Talk:Drukqs

Untitled

A masterpiece. Suggest replacing the CD cover art with the larger Vinyl box art. --Insomniak 08:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been listening to this album for 4 years, and only after reading this article have I finally gotten the pun in the title! Surely it is indeed intended to be "druk-Qs"! Sadly most copies of the CD seem to come with a silly sticker on the front with the titles, because Warp seem to think that otherwise we wouldn't spot who the album was by!--feline1 13:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Question: does anyone know what the cover art is? like on http://www.drukqs.net/. Is it part of a musical instrument?

Isn't that the strikers in a player piano?

Isn't drukqs the heaviest (in terms of weight) vinyl album ever produced? I've only read this on random websites, so I don't know if it's a fact, but I think this information is worthy of the page. Skyler 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So-called "Easter Eggs"

That thing about the "Easter Eggs" where you play tracks of Drukqs at the same time to discover incredible new sound worlds is the biggest pile of shit I have ever read.

Although I wouldn't use that choice in words, I have to agree. I attempted to to overlap the suggested songs in Audacity, but only got poor results. I am striking this "easter eggs" section from the article. --Insomniak 22:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, either your version of DrukQs had unusual time recording delays or you simply didn't like it. I took the liberty of recording and trying the Easter Eggs myself and found it worked, ive uploaded one of the combinations on here and if you had a listen you wouldn't call it a 'pile of shit'. I will therefore revert back the Easter Eggs section --Raddicks 17:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an example of your claim (although your link may have to be edited out for copyright concern). It's certainly very fascinating, but there is no way to know if this is just a beatmatched edit, and I'm still speculative of your claim. I'm going to make a few changes to the "easter eggs" section to reflect the speculative nature of this claim, rather than to state it as fact. PS: the proper grammer is "secretly mastered", not "mastered secretly". --Insomniak 19:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Beatmapping i did with acid music studio 5 which is on automatic for me but i was unaware of a slight beat-delay when played manually without beatmapping. Knowing Richard he would likely pull stunts like this, ever heard of his spectrograph stunt with Windowlicker? [instructions can be found here]. That's some fun for you. PS: The proper spelling is "simultaneously", not "simultainiously". Hehehe sorry i couldn't help myself - best regards --Raddicks 19:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone post some evidence of this method? I haven't had any success and am very interested in getting this to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.90.87 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a coincidence. Make an external website and link to it from the article? Too much importance placed on a trivial coincidence.Joyrex 12:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to listen to a "combination" of tracks... interesting. But not amazing.

I've heard Analord has a unique sound when played at a different speed. Family Guy Guy 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know translations for all the tracks? It would make a dandy addition to the article.--TimJing 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just played both CDs at the same time, and let them play through. It took about till the ending 20 seconds of the first track on disk 1 before I realized that once I did that, this became my favorite album of all time. No question. It was absolutely, incredibly awe-inspiringly amazing.

this information would be original research 83.118.88.137 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

lol - ZEROpumpkins 04:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Parental Advisory???

WHY???? This article should address this, but I don't know where to start. 72.185.224.148 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• It'd probably give kids brain embolisms.24.70.226.219 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• cunt is thrown in their somewhere i do believe --AlexOvShaolin 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Come on you cunt, lets have some Aphex acid" is shouted on a track.

• It's shouted at 2:49 on Cock/Ver10 if anyone is curious. --70.119.155.196 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• And The Title of the track is "Cock/ver10".....innapropriate, yeah Theblasterofthe80's (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Gwarek2 is not meant for children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.58.98 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Conjecture, etc.

The article states, "James took full advantage of the advances in computing between 1996 and 2001, which allowed greater detail and frenetic complexity in his music." This statement seems purely speculative. Did RDJ himself say this or is it some fanatic's conjecture? This is exactly the kind of pretentious writing that RDJ is right to mock. Same goes for the silly interpretations of the meaningless album title. Globe199 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

its less speculation than saying the track 'taking control' features a concussor drummachine heavily...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.132.234 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I also heard that instead of feet, he has another set of hands and he uses these to assist him with drum programming - 211.30.227.30 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cornish translations

Does anyone know who originally stated the English meaning of the Cornish titles, or who actually did the translation? Are there any sources which attribute the translations instead of merely repeating them as fact? There are not very many Cornish speakers out there. Lfh (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Personnel section

This section should be added so the article can be rated a C or B like it deserves. Zidane tribal (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also on this note, there is a female singer in "Mt Saint Michel + Saint Michaels Mount". I doubt Richard sampled it from anywhere but his own original recordings. A-bdub (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? "Drug Use?"

I remember reading the Rolling Stone review of this album, and there was a snide side comment like "oh, the title is just SO CLEVER! We all get it, Richard D. James." I spent hours trying to figure out what was so obvious about the album title, and eventually it hit me. No, not "drug use," and that is why I am so surprised to see this--but, rather, "The Ruckus." D-RU-KQS. Really? Just me? 96.227.34.199 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Aqc6xlfde0cqy

--CactusBot (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DrukQs

Because the proper capitization of the album is "DrukQs", somebody should move the article.

Conkern65 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence at the album's official site that the title should not use a capitalized Q.

• Note the page title is "Aphex Twin -- drukqs"
• At the bottom of the page the url is listed as "drukqs.net"
• Mousing-over the "p" in Aphex reveals "Drukqs video"
• Mousing-over the "n" in Twin gives a link to buy the album [1]. Note that it is spelled 'Drukqs'.

Ulmanor (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, while I think there is a possibility that the "drug use" pun was intentional, the interview cited in the article shows that he won't admit it readily. Ulmanor (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Might need something stronger than 'additional citations'

A good chunk of the article reads like fan-forum conjecture connected by tags. The talk page reads like Richard D. James watches you while you sleep and whispers secrets about his recordings, which makes me even more skeptical. What the hell?

Aussois?

What is the 13th track Aussois supposed to sound like? --68.103.31.159 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bass Guitar?

He's credited as the bassist for this album, which struck me as odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.47.28 (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drukqs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041229084637/http://www.drukqs.net:80/ to http://www.drukqs.net

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drukqs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329035356/http://thedailyswarm.com/swarm/aphex-twin-snl-iran-so-far-rap-andy-samberg-adam-levine/ to http://www.thedailyswarm.com/swarm/aphex-twin-snl-iran-so-far-rap-andy-samberg-adam-levine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Drukqs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TappyTurtle (talk · contribs) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I plan to be reviewing this article soon, tomorrow or so (EDT). As part of the current GAN backlog drive, I will have an experienced reviewer check my review. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	James has stated that the title is not related to drugs, and is "just a word [he] made up...I never wanted to big up any drugs, because I don't reckon they deserve it." - This read a bit confusingly to me - one part of the quote is used in third-person ("just a word [he] made up") and then the other read in first-person ("I never wanted to big up any drugs, because I don't reckon they deserve it"). Otherwise, the prose is sufficiently clear and well-written. Addressed.  Done lunaeclipse (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sufficiently summarizes the body, layout is proper, and no weasel-y language. Optionally: Some references could probably be trimmed from the lead A pronunciation of the album title would be helpful, but I don't know of any official pronunciation nor any single commonly-accepted pronunciation - I pronounce it like "/drʊkjuːs/", which seems most common to me
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reflist is present
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Checked all sources (except for 5, 18, 21, inaccessible), only issues were: Ref 14 is probably okay under WP:SELFSOURCE, but if possible a secondary source would be preferable There are no citations for the "Personnel" section (where was it derived from?) Cited liner notes for Personnel section.  Done lunaeclipse (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR violations found
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector raises no major issues (highest similarity is 33.3% from Keymag (ref 9))
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There's not much information about the album's release other than an imprecise release date in the lead, the label, and the fact that it's a double album; Exactly when in October 2001 was it released? In what format? How was it promoted? How did it sell? What's the story of the album artwork? Compare to other Aphex Twin albums. I was unable to find any promotional material for the album. Found nothing for the album artwork either.  Partly done lunaeclipse (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Only things I could find were the original format it was released in and the release date itself.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Looks good, article is well-focused
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Written fairly, including the reception section
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding disputes here
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have copyright tags, and non-free images (the only particular one here being the album cover) are tagged appropriately
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm not sure if File:Aphex Twin, 2008.jpg is really useful as it's a generic photo that doesn't demonstrate much other than what James looks like on-set, but it's relevant enough so I don't think it impacts this review
	7. Overall assessment.	I will put this on hold for 7 days from now; some info is missing and other minor issues are present but other than that, it's looking good; nice work so far! TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 07:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC) @TappyTurtle: I have finished addressing your comments. lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Secondary reviewer checks

This is the last review remaining in the backlog drive - happy to check your work @TappyTurtle since this looks to be a straightforward review; your thoughts have been clearly conveyed. 1a. Accurate to the current state of the article. I couldn't suggest anything that isn't personal preference (e.g., use of serial commas). 1b. Layout conforms to similar genre articles. References in the lead is a matter of making it easier to confirm "challengeable" statements that appear later on per WP:LEADCITE, which I believe is being done here. If Aphex Twin doesn't provide a pronunciation of the album title I don't see how it could be included. 2b. I concur with the judgments made on references. 3a. Many of the points you raised have been addressed, other than "how it was promoted" and "what is the story of the artwork". That is a little concerning, but if sources aren't accessible, I don't know what to do there. This is a case of a subject just not having as much retrospective or contemporary sourcing to provide material, which is kind of expected an Aphex Twin album that got mixed reception and didn't sell a ton. 3b-6a. Confirmed your assessment here. 6b. Having a photo of the artist (or a collaborator, or someone who inspired some part of an album) seems to be a common thing in this genre of article. For example, Mata (album). I see no harm in using this photo, especially since it's not restricted by Fair Use. 7. Good assessment. I will put this page on my watchlist, but leave it up to the nominator and reviewer to determine if the article meets the broadness requirement given the available information. Reconrabbit 16:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Reconrabbit, thanks for your feedback (and sorry for the little delay)!! For 3a, considering the lack of reliable coverage online I think it's fair to mark it off as it is (this album was definitely one of the (slightly) more obscure, critically-flopping Aphex Twin releases, aside from Avril 14th gaining some renewed popularity in popular culture). If we try to shoot for an FA then there's definitely more source-scraping to be attempted but, as it stands, I think it's just broad enough to pass – nice work LunaEclipse!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Aphex Twin performing in 2008

• ... that Aphex Twin (pictured) never intended to release Drukqs and only did so because he accidentally left an MP3 player on a plane?

• Source: https://www.stereogum.com/2164888/aphex-twin-drukqs-turns-20/reviews/the-anniversary/

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004

Improved to Good Article status by LunaEclipse (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 19:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ratings

It's fine to have twelve ratings in the ratings table. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)