|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Is there any reason why KDM's Official site for KS isn't included in the External Links ?
Tycobbuk 10:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, odd that it's missing? Simple enough to add though, which I now have Wm.Blake 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
'Klaus Schulze is in a convalescent home at the moment, dealing with a long term illness.' - Does anyone have any details regarding this situation? as a fan of many years standing I'm rather concerned to read this Wm.Blake 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Klaus Schulze produced music in the 70ies that used a lot a device called "Sequencer" that allowed him to play music in a spontaneous way. — anon. 14:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Fascinating. — mjb 08:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually the sequencer was just a sort of robotic rhythm section that made it possible for Schulze to execute something like "Beyreuth Return" from Timewind in one take, but the things Kraftwerk did with it on Autobahn, TEE, and Man Machine led directly to the techno we know today. — Endomion
- Actually both of you don't properly describe what a sequencer is, what it was in the past and how it was used. It's a device (in the context of pre-PC era) that outputs some information in a sequential, repeating manner. It can be used for driving many facets of synthesized sound. You could, in case of an 8-step sequencer, program it to play 8 consecutive notes on a synthesizer, or trigger a drum sound on a drum machine in an 8-step pattern, or control some parameter, like filter or stereo panning in 8 steps. It's purpose is not to make a 'robotic rythm section' altho it certainly can be used to do so. It is much more a general tool for capturing a sequence of information. What you use the information for is up to you. You could use it to make a lamp go on and off if you like.
- Usually it is hardly a device that alows for 'spontaneous' playing, although some sequencers allow for interesting manipulations of the repeated pattern(s) after programming.
- Most of the time one would set up a pattern on a sequencer (or multiple sequencers) and then proceed to do a performance by changing the parameters on the device that is being controlled. Changing the actual settings of the sequencer is usually done with some consideration because it can be hard to control in a predictable way. To come to a different, good sounding setting usually requires one to go through several not so good and often rythmically or chromatically disruptive settings so it is often left alone to do its thing.
- More complex sequencers allowed for more steps, more simultaneous parameters that could be controlled, and ways to manipulate the programmed sequence of steps. They can also help the performer to manipulate the sequence in a less disruptive and more controlled way. This overcomes some of the limitations mentioned above.
- After the personal computer revolution a sequencer simply became software that can control anything at any time and the strict limitations of pattern length disapperaed. From then on the kind of short sequences that can be heared in Schulzes work became deliberate instead of being induced by the inherent limitations of early (mostly analog) sequencers.
- — Well, I guess that would depend if you consider Trance music as part of Techno music, or completely separate. That being said, the Category:Trance musicians is probably much more appropriate for Schulze as an additional category (he shouldn't be pegged exclusively as Ambient or, *choke*, "New Age"), than the Techno one. And his later Richard Wahnfried works probably belong more to Trance than to Techno too... I'm going to change both to the Trance categories.
- As for your question, you can see for instance the albums Trancellation and Trance Appeal from his Richard Wahnfried sub-discography, and to a lesser degree En=Trance from the main KS discog. Schulze is often hailed as "The father of Trance", just like for Kraftwerk "The fathers of Techno", even though they're both much more than that.
- ←#6 talk 19:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Parts of X are also very trancy though some parts of it shift almost to pure classical. I think anyone as prolific as Klaus Schulze is going to be all over the map sylistically, especially since he was on the leading edge of most of these generas, and a bit before his time. Dalf | Talk 08:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. To clarify my earlier comment, much of Schulze's older music has a lot in common with the trance genre of electronic dance music, and his newer collaborations with Pete Namlook are trance (and the brand of ambient that trance musicians tend to produce), so I don't have any problem with him being categorized under trance musicians. I was just questioning his being categorized under techno musicians when I am pretty sure (not being 100% up-to-date on his recent output) that he hasn't put out very much, if anything, that is "techno" to a pure enough degree to justify using that term. It's a moot point now, since the category was changed by User:6. — mjb 17:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Parts of X are also very trancy though some parts of it shift almost to pure classical. I think anyone as prolific as Klaus Schulze is going to be all over the map sylistically, especially since he was on the leading edge of most of these generas, and a bit before his time. Dalf | Talk 08:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Klaus Schulze was a drummer first, and his drumming (whether real or sequenced) is kind of "busy" like Neil Peart from Rush, but techno and trance use very repetitive and unimaginative beats. Nothing in Schulze entire catalog sounds like Robert Miles. Schulze may use the latest technology to make sounds, but he's always looked back to the 19th Century for inspiration. The genre would be a sort of neo-neoclassicism.
- I think you are trying too hard to pin Schulze to a name. In reality his work spans multiple existing musical ideologies while inventing some new ones. Comparing his work to Robert Miles seems to be a misunderstanding of both artists. In the dance world they pretty much sit on opposite sides of several spectra. Your observation that techno and trance use unimaginative beats may be true for Robert Miles but is simply not valid for a whole bunch of other electronic music artists, among which Klaus Schulze.
- The fact that Schulze makes deeper music than Miles does not take away the fact that he is well established in the modern electronic music scene. That would make him at least neo-post-neo-neoclassicist but i think that these classifications become increasingly silly which is exactly the point i'm trying to make.
Much of Klaus Schulze's music is known as New Age Music. Some of his earlier works were more "bleak" but so was a lot of the early New Age Music. Some of his later releases contained pieces that have a definite "trance" or "progressive trance" feel to them. I would not use the term "techno" though. Dunk meister 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I think that the description for Klaus Schulze's music should also state him as someone who creates New Age Music no matter how he feels about the term. The fact is, that his music *is* known as New Age to millions across the globe. His music has been New Age compilations as well. Dunk meister 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nope schulze doesn't qualify as Techno artist in de modern meaning of the word, nor as New Age artist.... Electronic Music fits nicely ;-) --LimoWreck 13:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Odd that his music is still and always will be New Age Music to vast numbers of people across the globe. He uses electronic equipment to create his music so some also call his music the vague "electronic music" too. Dunk meister 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well at least we all seem to agree that he is not techno, only in a related genera. At the asame time I wonder what critera you are using to come up with new age on every electronic musicican who is not techno on wikipedia? Surely "known as" by some people does not qualify as New Age seems to be the category that people put things in when they don't know what to do with it. I read some of your comments on the New age talk page, and though the heading was talking about a definition of new age I coudl not help but noticed that you did nto propsose one. You only stated that everyone should be called new age weather they liked it or not, which is I dare say a pretty dismal definition. Dalf | Talk 18:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What "critera"? I only use the term for music that is universally and widely known as being New Age Music. Is that too hard for you to understand? When is an 'industrial' band, 'industrial'?
Do I need to list the countless articles, magazines, compilations, listings, etc and etc to back up such a well known definition (genre term) used for certain music?
"New Age seems to be the category that people put things in when they don't know what to do with it." This is another statement that shows ignorance.
"come up with new age on every electronic musicican who is not techno on wikipedia"
An untrue statement. I am well versed in countless forms and styles of electronic-based music. I haven't labelled any synthpop groups, disco, industrial, IDM, gothic, etc music as "New Age". My statements just echo the definition of what New Age Music is. Dunk meister 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Musical generas are a complex and contentious issue. I dont actually think of electronic as a genera since it is much more clearly defined, and in most cases is not subjective at all, but it is very much like saying "percussive music". Within music that is electronically created there are a large number of unrelated (and some related) styles/generas you liksed a few (though no all music in those generas is electronic and some lines are blured. Never the less you keep referinf to "the definition of what new age is" though:
- You refuse to describe this definition.
- You seem to be the only person who knows what it is.
- Again the notion that electronic/ambient music has to have a base line or loud drums inorder to NOT be New Age is specious at best. More importantly wikipedia works on a consensus bassis and you disagreeing with all of the other editors does not constitute consensus. Dalf | Talk 22:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
New Age Music's beginnings were in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One of the largest styles of New Age music was and is 1970s' styled progressive "cosmic" synthesizer music. A good example of New Age Music can be found on 1985's 'New Age Music' on the Innovative Communication label. "A1 Klaus Schulze Floating (8:22) A2 Software Julia's Dream (8:00) A3 Baffo Banfi Quelle Dolce (6:05) B1 Tangerine Dream Cloudburst Flight (7:21) B2 Robert Schröder Just A Love Song (4:37) B3 Peak (2) Nightmist (6:22) B4 Baffo Banfi Astralunato (3:51) C1 Software Chip-Meditation (13:20) C2 Kurt Riemann Gymnopedie (2:42) C3 Robert Schröder Quick Shot (3:54) D1 Jean-Michel Jarre Souvenirs Of China (3:59) D2 Mergener/Weisser Sunbeam (10:37) D3 Ashra Midnight On Mars (6:50)"
Should I list thousands of links that list of the music of Klaus Schulze as New Age? Shall I start listing all the magazine, radio shows, etc. to back up what New Age is and what artists are consider "New Age". You talk of "consensus" and I'll show you overwhelming concensus.
"Again the notion that electronic/ambient music has to have a base line or loud drums inorder to NOT be New Age is specious at best."
Again, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I own a lot of beatless electronic and experimental music with ambience that is not New Age Music or widely considered New Age Music. Saying I disagree with "all other editors" is another false statement by you. I agree that music created with electronics can be and sometimes is also listed as "electronic music". But if you want to narrow down music into genres you use terms like New Age, Synthpop, techno, house, minimal techno, idm, etc.
If you want to ignore and not use widely used genres used for certain styles of music then just call everything "music" or "sounds" and deleted all the genres on this website.
"styles/generas you liksed a few (though no all music in those generas is electronic and some lines are blured"
Not all of the music of Tangerine Dream or Klaus Schulze 100% electronic either. I know some synthpop that uses more "electronics" than a lot of Tangerine Dream's music. But genre names have to do with the sound, feel, themes, texures of music and is not solely defined on what was used to create it (the music)
"Electronic Music" is not a good defining term for music. The only term more vague than it is just calling something "Music". Dunk meister 00:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was not putting words in your mouth I was responding to your actions. I was not refering to the beteals or industrial music or any of the other things you keep using as counter examples any of the times I said that either. Your assuming that I was only proves my point. My other point is that New Age is even more vauge than electronic, as a genera I think very little music can uncoontentiously be put in it. The rest is a sort of genera creep where people put music they don't like or think of as strange. Rather than calling the music strange or expiremental they simply lable it New Age sine the term has strong reconigtion and resonance with most people. For this reason (and others) it is a very poor descriptor. It is why you have been unable to provide a definition other than to name other generas and say "well those are new age". I submit if you need other adjatives to classify it "progressive new age" then it is original research or an instance where a diffrent more specific term would be better. Dalf | Talk 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- As an addendum I don't think mentioning that some of his albums are seen as newage by some people is TOTALLY out of place but notin the opening paragraph and without placing the category on the article (and with the current refrence to his own feelings of the lable). Dalf | Talk 02:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You're making assumptions on how and why music is labelled New Age. Saying that people stick music in New Age because they don't know where else to put it. I can give many reasons why Klaus' music is New Age music. The fact is univerally known as New Age (synthesizer) music.
It's not just by "chance" that music is known as a certain genre or style of music. If you're going to "denounce" the New Age labelling of Klaus's music then you may have well nothing is New Age Music. Or that no music is "rock" music, or "country", etc.
If you want to good definition of New Age Music is then that would be for another discussion section. I will say that the music that NA artists make is a pretty good definition on what the New Age sound is. The first big names in New Age Music were Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Vangelis, JM Jarre, Mike Oldfield, Yanni, etc.
I think a reference to Klaus' music being known as New Age Music as well as Electronic Music should be in the opening paragraph. An additional "Klaus doesn't care for the labelling of his music" could also be added. Dunk meister 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that putting it that way makes it sound like that is some sort of offical or popularly agreed upon or even majority lableing "the" labling. Since the majority of the people here (everyone but you I think) disagrees with calling him a New Age Artest and most of us feel that the furthest we would go is to say that some of his music has new age elements. Then I think it goes to far to actually lable him such especially in the opening paragraph/category. Do you think Brian Eno (Another Green World, Music for Airports is new age too? Just curious). Dalf | Talk 04:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of Klaus' music is popularly known as New Age Music. Do some web searches. I'll show you countless New Age artists lists that contain his name. If you did a poll you'd get many people calling him someone who makes "electronic music" and also those that say he makes "New Age Music". Those are the top two catagories his music falls under. His music is known as New Age all over the world. It's not just some view of a select few. I will go as far to say that most people who discovered his music did so from New Age format radio shows or magazines or bought his music from the New Age section in a record store. Care for me to list the thousands of websites that describe his music as "New Age"? The definition here should also list his music as being New Age or at the very least being known as New Age Music by vast amounts of his fans.
I would say that early Eno was New Age Music. Some of it certainly had some "New Agey" moments. His first few albums were more "proto synthpop". His later works did get more minimal and atmospheric. Btw- New Age as a "genre" predates "ambient". The term "ambient" isn't as recognizable or understood even to thise day. I prefer using the words "music that contains ambience" over "ambient". Dunk meister 07:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Again, you surely can't call everything' new age music ? Generally, the genre is restricted to a genre of music referred to in . You might check that. Sure, artist like Willie Dixon or Howlin' Wolf may have influenced different artists like Stevie Ray Vaughn, Led Zeppelin, whatever you can think of, but you don't call them rockartist, or even pop artists I suppose ? Or the theremin in Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys doesn't make them electronic artists, although that sound may have inspired many other artist ? Oh, and the Canterbury Scene of artists plays some jazzy progrock, but they generally won't really be clasified in the jazz genre. Also, you might check allmusic , and stick to the main category (the "styles" are generally links with the new age genre, although most styles just fit in another rock/electronica/traditional/jazz genre) Just because an artist is one of the influences on new age artists, or they have played in a similar style once in a while, you shouldn't reduce all electronic non-dance music the new age.
I do not call everything New Age nor do I or the masses call every non-dance piece of electronically created music, New Age. You posted a link to allmusic. They and many other websites list "space" and "progressive electronic" as two of the main types of New Age Music. They were two of the earlier types of New Age Music.
Not only has an artists like Klaus Schulze influenced others within the New Age genre his most of his music itself is know as or is New Age Music. Styles are what make up a genre. Some variants of a style of music can fit in more than one genre, sure. But a genre is not restricted to one small narrow style of music. "electronic(a)" is a less a genre and more a descriptor of some of the equipment used to create music. New Age, Synthpop, Electro, IDM and others are more specific terms especially when used in conjunction or within the same context as with terms like a "electronic" or "synthesizer" or "minimal", etc. Most of Klaus Schulze's music is globally known as "New Age Music" and "Electronic Music" Those are two of the most well known terms used globally for his music. If you want to post links then I can post thousands that show that Klaus's music is universally known as New Age Music. The definition of his music on this website should reflect that. Check some of the links on the New Age Music page. Here's one of the thousands of websites that list Klaus' music as New Age. http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/newage/newageintro.html/ Not everyone will agree totally with everything listed as New Age or other genres like "Industrial", etc but when an artist or their music is known as a particular genre by so many then the definition on this website should also list the genre they are so widely known to be part of. Dunk meister 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the description for the Severed Heads at Wikipedia: "Early Severed Heads music was characterised by the use of tape loops, noisy arrangements of synthesizers, and other dissonant sound sources, putting Severed Heads in the general category of industrial music."
I suggest changing it to fit Klaus Schulze in reference to New Age Music.
"Much of Klaus Schulze's music is characterised by the floating atmosphere, dreamy sound textures, spacey synthesizers, and neo-classical elements putting Klaus Schulze's music in the general category of New Age music." Dunk meister 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I believe you can read what most people say above, although it seems you don't ? Klaus Schulze's style is related to new age, he has been in inspiration for new age... you can add something like that in the texts. Someone has made a suggestion somewhere how to rephrase things like that, but well, you just ignored at, and just blatantly add "is a new age artist" , deleting other genres and styles. Maybe try google  : 100.000 hits, Schulze himself says he's not part of the new age movement, some misc websites giving him that general label, and many review relating him to new age, but not labelling him new age. Now  : 600.000 hits that don't mention "new age", including the official site, different large databases, fans sites, and reviews again. This difference might really give an indication Schulze isn't considered new age at all... try the same search with real notable new age artists, and you'll see this is a rough indication => Conclusion: sure, add some indication that Schulze influenced the new age style, no, you can't just simply label him as plain new age artist
His music is not just related to New Age Music. It's considered New Age Music worldwide. That is a fact. The official website of the Severed Heads doesn't list them as "industrial" but their early music is considered "industrial" worldwide. Wikipedia lists the group Skinny Puppy has an "infuencial industrial group" but there's no mention of 'industrial' on their website. They call themselves "electronic rock".
Worldwide Klaus' music has been listed as, sold as, reviewed as, etc and etc, New Age Music for over 25 years. The phrase: "Much of Klaus Schulze's works are characterised by floating atmospheres, dreamy sound textures, spacey synthesizers, and neo-classical elements putting most of Klaus Schulze's music in the general category of New Age music." is appropriate and shows a universal opinion of his music. That is a needed phrase to show the scope of Klaus Schulze's music and how his music is perceievd worldwide.
He's listed as a "trance musician" and there's millions more who consider his music New Age than "trance". Dunk meister 21:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I will add "Much of Klaus Schulze's music is characterised by the floating atmosphere, dreamy sound textures, spacey synthesizers, and neo-classical elements and cosmic themes putting most of Klaus Schulze's music in the general category of New Age music." to show that much of Klaus' music is known world wide by millions of people as "New Age Music". If anyone has a problem with the wording then say so. Again, he's listed as a "trance musician" but not New Age? He's on one of the most famous New Age compilations called "New Age Music" (Innovative Communication). His music was introduced to millions of his fans as "New Age" on such radioshows as Hearts of Space and other NA formatted shows. He's listed on countless websites as "New Age". His music is known as New Age and his music has been extremely influencial to other NA artists over the years. An artists does not need to have any connections with any NA movement. Most NA artists and their music has nothing to do with any "Movement". It's music.. not a cult or religion. "New Age" is a term that many people connection with "A New Age in music" referring to certain 1970s styled synthesizer music. Dunk meister 01:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- As someone who was introduced to Klaus Schulze from Hearts of Space I would say that your assertion that people who found him form there will think he is New Age is not true (as I clearly do not). If you are going to bo by self applied lables then Hearts of Space is Space music, they are in general less dogmatic about clasification than you are and generally refer to thigns as having influenced eachother or as being related. It is your assertion in the paragraph that it is place in the category of or whatever that I object to. You may add all of the above so long as you do not add unqualified classifcation of his music, because that is simply not true. What is true is tht some people have classified it thus and the article already mentions that. You may reword but if you want to go with consensus you need to include that such a classification is contentious and possibly over simplified. The Trance lable is much less ambigious as he is genrally known as one of the founders of trance.Dalf | Talk 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hearts of Space was and is a New Age radio program. They play many different styles of music consider New Age or very closely related. They play not only spacemusic but also certain styles of native American, Modern Classical, Celtic, Ambience, etc. That show and others like it helped define what New Age Music is. They may be less dogmatic but this is a web based encyclopedia based on classifications and definitions.
Again, many more people known his music to be New Age than trance. You will still see his music listed as New Age on countless websites, store sites, NA related websites, etc. No doubt a lot more than he's mentioned on the same page as "trance". But I do see his influence on progressive trance and a few of his albums have some "trancey" pieces. But if you want to compare the New Age labelling of his music and it's influence on New Age Music as a whole there's no contest. His music is listed as, referred to as New Age on websites from countless countries from across the globe. Not just a few website that may have "gotten it wrong". This is an universal view of his music.
Trance can be an ambiguous term too. I know many people who will say that in the early 1990s trance meant something totally different than the "club" trance of today or the last few years. New Age is a lot less ambiguous when something like "synthesizer" is added to it. Klaus Schulze's usage of the term "trance" is more along lines of to "entrance" or music to entrance or music to put one in a meditative state. Many types of such music is known as "New Age".
I suggest that Klaus Schulze be listed as a "New Age musician" right off the bat. That is a much more accurate, universal and widely viewed opinion than him being a "trance musician" (imho).
You say "You may add all of the above so long as you do not add unqualified classifcation of his music, because that is simply not true"
How can you say it's not true when it's a widely held view of his music backed up by years of press, compilations, reviews, listings, etc. To this very day you're just as likely to see his music listed as "New Age" as anything else. Most of Klaus Schulze's music is New Age as much as most of Skinny Puppy's music is "industrial" no matter what Klaus or Skinny Puppy think their music should be called.
His music is in the general category of New Age Music. I think the passage stating that Klaus dismisses any connections with New Age be deleted unless such disclaimers are to be added to every other artists' pages on Wikipedia. It's not unusual for an artists or musician to disagree with a label put on their art or any labelling of their art/music.
"Much of Klaus Schulze's works are characterised by floating atmospheres, dreamy sound textures, spacey electronics, modern classical passages and meditative soundscapes putting most of Klaus Schulze's music within the realm of New Age synthesizer music."
How this ^^ Dunk meister 07:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can't see what else should be added either. The article already states : Some of his lighter albums are appreciated by new age music fans, but Schulze has always denied connections to this genre., so the new age link is there, in a balanced way. No need to put klaus schulze in general under that label, since that's not what most fans think, what the artist himself says, or what most large fansites and music reference sites say. The article looks fine as it is --LimoWreck 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That statement should be removed (imo). First, most of his music is considered New Age Music by a lot of his fans and others. Who is a New Age Music fan? Someone who likes the Hearts of Space radio program? One who likes music that is known as New Age? I like countless types of music including a lot of New Age music like Schulze, early Tangerine Dream, etc. I wouldn't label myself a New Age Music fan per se. I'm one who likes some New Age Music. I am only a New Age fan if you mean it to be someone who likes music known as New Age Music. Also, it doesn't matter if Klaus Schulze tried to dismiss the New Age label. Many artists/musicians don't care for the labelling of their music. By defining it they may think it "cheapens" the art of it? But we use descriptive terms and genres for music. An encyclopedia should list the oft used terms for different music. Dunk meister 08:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nabokov's Lolita has been used a stroke book by millions of pedophiles the world over, however it is neither a stroke book nor a pedophile book, it's literature.
- Hammers and ice peaks have been used as weapons by countless murderers the world over, however they're not weapons but mere tools.
- Some of Klaus Schulze has been appreciated by millions of New Age fans the world over, however he's not New Age but an ambient composer.
Also, most music records don't bother to create a special "ambient" section, they find it easier to put all uptempo electronic music into "electronic music", and all downtempo electronic music into a "new age" mixed bag, that ranges from Schulze and Tangerine Dream to New Age to meditation music. Because millions of people are used to lookup Schulze in the "new age" bin of their record store doesn't mean he's New Age. Record stores laziness doesn't make for an encyclopedic definition or classification, though.
There's a Brian Eno interview where he vehemently denies his ambient music to be related to New Age, only relatable because of some similarities in nature. He goes on defining the differences between ambient and new age, I don't remember all the specifics but two points were that ambient music "has an edge" and "a dark part", that lack from new age according to him. There was also his original definition of ambient as music that's as easy to ignore than interesting to listen to, and his opinion that new age isn't very challenging or interesting to actively listen to.
Most Schulze records have some of that edge, that dark thing lurking in the music, melancholy, sadness, disquiet or anguish. From the top of my head, we could quote: The cello in the middle part of "Dune" is full of sadness. Many parts of "Into the Blue" are tinged with melancholy (esp. in the "Wild and Blue" section). Irrlicht's drones are frightening. "Dreams" is menacing. "Voices of Syn" on Blackdance is sepulchral. "Death of an Analogue" on Dig It is as joyous as its title. Timewind are two long, morbid poems to Wagner's death and grave! "Ludwig II von Bayern" on X is a relentless portrait of the king's descent into madness then late assassination by drowning! On the new Moonlake, "Playmate in Paradise" is a 4-part track where a dying man had an extended dream about reaching paradise, then actually dies and fades away into oblivion. And of course, we have acute and extreme cases such as the dark ambient of "Moogetique" on Body Love 2, large parts of Dark Side of the Moog IX, and the recent extra-bleak Dark Side of the Moog X. -- Just those examples span across his whole discography, and no doubt much more could be exhibited.
Not to mention that Schulze never was inspired by any of the New Age spirituality/religion's beliefs/baloney.
Last but not least, how come this vandal hasn't been RFCed and banned yet? His history of edits, revisionism and deletionism, is clearly unwikipedian and in bad faith.
-- 184.108.40.206 14:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that this passsage should be changed to something closer to the truth.
"Some of his lighter albums are appreciated by new age music fans, but Schulze has always denied connections to this genre."
Here are some excerpts from past interviews with Klaus Schulze. He acknowledged and embraced New Age spirituality, practices and beliefs. He welcomed the New Age/Meditation connections to his music.
Copied from a forum: "From Eurock 1981.Translated from L'Autre Monde:Jean-Michel Reusser Speaking about Timothy Leary: "...he was extraordinary and his research with LSD and psychedelic drugs for the exploration of the human mind has been fundamental". On making a different kind of music: "I said to myself that the best way to loosen my spirit was to play an instrument that I was unfamiliar with" (i.e.keyboards, after having played drums). This leads to a remark about Zen: "I am attracted to the Zen religion.I like the atmosphere.I love the aura of Zen". On being asked about 'Cosmic Music' as being able to make people soar: "...I will certainly call my music 'musique plantane' because I place it above the ground...At least 10 centimetres off the floor.It allows you to float while it floats around you.On stage sometimes,I get the impression that I'm floating around my instruments..." On sound: "I spent hours looking for the sound of an organ that was as beautiful as in a church".
From Keyboard May '83 Speaking about a more Eastern perception of time: "I listened to Ravi Shankar and I liked him very much and realized it was was similar to my music". And speaking about extended pieces of music like his own: "For a lot of people,a long piece is monotonous or boring.But if you listen to it a couple of times,every tone has time to live,and your mind changes.If you give the tones enough time to establish themselves,you'll hear the whole piece differently". " -dunk meister (220.127.116.11 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
Like Jean Michel Jarre, Klaus is about as New Age as it gets even if his silly little fan boy uber fans can't see it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
SOME TASKS IDEAS FOR THIS STUB
"SOME TASKS IDEAS FOR THIS STUB" -A real History section. -Add two good promo/fair-use KS photos (one 'young', one 'older') -Create at least a few relevant WP:ALBUMS pages or (i.e.: Irrlicht, Moondawn, Dune, Dreams, Midipads, In Blue) with album covers, then also use the covers here as spot illos for illuminating a long carrer in the History section. -BUT ALL IMAGES need full proper copyright notice on the images! © TAGS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags © REASONS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_description_page © EXAMPLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MagrittePipe.jpg
(I moved it from article comment. I'm not author of above ideas). Visor 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Number of Albums and CDs
Okay, lets count (not including reissues, re-releases etc): ~43 solo and w/Lisa albums (~59 CDs) + 7 Wahnfried albums (7 CDs) + DSOTM 11 albums (11 CDs) + The Ultimate Edition (lets count it as 1 album and 50 CDs) + CW 1 and 2 (lets count it as 2 albums and 16 CDs = well, here at least 64 albums and 143 CDs. I think we for sure can write "more than 60/140". 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- The lede still says "more than 60", the next section "more than 40". Neither is cited. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"Richard Wahnfried" as a pseudonym
Stating that Richard Wahnfried is Klaus Schulze's pseudonym is not entirely correct. That would be the same as saying that The Alan Parsons Project is a pseudonym of Alan Parsons.
As fas as I know, he has never called himself Richard Wahnfried. It's just the name of this pet project of his.
Analog vs Digital
I think the 80's section makes too much assumptions on what is analog and what is digital. I can hear analog filters on 'Trancefer' and 'Dig It' so it was not purely digital. I also think that the whole analog vs digital debate has gotten way way way out of hand at some point, usually without the debaters understanding the subject. Some of the best electronic instruments are a hybrid of analog and digital.
Maybe the article is refering to the fact that the recording was done in digital but the thing about the instruments being purely digital is complete nonsense i.m.h.o.
What about the maxi-single...
...called Macksy? I own a copy myself and it is one of the rare ocasions where he had released a single at all, if not the only single he has ever released. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
-  --Viennese Waltz 12:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)