Talk:Post-disco/Archive 1

---

Remove

• Removing some wiki links from "External Links" section (These links are irrelevant to post-disco): a Hi-NRG link and Italo Disco link. In fact, Post-disco influenced italo-disco in beginnings, but italo-disco is other class music. Taking it all, Italo-disco link you can find in infobox, in "Derivative forms" segment. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dance-rock redirection

I change the dance-rock redirection, from dance music to [[Post-disco#Dance-Rock]] . From actual-point-of-view , Dance-Rock can not have its own article, because of its sources. Dance-Rock's only source is All Music Guide, so there can be a WP:V problem. Anyway, Google finds "nothing" (only just irrelevant pages), except.. yes AMG and Last.fm. However, some remarking have page of Billboard magazine from 2004.

I also created Dance-Rock redirect. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AllMusic source

This article is one of a number of music genre articles that were created solely using AllMusic as a source, and for which few other sources seemed to be available. I'd rather have just deleted it, but decided instead to trim and rephrase it so that it was perfectly clear that elevating the term "post-disco" to genre status was apparently an attempt to fill a gap in AllMusic's taxonomy of genres, and that it was the creation of a now-uncredited individual author who was paid to write it. Also I wanted to show the author never really defined it as a musical style; it wasn't ever established how it was related to disco on one end and house music on the other.

Recently the article has been expanded to cite other mentions of "post-disco". I'm fine with that, but I'm not convinced every use of the term was really intended to be interpreted as a genre name. I'm just afraid this article is doing the exact same thing the AllMusic blurb did: trying too hard to give traction to a name for something that really didn't have a name, or that perhaps was only called "boogie". I feel like I'd rather see a section of the Boogie article devoted to the dance music genre than to continue down the road of searching for vague references to dance music in the post-disco era as evidence of an accepted genre name. —mjb (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that post-disco is also genre ("boogie"), but also a movement, but that's WP:POV. I don't know.. I mean I don't understand what's really "post-disco" (after disco era / boogie genre ?) means at all. If it is "era" so all tracks to present is "post-disco", but if it is a genre... (unsourced; only AMG and some kind of sites like " danceclassics.net" etc). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OR & source misrepresentation in lead: analysis

None of the cited sources other than Allmusic suggest that "post-disco" is a genre. Many of the citations are also WP:SPS.

The term post-disco (or simply boogie) has multiple meanings. Citation does not support the assertion that "post-disco" has multiple meanings or that it is a term interchangeable with Boogie

Sometime after 1990, an Allmusic editorial contributor used "post-disco" in an attempt to isolate a dance music genre in the era between the indistinct "end" of disco music and the equally indistinct emergence of house music. Proposition unsupported by a third party verifiable source, this is editorial analysis therefore WP:OR

"Post-disco" was used in 1984 by Cadence Magazine when defining post-disco soul as disco without the loud bass-drum thump. Editorial observation WP:OR

In 1985, New York Magazine referenced post-disco in relation to electronic funk. Editorial observation WP:OR

Other authors emphasize "post-" (meaning "after")) to indicate a greater disconnect from the disco era and disco-influenced music. Editorial observation WP:OR

Billboard Magazine, for example, mentioned the word twice: in 1982, when dividing post-disco movements into another category called "post-disco pop", citing Knack, Barbra Streisand, Kenny Rogers, and Christopher Cross as new wave and adult contemporary artists who figured in this kind of music, and in 1994, when the word was used in relation to reggae song "Pass The Dutchie" by Musical Youth. Editorial analysis WP:OR

The Allmusic author provides few specifics other than implying post-disco follows from the DJ- and producer-driven, increasingly electronic side of disco; and singling out "boogie" ("midtempo tracks steeped in funk"), early Italo-disco ("electronic tracks with heavy traces of Giorgio Moroder") and "the beginnings of alternative dance" as forms of the post-disco "genre". Editorial analysis WP:OR

In 2006, however, another author explicitly referenced both house music and techno as forms of post-disco. and techno. Likewise, George E. Haggerty, in his 2000 book Gay Histories and Cultures, says house is a form of post-disco dance music that has been popular in Chicago clubs, and Michael Campbell, in his 2008 book Popular Music in America defined techno as post-disco dance music. Misrepresentation of sources, it clearly uses the term post-disco to refer to a period in musical history and does not suggest that post-disco is a genre of music unto itself the editorial analysis leads to a synthetic conclusion WP:SYN & WP:OR

87.198.250.34 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

so-much-hard-analysis - Your edit: possible vandalism

See articles: Alternative dance, Post-punk, post-rock, dance-pop.. contains so much WP:OR/WP:SPS too, why you so much attacking on post-disco (it's the same thing as "post-rock" or "post-punk")... If it is a genre or just era or period, WHO THE FUCK CARES?  ;) I suppose that you're some kind of troll or what. Yeah, I got it, now I'm pwned. Have you anyway see these sources? (full citations), maybe not. WP:SPS? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever "heard". RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think, you're wrong. The article is written in (mostly in) NPOV style. Difference between OR and NPOV:

• OR: Post-disco is a genre and also an movement.
• NPOV: [the term] Post-disco has multiple meanings (+sources about "post-disco" mentioning. One source with artists referencing and another source which say for example "...bombastic kick-ass song from post-disco era..."/"...fucking bad song from post-disco movement...".. and source that use the word post-disco with meaning "after disco".

However, post-rock, and post-punk are ALSO genres/movements, that use the prefix "post" meaning 'after', so technically POST-PUNK, POST-DISCO, and POST-ROCK doesn't exist ) - So you maybe should nominate the post-rock, post-disco, post-punk articles for deletion.. oh don't forget about Alternative dance, another All Musig Guide "myth", and also dance-pop for poor sources. And you know what? You should have to nominate for deletion the whole Wikipedia Foundation, because for articles that are full of editorial so-called "analysis" and "observations". RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a troll is WP:AGF so please don't do it, also accusing an editor of vandalism is a serious charge. Overall, foot stomping is not constructive, and yes, if I had time I would tackle every single misrepresentation of information on wikipedia, unfortunately, I can only deal with the subjects that are closest to home.The genre definition issue is hugely problematic across a range of wiki music articles, and many of them are attributable to editors who have created pet projects about their favorite style of music (and who then cling fastidiously to their opinions; while displaying a remarkable ignorance of valid musicological research). I think that's a real shame, because such stupidity does wikipedia a real disservice, it also perpetuates the spread of disinformation. You really need to spend some time looking at the WP:OR discussion pages, it will help you understand the kind of standards that editors across wikipedia are trying to achieve. 213.208.114.164 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF? I see. Yes, master. Sorry, sir. It will not happen again. Now we're wikifriends, and what will we destroy next? I guess in Alternative Dance article will be so much fun. Oh, don't forget all "post-styles" articles such as post-punk, post-rock, etc, because, these styles doesn't exist at all!!!!!!!!! RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon 87.198.250.34, Thanks for taking a critical look at this article, and thanks for posting on its discussion page rather than taking more extreme action. I have to say, I only really agree with your first and last examples, and even then only to a certain degree. The others in between I think you've missed the mark on. The problem with those parts of the article is not so much the editorial detachment in the characterization of the sources, but rather the fact that the sources themselves aren't really all that informative and "reliable". Given that they're not scholarly works, textbooks, or richy researched journalistic exposés, we've (I've) gone to some trouble to make it especially clear to the reader that this article is only telling you where people have made reference to "post-disco" in ways that provide cues for what the term meant. It's saying "these authors wrote about post-disco in this way…" or at worst, "to these authors, post-disco is…", both of which are much more neutral than simply saying "post-disco is…". When sources are more scholarly and reliable, the latter is an option, but for underdocumented cultural phenomenons, we've got to be more forceful in our disclaimers rather than just relying on footnotes. So the things you attribute to "editorial observation" and "editorial analysis" are really just attempts to paraphrase the works in a way that discourages blind acceptance of the statements in the sources. For example, for us to point out that Allmusic's author attempted to isolate a 'genre' between disco and house and that he was short on specifics (other than that boogie and Italo-Disco are part of post-disco) is hardly controversial; read the source material and tell me how to better characterize it if you disagree. What would be controversial is the alternative you seem to be advocating, which is to blindly, naïvely paraphrase and thus flat-out say, as the author did, that this genre exists and all those things he said about it are matters of fact. That's what this article originally did, basically just copying the original source material, and it was intolerable. Instead, we now take a more cautious approach. So what is your goal here? Suggest tangible improvements to the article. —mjb (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mjb when editors stitch together various instances of a terms usage it is not an encyclopedic article. We are supposed to be referring to what reputable third party sources have written on the subject. Ideally, editorial comments that exist independently of verifiable third party sources should not be used. Essentially, it's a matter of editorial style, I think equivalent rigor should be employed across all articles, others think a scale of importance should determine the extent of rigor employed. I personally do not believe the Allmusic guide should be used as a source of information for anything that is entered on wikipeida, I believe others disagree. An exception would be an instance where Allmusic attributes its entry to a notable "expert". Also, I have no problem citing the likes of Greg Wilson, because he is a notable professional. His online writings may be WP:SPS but he is notable enough to warrant inclusion (but even Wilson says nothing about a genre of music called post-disco!). Let's just remove the material here that is blatantly untrue. I think we can easily demonstrate that Allmusic is, in this instance, and relative to the overwhelming body of verifiable sources, incorrect. If you need me to list examples of usage across a wide range of sources, fine, otherwise, if other editors have a problem here, we can simply move to WP:3O 213.208.114.164 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Now we delete all blatant WP:OR editorial analysis, and let's say "post-disco" style doesn't exist. Boogie? bad sources, Delete!. Dance-rock? just one AMG (unverifiability, WP:OR, WP:SPS, WP:NPOV, etc) Delete!. DELETE EVERYTHING. Proceed! RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

when editors stitch together various instances of a terms usage it is not an encyclopedic article is true enough, but an article would be remiss if it failed to define and explain the nature of its topic. The fact that more material is needed doesn't negate the need for citations which help give the reader a sense of what the topic is.

As noted in my comments in a previous thread, I agree that Allmusic is dubious as a source for pretty much anything, and I don't like the fact that Wikipedia is lending traction to Allmusic's genre taxonomy in particular. However, I'm more prone to go with the flow if there are other editors interested in keeping content around. I've seen this approach work very well, with articles enjoying periods of stability and constructive growth, creeping up to a higher standard over time, because they were allowed to exist for a while in an appropriately tagged yet less-than-ideal state. Articles subjected to the highest standards too soon often languish in wretched cycles of poorly written, unencyclopedic, uncited material getting added, edited and removed. For niche topics such as this one, odds are that most edits will go unnoticed and most readers will see the article in a poor state without even sufficient warnings. That's why I asked your intent here. Do you intend to stay and police the quality of this article for the next few years, checking in often enough to hold it to high standards? Because if you're a 'hit-and-run deletionist', it's my opinion that the short-term good you'll do will be outweighed by the long-term damage likely to follow in your absence. As for me, I only intend to contribute to the extent of tidying-up whatever gets added, and of course fighting vandalism.

Let's just remove the material here that is blatantly untrue. Let's start with the basics. What should the very first sentence be? —mjb (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A questionable one style of music to exist.

First of, I've found a page ("what can allmusic.com be used for?") which says allmusic can be used for biographies, discographies and chart info. I guess this is a kind of consensus; saying in common, afai understood, allmusic.com is kinda questionable source and there are cases when it should be avoided as a source. As the editor of "post-disco" note was anonymous, I want to raise a question about reliability of this note in general.

Further saying, after reading the note at allmusic.com I've defined the following questions/statements:

• Author says "..that is often termed post-disco". But he doesn't provides a bibliography/sources used for his research, where this period is often termed post-disco. Afai see from article references, there are kinda limited examples of such terming, and some of them are published after this anonymous note.
• Author doesn't explicitly define post-disco as a genre. Moreof, he defines it an era in dance music for several times. The only mark of post-disco as a genre is placed outside article/note on post-disco itself.

Commenting on the situation on 'post-disco' I'd say the following:

• The main and possibly the only source for the information on post-disco as a genre is AMG note, which doesn't even say in text it's a genre.
• As the discussion at Techno article revealed, one can hardly distinguish, if authors used "post-disco" as the adjective/general descriptor or a genre descriptor.
• Despite being, let's say straight, a mythical term, post-disco is mentioned in a wide range of articles on music genres, thanks to the contribution of User:RockandDiscoFanCZ. This undoubtfully leads to misinterpretation of the role of the term post-disco in music genre classification, making it way bolder than it is.

I don't suggest to delete this article. Moreof, it should be kept, as this story with AMG note has already caused some controversy and the situation should be explained.

Things I suggest are:

• to remove mentions of post-disco from genre description columns of articles like House music, Italo disco, Dance-pop etc.,
• to remove the link to post-disco article from R&B footer (where, btw, it's listed among soul, funk, and, say, doo-wop),
• to delete post-disco footer,
• to remove mentions of post-disco in genre description field of various songs (placed there by User:RockandDiscoFanCZ),
• to delete categories "Post-disco musicians", "Post-disco albums", "Post-disco" etc.
• to delete article List of post-disco artists and songs.-- Appletangerine un (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Use correct templates & inline templates to describe where's the problem, don't remove anything without discussing. You post this in October 13, now it's December 8 - be patient and stay in touch, don't make controversial edits without us - another editors. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

this has been covered above, and it would be a shame to waste time reiterating the points raised by other editors, basically it appears to have been clearly shown that there are no published WP:RS sources that view post-disco (postdisco) as a genre of music. All of the sources cited in the article discuss post-disco in the context of it being an era. One anonymous paragraph from Allmusic is not enough to support the claim that post-disco is a genre of music. Measles (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For example this article is unsourced SINCE 2007 and still is it in the Wikipedia. I think we should wait for more editors... I have not enough time to find more sources where is "Post-disco is a genre that blah blah" (studying, school, etc..). I should say: wait... wait for the right moment, be patient. There will be more sources and more editors so we can solve a problem with "post-disco" "controversy". Also, "post-rock"/"post-punk"/"post-disco"/post.. etc means all the same after the rock, after the punk, after the disco. We remove post-disco? We can also remove post-punk, post-rock, post-punk articles.. because they're all about era not genre. Post = after (or mail, but this is not about post office disco). Also disco = discotheque, DISCO IS NOT A MUSIC, disco is all the type of music playing on discotheques. See? Same arguments like "post-disco is not a genre but era". This is just stupid. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It has already been discussed prior to this time for several times, that you seem to not understand the difference between general descriptors and genre descriptors / terms. For clearing up the situation, I will provide you with an example.

As you may have noticed, many names of genres of music ("genre descriptors") either consist of several words (examples: dance pop, raga rock, psychedelic rock, progressive trance) or consist of a name of a broader genre and a prefix (examples: post-rock, anti-folk).

At the same time, these word combinations (like, dance pop, electro pop) may not exclusively mean the particular genres of music, but used as general descriptors, ie you can't know if the sentence "I like to dance to dance pop" means "I like to dance to a type of music called 'dance pop'" ("dance pop" is a term) or "I like to dance to pop music that is good for dancing." ("dance pop" is a general descriptor) without knowing a context, in which that sentence was used.

That means not every source that mentions words "post disco" together tells us about the term "post disco". It may either mean "everything what happened after 1979 Disco Demolition Night" (like, "Electro house is a post disco genre of music") or it may have a solid meaning, depending on a context.

While other editors have been analyzing the sources you have found, it was discovered, that the only use of "post disco" as a term happens in appliance to a particular period in the history of popular music, about 1980-1985. But many of those sources use that term as a general combination of words (like,

Moreof, none of those sources explicitly says "post disco" is a solid term used to describe a particular genre of music (if such source even existed, it would only be legal if read like "Post disco is a genre of music"; but such sources don't exist).

And saying even more, if even some source justifying some abstract topic for wikipedia is found it may simply be not enough to justify a existence of a wikipedia article for that topic, if it only defines a subject, but not describes it. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, damn it, this is some kind of school for retard europeans that don't know what's prefix / suffix etec. In before the scene when you say: "Well, this is not same when we talking about post-disco... post-rock, post-punk yes.. but post-disco? it is an era not a genre".

Yes, that's right.. also Synthpop is NOT a kind of "pop" music. Same Electropop/Technopop .- Technopop is not a "techno" music. yes yes.. i know.

yes, we're both right.. but Disco is a shuffle/synths/horns/four-on-thefloor. The music after 70s was so different.. it is not a disco music (AMG sourced it). It has more stripped-down sound, it's more funky, and it have more 4/4 rock rhythm, no strings, http://www.electrofunkroots.co.uk/articles/the_building_blocks_of_boogie.html http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:13417 (they're both right, they're talking about the SAME subject in different names) influences: Funk, Synthpop/R&B and New Wave, influenced: dance-pop, Madonna, house, garage-house, chicago house, Hi-NRG, etc. References of this era (1980~late 1980s)/genre (as you said "Boogie") are hard-to-find, some links calls it as "disco", but this is so incorrect, I think. We're Wikipedia, we like details, so this IS a important subject. And "boogie"? This is incorrect too. Boogie evokes style called "Boogie-Woogie" - a 30s/40s piano style that influenced Rock & Roll and rhythm section in Big Band Era (see? even Big Band have their own era, but it is also a genre. It's just some kind of strange prejudice against musical style/an era called post-disco).

Mm.. it can be also "pre-disco", "after disco", etc .. but in 1973 when Rolling Stone defined "disco" music, they said it's a music from discotheques. See? Even disco is not a kind of music, even era... it's every music played in the discothéques.

"but such sources don't exist. " you're sceptical :) Surely you're not serious. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not shift away from the topic of the discussion. I will repeat the whole concern once again, you have no sources saying post-disco is a genre of music, all sources specific about the topic of post-disco say it is an era in the history of popular music. I am still waiting for your response on this concern as it is the subject of the discussion.

I would also like to ask you once again to leave words like "damn", "retarded" away from your messages in wikipedia. That is not a constructive type of behaviour right here. Thank you. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"You have no sources saying post-disco is a genre of music" please don't say something that I've never said before. Me is in Wikipedia nothing, so we should say "we have no sources etc", yes 1 source saying it = ALL MUSIC GUIDE. Haha, see? One source and you laugh at me that I've no sources. Oh the irony. We have sources providing post-disci is a genre of music (not only an era).

Oh, Mr. "i know everything" tells me what to do? I'm here over 9000 years and you, unfortunently, are new here and tells everybody what to do? Your behaviour is fabulous. Thank you. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

On the music genre infobox

It will be certainly deleted, as it is messed up (all of its fields are filled with the inappropriate information, that is not referenced in either the body of the article or in the infobox itself). The other point is "post disco" being an era in the history of music (that is sourced) and not a genre of music (no sources for such claim). -- Appletangerine un (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, first you add references to genres/influences/derivates/popularity/typical instruments/ etc in infobox on articles: Wonky Pop, New Wave music, Pub rock (UK), Rhythm and blues, Doo-wop (that line Stylistic origins? WOOOOOW!!), Horror punk, post-metal, post-punk (it's more bigger than doo-wop's stylistic origins), Indie rock, etc.. next time you can be so strict on post-disco article I will help you to AfD a post-disco article if you want. I've had it with these strict prejudice attacks on articles with "post-disco" topics although other music articles are full of OR/non-RS/SYNTH, etc.. and nobody cares about (oh the irony!). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, please don't shift away from the topic of the discussion. The topic of this discussion is the inappropriate infobox in the post-disco article. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

no, no... let it shift away, this is Wikipedia, we can discuss here everything. Topic? Everything on the Wikipedia. So let's talk about another articles' infoboxes, then we can talk about problems on this article RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture - reverted

[1] GTA Vice City improperly mentioned, because it is about post-disco era = 1980s. It is a little bit unrelated to this article, okay. Second mention is just perfect. It satirise all these "post-" things (except post office). If you believe it is OR you can tag it with OR^[no!], althrough it is sourced, so your edit summary seems absurd to me. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

it's very clear that no secondary source is cited for this observation, the observation is editorial, therefore OR. Also, following the rationale you suggest, every instance of the term's usage, anywhere, by anyone, should be listed. Unless there is a notable secondary source that discusses "post-disco" in direct relation to popular culture (other than in music), and in a manner that is directly related to the subject of the article (post-disco music), there is no basis for the inclusion of this material. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many incorrect statements about this article and post-disco. Yes, post-disco meaning #2 is "post-disco era"/culture as you said = after the disco music, range from techno, eurobeat, house, hi_nrg, trance, eleectro-pop, post-punk, eurodance and so many others. But there are key people of post-disco, for example producers, DJs whos make some new music so much different from the old - it's not all 80s music. And musicians who led and followed this kind of new music ==> a definition for genre, movement etc. Source no 1: "Though it makes sense to classify any form of dance music made since disco as post-disco, each successive movement has had its own characteristics to make it significantly different from the initial post-disco era, whether it's dance-pop or techno or trance. There's no exact point where the original disco era ended and post-disco began, but as drum machines, synthesizers and programming became common studio tools, disco took on some radically different sounds while remaining similar in rhythmic structure and purpose". That's nice, editorial observation, but all these sources are findable, so put ISBN 0934770832 on google books and find it by yourself, Wikipedia is based on facts, however why by so strict, we're not Encyclopedia Britannica either. It's some kind of jealousy or... i don't even... ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "some kind of jealousy", not sure either why you seem to have changed user name here. Looking at the discussions above, you appear to be solely responsible for pushing a POV agenda on this article, yet have not offered a single published and reliable source that discusses post-disco as a specific genre of music; one that establishes who the "key people of post-disco, for example producers, DJs" are?? the source you quote here discusses a time period, and actually there is an identifiable point in time when disco record sales declined, when it shifted from a major popular music movement to being a niche underground sound, this has been documented. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"repeated inclusion of unsourced content, removed again" you know we have tags like clearing, reverting and deleting is a big nonsense at all. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"you appear to be solely responsible for pushing a POV agenda on this article" - obvious WP:POV/WP:PA. I'm maybe #1 contributor on this article, but keep in mind, no personal attacks (no "i know you, you changed your -"). These key people are mentioned in the article, namely Frankie Knuckles, Larry Levan, Ron Hardy, musicians Liquid Liquid, Nick Straker Band, Freeez, Patrice Rushen, Material, Dinosaur L, Loose Joints. Typical instruments - synthethisers, drum machines and drum programmin and keyboards. Obvious evidence of the genre. Post Disco have no relations to hip-hop, hi-NRG, trance (please stop putting it back - or mention it in an era section) but a 1980s "postdisco" era. "this has been documented" what has been documented? These post disco artists have commercial succes, for example Michael Jackson, EWF, Evelyn King, Patrice Rushen, don't you see it? You can also find post-disco track from 1977 or even 1978. Don't believe? Say it. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also there's in a question section called "term usage", well I've trying to make a unbiased NPOV post-disco mentioning, but "post-disco pop" is simply unrelated to the topic (it's just after the disco era pop music). I removed it. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

POV push by User:RockandDiscoFanCZ regarding a notion about "Post-Disco" as a specific genre of music, despite many requests on the talk page for an RS source to support the claim.

• The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature.
• The reliable sources available, some of where are cited in the article, overwhelmingly use the term "post-disco" or (postdisco) in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline.
• Much of the article's content is derived from the editors OR based observations and are supported by an assemblage of random references, that happen to feature the term "post-disco"; and in any particular context.
• None of the sources provided, except AMG, refer to the articles's subject in manner that is directly related to post disco as a genre of music.
• User currently engages in edit warring to stifle dissent [2][3][4][5]

The article was recently considered for deletion, where similar observation's were made. I'm interested in hearing other views on this, should there be any.Semitransgenic (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Post disco is not a genre, post disco is more like a movement of sound changes (yes it is same, but.. not same at all). New instruments were brought by late 1970s - it gave born to "post disco" music (src no 1). As AMG said, it have some reason to naming post disco as a movement of characteristic elements - for example, innovators like Leroy Burgress, Larry Levan and DJs and producers played in post-disco serious part; musicians, Nick Straker Band, Kashif, D. Train. These artists make disco that sounds different (we should say it is "disco not disco"). As source no. 19 said, post-disco is a [musical] style, because we know and sources saying it, rock and funk are musical styles too. Artists like Mtume, Klein + MBO, Change, Central Line, Kano, etc are related to post disco because it is not an era, but something like "genre"; if it is an era, these artists are unrelated to post-disco because post-disco range is from 50 Cent, Backstreet Boys, Snoop Dogg, Blur, Oasis to Frank Sinatra ("New York, New York" song).

"The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature. " - dubious/editorial observation/point-of-view/degrading of the source/trying to discredit AMG

"[sic] in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline." however it is questionable, there are also sources that saying it is underground music, but there are songs like "Love Come Down" (US #17) ― Evelyn King, "Big Fun" (US #21) ― Kool & The Gang, "I'm So Excited" (US #9) ― Pointer Sisters, "Call Me" (US #26) ― Skyy. Seems like "underground" music, hmm. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this version tries to mention all variants of post-disco (an era, AMG genre mentioning, Billboard/Cadence mentioning, Techno and house roots in post-disco dance music, etc). [6] ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I've rewritted article a little bit as a indistinct period from disco to house (it is characteristic because uhm this era has its own "start" and "end" and there are sources providing elements – like using synthesizers, drum machiens, etc). If there is no more oppositions, our disputation is over. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The AMG quote clearly states:"each successive movement", which means: the various dance-music related movements that arose during the post-disco era.

Post disco in itself was not a movement, so suggesting that it is something that can be characterized is misleading.

Nowhere does the AMG article suggest this. I think there is a problem here with the lead in terms of implying that post-disco is something "characteristic". Many divergent styles are covered by the catch-all 'post disco'. Electronic and digital technology influenced all areas of music in the early to mid 1980s, right across the board, from pop to rock, synthesizers and digital reverb were virtually ubiquitous.

The rise of the 12" as the standard format for dance mixes in the early 1980s needs to be highlighted, this development was about the only thing the mainstream music industry held over from the disco era - once it's commercial interest in disco music waned.

Coverage of the underground dance music scenes that emerged after the commercial decline of disco should be provided.

Also, the emergence of the term "dance-music" should be touched on.

A numer of academics deal with all of this, Kai Fikentscher's work is worth a look.

By way of teasing out how different sources use the term "post-disco", and what they are referring to when they use it, a selection of instances are provided below:

• Kate McGowan, The Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory Volume 7: 1997, Wiley-Blackwell, 2000. (Chapter 3. Dance Culture)

"Several authors, such as Steve Redhead in Subculture to Clubcultures, Maria Pini in Back to Reality?, Jonathan Keane in Soundings as well as Fred Cole and Michael Hannan in Perfect Beat, have addressed specific features of what during the last ten years has become known in Britain as 'dance culture'. This term includes rave culture and club culture, whereby raves are large nightly gatherings of people that dance to amplified repetitive electronically produced dance music - to stay in the rhythm of some of the above authors, perhaps a (post-) useful term for this music could be 'post-disco'(?)". (p128)

• Kai Fikentscher, "You better work!": underground dance music in New York City, Wesleyan University Press, 2000.

"I want to emphasise the cultural thread that links earlier forms and worlds of social dance in the United States to the disco and post-disco eras. (p21)

"There is a structural affinity between rock, disco, and post-disco dance styles, spanning a thirty-five year period since the arrival of the Twist as a symptom of "a changing scene in social dance". (p25)

• Graham St. John ed., Rave culture and religion, Routledge, 2004.

"The above descriptions could suit a range of post-disco and post-rave dance events, in a variety of geographical locations". (p 46)

"As a post-disco party music, house features a repetitive 4/4 beat and a speed of 120 or more beats per minute, and is mostly produced with electronic instruments".(p 50)

• George E.Haggerty, Gay histories and cultures: an encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2000.

"..house music, a form of post-disco dance music made popular in the mid-1980s in Chicago clubs..." (p 256)

• Trevor Schoonmaker, Fela: from West Africa to West Broadway Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

"...Puffy's consistent pilfering of the pop coffers from a certain time period shows undoubtedly that he is influenced by the post-disco R&B bounce of the late 1970s and early 1980s..." (p 26)

"Fela's music of the 1970s is the primordial mass for the whole lot of it - disco, post-disco R&B, hip-hop (as a reaction), house, techno and all modern-day genetic manipulations of each." (p 32)

• Martin James, French connections: from discothèque to discovery, Sanctuary, 2003.

"The post-disco sounds of new romantic artists such as Spandau Ballet and Visage quickly usurped the originators, while the increased wealth of the so-called yuppie generation broke down the elitism of the 1970s." (p)35

• Stuart Borthwick & Ron Moy, Popular music genres: an introduction, Edinburgh University Press, 2004.

"However, unlike disco, P-Funk always sounded 'played', with little of the production-line precision of disco and post-disco dance forms". (p 34)

• George McKay, Senseless acts of beauty: cultures of resistance since the sixties, Verso, 1996.

"The main sources of rave disperse and collide swiftly, sometimes surprisingly: post-disco dance music from the USA, the Mediterranean Island of Ibiza, the north-western post-industrial city of Manchester, a general sixties and early seventies quatted warehouse parties that mushroomed in Britain in the mid-to late eighties." (p104)

• Charles R. Acland, Residual media, University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

"The legacy of musical adventures with Latin Dance music can still be heard in, for example, the dominance of salsa clave rhythms in the riffs of (post-disco) house music". (p107)

• Alan McKee, Beautiful things in popular culture,Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.

"It was, one could say, a routine record of its time, following the standard disco and post-disco dance floor formula of female soul vocals plus drum machines and synthesizers". (p199)

"The last hit Belolo and Morali production was a group that was to define the next major musical development in the post-disco era". (p36)

• Tara Brabazon,From revolution to revelation: generation X, popular memory, and cultural studies, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005.

"'Blue Monday' [New Order] is probably the most famous post-disco extended remix". (p 91)

"Dance music is proud of its past.The opening track of madisonavenues's album, Polyester Embassy, offers a rapped history and aural pilgrimage to the vinyl histories of the beat...Such a popular history, which discursively frames the dance experience on the album, has been characteristic of the best post-disco". (pp 98-99)

• Bruce Haring, Chuck D, Beyond the charts: MP3 and the digital music revolution, JM Northern Media LLC, 2000.

"By 1979, the great record industry post-disco slump had hit the business. Arist accountants approached Grusin and Rosen". (p54)

• Helen Thomas, Dance in the city, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997.

"But what of breaking? It faded right out of hip-hop partly because of a steady long-term decline in the importance of dance post-disco..." (p24)

• McQuillan, Martin(Editor). Narrative Reader. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 2000.

"they share a cyclic mode of parsing out time – a mode informed variously by non-Western musics such as Indian ragas or Balinese gamalan, by the blues procedures that have dominated the mainstream of Western musical practice for nearly a hundred years, by postdisco dance styles, and (or so Fredric Jameson and Jean Baudrillard would contend in their critiques of postmodern culture) by habits instilled in us by late capitalism". (p168)

• Starr, Larry. American Popular Music : The Rock Years. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2005.

"By the early 1980s most hit singles— particularly those promoted on MTV— were oriented more toward postdisco dance music played on keyboard synthesizers than toward the electric guitar virtuosity of heavy metal bands". (p242)

• Crazy Horse, Kandia(Editor). Rip it Up : The Black Experience in Rock.Gordonsville, VA, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

"The 1980s truly began in 1982: Madonna released her first single. Michael Jackson let loose Thriller. Culture Club’s “Do You Really Wanna Hurt Me” and the Human League’s “Don’t You Want Me” were heard on New York black radio months before they went pop, back to back with paradigm-shaking future rap classics like Grandmaster Flash & the Furious Five’s “The Message” and Afrika Bambaataa & the Soul Sonic Force’s “Planet Rock.” A new R&B sound and presentation, first heard on Evelyn “Champagne” King’s 1981 post-disco comeback “I’m in Love,” had begun." (p116)

• Michael Campbell Popular Music in America: And the Beat Goes on, Cengage Learning, 2008.

"However, in Christgau's Record Guide, a 1990 survey of 3,000 recordings from the eighties, Robert Christgau, the "dean of American rock critics," cited "post-punk/post-disco fusion" as a key development of the decade. He described a synthesis of the two in DOR, or dance oriented rock, an umbrella term used by DJs in 1980s disco pools to identify an array of eighties styles." (p295) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.207.67 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)