Dubstep Wikipedia Entry

debate, appreciation, interviews, reviews (events or releases), videos, radio shows
Locked
User avatar
rickyricardo
Posts: 1137
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Dubstep Wikipedia Entry

Post by rickyricardo » Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:51 pm

The article looks a bit bland. I'm looking to add a picture(s). Any suggestions??

Here's the link, in case you haven't already seen it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubstep
Top
j_j
Permanent Vacation
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Post by j_j » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:14 pm

can we get showerlip in there too?
Top
User avatar
ghettobot
Posts: 1117
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:16 am

Post by ghettobot » Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:29 pm

what?
i don't really get the shower references!
Top
blackdown
>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<
Posts: 2351
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: LDN
Contact:
Contact blackdown

Post by blackdown » Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:29 am

ghettobot wrote:what?
i don't really get the shower references!
it's a grime thing, so not very relevant to the wikipedia entry.

it's a reference to Jamaica's notorious Shower Posse that got adopted by Roll Deep and then everyone else in grime.
Keysound Recordings, Rinse FM, http://www.blackdownsoundboy.blogspot.com, sub, edge, bars, groove, swing...
Top
m9918868
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:42 am

Post by m9918868 » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:04 am

I really don't like the article so much.

Don't want to bring up the dead horses (break/half/dubstep) again, but parts of the article seem to me more attention to providing a normative, actually excluding definition of dubstep (how it should sound in order to be dubstep) rather than describing the plurality and richess of the sound in an inclusive manner.

Which is a pity, as for me this remains one of the most promising aspects of dubstep.
Top
j_j
Permanent Vacation
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Post by j_j » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:12 pm

i was joking :lol:
Top
User avatar
rickyricardo
Posts: 1137
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Post by rickyricardo » Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:11 pm

m9918868 wrote:I really don't like the article so much.

Don't want to bring up the dead horses (break/half/dubstep) again, but parts of the article seem to me more attention to providing a normative, actually excluding definition of dubstep (how it should sound in order to be dubstep) rather than describing the plurality and richess of the sound in an inclusive manner.

Which is a pity, as for me this remains one of the most promising aspects of dubstep.
No doubt. The article is by no means perfect, but Martin was kind enough to provide the bulk of the text. If you think something has been overlooked, then by all means edit it :D
Top
Locked

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests