Talk:Post-disco

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. -- 09:56, 12 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)