basically some guy in eastern europe is rewriting/modifying loads of electronic music articles based on some book he has. he previously tried to write articles on 'thugstep' and 'nintendub'. sigh.
dubstep. new dark swing lol. reverting this bollocks a couple of times a day.
i've tried to talk to him, he doesn't respond. i've tried to compromise by including his 'dark 2-step' in the infobox. this is doing my head in and i have no doubt other wiki editors heads in too cos he's changing looooads of articles.
Last edited by kaini on Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
this seems a little extreme and i'll stay out of the formalities of the wiki inner workings: that's your domain. but i can say this on the musical angle.
whenever one new genre evolves out of another, as dubstep did out of UK garage/2step, there's a period when something new is definitely going on but it's unclear what one name will be used for it.
"nu dark swing" was one such term proposed by kode9 in 2000/01 ish yet it didn't go on to be the final genre name. while it does have resonances with the early era of dubstep (swing connects it back to 2step garage), it isn't a separate genre to dubstep.
Ashley wrote:Craig David? You mean the guy who busts one lyric and thats "Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh, yeah, yeah" and has like ONE decent song ?
Craig David did nothing for Dubstep.
no, not directly. and i don't think he cared too much about 2 step either, that was down to his producers. but the track was massive beyond belief and surely had an effect on the ears of the world....and dubstep is a distant (now very distant) relative of that style...
Bookings - berkane sol at hotmail [dot] co [dot] uk
geiom wrote:
no, not directly. and i don't think he cared too much about 2 step either, that was down to his producers. but the track was massive beyond belief and surely had an effect on the ears of the world....and dubstep is a distant (now very distant) relative of that style...
djake wrote:everyone knows to take what u read off wikipedia with a pinch of salt anyway.
and most of it is just opinion, lol
Sadly that just aint true. From bitter experience I've seen how many mainstream articles are written from Wikipedia "research", and once a fact is out there it's really difficult to persuade people that it's not "fact". In general this may not be a great problem but what if some vindictive Wiki edit about you got quoted in an internationally-read newspaper? Would you be happy with that?
classification of styles and where they sit in an overall musical taxonomy is a tricky business, as is the process of 'genrification'. it's all a bit weird and subjective.
i've never read a wiki article on e.g. techno, dubstep, hip hop etc.
sometimes that sort of writing does attempt a level of objective definition that's too narrow/flawed/subjective/too vague/just not possible.
)
