Talk:Harmonic mixing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Professional sound production Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

OpenNotation

I noticed the Beatunes OpenNotation being added to this page. Out of fairness, this isn't a standard notation. The Camelot system has been in existence since the 1990s, has been covered in-depth by magazines and books, and has been in use by Rapid Evolution and Mixed In Key for 6+ years. I am certain that there are over 2 million people who use it, but it's not referenced on this page because it might be seen as self-promotion. Given that information, I don't think it's fair to include the Beatunes system either. Djyakov (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2013, Traktor uses OpenNotation ([1]) and Mixxx allows you to select between Camelot, OpenNotation, and traditional notation. Adding BeaTunes itself, that's 3 implementations. BeaTunes claims that ([2]) they created OpenNotation because its owner wants licensing fees for the Camelot system. I'm assuming they're referring to Mixed In Key, as they have a page with licensing info for Camelot system: [3]. OpenNotation has definitely became more notable now, although at the moment I'm too lazy to research if it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Kakurady (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Product listing

Special:Diff/1050708438 and Special:Diff/1050708366 removed a section with a brief overview of the existing software tools with a reason of being a product listing. I think the removed information is relevant because now the page looks incomplete, covering only the description of the concept of harmonic mixing but no discussion of the related technology. Nowadays, many DJs are using such technology, and it should be acknowledged and discussed. A solution could be to revert and rework the removed section, find a better title, mention the concept of automatic key detection from audio (which is part of Music information retrieval), and discuss available tools in a more systematic way. Possibly, it is worth summarizing available software in a table? --Dibv (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Systematic' or not, and in a table or in prose, Wikipedia is explictly not supposed to be a product catalog and making lists of vendors or software offerings is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many lists/tables of software available on Wikipedia. For example, in music technology, see Comparison of digital audio editors, List of music software, Comparison of audio player software, and Digital audio workstation (contains a section with a list). Can you clarify the difference? --Dibv (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are lists of Wikipedia articles. That was not the case here. MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed In Key, Rapid Evolution, Traktor, Serato Scratch Live, VirtualDJ (software), Mixxx all have Wikipedia pages and are notable software. Therefore, these should be included. Rekordbox, Torq, KeyFinder, tuneXplorer, Essentia do not have wiki pages yet, but at least some of them should pass the notability criteria to have a dedicated article. Instead of removing the entire effort of the editors in this section, it is worth reworking it. --Dibv (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, when the efforts of editors have taken an article in a direction that is noncompliant with policy, removing is the right thing to do. Most of these editors have been drive by single purpose editors who are seemingly more interested in advertising a particular piece of software than in writing an encyclopedia article. Also, since this article is short, a vendor listing was tilting the article in a promotional direction and encouraging people to add more junk - a classic spam magnet. This article should be a place to learn about the technique, not a directory of links. MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I came to read this article to find about music technology for harmonic mixing in the first place. Now I cannot get any of this information anywhere on Wikipedia. Also, the section title "Traditional methods" does not make sense anymore. I don't see how the information provided so far is spam, but it should be reorganized. Perhaps the product-specific information can be moved in a separate Wikipedia article (for example, "Software for harmonic mixing") and only briefly discussed here. --Dibv (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]