This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electronic art music redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note as of August 25, 2007: The copyright status of the article has changed, due to changes in content.
See this section below for further discussion. -- Parsifal Hello 20:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Reading through the article, under
Footnotes you will come to an unreferenced link :
http://www.subliminal.org/flute/dissertation/ch02.html. Following the link will bring you to a Chapter 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ELECTROACOUSTIC MUSIC of a Doctoral Dissertation titled Electroacoustic Music for the Flute. The entire content is Copyrighted 2002 by Sarah Louise Bassingthwaighte with all rights reserved. How could this slip through the cracks?
It seems that the original copy and paste of the entire article occurred on December 17th 2005 by 143.117.78.169 (more than a year ago!?!). See first occurance of the copy and paste. Upon reviewing the history of edits, there was only one warning from an editor letting the original poster know that this is copyrighted material. The rest was just wikified and updated by numerous users - again this went on for over a year, yet still, today, the entire content is a basic copy and paste of the above mentioned dissertation.
This needs to be addressed at our earliest convenience! -asmadeus 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted the author and obtained the required permissions in writing:
To: sarahbas [at] u.washington.edu Subject: Your Dissertation on Electroacoustic Music for the Flute Sarah, It appears that the entire Chapter 2 of your dissertation, a Brief History to Electroacoustic Music, has been copied by someone into Wikipedia back in December 2005, under the Electronic Art Music article. It is definitely against Wikipedia's policy to publish copyrighted material - which in this case is yours, unless prior permission is obtained. I am simply a moderator and monitor articles related to electronic music, and wanted to contact you and let you know, as well as obtain your permission (if possible) to use your dissertation on wikipedia - otherwise, the entire article will be removed shortly. ------------------------------- From: sarahbas [at] u.washington.edu Subject: Re:Your Dissertation on Electroacoustic Music for the Flute If you use it, is there a way of acknowledging it, or providing a link to the original source? thanks for contacting me, Sarah Bassingthwaighte
See added note as Electronic_art_music#Copyright. Please keep it within the article.
Now that written permission has been obtained to repost the chapter on History of Electronic Music (see above), I propose that we move out this very well written section into its own article titled History of Electronic Music, allowing separate article for Electronic Art Music as well as other articles related to electronic music to link into the history section. -asmadeus 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone who's not really familiar with the musical world, I must say that by browsing through the article, I can't really understand what electronic art music is, or how it's different from electronic music. Look at the first paragraph:
So what makes it "art music"? Why isn't the phrase "art music" even wikilinked from anywhere in the article? Etc. -- zenohockey 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
These articles overlap extensively as they are now, so a lot of work is still needed. You're most welcome if you'd like to participate. -- Parsifal Hello 06:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I moved it today. Someone brought it back. Really, there is no basis for electronic art music. This article is the history of electronic music. Sorry some wiki problems. Who will help me? The word is Electronic Music not Electronic art music definitely 100%-- Susume-eat 05:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary term definition of classical Electronic Music originating in 1930 is "electronically produced sounds recorded on tape and arranged by the composer to form a musical composition." [1]
reference: electronic music. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electronic music (accessed: August 18, 2007
I try to work this into the article but it was remove twice. It was remove because it is wrong? How is wrong? The source is very good dictionary definition... How to can I write so you happy with it? Please someone help me write better English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susume-eat ( talk • contribs)
Have the copyright issues above with Bassingthwaighte's dissertation been resolved satisfactorily?
Most importantly, the original text still states "all rights reserved"; the request for permission to use the text doesn't seem to have been filed with the OTRS; and, what's more, the author never actually gives permission in the email quoted.
I guess the most straightforward thing to do would be to write the author again, ask for an explicit statement, and do the routine OTRS procedure; however, I don't know how much of this Asmadeus, who sent the email, actually did. And he hasn't been active recently. – Unint 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Resuming here the discussion that started on my User talk page, Parsifal had some good points:
I have long maintained that electronic music is not a genre, but rather that various genres may utilize electronic means. From this point of view, there is nothing wrong with speaking of Experimental Electronic Music, just as we may speak of Postmodernist Electronic Music, Neoclassical Electronic Music, etc. The problem is with that word "classical", which tends to imply "art" music that has a long pedigree, and there is not much electronic music that has been around long enough to make such a claim (Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge, Badings's Capriccio for Violin and Two Soundtracks, and perhaps a handful of other pieces from the 1950s?). Parsifal also asked:
I don't especially like it, mainly for the reason that has been brought up by others: it's not a familiar term, and sounds like it was specially made up for the purpose. The qualifier "serious" has long been objected to by jazz and other musicians who contend that their art is just as serious as those who describe their work as "serious music", so that won't do, either. Besides, the Art music disambiguation page redirects "Contemporary serious music" to "Contemporary classical music" (another title that makes me squirm). I agree that "the main article at Electronic music . . . needs to be enough of an overview to lead to articles both in the serious/erudite side and the popular areas such as Electronic dance music and others." I also concur with:
Then Doktor Who chimed in and made an excellent point:
In fact, one thing that I am becoming increasingly aware of in the article under discussion here is how much of it wanders away from composers and their music into the realm of technology—even if sometimes it is necessary to mention it in order to discuss how and why a certain style or piece was enabled by new developments in the machinery. I would like to end here by repeating my question to Doktor Who, when he mooted changing this article's title to just plain "Electronic music": In this case, what should the article now titled "Electronic music" be changed to?-- Jerome Kohl 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see such a positive conversation about a difficult challenge. The current state of the many electronic music articles came about in an ad-hoc manner over a long time, resulting in unclear distinctions and overlapping topics. We'll have to accept it's going to take a while to figure out the best way to organize them, especially because the content of some of them is so jumbled and intertwined. The text can't just be moved, it will need to be split and merged between different articles to get each section into the right places. And much of it is repeated in the different articles now, especially in the electronic pop, rock, and dance areas, though not all versions are the same so they'll need to be conformed.
In the list of "see also" at Electronic music there are even articles more we haven't mentioned yet. I wonder if the best way to proceed would be to make a map or tree of the electronic genres, on the talk page first, and then once we have plan, then we can check the articles to see which sections need to be moved from one to another, or which sections need to be merged into other sections, including deleting duplicate info that might not exactly match.
In the meantime, the title Electronic music (classical) is not appropriate for many reasons as discussed above. Also, it looks like a disambiguation page title, and that's not needed and doesn't look like any of the other Electronic music titles. So for now, based on the conversation above, I'm returning this page to its prior name of Electronic art music.
I'm not attached to keeping that title, but it's better than the other. If anyone would prefer something else, I'm amenable to any good ideas. The move to Electronic music (classical) though, was done by one person without discussion, and it's not a good title. Electronic art music is better, even if we just consider it a working title for now.
Also, there was a problem with the redirect page, so I had to use Electronic Art Music. The capitalization per WP:MOS should be Electronic art music, but the software would not accept the redirect because the redirect page history was not empty. I'm pretty sure a robot will correct this within a couple days. If not, we can request administrative help later, or who knows, we might still come up with a better title by then. -- Parsifal Hello 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor (I won't name him here, so it's clear that this is not personal) moved the page again today,without discussing the change on the talk page. This time he moved it to Electronic music (art).
I revert the change and moved it back to Electronic art music based on the above discussions. Also, this page is a separate topic and not a disambiguation of Electronic music, so it should not be titled as if it were a disambiguation.
There are changes in progress that will move some of the content of Electronic music into this article and some of it into Electronic dance music. This process is under discussion and page titles should not be changed until we've agreed on the plan, because it's disruptive and confusing for pages to be moved multiple times.
Based on past events, I have to assume that the non-consensus change may be repeated, so I don't know what the page name will be when you read this. Help maintaining the original title by reverting changes, or maintaining any proper name that has agreement among editors, would be appreciated.
Further comments are welcome. -- Parsifal Hello 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. I've now looked into this a bit and have located some references that confirm the use of the term electronic art music . I don't have time to add them now, and will do so when I can. -- Parsifal Hello 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Britannica writes as the Electronic Music. Rather, before coming to Wikipedia, I did not heard this term Electronic art music. Look to google, it appears as 13,000. When was Electronic art music article add to wikipedia? 5 years before. Some website last.fm, myspace, some recent web site.
I think not one person will revert this before, only Mr Parsifal, maybe now there is more people revert from him, really I believe there is subtle "poison the well" sometimes, not mean-spirited, but accident. Whoever read Parsifal post will hate me, but I love Electronic music, study it, want to become that, enjoy Tod Dockstader, so thrill!! I like Wikipedia also, be friends is best ^-^
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electronic%20music dictionary is no electronic art music, only electronic music for this...
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title.
For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to several different things, including: an element, a planet, an automobile brand, a record label, a NASA manned-spaceflight project, a plant, and a Roman god. Since only one Wikipedia page can have the generic name "Mercury", unambiguous article titles must be used for each of these topics: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), Mercury Records, Project Mercury, Mercury (plant), Mercury (mythology). There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation.
Please read this if you have free time " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation
One support is Dr Who, he will support it already. Then, I will feel frustration, defeat, if Electronic art music survives. It will be a dark day. -- Susume-eat 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Doktor Who, your accusation that I exhibit WP:OWN about this article is way out of line. Of the most recent 500 edits, I have edited the article less than 15 times. If you would like to discuss the article content or title, you are welcome to do so. But stop discussing me personally, that does not belong here.
There are at least a couple other editors who concensed with keeping the title as Electronic art music. There are two of you, and three of the opposite. That's not a vote, and it's also not consensus for either choice. But it's certainly not a consensus to change the article title. I work collaboratively, and there was progress being made in organizing this group of articles by several editors. That now has come to a stop again due to disruptive page moves without allowing time for the other editors to comment. -- Parsifal Hello 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
After the changes made by the two editors arguing above for the page move to Electronic music (art), the introductory sentence of the article is circular and unclear. It also no longer refers to the main article at Electronic music, creating additional confusion. At the time I write this, the edited version I am referring to is at this link. The more effective version prior to those edits is here. (There are a few unrelated changes that are OK, but the basic intro is confusing now. Aside from this issue, there is certainly plenty of room for improving the intro further).
If someone would like to fix it, that would be great. It would also be good if someone would like to fix the title of the article, which as it is now, Electronic music (art), makes no sense.
As we have been discussing above, prior to this disruption, this article and the main article at Electronic music need improvement and organization, and there are a variety of issues that affect how that will be done.
Meanwhile, the working title for this page, Electronic art music, was pretty good, as was agreed by three editors around a week ago. Maybe not perfect, but good as an interim title until we figure out the best way to organize the various related topics. Electronic music covers a wide range of genres, styles, scenes or whatever word one wishes to use... but it is not synonymous with the topic of this article - which describes "serious" or "erudite" or "art music" forms of electronic music, and so should not have a disambiguation title as it is not an "alternate" form of the same words. Electronic music includes various "popular" forms as well.
This is not a "genre" hierarchy, because "art" or "serious" music is in a separate genre branch from "popular music"; rather "electronic music" is a definition based on what kind of equipment or instruments are used to make the music. This is a multiple dimension question, not a simple tree. There is a genre tree, but the use of electronic instruments cuts across the tree and subsumes multiple genres that otherwise would not be related. That's why this article needs a separate title, not a disambiguation title.
It is clear that my point is valid in the way that the intro to this article became confused by simply removing the word "art" from the bold words naming the article title in the first sentence. It went from being a good description of the topic to a confusing circular definition that doesn't orient the reader at all.
I know how to fix the problems here, but I'm not going to do it without support. I'm not interested in guarding the article. I am going to leave this be and await comments by other editors.
I strongly encourage interested editors to revert the messy changes and continue the electronic music organization discussions that were in progress. After a while, the improvements to this page and Electronic music we've been discussing can be made. But if there is not enough interest, then we'll lose this article and I won't try to save it by myself. -- Parsifal Hello 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I found several references for the term "electronic art music" and added them to the page, also moved the page back to the consensed version of the title. Those references also fit into some of the historical sections of the article, so they provided value in mutliple ways.
The several electronic music top level articles still need to be better organized, but at least this title has support now from sources. We should consider that the main electronic music article overlaps with this one and with several of the "popular" electronic music articles pages, and also that there is lack of clarity regarding the evolution of the electronic musical instruments vs the composers' history. On one hand, it seems those should be separate articles, then again, because the equipment was evolving along with the composers, and their work arose out of the new equipment available, it's hard to separate the two. Yet we have separate articles with parallel tracks currently, so this still needs thought and improved organization. Also, one more point, none of these articles clearly address recent developments in electronic equipment, that might be in the computer music article or other places, but also, there is contemporary electronic art music happening today, breaking new ground; and so far we don't have anything about that as far as I can see.
Plenty more to do, that's for sure! -- Parsifal Hello 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Bastard!! -- Susume-eat 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done, Parsifal! I'm sure that Suseme-eat meant to congratulate you, as well, only his tenuous grasp of English may have resulted in the opposite impression. As Père Ubu would have said, Merdre!-- Jerome Kohl 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The invention of FM synthesis doesn't belong in the section on MIDI. It belongs in the missing -- equally important to art music -- section of this article which briefly the development and role of various sound synthesis methods. FM would fit into that, along with additive, subtractive, granular, et.al. and links to the respective articles. Twang 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I will give up, there is too much of the vandalism and ugliness of editing of this man. To researchers of the future I beg you, please look into this man's crank vandalisms. I am so angry Bastard-- Susume-eat 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electronic art music redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note as of August 25, 2007: The copyright status of the article has changed, due to changes in content.
See this section below for further discussion. -- Parsifal Hello 20:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Reading through the article, under
Footnotes you will come to an unreferenced link :
http://www.subliminal.org/flute/dissertation/ch02.html. Following the link will bring you to a Chapter 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ELECTROACOUSTIC MUSIC of a Doctoral Dissertation titled Electroacoustic Music for the Flute. The entire content is Copyrighted 2002 by Sarah Louise Bassingthwaighte with all rights reserved. How could this slip through the cracks?
It seems that the original copy and paste of the entire article occurred on December 17th 2005 by 143.117.78.169 (more than a year ago!?!). See first occurance of the copy and paste. Upon reviewing the history of edits, there was only one warning from an editor letting the original poster know that this is copyrighted material. The rest was just wikified and updated by numerous users - again this went on for over a year, yet still, today, the entire content is a basic copy and paste of the above mentioned dissertation.
This needs to be addressed at our earliest convenience! -asmadeus 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted the author and obtained the required permissions in writing:
To: sarahbas [at] u.washington.edu Subject: Your Dissertation on Electroacoustic Music for the Flute Sarah, It appears that the entire Chapter 2 of your dissertation, a Brief History to Electroacoustic Music, has been copied by someone into Wikipedia back in December 2005, under the Electronic Art Music article. It is definitely against Wikipedia's policy to publish copyrighted material - which in this case is yours, unless prior permission is obtained. I am simply a moderator and monitor articles related to electronic music, and wanted to contact you and let you know, as well as obtain your permission (if possible) to use your dissertation on wikipedia - otherwise, the entire article will be removed shortly. ------------------------------- From: sarahbas [at] u.washington.edu Subject: Re:Your Dissertation on Electroacoustic Music for the Flute If you use it, is there a way of acknowledging it, or providing a link to the original source? thanks for contacting me, Sarah Bassingthwaighte
See added note as Electronic_art_music#Copyright. Please keep it within the article.
Now that written permission has been obtained to repost the chapter on History of Electronic Music (see above), I propose that we move out this very well written section into its own article titled History of Electronic Music, allowing separate article for Electronic Art Music as well as other articles related to electronic music to link into the history section. -asmadeus 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As someone who's not really familiar with the musical world, I must say that by browsing through the article, I can't really understand what electronic art music is, or how it's different from electronic music. Look at the first paragraph:
So what makes it "art music"? Why isn't the phrase "art music" even wikilinked from anywhere in the article? Etc. -- zenohockey 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
These articles overlap extensively as they are now, so a lot of work is still needed. You're most welcome if you'd like to participate. -- Parsifal Hello 06:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I moved it today. Someone brought it back. Really, there is no basis for electronic art music. This article is the history of electronic music. Sorry some wiki problems. Who will help me? The word is Electronic Music not Electronic art music definitely 100%-- Susume-eat 05:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary term definition of classical Electronic Music originating in 1930 is "electronically produced sounds recorded on tape and arranged by the composer to form a musical composition." [1]
reference: electronic music. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electronic music (accessed: August 18, 2007
I try to work this into the article but it was remove twice. It was remove because it is wrong? How is wrong? The source is very good dictionary definition... How to can I write so you happy with it? Please someone help me write better English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susume-eat ( talk • contribs)
Have the copyright issues above with Bassingthwaighte's dissertation been resolved satisfactorily?
Most importantly, the original text still states "all rights reserved"; the request for permission to use the text doesn't seem to have been filed with the OTRS; and, what's more, the author never actually gives permission in the email quoted.
I guess the most straightforward thing to do would be to write the author again, ask for an explicit statement, and do the routine OTRS procedure; however, I don't know how much of this Asmadeus, who sent the email, actually did. And he hasn't been active recently. – Unint 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Resuming here the discussion that started on my User talk page, Parsifal had some good points:
I have long maintained that electronic music is not a genre, but rather that various genres may utilize electronic means. From this point of view, there is nothing wrong with speaking of Experimental Electronic Music, just as we may speak of Postmodernist Electronic Music, Neoclassical Electronic Music, etc. The problem is with that word "classical", which tends to imply "art" music that has a long pedigree, and there is not much electronic music that has been around long enough to make such a claim (Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge, Badings's Capriccio for Violin and Two Soundtracks, and perhaps a handful of other pieces from the 1950s?). Parsifal also asked:
I don't especially like it, mainly for the reason that has been brought up by others: it's not a familiar term, and sounds like it was specially made up for the purpose. The qualifier "serious" has long been objected to by jazz and other musicians who contend that their art is just as serious as those who describe their work as "serious music", so that won't do, either. Besides, the Art music disambiguation page redirects "Contemporary serious music" to "Contemporary classical music" (another title that makes me squirm). I agree that "the main article at Electronic music . . . needs to be enough of an overview to lead to articles both in the serious/erudite side and the popular areas such as Electronic dance music and others." I also concur with:
Then Doktor Who chimed in and made an excellent point:
In fact, one thing that I am becoming increasingly aware of in the article under discussion here is how much of it wanders away from composers and their music into the realm of technology—even if sometimes it is necessary to mention it in order to discuss how and why a certain style or piece was enabled by new developments in the machinery. I would like to end here by repeating my question to Doktor Who, when he mooted changing this article's title to just plain "Electronic music": In this case, what should the article now titled "Electronic music" be changed to?-- Jerome Kohl 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see such a positive conversation about a difficult challenge. The current state of the many electronic music articles came about in an ad-hoc manner over a long time, resulting in unclear distinctions and overlapping topics. We'll have to accept it's going to take a while to figure out the best way to organize them, especially because the content of some of them is so jumbled and intertwined. The text can't just be moved, it will need to be split and merged between different articles to get each section into the right places. And much of it is repeated in the different articles now, especially in the electronic pop, rock, and dance areas, though not all versions are the same so they'll need to be conformed.
In the list of "see also" at Electronic music there are even articles more we haven't mentioned yet. I wonder if the best way to proceed would be to make a map or tree of the electronic genres, on the talk page first, and then once we have plan, then we can check the articles to see which sections need to be moved from one to another, or which sections need to be merged into other sections, including deleting duplicate info that might not exactly match.
In the meantime, the title Electronic music (classical) is not appropriate for many reasons as discussed above. Also, it looks like a disambiguation page title, and that's not needed and doesn't look like any of the other Electronic music titles. So for now, based on the conversation above, I'm returning this page to its prior name of Electronic art music.
I'm not attached to keeping that title, but it's better than the other. If anyone would prefer something else, I'm amenable to any good ideas. The move to Electronic music (classical) though, was done by one person without discussion, and it's not a good title. Electronic art music is better, even if we just consider it a working title for now.
Also, there was a problem with the redirect page, so I had to use Electronic Art Music. The capitalization per WP:MOS should be Electronic art music, but the software would not accept the redirect because the redirect page history was not empty. I'm pretty sure a robot will correct this within a couple days. If not, we can request administrative help later, or who knows, we might still come up with a better title by then. -- Parsifal Hello 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor (I won't name him here, so it's clear that this is not personal) moved the page again today,without discussing the change on the talk page. This time he moved it to Electronic music (art).
I revert the change and moved it back to Electronic art music based on the above discussions. Also, this page is a separate topic and not a disambiguation of Electronic music, so it should not be titled as if it were a disambiguation.
There are changes in progress that will move some of the content of Electronic music into this article and some of it into Electronic dance music. This process is under discussion and page titles should not be changed until we've agreed on the plan, because it's disruptive and confusing for pages to be moved multiple times.
Based on past events, I have to assume that the non-consensus change may be repeated, so I don't know what the page name will be when you read this. Help maintaining the original title by reverting changes, or maintaining any proper name that has agreement among editors, would be appreciated.
Further comments are welcome. -- Parsifal Hello 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. I've now looked into this a bit and have located some references that confirm the use of the term electronic art music . I don't have time to add them now, and will do so when I can. -- Parsifal Hello 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Britannica writes as the Electronic Music. Rather, before coming to Wikipedia, I did not heard this term Electronic art music. Look to google, it appears as 13,000. When was Electronic art music article add to wikipedia? 5 years before. Some website last.fm, myspace, some recent web site.
I think not one person will revert this before, only Mr Parsifal, maybe now there is more people revert from him, really I believe there is subtle "poison the well" sometimes, not mean-spirited, but accident. Whoever read Parsifal post will hate me, but I love Electronic music, study it, want to become that, enjoy Tod Dockstader, so thrill!! I like Wikipedia also, be friends is best ^-^
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electronic%20music dictionary is no electronic art music, only electronic music for this...
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title.
For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to several different things, including: an element, a planet, an automobile brand, a record label, a NASA manned-spaceflight project, a plant, and a Roman god. Since only one Wikipedia page can have the generic name "Mercury", unambiguous article titles must be used for each of these topics: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), Mercury Records, Project Mercury, Mercury (plant), Mercury (mythology). There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation.
Please read this if you have free time " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation
One support is Dr Who, he will support it already. Then, I will feel frustration, defeat, if Electronic art music survives. It will be a dark day. -- Susume-eat 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Doktor Who, your accusation that I exhibit WP:OWN about this article is way out of line. Of the most recent 500 edits, I have edited the article less than 15 times. If you would like to discuss the article content or title, you are welcome to do so. But stop discussing me personally, that does not belong here.
There are at least a couple other editors who concensed with keeping the title as Electronic art music. There are two of you, and three of the opposite. That's not a vote, and it's also not consensus for either choice. But it's certainly not a consensus to change the article title. I work collaboratively, and there was progress being made in organizing this group of articles by several editors. That now has come to a stop again due to disruptive page moves without allowing time for the other editors to comment. -- Parsifal Hello 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
After the changes made by the two editors arguing above for the page move to Electronic music (art), the introductory sentence of the article is circular and unclear. It also no longer refers to the main article at Electronic music, creating additional confusion. At the time I write this, the edited version I am referring to is at this link. The more effective version prior to those edits is here. (There are a few unrelated changes that are OK, but the basic intro is confusing now. Aside from this issue, there is certainly plenty of room for improving the intro further).
If someone would like to fix it, that would be great. It would also be good if someone would like to fix the title of the article, which as it is now, Electronic music (art), makes no sense.
As we have been discussing above, prior to this disruption, this article and the main article at Electronic music need improvement and organization, and there are a variety of issues that affect how that will be done.
Meanwhile, the working title for this page, Electronic art music, was pretty good, as was agreed by three editors around a week ago. Maybe not perfect, but good as an interim title until we figure out the best way to organize the various related topics. Electronic music covers a wide range of genres, styles, scenes or whatever word one wishes to use... but it is not synonymous with the topic of this article - which describes "serious" or "erudite" or "art music" forms of electronic music, and so should not have a disambiguation title as it is not an "alternate" form of the same words. Electronic music includes various "popular" forms as well.
This is not a "genre" hierarchy, because "art" or "serious" music is in a separate genre branch from "popular music"; rather "electronic music" is a definition based on what kind of equipment or instruments are used to make the music. This is a multiple dimension question, not a simple tree. There is a genre tree, but the use of electronic instruments cuts across the tree and subsumes multiple genres that otherwise would not be related. That's why this article needs a separate title, not a disambiguation title.
It is clear that my point is valid in the way that the intro to this article became confused by simply removing the word "art" from the bold words naming the article title in the first sentence. It went from being a good description of the topic to a confusing circular definition that doesn't orient the reader at all.
I know how to fix the problems here, but I'm not going to do it without support. I'm not interested in guarding the article. I am going to leave this be and await comments by other editors.
I strongly encourage interested editors to revert the messy changes and continue the electronic music organization discussions that were in progress. After a while, the improvements to this page and Electronic music we've been discussing can be made. But if there is not enough interest, then we'll lose this article and I won't try to save it by myself. -- Parsifal Hello 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I found several references for the term "electronic art music" and added them to the page, also moved the page back to the consensed version of the title. Those references also fit into some of the historical sections of the article, so they provided value in mutliple ways.
The several electronic music top level articles still need to be better organized, but at least this title has support now from sources. We should consider that the main electronic music article overlaps with this one and with several of the "popular" electronic music articles pages, and also that there is lack of clarity regarding the evolution of the electronic musical instruments vs the composers' history. On one hand, it seems those should be separate articles, then again, because the equipment was evolving along with the composers, and their work arose out of the new equipment available, it's hard to separate the two. Yet we have separate articles with parallel tracks currently, so this still needs thought and improved organization. Also, one more point, none of these articles clearly address recent developments in electronic equipment, that might be in the computer music article or other places, but also, there is contemporary electronic art music happening today, breaking new ground; and so far we don't have anything about that as far as I can see.
Plenty more to do, that's for sure! -- Parsifal Hello 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Bastard!! -- Susume-eat 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done, Parsifal! I'm sure that Suseme-eat meant to congratulate you, as well, only his tenuous grasp of English may have resulted in the opposite impression. As Père Ubu would have said, Merdre!-- Jerome Kohl 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The invention of FM synthesis doesn't belong in the section on MIDI. It belongs in the missing -- equally important to art music -- section of this article which briefly the development and role of various sound synthesis methods. FM would fit into that, along with additive, subtractive, granular, et.al. and links to the respective articles. Twang 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I will give up, there is too much of the vandalism and ugliness of editing of this man. To researchers of the future I beg you, please look into this man's crank vandalisms. I am so angry Bastard-- Susume-eat 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)