Talk:Noise (music)

Mess

I removed old history here that cut and pasted from another article page history in this move dispute; see the other page, whatever it's currently named (like Noise (music genre). Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Name

...pre 2012 stuff removed...

That move makes no sense to me, and there's no valid rationale given for it that I've found as yet. I am considering raising a requested move to move it back, or at worst to document the reasons for having it at this title. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

you are making significant changes without consensus. This article is not about a 'genre' of music. It would be better to wait for input on this before making significant changes and moves across a range of article titles. Semitransgenic_talk. 11:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This post resulted in an edit conflict, so my explanation of what I've done is belated but here it is: On reflection, and further consulting the archives of this page, I've decided to be bold and move this article from noise (music) to noise (music genre), modify the redir at noise music to still point here, and start a new stub at noise (music) to deal with the more general topic of noise in music. Note that this has not required any use of admin powers, but in any case I think there was a consensus that the title noise (music) was not a good one for the genre, and this outcome seems to answer the only objection to moving it back to noise music (about which I am now neutral, I think it's probably a good idea but the current situation is quite satifactory).

So, disagree that there is no consensus, agree that the changes are significant. What's your proposal? Would noise music be the best title, or noise (music technique)? I note that the category is Category:Noise music. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I note that the lead reads Noise music is a term used to describe varieties of avant-garde music and sound art that may use elements such as cacophony, dissonance, atonality, noise, indeterminacy, and repetition in their realization. [1] (and has for some time). That both goes beyond the use of noise in music, and also fails to cover the topic of noise in music fully, so it's a very poor match for the title noise (music).Andrewa (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and agree that it would be good to wait more than a few hours for comment on moves across a range of article titles, but there are no such moves made or proposed.Andrewa (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

a number of redirects were made and page 'noise (music genre)' was initiated. We now have noise music, noise (music), and noise (music genre). Semitransgenic _talk. 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly one article redirect was generated by my move, and this is the normal consequence of a simple article move to a new name. The other redirect has been there for ages, and I modified it to point to the new title and avoid a double redirect. Again this is normal housekeeping following a simple move, and if I hadn't done this a bot would have done it automatically, as it subsequently did to fix the double redirect then created by your revert [2]. Andrewa (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note also that Category:Noise music is currently [3] a subcategory of Category:Electronic music genres. Are you saying this is incorrect?

Japanoise would be more accruate in this context. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean... are you saying that Category:Noise music should be a subcategory of a still-to-be-created Category:Japanoise? As the Japanoise article is listed as a Music genre stub, this would still make it a genre of its own, wouldn't it? Andrewa (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, is the topic noise music a genre, but this article is about something else? If so, what?

Note also that this article uses Template:Infobox music genre. Is this also incorrect?

i would tend to believe it is at least inaccurate, possibly incorrect. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how something can be inaccurate without being incorrect, in this context. But you seem to be saying that major parts of this article are currently inaccurate. Surely, you should have fixed that first, rather than performing a move which the current article content does not support (even if this move were to be done properly)? Part of the problem now is that if you now update the article, we'll later need to do a history merge, as you've lost connection with the article history. Strongly suggest you take your own advice and discuss below before doing anything more. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not for a moment saying that the current situation is ideal, just that it seems to be progress. There's still a lot to do, especially if, as you claim, This article is not about a 'genre' of music. Andrewa (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to be bold, but it may be a better idea to allow the main contributing editors a chance to provide input; before any such changes take place. Additionally, just so we are on the same page, the comment above re:this article having morphed into a history of noise in music and the arts, rather than it clearly being an article about a single genre of music, is attributable to me, it was made using a now defunct account. There are too many disparate elements in the article to reduce it all to a single genre of music. If anything it deals with an aesthetic, it's a theoretical approach to creative sound production, irrespective of form, style, or genre. I am open to hearing what other contributors think about this move and if consensus exists, I'm good with that. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have made a real mess of this. See below, and please don't do any more cut-and-paste (or I suggest other) moves until you understand the system. Andrewa (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Transgenre issues

Copied from Talk:Noise (music genre). We now have a real mess, and I'm not quite sure how to best sort it out, but talk page history isn't as important as article history. Please don't do cut-and-paste moves. Andrewa (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting a little complicated. User:Semitransgenic has now done a cut-and-paste move [4], but and has yet to provide any rationale for it [5].

I'm not going to further complicate matters. Let's discuss now and then fix later. Questions to be resolved below. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Noise (music), forked by User:Semitransgenic from this page. Andrewa (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This comment, prior to the copy, dos not apply here of course. Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@Andrewa ideally you should really have waited for people to comment on your proposal before making such sweeping changes to an article that up until now seems to have been of no interest to you. Your changes were done in such a manner that a straight forward reversion of a move using standard means was practically impossible. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I made no no sweeping changes, just a single, simple, very standard move, done in a very standard way, and requiring no sysop powers, any confirmed user could have done it. This move was responding to what two other users had observed, that the name noise (music) is unsatisfactory for the article as it is and long has been, and neither you nor anybody else had replied to these comments. That is a strong consensus. Yes, it did need an admin to reverse it, that's what WP:RM is for, and it would have been easily and speedily done. In glorious hindsight I certainly made a mistake in not raising an RM on this occasion.

But it was I think an understandable mistake. As I said above, the need was raised by two other contributors, and their comments to this affect were unanswered. I could not anticipate your rash actions in response.

You might also like to read WP:OWN. Andrewa (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@Andrewa this has nothing to do with "ownership." I think reverting something to its most recent stable condition and then placing a request for discussion on the matter is reasonable. Additionally, the discussion you replied to above, was, for all intents and purposes, dead (Dec. 2009), it should have been archived ages ago. Moving the article back was not a simple matter of reverting a move and deleting a redirect because the original article title had been reassigned. Anyway, this is immaterial at this point, as we appear to have moved forward. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with most of this. The issues raised in the previous discussions were and are important and had not been resolved. Yes, you could not simply revert, that is an unfortunate restriction of the system, but that's not my fault. It may have seemed to you that I made it difficult, but that's just because you didn't understand the system. You have raised issues of ownership I believe, both in your comments and in your actions.

The problem arose because you objected so strongly to describing either noise or noise music as a music genre. You have still to provide any justification for this, despite many invitations to do so, and it took me by complete surprise.

Agree we are now moving forward. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to detail sources that might go some way toward justifying my position re:the noise/music/genre/not-genre conundrum, however the objection related to you retitling the article 'noise (music genre)' when it is patently not about a specific genre of music; it is more generally about the use of noise based sonorities in an artistic, musical, and pseudo-musical context. Seems like a valid objection. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is noise a music genre

It seems to me that it is a genre, and that it deserves an article, and that this is an article on the genre.

If it isn't then this article shouldn't use Template:Infobox music genre, and the lead shouldn't read Noise music is a term used to describe varieties of avant-garde music and sound art that may use elements such as cacophony, dissonance, atonality, noise, indeterminacy, and repetition in their realization (my emphasis). Andrewa (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is noise music a music genre

It seems to me that it is, and that it's the same genre that is described as noise for short when the context makes the meaning clear, just as the terms rock and swing are similarly used.

If it isn't then noise music shouldn't redirect to this article, and Category:Noise music doesn't belong in Category:Electronic music genres or Category:Experimental music genres, and the lead shouldn't read Noise music is a term used to describe varieties of avant-garde music and sound art that may use elements such as cacophony, dissonance, atonality, noise, indeterminacy, and repetition in their realization (bolding as in the article). Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Should noise music have its own article

A search on "Noise music" -Wikipedia gets me 1,800,000 ghits. This plus the fact that we have a Category:Noise music currently containing 88 articles and 6 subcategories, all of them containing further articles and having subcategories themselves containing further articles and in some instances further subcategories containing still further articles, seems to indicate that noise music is a significant topic. Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What does noise mean in music

It seems to me that it has meanings that are quite outside the scope of this article. The snare drum for example produces sounds that contain a great deal of noise. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Where to

Quite a lot of the material in this article does belong in the noise (music) article, but the current lead clearly focusses on the genre, as do the categories and the infobox.

It seems to me that the neatest solution at this point would be to bite the bullet and move this article from noise (music genre) to noise music. This would restore the article history, which is necessary anyway.

Noise (music) should then become an article on all uses of noise in music. See Noise#Use in Music for a start. Preserving its current article history is not important, as I'm the only contributor so far.

Alternatively, we can rewrite this article, starting with the lead, to include all uses of noise in music, and change the lead, infobox, categories and so on to match this. To do this, we'd first need to move this article back from noise (music genre) to noise (music), again to restore the history.

I'm happy with this alternative if it's agreed to, but it's a lot more work and IMO sub-optimal so far as edit history goes. I think that the genre noise music described by the current lead will eventually be split out as an article of its own even if for the moment we make it a section of this article.

Either of these proposals should go to WP:RM, but let's see whether we can make any progress here first. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a third possibility, and that is to leave the histories as they are, rewrite this article to be a general treatment of noise in music, as a split from the original article whose history is at noise (music genre). We can then move that article somewhere sensible (or leave it where it is) to cover the specialised aspects of the genre (or whatever you wish to call it). Andrewa (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Some things that seem agreed

(between myself and User:Semitransgenic at least)

This article noise (music):

• Is not primarily about a music genre.
• Should not use Infobox music genre.
• Is not primarily about noise music.

OK so far? Anyone else object to these, or do we have consensus? Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

despite my comments above I have to agree with your appraisal and support a move to 'noise music' as the simplest solution to this current mess, we then work on this new 'noise (music)' take. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Progress. Andrewa (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you are prepared for me to split the article provided it's to noise (music) removing references to the (controversial concept of) genre, with material going to noise music for the genre-related aspects (which you call by other names) and the article history going there too.

Does that include retaining the music genres infobox and music genre categories for the noise music article? I can see no justification whatsoever for removing them, in terms of the lead at genre.

Would you also allow me to revert your blanking of noise (music genre) in order to restore the history there, and to allow us to start work on the genre-or-whatever-related article there? I will then raise a requested move to shift he article to noise music, but that will take a week or so to actually happen. And of course it may not, depending on consensus there. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to any of the above. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert of cut-and-paste

No matter what we decide about titling, the "improper cut/paste move" by Semitransgenic must be reverted immediately. I'll do that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To the article, you mean? I'm of two minds on that in view of the intention to split, but no objections, good luck. What about the talk pages? Andrewa (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Noise (music genre)#Restored. Andrewa (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Related move discussion

See Talk:Noise (music genre)#Requested move. Andrewa (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect target

Changed to point to the new article at noise in music. This is the more general article, and points to the other in several appropriate places. Andrewa (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And reverted [6]... the vast majority of links to this redirect want the noise music article. Do a hatnote instead for the moment. Andrewa (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have created a redir at noise (Music), see talk:noise (Music), as a workaround.

I still think the title noise (music) should more logically point to the more general article noise in music, and another redir (not necessarily noise (music genre), many others would do... choose one that's unproblematical) should then point to noise music (or to wherever the detailed article on noise music ends up) to make the pipe trick available for that article too where the context makes it helpful.

But, do we really care? I don't. That involves a good deal of work fixing links that already go through noise (music) to get to the noise music article. Just so long as there are two appropriate redirs, one for each article, I'm happy. Andrewa (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so should this redirect be changed to noise in music? A lot of links would have to be changed, but that's the nature of the beast.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO it should be, see Talk:Noise in music#Hatnote and scope, but it's not a high priority. Unless or until it is, Noise (Music) is a useful workaround, see Talk:Noise (Music). Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)