and third parties document the phenomenon in reliable sources. Often that process takes years. Its great that some people are passionate about a distinct sound they consider new but this is an encyclopedia with a good reputation. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources, though. A fledgling genre is still a genre. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 16:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources to support the claims for Future house artists, DJs and producers. I'm challenging its inclusion on this basis. Please do not add the list without reliable sources to support the claim. We don't want bulletted lists of things either. We want prose. These expectations have been established for many years now. - Shiftchange (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does future house "exist"?

Has this article been critically assessed? We on nlwiki sometimes get the impression that enwiki invents its own music genres and subgenres. Some DJ or other shouts "I call this future house", and a new genre has been born, according to enwiki. As this articles states: According to French producer Tchami, the label [what label??] was originally invented by himself in 2013 and quoted: ... "I don't know what Future House is. ..." I have no knowledge of music genres, but I'm a little suspicious of the dozens or hundreds of genres that enwiki knows "exist". ErikvanB (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future house is a term that has been used by both artists and the music press. Wikipedia hasn't 'invented' it, simply acknowledged it. And in reference to your other point, it's inevitable the English Wikipedia will be quicker to catalogue genres such as these - it has a larger userbase from a more international pool of users.

May I take this opportunity to add, not necessarily in response to your comment, that there does appear to be a virulent strain of deletionist conservatism surrounding this article - it seems the mentioning of any new (sub)genre in the internet age is immediately treated with helpings of cynicism and scorn, regardless of whether it has sources to back it up. -- Half past formerly SUFCboy 16:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. ErikvanB (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "virulent strain of deletionist conservatism", but simply that Wikipedia depends on reliable sources and the sources currently in this article are, at best, marginal. Some higher quality and clearly reliable sources would be a big help.--SabreBD (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a legitimate genre of house music then you would expect to see Discogs classify the two tracks by Oliver Heldens as such. It doesn't. That is because both tracks sound like a thousand other progressive house and deep house tracks. I would question the reliability of the articles used in the reference section. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs is incredibly unreliable on genre fronts and either lacks in-depth categorization or entirely miscategorizes things in many cases. This is a widely acknowledged genre and has been for many years now - there's gotta be better sourcing out there, I simply cannot believe that a genre this established does not have any kind of reliable documentation, even in an area like EDM with a sourcing problem. OuTbREaKRT (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the reason why I commented in this old thread and added notability template is not that all sources are marginally reliable (which is to be expected in EDM, as rightly noted), but that they don't seem to agree on what future house is, contradicting each other. See my long comment below for details. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I share concerns about notability and quality of the sources. Several years after emergence, the term is sparsely used. The interpretations seem to be very different - compare https://recordingarts.com/record/evolution-of-house-music/future-house/ and https://crossfadr.com/2014/09/22/defining-future-house/ with each other and with Characteristics sections in the article. All sources that are directly about the future house as a genre appear to be WP:SPS, with the exception of the coverage in Vice - which mostly consists of discussion that it isn't supposed to be a genre. Beatport ceased treating Future house as a genre separate from Electro house since 2021: https://www.beatportal.com/news/beatport-launches-mainstage-a-new-genre-inspired-by-the-festival-experience/ PaulT2022 (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beatport has just sorted out the genres more precisely. Future house is still there and it's huge – 47k tracks: https://www.beatport.com/genre/mainstage/96/tracks?subgenre=247 , it's the 3rd biggest genre in the Mainstage meta (after 340k Electro House and 91k Big Room). But the work with sources really needs to be done as the article is largely based on the sources from the early years of the genre. Solidest (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that producers calling their tracks future house are sufficient to establish notability, even if done by thousands.

Do you feel we could at least figure out the characteristics and definition? I've came to this article after reading a discussion whether a certain track is future house in YouTube comments and, after reading the article, and finding two other sources in Google, and listening to the examples in them, didn't get any closer to understanding what it actually is.

The lead says it's fusion of deep house, UK garage, editors here and in the past AfD discussion referred to it as similar to deep/progressive, the recordingarts.com source says it's influenced by electro house, but also that other interpretation of it is rooted in big room with metallic synth riffs that are sometimes indistinguishable from big room, Crossfadr says deep and future house subgenres seem to be used interchangeably at the moment, one factor about the latter makes deep house purists scoff – the inclusion of trap, dubstep, and electro sounds.. I'm sure all three genres are quite different and most of the cited examples I've heard have sound that would quite distinctly put them into one of these genres. While I found a few tracks that indeed mix isolated dubstep-ish synths with deep/electro on Beatport, it doesn't seem to be prevalent or present in the tracks most famously referred to as examples of future house by the sources. The https://web.archive.org/web/20150105230209/http://pulseradio.net/articles/2014/10/laidback-luke-coins-a-new-genre-future-house-is-deep-house-meets-edm definition would've made sense if multiple sources saying that electro sounds are typical of future house didn't exist.

What are the features that make future house distinct? Is it really possible to find several reliable sources that would define the genre in a non-contradictory way? If not, what makes it not a WP:NEO? PaulT2022 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

inaccurate article

If you're going to make a public article on Future House, please do not misrepresent it as a genre invented in the 2010s in the UK as this is completely false. Do your due diligence and research beatmania releases from the early to mid 2000s as the genre has been present within those releases since that time period, with many of the artists who used this genre as signifier for their musical style (literally the function of a genre) exclusively releasing tracks within that genre.

either remove the article completely or give credit to the people who originally pioneered the genre. 147.189.156.21 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]