Tingen

Acapella

You made the comment "If remixers are named, the original mixer should also be named. If original mixer is not named, the remixers' names should be taken off also." This is not wikipedia policy so please do not try and pass it off as policy. Also it is not sourced nor is it relevant in the same context. The people doing the remixers are producers not track engineers. If you've bought the single you'd see that it says "Acapella (Dave Aude Remix)" but the original song itself doesn't say "Acapella (mixed by Dylan Dresdow)". The given names in the single are the names of those versions not necessarily the remixer. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

if you look at Telephone (song) you'll see that mixers are usually mentioned in a personnel section which goes directly below the track listing. I accept your point but it is impossible for us to list the single without listing the name of the remixes. Listing "Acapella" by itself is correct because this is the name of the song. The information in small brackets is the song-writer. If you genuinly believe that role of mixers is that important please bring it up at WP:SONGS where more of the community can get involved with the discussion. That's where real change happens. But as for this article and for the time being i wouldn't recommend adding this information to the article considering that it is not currently standard practise nor is the information sourced.Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been asked to refrain from adding the alleged 'mixer' to the song's tracklisting and you have failed to adhere even though there is no clear consensus to use this. It is NOT standard practise and in this case its not even sourced. I said if you wish for it to be added then you need to find a source which proves it then list it at Talk: Acapella (song) and see what WP:consensus says. Alternatively if you think our policy of not including it is wrong then bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs where the policy for for song pages is decided. The track listing should contain the name of the song. The original version is simply called "Acapella" whilst the official remix is called "Acapella (Dave Áude Remix)". We don't include Dave Aude's name because he's the producer or mixer we include his name because that's what the remix is called. If you add the information once more i will have no choice but to report the incident to administrators. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique: you're only 19 years old and you already sound like the world's worst bureaucrat and control freak! Lighten up! It seems like you have already forgotten that rules, agreements, and what you call "standard practice" are there for a reason: to get desired results. And sometimes rules, regulations and/or "standard practice suck and one has to be a little flexible and apply some common sense to come to a result that obviously is fairer, or more correct, or whatever. Why you dig yourself in like this, when all I'm trying to do is make sure that one key person in the making of records is properly credited in wikipedia song entries, escapes me. You could also say: 'fair enough: you have the experience in the music industry, I've done some reading up, it seems like the original mixer is indeed very important, leave it with me and I'll try to find a way organise the song format in such a way that the original mixer is routinely credited.'

Instead you seem to make it an issue of personal pride to kick someone who has 20 years of experience in the music industry, at the highest level, and who is trying to give credit where credit is due, in the shins. Bizarre and it gives wikipedia a bad name. I mentioned to a few high level folk in Los Angeles (ie, men who make #1 hit records) what you're doing and they're shaking their heads in dismay. As per your suggestion to take it up with the Wiki songs community, I'll try, but you know, I have kids, a job, in general a life, and don't see why I should go to such much trouble to get something very simple and obviously reasonable done... Btw, if you want to verify the Dylan Dresdow mix credit, go to his web site: http://www.papervustudio.com/contact.html, and ask him. Don't forget to also ask Dylan for his feedback on your stance here... You know, one day you'll hopefully learn: sometimes information is found in real life and not in print, and sometimes you have to do a little first-hand research and believe your own ears and eyes and not only 2nd hand knowledge...

You appear not to understand the issue. Its not a personal attack on your or engineers in general. Also I am personally not in charge of all music related articles. Your excuses are quite pointless. We all have a life outside of wikipedia which makes us busy. Because wikipedia is a self-regulating encylopedia the community has to decide what is verifiable and notifiable for mention in articles to maintain standards. So far you have failed to provide any reason as to why the credits are notable enough for mention even though you cannot provide an independent source which specifically states that Dylan Dresdow is the mixer for the track (personal websites are not appropriate). The track listing section which appears in article should have the names of a song and its remixes only. This is the case with the majority of articles on wikipedia. Take a look at any of the recent Black Eyed Peas recent releases. Wikipedia is not self-promotion nor is it a place to give everyone who works on a song credit. It is not a repertoire for song credits. I don't appreciate you blowing this out of proportion. Like i said we're happy to discuss it at the project songs page as thats were we decide song rules. I have said all i have to say and its obvious that you can't follow wikipedia rules. You didn't even sign your posts. If you make edits to the article once more I will report you to administrators and request a block or editing ban.Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique, I accept that I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia common practice and all the ins and outs of commenting and discussing; by contrast, you repeatedly claim to be an expert, so why don't you assume good faith on my part, etc? I've actually given my real name and put my professional reputation on the line. Yet instead of honouring that, you keep slamming down the rule book on me. Trawling around on Wikipedia a bit, I found this suggestion:

"I will always assume good faith on the part of my fellow editors and will be civil at all times, even to those who are not civil to me. I will NOT attack my fellow editors or disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If involved in a content dispute, I will NOT engage in edit warring and will instead discuss contested edits and/or seek dispute resolution."

Sounds good. Was my repeatedly adding Dresdow's name "edit warring," and if it was/is, is it worthy of threatening to report me? And if so, aren't/weren't you doing the same thing? My addition of Dresdow's name doesn't harm the article, it enhances it, and given what I've revealed about my background, you could at least have accepted the accuracy of my entry, even as you're welcome to point out it's not 'common practice.' So? Aren't you just trying to "make a point" here? Seems like that to me. As you're so experienced in common practice, why don't you give me a good example of how Wikipedians resolve disputes like this? Tingen (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all i never claimed to be an expert. Second of all i'm not making a point i'm upholding policy and standards. Third of all although i appreciated your enthusiasm and everyone is welcome to edit wikipedia we need to follow protocol. You are edit warring because there is no WP:consensus to include the mixer/engineer names in track listing. When things are not listed in policy it is standard practise to seek consensus. Also i have assumed good faith with you, i have asked you to provide a reliable verifiable source but you can not. Therefore adding Dresdow's name to the article is harmful in the sense that its trivial and unsourced. It was in good faith that i pointed out that you have made some valid arguments which need to be taken to WP:Songs to see what the community thinks about the idea of adding engineer names to article. The conclusion is as follows:

• The information you wish to add to the article is unsourced.
• The manner in which you wish to add the information to the article is not standard practise.
• There is no consensus to include the information in the article in the way you wish to.
• You have consistantly disregarded rules and policy over what appears to a movement to promote the relevance of track engineers possibly because you are one yourself? or because you work in the industry and appear to be of the opinion that they do not get enough credit.
• Finally I'm sorry if you felt i was threatening you i merely trying to point out that if you keep making this an issue by not following protocol or engaging in discussion about why you feel the information should be added to the article, then administrators may have to be involved to moderate the issue. All of this is outlined at WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:IDHT and WP:TEDIOUS

I am more than happy to discuss the issue in length about the purpose and role of track engineers but we must agree that until WP:consensus says otherwise adding such information to an article is not standard practise. I've crossed the comments i made earlier because i accept it was a little harsh. If you are who claim to be then i believe that your industry knowledge could be quite helpful and i would be interesting in learning from you.Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique1: what got my heckles up initially was that you deleted the mixer's name I added as "irrelevant." Above you make more or less the same statement by saying it is "trivial." Both of these are patently untrue, and naming remixers of a song when the original mixer is not named is hugely unfair to the original mixer and gives a very lobsided impression of the way a song came into being. Sourcing is a different issue. I can print Dresdow's e-mail, or will.i.am's assistant's e-mail, both confirming to me that Dresdow did the original mix; or I can get a statement from the record company. But would that be acceptable, and not be dismissed as original research? Also, I can't print their e-mail addresses, so I therefore suggest we wait until May 17, when the Kelis album will be released and the mixing credits will be published in the CD booklet. By the way, I don't work as a tracking engineer or mixer. My position is simply that crediting should be done where it is due, and the role of the today's original mixers is as, if not more, important as that of remixers. It has therefore always frustrated me to see remixers mentioned in Wikipedia song entries (and hair stylists, and whatnot, whose jobs I would argue are indeed irrelevant and trivial) and not the original mixer, who plays a hugely important role.

I appreciate you towards the end of your response above acknowledging my industry knowledge, and if you don't mind I'd like to point out that above you mix up, so to speak, the mixer and the "track engineer," which are completely different functions. In modern music, and particularly in urban music, the role of the mixer is way way more important than that of the tracking engineer. The latter generally does simply what he is told by the producer and artist, and he/she is mainly hired for his or her technical skills. The mixer also has extensive technical skills, but is mainly hired for his creative skills, his vision, his creative input. His job is to draw all the different ideas together in a uniform whole, and often he adds his own things, like drum and other samples, sometimes he adds overdubs, sometimes he edits the structure of the song and/or changes the arrangement. Have a read through some my mix articles for Sound on Sound, and you'll see what mixers do, as opposed to tracking engineers (though sometimes they are the same person).

Also, for instance, research Bob Clearmountain, who was probably the first engineer who elevated mixing from simply balancing a recording to an art form akin to producing, and, if you want, remixing. Since the 1990s, with more and more recording being done at home or in project studios by people with limited technical knowledge, the role of the mixer has become more and more important as the person who gives often flawed or amateurish-sounding recordings a 'professional' sound and who in the process also adds his creative touch. For this reason some of the top mixers today can command part-payment in points (ie a percentage of the sales of a song/album) just like producers can. In this sense it is almost as relevant to mention the original mixer in the Wikipedia entry of songs as it is to mention the producer, particularly in urban music, and in general I'd say for all songs mixed after 1990. The mixer comes immediately after the producer and artist (and often after the A&R man) in the creative hierarchy, but way before session musicians, tracking engineers, and so on. Where to credit the mixer is another issue. I'd suggest the listing of different versions of a song is a good place, or in the summary box on the top right. If you're up for bringing this point to the attention of the WP song discussion, I'd be most grateful, thank you. Tingen (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)