Wikipedia

Talk:Trance music/Archive 3

< Talk:Trance music
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Katesbush999 in topic BPM information not consistent within article
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Influence of Genesis P-Orridge

I deleted the towards the infinite beat stuff. Genesis P-Orridge has consistantly lied and said that he invented Acid House, and now I see he is also beggining to be credited with inventing trance. 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

1998 trance remix

The article states that the term trance comes from a song called 'dance2trance' from 1991, which is kind of funny, because I'm listening to a song with 'trance remix' in the title right now and it's from 1988.

- is it not possible that the original track is from 1988, and the remix was done later? Just saying, seeing as I've heard (unfortunately) the trance remix of Jefferson Airplane's 'Don't you want somebody to love?' 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Disco, Force Legato, Trance, and Dark Trance.

I read in the Trance music section about this German synthesist named Klaus Schulze and that he had recorded some albums with the words Trance in the titles, Trancefer and En=Trance. I have also read about Oliver Lieb's System that was made in 1989. I also saw something about Dark Trance? I'll start with the Disco first. Disco has always had a hypnotic and repeatitive theme to it. The same thing with Trance. If you listen to something like Age of Love for example, it sounds nothing like Disco. Even though times change, instruments shouldn't. So the real thing I'm looking for is what instruments did Disco use? Did it also use a drum machine like a lot of todays Electronic music or did it use a drum kit? And I think Disco was more inspiration upon House music seeing both have close similarities in the atmosphere of that music.

As for Force Legato/Oliver Lieb. Techno was made around in the 80s and even at that time Trance had a lot of similarities with Techno. But the only thing different about those two are the breaks. But until I actually hear this, I really can't say anything about that.

Last but not least, the term Dark Trance has no existance. You may have seen it in Ishkur's Guide, but I can say he talks more non-sense than he does about the history or musicology and styles of these genres. But I can tell you that there are two types of "dark" Trance. Gothic and Deep Trance. Agree with me or not, but there are a lot who don't agree with the word dark. 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pizzicato Trance???

The style someone added, and the artists he named is exactly what has been called "Anthem House" (the term came from The KLF). Yes, it was trancy at all, but I've never been meet the expression "Pizzicato Trance", where is it came from?

I've never heard that term either. I agree with you that the artists he mentioned are Anthem House. But frankly, I'm more upset that the supposed subgenre "Hands Up" and its terrible description is in the main article. 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Further problems with this page

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

There are a great deal of problems with this page in general. I haven't removed the concerning parts yet (the last time I tried I was summarily reverted), so I'm hoping some discussion here can fix the problems. General problems first, specific sections afterwards.

Sourcing

  1. The use of discogs.com ([1], [2]) as a reference for anything other than date/label/title of a release
  2. The use of Jean-Michel Jarre's last.fm page ([3]) as a source; it is simply not reliable, as it cites Wikipedia's page on JMJ as a source! Circular referencing does not work
  3. This website is used as a source for the claim there is a trance-focused event named Section 2 Track. I see no evidence of such a thing mentioned on that site.
  4. The entirety of the Trance music#Popular and Trance music#Post-popular sections are entirely unreferenced
  5. Pretty much the entirety of the events section is unreferenced.
  6. The paucity of sources in general is a major concern; much of the article relies on two offline sources, making verification difficult at this stage. In the (hopefully) ensuing discussion, I would like to ask that anyone with copies of these books provide quotes from said books to confirm that the references are accurate.
Discuss
Roux I think you should get away from this page. (Personal attack removed) Alot of people contribute to this page and you seem to want to delete EVERYONES work. The reality is there is very little documentation on Trance music in texbooks. This poses a problem. In this scenario the Wiki relies on the followers of the genre to input their expertise FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE. If this weren't the case the page would be almost absolutely empty with nothing in it. I know you like to say there are rules for this and that, but in this case because there is no documented research, it is all we can work with. Be happy with what is provided. Lastly the removing of Discogs as a reference is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. Trance music is about the music...and it was experienced through records NOT BOOKS. This in of itself is the most important reference of them all.Danceking5 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Not the case, and that's another personal attack. First hand experience is irrelevant to Wikipedia, as I have told you multiple times. Facts must be cited to third-party sources. Period. Please learn this. → ROUX ₪ 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no third party sources. And the ones I've checked out are mostly unreliable. Just because something is written in a book does not mean it's a scholarly source or even correct. If you were to rely on your beloved rules, there would be almost NOTHING written on this page. Is that how you would prefer it? To follow your beloved rules only? I think nobody would agree with this.Danceking5 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please format your talkpage comments correctly. I do not know why you are refusing to do so.
They are not 'my' rules. They are Wikipedia policy. We are all required to follow them. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the discogs refs as they simply were not supporting anything relevant in the text. → ROUX ₪ 00:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

POV and tone

In general, there are some fairly severe problems with unnecessarily pro-trance wording; use of peacock terms is rife throughout the article. Many statements, as noted above, are unsourced; most appear to be personal opinion. I have outlined a few of the more egregious examples below. I suggest interested parties read the whole article as this is a far from exhaustive list. → ROUX ₪ 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. The second paragraph of the lead is entirely unsourced; the lead should only be a summary of what is contained within the article (see here). In addition, it is largely composed of opinions; "The break adds some dynamics to the song, makes it more interesting to the ear, and provides dancers with a few moments in which they can improvise if they wish," for example, while it may be technically true in some ways is entirely opinion and unsourced.
  2. The assertion that trance grew out of acid house (see #Origins, above) is POV and unsupported.
  3. Trance music#Popular and Trance music#Post-popular are filled with unsupported opinions such as "The basic formula of modern trance became more focused on the anthemic basslines and lead melodies, moving away from hypnotic, repetitive, arpeggiated analog synth patterns and spacey pads." While one could argue that, it would be far more accurate to state that popular or mainstream trance followed that particular path, leading eventually to the big-room sounds that DJs like Ferry/Tiesto/etc are known for. In either case, it's merely personal and subjective opinion unless and until it's sourced one way or the other. Likewise, statements like "Armed with a large fan base, trance found itself filling a niche that was 'edgier' than house, more soothing than drum and bass, and more melodic than techno, which made it accessible to a wide audience," are unencyclopedic in tone, unless such assertions can be reliably sourced.
Discuss

The tone of this entire article is very very inconsistant. There's a lot of bits of trivia that, while interesting, don't have much bearing on the article as a whole. I'm going to have a shot at cleaning up some of the introduction 110.23.252.248 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Events section

While I have nothing against redlinks (see here) per se, I think we can probably all agree that many of these events are unlikely to ever have articles. As such, we should consider a few options:

  1. Removing all the events listed which are redlinks, adding them back if and when articles are developed for them;
  2. Remove all redlinked events except those for which sourcing can be found indicating that the event meets the general notability guidelines]
  3. If #2, developing at least stubs for those events would be a good move
  4. Paring the list down a bit anyway would be great, as it's kind of a wall of text

In addition, descriptions of almost all the events need to be rewritten in order to find a more encyclopedic and dispassionate tone. We need to get rid of peacock terms like 'amazing' 'esteemed' 'important' etc; these sound like marketing buzz and fan worship as opposed to the dry and factual (albeit engaging) tone required by encyclopedic writing. → ROUX ₪ 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss
The events section is highly useful. DO NOT start deleting entries. It has taken people alot of work to build up that list. Fantalk I agree can be edited - just go in and change the words yourself.Danceking5 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Instead of ordering me about, please respond to the actual points I have made. → ROUX ₪ 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Production

This section seems far too short to me. I'm quite sure many (reliable) people have written about the process of producing trance and its musical/rhythmic structures. Can we start a hunt for sources, please? One could argue that trance is one of the most heavily-produced genres (I have been told, anecdotally, that for most of the really big producers throwing together a hook a bassline and some harmonics takes very little time. That is then followed by months of very careful knob-twiddling to get the sound exactly right. Note I said anecdotal; this information cannot be used in the article. I present it merely as an example of the general variety of information & sourcing we need to be looking for.)→ ROUX ₪ 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss

Rename Trance (music)

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to new title. It would be useful for the editors involved in this RM (when participating in future RMs) to make their Oppose/Support positions clear in the discussion. Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


Trance music → Trance (music) – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Semitransgenic moved the article to Trance (music); I objected and moved it back. As such, we need a wider discussion to determine whether the article should be moved. We've both placed our arguments below. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My rationale behind this move runs as follows:

  • The term "trance music" is a term distinct from the genre descriptor "trance."
  • The expression "trance music" has been used by music scholars/anthropologists etc. in reference to music that is used (often in the context of ritual/religious ceremonies) to induce a trance like state.
  • An article called "trance music" would need to broaden its scope to include music other than the genre of EDM widely known as "trance."
  • There are a number of other cases, limited to EDM styles for now, that do not include "music" in the title, because it is genrally accepted, that in common parlance, the word "music" is redundant in the context of discussing a genre.
  • We don't say "dub-step music" or "drum and bass music" etc.
  • We have an article calld "techno" not "techno music" and it doesn't need to be "techno (music)" because the word is most commonly used to reference a genre of EDM.
  • We also have an article called simply "Disco" not "Disco music."
  • What about jazz? no article called "jazz music" either, but sure, you will find examples for that phrase. Same for blues, boogie-woogie, and many other styles that we have articles for.
  • If there are conflicting article titles, we disambiguate, such is the case with "trance."
  • The word can literally mean trance, as in a trance-state, or is can mean a genre of EDM, that we commonly call "trance" hence the title "Trance (music)".

-- Semitransgenic talk. 23:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

First, we need sources for your claim that the term "trance music" means something different from "trance (music)". Second, we need sources to show that the genre is usually called (in scholarly discussions, preferably) Trance, not Trance Music. You site a few example that do not use "music", but that's because there is no disambiguation issue with those articles (that is, there is no other meaning for "jazz" or "dub-step" other than the musical genres). As I mentioned on your talk page, WP:DAB says in the WP:NCDAB section, "When there is another term or more complete name (such as Heavy metal music instead of Heavy metal) that is equally clear and is unambiguous, that may be used" and "If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler." Under both of the two later principles, "Trance music" is preferable to "Trance (music)".
I'm going to make this an official "Requested Move" discussion, but first I have to move the article back to its original title. This is because if there is no consensus to move an article after an RM, then the article defaults to not moving, so the article always needs to be at the older title while the discussion is ongoing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


@Qwyrxian I think you are missing the point. "Trance" is one type of "trance music," and that is not "my claim," it is an established fact. Additionally, "trance" is one genre of electronic dance music, it does not constitute the entire field of trance music.
  • An example of a publication that uses the term "trance music" and which is widely cited by scholars discussing trance inducing music, is Rouget (1985), "Music and trance: a theory of the relations between music and possession," University of Chicago Press. See pages: 224, 240, 73, 239.
  • In Kapchan (2007), "Traveling spirit masters: Moroccan Gnawa trance and music in the global marketplace," Wesleyan University Press, we again find the term, some 22 years after Rouget, but still used in a context that has nothing to do with the EDM genre "trance." See pages: 2, 8, 141, 146, 147, 148, 203, 233, 234,238. Kapchan also states, in discussing one form of ethnic trance music that "the techno-genre of trance music is a far cry from the Afro-Celtic music produced in Brittany." Clearly then the term has a completely different usage, and it is one that pre-dates its use in describing the genre of EDM more commonly known as "trance".
  • Another example is Fink (2005), "Repeating ourselves: American minimal music as cultural practice," University of California Press, the term is again used to describe trance inducing music, but in a from that again has nothing to do with the "trance" of EDM. Fink also discusses the use of the term in the 1960s to describe early minimal music. See pages :21, 34-35, 72, 76, 209, 211.
  • There are many other examples, if you don't get the picture, I'm not really sure how to spell it out.
  • Furthermore, in the context of EDM itself, aficionados mostly do not refer to the genre as "trance music," they say "trance." You need only look as far as one of the books that is currently extensively cited in the article you have here. In Snoman (2009), The Dance Music Manual: Tools, Toys, and Techniques – Second Edition. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Press, the term "trance music" is used only 5 times, whereas "trance," in direct reference to the genre of music, appears 52 times. Again, there are many other examples of books that discuss the EDM genre known as trance where the majority of the time the word "trance" takes precedent.
How many more sources are needed to demonstrate that there is a valid reason to reconsider use of the title "trance music" when it is an article focused solely on a genre of EDM known as trance? -- Semitransgenic talk. 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that both of you have presented very clear arguments. One thing I would like clarified, though, is whether there is
  1. an intention to broaden the present article to include the many non-EDM definitions listed above by Semitransgenic,
  2. the present exclusively EDM content is to be retained, or
  3. if two articles should exist, one on the EDM sub-category, and the other on the broader definition.
If (1), then it seems to me that "Trance music" should be the name of the article, since both words are used together in most of those non-EDM contexts (and in connection with the Fink citation, I might add that when Tom Johnson allegedly created the term "minimal music" in the Village Voice in 1972, it was a tentative suggestion to replace the already-current "trance music", and Johnson concluded that it would be best to keep the established term). If (2) is the case, then plainly the normal sub-genre word is simply "Trance", and a differentiation from the "variety of processes, ecstasy, techniques, modalities and states of mind, awareness and consciousness" must be made by the title "Trance (music)". If the third option is meant, then it is also clear that two different titles are needed for two different articles, one on the broad category of "trance music" (and, sooner or later, someone is eventually going to want to write an article on this broader subject), the other on the EDM sub-genre known as "trance". The real question, then, is whether the EDM sub-genre can reasonably be discussed within the larger context of "trance music", or if it must have its own article and, therefore, title.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


@Jerome, thanks for some additional input on this discussion. regarding the points you raise, i think the article cannot be accurately titled "trance music" unless the entire scope broadens, but I don't see this as necessary, because the solution is to simply rename as suggested. A dedicated EDM genre article seems reasonable, so it should be retained, and the sourcing could be improved. And yes, should someone wish to create a separate article that deals with "trance music" in the broader sense of the definition there will be a naming issue if this article retains the current title. -- Semitransgenic talk. 11:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Given this situation, would it not be prudent for a dedicated EDM article to be titled "Trance (electronic dance music)" or, as 70.24.248.23 has suggested above, "Trance (electronica)", in order not to confuse readers looking for an article on minimal music or religious-cult musical practices?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
First, thank you Semitransgenic for sources and more details. I can now understand your concern better. On the other points raised, first, I don't believe that anyone should consider creating a generic article that cover the EDM, minimal music, and religious trance inducing music, because, as far as I can tell, they actually share nothing in common, and are simply homonyms. For example, picking a random dab page, there is no general article on Holy Cross which tries to connect the various churches, cities, communities, and religious orders that all use the same name. Unless there is actually a connection between these subjects, then they should not be covered together. Of course, this doesn't mean that we could have an article on Trance music (religious trance) or something to that effect, though the hypothetical writer of this article would need to decide whether or not an article is needed or just a subsection in Trance. However, since these other terms do seem to be awfully close, I think that we are better off using a disambiguation like suggested by Jerome Kohl; Trance (electronic dance music) looks the best to me. For now, until such time as Trance inducing music does not exist, we should keep this title redirected to the new one. In general, though, I do want to hear more input from other editors (especially those who, say, actually are involved in the trance scene, as I myself am not at all) before making this move, if possible. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thanks for all the input on this. On the point of an article that gives broad coverage to the subject of "trance music," it would be feasible to incorporate the "trance" EDM genre, there are academic sources that have studied the parallels between ecstatic/religious experience and EDM, including trance, particularly Goa and psy-trance, but I think that's a large undertaking, and not our concern here. The "trance (electronic dance music)" disambiguation could work, but maybe a bit long winded. Would we then standardise this approach for all EDM genres that currently use the (music) version? Using (electronica) is not ideal, the word can mean different things, depending on the source, the UK definition tends to differ from the US one, the latter being an American music industry umbrella term for all genres of EDM (in the UK genres are traditionally individuated, and electronica was at one point considered a genre unto itself). For example, in the UK and Europe, techno is techno, while some argue about what is or isn't techno, in America, many still categorise techno as electronica, also in the US, the word techno was for a time used as an umbrella term. It's a popular terminology quagmire. However, the term electronic dance music (EDM) is now commonplace in academic writings on dance music, so perhaps it's best default to that if (music) is not the best disambiguation solution. -- Semitransgenic talk. 07:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The fine points of these genre distinctions are beyond me (I'm still struggling with the difference between "classical" and "popular" music), but from what has been said here it does seem to me that there is a very real possibility of the future creation of an article that could only be titled "Trance music". In that case, a disambiguation of the present article by using "Trance (music)" would certainly lead to confusion, and would therefore be better forestalled by choosing a different disambiguator.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Importance of festivals

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to see if I can get a consensus here that we only list festivals with their own wikipages. Per WP:NOT, we should not list every single event that calls itself a trance festival without evaluating whether it is, in fact, important. We're not here to provide a complete list of all trance festivals worldwide--only those worthy of encyclopedic attention. One way to limit the lists is to require that all festivals listed here have their own wikipage. Alternatively, if that seems too restrictive, we can limit it to only those which have a valid reliable source to verify that the festival is considered important. I would argue that, following the later, we should limit it only to those that have at least national importance--that is, a reference from a local city paper saying that the local trance festival happened with a few hundred people would not be sufficient. Or, we're welcome to propose some other restriction, but we need to do something to distinguish between which festivals belong and which do not. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See my commentary on the subject in the section above. See Danceking5's response for the usual attitude around here, providing a capsule summary of why this article sucks. Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 03:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoops. Since I knew the talk hadn't been active for a while, I didn't even check to see if there were previous discussion. We can leave this discussion open for a while, but unless we get a clear, policy based reason to keep all of them, some have to go (people put work into it isn't relevant, otherwise by definition we could never remove anything or delete any article from Wikipedia). Of your proposed solutions, I prefer #1--I'm a big fan of the idea that open-ended lists (that is, those that don't have a specific, limited group of entries, like "Members of the 1902 House of Congress") should be limited to only bluelinks. However, I accept that this is not a universally shared opinion, so I would also accept #2, since that at least limits us by WP:V. Do you (Roux) have a preference for 1 or 2? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, Danceking5 hasn't edited since the last dust up at the end of May, so it could be that xe's done with "collaborative" attempt to "damage" the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It has begun. I will begin by removing those festivals that are either clearly non-notable, or that are not clearly focused on trance (ideally, this will be demonstrated by reliable sources at the target article page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I decided to just do the Netherlands section for now; will come back for others later. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
UK section done (only 1 festival left; may want to combine Neth + UK into a single Europe section later). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, I think Sensation should be removed from the list. This is pretty much a House only event, I think most would agree. Maybe 90% of the DJs are House. It is by no means a Trance event. Possibly in the early years there was a lot of Trance DJs, but this hasn't been the case for many years now, I think you would agree.Danceking5 (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove "dance" tag from stylistic origins box

Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Dance music is clearly not a genre into itself. Dance music varies from anything between tribal/folk/classical to extremely hardcore punk and genres like gabber. Even wikipedia's article on "dance music" resolves to a list, note that dance is a verb to something not music but something that can accompany any form of music or music specifically made for dancing to. It's also good to note that trance is not necessarily danceable, especially historically speaking, and thus not necessarily dance music. Also, the article appears very biased towards very specific mainstream trance (mostly progressive and not actually trance) artists and does not give much evidence regarding its characteristics or early evolution. By the way, balearic beat is a fusion of a few subgenres of trance, not a stylistic origin. Do please also remove the edit lock, this article is lacking in structure, citations and is no way finished. Danielthekid971 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was locked because you refused to initiate discussion, preferring instead to just blindly revert. 'Dance' is very much a genre of music, which is further broken down into sub-genres. I still await any sort of rational argument which states otherwise. This article, yes, is about trance-music-that-is-a-subgenre-of-dance-music-which-is-a-subgenre-of-electronic-music, and thus doesn't really delve into historical forms of trance music, which are best dealt with in the articles referring to the religious practices they accompanied. → ROUX ₪ 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You say me? First of all, I was not the only one reverting the article. But I have to put out there is nothing that says dance music is a musical genre, as would be appropriate [citation needed]. A musical genre has its own sorts of rules, dance is merely a tag serving towards music that is commonly danced to. Otherwise we might as well make wikipedia completely inconsistent and add "dance" to all pages. If you wanted to be a bit more precise, you could have said trance was a form of electronic dance music, but it is not directly. Pretty much all the genres listed are (electronic) dance music genres of some form, yet those listed otherwise are in fact genres of music. Except may be film, but there is several genres under the same name, which for "dance"s case is not so. Please refrain yourself from making contributions and edits to articles you know very little about. Also, you said "religious practices", what the hell are you talking about? Are you insane? Danielthekid971 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh boy. You really have put your foot in it now. Pay attention, kiddo, 'cuz papa's gonna take you to school.
  1. Yes, you. You made a change, I reverted it. See this page for exactly why you were wrong.
  2. Dance music is demonstrably a genre of music, the same way 'orchestral' or 'electronic' or 'blues' are all genres of music. For some evidence, one might note that Billboard--as well as the Grammys--classifies it as such.
  3. Trance is, in fact, a from of electronic dance music (note the lack of caps, as EDM as a genre is often a very different animal), as in, dance music made by electronic means. The only way you can say it isn't is to redefine the words 'electronic,' 'dance,' and 'music.'
  4. As for edits to articles I know very little about... kiddo, I was raving before you were potty trained. I have thrown parties. I have chilled with Carl Cox, done shots of whiskey with Taucher and Miss Thunderpussy, cadged a smoke off Analog Pussy, and once rather sweatily hugged Madam Zu while clumsily trying to let her know she was on in five.
  5. Religious practices... oh holy fuck, the irony of you not understanding that while arrogantly claiming I don't know what I'm talking about burns. Trance music, historically, is music which enables the trance and/or ecstatic state in religious ceremonies. For contemporary(ish) examples you may wish to investigate Vodoun or Santeria, or Sufism.
  6. So... you got nothing. Dance is a genre, get over it. → ROUX ₪ 23:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm 45 but ok, personal attacks aside, all you did was provide ad hominem in response and did not verify that dance is a genre. Wikipedia is supposed maintain facts, not bias, if you continue to persist I will report you to the core wikipedia administration. Danielthekid971 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure you are, that's why your username is 'Danielthekid.' It's rather rich for you to whine about personal attacks when you are the one who claimed I didn't know what I was talking about, and you called me insane. So I'll add hypocrisy to your list of shortcomings.
'Course, you also ignored what I said about the Grammys and Billboard. So 'reading comprehension' doesn't really seem to be a strong suit either. Nor, indeed, do you really know how Wikipedia actually works; there's no such thing as 'core wikipedia administration.' → ROUX ₪ 02:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Grammys and Billboard list dance as a style or theme so to put several similar genres together, nowhere does it officially state it as a genre. There is a difference between a genre and a category of genres, even if genres can have subgenres. Oh there is higher administrators, I just hope I won't be needing them. You called me a kid instead of kid, for one, Daniel is my name, and for two, I like westerns, and 3) it's pretty much a random screen name. I find it very childish of you to use that invalid remark against it, I expect civilisation here not childish arguments. Danielthekid971 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
And I expect people to have a scintilla of knowledge of a given subject before editing it. Guess we're both disappointed. Since you seem to prefer simply redefining so that nobody can meet your definition of 'genre,' please provide the following things:
  1. How do you define 'genre' in a musical context?
  2. What evidence--you know, apart from the biggest music chart organization on the planet, and the biggest music awards show on the planet--could possibly satisfy you? Or have you simply made up your mind and there's no changing it?
And uh... if by higher administrators you mean Arbcom (you probably don't know what it is, so there's a link for you) over a dispute like this? Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaaaaaahahaha you have even less clue about how Wikipedia works than I had thought. Which means you actually have negative clue. → ROUX ₪ 03:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Daniel you are correct. Dance is not a genre of music. Dance is sometimes referred to as a radio format, but it is not a genre. It's a form of music that has genres, such as House being one of them. House is not a sub-genre of Dance music for example. Roux, I can't believe you are here still squabbling about these moot points. I've been viewing the comments log on this page right now. I was here a year ago, and I can't believe you are still here squabbling trying to control this page. Daniel regarding your statement:

>Please refrain yourself from making contributions and edits to articles you know very little about. Also, you said "religious >practices", what the hell are you talking about? Are you insane? I thought this too at first, I thought Roux was insane, he may be just eccentric. I believe he is a Canadian and I wish I could refer to him in an article i'm writing. Roux what is your full legal name? Can I have it please? For your info Daniel, I wrote a lot of stuff on this page that Roux had some of his minions gang up and revert on me. He became so offended with my information that he monitored me for a month or more. I thought it was extremely unhealthy. I suspect he's an Oakenfold minion, and he entered the scene around 1994. Neither him nor his cronies know very much about Trance, because they were never there. How can someone know about something as PURE FACT, if they weren't even participants in the early Trance movement. This is my issue with this page. For instance, what the hell is BERLIN SCHOOL? This certainly DOES NOT belong at the top of the list for precursors to Trance. Trance comes DIRECTLY from House music. The order should be: House, Techno, then put your bizarre "Berlin School" somewhere at the bottom of the list. You see Daniel, the problem with this page is, it's filled with scholarly intellectual types that don't understand the foundations of Trance music. They are referring to writers who haven't the foggiest clue about the history. Simply quoting references or text books does not make the information valid. One must question if the citation is of RELIABLE quality. That said I will stay away from this page and withold my years of knowledge, to further amuse myself watching this page decay, all the while David Guetta has squashed their dreams :) hahahha! (Always rootin for you Guetta!!Danceking5 (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

When you are capable of understanding how Wikipedia works--once again, and this has been explained to you at great length, nobody fucking cares what parties you have been to; the goal at Wikipedia is verifiability--then you will be welcome to participate. The whole fucking point is the use of references. When you are capable of actually addressing the points raised, as opposed to bizarre and fucking stupid insults, then you will be welcome to participate.
And of course you cannot have my fucking name, are you fucking joking? → ROUX ₪ 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some articles from around the Web that might also be good to list as sources of information for and/or external links for the main Trance article. I am looking into books but, alas, the local library closed at 18:00 hours. :)

http://www.toucanmusic.co.uk/articles/trance.html

http://www.moodbook.com/music/trance.html#progressive-trance

http://www.tranceproduction.com/resources/gloss.html

http://www.tranceproduction.com/gettingstarted/trancemusic.html

http://voices.yahoo.com/a-history-trance-music-2064829.html?cat=33

http://voices.yahoo.com/trance-music-its-role-development-2064841.html?cat=33


I hope that this helps with improving the article as a whole. I have to agree with Roux that the evidence supports trance as evolving from dance/techno and house. I generally oppose removing dance from the stylistic origins box as it's mentioned a bit in the articles, however clarification and a link to a good article on what dance is may help clear up the confusion. Mkantonelli1 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Roux, I love reading your heated comments. It must piss you off so much that someone knows more than you, and you can't do anything about it. That said I'll continue to read the hilarious information found on this page, and i'll stay out of editing. Its more fun to see what people come up with. The beauty of it is, you keep refering to this rule on verifiability and the use of references, yet i've explained many times that that is a necessity. And I know that you know, that I am aware of the rule. The thing that makes me laugh deep down inside, is that you know that the authenticity of these so called articles that you are referencing is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. That is what makes me laugh. This is the root of your flaw and you know it. Deep down inside you know i'm right about this one, and since your little temper tantrum last year, you keep avoiding this point. These articles are an interesting attempt at the history, but some of them don't even have an author HAHAHHAHAAH! Some of the points are good. Many holes though, but a solid attempt. I await your next research.Danceking5 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Your blocks of text make you sound like an angry and whiny child. I highly doubt you're old enough to know anything about the origins of trance music and if you are, then I pity your lack of maturity. Please stop typing. Tresso (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Danceking. I'm not Roux, different person, new to Wikipedia. More on your talk page so as not to clutter this. -Mary Mkantonelli1 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mary, my response was directed to Roux sorry about that. He used to obsessively monitor me on Wikipedia and delete anything I added instantly, so I'm not going to be contributing much to this page anymore. I'll explain more on my talk page.Danceking5 (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Everything you have said is utter bullshit or bluster or both, and shall be treated with the respect it deserves. → ROUX ₪ 08:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed every unsourced stylistic origin from the infobox. Feel free to re-add any that you want, but only re-add ones verified by reliable sources. This should solve the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct quyrxian. This is the ideal approach. I'll continue removing unsourced stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.12.34 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Danceking5 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, I removed alot of unsourced original research. I may have missed some areas. Hopefully you can scan over the rest.Danceking5 (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced history sections

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I almost deleted those two sections outright, because they contain all sorts of claims about living people that are uncited. We can never make claims that "X is the most popular person in the world" without a citation and an attribution; we would have to say, "Person X was ranked most popular by Magazine/Website Y in Year Z", especially for something like "popularity" that cannot be objectively measured. But I decided to just tag them; I'll rip them out in a week or two if nothing is cited. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly most of it is a bunch of DJ-worshipping nonsense that has essentially nothing to do with the music anyway, so you'd have my full support in just ditching all of it. The usual suspects will revert you, of course, and scream about something or other. → ROUX ₪ 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I commented on this below. I think the DJs and Producers should be removed. This is not a free advertising forum.Danceking5 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I already have about 4 published books that talk at least in parts about trance music. I now discovered 5 more, & I ordered them. WHen I have some time (maybe next week), I will go through the full article (eg, the one that was "protected" by EdJohnston b/c of edit-warring and before all the recent fighting & warring, and before so many key parts were deleted, and look for published citations for all the key and correct parts that were recently taken out by Danceking. I'm basically going ot have to cite every single phrase because he was even deleting key parts of sentences if part of the sentence had a citation and part didn't. Btw, the old definition of trance music was great, informative, and correct: "is characterized by a tempo of between 125 and 150 beats per minute,[3]:252 repeating melodic synthesizer phrases, and a musical form that builds up and down throughout a track." The new definitin just says, "is characterized by a tempo of between 125 and 150 beats per minute", which gives a reader no sense of what the music is about altogether. As seen, therefore, providing citations for sentences isn't enough; I'll have to cite almost every single phrase.

Pengowl (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, please add any sourced information. Be sure the sources meet WP:RS, and the information meets WP:UNDUE. If people disagree, we can discuss it here politely. Danceking's removal was 100% correct, and your suggestion to re-add with sources is also 100% correct. This is how WP articles are built. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

making edits to this biased and wrong page

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
This is getting ridiculous. You may not use article talk pages to complain about other editors. Anybody who wants to pursue action against another editor should take the matter to WP:WQA, WP:ANI, and WP:RFC/U, each of which have their own rules and procedures.

I noticed the page said that trance was played by big name DJs until 2010. This is false, as trance is STILL one of the biggest genres around. One of the main editors, danceking, has a very biased opinion and made many incorrect edits on this page. During a time when dance music is becoming more and more popular around the world, it is important that Wikipedia keeps their information accurate. Two of the biggest dance radio shows are A State of Trance, and Trance Around the World. Trance is still alive with the dance community, and this page should reflect that.

I also want to point out that David Guetta should not be mentioned on the trance page in ANY form, as he produces pop music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdig1007 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to provide reliable sources for those changes. The info in the article is currently sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
BDig, My reference to Guetta does not mean that OTHER DJs who are 'big' (what the hell is big anyways), do not play Trance. The point of the reference is to indicate the current trend that Pop House & Electro House DJs like David Guetta, Afrojack, Swedish House Mafia have surplanted the prior Trance & Progressive presence on the main stages for the largest promoters. I understand that it is still played on the radio, and this is fine. Maybe you should write a paragraph in the popularity section (that doesn't sound like Genre Ballwashing) with proper citation.
Change is happening in the scene. You can't fight change. We all grow old eventually. All of you will agree with this. The drop in popularity of Trance began in 2007-2008. This is not to say that it is still not 'popular', it just isn't the 'most' popular anymore. And my statements don't mean it is disappearing. All of you know what I am talking about. This is the truth, and as much as we all enjoy Trance music, trends have slowly changed (for now). The largest promoters are booking a MIXED line-up on the main stages. Prior at the big raves, it was a very Progressive House/Trance dominance on the main stages. This is not the case anymore. The loss of major Trance events has solidified (Trance Energy) my speculations in the mid-2000s as I predicted this, and the large festivals that used to book a large number of Trance DJs for the MAIN STAGES, have replaced many of them with Electro House, Pop House, and House DJs, heck even Dubstep now being thrown in.
For me personally, I am only reporting on the current trends of the scene (do not shoot the messenger), trying not to put emotion into my editing. Lastly, I myself am a DJ who plays MANY Trance records. I think this page should only state the facts, and especially not facts that could be biased or written from Trance industry persons who may be trying to boost information for marketing reasons. I believe that this website should be used as an encyclopedia and the reference to the DJ Mag thing is only to state the current results. If DJs have been allowed to be listed for prior years (who you claim are 'Trance DJs', even though every one of them doesn't ONLY play Trance), one must prove that the popularity has changed for the #1 position, and I don't think there is anything wrong in stating this.
The page finally looks like it has removed a lot of crap. Also, I think we should make a 6 Month rule or whatever is deemed appropriate, for example when Qwyrxian or whoever adds the "Citation Needed" footnote, if that citation isn't filled within 6 months, I think the statements should be removed. 6 months may even be too long, although sufficient time needs to be given for editors to do their work. Probably 2 months is sufficient. The reason I removed all that stuff that I deleted the other week, was because those uncited sections, many of which some were noted as such, have been posted on this page for over 1 yr, possibly 2 yrs, and I think you would all agree that this was long enough for editors to try and find sources. Because nobody sourced the information, I suspected that it was made up (original research), so I deleted it. That's why I deleted it.
Again, original research exists on this page, but it should be footnoted to require the citation. If the citation can't be found, then after a certain period of time (which I don't know what the correct amount should be), it should be deleted. And Roux, I know in the past you've hacked my writing because it didn't follow the rules. Don't you think now you should agree with all this since the rules are the rules (as you've stated). After you deleted my work, I didn't go and try and re-insert it. I followed the rules, as you stated them. It appears you might be trying to use the rules to advance some agenda. I could be wrong though.Danceking5 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
When you stop making your snide, baseless, and bullshit personal attacks, I might be interested in anything you have to say. Until that day, no. → ROUX ₪ 11:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring the minor snideness from Dk5 and the direct personal attack by Roux, I agree with the general principal expressed by Danceking5...almost. First, I have no problem with marking things as "citation needed" and pulling them down in 1 month, or even less. By my nature, I believe information in Wikipedia articles should be verified now, not some random time in the future. But giving 1 month is quite nice, especially since the info in this article likely isn't doing harm to anyone. The best possible situation is that everyone works from what sources say, not what they themselves believe or "know" because they're part of the scene. One of the things that makes it easier for me to cut stuff is that I, actually, don't know the scene. In fact, I don't even know for certain if I've ever even heard Trance music. Dance music really is not my thing, nor are clubs. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that without finding the citation, it should be noted so I don't think you need to know anything about it for that case, but to comment on reliability of information, we need more editors like me who were there. Where is everyone? Maybe the scene was a lot smaller than I thought. I find Roux distasteful at times, but he does know 'something' about Trance. Roux, I'm not making personal attacks at you. I find your outbursts funny, and you will admit in the past you were stalking me. Just admit it. You have a potty mouth though, your swear words are out of control, and all written in the editing "View History". Don't you think I would poke at you for doing that? I am surprised they didn't delete your editors account for swearing all over the place like a kid. But Roux, the reason why I think your information needed to be deleted, is a. Because it wasn't sourced, and b. It was wrong. This was the verifiability thing. I agree Qwyrxian that one needs to work from sources, but if a sourced material is known to be wrong, it should be striked or noted like you said for other editors to comment. Otherwise Wikipedia would be spreading false information. It's an encyclopedia. It should be exact in my opinion.
There is the other issue regarding mentioning DJs and Producers, and I want to know what you guys think about this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how I feel about 'attaching' certain producers to certain genres, by listing them on the genre page itself. It starts to make the genre page look like a free advertisement. I don't think the encyclopedia should be used for free advertising purposes. The page is viewed by everyone in the world, and many new producers coming up through the scene, who are far more relevant in TODAYS scene, THE HERE AND NOW, don't get mentioned, and don't get to benefit from the free advertising. Not to mention HUNDREDS of DJs who actually represent the Trance or House scene. If a DJ or Producer is advertised as relevant, then they will have their own personal page on the site. Otherwise there is no criteria as to what producer or what DJ should be allowed to be attached to a genre or not. There are hundreds if not thousands of producers who make Trance and House. Why would they not be allowed to be advertised? I believe this is the same for listing the promoters. There are many promoters of Trance who aren't listed on this page. Size of an event should not equate to the 'admission for free advertising on Wikipedia'. If an event is deemed relevant, it usually has it's own page anyways. No need for a link on the genre itself in my opinion. In addition to this, promoters come and go, and events change. What was once hot, may soon be not.
If you guys agree with this, remove the paragraph on DJ Mag, including the recent reference I made to the poll. If you think about it too, listing that line is free advertising for the Poll, AND, it is also creating some sort of relevance for the poll, which is highly questionable because there are multiple polls, such as Resident Advisor that isn't even mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danceking5 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Roux, you made personal attacks, multiple times, so much so that I spent about 5 minutes trying to decide whether or not to block you. Danceking05, claiming that someone is stalking without evidence is also a borderline attack. And if you think that Roux was stalking, this is not the place to discuss it; if you want to present evidence, bring it to my talk page and I'll tell you how to proceed. For this page, though, could both of you please just stop talking about each other, and focus the conversation on what to do with the the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
OK I'll stop talking about it Qwyrxian.Danceking5 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Still not retracting your vile and baseless accusation? Ergi, you have nothing to say that I will bother paying attention to. → ROUX ₪ 08:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
At some point we do expect you to grow up and try to act like an adult. Are you sure that this collaborative environment is something you have the skills sets for ?Moxy (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Complaining I'm childish while personally attacking.. well done. → ROUX ₪ 08:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, here's the main culprit who had my account disabled last year. His name is Pengowl and he's back again, see recent revision history on the Trance page, out of the blue he's back again. I find it strange how I never go out of my way to simply mention someone elses name, yet this guy in particular (Pengowl) was doing this. I remember one night I was writing information, and he kept deleting it within 5 minutes of adding it. He did this numerous times prior to that night he got me banned, but I didn't say anything about it. On the night he got me banned, it was like 3 in the morning, and a couple of other editors came in to revert my data with him, that way they didn't individually break the 3 revert rule. I was going to inform the higher ups at Wikipedia of this 'ganging up' behavior, but I didn't get around to it. I think the 'higher ups' need to be aware that this is a loophole in that revert rule. If one editor has cronies or collaborators, they can simply inform one another to silence ones information by forcing me to break the 3 revert rule, while the instigator doesn't break the rule. Being that I have ZERO COLLABORATORS on this website, I'm a lone person, I couldn't do anything about it. The question is, what information do I have that is so important to be silenced by a group of people, before the public has a chance to read it. Another thing Qwyrxian that I want you and the other higher ups on Wikipedia to be aware of, is the often misguided distaste that Trance Drones have towards House music or House DJs. In this case you will find that they may try and silence the information from a historical perspective.Danceking5 (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Challenging The Reliability of a Source

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Qwyrxian, I was wondering if you can assist. Is there some special tag I can insert into a page if I want to challenge someones information, even if it is sourced? What is the procedure to challenge the 'reliability' of a sourced statement, and to explain what my challenge is? I copied your method of inserting the "Citation Needed" thing, by dropping it right into the page in the specific spot, but how do I do this for the scenario that I speak about? Does it basically open up a discussion in the Talk page, that's the only way to do it? To challenge? By the way, I agree that I shouldn't be talking about other editors, but can you also ask Pengowl and others to not do the same, via the View History page for the edits on the main article. That was what prompted me to mention the previous incident.Danceking5 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If the information is sourced, and it is a reliable source per WP:RS, then it should stay unless you have a second reliable source that clearly and unambiguously refutes the first. Even then, it depends on what type of information it is; if it's a matter of interpretation, then we may have to include what multiple sources say, clearly indicating that there is a difference of opinion. If you think it's wrong just based on your personal knowledge, then that's just the way Wikipedia works and you shouldn't tag it. Specifically, what point in the article are you referring to? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Now I get it. So someone puts a statement, and if some other information is of opposite opinion, then that second sourced statement would be listed after it, I guess is what your saying. Regarding if I think something is wrong, I should just leave it, are you suggesting that Wikipedia should be used as a forum to spread false information, and potentially to advance the agenda's of a few? If something is wrong, wouldn't you want to see a discussion opened up, as to someones viewpoint WHY it might be wrong? Are you saying that whatever gets published in a book (of questionable reliability at times), is the law, and nobody should question it? I know you like to reference the rules etc.., most people default to rules, when they have no argument, but do you agree with me that people should DISCUSS the potential error in the information? Or you disagree with me, that everyone should stay silent, keep their head down, and follow the rules? If this were the case, how would someone bring up the issue if something is reliable or not per WP:RS. Simply saying something is reliable, doesn't mean it is actually reliable.
As for what part of the article I am referring to, there are multiple errors still here, but I haven't said anything. I'm just waiting to see what people write out of curiosity. Add to the fact, it takes time to formulate any argument, and there's no point if various people on this page have a myopic view of what Trance or House is...they will just end up deleting the information anyways. This myopic view is ultimately what is diminishing the Trance scene.Danceking5 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Roux - Please Explain To The Public The Origins of Progressive Trance

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Roux. I'd like to open up a discussion here, and obtain clarification on this claim.Danceking5 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you need to justify the removal of a sourced fact. Unless and until you do so--something you cannot do, as the simplest of Google searches reveals that prog trance very much is a subgenre of trance proper--that information remains in this article.
Additionally, you will have a block coming your way for calling me a fucking stalker again, something you have been warned about in the past. → ROUX ₪ 09:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would warn that calling someone a stalker is considered quite incivil, Danceking. Since stalking (hounding) is an offense that someone may be blocked for, the claim should either be substantiated or withdrawn. I suggest parsing your words a bit more carefully and simply focusing on the issues, particularly since you've previous been blocked for personal attacks. Everyone just needs to stay on topic, no need to make it personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Trance music origin

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The origin of Trance is NOT Germany, how ever, it doesn't have one origin and no one can identify how Trance was developed for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.152.150 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not germany. I found a book that will interest you, and i'll post a reference over the summer. The reason why nobody can identify its origin, is because it isn't a genre of dance music. It's a subgenre of House, and always has been. Trance is a nickname, that this book explains. Most of my knowledge of Trance comes from this book I read a few months ago, as well as living through the time when the word appeared. You are correct also, it doesn't have 1 origin.Danceking5 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dance Festivals

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The information in this Trance page is really good under Dance Festivals. Considering how massive the EDM scene is in America right now, and all of you will agree that EDC is NOT marketed as a Trance music festival...I think it would do justice for all this good information to be compiled into its own Wikipedia page, or merge all the data onto the Rave page, since Dance Festival is just a modern word for rave. Much to my surprise, you guys should do a search on Wiki, there's no page for Dance Festival. Can you believe it?

Instead of being buried on this Trance page, it could be broadcasted to many more people, instead of being hidden here. What are your thoughts on this? The word DANCE FESTIVAL is a commercial business term, and deserves a legitimate page. Personally I think it should be on the Rave page, but some may disagree.Danceking5 (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Messy article.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To whoever put the page numbers of the books you were referencing in superscription; that just contributes to a messy looking article. It's also not the way most if not all articles are written. WP:MOS If you really care about the look of the article apart from its actual content, please reconsider before rolling back your edit. By the way, the page numbers are there. If it's not one page it's the other, it wouldn't be hard for the reader to locate each specific mention within the article. It's also important to note that references are made mostly for verification, that's why they're called references. Not making fun of, just stating a fact. See also: Template:Rp#Warning. You might also want to consider the instructions for Template:Sfn. Lighthead...KILLS!! 16:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

BPM information not consistent within article

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Trance Music! Come dance with me and together we will travel to the other side. For me, if a song sounds like trance and feels like trance then it trance. Last week my confidence was shattered when I was advised a song I knew as uplifting vocal trance was as a matter of fact, house music. Bullshit I said, it feels and sounds like trance and therefore is trance. He said even though the song may sound and feel like trance it is actually the BPM of the song that makes it house music & not trance. No, I refuse to believe it.

I therefore turn to Wikipedia for guidance and truth but now find myself even more confused. In searching the Trance music page for BPM ranges I find that the introduction states the range as 'between 110 and 150 beats per minute' and this is associated with reference [5]. Further on under the 'Production' heading we are advised 'a tempo of 125 to 150 BPM' which is also associated with reference (5]. I did try the links to search for reference 5 but with no success. Other sites on the internet give varying BPM ranges for trance music with most starting at around 120/125 BPM. The BPM ranges on Wikipedia need to be checked & confirmed with reference 5 & be updated accordingly. Please note this anomaly was reported previously on the talk pages 15 Feb 2009 found on Archive 1.

Furthermore I also note that on the House music page under the 'Musical elements' heading the BPM range for house music is quoted as 'generally ranging between 118 and 135 bpm'. Depending on the BPM starting figure for trance music being 110 or 125 all of or part of the BPM range for house music will fall within the BPM range for trance music. It could therefore be said that there might be a little bit of house in the trance and a little bit of trance in the house. Katesbush999 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trance_music/Archive_3&oldid=1137264340"