Talk:Live electronic music
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Citations
[edit]@Jerome, when I initiated this article it was not my intention to use parenthetical referencing, i consider it anachronistic and more suited to paper media, html enables to use a far more useful method. The Sutherland cite was originally a temporary place holder but now that I have a bit more time to update this page, my preference is for in-line citations and I would be grateful if you could please allow me to use this style, I am simply not enthusiastic about working on articles that use parenthetical referencing. --Semitransgenic (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any statement of intention to use any particular citation style, at the initiation of the article which you cite. On the contrary, I see the Sutherland item listed in a format that strongly suggests the use of author-date citations (APA, Chicago, or "Harvard" styles), which are normally associated with parenthetical referencing. A number of editors have contributed to this article in the subsequent three years, myself among them. It appears that I was the first to add an in-line reference, in this edit on 18 October 2009, at which time I used the parenthetical-referencing format implied by the list of References. I don't see any objections having been lodged until yours today, nearly two years later. I am sorry that you find in-line parenthetical referencing "anachronistic"; personally, I find footnotes (which are only one of several types of in-line referencing) archaic and suitable only to paper media, with actual pages at the foot of which notes can be conveniently placed. Interestingly, I have the same lack of enthusiasm for working on articles cluttered with footnote numbers that you have for those using parenthetical referencing. I would love to change all articles to parenthetical referencing, but I do my best to respect established formats. Personal differences of opinion like ours are the reason the Wikipedia guidelines about established reference formats are what they are.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- parenthetical is useful in an academic context, where readers have more often than not read into the subject, and are familiar with sources. In an encyclopaedia, we should consider the general reader, and assume no prior knowledge of the subject matter, bombarding the main body with surnames and dates is, in my opinion, simply off putting for non-academic inquiries. Hypertext allows us to link to references very efficiently, if someone is curious about a source, clicking down and then back to the text is a simple matter, I fail to see how this is archaic in comparison to the parenthetical system. --Semitransgenic (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is no explaining feelings, but I do not find "efficient" hypertext links anything but obstructive to reading articles. In fact, I have often noticed that editors believe there are no references at all in an article they have not read carefully, and are surprised when I point out that the article is in fact chock-full of in-line references. I take this as evidence of their non-intrusiveness. As for "bombarding the main body with surnames and dates", I find it infuriating to scroll (or click) down to a footnote, only to find it contains nothing but a surname, date, and page number, which I must then cross-check against a list of sources if I am really interested in discovering the nature of a cited source. Even worse is finding a short-reference that requires me to locate the first citation in an earlier note (and, frankly, this is more annoying in print media, where I cannot make a quick electronic search for an author's name, and often causes me to waste many minutes flipping back through the book before finally finding the primary entry perhaps more than a hundred pages back). So much better to have the author and date right there in the text, where I can decide whether I really need to go to the alphabetic list and look up the source. Footnotes are in fact "archaic", since they were around for a long time before author-date referencing was first devised in the late 19th century. You may or may not be correct about general readers, but until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I must assume that a substantial number of them either agree with me, or don't care one way or the other.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- i think the only ones who really care are those of us who desire good referencing, irrespective of the format. I would personally prefer, when using a "footnote" style citation, to link to a full citation (author, date, title, publisher, page number) and not a short citation because I agree, having to cross reference from the short form to the general list is not efficient, but a lot of articles appear to follow the latter convention, so I have always assumed that this the preferred approach. Would you accept in-line linkage to full citations here, as a compromise? or are the little blue numbers too much too bear? --Semitransgenic (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is no explaining feelings, but I do not find "efficient" hypertext links anything but obstructive to reading articles. In fact, I have often noticed that editors believe there are no references at all in an article they have not read carefully, and are surprised when I point out that the article is in fact chock-full of in-line references. I take this as evidence of their non-intrusiveness. As for "bombarding the main body with surnames and dates", I find it infuriating to scroll (or click) down to a footnote, only to find it contains nothing but a surname, date, and page number, which I must then cross-check against a list of sources if I am really interested in discovering the nature of a cited source. Even worse is finding a short-reference that requires me to locate the first citation in an earlier note (and, frankly, this is more annoying in print media, where I cannot make a quick electronic search for an author's name, and often causes me to waste many minutes flipping back through the book before finally finding the primary entry perhaps more than a hundred pages back). So much better to have the author and date right there in the text, where I can decide whether I really need to go to the alphabetic list and look up the source. Footnotes are in fact "archaic", since they were around for a long time before author-date referencing was first devised in the late 19th century. You may or may not be correct about general readers, but until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I must assume that a substantial number of them either agree with me, or don't care one way or the other.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- parenthetical is useful in an academic context, where readers have more often than not read into the subject, and are familiar with sources. In an encyclopaedia, we should consider the general reader, and assume no prior knowledge of the subject matter, bombarding the main body with surnames and dates is, in my opinion, simply off putting for non-academic inquiries. Hypertext allows us to link to references very efficiently, if someone is curious about a source, clicking down and then back to the text is a simple matter, I fail to see how this is archaic in comparison to the parenthetical system. --Semitransgenic (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Maxfield
[edit]@Jerome, the Maxfield work is, according to Sutherland, an "open form" tape piece. He states: "very slight tape speed changes subtly alter the character of the live sounds." For a full explanation it's on p.158. Technically it's a live electronic work if the tape is manipulated in real time during performance, it's not clear from Sutherland's writing if this is in fact the case. --Semitransgenic (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds, then, that this might be something along the lines of Mauricio Kagel's Transición I. Since Sutherland is not completely clear about whether the transformations are prefabricated (as New Grove suggests but equally does not make explicit) or done in real time, I would say we need to dig a little deeper. Thanks for the clarification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"form of experimental music[citation needed]"
[edit]are you actually serious?
Scope needs work
[edit]Attempting to define this article's scope simply as "electronic music that may be improvised" runs into problems wrt/ how to treat forms of music that aren's traditionally considered a part of the EAI cultural circles. Electronics-based improvisation is a frequent trait also in e.g. Berlin School of electronic music and connected forms of ambient music. Or, there exists a fringe of space rock heavy with synths and improvisation, represented by e.g. Ozric Tentacles. Instances of live improvisation can be occasionally found as offshoots of electronic dance music just as well. Would such examples be eligible for coverage in this article as well? If not, why not? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- without reliable sources, adding all of the the above would amount to WP:OR. As it stands the inclusion of so-called "EAI" (as something approaching a "genre" of music) is dubious. In the academic literature dealing with "western-art music" there is coverage of what is called "live electronic music" that's why the article came about in the first instance. It would be a better idea to flesh out the historical context of why we have something called live electronic music rather than widen the scope of what it might mean - and this without using proper sources. Semitransgenic talk. 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Live electronic music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919112809/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/keith-rowe-and-toshimaru-nakamura/between.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/keith-rowe-and-toshimaru-nakamura/between.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Live electronic music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514102233/https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/74258672/Collins,+Generative+Music.pdf to https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/74258672/Collins,+Generative+Music.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)